• Chipotle: "Leave your guns outside, please."
    193 replies, posted
I'm simply saying a right is a right. There needs to be some continuity here. Letting the government pick and choose which rights are inalienable is the start of a bad path. I'm in favor of people doing whatever the hell they want as long as they don't physically harm someone else.
[QUOTE=darunner;44864040]I'm simply saying a right is a right. There needs to be some continuity here. Letting the government pick and choose which rights are inalienable is the start of a bad path. I'm in favor of people doing whatever the hell they want as long as they don't physically harm someone else.[/QUOTE] You're talking about protected groups, not rights. Many rights don't apply on private property. (free speech, for example)
[QUOTE=darunner;44864040]I'm simply saying a right is a right. There needs to be some continuity here. Letting the government pick and choose which rights are inalienable is the start of a bad path. I'm in favor of people doing whatever the hell they want as long as they don't physically harm someone else.[/QUOTE] If you want to be served somewhere that was denying you because you had a gun on your person, put the gun in your fucking car and suck it up. Denying someone service based on who they are isn't on, denying them service based on what they're doing however has always been acceptable. I wouldn't call anything written in your constitution "inalienable" either, that would put them on par with human rights such as the right to life, the amendment system allows for anything to be changed via overriding amendments. It's happened in the past, it can happen again when there is need for it.
as the owner of a private establishment you have the authority to refuse service for "any" reason. [highlight]However[/highlight] this is required to be a [i]legitimate[/i] reason (much like how cops require 'probable cause' for a search), and people who've been refused/kicked out/banned from the location are in turn free to bring this to court to be overruled. If the reason is deemed illegal or discriminatory of race, religion, sex, orientation, and other personal facts (being in the NRA isn't something you're born with nor does it solely exist within your mind), the establishment is often ruled in the wrong and gets forced to take back the whole "being an asshole" thing, along with fines or flat-out being sued by the accusors(s) this is how the process works. Unfortunately bringing weapons into a private establishment has been all but explicitly banned in most places since the 80's, all those 'no weapons' signs you see on mcdonald's aren't some new plot to strip you of your god given rights
Why are we arguing over people bringing guns into a place that sells burritos Just eat your burrito and leave, jesus
Guns are a right but it's not right to bring a gun to [I]every single place you go.[/I] Know the difference between a right, and what is right. It's like freedom of speech, you can say whatever you want, doesn't mean you should say whatever you want where ever you want.
[QUOTE=darunner;44863833]Are businesses really in their right to not serve people with guns, though? Like, people just minding their own business, carrying a holstered gun? If so, shouldn't they be allowed to not serve Christians? Gays? Minorities?[/QUOTE] Someone's black isn't going to accidentally go off into a waiter's foot, and nobody has ever flipped their shit and shot up a restaurant with their Christianity.
[QUOTE=darunner;44863833]Are businesses really in their right to not serve people with guns, though? Like, people just minding their own business, carrying a holstered gun? If so, shouldn't they be allowed to not serve Christians? Gays? Minorities?[/QUOTE] It's private property, they're allowed to make the rules in their business. If one day they decided not to serve to people who wear Blue shirts then they don't have to. Does that make that right? No, but it is their own decision because it's their private property.
[QUOTE=FlakAttack;44860067] It's not like you're allowed to shoot people for stealing. There has to be credible threat, and a kid dashing out of a store with a candy bar is far from it.[/QUOTE] I'm sorry, I hate to be "that guy" but under current "stand your ground" laws, if you start a fight and shoot someone to defend yourself, then you can possibly get away with it. even if the fight is over some kid stealing a candy bar. [editline]20th May 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=Zeke129;44864321]Someone's black isn't going to accidentally go off into a waiter's foot, and nobody has ever flipped their shit and shot up a restaurant with their Christianity.[/QUOTE] Also I don't know anyone who was born carrying a gun openly.
[QUOTE=Xain777;44864387]I'm sorry, I hate to be "that guy" but under current "stand your ground" laws, if you start a fight and shoot someone to defend yourself, then you can possibly get away with it. even if the fight is over some kid stealing a candy bar.[/QUOTE] When you say "that guy," do you mean the guy who doesn't know what he's talking about? I only ask because you don't know what you're talking about.
[QUOTE=darunner;44864413]When you say "that guy," do you mean the guy who doesn't know what he's talking about? I only ask because you don't know what you're talking about.[/QUOTE] I mean "That guy that brings up the Zimmerman case without explicitly mentioning the Zimmerman case" ... well shit.
I love the fact that people are missing that the open carry people apparently called ahead, asked the manager if it was ok. Then Michael Bloomberg's Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America basically starts a massive campaign against Chipotle for it. [url=http://www.bbc.com/news/business-24142085]Just like they did with Starbucks.[/url] Seems the only people scared of the open carry was Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America. [url]http://www.forbes.com/sites/clareoconnor/2014/05/19/gun-control-group-asks-chipotle-to-ban-guns-after-open-carry-event/[/url] Apparently the photo posted earlier in the thread is a different people (not Open Carry Texas).
[QUOTE=Ogopogo;44860852]Why hasn't anyone posted a picture of the type of thing they are talking about yet? [IMG]https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BoA8k96IUAAJodY.jpg[/IMG] [editline]May 20[/editline] That is a Chipotle restaurant, and that is what they were referring to when they said "assault-style weapons"[/QUOTE] I didn't know Ornstein and Smough ate at Chipotle.
[QUOTE=Episode;44860085]I hope they're not against people who simply carry a handgun in open sight for protection. I hate open-assault douchebags as much as the next guy but I see no issue with letting a person who carries a small handgun with them in.[/QUOTE] Open carry of a pistol is not legal in TX. Open carrying a rifle can be part of a job or place of business. I work a ranch/farm and have a gun with me everywhere I go. I also have a CHL, and carry every day concealed. Open carrying a Pistol, however, is NOT normal. You don't go around with your hand on the grip for "protection."
[QUOTE=EnlightenDead;44863711]i love people like you you live in a completely different country and know just about nothing about our country. I dont think you even know whats its like to live in a dangerous area like Flint or Detroit or even Chicago. Normal people dont carry guns to be threatening or cool or edgy or unstable, they carry them because they are afraid of something happening to them. You dont know what you're talking about plain and simple[/QUOTE] It's pretty ironic actually. The fact that you are allowed to buy and own firearms with ease is the same reason places like that are so dangerous. Guns are so prevalent that every two bit crook has one. And as every other civilized country shows, you don't need a gun for protection if there are hardly any available in the first place.
[QUOTE=No_Excuses;44868572]It's pretty ironic actually. The fact that you are allowed to buy and own firearms with ease is the same reason places like that are so dangerous. Guns are so prevalent that every two bit crook has one. And as every other civilized country shows, you don't need a gun for protection if there are hardly any available in the first place.[/QUOTE] California is the most difficult place in the United States to buy and own guns California also has one of the highest gun violence rates in the United States, and it predominantly handgun crime, which are far and above the hardest to acquire Explain this to me like I'm an idiot
[QUOTE=Sitkero;44869121]California is the most difficult place in the United States to buy and own guns California also has one of the highest gun violence rates in the United States, and it predominantly handgun crime, which are far and above the hardest to acquire Explain this to me like I'm an idiot[/QUOTE] Come on guy. This has been covered to death. As a lot of the US allows for gun sales and ownership, there is obviously a supply. If one or two states, cities, houses, whatever, decide they don't want guns, the supply in their "area" isn't going to magically vanish when the person who wants a gun can just hop over to the next house/ city/ state/ whatever and buy one. So a state with no real gun ownership is going to have a black market selling guns, that black market receives its supply from surrounding states (strangely not countries, just states in the US's case). It's really easy to see where the problem lies here, criminals have exceptionally easy access to firearms in these states because civilians have easy access to them in others. Most black market or illegally used firearms are stolen from legal owners after all (if I remember that statistic right). [editline]21st May 2014[/editline] And this is why any gun control legislature needs to be federal, with no option for states to ignore it. Gun control can't actually help if every state bar one decides to agree to it, that one state fucks it up for the rest by giving people easier means to circumvent the control.
