Jump to content
SASS Wire Forum
Sign in to follow this  
Hells Comin

Walmart / Sam's club

Recommended Posts

So I guess they think the shooter's will pick another store if Walmart plays nice? I miss the America that stood up to the problems rather than cower to the criminals. 

Edited by Cowboy Junky
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Our local Walmart is the only retail source for ammo within 30 miles of my house.  Might be a business opportunity here for an enterprising person. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Phantom, SASS #54973 said:

Well here's a diversion.

 

Why open carry?

 

Phantom asks a good question.  I've never really heard a logical argument in favor of it.

 

Jackalope

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

IMO most open carry is intentionally meant to be provocative.  I see no reason to do it except the rare situation when concealed carry is prohibited or otherwise impossible.  It's not prudent as you'd be the first target in any shooting situation. 

  • Like 5
  • Thanks 1
  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Ripsaw said:

IMO most open carry is intentionally meant to be provocative.  I see no reason to do it except the rare situation when concealed carry is prohibited or otherwise impossible.  It's not prudent as you'd be the first target in any shooting situation. 

 

That's a commonly held thought, but there is absolutely no documented evidence to support that.  No robberies or other crimes of violence on record where the BG stated that "I shot him first 'cause I could see that he was armed".  But at the same time, there is also no documented evidence to demonstrate that the observation of a person open carrying thwarted a potential violent crime either.  I open carry occasionally, and nobody seems to notice or care.  The rest of the time, I conceal carry.  I never go anywhere (that's not prohibited by law) without carrying a handgun, usually a G19.  Mrs. Hangtree is always packing a G42.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I rarely upen carry.  really the only time is when i'm going to/from a cowboy match, wearing a tucked in shirt. I carry my pistol in an ISWB cross draw holster, clippeed to my pants as i'm not wearing a belt, and with suspenders have to have suirt tucked in.  I really dont want anybopdy knowing I'm carrying.  if a situation develops, I want to have options on what to do. Open carry would likley cause a bad guy to focus on me.

 

True Walmart story... Several years ago I was in WM,  a little old gray haired lady asked me to get something from the top shelf for her.  I did, and gave it to her, asked f there was anything else I could help with.  She rather wide-eyed said no and skeedadled like her britches were on fire.  i thought it kind of odd.  then I realized that by reaching up to top shelf I have exposed my gun.  I guess I scared the old gal. 

 

I'm a firm 2nd ammendment guy.  I think a responsible person should be ablt to carry a gun wherever they want.  However, if I saw a guy in "tatical gear" carrying an AR come into WalMart, it would cuse me some concern.  True, he has not broken any laws, but I would still watch him like a hawk.  These guys that walk around with all that gear on and carying a rifle jsut because they are trying to be cool or whatever dont help us responsible gun owners any.  There is a place to carry a rifle, and walmart aint it.   

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I buy all my smokeless stuff and shot from a local fella, Dan's Ammo & Radiator Shop. However, like Target's bathroom/dressing room policy, I will not shop at Walmart because of their new policy. Plenty of other places to buy underwear and socks. ;) 

 

GG ~ :FlagAm:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Marshal Hangtree said:

 

That's a commonly held thought, but there is absolutely no documented evidence to support that.  No robberies or other crimes of violence on record where the BG stated that "I shot him first 'cause I could see that he was armed".  But at the same time, there is also no documented evidence to demonstrate that the observation of a person open carrying thwarted a potential violent crime either.  I open carry occasionally, and nobody seems to notice or care.  The rest of the time, I conceal carry.  I never go anywhere (that's not prohibited by law) without carrying a handgun, usually a G19.  Mrs. Hangtree is always packing a G42.

 

Not documented (except for right here ;)) but two times I have seen open carry of a firearm on an individual totally change the demeanor of an aggressive party.

 

Each time was outdoors. Both times in Colorado, "off the beaten path", once ATVing, once camping/fishing. Each time individual A started $hi+ with individual B. Neither person knew the other before the incident. I witnessed each occurrence.

 

In each situation the aggressive party (two different people, two different times and locations), not being at all invited to in any way socialize with the person minding his own business, approached my group and started in with the vulgar attitude and language, putting hands on property he was not invited to touch, and inserting himself into our "space" freely. Each time, my friend (who open carries a 1911 when outdoors) was busy tinkering with something when the uninvited guest arrived and my friend caught the tone of the conversation and turned around to see what was going on. When he turned the obnoxious intruder saw the sidearm, immediately stopped being a douche, cleaned up his behavior and language, and found reason to politely excuse himself from our proximity. I was watching him closely and saw his eyes focus on the openly carried sidearm and immediately he changed his tune. Perhaps no crime was thwarted but we'll never know as things never got that far because someone saw that gun.

 

I agree that open carry in public ain't all that smart, invites a swatting call, and makes you the first target but open carry in remote areas is a different thing altogether.

 

For what it's worth...

Edited by Dantankerous
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Phantom, SASS #54973 said:

Well here's a diversion.

 

Why open carry?

   Good question Phantom, and I'm glad you asked. 

   The reasons you will hear to not open carry usually start out with, "you will make yourself the first target". While I have never seen any evidence to back up that claim, I could see that being the case in a couple of situations. One being where someone had a grand plan to commit a robbery and the only way that plan would work is for it to happen at the exact time I am at the place it is to happen. That'd be pretty rare.

   On the other hand, some of MY reasons to open carry are more likely to happen. One of which is an argument we use all the time about "carrying" in general. We say people strike soft targets such as some movie theaters and schools because people can't carry there. That's a group target but single targets are the same. If you were going to rob or rape somebody would it be the person with the .45 on their hip or would it be the person with one you don't see? Granted  both people are protected by that .45 but the one open carrying has prevented the crime against them before it happened. 

   Sad to say I have had quite a few fights in my life. While some were competitive, a lot were not. I don't have a whole lot of back up in me. But, I can say I have not had a single fight while I was open carrying for some reason. If me open carrying makes someone reconsider their motives and saves me from stomping their eyeballs out of their head, then I have won.

   Nature tells us a lot. Look at a porcupine and a groundhog. Which one is a dog going to attack? God has given us something to protect ourselves with. Instead of claws, teeth or quills, he gave us brains. We used that to devise ways of protecting ourselves.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Son of the Midnight Star said:

Well be enigmatic all you like. 

That was the question I thought you had asked. 

Ha!! Enigmatic... Funny.

 

I know my asking the simple question of why folks want to open carry could lead to confusion... And lead sometime to display their enigmatic self:lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Jackalope said:

 

Phantom asks a good question.  I've never really heard a logical argument in favor of it.

 

Jackalope

Several situations in Georgia (because that was were I was from at the time) were warded off do to openly carrying. If it were a bad thing, no cop ever would openly carry or even wear a uniform. "Visual Stimulation" is always a good thing........
No matter...you can't stop an assassination either way.

Edited by Savvy Jack

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's not forget Kroger grocery stores. They have chimed in right along with Walmart on firearm carry in their stores.

Shameful!

This is from a CBS News (yes, I know) article: Kroger is "respectfully asking that customers no longer carry firearms" into it's stores.

"We recognize the growing chorus of Americans who are no longer comfortable with the status quo and who are advocating for concrete and common sense gun reform." And what is that Kroger? Like it's against the law to murder people?

Oh yeah, we already have that one. Duh!

Edited by The Rainmaker, SASS #11631
Addition
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No reason NOT to open carry in remote areas, agreed. In fact, often advisable.  And I can see the possible deterrent effect of open carry in public places.  But the guy in body armor carrying an AR anywhere in a public space is just asking for trouble. Does our cause no good.  

 

 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Kroger just made the same announcement (my apologies if this has already been mentioned and I missed it).

https://www.abc15.com/news/national/kroger-asks-customers-not-to-openly-carry-guns-in-its-stores 

I suspect many more will follow (don't open carry in my store).

 

I agree ... there is little sense in most cases to open carry ... especially if the only reason is to "show people" you can do it (think Walmart mentioned this concept in one of the articles). But ... I can also think of some reasonable exceptions ...

 

Though not the case now ... In Arizona (not that long ago) ... you were allowed to open carry w/o a concealed carry permit ... but .. if you hid it ... you needed a CCW. 

 

Edited by Patagonia Pete
edit: Yep ... I see Kroger was mentioned while I was typing ... sigh ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One thing people probably should think about. All of these tiny concessions add up. For instance when we are asked not to open carry in someones store. Yes that is their prerogative because it is their store (notice how I say that even when I'm not talking about a baker not wanting to make a gay cake) but it is still a concession. When we say, well, I agree we don't NEED to open carry in the store we water down the 2nd ammendment. After a few years we get used to it, then it's easier to make another small concession. Then another and another. There is a good analogy here with catching wild hogs. Put a pile of corn out one day, the pigs eat it. The next day, put a pile of corn out with a fence panel. The next day add another fence panel. This keeps going on until the pigs have to single file through a small opening to get to the pile of corn. When they do, you put the last panel in place. This is how guns will be taken away if they ever are. Little by little until you get used to the little concessions.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I support a person's right to legally and responsibly carry open or concealed. The whole 'tactically right' thing is for them to decide.

 

GG ~ :FlagAm:

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Many towns and cities of the "Old West" put restrictions on gun carrying...

 

A private business can do whatever they want...the Constitution does not dictate restrictions on private businesses...only the government.

 

Focus on Gov. restrictions and not private business...just my opinion.

 

Phantom

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Phantom is right there (did I actually say that?). None of this is anti 2A. Nothing in the second amendment applies to private property. And we have the right to not patronize these establishments (in Walmart’s case there were already a myriad of reasons to not shop at this very anti American corporation). I wonder if folks would be this outraged if it was 1A instead. Like if they said no ISIS signs or black lives matter protesters in the store. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Phantom, SASS #54973 said:

Many towns and cities of the "Old West" put restrictions on gun carrying...

 

A private business can do whatever they want...the Constitution does not dictate restrictions on private businesses...only the government.

 

Focus on Gov. restrictions and not private business...just my opinion.

 

Phantom

I agree with you. The private business can do whatever they want except NOT bake a cake for a gay wedding. Just want people to realize when they are pro 2nd amendment and "agree" with certain anti 2nd items it just adds fuel for the other side. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Tennessee williams said:

> snip <

When we say, well, I agree we don't NEED to open carry in the store we water down the 2nd ammendment. 

> snip <

When someone asks you "respectfully" to not open carry on their property ... not saying you can't carry but not to display ... and there is a problem with that ... then there is a problem indeed ... AND it has nothing to do with the 2nd amendment.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Tennessee williams said:

I agree with you. The private business can do whatever they want except NOT bake a cake for a gay wedding. Just want people to realize when they are pro 2nd amendment and "agree" with certain anti 2nd items it just adds fuel for the other side. 

Which is kind of ironic when you consider that many of the folks that are up in arms over Walmart restricting open carry where in favor of the Baker's position.

 

Phantom

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Patagonia Pete said:

Though not the case now ... In Arizona (not that long ago) ... you were allowed to open carry w/o a concealed carry permit ... but .. if you hid it ... you needed a CCW. 

 

Can you no longer open carry in Arizona without a permit?

 

I live in Washington state - where it's as you said, legal to carry openly, but you need a CCW to carry concealed.  That said, I've lived in WA my whole life (50 years, Seattle suburbs) and I've only two times seen a civilian openly carrying a handgun.  I've never carried unconcealed - but I've been told by friends that you can't carry openly around here for 10 minutes without someone calling the police.  And the police are obliged to respond, and will give you a thorough going over (within the law of course).  

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Patagonia Pete said:

When someone asks you "respectfully" to not open carry on their property ... not saying you can't carry but not to display ... and there is a problem with that ... then there is a problem indeed ... AND it has nothing to do with the 2nd amendment.  

Hmm. Good job snipping, but I will play. You snipped the part out where I said it was their prerogative. That means that it is their choice. 

Anything dealing with firearms has either a direct or indirect effect on the 2nd.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Phantom, SASS #54973 said:

Which is kind of ironic when you consider that many of the folks that are up in arms over Walmart restricting open carry where in favor of the Baker's position.

 

Phantom

I still agree:D. The difference is I can choose not to go into Walmart. Walmart can be fine with people not going to their store. The baker HAD to make the cake. The people refused to go to another storr.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Tennessee williams said:

One thing people probably should think about. All of these tiny concessions add up. For instance when we are asked not to open carry in someones store. Yes that is their prerogative because it is their store (notice how I say that even when I'm not talking about a baker not wanting to make a gay cake) but it is still a concession. When we say, well, I agree we don't NEED to open carry in the store we water down the 2nd ammendment. After a few years we get used to it, then it's easier to make another small concession. Then another and another. There is a good analogy here with catching wild hogs. Put a pile of corn out one day, the pigs eat it. The next day, put a pile of corn out with a fence panel. The next day add another fence panel. This keeps going on until the pigs have to single file through a small opening to get to the pile of corn. When they do, you put the last panel in place. This is how guns will be taken away if they ever are. Little by little until you get used to the little concessions.

 

Actually, what they are trying to do has already been done. During WWII, we cut off the Japanese supply line of raw materials and food by invading strategic islands to eventually form a "ring" around Japan. It effectively suffocated from their supplies and turned them into an island unto themselves. It took years to accomplish but it worked although a couple of A-bombs had to finally accomplish victory.

 

This is the same type of thing going on now. As we all know, the Japanese did not win. Simply boycotting corporations because of their lack of support or complete disdain for the 2nd Amendment isn't going to work. We are going to have to come up with another plan. I only wish I knew what that plan was.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Phantom, SASS #54973 said:

Which is kind of ironic when you consider that many of the folks that are up in arms over Walmart restricting open carry where in favor of the Baker's position.

 

The cake eaters are more militant (in a litigical sense) than gun owners.  Despite how things are portrayed generally by the media.

 

Yeah, I made up the word "litigical".  As in the act of being litigious.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Bart Slade said:

 

The cake eaters are more militant (in a litigical sense) than gun owners.  Despite how things are portrayed generally by the media.

 

Yeah, I made up the word "litigical".  As in the act of being litigious.

Good word. I may have to use that!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Bart Slade said:

 

Can you no longer open carry in Arizona without a permit?

 

I live in Washington state - where it's as you said, legal to carry openly, but you need a CCW to carry concealed.  That said, I've lived in WA my whole life (50 years, Seattle suburbs) and I've only two times seen a civilian openly carrying a handgun.  I've never carried unconcealed - but I've been told by friends that you can't carry openly around here for 10 minutes without someone calling the police.  And the police are obliged to respond, and will give you a thorough going over (within the law of course).  

 

 

Bart,

Actually ... you can now carry open or concealed in Arizona w/o a permit. Previously, a permit was required for concealed.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It IS Walmart's right to ask patrons not to carry in THEIR stores... Kroger's too. Not violating 2nd Amendment rights there.

They are only telling me that they are caving in to political pressure from the Left or just do not know that "concrete and common sense" gun laws are not common sense at all and do not work. History shows.

It has been said on here before about other issues, we vote with our wallets. Walmart and Kroger are not political entities, vote with your wallet.

And yes, I support the baker's right not to make the cake and If I felt the other way on the subject, I would not patronize them as well, not expect legal recourse against them. Stoopid!

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Bart Slade said:

 

The cake eaters are more militant (in a litigical sense) than gun owners.  Despite how things are portrayed generally by the media.

 

Yeah, I made up the word "litigical".  As in the act of being litigious.

Irrelevant to the point.

 

We either support a private entities ability to dictate the course of their business as they see fit, or we don't.

 

I do...and if I disagree with the business decision, I go elsewhere.

 

Phantom

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Cypress Sun said:

 

Actually, what they are trying to do has already been done. During WWII, we cut off the Japanese supply line of raw materials and food by invading strategic islands to eventually form a "ring" around Japan. It effectively suffocated from their supplies and turned them into an island unto themselves. It took years to accomplish but it worked although a couple of A-bombs had to finally accomplish victory.

 

This is the same type of thing going on now. As we all know, the Japanese did not win. Simply boycotting corporations because of their lack of support or complete disdain for the 2nd Amendment isn't going to work. We are going to have to come up with another plan. I only wish I knew what that plan was.

Maybe a little different... ya see, the Japanese were invading and steamrolling neighboring countries and territories and we kinda stopped em.

Last I checked, Walmart and Kroger weren't invading anyone... although, I think China may have invaded Walmart!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Yul Lose said:

So supporting the LGS is a bad thing?

Walmart sells them for $5.50 a box... Lgs $8.50 a box... I shoot around 65-75 boxes a year...  

 

$3x75=$225 MORE from the lgs... so yeah, that's a bad thing...

 

I can get 75 boxes delivered from academy for about $435...

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, The Rainmaker, SASS #11631 said:

It IS Walmart's right to ask patrons not to carry in THEIR stores... Kroger's too. Not violating 2nd Amendment rights there.

They are only telling me that they are caving in to political pressure from the Left or just do not know that "concrete and common sense" gun laws are not common sense at all and do not work. History shows.

It has been said on here before about other issues, we vote with our wallets. Walmart and Kroger are not political entities, vote with your wallet.

And yes, I support the baker's right not to make the cake and If I felt the other way on the subject, I would not patronize them as well, not expect legal recourse against them. Stoopid!

That's what I was trying to say and I'll elaborate on the 2nd amendment portion. When someone hears a place say they dont want open carry, and they essentially say I agree we don't need to open carry anyway it does zero good for the 2nd amendment group as a whole. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Phantom, SASS #54973 said:

Irrelevant to the point.

 

We either support a private entities ability to dictate the course of their business as they see fit, or we don't.

 

I do...and if I disagree with the business decision, I go elsewhere.

 

Well, it's relevant to my point.

 

Walmart (and all businesses) have to make a decision - "Who do I cater to"?  If they cater to the left...then a very small percentage of people on the right will chose to shop elsewhere.  If they cater to the right...then a very small percentage of the people on the left will chose to shop elsewhere AND another very small percentage will sue and tie them up with legal fees (and create a media narrative that is negative towards the business).

 

So I (and I'd wager most people here) agree with you completely - a private business should be able to dictate how they do business.  But in so dictating, they have to take the above disparity into account - and taking it into account, you know which way things are going to go 100% of the time.

 

I'm using "left" and "right" as shorthand of course

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.