Goodyear Tires and legal concealed carry


PDA






aquapong
September 29, 2005, 09:11 AM
Spread the word:

Licensed Concealed Carry Not Welcome at Goodyear Tire
2005/09/27
Most businesses in America have chosen NOT to post discriminatory signs against licensed concealed carry in their stores. Goodyear Tire has chosen differently. Your patronage is not welcome.

From Goodyear: (submitted by an MCRGO activist and supporter)

"In an effort to ensure the safety and security of our associates and customers, we have a clear company policy regarding weapons in the workplace. The Goodyear Tire and Rubber Co. prohibits all persons who enter Company property from carrying a handgun, firearm, or prohibited weapon of any kind onto the property regardless of whether the person is licensed to carry the weapon or not. Exceptions apply to on-duty law enforcement personnel. This policy applies to all Company employees, visitors, customers, and contractors on Company property -- including our Company-owned stores.

All Company properties have received the decal or sign you referenced, and have been instructed to post it.

Thank you for the email. Please get back to me if I can provide further information."

Ed Markey (email: emarkey@goodyear.com)
VP, PR and Communications
North American Tire

If you enjoyed reading about "Goodyear Tires and legal concealed carry" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
CentralTexas
September 29, 2005, 09:19 AM
explaining customer loss sent...
CT

jobu07
September 29, 2005, 09:37 AM
I was just about ready to grab a new set of tires too in the next month or so. I guess Goodyear is out of the mix. Firestones for me! :)

GunGoBoom
September 29, 2005, 10:42 AM
I guess Goodyear is out of the mix. Firestones for me!

+1. Actually makes choosing the specific kind I want a little easier.

armoredman
September 29, 2005, 10:57 AM
Only on-duty LE? I will be happy to explain this to my 10,000 man Department...

CentralTexas
September 29, 2005, 10:57 AM
There is the email address, please let them know also!
CT

MikeIsaj
September 29, 2005, 11:04 AM
I swore off Goodyear stores a ong time ago due to other crappy business practices. I will e-mail them and spread the word.

Camp David
September 29, 2005, 11:06 AM
Licensed Concealed Carry Not Welcome at Goodyear Tire

Thanks for posting that... Firestone for me!

It's a shame that we can't make up bumper stickers and draw widespread public notice to Goodyear's blantant discrimination!

ChillyW
September 29, 2005, 11:10 AM
Email sent...

Model520Fan
September 29, 2005, 11:22 AM
E-mail sent.

Technosavant
September 29, 2005, 11:49 AM
Fine with me. Goodyear tires suck anyway (well, maybe with the exception of the Assurance TripleTred). Dunlop, Continental, and Michelin are better performers.

20cows
September 29, 2005, 11:50 AM
In Texas, it's all dust in the wind if they don't use the right words on the right kind of sign. And public parking lots still don't count. :neener:

Bob R
September 29, 2005, 12:21 PM
In Texas, it's all dust in the wind if they don't use the right words on the right kind of sign. And public parking lots still don't count.

Whether or not the correct verbage is used on the sign, the intent to keep guns out is there. That is all it takes for me.

bob

Double Naught Spy
September 29, 2005, 12:34 PM
http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/ftp/forms/ls-16.pdf

20cows, inside or outside, Texas CHL laws do NOT trump the rights of others. Your CHL does not give you the right to carry on private property, such as a mall parking lot, if the property is posted properly with a 30.06 sign or you have been informed verbally by an owner or representative of the property.

tuna
September 29, 2005, 12:47 PM
I need tires, too.
Guess what I'll do is go on down to goodyear and pick out the most expensive set of tires that would make sense to put on the car, and just when it comes time to pay, "notice" the sign and politely tell the manager that I apologize for not seeing the sign, sorry for wasting your time, but I guess you don't want me in here - have a nice day.

Must pick a good time to do that, maybe when the wife is shopping and I'm "helping" I can make an escape for a little while. Main point to make is that they lose business due to this practice. Bonus points - waste time while I'm "shopping". Extra point - get out of hanging around the ladie's dressing room waiting for the wife while she tries on outfits.

bulbboy
September 29, 2005, 12:52 PM
email sent - thanks for the heads up!

MR.G
September 29, 2005, 01:18 PM
email sent!

SouthpawShootr
September 29, 2005, 01:20 PM
Fine by me. Lot's of other companies to deal with. Goodyear tires aren't what they used to be anyway.

Bobarino
September 29, 2005, 01:49 PM
email sent. firestones it is.

Bobby

Hawkmoon
September 29, 2005, 02:04 PM
Hey, guys --

If any of you are "buy American" types (and I know how difficult that can be these days), remember that Firestone is now owned by a Japanese company. If you want GOOD tires that are made in America by an old American company, I recommend that you check out Cooper tires.

They're generally less expensive than Firestone, and they last longer too.

mr_dove
September 29, 2005, 02:13 PM
I wonder if my local goodyear will put up the sign. The manager is VERY Pro-gun and he says that most of his employees are as well.

Andrew Rothman
September 29, 2005, 02:17 PM
My email to Goodyear:

Subject: Another concealed carry permit holder taking his business elsewhere

I was surprised to hear that Goodyear bans law-abiding, background-checked concealed carry permit holders from carrying on its premises.

Carry permit holders are the most overwhelmingly law-abiding demographic you could imagine.

And speaking of demographics, would you guess that someone who can spend the hundreds and hundreds of dollars on training, permits, equipment and practice is an appealing demographic for a retailer? You bet it is.

Regardless of financial benefit, do you imagine that posting a sign will keep anyone with criminal intent from bringing a weapon onto your premises? I would guess not; it simply guarantees the criminal that he will face no serious resistance to his criminal actions.

Still, it's a free country -- do so if you wish.

I, for my part, will vote with my dollars and take my business elsewhere.

Sincerely,

Andrew Rothman
Minneapolis

Double Naught Spy
September 29, 2005, 02:21 PM
Going back and reading the title of the thread, it is not legal concealed carry if you are carrying on premises where guns are not permitted. Doing so is trespassing, hence it isn't legal.

pete f
September 29, 2005, 02:40 PM
I by made in america michelins

But they do not know that ....email sent

Janitor
September 29, 2005, 02:47 PM
Going back and reading the title of the thread, it is not legal concealed carry if you are carrying on premises where guns are not permitted. Doing so is trespassing, hence it isn't legal.
Hmmm. I'm trying to understand what nit you're picking.

As far as the actual thread is concerned - count me as another who is in need of tires. Guess it's time to shop Goodyear and then notice the anti CCW posting just before I actually order the tires. Too bad - I drive a 4X4 pickup, and tires can cost quite a bit.

That's ok though. I've about 5-6 alternative places to buy tires - and that's before I get to something like Sears or Fleet Farm. :O)

04SilverSCFX4
September 29, 2005, 02:48 PM
MT/R's are out and BFG's are in. Thanks goodyear for making the decision that much easier. I'll send an e-mail as soon as I'm at home on my own account.

Luchtaine
September 29, 2005, 02:50 PM
I always bought BFgoodrich anyways. please tell me they arn't the same I would be most disappointed.

HighVelocity
September 29, 2005, 02:58 PM
Email sent explaining how their anti 2nd policy has just lost them my company service business.

EghtySx
September 29, 2005, 03:13 PM
I just called a Goodyear tire place in Dallas, TX and the guy didn't know what I was talking about. He said that he didn't allow his employees to carry but had no sign posted and no problem with customers carrying legally in his store.

Omni04
September 29, 2005, 03:48 PM
Andrew Rothman

great letter, i sent it along with a few minor changes. I had to mention that they feel an off-duty LEO is a threat to their business. I also changed some wording to onvolve more questions, and hopefully i will receive some feedback that i can post.

HankB
September 29, 2005, 03:55 PM
I remember seeing something similar posted on one of the forums a year or two back . . . up to this point, here in TX, I have NEVER seen a PC30.06 compliant "no guns" sign (or any other sign with similar intent) at the local Goodyear.

This may change tomorrow, but unless/until it does, no problem.

Shootcraps
September 29, 2005, 04:00 PM
Email sent. Here's a quote from their web page for alternatives to Goodyear products.

Who are some of your competitors?

Our largest competitors are Michelin(based in France) and Bridgestone (Japan). Other smaller competitors are Cooper Tire (U.S.), Continental Tire (Germany), Yokohama (Japan), Kumho (South Korea), and Toyo (Japan).

SLCDave
September 29, 2005, 04:08 PM
I thought Michelin was French-Owned?

106rr
September 29, 2005, 04:14 PM
I sent an e mail to Markey, but I have a few other ideas!

Does anyone know which car companies are using Goodyear for their OEM tires? I think Daimler Chrysler uses Goodyear on their Jeep line. Perhaps some research would yield the names of companies that use Goodyear products. An e mail sent to these companies might help get results. I suspect that most Goodyear sales are OEM and very few are replacement. Also Goodyear Tire stores have maintenance contracts with many companies. Fleet maintenance is a big business. Perhaps some energetic THR member could research these things. I think it's necessary to be able to cut the economic lifeline of Goodyear if they continue with this policy.

wmenorr67
September 29, 2005, 04:25 PM
Damn do I boycott NASCAR now since Goodyear is the exclusive provider of tires to the three major series? :uhoh:

Camp David
September 29, 2005, 04:27 PM
Licensed Concealed Carry Not Welcome at Goodyear Tire

aqua: Do you have a link to a news story on this denial? I can't find mention of it on the web!

