Thanks open carry idiots

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

thraashman

Lifer
Apr 10, 2000
11,103
1,550
126
This reminds me of Ian Malcolm's speech from Jurassic Park: "Your scientists were so preoccupied with whether or not they could that they didn't stop to think if they should." Just because you have the legal right to do something doesn't make it a good idea.
Exactly. It's not just about "can I do this", it's about "is this a good idea".

Chipotle has every right to do this but it's idiotic though. Liberals and gun control supporters are going too far. I do like the hypocrisy from the leftists though, Private business can discriminate against gun owners but they can't discriminate against anyone else.

I'm pretty sure if a restaurant wanted to ban homosexual people from having gay sex on their property, that would also be something liberals would support.
 

waggy

No Lifer
Dec 14, 2000
68,143
10
81
People have a lot of rights. It'd be a nicer world if they chose to use those rights appropriately, vs. being confrontational with those rights. Going into restaurants with a AK-47 strapped to your back, because you can, isn't that much removed from the idiots who exercise their right to free speech by protesting at funerals.

.

fully fucking agree. I'm all for allowing people to carry. but fucking idiots going with AR15's or AK-47 going into stores? fucking insane.

i fully agree with chipotle doing what they did.
 

WackyDan

Diamond Member
Jan 26, 2004
4,794
68
91
Chipotle has every right to do this but it's idiotic though. Liberals and gun control supporters are going too far. I do like the hypocrisy from the leftists though, Private business can discriminate against gun owners but they can't discriminate against anyone else.

Bingo.
 
Apr 27, 2012
10,086
58
86
Exactly. It's not just about "can I do this", it's about "is this a good idea".



I'm pretty sure if a restaurant wanted to ban homosexual people from having gay sex on their property, that would also be something liberals would support.

Not too sure about that. The usual suspects would cry homophobia. Most restaurants would want to ban anyone from having sex on their property because they would lose customers and it would damage the business.

Private businesses have the right to discriminate. If they wanted to ban me that would be alright and I would go somewhere else.
 

Daverino

Platinum Member
Mar 15, 2007
2,004
1
0
Not too sure about that. The usual suspects would cry homophobia. Most restaurants would want to ban anyone from having sex on their property because they would lose customers and it would damage the business.

Private businesses have the right to discriminate. If they wanted to ban me that would be alright and I would go somewhere else.

They can ban you for what you do in the store, not who you are in the store. If you had two brain cells and they could rub together to make a spark, you'd understand how obvious this is to everyone else.
 

OCGuy

Lifer
Jul 12, 2000
27,224
36
91
Ah yes, blame the victim.

Go ahead and fall for the Bloomberg "divide and conquer" tactics.
 

BlitzPuppet

Platinum Member
Feb 4, 2012
2,460
7
81
Sigh - to think that images like this may be a thing of the past . . .



I guess mommy didn't give these guys enough attention as kids.

Yet another AR15 Tool, and someone else disgracing an SKS.

These types of people are referred to as "Bubbas" in the gun world.
 

MasterOfUsers

Senior member
May 5, 2014
423
0
0
If i started going to restaurants with my cock out then chances are that they would be reasonable about it and ban people who have their cocks out from going there, not everyone who has a cock.

Chipotle could have just not allowed open carry at their premises.
 

halik

Lifer
Oct 10, 2000
25,696
1
0
These are the same typo of fucking cock heads that are the reason why we have to have seat belt and helmet laws. Because some motherfucker doesn't have the IQ to click his seat belt at 80mph, I now have to buckle up when moving my car to the street to sweep my garage.
 

OCGuy

Lifer
Jul 12, 2000
27,224
36
91
Unless they put up a sign, how would the CCW-only sissies be discovered and asked to leave? Certainly they are far too wise and experienced to accidentally get caught printing while they build their burrito bowl? (See, everyone can play this dumb game!)

Chipotle is only asking not to bring in weapons.

Oh and I am in the process of obtaining by CA CCW finally, since Orange County is abiding by this year's 9th circuit ruling. But if I ever sound like some of these idiots, slap me.
 

MasterOfUsers

Senior member
May 5, 2014
423
0
0
Yes they do. Fucking moron.

They literally don't.

I don't know why you are trying to have an argument that any retard with two brain cells can just go look up.

There is no discussion to be had on this subject, you're just wrong and either you know you are wrong but disagree with the laws or you are just ignorant of the law.
 

TallBill

Lifer
Apr 29, 2001
46,017
62
91
Though prior to the open carry idiots those who had CHL's could eat at Chipolte's without having to disarm, that's not possible now thanks to the dunderheads who don't care who they screw over.

Depending on the state, a "no firearms" sign doesn't legally mean that you can't bring in a firearm. It just means that if they find out and ask you to leave that you have go leave. But if youre carrying concealed then they should never know.
 

halik

Lifer
Oct 10, 2000
25,696
1
0
Unless they put up a sign, how would the CCW-only sissies be discovered and asked to leave? Certainly they are far too wise and experienced to accidentally get caught printing while they build their burrito bowl? (See, everyone can play this dumb game!)

Chipotle is only asking not to bring in weapons.

Oh and I am in the process of obtaining by CA CCW finally, since Orange County is abiding by this year's 9th circuit ruling. But if I ever sound like some of these idiots, slap me.

Because you'd be breaking the law?
 
Apr 27, 2012
10,086
58
86
Depends on whether they are open to the public or not, if they are then no they do NOT have a "right" to discriminate.

You might disagree with that being the law but it's the law all the same.

It's PRIVATE PROPERTY. What right does government have to force them to serve someone they don't want to. The law violates their rights. It's similar if there is a law that violates free speech.
 

SlushySolid

Member
Oct 10, 2013
80
0
0
It's PRIVATE PROPERTY. What right does government have to force them to serve someone they don't want to. The law violates their rights. It's similar if there is a law that violates free speech.

Yes, but (as everyone else has said multiple times) it's a business open to the public.
 

OCGuy

Lifer
Jul 12, 2000
27,224
36
91
It's PRIVATE PROPERTY. What right does government have to force them to serve someone they don't want to. The law violates their rights. It's similar if there is a law that violates free speech.

Business can reserve the right to refuse service to anybody. Just like they can decide they don't want to hire any applicant.

However, if it is implied directly in a single instance, or via a pattern over time, that the discrimination is based on a protected class, it is illegal.

As a 2A supporter, you also have to support a private business decision if you are asked to leave the premises. However, that doesn't mean you can't publically shame the company if their reasoning is due to pressure from the Bloomberg morons.
 

MasterOfUsers

Senior member
May 5, 2014
423
0
0
It's PRIVATE PROPERTY. What right does government have to force them to serve someone they don't want to. The law violates their rights. It's similar if there is a law that violates free speech.

What you are looking for is the word un-constitutional and no, it isn't.

If it was a right to open a business that is open to the public then any infringement would be un-constitutional.

Do you believe such a right exists?

If not then regulation of such businesses is perfectly constitutional and if it's in the interest of society to ensure they do not discriminate then that law would be both reasonable and constitutional.
 
sale-70-410-exam    | Exam-200-125-pdf    | we-sale-70-410-exam    | hot-sale-70-410-exam    | Latest-exam-700-603-Dumps    | Dumps-98-363-exams-date    | Certs-200-125-date    | Dumps-300-075-exams-date    | hot-sale-book-C8010-726-book    | Hot-Sale-200-310-Exam    | Exam-Description-200-310-dumps?    | hot-sale-book-200-125-book    | Latest-Updated-300-209-Exam    | Dumps-210-260-exams-date    | Download-200-125-Exam-PDF    | Exam-Description-300-101-dumps    | Certs-300-101-date    | Hot-Sale-300-075-Exam    | Latest-exam-200-125-Dumps    | Exam-Description-200-125-dumps    | Latest-Updated-300-075-Exam    | hot-sale-book-210-260-book    | Dumps-200-901-exams-date    | Certs-200-901-date    | Latest-exam-1Z0-062-Dumps    | Hot-Sale-1Z0-062-Exam    | Certs-CSSLP-date    | 100%-Pass-70-383-Exams    | Latest-JN0-360-real-exam-questions    | 100%-Pass-4A0-100-Real-Exam-Questions    | Dumps-300-135-exams-date    | Passed-200-105-Tech-Exams    | Latest-Updated-200-310-Exam    | Download-300-070-Exam-PDF    | Hot-Sale-JN0-360-Exam    | 100%-Pass-JN0-360-Exams    | 100%-Pass-JN0-360-Real-Exam-Questions    | Dumps-JN0-360-exams-date    | Exam-Description-1Z0-876-dumps    | Latest-exam-1Z0-876-Dumps    | Dumps-HPE0-Y53-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-HPE0-Y53-Exam    | 100%-Pass-HPE0-Y53-Real-Exam-Questions    | Pass-4A0-100-Exam    | Latest-4A0-100-Questions    | Dumps-98-365-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-98-365-Exam    | 100%-Pass-VCS-254-Exams    | 2017-Latest-VCS-273-Exam    | Dumps-200-355-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-300-320-Exam    | Pass-300-101-Exam    | 100%-Pass-300-115-Exams    |
http://www.portvapes.co.uk/    | http://www.portvapes.co.uk/    |