Just because someone does not enjoy a particular activity does not mean that activity does not offer anything of substance to others.
Oh, certainly true. Substance, or the perception of substance.
As Sam Cade said,
panem et circenses, there is a LOT of benefit in this to some.
We aren't watching the gladiators of olde.
No reason not to be. Except for neutering ("nerfing" I think is the new term) combat and actual life-and-death struggle our species seems to use as a tool for advancement and development (as well as destruction, obviously) it is illegitimate to say that our modern gladiators are anything but the same dance in a different tutu.
Many find the nuances and strategy of watching pro games as well as the pure athleticism as entertainment away from the trials and tribulations of everyday life. It's an escape for 3 hours or 6 hours or however long we wish to watch it.
You've got it!
Panem et circenses.
Obviously millions upon millions of others feel the same and quite a few of them are also gun lovers like we are.
Well, sure. Many like Twinkies, and broadcast TV, and Justin Bieber, and Bud Lite -- are we supposed to applaud that?
Just because someone (or some company) doesn't wear their pro-gun attitude on their sleeves does not mean they are anti-gun. Believe it or not, there are millions of people who are not anti-gun but are not pro-gun either.
Surely, but we actively desire that our message be presented to them in a positive light (just as their messages of diet soda, or Dodge cars, or cheap car insurance, or whatever else might be presented in this time slot) are presented to US, though we have no especial interest or desire to hear about them.
It is a topic that does not interest them and they don't wish to see any of our rights stripped away no matter what number it is.
Ah ha! But the equal likelihood is that the topic does not interest them and they'd just as soon our rights WERE stripped away because then they can feel better about "doing something" regarding the dangers of society. Presenting our own interests in a positive and very public light helps dislodge that negative-leaning ennui among the masses glued to the electronic coliseum.
I don't get those who feel their right to carry supercedes an individual's or company's right to not allow carry on their property, for whatever reason. You exercise your rights whenever you can, wherever you can but let someone else exercise their right to say "no" and you're all bent out of shape. Your rights do not trump the rights of others.
This is a long and somewhat complex debate involving subjects like transfer of responsibility in exchange for compliance with policies, and the question of whether a property right exists to dictate what someone possesses in private not disclosed, and in the end, sometimes one RIGHT simply does supercede some other "right."
To say I'll never watch another sporting game because you can't carry into a stadium is cutting off my nose to spite my face.
Actually, that's not what was said. What was said was that this is an instance of the NFL not allowing a pro-gun message to be paid for and displayed on the air during its events. It really wasn't about carrying at the stadium.
Though, that's a good enough reason.
The NFL or MLB or whatever is not the government trying to take away what is rightfully ours. It is a private entity doing what they think is best for the interest of their guests.
Again, you missed the point here. Not about carrying at the stadium, but about a decision to block a pro-gun advertising message.
Right or wrong, they have the same rights as you do
Wait, the entity that is the NFL has the same RIGHTS that I do? Really? Think about that for a moment.
and we need to respect all rights, not just the ones we find convenient.
There's RIGHTS and there's "rights." The "rights" are starting to outnumber the RIGHTS these days by an alarming margin. And sometimes, RIGHTS and "rights" conflict. Sometimes even RIGHTS and RIGHTS conflict.
