Costco tells gun owners to keep out

[KBCraig]

The letter makes it abundantly clear that it's a national policy. Otherwise I wouldn't have brought it here in the first place.

Well, no, it doesn't.

Despite all the talk of "we" and "our policy", no policy is cited, and the letter is written by an assistant manager at the store where it happened. Not Costco HQ, not a regional or district manager, not even the general manager of the store in question.

Bruce Kraft (the shopper in this case) was right to request clarification, because it looked like the "company policy" was something being made up by a store flunky. The letter did nothing to dispel that notion.

If Costco wants to create "victim disarmament zones", then that is their right. They just need to be up front about it, and make it clear to the world.

A little bit of searching led me to this:
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=227625

Now that, being from someone other than an assistant store manager, makes it clear that Costco doesn't welcome guns. 

Kevin

[Spencer]

It looks like Costco (as a company) donates exclusively to national Democratic PACs:

In the 2000 election cycle, Costco Companies (including Price Club and Costco) contributed $160,250 to the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee and the DNC.

http://www.opensecrets.org/softmoney/softcomp1.asp?txtName=costco

Costco's executives (including CEO, Chairman of the Board, and at least one VP) have given a lot to candidates like Howard Dean, John Kerry, Christopher Dodd, and Tom Daschle.

http://www.opensecrets.org/indivs/search.asp?txtName=&txtState=&txtZip=&txtEmploy=costco&txtCand=&txt2006=Y&txt2004=Y&txt2002=Y&txt2000=&txt1998=&txt1996=&txt1994=&txt1992=&txt1990=&txtSoft=N&Order=N&Cycles=3&Cycle1=2006&Cycle2=2004&Cycle3=2002&Page=2

Interestingly enough, Lyndon LaRouche received quite a few contributions from a Costco sales clerk in Texas.

[polyanarch]

It looks like Costco (as a company) donates exclusively to national Democratic PACs:

SO?  Would it make you feel any better if they donated exclusively to Republicrook PACs?
-it wouldn't for me

In the 2000 election cycle, Costco Companies (including Price Club and Costco) contributed $160,250 to the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee and the DNC.

http://www.opensecrets.org/softmoney/softcomp1.asp?txtName=costco

Costco's executives (including CEO, Chairman of the Board, and at least one VP) have given a lot to candidates like Howard Dean, John Kerry, Christopher Dodd, and Tom Daschle.

Somebody throw them in JAIL!  OMG, private individuals giving money to exercise their Free Speach! -there aughta be a law...

Interestingly enough, Lyndon LaRouche received quite a few contributions from a Costco sales clerk in Texas.

Collective guilt anyone?  If your employee gives their hard-earned money to someone you don't like are you going to fire them?

What KBCraig posted about above is all the info I need to never shop there again.  I don't give a crap which crooked politician or crooked political "cause" they are giving money to.  But when they tell me I can't bring my personal protective devices onto their property (their right) I'm not bringing my person (that which the PPD's protect) there where they will be in a victim disarmament zone.

End of story. 

In my eyes Hillary Clinton and George Soros are no worse or better than George Bush and Carl Rove. 

[Fluff and Stuff]

It looks like Costco (as a company) donates exclusively to national Democratic PACs:

In the 2000 election cycle, Costco Companies (including Price Club and Costco) contributed $160,250 to the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee and the DNC.

http://www.opensecrets.org/softmoney/softcomp1.asp?txtName=costco

That data shows nothing of Costco as a company giving any money to anyone.  I am not sure if it is an offical company policy,
but I have been told that part of the Costco Difference (what makes Costco so different that most large companies) is that as a company,
it doesn't give money to people running for office.  However, much of the leadership is known for giving money to Democrats running for office.

Thanks for the link Kevin.  According to that thread, Costco's policy doesn't apply in TN, MT, OH, and VT. 
It may not apply in NV and likely doesn't apply in 10-25 other states.  That seems like not only a bad policy but a terribly applied policy.

[Spencer]

It looks like Costco (as a company) donates exclusively to national Democratic PACs:

SO?  Would it make you feel any better if they donated exclusively to Republicrook PACs?
-it wouldn't for me

If you look at my posts here, you'll see that I have no love for either of the major "parties" (parties is in quotation marks because it should not really be plural).

