Lowes Home Improvement Stores and their anti gun policies - Page 19
Page 19 of 23 FirstFirst ... 91718192021 ... LastLast
Results 181 to 190 of 228

Thread: Lowes Home Improvement Stores and their anti gun policies

  1. #181
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Central Florida
    Posts
    2,004
    I CC only here in Florida. I shop Lowe's all over the state of Florida and have never had a problem. However, I was in a Home Depot in my home town and evidently I became "exposed" or printed bad enough the building supply manager on duty approached me and told me I had to leave. When I asked why, he told me that "others" were "concerned" that I had a gun on me. I asked him if "others" were going to make up the $12,200 sale he was about to loose. His expression changed. He asked me how he could help me. Change of tune. Mercenary but still a change of tune.

    Amazing how the dollar can change a situation.
    To not stand against injustice is to stand for it.
    Don't confuse my personality and my attitude.
    My personality is who I am, my attitude depends on who you are.

  2.   
  3. #182
    ezkl2230 Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by BC1 View Post
    You're absolutely wrong on this. Overwhelming case law. As a business owner I'm not violating your civil rights. Civil Rights, as in the Civil Rights Act of 1964, prohibits discrimination against protected groups. I can't discriminate on the basis of race, religion, gender, handicap, etc. It ended unequal application of voter registration requirements and racial segregation in schools, at the workplace and by facilities that served the general public ("public accommodations"). Gun owners are not a protected group under the civil rights act. Read it.

    My prohibition of firearms in the workplace is not out of hysteria. It's to reduce comparable or contributory negligence claims against me should me or my business be sued by the victim of a crime. Sounds crazy right? In this crazy world of litigation it actually makes a difference. There is no statutory requirement that I protect an employee or client. My insurance policy contains a provision that, as a requirement for coverage to remain in effect, I must prohibit weapons. So it's in the employee handbook. Not because I'm hysterical but because it's a business decision. There was a time when I put it to a vote among employees. They overwhelmingly wanted a no-firearms policy. Now maybe they're hysterical, I don't know and don't care. My priority isn't easing their fear of guns. Again, it's a business decision. I don't want a productive employee to quit just because they're afraid of the employee carrying his firearm. For me the bottom line is more important than this topic. And that's how one becomes successful. Every single decision we make from morning to bedtime is based on the question "is this financially good for the company... and for me as the owner?"

    My business is not a public place. A store, even one that is publicly owned, by legal definition is a private corporation, owned by it's shareholders, not the government, not the general populace. It is subject to the policies enacted by management to the extent they don't violate CIVIL RIGHTS. You also have no Fitst Amendment right in any store, mall or my business. If you settle in and start lecturing about politics you'll be asked to leave. If you don't you may be arrested for trespass... even if that mall is part of a publicly owned chain of malls. That doesn't mean the general public owns them, it merely means that the public has the option of buying stock in the company under United States Securities law. I'm not violating anyone's second amendment rights. They have free will. They can exercise that free will on true public property... sidewalks, parks, etc. But on privately owned property the law is absolutely on my side.

    Now I feel bad for that pharmacist. He did a brave thing. But if he violated my company policy he would have to go. I can't have employees deciding which policies they'll follow and which they'll ignore. I have to be able to trust they will act as directed. It's called insubordination and if fired for it one can't even collect unemployment benefits as the loss of job was a direct result of failure to follow an order, policy or protocol. If the practice of pharmacy is too dangerous there's always barber school. Free will. He chooses to be a pharmacist.

    You need to grasp the differences between protections guaranteed by the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and constitutional amendments (1st & 2nd) as in the bill of rights. They are two entirely different things. Specifically what sections of what laws does your bill expect to change? How will you overcome the lobby of the chamber of commerce and other groups who have those capitalist senators in their pocket? It's an uphill fight. Probably impossible to win as we'll never submit to being controlled by employees or clients.
    Before the civil rights act of 1964, there was another, much older civil rights act. It was created because the governing document of the nation in question, as revolutionary as it was, did little to recognize and protect the natural, God-given rights of its citizenry. The original civil rights act was created by the “Conventions of a number of the States” because of their expressed concern that the original governing document would result in an all-powerful centralized government that no regard for citizens’ rights.

    Of course, I’m speaking about the Bill of Rights.

    All of the rights not enumerated to the general government or reserved to the States were reserved to the People. As was originally intended by the framers of the Bill of Rights, the majority of powers were to be reserved to the People.

    Let’s think about that for a moment.

    Some recent remarks here indicate that only those rights recognized by the civil rights act of 1964 are protected. Those rights are our civil rights.

    And they would be wrong. Sure, technically there is some validity to their viewpoint, but this is only because, once again, we have allowed the government to dictate which of our “rights” are actually “civil rights.” We have allowed the government to determine for us to whom those “rights” will apply. And that is exactly the approach that the framers of the Bill of Rights were hoping to avoid by clearly stating our natural, God-given rights in their document.

    The word “Civil” means,

    “1. Of, relating to, or befitting a citizen or citizens:
    2. Of or relating to citizens and their interrelations with one another or with the state:"

    As this relates to this discussion, the Bill of Rights sets out for us our natural, God-given rights, how they relate to the state, and how the state is obligated to protect them. They are CIVIL rights, because they define our “interrelations... with the state.” In other words, the rights outlined in the Bill of Rights is the master set of civil rights, while the civil rights act of 1964 is merely a subset of that master set, a further refinement of the rights delineated by the framers of the Bill of Rights.

    So when you as business owners, or I as a former and future business owner, speak of the civil rights we must observe and accommodate, that doesn’t refer merely to the civil rights act of 1964, it refers to ALL of the rights outlined in the Bill of Rights - regardless of what the government says these days.

    And that includes the Second Amendment right to bear arms.

    Will I be successful in Michigan getting my amendment passed? Maybe not. But that isn’t going to stop me from trying.

    And a word to the business owners here who continue to say that they have no obligation to recognize our Second Amendment civil right: Stop complaining about society’s and the government’s growing refusal to recognize our civil right - because that’s what it is, regardless of the government’s refusal to label us as a protected group; the Bill of Rights labeled ALL Americans as protected - if you will not recognize and protect that right on the premises of your own establishment. Presumably, many of you are here because you want to fight for our right to bear arms, but your remarks make it clear that your enthusiasm for that fight quickly disappears as soon as it affects your establishment - and then you become as anti-gun as the “libtards” to whom so many refer in these forums. Make up your minds, because you can’t have it both ways. If you are going to be pro-Second Amendment, then be pro-Second Amendment even when it might have a negative affect on you. If not, then I have a new acronym to introduce to everyone. Everyone here is familiar with RINOs - Republican In Name Only. Let me introduce the acronym, SAINOs - Second Amendment In Name Only (pronounced, Say No - because that is just what they do).

  4. #183
    Quote Originally Posted by Gr8gunz View Post
    I dunno. I spent 26 years in the navy and was able to retire in my 30's.
    how is that even possible? to retire at 39 w/ 26 years in, you'd have enlisted at 13.

  5. #184
    ezkl2230 Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Gr8gunz View Post
    Where have you been all my life? May I copy and paste this post to the "no guns signs" thread? I have been making this point there and was quickly outnumbered by the private property argument. I suspect they're all business owners. I finally dropped out of the discussion as it was going nowhere. What right do we have as people who wish to defend ourselves to trump the rights of those idiot business owners who believe they are safer if armed personnel on their property are criminals. Anyway, I'd really like to copy this to that thread as you stated it much more eloquently than I did. If not, please jump over there and join in.
    Feel free. My viewpoint is a minority viewpoint, but I am fighting for it. I stop short of calling them "idiots", however. They have worked hard to make a go of their businesses.

  6. #185
    Quote Originally Posted by BC1 View Post
    I own the business. I built it.
    Not according to Obama.
    You can have good intentions and not be right.

  7. #186
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    State of Confusion
    Posts
    7,733
    Quote Originally Posted by Gr8gunz View Post
    I dunno. I spent 26 years in the navy and was able to retire in my 30's. As if this has anything at all to do with forbidding law abiding gun owners from carrying firearms on PRIVATE property.



    The hubris of the almighty land owner. I have all the God given rights I had before I stepped on your land sir. Many of them which are NOT protected by the constitution. It would be quite impossible to create a document that will cover every conceivable situation. You believe as you will. I will continue to work at getting local law makers to get those stupid signs out of windows. If the business owners don't like it, they can always "GO SOMEPLACE ELSE".
    26 years in the Navy and you retired in your mid thirties? What were you ten when you enlisted? I have a minor in mathematics but didn't need it for that one. In all seriousness, I can't imagine trying to live purely on a military pension in these times, considering prices and all.

    BTW, my remark was purely a retort to being called stupid, as a business owner. Because I built it. It's pretty funny when you think about it. And I DO commend your efforts. Not enough people make an effort at anything anymore.

    Remember, the government should never be allowed to trample the rights of the people on their own property to serve the rights of a trespasser. Yet democracy is merely mob rule whereby 51% of the people trample the rights of the other 49% (Thomas Jefferson). I rarely ever even pop into the office. so I don't know what people are doing. And I really don't personally care. But my policy stands as the will of the employees and is purely for business purposes. And in my home, no one carries under any circumstance. Just in case Junior needs to go out on his ear.
    GOD, GUNS and GUITARS

  8. #187
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    State of Confusion
    Posts
    7,733
    Quote Originally Posted by ezkl2230 View Post
    Before the civil rights act of 1964, there was another, much older civil rights act. It was created because the governing document of the nation in question, as revolutionary as it was, did little to recognize and protect the natural rights of its citizenry. The original civil rights act was created by the “Conventions of a number of the States” because of their expressed concern that the original governing document would result in an all-powerful centralized government that no regard for citizens’ rights.

    Of course, I’m speaking about the Bill of Rights.

    All of the rights not enumerated to the general government or reserved to the States were reserved to the People. As was originally intended by the framers of the Bill of Rights, the majority of powers were to be reserved to the People.

    Let’s think about that for a moment.

    Some recent remarks here indicate that only those rights recognized by the civil rights act of 1964 are protected. Those rights are our civil rights.

    And they would be wrong. Sure, technically there is some validity to their viewpoint, but this is only because, once again, we have allowed the government to dictate which of our “rights” are actually “civil rights.” We have allowed the government to determine for us to whom those “rights” will apply. And that is exactly the approach that the framers of the Bill of Rights were hoping to avoid by clearly stating our natural rights in their document.

    The word “Civil” means,

    “1. Of, relating to, or befitting a citizen or citizens:
    2. Of or relating to citizens and their interrelations with one another or with the state:

    As this relates to this discussion, the Bill of Rights sets out for us our natural rights, how they relate to the state, and how the state is obligated to protect them. They are CIVIL rights, because they define our “interrelations... with the state.” In other words, the rights outlined in the Bill of Rights is the master set of civil rights, while the civil rights act of 1964 is merely a subset of that master set, a further refinement of the rights delineated by the framers of the Bill of Rights.

    So when you as business owners, or I as a former and future business owner, speak of the civil rights we must observe and accommodate, that doesn’t refer merely to the civil rights act of 1964, it refers to ALL of the rights outlined in the Bill of Rights - regardless of what the government says these days.

    And that includes the Second Amendment right to bear arms.

    Will I be successful in Michigan getting my amendment passed? Maybe not. but that isn’t going to stop me from trying.

    And a word to the business owners here who continue to say that they have no obligation to recognize our Second Amendment civil right: Stop complaining about society’s and the government’s growing refusal to recognize our civil right - because that’s what it is, regardless of the government’s refusal to label us as a protected group; the Bill of Rights labeled ALL Americans as protected - if you will not recognize and protect that right on the premises of your own establishment. Presumably, many of you are here because you want to fight for our right to bear arms, but your remarks make it clear that your enthusiasm for that fight quickly disappears as soon as it affects your establishment - and then you become as anti-gun as the “libtards” to whom so many refer in these forums. Make up your minds, because you can’t have it both ways. If you are going to be pro-Second Amendment, then be pro-Second Amendment even when it might have a negative affect on you. If not, then I have a new acronym to introduce to everyone. Everyone here is familiar with RINOs - Republican In Name Only. Let me introduce the acronym, SAINOs - Second Amendment In Name Only.
    Perhaps you might think about it in this way. In order to have constitutional or civil rights on my property, you must first be required to have a right to be there. And you don't. Where in the constitution or civil rights act are you given the right to enter private property. And what are the limits? Can you enter my land? Can you enter my home? Can you do so armed? At what point does the castle doctrine apply? No sir, you have no right to enter any private property without approval of the owner or his charges. So you can't get to the second amendment argument until you first have the right to be there.
    GOD, GUNS and GUITARS

  9. #188
    Quote Originally Posted by jhodge83 View Post
    how is that even possible? to retire at 39 w/ 26 years in, you'd have enlisted at 13.
    Did you read what I wrote? I said, "I was ABLE to retire in my 30's". I chose to stay longer than the minimum required for retirement which put me at age 44 when I actually retired. I joined at 18 which means I was ABLE to retire at 38.
    All The Best
    Gunz

  10. #189
    Quote Originally Posted by BC1 View Post
    26 years in the Navy and you retired in your mid thirties? What were you ten when you enlisted? I have a minor in mathematics but didn't need it for that one. In all seriousness, I can't imagine trying to live purely on a military pension in these times, considering prices and all.
    I didn't say I retired in my thirties, I said I was ABLE to retire. Perhaps a course in remedial reading would be a good idea along with that minor in math. (sorry, I just couldn't resist) I retired at age 44 as I decided to stay longer than 20.

