Asked to Disarm in Burke Wal Mart

imported post

Citizen wrote:

(Note to self: Never let Grapeshot use metaphors unsupervised.)

You understand you just offered to pay a littleover $14,000 for that paper at7 sheets or so to the troy ounce?

Click to expand...

Well if you think about it... if we had a verified, authentic document proving that Walmart corporate was Pro 2A and has corporate policy in place to back that up, the nationwide implications may very well be worth a heck of a lot more than $14K.

Look at the several $K that has been contributed for billboards in hot spots around the country. What do we have to show for that today? A clear precedent set by the worlds largest retailer would be a very big statement, especially if it became public and the corporation backed it up for the world to see.

But see my earlier post... their goal is to make money, they would see this issue as a lose/lose situation, since no matter what their position, some will be unhappy enough to shop elsewhere.

JMHO,

TFred

imported post

TFred wrote:

Citizen wrote:

(Note to self: Never let Grapeshot use metaphors unsupervised.)

You understand you just offered to pay a littleover $14,000 for that paper at7 sheets or so to the troy ounce?

Click to expand...

SNIP Well if you think about it...very well be worth a heck of a lot more than $14K.

Click to expand...

Oh, yes. I agree. We're both basically saying Grapeshot should be really willing to pay. It was his idea; and he did say he would pay.



See. Here is what he said:

Grapeshot wrote:

No don't argue - beg, plead, offer your next born male child. :?

I would be willing to pay for such a document !

Click to expand...

Emphasis in the original. (Not really. Its just that after all those threats from him that he wouldtell everybody I was hosting a BBQ picnic, I figured it looked better to say the emphasis was in the original.)

Wait a minute. Now that I've caught him at his own game, this calls for some dancing bananas.

:celebrate:celebrate:celebrate:celebrate

imported post

Citizen wrote:

Grapeshot wrote:

sudden valley gunner wrote:

Terry the manager from the Bellingham Washington Wal-mart, told me that Wal-mart is pro 2A and that if open carry is allowed by state law it is allowed in the store, he read to me from Wal-mart corporate policy, but wouldn't share a copy of it with me. I of course wouldn't want to argue it with a manager at that very moment.

Click to expand...

No don't argue - beg, plead, offer your next born male child. :?

I would be willing to pay for such a document !

He could redact the store # or other identifying marks from it. Then let it surface in another state. Could be worth 100 times its weight in gold.

Yata hey

Click to expand...

(Note to self: Never let Grapeshot use metaphors unsupervised.)

You understand you just offered to pay a littleover $14,000 for that paper at7 sheets or so to the troy ounce?

Click to expand...

Only want one (1) page and it can be electronically transmitted - essentially weightless.

Like listening to a puppy yapping in the basement - metaphorically speaking.
Besides I'd rather owe it to him - like I owe you.

How did you determine that 7 pages (presuming 67# bond) would weigh 1 troy ounce? Cite to source please.

Yata hey

imported post

Grapeshot wrote:

SNIP How did you determine that 7 pages (presuming 67# bond) would weigh 1 troy ounce? Cite to source please.

Click to expand...

I googled and found a troy ounce is just a few grams more than an avoirdupois ounce. Six sheets of #22 copy paper makes an ounce on my postal scale. So, I just added a sheet for the extra grams.

Hey, I was spending your money, so I wanted tobe generous. Can't have other people thinking you're stingy.

You only want one page? Um, hello! All seven pages, an ounce, would run a hundred thousand dollars or so. I was talking about one page.

And none of this electronic stuff. You said you wanted the document. Not an electronic representation.

imported post

Possible get that policy from a disgruntled employee or anyone have a friend or family member that works there ?

imported post

Citizen wrote:

Hey, I was spending your money, so I wanted tobe generous. Can't have other people thinking you're stingy.

You only want one page? Um, hello! All seven pages, an ounce, would run a hundred thousand dollars or so. I was talking about one page.

And none of this electronic stuff. You said you wanted the document. Not an electronic representation.

Click to expand...

Not stingy at all. I was willing to give you the business by directing people to your Bed & Breakfast establishment, wasn't I? Later was even willing to take care if your restaurant bill.

Wanna bet whether I could raise it from such patriotic and generous souls such as yourself for such a worthy cause - if it were necessary. You would personally support the cause, wouldn't you?

Besides, metaphors are not expensive around here. They seldom go for more than the asking price.

Come out of the closet and show us who you really are. Why do you so avoid the light of day?

I still maintain that such a document from Wal-Mart's corporate policy would be priceless.

Yata hey

imported post

Grapeshot wrote:

SNIP ...such a document from Wal-Mart's corporate policy would be priceless.

Click to expand...

True, that.

imported post

Citizen wrote:

All humor aside. I have to wonder if police are really all that professional and dedicated if they have to have a quasi-military structure to maintain discipline.

You'd think that if they were all that professional, discipline would come without the psuedo-military facade.

Click to expand...

Wow, you're getting good at this! I'll have to remember this.

imported post

We could send Hannah Giles in undercover with a hidden camera to get a video of the store policy. :celebrate:celebrate

imported post

I think it's hilarious that you take any blog out there and it's just a bunch of people quoting things off other websites. I am in the military and I can tell you that having no affiliation whatsoever with law enforcement I would have to disagree with everything that's been said. You take up and around 60-65% of today's police force and they are prior military. Why is this, because after the military some guys can't let go and the police is the closest thing to serving something. As far as the UCMJ goes I don't see how that has remotely anything to do with what was said in Webster's Dictionary. I'll get off my soap box as I can already feel all the way over here people hitting the (Ctrl+T) function to open up a new tab and start researching some new ways of being right lol.

Also some civilians are subject to prosecution under the UCMJ. For instance civilian contractors not under oath working with the Armed Forces during contingency operations. Also if a wife/husband of a soldier/sailor/airman cheats on him/her they can be subject under the UCMJ for adultery. (Don't bother looking it up I'm telling you this because I've seen it first hand.)

"What a great mood we got in here right now it's like daddy hit mommy at the dinner table and we are still trying to eat." - Dane Cook

Happy Carrying!

Mick

imported post

nova wrote:

Websters also states that law enforcement are not civilians. Ask any member of our Armed Forces. They will tell you, no UCMJ = Civilian.

Click to expand...

On a side note Nova nowhere in my definition from Webster did I say anything about military.

imported post

IamMick wrote:

Also if a wife/husband of a soldier/sailor/airman cheats on him/her they can be subject under the UCMJ for adultery. (Don't bother looking it up I'm telling you this because I've seen it first hand.)

Click to expand...

That's preposterous - cite to authority or be gone on that one Mick.

imported post

The ONLY time a "civilian" can be tried under the UCMJ is when he or she is a contract employee working for the government in contingency operations; ie: Working as a paramilitary "Contractor" in Iraq or Azzcrackistan like Blackwater.

According to the FY2007 Defense Budget appropriation bill, the text of the UCMJ has been amended to allow for prosecution of military contractors who are deployed in a "declared war or a contingency operation."

imported post

IamMick wrote:

Also some civilians are subject to prosecution under the UCMJ. For instance civilian contractors not under oath working with the Armed Forces during contingency operations. Also if a wife/husband of a soldier/sailor/airman cheats on him/her they can be subject under the UCMJ for adultery. (Don't bother looking it up I'm telling you this because I've seen it first hand.)

Click to expand...

Not true. Dependants are not subject to the adultery chapter under UCMJ.

imported post

Im still not really understanding why the big fuss about Wal-Mart's carry policy. Yes they follow the laws of the state in which the store is located... Yes it is located in a state in which open carry is also not prohibited. But does the law not also address 'Private Property' rights? If the property owner or their representative asks you not to carry in the store, doesn't that mean that you are not allowed to carry in the store? It would be just the same as going into any private business that was owned by anyone on this forum. If you say no, then the policy is no. As the manager of that particular store, she is responsible for the happenings inside that store. Most of the people on here sound like a bunch of children going crying to mom when dad says its bedtime.

imported post

gkp200 wrote:

IamMick wrote:

Also some civilians are subject to prosecution under the UCMJ. For instance civilian contractors not under oath working with the Armed Forces during contingency operations. Also if a wife/husband of a soldier/sailor/airman cheats on him/her they can be subject under the UCMJ for adultery. (Don't bother looking it up I'm telling you this because I've seen it first hand.)

Click to expand...

Not true. Dependants are not subject to the adultery chapter under UCMJ.

Click to expand...

Once again I've seen it first hand. But I'm sure someone will quote this calling me a liar.

imported post

IamMick wrote:

gkp200 wrote:

IamMick wrote:

Also some civilians are subject to prosecution under the UCMJ. For instance civilian contractors not under oath working with the Armed Forces during contingency operations. Also if a wife/husband of a soldier/sailor/airman cheats on him/her they can be subject under the UCMJ for adultery. (Don't bother looking it up I'm telling you this because I've seen it first hand.)

Click to expand...

Not true. Dependants are not subject to the adultery chapter under UCMJ.

Click to expand...

Once again I've seen it first hand. But I'm sure someone will quote this calling me a liar.

Click to expand...

Mick.......There's a BIG difference between saying you're mistaken, and you're a liar.
It would be dull if we didn't argue here:lol:

imported post

beradcee wrote:

Im still not really understanding why the big fuss about Wal-Mart's carry policy. Yes they follow the laws of the state in which the store is located... Yes it is located in a state in which open carry is also not prohibited. But does the law not also address 'Private Property' rights? If the property owner or their representative asks you not to carry in the store, doesn't that mean that you are not allowed to carry in the store? It would be just the same as going into any private business that was owned by anyone on this forum. If you say no, then the policy is no. As the manager of that particular store, she is responsible for the happenings inside that store. Most of the people on here sound like a bunch of children going crying to mom when dad says its bedtime.

Click to expand...

Walmart manager does not equal Walmart owner. Walmart corporate office sets store policy, and Walmart corporate office says that if carry is legal in the state the store is located in, then it is legal to do so in the store.

And by the way, calling members on this site a bunch of children crying to mom is a fast way to wear out your welcome.

imported post

Well put Peter I was just going off of a case I saw personally where the spouse (civilian) got 10 years for adultery under the UCMJ while her husband was temporarily assigned to the Army in Iraq. She was held under the UCMJ because they were doing it in base housing.

imported post

On a side note just picked up a Mossberg 500 Persuader with a 7+1 capacity. Mmmmm can't wait to get it wet.