Gun rights activists test Walmart request not to open-carry guns into store

[M14 Shooter]

So you agree - - WalMar'ts recent change in position on on carry in its stores has no meaning whatsoever.

It doesn't matter what Wally says, hillbillies want to bully others with guns. Walmart was a soft enough target for those moonshine marshmallows.

 

[progressive hunter]

The thread premise also illustrates the hypocrisy common to most on the right; so much for conservatives being advocates of private property rights.

again not seeing anyone saying they dont, just that its a little hypocritical of them to claim one freedom while denying another

 

[progressive hunter]

Ask a bunch of hillbillies with guns itching for a fight and hopped up on some kind of 'shine to get the **** out of the store? That would be a grand prize winner on AFV.

So you agree - - WalMar'ts recent change in position on on carry in its stores has no meaning whatsoever.

I don't matter what Wally says, hillbillies want to bully others with guns. Walmart was a soft enough target for those moonshine marshmallows.

One of these days, you will add something meaningful to a conversation.
Today is not that day.

youre kidding ,,right??

 

[M14 Shooter]

Ask a bunch of hillbillies with guns itching for a fight and hopped up on some kind of 'shine to get the **** out of the store? That would be a grand prize winner on AFV.

So you agree - - WalMar'ts recent change in position on on carry in its stores has no meaning whatsoever.

I don't matter what Wally says, hillbillies want to bully others with guns. Walmart was a soft enough target for those moonshine marshmallows.

One of these days, you will add something meaningful to a conversation.
Today is not that day.

youre kidding ,,right??

He has special needs; one of them is the encouragement that he may some day be relevant.

 

[progressive hunter]

Ask a bunch of hillbillies with guns itching for a fight and hopped up on some kind of 'shine to get the **** out of the store? That would be a grand prize winner on AFV.

So you agree - - WalMar'ts recent change in position on on carry in its stores has no meaning whatsoever.

I don't matter what Wally says, hillbillies want to bully others with guns. Walmart was a soft enough target for those moonshine marshmallows.

One of these days, you will add something meaningful to a conversation.
Today is not that day.

youre kidding ,,right??

He has special needs; one of them is the encouragement that he may some day be relevant.

after this much time its obviously a lost cause,,

 

[Rigby5]

Who thought Walmart was going to ask them to leave? Considering they never made that statement.

What statement -did- they make?

Requesting people not carry in their stores nothing about kicking people out who do, so why would anyone have that expectation?

Insulting people but then not being willing to do anything to back it up is very dishonorable.
Does Walmart request police leave their gun in the car?
Yet police have about 10 times the historic incidence of shooting innocent people, accidentally and on purpose.

 

[Natural Citizen]

Personally, I think what wally world did was a great example of allowing the free market to actually work. People simply won't patronize with them if they say no guns in the store. The policy will change when they start losing business.

Technically speaking, I would have opposed the civil rights act given the circumstances are the same in terms of banning discrimination by private businesses. Businesses should have not been stopped from putting up segregation signs because the market would have solved the issue in the same way, people simply wouldn't shop at these places and the signs naturally would have came down anyway. The Jim Crow laws, I wouldn't have opposed, though, that's somethign else. But the property rights element of the civil rights act, definitely I would have opposed if I were voting on it back then.

Anyway,. I don't really shop at wally word. Once in a while I might go there for something if I'm in a pinch.

 

[Rigby5]

Who thought Walmart was going to ask them to leave? Considering they never made that statement.

What statement -did- they make?

Requesting people not carry in their stores nothing about kicking people out who do, so why would anyone have that expectation?

So you agree - - WalMar'ts recent change in position on on carry in its stores has no meaning whatsoever.

No, I think Walmart is signaling a political position that it feels is favorable to it's consumers. Whether Walmart believes in it or not I'm not sure but certainly a nod to gun control.

When Walmart first made this announcement it was obvious some idiots were going to go in parading their guns around and I'm sure Walmart anticipated it. So I can only assume Walmart is playing a PR game.

Means nothing? Nope, it's a sign of change.

But Walmart making the request is not a sign for a change to the better, but to that of an authoritarian dictatorship that denies rights and powers to average citizens, and maintains a centralized government monopoly.

 

[Rigby5]

Guns don't have rights, people do.

And this thread is yet another example of how ignorant most conservatives are concerning citizens' rights and protected liberties.

The rights enshrined in the Second Amendment concern solely the relationship between government and those governed, not between or among private persons and private companies.

Wal-Mart's gun policy doesn't "violate" anyone's Second Amendment rights.

Wrong.
The 2nd amendment mostly is about prohibiting federal jurisdiction, but implied in it is the individual right of self defense.
It says, "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed".
It says nothing about the authority of states or municipalities, which do not have rights anyway.
And since Walmart has proven unwilling and unable to provide for the defense of individuals shopping at Walmart, then it is illegal for them to prevent individuals from defending themselves.
The 14th amendment incorporated the first 10 amendments as individual rights.
This was not acknowledged by the SCOTUS right away, but after McDonald vs Chicago, it now is acknowledged as an individual right. And it always should have been by the 4th and 5th amendments. You don't even need the 2nd amendment in order to see that weapons are an individual right.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Walmart is at complete liberty to implement any gun policy it so desires.

Patrons must follow that policy, not shop at Wal-Mart, or be trespassed off the property.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Walmart is at complete liberty to implement any gun policy it so desires.

You are CLEARLY not paying attention.
Wal-Mart has every right to prohibit guns in their stores; they chose to NOT exercise that right.

Patrons must follow that policy, not shop at Wal-Mart, or be trespassed off the property.

If you read the OP, you'll see Wal-Mart disagrees.

 

[Rigby5]

Guns don't have rights, people do.

And this thread is yet another example of how ignorant most conservatives are concerning citizens' rights and protected liberties.

The rights enshrined in the Second Amendment concern solely the relationship between government and those governed, not between or among private persons and private companies.

Wal-Mart's gun policy doesn't "violate" anyone's Second Amendment rights.

Wrong.
The 2nd amendment mostly is about prohibiting federal jurisdiction, but implied in it is the individual right of self defense.
It says, "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed".
It says nothing about the authority of states or municipalities, which do not have rights anyway.
And since Walmart has proven unwilling and unable to provide for the defense of individuals shopping at Walmart, then it is illegal for them to prevent individuals from defending themselves.
The 14th amendment incorporated the first 10 amendments as individual rights.
This was not acknowledged by the SCOTUS right away, but after McDonald vs Chicago, it now is acknowledged as an individual right. And it always should have been by the 4th and 5th amendments. You don't even need the 2nd amendment in order to see that weapons are an individual right.

Personally, I think what wally world did was a great example of allowing the free market to actually work. People simply won't patronize with them if they say no guns in the store. The policy will change when they start losing business.

Technically speaking, I would have opposed the civil rights act given the circumstances are the same in terms of banning discrimination by private businesses. Businesses should have not been stopped from putting up segregation signs because the market would have solved the issue in the same way, people simply wouldnlt shop at these places and the signs naturally would have came down anyway. The Jim Crow laws, I wouldnlt have opposed, though, that;s soemthign else. But the property rights element of the civil rights act, definitely I would have opposed if I were voting on it back then.

Anyway,. I don't really shop at wally word anyway. Once in a while I might go there for something if I'm in a pinch.

It is harmful when businesses abuse the rights of anyone.
What if the civil rights act had been over people putting up signs saying "No Jews Allowed"?
Clearly that would greatly harm Jews, who would then have to all create their own stores or get others to buy things for them.
No store owner has a right to discriminate and pick and choose whose rights they want to abuse.
When people claim it is not a problem because market pressure will fix it, that can not work when it is a small minority being abused. A small minority does not have the commercial clout to force a change.

 

[Rigby5]

Walmart is at complete liberty to implement any gun policy it so desires.

Patrons must follow that policy, not shop at Wal-Mart, or be trespassed off the property.

No they do not.
They do not have the right to enforce discriminating policies on others that are harmful.
And making it hard for individuals to defend themselves is definitely harmful.
And if you suggest they can just leave the gun in the car, then you have not seen a Walmart parking lot lately.
It is very unsafe to leave a gun in the car at Walmart.
Nor is it safe to be inside Walmart without a gun, apparently.

 

[2aguy]

Guns don't have rights, people do.

And this thread is yet another example of how ignorant most conservatives are concerning citizens' rights and protected liberties.

The rights enshrined in the Second Amendment concern solely the relationship between government and those governed, not between or among private persons and private companies.

Wal-Mart's gun policy doesn't "violate" anyone's Second Amendment rights.

So.....when restaurants refused to seat Blacks...you were okay with that....thanks for being open about it...

 

[Taz]

Ask a bunch of hillbillies with guns itching for a fight and hopped up on some kind of 'shine to get the **** out of the store? That would be a grand prize winner on AFV.

So you agree - - WalMar'ts recent change in position on on carry in its stores has no meaning whatsoever.

I don't matter what Wally says, hillbillies want to bully others with guns. Walmart was a soft enough target for those moonshine marshmallows.

One of these days, you will add something meaningful to a conversation.
Today is not that day.

youre kidding ,,right??

He has special needs; one of them is the encouragement that he may some day be relevant.

Walmart is for losers anyways. Which of course includes all the gun toting hillbillies.

 

[Taz]

Walmart gets most of its shit from China. Don't show there.

Walmart is at complete liberty to implement any gun policy it so desires.

Patrons must follow that policy, not shop at Wal-Mart, or be trespassed off the property.

No they do not.
They do not have the right to enforce discriminating policies on others that are harmful.
And making it hard for individuals to defend themselves is definitely harmful.
And if you suggest they can just leave the gun in the car, then you have not seen a Walmart parking lot lately.
It is very unsafe to leave a gun in the car at Walmart.
Nor is it safe to be inside Walmart without a gun, apparently.

Walmart gets most of its shit from China. Don't shop there.

 

[2aguy]

Walmart is at complete liberty to implement any gun policy it so desires.

Patrons must follow that policy, not shop at Wal-Mart, or be trespassed off the property.

Not if bakers are forced to make cakes........if that remains as law, then those businesses that prevent the 2nd Amendment Rights of citizens will also be sued .....

 

[M14 Shooter]

Walmart is for losers anyways. Which of course includes all the gun toting hillbillies.

 

[Taz]

Walmart is for losers anyways. Which of course includes all the gun toting hillbillies.

Walmart gets most of its shit from China. Don't shop there.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Walmart is for losers anyways. Which of course includes all the gun toting hillbillies.

Walmart gets most of its shit from China. Don't shop there.