From the Department of Silly Boycotts

Mark of New Jersey

Mark is a Founding Editor of The League of Ordinary Gentlemen, the predecessor of Ordinary Times.

Related Post Roulette

110 Responses

  1. Jaybird says:

    When I think “California Pizza Kitchen Kinda People” I don’t tend to think “Open Carry”.

    As a matter of fact, this strikes me as the flip side of hippies boycotting Mazda Miatas.

    Yes, I suppose, there is a principle involved but I doubt that the boycott will result in so much as one missed sale.Report

  2. Scott says:

    Maybe it is silly, however it is their right to patronize those establishments they want. Personally I would rather go somewhere that allowed you to carry. Speaking of which, I think I’ll carry my pistol when I go out to dinner tonight.Report

    • Mark Thompson in reply to Scott says:

      Of course it’s their right. Just as it was the right of liberals to boycott Whole Foods because Mackey opposed the Dem health care bill. In both cases, though, the boycotts were silly. This boycott is particularly silly, though, given the location (California), and the nature of the policy giving rise to the boycott. Why is it necessary to organize a boycott of a place you’re not going anyways?Report

  3. Robb Allen says:

    Not silly at all. I’m a 2A activist and I pretty much agree that any business may decide at their leisure to decline my money. I’m all about freedom. There are several businesses I’ve declined to purchase from because of their anti-gun stance.

    You make the point that other people might be uncomfortable about sitting so close to a flaming gay man. Oh, wait, you said gun owner with his Deagle. I realize that my lifestyle choices might make some people uncomfortable and I have no problem with them staying home where their preconceived notions aren’t challenged. Whether that’s a couple enjoying their mixed marriage in public, members of the same sex looking longingly in each others’ eyes, or someone carrying a 1911, it’s the same concept. Bigotry takes many forms.

    I think it’s a bad business move on CPK’s part, but not too bad. They’ll lose some business (I’m more than happy to not pay twice as much for a fancy-shmancy mini-pizza), but overall they will probably not suffer anything that makes them rethink their policy. And criminals will still carry weapons into their establishments because, well, criminals have a tendency to not follow silly signs. At least criminals will know that CPK is a soft target.

    Oh well… I happen to like Domino’s new pizza enough to pay 1/2 as much for 2 pizzas. CPK has the right to make whatever asinine policy they want and I have the right to deny them my business. I don’t see why that’s silly.Report

    • rob in reply to Robb Allen says:

      This probably isn’t starting anything productive, but I feel compelled to mention that I doubt anyone’s every been shot by a gay couple’s marriage.

      And in case that comment comes off as peculiarly biased against gun-toting individuals, I’ll add that I’d feel just as uncomfortable next to a man with a machete. Because he’s holding an object whose purpose is to kill people.Report

      • Scott in reply to rob says:


        I can assure you that Ted Kennedy’s car has killed more people than any of my guns.Report

        • Mike Schilling in reply to Scott says:

          Yeah, but that cliche has caused more brain damage than either.Report

          • Scott in reply to Mike Schilling says:

            Maybe so, but that doesn’t make it any less true.Report

            • Mike Schilling in reply to Scott says:

              When I see someone who feels the need to brandish his weapons at a family restaurant, I’m going to ask to be moved to a different table and, if that isn’t possible, I’ll leave. Because if there is an attempt to rob the place, I’d rather not be next to someone who, unused to emergency situations, panics and does something stupid with me and my family in the line of fire.Report

              • Scott in reply to Mike Schilling says:

                Sitting at a table eating with a holstered weapon is hardly “brandishing” Try looking up the definition.Report

              • Mike Schilling in reply to Scott says:

                “Exhibit ostentatiously”? I’ve seen that done.Report

              • Scott in reply to Mike Schilling says:

                If someone is brandishing a weapon in public I can pretty much guarantee that they are breaking the law.Report

              • Reese in reply to Mike Schilling says:

                Because words still have meanings, let’s not forget the main definition of “to brandish” is – “to shake or wave (as a weapon) menacingly.” The secondary meaning, as Mike S. points out, is – “to exhibit in an ostentatious or aggressive manner.” I don’t see how walking into a restaurant and eating is ostentatious or aggressive. Now, if they’re wiggling it directly in your face, then I could understand using the secondary definition.Report

              • Jim in reply to Mike Schilling says:

                Sorry Mike, I have some real bad news for you. Fact is that your local Law enforcement officer has just about as much experience in the type of emergency situation you describe, as the people you disparage.
                how do I know, I’m a Law enforcement officer… And guess what? they just plain can’t train you for this. The situations are rare, unlike Hollywood will make you believe. And sure you can have all the simulation you want, but it does not come close in reality.

