|
|
|
|
|
||
| Moderated by: jpierce | ||
| Author | Post | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
whoopingllama Regular Member
|
Okay, so earlier this evening my friend and I were wasting time just hanging out this evening. We made our way over to the Walmart by Cortana Mall. I've never had a problem at the ones in Denham and Central, so I didn't think too much of carrying there. But, on our way out (like 10 feet from the door) after just buying a hat a EBR LEO approaches and starts askin' why I'm carrying and such. So, I tell him that I carry everywhere. The usual little batch of questions about a permit or whatever. I tell him that i've never had a problem at the other ones. We walked over to the manager and they were both trying to tell me that since it was private property they could ask that I not carry in the store. Now, it's my understanding there has been stuff from corporate stating that they were supposed to comply with state law. They said this was not the case. They were real nice and polite about it. I ended up just saying okay, shook their hands and left. So, i guess I'm wondering what course of action I should take. Do I write or call someone specifically or what? |
|||||||||
|
CaptainDan Regular Member 
|
Hate to hear that, I have carried in the Marrero wal mart (both of them ) with no incident. Some one said , there is even a thread on here somewhere about it, They have a copy of or were told by corporate, that wal mart has a policy of following the law of the state in which the store is in. I am sure some one with better facts will come in before too long to help you. My opinion, do what i did to home depot. go home, print up the laws and with a positive attitude, go back and give them to the people who confronted you, say thank you and leave. Some times that works, sometimes it doesn't. good luck and sorry to hear you were screwed with. By the way, anybody know anything about malls? Last edited on Mon Jun 22nd, 2009 05:49 am by CaptainDan |
|||||||||
|
Johnny_B Regular Member
|
whoopingllama wrote: Okay, so earlier this evening my friend and I were wasting time just hanging out this evening. We made our way over to the Walmart by Cortana Mall. I've never had a problem at the ones in Denham and Central, so I didn't think too much of carrying there. But, on our way out (like 10 feet from the door) after just buying a hat a EBR LEO approaches and starts askin' why I'm carrying and such. So, I tell him that I carry everywhere. The usual little batch of questions about a permit or whatever. I tell him that i've never had a problem at the other ones. We walked over to the manager and they were both trying to tell me that since it was private property they could ask that I not carry in the store. Customer no-Service, ask them what the policy is regarding state laws for firearms carry and such. Tell them what happened and such. People have already gotten statements that say wal-mart follows STATE LAW, not a managers preference. People's comfort is not a right, if their uncomfortable they should ask questions, not b@$%^ moan and whine to the manager about you. |
|||||||||
|
charlie12 Regular Member
|
I would call corporate tell them what happened. From everything I've read over the years on other gun forums if it legal on your state its OK. Since it seems in your case they had no complaints only the manager didn't want you to carry they might set that manager straight. Good luck and let us know what happenes. |
|||||||||
|
smoking357 Banned 
|
whoopingllama wrote: Okay, so earlier this evening my friend and I were wasting time just hanging out this evening. We made our way over to the Walmart by Cortana Mall. I've never had a problem at the ones in Denham and Central, so I didn't think too much of carrying there. But, on our way out (like 10 feet from the door) after just buying a hat a EBR LEO approaches and starts askin' why I'm carrying and such. So, I tell him that I carry everywhere. The usual little batch of questions about a permit or whatever. I tell him that i've never had a problem at the other ones. We walked over to the manager and they were both trying to tell me that since it was private property they could ask that I not carry in the store. Just what law was the cop enforcing in the lot? Corporate policy is not a statutory matter, and a cop should only open his yap about such matters after receiving a complaint from a corporation. In no case, should the cops go soliciting violations to corporate policy. It's getting bad. The cop broke the law. File a complaint. |
|||||||||
|
whoopingllama Regular Member
|
I was still inside the store about to walk out. I wasn't in the parking lot. As far as law was concerned, he seemed to think he was enforcing the one that had to do with private property wherein the "owner" had requested their be no visible firearms on civilians. He was operating under what he was told by management there. And the management was very certain that it was store policy to not allow the open carrying of firearms by civilians. I never asked and he didn't say if someone else had said something or if he had just noticed me as I was walking out. |
|||||||||
|
turbodog Regular Member 
|
whoopingllama wrote: Okay, so earlier this evening my friend and I were wasting time just hanging out this evening. We made our way over to the Walmart by Cortana Mall. I've never had a problem at the ones in Denham and Central, so I didn't think too much of carrying there. But, on our way out (like 10 feet from the door) after just buying a hat a EBR LEO approaches and starts askin' why I'm carrying and such. So, I tell him that I carry everywhere. The usual little batch of questions about a permit or whatever. I tell him that i've never had a problem at the other ones. We walked over to the manager and they were both trying to tell me that since it was private property they could ask that I not carry in the store.My understanding of the "private Property" thing is, that a business can't claim that as it has entrances open to public entry. A house qualifies as any entry is strictly at the owners permission only. Could be wrong on that of course. There are threads on this site is several states forums regarding wal mart policy, so a search should find you the info you need. Find it a definitely check with wal mart customer service. Go as high as you need to to get a straight answer. It should match what others have gotten. Then be sure and go back to the manager with a copy and educate him/her. |
|||||||||
|
XD-GEM Activist Member 
|
You handled it fairly well, IMHO. the LEO was probably doing an extra duty assignment and was just doing what the manager there asked him to do, so don't be too hard on him. Technically, if the manager tells you to leave, you must do so, even if you know that their corporate policy says otherwise. You can always go back later with a copy of the policy or simply call Walmart Corporate and lodge a complaint. Somewhere on this board is a thread with a copy of a letter from Walmart stating it's policy. If you search for it you'll find it. If you can't find it, I'll try to post another copy of it later that I have saved on my home computer. |
|||||||||
|
derf Regular Member
|
Of the three you mentioned, the Cortana Wal Mart is the one where you will most likely need to carry. The LEO was almost certainly working a detail, paid by Wal Mart to provide security. If he asks you to leave because you were OCing then he is not breaking the law. He is implementing Wal Mart's right to ask you to leave. The problem is that the management of that store is not following company policy. The fight here is with the manager of that store. I called the store. 225-923-3400 Manager Ralph Stewart told me that policy was no firearms allowed. Ralph's boss, David Craft was in a meeting. David's boss, Shawn Copeland was also unable to come to the phone. Ralph suggested I call 1800WalMart. Last edited on Mon Jun 22nd, 2009 04:33 pm by derf |
|||||||||
|
derf Regular Member
|
merged with above. Last edited on Mon Jun 22nd, 2009 04:33 pm by derf |
|||||||||
|
Dustin Regular Member 
|
derf wrote:
You'll play this game for a few days if your up for it. Call that 1800WalMart and see how far that gets you. I know MEM posted the District Manager for LA on here somewhere. That's who you need to call. MORE than once she's had to handle this situation I believe. |
