David Scott
New member
I have discovered that a Kel-Tec P32 will fit nicely in the "5th pocket" on Levi's jeans. The pocket covers the trigger guard, holds the pistol snugly and is easily covered by an untucked shirt.
Free Holster!
- Thread starter David Scott
- Start date
Jason Demond
New member
To bad Levi's is an anti-gun company.
P
PreserveFreedom
Guest
Is it free when you have to sell your freedom to obtain one? 
I won't buy Levis for the reason Jason Demond mentioned.
I won't buy Levis for the reason Jason Demond mentioned.David Scott
New member
Ohhhhh-kaaaaaayyyyy...
So now somebody tell me why Levi's is evil.
So now somebody tell me why Levi's is evil.
I had to ask that question too the first time I was "corrected" for wearing Docker's.
Levi Strauss routinely donates and openly supports PAX, as well as other anti-gun organizations.
http://www.paxusa.org/
Here's more info from the goodguys about Levi's
http://www.i-charity.net/ptn/45
I buy Lee jeans now... Direct competitor and all, makes me extra happy.
Wait, don't anyone tell me anything bad about Lee jeans... then I'll have to switch to Bugle Boy or some other "fancy" brand.
Levi Strauss routinely donates and openly supports PAX, as well as other anti-gun organizations.
http://www.paxusa.org/
Here's more info from the goodguys about Levi's
http://www.i-charity.net/ptn/45
I buy Lee jeans now... Direct competitor and all, makes me extra happy.
Wait, don't anyone tell me anything bad about Lee jeans... then I'll have to switch to Bugle Boy or some other "fancy" brand.
PAX looks like one of those do-gooder outfits. Knowledge trumps darkness, and if a kid or parent ASKs me if I have guns in the house, I'll tell them yes, they're locked up, totally inaccessible, I'll be glad to discuss the history and importance of guns to our nation, and explain the rules of gun safety to them. Then, I'll invite them to go on a shoot if they're willing to undergo an orientation about safety practices and get their own safety equipment.
People fear the unknown, and they'll believe made up stories or make them up themselves as they "whistle past the cemetary." Children are curious about the forbidden, and their parents should be too.
We shouldn't appear to be mysterious kooks who sneak around in the dark like dopers and pornographers.
What hidden agenda does PAX have that's anathema to what our interests are? If it's fostering and promoting ignorance instead of enlightenment, I'd like to check that out. But if it's what their stated goals are on their website http://www.paxusa.org, what's wrong there?
I'm not going to boycott Levis just because they support organizations that are trying to educate people about guns because that's what WE'RE trying to do! It's true that "you can fool all of the people some of the time, and some of the people all of the time, but you can't fool all of the people all of the time." If a neighbor's been brainwashed by Rosie O, I'd like a chance to counter that because my neighbors are important to me.
I may be ignorant about PAX because I'd never heard of them before tonight, so if I'm being too charitable, please educate me!
People fear the unknown, and they'll believe made up stories or make them up themselves as they "whistle past the cemetary." Children are curious about the forbidden, and their parents should be too.
We shouldn't appear to be mysterious kooks who sneak around in the dark like dopers and pornographers.
What hidden agenda does PAX have that's anathema to what our interests are? If it's fostering and promoting ignorance instead of enlightenment, I'd like to check that out. But if it's what their stated goals are on their website http://www.paxusa.org, what's wrong there?
I'm not going to boycott Levis just because they support organizations that are trying to educate people about guns because that's what WE'RE trying to do! It's true that "you can fool all of the people some of the time, and some of the people all of the time, but you can't fool all of the people all of the time." If a neighbor's been brainwashed by Rosie O, I'd like a chance to counter that because my neighbors are important to me.
I may be ignorant about PAX because I'd never heard of them before tonight, so if I'm being too charitable, please educate me!
KEN CHAVEZ
New member
Dose that tire come with the free holster.
HE HE HE
Just joken
HE HE HE
Just joken
For the record, I personally wasn't suggesting that anyone boycott anything. I was merely answering David Scott's question regarding why some thought Levi's was "evil".
Levi Strauss donates to many other organizations, I just slapped PAX on there because it was the one I found first, and I also included the other link because there was a bit more info on it.
Everyone should think for themselves. Go to http://www.levistrauss.com/responsibility/foundation/causes.htm and contact Levi yourself to get a complete list of causes they support. Then decide for yourself if those causes interfere with your beliefs. If they don't, then by all means, "Docker's" away
Levi Strauss donates to many other organizations, I just slapped PAX on there because it was the one I found first, and I also included the other link because there was a bit more info on it.
Everyone should think for themselves. Go to http://www.levistrauss.com/responsibility/foundation/causes.htm and contact Levi yourself to get a complete list of causes they support. Then decide for yourself if those causes interfere with your beliefs. If they don't, then by all means, "Docker's" away
Onslaught,
Fair enough, but you said:
I'm anti gun violence when it means some miscreant mis-using a gun for criminal purposes such as murder, intimidation, extortion, robbery, etc., etc., etc. But using a gun in a violent manner to stop such miscreants is another matter altogether.
I'm also anti gun stupidity which leads to violent unintended consequences that causes so much hand wringing and grief among the uneducated "antis" who seem to labor under the delusion that guns are the problem instead of ignorant people.
We all have a common enemy characterized by ignorance and stupidity of and about the 2A, guns, and arms in general. The NRA and GOA will never be able to penetrate the prejudices of some of those people because of their biases about what they think the organizations stand for and those who belong. If another "softer" organization is also promoting education about the issues (even though it might not be their intent), what's the harm?
Truth trumps ignorance and stupidity, and Americans do eventually think for themselves no matter what you tell them. The secret is getting them to pay attention to the issues.
I have serious disagreements with some TFLers too. Some think shooting harmless wildlife they have no intention of eating or otherwise using is perfectly okay and "sporting" like killing an "attack" gopher in the woods, or a 200 yard muskrat shot.
Give a small boy a hammer and everything looks like a nail to him. Give a big boy a gun and everything looks like a target. I don't want to have anything more to do with people who aren't inclined to enjoy firearms responsibly than I do with those who wallow in their ignorance about them. </soapbox rant>
Fair enough, but you said:
Is PAX an "anti-gun" organization as you said, or is it just what it claims to be, an anti gun violence organization?
I'm anti gun violence when it means some miscreant mis-using a gun for criminal purposes such as murder, intimidation, extortion, robbery, etc., etc., etc. But using a gun in a violent manner to stop such miscreants is another matter altogether.
I'm also anti gun stupidity which leads to violent unintended consequences that causes so much hand wringing and grief among the uneducated "antis" who seem to labor under the delusion that guns are the problem instead of ignorant people.
We all have a common enemy characterized by ignorance and stupidity of and about the 2A, guns, and arms in general. The NRA and GOA will never be able to penetrate the prejudices of some of those people because of their biases about what they think the organizations stand for and those who belong. If another "softer" organization is also promoting education about the issues (even though it might not be their intent), what's the harm?
Truth trumps ignorance and stupidity, and Americans do eventually think for themselves no matter what you tell them. The secret is getting them to pay attention to the issues.
I have serious disagreements with some TFLers too. Some think shooting harmless wildlife they have no intention of eating or otherwise using is perfectly okay and "sporting" like killing an "attack" gopher in the woods, or a 200 yard muskrat shot.
Give a small boy a hammer and everything looks like a nail to him. Give a big boy a gun and everything looks like a target. I don't want to have anything more to do with people who aren't inclined to enjoy firearms responsibly than I do with those who wallow in their ignorance about them. </soapbox rant>
AlonzoMosely
New member
Blackhawk, please read, truth about Pax
I would like to respectfully suggest that you are being misled about what Pax really stands for. Yes, they claim that they are anti-gun violence. My own take on this is that they are simply more intelligent that other anti-gun organizations. They know that being anti-gun does not always work politically, so they claim to be anti-gun violence. To see what their objective really is, let's look a little closer.
First, asking your neighbor if they have guns, is not an innocent question to protect children. It is a question designed to stigmatize and ostracize gun-owners. The risk of a swimming pool, driving in a car, etc., is much greater than the risk of a small (i.e., not gang-related criminal) child accidentally being shot. OK, so what if I am being overly paranoid about this? Then...
Second, let's look at the people who support this organization. All these people are listed on the Pax website
.
Senator Jon Corzine, "event honoree". Corzine is extremely anti-gun as evidenced by his public statements during his 2000 New Jersey senate campaign, and is an all around scumbag. He is an extremely wealthy former head of the investment bank Goldman Sachs. There is nothing wrong with being wealthy and successful, but he is a hypocritical, liberal, do as I say not as I do type in the same category as Diane Feinstein. I have not done the research, but I would bet that his voting record shows him to be a supporter of any and all gun control legislation.
Celebrities on the "host committee", all of whom are liberal and anti-gun include:
William Baldwin (Alec's brother)
Richard Gere
Rob Reiner
Susan Sarandon
Carly Simon,
and others.
This type of anti-gun group is even more insidious than HCI. They are better at hiding their true agenda. They take an issue that everyone is for (anti-gun violence) to solicit support for what is their real objective (gun control).
But don't believe me. Maybe I'm just a paranoid gun nut or something. Take a closer look at their website yourself. Spend a few minutes doing some internet research on the political positions of celebrities who are supportive of this organization. Maybe even call the NRA and see what they have to say (I do not know what the NRA's position is on PAX).
Respectfully,
Alonzo
I would like to respectfully suggest that you are being misled about what Pax really stands for. Yes, they claim that they are anti-gun violence. My own take on this is that they are simply more intelligent that other anti-gun organizations. They know that being anti-gun does not always work politically, so they claim to be anti-gun violence. To see what their objective really is, let's look a little closer.
First, asking your neighbor if they have guns, is not an innocent question to protect children. It is a question designed to stigmatize and ostracize gun-owners. The risk of a swimming pool, driving in a car, etc., is much greater than the risk of a small (i.e., not gang-related criminal) child accidentally being shot. OK, so what if I am being overly paranoid about this? Then...
Second, let's look at the people who support this organization. All these people are listed on the Pax website
.
Senator Jon Corzine, "event honoree". Corzine is extremely anti-gun as evidenced by his public statements during his 2000 New Jersey senate campaign, and is an all around scumbag. He is an extremely wealthy former head of the investment bank Goldman Sachs. There is nothing wrong with being wealthy and successful, but he is a hypocritical, liberal, do as I say not as I do type in the same category as Diane Feinstein. I have not done the research, but I would bet that his voting record shows him to be a supporter of any and all gun control legislation.
Celebrities on the "host committee", all of whom are liberal and anti-gun include:
William Baldwin (Alec's brother)
Richard Gere
Rob Reiner
Susan Sarandon
Carly Simon,
and others.
This type of anti-gun group is even more insidious than HCI. They are better at hiding their true agenda. They take an issue that everyone is for (anti-gun violence) to solicit support for what is their real objective (gun control).
But don't believe me. Maybe I'm just a paranoid gun nut or something. Take a closer look at their website yourself. Spend a few minutes doing some internet research on the political positions of celebrities who are supportive of this organization. Maybe even call the NRA and see what they have to say (I do not know what the NRA's position is on PAX).
Respectfully,
Alonzo
Alonzo,
Just because worthless, loud-mouthed celebrities lend their names to PAX casts no substantive aspersions on it. Celebrity endorsements are effective marketing tools, and I can't fault PAX for using them. In any event, I don't believe in guilt by mere association.
I have spent more than a few minutes perusing the PAX website without discovering anything pernicious about PAX. Is there something persuasive you know about it that's not hearsay or conclusory based on profiling or guilt by association?
As for being asked about gun ownership, it's like anything else. I'd probably respond with "Why do you ask?" and never answer the question. But if a parent of a child welcome in my home asked out of concern for that child, I'd be receptive to the conversation. If I'm "stigmatized or ostracized" by that parent based on a conversation I willingly engage in, then so be it.
The most impressive parent I know of makes it a point to visit the homes of children his children associate with to meet the rest of the family. Not surprisingly, I'M proud of way his children are turning out AND the way their friends are turning out!
Just because worthless, loud-mouthed celebrities lend their names to PAX casts no substantive aspersions on it. Celebrity endorsements are effective marketing tools, and I can't fault PAX for using them. In any event, I don't believe in guilt by mere association.
I have spent more than a few minutes perusing the PAX website without discovering anything pernicious about PAX. Is there something persuasive you know about it that's not hearsay or conclusory based on profiling or guilt by association?
As for being asked about gun ownership, it's like anything else. I'd probably respond with "Why do you ask?" and never answer the question. But if a parent of a child welcome in my home asked out of concern for that child, I'd be receptive to the conversation. If I'm "stigmatized or ostracized" by that parent based on a conversation I willingly engage in, then so be it.
The most impressive parent I know of makes it a point to visit the homes of children his children associate with to meet the rest of the family. Not surprisingly, I'M proud of way his children are turning out AND the way their friends are turning out!
AlonzoMosely
New member
Well, I am unable to read minds, so I suppose it is impossible for me to prove what their real intentions are without resorting to "hearsay" or "guilt by association". I also understand the promotional advantages of having a celebrity endorser. Based on the 2nd amendment stance of those celebrities and politicians who have been asked and/or have chosen to support this organization, and the lack of celebrity and politician endorsements of those who are not anti-2nd amendment, I must remain skeptical of the stated non-partisan objective of the organization. I would think that an organization that is truly non-partisan would go to great lengths to find at least one celebrity or political supporter who is pro gun rights. If the organization has not asked, or those asked have refused support, then that is somewhat persuasive evidence to me that the organization is not as non-partisan as it proclaims to be.
Also, I did not mean to imply that being asked about guns is stigmatizing to the gun owner. Rather, by promoting the asking of the question, the intention, I believe, is to have non-gun-owners who are persuaded to ask the question to not associate with gun owners, thus ostracizing gun owners.
In any event, you apparently have seen all the information that I have. So, based on the same set of information, we simply draw different conclusions and must, therefore, simply agree to disagree.
Regrds,
Alonzo
Also, I did not mean to imply that being asked about guns is stigmatizing to the gun owner. Rather, by promoting the asking of the question, the intention, I believe, is to have non-gun-owners who are persuaded to ask the question to not associate with gun owners, thus ostracizing gun owners.
In any event, you apparently have seen all the information that I have. So, based on the same set of information, we simply draw different conclusions and must, therefore, simply agree to disagree.
Regrds,
Alonzo
Alonzo,
I haven't seen anything indicating that PAX is anything other than what it claims to be. I don't support it, but I don't have any justification for being mad at Levi-Strauss & Co., if it does.
That's just it! I'm not drawing any conclusions! There's nothing to base any conclusions on!
I haven't seen anything indicating that PAX is anything other than what it claims to be. I don't support it, but I don't have any justification for being mad at Levi-Strauss & Co., if it does.
AlonzoMosely
New member
Well, I am unable to read minds, so I suppose it is impossible for me to prove what their real intentions are without resorting to "hearsay" or "guilt by association". I also understand the promotional advantages of having a celebrity endorser. Based on the 2nd amendment stance of those celebrities and politicians who have been asked and/or have chosen to support this organization, and the lack of celebrity and politician endorsements of those who are not anti-2nd amendment, I must remain skeptical of the stated non-partisan objective of the organization. I would think that an organization that is truly non-partisan would go to great lengths to find at least one celebrity or political supporter who is pro gun rights. If the organization has not asked, or those asked have refused support, then that is somewhat persuasive evidence to me that the organization is not as non-partisan as it proclaims to be.
Also, I did not mean to imply that being asked about guns is stigmatizing to the gun owner. Rather, by promoting the asking of the question, the intention, I believe, is to have non-gun-owners who are persuaded to ask the question to not associate with gun owners, thus ostracizing gun owners.
In any event, you apparently have seen all the information that I have. So, based on the same set of information, we simply draw different conclusions and must, therefore, simply agree to disagree.
Regrds,
Alonzo
Also, I did not mean to imply that being asked about guns is stigmatizing to the gun owner. Rather, by promoting the asking of the question, the intention, I believe, is to have non-gun-owners who are persuaded to ask the question to not associate with gun owners, thus ostracizing gun owners.
In any event, you apparently have seen all the information that I have. So, based on the same set of information, we simply draw different conclusions and must, therefore, simply agree to disagree.
Regrds,
Alonzo
AlonzoMosely
New member
Sorry, I don't know how that happened - I was hitting the back button to get to a previous web page, but I didn't hit the submit button again.
Anyway, don't take this as a personal attack, but I think you've been duped. Here's a copy of a petition that Pax circulated a few years ago, that is no longer on their website. (got this from a google search). Note, specifically, the call for licensing of all guns like cars and elimination of assault weapons. Anyway, I won't comment anymore after this as we've kind of gotten off of the original topic.
> We are the future of America and we demand a future free from gun
> violence. We will no longer remain silent as a preventable epidemic
> devastates our towns, our homes and our schools.
>
> We call on our nation's leaders to develop a comprehensive plan to
> end the crisis of gun violence in our nation. This plan must
> include:
>
> 1. A national campaign to educate all Americans, both gun owners
> and non-gun owners, about the threat of gun violence and how it can
> be prevented.
>
> 2. Common sense gun violence legislation which is already supported
> by the majority of Americans, including the majority of gun owners,
> such as:
>
> Child access prevention laws to hold gun owners responsible for
> what happens with their guns and prevent children and others from
> having unauthorized access.
>
> Elimination of assault weapons and other weapons of war.
>
> Nationwide laws to eliminate illegal gun trafficking and keep
> guns out of the hands of criminals.
>
> Licensing and registration of guns, like automobiles.
>
> We demand solutions, not political debate, and we demand those
> solutions now. "
Anyway, don't take this as a personal attack, but I think you've been duped. Here's a copy of a petition that Pax circulated a few years ago, that is no longer on their website. (got this from a google search). Note, specifically, the call for licensing of all guns like cars and elimination of assault weapons. Anyway, I won't comment anymore after this as we've kind of gotten off of the original topic.
> We are the future of America and we demand a future free from gun
> violence. We will no longer remain silent as a preventable epidemic
> devastates our towns, our homes and our schools.
>
> We call on our nation's leaders to develop a comprehensive plan to
> end the crisis of gun violence in our nation. This plan must
> include:
>
> 1. A national campaign to educate all Americans, both gun owners
> and non-gun owners, about the threat of gun violence and how it can
> be prevented.
>
> 2. Common sense gun violence legislation which is already supported
> by the majority of Americans, including the majority of gun owners,
> such as:
>
> Child access prevention laws to hold gun owners responsible for
> what happens with their guns and prevent children and others from
> having unauthorized access.
>
> Elimination of assault weapons and other weapons of war.
>
> Nationwide laws to eliminate illegal gun trafficking and keep
> guns out of the hands of criminals.
>
> Licensing and registration of guns, like automobiles.
>
> We demand solutions, not political debate, and we demand those
> solutions now. "
Alonzo,
Their petition is about as lame brained as any the grabbers come up with. I wonder what the status of that effort is or whether PAX has reformed, but it doesn't matter.
I haven't been duped about PAX. I haven't drawn any conclusions about it nor have I formed an opinion about it, and I certainly haven't taken any action supporting it. I just wanted some facts instead of supposition, and that's all I've been asking for. You've provided something to chew on, and I thank you.
Their petition is about as lame brained as any the grabbers come up with. I wonder what the status of that effort is or whether PAX has reformed, but it doesn't matter.
David Scott
New member
Oy gevalt! Such a can of worms I opened.
I decided a long time ago that it was impossible to boycott every company that ever gave a nickel to some cause I disliked. I'd have to grow all my own food, raise sheep for wool and flax for cotton just to have clothes, etc. I save my boycotting for the serious offenders, like S&W.
I don't think the PAX thing is a great idea, but at least they're not screaming for a ban. I strongly approve of some of the other causes Levi's supports, like amfAR and Amnesty International.
I know that at TFL, some have a "zero tolerance" policy toward companies that have any policy that might be construed, at a stretch, as anti-gun or anti-RKBA. I think this can be taken too far at times, like the folks who were angry at Taurus for building in locks.
I decided a long time ago that it was impossible to boycott every company that ever gave a nickel to some cause I disliked. I'd have to grow all my own food, raise sheep for wool and flax for cotton just to have clothes, etc. I save my boycotting for the serious offenders, like S&W.
I don't think the PAX thing is a great idea, but at least they're not screaming for a ban. I strongly approve of some of the other causes Levi's supports, like amfAR and Amnesty International.
I know that at TFL, some have a "zero tolerance" policy toward companies that have any policy that might be construed, at a stretch, as anti-gun or anti-RKBA. I think this can be taken too far at times, like the folks who were angry at Taurus for building in locks.