Export thread

EDIT: posted it here, because it will likely become a discussion about 2nd amendment rights.
Source:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/05/19/chipotle-guns_n_5354569.html

lol, i get it, I do, you want to carry your big manly military rifle into your favorite restaurant, but dammit smalls, YOU'RE SCARING THE STRAIGHTS!

to be fair if someone wants to carry a pistol openly on their side I probably wouldn't bat an eye. However, I see someone with a AR-15 or HK SL-8, I may wonder what the hell is going through their head.

I loves me the Constitution, but a private establishment has the right to refuse service in this case.

Tress said:

I loves me the Constitution, but a private establishment has the right to refuse service in this case.

Click to expand...

That's pretty much end of discussion there.

Tress said:

I loves me the Constitution, but a private establishment has the right to refuse service in this case.

Click to expand...

This. Carrying a rifle into a dinning establishment only serves to put the other dinners on edge because they don't know if you are there to rob the place or to order a fucking burrito. Conceal carry if you must but don't fucking expect your fellow dinners to be okay with you carrying around a rifle (unless you are in uniform or something). If they won't serve you, it's YOUR fault.

I'm all for the 2nd amendment, but I DEMAND those who practice it to show some fucking courtesy for their fellow Americans.

These "protest" look more like armed take overs. Acting like a complete loon is not the way to get other people to support your gun rights.

One of the things I love about this country is that we don't need an army to patrol the streets. But if these dumb-asses keep increasing the firepower on the streets the police with have to respond in kind.

Now the crooks know the easy places to rob!!!

Charlie Don't Surf said:

Now the crooks know the easy places to rob!!!

Click to expand...

That is why you give free cokes and half priced meals to cops.

Tress said:

I loves me the Constitution, but a private establishment has the right to refuse service

Click to expand...

Just like they did for the darkies.

And that's some great huffpo scaremongering there. "Military style assault rifles OMG".. Would it have really been better if they'd all had remington shotguns?

At least they're "asking" and not delivering an ultimatum. Though it is kinda soft-spined, maybe it'll get them what they want by trying to sound reasonable.

As someone that likes to go to Chipotle, good. I dont want people around me to have guns.

*facepalm*

GasBandit said:

Just like they did for the darkies.

And that's some great huffpo scaremongering there. "Military style assault rifles OMG".. Would it have really been better if they'd all had remington shotguns?

Click to expand...

The thing is any long arm is going to make non-firearm wielding people nervous, it just so happens these kind of people go for the show and grab civilian version military rifles.

Bones said:

The thing is any long arm is going to make non-firearm wielding people nervous, it just so happens these kind of people go for the show and grab civilian version military rifles.

Click to expand...

And it's the same ignorant "scare factor" that was used in the so called "assault weapons ban" where basically a team of congressional soccer moms went through a gun catalog and circled all the "scary" looking guns.

The fear comes from ignorance. The bald truth of the matter is there is no such thing as a "military" rifle in any meaningful sense. Because of a combination of hollywood BS and gun-grabber fear-mongering, the uninformed fear black plastic more than they do polished woodgrain. I've gone hunting with semi-automatic rifles that hold over 10 rounds in the magazine and can shoot through school busses at 200 yards. But because they look like the one on top instead of the one on bottom, nobody's scared.




And for all you know from the picture, the one on bottom might shoot .22 LR.

GasBandit said:

The bald truth of the matter is there is no such thing as a "military" rifle in any meaningful sense.

Click to expand...

I would argue any model of longarm that is used by a nation state's military would be a "military rifle".
This is a Military Rifle, a HK G36


This is not, its civilian counterpart the HK SL-8

What a weird power trip it must take to want to carry such a ridiculous weapon into a public establishment. Small individuals with small minds trying to be big.

Bones said:

I would argue any model of longarm that is used by a nation state's military would be a "military rifle".
This is a Military Rifle, a HK G36
View attachment 14878

This is not, its civilian counterpart the HK SL-8
View attachment 14879

Click to expand...

Well, let's continue that assertion into a discussion - pray tell, what distinguishes the one from the other from a practical standpoint, other than the mere happenstance of who generally uses which? According to what I read on wikipedia, basically they modified the pistol grip to be a fixed part of the buttstock, and put a half size magazine on it. The ammo is the same, the barrel is in fact more accurate on the "civilian" model, and though it doesn't come standard with the carry handle and optics, those can be purchased and fitted aftermarket.

My point is, the distinction is largely imaginary. From a practical standpoint, there's very little difference between the two, especially in the "Chipotle situation" with a half dozen guys in line carrying them.[DOUBLEPOST=1400629553,1400629492][/DOUBLEPOST]

Krisken said:

What a weird power trip it must take to want to sit anywhere in a public establishment regardless of skin color. Small individuals with small minds trying to be big.

Click to expand...

FTFY. It's not about "being big," it's about making a point.

GasBandit said:

Just like they did for the darkies.

Click to expand...

Oh, the poor oppressed gun owners.

Well, let's continue that assertion into a discussion - pray tell, what distinguishes the one from the other from a practical standpoint, other than the mere happenstance of who generally uses which? According to what I read on wikipedia, basically they modified the pistol grip to be a fixed part of the buttstock, and put a half size magazine on it. The ammo is the same, the barrel is in fact more accurate on the "civilian" model, and though it doesn't come standard with the carry handle and optics, those can be purchased and fitted aftermarket.

My point is, the distinction is largely imaginary. From a practical standpoint, there's very little difference between the two, especially in the "Chipotle situation" with a half dozen guys in line carrying them.

Click to expand...

my point exactly, to someone who is not a gun owner this kind of shit is terrifying. personally, bunch a dudes with military rifles come sauntering into my work place I am calling our armed security to sort that shit out, open carry or not.

as to what makes them different, the civilian model doesn't come off the shelve with 3-round burst, thats it.

Bones said:

my point exactly, to someone who is not a gun owner this kind of shit is terrifying. personally, bunch a dudes with military rifles come sauntering into my work place I am calling our armed security to sort that shit out, open carry or not.

Click to expand...

But dudes with SL-8s you hug and offer brownies?[DOUBLEPOST=1400632757,1400632683][/DOUBLEPOST]

Frank said:

Oh, the poor oppressed gun owners.

Click to expand...

Is it a right that shall not be abridged, or isn't it? But you're sidestepping the point, which is that the "right to refuse service" in an enterprise that operates on public custom is largely for show or things affecting sanitation (shirt and shoes).

Is it a right that shall not be abridged, or isn't it? But you're sidestepping the point, which is that the "right to refuse service" in an enterprise that operates on public custom is largely for show or things affecting sanitation (shirt and shoes).

Click to expand...

as far as I understand constitutional law. that whole "your rights" shit only deals with the US government. private industry can tell you no guns on my property, just like when you work for someone they can punish you for things you say while on the clock despite your "free speech".

But dudes with SL-8s you hug and offer brownies?

Click to expand...

remember the part about them being near indistinguishable, of course you do...

I'll super pro 2nd amendment, but if you have to bring a rifle of any kind to eat with your burrito, you're being unreasonable. My father has a .40 pistol and a concealed carry permit, but he isn't going to take it to Chili's with him. I grew up with people who liked to hunt. I have gone hunting (albeit with a 30-30 starfire) but I understand that guns make most people uncomfortable.

Comparing this to "Darkies" I think is also a poor argument. They couldn't go into some places regardless of what they wore or were carrying. They couldn't go in because of their race. A private place of business asking people to keep their guns outside the door is not an unreasonable request.

Bones said:

as far as I understand constitutional law. that whole "your rights" shit only deals with the US government. private industry can tell you no guns on my property, just like when you work for someone they can punish you for things you say while on the clock despite your "free speech".

Click to expand...

Actually, in an enterprise that serves the public such as a restaurant, it's been shown (reinforced by legal precedent) that their right to free assembly is largely overriden by civil rights in general. It's not a trump card (in either direction). There is such a thing as wrongful termination despite them not being beholden to "free speech."

If an area can be arguably called as operating in the public place, such as a restaurant, it has to give way on these issues of rights. That's why chipotle can't "reserve the right to refuse service" to, say, women or minorities.

If you disagree with it, get two thirds of the states together to repeal the second amendment. Surely if it's that cut and dry an issue, it shouldn't be a problem. After all, we did it to ban (and bring back) alcoholic beverages.

remember the part about them being near indistinguishable, of course you do...

Click to expand...

Then why did you say "Military" again?

GasBandit said:

What a weird power trip it must take to want to sit anywhere in a public establishment regardless of skin color. Small individuals with small minds trying to be big.

FTFY. It's not about "being big," it's about making a point.

Click to expand...

Terrik said:

I'll super pro 2nd amendment, but if you have to bring a rifle of any kind to eat with your burrito, you're being unreasonable.

Click to expand...

Yes, it was unreasonable. That was the point. That's what a show of protest is - what you do when "reasonable" methods fail. How far did the civil rights movement get being "reasonable?" Did women get the right to vote by being "reasonable" and quiet and conscientious of the men's feelings, waiting patiently until a miraculous change of heart took place?

My father has a .40 pistol and a concealed carry permit, but he isn't going to take it to Chili's with him. I grew up with people who liked to hunt. I have gone hunting (albeit with a 30-30 starfire) but I understand that guns make most people uncomfortable.

Click to expand...

Frankly, that the entire concept of a "permit" to carry arms has been so ingrained as acceptable in our society is disgusting.

Comparing this to "Darkies" I think is also a poor argument. They couldn't go into some places regardless of what they wore or were carrying. They couldn't go in because of their race. A private place of business asking people to keep their guns outside the door is not an unreasonable request.

Click to expand...

See above.

Actually, in an enterprise that serves the public such as a restaurant, it's been shown (reinforced by legal precedent) that their right to free assembly is largely overriden by civil rights in general. It's not a trump card (in either direction). There is such a thing as wrongful termination despite them not being beholden to "free speech."

If an area can be arguably called as operating in the public place, such as a restaurant, it has to give way on these issues of rights. That's why chipotle can't "reserve the right to refuse service" to, say, women or minorities.

Click to expand...

but those examples are protected statuses under the Civil Rights Act, as I understand it, Gun Ownership is not a protected class.

The Federal Civil Rights Act guarantees all people the right to "full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin."
The right of public accommodation is also guaranteed to disabled citizens under the Americans with Disabilities Act, which precludes discrimination by businesses on the basis of disability.

Click to expand...

If you're so scared of society outside you're door you need a three foot long penis extension to go get a fucking burrito, you're the problem. Same as the asshole who had to packing at Disney World.

Frank said:

Oh, the poor oppressed gun owners.

Click to expand...

Yes, think of those poor people who are born with guns in their hands, and can't put those weapons down long enough to eat. I mean, it's not like they have a choice as to weather they carry weapons or not.

Bones said:

but those examples are protected statuses under the Civil Rights Act, as I understand it, Gun Ownership is not a protected class.

Click to expand...

It has a specific amendment about it, that was deemed so important it was made second, right after speech. If that's not meant to be government protection, nothing is.

DarkAudit said:

If you're so scared of society outside you're door you need a three foot long penis extension to go get a fucking burrito, you're the problem. Same as the asshole who had to packing at Disney World.

Click to expand...

Actually, I'd argue that those that view guns as "three foot penis extensions" are the problem. A well adjusted mind sees a firearm the same way it sees a drill or screwdriver.

figmentPez said:

Yes, think of those poor people who are born with guns in their hands, and can't put those weapons down long enough to eat. I mean, it's not like they have a choice as to weather they carry weapons or not.

