Chipotle vs Tools for Dissent

[NavyLCDR]

I do not see how the first one enters into the picture here.

Regarding the second, this case is not about 2A rights at all. The question about laws and regulations has not entered into the equation--yet.

The issue is about actions that have caused a property owner to exercise its rights in a manner that would not have happened but for the stimulus provided by these rude, imprudent exhibitionists.

Harm than good? "Pro-gun side"? If reasonable discussion by reasonable people should, through negative reinforcement or education or any other means, prevent a repetition of this unfortunate incident, I think it will be a good thing.

I feel like we would be better served by not supporting the business that is banning guns rather than blasting away at the people carrying the guns. The business could easily have dealt with the situation by asking the two guys to leave. Press release, "Chipolte will ask any customer to leave if we feel justification that their actions are disturbing the majority of other customers." End of story. But the business gave in to the anti-gun groups pointing at the two guys carrying guns and saying, "You need to ban all guns in all your stores." And then the pro-gun side responds with, "Yeah, we can see why Chipolte would ban all guns....it's our fault and we need to stop doing that."

 

[TennJed]

I There are a few times when I conceal because I might feel that it does more harm than good to open carry.

Whenever the debate about guns in parks comes up, do I conceal my gun when I go to the park out of fear the anti-s will point to me and say, "SEE! LOOK! He has a gun in the park! That's why we need to make it illegal!" Absolutely not. Because what the anti-s will be pointing at is a person who is acting just like everyone else is acting, engaging in some activity with my wife and daughter in the park, and the only difference is that my gun is in a holster on my belt with my shirt tucked in behind it rather than under my shirt.

My wife has long time friends who are uncomfortable around guns. If we are going to their house or out in public with them, do I conceal my gun? Yes. Because I feel that it would do more harm to our relationship to open carry than the benefits I lose by concealing the gun for the 2 or 3 hours we are with them.

Do you think the chipolte duo did more harm or good to (1) Themselves (2) Gun owners in general (3) the open carry in Texas fight

I say they did more harm.

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by NavyLCDR: I feel like we would be better served by not supporting the business that is banning guns....

I seriously doubt it. The number of people who would not support the business would be very small indeed.

...rather than blasting away at the people carrying the guns.

Regarding Chipotle Mexican Bar and Grill, what's done is done. The issue is to prevent recurrence elsewhere.

I have absolutely no problem with people criticizing such immature, thoughtless, counterproductive, and potentially very dangerous actions.

Maybe, just maybe, someone who might think to follow suit might be dissuaded, whether by the realization that he would be very unpopular indeed at the gun store or at the range, and maybe because it might be made clear to him that he took a very real chance on getting shot.

As GEM said,

As far as the posture of the little one - of course, he is brandishing and enjoying it. Let's say you were in the movie theater and as you being seated, a person carrying in that position enters. A noble activist or Holmes II at Aurora?

If you were with your kids? Stand up and say Hip, Hip, Hurrah for the RKBA or being ready and on the way to shoot him DRT?

 

[SilentStalker]

Sorry guys, I was mixing the US with some of my other worldly travels I guess. Its not uncommon to see police and security walking around in certain parts of the world. The last time I was in Amsterdam, the police had armored vehicles and were heavily armed patroling the streets. Same thing happened to me the last trip to London. So, to me its not as odd to see someone with that kind of gear roaming around, but they generally do not look like these yahoos lol. Like I said I don't agree with how it went down anyways.

 

[NavyLCDR]

Do you think the chipolte duo did more harm or good to

(1) Themselves
I can't be the judge of that. I don't know what their real/personal motivations were. I would guess that they are probably getting exactly the attention they want. There are too many factors that are personal to them for me to judge whether they did more harm than good to themselves.

(2) Gun owners in general
In my opinion, yes, they did more harm than good to gun owners in general

(3) the open carry in Texas fight
In my opinion, yes, they did more harm than good for any effort to loosen any firearms restrictions in Texas.

I say they did more harm.

We agree on that point. We disagree on whether or not the negative attention that the pro-gun side is providing regarding their actions is doing more good or harm. In my opinion the negative attention we are giving to their actions is providing more fuel for the anti-s against us than it is preventing the same two or other people from engaging in the same activity.

 

[95XL883]

Hmmm? As I've been reading this thread a couple of recurring thoughts come to mind.

First, what a couple of doofus' calling attention to themselves that way. Sheesh, grow up. It's not that they were carrying; it was they were being attention hounds. That is just my personal opinion.

Second, geez two guys with EBR's posing for pictures in a public restaurant and nobody got hurt and apparently nobody was even threatened. The anti's shouldn't be so quick to push this picture as it seems to be proof that people can have guns in public and nobody gets hurt or even threatened. If I ever discuss this with anybody face-to-face, I will surely mention that nobody got hurt or even threatened.

