We all must be anti-gun, right?

A few days ago, I blogged about a group of OCTards (Open Carry Texas) who decided to make a statement at Chipotle by carrying their long guns into the restaurant. My contention, and judging by the vast majority others’ in comments, was that these idiots have once again gone too far. They staged their little drama to shove their rights in other people’s faces – people who were merely there to enjoy a meal – and dragged a business that was completely neutral into their political demonstration.

A tool by the name of William Baker began screeching in comments that this site was anti-gun, and that he’s boycotting the Liberty Zone and telling all his friends to do so instead. (I’ll wait for you to stop laughing)

I’m going to boycott this anti-gun site and inform my friends of it as well. Are you really so stupid you can’t see that attacking others who are pro-gun whether you agree with them or not guarantees that the liberals win on this one? wow, sickening

You can go to the entry and read my reply, and those of others, yourselves.  I won’t rehash them here. I will, however, submit the following: if holding the view that lack of decorum and respect on the part of gun owners is now viewed by some extremist reactionaries as being “anti-gun,” I would submit I’m not alone.

A poll started yesterday by the Guns Save Lives (GSL) blog, in the wake of Chipotle’s announcement that it doesn’t want people bringing guns into its restaurants, shows an overwhelmingly negative reaction to what another story called an “outrageous stunt” that apparently frightened other patrons at the Dallas-area eatery.

[…]

According to the GSL poll, the image and the idea of openly carrying long guns is drawing nearly 85 percent negative reaction, and the GSL website is not one frequented by Brady Campaign activists. It is popular with firearms rights activists. If gun people think this was a bad idea, that’s not good news for people who push the envelope with rifles.

At the end of the day, reality is that these morons weren’t merely open carrying. The rifles weren’t slung. They were borderline brandishing. They were bragging. They were taking photos, as if to say, “LOOK AT ME! I CAN!” This was not about educating, or promoting mature conversation. This was about showing off. That’s not responsible gun ownership. That’s puerile drama.

And. It. Hurts. Gun. Rights.

So stop. Just stop!

26 responses

  1. Paul H. Lemmen

    Reblogged this on Dead Citizen's Rights Society.

    Like

  2. Paul H. Lemmen

    It not only hurts gun rights by giving the gun grabbers fuel for their narrative, it un-necessarily places a target on those who open carry. This also reveals just who is armed. Keep the government and idiots out walking around in the dark, don’t betray valuable intel to those whose motives are inimical to our rights under the Constitution. Most of all, don’t be those guys.

    Like

    1. LOL! Unless you like looking like the Trailer Trash Militia out for attention!😉

      Like

      1. Paul H. Lemmen

        I’m too old, too ugly and too distrustful of our government and it’s minions to do anything so stupid!

        Like

        1. I’m sorry, I don’t mean to laugh, but LMAO!!!

          Like

        2. Paul H. Lemmen

          🙂

          Like

  3. Nicki, you are spot on! As a concealed carrier, I would hate to be eating with two goons sitting there stroking their stocks. If you don’t have a hand gun and you need to carry a rifle, please go through the drive-thru! These idiots, and anyone who defends them, lack the common sense to be carrying anything lethal and hurt the cause of self defense.

    Like

  4. Those 2 morons in Chipotle’s are doing for gun rights what San Francisco’s Gay Pride Parade does for their issue.

    Like

    1. I think they do MORE damage.

      Like

  5. I conceal carry, and the only reason I support constitutional carry is because I carry a large pistol, S&W model 5906. Sometimes my shirt rides up and my sidearm is exposed. Would hate to get hassled because of that.

    Like

  6. gerald giffin

    So, where in the article does it say any patrons of the store were offended by said weapons? Did any actual patrons actually complain, or leave? Or, is this all media bullcrap from people who were not there to begin with?

    Like

    1. One of the articles reporting on this, and also on Twitter, claimed kids were scared. Personally, I think it’s the adults that were scared, but who knows…

      That said, even if NO ONE was scared in the restaurant, making a mini-rally out of lunch in a place that’s neutral and that obviously doesn’t want or need the annoying attention, and dragging them into a political issue, is the height of stupid and will end up just like it did not just this time, but the time before.

      Like

  7. To be fair, and I still think it’s a bad idea, the reason they are carrying long guns is because it is illegal to open carry a pistol in Texas. I’m sure they would love to carry around less in-your-face weaponry if they were legally able to.

