Moms Gun Sense Group To Go To Kroger Meeting Armed, No Guns Necessary
Members of Moms Demand Action, including founder Shannon Watts, will rally outside of Kroger’s investor relations meeting and they will be armed with radio ads and billboard trucks (see image for an example). The trucks will drive around the meeting in order to point out just how unreasonable their current policy is, and a full page open letter will be published in the Cincinnati Enquirer.
“If you allow one [poodle] then you allow two, then” there’s a problem, the employee says.
No, really.
Listen:
Because poodles.
With a kid on a scooter there is a “liability” issue but not with loaded firearms.
Listen:
The majority of shoppers at Kroger do not support Open Carry in the stores, even though many are gun owners.
64% of Kroger shoppers think customers should not be allowed to openly carry guns in Kroger
grocery stores.83% say stores should be allowed to prevent customers from bringing guns into their stores.
Further, 61% of shoppers who have guns in their home do not believe it would be an
infringement on their 2nd Amendment rights for a store to prevent people from openly carrying
a gun in a store.This indicates that Kroger would likely not provoke a widespread political response if it
chooses to act.
The open letter to Kroger can be seen here.
Sign the gun sense group’s petition here. Petitions with more than 300,000 signatures have already been delivered. Tweet using the hashtag, #GroceriesNotGuns to show your support. Show the massive chain store that your safety should mean more them.
Kroger, we’re going to have to break up if this situation is not rectified. I spent several hundred dollars last week — at another store. It could have been you. It used to be you.
Big thanks to my source whose anonymity will be respected here.
Copyright 2014 Liberaland
By: Anomaly100
112 responses to Moms Gun Sense Group To Go To Kroger Meeting Armed, No Guns Necessary
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
rg9rts October 29th, 2014 at 10:31
Corporate america is too scared of the gun nuts
tiredoftea October 29th, 2014 at 10:53
Until their enough of their revenue is threatened.
M D Reese October 29th, 2014 at 13:11
…until it starts costing them too much money. I wonder who’s liable if an open carry gun nut kills somebody’s child in the store after Krogers invited the gun nuts and their guns into the store? They may be accomplices to negligent homicide or depraved indifference or something.
Unless the child is black of course, and then the little thug drew first…
rg9rts October 29th, 2014 at 14:12
They’ll just say the child should be packin too
rg9rts October 29th, 2014 at 10:31
Corporate america is too scared of the gun nuts
tiredoftea October 29th, 2014 at 10:53
Until their enough of their revenue is threatened.
M D Reese October 29th, 2014 at 13:11
…until it starts costing them too much money. I wonder who’s liable if an open carry gun nut kills somebody’s child in the store after Krogers invited the gun nuts and their guns into the store? They may be accomplices to negligent homicide or depraved indifference or something.
Unless the child is black of course, and then the little thug drew first…
rg9rts October 29th, 2014 at 14:12
They’ll just say the child should be packin too
tiredoftea October 29th, 2014 at 10:55
A loss of the good will of the public will be enough for Kroger to change its short sighted gun carrying policy.
tiredoftea October 29th, 2014 at 10:55
A loss of the good will of the public will be enough for Kroger to change its short sighted gun carrying policy.
arc99 October 29th, 2014 at 11:21
The firearms fetishists do not demonstrate any ability to understand that rights are not absolute. Regulating those rights in the name of public order and safety is not “infringement”.
Can I stroll around Kroger’s wearing nothing but a pair of tennis shoes?
Can I marry a 12 year old girl because “god” told me to?
Can I walk through a quiet subdivision at 3am in the morning with a bullhorn waking people up and expressing my viewpoint?
Yes, I “can” do all of those things in exercising my first amendment rights. In each instance, I could also expect a visit from local law enforcement as well. No right is absolute. The gun worshipers need a civics lesson. A quick lesson on manners wouldn’t hurt either.
Red Eye Robot October 29th, 2014 at 14:17
“Can I stroll around Kroger’s wearing nothing but a pair of tennis shoes?”
Kroger is private property, they have supreme right to set policy consistent with the law.
“Can I marry a 12 year old girl because “god” told me to?”
No, Unlike open carry and Kroger’s policy it is against the law
“Can I walk through a quiet subdivision at 3am in the morning with a bullhorn waking people up and expressing my viewpoint?”
