She says many times it is in poor taste to OC
She says many times it is in poor taste to OC
You already give up some of your rights when you open a business to the public. Every one has the right to be a bigot or a racist. That said if you open a business you can't call black customers the "N" word. You can't refuse customers that are of a different religion. You can't kick native americans out of your store. You can't refuse to bake a wedding cake for gay people. Basically, you can't violate the rights of your customers. Even if your business is private property.
Any business that wants the public as customers should not be allowed to ask customers to leave their right to defend themselves at the entry way. What other rights should be left outside of a business on private property? Should a business on private property be able to search your person? It is private property, what if you were bringing drugs into someones property. Shouldn't the owner be allowed to search you?
What would be wrong with giving up your right to not be searched on private property?
As discussed at length in numerous other threads you are comparing apples to potatoes when you compare racial discrimination to not being able to carry on private property.
Well, atleast they chose the right group to kick out.
And don't come in waiving your damn tacticool SKS around like a moron.
On the Kansas forums there seems to be a real question as to whether or not this event really happened. Can anyone here confirm that it did? The primary source seems to be this 'freedomoutpost' which is, from what some in the Kansas group are saying, none too reliable.
Are there any other sources for it other than 'freedomoutpost'?
Are there any other sources for it other than 'freedomoutpost'?
I have no problem with OC/CC meets as long as everyone carries (and hence behaves) in a responsible manner. No rifles (duh?), good manners, don't draw unnecessary attention to yourself, and ignore the mad moms.
It's not a protest, as mentioned. It's not about arguing with people. The best point of such an event is to show the general public see that you can carry a gun and act like a normal person.
If the message is: "so what, I carry a gun, now leave me in peace so I can eat my meal with my friends," it would be much less dramatic than you and your "9 armed men" buddies debating some anti-gun mom.
By all means, open carry. But do so in the knowledge that whether you (or the rest of us) like it, you are representing the gun toting community to those outside, and you will be held to a higher standard. Just like we expect LEO to behave better than the average Joe Blow, so should you.
It's not a protest, as mentioned. It's not about arguing with people. The best point of such an event is to show the general public see that you can carry a gun and act like a normal person.
If the message is: "so what, I carry a gun, now leave me in peace so I can eat my meal with my friends," it would be much less dramatic than you and your "9 armed men" buddies debating some anti-gun mom.
By all means, open carry. But do so in the knowledge that whether you (or the rest of us) like it, you are representing the gun toting community to those outside, and you will be held to a higher standard. Just like we expect LEO to behave better than the average Joe Blow, so should you.
As I've said on numerous occasions, I'm not a fan of OC in certain situations, discretion being the better part of valor. However, I fully support the right. Not being present at this event, I'm disinclined to cast judgement on the OC crew for their behavior. I probably wouldn't engage in a verbal ping pong match with the twit "Demanding Action".
It's obvious from the recording that she's well rehearsed in all the anti-gun talking points. Offering her pro-gun talking points in reply simply isn't productive. Perhaps just reply "I'm sorry you feel that way, but I'm not threatening you or interfering with your meal in any way. Please leave me to enjoy my meal in peace, thank you." If she failed to stop harassing, just discuss it with management and return to your meal.
Others would have a different viewpoint I'm sure, but if there were any neutral parties within earshot, I'd want to be respectful of their meal and not subject them to a verbal disagreement any more than necessary. JMO, YMMV
It's obvious from the recording that she's well rehearsed in all the anti-gun talking points. Offering her pro-gun talking points in reply simply isn't productive. Perhaps just reply "I'm sorry you feel that way, but I'm not threatening you or interfering with your meal in any way. Please leave me to enjoy my meal in peace, thank you." If she failed to stop harassing, just discuss it with management and return to your meal.
Others would have a different viewpoint I'm sure, but if there were any neutral parties within earshot, I'd want to be respectful of their meal and not subject them to a verbal disagreement any more than necessary. JMO, YMMV
A quiet example is still an example and I endorse that as a first choice. When she wants to engage with talking points and all I've done is be a quiet example, then she's made my point for me and I'd likely feel inclined to ensure she knew that. This is central to the "turn the other cheek" approach. The main point should be to do everything to ensure her group gains no traction and flexibility in the response allows tailoring of the message to the audience.
As I noted previously, I believe it's important to not allow opponents of freedom to gather any strength and this may require a direct response. That's why I say flexibility is a good thing - don't get cornered into using just one approach.
http://www.krmg.com/news/news/local/anti-gun-moms-kicked-out-chipotle/ngB9g/
Source of the story is the same, however there is at least one picture
Similar threads