    Like

    1. Well, sure. But that still doesn’t excuse staging mini-rallies, taking photos and acting like complete jackasses in a restaurant that has no desire to be in the middle of political drama.

      Like

    2. Nikki – I agree with you. I’m just saying that their options ARE limited. They SHOULD be fostering support with local businesses and getting explicit permission if they’re going to be entering private property. Failing that, leave them in the car or stack arms with a guard outside if you’re walking. Don’t force businesses to take a side by acting in the most controversial way possible. Keep it to public property. I’m with you here, I’m just looking at both sides.

      Like

      1. Oh listen, I get it. Apparently they finally go it too. Check out their statement.🙂

        Like

    3. I read it – it’s nice to see that they realized a failing tactic and adjusted fire. I applaud them.

      Like

      1. Same here!🙂

        Like

  8. If you use the word “but” after the phrase “I support the 2A” then you don’t support the 2A… What part of “shall not be infringed” do you disagree with? We either support people using their right to open carry where legal, or you might as well sell all your firearms now because yours will be the next ones on the moron anti-gun agenda. They want ALL guns banned from civilian hands, except for the police of course, so if you don’t support the rights you have now then you might as well be one of THEM…

    Like

    1. Oh FERFUCKSSAKE! Let me say this slowly, so you understand:

      This. Is. Not. About. Your. Rights.

      The restaurant has a RIGHT to ban you from its premises if it wants if you don’t abide by its rules, including ones banning guns. “Shall not be infringed” refers to governments – both federal and state.

      You have the RIGHT to open carry.

      No one has said anything about denying you your rights. This is about decorum and respect for others. And if you don’t understand that, maybe you’ve got some maturing to do.

      Like

    2. You don’t get it, do you? Let me break it down Barney style – I understand these guys position. They want open carry of pistols legal in Texas. I agree with that position. I SUPPORT that position. But the EFFECTS of their current tactic are NOT the EXPANSION of gun rights, but are actually taking places across the country that WERE LEGAL to carry, and turning them into places that are ILLEGAL to carry. While anti-gun people once needed a majority in the legislature to restrict us, those who are open carrying into private, neutral businesses are pushing them to the other side and getting us restricted by corporate policy. The major Open Carry Texas organizations (except one) have acknowledged that they are hurting their cause and our wider national cause and have requested that their members stop carrying political lightning rods into private businesses and instead carry black powder pistols (which are apparently legal) to prevent giving the opposition ammunition. This is not a question of rights, it’s a question of tactics and their effectivness.

      Like

  9. Do we know for sure this wasn’t a false flag operation?

    Like

    1. Yes, we do. Please read the post I just published.

      Like

  10. […] We all must be anti-gun, right? […]

    Like

  11. A number of criminals misuse guns in their efforts to rob, rape, and murder. Antis cry out that we must all be restricted on the basis of the behavior of others, and should be ashamed of insisting on our rights. We respond by refusing to be shamed into giving up rights, and using what civil tools are available against our opponents.

    A few children get a hold of firearms and kill themselves. Antis cry out that we must all be restricted on the basis of the behavior of others, and should be ashamed of insisting on our rights. We respond by refusing to be shamed into giving up rights, and using what civil tools are available against our opponents.

    A few careless people have negligent discharges, with varying degrees of consequences. Antis cry out that we must all be restricted on the basis of the behavior of others, and should be ashamed of insisting on our rights. We respond by refusing to be shamed into giving up rights, and using what civil tools are available against our opponents.

    A few people in Texas misunderstand that OC is about normalization, and thus NOT putting the emphasis on the gun, ever, and/or are seeking attention, and so OC in a manner that is not of assistance to the RKBA movement. Antis cry out that we must all be restricted on the basis of the behavior of others, and should be ashamed of insisting on our rights. We respond by…saying it is the fault of Open Carry Texas, and that the antis now have something of value to say? We accept the actions of opponents who, reasonably averse to the ostentatious behavior of OCT, proceed to issue a statement against all gun possession on their premises, and direct our righteous fury against OCT, rather than the overreacting company?

    The act of blaming OCT for the actions of the company as applied beyond brandishing is itself at least as bad for us as their carry originally was. We’ve gotten where we are by being unapologetic for the actions of others and insisting that we not be grouped in with them. The addition of a handful of bad actors is not nearly as damaging as the pro RKBA community’s sudden willingness to be judged alongside them. We should declare ourselves different, citing the brandishing and confrontational nature of their behavior, and then move on to criticizing Chipotle for overreacting.

    Like

%d bloggers like this: