Kroger Under Attack Again/Still
- Thread starter steve4102
- Start date
maestro pistolero
New member
Sent thanks to Kroger for their neutrality and their steadfastness.
Because anti's are stupid. I saw one post from one of them in which she posted a picture of her receipt from another store, telling Kroger that they will lose her business until they ban guns because guns and ammo has no place in a family grocery store. The only problem was that it was a Walmart receipt..
carguychris
New member
Wal-Mart sells ammo at most Supercenters, and guns at some of them, hence the company has a greater incentive to resist the pressure.guy48065 said:
We'll probably never know precisely why Kroger was chosen, but my guess is that it was picked because it serves a broader geographic and demographic market than most other grocery chains. I'm certain that MDA is hoping for a ripple effect, which is most likely to happen if a greater number of people have access to a "No Gun" store.
A good counter-example is Sprouts, which notably posted the correct legally-binding no-CHL signs at its TX stores earlier this year, making it AFAIK the only relatively widespread grocery chain to do so. However, Sprouts has a small number of stores, it targets the affluent "fruits and nuts" organic health-food crowd, and it doesn't carry a full line of household cleaners, school supplies, or other non-food items. Result? The other TX grocery chains seem to have (fortunately) totally ignored Sprouts' no-gun policy; none of them have followed suit or even commented on it publicly.
My guess is that the other chains have (IMHO correctly) discerned that Sprouts' decision has little net impact on the overall TX grocery market since they serve a comparatively small demographic. MDA is likely seeking a broader impact.
Last edited:
Probably because WalMart has shown an unwillingness in the past to ban guns.
Kroger hasn't been involved in the issue before, so MDA is grasping at the low-hanging fruit. Here's the thing: boycotts and Facebook campaigns require little effort and entail no risk. They're easy, and if they fail, there really isn't any blowback.
For an organization with few real "members" and little real clout, it can make them look bigger than they really are.
Here's my view. If you are licensed to carry a concealed weapon- then you have been checked out by law enforcement, taken a safe gun handling course, all the checks, all the bells and whistles, and the gun is concealed so it won't scare other folks....AT THAT POINT you ought to be able to carry it anywhere you wish except private residential property of others and a few exceptions like court rooms, etc. If someone opens a business, they are open to the public, they can't discriminate on racial grounds, etc. Those who have a concealed weapons licenses ought to not be discriminated against. When a person opens a business they agree to be subject to various public laws, one ought to be they cannot bar customers holding CHL's.
On the open carry. We have a lot of tree huggers and pacifists out there nowadays and they get scared out of their wits when they see some other person toting a firearm. Why do it? What is the advantage of open carry compared to concealed carry? None that I can think of. I truly believe if this becomes a big issue WE CANNOT WIN. We will in fact be doing ourselves harm because people will be elected to outlaw open carry AND PROBABLY GO FARTHER in all sorts of other gun control. The recent Supreme Court rulings seem to support the idea that "some sort" of private right to keep and bear arms exists but the borders of its extent are unclear- in short- don't expect help from the supreme court. We need to police ourselves and get our ducks in a row. I think concealed carry is the way to go, no one knows you are armed and yet you have a valid means to protect yourself. I see no reason to support open carry, it upsets a lot of non-gun owners and makes all guns owners appear as people who argue "I'll do as I please and I couldn't care less about what people think"- the response will be non-gun owners saying, "Fine, we'll do as we please and elect people that take away all your guns". We don't need this fight and it is unnecessary. Concealed carry is by far the way to go.
I think however open carry is okay in certain situations. In rural areas there is often a need to have a firearm handy in a hurry. Coyotes, etc. kill live stock, there are troubles along the southern border with drug dealers, etc. Open carry seems valid in such areas. In times of emergency, in order to protect life and property open carry may be valid. So...never say never but toting a rifle slung over your shoulder while you go to Target or Walmart, what on earth is in the minds of people doing such things? Somebody just spoiling for a fight if you ask me. I'm upset because their actions may bring on gun control laws that effect ME.
On the open carry. We have a lot of tree huggers and pacifists out there nowadays and they get scared out of their wits when they see some other person toting a firearm. Why do it? What is the advantage of open carry compared to concealed carry? None that I can think of. I truly believe if this becomes a big issue WE CANNOT WIN. We will in fact be doing ourselves harm because people will be elected to outlaw open carry AND PROBABLY GO FARTHER in all sorts of other gun control. The recent Supreme Court rulings seem to support the idea that "some sort" of private right to keep and bear arms exists but the borders of its extent are unclear- in short- don't expect help from the supreme court. We need to police ourselves and get our ducks in a row. I think concealed carry is the way to go, no one knows you are armed and yet you have a valid means to protect yourself. I see no reason to support open carry, it upsets a lot of non-gun owners and makes all guns owners appear as people who argue "I'll do as I please and I couldn't care less about what people think"- the response will be non-gun owners saying, "Fine, we'll do as we please and elect people that take away all your guns". We don't need this fight and it is unnecessary. Concealed carry is by far the way to go.
I think however open carry is okay in certain situations. In rural areas there is often a need to have a firearm handy in a hurry. Coyotes, etc. kill live stock, there are troubles along the southern border with drug dealers, etc. Open carry seems valid in such areas. In times of emergency, in order to protect life and property open carry may be valid. So...never say never but toting a rifle slung over your shoulder while you go to Target or Walmart, what on earth is in the minds of people doing such things? Somebody just spoiling for a fight if you ask me. I'm upset because their actions may bring on gun control laws that effect ME.
Let me add one more thought. Many years ago I was hunting in a National Forest. I was tired, it was late in the day, and if I took a hiking trail back to the vehicle- well it was a lot easier going that climbing up and down deadfalls, etc. So I did, full camo with an orange hat and vest, rifle in hand. Legal to do so. It was downhill and I was hightailing it and BINGO went around a bend in the trail and right into a few hikers, man, woman, very small child. The woman was scared out of her wits. I told her it was deer season, etc. etc. but I felt really bad. A nice, gentle, decent woman. No reason for her to be scared. I told her the state really should have posted a few signs about hunting in progress ( a lot of places do that now a days) but I still felt bad. Why should that decent woman have been frightened? It changed me, I never travel hiking trails while hunting just to get around quickly even though there are areas where I can legally do so.
Here is where I think your opinion is flawed.
IMO a business is not "open to the public". The public is invited into the business to enjoy what they have to offer as long as they abide by the rules of that business.
If one were to violate those rules, then you are no longer welcome, as long as these "rules" do not violate Civil Right laws and or the Constitution.
A permit holder and/or a firearm owner is not a protected class, therefore cannot be discriminated against by a private business.
As a permit holder, a No-Guns sign is not discriminating against you, a class of people or any other individual, you are welcome, your firearm is not. A firearm is an inanimate object and does not have rights.
If you wish to remain invited, then you can remove your firearm, or become uninvited.
I know this has been said hundreds of times, but it is No different then, No shoes, no shirt, no colors, no golf spikes, no hats, no tie no enter, etc.etc.etc.
These signs do not say no Gun owners allowed, they say no-Guns.
Maybe i'm wrong, we will soon see if I get a "So What".
Last edited:
SmokinMike
Inactive
Why does it have to be anti's vs us, anti's are stupid, well it is kinda dumb to send a wal-mart receipt to Kroger as a statement, but isn't also stupid to carry a semiautomatic weapon into a store or restaurant? I don't know about you, but after all the public shootings around, I would get very nervous if sitting in a restaurant or shopping in a grocery store and see someone carrying an assault weapon, I would have a tendency to grab my legally licensed handgun.
I believe in the second amendment, but not for morons. Unfortunately. the second amendment does not separate them.
The bill of rights is about personal rights pertaining to government overreach not private business. So as a private business, they have the right to restrict what and who comes onto their property and I respect that. How does that apply to public property or public buildings, I don't know. I know when you go into the courthouse, they scan for weapons. Does that mean you can't bring one in?
I don't know why we can't all get together for a common sense solution/
I believe in the second amendment, but not for morons. Unfortunately. the second amendment does not separate them.
The bill of rights is about personal rights pertaining to government overreach not private business. So as a private business, they have the right to restrict what and who comes onto their property and I respect that. How does that apply to public property or public buildings, I don't know. I know when you go into the courthouse, they scan for weapons. Does that mean you can't bring one in?
I don't know why we can't all get together for a common sense solution/
Double Naught Spy
New member
Then you don't believe in it because the 2nd Amendment doesn't make any sort of stipulation.
Because everybody has a different idea about what is common sense. For example, the anti-gun folks think it is common sense to not allow people to have guns and the pro-gun people think it is common sense to allow people to have guns. Both sides thinks the other is being idiotic. As such, there is no common sense between the groups on the status of guns.
To one and all....on the protected citizen thing- that was my point, try to make someone, by law, that has a concealed weapons permit the same as a blind person with a dog or a minority person. If they are so licensed they are permitted into a retail store. A store can no more tell them to leave than they can tell a blind person to leave because they don't want animals on the premises.
On the moron thing....that is getting to be a big problem. The morons may end up being worse for gun owners than all the liberal politicians. The morons will drive the uncommitted center into the gun control camp.
When I was a young'n this guy would come into the local greasy spoon with a handgun on his belt. No one cared. Small town, different time and place. If you are out in the country with a rifle or shotgun in an open gun rack in your pick up truck and some city folks get nervous...well...they are in your woods, that's too bad for them. ON THE OTHER HAND those internet photos of women shopping in Target Dept. Store with rifles slung over their shoulders- what kind of idiots are they? When you carry a concealed weapon no one knows you even have it. The place I hang out for morning coffee, one day we all got talking- six guys in the joint with concealed weapons. No one knew but if some shooter came into the place he would not last long. A concealed weapon gives you plenty of protection, this open carry thing. Unless you are in the country, there has been a hurricane, etc.- some reason- then it just seems to me it is an "in your face" thing to others that don't like it and it is going to cause troubles that are totally unnecessary.
BTW- for any younger folks out there. The way things stand today, gun owners have made a lot of strides. As things now stand the average citizen, even if they don't own a firearm- will generally concede anyone has a right to own a firearm. That wasn't the way it was back in the 1960 era- there were a lot of people that freely objected to anyone owning a gun. Things can very quickly get right back to that level.
Finally, since I've lived along time, consider my wisdom of the years. We need to stand on ground that is defensible on all fronts if we are to save the Second Amendment. Supporting women in Target with rifles slung over their shoulders- defending that makes us look like idiots. Arguing that if you are responsible enough to vote, drive a car, serve in the military, then there is something fundamentally wrong with the notion such people are not also responsible enough to keep and bear arms in a responsible manner, arms adequate to defend our freedoms, seems that is a very strong place to stand- it makes those that oppose you the unreasonable advocate.
On the moron thing....that is getting to be a big problem. The morons may end up being worse for gun owners than all the liberal politicians. The morons will drive the uncommitted center into the gun control camp.
When I was a young'n this guy would come into the local greasy spoon with a handgun on his belt. No one cared. Small town, different time and place. If you are out in the country with a rifle or shotgun in an open gun rack in your pick up truck and some city folks get nervous...well...they are in your woods, that's too bad for them. ON THE OTHER HAND those internet photos of women shopping in Target Dept. Store with rifles slung over their shoulders- what kind of idiots are they? When you carry a concealed weapon no one knows you even have it. The place I hang out for morning coffee, one day we all got talking- six guys in the joint with concealed weapons. No one knew but if some shooter came into the place he would not last long. A concealed weapon gives you plenty of protection, this open carry thing. Unless you are in the country, there has been a hurricane, etc.- some reason- then it just seems to me it is an "in your face" thing to others that don't like it and it is going to cause troubles that are totally unnecessary.
BTW- for any younger folks out there. The way things stand today, gun owners have made a lot of strides. As things now stand the average citizen, even if they don't own a firearm- will generally concede anyone has a right to own a firearm. That wasn't the way it was back in the 1960 era- there were a lot of people that freely objected to anyone owning a gun. Things can very quickly get right back to that level.
Finally, since I've lived along time, consider my wisdom of the years. We need to stand on ground that is defensible on all fronts if we are to save the Second Amendment. Supporting women in Target with rifles slung over their shoulders- defending that makes us look like idiots. Arguing that if you are responsible enough to vote, drive a car, serve in the military, then there is something fundamentally wrong with the notion such people are not also responsible enough to keep and bear arms in a responsible manner, arms adequate to defend our freedoms, seems that is a very strong place to stand- it makes those that oppose you the unreasonable advocate.
Mike Irwin
Staff
Apparently MDA's protest at Kroger's meeting had about 40 participants.
From the Cincinnati Enquirer:
http://www.cincinnati.com/story/money/2014/10/29/kroger-chasing-healthy-customers/18125351/
From the Cincinnati Enquirer:
http://www.cincinnati.com/story/money/2014/10/29/kroger-chasing-healthy-customers/18125351/
Actually, I count 18. I'd lay odds that half of those were bystanders who were handed signs for the photo op.
Still, it just takes one of "us" to do something foolish and screw things up.
EDIT: here's another shot. I can get more people to turn out for a rally to ban Ugg boots.
Last edited:
Mike Irwin
Staff
"Actually, I count 18.
For God's sakes, Tom, it's a photo of an event, not an inclusive family group portrait.
When I was a reporter I made absolutely NO effort to get each and every individual at an event into the photo. (OK, everyone say Management Sucks!)
