How I damaged gun rights today

[88GT]

Here's what your so called "Freedom Fighters" have accomplished for you!

Derpin' Carry Texas Strikes Again: Gets Open Carriers Booted From Target Stores Nationwide - Bearing Arms

For someone who seems to be trying so hard to defend gun rights, you seem absolutely giddy about this bit of information.

 

[ATM]

Target made the same sort of placating PR statement Starbucks and others have. Basically: We're not going to change or enforce any policy, but will make a request to not bring guns into our stores.

They haven't chosen to prohibit anything, they're just shutting up the demanding mom whiners. Who cares?

The demanding mom whiners accomplished a PR victory, but that's about it. Gun owners didn't cause this or lose anything in the process.

 

[cce1302]

It's more of a "we'll let the moms pretend guns don't exist" than a ban.

Molly Snyder, a Target spokeswoman, said the retailer will not post signs at its stores asking people not to bring guns inside. "It is not a ban," she said. "There is no prohibition."

Target asks customers not to bring guns to its stores | The Columbian
BREAKING: Target Clarifies Gun Statement is Not a Ban or Prohibition on Gun Carry in Stores

And 88GT has a point.

I'm beginning to see a trend of certain "gun owners" gleefully posting the antigun perspective without regard to the full story.

Perhaps he's anti-liberty. Maybe he's just lazy. Maybe he's just not that passionate about a topic he's been returning to for 4 weeks...

 

[SteveM4A1]

At least there are a few of us here that support liberty.

 

[LockStocksAndBarrel]

At least there are a few of us here that support liberty.

AMEN!

Happiness that mad mothers scored a victory allowing me to make a point in an argument and feel good about myself is no different than a politician passing a gun law that does nothing to solve anything but make him feel good about himself.

 

[Roll Tide]

Very intelligent response, from a highly classy person.

Thank you!

 

[Redhorse]

It's more of a "we'll let the moms pretend guns don't exist" than a ban.



Target asks customers not to bring guns to its stores | The Columbian
BREAKING: Target Clarifies Gun Statement is Not a Ban or Prohibition on Gun Carry in Stores

And 88GT has a point.

I'm beginning to see a trend of certain "gun owners" gleefully posting the antigun perspective without regard to the full story.

Perhaps he's anti-liberty. Maybe he's just lazy. Maybe he's just not that passionate about a topic he's been returning to for 4 weeks...

After I read about that I pretty much just came to the conclusion both sides should leave stores alone and let them make their money in peace. I really feel like both sides are infringing on their rights by forcing them to take a stance on a political subject they wish not to be involved in. This is similar to forcing someone to go to the polls and vote either Republican or Democrat when it's their right not to vote at all (which is stupid but still their right).

And how is either side forcing them? By holding protests and going in their stores with intent to force them to make a policy change/stance and not the intent to buy. MDA does it by directly making them take a stance and OCT (for the sake of argument) does it by using their store to express their right to carry yet bringing in unwanted attention and still indirectly making these stores take a stance (basically daring them to prohibit the right to carry).

Seriously, instead of patronizing these stores, we should leave them be. What is MDA going to do if they run out of targets (no pun intended)?

 

[cce1302]

After I read about that I pretty much just came to the conclusion both sides should leave stores alone and let them make their money in peace. I really feel like both sides are infringing on their rights by forcing them to take a stance on a political subject they wish not to be involved in. This is similar to forcing someone to go to the polls and vote either Republican or Democrat when it's their right not to vote at all (which is stupid but still their right).

And how is either side forcing them? By holding protests and going in their stores with intent to force them to make a policy change/stance and not the intent to buy. MDA does it by directly making them take a stance and OCT (for the sake of argument) does it by using their store to express their right to carry yet bringing in unwanted attention and still indirectly making these stores take a stance (basically daring them to prohibit the right to carry).

Seriously, instead of patronizing these stores, we should leave them be. What is MDA going to do if they run out of targets (no pun intended)?

Do you have any evidence that OCT "[held] protests and [went] in their stores with intent to force them to make a policy change/stance and not the intent to buy"? or that they use "their store to express their right to carry yet bringing in unwanted attention and still indirectly making these stores take a stance (basically daring them to prohibit the right to carry)"?

