NRA Launches National Boycott Against ConocoPhillips
- Thread starter Dan from MI
- Start date
- Status
armedandsafe
Member
I had a similar situation for awhile. I made arrangements with a nearby gun shop/range to check my piece there in the morning and pick it up in the evening. It worked. Did I like it? No, but I liked it better than the idea of losing the contract.
Pops
Pops
tulsamal
Member
Excellent explanation Another Okie!
Gregg
Gregg
Fletchette
Member
I agree with Beerslurpy. Like in any war, a good general has to be pragmatic. If that means retreating to a defensible position and attempting to wear down your adversary, then that is what you have to do. Charging blindly into the enemy is simply not a good strategy.
On the suject of corporations banning firearms from cars, could we hold the corporations liable? What if, a CCW holder is assaulted coming or going from work, and does not have their gun to defend themselves with due to their employers rights-restricting policies? Sounds like a lawsuit to me...
Perhaps finding such a case and financing a suit would be a good strategy.
On the suject of corporations banning firearms from cars, could we hold the corporations liable? What if, a CCW holder is assaulted coming or going from work, and does not have their gun to defend themselves with due to their employers rights-restricting policies? Sounds like a lawsuit to me...
Perhaps finding such a case and financing a suit would be a good strategy.
beerslurpy
member
I see the NRA as the hearts and minds brigade of the gun rights movement. Their job is to ensure that people stay enthusiastic about shooting and guns. Even though the membership of the NRA may not be as political as the GOA and similar groups, that enthusiasm for guns (and their low-intensity contact with the NRA through shooting activities) can be a great lever with which to move people into action when there is a worthy goal to acheive.
I see the GOA as the suicidal shock troops who take big risks to deal powerful blows to the enemy. Observe GOA's policy of ignoring incumbents to focus on unseating established anti-gunners. They had a big hand in the Coburn and Daschle elections. More importantly, they provide a great testing ground for risky new ideas and issues. If a trial balloon doesnt fly at GOA it probably isnt going to fly in the mainstream NRA membership.
I see the GOA as the suicidal shock troops who take big risks to deal powerful blows to the enemy. Observe GOA's policy of ignoring incumbents to focus on unseating established anti-gunners. They had a big hand in the Coburn and Daschle elections. More importantly, they provide a great testing ground for risky new ideas and issues. If a trial balloon doesnt fly at GOA it probably isnt going to fly in the mainstream NRA membership.
beerslurpy
member
Oh noes look what crawled out of teh sewer! Its a DU troll!
"Rwarraaah all your Neo-con Rifle Association are belong to us!"
NHBB
Member
I don't know any of those companies, but im sure wayne is going to pummel my mailbox for donations more than he usually does 
My question is why not issue a class action lawsuit on the behalf of the workers, easier an more effective than a boycott.
second the governor should invest the AG with the mission to police the strict enforcement of epa and 2A rights of the people of his state. and make sure CP and Weyerhauser understand they stand at the top of the list
second the governor should invest the AG with the mission to police the strict enforcement of epa and 2A rights of the people of his state. and make sure CP and Weyerhauser understand they stand at the top of the list
chaim
Member
I hope you are right, but around here most Americans don't see the NRA as being anything near mainstream. I've had people comment on how they think gun rights are important but they can't support the NRA because they support "all Americans owning howitzers" (a comment heard just in the past month) or "cop killer bullets" or "want everyone to be able to buy machine guns with no background checks". All those are recent comments I've heard, and not all from lefties either. People seem to think of the NRA as extremist and even dangerous. When I explain that the NRA is too moderate and I support organizations that are stronger on gun rights I usually get a look something like this:
Hawk
Member
The cultures can vary in different geographical locations.
When I was working in Rockville, Maryland a CDNN catalog turned up at my workplace with my name on the address label. The receptionist, who opened the mail, got a case of the vapors and "turned me in" to management. It remains unclear exactly what the offense was.
A couple of years ago, while working at my current place of employment in Irving, Texas a Bushmaster Dissipator upper showed up addressed to me. The receptionist, who opened all the mail, brought it into my office, checked for clear, and asked if I was taking her to the range for lunch.
Dang, I do so love this place.
When I was working in Rockville, Maryland a CDNN catalog turned up at my workplace with my name on the address label. The receptionist, who opened the mail, got a case of the vapors and "turned me in" to management. It remains unclear exactly what the offense was.
A couple of years ago, while working at my current place of employment in Irving, Texas a Bushmaster Dissipator upper showed up addressed to me. The receptionist, who opened all the mail, brought it into my office, checked for clear, and asked if I was taking her to the range for lunch.
Dang, I do so love this place.
Mongo the Mutterer
Member
Beerslurpy, apparently you have been around the political arena, like me.
I've also seen sausage made... prefer the sausage.
The NRA is basically all we have. We can jump up and down, but the bottom line is they look out for our interests and have a national presence and reputation. (Just look how they are treated in the socialist mainstream media, and you will see how much power they have.)
They seem to do the best they can with what they have. Remember that politicians have to go back to their districts, and if their opponents brand them as a "gun nut" based upon their non support of "reasonable" gun control issues, they can lose votes.
That has been changing, and the more the Socialist Demogogs open their mouths the worse they look, but the logic still can sway some of the more uneducated voters.
Better to pass a "child lock" provision on a good bill, then gut the provision later.
I've also seen sausage made... prefer the sausage.
The NRA is basically all we have. We can jump up and down, but the bottom line is they look out for our interests and have a national presence and reputation. (Just look how they are treated in the socialist mainstream media, and you will see how much power they have.)
They seem to do the best they can with what they have. Remember that politicians have to go back to their districts, and if their opponents brand them as a "gun nut" based upon their non support of "reasonable" gun control issues, they can lose votes.
That has been changing, and the more the Socialist Demogogs open their mouths the worse they look, but the logic still can sway some of the more uneducated voters.
Better to pass a "child lock" provision on a good bill, then gut the provision later.
The Real Hawkeye
member
To whom it may concern:
I am joining the NRA boycott of Conoco Phillips in the hopes of causing a reversal of your anti-gun-owner policies at the work place. Many of your employees are sportsman who hunt or shoot recreationally in between work and home, and your policy makes this impractical. Additionally, people have a fundamental right to feel secure in their vehicles while driving to and from work. Your policy hampers that. I will begin again to use your products when I've heard that you've changed your policies in this regard.
Sincerely,
I am joining the NRA boycott of Conoco Phillips in the hopes of causing a reversal of your anti-gun-owner policies at the work place. Many of your employees are sportsman who hunt or shoot recreationally in between work and home, and your policy makes this impractical. Additionally, people have a fundamental right to feel secure in their vehicles while driving to and from work. Your policy hampers that. I will begin again to use your products when I've heard that you've changed your policies in this regard.
Sincerely,
Send your comments to Shareholder Relations using this form: http://wh.conocophillips.com/utilities/contactus.asp?cid=contacts3
Fletchette
Member
Not to sound repetitive, but what do you guys think of the lawsuit idea? Could we (the NRA or individuals) help a crime victim who was assaulted sue Conoco if they were unarmed at the time of the assault due to this policy? Lawsuits with far less logic have won big settlements, and money is the only thing that corporations pay attention to.
I'd love to see their stock plummett like Exxon's did awhile back!
I'd love to see their stock plummett like Exxon's did awhile back!
Fletchette
Member
My point exactly. If the corporation does not have a duty to guarantee employees' saftey, then the employee must be responsible for their own saftey. Prohibiting the tools to self-defense, especially off-hours, violates the employees' rights. Lawsuit.
Same arguement applies to cops. They are not responsible to protect us. So, if I am assualted in a "gun-free zone" the state must assume responsibility, and liability. This is why you cannot sue the police for getting mugged on the street, but you can sue the state if you are assaulted in court (where the state must be responsible for your saftey).
tulsamal
Member
In the first place, it's not that easy. These large corporations we are talking about here run what amount to small towns. Usually inside a fence. Then the parking lot. Then the buildings. There is physically no way to park anyplace else. I've worked for several companies like that where the whole "complex" sat off by itself. There literally WAS nothing else out there. You can't just park in a corn field!
And it frustrates me to no end when a corporation tries to use their "management power" to take away my rights. I was issued a CCW by the state of OK. I did the things they said I had to do and I paid the money. They gave me a list of places I couldn't carry a gun. The Phillips parking lot wasn't on the list. Then the state went so far as to pass a new law saying a corporation COULD NOT stop employees from having legal guns in their cars. The corporation continues to act like they should be above state law and that they should be able to "set their own standards." Should they be able to say you can't park on their lot if you are living with someone but unmarried? Or no gays? Or no blacks? The whole purpose of "due process" is to insure that we ALL get to have the same rights.
The big Tulsa mall is owned and run by an anti-gun company. They tried like hell to ban CCW holders from carrying in the mall. The state told them they could put up signs if they wanted but they would not have the force of law. If they "detect your gun" they can ask you to leave but they can't have you arrested. I look at their signs and laugh. It SHOULD be the same for employee parking lots.
Gregg
oct_97
Member
Please tell me what any anti NRA person has ever done to protect the second amendment? Also, I wonder how many NRA members are aware that their dues cannot be used in the political arena, hence the need for donations that can be. Solicitations are like sales, it's a numbers game, your results are directly proportional to your number of contacts. If I can afford the guns and ammunition I can certainly afford a few bucks a couple of times a year to defend my right to have them.
Fletchette
Member
To the best of my knowledge, there is none. This would start a precedent.
BUT, I do know that people have successfully sued the State after being assaulted in court. The same logic would apply.
BTW, I am definitely NOT advocating abandoning the use of boycots to fight corporations. I waited ten years to buy a S&W J-frame. I am simply suggesting that we may have another weapon in our arsenal.
- Status
