Posted on 03/25/2015 1:53:26 PM PDT by E. Pluribus Unum
You’ve got to love it when a corporation who’s intimately involved with everyday Americans decides to stand up for their rights.
Not all corporations will, in fact, many large corporations have caved in and told Moms Demand Action they’ll do anything they want so they can keep their gun hating credit cards in their stores.
Well the interesting thing is that’s actually not a good way gain business.
Check out the story below about what Kroger told Moms Demand Action and then notice the interesting results from their refusal to cave.
During a March 25 appearance on CNBC’s Squawk Box, Kroger CFO Michael Schlotman said the retail food chain will not comply with the demands of Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America, especially as those demands touch on changing store policy to disarm open-carry customers in states where openly carrying a gun in Kroger is legal.
Schlotman made these comments after Squawk Box host Andrew Ross Sorkin said, “In the fall there [were] these liberal groups who had organized to suggest that Kroger was allowing people to ‘open carry’ firearms in their supermarkets. What was that about and where do you guys stand on that?”
Scholtman responded:
That was a group called Moms Demand Action. They were opposed to the fact that our policy is to adhere to the local gun laws. If the local gun laws are to allow open carry, we’ll certainly allow customers to do that based on what the local laws are. We don’t believe it’s up to us to legislate what the local gun control laws should be. It’s up to the local legislators to decide to do that.
So we follow local laws [and] we ask our customers to be respectful to the other people they are shopping with. And we really haven’t had any issues inside of our stores as a result of that.
Moms Demand Action launched their campaign against Kroger on August 18. On that very day, Kroger subsidiary Fred Meyer announced they would not be changing their gun policy and the Cincinnati Enquirer reported that Kroger released a statement days later, stating that they had no intention of changing their policy either; that they “trust [customers] to be responsible in [Kroger] stores.”
After failing to achieve a policy change at Kroger or Fred Meyer, Moms Demand Action targeted North Carolina-based Harris Teeter on November 20. But Breitbart News reported that Harris Teeter quickly made it known that they would not be changing their gun policy either.
They released a statement in response to Moms Demand Action saying: “We have and will continue to adhere to the firearms and concealed handgun laws as outlined by the states in which we do business. We believe this issue is best handled by lawmakers, not retailers.”
Care to guess what happened to Kroger’s sales after all of this happened?
According to Breitbart news they actually shot up 21%.
That’s right, sales almost climbed by a quarter.
And why wouldn’t they. Most Americans are sensible enough to understand that for a corporation to go agains the laws of the land is essentially going against America.
And who wants to shop at places that aren’t for America, right?
And you’re defending/promoting “intentionally disruptive”.
“And you’re defending/promoting “intentionally disruptive”.”
You might even say “uppity”...or “flouting”....or a host of other adjectives found no where in the 2nd Amendment.
Precisely. All rights have associated responsibilities and there's a line between open carry and brandishing a weapon that every responsible gun owner well knows. Few people freak out when they see a policeman at a lunch counter with a holstered side arm. The same courtesy should be due to any law-abiding citizen in an open-carry State. By contrast, in the absence of special circumstances an unholstered weapon in a public space raises legitimate questions about the judgement of its owner. These are not toys or jewelry to be handled or played with casually.
you have lost.
And if that policeman walked in carrying an M4, patrons would get understandably nervous. I realize the long-term goal is to desensitize the population at large, but jabbing their unwarranted sensitivities doesn’t work. Locales where such carry is viewed as acceptably normal usually are subject to other factors which make such carry an imperative, such as the circulated pictures of “girls next door” in Israel carrying M16s at an ice cream bar doing so in the context of ongoing looming threat of terrorists & neighboring countries he11-bent on destroying that locale (living in Condition Orange kinda gives a society a different perspective on open carry than living in Condition Clear or Brown).
Yes, there is a line between carry & brandishing. Seems some people don’t realize there’s a gradient alongside that line, whereby being close to the line doesn’t look much different from being on the wrong side of it; they seem to think in pure black-and-white, equating carry-in-hand with disassembled & concealed & locked, wantonly bewildered that anyone might perceive the former as indicative of impending threat and/or unhinged individual.
Lost what?
Exactly what do you think you are affecting with your little internet rants?
Reality?
That’s precious....
“And if that policeman walked in carrying an M4, patrons would get understandably nervous.”
Uh no.....YOU would get nervous...anything else is purely projection on your part.
Yep, that would be why I said Klein’s Shop Rite
Your arguments were weak and unable to stand up to even a mild dialectic challenge. Go ahead and get defensive and insulting about it if you want, I don’t care. the fact remains however, I am right and you are wrong. carrying assault rifles around in grocery stores is not a legally protected right and it hurts the RKBA cause.
Again with the assault rifle crap....You sound like an MDA mole.
again with the straw man argument.
Calling a semi automatic sporting rifle an “assault rifle” is a lie and you know that.
When you concede that openly carrying a long arm of any kind around in a grocery store is A.) not a legally protected right and B.) detrimental to the RKBA cause, I will be glad to discuss your nomenclature issue.
From the OP:
“If the local gun laws are to allow open carry, we’ll certainly allow customers to do that based on what the local laws are.”
What part of that arent you getting RC?
It isnt UP TO YOU.
Clearly that is a Good thing too.
Policies have a way of changing especially after enough idiots have pushed the envelope too far too many times. It only takes one such idiot to ruin things for everybody.
It isnt UP TO YOU.
I never said it was up to me. You suggested that it was a legally protected right to carry an assault rifle through the grocery store. I pointed out that it is not. Furthermore, I am simply pointing out that only a small segment of second amendment supporters (alleged supporters) think this is a good idea (as evidenced by your own lack of support in this thread btw) and that it in no way aids in the defense of the RKBA but, in all actuality, undermines it.
It isn't a right, it's a privilege and as even the most moronic child understands, if you push the limits of your privileges far enough, those privileges will end up revised. Even the most moronic child but not you apparently.
Great quote. Thanks.
In a debate than means you lose.
Face it, you're a lunatic.
“If the local gun laws are to allow open carry, we’ll certainly allow customers to do that based on what the local laws are.”
Game, set, match.
nut job.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.