TexasCHLforum.com

spectre wrote:If they didn't let anybody over 60 enter, I wonder if there would be as many people here defending the policy.

There's a difference between defending them and not condemning them based on one particular incident. One can disagree with a decision without defaulting to classifying them a foe.

Is there any person or company with whom you agree with on 100% of the issues and decisions? If not, does that make everyone and all companies a foe? Does a husband and wife have to agree 100% at all times in order to not be foes?

I just find it hard to categorize a company with the product line of Daniel Defense as anti-gun or anti-2nd Amendment.

Would this one incident/decision justify considering them a "foe"?