After a month of so of coercion by Michael Bloomberg and his chorus of paid puppets, in a campaign that cost the former New York mayor and chief scold millions, Target turned around and did…
…next to nothing.
Oh, they asked gun owners not to carry in their stores – meaning “carry openly”.
Now, let’s be honest; if I, Mitch Berg, Second Amendment activist, owned a general-market retail operation, I would also ask people, nicely, not to carry openly in my store. Money from the tiny minority of anti-gunners, and the larger minority of people who are scared, put-off or confused about guns, is just as good as anyone else’s, and people who are opposed to or irrationally afraid of gun are a solid 20+% of the market in most major metro areas – a small part of the market, but bigger than the open carry activist minority. Why send them all running away from my store?
Target is asking, not telling, gun owners to please not agitate the ninnies among their customers, thank you very much.
For all you open carry supporters in the audience: I get it. A right not exercised is a right that can be taken by default. But the same goes for the rights of private property owners; they’ve got a right to give the customers the experience they, not you, design for them. And they’ve decided – not incorrectly – that open carry will scare away more ninnies than it will bring in shooters.
So while the open-carry movement may call this a setback (or a call to action), for the mainstream of the second amendment movement, it’s a small win, or at the very least “not a loss”.
I heard this guy named Vince on the radio this morning and I could have sworn …
Actually, both messages I sent to Target requested that concealed weapons not be prohibited.
I fully agree with Mr. Berg; I’d do the same should I ever own a business. Open carry, while a right, seems to be the third party equivalent of gun rights. It’s legal, good, sometimes successful, but causes much more harm to the cause than it does it good. In short, save the right until it’s needed at face value.
I hope the open carry faction does not take that as a condemnation, just a simple strategy from a simple gun rights supporter.
I’m with Mitch, conceal so not to upset the ninnies. I reserve open carry to special events held in places and times that are discreet enough to minimize the number of bed-wetter complaints. I am most thankful to those that help implement the MN law called for a “Permit To Carry A Pistol” and not “Concealed Carry Permit”. With this we do not break any law if we inadvertently print the weapon, expose it by bending over, etc. Or for that matter if we dash into the local convenience store sans cover.
Open carry is like a gay pride parade. It is constitutionally protected speech/actions that makes people feel uncomfortable and really does damage to the cause you are supporting despite what you as a participant may believe.
“Open carry is like a gay pride parade. It is constitutionally protected speech/actions that makes people feel uncomfortable and really does damage to the cause you are supporting despite what you as a participant may believe.”
You know, for being the Lord of the Underworld, you are a very rational and eloquent, um, what do you consider yourself, POD?
God, demigod, demon? Whatever, you are a very eloquent whichever of those you are.
I have my moments of clarity. I mainly consider myself ruler of hell, I do not know where I get my rational side from possibly mom? But in being stuck in hell listening to lawyers it becomes second nature after awhile.
It’s hard to quit smoking cold turkey. Its easier to set up Exclusion Zones. I won’t smoke at my desk. After that becomes comfortable, expand it to: I won’t smoke at my desk nor in my car. Later: I won’t smoke at my desk, in my car or in my house. Eventually, you won’t smoke anywhere because you will have self-limited your smoking out of existence.
.
Have to agree with POD. I had a discussion with someone who appeared to be a very passionate “open carry” activist a few weeks ago who argued that pro-SSM activists and “immigration reform” activists didn’t get where they were by being “nice” – they got there by DEMANDING their rights. I tried to point out that my recollection of events was somewhat different.
When “gay rights” was defined by people acting like refugees from a Village People cosplay convention, it didn’t get very far. When the spoke people were seen as your sibling or child just wanting to be in a “loving, committed relationship” then it suddenly became a moral imperative.
When “immigration reform” activists quit waiving Mexican national flags at their parades and tried to put forth admittedly sympathetic examples of people whose lives that they built in our country would be torn apart by deportation, suddenly people became more open to talk of a “pathway to citizenship” or whatever the vernacular is these days.
You can say the same thing about drug relegalization, Inventing “medical marijuana” and telling people with a straight face that they were buying pot for “medical reasons” rather than having Cheech and Chong as the face of the relegalization movement was probably one of the smartest moves that they could have made.
My point is even if you don’t find these tactics persuasive (I don’t) they were effective in changing people’s opinions about the groups that were agitating for their “rights.” The loudest, most vocal and colorful activists often can do your cause more harm than good if they terrify or annoy people who aren’t already on your side. If you want people to support your cause, then the best way to do so is not to get up in their faces about “your rights,” it’s to get them to identify with YOU and think “this could be me or someone that I know and like.” Courtesy not confrontation is what wins hearts and minds.
Joe Doakes: Flawed analogy. I’m the one asking you to please not smoke in my house – not telling you to leave your pack of Chesterfields at home, or working to ban smoking.
If I were working to ban smoking, and/or telling you you couldn’t possess tobacco on my property, then you’d be on target.
Take a look at AP headlines though – thery are spinning this as “Taget tells gun owners to leave guns at home” Fucking trolls!
There was a caller to the ‘lesser’ talk station this morning – “Vince”, I believe he called himself – who made some similar points on this matter. Perhaps Evil Cousin Jedd and Avery Liberal didn’t get through the call screening process…
You don’t see pro-right-the-SCOTUS-found-in-the-Constitution practitioner’s open carrying their Manual Vacuum Aspirators, Uterine Currettes or Embryotomy Scissors around Target. And the Lefty’s love those people. So probably the best advice is the advice your firearms trainer / caller “Vince” gave you… Keep your piece in your pants. Come to think of it, that advice might reduce the need for abortion practitioners as well.
Loved the analogy Selfores !
Interesting that at this place in Colorado even the staff open carries.
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/07/02/waitresses-pack-heat-at-colorado-burger-joint/
Here’s the link.
http://abullseyeview.com/2014/07/target-addresses-firearms-in-stores/
I note that the CEO starts by noting it’s about open carry, but his conclusion–that they’re asking people not to bring firearms into stores–would seem to apply to concealed carry as well. That they do not view carry of any kind as appropriate in a family-friendly setting.
Whether that was their intent or not, I do not know, but the wording they use is, shall we say, rather flexible in this regard.
Target’s interim CEO:
“Bringing firearms to Target creates an environment that is at odds with the family-friendly shopping and work experience we strive to create.”
Mush from the wimp. People who want to carry at Target should follow the gun-grabbers strategy. Flood them with messages saying that you will not shop at target because you do not feel its “no-carry” policy is friendly to your family. End of story.
Target is a private enterprise and has every right to ask customers to behave in a certain manner. The controversy here stems not from the concealed-carry of handguns into Target but the open-carry of large firearms into Target. As far as I can tell, Target had no policy against concealed-carry of handguns into its stores before this controversy. If so, then this open–carry group’s tactic appears to have backfired:
Emery, you’re right, the open carry tactic backfired. And the gun-ban tactic is working.
I’m waiting for someone to start Muslims Demand Action, who will urge Target to ask Jews not to wear a Star of David or yarmulke in their stores, to avoid upsetting Muslim shoppers. That should be perfectly fine with you, right, since Target is a private business?
But what business would do such a thing? One that has counted customers’ noses and calculated that there are more Muslims than Jews, same as there are more soccer moms than there are concealed carry holders. Then civil rights will disappear, not by government action, but by social pressure.
.
It’s more about using common sense and being a good neighbor than asserting your Second Amendment rights.
“It’s more about using common sense and being a good neighbor than asserting your Second Amendment rights.”
Aren’t we talking about Texans, here? Citizens of the state that U.S. Grant said was founded by freebooters and adventurers?
Good one!