Taco Cabana -- San Antonio, TX -- No Guns Sign

[Robert Hairless]

Darnit, Foreign Dude, I too thought you were talking about me. Well, that doesn't mean we can't have coffee anyway but I suppose you needn't wear the gold watch or nice shoes. I thought I had a good thing going.

I know that there are laws in many states that allow owners and lessees of business property to infringe on some Constitutional rights of people who go onto the confines of that property. What I say, though, is that if those state legislatures and business owners are willing to go in that direction they ought to go the whole way. There's much less profit in pandering to the anti gun forces than in the slave trade, for example: Taco Cabana and other businesses should take the opportunity granted by cooperative state legislatures to snatch their customers and employees, put them in shackles, and auction them off. Legislators who are willing to cooperate in denying Second Amendment rights to citizens of their state should be willing to deny them other Constitutional rights too.

I'm also aware that there are gun owners who not only don't mind but also enthusiastically endorse some right of business owners to infringe the Second Amendment but complain when Chuck Schumer and Carolyn McCarthy want to do it. I can't imagine why they like Taco Banana better than Schumer and McCarthy. It seems to me that those gun owners ought to realize that Schumer and McCarthy have at least the same rights as a taco joint. Gun owners who approve of the taco place infringing their Second Amendment rights should let Schumer and McCarthy do it too. Fair is fair.

When gun owners don't like Schumer, McCarthy, and their friends infringing upon their Second Amendment rights, they ought to complain even more loudly and insistently if businesses operating in their states and their own state legislators do it. At the very least I would expect gun owners to oppose allowing any company to do business in their state if it attempts to do such things, and to insist that state legislators who vote for such measures to be consistent and vote for bills that repudiate all other Constitutional rights too.

Who could possibly say that its more important for women to have the vote than for everyone to be denied the means for self defense against superior force? If your state legislature allows businesses to post their property to deny the Second Amendment, lobby them actively to deny the Twentieth Amendment too. Why should they favor one sex while discriminating against all other sexes? It's not fair. Urge those state legislators to bring back the poll tax as well, because it could kick in a few bucks to the state treasury each election.

 

[legaleagle_45]

There's another term, taking an argument to it's most extreme ludicrous conclusion, but I can't remember what that's called.

Reductio ad absurdum

 

[macadore]

"I have not figured out why it is that gun folks seem so put out by a business that exercises its rights to control what goes on within its own confines."

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/first100/1001214.html

 

[TexasRifleman]

Reductio ad absurdum

Thanks, I been on google all afternoon trying to remember

 

[Double Naught Spy]

macadore, first of all, Luby's didn't have such a rule. Second, the Luby's incident preceded concealed carry in Texas. Third, your post fails to explain why gun folks who are so put out in that they feel their privileges should supercede the rights of others. Since we are so quick to point out what OUR rights are a gun owners, why do we not respect the rights of others. We expect non-gun people to respect our rights, but we are not so quick with the same courtesy.

If y'all don't like it that Taca Cabana has a 30.06 sign, then do business elsewhere. Consider it a tactical decision in self preservation. If you miss seeing the publicly posted sign, you get points off for poor situational awareness. Don't expect TC or any other business to make special concessions to cater to your self preservation just because they won't let you carry a gun. There isn't any law that says they must do this. Sure, you can boycott and make your own personal impact on their income level, but until CHL holders in Texas are a lot more numerous than 2% of the total population and can muster actual economic pressure, it will just remain a personal victory.

We seem to make a lot of demands that others bow down to our privileges, but do we ever actually reward businesses who reverse their policies? Do we ever do anything for businesses who don't put up 30.06 signs? We seem to be quick to complain and impose financial hardships on those who don't share our beliefs, but damn lazy when it comes to complimenting and readily spending with those that don't hamper our privilege.

Bottom line, we aren't much of a financial threat and we are virtually no financial bonus.

 

[TC-TX]

No signs in Lewisville, None in McKinney...

 

[orionengnr]

Wrong.

Taco Cabana on Main Street in Lewisville is so posted, as has been for over a year. "Corporate Policy".

 

[GEM]

DNS has it right. The best change in the CHL law was to make the 30.06 sign so big as to be obnoxious and ugly. That was what got antigun signs down across most of the state. Before, you just had those little red circle cross out type with a gun in the center.

A compliant sign is real big. Theoretically, you can ignore a noncompliant sign but I don't know if this has been challenged or tested in court.

I do vaguely remember some folks claiming that letter and calling campaigns removed signs at some businesses. Can't remember which.

I do know that TC has told numerous people to get lost when they contacted them.

 

[Frog48]

While visiting friends in San Antonio, we stopped by a Taco Cabana on the 1604 Loop. The establishment had a legally enforceable 30.06 sign prohibiting the carrying of a concealed pistol on their property.

Drive-thru window... problem solved.

 

[eric.cartman]

What part of "The Law of The Land" do you guys not understand?

