Chipotle vs Tools for Dissent

[GoWolfpack]

You will never have an honest debate on here about open carry. Given the "mission" of THR, it's all preaching to the choir.

I've known for a while that the THR community is firmly anti-OC. Occasionally I like to poke the bear and keep this place from going completely one sided.


We seem to look at OC advocates a little like white supremacists: we might theoretically support the right of a person to feel that way, but we're firmly against any sort of implementation of their ideas.

No one ever claims OC should be illegal. But everyone says we shouldn't do it. So whether it's social pressure or legal pressure that prevents me from open-carrying, what's the difference?

If it shouldn't be illegal to OC, but no one should ever OC because you'll aggravate the antis, where is the functional difference?

 

[Sam1911]

If it shouldn't be illegal to OC, but no one should ever OC because you'll aggravate the antis, where is the functional difference?

Ok, so that's a classic strawman argument and I'm sure you presented it as an object lesson in logical fallacies. However, if I may use it as a springboard to a more meaningful conversation:

There is a basic disconnect here that I think causes us more strife than necessary.

There are some (maybe a few, maybe "most," I'm not sure) folks who think open carry is bad.

There are a bunch who think open carry is fine, ok, sometimes ok, generally ok, occasionally a good idea, often a good idea, or some other variation of generally acceptable.

There are a VERY few who think what these doods did is a good choice for them/us/the movement.

We do ourselves a disservice when we unnecessarily conflate the first two groups. Many, if not most, of the folks disapproving of this behavior are not opposed to open carry.

However, rather than a case of "aggravating the antis" here we have a case of turning neutral parties decidedly AGAINST us. Taking a neutral and making it a negative. That's when every 'most ever gun toter, gun owner, and shooter should be able to do a little cost-benefit analysis and say, "whoops, bad idea."

That doesn't make anyone anti-gun or anti-OC. Just makes them realists with a more useful, comprehending perspective.

 

[ATLDave]

No one ever claims OC should be illegal. But everyone says we shouldn't do it. So whether it's social pressure or legal pressure that prevents me from open-carrying, what's the difference?

The coercive power of the state. That's the difference.

This is also the difference laws and manners. If someone is consistently rude, even if they never break the law, they will find that bad, non-governmental consequences begin to pile up. Open carrying - of the kind discussed here - is rude. Don't be rude. Especially don't be rude if you're advocating for a cause. And definitely don't be rude if you're advocating for a cause I support.

 

[herrwalther]

The Chipotle open carry incident will not help the 2A crowd or Chipotle. The effort of one crowd to promote their rights has backlashed against them and makes everyone on our side look bad. Nevertheless I will "respect" Chipotle's wish, and I won't eat there, after sending a very calm and concise message to them. They are certainly within their rights to not allow firearm carry in their store, as I am within mine to go someplace else to take the fight to their wallet.

 

[conw]

We seem to look at OC advocates a little like white supremacists: we might theoretically support the right of a person to feel that way, but we're firmly against any sort of implementation of their ideas.

No one ever claims OC should be illegal. But everyone says we shouldn't do it. So whether it's social pressure or legal pressure that prevents me from open-carrying, what's the difference?

If it shouldn't be illegal to OC, but no one should ever OC because you'll aggravate the antis, where is the functional difference?

False analogy. Whether or not one feels that this sort of open carry is an effective method of convincing others, or for that matter might be counterproductive when implemented disastrously as it was there, is not dependent on whether one feels it should be legally restricted. They're entirely separate questions. Think about it; in theory a person could even believe open carry should be outlawed while also believing it is an effective demonstration tool.

To reply to your example, I'm sure there are white supremacists who would rather not have the public view them as idiots and resent thing like Klan rallies and swastika marches. According to your analogy the people who don't want to be viewed as idiots are not actually white supremacists, but oddly the dictionary disagrees:

a person who believes that the white race is inherently superior to other races and that white people should have control over people of other races
— white supremacy noun

It does not say "a person who believes that demonstrations that offend nearly everyone are a good public relations tool."

It is pretty unconvincing when all your counter arguments involve claiming to know some secret unstated perspective held by those with views with which you disagree, and moving the goalposts (this discussion is about whether or not this type of "demonstration" is effective for persuasion and how to deal with the black mark most feel it leaves on our image; none of the things you're objecting to were even stated here).


Y'know that saying to the effect that "I disagree with your view, but I would defend your right to say it."

If we juxtaposed your open carry viewpoint onto the 1st amendment, the new version would read like this:

"I must agree with what you have to say, because I would defend your right to say it. "

Perhaps that makes sense to you or maybe it doesn't, but that's a close approximation of your argument against dissenting toward individuals smearing our image through open carry.

