Stop Walmart from Selling Handgun Ammunition

Target: Walmart CEO Michael Duke

Goal: Convince Walmart executives to discontinue the sale of handgun ammunition in their stores.

Every bullet sold has the potential to take a human life. Walmart is the world’s largest corporation, with annual sales last at $218 billion; Walmart does not need ammo sales to ensure its success. We must call upon Walmart to stop selling handgun ammunition, to protect its customers.

It’s not necessary to provide evidence that an easily-accessible bullet can easily end a life. However there have been numerous well-accounted-for instances where Walmart has played a role in the deaths of American citizens. On August 27, 1999, Bryan Midgette was arrested for abusing his wife, Marsha. She placed a restraining order on him, but despite this, Bryan tracked Marsha down three days later at the Walmart in Pottstown, Pennsylvania where she worked. He purchased bullets for his .22 caliber handgun in the store, then chased Marsha through the aisles and shot her before killing himself. Marsha survived, but with severe brain damage.

On May 22, 2001, Laura Gassaway entered a Walmart in Rockford, Illinois and tried to purchase bullets for her handgun. The clerk refused to sell to her because she did not have her state firearm ID card, so Laura began to shoplift random items off the shelves until security officers apprehended her. The security officers called the police and took Laura to the back of the store. There, she pulled a handgun from her purse and shot three security guards before police burst in and killed her.

During an argument with his estranged wife on July 31, 2001, John VanGraafeiland threatened to go to Wal-Mart, buy bullets and kill himself. Police warned the two local Wal-Mart’s in Wilmington, North Carolina not to sell bullets to the man, but no one told the clerk selling the ammunition. After purchasing the bullets, VanGraafeiland killed himself in his car in the Walmart parking lot. Walmart eventually paid VanGraafeiland’s family $130,000 for negligence.

Walmart’s slogan is, “We’re nothing without our customers.” However, it seems Walmart’s handgun ammunition sales has led to the violent loss of some of its customers. Bullets have no place at Walmart, and we must demand that this corporation halt handgun ammunition sales.

PETITION LETTER:

Dear CEO Michael Duke,

Walmart is the largest company in the world, and as such, does not need handgun ammunition to bring in revenue. We ask that Walmart discontinue handgun ammo sales in its stores, in order to protect the customers it claims to be “nothing without.”

Walmart bullets have precipitated the deaths of Laura Gassaway, Bryan Midgette, and John VanGraafeiland to name just a few. Walmart’s involvement in these deaths is not just inappropriate, but downright deplorable. Please protect your consumers and remove handgun ammunition from Walmart’s inventory.

Sincerely,

[Your Name Here]

 

Sign the Petition

  • Your email will not be published. By signing you accept the ForceChange terms of service and may receive updates on this and related petitions.

Facebook Comments

comments

55 Comments

  1. john beeney says:

    Hahaha this is gotta be the worst liberal post ive ever seen, haha so many things i could say but ill hold it in. Vut one thing is its the people like these freaks who are anti gun who think guns are to kill good people only.. if thats your view then yall are the ones rhat should be serving some time in a mental institution. Only 10,000 total deaths in america was caused by guns in i beileve 2011 and that counts police officers killing criminals and all that so you can eliminate a big chunk of that for deaths for good cause. And in that same year around 9,500 people died from swimming pools no ones banning swimming pools or telling walmart to ban those and cancer kills over 500,000 people in america a year and fucking cars kill over a million so before your dumbass comes on trying to stop selling of ammo get a fucking life guns are to hunt sport and pritect us and our familys grow the fuck up. And why american government is trying to ban guns is not to save people but to control. If it was to save then just about everything but guns would be banned have a nice day sir.

    • “Vut one thing is its the people like these freaks who are anti gun who think guns are to kill good people only”
      “in that same year around 9,500 people died from swimming pools no ones banning swimming pools or telling walmart to ban those”

      From trying to decipher that, I have deduced you think guns have another purpose that isn’t to harm people. We aren’t going to ban pools because pools were not created to drown people, they are for us to swim it.
      Do you mistakenly believe guns were created for fun too?
      “guns are to hunt sport and pritect us and our familys”
      First of all, I doubt you go out and hunt wild animals casually on the weekend. Secondly, your ‘familys’ would be safer if guns were not sold in supermarkets so freely as they are now.
      Have a nice day, sir.

      • john beeney says:

        I go hunt every other week it saves money and is healthy food. And i have my own range my kids and my friends familys kids and everyone shoots and has fun every saturday you have no idea what a gun is how it works and how it is used, if you have shot one handles one and owned one you would be calling yourself a dumbass right now look if guns was never invented thsts another thing but they was and thst cant be undone its part of humanity now and as humans we have the right to use tools all weapons are tools, and wether you think there good or not rhey should not be banned, nukess and drones are a diffrent thought those are way out of proportion, i dont think any country should even have those. Its simple if you dont like guns then move somewhere there not allowed like china russia ect.. judt because YOU donr like something doesnt mean everyone else has to agree and they need banned just move where there banned and have fun. America is a free countery and just because some people hate guns or csrs or whatever does not mean they need banned. Sorry for spelling my keyboard on my phone is horriable.

  2. Alexander Riccio says:

    Apparently this is not a popular petition, except if you gauge popularity on the lengthy thread of vitriolic comments. I’m not certain that this particular petition is worthwhile, however the individuals that have responded to it need to be addressed sensibly.
    I’ve noticed a number of people citing the 2nd amendment, and the need to uphold it. However, if read literally, the 2nd amendment does not ensure the rights of individuals to bear arms. Reread the actual document, the amendment was written to protect state militias. However, this is a moot point because amendments are often interpreted loosely; rarely literally.
    Another consistent comment is that if one were to outlaw guns then they should also outlaw automobiles and alcohol as well. First, no one is attempting to outlaw guns, and no one ever has in our nation’s history. However, there is a push for gun regulation, which if considered makes these analogies wholly ridiculous.
    Cars have been regulated. If you don’t know who Ralph Nader is (other than the guy who supposedly lost Gore the 2000 election) then look him up. He pushed for the auto industry to include seat belts in cars, along with a number of other safety regulations, and after years of lobbying was finally able to convince congress that these measures were necessary. How many of you would feel comfortable in a car without a seat belt? Or how many of you have even had a fleeting notion of the possibility of a car without a seat belt? Well, thank Ralph Nader. Additionally, citizens are not allowed to acquire a driver’s license until 16, which is another form of regulation.
    Also, alcohol has been prohibited in the past, and when discovered that it only exacerbated an issue it was allowed back into the pipeline with hefty regulations. Why do you suppose moonshine is illegal to produce or sell? We also have drinking laws. Everyone knows them: no alcohol for individuals under 21, no drinking and driving, no public intoxication, etc.
    So, this notion that with the regulation of one should come the regulation of others is absurd; they are regulated. And laws exist that try to combat driving deaths. I’m certain some of you know a person that’s gotten a DUI, it’s extremely punitive. That’s a measure to mitigate vehicular deaths, and a regulation.
    On top of everything is the fact that guns are regulated. Since you’re all gun lovers on this message board you must know there are laws about guns. Therefore, there are regulations about guns. So why all the outrage over any proposition to further regulate the industry? We know that gun homicides are higher in the states than in any other country, so obviously we have a problem that needs to be addressed. What I propose is the sensible debate over which regulations would be effective and reasonable, and which ones would not. No proposal will deny 2nd amendment rights or outlaw guns entirely, that’s ludicrous and political suicide. However, we do need regulations and laws that strive to protect people and keep the industry safe. So, let’s be a bit more open-minded.

    • Dealt_soul says:

      Correction. Moonshine is not illegal to make for personal use under so many gallons a year. Check out moonshiners reunions. Selling it.. yes that is illegal.

    • Dealt_soul says:

      One more thing. Gun regulation is ok if agreed upon by the people, but I have an ar15 so leave my gun alone and quit trying to make it illegal. That’s the issue people are having. They can’t seem to ban some guns so they have been known to try to starve em out by other regulations. Ex. High ammo tax and ammo regulations.

    • You must not be an English major.

      Roy Copperud, a retired professor of journalism at the University of Southern California and the author of American Usage and Style: The Consensus.

      [Copperud:] “The words ‘A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state,’ contrary to the interpretation cited in your letter of July 26, 1991, constitutes a present participle, rather than a clause. It is used as an adjective, modifying ‘militia,’ which is followed by the main clause of the sentence (subject ‘the right’, verb ‘shall’). The to keep and bear arms is asserted as an essential for maintaining a militia.

      “In reply to your numbered questions:

      [Schulman:] “(1) Can the sentence be interpreted to grant the right to keep and bear arms solely to ‘a well-regulated militia’?”

      [Copperud:] “(1) The sentence does not restrict the right to keep and bear arms, nor does it state or imply possession of the right elsewhere or by others than the people; it simply makes a positive statement with respect to a right of the people.”

      [Schulman:] “(2) Is ‘the right of the people to keep and bear arms’ granted by the words of the Second Amendment, or does the Second Amendment assume a preexisting right of the people to keep and bear arms, and merely state that such right ‘shall not be infringed’?”

      [Copperud:] “(2) The right is not granted by the amendment; its existence is assumed. The thrust of the sentence is that the right shall be preserved inviolate for the sake of ensuring a militia.”

      [Schulman:] “(3) Is the right of the people to keep and bear arms conditioned upon whether or not a well regulated militia, is, in fact necessary to the security of a free State, and if that condition is not existing, is the statement ‘the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed’ null and void?”

      [Copperud:] “(3) No such condition is expressed or implied. The right to keep and bear arms is not said by the amendment to depend on the existence of a militia. No condition is stated or implied as to the relation of the right to keep and bear arms and to the necessity of a well-regulated militia as a requisite to the security of a free state. The right to keep and bear arms is deemed unconditional by the entire sentence.”

