WokewayUSA? This is so disappointing

[TTSX]

Well there appear to be 3 camps in this thread:
1. Those who are upset with Midway's decision and plan to boycott them.
2. Those who accuse number 1's of just b1tching, whining and moaning.
3. Those who are actively arguing that Midway is justified in their decision to not sell a legal item to Oregonians.

Either the 2's and 3's just get off on being contrarian, or, they are against boycotting MidwayUSA. I don't think that is a drastic leap in logic by any means.

I'm definitely a number 2, weighing in at approximately 3.9 Katie Courics.

 

[mhayd93]

But I thought you liked personal attacks?

Any proof to support this notion? Or are you still just trolling?

Just another case of irony I suppose. You're like the third grader at recess that tries to take someone's toy and then cries to the teacher when they push back. Get over yourself, and again, get back on topic.

 

[mhayd93]

You sound like someone that signs the back of a check, not the front. There's nothing wrong with that, but you don't seem to understand risk.

I've already went through great lengths to explain why the "risk" is not rooted in actual case study. I understand the argument people are making in favor of Midway's hesitancy to ship magazines to Oregon.

I simply see no evidence to support their fears; rather it seems to be paranoia rather than any actual legal hazards.

I will again direct you to a very good parallel a la the California magazine ban that was struck down for a very short amount of time in 2019. "High capacity" magazines were sold to residents and shipped directly to their door while it was legal, and none of the businesses who did this faced any legal repercussions. Undoubtedly magazines were still in transit when the ban was reinstated.

 

[Flopsweat]

Any proof to support this notion? Or are you still just trolling?

Just another case of irony I suppose. You're like the third grader at recess that tries to take someone's toy at and then cries to the teacher when they push back. Get over yourself, and again, get back on topic.

You know everyone can see what you post here, right?

 

[mhayd93]

You know everyone can see what you post here, right?

Oh no, first I've heard of this, thanks for the heads up

 

[solv3nt]

I've already went through great lengths to explain why the "risk" is not rooted in actual case study. I understand the argument people are making in favor of Midway's hesitancy to ship magazines to Oregon.

I simply see no evidence to support their fears; rather it seems to be paranoia rather than any actual legal hazards.

I will again direct you to a very good parallel a la the California magazine ban that was struck down for a very short amount of time in 2019. "High capacity" magazines were sold to residents and shipped directly to their door while it was legal, and none of the businesses who did this faced any legal repercussions. Undoubtedly magazines were still in transit when the ban was reinstated.

You don't own a business....

 

[mhayd93]

You don't own a business....

No, but many other prominent businesses such as Magpul, Palmetto State Armory, and Sportsman's Warehouse (just to name a few) seem to be operating on the same logic I am.

Business ownership is not necessary to understand the ins and outs of this debate. Midway is opting to be so cautious that they are obeying a non-law, which is obviously their choice. They are doing so because of a perceived, yet unproven risk. Again this is their choice.

Some of us just take exception to their stance and would rather spend our money elsewhere. That's also our right, and I think we are all perfectly aware of the argument people in support of Midway are making. This is not an uninformed decision we are making.

 

[solv3nt]

No, but many other prominent businesses such as Magpul, Palmetto State Armory, and Sportsman's Warehouse (just to name a few) seem to be operating on the same logic I am.

Business ownership is not necessary to understand the ins and outs of this debate. Midway is opting to be so cautious that they are obeying a non-law, which is obviously their choice. They are doing so because of a perceived, yet unproven risk. Again this is their choice.

Some of us just take exception to their stance and would rather spend our money elsewhere. That's also our right, and I think we are all perfectly aware of the argument people in support of Midway are making. This is not an uninformed decision we are making.

Here's one, do you let guests smoke weed in your house?

 

[mhayd93]

Here's one, do you let guests smoke weed in your house?

I'm going to assume this is an analogy, so let me also assume where you are going with this.

There is no comparison between the dilemma of "do I let someone smoke weed in my house?" and "do I ship magazines to this state (in addition to the thousands of other goods I am also shipping to that state and others)?" The context between these choices is just not even in the same ballpark as one another.