 

[NavyLCDR]

No one ever claims OC should be illegal. But everyone says we shouldn't do it. So whether it's social pressure or legal pressure that prevents me from open-carrying, what's the difference?

If it shouldn't be illegal to OC, but no one should ever OC because you'll aggravate the antis, where is the functional difference?

What I have a problem with is people who say "Don't open carry, because if you open carry then they will pass a law that makes it illegal - you know, like in California."

Several things bother me about that argument.

If you aren't going to do it anyway and you are going to tell others not to do it, then what difference does it make if it is legal or not?

If you are allowing your behavior to be controlled by FEAR of a law being passed, then you are completely, 100%, voluntarily giving up your rights due to the mere threats made by the anti-gun crowd. And - you have no basis on which to fight it. They have won their victory because you folded.

If the action becomes illegal - now you have a basis in court upon which you can legally fight it. In California, for instance, the fact that no method of carry was any longer available without the license because they banned unloaded open carry was a factor that strengthened the Peruta v. San Diego case. Without banning unloaded open carry the court could simply point to that and say "You have a means available to you to carry a handgun in public without a license - unloaded open carry."

Now - this post is a little bit out of the scope of the OP of this thread when we are only talking about a business decided to request that people not carry firearms.

 

[Sam1911]

Now - this post is a little bit out of the scope of the OP of this thread when we are only talking about a business decided to request that people not carry firearms.

Certainly true.

Now one nation wide business is "against us" and we've really no basis to appeal that except for the questionably effective financial boycott method ... which will be even less effective than normal considering how few gunny types really will come out in support of "the doods."

 

[ATLDave]

If you aren't going to do it anyway and you are going to tell others not to do it, then what difference does it make if it is legal or not?

I don't stick my tongue out at other people. I encourage others to refrain from doing so as well. That doesn't mean I think there should be a law against it. Not everything that is rude should be illegal. And calling something rude doesn't mean you are advocating for a regulatory scheme to control that thing.

If you are allowing your behavior to be controlled by FEAR of a law being passed, then you are completely, 100%, voluntarily giving up your rights due to the mere threats made by the anti-gun crowd.

Or maybe people are exercising self-control and thereby preserving their legal rights. And doing so with an understanding that gun rights are currently a topic of public discourse in America and that we need more friends, not fewer. We need to be perceived as calmer and more sane than the stereotype of a gun owner, not more impulsive and confrontational.

I'll say it again: Being rude is rarely an effective advocacy technique.

 

[blarby]

Though this instance would appear to be an example of a quite different problem: Formerly neutral folks deciding to choose a side against "us" because of the actions of some ostensibly "pro gun" folks.

And then the rest of the dedicated pro-gun folks being upset because the line just shifted a hair in the wrong direction without an attendant strategic "win" to point to.

...

Worthy of consideration might be that if 95% of trained, situationally-aware armed citizens, carrying a weapon themselves, witness two fellas enter a public places where long guns are NEVER seen, holding rifles or shotguns, that's going to make every warning bell go off instantly in their heads.

The most neutral "normal" () people are likely to stand there gawking with their tongues bobbing in open, suddenly very dry mouths.

The more competent defensive-minded folks are going to be in condition red, thinking of hard cover, and some may be out the door within seconds, dragging the wife and kids away from what looks for all the world like the next mall shooting.

Why? Is it because guns are bad and/or SHOULDN'T be acceptable in public? No, not at all.

It is because they are COMPLETELY unexpected -- out of place in this venue in our society as it currently exists. And in fact the only explanation a racing mind is likely to land on is the worst possible one -- a mass killing about to happen.

Should this perception change? Yes, I think it should. I hope someday to live in a world where a SLUNG rifle is not an uncommon sight in a public place and elicits no great concern. But we're a very long way from that in most of suburban or urban America ... and in a very great deal of RURAL America, too.

We're barely to the point that in most parts of the country a holstered handgun can be worn in public without a concealment garment and without usually causing a panic involving more than one momentarily distressed observer.

Rifles and shotguns can't enjoy that passivity without an (at least visual) explanation of their purpose in the scene. Heck, a uniformed police officer or solider walking through a store or mall or down a city street with a rifle is going to ramp up the public's agitation to a degree: They just don't DO that unless something unpleasant is going on nearby. A hunter with blaze orange and a bit of camo on could maybe enter such a place with his hunting rifle and the visual impression would probably be coherent enough to pacify the observers -- though that is still pretty unusual in most places, as 99.9% of hunters even fresh from the field don't carry their weapons into the store.

