Add Meijers and Aldi to the list of stores banning OC - Page 18

Add Meijers and Aldi to the list of stores banning OC

This is a discussion on Add Meijers and Aldi to the list of stores banning OC within the Open Carry Issues & Discussions forums, part of the Defensive Carry Discussions category; Originally Posted by AzQkr Have you noticed the absence of the extreme 2A advocates support for your opinions? Seems even among staunch 2A, you're not ...

Page 18 of 20 FirstFirst ... 8 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 LastLast
Results 256 to 270 of 286
Like Tree311Likes

Thread: Add Meijers and Aldi to the list of stores banning OC

  1. #256
    VIP Member Array Havok's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Location
    US
    Posts
    6,659
    Quote Originally Posted by AzQkr View Post
    Have you noticed the absence of the extreme 2A advocates support for your opinions? Seems even among staunch 2A, you're not getting a lot of support for your beat you march to.
    I think we may have differing views of what an extreme 2A advocate is.
    We get the government we deserve.

  2. #257
    VIP Member Array maxwell97's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Minnesota
    Posts
    9,827
    Quote Originally Posted by Bikenut View Post
    Thank you. I am aware of that. Hopefully others have noticed that also. But considering how much, and how strong, some folks are disagreeing with my opinion(s) I still would be surprised by anyone wanting to jump in and swim against the current. I'm not surprise some have... just surprised they would want to.
    For what it's worth, I think that your beliefs on this are defensible and honestly held. If I thought it had a chance of working - making daily sight of firearms so routine as to be non-controversial - I'd probably be on your side.

    That said, you are indeed swimming against the current, and amongst those people who are most in agreement with your goals and motives. That being the case, I think it's worthwhile to consider what we've said. Even if it doesn't move you, consider whether it's a realistic goal - getting enough people to carry openly with enough positive interactions with the public to make firearms seem ordinary.
    AzQkr likes this.
    "Lots of ways to help people. Sometimes heal patients; sometimes shoot dangerous people. Either way helps."
    - Dr. Mordin Solus

  3. #258
    Member Array since9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Colorado Springs, CO
    Posts
    488
    Quote Originally Posted by maxwell97 View Post
    For what it's worth, I think that your beliefs on this are defensible and honestly held. If I thought it had a chance of working - making daily sight of firearms so routine as to be non-controversial - I'd probably be on your side.

    That said, you are indeed swimming against the current, and amongst those people who are most in agreement with your goals and motives. That being the case, I think it's worthwhile to consider what we've said. Even if it doesn't move you, consider whether it's a realistic goal - getting enough people to carry openly with enough positive interactions with the public to make firearms seem ordinary.
    It's not swimming against the current at all in places where people OC on a regular basis.
    Would you enjoy spending significant amounts of conducting research and conveying carefully worded discourse when others trample it under their feet, even to the point of deleting entire threads? Of course not. Me either. Matthew 7:6

  4. Remove Advertisements
    DefensiveCarry.com
    Advertisements
     

  5. #259
    Senior Member Array Bikenut's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2018
    Location
    Too close to Saginaw Mi.
    Posts
    868
    Quote Originally Posted by maxwell97 View Post
    For what it's worth, I think that your beliefs on this are defensible and honestly held. If I thought it had a chance of working - making daily sight of firearms so routine as to be non-controversial - I'd probably be on your side.

    That said, you are indeed swimming against the current, and amongst those people who are most in agreement with your goals and motives. That being the case, I think it's worthwhile to consider what we've said. Even if it doesn't move you, consider whether it's a realistic goal - getting enough people to carry openly with enough positive interactions with the public to make firearms seem ordinary.
    I considered everything negative that has been said, including some stuff that applied to just my own personal life, years ago when I agonized over the decision whether to join the open carry movement or just avoid any possible hassles/problems/dangers of repercussions both legal and social by hiding my gun because I too have a concealed carry permit.

    The one simple inescapable factor that tipped my decision in favor of open carry even knowing the risks was the very simple fact that people cannot become accustomed to seeing guns everyday if they don't see guns everyday.

    Because of my beliefs about open carrying I've experienced everything from praise to insults, ridicule, and attempted shaming. The praise has come mostly from individuals who are strangers to me in the general public who have approached me and initiated a conversation about guns. The insults, ridicule, and attempted shaming has come mainly from fellow gun owners some in real life but mostly in conversations online in gun focused forums.

    But my belief that hiding our guns does not normalize the sight of guns in public nor does it do anything to counter the anti gun agenda of getting rid of guns has not changed. I still believe that the more gun people that open carry the more the public will become accustomed to seeing guns open carried and that social acceptance will take the wind out of the anti gun agenda's sails.