Generally, the Republicans in Congress are slightly less gun rights unfriendly.

By the way, the "would it make you feel any better" phrase always makes me think of Archie Bunker responding to a statement regarding the number of gun suicides per year.  The response is something like: "Would it make you feel any better if they jumped off of buildings?"

Somebody throw them in JAIL!  OMG, private individuals giving money to exercise their Free Speach! -there aughta be a law...

If the CEO of a company donates a substantial chunk of change to a nutty cause / politician (like Tom Daschle, George W. Bush, Jesse Helms, etc.), then it gives me pause regarding whether I want to contribute -- albeit indirectly -- to the cause / politician by increasing the company's profits (and, by extension, the CEO's pay).

As far as the law aspect, there ought not be any laws regarding disclosure of campaign contributions -- it only serves to intimidate and infringe on one's privacy (and one's right to communicate anonymously).

Interestingly enough, Lyndon LaRouche received quite a few contributions from a Costco sales clerk in Texas.

Collective guilt anyone?  If your employee gives their hard-earned money to someone you don't like are you going to fire them?

LaRouche is a nut.  It was interesting to see his name pop-up.  I never realized that someone who makes so little money (relatively speaking) would contribute thousands of dollars to LaRouche.

What KBCraig posted about above is all the info I need to never shop there again.  I don't give a crap which crooked politician or crooked political "cause" they are giving money to.  But when they tell me I can't bring my personal protective devices onto their property (their right) I'm not bringing my person (that which the PPD's protect) there where they will be in a victim disarmament zone.

End of story. 

In my eyes Hillary Clinton and George Soros are no worse or better than George Bush and Carl Rove. 

Agreed.  Although I think that Bush and Rove might be slightly worse because they portray themselves as different from Clinton and Soros.

[polyanarch]

Generally, the Republicans in Congress are slightly less gun rights unfriendly.

That's what the NRA (national republican's association) would like you to believe.  The Republicans are even more insidious because people BELIEVE this.  In fact, they don't give a rat's ass about your guns, just getting elected.  Stupid gun owners re-elect them term after term and our gun rights keep going away.  The Republicans have had control of the executive branch and both legislative houses and gun rights still went backwards.  The only good news is a few "you are PERMITted to CCW if you pass a background check and get your fingerprints taken like a good criminal" laws, and the AWB went away by the skin of its teeth.

That "slightly" is mostly smoke and mirrors.  Worse if you ask me.

LaRouche is a nut.  It was interesting to see his name pop-up.  I never realized that someone who makes so little money (relatively speaking) would contribute thousands of dollars to LaRouche.

He's anti-war, pro-nuke power, anti-UN, a TAX-protester (he even went to JAIL for it)

Of course he is a Hamiltonian Federalist and economic thinker (and a former Marxist) and his views regarding Homosexuality, AIDS and the war on drugs are horrible.

But he is no worse or better than Hillary or GWB in my eyes. 

Agreed.  Although I think that Bush and Rove might be slightly worse because they portray themselves as different from Clinton and Soros.

Agreed.  Many people (even many so-called libertarians) have been hoodwinked by the GOP into thinking "Liberal = BAD -and the GOP = Good."

That's just BULLSHIT

[Spencer]

Generally, the Republicans in Congress are slightly less gun rights unfriendly.

That's what the NRA (national republican's association) would like you to believe.  The Republicans are even more insidious because people BELIEVE this.  In fact, they don't give a rat's ass about your guns, just getting elected.  Stupid gun owners re-elect them term after term and our gun rights keep going away.  The Republicans have had control of the executive branch and both legislative houses and gun rights still went backwards.  The only good news is a few "you are PERMITted to CCW if you pass a background check and get your fingerprints taken like a good criminal" laws, and the AWB went away by the skin of its teeth.

That "slightly" is mostly smoke and mirrors.  Worse if you ask me.

LaRouche is a nut.  It was interesting to see his name pop-up.  I never realized that someone who makes so little money (relatively speaking) would contribute thousands of dollars to LaRouche.

He's anti-war, pro-nuke power, anti-UN, a TAX-protester (he even went to JAIL for it)

Of course he is a Hamiltonian Federalist and economic thinker (and a former Marxist) and his views regarding Homosexuality, AIDS and the war on drugs are horrible.

But he is no worse or better than Hillary or GWB in my eyes. 

