Gun Owner not welcome at Tobacco Company

[Grapeshot]

I know personally I dont need a study to see exactly where the most recent crazies all targeted. Every one was an area where people were not allowed to carry! Movie theater, school, school, school. So to me it seems obvious that these areas are targeted. The reason why seems like it should be common sense as well. No guns means no resistance. One time when the gunman was faced with resistance, he surrendered. So the study is life. Look around at the results.

http://tinyurl.com/chtczm3

:lol:

 

[Bowesmobile]

http://tinyurl.com/chtczm3

:lol:

Good one! LOL!:lol:

 

[peter nap]

"And intentionally wrote my letter to be as respectful as possible. For two reasons....first I am not only pro gun but pro private property rights. I see no good reason to seek government regulation (lawsuit) to make them pay for or to prohibit them from making their own rules in their own private property. That is not a direction we need to be headed right now in my opinion. Second I feel that, whether we like it, care for it or not...I believe we need to show as little aggression as possible in protecting our gun rights. The government and the media are trying VERY hard right now to demonize us...to portray us as crazy and mentally insane people..in order to create the public opinion needed to finally push for massive gun control measures. Right now, care for it or not, we would be best to entice these businesses to respect us, and be our allies. We don't need to create the aggressive persona for the gun grabbers. They want that to be the perception VERY badly."
Stay on course, richarcm!! You are doing it right! Don't be swayed by others saying - THE MEEK WON'T INHERIT ANYTHING, OR - TFRED IS ACTUALLY BEING A LITTLE MILD. Showing the kind of respect you are showing may not get an immediate positive response, but in the long run, it usually works out. It just takes time, something our side should embrace. Stay vigilant.

It doesn't much matter how they do it in up north, here we're more aggressive.

As a matter of fact, the OP was at the City Library this evening, which was a very aggressive and effective display of rights. Worked damn well too!

 

[fjpro2a]

Wwhhaat!!!!

Peter, It may be hard for me to ever forgive you for "tying me to the north, especially New Jersey." After reading that, I felt dirty and had to take a shower. All kidding aside, my preference in a few years is to move to Virginia to one of the beautiful active adult communities. You guys in Virginia do it right, and I mean that sincerely. I don't see, though, how richarcm was doing anything wrong. I don't think there is only one rigid way that is right, kind of like "more than one way to skin a cat." In any event, when push comes to shove, I would almost always subordinate my opinion to a trusted veteran. To give you an idea of what questionable ideas I have, I thought that if an LEO ever walks up to a OC'er and asks for some ID because of a MWAG concern, would it be a good idea for the OC'er to say -yes, I will show you some ID, even though I don't have to - as long as he and the LEO agree to go the person calling in the concern to both tell that person that OC is legal. In this way, perhaps people can be educated over time. Or am I just plain nuts?

 

[peter nap]

Peter, It may be hard for me to ever forgive you for "tying me to the north, especially New Jersey." After reading that, I felt dirty and had to take a shower. All kidding aside, my preference in a few years is to move to Virginia to one of the beautiful active adult communities. You guys in Virginia do it right, and I mean that sincerely. I don't see, though, how richarcm was doing anything wrong. I don't think there is only one rigid way that is right, kind of like "more than one way to skin a cat." In any event, when push comes to shove, I would almost always subordinate my opinion to a trusted veteran. To give you an idea of what questionable ideas I have, I thought that if an LEO ever walks up to a OC'er and asks for some ID because of a MWAG concern, would it be a good idea for the OC'er to say -yes, I will show you some ID, even though I don't have to - as long as he and the LEO agree to go the person calling in the concern to both tell that person that OC is legal. In this way, perhaps people can be educated over time. Or am I just plain nuts?

I didn't say or think Richarm did anything wrong. Actually, he's an extremely nice young man and is very active. What I said is that the meek will inherit nothing and I stand by that. Polite letters don't help in most cases.
Loss of income is the most important thing. In the case of the Tobacco Company, the pressure needs to be put on the city first because that's where this is coming from.

Thankfully, I don't live in or near that God Forsaken city..But I do know what's going on there..The bottom is made up of old industrial buildings that have been renovated into high end restaurants and clubs, frequented by a mix of yuppies and others from other areas. Nearby are extremely expensive condos...all this literally next to high crime slums, right across the river from more high crime and everything in between spotted by Adult Entertainment clubs and eating establishments that don't charge extra for the insects.

The city feels that crime will stay away if they blame guns and take the licenses from places that don't do their dirty work for them.

As to immigrating.....Everything North of the Ni River except the Shenandoah Valley is open for settlers.:lol:

 

[cwolfs69]

2A does not apply

why bring up the second amendment. it has nothing to do with this case. 2A only limits the general government in washington and has no bearing on states or private business. we have to stop confusing these jurisdictions. we already have to much general involvement into our rights. We need to back down the feds and let the states govern as the constitution was set up. this is an individual company and they can do whatever they want. yeah, that no guns atitude is dangerous. the letter to owner is right. we just do no go there as long as they have that policy. simple, either we believe in personal rights or we dont. not a lot of discussion needed.

 

[BlueRidgeTrapper]

Thanks for leaving my Valley out of that one Mr. Nap :banana:

Although I must admit some of the bafoons are trying to infiltrate :cuss:

 

[TFred]

why bring up the second amendment. it has nothing to do with this case. 2A only limits the general government in washington and has no bearing on states or private business. we have to stop confusing these jurisdictions. we already have to much general involvement into our rights. We need to back down the feds and let the states govern as the constitution was set up. this is an individual company and they can do whatever they want. yeah, that no guns atitude is dangerous. the letter to owner is right. we just do no go there as long as they have that policy. simple, either we believe in personal rights or we dont. not a lot of discussion needed.

Need to do some "catch-up" reading. Start with McDonald vs. Chicago.

Correct with regard to private business, but not any more with regard to States:

McDonald v. Chicago, 561 US 3025 (2010), was a landmark[1] decision of the Supreme Court of the United States that determined whether the Second Amendment applies to the individual states. The Court held that the right of an individual to "keep and bear arms" protected by the Second Amendment is incorporated by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and applies to the states. The decision cleared up the uncertainty left in the wake of District of Columbia v. Heller as to the scope of gun rights in regard to the states.​

TFred