During the hospital workers strike I covered, from any number of the photos that I took to accompany my articles, you'd have thought that the it was a protest/picket line of no more than 3 or 4 people when in fact there were always between 50 and 100, and for some events quite a few more.
And, that photo was staken by a staff photographer at the Cincinnati Enquirer, which is a Gannett news company.
You can better bet that if he or the reporter were salting the image by handing out signs and arranging people into nice, neat portrait-style groups, he, the reporter, and likely their assignment editor, would be out on their asses.
Gannett publications generally still do the correct job of reporting the news, not trying to manufacture it.
For God's sakes, Tom, it's a photo of an event, not an inclusive family group portrait.
When I was a reporter I made absolutely NO effort to get each and every individual at an event into the photo. (OK, everyone say Management Sucks!)
During the hospital workers strike I covered, from any number of the photos that I took to accompany my articles, you'd have thought that the it was a protest/picket line of no more than 3 or 4 people when in fact there were always between 50 and 100, and for some events quite a few more.
And, that photo was staken by a staff photographer at the Cincinnati Enquirer, which is a Gannett news company.
You can better bet that if he or the reporter were salting the image by handing out signs and arranging people into nice, neat portrait-style groups, he, the reporter, and likely their assignment editor, would be out on their asses.
Gannett publications generally still do the correct job of reporting the news, not trying to manufacture it.
Good point. However, their prior photos have been shot at close range in an attempt to insinuate a large crowd that isn't there.
This is a good example. The picture seems to imply that the bridge is packed with people, when it could just be a dozen or so.
No doubt, but I wouldn't put it past MDA to do it. Folks love to have their picture taken for the news, and the photographer may not know.
Really? Are you talking about today's Main Stream Media? The same media that manipulates and distorts just about everything political?
From what I have seen from this Media of late, if the reporter were to do as you suggested, he/she would be praised and get a promotion and most certainly not be out on their ass.
Mike Irwin
Staff
"However, their prior photos have been shot at close range in an attempt to insinuate a large crowd that isn't there."
Bunk.
The photos have been shot at close range so you can see faces and read the signs.
That's a basic tenet of publishing pictures. If you're going to print a picture in the newspaper, you want the pictures to be close enough and clear enough that the faces and printing on the signs will come through in the halftone process.
"No doubt, but I wouldn't put it past MDA to do it."
MDA did NOT take the picture and give it to the Enquirer.
It was taken by an employee of the Cincinnati Enquirer.
Actually, the picture is attributed to Alex Coolidge, who also wrote the article, and who is a staffer at the Enquirer.
He was doing on that article exactly what I did on most of my articles -- taking his own pictures.
"No doubt, but I wouldn't put it past MDA to do it."
Do what? Stand in a group and protest? Have you ever been to a protest? Ever seen one where the protestors maintain at least 50 feet between them at all times?
Look, Tom, I'm not really sure what you're trying to claim, but I'm close to 100% sure that you don't know what you're trying to claim, either, except that you're very, very sure that it's somehow a nefarious collusion between MDA and the Enquirer and their staffer to get one over on everyone.
"Really? Are you talking about today's Main Stream Media?"
Steve, why don't you go back and read what I wrote again. Maybe if you read it slowly and carefully you won't get it wrong again and won't get yourself all cranked up and squawking about what you THINK I wrote.
Bunk.
The photos have been shot at close range so you can see faces and read the signs.
That's a basic tenet of publishing pictures. If you're going to print a picture in the newspaper, you want the pictures to be close enough and clear enough that the faces and printing on the signs will come through in the halftone process.
"No doubt, but I wouldn't put it past MDA to do it."
MDA did NOT take the picture and give it to the Enquirer.
It was taken by an employee of the Cincinnati Enquirer.
Actually, the picture is attributed to Alex Coolidge, who also wrote the article, and who is a staffer at the Enquirer.
He was doing on that article exactly what I did on most of my articles -- taking his own pictures.
"No doubt, but I wouldn't put it past MDA to do it."
Do what? Stand in a group and protest? Have you ever been to a protest? Ever seen one where the protestors maintain at least 50 feet between them at all times?
Look, Tom, I'm not really sure what you're trying to claim, but I'm close to 100% sure that you don't know what you're trying to claim, either, except that you're very, very sure that it's somehow a nefarious collusion between MDA and the Enquirer and their staffer to get one over on everyone.
"Really? Are you talking about today's Main Stream Media?"
Steve, why don't you go back and read what I wrote again. Maybe if you read it slowly and carefully you won't get it wrong again and won't get yourself all cranked up and squawking about what you THINK I wrote.
Last edited: