Results 1 to 23 of 23

Thread: Multi-state anti grocery chain changes mind, Schnucks pulled the signs

  1. #1
    Accomplished Advocate
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,924

    Post imported post

    http://www.kmox.com/schnucks-allows-...stores/7473785

    While only refrencing CCW, the anti-firearms signs are gone.

    Can not speak for everywhere but the corporate office said pull them!


    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."

  2. #2
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Lobelville, Tennessee, USA
    Posts
    2,615

    Post imported post

    ewww, the Brady Bunch is NOT going to like this.

  3. #3
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Laveen, Arizona, USA
    Posts
    432

    Post imported post

    Another one to remember in a debate the next time the Brady Bunch talks about Peet's Kitchen and that other place in California that they convinced to not allow firearms. Actually, those places(Peet's) need to be informed of businesses that change their policies to allow for carry. Nothing would be sweeter than to get one of them to reverse their policy to again allow firearms.

  4. #4
    Accomplished Advocate
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,924

    Post imported post

    Since you guys are a long ways away, you may not be familiar with the history but the chain was very anti and gave 25k to fight CCW.

    They are a St Louis corp and I have posted it in the Missouri forum as well since they are based here.
    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."

  5. #5
    Guest
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    958

    Post imported post

    Task Force 16 wrote:
    ewww, the Brady Bunch is NOT going to like this.
    it's rumored, when Paul Helmke heard the news, he had tears in his eyes...

  6. #6
    Campaign Veteran Bookman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Winston Salem, North Carolina, United States
    Posts
    1,424

    Post imported post

    Notso wrote:
    Another one to remember in a debate the next time the Brady Bunch talks about Peet's Kitchen and that other place in California that they convinced to not allow firearms. Actually, those places(Peet's) need to be informed of businesses that change their policies to allow for carry. Nothing would be sweeter than to get one of them to reverse their policy to again allow firearms.
    That would be Peet's Coffee and California Pizza Kitchen.
    "All that is required for evil to prevail is for good men to do nothing." - Edmund Burke


    "I like people who stand on the Constitution... unless they're using it to wipe their feet." - Jon E Hutcherson

  7. #7
    Regular Member Superlite27's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    God's Country, Missouri
    Posts
    1,279

    Post imported post

    I wonder why they did this?

    This is the grocery store chain that donated $25,000 to defeat CCW in Missouri in 2003 (and failed).

    EVERY single store I've ever walked up to the door of (I've NEVER went inside one) each had, not only a gun buster sign, but an explanation of "For the safety of our customers we do not allow........"

    Now they're suddenly allowing firearm owners in armed?

    I just wonder: What made them change their minds? Something we did? The "no guns, no money" cards?

    I'm still not gonna give them my money.



  8. #8
    Regular Member Bikenut's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Saginaw, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    2,756

    Post imported post

    Superlite27 wrote:
    I wonder why they did this?

    This is the grocery store chain that donated $25,000 to defeat CCW in Missouri in 2003 (and failed).

    EVERY single store I've ever walked up to the door of (I've NEVER went inside one) each had, not only a gun buster sign, but an explanation of "For the safety of our customers we do not allow........"

    Now they're suddenly allowing firearm owners in armed?

    I just wonder: What made them change their minds? Something we did? The "no guns, no money" cards?

    I'm still not gonna give them my money.

    Interesting... a business takes a major step by changing it's policy favorably for gun rights... wouldn't it be much better to offer respect and applaud their decision by supporting that business?
    Gun control isn't about the gun at all.... for those who want gun control it is all about their own fragile egos, their own lack of self esteem, their own inner fears, and most importantly... their own desire to dominate others. And an openly carried gun is a slap in the face to all of those things.

  9. #9
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193

    Post imported post

    In a principled world, yes.

    Should we laud a lifelong leftist changing horses to the right?

    Believe nothing that you read or hear without verifying it yourself unless it fits your preexisting world view.

  10. #10
    Accomplished Advocate
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,924

    Post imported post

    Doug Huffman wrote:
    In a principled world, yes.

