No Guns At Chipolte

[WhiskeyTangoFoxtrot 358]

Sorry, but this is an issue of private property rights as well. Your right to be a douchenozzle ends at someone's private property, or in this case a crappy fast food joint. In the grand scheme of life and liberty, the right to private property trumps the right to carry. If you showed up on the private property or business of most forum members here shouldering an AR/AK like that, I'm sure it would probably end badly for you. Heck, you could not walk into most gun ranges or stores brandishing an AR.

 

I'm sure if someone threw down a rug in front of the soda machine and started praying to Mecca they would be shown the door as well because it's bad for business.

 

Whatever happened to consideration? At some point, these protesters start looking like the Westboro church protesting at military funerals.

 

 

[PeteF 1,044]

Sorry, but this is an issue of private property rights as well. Your right to be a douchenozzle ends at someone's private property, or in this case a crappy fast food joint. In the grand scheme of life and liberty, the right to private property trumps the right to carry. If you showed up on the private property or business of most forum members here shouldering an AR/AK like that, I'm sure it would probably end badly for you. Heck, you could not walk into most gun ranges or stores brandishing an AR.I'm sure if someone threw down a rug in front of the soda machine and started praying to Mecca they would be shown the door as well because it's bad for business. Whatever happened to consideration? At some point, these protesters start looking like the Westboro church protesting at military funerals.

 

Except that you are wrong. This is not private property. It is a place of public accomodation..

 

Please explain to me how it would work out if a sogn was put on their door that says "No blacks allowed"

Or maybe "No jews allowed". Look up the Bridgewater Commons case where a security guard asked a muslim woman to uncover her face and made her leave when she wouldn't. It was the mall policy that he was trying to enforce. But it didn't turn out too well for the guard or the mall.

[GRIZ 3,369]

Except that you are wrong. This is not private property. It is a place of public accomodation..

Please explain to me how it would work out if a sogn was put on their door that says "No blacks allowed"

Or maybe "No jews allowed". Look up the Bridgewater Commons case where a security guard asked a muslim woman to uncover her face and made her leave when she wouldn't. It was the mall policy that he was trying to enforce. But it didn't turn out too well for the guard or the mall.

Places of public accommodation can make their own rules as long as they are not discriminatory based on race, religion, sex, etc.

 

Places can have dress codes, behavior rules, and can say no guns or all guns must be concealed. They can require you to wear a purple shirt and yellow hat if they want as long as it applies to everyone. Comparing property rights to not allowing someone service because of their race or religion is ridiculous.

[W2MC 1,699]

We ALL need to be realistic!

 

The guys showing up at Chipolte with an AK slung across their backs ARE WHACK JOBS!  They are doing this to draw attention to THEMSELVES,  not for any other noble purpose...They are NOT helping us, and I want NOTHING to do with them!

[voyager9 3,434]

We ALL need to be realistic!

 

The guys showing up at Chipolte with an AK slung across their backs ARE WHACK JOBS! They are doing this to draw attention to THEMSELVES, not for any other noble purpose...They are NOT helping us, and I want NOTHING to do with them!

To me, slung is borderline. It may get some looks but it's not nearly as concerning as when they're in-hand.

 

If these guys had slung rifles on their backs while they calmly got their burritos I wouldn't have an issue. To be carrying, and posing with them is completely different.

[PeteF 1,044]

Places of public accommodation can make their own rules as long as they are not discriminatory based on race, religion, sex, etc.

Places can have dress codes, behavior rules, and can say no guns or all guns must be concealed. They can require you to wear a purple shirt and yellow hat if they want as long as it applies to everyone. Comparing property rights to not allowing someone service because of their race or religion is ridiculous.

Ah so 1st admendment protections count, 2nd admendment don't. I understand now.

 

And once again places of public accomodation CANNOT make rules that go against personal rights. Again see the Bridgewater commons case. Or even more specially the McDonalds case where they were sued because they tried to not allow hwrion junkies to use and break their restroom.

