Posted on 07/02/2014 4:12:46 PM PDT by kingattax
As a Target spokeswoman made clear to the Star Tribune, “It is not a ban,” she said. “There is no prohibition.”
http://www.startribune.com/business/265535731.html
maybe this is the most realistic action that Target could take to stop the social media attacks from Bloomberg’s checkbook activists. Target is saying, “Hey, we just want to sell soap. Don’t drag us into your political fight.”
You may have meant that but saying “not deterred” is a lot different than saying “encouraged”.
A person seeking harm is not only not deterred from entering a place with a no-firearms policy, he is actually encouraged to do so as now he knows their are defenseless awaiting him.
I tried to send to Target corporate a comment on its new policy so I logged into its comments page.
Funny thing: after logging my comment I kept getting the words “correct your comment”.
So it would never accept it.
Funny, eh?
You missed the whole point of my post. Give it up.
And you are too blind to see you did not go far enough
Please go back and read my post. I was going to spend 4 or 5 paragraphs here explaining it for you, not worth it. I am not trying to define reality but mimic their way of thinking. “Oh, gee, this terrible shooting would never have happened if we didn’t allow guns; they wouldn’t have ... (continued rationalizations...).
We cannot communicate if you cannot see that simply stating what you did is not the point.
Encouragement is what Target did, a far cry from you what you stated in black and white.
you are right. we can’t communicate because you are so freaking worked up misinterpreting my post. The purpose of my post was to relay what a LIBERAL thinks will happen when they implment these policies.
“you are right. we can’t communicate because you are so freaking worked up misinterpreting my post. The purpose of my post was to relay what a LIBERAL thinks will happen when they implment these policies.”
Ok, here’s your original post “So plain to me, but they seem to be confounded by the concept that someone coming into to rob/kill/maim is not going to be deterred by your policy not allowing firearms on the premises.”
Item 1: I am not misinterpreting you whatsoever. I agree with your assessment you originally made.
Item 2: I added that you did not go far enough. Not only does it NOT deter anyone but it actually ENCOURAGES those same people.
Item 3: wake up. We are on the same page.
Target’s statement just says “firearms”. They’re making no distinction between open carry and concealed carry.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.