Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 43

Thread: AMC Theaters

  1. #1
    Regular Member mspgunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Ellisville, Missouri, USA
    Posts
    1,966

    AMC Theaters

    Please send an email, I did!

    AMC Theatres Blocks Gun
    Carry

    The original idea of the Gun Talk Truth Squad was to bring
    together a few people who would take action by writing, calling, and otherwise
    contacting media, companies and elected officials on gun issues. I had hoped to
    get 100 volunteers. We now number more than 30,000!
    So, here's one I think is worthwhile. As you
    know, Starbucks has taken a neutral stance on firearms -- neither
    pro nor anti. Its position is that whatever is legal in that state or city is
    okay with them. As a result, thousands of us spent money at Starbucks stores across the country on Valentine's day as a
    counter to the boycott proposed by anti-rights groups trying to force the coffee company into
    blocking your legal carrying into the stores.
    It's time to turn our attention to a major
    company which blocks legal gun carriers from their facilities (but the criminals
    will continue to carry there, of course). AMC
    Theatres is the second largest chain of movie houses in the U.S..
    It also blocks women and men who legally carry firearms for the protection of
    themselves and others.
    This comment is from the form response AMC
    Theatres offers when asked about it:
    "For the safety and security of our
    guests and associates, and as a family business, AMC feels the best way to
    protect our guests and associates is to have a uniform, standardized policy
    prohibiting weapons on our premises, and to post such policy. (In many states,
    we are required by law to post signage if we have a policy against bringing
    weapons on our property, hence the posting of signage at our theatres
    nationwide.)"

    I've long said that we need to address those companies
    who make their places more dangerous by restricting firearms carry to the
    criminals. It's only fair that we let a company know when we are not going to
    spend money with it, and tell it why.
    May I suggest that you politely let AMC Theatres know if you will not be going to the
    movies at their places, and that you continue to offer to return to their
    theatres when they remove the restriction on LEGAL firearms. If they want to
    post signs saying that ILLEGAL guns are prohibited, they are free to. Of course,
    that won't keep out the criminals any more than the current signs do, but at
    least it won't keep the law-abiding citizens out.
    The email
    address for AMC Theatres is
    AMCGuestServices@amctheatres.com.
    If you pull it, you use it. If you pull it and you don't use it, you've done some thing wrong and you might not get another chance. Think about it before you pack it!
    I worked 24/7 for 2A OC rights! Don't like what I did? Try it yourself, it was my full time job!
    Certified NRA Range Safety Officer - RSO

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Independence, Missouri, USA
    Posts
    349
    Sent my letter...

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Phoenix, AZ
    Posts
    613
    My email:

    I recently was taken aback by the sight of the "No Weapons" sign on the doors of one of your theaters in Kansas City at Strang Line, the AMC 30.



    As an AMERICAN and VETERAN who has defended our second amendment rights to "bear ams", I am appalled at the idea that the management of your company would believe that criminals would take notice of or heed such signage. After all, criminals do what they want. As a person who is always armed when possible, I find this untolerable. I am an avid movie fan, a Stubs member and I watch 2 to 4 movies a month. Looks like I will have to find another place to watch movies. Yes, I dislike that very much. But my second amendment right means that much to me.



    Thanks for ruining one of my favorite hobbies...



    I will be very happy to consider patronizing your business again if your policy should change. Until then, I suppose I need to examine my other options in KC.



    Regards.
    __________________________________________________ __________________________

    "The problem with Internet quotes is that no one has verified the source" -- Abraham Lincoln

  4. #4
    Regular Member Boba Fett's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Fair Grove, Missouri
    Posts
    206
    And here is mine. Sent it over breakfast.

    To Whom it may Concern:

    I recently learned that all AMC Theaters are required to post a sign stating that weapons are not allowed on your property. I amazed that you feel the need to do this in a nation that actually says in it's constitution that citizens have the right to bear arms. You realize that those who have no respect for the law will also have no respect for your signs, and the only persons who will disarm themselves are the everyday armed citizens who pose no threat to society.
    Therefore, by posting these signs, you are effectively removing the only means of self defense from families. I am shocked that any company would do such a thing.
    Since it is quite obvious that AMC Theaters has no regard for the safety of it's customers, I and everyone I can inform of this ridiculous policy will be sure to avoid your establishments and will take our legally-carried weapons and our money elsewhere. Should you ever decide to remove the signs and the "no-weapons" policy, I will be happy to again patronize your businesses.

