Target Corp is no longer listening

[gunsmith]

I got 2 words for ya:

HELLER / McDONALD

Tell that to the pre-maturely gray-haired ladies in tennis shoes in the Target Parking lot.

[Hmac]

Target could have banned firearms, they didn't. They did give Bloomberg and his cackle of anti-gun cultists something to propagandize on which really sucks, but in the end they didn't ban guns.

If you open carry a long gun at Target, expect to be asked to leave. And expect me to call you an idiot as well.......

And rightfully so. I continue to buy my coffee from Starbucks (I prefer the taste to Caribou) and I'll continue to shop at Target. I appreciate their stance on the guns-in-store issue. It won't keep me from concealed carry in either place, but as always, my firearm is discreetly tucked away. I carry it for self defense, not political statements.

[Ron Burgundy]

Dear Texas,

This is why we can't have nice things.

[xd ED]

First, for the purposes of not getting beat by the dialog/ terminology, I suggest we distinguish open carry from slinging a rifle while shopping.
Then, for the asshats shopping with their rifles, they need to be kicked repeatedly in the ass and their swimsuit regions until they either wake up, or go away.
None of this needed to happen. Neither Target or legitimate gun owners benifited from these stunts. They merely gave some traction to the bloomburgers they would not have otherwise had.

[hammAR]

[jshuberg]

Lets not be the group that when left to their own devices, hangs themselves by their own stupidity.

If you open carry a firearm in public, please do so responsibly. Don't try to attract attention. Dress nicely, shave, comb your hair, be polite, and smile at everyone you meet. Be the ideal next door neighbor who just happens to be carrying a firearm. If you have a hard time with this, or don't want to deal with the hassle, or want to flaunt your rights or any of that nonsense, please don't open carry in public. It's just going to make things difficult for the real firearms activists that have been moving the ball forward in the legislature, courtroom, and court of public opinion.

End of rant.

[s4oak]

Lets not be the group that when left to their own devices, hangs themselves by their own stupidity.

If you open carry a firearm in public, please do so responsibly. Don't try to attract attention. Dress nicely, shave, comb your hair, be polite, and smile at everyone you meet. Be the ideal next door neighbor who just happens to be carrying a firearm. If you have a hard time with this, or don't want to deal with the hassle, or want to flaunt your rights or any of that nonsense, please don't open carry in public. It's just going to make things difficult for the real firearms activists that have been moving the ball forward in the legislature, courtroom, and court of public opinion.

End of rant.

To be fair, that's already the case for the vast majority of the OCT events. MDA has just picked and chosen photos that are easy to spin out of context. Someone could probably make you look violent and unhinged with a picture of you dryfiring a gun at the Gander sales counter from the wrong angle. Read this post for some context from the OCT camp.

[jshuberg]

Here's the problem with OCT, it was created by a group of people who have never done the actual hard work associated with being a firearm activist prior to attracting the public spotlight. Someone felt slighted for having been harassed by law enforcement for open carrying, and then presumed to become a self-described activist. This group has no understanding or context of the chess game being played by those with decades of experience, and who know what they're doing in the realm of firearms activism. As such they're actions very much resemble a bull in a china shop, knocking over hard earned victories that took years to accomplish in tragically clumsy and stupid moves.

If someone wants to be a firearms advocate or activist, please seek out those organizations that have been doing the good work over the years and decades, and join them. The last thing we need is a bunch of amateur, newbie, getting in the way and hurting the cause they claim to support activists. OCT should disband and offer a public apology for having caused people to become fearful for their safety, and for all the trouble they've caused other firearms owners. Saying we're sorry and we won't do that stupid thing anymore doesn't cut it, not in the current propaganda war being fought in the court of public opinion. They should man up, swallow their pride and exit the playing field before they do any more damage.

[jgalt]

Lets not be the group that when left to their own devices, hangs themselves by their own stupidity.

If you open carry a firearm in public, please do so responsibly. Don't try to attract attention. Dress nicely, shave, comb your hair, be polite, and smile at everyone you meet. Be the ideal next door neighbor who just happens to be carrying a firearm. If you have a hard time with this, or don't want to deal with the hassle, or want to flaunt your rights or any of that nonsense, please don't open carry in public. It's just going to make things difficult for the real firearms activists that have been moving the ball forward in the legislature, courtroom, and court of public opinion.

End of rant.

To be fair, that's already the case for the vast majority of the OCT events. MDA has just picked and chosen photos that are easy to spin out of context. Someone could probably make you look violent and unhinged with a picture of you dryfiring a gun at the Gander sales counter from the wrong angle. Read this post for some context from the OCT camp.

From near the end of the link you provided:

The pro-gun elitists who believe our rights are subject to licensing and should be hidden from society quickly joined the gun control extremists in a chorus of dissent. Nearly every email we got from so-called defenders of the Second Amendment demanded that we hide our guns because “they scare people” or that we are hurting “the cause.” These are the same people who sit at home thinking that mailing in a check is all they need to do to stand for liberty.

First:

The pro-gun elitists who believe our rights are subject to licensing and should be hidden from society...

Yup, these folks are a problem and a serious one at that. They like to pay lip service to the idea of liberty, but are afraid when anyone other than them gets to exercise it.

Second:

Nearly every email we got from so-called defenders of the Second Amendment demanded that we hide our guns because “they scare people” or that we are hurting “the cause.”

Wishing that a large and vocal percentage of the public isn't scared by the site of people they don't know carrying long guns in retail establishments or that doing so doesn't in fact hurt "the cause" of individuals being able to legally defend themselves in public won't make either statement untrue.

This is the disconnect those who continue to defend OCT's prior actions (they say they've stopped the OC of long guns, and I hope they stick with it) aren't getting. The earlier bit where he says they've made some mistakes is good, 'cause recognizing and accepting reality is a good thing. But insisting that just because some others who oppose the particular tactic they had employed for awhile cannot possibly "defenders of the 2A" is assinine.

I vehemently disagree with a great many things the NRA says and does, but I don't go around saying they aren't trying to defend the 2A. OCT and its supporters need to stop attacking the motives of those who disagree (and publicly say so) with their tactics, just as those attacking OCT's tactics need to do so without attacking their motives.

I accept that OCT (and OC advocates generally) believe what they are doing is an attempt to further the cause of removing restrictions on individuals exercising their liberty. I think the OC of long guns is the almost perfectly wrong way to do it, but so long as they learn from their mistakes (and it looks like they may have), I hope they stick around and find more effective ways of making the changes they wish to see in TX.

Finally, and off topic:

These are the same people who sit at home thinking that mailing in a check is all they need to do to stand for liberty.

Screw him and the high horse he rode in on. Elitists come in all forms, and any statement in that format is a dead giveaway that you've found one. To imply that those who don't meet his personal lofty standards of action couldn't possibly "stand for liberty" doesn't make him a hero to "the cause" - it just makes him a dick...

[LePetomane]

I find it amusing that they're name is TARGET and they're logo is a BULLSEYE.

Seems like a pro gun store if you had never seen it before...

I initially thought Protect Minnesota was a firearms and Second Amendment organization advocacy group.

[Nougat]

I initially thought Protect Minnesota was a firearms and Second Amendment organization advocacy group.

What I still think MDA is really about


I'm sorry! I ''worked'' on that for around ten minutes though and the setup was too good to not put it up again.

[DoxaPar]

What OCT fails to understand is that ever single time this happens gun owners lose the image war.

And that matters. A lot.

I disagree that this was a "win" for carry advocates (no offense GOCRA). Prior to this entire ordeal, carrying in Target wasn't a big deal. We went about our business like every other normal customer. Today, Target has asked that we don't carry in their stores. How is that a win for our side? This merely the lesser of two possible losing outcomes. Moreover, the image of carry advocates is damaged as well. Now we look like idiotic, reckless, arrogant hillbillies. The only thing OTC earned for us is Target's asking us not to carry anymore. Yup, great "win" there.

OCT and every other operation that pulls stunts like this should be told, by us, how we feel about their actions and how their actions reflect poorly on us. If we don't police the idiots in our ranks the government will eventually be very happy to do so. So, in light of that, I've happily taken some time to write them and would encourage you do the same - contact@opencarrytexas.org

[linksep]

Boycott Target

Hmm Target is the offspring of some other store... what was that again? Boy, I think it was Dayton's, the upscale clothing store. Dayton... Why does that name sound familiar? Hmmm...... Mark Dayton, governor of Minnesota comes to mind... Dayton is a really popular name in MN though, he couldn't be related could he? Well Mark Dayton is a multi-multi-multi-millionaire trust fund baby... About 5 seconds of Google-fu turns up:

Gov. Mark Dayton made $671,724 last year...The department store heir's largest source of revenue came from the sale of 8,431 shares of Target Corp. stock, worth $407,665.

Well according to this strib article from 4 years ago:

Dayton: "...I am very proud of what my father and his brothers, who are my uncles, and thousands of Minnesotans built as the Dayton-Hudson Corporation and Target is one of those subsidiaries. You know, my family's been out of the operating side of the business for about the last, almost the last 30 years. I don't hold any stock directly in Target in my own holdings. I don't know the percent of my family's holding in Target but I would estimate it is less than one percent of the actively traded shares in the company and certainly my family has no voice in the actions of Target corporation."

Well Dayton is a common name and Governor Dayton claimed to own zero stock in Target corporation in 2010... but he made over $400,000 in 2010 from selling Target Corporation stock. Well this is just confusing. I'm guessing there's no connection between the commie Lear-Jet liberal governor and the department store banning guns.

[Nougat]

actually you don't look any worse. you are just perceived (by some)as worse because they were told to do so.


PROPAGANDA.

Isolated incidents blown completly out of proportion to achieve a goal...if you don't think thats what it is open your eyes. funny they go with the smaller stuff to do the damage, I would bet someones been shot near or in a target store since the yahoos were strolling around with their rifles. why not sensationalize that. simply because it wouldn't work unless it was a mass shooting so it was terrible enough or a couple of shooters. if it was just somebody that killed a few people it would be harder to apply it to all of the ''same group''.

I want a news channel that realy gets in the grit and tells all of the bad stuff that occurs compiled from within the US everyday so people could get some perspective. When I watch the local news now it seems censored and packaged as if its not even produced locally, like they have a setlist or something and the small portion of local stuff gets eclipsed by it, so they can't even let you know whats happening near you much less whats really happening elsewhere? maybe I'm wrong.

[Squib Joe]

The more I think about it, the more I realize that what really pissed me off was the last paragraph of John Mulligan's statement:

"Bringing firearms to Target creates an environment that is at odds with the family-friendly shopping and work experience we strive to create"

Because having the means to defend yourself and your loved ones is at odds with being "family-friendly"?