Agreed.  Although I think that Bush and Rove might be slightly worse because they portray themselves as different from Clinton and Soros.

Agreed.  Many people (even many so-called libertarians) have been hoodwinked by the GOP into thinking "Liberal = BAD -and the GOP = Good."

That's just BULLSHIT

The NRA is indeed a sell-out organization.  If they wanted to do the right thing, they would only endorse pro-gun rights candidates, and would have vigorously opposed the reelection of GWB (the man who has -- as promised -- worked hard to enforce all existing gun laws as vigorously as possible).  Anyone who promises to enforce unconstitutional, ill-advised, and immoral laws has any business being backed by a so-called gun rights organization.

The best national organization for gun rights is Gun Owners of America.  I believe that Ron Paul refers to them as the only no-compromise gun rights lobby.

[polyanarch]

The NRA is indeed a sell-out organization.  If they wanted to do the right thing, they would only endorse pro-gun rights candidates, and would have vigorously opposed the reelection of GWB (the man who has -- as promised -- worked hard to enforce all existing gun laws as vigorously as possible).  Anyone who promises to enforce unconstitutional, ill-advised, and immoral laws has any business being backed by a so-called gun rights organization.

The best national organization for gun rights is Gun Owners of America.  I believe that Ron Paul refers to them as the only no-compromise gun rights lobby.

Agreed.  I will not give one red PENNY to the NRA.  I consider them to be a an anti-gun organization that uses the money of its supporters to help create new and push for enforcement of current laws that violate the Constitution and the inalienable and god-given rights of INDIVIDUALS to Keep, Carry and Own guns or any other weapon of self-defense.  That is just WRONG and I PERSONALLY could never live with the guilt of supporting them either financially or intellectually in their anti-gun endeavors.

GOA is on my list of organizations I support -as is JPFO which is also just as no-compromise (other than the fact that they let Gentiles like myself join.  I won't hold THAT against them -NEVER AGAIN!)

Any One
Any Gun
Any Where

Any LESS is GUN CONTROL


What part of SHALL NOT be infringed do they NOT understand???

It is just simple English. 

[Fluff and Stuff]

BTW folks, if you look at the NRA endorsement list, they endosre both Republicans and Democrats depending on the people running for the office (usually who is less anti-gun) and would likely endorse a 3rd party at sometime in the future if any 3rd party develops a solid record of winning elections.

[polyanarch]

It's kind of hard for a 3rd party Libertarian to have a RAT'S CHANCE in hell when the organizations that should be supporting a better candidate for their "so-called" cause are instead supporting an "anti" in the main 2-headed party.

It's just bullshit political pandering.  Bread and Circus.  As long as the NRA gets their funding goals met every year they are happy.  It's never about rolling back the gun laws.  In fact, if they ever did then they wouldn't be NEEDED anymore.

Anyone who gives money/support to the NRA is a fool.

But it's a free world.

[Spencer]

I neglected to mention JPFO (for that I apologize profusely) -- thanks for fixing my oversight, poly.

[MaineShark]

Anyone who gives money/support to the NRA is a fool.

Oh, I wouldn't go that far.  I support them for their training programs, which was the original purpose of the NRA.

Now, anyone who supports the NRA because they think the NRA is some no-compromise gun-rights organization is sadly mis-informed or just plain foolish...

Joe

[mvpel]

They didn't become the most feared gun lobby in Washington by throwing themselves in front of speeding legislative freight trains screaming "no compromise! no compromise!"

It sucks sometimes, but having lived in California for five years, where a "winning year" is one where only one or two moderately bad anti-gun laws are passed, I have a different perspective on the NRA's actions.

[MaineShark]

I don't know that I'd call the NRA "the most feared gun lobby in Washington."  The actual politicians don't care much what they say, in general.  From a political standpoint, the NRA is certainly the most talked-about, but not the most effective.  The anti-gunners always scream and yell about the "NRA extremists" because they don't want to think about the actual pro-gun groups, and certainyl don't want to draw attention to them.

Joe

[mvpel]

Bill Clinton blamed the NRA for the 2000 losses, and the fact that the anti-gunners are focused on the NRA, illustrate the point.

Whether or not they are justifiably feared, they are feared.

What other gun-rights organization even comes close to their funding and membership numbers?