Travel Companies Eliminate Discounts For Members of the National Rifle Association

In the wake of the mass murders of 17 innocent people which resulted from the shootings at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, a major rift of factions who are sharply divided on the issue of gun control has widened significantly…

Travel Companies Eliminate Discounts For Members of the National Rifle Association

…and many travel companies — including Delta Air Lines, United Airlines, Best Western, Hertz, National Car Rental, Avis, Enterprise Rent a Car, Alamo Rent A Car and Budget Car Rental — have taken the stance of denouncing the National Rifle Association on its official position and subsequently cut the discounts and benefits of their products and services for members of that organization.

I say shame on these corporations — but not because they are taking a stand against the rampant use of guns in this country.

Where were these companies when one of the deadliest mass shootings in American history occurred during which at least 59 people died and 527 more people sustained injuries after Stephen Paddock launched rampant consecutive rounds of gunfire from his room on the 32nd floor of the Mandalay Bay Las Vegas hotel on October 1, 2017? Where were they during the massacre which occurred in Orlando and resulted in the killing of a minimum of 49 people and injured at least 53 people back in June of 2016?

Did these companies suddenly find some sort of moral compass which serendipitously just happened to coincide with the outrage currently going on in the United States? Call me a skeptic; but I would not be the least bit surprised if they were simply attempting to capitalize on — and attempt to seize — what may be considered a golden marketing opportunity in the form of publicity. If that is indeed the case, then again — shame on those companies.

I also say shame on the National Rifle Association in taking such a hard line — and seemingly heartless — stance and reaction despite the loss of life which has occurred as a result of gun violence. I am not only referring to what happened at the aforementioned high school in Florida. The organization reportedly considers the actions of the travel companies as a “shameful display of political and civil cowardice.” I do not share that point of view.

There. Now I can be called both a conservative and a liberal, as some people who feel the need to assign labels are apt to do.

No Discounted Rates Offered by Some Travel Companies

Some travel companies — such as American Airlines — claim to have never offered discounted group rates to members of the National Rifle Association.

Summary

Unfortunately, issues such as this do affect travel both directly and indirectly — whether or not they are political.

Rather than taking a side blindly — as society in general seems to do at the drop of a hat with just about anything these days — how about some reasoned discussion and thoughtful action to substantially reduce the deaths and injuries of thousands of people while still protecting rights which are assured by the Second Amendment of the Constitution of the United States?

I do not own a gun. I never have owned a gun. That is my choice and my right as a citizen of the United States. I have never shot a real gun in my life. I am not a member of the National Rifle Association — not even for the travel discounts which its members used to enjoy.

Despite all of that, I do believe in preserving the Second Amendment and the right to bear arms. I also believe in considering sound and practical gun control measures.

In my opinion, the solution is to either significantly increase restrictions on automatic weapons and assault rifles — which are specifically designed to kill and not so much to protect — or ban them altogether. I may be wrong; but I can think of no legitimate reason why an individual needs to own a weapon such as an AK-47 or a AR-15. Those weapons are designed for mass murder.

I am not typically a betting man; but I would bet that the authors of the Second Amendment of the Constitution of the United States did not have automatic weapons in mind when they wrote it:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Photograph ©2015 by Brian Cohen.

8 thoughts on “Travel Companies Eliminate Discounts For Members of the National Rifle Association”

  1. Carl P says:

    I’m thinking you did not mean “either significantly increase automatic weapons and assault rifles…” unless you did mea ban them or get a bunch.

    1. Brian Cohen says:

      Thank you so much for pointing that error out, Carl P, as I left out a couple of key words — which I have now corrected.

      What that sentence was originally supposed to say — and now does, thanks to you — is “In my opinion, the solution is to either significantly increase restrictions on automatic weapons and assault rifles…”

  2. rmah says:

    either or ~~n~~either?? :

    “In my opinion, the solution is to either significantly increase automatic weapons and assault rifles — which are specifically designed to kill and not so much to protect — or ban them altogether.”

    1. Brian Cohen says:

      Thank you also for catching that significant error committed by me, rmah. I greatly appreciate it.

      Please see the comment I left with Carl P just above…

  3. Wes says:

    Ease up on the CNN, dude. AR’s are designed for mass murder? Based on exactly what? That whackos occasionally employ them in the furtherance of such? The same can be said of many things. I guess of the hundreds of thousands of these weapons out there in the US, the owners are not using them in a manner consistent with their design, per you.

    You know, the difference between murder and lawful killing depends on the circumstances. I don’t see how an inanimate object could be designed for one and not the other. Please enlighten us.

    AR’s are inappropriate for defense? Says who? You? There are a lot of shop keeps in Ferguson, MO who would beg to differ. The point: being severely outnumbered doesn’t eliminate the need to defend oneself. One doesn’t get to choose the conditions under which they are attacked. Your position seems to be that it’s the victim’s bad luck for being attacked, and in any case a victim shall be limited to X shots from Y gun in order to secure survival. Insufficient for the situation? Too bad, so sad.

    Not the intent of the Founding Fathers? You are the one supporting a more restrictive interpretation than what plain text of the law at issue (2A) provides, so support your argument. I’ll remind you that the amendment came on the heels of a revelutionary war from a tyrannical government, and the aim of the Constitution as a whole is to limit the powers and duties of the Federal Government. Perhaps the Founders specifically desired the citizenry to have the means to again secure freedom from a tyrannical government? In context, this makes more sense than the argument that they intended to only secure inferior arms to the people.

    At any rate, it’s a shame you could not resist the urge to enter the political arena. Perhaps, like the companies listed, you see this as a business opportunity. In all sincerity, I hope it works out for you. Calculated risk is what business is all about. Just know you could be tossing some potential business to the wind, to include mine.

    1. Brian Cohen says:

      I do not see this as a business opportunity, Wes. I am simply reporting on facts and speaking my mind in response — which, by the way, is a right which I have that is protected by the Constitution as well.

      In case you have not read the article, I am not against the Second Amendment. I also wrote that “In my opinion, the solution is to either significantly increase restrictions on automatic weapons and assault rifles — which are specifically designed to kill and not so much to protect — or ban them altogether.” That is merely my opinion.

      As for a “more restrictive interpretation than what plain text of the law at issue (2A) provides”, I suppose that you could argue that no weapon should have any restrictions whatsoever; and that no matter how powerful is the weapon, anyone who is a citizen of the United States has a right to own one if he or she so chooses. Should we eliminate background checks and waiting periods altogether, as they could be interpreted as “more restrictive interpretation than what plain text of the law at issue (2A) provides”?

      As I wrote in the article, “how about some reasoned discussion and thoughtful action to substantially reduce the deaths and injuries of thousands of people while still protecting rights which are assured by the Second Amendment of the Constitution of the United States?” I may not agree with the opinions of other authors of weblogs and editorials; but that does not mean I simply stop reading what they have to say on issues, as I learn from those people who have different thoughts and opinions from the ones which I have.

      I am keeping an open mind to be enlightened…

  4. AlohaDaveKennedy says:

    When are these politically correct companies going to deny discounts or boarding priviledges for military, police or first responders who show up and then do not do their job? When armed officers on campus refuse to engage an active killer you get dead students, regardless of how they were killed.

    But before we point to officers with blood on their hands, we also need to examine the 2013 change in Broward schools under pressure from certain groups to end the student-to-prison-pipeline. What groups had been actively steering the police and judicial system away from this killer for years and why are they not being held accountable for the blood on their hands?

  5. FredM says:

    Didn’t see anywhere that any of the the shooters cited was an NRA member. Did I miss something?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *