We are our own worst enemy!!!

[2ndamendfan]

Chipotle: Don't Bring Your Guns into Our Stores - NBC News

Chipotle: Don't Bring Your Guns into Our Stores
Chipotle is asking customers not to bring firearms into its stores after it says gun rights advocates brought military-style assault rifles into one of its restaurants in Texas.

The Denver-based company notes that it has traditionally complied with local laws regarding open and concealed firearms.

But in a statement Monday, the company said that "the display of firearms in our restaurants has now created an environment that is potentially intimidating or uncomfortable for many of our customers."

The announcement came after a petition by Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America, which has called on other companies to ban firearms in their stores as well. The group said its petition was in reaction to open-carry gun activists appearing at a Dallas-area Chipotle restaurant over the weekend.

Erika Soto Lamb, a spokeswoman for the group, said she thought the move by Chipotle was a "bold statement," especially considering its previous stance of complying with local laws.

Many states allow people to carry licensed guns in some way, but some businesses exercise their right to ban firearms.


A Chipotle restaurant is seen on March 5, 2014 in Miami, Fla. The Mexican fast food chain is reported to have tossed around the idea that it would temporarily suspend sales of guacamole due to an increase in food costs.
A Chipotle spokesman didn't immediately respond when asked if the company's request was an outright ban, or how it would respond if people continued to bring firearms into its restaurants.

Last year, Starbucks Corp. also told customers that guns were no longer welcome in its cafes after it had to temporarily close a store in Newton, Connecticut, to avoid a demonstration by gun rights advocates. The company said it shut down the store out of respect for the community, where 20 school children and six educators had been slain.

The Seattle-based coffee chain stopped short of a ban, however, saying it didn't want to put its workers in the position of having to ask people carrying guns to leave its stores. Its carefully worded decision also underscored how major companies need to walk a fine line on highly divisive political issues.

Likewise, Chipotle Mexican Grill Inc. noted in its statement that "there are strong arguments on both sides of this issue." It said it hoped that customers who oppose carrying guns in public agree that "it is the role of elected officials and the legislative process to set policy in this area."

- Associated Press

 

[Smcarroll]

Fucking idiots.

 

[High Binder]

I never go there anyway because it's just a bunch of cheap filler (rice & beans) but if I did I would stop. (I would have stopped years ago anyway because this is FAR form their first anti-gun/anti-U.S. time in the news). They've been a liberal company for as long as I have known them to exist.

 

[EventHorizon]

I'll still use their restrooms just this time I won't bother to aim... 'Cos aiming is what you do with guns and guns is bad mmmKay?

 

[Smcarroll]

I never go there anyway because it's just a bunch of cheap filler (rice & beans) but if I did I would stop. (I would have stopped years ago anyway because this is FAR form their first anti-gun/anti-U.S. time in the news). They've been a liberal company for as long as I have known them to exist.

The gf goes there but hasn't managed to drag me there. Is it any good?

I'll still use their restrooms just this time I won't bother to aim... 'Cos aiming is what you do with guns and guns is bad mmmKay?

So edgy.

 

[Sweetyzfd]

Yeah.... No need for that. Hurts the cause

 

[eli polite]

I agree that there are a lot of people that think they are doing good for the cause but they simply are not bright enough to realize that they could actually be damaging the cause..


there are stupid people on both sides of this issue.

 

[JBNj]

I won't support a company who wants to infringe on your constitutional rights. Nuff said.

 

[icu812]

I dont think you reach mall ninja commando status unless you pack your m4 to a fast food restaurant.

 

[jbjh]

"No shirt, no shoes, no service"


Sent from 80ms in the future
Much peace
Jimmy

 

[crebrosseau]

There's the obvious "I won't support a business that's against guns" but what pisses me off is not their stance. They're a business they can take that position if they want. It's these dumb ass open carry jerk offs making all gunners look stupid. I would feel uncomfortable in a business with my family if someone was open carrying an AR because after 10 years in the military and 6 years of LE I know how poorly a lot of gun owners handle a weapon. Just because you legally can doesn't make it right. Open carrying is not making a statement helps our cause, it makes us look reckless.

