Many people, including owners/managers of private or corporately held business enterprises doubtless hold any number of poorly-considered or emotionally-determined sociopolitical views and opinions.
They'd usually be wise to air them under circumstances and with people inclined to be sympathetic to their ideas, and otherwise to keep them to themselves!
"Therefore, since the world has still... Much good, but much less good than ill,
And while the sun and moon endure, Luck's a chance, but trouble's sure,
I'd face it as a wise man would, And train for ill and not for good." -- A.E. Housman
I wear wrangler and levis. I will continue to do so, if I boycotted everyone who didn't like guns I would never see any new tv shows, movies, read books, talk to half my family, or apparently shop for clothes. They are allowed their opinion, it doesn't mean I have to agree with. I would love to have an open discussion with the person who made this statement and try to persuade him to see my point of view but I am not outraged by his reaction.
Last edited by breakingtime91; 12-02-2016 at 12:02 PM.
I'm glad I read your post. Just reading the opening post doesn't explain what caused the letter to come out. The link gives a tad more info. Glad he posted the letter vs banning guns from his stores...even though I hit the outlet once a decade.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Using Tapatalk
I firmly believe that they have the right to ban gun from their property or as they are doing ask that people not bring guns in. It's their right. I don't necessarily agree that because 1 guy had an ND they should broad brush all gun owners as idiots. How would people feel if he asked black people to stay out since some store somewhere was robbed by a black dude. He'd be called a fucking idiot and rightfully so.
They have the right to ask and we have the right to either ignore them or take our $$ somewhere else. My choice is the latter. Never bought their overpriced crap and never will. $15.00 wranglers work just the same.
I wear Lucky anyway. As far as I know they've never gotten politically stupid because they know they make JEANS, not public policy, they're more comfortable, better quality denim, and Levi never has enough room in the crotch.
Which probably says something about their clientele.
Last edited by LockedBreech; 12-02-2016 at 12:33 PM.
State Government Attorney | Beretta, Glock, CZ & S&W Fan
How many NDs are sufficient for a corporation to act? Three? Until someone gets hurt?
Black people will not get sued if one black guy robs a store. A mega million corporation will likely get sued for negligence if the next ND injured a third party and plaintiff made a point of a prior ND incident left without a corporate response. ND on business premises is a lose-lose proposition even for a pro2A organization. I've no illusion where Levi stands on this issue in general, but in this instance their response is as diplomatic as it can be.
Last edited by YVK; 12-02-2016 at 12:47 PM.
"It boils down to this: you shouldn't have to be concerned about your safety while shopping for clothes or trying on a pair of jeans."
Oh, how thoughtful of him to decide when and where I should be concerned about MY safety.
We like Levi's--501's make really good 4 layer denim test articles...
Facts matter...Feelings Can Lie