Are we wrong to 'vilify'?

[DavidS]

I thought I tried to address your question...

Yes, you did address the question very clearly:
"As for publicly calling for a boycott? I say bravo. There is nothing wrong with persuasion. If we can convince others to support our 2A rights by applying market pressure, that is good. We sometimes get a little carried away here in the forum, but as long as we handle ourselves respectfully in public, I am for it."

Exactly what I was asking with both an answer and a reason.

[DavidS]

Do you think it is proper to publicly 'vilify' a person or his company because of their firearms position?
Personally, I believe we are wrong in doing so.

This quote was from my original question. I stated my position. Since I was the one posing the question, it is only fair that I provide my reasoning also.

My reason:
A founder of Mozilla was forced to resign as CEO because he donated $1000 six years ago to a campaign to ban gay marriage.

Consider the implications.

[chrish]

If there are two businesses, one pro or ambivalent, and one against...obviously, gonna avoid that anti-gun business whenever possible. But, not gonna cut my nose off to spite my face. My rules of doing business vary, but they pretty much follow the course of religious position, political/social position, convenience, price...in that order. But there are times that just ain't gonna fly. Are you gonna skip the ER when you are deathly ill, severely injured, because they perform abortions at that hospital? Everybody bypasses their principles for one thing or another at some point, you just have to stick to them whenever possible and it doesn't screw you over in the process.

[Alfonse]

Irony or karma, I don't know. But this link is to a business who has very publicly supported an anti stance, even sponsoring a Gabby Giffords talk, who was robbed with guns and who has an anti-gun sign. So, is it wrong for these web sites to point out the facts that the business created a "gun free" zone so thieves could rob the establishment and assault their employees? In this case, the business vilified gun owners. The world is nothing if not entertaining.

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Governm...ed-At-Gunpoint

To answer the question, I think folks have the right to say whatever they want, the antis as well as the 2A supporters. I will form my own opinion on the matter regardless.

[DavidS]

........
Now larger chain business's with their own agenda to change the world I think should be vilified to the fullest extent of the vilification meter.

.......

Now I have no problem with any of them choosing not to allow guns. From small mom and pop to Walmart. If they choose not to allow guns, that is their right, it's their business. Then it becomes my choice to ignore and enter anyhow or go elsewhere.

Exactly. If the business has an agenda to influence society, they deserve a response from their opponents, a coordinated response if necessary to counteract the business' agenda.
If they only choose not to allow firearms in their stores without a bunch of fanfare, that is their right. Same as you and me.

Mozilla did not deserve to be vilified and the CEO did not deserve to lose his job.
Chipotle does not deserve to be vilified, they have not campaigned against gun ownership. They only responded publicly because they were forced to by the actions of some misguided individuals.

My fear is this is becoming too common in society. Destroy an individual or a company because of their belief or opinion, not because of their actions.

[Bawanna]

In the case of Mozilla it was an individual vilified wasn't it, not the company?

But perhaps the company would have been had the individual not given in to public pressure.

Personally I would not have given in in that case.

I think I'd find it easier to swallow if signs were posted saying no open carry. Before Muggsy jumps down my throat and pulls out my spleen, I have no issue with open carry in general.
I don't do it, I don't encourage it and I think it harms the cause more than it helps but some figure a right not exercised is a right lost.

Personally, anymore home is my favorite place. If groceries and ammo and a new gun now and then got delivered and I could shoot there I'd never leave the farm.

[muggsy]

But, but, butt it's my job, I'm spose to act reprehensible and PC and stuff.

And you do one hell of a good job of it too, damn it.

[DavidS]

Personally, anymore home is my favorite place. If groceries and ammo and a new gun now and then got delivered and I could shoot there I'd never leave the farm.

I am of the same ilk. If it were not for visiting grandsons (and maybe a few other relatives) and if groceries could be delivered, I think I would weld the gate shut. AND, I do shoot here.

[knkali]

I think Mugs or someone here already said, that it is their right as business owners to exclude/include what they want and our right to utilize their business or not. Really simple stuff. Its called self governing.........we should do more of it. I tell my customers that they are more than welcome to carry their side arms into my place of business. All I ask is that they do so safely, keep it holster unless the unthinkable is needed and without a bunch of fanfare about it.

[warbird1]

I carry concealed. If they provide proper armed security then I will honor their request...otherwise...nah!

[garyb]

I think it depends alot on the business too. A small one franchise business probably isn't gonna change the world and theres a good chance it would change it's views given a logical explanation.

Now larger chain business's with their own agenda to change the world I think should be vilified to the fullest extent of the vilification meter.

Take AARP for example. The world needs to know they are rabidly liberal and they are going to use your money to fund their misguided agenda. Not a good example cause I don't think they even have offices to enter armed or not.

Take something like Starbucks or Blockbuster, or like Walmart etc. If they set out a policy of no guns then they would deserve filification.

Now I have no problem with any of them choosing not to allow guns. From small mom and pop to Walmart. If they choose not to allow guns, that is their right, it's their business. Then it becomes my choice to ignore and enter anyhow or go elsewhere.

I was not aware of that about the AARP. Good to know. I say we cover em with honey and tie them to a tree....LOL. Is that vilifying them enough? Are there any references about the AARP antigun actions? If so, it may be time to talk to the wife about dropping them from our repertoire. Thanks.

[100percent]

In Mo. a sign like that doesn't mean much. It just means that if you are personally asked to leave you should. There is no crime to disobey such a sign.

[b4uqzme]

I think AARP came under conservative fire from its backing of the Affordable Care Act. A quick search reveals that their politics are clearly left-leaning. And their support of the ACA appears to have been profit driven. Not that profit is bad but AARP was founded as a not for profit with a mission to look after seniors' best interests.

IMO AARP is a good example for this thread. We aren't vilifying AARP for calling attention to their politics but it is important to educate the public so they aren't unwittingly contributing to a group contrary to their principles.

With or without signs in the windows, gun owners need to know which companies take an anti-gun stance so they can decide for themselves whether or not to patronize them. Then it's up to the business to decide how important their stance is.

In the case of Mozilla: were they truly reacting to pending market pressure...the economic strength of the majority of their customers? Or were they just folding to pressure from a minority segment? Or caving because their image was in threat of looking non-PC?

[berettabone]

I am of the same ilk. If it were not for visiting grandsons (and maybe a few other relatives) and if groceries could be delivered, I think I would weld the gate shut. AND, I do shoot here.

I am with you on this one. It's called free speech.............if someone wants to bring attention to the fact that a business does not want firearms in their place, so be it. Personally, these establishments do not get a penny of my cash. It says a lot about an owner. Frankly, I am getting sick of my neighborhood, which is going to h#ll, because of absent landlords from Illinois, and slob renters. I'm ready to "close the gate" and get the h#ll out of here, but the wife has a few more good years left in her(working). We stayed up north this last weekend, looking at properties. You didn't see a sign anywhere. They like firearms up there. Looks like the place to be.

[DavidS]

AARP publicly promoted ACA. Public response was justified.