[WhiskeyTangoFoxtrot 358]

Ah so 1st admendment protections count, 2nd admendment don't. I understand now.

 

And once again places of public accomodation CANNOT make rules that go against personal rights. Again see the Bridgewater commons case. Or even more specially the McDonalds case where they were sued because they tried to not allow hwrion junkies to use and break their restroom.

 

I guess this where we are going to have agree to disagree.  My fundamental (libertarianish) understanding of "rights" is that a place of public accommodation need only comply the Civil Rights Act of 1964, The American with Disabilities Act of 1990, and applicable local statutes governing equal protection at places of public accommodation.  Other than that, private property rights take precedence (e.g "My house, my rules").  All of the examples you cite above deal with the Civil Rights Act or ADA.  Can you tell me if the "junkies" won the McDonald's lawsuit?

 

Your understanding of "rights" seems to imply the First Amendment or whatever personal rights takes precedence and supersedes all private property rights of the owner of public accommodation.

[PeteF 1,044]

Can you tell me if the "junkies" won the McDonald's lawsuit?

 

Your understanding of "rights" seems to imply the First Amendment takes precedence and supersedes all private property rights of the owner of public accommodation.

 

Yes, McDonalds can not lock the bathroom door to keep junkies and homeless out.

 

Your "understanding of the law" applies to private property, not places of public accommodation.

 

See Below

http://caselaw.findlaw.com/nj-supreme-court/1156010.html

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2014/06/03/baker-forced-to-make-gay-wedding-cakes-undergo-sensitivity-training-after/

 

Anyway this has nothing to do with the case in point.  No laws were broken,  no Company policy was broken,  and as a matter of fact if if were not for "Moms Demand action" this would have been a non-story.   If it was such a big deal do you think Chipolte may have called the police?  Oh but they didn't.  So no one AT the restaurant felt threatened enough to make an issue of the group.  So lets disregard the bogus "Brandishing" excuse.

 

Same as the Jack in the Box story a few weeks earlier  where the employees locked themselves in a freezer because they were afarid.

 

http://www.guns.com/2014/05/07/open-carry-event-at-texas-jack-in-the-box-draws-police-response-video/

 

Except it never happened,  Police were called by a passerby.  Police showed up and no violations were written.

 

See the picture of the 3 guys with rifles and a fourth guy?  The fourth guy is the store manager.  He really looks horrified (sarcasm).

 

The hypocrites posting here are trying to argue that exercising a right is a bad idea, and that because they personally wouldn't choose that method, the person using it is an "Asshat"

 

Find the rest of the pictures of OCT that where there.  Mom and her kids etc.  Not so scary looking.  But hey, rights are all about how you look.

 

If you feel threatened by the sight of a man carrying a rifle, don't fly, don't go near a parade or military base,  and certainly don't visit Ground Zero.

[vladtepes 1,060]

To me, slung is borderline. It may get some looks but it's not nearly as concerning as when they're in-hand.

 

If these guys had slung rifles on their backs while they calmly got their burritos I wouldn't have an issue. To be carrying, and posing with them is completely different.

 

 

I am really torn on this... on one side I understand that people want to exercise their rights... but on the other hand I think it is alarming and damaging..  it is damaging because all it does is limit places you can open carry a handgun.. at the end of the day as someone else pointed out.. private property.. they have every right to limit open carry due to bothering their larger customer base... alarming because as much as I love guns.. and support carry... open carrying a rifle is abnormal.. and even to a gun enthusiast... it is alarming... MOST of the guys doing this look a little off to begin with.. and seeing someone like that roll into a walmart with an AK slung across the front of him... it is concerning... not because of the gun... but because of the person behind the gun.. 

[Babyface Finster 45]

While I agree that these two peckerheads are trying too hard for attention, they broke no laws.  They are gun enthusiasts.  I'm not going to fall for the "divide and conquer" strategy that our enemies would like.  It's already done plenty of damage by convincing many hunters that 2A issues apply to the other guys.  The NRA almost fell for it, but fortunately the organization came to its senses.  

 

It sounds sensible to make compromises until you look at history. There is no way to meet in the middle with these fanatics.  Many of them may mean well, but when good intentions interfere with my rights that makes them the enemy.  Period. 

 

See this for what it is.  Another attempt to vilify guns and gun owners.  Another chunk from our flesh.  Another way to convince people that guns are to be afraid of, no matter whose hands they are in. 

 

Every single time the gun community has agreed to some sensible compromise, it was never enough.  It will never be enough for our enemies.  We had already accepted 15 round mag limits in NJ.  Now we're looking at 10.  Does anyone think it will stop there?  Bite by bite, our rights will continue to be infringed.  I will never support any kind of "common sense" gun restrictions.  I will not give strength to my enemies cause by adding my voice to anything they support. 

 

So, while I believe that Chipotle is within their rights to discourage or even prohibit law-abiding citizens from carrying guns into their establishments, I can't just give them a pass because of their private property rights.  Their actions give aid to my enemy, an enemy that will not stop until I am completely disarmed.  Even their "request" emboldens the antis and encourages them to continue their crusade.  There was no need for it.  It was the typical cowardly corporate reflex and I, for one am sick of it. 

[vladtepes 1,060]

While I agree that these two peckerheads are trying too hard for attention, they broke no laws.  They are gun enthusiasts.  I'm not going to fall for the "divide and conquer" strategy that our enemies would like.  It's already done plenty of damage by convincing many hunters that 2A issues apply to the other guys.  The NRA almost fell for it, but fortunately the organization came to its senses.  

 

It sounds sensible to make compromises until you look at history. There is no way to meet in the middle with these fanatics.  Many of them may mean well, but when good intentions interfere with my rights that makes them the enemy.  Period. 

 

See this for what it is.  Another attempt to vilify guns and gun owners.  Another chunk from our flesh.  Another way to convince people that guns are to be afraid of, no matter whose hands they are in. 

 

Every single time the gun community has agreed to some sensible compromise, it was never enough.  It will never be enough for our enemies.  We had already accepted 15 round mag limits in NJ.  Now we're looking at 10.  Does anyone think it will stop there?  Bite by bite, our rights will continue to be infringed.  I will never support any kind of "common sense" gun restrictions.  I will not give strength to my enemies cause by adding my voice to anything they support. 

 

So, while I believe that Chipotle is within their rights to discourage or even prohibit law-abiding citizens from carrying guns into their establishments, I can't just give them a pass because of their private property rights.  Their actions give aid to my enemy, an enemy that will not stop until I am completely disarmed.  Even their "request" emboldens the antis and encourages them to continue their crusade.  There was no need for it.  It was the typical cowardly corporate reflex and I, for one am sick of it. 

 

 

this is the issue...

 

you take a business.. that allows responsible gun owners to open carry handguns in their place of business.. the anti crowd hates it... but what can they do... guy walking around with a gun on his belt..  then this gun advocate pulls up to a store... parks his car.. pulls out an AK and loads it up.. walks towards the establishment with gun in low ready... even as a gun owner that is going to get my interest... I feel it is FOOLISH to assume he has no ill intent, because the action is abnormal.. and I know if it is going to concern me (a person that LIKES guns)... it is without question going to alarm people that don't like guns... especially when the news 24/7 tells about this shooting and that shooting... 

 

so what do they accomplish?

 

they take a relatively neutral business.. one that respects your rights.. and forces them to make a policy to appease the majority..

who suffers? every other law abiding gun owner that might on occasion carry a handgun openly...

 

you will never "normalize" guns by walking around like its Afghanistan 

[High Exposure 5,664]

Because you can doesn't mean you should. There is a level of maturity inherent in owning firearms. These bozos are demonstrating that they lack said maturity.

 

I think that the 2A community could learn a lot of do's and dont's by examining the LGBT community and their approach to outreach.

 

ETA:

 

If I get swept by a muzzle by some chooch with a slung long gun in public I guarantee there will be hell to pay.

 

If I am out with my family and I see Tweedle-Skinny and Tweedle-Fatty fiddlefucking with front sling long guns that appear loaded while approaching the establishment I am in, I am going on alert, getting my family out and getting ready to burn them down.

[PeteF 1,044]

Because you can doesn't mean you should. There is a level of maturity inherent in owning firearms. These bozos are demonstrating that they lack said maturity.

 

I think that the 2A community could learn a lot of do's and dont's by examining the LGBT community and their approach to outreach.

 

ETA:

 

If I get swept by a muzzle by some chooch with a slung long gun in public I guarantee there will be hell to pay.

 

If I am out with my family and I see Tweedle-Skinny and Tweedle-Fatty fiddlefucking with front sling long guns that appear loaded while approaching the establishment I am in, I am going on alert, getting my family out and getting ready to burn them down.

 

Like I said Hypocrite

 

 

 

Damn these Bozos are you "getting ready to burn them down."

[MidwestPX 172]

This sums it up...

 

[jackandjill 683]

Like I said Hypocrite

 

 

 

Damn these Bozos are you "getting ready to burn them down."

Couldnt have said any better.  

 

Why are people are ok with these "low ready", armed to teeth, Baghdad style patrol troops but not with people who do OC legally ? 

Folks who are complaining about the two idiots (yes they are, for doing stupid poses), would you be ok if someone dresses up like these fine gentlemen here and show up in Chipolte ?  That should pass your "dress properly" criteria ?

 

 

It takes a LOT (really LOT)  to stand for the rights of everyone and not let your personal preferences or subjective, convenient interpretations cloud your judgement.

 

Remember, one should do time if they do crime. Anything else should be fair game.   I-am-responsible-but-not-others attitude is why 2A will be dead in letter and spirit sooner or later.

[SgtToadette 59]

It's these officer's job to carry firearms in this manner. They aren't seeking attention to prove some kind of political point.

 

It also appears that they are guarding the 9/11 memorial. Not the everyday patrol officers you're making them out to be. Leave the sensationalist bullshit out of this. It's apples and oranges and you should be smart enough to know that.

[Hooligan 0]

I'm not going to think twice about a uniformed cop holding a rifle at ground zero.  I will be concerned about an ordinary person holding a rifle in a coffee shop.  I guess that makes me a hipocrite.

 

I don't think it'd be an issue if those two had the rifles slung on their backs and weren't fingering them.  

[jackandjill 683]

We are having a debate here and no one is trying make sensational bullshit.  I have seen such setup in subways, midtown manhattan etc. No one is questioning the purpose or the manner in which these officers are carrying. And there is no debate on those two idiots posing for pics or their wannabe gangsta pics elsewhere.

 

Thats not the point.  

 

 

The point is about hippocratic arguments around general OC of rifles. If someone cannot swallow the fact that others can exercise their "keep and bear arms" right, then go join the groups that are intent on winning the hearts and minds of people and ban assault looking weapons or requiring "justifiable need" or plethora of other feel good, think-of-children measures.

 

Lets pause, write down our own arguments against OC of rifles and read them loud. They sound awfully similar to anti arguments in one form or other.  And there is no sensational bullshit in that statement. Peace.

[jrfly3006 42]

It's these officer's job to carry firearms in this manner. They aren't seeking attention to prove some kind of political point.

It also appears that they are guarding the 9/11 memorial. Not the everyday patrol officers you're making them out to be. Leave the sensationalist bullshit out of this. It's apples and oranges and you should be smart enough to know that.

You would think he is...and the fact of the matter is the vast majority of people dont mind the "bozos" with guns at the WTC..because they are there to perform a job...to protect a high value heavily traveled target...not to confiscate weapons and impose law as Pete would have you believe...and unfortunately for Pete most people(who dont think a govt helicopter is following them)..including little children wont think twice about asking said "Bozos" to take a picture with them...and maybe even give them a "thank you for being here"...as for tweedle dee and dum at chipotle...people arent asking them for pics or thanking them because they have the combined brain power of a 2 year old and are doing something completely unnecessary and counter productive...public sentiment isnt with them because open rifle carry in public places by citizens is usually reserved for places named Somalia, Nigeria, Afghanistan etc..not the US where we expect others to act with a bit more tact..

 

Id love to see one of them get choke slammed next time they muzzle flash some kid whose parent isnt phased by the billy bad ass "look at my rifle" facade...

[raz-0 1,259]

Ah so 1st admendment protections count, 2nd admendment don't. I understand now.

 

And once again places of public accomodation CANNOT make rules that go against personal rights. Again see the Bridgewater commons case. Or even more specially the McDonalds case where they were sued because they tried to not allow hwrion junkies to use and break their restroom.

You.

Are.

Wrong.

 

Places of public accommodation are not allowed to make rules that discriminate against a protected class.

 

Race, religion, sexual orientation are not.

 

Saying no hats as a rule can cause issues with religious garb. Religion is protected.

 

You want to try and protest a film in the lobby of a movie theater, you will find that speaking your opinion, although a protected right, doesn't protect you from being thrown out of that place of public accommodation. It will protect you when protesting on the public sidewalk by the entrance to the parking lot as long as you don't interfere with traffic in and out.

 

[MidwestPX 172]

We are having a debate here and no one is trying make sensational bullshit.  I have seen such setup in subways, midtown manhattan etc. No one is questioning the purpose or the manner in which these officers are carrying. And there is no debate on those two idiots posing for pics or their wannabe gangsta pics elsewhere.

 

Thats not the point.  

 

 

The point is about hippocratic arguments around general OC of rifles. If someone cannot swallow the fact that others can exercise their "keep and bear arms" right, then go join the groups that are intent on winning the hearts and minds of people and ban assault looking weapons or requiring "justifiable need" or plethora of other feel good, think-of-children measures.

 

Lets pause, write down our own arguments against OC of rifles and read them loud. They sound awfully similar to anti arguments in one form or other.  And there is no sensational bullshit in that statement. Peace.

No one is saying you shouldn't be allowed to OC a long gun. However, these misguided demonstrators think by OCing long guns in public, they'll advance the pro-gun agenda. They couldn't be more wrong as evidenced by company after company being painted into a corner and having to issue no-gun policies. This battle is all about the long game and well-thought strategy. It is best left out of the hands of immature and myopic attention whores. HE nailed it when he said gun owners should be mimicking the mainstream LGBT fight for the hearts and minds of the undecided. I'm a gun owner, hell, I'm a gun dealer and if I saw someone show up in a store with a long gun at low-ready, I'd immediately be on alert and readying to draw as well as work toward the nearest exit. And OC is even legal here in Missouri so if that's how I react, how do you think sheeple react? Positively? I guarantee not.

[vladtepes 1,060]

No one is saying you shouldn't be allowed to OC a long gun. However, these misguided demonstrators think by OCing long guns in public, they'll advance the pro-gun agenda. They couldn't be more wrong as evidenced by company after company being painted into a corner and having to issue no-gun policies. This battle is all about the long game and well-thought strategy. It is best left out of the hands of immature and myopic attention whores. HE nailed it when he said gun owners should be mimicking the mainstream LGBT fight for the hearts and minds of the undecided. I'm a gun owner, hell, I'm a gun dealer and if I saw someone show up in a store with a long gun at low-ready, I'd immediately be on alert and readying to draw as well as work toward the nearest exit. And OC is even legal here in Missouri so if that's how I react, how do you think sheeple react? Positively? I guarantee not.

 

 

actually.. I dont believe they have any intention of furthering a cause... I think it is sadly far simpler than that... "yo it would be cool if we went down to burger king... and brought AK47s... " "yeah lets post it on you tube that would be cool"... they generally look like a bunch of idiots.. 

 

and if you REALLY want to prove a point about open carry.. and you want to do so with a long gun...  in a state where its legal.. then do it outside. on public property... and accompany it with a hand out explaining why gun ownership is important to you... or carry a sign or something...

 

walking into a restaurant carrying a rifle while wearing a bullet proof vest (one idiot I saw online) is only going to cause some kind of situation... some non lunatic gun owner carrying concealed is going to see that guy rolling to the front door... over react... and the day will be bad for all..

 

I am OK with the police carrying long guns because it is their job to carry them... and in certain situations having a carbine makes sense... I also assume a certain standard of training.. and control..  when I see some moron in mesh shorts with a camo giligan hat roll into my local coffee shop with an SKS... I dont assume any of those things... if anything I assume he is about to try to live out some crazy video game fantasy...

 

all they are doing is adding stress to an already stressful situation and ENCOURAGING laws AGAINST open carry..   

[PeteF 1,044]

You.

Are.

Wrong.

 

Places of public accommodation are not allowed to make rules that discriminate against a protected class.

 

Race, religion, sexual orientation are not.

 

Saying no hats as a rule can cause issues with religious garb. Religion is protected.

 

You want to try and protest a film in the lobby of a movie theater, you will find that speaking your opinion, although a protected right, doesn't protect you from being thrown out of that place of public accommodation. It will protect you when protesting on the public sidewalk by the entrance to the parking lot as long as you don't interfere with traffic in and out.

 

Want to try again?

 

http://caselaw.findl...rt/1156010.html

 

Is a person speaking and handing out fliers a "protected" class?  No, I think not (Other than 1st amendment protections).  So I guess in your book 2nd amendment protections don't count.  Gotcha.  Hypocrite.

[mipafox 438]

 

Couldnt have said any better.  

 

Why are people are ok with these "low ready", armed to teeth, Baghdad style patrol troops but not with people who do OC legally

We're not.

 

It's these officer's job to carry firearms in this manner. They aren't seeking attention to prove some kind of political point.

No it's not and yes they are. It's 100% seeking attention and proving the political point that we now live in Central America and the government is ready to gun down all of us in masse at the drop of a hat.

[PeteF 1,044]

You would think he is...and the fact of the matter is the vast majority of people dont mind the "bozos" with guns at the WTC..because they are there to perform a job...to protect a high value heavily traveled target...not to confiscate weapons and impose law as Pete would have you believe...and unfortunately for Pete most people(who dont think a govt helicopter is following them)..including little children wont think twice about asking said "Bozos" to take a picture with them...and maybe even give them a "thank you for being here"...as for tweedle dee and dum at chipotle...people arent asking them for pics or thanking them because they have the combined brain power of a 2 year old and are doing something completely unnecessary and counter productive...public sentiment isnt with them because open rifle carry in public places by citizens is usually reserved for places named Somalia, Nigeria, Afghanistan etc..not the US where we expect others to act with a bit more tact..

 

Id love to see one of them get choke slammed next time they muzzle flash some kid whose parent isnt phased by the billy bad ass "look at my rifle" facade...

 

 

Ah I see because they are wearing a uniform it's okay.  Since no uniformed officer has ever shot a innocent civilian.  And no I don't have a problem with them at all.  And yes I would thank them.  But I also don't have a problem with a civilian carry a rifle in the exact same fashion.  Finger off trigger pointed in a safe direction, whats the problem?

 

As to the term "Bozo", I was just paraphrasing for "asshat", "clowns" and "Tweedle-Skinny and Tweedle-Fatty" that other people have called certain individuals.

[Hooligan 0]

"But I also don't have a problem with a civilian carry a rifle in the exact same fashion.  Finger off trigger pointed in a safe direction, whats the problem?"