    [QUOTE=BC1;350544]BTW, my remark was purely a retort to being called stupid, as a business owner. Because I built it. It's pretty funny when you think about it. And I DO commend your efforts. Not enough people make an effort at anything anymore. [/quote/

    Of course you built it and YOU are to be commended. My "stupid" remark was solely concerning "no guns" signs. Small business is the backbone of our country and I have the utmost respect for anyone who BUILT one. Frankly, I don't think I could do it. I hope you guys can hang in there long enough for us to give this president the boot. I really do believe those signs are stupid, however, and the business owners who post them are performing a very stupid act.

    Quote Originally Posted by BC1 View Post
    Remember, the government should never be allowed to trample the rights of the people on their own property to serve the rights of a trespasser. Yet democracy is merely mob rule whereby 51% of the people trample the rights of the other 49% (Thomas Jefferson). I rarely ever even pop into the office. so I don't know what people are doing. And I really don't personally care. But my policy stands as the will of the employees and is purely for business purposes. And in my home, no one carries under any circumstance. Just in case Junior needs to go out on his ear.
    I am not a trespasser if your business is open to the public, I'm a customer. I certainly agree with the rest of that statement.
    All The Best
    Gunz

  11. #190
    Quote Originally Posted by ezkl2230 View Post
    Before the civil rights act of 1964, there was another, much older civil rights act. It was created because the governing document of the nation in question, as revolutionary as it was, did little to recognize and protect the natural rights of its citizenry. The original civil rights act was created by the “Conventions of a number of the States” because of their expressed concern that the original governing document would result in an all-powerful centralized government that no regard for citizens’ rights.

    Of course, I’m speaking about the Bill of Rights.

    All of the rights not enumerated to the general government or reserved to the States were reserved to the People. As was originally intended by the framers of the Bill of Rights, the majority of powers were to be reserved to the People.

    Let’s think about that for a moment.

    Some recent remarks here indicate that only those rights recognized by the civil rights act of 1964 are protected. Those rights are our civil rights.

    And they would be wrong. Sure, technically there is some validity to their viewpoint, but this is only because, once again, we have allowed the government to dictate which of our “rights” are actually “civil rights.” We have allowed the government to determine for us to whom those “rights” will apply. And that is exactly the approach that the framers of the Bill of Rights were hoping to avoid by clearly stating our natural rights in their document.

    The word “Civil” means,

    “1. Of, relating to, or befitting a citizen or citizens:
    2. Of or relating to citizens and their interrelations with one another or with the state:

    As this relates to this discussion, the Bill of Rights sets out for us our natural rights, how they relate to the state, and how the state is obligated to protect them. They are CIVIL rights, because they define our “interrelations... with the state.” In other words, the rights outlined in the Bill of Rights is the master set of civil rights, while the civil rights act of 1964 is merely a subset of that master set, a further refinement of the rights delineated by the framers of the Bill of Rights.

    So when you as business owners, or I as a former and future business owner, speak of the civil rights we must observe and accommodate, that doesn’t refer merely to the civil rights act of 1964, it refers to ALL of the rights outlined in the Bill of Rights - regardless of what the government says these days.

    And that includes the Second Amendment right to bear arms.

    Will I be successful in Michigan getting my amendment passed? Maybe not. but that isn’t going to stop me from trying.

    And a word to the business owners here who continue to say that they have no obligation to recognize our Second Amendment civil right: Stop complaining about society’s and the government’s growing refusal to recognize our civil right - because that’s what it is, regardless of the government’s refusal to label us as a protected group; the Bill of Rights labeled ALL Americans as protected - if you will not recognize and protect that right on the premises of your own establishment. Presumably, many of you are here because you want to fight for our right to bear arms, but your remarks make it clear that your enthusiasm for that fight quickly disappears as soon as it affects your establishment - and then you become as anti-gun as the “libtards” to whom so many refer in these forums. Make up your minds, because you can’t have it both ways. If you are going to be pro-Second Amendment, then be pro-Second Amendment even when it might have a negative affect on you. If not, then I have a new acronym to introduce to everyone. Everyone here is familiar with RINOs - Republican In Name Only. Let me introduce the acronym, SAINOs - Second Amendment In Name Only.
    God I love that kind of talk. Why didn't I say that?? I hope you're gonna stick around for awhile.
    All The Best
    Gunz

Page 19 of 23 FirstFirst ... 91718192021 ... LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Quantcast