sailor2000 wrote:TexasGal wrote:The less we harass businesses one way or the other on gun issues, the better off we will be. All that pressure just doesn't go the direction we hope more often than not.
Once a business posts 30.06 they have pretty much made their opinion clear, have they not?
While I do not think anyone should be 'harassed' over a choice they have the right to make, is it your opinion that they should not be politely informed that there are economic consequences which result from their choice?
I have changed physicians, auto dealer, bank and other businesses because of their choices regarding my right to self defense. I have on each occasion very politely informed them of my reasons for no longer giving them my money.
I intend to continue to do so. Would you prefer that I not?
Let's compare the difference:
-
One business posts properly, and you choose not to enter anymore, and provide them with the reason.
- Worst case, they remain posted (net gain of zero), or,
- Best case, they de-post (net gain of one)
- One business posts improperly, and someone chooses to take some form of punitive action against them because they didn't inform them.
- Best case, they de-post (net gain of one), although I doubt that is the reaction we'd see.
- Middle choice, they remain posted improperly (net gain of zero) or they post properly (net loss of one).
- Worst case, as pointed out by our brethren, is that they pass the word on to their colleagues in other establishments via industry connections, and then their colleagues begin posting properly to avoid the punitive actions (net loss of FAR TOO MANY).
Your statement was a non-sequitur. There is a difference in what you're doing versus what was asked in the OP.