It doesn't say some land now does it?

 

[thumper723]

For what it is worth, the Taco Cabana in Corpus Christi has a 30.06 sign, but I don't think its "big enough" but I am not going to test it.

I can't have guns where I live (on NAS Kingsville) so CCW has become a massive PITA for me as of late.

 

[springmom]

Taco Cabana restaurants in the Houston area are also posted.

If I have an unconquerable need for their breakfast tacos (it happens ) I go through the drive through. Which seems to be safe enough, given that we're talking morning hours, not night time.

Springmom

 

[TwitchALot]

Now PERSONALLY, I think these anti-CCW signs are fertilizer, just like these laws allowing employers to fire you simply by having a gun on their property locked up in your car, even thought you might have a valid CCW. I am no longer the advocate for the free-market I once was. With ENRON and other scandals, outsourcing American jobs, lack of health care for all US citizens, I simply do not trust the American business establishment any more, AT ALL. I personally think it time for some strong re-regulation of all businesses of all sizes in this country. But practically, especially in such a pro-business State as Texas, I realize, it's not going to happen.

No libertarian or free-market advocate I know of says anything should go. For one, most of us believe that companies should be legally obligated to give truthful information, so the stuff about Enron would still be illegal in a free market system (which we don't have, by the way). Second of all, so long as the world as a whole is not a free market, I have no issue with states creating laws or tariffs to give US companies a competitive capability.

Finally, I don't believe health care is a right for everyone (or anyone, for that matter). Why should I be forced to pay for someone else's medical bills, by the way?

I know that there are laws in many states that allow owners and lessees of business property to infringe on some Constitutional rights of people who go onto the confines of that property. What I say, though, is that if those state legislatures and business owners are willing to go in that direction they ought to go the whole way. There's much less profit in pandering to the anti gun forces than in the slave trade, for example: Taco Cabana and other businesses should take the opportunity granted by cooperative state legislatures to snatch their customers and employees, put them in shackles, and auction them off. Legislators who are willing to cooperate in denying Second Amendment rights to citizens of their state should be willing to deny them other Constitutional rights too.

Since you seem to be fond of this line of reasoning and argument (and yet have little understanding of the purpose and intent of the Constitution), allow me to return the favor in a simple and more crude fashion. Since we all have the absolute right to free speech as preserved by the Constitution, anyone can say, "I'm going to blow up this plane and kill all of you" whenever they're on an airplane. Of course, you're obviously free to threaten anyone and say anything anywhere because it's protected by the Constitution and the right to free speech. And since we have the right to peaceably assemble, you have no right to kick me out of your house if I gather a few hundred of my friends and take them to your place for a year-long sleepover.

Oh, and let's talk about the Ninth Amendment. Since we're at your house, the least we could do is drink your beer, eat your food, and use your TV. Certainly you can't protest with any credibility- I have the right to eat, drink, and enjoy myself no doubt. And your clothes? Shoot, certainly I have the right to be sheltered from the elements when I'm moving about (as I have the right to move), so no doubt you will have no objection to me taking those along when I do decide to go out. After all, you can't infringe upon my Constitutional rights by preventing me from gathering in your house, or eating and drinking your food (since I need those to survive and I have a right to life), or otherwise tell me to leave or shut up. And if I want to drink and shoot guns in your place, that's cool too, because you know what? I have a right to keep and bear arms. So what if there are a few holes in your house after we're done? You going to try to infringe on my Constitutional rights?


Oh and on a side note, that slavery thing is an irrelevant line of argument, since that completely contradicts libertarian principles. If you're going to make a reductio ad absurdum argument, it'd better be accurate and valid, for future reference.

My OP expresses disgust about a company's policy, and it's MY response to those policies that is somehow "wrong". It's as if I'm supposed to accept it and like it -- all in the name of the primacy of "property rights".

Sorry, but it doesn't work that way. I don't like TC's policies regarding concealed carry, I informed other similar-minded folks about that policy via these boards, and I (for one) have no intention of ever spending a dime at TC. Of course, folks are free to do as they wish -- that's the beauty of America.

For the record, if TC had a "Whites Only" company policy, I would be outraged, I would inform others about TC's abominable policy, and I would never spend my money there.

As you should. No one is saying you have to accept or like it.

 

[wdlsguy]

Drive-thru window... problem solved.

I have been biting my tongue on this, but I can't do it any longer.

Why would anyone do business with a company that treats them as a second class citizen?

 

[TexasRifleman]

Why would anyone do business with a company that treats them as a second class citizen

Especially in the WORLD HEADQUARTERS of Mexican food

 

[zxcvbob]

Anyone who owns or leases property is free of any laws except those he creates for people who enter upon that property... Best of all, Taco Cabana can [suspend] the Fifth, Sixth, and Eight Amendments to everyone on its property because it has the right to do whatever it wants there. So if any customer or employee or slave protests anything, the Taco Cabana manager or enforcer can whip those people something fierce, lock them up without a trial for any amount of time... The above benefits of being a property owner in this country are ignored by many people who own property because they just don't understand that the rights of property owners are superior to the Constitution. No doubt about it.

