Gun Control & RKBA
Related: About this forumMoms' Group Calls Out Kroger's Gun Policy In Unprecedented New Ad Campaign
On Thursday, Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America, a gun control group backed by former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg's considerable financial resources, will blanket half a dozen newspapers with ads meant to pressure the grocery giant to stop allowing customers to openly carry firearms in its stores. The ads will be displayed on the newspapers' websites as well as on a billboard in Cincinnati, where Kroger's corporate headquarters is based, according to the group.
The ads will contrast images of shoppers doing things that are currently prohibited in Kroger's stores -- such as eating ice cream and shopping while shirtless -- with images of people carrying rifles. "Guess which one" isn't allowed at Kroger, the tag line says. (Scroll down for full images of the group's ads.)
This is the first time Moms Demand Action has bought ads as part of one of its campaigns to convince a company to enact a no-open-carry policy. Erika Soto Lamb, a spokeswoman for Everytown for Gun Safety, the umbrella group that includes Moms Demand Action, declined to say how much the ads cost, saying only that the amount was in the "six figures."
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)Since it is no longer a "grass roots" organization they should stop trying to push that narrative. I agree with the Kroger response, follow state and local laws and ask people to be respectful of others and not open carry.
They would be much more effective if they would push actual gun safety such as safe storage of weapons and give away locks and gun safes to the poor. Not sure how many have been shot in an open carry demonstration at Kroger (quite sure it is zero) but kids have been killed by unsecured weapons. Those "moms" do not seem to think that is a priority though.
flamin lib
(14,559 posts)
world wide wally
(21,733 posts)I have probably bought 2000 loafs of bread and never once had the need to kill anyone in the process.
Just wondering.
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)pipoman
(16,038 posts)Maybe they should divulge the source of the 6 figures spent?
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)Do you have a problem with that? Or should the taxpayers foot the bill for PSA's, which wouldn't be such a bad idea.
Money well spent, unless you enjoy grocery shopping alongside guys who look like they're ready to fight IS.
pipoman
(16,038 posts)Much ado about nothing. Yes, one person political activism is a problem. ...I don't want to live in Bloomin'idiot's world. Where are all of these mother's money? Sure, there are some female figure heads in the group, but overwhelmingly the group wouldn't exist without the man behind the curtain.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)Oh, you think there are no Moms who oppose shopping amongst people sporting guns?
The group might not have the money to pay for all the ads, but I think it would exist.
http://momsdemandaction.org/
Apparently, it has over 150,000 members and joined forces with MAIG. Seems like they want reasonable gun control and behavior. I don't see where they're coming to take your guns away.
Point is, do you want to shop for groceries with your little kids next to guys with AR-15's slung over their shoulders, or doesn't that concern you at all?
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)Without members, you have no way of paying for it.
According to emails gained by NY State FOIA (Bloomberg used his NYC government emails, and MAIG used NYC government servers) MDA was thought up by the former director of MAIG (a paid employee of the Raben Group, a lobbying firm) to create a MADD for guns. They used the same words as what MDA claims. To do this, they went to Voxpop Public Relations LLC, founded and ran by former Monsanto PR executive Shannon Watts to create it. Watts and Bloomberg pays protesters to show up. There are no chapters, members, just the same paid employees.
Why did they join forces? The IRS form 990. If they didn't merge, MDA would have to fill it out and make public what everyone with an IQ over Sara Palin's already knows.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)Looks pretty legit to me and obviously effective. At least they are on the right side of the discussion. More power to them. I don't see any danger to gun owners or threat to gun ownership.
IronGate
(2,186 posts)What have they been effective at so far?
Their claims of having companies ban the carrying of firearms in their stores have proven to be untrue in every case so far, IE: Target, Starbucks, Office Depot, etc.
If there are 150,00 members, then why can't they muster more than a few dozen, if that, at their rallies?
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)Like their definition of "school shootings" (like a drug dealer who get shot by the cops across the street is counted) by their logic, my high school (and jr. high) had school shootings every week. IIRC, every Thursday at 3:30 in the indoor range by the swimming pool.
Their membership numbers probably includes "likes" on Facebook. They are rarely honest about anything.
If they were on the right side, they wouldn't have to be dishonest.
You spent how many years in PR and marketing?
I put former Monsanto PR executives next to has been rock stars.
NYC_SKP
(68,644 posts)Wow.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)Not really important. Sometimes everyone is wrong. Sometimes everyone is right.
flamin lib
(14,559 posts)in that world may I suggest a move to a place more to your liking, say, Somolia where everybody carries guns everywhere all the time?
IronGate
(2,186 posts)80% of American's agree with MAIG and MDA on UBC's, but the rest of their agenda?
Not so much.
BTW, could you provide the link to your assertion?
flamin lib
(14,559 posts)in the country. Neither will I provide a link to NASA images to prove the world is round.
IronGate
(2,186 posts)Why?
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)flamin lib
(14,559 posts)friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)That (and the repeated dick jokes) leads me to believe that you're not gonna be
appearing at the Oxford Union anytime soon...
pipoman
(16,038 posts)No, another Bloomberg lie..where is the 80%'s money? I mean $1 each to prove they exist would be 300million...No, maybe 80% of the money comes from the same pocket.
I'll stay here since there hasn't been enough support for any gun control to change anything...except to loosen restrictions. ..dreams. ..
And even if 80% agree on ubc, it doesn't make it anymore constitutionally possible. ...keep fighting for the impossible to be sure nothing changes. .
flamin lib
(14,559 posts)IronGate
(2,186 posts)and the majority of us here have no problem with UBC's, but MAIG and MDA want to go much further than that.
flamin lib
(14,559 posts)IronGate
(2,186 posts)That applies to MAIG and MDA and all the other gun control orgs.
That's my point.
flamin lib
(14,559 posts)IronGate
(2,186 posts)pipoman
(16,038 posts)Sales between private parties not engaged in the firearms business who live in the same state would be struck down before it went into effect.
pipoman
(16,038 posts)A federal law requiring background checks on private, intrastate sales is unconstitutional, that is why that one type of sale was exempted in 1994 and no bill has made it out of judicial committees in the last 20 years regardless the party in control.
State requirements are another story, but alas not possible to enact use of NICS at the state level because nobody wants to make a simple regulatory change, including the president who could make it possible through executive order. ..
steelsmith
(59 posts)The nation is solidly behind the second amendment, and the extreme increase in gun sales is an obvious sign of that. I think the stats you saw were the numbers of felons in MAIG
Lurks Often
(5,455 posts)Kroger isn't going to ban guns in their stores, too many of their locations are in red, pro gun states and they know that while gun owners tend to be less vocal then the anti-gun extremists in expressing their views, gun owners are far more willing to boycott a company. Kroger isn't willing to lose all that revenue over the shrill bleating of a bunch of paid shills for billionaire Bloomberg.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)Right, the Moms who want their kids not to be shot are the "extremists". The guys who shop with laded guns are the "normal" people. God bless Murka! 
pipoman
(16,038 posts)Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)gejohnston
(17,502 posts)truth is, I'm sure most of the people they pay to show up are moms, but it is a PR fiction like very other astro turf group.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)Mainly because I don't have a dog in this fight, but if I did, then I might be looking at the numbers. I'd be looking at the responses to the article linked in the OP, which is overwhelmingly in support of the "Moms", and I'd be looking at the recs of this OP, compared to the 4 members who are putting down the "Moms" purely because of the association with Bloomberg.
It seems that Bloomberg has become the bogeyman for the NRA crowd. Well, I'm not a fan of either, but on this issue, I'm with Bloomberg. I see no ulterior motive on his part, just as I see no ulterior motive on Obama's part, or Feinstein's part. None may have the best solution, but they are all coming from the right place, IMO. Now, you can see me as the enemy if that makes you feel better, but you'd be wrong. I'm really a fairly disinterested party and just throwing in my 2 cents worth.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)Southern California and Florida has the same problem, perpetual summer cooks brains.
Obama doesn't have an ulterior motive, he really believes like you do. Bloomberg and Feinstien, it is about control and power, not a better world.