Click to expand...

And people who aren't christian are completely free to convert, so why protect jews or muslims from those who don't like them?

Youre being intentionally dense if you don't see the difference between screwdrivers and guns. Do you remember anytime that people used drills and screwdrivers to kill 10+ people in a few minutes?

Thank god, I was agreeing with GB far too much lately.

You're really pulling out some old school stupid arguments today.

GasBandit said:

Actually, I'd argue that those that view guns as "three foot penis extensions" are the problem. A well adjusted mind sees a firearm the same way it sees a drill or screwdriver.

Click to expand...

No one involved is a well adjusted mind, then. It's GUNS! *fapfapfap* GUNS! *fapfapfap* GUNS! *fapfapfap*

It has a specific amendment about it, that was deemed so important it was made second, right after speech. If that's not meant to be government protection, nothing is.

Click to expand...

In United States v. Cruikshank (1876), the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that, "The right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution; neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence" and limited the applicability of the Second Amendment to the federal government.

Bones said:

In United States v. Cruikshank (1876), the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that, "The right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution; neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence" and limited the applicability of the Second Amendment to the federal government.

Click to expand...

And in their judgement of McDonald v. Chicago (2010), the supreme court held that the 2nd amendment doesn't just apply to the federal government, and that we do have the individual right to keep and bear arms.

DarkAudit said:

It's GUNS! *fapfapfap* GUNS! *fapfapfap* GUNS! *fapfapfap*

Click to expand...

Ladies and gentlemen - rational discourse.

Bowielee said:

Thank god, I was agreeing with GB far too much lately.

You're really pulling out some old school stupid arguments today.

Click to expand...

Ladies and gentlemen, ad-hominem.

This isn't even a second amendment rights issue. That's like a business refusing to serve someone who's screaming racial epithets at other customers is a first amendment rights issue.

GasBandit said:

Ladies and gentlemen - rational discourse.

Click to expand...

You compared gun ownership to the civil rights movement.

GasBandit said:

And in their judgement of McDonald v. Chicago (2010), the supreme court held that the 2nd amendment doesn't just apply to the federal government, and that we do have the individual right to keep and bear arms.
.

Click to expand...

This decision has nothing to do with private businesses, it's about state vs federal right to enforcement. I have no idea why you're even bringing it up.

And your comparing this to a civil rights issue is, quite frankly, beneath you.

Bowielee said:

This isn't even a second amendment rights issue. That's like a business refusing to serve someone who's screaming racial epithets at other customers is a first amendment rights issue.

Click to expand...

Is the business in public or not?

Frank said:

You compared gun ownership to the civil rights movement.

Click to expand...

Yes, I did. After all, this right is the one that is the final guarantor of all the others.


Man, where's Gilgamesh? Ususally I'd have like five "funnies" by now.[DOUBLEPOST=1400640279,1400640191][/DOUBLEPOST]

Bowielee said:

This decision has nothing to do with private businesses, it's about state vs federal right to enforcement. I have no idea why you're even bringing it up.

Click to expand...

it disproves that the second amendment only pertains to the federal government.

GasBandit said:

Is the business in public or not?

Click to expand...

No, actually, it's not. It's private property.

Chipotle is literally Hitler.

GasBandit said:

it disproves that the second amendment only pertains to the federal government.

Click to expand...

Thats my bad for forgetting mcdonald which also brought the state and municpal governments under the umbrella of enforcement.

which is my same point, the government cannot abridge your right to bear arms, a private entity on its own property can.

GasBandit said:

And people who aren't christian are completely free to convert, so why protect jews or muslims from those who don't like them?

Click to expand...

If they were discriminating against gun owners I'd say you have a point, but they're trying to restrict the carrying of guns in their stores, for the purposes of making their customers feel comfortable. People who own guns are more than welcome to come eat there, they just have to leave their guns behind. There are many other places that guns already are not allowed.[DOUBLEPOST=1400641273,1400641097][/DOUBLEPOST]

GasBandit said:

Is the business in public or not?

Click to expand...

College campuses are public, right? Guns are prohibited there.

figmentPez said:

College campuses are public, right? Guns are prohibited there.

Click to expand...

the supreme court ruled they can be banned from "sensitive places" like schools and government buildings.

Bowielee said:

No, actually, it's not. It's private property.

Click to expand...

It's a public venue, which civil rights legislation defined. If "private property" universally trumped individual rights, there'd still be "no coloreds" restaurants. Chipotle knows this, which is why they "Asked" instead of "banned."

Frank said:

Chipotle is literally Hitler.

Click to expand...

It's certainly no Freebirds.

Bones said:

Thats my bad for forgetting mcdonald which also brought the state and municpal governments under the umbrella of enforcement.

which is my same point, the government cannot abridge your right to bear arms, a private entity on its own property can.

Click to expand...

Usually, yes. But there are special rules for places where the public is supposed to access.

figmentPez said:

If they were discriminating against gun owners I'd say you have a point, but they're trying to restrict the carrying of guns in their stores, for the purposes of making their customers feel comfortable. People who own guns are more than welcome to come eat there, they just have to leave their guns behind. There are many other places that guns already are not allowed.[DOUBLEPOST=1400641273,1400641097][/DOUBLEPOST]

College campuses are public, right? Guns are prohibited there.

Click to expand...

And how has that worked out for them? Sorry, that's another debate - back on topic. "Gun free zones" aren't just ineffective, but also unconstitutional - but they happen anyway because "guns are scaaaawy and criminals obey laws, right?"

GasBandit said:

Ladies and gentlemen - rational discourse.

Click to expand...

Any chance of that went out the window when your side decided to heckle the parents of Newtown victims at Congressional hearings.

DarkAudit said:

Any chance of that went out the window when your side decided to heckle the parents of Newtown victims at Congressional hearings.

Click to expand...

Should I hold things done by people I deign to be "on your side" against the arguments of your posts?

GasBandit said:

Should I hold things done by people I deign to be "on your side" against the arguments of your posts?

Click to expand...

Since when has that stopped you? Ever.

You come into my place of business, on my shift, waving a rifle or a handgun around the lobby, you will get nothing. We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone. And for the safety and security of our other guests, I am refusing service to you. Want to call the police on me? Fine. You're still getting nothing. Get a court order if you want a room here so badly. You'll have to wait until morning to file, even longer if it's a weekend or holiday. By then you've wasted the entire night and a crapton of extra money on your gun fetish.

So, I should be able to go onto your property with a gun even if you don't want guns on your premises?

GasBandit said:

And how has that worked out for them? Sorry, that's another debate - back on topic. "Gun free zones" aren't just ineffective, but also unconstitutional - but they happen anyway because "guns are scaaaawy and criminals obey laws, right?"

Click to expand...

Strictly speaking, colleges aren't open to the public any more than an elementary school is: I can't go into my local elementary school uninvited and if I tried, I would be arrested. Colleges have the same right to refuse access and in fact employ security for this very reason. More to the point, the college isn't preventing you from carrying weapons... it's only denying you access if you have them on grounds, which is already their right. Therefore your right to bear arms is not infringed.

But a fast food joint isn't a college.

Bowielee said:

So, I should be able to go onto your property with a gun even if you don't want guns on your premises?

Click to expand...

I'll call the police on you if you do. I'm not going to go see what you want. I'm flat calling the police.
Especially since one of the highest end hotels in town was robbed at gunpoint this morning.

DarkAudit said:

Since when has that stopped you? Ever.

Click to expand...

Ladies and gentlemen, Ad Hominem Again.

You come into my place of business, on my shift, waving a rifle or a handgun around the lobby, you will get nothing.

Click to expand...

I missed the part in the article where they were "waving" them. I thought they were carrying/wearing them. Carrying is one thing, brandishing another, and definitely changes things.

Bowielee said:

So, I should be able to go onto your property with a gun even if you don't want guns on your premises?

Click to expand...

My premises is not a restaurant. Not a public place. Scrutinize Chipotle's carefully (and no doubt legal-department) crafted response -

"We acknowledge that there are strong arguments on both sides of this issue. We have seen those differing positions expressed in the wake of this event in Texas, where pro-gun customers have contacted us to applaud our support of the Second Amendment, and anti-gun customers have expressed concern over the visible display of military-style assault rifles in restaurants where families are eating. The vast majority of gun owners are responsible citizens and we appreciate them honoring this request. And we hope that our customers who oppose the carrying of guns in public agree with us that it is the role of elected officials and the legislative process to set policy in this area, not the role of businesses like Chipotle."

Bolded and underlined for emphasis. A restaurant is private property but a public venue and chipotle knows it, so they're "asking" and not banning. This is different from going into someone's back yard or inside a company's warehouse or into an office. Here's a bit explaining it:

"Parks, government buildings and town squares are generally funded with public money for public use. It would follow that those are naturally understood public places.
Privately owned restaurants and bars, however, are also considered public places in most legal definitions because the public is invited into the establishment."

That's why things like municipal smoking bans apply to restaurants and bars despite them being "private property."

GasBandit said:

That's why things like municipal smoking bans apply to restaurants and bars despite them being "private property."

Click to expand...

just a quick aside, since you brought this up:
it is weird because in Minnesota where I am it started in the restaurants and became a public ban.

I find your blind adherence to the absolute right to bear arms under any circumstance to be really contrary to your usual somewhat tempered way of viewing things. I don't know why this is such an extreme issue for you.

Especially in this case. I can usually at least see your point about being able to arm yourself against possible government intrusion, but this is a business working in the best interests of their customers.

been reading a ton of "right" banter, its amusing to hear the hardcore gun advocates going "these stupid fucks walk into a urban chipotle strapped to the 9's with weaponry of every type and expect all the timid liberal filth to not cry wolf!?" I'm paraphrasing mind you, but its got me cracking up.

Bowielee said:

I find your blind adherence to the absolute right to bear arms under any circumstance to be really contrary to your usual somewhat tempered way of viewing things. I don't know why this is such an extreme issue for you.

Especially in this case. I can usually at least see your point about being able to arm yourself against possible government intrusion, but this is a business working in the best interests of their customers.

Click to expand...

And for what it's worth, I think Chipotle actually handled it pretty deftly. They aren't saying "ban guns" or "guns everywhere," they're saying "we don't want to be part of this debate." That's some slick Marbury-v-Madison level shucking and jiving right there.

I wouldn't say it's an "extreme" issue for me, it's the same position I've always had - if a single soldier would be expected to carry it, it should be available to private citizens under the 2nd amendment. I guess I push harder in that direction than explicitly necessary because there are so many these days who let their fear of guns rule them, and advocate their complete banning. Probably the best (and safest) way, in my opinion, to alleviate this fear is simply universal carry - as many adults as possible, everywhere, openly carrying... to the point where the sight of someone wearing a firearm is no more noteworthy than wearing a baseball cap.

It might also have made a few certain notorious shootings go differently... or prevented them entirely at the inception stage, seeing as how they were planned to be committed against the helpless.

GasBandit said:

Probably the best (and safest) way, in my opinion, to alleviate this fear is simply universal carry - as many adults as possible, everywhere, openly carrying... to the point where the sight of someone wearing a firearm is no more noteworthy than wearing a baseball cap.

Click to expand...

I'm not phobic of guns, my dad was a cop and he refused to go anywhere without his sidearm. We grew up shooting skeet and I shot my first handgun when I was quite young. I used to help my dad make bullets. But what you're describing here is one of the most terrifying things I've ever heard in my life. Having every person around you having the ready ability to end your life at a moments notice is not a comforting thought.

GasBandit said:

And how has that worked out for them?

Click to expand...

I'm not sure. Has anyone done studies to see if students are more willing to go to a college that bans guns? Because Chipotle isn't doing this to make their stores safer from shootings, they're doing it so that that the largest number of customers can be comfortable.

Maybe they should just start selling margaritas. In many states it is illegal to carry firearms in any business location where alcohol is consumed. How's that figure into your reasoning?

GasBandit said:

It might also have made a few certain notorious shootings go differently... or prevented them entirely at the inception stage, seeing as how they were planned to be committed against the helpless.

Click to expand...

For every speculative save you see, I see dozens of:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/florida-theatre-shooting-texting-spat-turns-deadly-1.2495418

GasBandit said:

Ladies and gentlemen, Ad Hominem Again.

Click to expand...

So you say. Deal with it.

GasBandit said:

I missed the part in the article where they were "waving" them. I thought they were carrying/wearing them. Carrying is one thing, brandishing another, and definitely changes things.

Click to expand...

Parse all you want. Open carry on this property, on my shift, and you'll get nothing but a call to the police so you can explain it to them. And we can still refuse service for you being a jackass, and that's not a second amendment right.[DOUBLEPOST=1400651885,1400651808][/DOUBLEPOST]

figmentPez said:

In many states it is illegal to carry firearms in any business location where alcohol is consumed. How's that figure into your reasoning?

Click to expand...

WAAAAARRRRGGGGGLLLLL SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED!!! *drops mic*

All I know is open carry here has done nothing but force businesses put up signs banning firearms and knives. Well played.

GB, if the point of the second amendment is to fight an oppressive government, why would you need to take, no, to flaunt, your guns in a restaurant? As long as you are allowed to have firearms at home and, maybe, to carry them on the street, you'll be able to fight the socialist dictatorship or whatever when it happens.

On the other hand, if the right to bear arms is just because weapons are fucking cool enough to make them an intrinsic right, maybe it can be restricted according mental state, criminal history, etc (which you say it shouldn't, right?). Pick one, it can't be both.

maybe it can be restricted according mental state, criminal history, etc (which you say it shouldn't, right?). Pick one, it can't be both.

Click to expand...

Supreme Court found in the 2008 case that it can be abridged for mental instability or conviction of violent crimes.

Yes, I know it can legally be restricted, and you can require licenses or whatever, but as far as I know GB is against that, and that was what I was trying to refer to.

tegid said:

GB, if the point of the second amendment is to fight an oppressive government, why would you need to take, no, to flaunt, your guns in a restaurant?

Click to expand...

It's because everyone knows those are government Chipotles.

EDIT: I'm honestly surprised that everyone is willing to engage with GB on this. Y'all should know at this point that gun rights are his Charlie-topic. We've been around this block before.

tegid said:

GB, if the point of the second amendment is to fight an oppressive government, why would you need to take, no, to flaunt, your guns in a restaurant? As long as you are allowed to have firearms at home and, maybe, to carry them on the street, you'll be able to fight the socialist dictatorship or whatever when it happens.

On the other hand, if the right to bear arms is just because weapons are fucking cool enough to make them an intrinsic right, maybe it can be restricted according mental state, criminal history, etc (which you say it shouldn't, right?). Pick one, it can't be both.

Click to expand...

It has nothing to do with weapons being "fucking cool." You and others in the thread are mischaracterizing my argument. It has to do with demystifying and deglamorizing firearms so that they're neither scary nor cool - they just are. Like a tool belt.

Frank said:

For every speculative save you see, I see dozens of:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/florida-theatre-shooting-texting-spat-turns-deadly-1.2495418

Click to expand...

That's what you predict, it's not what you know. Switzerland has lots of guns - they have compulsory military service and issue each soldier a "military assault rifle"... and the soldier keeps it when they go home. Their firearm related deaths are half ours and their gun crime statistics are "so low they don't bother keeping track." The difference? The training. That's an important part here that I think we lack. The "well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state" part of the 2nd amendment means not strictly clamped down by government codes and ordinances, but rather well equipped and trained up to the standard of that of a regular soldier. We're also remiss in that training - the initial goal of the NRA when it was founded was not actually being an advocate for gun rights but rather trying to train the general populace to be better marskmen after it was shown during the civil war that untrained americans with rifles generally hit once for every 1000 rounds fired. I had the fortune to attend a summer camp in my youth that had courses on rifle use, maintenance and safety. If more americans had that kind of education - say, like home economics in high school - it'd go a long way to removing both the "I'm afraid when people with guns are around" situation AND the... to distastefully borrow a phrase from DarkAudit... the "fapping to guns" mentality. We have the right to keep and bear arms, but people forget that that right is meant to be part of upholding a responsibility - and part of that responsibility is being safe, competent and educated about the firearms one possesses.

DarkAudit said:

WAAAAARRRRGGGGGLLLLL SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED!!! *drops mic*

Click to expand...

The only one Waaarglbargling here is you.[DOUBLEPOST=1400680896,1400680798][/DOUBLEPOST]

Bones said:

Supreme Court found in the 2008 case that it can be abridged for mental instability or conviction of violent crimes.

Click to expand...

All your rights can be abridged in those circumstances. This isn't news or really pertinent, because neither has been shown to be the case here.

figmentPez said:

I'm not sure. Has anyone done studies to see if students are more willing to go to a college that bans guns? Because Chipotle isn't doing this to make their stores safer from shootings, they're doing it so that that the largest number of customers can be comfortable.