Again, it is against the law, open carry is not. Please explain the relationship.
“Yes, I “can” do all of those things in exercising my first amendment rights. In each instance, I could also expect a visit from local law enforcement as well. No right is absolute. The gun worshipers need a civics lesson. A quick lesson on manners wouldn’t hurt either.”
If you have a problem with open carry change the law.
arc99 October 29th, 2014 at 14:37
again you miss the point entirely. yes, there are laws against each of the activities I mentioned. the point is that none of those laws are an infringement on first amendment rights.
your answer is completely disingenuous. you know as well as I do that if open carry law is repealed in any state, the NRA activists would be ranting about “infringement”.
the relationship is quite simple. regulating Constitutionally protected rights in the name of public safety is not infringement.
Red Eye Robot October 29th, 2014 at 18:37
No you don’t get it THERE IS NO LAW AGAINST OPEN CARRY IN THE STATES WHERE THIS HAPPENS. to equivocate something that is PERFECTLY LEGAL with something that is not legal is a false analogy Furthermore, Kroger is PRIVATE PROPERTY they may set policy in their stores any way they please consistent with the law. If Kroger chooses to allow open carry in it’s stores your only legal recourse is to change the law.
Pistol-Packing October 29th, 2014 at 19:39
Soooooooo, a law that would require a person to have proper identification before voting would not be a problem then.. ???
mea_mark October 29th, 2014 at 19:55
Not if it doesn’t cost the person anything to obtain. If the government is going to require documentation that cost the person trying to get identification money, the government should have to pay for that. Otherwise it is an unconstitutional poll tax.
Pistol-Packing October 29th, 2014 at 20:10
Ok, so then here is a question. Is it a “Poll Tax” to charge me licensing and permitting fees to own a firearm that is protected under my constitutional right?
mea_mark October 29th, 2014 at 20:12
Not until we start voting with bullets.
Pistol-Packing October 29th, 2014 at 20:20
Ahhhhhhhhh I see said the Blind man to his Deaf Dog !!!!
arc99 October 29th, 2014 at 11:21
The firearms fetishists do not demonstrate any ability to understand that rights are not absolute. Regulating those rights in the name of public order and safety is not “infringement”.
Can I stroll around Kroger’s wearing nothing but a pair of tennis shoes?
Can I marry a 12 year old girl because “god” told me to?
Can I walk through a quiet subdivision at 3am in the morning with a bullhorn waking people up and expressing my viewpoint?
Yes, I “can” do all of those things in exercising my first amendment rights. In each instance, I could also expect a visit from local law enforcement as well. No right is absolute. The gun worshipers need a civics lesson. A quick lesson on manners wouldn’t hurt either.
Red Eye Robot October 29th, 2014 at 14:17
“Can I stroll around Kroger’s wearing nothing but a pair of tennis shoes?”
Kroger is private property, they have supreme right to set policy consistent with the law.
“Can I marry a 12 year old girl because “god” told me to?”
No, Unlike open carry and Kroger’s policy it is against the law
“Can I walk through a quiet subdivision at 3am in the morning with a bullhorn waking people up and expressing my viewpoint?”
Again, it is against the law, open carry is not. Please explain the relationship.
“Yes, I “can” do all of those things in exercising my first amendment rights. In each instance, I could also expect a visit from local law enforcement as well. No right is absolute. The gun worshipers need a civics lesson. A quick lesson on manners wouldn’t hurt either.”
If you have a problem with open carry change the law.
arc99 October 29th, 2014 at 14:37
again you miss the point entirely. yes, there are laws against each of the activities I mentioned. the point is that none of those laws are an infringement on first amendment rights.
your answer is completely disingenuous. you know as well as I do that if open carry law is repealed in any state, the NRA activists would be ranting about “infringement”.
the relationship is quite simple. regulating Constitutionally protected rights in the name of public safety is not infringement.
Red Eye Robot October 29th, 2014 at 18:37
No you don’t get it THERE IS NO LAW AGAINST OPEN CARRY IN THE STATES WHERE THIS HAPPENS. to equivocate something that is PERFECTLY LEGAL with something that is not legal is a false analogy Furthermore, Kroger is PRIVATE PROPERTY they may set policy in their stores any way they please consistent with the law. If Kroger chooses to allow open carry in it’s stores your only legal recourse is to change the law.