|||||||||
|
Jerry McBride Founder's Club Member
|
derf wrote:
Maybe you should suggest Ralph call 1800WalMart. |
|||||||||
|
yale Regular Member 
|
This thread has contact info-> http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/view_topic.php?id=26362&forum_id=13&highlight=walmart+legal good luck. |
|||||||||
|
derf Regular Member
|
Call that 1800WalMart and see how far that gets you. I tried. I got tired of waiting and hung up. I asked for the district manager's number when he gave me the 800walmart number. |
|||||||||
|
whoopingllama Regular Member
|
Wow, I didn't expect such an awesome response. This is great. You are all incredibly helpful. I too will try to call when I get a chance to see if I can get anywhere. I just sent an email as well. I'll let y'all know if that gets any results. |
|||||||||
|
JeepSeller Regular Member
|
It's not the cop's duty or even business to know Wal Mart's corporate policy. He was only acting in all likelyhood because the store manager..a representative of the property owner, asked him to. You're problem lies with WalMart, not the cops in this instance. The cops have the duty to enforce property rights as much as your rights. Just as I have the right to ask you to remove your shoes before entering my home, a business owner, also a property owner, has the same rights regarding his establishment. You also have the right to NOT come into my home as a result, just like you have a right to NOT go into that business. File your complaint with WalMart. If the store manager does not know the corporate policy and/or violated it, corporate needs to know about it. It looks as if you handled it in a polite, professional manner. Exactly the way we need to be conducting ourselves in public. Only then can we begin to shed the gun-toting wack-job image we're working so hard to shed. Create the change by being an ambassador to the cause, not part of the problem. |
|||||||||
|
CaptainDan Regular Member
|
JeepSeller wrote: It's not the cop's duty or even business to know Wal Mart's corporate policy. He was only acting in all likelyhood because the store manager..a representative of the property owner, asked him to. Amen Brother --- I agree the situation was handeled properly and in no way was I casting stones at ANY ONE who would have handeled it differently. I also am most certainly not calling anyone of us a wack-job, just agreeing that we do to some have a negative image and such well handled responses help our cause more than a poorly exacuted shouting match. Last edited on Tue Jun 23rd, 2009 02:35 am by CaptainDan |
|||||||||
|
smoking357 Banned
|
What few of you people seem to grasp in your analyses is that we are being invited into Wal-Mart, thus the legal term "invitees" and the corresponding legal duty owed such persons. I often hear talk about a right to go here and there, but when we go into a store, it's because of their inducement to enter, not out of our desire to enter their store. They have the billboards, bright lights, wide entrances and prominent locations to lure us in. If they're going to remove their invitation, they have a legal obligation to be as absolutely polite about it as possible. I keep my rights wherever I go. If you want me to enter, you accept that my rights come with me. If you want me to leave, you may get to ask, but you're going to be darn apologetic for the bait-and-switch that you just pulled. We seem to have accepted a fascism, an inverted worldview, that considers the business the first actor and the citizens needy supplicants who are hoping to be allowed access to the Great Business. This corporatism is only a shade off national socialism, and I'm not exaggerating. We Americans need to pull our heads out of our behinds and start thinking clearly again. If the business employs persons to remove invitations, these persons had darn well be meek and mild and exceedingly deferential in their demeanor. It's the poorest of manners to ask me in only to throw me out. To use or threaten force in the affront is simply intolerable. |
|||||||||
|
smoking357 Banned
|
Another thing, once an OC'er has accepted an invitation into a store, it is absolutely unacceptable for the police to respond to a complaint from the store, absent more. The only response to the store from a law-obeying, citizen-obeying police officer is: "So? Is he doing anything wrong?" "Well, no. We're just scared." "Is it posted that OC'ers can't enter?" "No." "Then it's a private matter. You invited him in. Next time, limit the extent of your invitation. Call us if he does something wrong." Police are not to engage in fascism by being tax-funded corporate security. |
|||||||||
|
JeepSeller Regular Member
|
smoking357 wrote: It's the poorest of manners to ask me in only to throw me out. To use or threaten force in the affront is simply intolerable. Last I checked, manners were not spelled out by legal statute. Please cite your source. Shirt and shoes have long since been accepted as "rules" for these establishments. They politely ask that you do not enter unless in compliance...in spite of their "invitation". You certainly have a right to go barefoot wouldn't you say? There's no laws that say you MUST wear shoes. But, a business has the right to require them and no one would argue that. Asking, or "inviting" customers' to enter without weapons is no different. Yes, they've invited you, but, under their terms. No one would argue that simply because they "invited" you, that you could just help yourself to their possesions and walk out. As a GUEST of their property, you must act in accordance to the property owner's guidelines. Just because I invite you into my home does not mean that I still cannot tell you to leave your muddy shoes outside. I still have the right to tell you to conduct yourself according to the rules of my home. You would not, for instance, be allowed to put your feet on my furnature, and it would be considered just plain rude of you and I would be well with in my right to tell you to leave and if you do not comply, I'd then be well within my rights to call the cops and have you forcibly removed. |
|||||||||
|
charlie12 Regular Member
|
JeepSeller wrote: smoking357 wrote:It's the poorest of manners to ask me in only to throw me out. To use or threaten force in the affront is simply intolerable. How dare you try to talk sense to someone smokin whatever.  |
|||||||||
|
JeepSeller Regular Member
|
charlie12 wrote:
Yea, I know. I just can't resist trying to help the helpless.  Besides...I thought we were being ignored by the trolls.....I guess not, huh?  It's a shame too, was nice and quiet there for a day or so when we could speak the truth without listening to the trolls crying about it for 10 pages.. |
|||||||||
|
JeepSeller Regular Member
|
I guess in the end, it boils down to the fact that I just don't understand why you'd want to do business in an establishment that doesn't want your business in the first place. It defy's logic. Particularly in this economy, if you don't want my money, there's someone down the street who does. I'm not saying that's what the OP did in this case. I think they handled themselves admirably in this scenario. But, some people just don't get it. Some people seem to WANT to be accosted trying to exercise their right. Why would you even want to patronize an establishment that doesn't support our 2A rights? Wouldn't you rather support financially a place that supports our rights as opposed to restricting them? And, if you're not in there to spend money, then why are you there? Walking into a place OC simply to get a rise and create a scene is no different than the frustrating trolls we're seeing as of late here who serve no purpose, contribute nothing, and only create a scene for their own amusement. Why be that troll in a business? What do you hope to accomplish? Certainly nothing by creating a scene and getting thrown out... you think you're calling attention to our cause? How do you think that your story is going to play on the 6 o'clock news? You think the reporters are going to report YOUR side or WalMarts? Think they're going to paint you as a hero or a whack-job? You honestly think an anti-gun fella is going to watch the TV and sit there and say "look at that poor gun toting guy there".... or you think that there going to sit there and say "Look at that gun toting crazy..that's why guns should be banned'? How do you propose to change that guys mind in that manner? I've said it before..the only thing we accomplish when we represent our cause poorly is to facilitate those that wish to restrict us. We have to be ambassadors to our rights, and, only then can we hopefully turn the tide of public perception. Because, without public perception, we can't possibly turn the political AND business environment. |