Also, You and two others are supporting "moms". Their association with Bloomberg, Monsanto, and no association with honesty.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)I'm supporting common sense. If Moms and Bloomberg are doing the same, then good for them.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)Ever listen to or read Bloomberg's interviews on the subject? He is out of touch, sexist, and full of shit. Watts, who is "Moms" was the head of Monsanto's PR branch before starting her own PR firm. There is no Moms, just Watts, Bloomberg, whatever lobbying firm they hire and who they pay to protest besides the few "likes" on Facebook who might show up for free if in the local area. Beyond that, they don't exist.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)Just because they have it to throw away?
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)ego, ideological dominance, and cultural imperialism, and using that power to stuff their views down the throats of others. Kind of like the religious right when it comes to anything to do with sex.
If Robin Williams used a gun instead of his belt, Bloomberg and the Brady Campaign (who has colliding egos who are at war with each other) would be waving his bloody shirt for gun control, not suicide prevention. Had (the guy in California) stabbed all of six of his victims instead of shooting three after stabbing three, it would have remained a local story outside of You Tube.
That is Bloomberg's motivation. Nothing else, other than peace and order. Even if it were for "public safety and security", there is a familiar Ben Franklin quote. Watts? Money. Bloomberg is a paying client, just like former MAIG director Mark Glaze who used to bill Bloomberg on behalf of The Raben Group lobbying firm.
flamin lib
(14,559 posts)gejohnston
(17,502 posts)I'm guessing you was one of the one or two locals who are true believers.
flamin lib
(14,559 posts)gejohnston
(17,502 posts)or reality? Who do you think is really going to shoot their kid? Most likely some guy who ignores the no gun sign to rob the place.
If these moms really cared, why do they have to be paid to show up to protests? Because MDA doesn't actually exist. It is a fiction created by Watts' PR firm. There are no chapters, there might be 50 real members who are true believers, but they are paid employees.
flamin lib
(14,559 posts)was fired yesterday? Or someone on his way to the nearest elementary school?
Protestors who show up at local stores arn not paid, but you know that don't you?
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)and yes, they are paid.
flamin lib
(14,559 posts)Speed limit signs don't stop all speeders and stop signs don't stop all collusions at intersections but the drive to work sure would be exciting without them.
Why do you want to let open carry idiots act as camouflage for people planning mass murder? How is anyone to know what the intent is? Why do I have to put up with people who carry their penis out in the open?
IronGate
(2,186 posts)The oft referenced "penis" accusation.
I really thought you were better than this.
Guess I was wrong.
flamin lib
(14,559 posts)That's why gun makers market their product that way, so your basic loser can compensate.
IronGate
(2,186 posts)It saddens me to see that you've succumbed to the usual controller's vocabulary, you are usually one of the more reasonable ones here that will discuss gun laws with us.
flamin lib
(14,559 posts)Guns never go limp . . .
IronGate
(2,186 posts)And if you think that the "penis" reference is indicative of the gun culture, then you are sadly clueless.
A Simple Game
(9,214 posts)questions for me?
Most gun owners say they want guns for protection and as a deterrent from robbery. But when it was proposed to publish a list of all gun owners the gun owners balked saying that it would just show thieves where they could steal guns. So is owning a gun a deterrent or not?
If gun owners don't want their names published, and it appears that most don't, why would they open carry to show the thieves that you do indeed own a gun with a high resale value in the black market?
Have you as a gun owner ever been robbed? I don't own guns anymore, was never robbed when I did own guns, but have also never been robbed since I don't own guns anymore. It is also well known that I don't have guns in my house. Would you recommend that I return to being a gun owner for protection?
To be honest even when I owned guns I never considered them as protection, I was a hunter. If my house had been broken into probably the last thing I would have done was go for one of my guns which wouldn't have been loaded anyway. I never would have considered shooting a person as an option so cancel the last question, I guess I answered it myself. But let me ask this instead, would yo consider shooting a person as an option?
IronGate
(2,186 posts)A. Owning a firearm is a deterrence, but publishing the names of gun owners, and CHL holder's, is, IMHO, a violation of the 4A.
All that does is let the thieves know that a citizen has a weapon in the house and to wait until said owner is gone and rob them.
A. I've been the victim of attempted robbery, my lovely wife held the suspect at shotgun point until the police arrived to take the poor fool into custody.
