In a nutshell: No, I am not "for" private employers banning guns, searching cars for them or firing employees who have them in their car trunks. I'd like to see company policies welcoming employees to carry on premises.
What concerns me is the method for achieving this--and whether the chair we pick up in this particular barfight is also used to smash rights to property and freedom of association. I see grave danger in ceding more power to government in these areas.
Under my argument, if you don't bend to my will, the worst that can happen is that our association is terminated. By entering government into the mix, the element of coercion is also introduced. Now, if I don't bend to your will, you can call in the JBTs to seize me and my property, and to destroy me if I resist.
That does not seem to me to be a formula for freedom.
But that doesn't mean we're powerless to retaliate against private parties that have anti-gun policies. Companies generally have a comparatively small profit margin--the difference of a percentage point or two can make a difference between thriving or succumbing, especially when they face a lot of competition.
That's why, while I fully support NRA's call to boycott ConocoPhillips. And while there are other companies that also deserve this response, I think it's smart strategy to focus on only one to make an example out of for the rest.
I challenge you who feel strongly about this to contact ConocoPhillips management. I'm not going to give an email address, because that's too easy to do--it will make more of an impression to contact them directly, either by mail or phone:
600 North Dairy Ashford (77079-1175)
P.O. Box 2197
Houston, TX 77252-2197
Phone 281.293.1000
Contact them today. And do it once a week until this is over. If you have one of their gas cards, cut it up and return it with a note telling them why. Make good on the boycott--refuse to buy their products. And spread the word--get your gun owner friends involved.
4 comments:
But some people are agreeing with you.
A word to the wise: Conoco Phillips has bought many Union 76 stations in Commiefornia.
The notion that the Second Amendment - which puts restrictions on the Feral Gubmint -can and should be used to usurp private property rights, is a slippery slope.
Congress is now trying to legislate "protection" for companies within the several states that manufacture firearms, to prevent bogus lawsuits.
The bottom line is, the 10th Amendment proscribes congress enacting such a law, despite any "good intentions."
The protection of lawful commerce should be reserved to the individual states. It is the perversion of the interstate commerce clause that has caused so many problems in the first place. If we cheer when the FedGov intercedes in places that it has no power - even if we like the results – it means that we have no reasonable grounds for complaining when Congress passes laws in subject areas where they do NOT have the legal power to do so.
Take a look at the asinine War on Some Drugs and gun manufacturing in general.
If I live in Arizona, and buy a gun from an Arizona gun manufacturer, the gun has NOT crossed state lines, and the BATFU should have no jurisdiction regarding that sale. Likewise, if I live in Arizona and purchase locally grown marijuana for medical purposes, the DEA should have no jurisdiction.
Unfortunately, neither scenario is the case. The feds assume jurisdiction, and I have to jump through all of the federal regulatory hoops.
So when one champions the usurpation of private property rights, one is being inconsistent if he or she complains about either of the scenarios described above.
That doesn’t mean that I won’t be boycotting Conoco Phillips.
I routinely use my purchasing power ( no matter how little it is) to boycott anti-gun businesses.
If I was to push for legislation, it would be that any business that forbids guns on its property must assume full responsibility for the safety of everyone who works there or who is a customer there.
I believe that Dave is correct in his position.
Question is, is the NRA calling for a boycott of Conoco/Phillips because of their employment policy, or because of their support of the lawsuit to overturn Oklahoma's law prohibiting the policy? Both, I suppose. Those are two different situations. Honestly, I hail C/P for going after the state law which brings govt. coercion into the picture of property rights.
And I castigate the NRA for not realizing that the right to keep and bear arms is rooted in property rights. How can we act to chip away at one property right, without also damaging the foundation underneath the right to keep and bear arms?
A commenter over at my place quoted Dr. Martin Luther King: "Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everwhere." Seems pretty simple, no?
Post a Comment