Walmart’s Virtue Signal Is Shining Loud and Clear

 

This week, in response to a mass shooting within one of their stores, Walmart decided to stop selling handgun ammunition and restrict open carry on the premises of their buildings.

I agree with what my friend Paul Carlson wrote: The message that Walmart is sending out is loud and clear, Walmart is not happy that their customers own guns.

This action by Walmart is very troubling from a cultural standpoint, as Walmart is the last general retail chain to even acknowledge the existence of guns in American culture. Sears was once a major retailer of guns, and even had their own brand of firearms, as did Montgomery Ward and J.C. Penney.

Walmart is sending the signal that handgun ownership is not something they support. However, handguns are what armed citizens such as myself and millions of other armed citizens rely on to defend our lives and the lives of all we hold dear. By banning the sale of handgun ammunition, (and also banning the sales of AR-15 rifles), Walmart is declaring that guns are for hunting, not for self-protection.

Which is completely out of touch with the reasons why Americans buy guns. It is not 1954 anymore, and Americans are not buying guns to go hunting. Rather, we see firearms as a way to enjoy time on the range, participate in the shooting sports, or defend all that we hold dear.

The market will judge how Walmart’s decision to no longer cater to the needs of the American gun owner will affect its long-term profitability. I hope Walmart also remembers that at one time Sears, Montgomery Ward, Kmart, and J.C. Penney all sold guns, and all those retailers are either piled up on the ash heap of retail history, or on a road that leads there.

Published in Guns
Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s growing community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Get your first month free.

There are 15 comments.

  1. Eustace C. Scrubb Member

    I believe they are still selling hamburger and plastic straws. They are a part of the problem.

    • #1
    • September 5, 2019, at 12:39 PM PDT
    • 4 likes
  2. Stad Thatcher

    If WalMart hates guns so much, why doesn’t corporate put out a nationwide edict to make all their stores “No Concealed Carry Allowed”?

    I’m not waiting for the signs. I’m done with them.

    • #2
    • September 5, 2019, at 12:52 PM PDT
    • 2 likes
  3. Tex929rr Coolidge

    aStad (View Comment):

    If WalMart hates guns so much, why doesn’t corporate put out a nationwide edict to make all their stores “No Concealed Carry Allowed”?

    I’m not waiting for the signs. I’m done with them.

    They have already asked people not to open carry.

    We were discussing this at the firehouse the other night. My contention is that the people who hate guns already hate Walmart, so who are they trying to please?

    • #3
    • September 5, 2019, at 2:30 PM PDT
    • 7 likes
  4. Full Size Tabby Member

    I don’t have the patience to search for the specific instances, but it seems to me that there have been more than one instance in the last couple of years in which a WalMart customer with a gun stopped a person intent on harming multiple people at a WalMart store. Apparently the corporation has a memory that is either particularly short or particularly selective.

    Another way to put this is WalMart bows to bullies.

    • #4
    • September 5, 2019, at 2:31 PM PDT
    • 3 likes
  5. Clifford A. Brown Contributor

    Any one who values the Constitution, let alone gun ownership and the right to effective self-defense, will immediately punish Walmart, shifting all purchases to:

    Dollar stores

    Grocery stores

    Hardware stores

    Auto supply stores

    Amazon. Yes Amazon is also hostile, but this is allying with Stalin to crush the Nazis.

    Walmart is vulnerable. No shopping, and no allowing people who shop there to bring stuff to your dwelling, your office, your picnic. Effectively, immediately, intensively socially shame. The aim must be driving the CEO, whose name is on the larger gun-grabbing initiative, out of his job on the worst possible terms. Contra Fredocon David French, Walmart is not a 50/50 customer base. Not even close.

    We have the power, and will use it or buy the rope to hang ourselves one shopping receipt at a time.

     

     

    • #5
    • September 5, 2019, at 7:21 PM PDT
    • 1 like
  6. Fake John/Jane Galt Thatcher

    I don’t buy my ammo or guns from Walmart. They don’t really have very good prices on those items. If they would have just stopped selling these items I would have never known it. Sadly they decided to make a point and become political. We will respond in kind and stop purchasing anything from them. There are other stores we can purchase from that hold values closer too mine.

    • #6
    • September 5, 2019, at 7:56 PM PDT
    • 2 likes
  7. Jon1979 Lincoln

    Walmart’s actions here aren’t new. The American Prospect (yeah, I know, but stay with me here) did a long story eight years ago about the company’s move left to cater to liberal urbanites as part of its effort to expand more into big city areas outside of Flyover Country. Part of that was hiring former Al Gore aide Leslie Dach to ‘remake’ the company’s image to be more urban-friendly:

    So the cities beckon, but in its efforts to enter them, Wal-Mart has had to adopt a new set of tactics and hire some culturally and politically attuned executives. Chief among them is Leslie Dach, a Yale-educated New Yorker, longtime environmentalist, and a former staffer for both Edward Kennedy and Michael Dukakis. Dach, who was hired in 2006, has been more than another public–relations flack. He signifies the company’s determination to put its best foot forward when it comes to mollifying some of the company’s blue-city critics.

    To solve Wal-Mart’s “reputational” problems, Dach and company moved along two fronts. They mollified company critics where possible but divided them when opportunity and necessity coincided. Thus, in June of 2009, Wal-Mart President Michael Duke joined with trade union leader Andrew Stern and John Podesta of the progressive Center for American Progress in endorsing one of liberal Democrats’ key ideas in the health-care legislative fight. This was the employer mandate, which would require that all large corporations either provide health insurance or pay a mandated fee—$750 was the ballpark figure—to the government for every employee who was not covered.

