Levi-Strauss Gun Control initiative article

Status
Not open for further replies.
More of the "corporate" gun control BS. The left can't win on the issue, so they'll do an end-run. "We don't want to repeal the 2nd ammendment". Yeah, BS! Watch what happens next, employees will be asked about their gun ownership as a condition of employment.
 
I buy mine from Sam's Club - $13 instead of $50 works for me. I stopped buying Levi's when they closed their US operations decades ago.
 
Since "Levi Strauss" is still privately owned by the family,and not publicly traded(except it's company in Japan), a slight drop in sales is probably expected and not detrimental to a family wishing to support their personal ideals. In the past, boycotts have shown to have little or no impact on companies as large and as diverse as this. This is no different than the stand taken by Nike earlier this week with Collin Kaepernick. I'm sure both stands were weighed heavily before making any announcements and the risk any negative outcome understood. Levi's priced me outta their customer base a long time ago. I really have nuttin' to boycott.
 
Dick's has suffered some loss in revenue from their recent actions, supposedly:

https://www.foxbusiness.com/markets/gun-control-steps-hurt-dicks-sporting-sales-shares-slip

If this is true, I don't know.

The Washington Times article said:

“I’m not here to suggest we repeal the Second Amendment or to suggest that gun owners aren’t responsible,” Mr. Bergh wrote. “In fact, as a former U.S. Army officer, I took a solemn oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States. But as retired four-star general Michael Hayden once said, ‘There are some weapons out there that frankly nobody should have access to. And actually, there are some people out there who should never have access to any weapons.’ “
Click to expand...

This points out a problem that gun rights advocates really don't have good messaging on why EBRs, higher cap handguns, mags, should be available to the general public. Yes, appeals to the committed are used for funding raising and the rationales seem self-evident but that isn't enough to counter the moral panic of various rampages. Editorials about socialism won't cut it.
 
Orvis has made in America jeans. They're the best I've ever owned, (I now have 5) and is all I'll buy going forward. More expensive but very good, and made in the USA. ;)
 
I don't wear Levis and don't recall ever have but I like their shirt's. I'm with them on this though. They didn't say you can't carry just that they would rather you didn't. Big difference there to me! I think they are being really reasonable about it!
 
They are donating a million dollars to the enemy and encouraging their employees to donate to the anti gun group. This is way different from not allowing carrying in their stores. You buy a Levi product you are giving money to the enemy.
 
Many corporations have policies that can be antithetical to your beliefs. Buy the wrong sandwich or arts and craft item and that could violate your beliefs.

Do the boycotts and Internet uproar actual impact a business? Interesting question for the economic and business journals.
 
Levi started this anti-gun nonsense years ago. I stopped buying their overpriced ill-fitting jeans then.
At least Wrangler knows what a man's body is supposed to look like.
 
OK, I think I will call this one. As I said, corporate heads are known to expose political views all over the spectrum. If you reside in one end, and the CEO blathers from the other, you get all excited and decide not to buy his or her pistachio nuts or bungee cords (just made that up).

Since in another thread, our learned counsels have told us that corporations are people and have rights, we really can't tell them to stick to making whatever they do.

Just don't wear their pants or eat their chicken sandwiches.

Closed as not being productive.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top