Saturday, October 8, 2011

Ole Miss Rejects Gun Shop Sponsorship

 The Sun Herald reports

University of Mississippi officials say they are protecting its brand by refusing to allow an Oxford gun shop owner to sponsor a university hockey club.

University attorney Lee Tyner told the Northeast Mississippi Daily Journal that no student organization is authorized to sell sponsorships that pair one of the university’s logos with that of a business.
In his whining and complaining, the rejected sponsor, Nathan Yow, owner of Mississippi Auto Arms Inc., pointed out that the University of Mississippi does have a relationship with a casino.

“When you go to an Ole Miss football game, every other slide that comes on the scoreboard is for Gold Strike Casino, so if you openly accept donations for casinos, how’s that any different from firearms?” he told the Daily Journal.
He raises a good point, a thought-provoking one. I suppose if I were in charge, there'd be no advertising from the casino either, but to consider the gambling business the same as the gun business is just silly.

This is one of the tactics of the pro-gun crowd, to keep trying to present guns as just another tool, to keep trying to present gun shops as no different than any other business. It's all lies.

This is what the open-carry movement is all about.  They represent the most blatant attempt to mainstream guns and gun rights, and they're usually met with derision.

The really wacky gun advocates even say there is biblical justification for owning and carrying guns. But the fact is, far from carrying an AK-47 himself to support them, Jesus would call them whited sepulcers.

Gun shops are not like casinos or bakeries or car-repair shops, they are dealers in death. I realize they have legitimate customers who need guns and manage them responsibly, but along with them they also supply straw purchasers and hidden criminals.  They sell to mentally ill folks who wouldn't pass the most cursory psychological screening, if such a thing existed. They add to the problem; they are the problem.

What's your opinion? Is Ole Miss being discriminatory towards Nathan Yow or are they making the right move in disallowing this alliance?

Please leave a comment.

1 comment:

  1. The difference is simple.

    The UNIVERSITY can make the decision about what to do with the UNIVERSITY brand, including choosing when and when not to profit using it to benefit the entire institution.

    Students are not in charge of the University; usually there is some form of a board of regents which is. So students do NOT get to make that decision to profit, for the benefit of an individual group - which is as it should be.

    THAT is the difference.