    Will enough gun owners actually open carry in numbers large enough for the sight of guns in public to become so commonplace as to become common? Well judging from the reaction from gun owners themselves I'd say the chances are very slim. And that, at least in my not so humble opinion, is a very sad state of affairs.
    Character is doing the right thing when nobody's looking. There are too many people who think that the only thing that's right is to get by, and the only thing that's wrong is to get caught. ~J.C. Watts

  6. #260
    Ex Member Array AzQkr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    In the Superstitions
    Posts
    19,639
    Quote Originally Posted by Bikenut View Post
    Considering the amount of disagreement, and the severity of that disagreement at times, I would be surprised if anyone who did agree with me.. even if only a little bit... would want to step into this.
    Historically, that's unlikely accurate here. Though possible, improbable.

  7. #261
    VIP Member Array maxwell97's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Minnesota
    Posts
    9,827
    Quote Originally Posted by Bikenut View Post
    But my belief that hiding our guns does not normalize the sight of guns in public nor does it do anything to counter the anti gun agenda of getting rid of guns has not changed. I still believe that the more gun people that open carry the more the public will become accustomed to seeing guns open carried and that social acceptance will take the wind out of the anti gun agenda's sails.
    Well, I think there are some locales where that might work, and some where it won't. But even if more gun owners join in, I don't think it will help, because the work of thousands of OC'ers quietly going about their business in public can be undone by one fool like the Wal-Mart body-armor guy who sent people running and hiding.

    My main problem with your arguments isn't the OC itself, it's the demand for unquestioning approval of any form of OC whatsoever. If it's going to have a positive impact, it has to make a positive impression on the people who see it, or at least a non-negative impression repeated often. That means the people doing it have to be sensitive to the mindsets of those they're displaying to, and that's a characteristic they too frequently lack.
    AzQkr likes this.
    "Lots of ways to help people. Sometimes heal patients; sometimes shoot dangerous people. Either way helps."
    - Dr. Mordin Solus

  8. #262
    Ex Member Array AzQkr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    In the Superstitions
    Posts
    19,639
    Quote Originally Posted by Havok View Post
    I think we may have differing views of what an extreme 2A advocate is.
    https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/extreme

    a : existing in a very high degree extreme poverty
    b : going to great or exaggerated lengths : radical went on an extreme diet
    c : exceeding the ordinary, usual, or expected extreme weather conditions

    I used to the term extreme, based on it's definition.
    Havok likes this.

  9. #263
    Ex Member Array AzQkr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    In the Superstitions
    Posts
    19,639
    Quote Originally Posted by AzQkr View Post
    https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/extreme

    a : existing in a very high degree extreme poverty
    b : going to great or exaggerated lengths : radical went on an extreme diet
    c : exceeding the ordinary, usual, or expected extreme weather conditions

    I used to the term extreme, based on it's definition.
    Extreme 2A advocate to me means "exceeding the ordinary". Two examples, passing out cards to owners/managers that state you'll not be shopping there any longer based on their no guns policy and making lists of any and all businesses that support anti 2A or deny entry with a firearm and changing their lifestyle/shopping habits based on one singular issue, that of 2A..
    Havok likes this.

  10. #264
    Senior Member Array Bikenut's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2018
    Location
    Too close to Saginaw Mi.
    Posts
    868
    Quote Originally Posted by maxwell97 View Post
    Originally Posted by Bikenut View Post
    But my belief that hiding our guns does not normalize the sight of guns in public nor does it do anything to counter the anti gun agenda of getting rid of guns has not changed. I still believe that the more gun people that open carry the more the public will become accustomed to seeing guns open carried and that social acceptance will take the wind out of the anti gun agenda's sails.
    Well, I think there are some locales where that might work, and some where it won't. But even if more gun owners join in, I don't think it will help, because the work of thousands of OC'ers quietly going about their business in public can be undone by one fool like the Wal-Mart body-armor guy who sent people running and hiding.

    My main problem with your arguments isn't the OC itself, it's the demand for unquestioning approval of any form of OC whatsoever. If it's going to have a positive impact, it has to make a positive impression on the people who see it, or at least a non-negative impression repeated often. That means the people doing it have to be sensitive to the mindsets of those they're displaying to, and that's a characteristic they too frequently lack.
    To my knowledge I have not demanded anything. If I have I would appreciate an in context quote of where I did.

    I have opined that if the public were already accustomed to seeing guns in public there wouldn't be any big deal when a pistol, rifle, or shotgun was seen in public. I presented how folks expect to see, and accept seeing, pistols and long guns during hunting season because they have been seeing those guns during hunting season for many years as an example that seeing guns leads to expecting and accepting seeing guns.

