Freedom includes the occasional feeling of discomfort about something. So?

Posted by $ winterwind 10 years, 7 months ago to Culture
30 comments | Share | Best of... | Flag

I saw a little article zip by with the title of "Chipotle: Don't bring your guns into our stores". I really wanted to say something intelligent about it, and all I could think of was well, if you decide to call your organization "Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America", you might get "action" of a kind you didn't necessarily expect.
In fact, the existence and probable actions of an organization with such a name is probably part of what led to people carrying guns in to lunch. So I guess the Moms succeeded?
hmmm.


Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • Posted by DaveM49 10 years, 7 months ago
    I've no idea of the story behind the story. That said, Chipotle's restaurants are private property. If the owner(s) do not want guns on their property, they have that right. Those of us who are troubled by this have the right to take our business elsewhere.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by mccannon01 10 years, 7 months ago
      Interesting dilemma here. I agree with the notion that a restaurant is a private business who's owners can choose what happens within it's walls as you say. However, hasn't the civil rights movement and gay lobby, et al, already shown through the courts that restaurants and other businesses open to the public really are not private and cannot interfere with civil rights? Given that, doesn't the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution clearly state one of our civil rights that can not be denied by any business? So, are Chipotle's restaurants, or any restaurant, public or private? Let me venture a guess at a PC answer: They are public when it comes to race, gender, sexual orientation, but are private when it come to the right to keep and bear arms.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
      • Posted by Robbie53024 10 years, 7 months ago
        Hmmm. I'm guessing that the argument would be that those are inherent attributes and carrying a firearm isn't. BUT, the right to carry a firearm is EXPLICITELY spelled out as a protected right (while the others aren't).

        I'd like to see a test case based on this rationale. Who's game?
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by mccannon01 10 years, 7 months ago
          There's a Chipotle restaurant near where I live. I can only guess what the reaction would be if I slung on my hunting rifle and walked through the door, especially since I live in The Peoples Republik of New York where the abridgment of 2nd amendment rights is an official State sport. I trust it will not go well for me. :-)
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
    • Posted by Hiraghm 10 years, 7 months ago
      That's not what the 2nd Amendment says.

      If they will permit you on their property without a weapon, then they must permit you on their property with a weapon.

      The 2nd Amendment is very clear, "...the right of the People to keep and bear arms *shall not be infringed*". Unlike the 1st Amendment, it does not specify who's doing the infringing.

      7/11 can't keep you from carrying... if they would let you in w/o the weapon.

      Yes, this sounds extreme. Blame the Founding Fathers. Amend the Constitution if you don't like what it says. Otherwise...

      "Now these are the Laws of the Jungle, and many and mighty are they;
      But the head and the hoof of the Law and the haunch and the hump is -- Obey!"
      - Rudyard Kipling, "The Law of the Jungle"

      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by TheRealBill 10 years, 7 months ago
        You are missing the most important ingredient to understanding here. The second amendment is about private citizens, it is not a prohibition or restriction on them.

        The constitution, and by incorporation the amendments, are restrictions on the authority and scope of government, not you and I. Just as I am free to not publish your writings, and you likewise, we are free to decide the conditions upon which predicate access to, or use of, our respective properties.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by zwdavis4 10 years, 7 months ago
        You're not quite correct here. People have a right to property and a right to refuse you entrance to that property for no reason at all. They are not infringing on your right to bear arms they are exercising their right to keep you off their property. If your statement was true we would have to allow prisoners to have weapons while in prison.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
        • Posted by Hiraghm 10 years, 7 months ago
          Imagine a tavern not allowing patrons to carry their muskets inside, and then subsequently there's an indian attack on their village for which they are now all disarmed.

          Imagine a Luby's restaurant not allowing patrons to carry their pistols inside, and then subsequently a madman decides to shoot the joint up...

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VcDHoqQL...

          You're suggesting that your right to property supersedes my right to self-defense. I disagree.
          And so does the Constitution.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
        • Posted by Hiraghm 10 years, 7 months ago
          Absolutely they have the right to refuse you entrance for no reason at all. They just can't keep you from carrying your weapon if they allow you onto the property.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by teri-amborn 10 years, 7 months ago
    MADD called awhile ago looking for my monetary support. I not only turned them down but also "dressed them down" telling the caller that their philosophical bent was contributing to the downfall of this country.
    I went on to explain:
    "Innocent until proven guilty is how justice is universally upheld. Whenever non-objective law becomes commonplace, we have lost all perspective of justice."
    They removed my name from their call list.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
    • Posted by Hiraghm 10 years, 7 months ago
      I strongly and fervently disagree!

