[DB]

I think you need to rethink that position.

That "lack of principles" works both ways. What about the principle of allowing one to correct one's error? If Dell chooses not to, then shame on them, if they recognize the error and offer to correct it then shame on you.

You make any errors? Are you grateful when others are honorable enough to let you correct it and not simply pass final judgment on you?

Someone places a single Web order that gets canceled because of the word "combat" in the company name. On further review it is found that the order was canceled in error and readily stated as such. The company offers to re-instate the order. But no, that isn't good enough… Let's make final judgment on the company… Lets cast fire and ill will at it…

And you think that is honorable?

Myself, I've made plenty of errors… I am thankful for those that give me the opportunity to correct them and move on. I thought we shared that as common principle.

[pt17]

My compliments for stating the position so well. I'd like to now come to the defense of some of these "hair-trigger hotheads" and suggest their paranoia isn't without merit. The nature of the anti-gun crowd has been so insidious that it triggers an automatic, knee-jerk reaction and I think that's what happened in this case. The bad news is that such reactions greatly aid those who would take our guns away.

[dpwiener]

That "lack of principles" works both ways. What about the principle of allowing one to correct one's error? If Dell chooses not to, then shame on them, if they recognize the error and offer to correct it then shame on you.

I agree. The huge reaction against Dell which was caused by Jack Weigand's initial post was fully warranted. That reaction was sure to force a response from Dell, and if it had turned out that Dell actually followed a policy of discriminating against gun dealers, the consequences for Dell would not have been pretty.

What we got back was a message from the President explaining that his company had made a mistake which he apologized for. He furthermore assured us that it is not Dell's policy to discriminate against any legal business. Isn't that what we wanted?

We won. But some people can't take "YES" for an answer.

If we persist in attacking and punishing companies even after they've responded positively and apologized, what do we accomplish except to alienate them? Why should a company bother to mend its ways in the future, if it knows that won't accomplish anything?

If we expect to be effective in safeguarding our right to keep and bear arms, we have to be fair and honorable in our approach. Continuing to attack a company over a single error, which that company has attempted to rectify, is being neither fair nor honorable.