106rr
September 29, 2005, 04:34 PM
I just checked into the Goodyear website and sent an e mail to them in addition to the one I sent to Markey. Markey by the way is just a PR guy.
I asked Goodyear about the reason for prohibiting firearams. It seems as though they are about to announce a big recall and they don't want any armed customers complaning. I reassured them that no lawfully armed person would cause harm no matter how low the quality of their product. It seems to me that they are paranoid about consumer issues. The posting of a antifirearms policy leads me to believe that they know something about the quality of their tires that we don't.
BTW
Goodyear prohibits e mail contact through their website unless you list a phone number, home address and e mail.

D_Burchfield
September 29, 2005, 04:35 PM
E-mail sent.

Dear Mr. Markey,

Thank you for helping me decide on my next tire purchase. They will NOT be Goodyear nor will I have any additional service or maintenance performed at one of your stores due to your latest policy regarding customer behavior and store safety. I can also assure you that my company's fleet vehicles will no longer be serviced at one of your locations. Your sign should let the next criminally minded person know that he is the only one inside the store with a weapon. You can bet I won't be there.

Sincerely,

Doug Burchfield

Lots of other choices for tires any way.

SJG26
September 29, 2005, 04:58 PM
"I asked Goodyear about the reason for prohibiting firearams. It seems as though they are about to announce a big recall and they don't want any armed customers complaning. "

I doubt they would give a random consumer any insight into a recall PRIOR to corporate announcing it. This GOODYEAR policy is starting to smell like urban legend........................anyone have a documented news release or media report to confirm sources??

beaucoup ammo
September 29, 2005, 05:36 PM
But here in Texas you Are Good To Go (CHL-Wise) if the sign is ANYTHING other than the complete 30-06 in it's entirety AND of required SIZE.

I wouldn't get into an argument with them at the store.. being of a non-contentious nature, but you would have every legal right to pack IF the sign isn't the 30-06 as Hank explained earlier.

Take Care

bamawrx
September 29, 2005, 05:42 PM
email sent. Friendly but to the point.

Andrew S
September 29, 2005, 06:40 PM
I guess I am the only one not offended by their decision.

Having someone with a firearm in store automatically escalates the situation and increases the chance that someone will get hurt if there is a robbery or some other disturbance. Sure it might be nice to have if someone came in shooting wild and trying to hurt people but it can just as easily put a calm robber on the defense. And to say all the people who get their permit are responsible and would react properly is just ignorant. Look at Molon Labe's post about his CCW class.

In the end its the store's decision. I am sure they have their reasons. Shouldnt you at least try and understand their reasons before comdemning them?

Fastman
September 29, 2005, 06:56 PM
GoodYear. Its all in the name. They are good for only one year

feedthehogs
September 29, 2005, 06:58 PM
Would be nice to have a link to actual policy. The web site search does not return any inquires under firearms policy.

Threads like this are funny. I can picture a whole bunch of people stopping their feet and holding their breath.

Risasi
September 29, 2005, 07:08 PM
Personally I am not going to get too worked up yet. I Emailed the contact provided, and will await an answer.

On a personal note when it comes to cars I usually buy used, but then sink a bunch of money hot rodding whatever I get.

Obviously I do buy my tires new. And have bought Goodyear, mostly Z rated or all weather H rated tires.

Anyway, I tend to burn through tires pretty quick, a set of Z's usually last 18 months. And all weathers I can get a couple 2-3 years out of. My point? I buy frequently, for multiple vehicles. If this is true I shall not only be letting Goodyear know I won't frequent their establishments. But I will also inform their competitors from whom I do purchase tires, the reason why I would be purchasing from them.

Either way I don't care much, I'll purchase whatever I judge to be superior product at a decent price.

[EDIT] Feed the hogs, funny signature. Seems what we have here with Goodyear, is a failure...to communicate.

Excuse me now, I'll be out back shakin' the tree boss. :D

MM
September 29, 2005, 08:00 PM
Here, enclosed in quotes, is a copy of the e-mail I sent:

"I have recently become aware of the anti-gun policies promulgated by GoodYear regarding those who would legally carry on Goodyear company property.
As a big proponent of our second amendment, I can tell you that I disagree with this stand and will take my tire business elswhere until the policy is changed. I would also make the point that, when someone is licensed to carry a weapon, it automatically tells you three things about this individual: He is not a felon, he is not an addict, and he is not insane. I may be mistaken, but in my judgement all three of these facts are a plus on anyone's record.
Cordially Yours,

PS- If you can read this e-mail, thank a teacher. If you can read it in English, thank a veteran."

It may help, it can't hurt!
SatKong

Hawkmoon
September 29, 2005, 08:29 PM
In the end its the store's decision. I am sure they have their reasons. Shouldnt you at least try and understand their reasons before comdemning them?
No. Not at all.

Doesn't matter what their reasons are. We go through the (unconstitutional) hoops to obtain CCW licenses/permits so that we can carry a handgun for self-defense. We recognize that a store may choose to not allow CCW holders on their premises. Just as they are free to prohibit CCW on their property, we are free to not give business to companies who do not support the right to keep and bear arms.

It's pretty simple. If'n they want my business, they allow me to defend myself if attacked on their premises.

I'm genuinely curious why/how you could view it any other way? Please elucidate.

SpookyPistolero
September 29, 2005, 08:47 PM
Email sent.

If they don't trust that we have enough common sense, personal responsibility and competence to carry a self-defense weapon, then why should we trust them to be sensible, responsible and competent enough to provide us with a product upon which the lives of ourselves and our families rest?

Standing Wolf
September 29, 2005, 10:04 PM
I just had four new tires put on my car. They're not Goodyears.

aquapong
September 29, 2005, 10:51 PM
http://www.mcrgo.org/mcrgo/view/news.asp?articleid=754&zoneid=9

goose
September 29, 2005, 10:51 PM
I just sent a nice, calm email to Goodyear explaining why I won't be getting my tires from them......and a Goodyear store is only 3 miles from my house.

Tharg
September 30, 2005, 12:16 AM
Personally i like my khomo's... cheap and always been solid performers for my front drive cars. (they weren't nearly as good on the ex's S2000(rear wheel)... to my suprise =( )

That all being said... so tired of people who deny people who identify themselves to the government, get licensed by the government, and carry by the governments rules from carrying. Its those very same people who have the most to LOSE by even USING thier privlidge (sp?) to defend someone else who might be in said store from being shot/stabed/etc...

its just nonsense to me... rofl - but as Andrew said - its a free country - for now.

J/Tharg!

solive
September 30, 2005, 01:00 AM
E-mail sent

chopinbloc
September 30, 2005, 01:26 AM
e-mail sent. think i'll buy a set of bf goodrich. heard they have a good warranty.

CGofMP
September 30, 2005, 01:35 AM
They received the following tonight.


Greetings,

I want to thank you for making my decision on purchasing tires much more
easy.

It is always difficult to decide which brand to get and since the price
points are pretty close - in many cases the choice becomes a coin toss.

Today I read that your company does not want OFF DUTY law enforcement
officers or citizens with a permit to cary a concealed weapon to enter
your stores. You tout this as some way that you are protecting your
associates and customers. Actually what you are doing is letting the
criminals know that your stores are "unarmed VICTIM zones", that is to say
- a criminal knows he can expect no resistance from anyone in the store if
he (the criminal) decides to use violence. A sign wont stop a dirtbag
from breaking the law what it will do is keep cops and good customers out
of your stores.

Anyhow, as this is the case, I will skip purchasing tires from your stores
as I see them as LESS safe than the competition. In addition I will not
be buying Goodyear tires from any other establishment as I find your
attitude towards citizens who have been liscenced by our government not
only to drive a car but with the requisite in depth checks from the local
Police department to carry a firearm to be reprehensible. Obviously your
political agenda is so soured on firearms that you are even excluding off
duty police from your establishment if they carry a weapon off duty. I
guess somehow off duty cops suddenly become more dangerous than those on
duty.

I can not believe the myopia that your policy shows.

See you at Firestone, Michelin, Yokohama, BF Goodrich, Bridgestone, or
Cooper
Tires!

robert garner
September 30, 2005, 02:16 AM
Where a snake is comin from or his reasons for striking to take it out of the equation.its frame of mind is of no consequence.
Letter sent

mnrivrat
September 30, 2005, 04:02 AM
E-mail sent :

Goodyear Tire Company,
Your statement :

"The Goodyear Tire and Rubber Co. prohibits all persons who enter Company property from carrying a handgun, firearm, or prohibited weapon of any kind onto the property regardless of whether the person is licensed to carry the weapon or not. Exceptions apply to on-duty law enforcement personnel. This policy applies to all Company employees, visitors, customers, and contractors on Company property -- including our Company-owned stores."


Thanks for this information - Ironic that I just found this tonight ,as I was going for a new set of tires at the Goodyear dealer in New Ulm, MN tomorrow .
I have a permit to carry a handgun and I don't feel obligated to disarm, or be a second class citizen when compared to a law inforcement officer. I also am not obligated to purchase Goodyear tires, so I will take my business somewhere else.

Gillster
September 30, 2005, 04:06 AM
Just sent my email, now I need to find a place to do my oil changed and such as well.


Chris

Fu-man Shoe
September 30, 2005, 04:22 AM
Calm, firm and short email explaining loss of business has been sent.

fu-man shoe

Alex45ACP
September 30, 2005, 04:29 AM
Email sent:

Mr Markey -

Because of your company's policy of restricting law abiding citizens the means to defend themselves while on Goodyear property, I can no longer purchase from Goodyear until this policy is changed.

There is a topic on this here you may be interested in perusing: http://thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=158563&page=1&pp=25

Thank you.

Alex
Florida

jeil
September 30, 2005, 04:52 AM
Everytime I see one of those "NO" signs I wonder what the legal implications would be if I were in their establishment unarmed because I respected their property rights, and someone came in and started shooting. Do you think the establishment would have assumed an increased obligation to protect customers since they denied those customers their right to protect themselves, and since they failed to provide armed guards, would be placing themselves at greater legal liability? I don't know the answer, but I am sure such an establishment does not really care since their insurer would be the loser.

erik the bold
September 30, 2005, 09:09 AM
Sending an e-mail to Edward Markey may fall on deaf ears. However, sending a letter to the corporate governance, (his bosses) may have more weight. I sent letters to these folks:

Corporate Headquarters:
Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company
1144 E. Market Street
Akron, Ohio 44316
(330) 796-2121

Mr. Robert J. Keegan, Chairman of the Board, Chief Executive Officer and President

Thomas A. Connell - Vice President and Controller

Joseph Copeland - Senior Vice President, Business Development, Strategy & Restructuring

Joseph M. Gingo - Executive Vice President, Quality Systems and Chief Technical Officer

C. Thomas Harvie - Senior Vice President, General Counsel and Secretary

William M. Hopkins - Vice President, Global Product Marketing and Technology Planning

Richard J. Kramer - Executive Vice President & Chief Financial Officer

Lawrence D. Mason - President, Consumer Tires, North American Tire

Jonathan D. Rich - President, North American Tire

Charles L. Sinclair - Senior Vice President, Global Communications

Darren Wells - Vice President & Treasurer


:cuss:

Risasi
September 30, 2005, 09:25 AM
Thanks for the source aquapong.

RTFM
September 30, 2005, 11:07 AM
First of all E mail sent.

Second,
http://www.nwdc.navy.mil/images/CAUTION%20TRIANGLE.gif
pete f I by made in america Michelins
04SilverSCFX4 BFG's are in.
Luchtaine I always bought BFgoodrich anyways


Guys, these are wholly owned FRENCH companies.
Source in case you care to follow up.
http://www.buyfrenchnow.com/buy.html


I stay away from BFgoodrich and Michelins like I'm now staying away from Levis and Goodyear.

Andrew S
September 30, 2005, 11:57 AM
No. Not at all.

Doesn't matter what their reasons are. We go through the (unconstitutional) hoops to obtain CCW licenses/permits so that we can carry a handgun for self-defense. We recognize that a store may choose to not allow CCW holders on their premises. Just as they are free to prohibit CCW on their property, we are free to not give business to companies who do not support the right to keep and bear arms.

It's pretty simple. If'n they want my business, they allow me to defend myself if attacked on their premises.

I'm genuinely curious why/how you could view it any other way? Please elucidate.


I understand not going there if you dont feel safe there. Thats perfectly rational and I would do the same whether or not I was carrying. But them executing their right to ban firearms in their business is no different than a business requiring a shirt and shoes for you to be on property. I know I just make sure I put my shirt and shoes on before going into the store. I just think some people here are overreacting.

I guess firearms just arent that much a part of my lifestyle that I feel the need to always be armed.

SJG26
September 30, 2005, 01:19 PM
"I guess firearms just arent that much a part of my lifestyle that I feel the need to always be armed."

Pull up a chair and stay awhile - you have some catching up to do!

Andrew S
September 30, 2005, 01:34 PM
While I am new around here I dont think my lifestyle will change due to an online forum.

I can appreciate a good firearm and I am starting a collection of some C&R firearms but its more of a hobby than a lifestyle for me.

Rezin
September 30, 2005, 01:42 PM
While I am new around here I dont think my lifestyle will change due to an online forum.

I can appreciate a good firearm and I am starting a collection of some C&R firearms but its more of a hobby than a lifestyle for me.

I don't think the forums will "change" you, but owning a gun will..... Carry a gun, and you change just a bit more.........

Hawkmoon
September 30, 2005, 01:52 PM
While I am new around here I dont think my lifestyle will change due to an online forum.

I can appreciate a good firearm and I am starting a collection of some C&R firearms but its more of a hobby than a lifestyle for me.
That's well and good. What you seem to be overlooking is that the Constitution of the U.S. (as well as the constitutions of many of the states) says that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Yet the government DOES infringe that right, by requiring us to take classes and pay fees and obtain permits to exercise what the Founding Fathers held to be a fundamental right.

Many of us have accepted (for now) the reality that if we wish to avail ourselves of that right we must jump through the requisite hoops. Having done so, it is a figurative slap in the face to be told that you are unwelcome at ___ if you carry a LEGAL handgun. It really doesn't matter one iota what their reason is. I went to the trouble of jumping through all the hoops, and for that I am discriminated AGAINST? I'll take my business elsewhere, thank you.

You also seem to overlook the practical and safety implications. Many of us do carry daily, either out of caution, perhaps genuine paranoia, or perhaps because we travel through less than wonderful neighborhoods. Bottom line -- we carry. So we need tires. What do we do with the gun at Goodyear? They don't want a gun on their premises. Do I chain my pistol to a telephone pole at the curb? Do I lock it in the car in a "steal me" box, so the guy who drives my car into the shop (where I am NOT allowed, due to "insurance regulations") can see it, recognize it for what it is, and either steal it or make a mental note to tell his buddies where to look for a gun? Or do I set out that morning with the gun locked up at home, even though I may need to traverse a substandard neighborhood to get to the Goodyear shop, and hope I don't get carjacked on the way?

Or do I just buy from the Cooper dealer, where my gun isn't prohibited and I can be certain I am supporting an American company and American workers? (And get better tires for less money, as an aside.)

It's an idiotic, knee-jerk policy. If it doesn't affect you because you only collect C&R stuff, that's fine, but you should at least make an effort to understand why other people are bothered by this before suggesting that WE should try to understand where Goodyear is coming from.

Andrew S
September 30, 2005, 03:05 PM
Thats both the the beauty and the evil of the constitution. Its vagueness allows for different interpretations. Look at the Presidency today. He is our leader and he takes the blame for everything. When the constitution was written the position was completely different. The power was in the house. Now the house backs up the President. Now we have a leader instead of 3 distinct branches to govern us.

Your rights are there but only if they do not infringe on the rights of others. Goodyear has the right to set rules for their store just as you have the right to set rules in your own home.

If you want to fight the current regulations by all means do so. It is your right. I somehow doubt that a boycott of Goodyear tires will do anything for your cause though.

I don't only collect C&R stuff(i dont own any yet) and it does affect me as well as every other American. I am not telling you to buy Goodyear tires anyway. I am just surprised at the reaction of some of the people here.

You dont seem to trust your fellow man either. Sounds like you have given up on the idea that people can be good. For that, I am sorry.

Camp David
September 30, 2005, 03:38 PM
Goodyear has the right to set rules for their store just as you have the right to set rules in your own home.

Andrew: But private homes are not retail establishments, whereas Goodyear's store is a retail establishment, open to the public! THAT'S THE POINT! How would you feel if Goodyear put a sign on its door: "No Italians!" How about if they put a sign saying: "No Black People!" Youy'd be calling for their Goodyear's neck in a sling! Why? Due to the Bill of Rights! You'd say: "Goodyear can't do that!" Exactly! Well take a look at Amendment 2 of that Bill of Rights! Then you'll understand why so many on this thread are pissed at Goodyear!

Ed
September 30, 2005, 03:41 PM
Ok, I will go ahead and tell you that I work for Michelin tires. Michelin is the #2 employer in South Carolina. Passenger tires and Most Commercial Truck tires are made in the USA. I will also tell you that Michelin employees Like you to carry legally. At least the ones I work with. Michelin is owned by a french family, but it is privately owned. Well I guess since I own stock, it is part American owned too. ;)

TexasRifleman
September 30, 2005, 03:51 PM
Why do I have the sneaking suspicion that Andrew S doesn't own a firearm, and found this place through a link at his favorite online forum DU, or something similar.

His arguments sound vaguely familiar........

Andrew Rothman
September 30, 2005, 03:59 PM
You dont seem to trust your fellow man either. Sounds like you have given up on the idea that people can be good. For that, I am sorry.

I haven't given up on the idea that 95% of people can be good. I'm just not really ready to trust my life, and the lives of my loved onees, to the idea that the last 5% will be good.

For that, I am not in the least bit sorry.

Guyon
September 30, 2005, 04:19 PM
This ain't much of a board if we can't tolerate Andrew S's opinion. I recall that there's a first amendment that comes before the second. Some informed, logical debate seems in order rather than just dismissing him and saying he won't be around here much longer. Better to educate than discriminate, no?

Yes, Andrew S, Goodyear is privately owned and has the right to set policy. Likewise, consumers have the right to take their business elsewhere if they so choose. As for the effectiveness of such boycotts, you'd be surprised. I recall Lowe's backtracking recently about a similar policy based on the reactions from the gun-toting community.

And yes, the constitution tends to be organic and subject to interpretation, but this doesn't mean that just anybody can make up just any interpretation that he/she likes and live by it. You might take a look at the more recent, important interpretations regarding the 2nd amendment in federal courts.

Just the fact that so many states have explicitly allowed concealed carry tends to weaken your argument about the "vagueness" of the Constitution. 35 of 50 states are "shall issue" states (http://www.packing.org/state/). Concealed carry is the law of a majority of the land, and SCOTUS hasn't made any head nods toward negating such state laws on the basis of a contradictory Constitutional interpretation.

As for trust, I'm with Andrew Rothman. I think most human beings are pretty good. As one friend says, you put an awful lot of faith in your fellow man every time you venture onto an Interstate. But my parents taught me to expect the best out of people but be prepared for the worst. Concealed carry (like defensive driving) is just part of being prepared for the worst.

On a different note, I wonder about the reliability of the source still. "submitted by an MCRGO activist and supporter" doesn't tell me a whole lot. Might as well put "submitted by Anonymous." I'd like to hear this policy reiterated or confirmed by someone in-company at Goodyear.

TexasRifleman
September 30, 2005, 04:39 PM
On a pro gun website, to openly post what most would construe as anti-gun sentiments does, I believe, stand out as, at the very least, questionable.

This is not a First Amendment debating website, this is a group of people decidedly pro-gun. Posting what most would call anti-2A sentiments here is never a good idea, although we're all big fans of the First Amendment.

Oh, and to stay on topic:

I'm all ready to send the email to Goodyear as well, and I do use their products, but I'm concerned if this is really the company's policy, or just the thoughts of some low level dude in Public Relations.

Anyone have more than a letter from a PR guy?

And by the way, these boycotts have had impact in the past, so to say that we're wasting our time again shows little knowledge of the subject. We have seen companies change policy because of these campaigns.

Kurush
September 30, 2005, 05:17 PM
I'm really really really tired of people invoking the 1st amendment when someone disagrees with them.

The 1st amendment says:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press [...]
Note the distinct lack of a provision for "shall not disagree with", "shall not make the person feel bad by criticizing them", "shall not ridicule", or "shall not abridge the freedom to post on a privately internet forums".

Note also that the entity restricted is Congress, which to my knowledge does not post on internet forums, and that the act restricted is making law, which can not occur on internet forums (thank god)

I guess to some degree that response is conditioned, after all when a politician says something retarded or outrageous the first response by the apologists is to invoke the first amendment. But the reason they do that is not because it's a legitimate argument, it's because they want to put the person condemning them on the defensive. It's a great tactic as long as you're only trying to convince people who are dumb enough to get their news from Hannity & Colmes in the first place. But it does not fly here, because I will call you on it.

Urban Werewolf
September 30, 2005, 05:37 PM
I just wonder, when this becomes popularly known, how long it will take for this exchange to happen.

Unassuming Customer: So no one can have any weapons in here?
Clerk: That's right, sir. We don't allow concealed carried weapons in the store at any time.
UC: Well that's a relief. *pulls out his concealed very illegal firearm and sticks it in the clerk's face* Now give me the f***ing cash mother-f***er! Now!

I'm sure that sounds a bit paranoid, but I can easily see that happening a bit more often in a place where criminals know that there won't be any law-abiding citizens that are armed enough to stand up to them. *sighs* But most of the people who make these policies don't really look past the end of their nose. Their right in their store I suppose. I just believe it's rather foolish and doesn't obey true logic.

Andrew S
September 30, 2005, 05:56 PM
Andrew: But private homes are not retail establishments, whereas Goodyear's store is a retail establishment, open to the public! THAT'S THE POINT! How would you feel if Goodyear put a sign on its door: "No Italians!" How about if they put a sign saying: "No Black People!" Youy'd be calling for their Goodyear's neck in a sling! Why? Due to the Bill of Rights! You'd say: "Goodyear can't do that!" Exactly! Well take a look at Amendment 2 of that Bill of Rights! Then you'll understand why so many on this thread are pissed at Goodyear!

I have read the Second Amendment thank you. Apparently I interpret it differently than you. Thats fine. Apparently your opinions differ on a storeowners rights as well. Thats fine too.

Why do I have the sneaking suspicion that Andrew S doesn't own a firearm, and found this place through a link at his favorite online forum DU, or something similar.

His arguments sound vaguely familiar........
__________________

Sorry to disappoint but I do own firearms. I am also sorry I remind you of someone. I assure you this is my first and only name on this or any other firearm message board. Thanks for making judgments on my character based off one of my opinions though.


I haven't given up on the idea that 95% of people can be good. I'm just not really ready to trust my life, and the lives of my loved onees, to the idea that the last 5% will be good.

For that, I am not in the least bit sorry.


I can understand that. Thats why I would want CCW myself. But it seems you are suspect of everyone the way you described the possible theft of your handgun. And just like I wouldnt go to a place that I felt was dangerous I wouldnt go to a store I couldnt trust the employees of.

.....

Car Knocker
September 30, 2005, 06:05 PM
is really the company's policy, or just the thoughts of some low level dude in Public Relations.

The statement went out over the signature of:

Ed Markey (email: emarkey@goodyear.com)
VP, PR and Communications
North American Tire

Yup, low level vice-president who wouldn't have a clue of what company policy is on the matter.

Andrew S
September 30, 2005, 06:07 PM
This ain't much of a board if we can't tolerate Andrew S's opinion. I recall that there's a first amendment that comes before the second. Some informed, logical debate seems in order rather than just dismissing him and saying he won't be around here much longer. Better to educate than discriminate, no?

Yes, Andrew S, Goodyear is privately owned and has the right to set policy. Likewise, consumers have the right to take their business elsewhere if they so choose. As for the effectiveness of such boycotts, you'd be surprised. I recall Lowe's backtracking recently about a similar policy based on the reactions from the gun-toting community.

And yes, the constitution tends to be organic and subject to interpretation, but this doesn't mean that just anybody can make up just any interpretation that he/she likes and live by it. You might take a look at the more recent, important interpretations regarding the 2nd amendment in federal courts.

Just the fact that so many states have explicitly allowed concealed carry tends to weaken your argument about the "vagueness" of the Constitution. 35 of 50 states are "shall issue" states. Concealed carry is the law of a majority of the land, and SCOTUS hasn't made any head nods toward negating such state laws on the basis of a contradictory Constitutional interpretation.

As for trust, I'm with Andrew Rothman. I think most human beings are pretty good. As one friend says, you put an awful lot of faith in your fellow man every time you venture onto an Interstate. But my parents taught me to expect the best out of people but be prepared for the worst. Concealed carry (like defensive driving) is just part of being prepared for the worst.

On a different note, I wonder about the reliability of the source still. "submitted by an MCRGO activist and supporter" doesn't tell me a whole lot. Might as well put "submitted by Anonymous." I'd like to hear this policy reiterated or confirmed by someone in-company at Goodyear.


Thanks for that first part. I was beginning to think this wasnt the board for me if I couldnt express my opinions here.

Like I have said, I am just surprised of the reactions here. I am not opposed to people taking their business elsewhere. I just didnt expect people to try and rally against them for this or for people to tell others not to shop there because of it. Seems like a lot of fuss over something that I see to be so simple. Sure you might get them to change their policy but thats not what I meant about the effectiveness of the boycott. I was speaking about Hawkmoon's statement on the government restricting the 2nd Amendment. It just seems like the wrong venue. But since you talk about the effectiveness again Goodyear would you really go back to shopping there after you got something like this overturned? It seems you all are fighting the idea moreso than the actual restriction. If it were as simple as the restriction you would just shop elsewhere.

Bacchus
September 30, 2005, 06:16 PM
It's great that so many members are sending e-mails to Goodyear. What also needs to happen is that we should send e-mails to their competitors letting them know why we will buy tires from them instead.

beaucoup ammo
September 30, 2005, 06:24 PM
I try not to pigeonhole anyone. Use to be guilty of that, but the population is more fragmented than ever..no longer as simple as hippies and red necks!:O) Conservative in some areas of life..liberal in others.

A happy medium and a cold Shiner Bock..

Take Care

Shovelhead
September 30, 2005, 06:28 PM
:fire:

SLCDave
September 30, 2005, 06:29 PM
Just FYI, I tried to CC the other names listed earlier in the thread using the same "first-initial-last-name" format of Mr. Markey, and all those messages came back.

Guyon
September 30, 2005, 06:39 PM
Kurush, my point about the 1st Amendment was that Andrew S ought to be able to speak his mind on here and get a fair shake as long as he's not violating any of the board rules. *He* didn't bring up the 1st. I did.

FWIW, I don't think he's a troll.

Andrew S, I think that every battle line matters. If this policy is legit and if boycotters can get it changed, well then I think that helps lend weight to concealed-carry laws everywhere.

Actually, policies like these involve fights where consumers *can* elicit a pretty immediate reaction (Lowe's, for example, regarding anti-gun material on their website). Similar kinds of pressure from the gun-grabbers have effected their tolls on retailers regarding whether they sell firearms-related products (see K-Mart, for example). On the concealed-carry front, I think that boycotts help retailers realize that there is a segment of the consuming populace who genuinely care about the carry rights that their state laws provide.

Sometimes, such policy measures are brainchilds (brainchildren?) of corporate types far removed from the consumer's mentality. I think it's a good thing to remind them where some of us stand.

If someone can confirm that this is indeed a Goodyear policy, I'll be the next to voice my opinion to them.

Guyon
September 30, 2005, 06:45 PM
FWIW, here's the outcome of the Lowes boycott back in 2001:

http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=73987

AirForceShooter
September 30, 2005, 06:48 PM
it's concealed:
Gimme me new tires

AFS

Andrew S
September 30, 2005, 06:56 PM
No I am not trolling. I am just sharing my opinion on the subject just as everyone else.

And Guyon I can certainly understand what you just said. If I shared the strong belief I guess I would do the same.

beaucoup ammo
September 30, 2005, 07:18 PM
But can't find zip on the web. Need to send it to some condo friends..but there's nada via Google.

Is there a press release...some written store policy? Not that they'd be obliged to share that with Anyone.

Take Care

Steam dragon
September 30, 2005, 07:32 PM
Sad to report, Bridgestne/Firestone also posts, at least here in Akron, Oh.
And at the plants, too. Company stores in other locations may be diferent.
Your mileage may vary.
:banghead:

BluesBear
September 30, 2005, 09:10 PM
Well winter is coming and once again it's snowtire season.

I suggest that everyone of us who buys any tires, that's ANY tires, no matter if it's just one or an entire set, for your snowmobile trailer or your SUV, photocopy the receipt and send it to Goodyear with a note saying that you would have made the purchase from them but since they choose to circumvent both your Constitutionally affirmed rights as well as your state granted rights you have chosen to spend your money elsewere.

It wouldn't take very many people doing that to show Goodyear, in black & white, just how many thousands of dollars that decision will cost them.

Devon
September 30, 2005, 10:56 PM
I work for an independant Goodyear dealer. I've searched for this or any other information on this subject and have come up with nothing. Since ccw is not 'legal' in Ks. on or off duty LEO's are welcome to carry in my store, in fact very much encouraged. Just don't ask me if I am, but most of the LEO's in the area know I will be if I show up to a building alarm at oh dark thirty.

ruger270man
October 1, 2005, 02:24 AM
email sent..

Robert Hairless
October 1, 2005, 05:35 AM
I'm grateful to Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company for letting customers know that its stores are violent places staffed by violent employees. I'm sorry it's true but since it is true it's good that management isn't hiding it. My wife and I have bought Goodyear tires for years. We didn't know that places selling Goodyear tires were so violent. Now that we know, we won't expose ourselves to danger just to buy tires.

I've sent Mr. Markey an e-mail thanking him for letting us know how dangerous it is to enter a Goodyear store and that Goodyear's employees are potentially homicidal. I've explained that we don't have much confidence that violent people will honor those signs so we will wait until we see real evidence that Goodyear is getting its problems under control. Before we enter a Goodyear store from now on we want to see armed security guards searching everyone who enters, and also one of those machines that looks into purses, briefcases, luggage, and bags--the kind you see at airports--at every entrance. I'm concerned about the people who might sneak nail files, knives, scissors, improvised explosive devices, and other kinds of weapons into Goodyear stores. I also want background checks of all Goodyear employees since Goodyear has revealed that they're dangerous.

jashobeam
October 1, 2005, 06:35 AM
That sounds like one fun email to read.

Guyon
October 1, 2005, 09:48 AM
Still amazes me how many folks have fired off judgmental emails without confirming the information at the source.

Only an inquiry about policy seems appropriate at this point. Perhaps a gentle reminder that business will go elsewhere *if indeed* this policy is real.

beaucoup ammo
October 1, 2005, 10:40 AM
Right you are. Correct Intel is essential. I'll be aiming an e-mail their way..only After I've confirmed the target is legit.

To do otherwise IS..in your words..amazing.

Take Care

etex
October 1, 2005, 11:26 AM
Another good reason not to buy their overpriced tires.

carguym14
October 1, 2005, 12:19 PM
Posted by Andrew S:

Having someone with a firearm in store automatically escalates the situation and increases the chance that someone will get hurt if there is a robbery or some other disturbance.


That statement sounds like something the Brady Bunch would say.Don't they say the streets are going to turn into the wild west and gun battles will ensue after minor accidents whenever a state passes a concealed carry bill?

I find that statement irritating,at best.


Back to topic-I do agree that businesses have the right to make their own policies and we as consumers have the right to try and change those policies.

I talked to my Goodyear salesman (I sell tires-all kinds) and he didn't know anything about this.The Goodyear store I deal with has nothing posted and they don't care who has what as long as you are not a threat.I did send an e-mail-awaiting a responce.


If this policy does result in the reduction of violence,I think we need to pressure all the banks to put up "No Bank Robbers Allowed" signs-there have been several bank robberies in the last few months. :evil:

denfoote
October 1, 2005, 01:05 PM
This letter is to inform you that I have purchased my last set of Goodyear tires. The reason is that I no longer feel save having my family on your store property. Armed crimminals will not give any regard to your policy and I will not put myself or my family in a position where they can be harmed by your shortsightedness.

:scrutiny:

EghtySx
October 1, 2005, 01:18 PM
Posted by Andrew S:

Having someone with a firearm in store automatically escalates the situation and increases the chance that someone will get hurt if there is a robbery or some other disturbance.




Though defensive violence will always be a "sad necessity" in the eyes of men of principle, it would be still more unfortunate if wrongdoers should dominate just men. -St. Augustine (354-430 AD)

When there is absolutely no choice but between violence and cowardice, I would choose violence. -Mahatma Gandhi, The Essential Gandhi, Louis Fischer

“One bleeding-heart type asked me in a recent interview if I did not agree the ‘violence begets violence’. I told him that it is my earnest endeavor to see that it does. I would very much like to ensure-and in some cases I have-that any man who offers violence to his fellow citizen begets a whole lot more in return than he can enjoy.” -Col. Jeff Cooper

"The world is filled with violence. Because criminals carry guns, we decent law-abiding citizens should also have guns. Otherwise they will win and the decent people will lose." - James Earl Jones, actor

beaucoup ammo
October 1, 2005, 01:33 PM
CHL would have helped..no doubt http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/first100/1001214

Take Care

SouthpawShootr
October 1, 2005, 01:58 PM
I doubt having a armed customer onsite would escalate the situation. Just about anybody with any sense would recognize the folly of taking it up a notch. As long as they don't start shooting anybody, I'll be content to stand there and be a good witness.

If they start shooting people, well, if you're going to die anyway, why not take a few of the bad guys with you. Occasionally, you get somebody who figures if they already killed one, getting rid of witnesses would be an even better idea.

Robert Hairless
October 1, 2005, 02:36 PM
Guyon -- Still amazes me how many folks have fired off judgmental emails without confirming the information at the source.

Only an inquiry about policy seems appropriate at this point. Perhaps a gentle reminder that business will go elsewhere *if indeed* this policy is real.

Beaucoup Ammo -- Right you are. Correct Intel is essential. I'll be aiming an e-mail their way..only After I've confirmed the target is legit.

To do otherwise IS..in your words..amazing.

What you say seems elevated at first glance but after a second or subsequent look it seems more foolish and inappropriate than anything else. It's nothing more than something to say. Probably that's because you both have written while in a state of "amazement."

When you express that "amazement" about folks "firing off" "judgmental e-mails" "without confirming the information" "at the source" I suppose it's possible that you might think that I sent my e-mail somewhere other than to "the source." I used the e-mail address set forth here as "the source." I know of no other candidate for "the source." If you know another potential candidate as "the source" other than that person why not just identify that other "source" instead of criticizing people for writing to it.

Or perhaps you mean that it is wrong to directly address the person identified as the writer of the message posted here. I can't imagine anything better to do than to correspond directly with the person identified as the writer--which, again, is who I understand to be "the source." I didn't confront his ma or pa or his boss or the newspapers or the membership of this forum instead. I addressed him directly. I think that's the correct thing to do. I am open to hearing your instruction, though, so if you think that there is some other person to address why not say so directly.

I'm interested in how Beaucoup Ammo will get his essential "Correct Intel" and confirm that "the target is legit" before "aiming an e-mail" "their way." Again, I chose to "aim an e-mail" "their way" based on my knowledge and experience that if the e-mail address is incorrect my e-mail will be returned as undeliverable. If it's delivered, "the target is legit" in the sense that the e-mail address is valid.

If both Guyon and Beaucoup Ammo mean that it is unfair to respond to the purported writer at the purported e-mail address without first doing preliminary investigative work I confess that I don't have such abilities. In this situation I know only to address the person directly about what it is he is reported as having written.

I assume, of course, that the person I addressed will have the ability to deny authoring the statement posted here if that person did not in fact author it. Of course I admit the possibility that Mr. Markey (that person) might be too shy, too fragile, or too incompetent to know how to respond to my e-mail. In that case perhaps Mr. Markey might want to seek counseling for his emotional problems, get more professional help to become able to deal with disagreeable people, or find employment in some line of work other than communications and public relations.

