Chipotle vs Tools for Dissent
- Thread starter conw
- Start date
- Status
Sam1911
Moderator Emeritus
The gun rights movement would not be where it is now -- would not be riding the wave of amazing success it has won over the last 20 years -- without the internet and the grassroots connection of enthusiasts and activists to each other and their various and sundry organizations and efforts.
Social media is a continuing part of that. To claim it will be "the death of" our country or our cause is wrong.
Might as well say airplanes revolutionized travel and brought people together, but jetliners will be the death of us all.
Maybe you're fine with major corporations making knee jerk reactions within hours due to Likes on Facebook or a Twitter explosion by mindless idiots. That makes one of us.
Duck Dynasty ring a bell? I blame those stupid women in the Bloomberg financed organization for Chipolte's response as much as the two idiots with the guns.
Sam1911
Moderator Emeritus
Yes. I'm fine with that. I think that's the obvious message here.
Now, setting that absurdity aside, what you are ignoring, or ignorant of, is that these things are merely tools, just as the internet is a tool, for connecting people and getting messages out. Some idiots will always put out hurtful crap. Some smart folks will put out really important, useful, dynamic things. We use the tool or we don't. But others will, and we'd better be using it as much or more or our message will be drowned out.
Fortunately, that isn't happening. We have continued to use these things for GREAT good. Witness the PA outdoors show effort from a couple years back! That was almost all social-media driven and we did something we COULD NOT HAVE DONE without it.
(We) Get on board or get lost.
No. I don't know anything about them or what they have to do with social media. I know they make duck calls and have a TV show.
Ok. So?
Last edited:
Joe Demko
Member
Are you offering solutions or just Jeremiads?
jmorris
Member
- Joined
- Sep 30, 2005
- Messages
- 24,313
For me it is more conceptual, I think it should be legal just because it would be a step away from restrictions not because it is a good idea to do so.
Sort of like the quote in my Signature,
"My right to swing my arm ends at the tip of your nose." (saying actually came from Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes)
Despite having the right to swing your arm anywhere you please as long as you don't hit someone in the face, doesn't make it a good idea to go take a swing just shy of someone's face.
It is acts of stupidity, not acts of responsibility, that cause the loss of freedom.
Everyone knows that we have the right to free speech. However, it is also known that one cannot yell "Fire" in a movie theater, this popular metaphor for speech or actions made for the principal purpose of creating unnecessary panic, came from the same SCOTUS Justice Oliver Holmes.
You get a group of Knuckleheads like in the posted photo running into a gun store for example and someone is going to start panicking, even though I think it should be legal to both have a gun and run.
Major corporations, small businesses, self-employed persons, home buyers, buyers of guns, appliances, tools, etc., travelers, litigants, planters, hunters, fishermen, product designers, chemists, law enforcement, criminals, military organizations, and terrorists make plans and decisions on the basis of information, and they always have.
Information flows and is processed much more quickly now than ever before. That fact has changed radically many aspects of the lives of many people.
The former were among many others who were there waiting, and before them there were others, for many decades. The two idiots provided the stimulus that brought about the response.
larryh1108
Member
They said the same thing about television.
Maybe it wouldn't be so bad if morons didn't act stupid where the whole country can now see it but if you think about it they acted stupid so the whole country could see how stupid they really are.
Exactly. Did Grimace and his surfer-dood sidekick not think that anti-gun groups would be on the lookout for opportunities to defame all gun owners by association?
Collector0311
Member
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2011
- Messages
- 368
I think the time spent OC'ing around town would be better spent at the polls, or constructively educating people about the subject.
If you have the time to get in full battle rattle and march around town, then you probably have time to lock up your weapon, look presentable, and go out and engage people in conversation about the cause.
"Do nothing activism" as I call it, is being practiced everywhere these days by every faction. Hashtags don't translate to votes, "likes" don't either, and neither does walking around town looking like you're ready to be the single handed savior of another North Hollywood shoot out.
The kids in the photo seem to have put more rounds down range in Call of Duty than they have with those rifles. Imagine how they look to some mom with no experience.
If she didn't like guns before seeing tweedle-dee and dum walk in, I bet she looooooves 'em now.
Just be smart about it is all I guess I'm getting at. Those kids weren't smart about it.
If you have the time to get in full battle rattle and march around town, then you probably have time to lock up your weapon, look presentable, and go out and engage people in conversation about the cause.
"Do nothing activism" as I call it, is being practiced everywhere these days by every faction. Hashtags don't translate to votes, "likes" don't either, and neither does walking around town looking like you're ready to be the single handed savior of another North Hollywood shoot out.
The kids in the photo seem to have put more rounds down range in Call of Duty than they have with those rifles. Imagine how they look to some mom with no experience.
If she didn't like guns before seeing tweedle-dee and dum walk in, I bet she looooooves 'em now.
Just be smart about it is all I guess I'm getting at. Those kids weren't smart about it.
