Is the business in public or not?
Yes, I did. After all, this right is the one that is the final guarantor of all the others.
it disproves that the second amendment only pertains to the federal government.
No, actually, it's not. It's private property.
Thats my bad for forgetting mcdonald which also brought the state and municpal governments under the umbrella of enforcement.
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.
the supreme court ruled they can be banned from "sensitive places" like schools and government buildings.
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."
It's certainly no Freebirds.
Usually, yes. But there are special rules for places where the public is supposed to access.
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?"
Any chance of that went out the window when your side decided to heckle the parents of Newtown victims at Congressional hearings.
Should I hold things done by people I deign to be "on your side" against the arguments of your posts?
Since when has that stopped you? Ever.
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.
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.
Ladies and gentlemen, Ad Hominem Again.
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.
My premises is not a restaurant. Not a public place. Scrutinize Chipotle's carefully (and no doubt legal-department) crafted response -
just a quick aside, since you brought this up:
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'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.
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.
For every speculative save you see, I see dozens of:
So you say. Deal with it.
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]
WAAAAARRRRGGGGGLLLLL SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED!!! *drops mic*
It's because everyone knows those are government Chipotles.
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.
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.
The only one Waaarglbargling here is you.[DOUBLEPOST=1400680896,1400680798][/DOUBLEPOST]
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.
Weird, our Chipotle sells beer. I assumed they all did.
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.
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.
) 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.
What about giving them gun training and education?[DOUBLEPOST=1400687778,1400687634][/DOUBLEPOST]
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.
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.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