I do admire Guyon's and Beaucoup Ammo's lofty position, though, and I take the point that they disapprove of my direct approach or its nature. But there's an essentially geographical issue that's being overlooked when they take their particular plot of high ground. Although they might have the right to it in their homes they're not residents of my property, and here I have ownership of the elevations on it.

Although it might look as if I'm defending myself and only myself, to think those things is to misunderstand what I have said here. I'm saying that their statements have more sound than substance. Put it another way, I'm "amazed" that they've said things so mazey, so foolish and so insubstantial and overly critical. It's criticism for the sake of grumbling. A nice cup of tea might be just the thing to settle the overly irritable stomach. And I mean what I've said in support of others who also have e-mailed Mr. Markey directly. On my piece of high ground it's perfectly proper to do so. Here we believe that if Mr. Markey did not write what he is quoted as having written he can and will deny it. And if the policy stated in that quotation is not his company's policy he can deny that too. As for the tone, tenor, and content of the e-mails any person chooses to write to Mr. Markey, I don't see any need to run them past Guyon and Beaucoup Ammo for their corrections of other people's style, substance, or grace.

If the statement posted here is a forgery, hostile responses to Mr. Markey about it accomplish some postitive goals anyway. First, of course, it alerts Mr. Markey that the statement exists, that it is being distributed, and that it is unsettling to at least some actual or potential customers of Goodyear products. Mr. Markey then can disclaim the statement, which he could not do unless he is given the opportunity to know about it and the hostility it is generating. Second, it alerts Mr. Markey to the hostility that will be generated if Goodyear chooses to follow the Brady Campaign's program Guns & Business Don't Mix: A Guide to Keeping Your Business Gun-Free. Other large companies, such as Conoco-Phillips, have chose to support that program and pursue policies that are dictated by the politics of gun control instead of by any real issues of workplace violence or customer safety. My e-mail was intended to confront that situation: if any business prohibits lawful possession of firearms on the grounds proposed by the Brady Campaign, that business would benefit by paying close attention to the implications of that policy. The business's management needs to use better brains and do some better thinking than the Bradys' because they're opening a costly door that will be almost impossible to close.

deputydon
October 1, 2005, 03:21 PM
Email sent informing Mr. Markey that I will no longer patronize Goodyear stores and will not purchase any of their products. Won't change much since IMO their stuff is crap anyway. -Don

beaucoup ammo
October 1, 2005, 05:21 PM
This entire thread (pardon the pun) is based on rumor. No one's seen a memo or anything definitive.

Be pre-emptive if you want, I'll wait til I'm sure of the facts before I act above and "before" the call of duty...in other words: knee jerk.

Not into blind faith myself..but Clapton and Baker were great in their own right!

Take Care

BluesBear
October 1, 2005, 05:37 PM
So what was/is Steve Winwood? Chopped liver?

Has anyone heard from Rick Gretsch since?


:evil:

beaucoup ammo
October 1, 2005, 05:43 PM
I'm a fan..yes I am..yes I am..yes I Am!:O) Anything but chopped liver! Staying on topic, I hear he's very pro-gun.

Take Care

Guyon
October 1, 2005, 06:36 PM
A rush of people responding to rumor doesn't do a whole lot for the public image of gun-toters everywhere. I feel a part of this community, and its image does matter to me. So I'm not just grumbling for the sake of grumbling.

Accusations of wrongdoing usually don't sit too well when no wrongdoing has been committed. How would you feel if folks accused you of potentially damaging actions you didn't commit?

I was just wondering why folks were taking extreme positions in their emails to Goodyear rather than asking about policy? If/when Goodyear replied, wouldn't that be close enough to the source? In the Lowes instance, the proof was on their website. All we have here is an anonymous post to a pro-gun website. Hardly substantial at this point, and several posters here refute that the policy exists in their locale.

Again, I think it would be fine/logical to pose a hypothetical and convey to Goodyear that future business would be lost *if* this policy is legitimate. But flying off the handle is just that--flying off the handle.

And Robert, I don't want to be your censor or your editor. But I feel just fine critiquing your strategy. I am American, and such is my lofty right.

Steam dragon
October 1, 2005, 06:45 PM
I don't know about Goodyear, but Firestone has posted their Akron, Oh. company store, and their offices in Akron.

The company store in Canton, Oh. is also posted.

The wording in the original post is very similar to the sign I see every day going to work.

Rumor has it to be company wide.

Though the postings on Akron only happened in the last year, no weapons on the property has been policy for employees at least 8 years that I am aware of.

:banghead:

AirForceShooter
October 1, 2005, 06:51 PM
if somebody thinks I'm pulling my weapon to protect a cash register somebody is nuts.
Protect a person, sure, but money, nope, it ain't mine.

AFS

LSCurrier
October 1, 2005, 07:24 PM
Sent the following to:

Ed Markey (email: emarkey@goodyear.com )
VP, PR and Communications
North American Tire

of Goodyear via email:




Subject: Recent Goodyear policy statement

Dear sir,

It has come to my attention that Goodyear has issued the following policy statement:


______________________
______________________
______________________


"In an effort to ensure the safety and security of our associates and customers, we have a clear company policy regarding weapons in the workplace. The Goodyear Tire and Rubber Co. prohibits all persons who enter Company property from carrying a handgun, firearm, or prohibited weapon of any kind onto the property regardless of whether the person is licensed to carry the weapon or not. Exceptions apply to on-duty law enforcement personnel. This policy applies to all Company employees, visitors, customers, and contractors on Company property -- including our Company-owned stores.

All Company properties have received the decal or sign you referenced, and have been instructed to post it.

Thank you for the email. Please get back to me if I can provide further information."

Ed Markey (email: emarkey@goodyear.com )
VP, PR and Communications
North American Tire

______________________
______________________
______________________



I would suggest that Goodyear consider the words of President Thomas Jefferson who said:


"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms... disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve to encourage rather than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."

-Thomas Jefferson


and reconsider this policy. I believe that this policy is anti-American and stands against the Constitution of this great country. Therefore I cannot in good conscience purchase Goodyear products or have my vehicles serviced at Goodyear locations any longer until Goodyear corrects its stance on this issue.

Robert Hairless
October 1, 2005, 10:41 PM
Guyon -- A rush of people responding to rumor doesn't do a whole lot for the public image of gun-toters everywhere. I feel a part of this community, and its image does matter to me. So I'm not just grumbling for the sake of grumbling.

...

Again, I think it would be fine/logical to pose a hypothetical and convey to Goodyear that future business would be lost *if* this policy is legitimate. But flying off the handle is just that--flying off the handle.

And Robert, I don't want to be your censor or your editor. But I feel just fine critiquing your strategy. I am American, and such is my lofty right.

You're absolutely right, Guyon. As an American you have the right to critique my strategy and to offer your opinion on everything in, about, or alongside this country or any other place, person, animal, or object in this world or any another. It's heartwarming to see a person who not only understands that right but also asserts it.

In fact I support you in your exercise of that noble right even when you extend it into a right to chastise other Americans for exercising their rights when their opinions differ from your own. It is indeed your right to correct the rest of us. Why would we come here if not to learn correct behavior during our imperfect discussions about our flawed opinions?

My only lament is that I and others here who do not share your opinions and those of Beaucoup Ammo seem to operate in the dark because you good people wait until we do something of which you disapprove before telling us so. It would be a kindness if you both would simply provide proper instruction about the opinions we should have before we acted on them prematurely.

I am touched that you feel responsible for our actions. But, alas, I do not consider myself a "gun toter" and I am simply not sufficiently intelligent to pose a "hypothetical." My few strengths are not intellectual, as you can tell by my inability to form the correct opinion.

I am relieved to see that you were not so weakened by your previous state of "amazement" that you were unable to judge that when I and others express our opinons we are "flying off the handle."

Of course you are not grumbling merely for the sake of hearing yourself talk. I don't know what possessed me to have that wrong opinion. It's obvious that I need your guidance so I can think right. I'm sure that you'll continue to give it to me and to others who need it.

Has anyone else ever noticed that when someone makes a statement such as "Robert, I don't want to be your censor or your editor" that statement is usually followed by a "but ...." that attempts to justify what the person has just said he didn't want to do?

Big Mike
October 1, 2005, 11:31 PM
Another reason why I goto Les Schwab. I think the only group of people who work harder than the folks at Les Schwab is the USMC. Mike :)

Guyon
October 1, 2005, 11:35 PM
Some folks just like to hear themselves talk. Or read their own writing. Frankly Robert, there is so little logic and so much sarcasm in your long-winded response that I feel a point-by-point, analytical response--while tempting as a rhetorical exercise--not worth my time.

Go ahead and get that last word in. Smother me in some more verbose sarcasm, but this is the last I'll engage you. It just ain't worth the energy in this case. In the battle of "I can type the most," you win! A hearty congratulations! :D

Back on topic: I am going to email Goodyear and, like a rational person, first ask about their policy. Why? Seems to me that the gun community is always talking about the liberal left arguing without getting their facts straight. I would like to know the truth before I make threats to Goodyear concerning my business. That is, I would like to come across as a calm, logical consumer who has money to spend and who is concerned about an alleged report on Goodyear's policies.

Robert Hairless
October 2, 2005, 04:57 AM
Guyon -- Some folks just like to hear themselves talk. Or read their own writing. Frankly Robert, there is so little logic and so much sarcasm in your long-winded response that I feel a point-by-point, analytical response--while tempting as a rhetorical exercise--not worth my time.

Go ahead and get that last word in. Smother me in some more verbose sarcasm, but this is the last I'll engage you. It just ain't worth the energy in this case. In the battle of "I can type the most," you win! A hearty congratulations!

Back on topic: I am going to email Goodyear and, like a rational person, first ask about their policy. Why? Seems to me that the gun community is always talking about the liberal left arguing without getting their facts straight. I would like to know the truth before I make threats to Goodyear concerning my business. That is, I would like to come across as a calm, logical consumer who has money to spend and who is concerned about an alleged report on Goodyear's policies.

That makes me feel bad. I don't want to be the reason why you relinquish your right as an American to address personal comments to me and others who hold opinions other than your own. You and Beaucoup Ammo are the only people in this extensive thread who take the time and trouble to reproach us by saying such things as that you're "amazed" by our behavior and to criticize us for "flying off the handle." And no one even asked you to do it. It was purely voluntary, from the goodness of your heart, the sharpness of your mind, and the depths of your experience. What will we do without you as our moral center?

But I understand that you think I'm no longer worthy of your time and that I "ain't worth the energy." You must spend a great deal of time monitoring everything said by everyone who owns or is interested in firearms because you're capable of knowing that "the gun community is always talking about the liberal left arguing without getting their facts straight." I'm having a little trouble with the end of that sentence, by the way. Do you mean that it is the "liberal left" who argues without getting their facts straight or do you mean that it is the "gun community"? (Those are the same people you called the "gun-toters" earlier, right?) The pronoun reference is a bit confused but, as I admitted earlier, I'm not the least bit confident in my own intellectual powers. I suppose the meaning doesn't matter: I get the substance, which is that everyone else is doing the wrong thing as usual.

You're a man who has special powers, such as the ability to know that my e-mail to Mr. Markey threatened him and/or Goodyear Tire and Rubber even though you never saw my e-mail. That's special.

It was good of you to spare some of your time to lean over your perch this little while to drop your correctives upon me and the rest of the unworthies whose behavior you disapprove. No one--not even I--has criticized you for taking an approach different from any of ours, but of course we're rather crude, impulsive, dull-writted "gun-toters" who "amaze" you by "flying off the handle." I'm sure that Mr. Markey and Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company would much prefer contact with you than with the rest of us.

I'm equally sure that you'll volunteer instruction to us on other issues when you notice us behave badly. If you lose track of us just look down. We're here, below.

a9mmauto
October 4, 2005, 12:19 AM
I have hade bad luck with Good year anyway so bye bye :neener: badyear.....

Shootcraps
October 4, 2005, 12:45 AM
Seems to me that the gun community is always talking about the liberal left arguing without getting their facts straight.

So if we've made a mistake, Goodyear will respond by saying that's not their policy and everything will be right with the world. No harm/no foul.

carguym14
October 4, 2005, 10:27 AM
Has anyone heard anything back yet?

beaucoup ammo
October 4, 2005, 10:51 AM
I called the Goodyear Store closest to me this morning. The guy who answered had no clue as to what I was talking about..asked if I wanted to speak to a manager, I said yes, and was told "No Weapons Of Any Kind Allowed On The Premises" (including in your car) of this particular store.

Asked about Corporate policy..he "didn't know", or didn't care to comment.

I haven't visited a store location to look for a posted "30.06 law" as of yet.

Take Care

106rr
October 5, 2005, 04:27 AM
I sent an e mail to Mr Markey at goodyear and he confirmed the policy in no uncertain terms. The reply was exactly the same as "Iscurrier" in his post. It scares me that they may be selling a product so bad that they are afraid of their own customers! They are demanding that the customers be disarmed before and during the sale/service of Goodyear tires.

beaucoup ammo
October 5, 2005, 11:48 AM
for providing the information I've been waiting for. Now that we know it's a fact, we can act accordingly. Mainly, purchase another brand. Definitive information makes a huge difference to me. Thanks.

BTW, a family member was severly injured when one of their Goodyear tires seperated at highway speeds..he was 9 at the time. The settlement is being held in trust and will pay for his college education. This prior to Goodyear's "out of court" agreement that keeps them immune from future lawsuits for that defect,

A question for all: when I took my CHL course here in Texas, the instructor mentioned more than once that any "store" must display the entire "30.06" law in a large, specified size if they want to keep legally concealed handguns off their premises.

Has this changed? I have no intention of "pushing it" with any establishment who doesn't have it posted...but, is that not still the final word in Texas?

Take Care

Henry Bowman
October 5, 2005, 01:45 PM
As a side question, isn't (wasn't) there an NRA sponsored NASCAR car? Wonder what brand of tires it runs (ran) on?

Update: Here (http://www.nraracing.com/) is the site for NRA Racing. NRA does not sponser cars. Some drivers or teams choose to show their support for the NRA on their cars. Looks like some run on Goodyear, some on Hoosier.

DarthBubba
October 5, 2005, 02:55 PM
E-mail Sent :D

Robert Hairless
October 9, 2005, 01:26 PM
Beaucoup Ammo -- Thanks, 106RR

for providing the information I've been waiting for. Now that we know it's a fact, we can act accordingly. ... Definitive information makes a huge difference to me. Thanks.

Nonsense. Your logic is scrambled. You don't even seem to know the difference between "fact" and "hearsay." All of your decisions are based on what other people reported, not anything you know yourself. Your decision now is no better than the decisions made by others of us based on similar information.

What 106RR has posted is not "defnitive information" and "we" still don't "know it's a fact." All "we" know is that someone with the screen name "106RR" has posted roughly the same information on October 5, 2005, that someone with the screen name "aquapong" posted on September 29, 2005.

You and Guyon criticized the rest of us for acting on hearsay without direct knowledge about Goodyear's action. You still haven't done your independent investigation of the facts and you don't know anything more about what Goodyear did: you've simply decided to accept what one anonymous poster has said instead of what another anonymous poster has said. But you've chosen to characterize the previous anonymous person's post as rumor and the next anonymous person's post as "fact" and "definitive information." Silliness.

My own responses to you and to Guyon are solely with respect to the criticisms both of you directed at the other people in this thread who did not behave the way either of you thought proper. It would not have occurred to me that you both were silly, illogical, arrogant people if you had simply said that you chose some different course of action without delivering the judgment that yours was the only and only right course because that's what you decided. I understand the common Internet principle that everyone else is wrong. But it's a silly, illogical, and arrogant principle.

People are entitled to make their own decisions without being condemned for making decisions other than yours. Americans don't have some inherent right to condemn other people for choosing their own ways. From blissnannies to Internet tyrants, the medium differs but the message is the same. I smoke, you think that smoking is bad, therefore I must not smoke. You like guns, I think that guns are bad, therefore you must not have guns. I respond one way, you think that another way is better, therefore I am wrong to respond my way.

But now it's okay in your mind for the rest of us to respond critically to Goodyear because you've decided that a message by one Internet poster is "fact" and "definitive information" but that the message by a previous Internet poster was only rumor. Do you now grant absolution to the rest of us because maybe we did the right thing in expressing disapproval to Goodyear even if we did so on the basis of what you considered rumor now that you have what you consider "fact" and "definitive information"? Or do we still have to carry the heavy spiritual burden of your criticism? Or don't you know the difference between "rumor" and "definitive information"?

I don't expect you or Guyon to understand any of thse points, because of course they're not anything that has occurred to either of you. As I and others have explained, Goodyear has the ability to respond to our e-mails and to correct any wrong information. We did something. You and Guyon criticized us all personally for doing what we believed right. That's all you and Guyon did. It's not for me to comment on your decisions not to contact Goodyear. It is proper for me to comment on your criticisms of those of us who made other decisions.

Lupinus
October 9, 2005, 01:37 PM
I have alway's liked goodyear's. I will no longer be buying their product's or getting my tire's done at their store's.

And I will be making use of that email address

beaucoup ammo
October 9, 2005, 01:48 PM
..Not buying their product. Requires NO effort on your part. As I told the worker-bee and the manager at the Goodyear Store I called..just as it's his option to not allow fire arms at that location...so it's mine not to shop there.

Is this a Great Country or what?!

Take Care

Double Maduro
October 9, 2005, 02:00 PM
Hairless,

Why don't you listen to what you have been typing, on one hand you tell him to say anything he wants to and then you attack him for doing that.

On one hand you attack him for not believing and on the other for believing. I guess he can't win with you.

Why are you attacking him? Is it because he chose not to blindly follow what you see as the true course? Or is it just an inferiority complex on your part? Do you feel it necessary to attack people who disagree with you, but only if they and you are anonymous? What's next, are you going to attack his grammar?

Try keeping it to the subject, I didn't notice you posting any proof either.

I believe that we sometimes react too fast to supposed wrongs, and that a little time to make sure we get our facts straight is a good thing. Someone earlier said, and I paraphrase,

"So what if we have it wrong, they can issue a statement and put it right, no harm no foul".

Well bubba, there is a foul. The foul is that it makes us look like reactionary idiots. We look like people who don't care about the truth, only our own agenda. This makes it all too easy for people to lump us together into one big redneck, beer drinking, bunch of loonies, who drive around the country side shooting at street signs.

Much better to get the facts straight in the first place.

Not going to get into a verbal jousting match with you either. Just wanted to point out that this thread is not about you and him, it is about something someone said they saw at a Goodyear store, and the supposed reply from Goodyear.

DM

Robert Hairless
October 9, 2005, 04:10 PM
Hairless,

Why don't you listen to what you have been typing, on one hand you tell him to say anything he wants to and then you attack him for doing that.

On one hand you attack him for not believing and on the other for believing. I guess he can't win with you.

Why are you attacking him? Is it because he chose not to blindly follow what you see as the true course? Or is it just an inferiority complex on your part? Do you feel it necessary to attack people who disagree with you, but only if they and you are anonymous? What's next, are you going to attack his grammar?

Try keeping it to the subject, I didn't notice you posting any proof either.

I believe that we sometimes react too fast to supposed wrongs, and that a little time to make sure we get our facts straight is a good thing. Someone earlier said, and I paraphrase,

"So what if we have it wrong, they can issue a statement and put it right, no harm no foul".

Well bubba, there is a foul. The foul is that it makes us look like reactionary idiots. We look like people who don't care about the truth, only our own agenda. This makes it all too easy for people to lump us together into one big redneck, beer drinking, bunch of loonies, who drive around the country side shooting at street signs.

Much better to get the facts straight in the first place.

Not going to get into a verbal jousting match with you either. Just wanted to point out that this thread is not about you and him, it is about something someone said they saw at a Goodyear store, and the supposed reply from Goodyear.

DM

I can't listen to what I've been typing. I can read it, though, and I've read it carefully. I've read what you wrote too but don't find much sense in it.

For example your comment about "Try keeping it to the subject, I didn't notice you posting any proof either" indicates a belief that I've not kept to "the subject" when in fact I've responded to Guyon and Beaucoup Ammo because they dropped the subject of "Goodyear Tires and legal concealed carry" and attacked the people who e-mailed Goodyear about that subject. If you want "proof" that they did make the attack read the messages they posted. I've included abstracts of their statements in my responses as "proof" they wrote those statements. Neither of them has denied they wrote what I've said they wrote.

Your point that I didn't provide proof "either" has no meaning. My response was to their criticism of the rest of us. Neither they nor I were disputing issues that required "proof" other than evidence that they said what I responded to and I said what they responded to. They didn't deny saying what I responded to and I don't deny saying what they're responding to.

You're not seeing reality, or perhaps you have reading problems. I didn't attack "him"--or, actually, them. I'm responding to their gratuitous attacks on those who chose not to blindly follow what they see as the true course. If you read what I've written I've said clearly that I object to their criticism of other people for following what they believe to be the proper course of action for them.

Where did you get the idea that I have "an inferiority complex" or "feel it necessary to attack people who disagree with [me], but only if they and [I] are anonymous"? Do you have a great many other delusions about your ability to see into other people's minds and hearts over the Internet or are these phenomena isolated examples? Is "Double Maduro" your real name or have you adopted the name of a cigar so you can deliver anonymous attacks on other people? What makes you think that a disagreement is an "attack," and why would you think that anyone would disagree unless there was disagreement? No, I don't disagree with statements I agree with, not even if those statements are posted anonymously. Why would you think I express disagreement only to people who post anonymously?

Do you call everyone "Bubba" or only the people you want to degrade, such as those of us who are a "redneck, beer drinking, bunch of loonies, who drive around the country side shooting at street signs"? How do you know that I'm a redneck, or that I drink beer, or that rednecks who drink beer are "loonies"? What makes you think that we redneck, beer drinking, bunch of loonies drive around the country side shooting at street signs? Isn't it possible that when we redneck, beer drinking, bunch of loonies drive around the country side we only shoot back at street signs that have shot at us first?

I suppose at this point I should thank you for demonstrating so clearly the kinds of offensive attitudes and assumptions to which I've been responding. They're deplorable prejudices that are no less vicious because they masquerade as virtue.

Leave people alone. Other people here are entitled to make their own decisions without interference or personal attacks from you, Guyon, or Beaucoup Ammo. You might also want to take some time to reflect on your demonstrated tendencies to put other people into groups you don't like or respect.

Not all Southerners, for example, are redneck, beer drinking loonies. Not all rednecks are loonies. Not all people who defend themselves are attacking. And not everyone who chooses a path different from yours, Guyon's, or Beaucoup Ammo's is a legitimate target for attacks from any of you.

They don't get the point. You don't either. You don't even seem to recognize that you've attacked me despite the vitriolic language you've used, the imaginary motives you've attempted to impose on me, and the fact that you've voluntarily decided to launch the attack even though I hadn't addressed you or known of your existence until you launched your attack.

Double Maduro
October 9, 2005, 04:45 PM
Hairless,

Thank goodness for the "TWIT FILTER".

I usually hate to use it because there may be a chance that the person may post something worthwhile, sometime. In your case I will chance it.

DM

cxm
October 9, 2005, 08:55 PM
Emailed Goodyear last week.

Markey must be getting lots of mail... he didn't answer mine...

I ordered a new set of tires from a Goodyear store... then cancelled them after giving the Manager a copy of Markeys statement.

Ordering stuff and then cancelling and providing a copy of Markey's statement will get Goodyears attention if a sufficient number of people do so... business (and money) talks.

FWIW

Chuck

Model520Fan
October 9, 2005, 09:25 PM
Emailed Goodyear last week.

Markey must be getting lots of mail... he didn't answer mine...


Same here.

Robert Hairless,

Many thanks for your well-thought-out but tedious-to-type responses. I barely have the energy to read the whole thread, much less type out responses like yours, but, believe me, they are appreciated. What you are saying has been needed to be posted for a long time, on more than one thread.

Job well done.

520

aguyindallas
October 9, 2005, 10:16 PM
I just voiced my opinion via email. Thanks for pointing this out. My Ford Exploder needs rubber, but I guess it will be another brand. Too bad I just bought a set of Goodyear Eagle RS-A's for my Crown Vic.

Robert Hairless
October 9, 2005, 10:37 PM
Model520Fan --

Robert Hairless,

Many thanks for your well-thought-out but tedious-to-type responses. I barely have the energy to read the whole thread, much less type out responses like yours, but, believe me, they are appreciated. What you are saying has been needed to be posted for a long time, on more than one thread.

Job well done.

520

Thank you. I'm troubled when I see bullies in action. It's good to know that at least someone else feels the same.

106rr
October 9, 2005, 10:42 PM
Robert Hairless:
I think you are confused about A) the facts, and B) your role in the discussion. The fact is that I did contact Mr. Markey and did verify the Goodyear anti gun stance. Your role in the discussion should not be to criticize others, it should be to seek the truth. Please re read my posts, I didn't criticize any other poster. Please do not reply unless you have facts.

Robert Hairless
October 9, 2005, 11:19 PM
106rr -- Robert Hairless:
I think you are confused about A) the facts, and B) your role in the discussion. The fact is that I did contact Mr. Markey and did verify the Goodyear anti gun stance. Your role in the discussion should not be to criticize others, it should be to seek the truth. Please re read my posts, I didn't criticize any other poster. Please do not reply unless you have facts.

I did not criticize you, 1066rr. I am aware that you did contact Mr. Markey and that he replied to your e-mail. I read your message.

My criticism was addressed to the person who calls himself "Beaucoup Ammo." Earlier he and Guyon had criticized other people for e-mailing Mr. Markey because they acted upon information posted by the person who started this thread. Beaucoup Ammo and Guyon's point was that the message posted here did not justify e-mailing Goodyear, that they were going to do what they called "independent investigation" before e-mailing Goodyear, and that the rest of us "amazed" them by e-mailing Goodyear.

I think it was good for you to e-mail Goodyear. I did the same thing: I e-mailed Goodyear too. I would not criticize you for doing what I myself did, and what most people who posted messages to this thread have done too.

I did not say that you criticized others in your previous message. My reference to you in my criticism of "Beaucoup Ammo" was directed at showing the stupidity and arrogance of the thinking on which he and Guyon based their criticism of everyone else.

As for you deciding what my role should and should not be in discussions, and for your forbidding me to reply unless I meet your conditions, what right have you to do such things? Why do you think that I don't I have a right to offer my opinions even if you disagree with them? Is it so unsettling to see someone here object to self-righteous bullies?

Robert Hairless
October 9, 2005, 11:36 PM
Double Maduro -- Hairless,

Thank goodness for the "TWIT FILTER".

I usually hate to use it because there may be a chance that the person may post something worthwhile, sometime. In your case I will chance it.

DM

You would have been a nicer person if you had used the twit filter before attacking me and the rest of "the redneck, beer drinking, bunch of loonies, who drive around the country side shooting at street signs" with your psychobabble because you feel superior to other people. But you won't see this message because the twit filter will block it from your vision.

If you enjoyed reading about "Goodyear Tires and legal concealed carry" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!