This week Target’s interim CEO, John Mulligan, announced “starting today we will also respectfully request that guests not bring firearms to Target – even in communities where it is permitted by law.“.
It seems Target’s new CEO is trying to have his cake and eat it too! He seems to be pandering to the Anti-Second Amendment crowd with language they can interpret as they want; or if they aren’t that blind then they see this as a step in the right direction.
Despite Moms Demand Action and Bloomberg’s Anti-Gun group very quick Victory Dance and viral comments, they seem to have lost their ability to understand basic English. That or Target’s Interim CEO doesn’t understand the words he is using. From the above “respectfully request” is merely a request not a real ban…right? Luckily someone decided to ask Target to clarify, according to The Columbian,
Molly Snyder, a Target spokeswoman, said the retailer will not post signs at its stores asking people not to bring guns inside. “It is not a ban,” she said. “There is no prohibition.” She said the company decided to make this statement after hearing from people on all sides of this issue.
I have to say this is probably the biggest non-story ever, yet everyone seems so excited. I mean Target might as well have announced they are changing their logo from white and red pattern to a red and white pattern! Fortunately, absolutely nothing has changed and you can still carry your legal self-defense weapon while shopping.
Since this story is a great opening to discuss the effectiveness of guns for self-defense/preservation. And the Anti-Second Amendment crowd always seems to fall back to the “that is what we have police for” argument, followed by plugging their ears and repeating, “nah nah I can’t hear you“. We have to be honest, the Anti-Second Amendment “supporters” are using emotional arguments that do not hold up to logic. Unfortunately not many people use critical thinking and get caught up in the emotions of “gun violence”. This is nothing new, manipulators use emotions to motivate/influence a crowd. But what about the claim that we do not need to protect ourselves, because we have a dedicated Police Force?
If that is so true, why do most Police departments hold or sponsor Self-Defense classes? To really see how often people need their Second Amendment Rights to protect and preserve themselves, check this out… Here is the Proof that the Right to Bear Arms is a matter of life or death: Great Map of Incidents where Privately Owned Guns Save Lives