|||||||||
|
XD-GEM Activist Member
|
Guys, I know some of you have a personal problem with smokin357, but if you can step back from that for just a moment and pretend he isn't the poster, you might notice that there is a subtle, but still valid point to the concern brought forward. If I can make an admittedly imperfect analogy for a moment: there is a concept known as "attractive nuisance" whereby a property owner can be held liable for actions on his property which he neither authorized nor intended. It is frequently used in cases where children drown in someone's backyard pool, and so you may be familiar with it. In somewhat, but admittedly not exactly, manner, any store which is open to the public may be presumed to allow for anything inside the store which would be acceptable in any public place outside of it - unless they have a well publicized prohibition against it. This is why most of the big shopping malls in this country have posted rules near their entrances and why some states have legally defined the means for prohibition of certain actions, like carrying firearms. I have never seen any type of "no guns" sign on any Walmart I've ever been to; and the Walmart corporate policy has been a subject of much discussion on many gun boards (not just this one) for a VERY long time. In most instances on those boards, someone eventually posts a notice from someone in the Walmart management, higher than an individual store level, saying that it is company policy to follow the gun laws of the area. This is why there is such conflict in a Walmart where the citizen patronizing the store believes he is in the right with regards to corporate policy. The thread in which we are currently discussing this is an example of good behavior by all parties (except the manager who apparently doesn't know Walmarts policy). This incident was handled well by the gun-owner and calling Walmart's 800 number may actually do some good, eventually, at this particular store. I have called this number and gotten a positive response from Walmart on other issues, so I would tend to think it's worth a try on this issue. |
|||||||||
|
JeepSeller Regular Member
|
Excellent points and well presented XD-GEM. First of all, the problem with Smoking is not the fact that occasionally he may offer up a valid point, it's the fact that any point is lost in his condensending, insulting, offensive attitude and a history of inflamatory posts. He enters a converstation being conducted in a completely civil, polite manner and immediately tosses in a comment completely unrelated, off topic and totally inflamatory then spends 10 or more pages nursing the conflict he creates. So, anything that he might say of any value gets lost in the mess. I agree that if a business isn't posted or has a well known policy that we should all have the right to attempt to enter and continue the rights we enjoy on the street outside. However, as a "guest" to that property, we have to comply with their "house" rules. And if the proprty owner, or it's representative, decide they no longer want you as a "guest" they have the right to change thier mind regarding thier "invitation". Just because I "invited" you, doesn't mean you have free reign or any rights to my property. It's still my property. I can ask you to leave because I decided I don't like the hat you're wearing. The reason I ask you to leave is truly imaterial. It's my property, yea, I may have invited you, but, now I've changed my mind and I have the right to eject you from MY property. I don't see a business as any different. The State of Florida allows all property owners to carry a firearm within their own property without any permit, because it's their "castle" or their home...right? The state also allows for a business owner to do the same because, in a sense, the state recognizes that business as an extension of the owner's "castle". If I eject you from my castle, and ask LE to do it for me, your beef isn't with LE..but, with me. LE is doing their job and enforcing the owner's wishes regarding their property. At that point, it's not a question of legalaities, but, civil disagreement. LE has a duty to enforce the property owner's wishes regarding his property rights. Since asking a "guest" to leave isn't breaking any criminal code, LE must side with the property owner. If that same representative came onto YOUR property and called LE to remove you, LE would side with you, the property owner. I've never said that WalMart handled this situation properly. IF they're violating coporate policy, it's not LE's fault. Not even WalMart's fault, but, the representative who asked the "guest" to leave via LE. Edit: before anyone tossed it out there...it's been argued that a business owner couldn't revoke that "invitation" to a person of color..etc... THAT would be illegal and LE facilitating that request would also be illegal and unethical. Discrimination is illegal in this country. Asking an OCer' to repsect a property owner's wishes regarding weapons within their property is currently NOT illegal. End of THAT particular argument. I'm not advocating it all by the way...I personally feel we should be able to carry where ever, when ever, and how ever we choose. But, currently, that's not the case..and we can't change the tide of current laws by being poor ambassadors to our cause is my real point here. Last edited on Tue Jun 23rd, 2009 05:10 pm by JeepSeller |
|||||||||
|
mark edward marchiafava Regular Member
|
It never ceases to amaze me how some alleged OC'ers think. Maybe they don't. I guess we can all follow Neville Chamberlain's lead and acquiesce and compromise our way right into bondage. Or, we can stand up and refuse to be violated. Which one do YOU choose? |
|||||||||
|
smoking357 Banned
|
XD-GEM wrote: Guys, I know some of you have a personal problem with smokin357, but if you can step back from that for just a moment and pretend he isn't the poster, you might notice that there is a subtle, but still valid point to the concern brought forward. Of course, I'm right, but the hateful few are on the other side of me and Right, and they cannot allow me to "win," and they cannot allow to be admitted any position but the suffocatingly authoritarian. In their worldview, the individual is subordinate to all collective forces, commercial or government, and must be suppressed. They'll hide behind faux complaints of "attitude," because they don't like individuality. They like groupthink, and they resent anyone who feels himself bigger than they. Such is the stuff of complete illogic, so such is our contry's sad composition. The reality is that an invitation to a business is only analogous to an invitation to enter a house in but a few instances. Entry to a house not an invitation, but merely a license. Entry to a business is an invitation. These are weighty legal concepts that are crudely used by the untrained. When we use police power to enforce the rules of conduct on private property, we have moved into fascism. It is a terrifying state to see the governmental power married to business need. We pay our taxes to kill ourselves? Nonsense. There is a civil remedy for trespass, and a business should be left with that, absent a greater threat. It's only recently that criminal trespass came to be a crime, and it should never be the case that armed governmental thugs roam store aisles looking to arrest people for violating corporate rules. America is dead in the sight of such tyranny. Police must never be allowed to use their office for corporate aid, and any police officer who wishes to work as security in a private business must do so stripped of his uniform, his badge and all indicia or threat of state authority. Are we for freedom and limited government, or are we all tyrants? |
|||||||||
|
JeepSeller Regular Member
|