How did you miss it? Phil Robertson made comments about traditional marriage in an interview. "Twitter exploded" with negative comments from the gay community. Within hours A&E decided to suspend him from the show, and Crackerbarrel decided to pull all DD merchandise from their stores.Yes. I'm fine with that. I think that's the obvious message here.
Now, setting that absurdity aside, what you are ignoring, or ignorant of, is that these things are merely tools, just as the internet is a tool, for connecting people and getting messages out. Some idiots will always put out hurtful crap. Some smart folks will put out really important, useful, dynamic things. We use the tool or we don't. But others will, and we'd better be using it as much or more or our message will be drowned out.
Fortunately, that isn't happening. We have continued to use these things for GREAT good. Witness the PA outdoors show effort from a couple years back! That was almost all social-media driven and we did something we COULD NOT HAVE DONE without it.
(We) Get on board or get lost.
No. I don't know anything about them or what they have to do with social media. I know they make duck calls and have a TV show.
Ok. So?
Once the family said "no Phil, no show", A&E relented. It was emails and phone calls inundating Crackerbarrel headquarters reminding them who their core audience was that changed their minds.
This is the kind of nonsense I'm referring to with my "end of this country". Somehow all you mods are too PC to get my point. And for the record, I consider you the fairest mod on here.
Joe Demko
Member
So, A&E and Crackerbarrel both did what you wanted, i.e. responded to your input, but the country is still scrood?
Sounds to me mostly like you wish "those people" could be made silent. If the gay community were somehow silenced, then A&E and Crackerbarrel would never have strayed from goodthinkfullness, right?
Sounds to me mostly like you wish "those people" could be made silent. If the gay community were somehow silenced, then A&E and Crackerbarrel would never have strayed from goodthinkfullness, right?
You referred to social media.
Social media are just the latest way in which information is transmitted.
THR is a social medium.
Centuries ago, some people feared the printing press, and some societies did not allow it. Our Constitution guarantees its freedom.
We learned of Pearl Harbor via radio. Television later largely supplanted radio, and now the Internet makes business success possible.
I'm not really sure just what your point is, but I assure you that political correctness has nothing to do with my view.
If I owned an establishment and those two people walked in like that, I would have signs posted in half an hour, with no influence from social media.
And I would consider us all fortunate that no one had shot them in self defense.
Amen. What they did was precisely the equivalent of walking in with an unholstered pistol in hand. None of this is about open carry. It's about open waving-around of a(n apparently) loaded firearm. This behavior wouldn't be tolerated at a shooting range, much less at a taqueria. I mean, where's the 180° line?
Sam1911
Moderator Emeritus
Oh, yeah, I heard something about that. Not my scene so I didn't pay it much attention. But it sounds to me like a network kind of jumped the gun without getting all the input they needed to make a call.
Some fad celebrity said something he shouldn't if he wanted to keep his cash cow rolling down the tracks? (I love a mixed metaphor!) Whop-dee-doo. That's been happening for ever since Al Gore invented celebrities back in the golden age of entertainment when Plato and Socrates were entertaining the crowds with shadow puppets on the cave wall! (I love a completely shambled jumble of historical and literary references!
) Heck, this one didn't hurt the guy in any permanent way, except that now all the gay duck hunters probably don't want to share a box blind with him any more.PC? What in the world? How are we too politically correct in saying that social media is a tool that you use or you get beaten by?
leadaddict
Member
I’m a proponent of open carry. I don’t normally carry that way, but have occasionally with a holstered pistol and would hate not to have the option available.
I do have two problems with what the two fellows in the picture did.
The first has to do with the perception that most of our society would have when two people with rifles walk into a restaurant. Right or wrong, the perception is undeniable and is likely to create a lot of knee-jerk reactions. Sam put it well back several pages ago:
I’d like to see that perception change, but this isn’t the way to do it. Lots of small incremental changes in perception will be needed, not this.
Secondly, is the handling of any firearm, only made worse by the posing for pictures with them. It would make me uncomfortable to see a concealed carrier at the register pull out his handgun and pose for pictures. I understand if you’re carrying a rifle, even with a sling, some handling may be necessary just to sit down or move through a crowd, but the unnecessary handling to showboat or pose for pictures is very irresponsible and potentially dangerous, regardless what type of gun or how it arrived.
I do have two problems with what the two fellows in the picture did.
The first has to do with the perception that most of our society would have when two people with rifles walk into a restaurant. Right or wrong, the perception is undeniable and is likely to create a lot of knee-jerk reactions. Sam put it well back several pages ago:
I’d like to see that perception change, but this isn’t the way to do it. Lots of small incremental changes in perception will be needed, not this.
Secondly, is the handling of any firearm, only made worse by the posing for pictures with them. It would make me uncomfortable to see a concealed carrier at the register pull out his handgun and pose for pictures. I understand if you’re carrying a rifle, even with a sling, some handling may be necessary just to sit down or move through a crowd, but the unnecessary handling to showboat or pose for pictures is very irresponsible and potentially dangerous, regardless what type of gun or how it arrived.
