Wal*Mart toughens gun policies

[liberal4truth]

Wal*Mart toughens gun policies

By DEVLIN BARRETT, Associated Press Writer Mon Apr 14, 6:29 PM ET

WASHINGTON - Wal-Mart, the nation's largest seller of firearms, announced Monday it will toughen rules for gun sales, from storing video of purchases to creating an internal log of which guns they sell that are later used in crimes.

J.P. Suarez, the chief compliance officer for Wal-Mart Stores Inc., appeared with outspoken gun control advocate Mayor Michael Bloomberg of New York to announce the changes at a gathering of Bloomberg's group Mayors Against Illegal Guns. Changes to come at about 1,100 Wal-Mart stores selling guns include:

_Creating a record and alert system to record when a gun sold at Wal-Mart is later used in a crime. If the purchaser of that gun later tries to buy another gun at Wal-Mart, the system would alert the sales clerk of the prior buy and could refuse to make the sale.

_Retaining the recorded images of gun sales in case law enforcement wants to view them later as part of an investigation.

_Expanding background checks of employees who handle guns and expanding inventory controls.


More at:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080414/ap_on_go_ot/gun_sales

[bossy22]

1. I don't really have much

of a problem with this at the moment....i have to do some more research

[gatts]

3. I do

While I never used Wal*Mart that heavily in the first place, I don't share the usual bile for its anti-union activities -- sauce, goose, gander, you get the deal. There's not one in fifty miles that sells guns anymore, even muzzleloaders, and while the prices on some foodstuffs are cheaper, the lackluster selection never really made it worthwhile for complex stuff.

This, however, crosses the line. I don't want cameras pointed at me, or a complete registry of serial numbers and item details created, when I'm purchasing a six-pack of coca-cola. I assume normal folk would be a little upset about it if they were purchasing condoms or similar, and last I checked not even the worst republican has tried to do much about banning those. A centralized registry of every firearm sold, on the other side of things, is just asking for a repeat of California's SKS Sporter debacle.

[apocalypsehow]

9. Foiled again.

I read this: "Retaining the recorded images of gun sales in case law enforcement wants to view them later as part of an investigation."

You wrote: This, however, crosses the line. I don't want cameras pointed at me, or a complete registry of serial numbers and item details created, when I'm purchasing a six-pack of coca-cola."



When, oh when, will my agony end? Where are my magic Gun forum eyedrops when I need them most?

[ashling]

2. Is Wal Mart where Hillary buys her guns?

seeing as how she was on the board and all?

[Turbo Teg]

4. Let wal-mart waste their money.

At least us taxpayers don't have to flip the bill for it. I think they're going to find out that it costs much, and does little. I'm sure they have plenty of money to burn though. Walmart I don't even thing sells handguns anymore, and almost nobody goes and purchases a hunting rifle or shotgun to commit a crime. Owell.

[SteveM]

5. One more reason I don't shop at Wal-Mart.

Not interested in "...the recorded images of gun sales in case law enforcement wants to view them later as part of an investigation."

[benEzra]

6. And this changes what, except to add the "creepy camera" factor to the purchase.

Wal-Marts outside of Alaska don't sell handguns anyway, so this is pretty much window dressing.

The "internal log" doesn't record guns used in crimes; it records guns that are traced during an investigation, whether that investigation concerns a revolver used in a street crime, or a shotgun confiscated from the home of a securities broker involved in financial fraud. The BATFE has all of that information, and of course all purchases are run through NICS anyway. So I'm not sure what the point is, unless it's merely to be able to generate a "pro-gun-control" press release the week of April 16th.

[old mark]

7. No guns at our Walmart

Our local Walmart has not sold guns other than black powder rifles for over two years. They had sold hunting/plinking rifles and shotguns.
Still sell some ammo, prices are good on it, selection is not great.