    They backed off that plan in part by 2011 because urban liberals still hated them as a big, evil corporation, while they were losing their traditional customer base by hawking products that were either too costly or that people didn’t want to buy. But that didn’t mean company executives still weren’t looking to create a more urban-friendly image, and their latest action on gun sales is simply another step in that direction.

    • #7
    • September 5, 2019, at 11:37 PM PDT
    • 4 likes
  8. I Walton Member

    How are the tariffs on China affecting Walmart sales?

    • #8
    • September 6, 2019, at 4:57 AM PDT
    • 1 like
  9. The (apathetic) King Prawn Member

    • #9
    • September 7, 2019, at 8:11 AM PDT
    • 4 likes
  10. Kevin Creighton Contributor
    Kevin Creighton Post author

    The (apathetic) King Prawn (View Comment):

    And, of course, Ammoman.com. /plug. :) 

    • #10
    • September 7, 2019, at 2:45 PM PDT
    • 2 likes
  11. jmelvin Member

    Stad (View Comment):

    If WalMart hates guns so much, why doesn’t corporate put out a nationwide edict to make all their stores “No Concealed Carry Allowed”?

    I’m not waiting for the signs. I’m done with them.

    They probably will have No Guns signs eventually as Walmart has increased its pace to walk away from the average American. In areas where concealed carry isn’t required (such as in California, New York, New Jersey, South Carolina, Florida, and maybe Rhode Island) it is fairly common to see folks with unhidden holstered sidearms quietly going about their shopping in Walmarts (Targets too despite their request years ago) and various other stores and not intentionally bothering a soul.

    What the gun and self defense prohibitionists know though is that this discreet carrying of unhidden sidearms makes the carrying of sidearms normal and what folks of all colors, creeds, and nationality see is that many average folks carry sidearms for protection of themselves and others. This is intolerable to the gun banners and self defense prohibitionists as it exposes their lies very effectively without much hooplah or drama. As a result discreet open carry is hated and those who carry quietly and without hubbub must be stopped so that they can move on to demonizing and barring those who conceal their guns from common observation.

    Except that they wanted to turn on average Americans, Walmart could have easily barred the carrying of arms outside of a holster or scabbard which tends to stir things up and effectively addressed the jack-assery of the guy in Missouri who showed up with a slung AR style rifle hung out front ready to use and wearing exposed body armor supposedly to “test their commitment to the 2nd Amendment.” Unfortunately they chose to demonize the average person (some of whom have historically stopped shootings in their stores) and gone on to push the gun and self defense hater’s narrative.

    • #11
    • September 8, 2019, at 5:17 AM PDT
    • Like
  12. Fake John/Jane Galt Thatcher

    Just curious, if a store posts no guns allowed.

    what weight does that actually have? Corporate rules have no legal hold on people. They are just a request.

    if I am in a store that has disarmed me. What liability do they now have if I get shot in their store? I believe tradition is that they vouch for my safety and responsible for harm?

     

    • #12
    • September 8, 2019, at 3:09 PM PDT
    • 1 like
  13. jmelvin Member

    Fake John/Jane Galt (View Comment):

    Just curious, if a store posts no guns allowed.

    what weight does that actually have? Corporate rules have no legal hold on people. They are just a request.

    if I am in a store that has disarmed me. What liability do they now have if I get shot in their store? I believe tradition is that they vouch for my safety and responsible for harm?

    It would depend upon the law in the particular state. Some states do not consider ignoring a No Guns sign of any more weight than a sign that may say No Food and Drink unless the operator seeks to make it an issue of trespassing (there is a wide variation on how states treat this). Other states explicitly forbid ignoring a No Guns sign with punishment varying from pittance nuisance fines to felony punishment with prison time associated. In other cases ignoring the sign may bring into question whether one may be treated as one who may stand their ground and use the gun in time of need or if one must use ALL manner of available retreat before putting it to use even if defending the life of another. One thus has to know the laws of the state to know whether a No Guns sign has any lawful weight or significance.

    • #13
    • September 8, 2019, at 3:18 PM PDT
    • 1 like
  14. Fake John/Jane Galt Thatcher

    jmelvin (View Comment):

    Fake John/Jane Galt (View Comment):

    Just curious, if a store posts no guns allowed.

    what weight does that actually have? Corporate rules have no legal hold on people. They are just a request.

    if I am in a store that has disarmed me. What liability do they now have if I get shot in their store? I believe tradition is that they vouch for my safety and responsible for harm?

    It would depend upon the law in the particular state. Some states do not consider ignoring a No Guns sign of any more weight than a sign that may say No Food and Drink unless the operator seeks to make it an issue of trespassing (there is a wide variation on how states treat this). Other states explicitly forbid ignoring a No Guns sign with punishment varying from pittance nuisance fines to felony punishment with prison time associated. In other cases ignoring the sign may bring into question whether one may be treated as one who may stand their ground and use the gun in time of need or if one must use ALL manner of available retreat before putting it to use even if defending the life of another. One thus has to know the laws of the state to know whether a No Guns sign has any lawful weight or significance.

    So basically you are hosed since law doesn’t really mean much anymore and everything is up to lying prosecutors and liberal judges.

    • #14
    • September 8, 2019, at 9:15 PM PDT
    • 1 like
  15. jmelvin Member

    Eh, no. The law means something, one just has to know what it says where you are. However we are at the discretion of lying judges and lawyers. As a result, having a way to document or demonstrate that you are acting peaceably can go a long way in mitigating that (think digital voice recorders and tiny video cameras).

    • #15
    • September 9, 2019, at 3:02 AM PDT
    • 1 like