Gun control activists petition Chipotle to ban guns

[SMS]

The various amendments including the second, are oriented towards protecting the populace from the federal government. Not the states. Not private businesses.

Carrying a rifle into a restaurant to "protect your rights to carry a firearm" is asinine, monumentally stupid and publicly demonstrates the lack of common sense and good judgment that should be required when carrying a fire arm in public.


THIS is why we can't have nice things. Dumbasses.

Ek

Yup. A firearm is a tool...not a display piece or a protest sign.

 

[bettingpython]

The various amendments including the second, are oriented towards protecting the populace from the federal government. Not the states. Not private businesses.

Carrying a rifle into a restaurant to "protect your rights to carry a firearm" is asinine, monumentally stupid and publicly demonstrates the lack of common sense and good judgment that should be required when carrying a fire arm in public.


THIS is why we can't have nice things. Dumbasses.

Ek

The constitution applies to the state and local governments the same as it applies to the Federal government. Only those rights not mentioned by the constitution are left up to the people and the states.

But if you are so against open carry, why not throw in with Bloomberg and get it out outlawed? Can't have anyone doing something that might scare or offend someone else.

Sent from my LG-E980 using Tapatalk

The winner is EK!

 

[Old Fart]

It gets a little tiring those folks putting business's in this situation.

 

[english kanigit]

I am far from against open carry. I have used it myself several times to good effect when it made sense but those times are rarely out in public. That is my personal decision based off of my own cost/benefit/risk matrix. In the interest of responisbility I would highly encourage anyone to apply such decision-making skills befor carrying any firearm either concealed or openly. All of this advice is null and void though when on on private property. In a civilized society, when in someone else's house you are generally expected to play by their rules or leave.


My dad's been on me for years about coming back to Kansas to start a restaurant with him. If that were to happen you could bet with certainty there would be a green CCW=good on the front door. You could also be equally certain that anyone bringing a long gun into said establishment would promptly have the muzzle of a pistol shoved between their teeth while being in interrogated as to their heritage and whether it involved farm animals… That's if they were lucky. This would be for the safety of myself, my staff and my customers as well as their comfort. Don't bring your ******** into somebody else's place of business unless it has been specifically asked for or requested.

Furthermore, I submit that most of the men who wrote the venerated second amendment to the Constitution of this land would be all too willing to ***** slap with a tomahawk these two mouth breathing yokels for their idiocy.

Tell me I'm wrong and why. I dare you

Ek.

 

[english kanigit]

This post is how I kicked off the thread on the Starbucks mess a while back. I stand by everything I said in that thread and this editorial bears repeating. It behooves us all to not just be intolerant of stupity from within the ranks of the gun culture but to excoriate it.


http://www.thebangswitch.com/slapping-an-ally-in-the-face/


This needs to be spread far and wide, especually amongst the "I'm going to rub your nose in my rights" open carry retards.

Back in July a pro-gun Facebook page began to organize a Starbucks Appreciation Day to show support for Starbucks’ corporate policy to respect local laws by allowing legally armed citizens to carry in their stores. It’s worth noting that Starbucks didn’t come out and say they advocated the carrying of firearms, only that they would respect local laws and not post signs in their stores barring the practice.

Apparently that was enough to get our community motivated to inundate Starbucks stores across the nation with hundreds of people open carrying their firearms to “show appreciation” for Starbucks policy of neutrality.

Starbucks has been an unwilling participant in the ongoing national gun rights debate for many years. As recently as 2010 Starbucks was being used as a battleground for gun rights by both sides of the political debate. Looking at a press release dated March 16, 2010 we get a glimpse of where Starbucks stands on the issue.

We recognize that there is significant and genuine passion surrounding the issue of open carry weapons laws. Advocacy groups from both sides of this issue have chosen to use Starbucks as a way to draw attention to their positions.

While we deeply respect the views of all our customers, Starbucks long-standing approach to this issue remains unchanged. We comply with local laws and statutes in all the communities we serve. That means we abide by the laws that permit open carry in 43 U.S. states. Where these laws don’t exist, openly carrying weapons in our stores is prohibited. The political, policy and legal debates around these issues belong in the legislatures and courts, not in our stores.

At the same time, we have a security protocol for any threatening situation that might occur in our stores. Partners are trained to call law enforcement as situations arise. We will continuously review our procedures to ensure the highest safety guidelines are in place and we will continue to work closely with law enforcement.

We have examined this issue through the lens of partner (employee) and customer safety. Were we to adopt a policy different from local laws allowing open carry, we would be forced to require our partners to ask law abiding customers to leave our stores, putting our partners in an unfair and potentially unsafe position.

As the public debate continues, we are asking all interested parties to refrain from putting Starbucks or our partners into the middle of this divisive issue. As a company, we are extremely sensitive to the issue of gun violence in our society. Our Starbucks family knows all too well the dangers that exist when guns are used irresponsibly and illegally. Without minimizing this unfortunate reality, we believe that supporting local laws is the right way for us to ensure a safe environment for both partners and customers.

I would like to point out that the position Starbucks has taken is admirable. It’s neutral out of necessity however it clearly states they will honor both federal and local laws governing the carrying of firearms. Good for them, I believe it’s a sensible position for a major corporation to take.

The press release also asks that parties on both sides of the debate refrain from putting Starbucks, or their partners (employees), into the middle of the “divisive issue”. They don’t want to be the battleground for the gun rights debate, they simply want to do what’s right by staying neutral and honoring federal and state laws.

To show our appreciation, our community does the exact opposite of what we’ve been asked to do by a 2nd Amendment friendly business. We organize a national rally to bombard Starbucks stores across the nation with armed gun rights advocates. As a result, their Facebook page has been absolutely overrun with posts from people on both sides of the debate posting their political views, links to news stories, images people walking around armed in front of coffee shops, etc. We’ve drug Starbucks smack dab into the middle of the debate and put them on the spot against their explicit wishes.

We didn’t show our appreciation to Starbucks, we slapped them in the face. The company went so far as to close their Newtown CT store in anticipation of the pending rally.

I see the whole “Starbucks Appreciation Day” as a misstep on our part. I’m all for activism and take part in it myself. I’ve been present at rallies where I’ve open carried - heck I even helped organize such rallies. But to go against the wishes of an ally like Starbucks and make their business a focal point in the national gun rights debate, when they’ve asked us not to do so, is irresponsible. As a matter of fact, because of our actions, I wouldn’t be surprised if Starbucks reconsiders their corporate policy. Let’s hope that’s not the case.

We can be vocal, we can even be loud, but we need to be calculated and purposeful in our actions. We also need to be respectful to businesses that support our rights and not go out of our way to burn bridges with them.

If you want to show your appreciation to Starbucks, buy their coffee and encourage others to do the same. If you want to organize a 2nd Amendment rally, pick a public area or a business that’s anti-gun. But let’s try to avoid alienating allies by drawing them into the line of fire when they’ve specifically asked us not to do so.


With all of that being said, I’m craving an Iced Latte. Starbucks, here I come.

Ek

 

[bettingpython]

EK I am stealing your meme. That rocks.

And yes I believe a pistol between the teeth while ascertaining lineage for someone walking into my place of business with a rifle would be appropriate.

 

[SoonerP226]

This is a PR war we're fighting, and carrying longarms into a restaurant to "support" the business "on our side" when they're really trying to remain neutral is a damned good way to lose it. At least Starbucks and Chipotle have only said "please don't" instead of "thou shalt not."

I'm not at all anti-OC, though I don't generally choose to do so in public, but OC'ing to make a point, even if you think it's letting someone know that you appreciate what they're doing, is not helping us at this point. It's about as subtle as a sledgehammer, and it provokes an emotional response when we need rational responses.

More importantly, it has given our opponents two big PR victories when the tide had turned against them. That's the last thing we need.

 

[ronny]

No matter where you go, there is always a group of dumbasses who want to make a stupid statement and screw it up for the rest of us. Common sense took a nosedive in this instance, as it is prone to do.

 

[cmhbob]

I wish I could find the quote I'm thinking of, because my vague recollection of it seems appropriate here.

But I've read something that involved a sheriff at a dinner party, being asked by a socialite why he needed the gun on his hip at the party, and was he expecting trouble, and his response was that if he were expecting trouble, he'd have brought his rifle, or something to that effect.

 

[yukonjack]

I wish I could find the quote I'm thinking of, because my vague recollection of it seems appropriate here.

But I've read something that involved a sheriff at a dinner party, being asked by a socialite why he needed the gun on his hip at the party, and was he expecting trouble, and his response was that if he were expecting trouble, he'd have brought his rifle, or something to that effect.

The old sheriff was attending an awards dinner when a lady commented on his wearing his sidearm. ‘Sheriff, I see you have your pistol. Are you expecting trouble?’ ‘No ma’am. If I were expecting trouble, I would have brought my rifle.’