 

Because the legal system has failed us, and so we need to convert hearts and minds.  You don't do that by putting on your boonie hat and taking the SKS to the coffee shop.

[dtown223 12]

Eventually, people will get fed up enough with these antics and a law prohibiting OC of long guns will get floated.

And it'll get SUPPORT.

Because of these morons.

 

if they're really interested in raising public awareness of a BS law, get together a new shooters night at a range, try to bring folks who might be on the fence to our side.

Like it or not, most ordinary people are alarmed when non uniformed individuals enter an eating establishment with weapons.

The fact that these guys look like mall ninjas, and then act foolishly only creates anti gun sentiment in the people they think they're "educating" and those are the same folks that will remember the "bozos" at chipotle come election time.

 

Honestly, I wouldn't be surprised one bit if these guys turned out to be bloomberg employees.

 

 

 

[PeteF 1,044]

Eventually, people will get fed up enough with these antics and a law prohibiting OC of long guns will get floated.And it'll get SUPPORT.Because of these morons.if they're really interested in raising public awareness of a BS law, get together a new shooters night at a range, try to bring folks who might be on the fence to our side.Like it or not, most ordinary people are alarmed when non uniformed individuals enter an eating establishment with weapons.The fact that these guys look like mall ninjas, and then act foolishly only creates anti gun sentiment in the people they think they're "educating" and those are the same folks that will remember the "bozos" at chipotle come election time.Honestly, I wouldn't be surprised one bit if these guys turned out to be bloomberg employees.

Or maybe people will get used to seeing civilians with firearms and won't have hysterics when they do.

 

Like that crazy black woman that just had to sit in the front of the bus. Jez people get upset when that darky sat up front, she should have been quiet and respectful and sat in the back to not upset anyone.

 

 

And in case you didn't guess sarcasm fully intended

[SgtToadette 59]

No it's not and yes they are. It's 100% seeking attention and proving the political point that we now live in Central America and the government is ready to gun down all of us in masse at the drop of a hat.

 

Uh. Yes, it is their job. Those are issued weapons and they are operating within department mandated GOs/SOPs. They are doing their job. Whatever crazy shit you get out of that is your own problem.

[vladtepes 1,060]

Or maybe people will get used to seeing civilians with firearms and won't have hysterics when they do.

 

Like that crazy black woman that just had to sit in the front of the bus. Jez people get upset when that darky sat up front, she should have been quiet and respectful and sat in the back to not upset anyone.

 

 

And in case you didn't guess sarcasm fully intended

 

 

I have no problem with the average citizen carrying a gun on their hip.. doesnt really cause alarm.. but I notice..

I dont have much of a problem with an average citizen carrying a long gun slung across their back.. as long as it stays there its not a threat..

 

but.. some guy that looks unstable.. and possibly living in his grandmoms basement.. rolls into a place I am in with a rifle slung like he is patrolling the streets of Iraq... to me.. that is a potential threat.. it is too easy to go from there.. to shooting at me..  in the same way a person carrying a handgun in hand would make me uncomfortable.. 

 

it is not a fact of being uneasy about the gun.. it is the potential lunatic behind it..  I will never "get used to that"... because IMO you are doing yourself a disservice by ignoring that individual.. 

 

lets face it.. you have watched the videos that these guys put out.. you have seen what a lot of them look like..  and you and I both know that mass shootings do occur.. so someone that is postured like they are waiting for a gun fight to start.. it going to set off concern in my head... 

 

 

its no wonder the anti gun crowd is terrified of us.. this shit is so stupid you can't even measure it.. 

"hey guys lets go exercise our rights by open carrying long guns in target.." "yeah ill wear camo.." "hold on let me get my "tac vest" and suit up"

people like that raise a red flag to me.. not because I have an issue with guns.. or 2a.. but because that shit is NEVER going to help us... and they don't represent me.. but yet by being a gun enthusiast I get lumped into that same pool..