Just came from Walmart, only guns there were the ones on me.

mark

[liberal4truth]

14. The word is that not only will Walmart sell guns again but is also going to start to market alcohol.

including Beer, so no doubt soon you gunners can get your "fix" in a one-stop shopping location :-(

Wont that make all of you happy?:puke:

[sergeiAK]

15. The local one already does

Beer and wine, at least. No guns though.

I don't think they're bringing the gun sales back, it wasn't very profitable for them for the amount of specialized training and space that it took.

[Callisto32]

16. Talk about stereotyping

I thought people who label themselves progressives were supposed to be against this kind of painting groups of people with broad, ignorant, generalized statements. You should really consider updating your methods, sir/madam. For that matter, I own guns and I like to drink beer every now and again. I NEVER combine the two activities, that is just asking for trouble, and most gun owners know it. Are there those who do stupid things like drink and shoot, of course. But then there are those that do stupid things like drink and drive. Why are you not indignant about Wal-Mart selling both beer and gasoline?

[sir pball]

18. Whaddya mean "start"?

Here in Maine, the Supercenters at least all sell long guns (actually a halfway decent selection), beer, wine, and hard liquor.

Now if they'd just start selling porn, it would be a true one-stop-shop! :D

[benEzra]

24. Most Wal-Marts never stopped selling guns...

and our local Wal-Marts have a wine section, I believe, though I personally don't drink (don't have anything against it, though).

FWIW, Wal-Mart only sells rifles and shotguns, so they're hardly a source of guns used in crimes.

Back in the early '90s, our local Wal-Mart sold civilian AK's, though they only stock traditional looking guns now. I almost bought one then, but went with an American-made Ruger rifle instead. The AK would have been more accurate, and a Poly Tech would have appreciated quite a bit due to its collectors' status after the Bush the Elder ban.

[gorfle]

8. Hmm.

Creating a record and alert system to record when a gun sold at Wal-Mart is later used in a crime. If the purchaser of that gun later tries to buy another gun at Wal-Mart, the system would alert the sales clerk of the prior buy and could refuse to make the sale.

So if some firearm I bought at Walmart and later sold is used in a crime, I can't ever buy a firearm from Walmart again?

Retaining the recorded images of gun sales in case law enforcement wants to view them later as part of an investigation.

They want to create a video record of all firearm purchases, eh?

Why not video purchases of all drug purchases, too, while we're at it? Catch the kids looking to get high on cold medicine and all.

The good news is I've never bought a firearm at Walmart and probably never would. They typically only carry hunting firearms and I'm not a hunter. I do buy ammo their because it's usually the cheapest.

[WWFZD]

10. How did that board meeting go?

Let's dis the rural, blue-collar shopper who built us into the world's largest retailer and pander to the type who wouldn't set foot in a WalMart if they gave their cheap, built by Chinese slave labor, crap away for free.
One more reason to stay out of WalMart, unless your name is Mike Bloomberg.

[iverglas]

11. now I'm confused

pander to the type who wouldn't set foot in a WalMart if they gave their cheap, built by Chinese slave labor, crap away for free.

Let's pretend I'm a resident of the US. (Not being, I have reasons of my own for not patronizing WalMart.)

Is that me? The type who wouldn't set foot in a WalMart etc.? Yer basic social-justice fan who tries not to shop at union-busting sweatshop-procuring community-wrecking retailers?

Gosh, I'm not used to being pandered to. Should I be flattered?


Let's dis the rural, blue-collar shopper who built us into the world's largest retailer

Like everything else WalMart has ever done hasn't amounted to dissing said shoppers anyhow.

First they came for the tax base ... then they came for the unions ... then they came for the third world sweatshop workers ... ho hum ... then THEY CAME FOR MY GUNS!!!!! Well, actually, they didn't, but you get the idea.

[WWFZD]

12. Legitimate criticism now, but in the early days they didn't

"Like everything else WalMart has ever done hasn't amounted to dissing said shoppers anyhow."