It's very elitist and self-centered of you to presume that your rights superceede anyone else's rights. How does your rights trump the property owner's rights? Again, as a property owner, I have the right to restrict how you behave within my property. You're welcome to come in, but, you must comply with my "rules" or you will be asked to leave. It's really simple as that. Your rights will never trump MY rights on MY property. Why I'm asking you to leave is imaterial. If I asked you to leave because you're putting your feet on my furnature or behaving in a manner that is against my values, no one would fault me, right. You're only mad because that request to leave has to do with our right to carry. If you were being ejected because you were climbing on the rafters, you'd likely be less hostile about it. Climbing on the rafters is also not illegal and you have the right to risk your own life, but, not on my property. What we're talking about is semantics here....change the reason you're being asked to leave and most would side with the store owner..but, because the reason is related to carry, for some reason everyone gets mad. AGain, I believe that we should all be able to carry all the time..read my last post. But, I also support property rights equally. I don't pick and chose which rights to support and which ones to ignore simply because they are an inconvenience to me. It's really very simple. |
|||||||||
|
Kojak Regular Member
|
JeepSeller wrote: It's very elitist and self-centered of you to presume that your rights superceede anyone else's rights. He's not presuming that his rights supersede anyone else's rights - I'm not reading that. And I think you're way off base on your argument about YOUR rights on YOUR property. My rights as afforded me in the amendments to our constitution certainly are not somehow suspended when I step on to your property. Do my rights for freedom of speech (1A), protection from unreasonable search and seizure (4A), etc. not apply to me when I'm on your property? Certainly they apply. Bottom line: YOUR rules do not trump MY rights EVEN if I'm on your property. |
|||||||||
|
mark edward marchiafava Regular Member
|
Sure hope that guy has SOME respect for my right to life while on HIS precious property. |
|||||||||
|
JeepSeller Regular Member
|
Kojak wrote:
Actually, 1A rights can and are superseded by property rights. For example, any rightful legal protest, while protected by 1A must always be off property. Even on forums such as these, your 1A rights can be supeseded. It happens all the time. are you saying that the administrators of this forum do not have the right to moderate threads or posts? Also, 4A....employers often have the right and ability to search employees. Try to enter and exit any sensative establishment without it. Try to enter a prison without it...you won't get very far. Even the theme parks so popular here in Florida search your bags before entry. It's their property, yes, you're invited, but, again, you must comply with their rules governing your behavior while on their property. Again, semantics. No one would fault Disney for ejecting a guest who breaks line at the attractions. Breaking line isn't illegal. Certainly, one could argue you have the right to get in the front of the line..it's just rude. But no one would question the right of the company to ask a guest to leave if they are being disruptive to their business. But, because this particular right of a property or business owner is an inconvenience to some, they wish to somehow ignore that particular right of the owner. |
|||||||||
|
smoking357 Banned
|
mark edward marchiafava wrote: Sure hope that guy has SOME respect for my right to life while on HIS precious property. Nope. His property, his rules. If his rules say that if you enter, he gets to kill you, well, you knowingly accepted those rules when you entered. You don't get to violate his rules when you're on his property. |
|||||||||
|
JeepSeller Regular Member
|
We can go around and around here ad nauseum. IN the end, a property owner has the right to ask their guests to conduct themselves in accordance to the property owner's values. You may not agree with those values. But, they have the right to make the request. And if you do not comply with that request, they have the right to ask you to leave. If you do not comply with that request, you are now trespassing because your "invitation" has been removed. Trespassing now allows for LE to enforce the propety owner's wishes in having you removed. There really is no argument that isn't semantics here. I'm not going to sit here and argue semantics all day long. Come up with some concrete factual arguments, and I'll respond. |
|||||||||
|
Jerry McBride Founder's Club Member
|
JeepSeller wrote: We can go around and around here ad nauseum. IN the end, a property owner has the right to ask their guests to conduct themselves in accordance to the property owner's values. You may not agree with those values. But, they have the right to make the request. And if you do not comply with that request, they have the right to ask you to leave. If you do not comply with that request, you are now trespassing because your "invitation" has been removed. Trespassing now allows for LE to enforce the propety owner's wishes in having you removed. You are right about the "round and round", and it is not getting much settled. LE duties and store rules (no shoes=no service) are getting confused. When asked to leave--just leave. No LE required. When LE is called and I have not been asked to leave, the manager/owner has escalated (intentionally or not) what could have already been easily settled. In reality LEO's handle these calls all the time, they respond and do not want to come back. They want a resolution. You're correct about property rights but if you don't tell me to 'hit the road', I cannot read your mind. Getting LE to do what you are perfectly able to do is where problems arise that none of us actually want. Just my opinion. |
|||||||||
|
JeepSeller Regular Member
|
Here's another way to look at it. There are no laws on the books that say it's illegal to smoke..right? So long as I meet the age restrictions I have the right to infect my lungs as I see fit. Right? No one would argue that I have that right to smoke in and of itself. Now, do I have that right to smoke inside your home? Do I have the right to smoke inside WalMart? Of course not. And no one argues that. If I walked into WallyWorld puffing away, they could ask me to put it out or leave..right? How is this any different? AGain, what I see is people willing to acknowlage only the rights that don't inconvineince them. I chose to acknowlage ALL rights, mine, yours, property, etc... NOTE::. by no means is the above a support of smoking..only an example for the sake of argument. |
|||||||||
|
mark edward marchiafava Regular Member
|
I wish you guys would invest HALF this much time in actually OC'ing. At the rate you're going, several million Amerikans would have been exposed to OC by now. It's all a matter of priorities. |
|||||||||
|
smoking357 Banned
|
mark edward marchiafava wrote: I wish you guys would invest HALF this much time in actually OC'ing. They don't want to OC. They want to convince you that you shouldn't. Or, if you do, that you do so where and when they are comfortable and under a duty to respond to questions from cops. |
|||||||||
|
biggin215 Regular Member 
|
JeepSeller wrote: Here's another way to look at it. There are no laws on the books that say it's illegal to smoke..right? So long as I meet the age restrictions I have the right to infect my lungs as I see fit. Right? No one would argue that I have that right to smoke in and of itself. Hate to burst your bubble, but before the LA smoking ban in public places.... you could smoke anywhere that wasn't marked as "no smoking." That is the EXACT same situation here. If it is not marked that weapons are not allowed, then they are allowed. It's that simple. Last edited on Tue Jun 23rd, 2009 08:38 pm by biggin215 |
|||||||||
|
Dustin Regular Member
|
JeepSeller wrote: How is this any different? It’s different because carrying a gun is NOT detrimental to anyone’s health. Smoking also cannot be tied to something that will be inherently cohesive with possibly saving your life. Your trying to connect your RIGHT to defend yourself from death or serious bodily harm, to your right to smoke in a public area? I’d say your analogy/example fails to collectively prove your point about Private Property. However I do agree that “PEOPLE” should be able to tell WHOMEVER they want for WHATEVER reason to get the Hell off their property. When it comes to PUBLIC Business, I think the line becomes blurry though. Being GAY is not a constitutional right, it’s a way of life. Defending yourself with a firearm is not only a way of life but it is also a US Constitutional right. So how can a store owner be able to BAN people who wish to practice their personal and constitutional rights of self defense, BUT Damn you to hell if you try to put up a sign that says “Gay Free Zone”. See the point? I think if you’re willing to do your business to the public than you should be willing to accept EVERYONE who is a legal citizen. |
|||||||||
|
Jerry McBride Founder's Club Member
|
smoking357 wrote: mark edward marchiafava wrote:I wish you guys would invest HALF this much time in actually OC'ing. Who are these directed to? |
|||||||||
|
JeepSeller Regular Member
|
Jerry McBride wrote: smoking357 wrote:mark edward marchiafava wrote:I wish you guys would invest HALF this much time in actually OC'ing. Anyone and everyone here who might disagree with them. In their little world, there is no differing of opinion. No confilct. It's their way, their veiws, their opinion or you're an enemy who must be silenced. I do find it very amusing that the ones who cry facisim, tryanny,un-American, un-Patriotic and point to dictatorships the most have the least tolerance for individual thought. |
|||||||||
|
mark edward marchiafava Regular Member
|
Does anyone know if this site utilizes an "ignore" feature? One more (last) time. You are NOT an OC'er. You are NOT someone truly interested in real freedom. You ARE someone who, deep down inside, craves for oppression. Don't feel badly. Most Amerikans are just like you. You REALLY should consider homesteading bayoushooters.com, you'll find yourself more in your element there. To REMAIN here only proves you're purpose here is to argue, not share time with others like you. |
|||||||||
|
JeepSeller Regular Member
|
See, when they're cornered or bested, and they can't rebut with a logical answer, they resort to insults and personal attacks, indicative of a position so weak it can no longer withstand further debate. Again, I'll close with the argument that no one seems to be able to deny or refute....representing a position poorly accomplishes nothing to further the position or cause. Only be being a GOOD ambassador of that postion will one accomplish his or her goals. No one wants to support a thug who's only motiviation is "look at me" attention. The best way to garner change is to disprove common misconceptions and misunderstandings. You won't change any minds by becoming the object of their ridicule. Only by obtaining their support. Our platform for many years regarding the RTKBA has been law abiding, peacefull citizens who's only goal is to protect ourselves and those we love. Anytime someone displays a stance contrary to that, sets us back years and gives the anti-groups even more ammunition against us. I've made my points clear, I see no further point in hashing them out any further by continuing to hold up this thread. Obviously, there are those who won't change. Too bad, their zeal and energy could be so much better used for our cause by projecting it in positive ways as opposed to negative insults. |
|||||||||
|
Dustin Regular Member
|
JeepSeller wrote: See, when they're cornered or bested, and they can't rebut with a logical answer, they resort to insults and personal attacks, indicative of a position so weak it can no longer withstand further debate. Ok your talking as if you're the one with all the support here. Not sure why, also I don't agree with your assesment of the discussion. I do however get the feeling that you are avoiding my questions for some reason. Could you NOT talk to Mark for a second? Dustin wrote: JeepSeller wrote: How is this any different?
|
|||||||||
|
mark edward marchiafava Regular Member
|
I'm not cornered, definitely not "bested." What I AM is beyond tired of you posting here. Again, it would make much more sense (obviously something you're lacking) for you to sign up and homestead bayoushooters.com They would LOVE to have you, since you, obviously, share their views which are in contradiction to real freedom. Like most NRA (negotiate rights away) lifetime members, what you really want is to compromise away MY rights. You'd much rather be pleasant, that "go along to get along" mentality, than actually defend any rights. Bye !!! |
|||||||||
|
JeepSeller Regular Member
|
Dustin, you're right, I'm purposely avoiding that other thread. I'm done with it and based on your statements, you obviously do not value the lives of current men and women who've given their all in the service of this country, so, therefore I'm done with you. As a medic, I've had to kneel there and watch a grown man beg for me to save him when there was nothing I could do. I've watched primal fear in the eyes of man turn to acceptance and peace as the life went from their eyes. I'm proud of the lives I did save. I'm proud of the service I provided. I will not sit by here and accept you or anyone here insulting that pride. Since I can't obviously change your mind, I chose to ingore it. That is a fight that I will not be baited into. Good day sir. |
|||||||||
|
smoking357 Banned
|
mark edward marchiafava wrote: Does anyone know if this site utilizes an "ignore" feature? Here's what he said on his own board: "A few years ago, I was convinced that concealed carry was something that was unnecessary for the "common man". That only those who were in a "need" of it should do so...security, cops, couriers, etc...I'd have never stood in the way of anyone else to exert that right, but, I didn't see the point in it myself." This guy is a fence-sitter, at best. He's on gun boards looking for interaction. He's really trying hard to prove his loyalty to the board he found in January. He doesn't contribute anything of substance on his own board, either. He talks at the edge of the issues, always an ancillary matter, crowbarring his way into a discussion, always talking about how people feel about the issue, but he never gets in the middle of the mess to state his case. He'll join your group, but he won't lead it. I don't think there's much depth to him. He'll chit-chat. If the topic is about anything besides guns, he'll have an empty sort of pleasant discussion, at length, but you'll come away with nothing from it. He's like a human chat-bot. To meet him personally, you'd probably find him nice enough. When pressed for a position, he hides behind an some form of this empty defence: "everyone should respect everyone else's opinion." The difficulty is that he doesn't have much of an opinion, and since his opinion is that all opinions are to be given equal space, he views with disfavor any opinion that crowd out any other opinion. He's a reflexive banner. If the temperature gets too hot, he wants the challenger gone. "No person, no problem," as Stalin put it. Is he dangerous? I don't know. He's plenty bitter and angry, but he directs this bitterness and anger into an odd justification of the very system that has caused him such bitterness and anger. It's as if the only weakness of the status quo is that we don't have a stronger version of it. Would he call the cops on an OC'er in Florida? Absolutely. Would he call the cops on a guy whose concealed gun became unconcealed through activity or inattention? Absolutely, and he'd call it "just a learning experience." He has a public-school, socialistic, view of the world. Certain topics are absolutely off-limits, just because they are, and discussion on the wrong side of such a topic renders the commentator a pariah and the argument forfeit. For example, he doesn't have to prove that cops are good, pure and true and not thugs. He relies on a ground rule that states such, and anyone on the other side of that issue must be banned; ergo, with no arguments to the contrary, it's evident that cops are good, pure and true and not thugs. It's a horrendous intellectual cop-out, but Amerikans have been doing it reflexively for 60 years, now, and they're always looking for the teacher to define the discussion, control the classroom and save them from their scrapes. You can rest assured, Mark, that on the Great Day, he won't be with us...until we get control, at which point, he'll be with us, demanding that those against us be banned for criticizing us. He's a perfect Hobbesian. |
|||||||||
|
JeepSeller Regular Member
|
Smoking-something...if you're going to strawman argue using my words, know I'll go back and get the whole thing...you should know better than to take my words out of context and try to use them against me by now....shame on you.. Here's the WHOLE thing I said...that smokingsomething conviniently edited out.. Quote: I actually enjoy a heated debate. I think most do. But, it's far from a "debate" when one or both parties refuse to open their mind to the simple fact that not all feel the way they do. I think it's how we learn. It's been my belief for many years that it's impossible to completely understand the world around you unless you open your mind and grasp the concept that it is possible to be wrong, regardless of how strongly you feel about any given subject. We can't learn a darn thing unless we open our mind, a closed door is a dead room in my opinion..  A few years ago, I was convinced that concealed carry was something that was unnecessary for the "common man". That only those who were in a "need" of it should do so...security, cops, couriers, etc...I'd have never stood in the way of anyone else to exert that right, but, I didn't see the point in it myself. After a scary event my wife and I had in Denver, I learned I was wrong. I thank God every day that I wasn't so closed minded, stubborn, stupid, and stuck in my ways so much that I couldn't realize I was wrong. While I hope to never be in that kind of scary situation again, should it happen again, it's my hope that I'll be better prepared with training, tools, and knowlage. If I were so closed minded, and should it happen again, I'd be stuck relying on luck once more and that just won't do.  Try again.....your motives are showing... Last edited on Tue Jun 23rd, 2009 11:01 pm by JeepSeller |
|||||||||
|
Dustin Regular Member
|
JeepSeller wrote: Dustin, you're right, I'm purposely avoiding that other thread. I'm done with it and based on your statements, you obviously do not value the lives of current men and women who've given their all in the service of this country, so, therefore I'm done with you. You don't have an answer to my question, so your done? Is that what your saying? You completely refuse to defend your soapbox rant. BTW I served in both current Wars. Iraq and Afghanistan and wear my C.A.R. with a gold star in remembrance of those days. I'm an 0351 USMC Grunt, and I've lost 17 brothers overseas. Most of which I watched hot lead rip through their bodies, or IED's blow them apart. I've held those hands your talking about, bloody and trembling asking me to help as if I contained the power to do anything more than apply pressure or their own clot powder. So please spare me your holier than thou attitude. I've been there and done that and I have the internal and external scars to prove it. But you see, I accept the fact that these current wars aren't about America. It's about the US Government. Maybe your to young, or immature or maybe you just out right don't have the history intelligence to comprehend that for the past 100 years the government has indeed put young men and women in harms way for MONEY ! It's always been about the money. Do good things come out of it, sure they do IMO. Of course Mark thinks different, but what does he know, he wasn't there. I know for a fact that we indeed liberated the city of Fallujah in 04' to 05'. We flushed that city clean from terrorist insurgents who were literally cutting the hands off of those who oppose them, while raping their daughters, sons and wives before cutting their heads off. Hell that @#$% never made the news. I can't even describe what a house looks like after something like that has happen in it. NO PERSON on the planet deserves that kind of treatment, so you’re damn right I didn't mind killing those bastards at all. But we weren't brain washed into thinking we were there for OUR OWN country. We knew fair well we were there to rid Fallujah of Muslim extremist. Nothing more, nothing less. So yes I DO honor our fallen men and women, as well as my family members, but I am not proud. I give/gave it all to God, as if He wasn't already in control. "I" didn't do anything that He didn't give me the strength to do. So no I don't take PRIDE in anything. "Pride" is mentioned 46 times in the King James Bible. "Proud" is mentioned 47 times. "Haughty" is mentioned 10 times. A meticulous study of each time these words appear will lead to only one conclusion: They are never spoken of positively, only as sin and evil. Never is it suggested or implied that pride in any form is a virtue. Philippians 4:13 13 I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me. Philippians 1:21 21For to me to live is Christ, and to die is gain. Proverbs 29:23 23 A man’s pride will bring him low, But the humble in spirit will retain honor. That's what I lived by while over there, so did most others. Maybe next time you shouldn't assume so much, and just answer the freaking question already I was definitely being polite.  Last edited on Wed Jun 24th, 2009 12:33 am by Dustin |
|||||||||
|
JeepSeller Regular Member
|
I just see it different than you. And that's ok. But, here's the deal. The way I see it, I answered the call to serve this great country. I PROUDLY wore the uniform that represents the finest this country has to offer and is recognized all around the world as a symbol of America's strength. I look on "some" of my time in uniform as the best days of my life. I made friends that I know I can always count on..even when they live 5000 miles away. Did I see and do things over there I'd rather not remember? You bet! I have to live with the nightmares of literally scooping up chunks of what used to be a buddy and placing them into a bag so their family will at least have something to bury. Most people, fortunately, will never know the stench that comes from our guts when exposed to the air. Speaking of stench, there is no explaining the funk coming from a closed room full of guys who've humped in that heat, that sand, that grime, that filth without so much as a clean pair of shorts, much less anything resembling a shower for WEEKS. I'll never forget the stress and anxiety of knowing that every rock, every pile of sand, every piece of debris you pass within 5 meters could explode without warning killing and or maiming you and your brothers. Even a warm night here in Florida now reminds me of wearing flak gear to bed in well over 100 degrees F out of fear of an attack on camp. Just knowing that every native you see, probably hates you with the utmost hatred and may very well be hiding a vest made of something other than camelhair, and includes a battery and a trigger, or even the kids who walk up begging for candy only to produce a rock to throw at you the next. So, am I a little sensitive about anything, that even resembles disrespectful speech regarding sacrifice for this country...YOU BET! I was asked to do a job and I did it because I believe in this country. Were we justified to be over there? No, of course not. But, I did my job and I did it well. I can take pride in my country and still dislike it's imprefections. I don't have to hate it to want change. That my friends is the difference between some of us here. I chose not to live my life filled with hate and bitterness. I love the things I love, try to change the things I can, and accept those that I can't change. Having stared death squarely in the face, I can vouch for life being just too damn short to live it miserable and bitter all the time. If some folks here would just learn to take a little joy and pride in something instead of putting so much energy into hate....I'd bet they'd be suprised how much brighter their life would become. |
|||||||||
|
JeepSeller Regular Member
|
Now, we've monopolized the OP's thread long enough. And I take some of the blame. We're all obviously never going to agree on the subjects at hand. I prefer to be an ambassador to our cause, some choose to bring it down. Nothing I can do about that but hope thier actions are counterbalanced by the actions of a larger collective of people who take this seriously and really want to see change as opposed to simply trying to get attention through insults, personal attacks, and schemes. |
