Boycotting anti-gun employers and anti-gun companies... - Page 3

Boycotting anti-gun employers and anti-gun companies...

This is a discussion on Boycotting anti-gun employers and anti-gun companies... within the Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions forums, part of the Defensive Carry Discussions category; Originally Posted by Toorop What about ones that affirm property rights? Would anyone support a law for their state that made it a misdemeanor or ...

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 31 to 43 of 43

Thread: Boycotting anti-gun employers and anti-gun companies...

  1. #31
    Moderator
    Array gasmitty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Gilbert, AZ
    Posts
    10,852
    Quote Originally Posted by Toorop View Post
    What about ones that affirm property rights?

    Would anyone support a law for their state that made it a misdemeanor or even a felony to ignore signage or company policy, assuming they have been informed of such policy, and made it a criminal violation of sorts? Property owners need to have their rights protected and respected as well.
    Why create more laws, when the private sector already has it covered? You said your company prohibits carrying on or in company property, so does mine. Violations of my company's policy are dealt with by summary dismissal. Why would anyone need any public laws to handle that situation? There is already a consequence in place for noncompliance, which should be sufficient to encourage compliance.

    I'm struggling to see which argument you are trying to make.
    Smitty
    NRA Endowment Member


  2. #32
    Distinguished Member Array Toorop's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Somewhere out there.
    Posts
    1,308
    Quote Originally Posted by gasmitty View Post
    Why create more laws, when the private sector already has it covered? You said your company prohibits carrying on or in company property, so does mine. Violations of my company's policy are dealt with by summary dismissal. Why would anyone need any public laws to handle that situation? There is already a consequence in place for noncompliance, which should be sufficient to encourage compliance.

    I'm struggling to see which argument you are trying to make.
    The arguement is that I routinely see on these forums people admit to breaking their company policy. Not to mention a breach of contract if they have signed a contract to follow the rules. One could even try to make the argument they are defrauding the company by taking a paycheck and knowingly breaking the rules. I strongly believe in property rights and would like to see them protected.

    My company prohibits it, but I worry about the rights of other companies that are currently being violated. Not to mention everytime one of these rights is violated and the violator is caught, it makes us gunowners look bad. All the Brady bunch has to do is point to the postings on various gunboards and forums where people admit to knowingly violate their company policy and they can paint us as liars and turn businesses against us even more so.

  3. #33
    Gaz
    Gaz is offline
    Member Array Gaz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    42
    Quote Originally Posted by luvmy40 View Post
    I hate to break this to you, but the Post Office and FedEx are contract partners and use the the same transport networks nation wide. That local mail store is also simply a delivery point for, you guessed it The United States Postal Service. They do not have any delivery network what so ever unless it is the UPS store.

    And, BTW those "Surly Losers" in USPS uniforms are probably Veterans and also have to put up with the most ridiculously mismanaged "Business Model" ever known to man yet still manage to get the mail delivered with an unprecedented (world wide) record of success and competence at a price that is less than half of any other delivery service in the world. If you see long lines at the post office during lunch hour, blame the upper level management who have been told that they will be in the big money as advisers and consultants once postal delivery is privatized.

    I would also like to point out that the post office is the second or third largest employer in the united states and none of the operating costs are paid for with taxes. It is completely self supporting. Even though it is totally mismanaged and wastes more money daily than you could imagine.

    Yes, I am a Surly Loser my self. </rant>

    BOT

    I agree with the OP to the point that I do talk with and send letters/emails to businesses that are anti 2A and take my business elsewhere. I am hog tied when it comes to my job but there is a slim possibility that this may be a changeable situation.
    The Post Office does have some substantial tax payer subsidies, the largest of which is its tax exemption. It also has a guaranteed monopoly over standard letter handling, worth who knows how much. It also receives somewhere in the neighborhood of 100 million each year from the government to keep rural post offices open and to pay for the mail handling for a few exempt disabled classes. When you add those things up, it makes it hard to argue that the Post Office is completely self sufficient.

  4. #34
    VIP Member Array swiftyjuan's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Madera, CA
    Posts
    2,488
    The only agency that I won't deal with because of their anti-gun policy is AARP.

