XPost: alt.politics.usa.constitution, alt.politics.guns, alt.california   
   XPost: sac.general   
   From: gp@dont-email.me   
      
   Levi Strauss & Co. established its brand in the mid-19th century   
   by selling durable clothing to working-class Americans. As   
   Levi’s signature jeans gained popularity amongst a wider set in   
   the middle of the last century, the pants came to symbolize   
   American freedom. As Stanford Historian Niall Ferguson points   
   out in his book, Civilization: The West and the Rest, during the   
   Cold War, the American pants were so desirable behind the Iron   
   Curtain that citizens would break any number of laws to obtain   
   them. At one point the company even celebrated America’s armed   
   heritage in a circa 1950 advertising brochure, “Levi’s Gallery   
   of Western Guns & Gunfighters.” It’s with some irony then that   
   Levi’s has abandoned this rugged image to team up with a   
   billionaire oligarch in an effort to empower the government to   
   trample upon the fundamental rights of the American people.   
      
   On September 4th, Levi’s CEO Chip Bergh announced that the San   
   Francisco-based clothing manufacturer (which also owns Dockers)   
   would openly advocate for gun control. As part of this campaign,   
   the company will donate more than $1 million to radical anti-gun   
   groups, including Michael Bloomberg front-group Everytown for   
   Gun Safety and Giffords, formerly Americans for Responsible   
   Solutions and the Legal Community Against Violence. The company   
   will also match employee donations to these groups and is   
   encouraging its staff to devote their time to anti-gun activism.   
      
   Further, Bergh stated that the company has joined the Everytown   
   Business Leaders for Gun Safety. The business wing of   
   Bloomberg’s outfit is dedicated to leveraging member companies’   
   “market footprint… employee networks, [and] public   
   communications platforms” to diminish Americans’ Second   
   Amendment rights.   
      
   In a repulsive insult to the nation’s 100 million gun owners,   
   Bergh likened Levi’s campaign to restrict the rights of law-   
   abiding Americans to previous company efforts aimed at   
   combatting pre-Civil Rights Era racial bigotry.   
      
   Among gun owners, Levi’s intemperate foray into the world of gun   
   control politics has been met with the disgust it deserves.   
   However, it shouldn’t be met with surprise.   
      
   Since the late 1990s, Levi’s has used its name and resources to   
   attack gun rights. In 1999, the company gave $100,000 to gun   
   control group PAX, followed by a $250,000 donation in 2000 and   
   another $100,000 in 2001.   
      
   PAX was founded in 1998 by Dan Gross, who went on to become   
   president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence. PAX   
   would go on to change its name to the Center to Prevent Youth   
   Violence and later merge with the Brady Campaign.   
      
   Much like Bloomberg’s Everytown, PAX placed an emphasis on   
   attracting corporate partners to their gun control efforts. As   
   part of Levi’s relationship with PAX, in 1999 the apparel   
   company teamed up with the band Goo Goo Dolls to attract support   
   for the anti-gun group during the Levi’s Fuse ’99 summer concert   
   tour. Concert goers, and visitors to Levi’s website, were   
   encouraged to sign the PAX Youth Petition. Moreover, the denim   
   company donated a percentage of all Levi’s Fuse ’99 t-shirt   
   proceeds to the gun control group.   
      
   The PAX Youth Petition endorsed a variety of severe gun control   
   measures that have repeatedly been rejected by the American   
   public through their elected representatives. The document   
   called for the “licensing and registration of guns, like   
   automobiles.” The petition also demanded the “elimination of   
   assault weapons and other weapons of war.” As the 1994 Clinton   
   “Assault Weapons” ban was in place at the time of the petition,   
   this imprecise demand appeared to call for prohibiting the sale   
   of the remaining lawful semi-automatic firearms, confiscation of   
   the firearms grandfathered under the ban, or both.   
      
   Given the majority of Levi’s 165-year history, Bergh’s decision   
   to use a formerly-quintessential American company to attack a   
   quintessential American right is a particularly sad episode in   
   the current surge in corporate virtue-signaling. We can only   
   assume that Levi’s accountants have determined that resulting   
   skinny jeans sales will be enough to offset the permanent damage   
   to their once-cherished brand.   
      
   https://www.nraila.org/articles/20180907/levi-s-teams-with-   
   billionaire-michael-bloomberg-to-attack-gun-rights   
       
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)