|||||||||
|
whoopingllama Regular Member
|
Well, I will say that it's definitely interesting how the conversation took a turn in almost a completely different direction. But anyways, I figured I'd let y'all know what I've done. I never called, I only had the chance to send an email Monday night. I did receive a call this morning from corporate regarding my email. Apparently, it was mostly because she couldn't read all of it for whatever reason. Like, it has cut off or something. Anyways, I explained to her that I was wondering what the corporate policy was concerning my openly carrying of a pistol on my hip. She said that I was right in my thinking. They did have the right to ask that I leave though if someone mentions being or feeling threatened. But other than that, it was fine and dandy that I carry. She asked if I had any other concerns or questions. I asked if it were possible to get some sort of written letter faxed stating such for if I ever end up shopping over in that direction again. She said that they will be having a meeting with the different stores explaining that it is alright for customers to come in openly armed. All in all, I think good results are had. I do still welcome comments and critiques. |
|||||||||
|
charlie12 Regular Member
|
whoopingllama wrote: Well, I will say that it's definitely interesting how the conversation took a turn in almost a completely different direction. But anyways, I figured I'd let y'all know what I've done. I never called, I only had the chance to send an email Monday night. I did receive a call this morning from corporate regarding my email. Apparently, it was mostly because she couldn't read all of it for whatever reason. Like, it has cut off or something. Anyways, I explained to her that I was wondering what the corporate policy was concerning my openly carrying of a pistol on my hip. She said that I was right in my thinking. They did have the right to ask that I leave though if someone mentions being or feeling threatened. But other than that, it was fine and dandy that I carry. She asked if I had any other concerns or questions. I asked if it were possible to get some sort of written letter faxed stating such for if I ever end up shopping over in that direction again. She said that they will be having a meeting with the different stores explaining that it is alright for customers to come in openly armed. Glad you got to talk to someone. Seems like most gun owners at least the ones that carry had heard of the Walmart rule but seems like the Walmart managers haven't, or think it's their store. |
|||||||||
|
XD-GEM Activist Member
|
charlie12 wrote: whoopingllama wrote:Well, I will say that it's definitely interesting how the conversation took a turn in almost a completely different direction. But anyways, I figured I'd let y'all know what I've done. I never called, I only had the chance to send an email Monday night. I did receive a call this morning from corporate regarding my email. Apparently, it was mostly because she couldn't read all of it for whatever reason. Like, it has cut off or something. Anyways, I explained to her that I was wondering what the corporate policy was concerning my openly carrying of a pistol on my hip. She said that I was right in my thinking. They did have the right to ask that I leave though if someone mentions being or feeling threatened. But other than that, it was fine and dandy that I carry. She asked if I had any other concerns or questions. I asked if it were possible to get some sort of written letter faxed stating such for if I ever end up shopping over in that direction again. She said that they will be having a meeting with the different stores explaining that it is alright for customers to come in openly armed. Of course, that statement of policy does, rightly, reserve their right to ask someone to leave. What is unfortunate is that they say they might ask an OCer to leave if someone feels threatened. While that is their right, I hope that we can show the general public that there is no reason to feel threatened by an OCer just going about their business. |
|||||||||
|
nolacopusmc Banned
|
XD-GEM wrote: charlie12 wrote:And therein is is the ultimate goal. The problem is that many on here have techniques and personalities that create the exact opposite image for us all. They infact create a negative image, as we have already had one neutral person testify to on here in person.whoopingllama wrote:Well, I will say that it's definitely interesting how the conversation took a turn in almost a completely different direction. But anyways, I figured I'd let y'all know what I've done. I never called, I only had the chance to send an email Monday night. I did receive a call this morning from corporate regarding my email. Apparently, it was mostly because she couldn't read all of it for whatever reason. Like, it has cut off or something. Anyways, I explained to her that I was wondering what the corporate policy was concerning my openly carrying of a pistol on my hip. She said that I was right in my thinking. They did have the right to ask that I leave though if someone mentions being or feeling threatened. But other than that, it was fine and dandy that I carry. She asked if I had any other concerns or questions. I asked if it were possible to get some sort of written letter faxed stating such for if I ever end up shopping over in that direction again. She said that they will be having a meeting with the different stores explaining that it is alright for customers to come in openly armed. |
|||||||||
|
smoking357 Banned
|
nolacopusmc wrote: Of course, that statement of policy does, rightly, reserve their right to ask someone to leave. What is unfortunate is that they say they might ask an OCer to leave if someone feels threatened. While that is their right, I hope that we can show the general public that there is no reason to feel threatened by an OCer just going about their business.And therein is is the ultimate goal. The problem is that many on here have techniques and personalities that create the exact opposite image for us all. They infact create a negative image, as we have already had one neutral person testify to on here in person. So how does one "just go about his business" with any particular "technique or personality"? HHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAHHHHAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! It's gettin' deep, people. They only see an OC'er's personality when they open their yaps. Keep the stupid hole shut around an OC'er, and they don't have to feel the sting of an OC'er's intellect, exposing the stupidity in talking about matters that are of no concern to anyone but the OC'er. The simple fact of the matter is that some people find OC objectionable and look for flimsy excuses to try to curtail it. Let's not be a nation of meddlers and busybodies. Let's tend to our own yards. |
|||||||||
|
Dustin Regular Member
|
smoking357 wrote: They only see an OC'er's personality when they open their yaps. Keep the stupid hole shut around an OC'er, and they don't have to feel the sting of an OC'er's intellect, exposing the stupidity in talking about matters that are of no concern to anyone but the OC'er. I really wish you would stop speaking as if you speak for us all. Assuredly NOT all of us here think like you do, so lumping us together with your own personal thoughts incorrectly defines what we are about here at OCDO. OCDO get's alot more publicity than you realize, I can't imagine what they could do with some of your post.  |
|||||||||
|
smoking357 Banned
|
Dustin wrote: OCDO get's alot more publicity than you realize, I can't imagine what they could do with some of your post. Just who is this "they" about which you paranoid types persistently fret? Further, why are you scared of "them?" |
|||||||||
|
nolacopusmc Banned
|
smoking357 wrote: Dustin wrote:OCDO get's alot more publicity than you realize, I can't imagine what they could do with some of your post. You calling someone paranoid?  that is the proverbial pot calling the kettle an african cooking device. You think every cop is a facist out to get you, yet you accuse him of making a statement of otherwise obvious intent to anyone not smoking whatever you are. Amazing. You are without a doubt a troll with nothing better to do than cause trouble. Again, why are you not in the Fl forum where you belong? ****insert*** smartass thesaurus laden response that has no bearing on the question asked from smokingcrack24/7"***** |