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by NavyLCDR: In my opinion the negative attention we are giving to their actions is providing more fuel for the anti-s against us...

Might it not serve to distinguish "us" from the ones whose actions they rightly condemn?

 

[NavyLCDR]

Might it not serve to distinguish "us" from the ones whose actions they rightly condemn?

The anti-gun groups such as the Brady Campaign and Mom's Demand Action will never make that distinction.

What is interesting is that I don't see hardly any criticism of Chipolte for their overreaction - I see much more justification.

 

[95XL883]

Regarding Chipotle Mexican Bar and Grill, what's done is done. The issue is to prevent recurrence elsewhere.

Maybe, maybe not. Several years ago, Nebraska Furniture Mart (in KS) posted no gun signs on the doors. I didn't go there again until six months ago (and prior to the no guns posting, my wife and I had spent a considerable sum there). I was pleasantly surprised to see the signs had been removed. (I quietly told my wife I had left something in the car and would join her inside. She knew I was getting my weapon and we shopped like we used to. We spent a considerable sum on appliances, which we probably wouldn't bought there if the signs were still up.) When the signs went up, I sent a polite letter expressing my disappointment, mentioning that we would drastically curtail our purchases and visits. I also mentioned that on the occasions we did visit that I would hold them legally responsible if anything should happen to us while on their grounds. I'm sure my letter didn't change their mind but I'm also sure it, letters from others and our reduced purchases got management's attention. I need to send NFM another polite letter thanking them for removing the signs and letting them know our visits and spending will be increasing at their store. (I'll do it tonight.)

I'll send a polite note to Chipolte management tonight. It will be similar to what I sent to NFM. It wouldn't surprise me if the policy is changed in a couple of years, especially if others do the same. Over time, the reasonable and civil actions of large numbers outweigh the actions of the anti's and the attention seeking of the immature.

 

[HexHead]

Internet fora are indeed "social media". Whether most people include them when they refer to social media is irrelevant to the discussion.

The advent of those media have spelled the demise not of the country but of a myriad of other media. Many newspapers and magazines are gone with the wind. Have you picked up a skinny little American Rifleman magazine recently? When is the last time you saw The Saturday Evening Post? While years ago we went to the sore to buy publications containing articles by our favorite writers, they now post on blogs, Twitter, and Facebook. One whom I still refer to with the title "Sheriff" puts some neat stuff on Facebook, and you can bet your boots that if he were still with us, Skeeter Skelton would too. One major firearms personality was among the first out of the gate criticizing these Texas goofballs--using Twitter.

Businesses who do not employ social media cannot expect to survive today. Nor can most of us go about our daily affairs efficiently without them.

It is not the world of social media that has influenced public option, any more than it was the printing press that led to the Reformation, the writings of Tom Paine that led to the American Revolution, the Hearst newspapers that got us into a war with Spain. These were just the media. What influences people are thoughts and information.

It's just that the speed of dissemination has become steadily faster, with the advent of the telegraph, the trans-Atlantic cable, the telephone, radio, television, the Internet, and now, mobile connectivity.

You didn't have the piling on then that you have now with the likes of Twitter.

 

[fastbolt]

Has this incident been mentioned in this particular thread?

http://www.good4utah.com/story/d/st...5/0tM7kdUYw0KKyD0_O563rA#.U3mEq-M-1vy.twitter

It's things like this that cause the normal folks neutral to the carrying of weapons into public businesses some understandable concern.

 

[HexHead]

That is a very good point.

Hexhead, do you believe guns are dangerous or are they just tools?

If you believe social media "will be the death of the country" you have the same mindset as antigunners

If I beat you death with a hammer, would it be dangerous or a tool?

 

[BullfrogKen]

LCDR, I've got news for you.

The simple act of owning a gun does not automatically make us all kindred spirits. Diane Feinstein and Sarah Brady both own guns. Both have carry permits. Neither are on my side.

People who own guns and do attention-seeking stunts like this with them and harm our progress are not on my side.


Actions have consequences. I've interacted with too many of the open carry provocateurs over the years I've been involved in RKBA stuff here in PA to think that the standard-bearers of the movement will listen to any voices but their own. They shrug off calls for temperance and restraint - from "our side".

Guys like this may not be on the anti-gun side. But they are not on my side.


They are quite passionately on their own side.

 

[Nom de Forum]

LCDR, I've got news for you.

The simple act of owning a gun does not automatically make us all kindred spirits. Diane Feinstein and Sarah Brady both own guns. Both have carry permits. Neither are on my side.

People who own guns and do attention-seeking stunts like this with them and harm our progress are not on my side.


Actions have consequences. I've interacted with too many of the open carry provocateurs over the years I've been involved in RKBA stuff here in PA to think that the standard-bearers of the movement will listen to any voices but their own. They shrug off calls for temperance and restraint - from "our side".