Two very average looking young chaps/blokes/dorks/kids/goobers/youngsters/"operators" walk in with black rifles? I'll be honest -- unless I can instantly resolve in my brain who/what/why/what's up (and I'm ok with the answer) -- I'm OUT OF THERE. If they are up to no good, I've got a split second, and maybe less, to enact my escape plan.

...

All that to say: Maybe someday. But not today. Gotta make sure we don't break irreparably the fragile situation we're working to improve in the very long term.

Summaries that should be a sticky.

Sam does it again.


All potential avenues of resistance to tyranny should be tempered with their expected response.

Exactly how this one got worked out in their puny minds where these two walk in with "ebil black riflez" and come out looking like George Washington crossing the delaware is beyond me.

Given their prior history with this kinda stunt, it does make one wonder....

 

[RustyShackelford]

TheHighRoad is anti-OC?.....

I was unaware that the forum was anti-OC.
I recall a few topics where several members(me included) supported open carry.
I stated before I OCed in western PA for about 6 weeks off & on in 2013 with zero problems.

To me, it's a individual choice(where allowed). Concealed carry has merits but OC can be good for some conditions.
You don't need to be "gung-ho" & scare the YUPPIEs who just want a taco or a latte. They're not going to get it. They will be upset or angry that you chose to be brash & obnoxious.

Rusty

 

[Atom Smasher]

Realistically, does carrying long guns into a burger place in suburban USA really need to happen at all? Sure, we're all progressive people when it comes to gun rights, and many believe that this activity should be defended because it falls under the blanket of "no gun-related activities should be regulated", but let's be pragmatic: under what situation (barring extreme the-USA-has-fallen-to-chaos scenarios) would a long gun be practical in a suburban setting? It's not as if these stupid 20-somethings use those weapons everyday. All it serves is to A) make people feel uncomfortable, because not everyone is comfortable with firearms and B) risk the OCers getting shot by a CCW citizen. To me it's like yelling "Fire" in a crowded theater when there's no fire- yes, you can say what you want to and be protected by the first amendment but if your statement can cause collateral damage why should it be protected?

Personally I find citizen OC to be ridiculous. You're just asking to be a target. And what's the benefit of OC besides being able to say "look at me support 2A rights" and maybe an extra half-second on the draw?

 

[larryh1108]

I am totally ok with OC, where legal. If I can tell what kind of gun it is I'll usually make a nice comment about it to the owner. What these 2 idiots did was not OC, it was acting like juveniles. There is nothing wrong with someone walking into any restarant or mall with a properly holstered pistol. It doesn't bother me in the least but why would 2 schmucks carry long guns into a restaurant just to eat? The only reason is because they want to create a scene. There is no logical reason to do so otherwise. "look at me, I'm cool" is what it screams. Pure nonsense.

If I'm eating or shopping somewhere and I saw these 2 clowns walk in, I would not think about how cool it is to OC rifles, I'd look for the first exit because I don't want to be there long enough to see what is going on. I don't see many patrons hanging around, either. The down side is too grim to wait to find out.

This costs any restaurant or mall money and puts fear into the hearts of almost everybody there. A holstered handgun is almost a non-entity. A loaded semi-auto rifle at low ready is a recipe for disaster. If they were shot by a CC patron who panicked, I'd say they got what they looked for..... attention.

 

[ATLDave]

A holstered handgun is almost a non-entity. A loaded semi-auto rifle at low ready is a recipe for disaster.

Right. It's the equivalent of an unholstered handgun. Nobody thinks you should walk around with a pistol in your hand, just casually eating tacos and watching movies and picking up the dry cleaning. It's all so moronic as to defy belief.

 

[GoWolfpack]

Rusty, I hope that puzzled smiley is sarcasm. I invite you peruse any OC thread you can find in the archives of this site and evaluate the prevailing opinions on the subject. The nicest most anyone is able to say on the subject is: it should be legal, but I would never do it outside of some very limited situations and it hurts pro-gunners everywhere if you do it in the wrong place.

Whether or not one feels that this sort of open carry is an effective method of convincing others, or for that matter might be counterproductive when implemented disastrously as it was there, is not dependent on whether one feels it should be legally restricted. They're entirely separate questions.

No one here believes openly displaying firearms is an effective means of activism. That much was made abundantly clear long ago. Threads reinforcing this viewpoint crop up every so often and are cut-and-paste copies of this one. These two have hijacked activism to claim their fifteen minutes of internet fame. They will fade quickly, their "activism" having no lasting effect whatsoever. Real activists do not pose for pictures with their weapons at low ready in the middle of a restaurant. Handling your weapon in such a way as that it appears you're about to fire it in a public place is a terrible idea no matter how you started out carrying it.

