Chipotle asks its customers not be armed when dining with them.

[Bones]

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.

 

[Tress]

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

 

[Ravenpoe]

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

That's pretty much end of discussion there.

 

[AshburnerX]

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

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.

 

[sixpackshaker]

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.

 

[Charlie Don't Surf]

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

 

[sixpackshaker]

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

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

 

[GasBandit]

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

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.

 

[blotsfan]

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

 

[Jay]

*facepalm*

 

[Bones]

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?

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.

 

[GasBandit]

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.

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.

 

[Bones]

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

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

 

[Krisken]

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.

 

[GasBandit]

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

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]

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.

 

[Frank]

Just like they did for the darkies.

Oh, the poor oppressed gun owners.

 

[Bones]

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.

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.

 

[GasBandit]

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.

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

Oh, the poor oppressed gun owners.

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).

 

[Bones]

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).

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?

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

 

[Terrik]

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.

 

[GasBandit]

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".

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...

Then why did you say "Military" again?

 

[Ravenpoe]

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.

 

[GasBandit]

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.

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.

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.

See above.

 

[Bones]

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.

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.

 

[DarkAudit]

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.

 

[figmentPez]

Oh, the poor oppressed gun owners.

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.

 

[GasBandit]

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

 

[blotsfan]

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?

 

[Bowielee]

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

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

 

[DarkAudit]

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.

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

 

[Bones]

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.

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.

 

[GasBandit]

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.

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.

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

Ladies and gentlemen - rational discourse.

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

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

Ladies and gentlemen, ad-hominem.

 

[Bowielee]

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.

 

[Frank]

Ladies and gentlemen - rational discourse.

You compared gun ownership to the civil rights movement.

 

[Bowielee]

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.
.

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.