Sent from my Blue Force Tracker using Tapatalk 4.

 

[PCR]

They need to solve they're dilemma of serving cold burritos before they make a grown up decision like banning scary customers. Seriously, I stopped going there because their service system is flawed. By the time your warm beans and tortilla gets to the end of the production line it's all stone cold and not one microwave in the place!

 

[eli polite]

I won't support a company who wants to infringe on your constitutional rights. Nuff said.

I rest my case.... did you read this part of the story

Chipotle is asking customers not to bring firearms into its stores after it says gun rights advocates brought military-style assault rifles into one of its restaurants in Texas.

The Denver-based company notes that it has traditionally complied with local laws regarding open and concealed firearms.

But in a statement Monday, the company said that "the display of firearms in our restaurants has now created an environment that is potentially intimidating or uncomfortable for many of our customers."


I have a business as well I have all kinds of fire arms in it including an AR15 several hand guns and a shot gun. (out of the public view)I also gladly welcome any one who wants to carry a fire arm. BUT! if some guy showed up with an AR slung over his shoulder or any other military style weapon I would simply say can you please put that back in your car.. It sounds like they WERE accommodating but as a public company they have to be fair to ALL of there customers. Like the title says we are our own worst enemies

 

[JBNj]

Well I agree with you eli polite. Like the title says "we are out own worst enemy" but I prefer not to be grouped with a bunch of tards who thought showing their firepower at a chipotle of all places was kewl. Like most past great freedoms, is usually ruined by some idiots and the collective group suffers and fueling the other side.

 

[Smcarroll]

I have a solution to the no guns allowed policy. I keep my weapon hidden. brilliant I know.

 

[Name Enough]

We have met the enemy and he is us. Folks leave their brains outside and take their rifles into an eating establishment. There is no reason for such silliness. In our town if you have a handgun strapped on and normal appearance no one would even question you but rather assume that your were an LEO> No LEO would bring a rifle into a restaurant. So I assume there folks were looking for a confrontation and this is the answer that they got from Chipotle. I would expect next to see 30-06 posting in fast food establishments so that you can't even carry a concealed weapon into such posted places without risking loosing your license.

 

[Sharpsman]

Two days ago I was sitting in a coffee shop and this 'kid' about 23 pulls out a 9MM and shows it to his buddy which is at the same table opposite me and another guy. All at once he points the pistol toward the floor but at an angle toward me and he crams in a clip and jacks one into the chamber! If that sumbitch had gone off chances are I would have caught a ricochet in the gut!! I came very close to getting up and slapping the schitt out of him but I just got up and walked out! Some folks don't have enough IQ to pour piss out of a boot!!

 

[Maggot]

Morons know no social boundaries.

 

[Greg Langelius *]

The enemy is not 'us', it's 'them', and 'they' are not 'us'. IMHO the only thing more unacceptable than a moron is an armed moron. For many of the instances where folks complain about how hard it is to legally possess a particular firearm, I offer this topic as a not unreasonable attempt at justifying such policies. That's not my choice, it's theirs.

When people try to justify expressed or implied rights, they often seem to base their thinking on the concept that if one has a heartbeat, their rights to this, that, and anything else they deem fit and proper are unimpeachable and have their basis in having a heartbeat and nothing else, like an intelligence quotient somewhere North of plant life.

We understand that firearms possession is a responsibility, like all rights; and that irresponsibility, in anything, let alone firearms handling, should have negative consequences for the irresponsible.

The attitude "I can, so I will; no further thought required" is an invitation to responses that do not favor increases in gun rights acceptance. The rights associated with keeping and bearing arms are, and have been, a case undergoing ongoing trial in the courts of public opinion, whether of not that trial is justified or even Constitutionally legitimate. Those who insist one pressing their (and our) luck are glaring examples of willing fools, in the truest Marxist definition of the term.

Greg

 

[Smcarroll]

The enemy is not 'us', it's 'them', and 'they' are not 'us'. IMHO the only thing more unacceptable than a moron is an armed moron. For many of the instances where folks complain about how hard it is to legally possess a particular firearm, I offer this topic as a not unreasonable attempt at justifying such policies. That's not my choice, it's theirs.

When people try to justify expressed or implied rights, they often seem to base their thinking on the concept that if one has a heartbeat, their rights to this, that, and anything else they deem fit and proper are unimpeachable and have their basis in having a heartbeat and nothing else, like an intelligence quotient somewhere North of plant life.

We understand that firearms possession is a responsibility, like all rights; and that irresponsibility, in anything, let alone firearms handling, should have negative consequences for the irresponsible.

The attitude "I can, so I will; no further thought required" is an invitation to responses that do not favor increases in gun rights acceptance. The rights associated with keeping and bearing arms are, and have been, a case undergoing ongoing trial in the courts of public opinion, whether of not that trial is justified or even Constitutionally legitimate. Those who insist one pressing their (and our) luck are glaring examples of willing fools, in the truest Marxist definition of the term.

Greg

Back already?

 

[MLC]

I think the title of the article should've been, Socially isolated gun owners forget to draw the line between the internet and real world.

 

[sentry1]

View attachment 38604


I think the title of the article should've been, Socially isolated gun owners forget to draw the line between the internet and real world.

Can we just take a minute and be proud of Mini-Mall-Ninja there with the AK that's bigger than he is? Look at that little douchenozzle, he's got his finger straight and off the trigger. Holy guacamole, that's an amazing accomplishment!

Let's not forget to mourn his buddy there, with the tactical beard and the camo boonie hat. A true friend would have told him to at least go with urban camo for the boonie, and probably warned him about the dangers of heart disease too.

 

[TheGerman]

And of coarse, the guys they show are some idiot that doesn't know jack shit about his TAPCO fucked SKS, and a neckbeard on the way to Walmart to buy whatever 22LR they have in stock so he can fund his World of Warcraft subscription.

 

[Michael]

We had the open carry ninja's on our town square this Saturday.

If ever there was a poster ad for those wanting to ban guns, they were it. There is something about a scraggly haired pierced 20 something and a 400 pounder dressed in black walking around armed and taking selfies that just make me want to puke.
If these folks have a cause to believe in they should explore a good marketing group because image really is everything when promoting the controversial.

Behavioral notes;
Only one guy wanted to speak with these folks. Most others avoided them like the plague.
Many businesses had posted on their entry ways an 8 1/2 X 11 notice in orange with black bold lettering stating no guns allowed. The group made no attempt to enter any business on the square. I suspect they would have been trespassed, and the police department is less than a block away.

Whatever positive impression this group thought they could make in a small, rural community was sorely miscalculated.

 

[sentry1]

These asshats are a bad image for gun owners. The idiot who shot his nephew in the head trying to show off his laser'd pistol is a bad image for gun owners.

Youngsters learning marksmanship and responsible handling of firearms at Appleseed. Women learning how to create space before they draw their concealed carry weapon against assailants. That's the image that needs to be promoted.

We don't though, because those people are doing it for the right reasons, not as a cry for attention.

 

[jashmore1234]

I am a full on gun nut, but if I am stuffing a burrito into my face and a guy comes in with an AK on their shoulder, they are going to enjoy a full measure of my attention until we part ways.

 

[Greg Langelius *]

Sniper's Hide Forum Rules, we consider this the first warning and enforcement may come with no second warning.


1.Exercise common sense and be considerate toward your fellow users. Diversity of opinion and intelligent civil discourse is encouraged; by the same token, Personal attacks, rudeness, flaming, baiting, insults to others, or arguments will not be tolerated. Challenge others' points of view and opinions, but do so respectfully and thoughtfully. Any member who threatens anyone on the forum, via PM, instant messengers, or Email, will be banned immediately without notice.


2. Do not post off-topic. Please keep your comments consistent with the subject and purpose of the conversation thread. Deliberate disruption -- such as consistent off-topic commentary -- will not be tolerated.

Inappropriate content will be removed without notice. Do not post any messages that are obscene, vulgar, sexually-orientated, racist, hateful, threatening, or otherwise violative of any laws. Please use good judgement when choosing user names, avatars, or images to post, and do not attempt to bypass the word filter. It is there for a reason.

Smcarroll, your repeated personal attacks on others violate site rules. Your prior attack was deleted by Moderation. Your latest post has been reported to Moderation.

Periodically, somebody takes offense at something I say, and tries to start a flame war with me. After a decade and a half, it gets old fast. We have site rules for a legitimate reason, but sometimes folks think nobody's looking, or that the rules don't pertain to them.

Maybe they're right, maybe not.

Let's just see.

I have simply decided that I will no longer contribute to flame wars, or tolerate being targeted by/for them.

From now on, I am reporting any I see and I urge more of us to do likewise.

It's all well and good to say let's leave this sort of action up to Moderation, and to then duck below the crossfire; but I think an atmosphere where back shooters and cheap shooters have fee rein is unhealthy and counterproductive to the purpose why this site exists.

Part of the reason this has become a genuine problem for me and others is because of member apathy. If this situation is what you want on your site, then simply ignore this and enjoy this site's slide into mediocrity. Otherwise grow a pair and let it be known to Moderation that this stuff is outta line.

It's your site too, and what passes for acceptable discourse is something you can express your preferences about. So do that; or the next time you see things get ugly, remember, you contributed; and if it's something you enjoy, maybe you're a big part of the issue.

Greg

 

[JeffLebowski]

Shannon Watts Targets Chili?s | Shall Not Be Questioned

 

[Smcarroll]

Smcarroll, your repeated personal attacks on others violate site rules. Your prior attack was deleted by Moderation. Your latest post has been reported to Moderation.

Periodically, somebody takes offense at something I say, and tries to start a flame war with me. After a decade and a half, it gets old fast. We have site rules for a legitimate reason, but sometimes folks think nobody's looking, or that the rules don't pertain to them.

Maybe they're right, maybe not.

Let's just see.

I have simply decided that I will no longer contribute to flame wars, or tolerate being targeted by/for them.

From now on, I am reporting any I see and I urge more of us to do likewise.

It's all well and good to say let's leave this sort of action up to Moderation, and to then duck below the crossfire; but I think an atmosphere where back shooters and cheap shooters have fee rein is unhealthy and counterproductive to the purpose why this site exists.

Part of the reason this has become a genuine problem for me and others is because of member apathy. If this situation is what you want on your site, then simply ignore this and enjoy this site's slide into mediocrity. Otherwise grow a pair and let it be known to Moderation that this stuff is outta line.

It's your site too, and what passes for acceptable discourse is something you can express your preferences about. So do that; or the next time you see things get ugly, remember, you contributed; and if it's something you enjoy, maybe you're a big part of the issue.

Greg

I merely found it hilarious that you made a big whiney post about how we are all hypocrites and you were done with the hide, then came back. That's both hypocritical and ironic.

 

[EventHorizon]

I merely found it hilarious that you made a big whiney post about how we are all hypocrites and you were done with the hide, then came back. That's both hypocritical and ironic.

You are a fucking troll, and a poor one at that. You have his goodbye post in your sig!? That's you right there. I may rarely agree to any extent with what Greg says in the Bear Pit but I recognize that he's respected here, has put in a lot of time and his non-Bear Pit posts are informative and relevant to the main purpose of this site.

I'd rather have Greg back and you disappear in a sinkhole born out of your own smug self-worth.

 

[Smcarroll]

You are a fucking troll, and a poor one at that. You have his goodbye post in your sig!? That's you right there. I may rarely agree to any extent with what Greg says in the Bear Pit but I recognize that he's respected here, has put in a lot of time and his non-Bear Pit posts are informative and relevant to the main purpose of this site.

I'd rather have Greg back and you disappear in a sinkhole born out of your own smug self-worth.

I have reported you to the authorities.

 

[Rob01]

It's amazing how you all come crying to the Mods when you all do the same thing to each other. One more problem with any of you and you are all getting banned. Now cut the shit and Smcarroll change the sig line now. Like a bunch of kids.

 

[Smcarroll]

sorry rob.

 

[Deputy D.A.]

I always find this to be a very interesting debate. That is, where along the spectrum do gun owners fall? What concessions and erosions of your Second Amendment right do you agree to, or at least don't challenge? Do you agree to restricting everyones' right to open carry? Or just not to open carry certain types of firearms, e.g. rifles, handguns over a certain caliber or magazine capacity? Or not to open carry in certain places? Do you support legislation that makes it a crime to print when concealed carrying or when you accidentally reveal your concealed weapon...making it a strict liability crime? If you agree to restrict or prohibit open carry, do you agree that you can only legally conceal carry if the government issues you a permit? How much does one have to pay the government to exercise a right? Do you agree that the next step is to allow the government to charge $300...$500...$1,000 or even $5,000 per year to have a concealed carry permit? How about the college student or 68 year old retiree struggling financially to get by, can the have their permit fee waived, or do they have to chose between the cost of the permit to conceal carry or pay for some other necessity in their life? The potential restrictions/limits/erosions on your Constitutional right to bare arms is as limitless as the creativity of the collective minds of gun opponents. This post is not meant as a position on the Chipolte incident, but my ears perk up when those most supportive of the right to bare arms are quick to be outraged by another's otherwise seemingly legal action. Don't misunderstand, the arguments against their actions is not lost on me. Likewise, i can understand, even if i don't always agree, with each person's differing and individual vision of the long term goal or bigger picture.

 

[EventHorizon]

It's an issue of common sense. The First Amendment is understood but it hasn't caused most people to go around being verbally vile to others just because they can. The nut jobs in Chipotle have done something because they have taken the 'use it or lose it' ethic to an idiotic and pointless extreme. The guideline ought to be 'do what is useful'.

The premise of the govt. being able to license a right is an oxymoron and is more a reflection of the general populace absolving themselves of their rights through apathy. This is where the adage 'possession is 9/10th of the law' comes in. If the populace doesn't jealously protect what belongs to it then their inattention will be seized upon by those who either fear that right or covet it. What could be interesting are the actions of those who view their rights sacred and don't see the method of legislative 'creep' as valid or lawful and will intervene accordingly.

Some here have mistaken the Bundy ranch incident as a litmus test of that viewpoint. We shall see.

From my perspective, Chipotle is a business, they can ask for whatever customer behavior they want. It's not like there's a shortage of crappy Mexican food in the USA...

 

[pawprint2]

It is their right to keep gun owners out, if they choose, and the law will back them up. It is not their right to hire illegal aliens, to work in their stores, the problem is the law seldom backs these laws up. It appears to me, the powers to be in the chipotle chain are very easily swayed by noise makers. A group of "moms" ask for it, they bent over and picked up the soap. It may be possible, another group may be able to drop another bar.

 

[LearningAsIGo]

I couldn't agree more with the OP. These types of publicity seeking jack asses only hurt the community as a whole. There is no way I would be comfortable in that restaurant if those two guys came in weapons at low ready like the picture shows. There is a right way and a wrong way to acclimate people to people open carrying.

 

[Oakflat]

If these same jack wads that run around wasting energy trying to pack M4s into restaurants would put their heads into a book and start their own company, bust their ass 16-20 hours a day and try to build something for themselves, they would put a halt to people ruining their business as well. It's situations like this where our cause gets hurt.