I am not disputing that what these two did was a terrible idea. I dispute the common assumption among many on THR that open carry should be strongly discouraged no matter the situation or reason except in some seriously limited cases. For instance those who wish to dictate how one should dress while openly displaying a firearm or which places it might be acceptable to let others know you are armed.

To anyone who knows you own guns, you represent gun owners whether you are openly displaying your gun or not.

To reply to your example, I'm sure there are white supremacists who would rather not have the public view them as idiots and resent thing like Klan rallies and swastika marches. According to your analogy the people who don't want to be viewed as idiots are not actually white supremacists, but oddly the dictionary disagrees:

a person who believes that the white race is inherently superior to other races and that white people should have control over people of other races
— white supremacy noun

Unlike the belief that I should be able to openly display a gun if I wish, belief in the inherent supremacy of people who classify themselves as "white" is in fact idiotic. One who genuinely holds this view and wishes to not be seen as an idiot should keep this view to himself.

My point is that while anyone who believes in the value of the constitution will agree that a white supremacist has the right to his chosen viewpoint, any attempt to broadcast that viewpoint or codify it into law is inadvisable in the first case and wrong in the second. In the same way many members here believe everyone should have the right to openly display their firearm as they go about their daily lives, but that actually doing so is wrong and should be actively discouraged.

 

[Frank Ettin]

...To anyone who knows you own guns, you represent gun owners whether you are openly displaying your gun or not....

Yes!

And anyone who values the Second Amendment and the RKBA forgets that at the peril of our cherished rights. Do you by your conduct dispel or reinforce the various negative stereotypes of gun owners? Are you a good ambassador for the RKBA?

 

[Pilot]

It is called common sense. Our adversaries have NO ideas what it means, and now I am sure some of us don't know what it means. I mostly CC, and I am prudent where I OC, and it is not with a black rifle, but a pistol for the woods.

I am not saying OC is bad, and I certainly support it, but please be prudent about it.

 

[Agsalaska]

I wrote a more expanded post on the other thread, but I would tell them all, especially those guys that think these guys did something smart, to read a book about controlling messages. Not understanding how to control messages will doom any casue no matter how rightious. This is a textbook example.

 

[Nom de Forum]

I agree with Jerry M's opinion.

 

[Rocketmedic]

The actions of Chipotle on a national scale are due wholly to these immature idiots.

 

[RustyShackelford]

Rifles vs threats.....

I think a big misconception or distortion on this topic is what the actions/rational of the "Chipotle Duo" did with the rifles.
I read these posts saying; "threat" & "low ready".
It looks to me like the AR guy has a sling. I don't see where he's pointing it at customers or wearing any tactical gear. His buddy with the Tapco AK rifle & shades looks a bit more radical but like the AR guy, he appears harmless.
I don't agree with their politics or actions but as stated, if open carry is legal in Texas then it's a non issue.
If you as a license holder or armed citizen & walk up to strangers who OC then wag your finger/give them your "advice", that's your deal. I won't do it & I wouldn't appreciate anyone doing it to me.

 

[JohnKSa]

...if open carry is legal in Texas then it's a non issue.

Two reasons why it is an issue.

1. This kind of thing got open carry banned in CA. I don't think we're to the point that such a move is likely in TX, but sadly, I think that some progress has been made in that direction.

2. Walking into a gun store or a shooting range around here with an uncased firearm will get you shouted at or banned. It's even possible you may get to view the proprietor's firearm from the muzzle. It's disappointing that there's a need to explain why what is unacceptable firearm handling at a gun store or gun range is unlikely to make a positive impression at a restaurant.

 

[JRH6856]

I hope someday to live in a world where a SLUNG rifle is not an uncommon sight in a public place and elicits no great concern. But we're a very long way from that in most of suburban or urban America ... and in a very great deal of RURAL America, too.

I doubt you will ever see that, Sam. For too long, too many people have equated "civilization" with "personal safety" and the absence of a need for personal weapons. "There is no need for such things in civilized society." To accept the commonplace presence of firearms, carried openly or concealed, would be tantamount to proclaiming, "We are barbarians!"

Face it. Do any of us really want to live where we need a gun within reach every minute in order to survive the day? I mean really NEED, not as a responsible precaution but as an absolute necessity. I'm sure there are those of us who are closer to that condition than others, but really most of us are not. And the majority of people in this country are not and don't want to be. For better or worse, for far too many people, guns are the symbol of crime, violence and brutality. And they really don't want to be constantly reminded that they live in the sort of world where such things can threaten them.