[QUOTE=hexpunK;44869439]Come on guy. This has been covered to death. As a lot of the US allows for gun sales and ownership, there is obviously a supply. If one or two states, cities, houses, whatever, decide they don't want guns, the supply in their "area" isn't going to magically vanish when the person who wants a gun can just hop over to the next house/ city/ state/ whatever and buy one. So a state with no real gun ownership is going to have a black market selling guns, that black market receives its supply from surrounding states (strangely not countries, just states in the US's case). It's really easy to see where the problem lies here, criminals have exceptionally easy access to firearms in these states because civilians have easy access to them in others. Most black market or illegally used firearms are stolen from legal owners after all (if I remember that statistic right). [editline]21st May 2014[/editline] And this is why any gun control legislature needs to be federal, with no option for states to ignore it. Gun control can't actually help if every state bar one decides to agree to it, that one state fucks it up for the rest by giving people easier means to circumvent the control.[/QUOTE] Continue along this line and explain to me why that black market exists, why there is a demand to the supply
[QUOTE=hexpunK;44869439]Come on guy. This has been covered to death. As a lot of the US allows for gun sales and ownership, there is obviously a supply. If one or two states, cities, houses, whatever, decide they don't want guns, the supply in their "area" isn't going to magically vanish when the person who wants a gun can just hop over to the next house/ city/ state/ whatever and buy one. So a state with no real gun ownership is going to have a black market selling guns, that black market receives its supply from surrounding states (strangely not countries, just states in the US's case). It's really easy to see where the problem lies here, criminals have exceptionally easy access to firearms in these states because civilians have easy access to them in others. Most black market or illegally used firearms are stolen from legal owners after all (if I remember that statistic right). [editline]21st May 2014[/editline] And this is why any gun control legislature needs to be federal, with no option for states to ignore it. Gun control can't actually help if every state bar one decides to agree to it, that one state fucks it up for the rest by giving people easier means to circumvent the control.[/QUOTE] Except you can't just go over to the next state and buy a gun. If a certain gun is illegal in your area, you can't buy it when you fill out the form. They can not sell it to you.
.[QUOTE=Sitkero;44869479]Continue along this line and explain to me why that black market exists, why there is a demand to the supply[/QUOTE] Criminals like having something to intimidate with. Or if worst comes to the worst, attack with. That really isn't that hard to conclude. The black market does not exist solely because civilians want guns but cannot get them, it largely exists to provide guns that can be used in crime, guns that are tied to someone else before the criminal. This isn't like some shady back alley art dealer or drug dealer.
As if I needed another reason to not eat at Chipoltle. Their stance on GMOs is bad enough, now this.
[QUOTE=hexpunK;44869439]Come on guy. This has been covered to death. As a lot of the US allows for gun sales and ownership, there is obviously a supply. If one or two states, cities, houses, whatever, decide they don't want guns, the supply in their "area" isn't going to magically vanish when the person who wants a gun can just hop over to the next house/ city/ state/ whatever and buy one. So a state with no real gun ownership is going to have a black market selling guns, that black market receives its supply from surrounding states (strangely not countries, just states in the US's case). It's really easy to see where the problem lies here, criminals have exceptionally easy access to firearms in these states because civilians have easy access to them in others. Most black market or illegally used firearms are stolen from legal owners after all (if I remember that statistic right). [editline]21st May 2014[/editline] And this is why any gun control legislature needs to be federal, with no option for states to ignore it. Gun control can't actually help if every state bar one decides to agree to it, that one state fucks it up for the rest by giving people easier means to circumvent the control.[/QUOTE] So are you claiming that more gun regulation has a negative effect, or at minimum no effect, unless done nationally? Why is it unreasonable to assume that some positive effect should be seen, even if small, from local regulation?
[QUOTE=hexpunK;44869954]. Criminals like having something to intimidate with. Or if worst comes to the worst, attack with. That really isn't that hard to conclude. The black market does not exist solely because civilians want guns but cannot get them, it largely exists to provide guns that can be used in crime, guns that are tied to someone else before the criminal. This isn't like some shady back alley art dealer or drug dealer.[/QUOTE] Continue along this line of reasoning and tell me where the criminal demand comes from in California, and explain to me how the stolen firearm market can supply an adequate number of stolen firearms to supply that demand with the rates of legal firearm purchase and ownership within California and neighboring states
Is it such a weird thing that I'd rather not have people walk into restauraunts with fucking assault rifles? Seriously?
