DISCLAIMER

By viewing this blog the user is explicitly holding the author or authors harmless of any defamation, libel or slander. Further they agree that they have travelled to the state of Florida and are subject to Florida laws and codes alone and hold that no law of the other 49 states or any county or municipal subdivision apply.

Viewing or use of this blog or any contents or links contained herein by any person or entity within the confines of the states of Arizona and/or Tennessee is prohibited . Violators of this policy agree to hold the owner of this blog, its contents and all links contained herein, harmless to any harm or offense taken or perceived.

Permission to use any content on this site is explicitly denied to Robert Farago, his family, his friends, his associates, his pets, and his employees and/or employer and/or their employees either in part or whole.

Permission to use any content on this site is explicitly denied to Kevin Richard Bartmess, his family, his friends, his associates, his pets, and his employees and/or employer and/or their employees either in part or whole. Use of this content or replication of any content found within, including links, renders violators of this policy subject to a charge of $16,000 (US) payable on demand.

04 June 2014

Unresolved Conflict

The OC thing is creating an unresolved (and likely ignored) conflict.

The libertarian inside me agrees, it's the business owner's right to refuse service and his right to bar people from carrying guns into his establishment.

That same libertarian voice also says that he can do that for any and all reasons, including because the customers are gay, black or Jewish.

In reality, he dare not refuse to serve someone base on sexual orientation, race or creed.  Because rights.

If he can refuse to serve or bar guns, it's not a right based on how other rights are treated in the marketplace.

You can try it at home by changing the actors and seeing if the phrase you are using changes from reasonable to unreasonable.

Such as, "How dare they go out in public as Jews?" instead of "How dare they go out in public openly carrying rifles."  Is that illustrative?

With all that said...

Having the right to do something doesn't always equate to it being a good idea to do something.

It's perfectly legal for me to set up a firing range in my back yard.  If I start shooting, there's going to be problems with the neighbors at a minimum and a visit from the sheriff's department in all likelihood (prolly with guns drawn).

The balancing act is rights vs manners.

The businessman probably should have a right to tell black people to shop elsewhere.  It's rude and it's likely a poor business decision nowadays because he'll get backlash from people who don't care for racism.

To show that I learned what more than a couple people tried to teach me: What the OC people did was rude to their fellow customers and the business owner, by tolerating their further presence, risks a backlash from people who don't really feel comfortable around guns.  We'd have to basically guarantee Chipolte Grill that we'd make up for all that lost business if they let rifle OC continue.

A problem I've mentioned before is that these large corporations are far more worried about the loss of revenue from people boycotting them over the issue than the actual danger of the presence of the guns or the discomfort of people who've already paid.

The OC people provided the excuse to do what they'd been wanting to do all along, ban guns from their stores.  This excuse gives them the cover they need to avoid the backlash that an unprovoked ban would cause.  Think back to how Starbucks worded their press releases before they finally had had enough of us and how we rejoiced at their being neutral.

2 comments:

  1. Here is the rub that I have with those pro-rights people opposing open carry of long guns

    What the OC people did was rude to their fellow customers and the business owner, by tolerating their further presence, risks a backlash from people who don't really feel comfortable around guns

    That is the same argument the antis make about Open and Concealed Carry of handguns. How many times have the antis tried to shame/blackmail businesses into posting "no guns allowed" signs using the exact same line ?

    I question how much of the perceptual difference between handguns and rifles is just in the minds of the gun community or how much the average non-gun owner cares. The antis certainly don't care; they protest either.

    We'd have to basically guarantee Chipolte Grill that we'd make up for all that lost business if they let rifle OC continue.

    Frankly I wonder if restaurants would lose business if they continued to allow Open Carry; especially here in Texas. Notice the definitive lack of people posting pictures, tweets, etc saying they were in the restaurants and we offended or scared? It is being driven by the Moms Demanding Action and the media in my opinion. Look at the number of times the antis have tried to organize a boycott; it hasn't worked.

    I'm torn on how to proceed. We definitely need to manage the message and the images better but not sure how we normalize Open Carry without actually Openly Carrying firearms....and in Texas, that is limited to Long Guns.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I tend to agree. I am very, VERY bad at expressing that agreement.

      I think a key thing that's missed here is that the upper rungs of these chains don't tend to be conservative gun-owning types. They don't LIKE that we're around but are (rightfully) afraid of what happens if they come out and are openly anti-gun. The OC flap provides them the cover they need to put up the sign without a backlash from the gun community because the pro-gun people are condemning the OC people.

      Delete

Try to remember you are a guest here when you comment. Inappropriate comments will be deleted without mention. Amnesty period is expired.