It may happen one day, but it took us most of a century to get where we are. It may take longer to get to where we want to be because first we have to convince a lot of people that we would not be going backwards.

 

[USAF_Vet]

1. Not having pro-gun bumper stickers on our vehicles.
- I had an NRA sticker in the back window of my last car for years. The only reason I don't have pro RKBA stickers on my current vehicle is because I don't currently have any.


2. Not wearing clothing with images of guns on them.
- I have a few T shirts with gun, shooting or hunting related images. Also, hats.


3. Not displaying bumper stickers, signs and wearing clothing with any message that might be controversial.
- Violating this, too.

4. Accepting rules in our schools that our children can not wear any clothing with images of guns or even messages that quote the 2nd Amendment of it.
- Sent my stepson to school wearing my NRA hat the other day.

5. Accepting rules that children drawing any kind of picture that teachers object to is wrong. There is a recent case where the police were called on a child that drew a picture of the stick figure in the game “Hangman.”
- I don't "accept" this at all. I have gone to the school and complained about moronic rules and 'zero tolerance' on a number of occasions. The school admins and teachers are well aware of my stance.

6. Accepting rules that children pointing their finger like gun is dangerous.
- See #5

7. Accepting rules that a five year old male child is capable of sexual harassment.
- see numbers 5 and 6

8. Hiding our guns from causal view by visitors in our homes.
- Doing this isn't about fear, or accepting that guns are bad, mmmkay. Its about safety and privacy. But there have still been times when I have guns out in plain sight when people drop by.

9. Condemnation by gun owners of gun owners that own guns they find offensive or don’t like….like AR rifles.
- I call a spade a spade, or a fudd a fudd. I've done it in my personal life as well as on this forum.

10. Avoiding conversations with others about owning guns such as in the workplace and social activities like church.
- I talk about guns and shooting quite often at work, when time allows. But, as a professional, I try to keep casual conversations to a minimum and work related out of common courtesy, not fear.

11. Avoiding showing/displaying our guns when outside our home but still on our property for concern that the neighbors will call the police and report a man with a gun.
- Is a shotgun slung over my shoulder, in full view of neighbors and traffic, while walking my property an act of avoidance?

12. Continuing to give our business to anti-gun businesses and companies .
- Must be nice to be able to make from scratch everything you need or want.

13. Remaining silent while all of these events happen.
- Not doing that either. Senators Levin and Stabenows assistants must have gotten tired of hearing from me back in early 2013 during the federal AWB scare, post Sandy Hook.


In fact, most every gun owner I know doesn't fall into many of these categories.

 

[USAF_Vet]

I've known for a while that the THR community is firmly anti-OC. Occasionally I like to poke the bear and keep this place from going completely one sided.


We seem to look at OC advocates a little like white supremacists: we might theoretically support the right of a person to feel that way, but we're firmly against any sort of implementation of their ideas.

No one ever claims OC should be illegal. But everyone says we shouldn't do it. So whether it's social pressure or legal pressure that prevents me from open-carrying, what's the difference?

If it shouldn't be illegal to OC, but no one should ever OC because you'll aggravate the antis, where is the functional difference?

You certainly like to paint with a broad stroke. Not EVERYONE feels one way or the other on any topic on this board.

We have pro OC, a fee anti-OC, and a lot of people who are indifferent.
We can't even all seem to agree on Universal Background checks for private sales.

Like the 'gun ownership luxury' thread, OC acceptance is going to be regional.

My take on OC is that I support OC of a holstered handgun, anywhere its legal. In my state, the list of where it isn't legal is fairly small. Smaller still if you OC with a CPL. But rifles and shot guns? Come on. It may be legal, but its simply not prudent. Prudence still has a lot of weight in determining 'polite, civilized society'. Personally, I don't feel it is prudent to OC a long gun, although legal, to go about my daily businesses. A handgun works just fine. I don't feel, personally, it is prudent to be armed in any fashion over and above my local law enforcement officers.
OC of a long gun, while legal, has gotten more than a few people in debt to their lawyers, without really doing much regarding the issue at hand.

Tactical Grimace with the AR, at least appears to be somewhat more prudent about how he carries. A slung rifle is akin to a holstered handgun. But the other dude, not so much. I've seen guys posing like for pictures, in downtown Baghdad.

OC of a handgun is at least becoming somewhat more socially acceptable. And while I would love to see this country look at OC of rifles as no big deal, we are a long way off. We've got generations of indoctrination to break before its acceptable, let alone common sight.

 

[HexHead]

I don't feel, personally, it is prudent to be armed in any fashion over and above my local law enforcement officers.

Why is that?