Guys like this may not be on the anti-gun side. But they are not on my side.


They are quite passionately on their own side.

You're damn right there Ken! They are not on anyone's side but their own arrogant and selfish ego and the minority of gun owners just like them. They are fools to stupid to realize they are working very hard to destroy the thing they fanatically seek to preserve.

 

[PistolPete45]

I will never spend 2 cents there .. I will ask the manager if he intends to be completely responsible for any harm or loss ,, Why he wants his night help to get car jacked or worse advertising to criminals >>> UNARMED VICTIMS in this establishment >> welcome take control as soon as you enter ... Caution coustomers do have forks ...

 

[TennJed]

We disagree on whether or not the negative attention that the pro-gun side is providing regarding their actions is doing more good or harm. In my opinion the negative attention we are giving to their actions is providing more fuel for the anti-s against us than it is preventing the same two or other people from engaging in the same activity.

They are going to receive the negative attention anyway, from the anti-gunners. It would do more harm (IMHO) to stay silent while the anti-gunners blast these guys, then to point out they are in the minority.

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by NavyLCDR: The anti-gun groups such as the Brady Campaign and Mom's Demand Action will never make that distinction.

Certainly, but consider the public at large; that's where the hearts and minds are.

What is interesting is that I don't see hardly any criticism of Chipolte for their overreaction - I see much more justification.

Overreaction? It was a business decision, pure and simple, and it is not for us to judge, one way or the other.

Chipotle Mexican Grill is a publicly held, multi-national corporation listed on the NYSE. They are headquartered in Denver, and as of today, they have a market cap of $16.3 Billion. Their management is appointed by a board elected by the shareholders. They are held accountable for delivering returns on investment and growth--period. They alone are responsible for making decisions that will meet their objectives. What you or I think might have been "overreaction" does not count--at all.

You can choose to decry the criticism of these ill-advised activists if you so desire. I choose to distance myself from them.

 

[TennJed]

If I beat you death with a hammer, would it be dangerous or a tool?

You would be dangerous, the hammer is not.

A gun is not dangerous. The person with it might be

Twitter, facebook, and instagram, (all of which I have) are not dangerous. it is a tool.

But you never answered my question, which reaffirms to me that you approach social media the same way anti-gunners do gun. Illogically.

 

[jmorris]

Quote:
Originally Posted by HexHead
If I beat you death with a hammer, would it be dangerous or a tool?
You would be dangerous, the hammer is not.

A gun is not dangerous. The person with it might be

Hmm, I recently helped a young girl with a science project and when teaching her how to use a drill press and band saw I referred to the tools as dangerous, tie your hair back and loose the long sleeve shirt, etc.

I think some tools are inherently more dangerous than others regardless of who is operating them. I realize that outside of sciencefiction a tool won't harm anyone without their interaction; however, to put a spoon on the same level as a lathe, as both "just tools", is not quite right either.

 

[NavyLCDR]

Overreaction? It was a business decision, pure and simple, and it is not for us to judge, one way or the other.

Chipotle Mexican Grill is a publicly held, multi-national corporation listed on the NYSE. They are headquartered in Denver, and as of today, they have a market cap of $16.3 Billion. Their management is appointed by a board elected by the shareholders. They are held accountable for delivering returns on investment and growth--period. They alone are responsible for making decisions that will meet their objectives. What you or I think might have been "overreaction" does not count--at all.

You can choose to decry the criticism of these ill-advised activists if you so desire. I choose to distance myself from them.

Funny how when the two guys carry their guns into Chipolte, the vast majority of gun owners will jump on the bandwagon of OMG! Look what they did! That's just going way too far, what idiots they were for doing that!

And when Chipolte bans ALL firearms in ALL restaurants over the actions of just two people in one restaurant - well, that's not overreacting, that's just a business decision.

Why is nobody suggesting that all gun owners write letters to Chipolte corporation and express that all they had to do was kick the two clowns of the restaurant but that since they banned all firearms in all restaurants, the rest of us gun owners will take our business elsewhere. If we don't start expressing our desires to these companies with equal volume as the Mom's Demand Action then the MDA is going to be the only voice the companies will listen to.

 

[coloradokevin]

A Right not exercised is a Right lost.

That's not entirely true, and definitely not in this context. I also have the right not to quarter troops in my house, per the Bill of Rights, and have never been forced to "exercise" that right. It doesn't mean that I've lost this right.

The Chipotle/Starbucks fiascos have only served to hurt the position of legitimate gun owners (including the legitimate gun owners who were involved in these displays). Most ranges and gun shops won't allow you to walk into them with an uncased AR-15 slung over your shoulder, so why on Earth would someone think that your average coffee shop or burrito chain allow people to do this after they start getting backlash from their customers?