As far as recommending you returning to being a gun owner for protection?
That's something you have to decide on your own, if you're comfortable with not having a firearm in the home, and aren't prepared to possibly shoot someone in the unlikely event of a break in, then, go for it, if there's any doubt to using possibly deadly force, then, no, don't get another firearm, the chances of it being taken away from you and used on yourself or your loved ones are just to great.
My recommendations is to explore other options to home security.
A. I would only consider shooting this person as an absolute last resort, IE, if they charged me, if they made what I consider a theartening move towards me or a loved one.
If they were to turn and run away, then, no, the threat is no longer there.
Hope that answers some of your questions.
A Simple Game
(9,214 posts)Nobody is advocating seizure of guns, at least I'm not. What I think is applicable is the 2nd amendment. Why don't citizens have the right to know who their militia members are? The 2nd amendment implies an named obligation to gun ownership, do you advocate shirking that responsibility? Most if not all members of the armed forces have their names prominently displayed in the local media when they join the military, why not the militia?
If there is no obligation for a militia then why should open carry be allowed?
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)If there is no demonstrable compelling interest, then it shouldn't be restricted.
steelsmith
(59 posts)My wife has evidently an extremely tiny penis. At least I have never seen it. But I have seen her wearing an inside the belt holster with her blouse tucked in on occasion. She carries every day as a property manager, empty move out houses attract the local vandals etc.
flamin lib
(14,559 posts)Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)gejohnston
(17,502 posts)in that area. They might have a few real members, but they are generally paid. The counter protesters on the other hand, had to drive, fly etc. on their own dime if they weren't from the local area.
flamin lib
(14,559 posts)gejohnston
(17,502 posts)every movement has them.
IronGate
(2,186 posts)Hypocrisy much?
flamin lib
(14,559 posts)has been reported in every major publication in the country.
IronGate
(2,186 posts)Once again, hypocrisy much?
flamin lib
(14,559 posts)who won't acknowledge what has been reported in every national publication in the country.
Take your mental masterbation elsewhere.
IronGate
(2,186 posts)Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)it is a sad thing
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)Wow, very classy. Why don't go have a nice drink or smoke and calm down.
You seem to get very worked up and it is not good for you.
flamin lib
(14,559 posts)It just gets sooooooo tedious making the same reply the same criticism over and over and over .
. .
Some people need to just read a reply absorb it and get on with life.
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)nice insult, shows how you really think. Maybe you should just stick to bansalot where there are no opposing views allowed and you can happily post your penis references without being called out on your uncivil behavior.
This group tries to allow all viewpoints and the host does a great job of not blocking people but you lose all credibility when you go and insult people.
Have a nice day 
tblue37
(65,211 posts)then the other people in the store will have a quick and effective way to know that a guy they spot with a gun is probably there for mayhem, so they will know to get away and call the cops as fast as they can.
But if "good guys" with guns are all around and a bad guy with a gun comes in to commit a little murder, the other people in the store won't spot him quickly enough to take defensive action, because he will look just like all the other armed guys, whom we have been told are just "good guys" exercising their rights.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)anyone who is half way observant (and doesn't have racist, homophobic, classist, or other bigotry filters) will pick up on it. Besides, when was the last time a gun shop has been robbed during business hours?
If they have kids and are obviously shopping, it is obviously no threat to anyone.
Here is a thought experiment: You are a 7-11 clerk, a black guy in a hoodie (cool day), a biker wearing Hells Angels colors, and a guy who is OC a pistol (or hunting knife) wearing hunter orange (during deer season) get their stuff and stand in line and seem calm and relaxed. In the corner, there is a guy in the isles acting nervous, and just kind of looking around.
Which one raises red flags for you?
tblue37
(65,211 posts)just not terribly observant or good at interpreting what they observe.
We should not HAVE to be constantly scanning everyone around us for subtle signs of intent. OTOH, the presence of a gun is an immediately apparent bit if evidence, so if regular people are not walking around with big guns, then spotting someone with such a weapon would quickly provide essential information that would allow us to take action without waiting for a few dangerous seconds to observe body language clues to make sure we are not about to embarrass ourselves or trouble some innocent fellow citizen by panicking unnecessarily.
Even a couple of seconds of delay in responding could make the difference between surviving or not surviving.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)you do it all the time. You don't have to be a police profiler, just be open minded, non judgmental and observant. Ever see anyone who acts afraid of an obviously friendly dog? Same thing.
discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,475 posts)IIRC 1 - 2 years ago and I believe he didn't make it. 
Lurks Often
(5,455 posts)a bunch of paid shills for Bloomberg.
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)Open carry in grocery stores is fucking idiotic!
IronGate
(2,186 posts)Concealed carry is much more civilized.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)I don't make the penis comparison, but if that were the topic of conversation, I would agree, but as it isn't and we are talking about guns, I would prefer to see the guns and know what I'm dealing with.
IMO, anyone who carries a gun in a supermarket is a fool, unless they are a victim of a known stalker, or they are working professional security.
IronGate
(2,186 posts)It's the best way to avoid people's feelings hurt, and your opinion is just that, your opinion, I have a difference of opinion.
If a citizen is qualified, then, why not?
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)If the reason is no more than I'm off to buy groceries, without any extant threat, then I disagree. If you feel the need to carry a gun, hidden on your person, to go about your normal daily life, and you are not subject to some kind of ongoing threat or occupational danger, then I consider your carrying deceitful and sneaky. I'm not saying you are an overt threat, but your ratchet up the potential for violence by introducing a loaded firearm into the mix. The more guns in the room, the more chance one of them is going to be fired. It's not complicated math.
IronGate
(2,186 posts)we have a difference of opinon on concealed carry, but thanks for the insult free, reasonable discussion.
You, unlike others, are willing to express your opinons in a fair, clear, and insult free debate and I respect you for that.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)I know I rub people the wrong way from time to time, but I call it the way I see it.
I have a couple of house guests at the moment, both single females and both from Texas (Houston and San Antonio). Houston is not a gun owner, San Antonio is. The subject of guns came up in conversation the other day. Houston warned San Antonio not to discuss guns with me, knowing that I hang out in the Gungeon occasionally. I've known her for several years and she was under the impression that I was vehemently opposed to guns, because of my participation in this group. I'm not, and I totally understand anyone, especially in Texas, and especially a female, owning a gun for personal protection. My friend from San Antonio is thinking about getting a CHL permit, and again I don't blame her. If I were in her situation I would get one, just in case I ever felt the need. It's a crazy world out there, especially for women.
What I don't get is guys carrying. What makes them feel so vulnerable?
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)Open Carry in Texas is merely using the long-gun legality as a ploy to bargain for open carry of hand guns, not now legal. Then you will have your "preference so... I can see what [your] dealing with." You'll never again have to imagine all those Glocks, Rugers & Smiths pendulously swing, lulling and surging with every step. Oh wait, those are women toting openly...
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)Men, I would prefer carry openly, if they must carry at all, thought for the life of me I can't understand why they would.
I think that would be a good solution.
Men are predators, by nature. Women, not so much.
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)As much as the Founding Fathers were into natural rights, they saw the profoundly radical necessity of "equal protection."
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)Women are far more likely to be the victims of predatory males. What motivates men to routinely carry? Is it extreme caution, paranoia, real fear of others? Or is it mindless habit, like smoking? Do you know any men who regularly carry? If so, help me understand the mindset.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)men are most likely to be violent crime victims according to the FBI.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)I said women are more likely to be victims of predatory males. Big difference. Males tend to be the victims of confrontation with other males, very testosterone related chest bumping, rather than predation.
A woman is more likely to use a gun in defense of her person, not her property or her ego.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)I wonder, is that just to be contradictory or do you really misinterpret everything I say?
What does anything you say have to do with what I said?
So what, that women are more likely to be assaulted by other means. How is that relevant to anything I said?
Of course it can be "business disputes".That is my point. Men use guns to solve problems that have nothing to do with self defense.