 

[jcwit]

For someone who seems to be trying so hard to defend gun rights, you seem absolutely giddy about this bit of information.

Not about gun rights or gun control, its about acting responsible and not like a moron.

Frankly, their actions are not helping at all.

 

[Redhorse]

Do you have any evidence that OCT "[held] protests and [went] in their stores with intent to force them to make a policy change/stance and not the intent to buy"? or that they use "their store to express their right to carry yet bringing in unwanted attention and still indirectly making these stores take a stance (basically daring them to prohibit the right to carry)"?

OCT's actions were strictly political. MDA's actions were strictly political. They had other reasons? Both, in one way or another, wanted the store to take a stance for OR (please take note or the "or," I did not say anything about "basically daring them to prohibit the right to carry," you simply said that in order to discredit me, which I must say, is a good political move if you ever decide to run for a office) against the right to carry. I think both sides should just leave these businesses alone at this point because it's clear all they want is to make money else they wouldn't make such well crafted statements in order to please both sides. Example (using Target) if they were pro gun rights, they'd tell MDA to go to hell, if the were anti-gun, they'd tell OCT to go to hell. The fact of the matter is they're gun-neutral and don't want to be involved yet both sides seem to want to make them take a side. And you guys can't tell me you wouldn't crucify them if they took MDA's side and glorify them if they took OCT's. You guys want to talk about liberty, but let me express to you what I know about liberty; it's their right to be neutral, it's their right not to care, it's their RIGHT not to take a side.

Forgive my slight frustration but it irritates me when implications are made about my statements when they are not directly stated. I play no games and make no implications (I mean, this is the internet, how can you?), I say what I mean directly.

 

[cce1302]

OCT's actions were strictly political. MDA's actions were strictly political. They had other reasons? Both, in one way or another, wanted the store to take a stance for OR (please take note or the "or," I did not say anything about "basically daring them to prohibit the right to carry," you simply said that in order to discredit me, which I must say, is a good political move if you ever decide to run for a office) against the right to carry.

Are you incompetent, or a liar? It's right here in your post (highlighted for your convenience):

Please answer my above question so that I will know how to proceed with our conversation. I try so hard to avoid ad hominem attacks, but you can't expect to be taken seriously when you flat out lie about something that you said in your previous post, and use your lie as a basis to attack me personally.

I think both sides should just leave these businesses alone at this point because it's clear all they want is to make money else they wouldn't make such well crafted statements in order to please both sides. Example (using Target) if they were pro gun rights, they'd tell MDA to go to hell, if the were anti-gun, they'd tell OCT to go to hell. The fact of the matter is they're gun-neutral and don't want to be involved yet both sides seem to want to make them take a side. And you guys can't tell me you wouldn't crucify them if they took MDA's side and glorify them if they took OCT's. You guys want to talk about liberty, but let me express to you what I know about liberty; it's their right to be neutral, it's their right not to care, it's their RIGHT not to take a side.

Forgive my slight frustration but it irritates me when implications are made about my statements when they are not directly stated. I play no games and make no implications (I mean, this is the internet, how can you?), I say what I mean directly.

1. You're not supporting any of your assertions with evidence, as I have asked.
2. You're misrepresenting the actions of OCT. Consistently. Repeatedly. Intentionally?
3. You're misunderstanding my position on liberty.

 

[Redhorse]

Are you incompetent, or a liar? It's right here in your post (highlighted for your convenience):

Please answer my above question so that I will know how to proceed with our conversation. I try so hard to avoid ad hominem attacks, but you can't expect to be taken seriously when you flat out lie about something that you said in your previous post, and use your lie as a basis to attack me personally.



1. You're not supporting any of your assertions with evidence, as I have asked.
2. You're misrepresenting the actions of OCT. Consistently. Repeatedly. Intentionally?
3. You're misunderstanding my position on liberty.

Wow, I cannot believe I missed that. Unbelievable on my part. I apologize, I honestly thought you were implicating something I hadn't said when it's clear I had said it. Again, unbelievable. I am sorry.

I'll just say it's their right to remain neutral and I think both sides have now called for them, in one way or another, to take a stance when they don't want to and have a right not to.