If you want to exercise your right to carry by slinging a rifle, do so in public places that aren't on the grounds of a privately owned business. Because, honestly, your rights end where their rights begin, and they can ask you to leave their business for virtually any reason.

I carry my CCW gun with me virtually every single time I leave my house, and have done so for over a decade now (nearly 100% of the time). Most of my shooting friends are hardcore 2A types, own lots of guns, own NFA items, spend substantial amounts of their disposable income on shooting sports, and just generally love "gun culture"… But, everyone I've talked to on this issue also seems to agree that this sort of display is just asking for trouble, in the sense that we'll lose some of the ground we've gained in recent years.

We had these same talks with the Starbucks situation a few months ago. People wanted to make a stand, and lost ground in doing so. They were pulling out their pistols in the shop to pose for selfies, and carrying long guns with them to order coffee. Sorry, but there's no real reasonable justification for carrying an AR-15 into a burrito shop other than to draw attention to yourself. The problem is, the attention you may draw to yourself is often negative in that instance, and hurts the greater gun rights cause.

EVERYONE here knows that gun rights are a contentious issue. Some people aren't comfortable with guns, and we aren't going to easily change their minds. Many businesses don't want to be dragged into this debate, and have deferred to local laws instead of setting corporate policies on the issue. However, when some gun owners decide to start making their establishments look more like gun ranges than restaurants, the businesses often respond with new policies. And, like with Starbucks, it looks (from what I've seen so far) that Chipotle has worded their response mostly in the form of a "polite request". Most states that allow businesses to ban CCW (Colorado doesn't) also requires the business to post specific signage to that end… Has anyone seen a sign at a Chipotle store so far?

 

[JRH6856]

Chipotle may be asking patrons not to bring guns inside, but I went by 2 local Chpotles today and there is no signage reguarding firearms visible from the outside, other than the mandatory TABC sign regarding unlicensed firearms where alcohol is sold.

Now, that raises an issue. While Bevis and Butthead were acting legally, Chipotle could lose their TABC license to sell alcohol by allowing unlicensed weapons inside.

Chipotle, in Texas at least, really has no choice but to prohibit OC. Unfortunately, since they apparently did not ask B&B to leave, it may be too late.

 

[NavyLCDR]

If you want to exercise your right to carry by slinging a rifle, do so in public places that aren't on the grounds of a privately owned business. Because, honestly, your rights end where their rights begin, and they can ask you to leave their business for virtually any reason.

I like that very much! Good point, good alternative! And you are exactly right - there is nothing more to be gained by "protesting" inside a restaurant that can't also be gained by "protesting" on public property....

unless - the "protest" is occurring on private property with the property owner's permission which would help provide some protection against possible police involvement/action.

 

[coloradokevin]

I have to agree with the sentiments of the OP. People like this lack the common sense and judgment to effectively advocate for expansive Second Amendment rights:



It's cringeworthy. Even more so, because their stupidity negatively impacts the rest of us.

Geez… I saw that particular picture after I posted my previous reply. The picture you posted (post #23, since it usually won't copy to replies) is evidence of this problem. These guys aren't even slinging their guns, they are carrying them in-hand. Personally, if I was standing in line and saw those two clowns walking in with their semi-auto rifles in a cross body carry position I'd think that a robbery or shooting was about to take place. Only a fool would do something like that. Period.

That kind of nonsense will probably lead to an inadvertent shooting someday, when a law-abiding CCW holder mistakes those law-abiding morons for non-law-abiding armed robbers (or imminent active shooters), and draws a gun on them in return. There's absolutely ZERO justification for entering ANY business like that. You're just asking for a bad result in every single way.

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.

Very true. I've deployed a rifle on numerous occasions during my law enforcement career, and have been in a fully recognizable government-issued uniform in every one of those instances. I can absolutely attest to the fact that citizens instantly notice the long gun, and immediately begin to look worried… and that's as someone who is clearly a law enforcement officer! Change the scenario to two weird looking dudes toting rifles, one wearing sunglasses, and both carrying guns in hand, and I really think it looks like the start of a shooting or robbery.

 

[BullfrogKen]

LCDR - we've been making that point about protest movements done on privately owned property being a non-starter since this whole open carry, change-your-mind-by-getting-in-your-face fervor started.

You simply haven't wanted to listen.



You can identify and see yourself in the actions of these two attention whores if you want. And because you do, that makes you defend indefensible behavior.

I'll tell you right now, if I saw them acting that way on my private gun club I'd have them escorted off the property and standing tall in front of the Board of Directors at their earliest convenience.



As far as this whole, "a right not exercised is a right lost" nonsense. I challenge anyone who feels that way to go get themselves arrested for suspicion of committing a crime. Any crime will do. After all, Miranda warning rights, and 4th Amendment rights, and rights to due process don't exist unless you personally exercise them, right?


So please, be my guest.