    Thanks...but no thanks,

  5. #5
    Regular Member Tony4310's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Florissant, MO
    Posts
    474
    Email sent!

  6. #6
    Regular Member Redbaron007's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    SW MO
    Posts
    1,637
    I sent an email to Wehrenburg Theaters too. According to them, they have banned the carrying of firearms into their establishments for over 10 years. Funny, first time I saw their restriction was last week when I went to see Act of Valor.

    In summary, they prohibit carrying because children may find a lost gun in the seat and may use it.

    Remember, it's all about the chitlins!
    "I can live for two weeks on a good compliment."
    ~Mark Twain

  7. #7
    Campaign Veteran ComSec's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Lees Summit, Missouri, USA
    Posts
    444
    I'm currently sitting in Hunger Games is the Lees Summit theater not a AMC and have carried many times no problems yet, I stay away from AMC

    Sent from my ADR6350 using Tapatalk

  8. #8
    Regular Member Richieg150's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Show Me State
    Posts
    433
    Went to Dickenson Theater in Lees Summit last night, carried with no issues at all......no posted weapon signage on the doors either....
    Psalm 144:1 Blessed be the LORD my strength, which teacheth my hands to war, and my fingers to fight:
    Psalm 144:2 My goodness, and my fortress; my high tower, and my deliverer; my shield, and he in whom I trust; who subdueth my people under me. Pro 14:15 The simple believeth every word: but the prudent man looketh well to his going.

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Eastern Missouri
    Posts
    76
    Quote Originally Posted by mspgunner View Post
    May I suggest that you politely let AMC Theatres know if you will not be going to the
    movies at their places, and that you continue to offer to return to their
    theatres when they remove the restriction on LEGAL firearms. If they want to
    post signs saying that ILLEGAL guns are prohibited, they are free to. Of course,
    that won't keep out the criminals any more than the current signs do, but at
    least it won't keep the law-abiding citizens out.
    The email
    address for AMC Theatres is
    AMCGuestServices@amctheatres.com.
    I disagree with the whole premise of politically boycotting a private business because they make a policy that they believe is in the best interest of their customers.
    I don't get it. Isn't that simply being just like the anti gun folks who are politically boycotting Starbucks?
    If "you" choose to not spend your money, fine. Just don't.
    To "politicize" this issue from freedom's perspective cheapens the inalienable right, in my opinion...but then, I'm not an "activist." Perhaps that's the difference...

  10. #10
    Regular Member Redbaron007's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    SW MO
    Posts
    1,637
    Quote Originally Posted by lincomores View Post
    I disagree with the whole premise of politically boycotting a private business because they make a policy that they believe is in the best interest of their customers.
    I don't get it. Isn't that simply being just like the anti gun folks who are politically boycotting Starbucks?
    If "you" choose to not spend your money, fine. Just don't.
    To "politicize" this issue from freedom's perspective cheapens the inalienable right, in my opinion...but then, I'm not an "activist." Perhaps that's the difference...
    WTH?

    Your premise is flawed; the anit-gunners want to STOP/PREVENT you from exercising your constitutional right. OCrs just want to exercise their right. Boycotting because someone won't restrict someone elses right is the insane rationale. YMMV!
    "I can live for two weeks on a good compliment."
    ~Mark Twain

  11. #11
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,273
    Quote Originally Posted by lincomores View Post
    I disagree with the whole premise of politically boycotting a private business because they make a policy that they believe is in the best interest of their customers.
    I don't get it. Isn't that simply being just like the anti gun folks who are politically boycotting Starbucks?
    If "you" choose to not spend your money, fine. Just don't.
    To "politicize" this issue from freedom's perspective cheapens the inalienable right, in my opinion...but then, I'm not an "activist." Perhaps that's the difference...
    Cool, just like the 'CCW deters the criminsl element' argument.