    Whether more gun owners open carrying would help won't be found out if they don't open carry. But if they don't open carry then we know not open carrying didn't help get people accustomed to seeing open carry.
    since9 likes this.
    Character is doing the right thing when nobody's looking. There are too many people who think that the only thing that's right is to get by, and the only thing that's wrong is to get caught. ~J.C. Watts

  11. #265
    VIP Member Array Havok's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Location
    US
    Posts
    6,659
    Quote Originally Posted by AzQkr View Post
    Extreme 2A advocate to me means "exceeding the ordinary". Two examples, passing out cards to owners/managers that state you'll not be shopping there any longer based on their no guns policy and making lists of any and all businesses that support anti 2A or deny entry with a firearm and changing their lifestyle/shopping habits based on one singular issue, that of 2A..
    Yes, but just my personal opinion, I would not consider many people here extreme 2A advocates. There are are plenty of people who are ok with background checks, plenty of people who are against open carry, plenty of people who are fine with denying certain groups of people the right to own guns in general, people who are fine with restricting bump stocks or other types of firearms. I would like to think I am about as pro 2A as one can possibly get, because in my mind, I believe the words “shall not be infringed” is pretty straight forward, and all the things I mentioned above would be infringements in my opinion. While we may have little to no active members who support all of those things, we have many members who support at least one of those things, and very few members who are against all of those things. Those are the only ones I would consider “extreme pro 2A”, but then someone else may say that because I am not willing to disregard someone’s rights as a property owner, that I am in favor of 2A infringements. So while you say even the most extreme pro 2A advocates disagree with him, in my mind, the people who disagree are far from being extreme pro 2A. Just my opinion though.
    AzQkr and since9 like this.
    We get the government we deserve.

  12. #266
    VIP Member Array maxwell97's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Minnesota
    Posts
    9,827
    Quote Originally Posted by Bikenut View Post
    I have opined that if the public were already accustomed to seeing guns in public there wouldn't be any big deal when a pistol, rifle, or shotgun was seen in public. I presented how folks expect to see, and accept seeing, pistols and long guns during hunting season because they have been seeing those guns during hunting season for many years as an example that seeing guns leads to expecting and accepting seeing guns.
    People can get used to them in certain contexts, sure. They're not going to get used to fearing for their lives. If OC is to be encouraged, it should be with an expectation of restraint and prudence, while those who do it stupidly should be loudly condemned. We do the cause no favors by openly sympathizing with the "activist" I mentioned above, instead of with the people he terrorized (however inadvertantly he may have done so). Gun rights won't be protected by sociopathic behavior with guns.
    AzQkr likes this.
    "Lots of ways to help people. Sometimes heal patients; sometimes shoot dangerous people. Either way helps."
    - Dr. Mordin Solus

  13. #267
    Senior Member Array Bikenut's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2018
    Location
    Too close to Saginaw Mi.
    Posts
    868
    Quote Originally Posted by maxwell97 View Post
    Originally Posted by Bikenut View Post
    I have opined that if the public were already accustomed to seeing guns in public there wouldn't be any big deal when a pistol, rifle, or shotgun was seen in public. I presented how folks expect to see, and accept seeing, pistols and long guns during hunting season because they have been seeing those guns during hunting season for many years as an example that seeing guns leads to expecting and accepting seeing guns.
    People can get used to them in certain contexts, sure. They're not going to get used to fearing for their lives. If OC is to be encouraged, it should be with an expectation of restraint and prudence, while those who do it stupidly should be loudly condemned. We do the cause no favors by openly sympathizing with the "activist" I mentioned above, instead of with the people he terrorized (however inadvertantly he may have done so). Gun rights won't be protected by sociopathic behavior with guns.
    The reason it works in certain contexts is because it's been happening within those contexts for decades.

    And it is my belief that I think is lent credibility by what happens with people accepting seeing guns, both handguns and long guns, during hunting season that the same can happen in all contexts IF it is done by enough people for a long enough time. And the anti gunners would not have had much success spreading the "guns are scary" propaganda if people saw that guns were not scary everyday everywhere during their daily lives.