      [Schulman:] “(4) Does the clause ‘A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,’ grant a right to the government to place conditions on the ‘right of the people to keep and bear arms,’ or is such right deemed unconditional by the meaning of the entire sentence?”

      [Copperud:] “(4) The right is assumed to exist and to be unconditional, as previously stated. It is invoked here specifically for the sake of the militia.”

      [Schulman:] “(5) Which of the following does the phrase ‘well-regulated militia’ mean: ‘well-equipped’, ‘well-organized,’ ‘well-drilled,’ ‘well-educated,’ or ‘subject to regulations of a superior authority’?”

      [Copperud:] “(5) The phrase means ‘subject to regulations of a superior authority;’ this accords with the desire of the writers for civilian control over the military.”

      [Schulman:] “(6) (If at all possible, I would ask you to take account the changed meanings of words, or usage, since that sentence was written 200 years ago, but not take into account historical interpretations of the intents of the authors, unless those issues can be clearly separated.”

      [Copperud:] “To the best of my knowledge, there has been no change in the meaning of words or in usage that would affect the meaning of the amendment. If it were written today, it might be put: “Since a well-regulated militia is necessary tot he security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be abridged.’

      [Schulman:] “As a ‘scientific control’ on this analysis, I would also appreciate it if you could compare your analysis of the text of the Second Amendment to the following sentence,

      “A well-schooled electorate, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and read Books, shall not be infringed.’

      “My questions for the usage analysis of this sentence would be,

      “(1) Is the grammatical structure and usage of this sentence and the way the words modify each other, identical to the Second Amendment’s sentence?; and

      “(2) Could this sentence be interpreted to restrict ‘the right of the people to keep and read Books’ only to ‘a well-educated electorate’ — for example, registered voters with a high-school diploma?”

      [Copperud:] “(1) Your ‘scientific control’ sentence precisely parallels the amendment in grammatical structure.

      “(2) There is nothing in your sentence that either indicates or implies the possibility of a restricted interpretation.”

      Professor Copperud had only one additional comment, which he placed in his cover letter: “With well-known human curiosity, I made some speculative efforts to decide how the material might be used, but was unable to reach any conclusion.”

      So now we have been told by one of the top experts on American usage what many knew all along: the Constitution of the United States unconditionally protects the people’s right to keep and bear arms, forbidding all governments formed under the Constitution from abridging that right.

      • Alexander Riccio says:

        Interesting…thank you for posting that. But, I find it rather curious that the majority of the answers to the questions posed were enforced by an assumption. For instance, “The right is ASSUMED to exist and to be unconditional, as previously stated.” And again, “The right is not granted by the amendment; its existence is ASSUMED”
        Now I agree the amendment can be scrutinized in various ways; on one side you can argue it guarantees gun rights to individuals, on the other it doesn’t, and so on. However, a close examination of the discourse you posted reveals a tendency toward bias on the part of the interviewee. You have to pay attention, careful analysis, of everything you read, otherwise you miss those crucial words like “assume.” Copperud is not reading the amendment literally, he is applying his own interpretation to it, which is what I wrote about amendments and how they are read. But all of this is irrelevant, the Supreme Court ultimately interprets the constitution, not you and I, and the real issue here is gun regulation. How can gun regulation be effective and fair?

    • Wayne Green says:

      Sorry to have to correct you, but the Second Amendment is an individual right as per the Supreme Court in the Heller case. Also, gun homicides are not higher than any other country. While the U.S. is first in gun ownership, it is 28th. in gun homicide.

      Lets check our facts nest time.

  3. Pete Zenewicz says:

    I buy ammo at WalMart because it is the only thing I can find there that is not made in China.

  4. I was recently at my local Walmart, browsing through sporting goods, when a locally stationed STATE POLICE OFFICER walked up to the counter and bought several boxes of “the dreadful killer handgun ammunition” (that you people want to ban!) for himself and his fellow officers. When will it ever sink in with you people?!?!…. Guns don’t kill people! People kill people! Criminals are called criminals for a reason, because, they do not obey the laws! If a deranged person is that intent on trying to kill someone, they will find a way to do it, regardless of any law or even IF your idiotic “petition” were to actually work!…. The simple fact is that guns & ammunition, in the hands of knowledgeable law abiding citizens and law enforcement, saves more innocent lives than you realize…… AND if anti gun people like you would wake up to reality and really look at the facts in the bigger picture or at least back off of we who want to be able to defend ourselves and other innocent people from the criminals and the deranged, even MORE lives could be saved by the very things you would attempt to take away!….. So, tell me, do you really WANT TO help the criminals and therefore become an accomplice to the crimes they would commit?….. OR would you, if not stand with us, at least stay out of our way and let us defend both ourselves, our freedom and way of life and yes, even you????…. think about it.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

Signatures

  • obxddujxtt
  • dzzppudhvc
  • fgktkihgqp
  • cckmcjfnbf
  • Fuck You Bitches
  • These people are ignorant keep selling ammo
  • Alper Arslan
  • enttr
1 of 19123...19