They started in small town southern USA. Old Sam built his retailing giant on the principles of sound management, clever merchandising and efficient distribution. They ran a lot of the old-time "mom-and-pop" five and dimes out of business but that's the law of the jungle, and a lot of those merchants had been gouging customers for years, as was their right. Some stayed in business and prospered with customer service and a better shopping experience but many went under because they didn't care.
Sam had a better business plan.
It's when WM started to lobby hard for so-called "free" trade with the slave empire that I began to have problems with them. They pressured our domestic suppliers so hard that they couldn't provide WM with the goods they needed at the prices they wanted to pay while lobbying the government, Dems and Reps, to let them import all they wanted from non-free China.
I have no problem with free trade with say, Canada or Germany, each maximizes it's comparative and absolute advantages while adhering to environmental standards and basic workers rights, more or less. China isn't concerned in the slightest if 1000 political prisoners die each year mining asbestos or the air is so foul that citizens die from breathing it.

[iverglas]

13. johnny come lately

Me, it didn't take right-wing propaganda about China, as if anything being done in WalMart's name there is any worse than what has been done in so many other places so much time before, in the name of so many other US interests, to persuade me that WalMart was the evil empire.

[WWFZD]

38. Lots of enlightened Europeans, Japanese, Chinese, Persians...

"Me, it didn't take right-wing propaganda about China, as if anything being done in WalMart's name there is any worse than what has been done in so many other places so much time before, in the name of so many other US interests, to persuade me that WalMart was the evil empire."

and their colonies, have propagated policies abroad in favor of their own national interests that have turned around to bite them on the ass, seems to be something we humans like to do.
We benighted Amurcins ain't the first, and we won't be the last. There's enough crap floating in that cesspool to gag us all. And we've all benefited from the good ideals.

[Callisto32]

17. My main issue with this....

is this part: "_Creating a record and alert system to record when a gun sold at Wal-Mart is later used in a crime. If the purchaser of that gun later tries to buy another gun at Wal-Mart, the system would alert the sales clerk of the prior buy and could refuse to make the sale."

This accomplishes nothing. Just because a person is the initial purchaser of a firearm, does not mean he owns it now, nor that he was the one responsible for the falling of the weapon into the hands of a criminal. The weapon could have legally changed hands 3 times before finally coming into the possession of the perpetrator of the crime via straw purchase, theft and so on. I suspect that this is another example of "feel-good" practice that will accomplish nothing in actual practice. Wal-Mart can do what they want, of course, but this will likely cost them lucrative sales, and gain nothing but a bit of clout with the like of the anti-gun crowd.

[iverglas]

19. who cares?

Just because a person is the initial purchaser of a firearm, does not mean he owns it now, nor that he was the one responsible for the falling of the weapon into the hands of a criminal. The weapon could have legally changed hands 3 times before finally coming into the possession of the perpetrator of the crime via straw purchase, theft and so on.

If WalMart thinks it unwise to sell a firearm to someone who loses it, allows it to be stolen, or transfers it to someone who is, or who transfers it to, a person who uses it in crime, then I won't be disagreeing with WalMart. Whatever reason it might have.

What it might accomplish is preventing another firearm being lost, stolen or transferred and used in the commission of a crime. Since WalMart has no way of knowing, it errs on the safe side. For whatever reason it might have.

Not breaking any laws, I assume, or violating any code of professional ethics or the like. Just exercising retail discretion.

[Callisto32]

20. If you can be bothered to actually READ what I wrote...

You will see that I said that Wal-Mart can exercise whatever kind of personal restrictions on themselves on whatever sales they wish. HOWEVER, I will always have a personal problem with people being treated like criminals (i.e. being denied the ability to purchase a firearm that is otherwise legal), when they are NOT. To treat people so is an affront to personal dignity, and just flat not gentlemanly. Now, I don't know about you but I attempt to conduct myself as a gentleman whenever possible, and generally hope for the same from others.

If WalMart thinks it unwise to sell a firearm to someone who loses it, allows it to be stolen, or transfers it to someone who is, or who transfers it to, a person who uses it in crime, then I won't be disagreeing with WalMart.

What it might accomplish is preventing another firearm being lost, stolen or transferred and used in the commission of a crime. Since WalMart has no way of knowing, it errs on the safe side. For whatever reason it might have.


What? So if I lose something while engaged in a totally legit activity, whatever it is, and that is later acquired by another and used in crime and traced back me as the original purchaser I should be stripped of my ability to acquire a replacement of said object? Again, an AFFRONT TO PERSONAL DIGNITY and an unacceptable way to treat your fellowman. (just my opinion, of course)


In sum, may they do it: of course. But I do not think that it is terribly respectful of their clientele, or a very good idea.

[apocalypsehow]

21. Ashley Wilkes, phone home.

You said: "What? So if I lose something while engaged in a totally legit activity, whatever it is, and that is later acquired by another and used in crime and traced back me as the original purchaser I should be stripped of my ability to acquire a replacement of said object?" (emphasis mine)

If it's a firearm we're talking about, the answer is yes: if a person is so careless, or forgetful, or just plain stupid as to "lose" a firearm in their possession, I dare say that person is too careless, too forgetful, or maybe just too plain stupid to own one in the first place. Whether criminal liability should attach to such carelessness/forgetfulness/stupidity is another question, and one that perhaps should hinge on the individual circumstances of said "loss." But should you be "stripped of my ability to acquire a replacement of said object?" if you can't manage to keep track of it? You bet you should - along with anyone else who can't live up to the mantra I constantly hear around here, that of the "responsible, law-abiding, gun-owner."

Cute that business about "whatever it is", though, as if someone was going to deny you another haircut if you misplaced your comb. I guess I should just get used to such diversionary silliness from our "pro-gun Democrats," but it's hard slip into that baffling mindset even after repeated exposure to it.

You said: "Again, an AFFRONT TO PERSONAL DIGNITY and an unacceptable way to treat your fellowman. (just my opinion, of course)"

LOL! Better than Comedy Central, this place is. Got any more laughs for us?

You said: "Now, I don't know about you but I attempt to conduct myself as a gentleman whenever possible, and generally hope for the same from others."

Do us all a "gentlemanly" favor and keep track of your firearm(s).


Edit to make clear: immediately reporting said loss to the authorities would be considered mitigating, of course, provided that report was on the up and up.

[SteveM]

23. Another prohibitionist...

You say:

If it's a firearm we're talking about, the answer is yes: if a person is so careless, or forgetful, or just plain stupid as to "lose" a firearm in their possession, I dare say that person is too careless, too forgetful, or maybe just too plain stupid to own one in the first place. Whether criminal liability should attach to such carelessness/forgetfulness/stupidity is another question, and one that perhaps should hinge on the individual circumstances of said "loss." But should you be "stripped of my ability to acquire a replacement of said object?" if you can't manage to keep track of it? You bet you should - along with anyone else who can't live up to the mantra I constantly hear around here, that of the "responsible, law-abiding, gun-owner."

Yet another attempt at prohibition using a "means test." What's next? Voting literacy tests? C'mon, someone could lose a gun in the lake while duck hunting, and someone happens upon it when the water is down, and you would 'strip...my ability to acquire a replacement.' That won't see the light of day in court. But we do see your desire to prohibit by any means necessary, and where folks like you sit behind a dais and render judgment.

Pretty weak and VERY authoritarian.

[apocalypsehow]

27. Another mephitic rhabdomantist...

See how just saying something makes it so?

Anyway, follow me down this yellow brick road: 1. SteveM owns a firearm he purchased at Wal-Mart. 2. SteveM "loses" that firearm. 3. SteveM does not report that "loss" immediately to the police. 4. That firearm winds up being used in a commission of a crime. 5. Someone ends up dead or wounded as a result of that crime committed with SteveM's firearm.