    Oddly enough, I have only noticed one "no firearms allowed" sign locally (and this is California!); it was a no-name discount store that moved to Fresno from San Francisco (figures). My wife went in, but I obeyed the sign. My wife picked out several items, totaling well over $100, and asked me to come in and use my card because she did not bring her purse. I replied "I can't." and pointed at the sign. My wife shrugged, because she knows I would not go in the store with the sign so prominent. The owner of the store realized she was about to lose a sale, and said "It's alright, you can come in!" I looked at her and said "No, I can't. You should realize that there are 3,000 plus folks in this and surrounding counties, that are licensed to carry concealed weapons by the state. THEY will obey your sign; someone intending to rob you will not obey your sign, and doesn't have to worry about anyone in the store being armed." She stopped smiling at me. Three months later the shop was gone. I doubt if the anti-firearms policy was the reason, but I like to think that I contributed to it's un-success.
    John
    Assault is a behavior, not a device.

    "Don't never take no shortcuts." Patty Reed, Donner Party

    Lifetime NRA member

  5. #35
    Distinguished Member Array Toorop's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Somewhere out there.
    Posts
    1,308
    Quote Originally Posted by swiftyjuan View Post
    The only agency that I won't deal with because of their anti-gun policy is AARP.

    Oddly enough, I have only noticed one "no firearms allowed" sign locally (and this is California!); it was a no-name discount store that moved to Fresno from San Francisco (figures). My wife went in, but I obeyed the sign. My wife picked out several items, totaling well over $100, and asked me to come in and use my card because she did not bring her purse. I replied "I can't." and pointed at the sign. My wife shrugged, because she knows I would not go in the store with the sign so prominent. The owner of the store realized she was about to lose a sale, and said "It's alright, you can come in!" I looked at her and said "No, I can't. You should realize that there are 3,000 plus folks in this and surrounding counties, that are licensed to carry concealed weapons by the state. THEY will obey your sign; someone intending to rob you will not obey your sign, and doesn't have to worry about anyone in the store being armed." She stopped smiling at me. Three months later the shop was gone. I doubt if the anti-firearms policy was the reason, but I like to think that I contributed to it's un-success.
    My uncle missed his daughters wedding because the state did not allow carry in churches. He also could not go to the banquet hall for the reception because the business prohibited guns. His daughter was unhappy with him when it was not really his fault.

  6. #36
    Ex Member Array MadMac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    2,095
    Quote Originally Posted by Toorop View Post
    My uncle missed his daughters wedding because the state did not allow carry in churches. He also could not go to the banquet hall for the reception because the business prohibited guns. His daughter was unhappy with him when it was not really his fault.
    Not his fault? Seriously? He couldn't part with his steel security blanket for one day to attend his daughter's wedding? That's probably the most pathetic thing I've ever read here.

    I started typing more of a response, but I'll let that stand.

  7. #37
    VIP Member Array BugDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Gulf Coast of Florida
    Posts
    9,413
    Quote Originally Posted by MadMac View Post
    Not his fault? Seriously? He couldn't part with his steel security blanket for one day to attend his daughter's wedding? That's probably the most pathetic thing I've ever read here.

    I started typing more of a response, but I'll let that stand.
    I have to agree. The only thing that could keep me from my daughter's wedding would be if I happened to pass this world first. While I do care about my rights, there are some things in this life that mean much more to me than my right to carry. That would be one of them.
    Know Guns, Know Safety, Know Peace.
    No Guns, No Safety, No Peace.


    Guns are like sex and air...its no big deal until YOU can't get any.

  8. #38
    Senior Member Array AlexHassin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    the North East
    Posts
    552
    Quote Originally Posted by Toorop View Post
    My uncle missed his daughters wedding because the state did not allow carry in churches. He also could not go to the banquet hall for the reception because the business prohibited guns. His daughter was unhappy with him when it was not really his fault.
    I donít get that. he couldnít have left the gun at home, had a few drinks, and watch his daughter get married. I think I see an estranged father/ grandfather in there family.

  9. #39
    Distinguished Member Array Toorop's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Somewhere out there.
    Posts
    1,308
    Quote Originally Posted by AlexHassin View Post
    I don’t get that. he couldn’t have left the gun at home, had a few drinks, and watch his daughter get married. I think I see an estranged father/ grandfather in there family.
    Nope. She was annoyed but she understood. That is just how pro-2nd Amendment we are. ;)

  10. #40
    Distinguished Member Array LanceORYGUN's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    ORYGUN
    Posts
    1,517
    I would recommend that you delete your original post, since you mention your employer in it.

    Someone at work could take your post the wrong way.

    You are calling for folks to boycott companies that are anti-carry. And then you happen to mention the name of your own employer, and their unfriendly policies towards firearms. People could imply something from this.

    .

  11. #41
    Distinguished Member Array Toorop's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Somewhere out there.
    Posts
    1,308
    Quote Originally Posted by LanceORYGUN View Post
    I would recommend that you delete your original post, since you mention your employer in it.

    Someone at work could take your post the wrong way.

    You are calling for folks to boycott companies that are anti-carry. And then you happen to mention the name of your own employer, and their unfriendly policies towards firearms. People could imply something from this.

    .
    Why? I am not afraid of saying it. I am just asking those gunowners whose employers prohibit them from carrying follow suit. There are a lot of gunowners here who admit to carrying at work when asked not to by their employers and I have found a solution to fix it so they won't get into trouble when doing so. If they list their employers we can boycott them.

    t is better for gunowners to work as a group to fix the problems and this uses a free market solution rather than being a dishonest coward who carries a concealed firearm after agreeing not to carry one and does because they know they can get away with it.

  12. #42
    VIP Member
    Array tacman605's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Arkansas/On the X in Afghanistan
    Posts
    3,053
    Wow there toorop you must have Charlton Heston's portrait on your wall and the NRA logo tattooed on your chest.

    Missing his daughters wedding because he could not carry a gun in the church or reception, now that is dedication. It also shows he is entirely to dependent on the mere presence of a firearm to keep him safe. You have been an outspoken supporter as far as your opinions on property owners rights but you want to boycott employers who exercise those rights I don't quite understand your position. I think you are simply trying to provoke responses and stirring the pot.

    But once again you are coming out with the coward word again and now it is dishonest coward and you never explained the use of it the first time. I personally do not need a firearm to defend myself and I am sorry that you do. You and yours need to really rethink your position on SD carry and what all goes along with it. Yep it sure makes things easier with a firearm but it is not needed.

    Mods I am trying to be very nice and respectful but this internet commando is verging on offensive and provoking a very negative response.
    "A first rate man with a third rate gun is far better than the other way around". The gun is a tool, you are the craftsman that makes it work. There are those who say "if I had to do it, I could" yet they never go out and train to do it. Don't let stupid be your mindset. Harryball 2013

  13. #43
    Senior Member Array AlexHassin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    the North East
    Posts
    552
    Quote Originally Posted by Toorop View Post
    Nope. She was annoyed but she understood. That is just how pro-2nd Amendment we are. ;)
    Different families different expectations .

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123

Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Similar Threads

  1. IKEA is Anti-Concealed Carry and Open Carry Store and presumed anti-RTBA
    By mikestilly in forum Open Carry Issues & Discussions
    Replies: 59
    Last Post: February 8th, 2010, 04:43 PM
  2. Anti-gun letter to the editor in anti-gun newspaper
    By cyberdogg in forum Off Topic & Humor Discussion
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: May 19th, 2009, 12:25 AM
  3. Credit Card companies...ANTI-GUN! (Merged)
    By goawayfarm in forum General Firearm Discussion
    Replies: 36
    Last Post: April 1st, 2008, 04:03 PM
  4. Airman shot by anti-war/anti-gov't nutjob
    By SIGguy229 in forum Law Enforcement, Military & Homeland Security Discussion
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: July 15th, 2007, 08:44 PM
  5. Anti-gun companies and people lists
    By tnoisaw in forum Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions
    Replies: 38
    Last Post: October 26th, 2006, 08:54 PM

Search tags for this page

anti gun boycott list
,
anti gun businesses
,

anti gun companies

,
anti gun companies list
,
anti gun companies to boycott
,
anti-gun companies to boycott
,
boycott anti-gun companies
,
boycott business that don't allow concealed carry
,
companies that support anti gun
,
list of anti gun companies
,
pro gun businesses
,

pro gun companies

Click on a term to search for related topics.