Collector0311
Member
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2011
- Messages
- 368
leadaddict
Member
Too true.
We tend to vilify that which we don't understand or that which our opponents use for effectively than we do.
MachIVshooter
Member
^^^^^^^^^
This. I wouldn't allow those jokers in my place of business, either. In fact, walking on my property (home based business) looking like these two morons would have almost certainly solicited a very aggressive armed response from me.
Obviously I'm no anti, but as said many times, the actions of these two can lead to only two possible conclusions regarding their intentions, and neither one is good. As well, the physically benign attention seeking act is not the one that comes to mind when a goofy looking youngster with dark glasses and his bearded blimp of a buddy walk in with rifles at the ready; They look like the social rejects they are, ready to exact revenge on society.
These two are a far cry from a clean cut & nicely dressed guy with a long gun slung over his shoulder waving a flag and/or poster with a message. It is only because nothing happened that we're able to conclude their intentions were physically harmless, although I'm fairly certain they got their kicks out of shocking and agitating other patrons. There's no other reason to do what they did.
Someone earlier made a comparison to gay pride parades, and I agree. I'm a libertarian and I really don't care what you do in your own bedroom (though the thought repulses me), but getting in my face about it is definitely not going to create an ally. It's no different for the RKBA movement; try to shove our cause down the throats of the non-gunners, you may well turn them anti. When someone is (relatively) neutral, a bit of tactful, respectful & articulate discourse might pull them to your side, but it doesn't take much to push them the other way.
USAF_Vet
Member
Uniformed and plain clothed law enforcement aren't going about their daily routine with a rifle or shotgun, and they are paid to interact with criminals and do so far more often than I'm ever likely to. If it isn't necessary for them, it seems even more unnecessary for me. They have a long gun in their vehicle for extreme events, so do I. That's enough.
The other obvious reason is a compact 9mm IWB weighs in at oh, less than 2 pounds. A loaded shotgun or AR style carbine can run 8-10 pounds easily. Having carried an M-4 all over the endless brown oblivion (Iraq), it just simply anything I'd choose to do without cause or reason. It just isn't prudent, to the public or to my lifestyle and needs.
I have considered how I would feel if I was sitting in Mcdonald's, BK, Wendy's or Ruth's Chris and noticed two guys come strolling in with their AR's. Disconnect yourself from your feelings about OC and gun ownership in general for about a minute and think about the scenario from all view points.
Is the first thought that goes through your head "Hey look, two guys carrying out their Constitutional right to bear arms"? I seriously doubt it. More than likely your thought process would be "Holy Crap it's Sandy Hook"! Condition red immediately and I am out of there.
I wasn't there and I imagine nobody on this forum was actually there to see how this all went down. I know that if I am in a restaurant and see two young thug or skinhead types or X-Box commandos come walking in with pistols in hand then my response will be the same. Two young guys with holstered pistols would probably get a glance and then I would continue eating because, to me at least, a holstered pistol means a licensed carrier that is carrying a gun in a holster. Exposed guns mean a psycho nut job that is about to go Postal (no offense to Postal workers because that would be un-PC).
These two guys apparently had every legal RIGHT to do what they did. That doesn't make it the correct thing to do. Did Chipotle make the correct call? Not in my book and I have voiced my opinion to them by a couple of different avenues.. I for one will NOT eat in their restaurants until they rethink their position. Do they care? I doubt it. If 2 million people voice the same opinion and act on that opinion then I guarantee they will care.
Is the first thought that goes through your head "Hey look, two guys carrying out their Constitutional right to bear arms"? I seriously doubt it. More than likely your thought process would be "Holy Crap it's Sandy Hook"! Condition red immediately and I am out of there.
I wasn't there and I imagine nobody on this forum was actually there to see how this all went down. I know that if I am in a restaurant and see two young thug or skinhead types or X-Box commandos come walking in with pistols in hand then my response will be the same. Two young guys with holstered pistols would probably get a glance and then I would continue eating because, to me at least, a holstered pistol means a licensed carrier that is carrying a gun in a holster. Exposed guns mean a psycho nut job that is about to go Postal (no offense to Postal workers because that would be un-PC).
These two guys apparently had every legal RIGHT to do what they did. That doesn't make it the correct thing to do. Did Chipotle make the correct call? Not in my book and I have voiced my opinion to them by a couple of different avenues.. I for one will NOT eat in their restaurants until they rethink their position. Do they care? I doubt it. If 2 million people voice the same opinion and act on that opinion then I guarantee they will care.
Sam1911
Moderator Emeritus
As I was pointing out before, our opponents DON'T use social media more effectively than we do. We've used it VERY well recently and often.
leadaddict
Member
Agreed, but individuals who don't understand that could see it as a great threat.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