    I think if open carry were a normal part of everyday life some guy/gal shopping in camo with an AR wouldn't be cause for alarm at all simply because folks would already be accustomed to seeing guns. Lots of guns. Lots of different kinds of guns in lots of different places. But when we gun owners jump on those who do open carry in a way we don't like we end up empowering the anti gunners to even greater efforts because they can influence the general public AND legislators by saying that even gun folks don't like to see guns in public .
    Character is doing the right thing when nobody's looking. There are too many people who think that the only thing that's right is to get by, and the only thing that's wrong is to get caught. ~J.C. Watts

  14. #268
    Member Array since9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Colorado Springs, CO
    Posts
    488
    Quote Originally Posted by Havok View Post
    Yes, but just my personal opinion, I would not consider many people here extreme 2A advocates. There are are plenty of people who are ok with background checks, plenty of people who are against open carry, plenty of people who are fine with denying certain groups of people the right to own guns in general, people who are fine with restricting bump stocks or other types of firearms. I would like to think I am about as pro 2A as one can possibly get, because in my mind, I believe the words “shall not be infringed” is pretty straight forward, and all the things I mentioned above would be infringements in my opinion.
    Agreed.

    While we may have little to no active members who support all of those things, we have many members who support at least one of those things, and very few members who are against all of those things. Those are the only ones I would consider “extreme pro 2A”, but then someone else may say that because I am not willing to disregard someone’s rights as a property owner, that I am in favor of 2A infringements.
    I do not see how respecting the rights of a property owner constitutes infringement. I do see how opening a business to the public then turning around and saying, "You cannot exercise your Constitutional rights here" constitutes infringement. The clause in our Constitution contains no such exceptions.

    So while you say even the most extreme pro 2A advocates disagree with him, in my mind, the people who disagree are far from being extreme pro 2A. Just my opinion though.
    "...the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

    If you would, members of the forum, please explain how each of the following aren't infringements on the right of the people to keep and bear arms:

    forcing people to "cover it up" i.e. CC
    forcing people to OC
    banning bump stocks (assuming it's an armament or part of an armament)
    restricting or banning types of firearms
    restricting or banning types of ammunition

    Finally, I do not see how adherence to a clear, simple, and straightforward amendment as it is written could ever be misconstrued as "extreme." I would argue that who ever supports that position is extreme, while the Constitution remains the same as it was written and ratified back in 1787 (1789 for our Bill of Rights).
    Would you enjoy spending significant amounts of conducting research and conveying carefully worded discourse when others trample it under their feet, even to the point of deleting entire threads? Of course not. Me either. Matthew 7:6

  15. #269
    Distinguished Member Array StripesDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    DFW Texas
    Posts
    1,791
    Quote Originally Posted by since9 View Post
    Agreed.



    I do not see how respecting the rights of a property owner constitutes infringement. I do see how opening a business to the public then turning around and saying, "You cannot exercise your Constitutional rights here" constitutes infringement. The clause in our Constitution contains no such exceptions.



    "...the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

    If you would, members of the forum, please explain how each of the following aren't infringements on the right of the people to keep and bear arms:

    forcing people to "cover it up" i.e. CC
    forcing people to OC
    banning bump stocks (assuming it's an armament or part of an armament)
    restricting or banning types of firearms
    restricting or banning types of ammunition

    Finally, I do not see how adherence to a clear, simple, and straightforward amendment as it is written could ever be misconstrued as "extreme." I would argue that who ever supports that position is extreme, while the Constitution remains the same as it was written and ratified back in 1787 (1789 for our Bill of Rights).
    The US Constitution establishes rights guaranteed to us by the government. It has nothing to do with a store owner (not the government but a private citizen) prohibiting an inanimate object.
    AzQkr and maxwell97 like this.

  16. #270
    VIP Member Array Havok's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Location
    US
    Posts
    6,659
    Quote Originally Posted by since9 View Post

    I do not see how respecting the rights of a property owner constitutes infringement. I do see how opening a business to the public then turning around and saying, "You cannot exercise your Constitutional rights here" constitutes infringement. The clause in our Constitution contains no such exceptions.



    "...the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

    If you would, members of the forum, please explain how each of the following aren't infringements on the right of the people to keep and bear arms:

    forcing people to "cover it up" i.e. CC
    forcing people to OC
    banning bump stocks (assuming it's an armament or part of an armament)
    restricting or banning types of firearms
    restricting or banning types of ammunition

    Finally, I do not see how adherence to a clear, simple, and straightforward amendment as it is written could ever be misconstrued as "extreme." I would argue that who ever supports that position is extreme, while the Constitution remains the same as it was written and ratified back in 1787 (1789 for our Bill of Rights).
    Im not sure if I said it here, or in another thread, so I'll just say it again. The US Constitution does not grant rights. It is also not an agreement between property owner and guest. It is a restriction on the government from enacting laws that would infringe on our rights. A non governmental entity can not possibly infringe on your constitutionally protected rights.
    StripesDude and maxwell97 like this.
    We get the government we deserve.

Page 18 of 20 FirstFirst ... 8 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 LastLast

Sponsored 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
  •