Pistol-Packing AKA "Susie" October 29th, 2014 at 19:39
Soooooooo, a law that would require a person to have proper identification before voting would not be a problem then.. ???
mea_mark October 29th, 2014 at 19:55
Not if it doesn’t cost the person anything to obtain. If the government is going to require documentation that cost the person trying to get identification money, the government should have to pay for that. Otherwise it is an unconstitutional poll tax.
Pistol-Packing AKA "Susie" October 29th, 2014 at 20:10
Ok, so then here is a question. Is it a “Poll Tax” to charge me licensing and permitting fees to own a firearm that is protected under my constitutional right?
mea_mark October 29th, 2014 at 20:12
Not until we start voting with bullets.
Pistol-Packing AKA "Susie" October 29th, 2014 at 20:20
Ahhhhhhhhh I see said the Blind man to his Deaf Dog !!!!
Pistol-Packing October 29th, 2014 at 11:49
Looks like MOMS are throwing a Temper Tantrum because they have not bullied another company into what they want yet…
Hirightnow October 29th, 2014 at 12:03
Like these open-carry types throw tantrums because of their desire to wave their surrogate dicks around?
I’m just waiting for some “good guy with a gun” to “accidentally” blow off some black woman’s head because they thought that that zucchini was a pistol and that the race wars had started.
And make no mistake…it’s gonna happen; the stupidity of the OC crowd ensures it.
Pistol-Packing October 29th, 2014 at 20:18
Hey…. It is perfectly understandably how a person can mistake a zucchini for a deadly weapon…
How do you not see that ????
Budda October 29th, 2014 at 12:07
They are not “throwing a temper tantrum’ as much as they are demonstrating, using their First Amendment Rights but with better manners than the gun nuts.
M D Reese October 29th, 2014 at 13:07
They’re also using a lot more of their civil rights. The gunnuts only use the second half of the Second Amendment.
arc99 October 29th, 2014 at 12:17
why is it that it is called bullying only when people who oppose the NRA voice their concerns?
just a few days ago, there was a report of a new law in Pennsylvania which will make it easier for the NRA to sue municipalities, should those towns and their elected officials approve gun control measures.
the NRA has a free hand to sue small towns into bankruptcy, contradicting the will of the people who live in those towns, and it is the MOMS who are bullies?
as John McEnroe would say, You can not be serious.
Wayout October 29th, 2014 at 13:14
Pa state law PROHIBITS local governments from imposing gun ordinances. It’s called “state pre-emption” and the reason for this is to keep gun laws uniform statewide so a citizen with a firearm is not legal in one town and illegal in another. Any town that passes it’s own gun laws IS IN VIOLATION of state law and they should be rightly held accountable for their criminal action.
tracey marie October 29th, 2014 at 13:20
this is a store not a town, they may ban guns if they want.
Pistol-Packing October 29th, 2014 at 13:26
No you Dimwit, it is a town. Try reading insted of having penis on the brain… Which is all you seam to be able to equate to,
tracey marie October 29th, 2014 at 14:06
do you like penis, i bet you do
arc99 October 29th, 2014 at 14:32
for months, conservatives have been telling us that it is the duty of every patriot to ignore laws they disagree with, as they celebrate county clerks who refuse to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples.
but now the law is sacrosanct?
what changed?
Pistol-Packing October 29th, 2014 at 13:14
I agree with the law about suing municipalities that impose laws greater then what the state does. Here is why. When you have multiple municipalities making their own ordinances and laws, it becomes a pitfall of traps that would be impossible for anyone to be able to follow. Imagine a “Legal” gun owner who is traveling from one county to another. Some towns have “NO FIREARMS ALLOWED”, others have more strict transport laws, some have no laws. How does one know??
As far as the requirement to report a stolen firearm within 72 hours of finding out. Personally, I agree with it. But you cant have laws that differ. Apply the same theory to any other activity in your life if that would be allowed to stand.