[QUOTE=hexpunK;44869439]As a lot of the US allows for gun sales and ownership, there is obviously a supply. If one or two states, cities, houses, whatever, decide they don't want guns, the supply in their "area" isn't going to magically vanish when the person who wants a gun can just hop over to the next house/ city/ state/ whatever and buy one.[/QUOTE] As has already been pointed out to you, it is illegal to sell a firearm to someone if it would be unlawful to buy or possess in their home state. New York residents cannot go to Pennsylvania and buy weapons that would be considered assault weapons in NY despite being perfectly legal in PA. FFL holders are required to conduct all sales through the BATFE, which records data on both buyer and seller, so it is obvious immediately where the buyer is from. If you're going to argue that people can ignore that restriction and conduct private sale- sure they can, and it's totally illegal already. What do you expect further legislation to accomplish?
[QUOTE=AJisAwesome15;44870150]Is it such a weird thing that I'd rather not have people walk into restauraunts with fucking assault rifles? Seriously?[/QUOTE] Not weird at all. We haven't seen someone walk into restaurants with assault rifles in at least 30-40 years....
[QUOTE=catbarf;44870196]As has already been pointed out to you, it is illegal to sell a firearm to someone if it would be unlawful to buy or possess in their home state. New York residents cannot go to Pennsylvania and buy weapons that would be considered assault weapons in NY despite being perfectly legal in PA. FFL holders are required to conduct all sales through the BATFE, which records data on both buyer and seller, so it is obvious immediately where the buyer is from. If you're going to argue that people can ignore that restriction and conduct private sale- sure they can, and it's totally illegal already. What do you expect further legislation to accomplish?[/QUOTE] This is something I'm aware of. However, people being able to purchase firearms in other states, which can be stolen, feeding the black market (on top of the guns that vanish from manufacture lines). These can be smuggled to "gun-free" states, after all you're already in possession of stolen goods, you probably have some clue how to hide them. It's kinda hard to stop a stolen gun from travelling without stopping everybody at state borders.
[QUOTE=Sitkero;44870130]Continue along this line of reasoning and tell me where the criminal demand comes from in California, and explain to me how the stolen firearm market can supply an adequate number of stolen firearms to supply that demand with the rates of legal firearm purchase and ownership within California and neighboring states[/QUOTE] I don't even know what you're trying to do here. The first question is something I've already answered as far as I understand it. Criminals who mean business will want a firearm to intimidate or attack with. It doesn't matter where you live, if the risk is perceived to be high enough a criminal is going to want something they can use themselves. And the second half, I've sorta covered. It's hard to gauge how many firearms would be traded on the black market, so I can't say for certain how many guns would need to be stolen or whatever to fulfill demand in California. And I don't particularly have a 100% working knowledge of the state by state firearms restrictions, so I can't accurately say what sort of supply the nearby states could provide. However, bringing some illegal firearms into Cali doesn't seem like it's massively out of the question, even if it can't satisfy demand fully. [editline]edited[/editline] Here's a fun source; [url]http://www.tracetheguns.org/#/states/CA/imports/[/url] I've set it to open the Cali stats hopefully, but it shows California is a massive importer of guns used in crime, and exports basically nothing in comparison. The stats seem to be fairly old, but unless a massive change occurred in the last 5 years they should still follow with what we see today.
[QUOTE=FlakAttack;44860127]No it isn't. Besides, vehicular accidents kill more people than guns do. I can't help but feel you didn't even read what I said because you didn't address the point at all.[/QUOTE] There's a reason why cars aren't allowed in Chipotle either.
[QUOTE=LordCrypto;44859711]it's your right to carry a gun it's their right to request that you not bring it inside as it is a private establishment[/QUOTE] I can understand a concealed handgun or something but carrying a fucking "assault-style" (I assume they mean a rifle capable of automatic fire) rifle in public is just waay too much.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.