|||||||||
|
smoking357 Banned
|
nolacopusmc wrote: smoking357 wrote:Dustin wrote:OCDO get's alot more publicity than you realize, I can't imagine what they could do with some of your post. Sniff. Sniff. Yep, it can only be...  |
|||||||||
|
Dustin Regular Member
|
smoking357 wrote: Dustin wrote:OCDO get's alot more publicity than you realize, I can't imagine what they could do with some of your post. Do you not understand the request? It's not fear dodo, it's intelligence. Something that lacks in most of what you’re writing. I'm just saying, you give OCDO a bad name with your fear mongering attitude towards any and everything that has to do with anything opposite of what you’re pushing or whatever Mark says. Mark who undoubtedly could probably careless for your cheerleading antics. This thread has become ridiculous since you arrive. You make me almost not even want to click on the Louisiana thread, simply b/c I'll probably be subject to having to read some more of your Tin Foil hat BS, and how anyone who doesn't have a copy of the constitution and anyone who doesn't OC must be insane. Ever wonder why everyone but you seems to be insane ? Could be the other way around. Insane people are always sure they are fine, it's everyone else who just doesn't get it huh .... |
|||||||||
|
smoking357 Banned
|
Dustin wrote:
Sling those insults, baby. it's intelligence. Something that lacks in most of what you’re writing. I'm just saying, you give OCDO a bad name with your fear mongering attitude towards any and everything that has to do with anything opposite of what you’re pushing or whatever Mark says. Right on. Awesome. Mark who undoubtedly could probably careless for your cheerleading antics. Divide and conquer. Yeah, go for it. This thread has become ridiculous since you arrive. You make me almost not even want to click on the Louisiana thread, simply b/c I'll probably be subject to having to read some more of your Tin Foil hat BS, and how anyone who doesn't have a copy of the constitution and anyone who doesn't OC must be insane. What's really insane is deconstructionism on a level that would make a Ph.D. candidate blush. Ever wonder why everyone but you seems to be insane ? Could be the other way around. Insane people are always sure they are fine, it's everyone else who just doesn't get it huh .... So, lemme axe you, do you think you're fine? Great post. Keep it up. |
|||||||||
|
Dustin Regular Member
|
smoking357 wrote:
Sorry but normal folks don't have to ask themselves that. |
|||||||||
|
IA-Pro Regular Member 
|
smoking357 wrote: Dustin wrote: You had me at deconstructionism.  |
|||||||||
|
smoking357 Banned
|
Dustin wrote: smoking357 wrote: So you think you're normal? |
|||||||||
|
Dustin Regular Member
|
smoking357 wrote: Dustin wrote:smoking357 wrote: I'd say the opposite of you is normal. Eitherway I'm thru here. I made a simple request, and you couldn't handle it. I'd say Nola's correct. Your a troll. Sad that we don't have Mods to boot people like you. Talk all you need to please your own ego ... |
|||||||||
|
nolacopusmc Banned
|
Dustin wrote: smoking357 wrote:Dustin wrote:smoking357 wrote: You know it's bad when you got me and Dustin agreeing on something here. Smokingcrack24/7....you are certifiably retarded. Meaning you are slow and behind the norm in your thinking. You require medication. Congrats on being the MEM of Florida, or is MEM the Smokingcrack24/7 of Louisiana. Who cares you two are about as cultish and insane as I have seen, and that includes the crackhead who ate his own feces so the government could not get to his DNA.. But i guess that probably makes sense to you. |
|||||||||
|
smoking357 Banned
|
nolacopusmc wrote: Smokingcrack24/7....you are certifiably retarded. Meaning you are slow and behind the norm in your thinking. You require medication. So retardation responds to medication? |
|||||||||
|
yale Regular Member
|
whoopingllama, Did you ever contact corporate? If so, what was their response? Have you followed up with the manager at the Wal-Mart? |
|||||||||
|
whoopingllama Regular Member
|
I never called, I only had the chance to send an email Monday night. I did receive a call the other morning from corporate regarding my email. Apparently, it was mostly because she couldn't read all of it for whatever reason. Like, it was cut off or something. Anyways, I explained to her that I was wondering what the corporate policy was concerning my openly carrying of a pistol on my hip. She said that I was right in my thinking. They did have the right to ask that I leave though if someone mentions being or feeling threatened. But other than that, it was fine and dandy that I carry. She asked if I had any other concerns or questions. I asked if it were possible to get some sort of written letter faxed stating such for if I ever end up shopping over in that direction again. She said that they will be having a meeting with the different stores explaining that it is alright for customers to come in openly armed. She then apologized that anything like that had occurred and for the time it took for a response. I have not contacted the store itself. I don't make my way over there very often. I am taking her word on it that meetings will actually take place clearing up the issue. I'll let y'all know what happens if I end up shopping in that particular store again. |
|||||||||
|
nolacopusmc Banned
|
whoopingllama wrote: I never called, I only had the chance to send an email Monday night. I did receive a call the other morning from corporate regarding my email. Apparently, it was mostly because she couldn't read all of it for whatever reason. Like, it was cut off or something. Anyways, I explained to her that I was wondering what the corporate policy was concerning my openly carrying of a pistol on my hip. She said that I was right in my thinking. They did have the right to ask that I leave though if someone mentions being or feeling threatened. But other than that, it was fine and dandy that I carry. She asked if I had any other concerns or questions. I asked if it were possible to get some sort of written letter faxed stating such for if I ever end up shopping over in that direction again. She said that they will be having a meeting with the different stores explaining that it is alright for customers to come in openly armed. She then apologized that anything like that had occurred and for the time it took for a response. Highly unlikely something like that will happen, and even if it does, it is highly unlikely all the stores will receive the information. Furthermore, you will always have the managers that want to do things their way, so the issue will never be fully resolved. While Wal-mart or whomever may never feel the sting of one shopper walking away, we can atleast maintain our morals by chosing not to shop at those stores that openly violate law and do not support their customers. |
|||||||||
|
turbodog Regular Member
|
mark edward marchiafava wrote: Does anyone know if this site utilizes an "ignore" feature? Last Time? Thank God! |
|||||||||
|
jimmyb Regular Member
|
mark edward marchiafava wrote: Does anyone know if this site utilizes an "ignore" feature? what does most of that have to do with ocing. Most of the time on here you are cop bashing anti milatary. anti govermant and anti anything not MEM or Smokingcrack24/7 |
|||||||||
|
jimmyb Regular Member
|
smoking357 wrote: nolacopusmc wrote:smoking357 wrote:Dustin wrote:OCDO get's alot more publicity than you realize, I can't imagine what they could do with some of your post. what the crap is this suposed to mean? |
|||||||||
|
Dustin Regular Member
|
jimmyb wrote:
Similar to ignoratio elenchi, a red herring is an argument, given in reply, that does not address the original issue. Critically, a red herring is a deliberate attempt to change the subject or divert the argument. He was at a lost for words so he tried posting this in hopes that it would buy him some time. He used it out of context as he does with most of his ramblings. Pay him no mind please. |
|||||||||