Who mentioned fucking bar fights? Again, completely irrelevant to the conversation.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)Point is, arguments not based on empirical evidence (or counter to empirical evidence) shouldn't even be entertained. Another problem with your argument:
http://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/doublex/2014/04/male_rape_in_america_a_new_study_reveals_that_men_are_sexually_assaulted.html
http://www.theguardian.com/society/2010/sep/05/men-victims-domestic-violence
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)about it. I can only assume it is work-related; travel, frequent delivery, work in dicey surroundings. There are potential threats, and if someone routinely (I think that is a better descriptor than "mindless habit"
carries, it's no problem with me.
The vast majority of men & women don't predate. (I think the term doesn't fit well as true predators kill and eat prey All the time -- routinely, if you will). Some (like wolves and cats) enjoy the hunt, and over-kill, but even that behavior is not prevalent. I think the desire of some humans to attack other Humans is a result of psych & socio-based problems, though sometimes encouraged by cultural norms.
What you term human predators are the distinct exception, free agents who are dangerous to be around. Situational awareness is the best defense, but in some situations, it isn't enough.
discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,475 posts)...and those who have hunted armed men long enough and liked it, never care for anything else thereafter.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)It isn't, but it is common for males to physically prey on females, rather than vice versa. Men are rarely the prey.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)and the parking lot full of really not nice people. BTW, you have heard of recent racially motivated attacks at a few Krogers recently?
http://wreg.com/2014/09/07/witness-reacts-to-violent-attack-at-kroger/
Dustlawyer
(10,494 posts)Minimum age requirements, and mandatory gun safety classes (can hold at gun shows). If you are a "responsible gun owner" why not put your money where your mouth is? It is a deadly weapon so why not treat it with a little more respect. Teenagers get in more wrecks than adults when operating a motor vehicle because they are new to driving and don't have the judgement that you expect of an adult. Why are guns different?
I don't want to take away all guns and it would be impossible at this point to do so if I did. I bet that gun instructor that was accidentally killed trying to teach a 9 year old girl to fire a fully automatic weapon would like a "do over" on his decision to let a kid shoot that type of weapon!
Contrary to RW media and the NRA, most Americans don't want to take away your guns, but they do want some reasonable restrictions for safety. If you are truly a "Responsible gun owner" you would support some restrictions. It's just common sense.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)gejohnston
(17,502 posts)BTW, what do you know about current restrictions? You seem to be under the false impression that there are not any.
blueridge3210
(1,401 posts)Genetic Fallacy?
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)They begin with the post title
An appeal to common sense. Who gets to define 'reasonable'? Michael Bloomberg?
Wayne LaPierre? The White Panthers?
A strawman argument combined with an 'argumentum ad populum', topped with
a reiteration of the appeal to common sense from the post title
Yet again, the appeal to common sense
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)I had to look that up. These guys?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Panther_Party
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)NYC_SKP
(68,644 posts)Over what, two gun nuts who never fired a shot?
Shame they don't find something important to fight, like Citizens United or restoring the middle class.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)They could be fighting ebola virus too. Maybe they are. Looks like the Senate has got Citizens United covered.
Middle class? I not so sure about, but if it really wants to exist, then it should probably think about restoring itself. A reduction in mindless consumption might help it achieve that goal.
Keeping guns out of the aisles of grocery stores doesn't seem much like bullying to me. NRA fear mongering should be far more troublesome.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)and doesn't know or care shit about anyone who isn't as loaded as he is, I see the suggestions falling on deaf ears.
NYC_SKP
(68,644 posts)I agree that NRA fear-mongering is also wrong, just like this fear-mongering campaign. As if it happens every day at every Kroger.
This is bullying of a chain to get them to make a statement that should be made freely, and locally.
It's a monumental waste of money, bankrolled by a racist mayor who was fine with stopping and frisking black people on the streets of NYC without cause.
Progressives should be deeply ashamed for supporting anything associated with him.
Has anyone actually seen a gun nut with a rifle in a Krogers?
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)Stop and frisk has nothing to do with this. Why do you care how Bloomberg spends his money? Why is it a waste? He's recycling dollars into the US economy. Better than buying shit from China to sell at Walmart. I don't support this because of the association with Bloomberg anymore than I supported the eradication of malaria in Italy with fascism. Sometimes the guys one doesn't normally support happen to be right about something.
Do you really blame Bloomberg for spending his money wisely and hiring people who are good at what they do? It is his money that's being spent, after all. Now, all you have to do is examine his motives. Do you think he's trying to take over the world or the US? Or do you think he is spending his money to make the society he loves a little safer? I'm thinking the latter. Maybe we're both naive, but I'm not seeing it any other way. The guy is in his seventies. His political ambitions are over. He wants his legacy to be a better America, one in tune with the rest of the world.
NYC_SKP
(68,644 posts).
Having been a teacher with a specialty in the difficult to teach I know the difference between intimidation versus engagement.
Bloomberg/Moms are trying to intimidate, they don't give a flying fuck about anybody's job, they just want to force Kroger into a change of policy.
You do know, don't you, than a crazy person with a gun won't care what the policy is so this is all just bullshit, don't you?
Anyway, they are using intimidation of people who bear no connection to the two or three OC assholes. How stupid is that?
WHY don't they engage the people with whom they're angry, the OC assholes?
Why don't they try that, huh? I'll tell you why. Because it's not about education or enlightening anyone to them, it's about authoritarianism and bullying and getting their way.
~~~
They could, they really could sit down with the OC leadership and have a discussion and probably be successful, even if it was only by reminding them that the OC movement may hurt their 2A cause.
But I don't see where they've even discussed trying that, communication with the source of their concern.
That's why I think they're full of shit.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)So, let's assume you are right and their motive is to change Kroger's policy, regardless of employees/unions etc.. What does that mean? Bloomberg and his people understand the corporate POV? Makes sense that he would hit them where it would hurt, or at least where he thinks it would hurt the most, the bottom line. I doubt he's worrying about the union. He's dealing with the world he understands, the world of profit and loss.
That's the method. Now let's look at his motive. You say it's about bullying and authoritarianism. I agree that some of the tactics may be bullying, but when it comes to corporate bullying I'm not shedding too many tears, especially if the cause is a good one. And, IMO, the cause is good. I do not agree that the ultimate goal is any kind of authoritarianism. I see no evidence for that, in spite of clumsy and even reckless policies of the past, like stop and frisk.
Now we get to the OC issue. This is where I lose all my support. However, my position on this is, as long as 2A allows public carry, then I think it should be open carry, barring exceptional circumstances, where there is a demonstrated need to justify a CCW permit. Otherwise, I am opposed to concealed carry. So, accepting that you live in a country where you enjoy the "freedom" to carry loaded firearms in public, private businesses should have the right to restrict that right to carry on their property, be it OC or CC.
Each business has to decide for itself, regardless of the means used to pressure it. But we all know that the decision will be made in terms of that particular company's bottom line.
Obviously, Bloomberg is no fool, and he understands that some things are better dealt with on a business level, rather than on a legislative level. You call it bullying, but there is a certain honesty involved. On the other side, we have the NRA and gun lobby, where there is fear mongering, political blackmail and corruption, and at least an equal amount of dishonesty.
Bottom line is, what is the ultimate motive of each side. To sell more guns or save lives. For me it's a no-brainer.
NYC_SKP
(68,644 posts)OC is a state by state and city by city local matter.
Where it's legal to walk into a grocery store with a rifle, maybe they should work in that state with the laws.
The fact that they expect the national chain to adopt a policy (that probably wouldn't be strictly enforced) on a national level is grandstanding.
Look, if I thought there was a problem with people carrying, on a national level, I might agree.
But it's just a handful of nuts trying to make a political statement and doing it poorly.
Bloomberg's solution doesn't really match the problem.
The OC idiots don't want to sell guns, and an OC ban won't save lives, so the no-brainer is a non-issue.
Both sides, IMO, are being idiots.
spin
(17,493 posts)gun owners and especially those who legally carry in public.
I live in Florida where the open carry of handguns and long guns is illegal in public. If at sometime in the future it does become legal, I will most likely continue to carry concealed.
I realize that many people have a strong dislike of firearms often for good reason. I have no desire to intimidate or disturb them by open carrying a firearm. It serves little or no purpose and would make me look like a total asshole.
I also feel that a long gun would be a poor choice as a self defense weapon in a crowded environment.