Maybe they should just start selling margaritas. In many states it is illegal to carry firearms in any business location where alcohol is consumed. How's that figure into your reasoning?

Click to expand...

Weird, our Chipotle sells beer. I assumed they all did.

GasBandit said:

It has nothing to do with weapons being "fucking cool." You and others in the thread are mischaracterizing my argument. It has to do with demystifying and deglamorizing firearms so that they're neither scary nor cool - they just are. Like a tool belt.

Click to expand...

Didn't mean to. What I mean is, if they are just a tool, why is it important that their use is restricted? They can't be restricted because they are something else.
And even if they were:
- First you do the change in culture, then you bring guns into restaurants. While the culture is as it is, people are going to be scared, and with some reason.
- If 10 people go into a restaurant doing an axe demonstration and wielding large, sharp axes, it would also be reasonable for people to be cared and ask those people to put the axes away or just go away.

Re: Switzerland, people there probably don't go into restaurants with their weapons in hand, just because.

tegid said:

Didn't mean to. What I mean is, if they are just a tool, why is it important that their use is restricted? They can't be restricted because they are something else.
And even if they were:
- First you do the change in culture, then you bring guns into restaurants. While the culture is as it is, people are going to be scared, and with some reason.
- If 10 people go into a restaurant doing an axe demonstration and wielding large, sharp axes, it would also be reasonable for people to be cared and ask those people to put the axes away or just go away.

Re: Switzerland, people there probably don't go into restaurants with their weapons in hand, just because.

Click to expand...

They didn't decide to bring the guns into restaurants on a whim - "just because." These guys are protesting what they perceive as unconstitutional tightening of gun restrictions. It was an "open carry demonstration." Was it unreasonable? You could probably make that argument. But when it comes to rights, it has been repeatedly shown though our history that being "reasonable" doesn't get results when there are politicians in power intent on doing away with them.

They are a tool, and it is important that their use is restricted because they are an essential tool - essential to the liberty of the United States as a whole.

How do you "first change the culture" without confronting it?

Re: Axes. Again - were they "wielding" them, or wearing them? I'm pretty sure they were wearing them, and there's an important difference.

Much like with economics, what works in a small country doesn't necessarily work in a larger, more diverse one. The United States is not just one culture; it's several having to share the same federal government. This is why it's so hard to change a general mindset, or why you'll see such enormous differences in general point of view from one state to the next.

I don't think guns are scary. I think people are scary. People are irrational, self-destructive, violent. I think having guns on everyone makes sense if you assume people are reasonable, but I don't make that assumption. The shit you see with road rage is an example of someone using a tool, in this case an automobile, as a destructive force even against their own self-interest.

If people are afraid of guns, I don't think giving them guns would solve that problem. Frightened people do not always use the best judgment, and seeing someone with a gun, which scares them, and having a gun themselves, which they can use on that person, seems like it would only escalate problems.

Eh, I'm just gonna say it. The interpretation of the second amendment as a "personal right" to own military grade weapons isn't even a legitimate understanding anymore because it still hinges on the idea of a "well-regulate militia" which we have, it's called the National Guard. If the law said you had to either have regular military or National Guard service to own any gun at all I'd be okay with it but I would be cool with handguns and some hunting rifles I guess.

But really, the whole argument is based on the idea that these gun owners are part of a militia than can overthrow the government should they abuse their power and thats funny because: The gun owners aren't and the government has. It's over. We can't overthrow our government if we wanted to, no matter how many fat, middle aged white dudes with guns there are in america. It won't work. You lost. Game over. Honestly we can argue all day (and I know gas can ) but it doesn't matter. The real reason to own these guns doesn't exist anymore which is why suddenly the argument is forced to veer down other paths that go even farther than the language in the constitution. At this point its about people just wanting to own guns because they are fed fear on a daily basis (and a minority that actually use them like hunters, which I'm also very cool with). The government won. They have tanks and bombers. You can't overthrow them, if you think you can please hurry up and try so we can get this over with.

Zero Esc said:

If people are afraid of guns, I don't think giving them guns would solve that problem. Frightened people do not always use the best judgment, and seeing someone with a gun, which scares them, and having a gun themselves, which they can use on that person, seems like it would only escalate problems.

Click to expand...

What about giving them gun training and education?[DOUBLEPOST=1400687778,1400687634][/DOUBLEPOST]

Espy said:

Eh, I'm just gonna say it. The interpretation of the second amendment as a "personal right" to own military grade weapons isn't even a legitimate understanding anymore because it still hinges on the idea of a "well-regulate militia" which we have, it's called the National Guard. If the law said you had to either have regular military or National Guard service to own any gun at all I'd be okay with it but I would be cool with handguns and some hunting rifles I guess.

Click to expand...

You don't understand what a militia is. The national guard is not a militia. The militia is every single civilian able to physically wield a weapon.

But really, the whole argument is based on the idea that these gun owners are part of a militia than can overthrow the government should they abuse their power and thats funny because: The gun owners aren't and the government has. It's over. We can't overthrow our government if we wanted to, no matter how many fat, middle aged white dudes with guns there are in america. It won't work. You lost. Game over. Honestly we can argue all day (and I know gas can ) but it doesn't matter. The real reason to own these guns doesn't exist anymore which is why suddenly the argument is forced to veer down other paths that go even farther than the language in the constitution. At this point its about people just wanting to own guns because they are fed fear on a daily basis (and a minority that actually use them like hunters, which I'm also very cool with). The government won. They have tanks and bombers. You can't overthrow them, if you think you can please hurry up and try so we can get this over with.

Click to expand...

Tanks and bombers trump armed civil resistance eh? That must be why Iraq and Afghanistan were pacified so quickly and all our troops came home in less than a year.

No, go nuts. Let me know when the government is overthrown. I'm down for a clean start.

Espy said:

No, go nuts. Let me know when the government is overthrown. I'm down for a clean start.

Click to expand...

You will probably get your wish within our lifetime, but not in the way you (or I) want.

I'm just not worried about it. Even if half the fear mongering bullshit the right shits out on talk radio and fox came true it wouldn't matter. The battle was lost when we let our government get this big. And a bunch of fat, racist assholes with guns won't make a difference. If they truly wanted to change things for the better they would be doing something more productive than trying to freak out people eating at fast food restaurants.

Espy said:

I'm just not worried about it. Even if half the fear mongering bullshit the right shits out on talk radio and fox came true it wouldn't matter. The battle was lost when we let our government get this big. And a bunch of fat, racist assholes with guns won't make a difference. If they truly wanted to change things for the better they would be doing something more productive than trying to freak out people eating at fast food restaurants.

Click to expand...

Well, I agree with you insofar as the federal government has passed a point of no return. But the collapse will more likely come from within it, and then the fighting will come into play over the scraps of the Balkanized States of America.

GasBandit said:

Well, I agree with you insofar as the federal government has passed a point of no return. But the collapse will more likely come from within it, and then the fighting will come into play over the scraps of the Balkanized States of America.

Click to expand...

Bring it on. I suspect our, ahem, "revolutionaries" may not be the dangerous freedom fighters you hope they will be.

Espy said:

Bring it on. I suspect our, ahem, "revolutionaries" may not be the dangerous freedom fighters you hope they will be.

Click to expand...

I don't think you understood what I posted.

Oh have we moved on to the government collapsing and various states at war with each other now?

It's a fun theoretical but I'm still at dumbasses bringing guns into the restaurant I'm eating at with my kid.

Espy said:

Oh have we moved on to the government collapsing and various states at war with each other now?

It's a fun theoretical but I'm still at dumbasses bringing guns into the restaurant I'm eating at with my kid.

Click to expand...

Your snarky usage of oversimplified emotional imagery is duly noted.

If we really want to see the future of the USA, we just need to look back to the fall of the roman empire. Our current situation pretty much mirrors theirs in the amount that money has become saturated in politics.

Spoiler alert: It doesn't end well for us.

So the barbarians of the north are...Canada?

To me a person who brought a long gun into a public area isn't practicing good gun safety. As such if they brought a long gun into a work place it would create a situation where employees would not feel that they could work safely and as such have the legal right to refuse to work until the situation was corrected.

Another thing to bring into the discussion is not just the rights of the gun owner, but what about the rights of the other customers? Do they not have a right to eat in a business that is free of things that they percieve to be dangerous?[DOUBLEPOST=1400692201,1400692084][/DOUBLEPOST]

blotsfan said:

So the barbarians of the north are...Canada?

Click to expand...

Economically speaking, they could be. Physically, I'd be more worried about South America.

Bowielee said:

If we really want to see the future of the USA, we just need to look back to the fall of the roman empire. Our current situation pretty much mirrors theirs in the amount that money has become saturated in politics.

Spoiler alert: It doesn't end well for us.

Click to expand...

I'm not sure how much "money in politics" had to do with it, so much as a degrading military increasingly populated by foreign mercenaries, overspending, inflation, the division between the east and west empire, and rampant pandemic lead poisoning, punctuated by an invading barbarian horde. But certainly our government definitely has become corrupt and decadent.[DOUBLEPOST=1400692629,1400692264][/DOUBLEPOST]

HCGLNS said:

To me a person who brought a long gun into a public area isn't practicing good gun safety. As such if they brought a long gun into a work place it would create a situation where employees would not feel that they could work safely and as such have the legal right to refuse to work until the situation was cocorrected.

Click to expand...

That's true.

Bowielee said:

Another thing to bring into the discussion is not just the rights of the gun owner, but what about the rights of the other customers? Do they not have a right to eat in a business that is free of things that they percieve to be dangerous?

Click to expand...

No. Perception is subjective, and when you are in public, you might see things subjectively you don't like. If I had a fear of dogs, and perceive them to be vicious and dangerous, that doesn't mean I can expect them to be banned from public areas. And one of the big problems with our culture is how many people think that their feelings have legal ramifications.

All that is, of course, assuming the weapons were simply being "worn" and not brandished or "waved around" as DA puts it. Acting in a threatening manner changes the situation, naturally, but I've not read anything that states these people were doing so.

GasBandit said:

That's what you predict, it's not what you know. Switzerland has lots of guns - they have compulsory military service and issue each soldier a "military assault rifle"... and the soldier keeps it when they go home. Their firearm related deaths are half ours and their gun crime statistics are "so low they don't bother keeping track." The difference? The training. That's an important part here that I think we lack. The "well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state" part of the 2nd amendment means not strictly clamped down by government codes and ordinances, but rather well equipped and trained up to the standard of that of a regular soldier. We're also remiss in that training - the initial goal of the NRA when it was founded was not actually being an advocate for gun rights but rather trying to train the general populace to be better marskmen after it was shown during the civil war that untrained americans with rifles generally hit once for every 1000 rounds fired. I had the fortune to attend a summer camp in my youth that had courses on rifle use, maintenance and safety. If more americans had that kind of education - say, like home economics in high school - it'd go a long way to removing both the "I'm afraid when people with guns are around" situation AND the... to distastefully borrow a phrase from DarkAudit... the "fapping to guns" mentality. We have the right to keep and bear arms, but people forget that that right is meant to be part of upholding a responsibility - and part of that responsibility is being safe, competent and educated about the firearms one possesses.

Click to expand...

The man in my article was an ex-cop. He had training and education.

GasBandit said:

Your snarky usage of oversimplified emotional imagery is duly noted.

Click to expand...