    Should we laud a lifelong leftist changing horses to the right?

    Believe nothing that you read or hear without verifying it yourself unless it fits your preexisting world view.
    This is the response I gave the reporter whom asked a similar question.

    When Schnucks donates $125,000.00 to groups that have worked tirelessly for law abiding citizens not to have their civil rights violated I will consider shopping there again. This is exactly five times as much as they contributed to suppress law abiding citizens rights and nothing less will do for me.

    It is not a matter of forgiving, it is a matter of doing whats right. The contribution they made was for the wrong reason, I am happy they are now clearly admitting it, now it is time for them to step up and help us work to continue to remove the laws clearly imposing upon only legal citizens as the criminals have never cared about any of the laws to start with.

    This is my opinion and mine alone,
    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."

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    1,040

    Post imported post

    LMTD wrote:
    http://www.kmox.com/schnucks-allows-...stores/7473785

    While only refrencing CCW, the anti-firearms signs are gone.

    Can not speak for everywhere but the corporate office said pull them!

    Finally, CHANGE I can live with and accept.

    If they were in my neck of the woods, I'd be shopping there a bit and letting them know it was appreciated.

  12. #12
    Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    San Diego, California, USA
    Posts
    405

    Post imported post

    If we boycott them to get them to change their mind and boycott them after they change their mind, what is their motivation to change their mind?
    :?

  13. #13
    Accomplished Advocate
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,924

    Post imported post

    flintlock tom wrote:
    If we boycott them to get them to change their mind and boycott them after they change their mind, what is their motivation to change their mind?
    :?
    From my friend on another forum:

    What Schnucks really meant...

    The economy sucks and our business profits are down. We're getting our butt kicked in the upscale grocery business by Dierbergs and some of the boutique markets. Overall, Walmart Supercenters have (forgive the pun) eaten our lunch.

    As a part of our overall business strategy, we figure we have to quit ticking people off with stupid corporate policies so that they might start shopping at our stores again. So, reluctantly we have been quietly taking our "NO CCW" signs down in Missouri stores. We wanted to do it quietly and pretend it never happened so existing customers won't get all upset now that we will allow CCW in our Missouri stores. We didn't want to tick off our ignorant customers or the anti 2A people who shop our stores. We wanted the best of both worlds and not make any waves that might affect our bottom line. We really haven't changed our mind on the subject but business is business. Some members of the Schnucks family have always enjoyed skeet and trap shooting which everyone understands is what the 2nd Amendment is really all about. We're not about to admit publicly that we were "wrong" about CCW because if we were, we would have made a public apology to those low life's and yay hoos who spouted that 2A CCW crap and boycotted us.

    So let's just forgive and forget OK. You get to carry your guns in our stores and we'll do our best not to look down our noses at you when you come in. To our existing anti gun customers, please understand we really didn't want to do this but all of us have to sacrifice to make our economy (and our stores) strong again. It's that Hope & Change thing you know."
    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."

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    1,040

    Post imported post

    flintlock tom wrote:
    If we boycott them to get them to change their mind and boycott them after they change their mind, what is their motivation to change their mind?
    :?
    Excellent point.

  15. #15
    Regular Member Bikenut's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Saginaw, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    2,756

    Post imported post

    Perhaps looking into whether or not a business that changed it's policy to pro gun, or at least neutral about guns, but still continued to support anti gun agendas with financial contributions would expose if the policy change was sincere.... or just a way to increase profits in order to have more money to contribute to anti gun agendas........

    That said... if the policy change was sincere then that business should reap the benefit of increased sales from pro gun folks frequenting it in support.

    Interestingly enough... if a business that wasn't sincere in it's policy change were to be exposed as such... then that business would lose a great deal of credibility on both the pro and anti sides of the issue... perhaps along with even more customers than ever before.
    Gun control isn't about the gun at all.... for those who want gun control it is all about their own fragile egos, their own lack of self esteem, their own inner fears, and most importantly... their own desire to dominate others. And an openly carried gun is a slap in the face to all of those things.

  16. #16
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063

    Post imported post

    flintlock tom wrote:
    If we boycott them to get them to change their mind and boycott them after they change their mind, what is their motivation to change their mind?
    :?
    +1

  17. #17
    Accomplished Advocate
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,924

    Post imported post

    Make ya'll a deal.

    There is a rumor some folks might actually go there and spend some money and those folks typically openly carry. If they don't get tossed, I will buy some milk and eggs from them the following day, but if they do, I am going to continue to boycott them and motivate as many as I can to do so until which time they change.

    No one here or there will EVER be able to convince me that imposing ones views on another is acceptable behavior.

    They did not just say no guns on the property, they gave large sums of money to fight against our rights as citizens and I am TOTALLY unimpressed that they now imply I am good enough to be allowed in their stores and I am highly insulted that for the last six years they have in fact said as much.

    I am not instantly interested in handing them my money so they can distribute it to anti-gun causes again and I am most certainly not convinced they won't and they have said nothing of the sort, they just sent out a notice that I was invited back to hand them my money. When they do something that proves they actually mean something beyond that, I will give em a shot.
    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."

  18. #18
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Laveen, Arizona, USA
    Posts
    432

    Post imported post

    Another way to look at it and I suppose we'll never know the real reason why they changed, but corporations and decision trees in them are made up of many different people. Maybe there is a pro-gun executive in that decision tree that was finally able to convince others to remove the signs in hopes of raising sales(of course that's the initial reason). Someone may have stuck their neck out there to get it done, so it might be worth shopping there now.

    But to me, the big thing that has happened is that someone reversed their policy. That is huge when dealing with public opinion and the Brady Bunch, it doesn't happen that often and you know how the Bradyites were making hay with it regarding Peet's Coffee and California Pizza Kitchen. If I lived in the area, they would now be on my list of stores to shop in.


    Edit for spelling and one additional thought.

  19. #19
    Accomplished Advocate
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,924

    Post imported post

    While I understand your point, you are in fact not in the area so you are not familiar with the company.

    While it may be incorporated, the Schnuck family runs it and if you think for a moment it is anything beyond the soft economy and realizing they bit off their nose to spite their face, IMHO you are wrong.

    Only time will tell and your point is noted and respected, but not agreed with.
    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."

  20. #20
    Regular Member TFred's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    7,705

    Post imported post

    Several news articles in Google News about this. One of particular interest, apparently one of the store's sites is in a leased state-owned building where firearms are still prohibited.

    http://interact.stltoday.com/blogzon...tate-building/

    TFred


  21. #21
    Accomplished Advocate
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,924

    Post imported post

    Yes, that one sort of came at me from afar as well. The original intent was in refrence to buildings the state leases but having it reversed like that was not an expected thought.


    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 TFred's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    7,705

    Post imported post

    LMTD wrote:
    Yes, that one sort of came at me from afar as well. The original intent was in refrence to buildings the state leases but having it reversed like that was not an expected thought.
    It's particularly bizarre, because here in Virginia, it's just the opposite. Generally, State or City/County owned buildings are not allowed to prohibit firearms, unless in specific compliance with a state law. We tend to hash out whether or not third parties are allowed to ban firearms when they lease public space at a park, etc, for an event.

    TFred


  23. #23
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Laveen, Arizona, USA
    Posts
    432

    Post imported post

    LMTD wrote:
    While I understand your point, you are in fact not in the area so you are not familiar with the company.

    While it may be incorporated, the Schnuck family runs it and if you think for a moment it is anything beyond the soft economy and realizing they bit off their nose to spite their face, IMHO you are wrong.

    Only time will tell and your point is noted and respected, but not agreed with.
    It could be the soft economy or any number of other reasons. I'm sure they're like family businesses all over the country, are probably hurting to some extentand are there for mostly 1 reason, to make money.Regardless of the reason though, I doubt I'd continue to punish them - it's too historic of an occasion(a company going from donating large sums of money to the anti's to allowing me to carry is historic)and I'll try to give them everyreason to not change back when the anti-zealots start their boycott.But then, that's just me.

Posting Permissions

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