    Thug: "Hmm....I don't see a gat on that person."
    Thug: "Yep, that person must be packing a gat under his jacket."

    or

    AMC: "Why is revenue down lately?"
    AMC: "I don't know, maybe it's because we ban guns carried by law abiding patrons."
    AMC: "Have we had complaints about the no gun policy?"
    AMC: "Nope, no complaints, just a wild guess."
    AMC: "You must be right, that must be the only explanation."
    "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.

    "Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.
    It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Eastern Missouri
    Posts
    76
    Quote Originally Posted by OC for ME View Post
    Cool, just like the 'CCW deters the criminsl element' argument.

    Thug: "Hmm....I don't see a gat on that person."
    Thug: "Yep, that person must be packing a gat under his jacket."

    or

    AMC: "Why is revenue down lately?"
    AMC: "I don't know, maybe it's because we ban guns carried by law abiding patrons."
    AMC: "Have we had complaints about the no gun policy?"
    AMC: "Nope, no complaints, just a wild guess."
    AMC: "You must be right, that must be the only explanation."
    My point is that it is no different than the political hacks of the left who despise liberty...a recent example is the attack of Media Matters against the advertisers of Rush Limbaugh's show.
    A private business retains the right to make whatever legal policy they choose to cultivate a profit rich environment.
    I'm just saying that if you don't like their policy, don't patronize their business.
    But a concerted effort to "politically boycott" a private business because you disagree with their business decisions is nothing less than the political hacks the liberals employ.
    Personally, I don't care if AMC, or any other business, knows why I don't patronize them. It is enough for me to just not do it...but, as I said, I'm not an activist.
    I don't exercise my rights...I simply live them.
    If you have a differing opinion, that is all fine and good. I'm not knocking you for it. I'm merely pointing out a different way to look at it.

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Eastern Missouri
    Posts
    76
    Quote Originally Posted by Redbaron007 View Post
    WTH?

    Your premise is flawed; the anit-gunners want to STOP/PREVENT you from exercising your constitutional right. OCrs just want to exercise their right. Boycotting because someone won't restrict someone elses right is the insane rationale. YMMV!
    My premise is flawed?
    I don't think so.
    As to the "insane rationale" you mention...I think the door swings both ways
    As to AMC theaters...I've been armed every time I've been there.

  14. #14
    Regular Member Redbaron007's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    SW MO
    Posts
    1,637
    Quote Originally Posted by lincomores View Post
    My premise is flawed?
    I don't think so.
    As to the "insane rationale" you mention...I think the door swings both ways
    As to AMC theaters...I've been armed every time I've been there.
    One promotes a legal right; the other doesn't......they are not equal, therefore, the door doesn't swing both ways...it has to be broken down to go the non-consitutional direction.
    "I can live for two weeks on a good compliment."
    ~Mark Twain

  15. #15
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,273
    Quote Originally Posted by lincomores View Post
    my point is that it is no different than the political hacks of the left who despise liberty...a recent example is the attack of media matters against the advertisers of rush limbaugh's show.
    A private business retains the right to make whatever legal policy they choose to cultivate a profit rich environment.
    I'm just saying that if you don't like their policy, don't patronize their business.
    But a concerted effort to "politically boycott" a private business because you disagree with their business decisions is nothing less than the political hacks the liberals employ.
    Personally, i don't care if amc, or any other business, knows why i don't patronize them. It is enough for me to just not do it...but, as i said, i'm not an activist.
    I don't exercise my rights...i simply live them.
    If you have a differing opinion, that is all fine and good. I'm not knocking you for it. I'm merely pointing out a different way to look at it.
    iok.
    "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.

    "Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.
    It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Eastern Missouri
    Posts
    76
    Quote Originally Posted by Redbaron007 View Post
    One promotes a legal right; the other doesn't......they are not equal, therefore, the door doesn't swing both ways...it has to be broken down to go the non-consitutional direction.
    Your methodology is penalizing a private business because they believe they are making decisions that best benefit their bottom line.
    They are not denying you any right. You're speaking of private property.
    So, whether it is pro or con, your methodology is what is wrong...that is the door that swings both ways.
    anti guns are attempting to keep you from your free will right...they boycott to get the business to restrict what you want.
    you are attempting to keep a business from their free will right...you boycott to get the business to grant what you want.