      ""Innocent until proven guilty is how justice is universally upheld. "

      Justice is NEVER upheld by "Innocent until proven guilty".

      It is only upheld by "Innocent UNLESS proven guilty".

      A Very, vitally different way of putting it.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by CircuitGuy 10 years, 7 months ago
    Moms demand... It's unfortunate you see this but rarely see "dads demand". It's as if you become some special breed when you have a baby and you're a woman. My wife thinks people consider this when evaluating her firm, to as customers or potential employees, that the owners is a "mom". I'm not sure that's true, but she often gets the feeling people have a complex set of notions about her simply because we have kids.. notions they don't have about me.

    A true story is a group they partnered with to do seminars decided to use a different attorney. Probably looking for innocuous reasons, one of them said, "now that you have a baby, you're probably less focused on growth at the moment." or something like that. In less than a year they approached her and said they wanted to do the seminars again. She was magnanimous about it and said yes, and now the deal is working for both parties. The other group learned that a woman having a baby does not mean she neglects her business.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by wiggys 10 years, 7 months ago
    in Grand Junction Colorado the local Home Depot said people with carry permits could not bring guns into their store, I do not know if it lasted 1 or 2 days but then they shut up.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Notperfect 10 years, 6 months ago
    I have thought many times of eating at that establishment and now I know why I have not. This happens in small towns in Michigan a lot and for the life of me I do not understand. I also do this for a living and was told by a man one day while loading his product onto my truck that I could not have my weapon on my person while loading his "secure load". I asked him does it bother you because I have my weapon on? His reply was because in Illinois it is forbidden. We loaded and left, but the next time I returned he was glad I had it on. Seems the company he works for loved the idea more than him so he was obliged to accommodate our attire.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by seascape 10 years, 7 months ago
    Funny if they had put up a sign warning men not to bring their boyfriends into the store there would be a war and the usual "outrage."

    They can feel free to deprive an American of their 2nd Amendment right just because they personally don't like guns. Well I don't like them so every chance I get I'll run their company down as un-American and against civil rights.

    People who carry guns legally can be discriminated against with no recourse?
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by Rozar 10 years, 7 months ago
      Did you just compare a gun to a romantic partner?

      You realize they aren't depriving you of your second amendment, they're depriving you of delicious burritos right?

      Obviously there is a double standard here, basically the government is the judge on who is allowed to discriminate and who isn't, but what you just said is a very poor argument.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ Stormi 10 years, 7 months ago
    The trend is in favor of the criminal, esp. the drug pushers. Too many upper level law enforcement personnel are on the take - at least in Ohio. Can't risk getting their clientele killed or incarcerated.
    So, the average Joe is left defenseless, while the criminals are armed. I used to cover law enforcement on Sunday nights for the newspaper, which had me on the road between midnight and 2 a.m. between two towns, gathering logs. The parking lots were not well lit in either town! I could not carry my knife, as I would not get in. So, I had a very sharp hoof pick, which is not a weapon, but a tool for my horse. I was not going with no form of self defense. At the jail, all the inmates could holler out at me, but the deputies were all safely inside, and slow to get outside. Luckily, i only had that night duty once per week, but it gave me a feel for what other people working nights face on an ongoing basis. Walk in McD's at 10:45 p.m., and it does not feel all that safe either, teenagers manning the whole operation, no form of defense obvious. I ran into a druggie there one time, shouting out that he just found out he was God! I was told, better to carry scissors than a knife, as the cops might be more likely to charge you if you defend yourself with a knife. What a world this had become. In Wyo., our neighbor the Prosecutor, was never, and i mean never, without his gun on his hip, anywhere he went.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by squareone 10 years, 7 months ago
    Some years ago, in Luby's Cafeteria in Killeen, Texas, over twenty people were murdered inside the restaurant by a madman who drove his pickup into the restaurant and opened fire. Since at the time in Texas it was a felony to carry a gun into a restaurant, a young woman watched as both her parents were killed while her gun remained idle in her car outside the restaurant.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo