Are we wrong to 'vilify'?

[DavidS]

As I became more comfortable with CC, I carried more often. I also became more aware of sign that ban firearms at local businesses. When I do see a sign, I make a judgement call whether or not I will do business there based upon my own needs and concerns.
However, I often see published comments by gun owners (here, there, and everywhere) urging people to not do business at this or that named establishment because they do not allow firearms. Some go as far as to say they will never enter an establishment that does not allow firearms and advocates that every other gun owner boycott this business.
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.

[Bawanna]

Be gentle boys and girls. I'm watching this one.

[garyb]

As I became more comfortable with CC, I carried more often. I also became more aware of sign that ban firearms at local businesses. When I do see a sign, I make a judgement call whether or not I will do business there based upon my own needs and concerns.
However, I often see published comments by gun owners (here, there, and everywhere) urging people to not do business at this or that named establishment because they do not allow firearms. Some go as far as to say they will never enter an establishment that does not allow firearms and advocates that every other gun owner boycott this business.
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.

It is up to each individual to support his/her right to carry AND decide if he/she wishes to do business at that establishment; or boycott and vilify a business because of his firearm position. It is up to each individual to decide if he will abide by or ignore that business's signs, or go ahead and keep his firearm concealed; or not do business at that establishment. It is our right to carry, but there may be places in some States where it is ILLEGAL to carry. Some folks prefer to avoid those places too. Nothing wrong with that decision IMO. Some folks will abide by the law and leave their gun locked up at home or in their car while they enter such "Illegal" establishments. There really is no "right or wrong" here...IMO.

[ced_56]

ok I will try to answer this one carefully. Are we wrong to bring that companies policies to each others attention? No.


Should we say that everyone should boycott that business? Probably not.


But that being said those that carry all the time are naturally going to avoid those establishments anyways.

[ced_56]

It is up to each individual to support his/her right to carry AND decide if he/she wishes to do business at that establishment; or boycott and vilify a business because of his firearm position. It is up to each individual to decide if he will abide by or ignore that business's signs, or go ahead and keep his firearm concealed; or not do business at that establishment. It is our right to carry, but there may be places in some States where it is ILLEGAL to carry. Some folks prefer to avoid those places too. Nothing wrong with that decision IMO. Some folks will abide by the law and leave their gun locked up at home or in their car while they enter such "Illegal" establishments. There really is no "right or wrong" here...IMO.

Well said

[JohnR]

If I like the store otherwise, I don't care what their gun policy is. Until they frisk patrons at the door, or it's in a state where signs mean something, I'm not leaving my gun outside.

[muggsy]

I value my life far more than I value their business. I'll buy from a gun friendly establishment. That's the true value of the free enterprise system. Plenty of competition. Why should I support a business that does not support my 2A right? Screw 'em.

[muggsy]

Be gentle boys and girls. I'm watching this one.

Kill joy.

[Bawanna]

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

[b4uqzme]

I don't think that boycotting an establishment is "vilifying" them. I am exercising my free market rights while also giving respect to that establishment's wishes. They don't want my firearm inside but the firearm stays with me. So I don't go in either.

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.

[DavidS]

It is up to each individual to support his/her right to carry AND decide if he/she wishes to do business at that establishment; or boycott and vilify a business because of his firearm position. It is up to each individual to decide if he will abide by or ignore that business's signs, or go ahead and keep his firearm concealed; or not do business at that establishment. It is our right to carry, but there may be places in some States where it is ILLEGAL to carry. Some folks prefer to avoid those places too. Nothing wrong with that decision IMO. Some folks will abide by the law and leave their gun locked up at home or in their car while they enter such "Illegal" establishments. There really is no "right or wrong" here...IMO.

Very well put. I am in 100% agreement EXCEPT for this one little part:
"and vilify a business because of his firearm position".

To me, 'vilify' is something done publicly, which is a critical part of my question.

And please excuse my use of the word 'vilify'. I know it is not the correct use of the word, but it was the best one I could think of to express myself. I am a injenear, not a englesh teechur.

[getsome]

I value my life far more than I value their business. I'll buy from a gun friendly establishment. That's the true value of the free enterprise system. Plenty of competition. Why should I support a business that does not support my 2A right? Screw 'em.

That about covers how I feel...

[DavidS]

Most replies so far concern the individuals right to boycott or not boycott, enter or not enter. I applaud all of you for those answers.
However, my question was about public 'vilication'. Not about a person's personal choice about that business but about that person 'campaigning' against the business.

(crap, another word I had to put in quotes).

[b4uqzme]

....

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.

I thought I tried to address your question...

[Bawanna]

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.