We have a similar problem here in New Jersey, where many towns have made licensing requirements ten times harder then what the state requires. excessive delays in permitting. which is all in direct violation of the NJ statue. I would like to see it applied here as well.
tracey marie October 29th, 2014 at 13:20
lol, you manhood is shrinking because women are unafraid of your big mouthed threats and denigrating comments
R.J. Carter October 29th, 2014 at 13:26
Actually, they are afraid of the guns — which is why they’re protesting.
mea_mark October 29th, 2014 at 14:07
They aren’t afraid of the guns so much as it is the mental state of those that may be possessing them. You just can’t tell what someone is thinking by looking at them.
Pistol-Packing October 29th, 2014 at 13:33
Hmmmmmmm Threats and denigrating comments…. Interesting…
Sy Colepath October 29th, 2014 at 13:41
The panty waist’s could avoid those legal “pitfalls” by leaving their penile extensions at home.
Pistol-Packing October 29th, 2014 at 14:02
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA Another comedian !!!! You guys are just soooooooo damnnnn funny… I think I just broke a rib laughing so hard…..
arc99 October 29th, 2014 at 13:46
whether or not you support the law is not the issue.
the issue is why you refer to the MOMS as “bullying” when their tactics pale in comparison to the heavy-handed antics of the NRA.
I admit I also find it more than a little maddening over the way conservatives are all for local control, except when it conflicts with their agenda.
It is up to the gun owner to make himself aware of the laws in whatever jurisdiction he finds himself. I have zero sympathy for someone unable to perform that simple task of being a responsible gun owner. A phone call to the local police department is all that is required.
I always have to laugh at those who would have us believe that 2nd amendment rights are under assault.
When someone who wants to buy a gun has to sit through an orientation video showing gunshot victims, at the one facility in the entire state where a firearm can be purchased, then I will concede that gun rights are under assault.
That is what is happening right now for many women who want an abortion. Their rights are certainly under assault. Gun owners, not so much.
Pistol-Packing October 29th, 2014 at 14:00
I disagree 100% on yer dissertation about the gun owner should have to call each municipality. Way-out actually named the law in his thread. State Pre-Emption.. Now, take that same principle and apply it to anything the individual towns want to apply it to.
No dogs over 20 pounds, no cars over 200 horsepower, no driving until you are 25, etc.. etc…
arc99 October 29th, 2014 at 14:15
Many communities have breed-specific dog bans.
As for automobiles, I do not see your analogy. Individual communities designate speed limits, parking fees and parking restrictions for legally owned vehicles. Where I live, banning vehicle traffic on certain streets is a weekly occurrence in support of the downtown farmer’s market.
Some communities even ban performing maintenance while parked on city streets. These laws affecting the ownership and operation of vehicles are no different than laws on reporting the theft of firearms which were legally owned,
Pistol-Packing October 29th, 2014 at 20:06
It is actually simple enough to figure out the point I am making…
I know of no town ordinances that actually forbid you from a specific breed, but lets not get into the nuances.
The point is very simple…
Jeremiah Roper October 30th, 2014 at 22:35
“why is it that it is called bullying only when people who oppose the NRA voice their concerns?”
Because if legal gun owners were bullies it would be called assault with a deadly weapon. Luckily responsible gun owners are not bullies. And luckily the NRA is their to help them keep their rights.
tracey marie October 29th, 2014 at 13:18
typing one handed again because women scare you
Pistol-Packing October 29th, 2014 at 13:34
BHAAAAAAAAAAAA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA !!!!!!!!
You make me laugh…
Pistol-Packing AKA "Susie" October 29th, 2014 at 11:49
Looks like MOMS are throwing a Temper Tantrum because they have not bullied another company into what they want yet…
Hirightnow October 29th, 2014 at 12:03
Like these open-carry types throw tantrums because of their desire to wave their surrogate dicks around?
I’m just waiting for some “good guy with a gun” to “accidentally” blow off some black woman’s head because they thought that that zucchini was a pistol and that the race wars had started.
And make no mistake…it’s gonna happen; the stupidity of the OC crowd ensures it.
Pistol-Packing AKA "Susie" October 29th, 2014 at 20:18
Hey…. It is perfectly understandably how a person can mistake a zucchini for a deadly weapon…
How do you not see that ????
Budda October 29th, 2014 at 12:07
They are not “throwing a temper tantrum’ as much as they are demonstrating, using their First Amendment Rights but with better manners than the gun nuts.
M D Reese October 29th, 2014 at 13:07
They’re also using a lot more of their civil rights. The gunnuts only use the second half of the Second Amendment.
arc99 October 29th, 2014 at 12:17
why is it that it is called bullying only when people who oppose the NRA voice their concerns?
just a few days ago, there was a report of a new law in Pennsylvania which will make it easier for the NRA to sue municipalities, should those towns and their elected officials approve gun control measures.
the NRA has a free hand to sue small towns into bankruptcy, contradicting the will of the people who live in those towns, and it is the MOMS who are bullies?
as John McEnroe would say, You can not be serious.
THIS is bullying. Facing financial catastrophe, a law that was unanimously approved by the town council is in jeopardy.
http://www.mcall.com/news/local/allentown/mc-allentown-gun-law-repeal-lawsuit-2-20141023-story.html#page=1
Allentown Mayor Ed Pawlowski has called for the repeal of a local gun law that could open up the city to a costly lawsuit, thanks to a move by the state Legislature.
In the final minutes of the legislative session Monday, lawmakers approved a bill that clears the way for the National Rifle Association and other groups to sue municipalities that enact ordinances stricter than state firearms laws.
That’s bad news for Allentown, where since 2008 a law has been on the books that requires the owners of lost or stolen firearms to report those thefts to police or face fines and even jail time. While Pennsylvania has considered such a law, it has never been passed.
Wayout October 29th, 2014 at 13:14
Pa state law PROHIBITS local governments from imposing gun ordinances. It’s called “state pre-emption” and the reason for this is to keep gun laws uniform statewide so a citizen with a firearm is not legal in one town and illegal in another. Any town that passes it’s own gun laws IS IN VIOLATION of state law and they should be rightly held accountable for their criminal action.
tracey marie October 29th, 2014 at 13:20
this is a store not a town, they may ban guns if they want.
arc99 October 29th, 2014 at 14:32
for months, conservatives have been telling us that it is the duty of every patriot to ignore laws they disagree with, as they celebrate county clerks who refuse to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples.
but now the law is sacrosanct?
what changed?
Pistol-Packing AKA "Susie" October 29th, 2014 at 13:14
I agree with the law about suing municipalities that impose laws greater then what the state does. Here is why. When you have multiple municipalities making their own ordinances and laws, it becomes a pitfall of traps that would be impossible for anyone to be able to follow. Imagine a “Legal” gun owner who is traveling from one county to another. Some towns have “NO FIREARMS ALLOWED”, others have more strict transport laws, some have no laws. How does one know??
As far as the requirement to report a stolen firearm within 72 hours of finding out. Personally, I agree with it. But you cant have laws that differ. Apply the same theory to any other activity in your life if that would be allowed to stand.
We have a similar problem here in New Jersey, where many towns have made licensing requirements ten times harder then what the state requires. excessive delays in permitting. which is all in direct violation of the NJ statue. I would like to see it applied here as well.
R.J. Carter October 29th, 2014 at 13:26
Actually, they are afraid of the guns — which is why they’re protesting.
mea_mark October 29th, 2014 at 14:07
They aren’t afraid of the guns so much as it is the mental state of those that may be possessing them. You just can’t tell what someone is thinking by looking at them.
Pistol-Packing AKA "Susie" October 29th, 2014 at 13:33
Hmmmmmmm Threats and denigrating comments…. Interesting…
Sy Colepath October 29th, 2014 at 13:41
The pantywaists could avoid those legal “pitfalls” by leaving their penile extensions at home.
Pistol-Packing AKA "Susie" October 29th, 2014 at 14:02
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA Another comedian !!!! You guys are just soooooooo damnnnn funny… I think I just broke a rib laughing so hard…..
arc99 October 29th, 2014 at 13:46
whether or not you support the law is not the issue.
the issue is why you refer to the MOMS as “bullying” when their tactics pale in comparison to the heavy-handed antics of the NRA.
I admit I also find it more than a little maddening over the way conservatives are all for local control, except when it conflicts with their agenda.
It is up to the gun owner to make himself aware of the laws in whatever jurisdiction he finds himself. I have zero sympathy for someone unable to perform that simple task of being a responsible gun owner. A phone call to the local police department is all that is required.
I always have to laugh at those who would have us believe that 2nd amendment rights are under assault.
When someone who wants to buy a gun has to sit through an orientation video showing gunshot victims, at the one facility in the entire state where a firearm can be purchased, then I will concede that gun rights are under assault.
That is what is happening right now for many women who want an abortion. Their rights are certainly under assault. Gun owners, not so much.
Pistol-Packing AKA "Susie" October 29th, 2014 at 14:00
I disagree 100% on yer dissertation about the gun owner should have to call each municipality. Way-out actually named the law in his thread. State Pre-Emption.. Now, take that same principle and apply it to anything the individual towns want to apply it to.
No dogs over 20 pounds, no cars over 200 horsepower, no driving until you are 25, etc.. etc…
arc99 October 29th, 2014 at 14:15
Many communities have breed-specific dog bans as well as laws dictating the number of pets you can keep on your property, regardless of your ability to properly care for them.
As for automobiles, I do not see your analogy. Individual communities designate speed limits, parking fees and parking restrictions for legally owned vehicles. Where I live, banning vehicle traffic on certain streets is a weekly occurrence in support of the downtown farmer’s market.
Some communities even ban performing maintenance while parked on city streets. These laws affecting the ownership and operation of vehicles are no different than laws on reporting the theft of firearms which were legally owned,
Pistol-Packing AKA "Susie" October 29th, 2014 at 20:06
It is actually simple enough to figure out the point I am making…
I know of no town ordinances that actually forbid you from a specific breed, but lets not get into the nuances.
The point is very simple…
NunyaDangBisness October 29th, 2014 at 16:13
You disagree because it’s inconvenient to you. But guess what, with great power (in this case, firearms) comes great responsibility. Either you’re a responsible gun owner, or not. I suspect you fall into the latter category.
mea_mark October 29th, 2014 at 16:20
Please use better language if you want to post here. I edited this time, next time I might just delete.
Pistol-Packing AKA "Susie" October 29th, 2014 at 19:43
So sad, that you are completely clueless. But thats alright, you will figure it out over time. And your right, there is a great responsibility that comes with owning a firearm and doing it legally. Which is WHY there has to be a set of standard rules and laws to follow. Allowing towns to make any law they want is not conducive to people who try to do it legally. But I guess you dont see it that way.
And as far as your last statement. You couldn’t be farther from the truth. But you don’t know me, so I will give that a pass. But those who have communicated with me, and have conversed with me, will tell you that it is quite the opposite of what you think, and I am a huge advocate for safe and proper firearm ownership.
Mainah October 29th, 2014 at 20:32
This is a breakdown of why Preemption is dangerous for local municipalities when they are trying to do their jobs when it comes to regulating guns.
http://smartgunlaws.org/local-authority-to-regulate-firearms-policy-summary/
Jeremiah Roper October 30th, 2014 at 22:35
“why is it that it is called bullying only when people who oppose the NRA voice their concerns?”
Because if legal gun owners were bullies it would be called assault with a deadly weapon. Luckily responsible gun owners are not bullies. And luckily the NRA is their to help them keep their rights.
tracey marie October 29th, 2014 at 13:18
typing one handed again because women scare you
Pistol-Packing AKA "Susie" October 29th, 2014 at 13:34
BHAAAAAAAAAAAA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA !!!!!!!!
You make me laugh…
Red Eye Robot October 29th, 2014 at 12:06
Will Ms Watts be bringing her armed goons with her to the rally?
arc99 October 29th, 2014 at 12:18
the armed goons are the ones opposing Ms. Watts.
please pay attention.
Anomaly 100 October 29th, 2014 at 12:33
Aw, do the Moms askeer you?
Red Eye Robot October 29th, 2014 at 12:06
Will Ms Watts be bringing her armed goons with her to the rally?
arc99 October 29th, 2014 at 12:18
the armed goons are the ones opposing Ms. Watts.
please pay attention.
Anomaly 100 October 29th, 2014 at 12:33
Aw, do the Moms askeer you?
Red Eye Robot October 29th, 2014 at 14:06
Kroger refused to meet with #FascistMomsDemandAction too bad, so sad.
Anomaly 100 October 29th, 2014 at 14:28
Fascists because they’re exercising their First Amendment rights?
arc99 October 29th, 2014 at 14:33
either bow down and worship the NRA or you are a fascist (and a bully)
Anomaly 100 October 29th, 2014 at 14:36
Apparently so.
mea_mark October 29th, 2014 at 14:37
It wouldn’t fascism if they were armed, then it would patriotism.
Anomaly 100 October 29th, 2014 at 14:38
GOD BLESS AMERICA!
Ricardo_007 October 29th, 2014 at 21:40
fyi, the caps lock button on the left.
Obewon October 29th, 2014 at 14:39
83% say anybody too paranoid to shop without displaying guns should be banned from bringing guns into stores. BOO!
eyelashviper October 29th, 2014 at 15:17
You clearly demonstrate your complete lack of understanding of the concept of Fascism…
Go wave your gun around with your gunbot pals….you all deserve one another, but should not be wandering amongst civilized people.
Herb Sarge Phelps October 29th, 2014 at 15:30
just think these are the same people scared of getting Ebola when they have almost no chance, but thinks carrying a gun makes them safe. Is it any wonder they talk such stupidity.
Red Eye Robot October 29th, 2014 at 14:06
Kroger refused to meet with #FascistMomsDemandAction too bad, so sad.
Anomaly 100 October 29th, 2014 at 14:28
Fascists because they’re exercising their First Amendment rights?
arc99 October 29th, 2014 at 14:33
either bow down and worship the NRA or you are a fascist (and a bully)
Anomaly 100 October 29th, 2014 at 14:36
Apparently so.
mea_mark October 29th, 2014 at 14:37
It wouldn’t be fascism if they were armed, then it would patriotism.
Anomaly 100 October 29th, 2014 at 14:38
GOD BLESS AMERICA!
Ricardo_007 October 29th, 2014 at 21:40
fyi, the caps lock button on the left.
Obewon October 29th, 2014 at 14:39
83% say anybody too paranoid to shop without displaying guns should be banned from bringing guns into stores. BOO!
eyelashviper October 29th, 2014 at 15:17
You clearly demonstrate your complete lack of understanding of the concept of Fascism…
Go wave your gun around with your gunbot pals….you all deserve one another, but should not be wandering amongst civilized people.
Herb Sarge Phelps October 29th, 2014 at 15:30
just think these are the same people scared of getting Ebola when they have almost no chance, but thinks carrying a gun makes them safe. Is it any wonder they talk such stupidity.
eyelashviper October 29th, 2014 at 15:13
Boycotts work…Chipotle’s, Texas Roadhouse Grill, Starbucks, and others have banned this churlish and intimidating behavior by ammosexuals..
The article has a link to sign a petition, and the Kroger website has contact information…
http://www.kroger.com
eyelashviper October 29th, 2014 at 15:13
Boycotts work…Chipotle’s, Texas Roadhouse Grill, Starbucks, and others have banned this churlish and intimidating behavior by ammosexuals..
The article has a link to sign a petition, and the Kroger website has contact information…
http://www.kroger.com
mea_mark October 29th, 2014 at 16:20
Please you better language if you want to post here. I edited this time, next time I might just delete.
Pistol-Packing October 29th, 2014 at 19:43
So sad, that you are completely clueless. But thats alright, you will figure it out over time. And your right, there is a great responsibility that comes with owning a firearm and doing it legally. Which is WHY there has to be a set of standard rules and laws to follow. Allowing towns to make any law they want is not conducive to people who try to do it legally. But I guess you dont see it that way.
And as far as your last statement. You couldn’t be farther from the truth. But you don’t know me, so I will give that a pass. But those who have communicated with me, and have conversed with me, will tell you that it is quite the opposite of what you think, and I am a huge advocate for safe and proper firearm ownership.
Mainah October 29th, 2014 at 20:32
This is a breakdown of why Preemption is dangerous for local municipalities when they are trying to do their jobs when it comes to regulating guns.
http://smartgunlaws.org/local-authority-to-regulate-firearms-policy-summary/
Mainah October 29th, 2014 at 20:18
Holy crap! That lady was going to bring a loaded poodle into the store??? AND a pink tasseled SCOOTER!!!!! The horror.
Mainah October 29th, 2014 at 20:18
Holy crap! That lady was going to bring a loaded poodle into the store??? AND a pink tasseled SCOOTER!!!!! The horror.