    I just make my choice and don't meddle with their business decision.
    Like I said, this is my personal take on it.
    you have your own, and all is good.

  17. #17
    Regular Member Redbaron007's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    SW MO
    Posts
    1,637
    Quote Originally Posted by lincomores View Post
    I disagree with the whole premise of politically boycotting a private business because they make a policy that they believe is in the best interest of their customers.
    I don't get it. Isn't that simply being just like the anti gun folks who are politically boycotting Starbucks?
    If "you" choose to not spend your money, fine. Just don't.
    To "politicize" this issue from freedom's perspective cheapens the inalienable right, in my opinion...but then, I'm not an "activist." Perhaps that's the difference...
    Quote Originally Posted by lincomores View Post
    Your methodology is penalizing a private business because they believe they are making decisions that best benefit their bottom line.
    They are not denying you any right. You're speaking of private property.
    So, whether it is pro or con, your methodology is what is wrong...that is the door that swings both ways.
    anti guns are attempting to keep you from your free will right...they boycott to get the business to restrict what you want.
    you are attempting to keep a business from their free will right...you boycott to get the business to grant what you want.

    I just make my choice and don't meddle with their business decision.
    Like I said, this is my personal take on it.
    you have your own, and all is good.
    NO, it isn't like the anti's. OK, the anti's are the ones denying my/your right to carry; they are politicizing the 2A by encouraging the business to prevent me/you/us from carrying on their property (which is fine, the property owner has that option) if a business owner doesn't like guns and want to ban them from their business...no sweat, but for them to follow the restriction based upon another group of people is the issue.

    So it is the anti's that are trying to prevent me/you/us from carrying. Starbucks has made a decision to follow the laws of the state; the anti's are trying to tell them not too. This is why the door doesn't swing both ways.

    Maybe look at advocating.
    "I can live for two weeks on a good compliment."
    ~Mark Twain

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Eastern Missouri
    Posts
    76
    Quote Originally Posted by Redbaron007 View Post
    NO, it isn't like the anti's. OK, the anti's are the ones denying my/your right to carry; they are politicizing the 2A by encouraging the business to prevent me/you/us from carrying on their property (which is fine, the property owner has that option) if a business owner doesn't like guns and want to ban them from their business...no sweat, but for them to follow the restriction based upon another group of people is the issue. So it is the anti's that are trying to prevent me/you/us from carrying. Starbucks has made a decision to follow the laws of the state; the anti's are trying to tell them not too. This is why the door doesn't swing both ways.
    "Everyone" (both sides) politicize the 2nd amendment. It's a hot button topic that lines the pockets of politicians by lobbyists, lawyers by litigants, firearm manufacturers and retailers by consumers.
    But the 2nd Amendment shouldn't be "politicized" by Patriots. We should simply live our inalienable rights.

    Do you know, for certain, that AMC Theaters changed their policy due to the anti's?
    Wouldn't it be the same thing if AMC Theaters decided to rescind their policy and once again allow firearms "based upon another group of people (2a's) ?
    If it is wrong in the one sense, how is it not in the other...because AMC is not taking away your Constitutional right by banning firearms in their Theaters.
    And my understanding of the position of Starbucks is not that they are "following" the Law, but rather have chosen to not interfere with an otherwise legal action. If a Starbucks were located in a Municipality where Open Carry was illegal...would they not comply with that? I mean, I could be wrong on this...I don't know, I'm asking a legitimate question.

    Quote Originally Posted by Redbaron007 View Post
    Maybe look at advocating.
    Me? To what purpose?

  19. #19
    Regular Member Redbaron007's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    SW MO
    Posts
    1,637
    Quote Originally Posted by lincomores View Post
    "Everyone" (both sides) politicize the 2nd amendment. It's a hot button topic that lines the pockets of politicians by lobbyists, lawyers by litigants, firearm manufacturers and retailers by consumers.
    But the 2nd Amendment shouldn't be "politicized" by Patriots. We should simply live our inalienable rights.

    Do you know, for certain, that AMC Theaters changed their policy due to the anti's?
    Wouldn't it be the same thing if AMC Theaters decided to rescind their policy and once again allow firearms "based upon another group of people (2a's) ?
    If it is wrong in the one sense, how is it not in the other...because AMC is not taking away your Constitutional right by banning firearms in their Theaters.

    Have no idea what AMC has done. My remarks are to Starbucks. I do know Werhenburger Theaters restrict it because of the children; they're afraid a child my find a lost gun.



    Quote Originally Posted by lincomores View Post
    And my understanding of the position of Starbucks is not that they are "following" the Law, but rather have chosen to not interfere with an otherwise legal action. If a Starbucks were located in a Municipality where Open Carry was illegal...would they not comply with that? I mean, I could be wrong on this...I don't know, I'm asking a legitimate question.



    Me? To what purpose?
    Starbucks has chosen to 'follow' the local laws; not follow the anti's.

    Do you not want to promote OC?
    "I can live for two weeks on a good compliment."
    ~Mark Twain

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Eastern Missouri
    Posts
    76
    Quote Originally Posted by Redbaron007 View Post
    Starbucks has chosen to 'follow' the local laws; not follow the anti's.
    I suppose it's just semantics...I would ask, "What local law is Starbucks actually following?" That is why I said, they are merely not opposing (or interfering with) and otherwise legal action, namely to open carry.
    There is no law that says Starbucks must, or must not, allow open carry on their private property.

    Quote Originally Posted by Redbaron007 View Post
    Do you not want to promote OC?
    Define, "promote OC."
    The 2a is about keeping and bearing arms.
    Last edited by lincomores; 04-03-2012 at 08:13 PM.

  21. #21
    Accomplished Advocate
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,924
    Late into the thread.

    Lin, we have a history, but I am not picking on you. Your words are again totally misguided through your own total misunderstanding. The politicizing is an anti campaign from the late 60's when the fears of the rights of persons who were indeed not white, the best way to maintain power, disarm and disarm they did, both parties. A few years later into the 80's it became a liberal peace calling from the hippies of the 60's and 70's, then Regan did more damage to gun rights in history, yet is touted as a progun pres. Then he got shot and the war on guns went full tilt and a defined split in party lines happened.

    Progun is not about doing anything more than reducing government, maintaining personal choice, the anti's simply want to see that choice stripped from you without regard for the constitution by adding yet another level of government to rule you. When a company opts to go above and beyond the laws and they invite public access, stating why you will not support their efforts to rule you above and beyond the law is the only option to communicate it without being an activist. An activist chases petitions or actively pickets a location.

    Now for the masses, I was not aware so few were indeed not informed about AMC.

    AMC is without any doubt what so ever solidly anti-gun, not just to carry but to actually donating funds specifically to prevent you from having the right to carry.

    AMC Entertainment Inc. (movie theatre chain in AZ, CA, Canada, DC, FL, GA, IL, KS, LA, MA, MI, MO, NC, NE, NJ, NY, OH, OK, PA, TX, VA, WA)
    106 West 14th Street
    Kansas City, MO 64105
    (816)221-4000
    traded on AMEX under name 'AEN'

    They gave $1,000.00 to fight against CCW in the state of Missouri back in 2003 I believe it was, getting old and forgetful these days.

    Appreciate the letter writing campaign, but it is a futile effort, they have gotten THOUSANDS of letters over the years. Nothing wrong with reminding them you are boycotting them, but overall, don't expect a "OMG we did not know, we are sorry and will pull the signs" type of response, they are rooted in the Brady campaign.
    John C. Eastman Associate Dean of Chapman University’s School of Law "the Second Amendment, like its sister amendments, does not confer a right but rather recognizes a natural right inherent in our humanity."

  22. #22
    Regular Member mspgunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Ellisville, Missouri, USA
    Posts
    1,966
    Great post, one day you may be the "offical" historian of OC in Missouri!
    BTW - the law that allowed OC ban by "Local" government in Missouri was passed and signed into law in 1984, for some reason, as I've been told it went into effect Jan. 1, 1985. Maybe our laws for effectibve dates have changed. I don't know about the details on that.

