By David Codrea
The 60-second spot parodies politics as “the duo campaign across the country for Bud Light, popping up at rodeos, bars and even interrupting a Lakers game to lobby for the beer.”
The “beer lobby”? Don’t these two also shill for citizen disarmament-advocating critics of what they call the “gun lobby”?
Yeah. They do.
Rogen, unable to express himself without using the “F” word, called Ben Carson’s comments on gun ownership “despicable,” and disparaged the contention that guns could have made a difference in the Holocaust and in last year’s shootings in Oregon. He also likened American Sniper, about Navy SEAL Chris Kyle, to Nazi propaganda, which is a curious stance for someone who hired a “former Special Forces bodyguard.”
Schumer, related to compulsive Senate gun-grabber Chuck, teamed up with her cousin to call for ending private sales and compiling all the necessary pieces to enable registration. Doubling down, she also appeared at the White House to back Obama’s latest series of executive infringements. Evidently, when you can order security to remove people who don’t appreciate your “talent,” the DIY security that people of lesser means must resort to is just not a concern.
That Rogen and Schumer (and anti-gun sports leagues and networks) rake in tons of money by encouraging people to drink alcoholic beverages seems more than a bit hypocritical. After all, per the National Institute of Health, “Nearly 88,000 people (approximately 62,000 men and 26,000 women) die from alcohol-related causes annually, making it the third leading preventable cause of death in the United States.”
Alcohol deaths dwarf what they blame guns for. Why no similar outrage? Instead, Seth jokes about getting others drunk in order to promote movie attendance. And Amy jokes about getting drunk herself in order to get attention.
If we were going to apply gun-grabber smear tactics to force alcohol users not to scare the rest of us with their “selfishness,” we’d start disparaging such people as “alcosexuals” and “rumhumpers.” We’d demand “universal background checks” in order to buy the stuff, and require permits and licenses. Of course there would be “prohibited persons.” Perhaps we could expand that to include a “watchlist,” because who would be meaner drunks than terrorists? Maybe there’d also be a waiting period to rethink purchases, and one-bottle-a-month laws. We’d also have to ban “assault booze,” because why does anyone need high capacity alcohol content? Ultimately, we’d be working toward total prohibition — for the children.
Ridiculous, right? Does anyone in their right mind think such stupid-on-their-face ideas wouldn’t make things worse? Maybe there’s a parallel in here somewhere…
The fact is, responsible people can and do control themselves around guns and around alcohol, and do not behave in a way that hurts themselves and others. The same can’t be said for “progressive’ prohibitionists with their addictions to telling peaceable people what they aren’t allowed to have and do.
About David Codrea:
David Codrea is the winner of multiple journalist awards for investigating / defending the RKBA and a long-time gun rights advocate who defiantly challenges the folly of citizen disarmament.