"It's good to be the king." —Mel Brooks

 

[orionengnr]

Drive-thru window... problem solved.

Actually, problem ignored and side-stepped.

I have been biting my tongue on this, but I can't do it any longer.

Why would anyone do business with a company that treats them as a second class citizen?

Right answer. My one trip there was enjoyable, my written protests were ignored, and I will not return. And I share that sentiment every chance I get.

 

[tuckerdog1]

One just opened in Georgetown. 1st time I went, I was carrying, and did not notice a 30-06 sign. I'll look closer next time. If it's there, I'll notify the manager he won't be seeing any more business from me.

Tuckerdog1

 

[Double Naught Spy]

Why would anyone do business with a company that treats them as a second class citizen?

Interesting concept. They treat everyone equally to the same rule, so I don't get the connotation that you would be treated as a second class citizen. You are just being treated like everyone else. Bummer.

 

[TwitchALot]

Anyone who owns or leases property is free of any laws except those he creates for people who enter upon that property... Best of all, Taco Cabana can [suspend] the Fifth, Sixth, and Eight Amendments to everyone on its property because it has the right to do whatever it wants there. So if any customer or employee or slave protests anything, the Taco Cabana manager or enforcer can whip those people something fierce, lock them up without a trial for any amount of time... The above benefits of being a property owner in this country are ignored by many people who own property because they just don't understand that the rights of property owners are superior to the Constitution. No doubt about it.

The Constitution is not a limit on individual power or freedom. Sheesh.

 

[Robert Hairless]

TwitchALot, you forgot to preface the quotation from me with "RH." I like having a fan club by the way, and I know you really enjoy my work and will like it even more when you read it. You don't do burlesque well though. It takes much more skill and knowledge than one might think.

 

[wdlsguy]

Interesting concept. They treat everyone equally to the same rule, so I don't get the connotation that you would be treated as a second class citizen. You are just being treated like everyone else. Bummer.

Not so long ago, certain restaurants posted signs at their front door saying "Whites Only". In many cases, these restaurants were willing to sell food for take out to Non-Whites, possibly through a window at the side of the restaurant.

Fast forward to 2007. Taco Cabana posts a sign at their front door saying "Unarmed Persons Only" (in essence). Taco Cabana is willing to sell food for take out to Armed Persons, through a window at the side of the restaurant.

I hope this makes things clear enough for you.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

Not so long ago, certain restaurants posted signs at their front door saying "Whites Only". In many cases, these restaurants were willing to sell food for take out to Non-Whites, possibly through a window at the side of the restaurant.

Fast forward to 2007. Taco Cabana posts a sign at their front door saying "Unarmed Persons Only" (in essence). Taco Cabana is willing to sell food for take out to Armed Persons, through a window at the side of the restaurant.

I hope this makes things clear enough for you.

Nope, not clear at all. The "Whites Only" signs were based on biology, not personal choice of what to wear. The rule, by definition, banned people and so was not equally applied to people.

Eateries can have dress codes. They don't have to serve you and and can kick you out for not wearing shoes and shirts. Similarly, they can ban guns. They can ban boom boxes as well. What I don't think you understand is that they aren't barring people, they are barring guns. Black people could not change their skin color to be white to eat in an eatery, nor would they want to. You can take off a gun. You can leave a boom box in the car. You can put on shoes and a shirt.

If this makes you feel like a second class citizen, then you may have some esteem issues. I don't know about the rest of you, but I am not my gun and my gun is not me. My identity isn't tied to my gun or other material objects. If you don't like my gun, my car, my house, etc., big deal.

Even if Taco Cabana decided to allow guns for the sake of profits, would you still want to do business with a company that is anti-gun? No doubt some of their profits will in some way be going against gun ownership. Do you really want to help fund them in that manner?

 

[khadre]

Robert,
that's some of the most humorous - sarcastically humorous - thing I've read, rofl, good analogies btw.

Jim Keenan,
your last sentence is signature line material - If it's okay, for me to paraphrase it a little and borrow that.

 

[TwitchALot]

TwitchALot, you forgot to preface the quotation from me with "RH." I like having a fan club by the way, and I know you really enjoy my work and will like it even more when you read it. You don't do burlesque well though. It takes much more skill and knowledge than one might think.

I didn't forget- I took it from zx and the find feature didn't pick it up for some strange reason. Apologies.

I never intended to do burlesque. I intended to do an "appeal to ridicule," as you did, to demonstrate the gaping hole in your "argument." So obviously, it's less... "burlesquy" (?)- it was never intended to be that way. While your posts are humorous, as it were, they're not solid arguments whatsoever (presumably, this is your intention). I'm just clearing up the misunderstanding for those who think it is a solid argument, is all.