    Quote Originally Posted by LMTD View Post
    Late into the thread.

    Lin, we have a history, but I am not picking on you. Your words are again totally misguided through your own total misunderstanding. The politicizing is an anti campaign from the late 60's when the fears of the rights of persons who were indeed not white, the best way to maintain power, disarm and disarm they did, both parties. A few years later into the 80's it became a liberal peace calling from the hippies of the 60's and 70's, then Regan did more damage to gun rights in history, yet is touted as a progun pres. Then he got shot and the war on guns went full tilt and a defined split in party lines happened.

    Progun is not about doing anything more than reducing government, maintaining personal choice, the anti's simply want to see that choice stripped from you without regard for the constitution by adding yet another level of government to rule you. When a company opts to go above and beyond the laws and they invite public access, stating why you will not support their efforts to rule you above and beyond the law is the only option to communicate it without being an activist. An activist chases petitions or actively pickets a location.

    Now for the masses, I was not aware so few were indeed not informed about AMC.

    AMC is without any doubt what so ever solidly anti-gun, not just to carry but to actually donating funds specifically to prevent you from having the right to carry.

    AMC Entertainment Inc. (movie theatre chain in AZ, CA, Canada, DC, FL, GA, IL, KS, LA, MA, MI, MO, NC, NE, NJ, NY, OH, OK, PA, TX, VA, WA)
    106 West 14th Street
    Kansas City, MO 64105
    (816)221-4000
    traded on AMEX under name 'AEN'

    They gave $1,000.00 to fight against CCW in the state of Missouri back in 2003 I believe it was, getting old and forgetful these days.

    Appreciate the letter writing campaign, but it is a futile effort, they have gotten THOUSANDS of letters over the years. Nothing wrong with reminding them you are boycotting them, but overall, don't expect a "OMG we did not know, we are sorry and will pull the signs" type of response, they are rooted in the Brady campaign.
    If you pull it, you use it. If you pull it and you don't use it, you've done some thing wrong and you might not get another chance. Think about it before you pack it!
    I worked 24/7 for 2A OC rights! Don't like what I did? Try it yourself, it was my full time job!
    Certified NRA Range Safety Officer - RSO

  23. #23
    Regular Member Boba Fett's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Fair Grove, Missouri
    Posts
    206
    I went to the new B&B Theater in Ozark, and upon asking the manager about legally carried firearms, he said he was all for it, and the theater was glad to allow it.

  24. #24
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Eastern Missouri
    Posts
    76
    Quote Originally Posted by LMTD View Post
    Late into the thread. Lin, we have a history, but I am not picking on you. Your words are again totally misguided through your own total misunderstanding.
    Pardon me if I don't believe you. You don't really hold that much credibility with me.
    I'm not misguided whatsoever...that is simply your position on anything I have to say.
    I have an opinion...I have a world view. It is obviously "different" than yours but it doesn't make mine "misguided."

    AMC's decisions to operate their business in the manner in which they choose is their business.
    If I choose not to patronize I won't.
    I simply don't feel the need to get all mouthy about it with them, or any other private entity. As you pointed out...they've probably had a truck full of letters.
    Personally, I don't care what their decision is.
    It doesn't affect me.
    I have no need to exercise my rights and liberties...I simply live them and I do quite fine. This is still a concept that alludes you.
    If others choose to do something else, good for them.
    I don't call them misguided...I just recognize their difference of opinion by voicing mine.
    Believe me...I recognized plainly your need to be right.
    Fine, If you think you're right about all things, live your life accordingly.
    Your lectures fall on deaf and tired ears.
    I take a glance...and see your slip showing.

  25. #25
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by lincomores View Post
    I disagree with the whole premise of politically boycotting a private business because they make a policy that they believe is in the best interest of their customers.
    I don't get it. Isn't that simply being just like the anti gun folks who are politically boycotting Starbucks?
    If "you" choose to not spend your money, fine. Just don't.
    To "politicize" this issue from freedom's perspective cheapens the inalienable right, in my opinion...but then, I'm not an "activist." Perhaps that's the difference...
    Money talks, bullsh*t walks.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

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