The only valid comparison between these scenarios is that both parties have freedom of choice to be restrictive or not; as it relates to MidwayUSA, I've already stated plenty of times that I agree it is their right to not sell magazines to Oregon.

 

[solv3nt]

I'm going to assume this is an analogy, so let me also assume where you are going with this.

There is no comparison between the dilemma of "do I let someone smoke weed in my house?" and "do I ship magazines to this state (in addition to the thousands of other goods I am also shipping to that state and others)?" The context between these choices is just not even in the same ballpark as one another.

The only valid comparison between these scenarios is that both parties have freedom of choice to be restrictive or not; as it relates to MidwayUSA, I've already stated plenty of times that I agree it is their right to not sell magazines to Oregon.

You still don't understand liability.

 

[mhayd93]

You still don't understand liability.

No, the goalpost just keeps moving. Midway sells lots of products where they run the risk of liability. Every corporation has to consider liability, it's part of the game. Midway is avoiding a perceived liability, but we've already ran this circle like 20 times on this thread.

 

[solv3nt]

No, the goalpost just keeps moving. Midway sells lots of products where they run the risk of liability. Every corporation has to consider liability, it's part of the game. Midway is avoiding a perceived liability, but we've already ran this circle like 20 times on this thread.

So.... Would you let someone smoke weed in your house?

 

[GDUB JR]

Nope.

Definition of VEHEMENT

marked by forceful energy : powerful : such as; intensely emotional : impassioned, fervid; deeply felt… See the full definition

www.merriam-webster.com

I think you just like to argue.

POT calls kettle black! ON ALL OF US !!

 

[HA556]

It never ceases to amaze me how frequently topics go left field! Put me in coach, I'm ready to play today!

 

[GDUB JR]

It never ceases to amaze me how frequently topics go left field! Put me in coach, I'm ready to play today!

You go Long!!

 

[GrayGoose]

Dammit, I ran out of popcorn. To the store I go...

 

[solv3nt]

@mhayd93
You completely danced around my question on if you would allow someone to smoke weed in your house. If the answer is no, which I'm assuming is, is your choice on legal liability.

Similarly, your case law, or lack there of, was only for individuals getting prosecuted. Gun manufacturers have been getting sued for making guns. The Washington AG is suing a Washington gun store for selling magazines. (They may have already won, trust but verify.)

You don't own a business, fine. But you understand personal liability in your home. Now extend that to business owners. I personally just increased my umbrella policy from $1M to $2M.

 

[mhayd93]

@mhayd93
You completely danced around my question on if you would allow someone to smoke weed in your house. If the answer is no, which I'm assuming is, is your choice on legal liability.

Similarly, your case law, or lack there of, was only for individuals getting prosecuted. Gun manufacturers have been getting sued for making guns. The Washington AG is suing a Washington gun store for selling magazines. (They may have already won, trust but verify.)

You don't own a business, fine. But you understand personal liability in your home. Now extend that to business owners. I personally just increased my umbrella policy from $1M to $2M.

I didn't dance around anything. I addressed the analogy you were making; whether or not I would allow someone to smoke weed in my home does nothing to change the leap in logic being applied by conflating those two scenarios.

Also, the decision to allow someone to smoke weed or not in my home would have nothing to do with legal liability, but rather concerns over the health and safety of my self and others, not wanting the stench permeating into furniture, etc…

A better analogy would be, "would you allow someone to smoke weed in your home who is from a state where a law that bans smoking weed has been permanently enjoined?"

 

[solv3nt]

I didn't dance around anything. I addressed the analogy you were making; whether or not I would allow someone to smoke weed in my home does nothing to change the leap in logic being applied by conflating those two scenarios.

Also, the decision to allow someone to smoke weed or not in my home would have nothing to do with legal liability, but rather concerns over the health and safety of my self and others, not wanting the stench permeating into furniture, etc…

A better analogy would be, "would you allow someone to smoke weed in your home who is from a state where a law that bans smoking weed has been permanently enjoined?"

Fine. You're in Oregon, would you let your guest shot up heroin in your home via needle.

 

[TTSX]