About Me

Austin, TX, United States
Postings will be sporadic and on an as I feel like it basis.

People that seem to like my Blog?

Wednesday, September 14, 2011

WTF Walgreens?

For this reason I don't think I will be doing any of my shopping at Walgreens.

This is what happens when a permissive antiself-defense culture is tolerated.

Sigh...,
Josh

8 comments:

  1. I've already dropped them from my 'approved' store list...

    ReplyDelete
  2. Yah, I know I'm a little late on this one.

    ;-)

    ReplyDelete
  3. I don't know about anybody else but I might be real pissed off if I am shopping at my local store and some would be hero blast me with some rounds. The store looked empty but come on. Having a shoot out. Seriously! Does Jeremy Hoven have training on engaging multiple targets? While moving? One handed? Was he tunnel visioned on just one of the suspects? If so he was not discriminating on what was past that subject or what the other subject was doing. These are questions police officers get asked in cases of shots fired. He wants to carry a weapon in public, which is great power, then he has to shoulder the greater responsibility to. Its easy to just piss on Wallgreens and hail him a hero.

    I am playing devils advocate here, nothing more.

    I don't have all the facts I wasn't their and i don't live his life or walk in his shoes.

    ReplyDelete
  4. If you would like to discuss the tactical errors that I noticed while watching the video I would be happy to.

    ReplyDelete
  5. No where does it say in 2A anything about our right to bar arms being contingent on being *qualified*, what ever that means, on the weapon. You have a right to defend yourself to the best of your abilities. What ever they might be. It was widely under that with this right comes the responsibility to learn to use your tools well and responsible.

    This is where I think the Founding missed something. They understood the with our rights come responsibilities. Instead of making this writing this out and explaining it in The US Constitution, which is binding, they left this up to be explained in The Federalist Papers, which is not.

    I guess they thought right thinking people did need this explained?

    Just my 2 cents,
    Josh

    ReplyDelete
  6. His right to bear arms isn't in question here. They didn't take his guns, as far as i know. If you don't want to shop at Walgreens then you shouldn't shop at any major retailer store or convenience store they all have the same or near same compliance rules. Nothing they sale is worth dieing for PERIOD!

    So until the courts say that the compliance policies are un constitutional then you really can't say that his second amendment rights have been violated. Owners of properties have rights to make rules as to what goes on on their properties.

    My humble opinion

    ReplyDelete
  7. I worked both convenience stores and retail so i know all about the compliance policies.

    Now if my life is in danger, or somebody near me, than that's a whole different ball game.

    He should've just ducked down out of the way and told 911 everything he could. Safest thing to do.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Did you look at the second link? And, could you google pharmacy shooting see if you see if see any patterns emerge.

    Sorry, I wasn't very clear. I'm not shopping their not because they fired him, they have every right to, He worked there knowing the police, and chose to break it.

    I'm not shopping there because of their policy of limiting their imployees ability of defense of self.

    Also, look at where the attempted robbery took place, a pharmacy. What type of people rob pharmacies?

    :-)
    Josh

    Ps. That's why he's suing to see if property /owners rights supersede right of self protection. If Walgreens doesn't want him to be able to defend himself then theyneed to provide for it, and wishful thinking and reling on the good graces of the armed robber doesn't cut it.

    ReplyDelete