Shannon Watts is bullying another business. Pulls out all the crazy.

[iChokePeople]

Then you misunderstood the question. I had specifically mentioned Tilted Kilt in a prior post in this the thread to the fact that people went from this rally at the state house directly there to eat with while carrying their rifles. The people in the picture in front of chipotle did not force anything. The anti gun group did. They won that fight and I cannot understand why some of us are blaming the people rallying for our rights for that.

What would be a way of supporting and defending our rights? They took the time, spent money, and offered their reputation by attending that rally. Is griping about them doing that on the Interwebs somehow superior? I have not seen one single mention of anything that these people did wrong. I have not seen one single issue stated from anybody at chipotle saying they were in fear. All I have seen is a Twitter campaign by this Watt's dip that apparently many gun owners are now supporting. I am confused.

OK, I'll take the blame for failing to understand that what you MEANT was the Tilted Kilt part rather than the primary goal of the link you posted, which was a call to get people out to the state house. Good enough. Now, to answer the second part, a way of supporting and defending our rights WITHOUT making someone else who is in business to try to make money? Hmm... What could that be? Oh, perhaps the OTHER part of the link you posted -- the rally at the state house.

IMHO, unless a business has given its express permission, we should not be drawing them into this kind of situation. WE put them in a position where they get pressure to choose between "them" and "us". Very few businesses are going to choose our cause over what they perceive to be the best choice for continued profit and viability as a business. You can make all kinds of valid points about how wrong it is to choose profit over principles, but here's the thing: We're talking about BUSINESSES.

 

[femurphy77]

This may have already been discussed but do we know for sure that these two choads are really supporters and not some more of Bloomwatts or Wattsberg, or whatever her/his name is, lackies?

And if that's the case is it a defensable position for the Pro side? IOW, regardless of their potential stand as antis, by flexing their second amendment right in the most "photogenic" light they can, painting gun owners as. . . .well you saw the picture, how can you argue against this tactic? Pointing out that they are anti's presenting in the worst possible way to support THEIR cause is their right! It would actually be a pretty ingenious move on their part. So what if they are outed at a later date, no retailer will want to go thru that crap storm to eliminate any "policy" instituted as a result of such a pre-pubescent display.

If on the other hand those two idiots really are pro 2A they should be taken out behind the barn and given a good what for.

 

[Darral27]

OK, I'll take the blame for failing to understand that what you MEANT was the Tilted Kilt part rather than the primary goal of the link you posted, which was a call to get people out to the state house. Good enough. Now, to answer the second part, a way of supporting and defending our rights WITHOUT making someone else who is in business to try to make money? Hmm... What could that be? Oh, perhaps the OTHER part of the link you posted -- the rally at the state house.

IMHO, unless a business has given its express permission, we should not be drawing them into this kind of situation. WE put them in a position where they get pressure to choose between "them" and "us". Very few businesses are going to choose our cause over what they perceive to be the best choice for continued profit and viability as a business. You can make all kinds of valid points about how wrong it is to choose profit over principles, but here's the thing: We're talking about BUSINESSES.

I am going to assume you have not read the link so I am going to re post it...
?Seriously, WUT??: Moms Demand burritos not bullets, also loud singing and breastfeeding | Twitchy

It does not even say in the article that the people went inside. This is about a picture that was taken in front of Chipotle on a public sidewalk. Ms Watt's started a Twitter campaign to try to force Chipotle to make a statement against gun owners. Initially they came out and said they will simply follow local laws on carrying, the twitter campaign was ramped up until Chipotle caved.
Gun owners did not put Chipotle in any position to choose anything. Ms. Watt's saw a headline and she grabbed it. If this was "them" and "us" then "us" lost this one. It is not the first time it has happened but it would be nice to fight back instead of sitting in the corner crying.
What I MEANT, was clear to anybody who had taken the time to read the thread. The link I posted was a reminder since it has been a while since those Rally's were taking place, there were several.
It has happened multiple times that gun owners have made business's reverse their anti gun stance by using our money to talk. I am still confused why this time is any different.

 

[iChokePeople]

I've read it, but that's NOT the link that was in your post that I quoted. You can mix and match, though, it's ok. In the post to which I responded, the post that I quoted, you were posing the question about the difference between an OC event at a business, presumably without the consent or invitation of the business in question, vs. a call to a rally at the state capital. You can go back and read it, if you like. You've clarified now what you MEANT, and that's fine, but that was not the specific question asked that drew me in.

I also sincerely wish you good luck in using these kinds of tactics to OUR advantage, but that has not been the trend.

 

[femurphy77]

Perhaps all threads on this particular topic will be merged, in the meantime, although I'm not very eloquent here is my short note to Chipotle.

"I don't really expect much of a response on this but it doesn't do much good to take a stand if nobody knows your doing it; I just read an article in which it was basically stated that Chipotle was put in the unenviable position of having to overreact to an incident in order to appease the noisy minority. I'm talking about the incident involving one of your Dallas area restaurants, two idiots that don't represent anyone well and a loudmouth from just up the road by the name of Shannon Watts. In order to maintain "appearances" your corporation found it necessary to support this maniac and her keeper Michael Bloomberg. I am an firearms enthusiast and agree that said idiots could have represented the firearms community better but for people, corporations or any other entity to cave in to a paid loudmouth like Mrs Watts is truly sad. As to the stand that I am talking about it is the decision that I have made that my family and I will no longer be patrons of your Avon Indiana location or any other Chipotle location. We truly do enjoy the food there and will miss it but as small and insignificant as it is to a multi-million dollar operation, I'll take my disposable income that allows me to eat out several times per week and dispose of it in other ways. I'm not so much disappointed in your decision but more so in the way that sadly you chose to pander to that noisy or should it be nosy, woman with a personal vendetta to paint ALL gunowners in a negative light."

 

[Darral27]

I've read it, but that's NOT the link that was in your post that I quoted. You can mix and match, though, it's ok. In the post to which I responded, the post that I quoted, you were posing the question about the difference between an OC event at a business, presumably without the consent or invitation of the business in question, vs. a call to a rally at the state capital. You can go back and read it, if you like. You've clarified now what you MEANT, and that's fine, but that was not the specific question asked that drew me in.

I also sincerely wish you good luck in using these kinds of tactics to OUR advantage, but that has not been the trend.

What kind of tactics? Having a picture taken in front of a restaurant on a public sidewalk?
Ok, I will agree, if you looked at that single post by itself it may be confusing. If the whole thread is read it is clear. We agree.
I am not mixing and matching. This is a discussion about Chipotle and Ms. Watt's. I posted a link from a different thread that was a pretty clear explanation of what all of this is about. It is not about this rally, it is about a twitter campaign by an anti gun group. Again, nothing was stated anywhere about the gun owners even entering chipotle, certainly not anything said about anybody being scared or the gun owners being asked to leave. That would change things but those are not the facts available right now. I don't see that these people did anything different than what many INGO'ers did in the Rally link, they went to a Rally and then some of them went out to eat while still carrying. The debate we are having now seem's like more of an OC vs CC debate and that has been done to death.

 

[Bravo-4-2]

It's these losers, who do this crap solely to cause trouble, who are our worst enemy. If you can't figure out why carrying an AR into a family restaurant is idiotic, you have no business anywhere near firearms.

Every responsible gun owner should be the first to condemn these nutjobs.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

 

[SteveM4A1]

It's these losers, who do this crap solely to cause trouble, who are our worst enemy. If you can't figure out why carrying an AR into a family restaurant is idiotic, you have no business anywhere near firearms.

Every responsible gun owner should be the first to condemn these nutjobs.

I guess I'm not responsible then.

 

[Bollorollo]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RlIHDauX3ao

 

[SteveM4A1]

So you are suggesting it is common sense to carry a rifle into a private business which you cannot POSSIBLY obey all firearm safety rules with your muzzle simply because someone is at a rally and wants something to eat? What happens when you want something to eat after a trip to the range? Do you take your entire arsenal inside so it doesn't get stolen?

Quit trying to justify irresponsible actions by a few people wanting to make a splash. We don't need to use the anti's tactics for our side, they are the ones who look like a-holes usually and let's keep it that way.

How is it impossible? I am not saying these guys did it correctly (haven't looked at the pictures or know how they were carrying), but it is most certainly completely possible.

 

[Fordtough25]

I enjoy Chipotle whenever I can, wife and I love it. I carry there alll the time, but it's concealed and not a carbine.

 

[Cameramonkey]

To all those in agreement with the OC rifle crowd that still thinks its a good idea:

You OC'd your rifle in Starbucks. They went from neutral to negative. (though half-assed)
You OC'd your rifle in Jack in the box. They went from neutral to negative.
You OC'd your rifle in Chipotle. They went from neutral to negative.

So given the above history, Can you tell me with a straight face how you still think OCing a rifle into a private business to make a statement is helping maintain our gun rights and make business owners like us?

Honestly, I dont blame the businesses that are dealing with these guys. They exist to make as many customers as happy and comfy as they can to make the most money. If I openly stated that I was a firm supporter of the 1A, and suddenly jackwagons started carrying in soapboxes and spouting off fiery speeches in the middle of my dining room, I too might feel I needed to reconsider how actively I wanted to support the 1A in my business.

 

[Bill of Rights]

Letter sent:

Hello,
I have become aware that Chipotle has now reacted to the actions of some folks in Texas who entered your stores carrying rifles, by making a blanket policy that guns are not welcome there. If my gun is not welcome, I'm presuming you don't want my money, either, however, I do like Chipotle food and would like to propose a compromise that I think will work well.
Lawful gun owners do not cause nor perpetrate crime, in an overwhelming majority of cases. Criminals, to the contrary, do, and they don't obey laws, let alone policies or signs. It has also been shown that the lawful and responsible carry of firearms tends to deter criminals when they are aware it is present, or possible.
Thus, your position opens your stores to more crime, and I doubt this is what you want.
The compromise I'm suggesting is that your policy be that holstered handguns are not discouraged, even welcomed. A handgun in a holster will not discharge, and most of the time, will not be noticed.

I personally have never been to your restaurants unarmed, and no mayhem has resulted. It's not that I feel unsafe there; if I did, I would not go, but rather that when I go out, I get dressed, and part of that means sliding my sidearm into its holster. I choose to carry concealed, but have seen openly carried handguns as well, causing no problems.

May I suggest that you give consideration to this compromise? I think you'll find it a good way to pacify the anti-gun rights groups and also protect your stores with no cash outlay on your end.

I would appreciate your consideration and your reply.

Thank you,

(name redacted)

 

[iChokePeople]

^^. And as far as OC vs. CC... really? There are three examples of places that USED to be ok with OC. They didn't volunteer to be poster children for the pro-gun crowd, and they didn't agree to be lightning rods for a heated subject. Most larger businesses are funny like that. They TEND to stay away from polarizing topics that will hurt their bottom line. Yes, you have your exceptions, like Chick Fil-A (or however they write that...), but those are the exceptions. If we continue to put businesses in the position of having to choose, will our results improve? I certainly hope so, because it seems obvious that we're going to keep doing it. I know, I know, it's all HER fault, and THEIR fault, it's not because we have jackwagons who feel the need to pose in front of businesses with their ARs and .50s.

BOR sniped me, my arrows really should point at cameramonkey.

Also, for the record, I'm one of those who will stop doing business with Chipotle and send them a note expressing my dissatisfaction... but I wish people would stop it. I used to ENJOY going to Chipotle now and then, or Starbucks.

 

[Westside]

Just my two cents. But, I haven't seen anyone mention that allowing open carry Carrying a "Long Gun" into a Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission licensed business puts the business liquor licenses at risk. TABC Press Release Would you be willing to risk your business licensee?

 

[Expat]

The Tilted Kilt is a completely different thing. I know one group that went there after the rally and one of the guys called ahead, told the manager what was going on and asked if it was okay. So there you had a private business giving prior approval to them coming in with rifles slung.

 

[Cameramonkey]

^^. And as far as OC vs. CC... really? There are three examples of places that USED to be ok with OC. They didn't volunteer to be poster children for the pro-gun crowd, and they didn't agree to be lightning rods for a heated subject. Most larger businesses are funny like that. They TEND to stay away from polarizing topics that will hurt their bottom line. Yes, you have your exceptions, like Chick Fil-A (or however they write that...), but those are the exceptions. If we continue to put businesses in the position of having to choose, will our results improve? I certainly hope so, because it seems obvious that we're going to keep doing it. I know, I know, it's all HER fault, and THEIR fault, it's not because we have jackwagons who feel the need to pose in front of businesses with their ARs and .50s.

BOR sniped me, my arrows really should point at cameramonkey.

Also, for the record, I'm one of those who will stop doing business with Chipotle and send them a note expressing my dissatisfaction... but I wish people would stop it. I used to ENJOY going to Chipotle now and then, or Starbucks.

I agree, it is primarily HER fault. But when you have a small subsection of one side's population making waves and doing what is perceived by the masses as going over the top in exercising their rights, then we start to have issues.

Bottom line is we need to understand these companies dont actively SUPPORT our side... they simply are tolerant of it. But when you are actually indifferent to an issue and that side starts to alienate you, then you tend to shift your opinion. Thats what is happening here.

 

[Corporal D]

Was going to eat Chipotle today (like I have hundreds of times of the last 10 years), saw this. Ate at Moe's instead. Will continue to do so.

 

[indiucky]

For starters, Chipotle is a BUSINESS that is, presumably, trying to make money. The State Capital is... different.

Please tell that to the State Troopers on I64 and I65 heading into Louisville and collecting revenue from folks that were driving 70 mph (legally) and are suddenly in a 55mph zone with radars everywhere zinging them...Sometimes even the Capital is "trying to make money" as well....


As far as the open carry of bubbafied SKS's into a Mexican Food family restaraunt....I don't understand why they were doing it...Is it "Because they can?" I don't know.....

Technically the first amendment allows folks to stroll through a diverse neighborhood yelling racial slurs but the fact that you can do that does not make it any less of a bad idea or make one any less of a Jack Ass for doing so...

IMHO ofcourse