I'm dead serious. People carrying their guns into a fast food shop as an act of "protest" are dumbasses. Dumb because it's hurting their (already lost) cause and asses because if they are likely to pull a stunt like this they probably have the common sense of a chicken and are therefore higher risks for shooting themselves or my family while they try to eat their giant burrito with extra America sauce and hold their AR-15 at the same time in case Obama storms in to try to turn them into a gay socialist muslim.

Ok, now that was a little snarky.

Frank said:

The man in my article was an ex-cop. He had training and education.

Click to expand...

There will always be bad eggs and violent criminals. And the fact of the matter is, in the US, if a bad egg/violent criminal wants a firearm, he'll get one. Gun control laws only disarm those who weren't the danger in the first place.

I have never fired a real gun--only BB guns. But I could easily get my hands on a legal firearm. That does not mean I have the education or experience to properly handle one or know its correct usage.

Knowing that, seeing a bunch of people walk into a restaurant wearing firearms does not fill me with confidence. How do I know they're not as ignorant as I am?

Zero Esc said:

I have never fired a real gun--only BB guns. But I could easily get my hands on a legal firearm. That does not mean I have the education or experience to properly handle one or know its correct usage.

Knowing that, seeing a bunch of people walk into a restaurant wearing firearms does not fill me with confidence. How do I know they're not as ignorant as I am?

Click to expand...

Like I said, anyone who thinks thats a good idea is basically telling you they have terrible judgement. I'd get out of there as fast as possible.

GasBandit said:

There will always be bad eggs and violent criminals. And the fact of the matter is, in the US, if a bad egg/violent criminal wants a firearm, he'll get one. Gun control laws only disarm those who weren't the danger in the first place.

Click to expand...

This is true if nobody ever killed someone with a gun in a crime of passion.

GasBandit said:

No. Perception is subjective, and when you are in public, you might see things subjectively you don't like. If I had a fear of dogs, and perceive them to be vicious and dangerous, that doesn't mean I can expect them to be banned from public areas. And one of the big problems with our culture is how many people think that their feelings have legal ramifications.

Click to expand...

Well, by that logic, I want my smoking bans lifted so I can smoke in public places again.

Just to stress again, this really is not a second amendment issue at all. No one is infringing on these people's rights to keep and bear arms. They're refusing service to them. That is the business owner's right, as I see it. For someone who's all about free markets, you're sure quick to try to have the government enforce something on business owners that may be detrimental to their business.

Bowielee said:

Well, by that logic, I want my smoking bans lifted so I can smoke in public places again.

Click to expand...

Considering Gas's political standing, I think he'd be with you on that.

Bowielee said:

Well, by that logic, I want my smoking bans lifted so I can smoke in public places again.

Click to expand...

You don't have a right to smoke in public, other than the fact that it isn't specifically outlawed except in certain areas. There's nothing in the constitution about smoking. There is, however, quite a bit about firearms.

Just to stress again, this really is not a second amendment issue at all. No one is infringing on these people's rights to keep and bear arms. They're refusing service to them. That is the business owner's right, as I see it. For someone who's all about free markets, you're sure quick to try to have the government enforce something on business owners that may be detrimental to their business.

Click to expand...

I'm not saying Chipotle can't ask them to stop. In fact, I said they handled the situation deftly. I'm saying that the grabbers are overreacting.

And it IS a second amendment issue. What do you think "keep and bear arms" means? Only being able to lock them away hidden at home? "Bear" means to carry or wear.

blotsfan said:

This is true if nobody ever killed someone with a gun in a crime of passion.

Click to expand...

None of the oh-so-highly publicized mass shootings of recent years were crimes of passion. They were all deliberately premeditated and targeted at those the criminal believed would be unarmed and unable to protect themselves.

But in as far as crimes of passion, does it matter whether a man shoots his wife or beats her to death with a cudgel? Or would it be better if she had something to protect herself from someone twice her size and three times her muscle mass? (THIS scenario, however, is not second amendment material).

Zero Esc said:

I have never fired a real gun--only BB guns. But I could easily get my hands on a legal firearm. That does not mean I have the education or experience to properly handle one or know its correct usage.

Knowing that, seeing a bunch of people walk into a restaurant wearing firearms does not fill me with confidence. How do I know they're not as ignorant as I am?

Click to expand...

Which is why, as I said, I'm in favor of adding firearm safety and use into the mandatory high school curriculum.

Whelp, we better start letting peole carry guns on planes and into our schools.

I wish that I could be joking that that is your actual thought on that, GB.

No right is absolute, there are always exceptions. You have the right to free speech, but that doesn't mean there aren't circumstances where that right becomes abridged in the interest of public safety and protection : See yelling fire in a crowded theater.

GasBandit said:

Which is why, as I said, I'm in favor of adding firearm safety and use into the mandatory high school curriculum.

Click to expand...

Then it should begin with that education, not begin with guns for everyone.

Bowielee said:

Whelp, we better start letting peole carry guns on planes and into our schools.

I wish that I could be joking that that is your actual thought on that, GB.

No right is absolute, there are always exceptions. You have the right to free speech, but that doesn't mean there aren't circumstances where that right becomes abridged in the interest of public safety and protection : See yelling fire in a crowded theater.

Click to expand...

Well, you're right, to a degree. Yelling fire (along with things like slander and libel) are good examples of exceptions to the rule. But the planes and schools line isn't analogous. While there has been legislation passed that declares restaurants to be public areas on private property, that does not extend to airplanes, which are private property. As for schools, so long as it is adults who are supposed to be there already, isn't that already one of the solutions being proposed to counter school shootings? Faculty members with access to weapons?[DOUBLEPOST=1400700664,1400700620][/DOUBLEPOST]

Zero Esc said:

Then it should begin with that education, not begin with guns for everyone.

Click to expand...

The guns are already there, and they're not going away. So we need to play catch-up with the education.