Now, I didn't address #3 in my reply above until just a second ago with a necessary edit: but let's put even that aside. What could possibly be construed as "prohibitionist" about holding "responsible, law-abiding gun owners" responsible for their wayward firearms? Especially when those firearms are used inflict death or injury on other human beings? I saying proscribing their ability to ever again put their friends & neighbors in potential harms way like that is the minimum "punishment" that should be imposed.

You said: "What's next? Voting literacy tests?"

When you go to the polls, do they require you to show possession of a firearm before they'll let you vote? Seriously? I'd consider moving. (:eyes:)

You said: "C'mon"

I couldn't have put it better myself.

[SteveM]

34. The immediate answer is in the Constitution

Losing a firearm doesn't abrogate, suspend or otherwise disqualify one from 2A rights. That's obvious. If You want to change that, then amend away.

In real life, someone stole my car. It could have been used to run over and kill someone. Fortunately, that didn't happen. Should I be prevented from buying another car?

Your "measure" would have the same effect as a "literacy test," subjecting citizens to the arbitrary whims of the government. The same effect can also be seen in "may issue" CCW laws. Why do you wish to give so much arbitrary power to the government? I sure don't.

[iverglas]

35. are you seriously suggesting

Your "measure" would have the same effect as a "literacy test," subjecting citizens to the arbitrary whims of the government.

that WalMart could not apply a literacy test to its customers if it wanted to?

Have you noticed yet that WalMart isn't actually a government agency?

Why do you wish to give so much arbitrary power to the government?

... Apparently not.

If you wanted to hold a political rally in WalMart's parking lot, could it stop you, or would that be violating your constitutional right to freedom of speech?


Are you seriously suggesting

Should I be prevented from buying another car?

that WalMart is preventing someone from buying a firearm?

Rinse and repeat.

[Tejas]

39. Not sure of the French translation

"Are you seriously suggesting that WalMart is preventing someone from buying a firearm?"



"_Creating a record and alert system to record when a gun sold at Wal-Mart is later used in a crime. If the purchaser of that gun later tries to buy another gun at Wal-Mart, the system would alert the sales clerk of the prior buy and could refuse to make the sale."

but around here, the above hints that they apparently would like to.

(bold added for the English-challenged)

;)

[iverglas]

40. I may have missed something here

Has WalMart become the one and only great big gun store in the US when I wasn't looking?

Just to make it really clear (although it would probably help if you cleaned your monitor or something):

how is WalMart preventing anyone from buying anything that they can perfectly well buy in umpty-seven hundred other places other than WalMart?

Maybe WalMart isn't just taking people's pictures, it's also abducting them and interning them in re-education camps?

[Tejas]

41. Yes, but we are here to help

The subject of the thread was the actions/planned actions/loony ideas proposed by Wallyworld, the result was posts concerning firearms sales or refusal thereof etc by Wallyworld.

Just to make it really clear (although it would probably help if you cleaned your monitor or something): how is WalMart preventing anyone from buying anything that they can perfectly well buy in umpty-seven hundred other places other than WalMart?

Just to make it really clear: Nobody said Wallyworld is/was/will/can (except maybe you).


"Maybe WalMart isn't just taking people's pictures, it's also abducting them and interning them in re-education camps?"

Don't worry, we have guns and bunches of lawyers, we won't let Wallyworld hurt you.

[iverglas]

43. don't give up your day job

The subject of this little tag end of the discussion is this statement, and the question with which it concludes:

In real life, someone stole my car.
It could have been used to run over and kill someone.
Fortunately, that didn't happen.
Should I be prevented from buying another car?

My response to that question having been:

Are you seriously suggesting that WalMart is preventing someone from buying a firearm?


Of course, I don't recall asking *you* that question.

But hell, if you'd like to answer it -- if you want to tell me whether SteveM was seriously suggesting that WalMart is preventing someone from buying a firearm -- go ahead.

Of course, if you want to keep equivocating as I imagine you are, and pretend that "a firearm" in my question refers to the very special and particular firearm that someone was trying to buy from WalMart, well, enjoy the game of solitaire.

[Tejas]

44. Rephrasing 101

"Are you seriously suggesting that WalMart is preventing someone from buying a firearm?"

Your "is" thing is not working, has no relevance to current Wallyworld policy.



"Of course, I don't recall asking *you* that question.

thank you, may I have another!

[apocalypsehow]

36. In Never Neverland, maybe.

You said: "The immediate answer is in the Constitution. Losing a firearm doesn't abrogate, suspend or otherwise disqualify one from 2A rights"

Let's even pretend for a micro-second that the Second Amendment really means what you like to fantasize it means. Even at that extremity, the "right" would still be subject to regulations - you know, that "well-regulated" part - that could reasonably preclude dipshits who manage to "lose" their firearms when that firearm just happens to be "found" at a crime scene, and is implicated in said crime, particularly if the loosee fails to take one bare step to inform law enforcement of said "loss."

But it doesn't, so it was just kinda one of those dippy hypotheticals that's it's fun to play around with from time to time, sorta like "if the moon really was made of blue cheese, would the man in the moon ever go hungry?'"

"In real life, someone stole my car. It could have been used to run over and kill someone. Fortunately, that didn't happen. Should I be prevented from buying another car?

Your "measure" would have the same effect as a "literacy test," subjecting citizens to the arbitrary whims of the government. The same effect can also be seen in "may issue" CCW laws. Why do you wish to give so much arbitrary power to the government? I sure don't."

Hold on, let me power these up and after my eyes have adjusted I'll get right back to you:

[SteveM]

48. Missed again. Better get your glasses back on...

YOU may like to think "well-regulated" refers to losing weapons and not reporting said, but when one reports for the militia, the requirement to to bring your own gun (which should tell you all you need to know about the primacy of individual rights). Having lost one, a militia commander may tell that person: "Go home and don't come back until you get a gun." Put another way, this guy doesn't even fall under your scheme of latter-day regulation because he doesn't have the gun go get into the militia in the first place.

Your wasting time with weak arguments which only put more arbitrary power into the hands of government.

[northzax]

47. of course it doesn't

WalMArt, however, is not the government, and they may believe they have a responsiblilty to only sell potentially lethal items to those who keep them out of the hands of criminals.

[SteveM]

49. I have no argument with what WalMart "may believe." It's the gov.

But I will not shop there.

[Callisto32]

25. You know what?

The reason I said "whatever it is," was not to suggest something like the comb situation that you use to make a hyperbolic argument obviously not in line with the spirit of the discussion at hand. Rather it was to avoid saying something like "so if I drop my lighter, and somebody uses it to commit arson, then I can't replace it. " Because if I HAD said that, people would shriek "but guns are DIFFERENT they are only used to KILL/MAIM/MURDER/RAPE/PILLAGE/BLAH BLAH BLAH. So, you know what: apparently I'm damned if I do, and damned if I don't. That business about being "cute" is just being a jerk on your part and suggesting that I am the one attempting to make a hyperbolic argument. I said NO SUCH THING and presumed that those reading the post would be of the level of intellectual honesty to keep the comments within the obvious spirit of the statement. Unfortunately, such intellectual honesty seems to be on the "okay to through out" list around these boards. It was NOT "diversionary silliness" as you suggest, but an attempt to make a point without using any analogies. Since in "anti-freedom Democrats" (where I would include you, based upon your apparent assent to the idea of depriving people of arms)minds, there seems to be no other tool in all the history of mankind that is anywhere near in the same category as guns. <sarcasm> You know, because they are so terribly evil/terrible/father-raping/mother-killing/world-hunger-causing what-have-you's. </sarcasm>

Finally, you make another hyperbolic statement by seeming to assume that I would be in favor of absolving all negligence on the part of gun owners. This is not the case. But accidents do happen. Hypothetical: A man is hiking in bear country and while taking all necessary precautions to avoid any encounters of the bruin kind he would still like the peace of mind of knowing that he (the soft, pink, fang-and-claw-less primate that he his) has the appropriate tool (in this case let's say a carbine in .44magnum) to deal with the situation should it arise. Just for kicks, let us assume that he has no choice to to travel through this territory, on foot as there is no way to access the necessary place by vehicle. Now, in the course of this, this may is unfortunate enough to drop his rifle down the side of whatever precipice you may wish to envision when the rifle becomes tangled on some tree branches and he attempts to untangle the mess. Well, he searches but to no avail and gives the rifle up for lost. Let's say he exercised a little something known as due diligence. It is subsequently found, and used in the commission of a crime. Should that man be treated as a criminal? I would say not, and that to do so would be an affront to his personal dignity.

I find the fact that you consider my position of treating those who are not criminal as criminals so hilarious to be some kind of sad self-commentary about your own feelings on how it is okay to treat other human beings.



You said: "Now, I don't know about you but I attempt to conduct myself as a gentleman whenever possible, and generally hope for the same from others."

Do us all a "gentlemanly" favor and keep track of your firearm(s).

Cheap shot, shame on you, sir. To suggest that I am somehow less of a gentleman (I am assuming here) because I hold a position on a situation different than your own indicates to me that you have a position on discourse that requires a bit of maturation. To suggest that I would be negligent with my arms...that is simply an appalling personal attack which has NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with my veracity on this matter.

[iverglas]

28. "intellectual honesty"?

This from the person who said:

What? So if I lose something while engaged in a totally legit activity, whatever it is, and that is later acquired by another and used in crime and traced back me as the original purchaser I should be stripped of my ability to acquire a replacement of said object?

to someone who had not said anything from which this could be reasonably inferred ("so")?


I used to have a bookmark for an excellent article demonstrating how the "so you're saying ..." formulation is used to such excellent effect by the right wing in public discourse in the US today ...

[apocalypsehow]

29. Jesus wept.

"Hypothetical: A man is hiking in bear country and while taking all necessary precautions to avoid any encounters of the bruin kind he would still like the peace of mind of knowing that he (the soft, pink, fang-and-claw-less primate that he his) has the appropriate tool (in this case let's say a carbine in .44magnum) to deal with the situation should it arise. Just for kicks, let us assume that he has no choice to to travel through this territory, on foot as there is no way to access the necessary place by vehicle. Now, in the course of this, this may is unfortunate enough to drop his rifle down the side of whatever precipice you may wish to envision when the rifle becomes tangled on some tree branches and he attempts to untangle the mess. Well, he searches but to no avail and gives the rifle up for lost. Let's say he exercised a little something known as due diligence. It is subsequently found, and used in the commission of a crime. Should that man be treated as a criminal? I would say not, and that to do so would be an affront to his personal dignity."

Lord. Have. Mercy.

"I find the fact that you consider my position of treating those who are not criminal as criminals so hilarious to be some kind of sad self-commentary about your own feelings on how it is okay to treat other human beings"

Ditto.

"To suggest that I would be negligent with my arms...that is simply an appalling personal attack which has NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with my veracity on this matter"

Alrighty then. I guess that clears that up. Breathe deeply, close your eyes, click your heels together three times, and repeat after me:

There's no place like home...
There's no place like home...
There's no place like home...

[iverglas]

30. "intellectual honesty"?

This one is cute too:

I find the fact that you consider my position of treating those who are not criminal as criminals so hilarious to be some kind of sad self-commentary about your own feelings on how it is okay to treat other human beings.

Hmm. What is "treating those who are not criminal as criminals"?

Myself, I'd probably prefer not to have sex with criminals. So I would turn down an invitation from Conrad Black for a fab weekend in Maui once he gets out. Pretty definitely. Now, if I also turn down an invitation from you to the same effect, am I treating you as if you were a criminal, and is this "some kind of sad self-commentary about (my) own feelings on how it is okay to treat other human beings"?

Or are you just a sore loser?

[iverglas]

22. who cares?

I will always have a personal problem with people being treated like criminals (i.e. being denied the ability to purchase a firearm that is otherwise legal), when they are NOT.

You can characterize that as "being treated like criminals" if you like. What it actually is, is being treated like someone who was the owner of a firearm used in a crime to whom WalMart does not wish to sell another firearm.


What? So if I lose something while engaged in a totally legit activity, whatever it is, and that is later acquired by another and used in crime and traced back me as the original purchaser I should be stripped of my ability to acquire a replacement of said object?

Omigawd! Yikes!!!! Did somebody say that?!?!?

You might want to have a word with whoever it was, eh?


Again, an AFFRONT TO PERSONAL DIGNITY and an unacceptable way to treat your fellowman. (just my opinion, of course)

Well, as affronts to personal dignity go, ...

"Fellowman". Uh huh.


In sum, may they do it: of course. But I do not think that it is terribly respectful of their clientele, or a very good idea.

And I can think of four thousand nine hundred and eighty-two things that WalMart does that aren't respectful of its customers, its workers, the communities it operates in, the environment, the workers that supply it with products ... and that I might actually think worth worrying about.

[Callisto32]

26. sigh, why do I waste my time responding to you, it's just what you want from me....

Again, an AFFRONT TO PERSONAL DIGNITY and an unacceptable way to treat your fellowman. (just my opinion, of course)

Well, as affronts to personal dignity go, ...

"Fellowman". Uh huh.


Sorry, if I do not take the time to type his/her ladies/gentlemen him/her et cetera each and every time I use a gendered word. If I were addressing somebody directly, and knew their sex then I would use the appropriate term. Please, pardon my UN-PC-NESS if I opt for the traditional English collective gender, which happens to be male.

In sum, may they do it: of course. But I do not think that it is terribly respectful of their clientele, or a very good idea.

And I can think of four thousand nine hundred and eighty-two things that WalMart does that aren't respectful of its customers, its workers, the communities it operates in, the environment, the workers that supply it with products ... and that I might actually think worth worrying about.

I, too have many issues with the way Wal-Mart does business, but those are NOT the points at contention in this discussion. As such, I would appreciate if you kept any comments directed toward my part of this discourse germane to the topic at hand.

I have already responded to your first point in another post.

[Tejas]

42. Calling ex-girlfriends over and over

at 2 in the morning and telling them to forget you doesn't usually work well either.

;)

[Tejas]

31. Walmart stock will go in the dumpster

"_Creating a record and alert system to record when a gun sold at Wal-Mart is later used in a crime. If the purchaser of that gun later tries to buy another gun at Wal-Mart, the system would alert the sales clerk of the prior buy and could refuse to make the sale."


when plaintiff's lawyers get through with Wallyworld.

[iverglas]

32. is that an invitation to wager?

And here I thought it was going to be because of the giant boycott that the NRA was going to organize ... but no:

when plaintiff's lawyers get through with Wallyworld.

Okay. I give. The cause of action will be ...?

[pipoman]

33. Nonsense

WalMart is sued every day of the year. They have teams of lawyers who are quite capable of defending them against frivolous claims, which it would be if some moron lawyer actually attempted to invent a cause for action based on this policy IMHO.

[apocalypsehow]

37. Hey Tex

If you find an attorney, or even a person walking along the sidewalk for that matter, who seriously believes they've got some kind of tort action against Wal-Mart over this policy, please point them in my direction.

I've got some ocean-front property in Kansas to sell them.

[Lefty48197]

45. Does this mean Republicans will stop shopping at Walmart.

?

[joehack]

46. OKAY

nothing wrong with that i think