It's one thing to be neutral. Stop selling guns in some stores, maybe. That is is their perogative and I can respect that. But THIS move is sleeping with the enemy. It steps on our rights.
Of course they weren't a huge source of stuff for me, but I did buy ammo there. There are no stores around my house but there is one up by my work, and I did buy ammo there, and other things. Lunch break kinda purchases. I had nothing against going there, though, and would never hesitate buying stuff if there was a store near where I was when I needed something. Not anymore.
Needless to say, like many gun-types, I won't be shopping there ever again. And I want them to know it. I want them to know that I'd rather spend 25% more at Sears or Target (Target was iffy with recent rumors it was supporting anti-hunting and anti gun groupd, but they are apparently unfounded, with no actually citation indicting them) than give Wal-Mart my money. I'll get ammo somewhere else. My gun dealer for one. Bass Pro for another.
But that's not enough.
Losing a single customer is no skin off them. What else is there I can do to hurt them?
Well, I mentioned there is no Wal-Mart near me. Why? I live in an inner suburb. Chock full of immigrant families that don't mind bargain prices, a Wal-Mart would be perfect. Well the liberal county I live in doesn't like Wal-Mart. Liberal politicians around here are beholden to their Union support and the Union doesn't like Wal-Marts labor practices and worker compensation, so Wal-Mart building is resisted.
Here is how I hurt Wal-Mart. The county and state is going to elect liberal Democrat types no matter what, anyway, and no matter who I vote for. By 2 to 1. But I can talk to my representatives. Write letters of support. Give them accolades, attaboy, and hosannas, all for CONTINUING to fight the good fight against Wal-Mart. Insist that my elected public servants know that I am behind them 100% on their effort to pressure what few stores there are in the 60 mile radius to pay living wages and insist on a closed union shop. Suggest that they give no sibsidies but insist if a store DOES want to open up that it 'invest in the local community.' (that's politician speak for 'extortion') A politician can do a really good job at sidling up to Wal-Mart officers and saying, "That's an awful pretty big box store you got there. It'd be a shame if anything... happened to it... But if you were prepared to give generous HMOs to all your employees, and something for the ol' campaign coffers, maybe I can help you keep and eye on your nice store. Keep it safe from the new Big Box Tax On Stores With 'W' in Their Name..." And a really good politician can go ahead and vote for the Big Box Tax anyway. It wouldn't be the first time that happened in Maryland.
And politicians remember. That guy (Me) that wrote letters was a good supportive constituent on his counter Wal-Mart crusade. That politician will at least listen a bit more on other issues. Even 2nd Amendment issues.
We can go postal on them! Not like the old days of the 1990s where some idjit with a grudge and murderous rage management issues would go to their letter processing HQ and kill people. No, write letter expressing our support or disappointment with regards to their deportment. Simple, well-worded missives that expound on our rational and reasonable concerns.
I look forward to the day that verb "to go postal" reverts to that letter writing campaign meaning, for what it's worth.
THAT is how you hurt Wal-Mart. A boycott is lost sales. Money they never had. A politician sticking their nose in it COSTS them. Money they already counted on.
That little yellow smiley on all the price tags will look like this:
Sam Walton is probably spinning in his grave over all this.