ShooterMcGavin
Member
- Joined
- Jan 11, 2007
- Messages
- 629
Without delving into the topic of what the members of OCT should be doing or refraining from doing, one of the more annoying things surrounding this situation is the response of the stores and the support they receive from members of this site for declaring "no guns in our stores". This post is not to discuss what OCT members should/n't do, nor what should be proper OC etiquette, nor what should be the law.
Because I know this will come up... I fully support private property laws. I feel that a property owner has the right, for any reason or no reason at all, to ask me or a subset of folks to leave and not return.
This thread is about the response (reaction) taken by the stores which were used as podiums for this movement. I think it was misguided. I understand their decisions and I totally support their reasons for doing so. However, I think they could have gotten the same results without drawing that polarizing line in the sand - "no guns". I think each store/chain should focus more on the issue of speech rather than guns. Carrying a long gun in public or into a store is irregular. The people are doing it to make a statement (speech). The carrying of the guns isn't hurting the stores; the statement is hurting the stores (or so the management believes, and that is what matters). My right to carry a gun ends when it harms or threatens to harm another person (not just causes fear). My right to "speak" ends when it harms or threatens to harm another person. I don't believe the people of OCT are actually causing physical danger to anyone, but if they are, they should be arrested.
The stores which are making sweeping statements about where they stand on gun rights need to stop being put on the front pages, not only by people carrying long arms, but by people using their stores as a stage to protest any movement that the management finds disruptive or harmful to their business. Rather than stating "no guns in our stores", I believe the proper stance is "no political movements within our stores". Had stores taken that approach, I would still be a customer of several local establishments. Since they have instead asked for "no guns", I will avoid them, whether I am concealed, OC, or unarmed.
Now... For those of you who I consistently hear supporting these stores for saying "no guns", because their establishments were used as a speaking platform for this movement, do you still think they made the ideal decision?
Because I know this will come up... I fully support private property laws. I feel that a property owner has the right, for any reason or no reason at all, to ask me or a subset of folks to leave and not return.
This thread is about the response (reaction) taken by the stores which were used as podiums for this movement. I think it was misguided. I understand their decisions and I totally support their reasons for doing so. However, I think they could have gotten the same results without drawing that polarizing line in the sand - "no guns". I think each store/chain should focus more on the issue of speech rather than guns. Carrying a long gun in public or into a store is irregular. The people are doing it to make a statement (speech). The carrying of the guns isn't hurting the stores; the statement is hurting the stores (or so the management believes, and that is what matters). My right to carry a gun ends when it harms or threatens to harm another person (not just causes fear). My right to "speak" ends when it harms or threatens to harm another person. I don't believe the people of OCT are actually causing physical danger to anyone, but if they are, they should be arrested.
The stores which are making sweeping statements about where they stand on gun rights need to stop being put on the front pages, not only by people carrying long arms, but by people using their stores as a stage to protest any movement that the management finds disruptive or harmful to their business. Rather than stating "no guns in our stores", I believe the proper stance is "no political movements within our stores". Had stores taken that approach, I would still be a customer of several local establishments. Since they have instead asked for "no guns", I will avoid them, whether I am concealed, OC, or unarmed.
Now... For those of you who I consistently hear supporting these stores for saying "no guns", because their establishments were used as a speaking platform for this movement, do you still think they made the ideal decision?