                Sorry to burst your bubble.Report

        • rob in reply to Scott says:

          I have no reason to doubt that both you and Mr. Allen would never think of using your sidearms to kill an innocent in the Pizza Kitchen, and I won’t bore you with my thoughts on the needless carnage produced by our cultural blindness to the grave responsibility for the safety of others that one bears every time one drives a car, though I suppose I’ve already started….

          But (a) I am left wondering why it’s important to bring them in, if not to use them for their intended purpose, and (b) as I think it’s rather hard to argue that the “Deagle” is meant to do anything other than kill people, perhaps with a small leap of imagination one could see that — given that purpose and that most of the people in any given restaurant are strangers, whose motivations one does not know — it is potentially discomforting for the unarmed to be confronted with devices for killing people while attempting to enjoy their pizza.Report

          • Scott in reply to rob says:

            It is important for the same reason you buy insurance for your car, house, or life. No one intends to get into a car accident, have a house destroyed, lose their life in an accident or a mugging. I only want to protect me and my loved ones from someone threatening us with deadly force. Given that the police do not have a legal duty to protect any citizen, it is up to me to protect myself. See Warren v. District of Columbia. Kind of ironic that my this case is from my hometown and that it use to have one of the strictest gun control laws.Report

            • rob in reply to Scott says:

              I don’t doubt that you “only want to protect”, but I assume you’ll concede that the means by which you would like to do so is by using a tool whose purpose is to kill people (or, to be less pithy, “to put bullets into people”; I really don’t think it unfair to describe the purpose of a handgun as “to kill people”, as that statement does not prejudge whether those people needed killing or not — which seems to be your defense — “But I want to carry my gun to the restaurant because someone there might need killing”).

              And, if you are willing to concede that, I only ask that you consider that, should you step into the Pizza Kitchen, the people who are there might reasonably — given that they do not know you — be unsure as to what your intentions with your gun are even though your intentions are not in fact threatening, and hence also reasonably be discomforted by that gun.

              Perhaps the confusion here is that I am responding to Mr. Allen’s argument (discomfort with the public display of guns is evidence of unreasonable bias) but talking to you (and you have not signaled your agreement with Mr. Allen’s argument).Report

              • Scott in reply to rob says:

                Actually I would hope that merely by showing my attacker that I am armed, I would be able to dissuade an attacker form pursuing his/her course of action without having to kill them.

                As far as those people made “uncomfortable” by seeing a gun. I think they should grow up. The purpose of Ted Kennedy’s wasn’t to kill people but that is what it did in his hands.Report

      • Sean Sorrentino in reply to rob says:

        “Because he’s holding an object whose purpose is to kill people.

        I guess that means my gun is defective since it hasn’t fulfilled its ‘intended purpose.’ Maybe you should consider that the connection between normal honest citizens carrying guns and mass mayhem exists only in your mind. You can get help for delusions like that, you know.Report

        • rob in reply to Sean Sorrentino says:

          (a) That an object has not been used for its purpose in no way indicates that that is not the purpose of the object.

          (b) No, the connection exists only in your rhetoric; I made no such connection. Rather, I attempted to explain why the discomfort some people feel at sharing a restaurant with gun-toting persons is not like the discomfort other people might feel at the presence of people whose lifestyle choices they don’t approve of.

          (c) Perhaps you could explain what the purpose of handgun is, if not to put bullets into people?Report

          • Robb Allen in reply to rob says:

            a) Then you agree with me. Just because Schlage intends that their keys be used to open locks doesn’t mean I can’t use them to dig the gunk out from under my fingernails. So, the intent of the designer is irrelevant in discussion since it has no bearing.

            b) The connection is the same. My parents made plenty of people uncomfortable since their skin colors did not match. There were plenty of restaurants who would have preferred they not eat there since it made other patrons uneasy. They harmed no one, it was simple bigotry.

            c) The purpose of a firearm is to expel a projectile via expanding gas. Would you consider my Ruger Mark III 22/45 a firearm designed to kill people? How about my Para .45? You probably would, except those are target pistols, used in competition.

            Surprisingly, it’s the bullet’s design that’s important if you wish to kill / hurt. A rubber bullet in a gun isn’t going to penetrate, but will hurt like the dickens. Chalk or paint projectiles are good for force on force training, not so good at causing deep wound channels. Shove a wad of paper and crimp the casing and you’ve got a blank with sound and fury, signifying nothing.

            Maybe you could explain why my guns don’t kill people since that’s their purpose.Report

            • rob in reply to Robb Allen says:

              Since we’re obviously not making any progress towards agreement here, let’s try another tack.

              What is the purpose of a Parker Trailblazer XP?Report

              • Robb Allen in reply to rob says:

                Easy. If I were to purchase it, it’s purpose / intent would be for a wall decoration. If I were to buy Nerf tipped arrows, I guess I could use it for fun games with the kids.

                Not being an archer, I could own it and it’s purpose has changed from any intent it may have been designed for (by the way, the definition of intent is “: the act or fact of intending : purpose;”).

                Now, Gaston Glock could design the G56 fully automatic 50 Beowulf to mow down entire orphanages, but if I buy it to blast watermelons for entertainment on my farm, it doesn’t matter.

                The point I’m trying to get across is that the intent / purpose of the pistol is that of the person wearing it. I carry my firearm not to shoot people, but to protect myself. The thug with the .22 revolver? His intent is different.

                Your problem, logically, is that you’re assigning your intent to someone else. Just because someone carries a gun no more makes them a criminal than your penis makes you a rapist.Report

              • rob in reply to Robb Allen says:

                The point I’m trying to get across is that the intent / purpose of the pistol is that of the person wearing it.

                We have a underlying disagreement, here (I’d say objects have purpose apart from intent; you think those things are synonymous). I suppose it might be resolved if we agreed to talk about “mechanism” (i.e. “the mechanism by which a handgun protects its bearer from other people is its ability to shoot bullets at people, even when that ability is only potential and not used”), as I’ve tried to explain that I’m not talking about “intent”, but probably not.

                As this disagreement seems unlikely to disappear and I think I’ve made my point well enough, I’ll make this my last comment; have a great weekend.Report

              • Robb Allen in reply to rob says:


                If I can help you with your argument a bit – I would not carry a firearm if it did not have the ability to eject a bullet that would wound a human being. I wouldn’t carry a banana to keep the rain off my head either. From personal experience, I can attest to the fact that many times a shot does not have to be fired to be effective. Many people will obey a cop because he has a gun.

                The thing is though that what you’re talking of is a generality that isn’t quite true. Most of my firearms are for sport. My shotgun is both for sport (trap & sporting clays) and home defense. My carry piece is for defense, which is a point I think you’re missing.

                I could own a Ma Duce, .50 Caliber Automatic Machine Gun mounted to a tripod and be no more a danger to you or society at large than a speck of dust. A thug with a sharp stick is a danger to society. California Pizza Kitchen’s rule makes no distinction between the law abiding and the criminal, and hence why some of us have our Smith & Wesson panties in a wad.

                You have a great weekend too, and if you’re ever in central Florida, let me know and I’ll take you to a range and we can poke holes in paper – which constitutes probably 99% of all gun usage 😉Report

      • Joe in reply to rob says:

        They may not have been shot by one, but it doesn’t mean you are safe with one. (look up Jesse Dirkhising, Christopher Newsom and Jeffrey Dahmer; every social group has their violent types)

        As for the only purpose of a gun is to kill, then why are all the police armed? It isn’t their job to kill, or even to protect an individual.Report

    • Of course it’s your right to boycott. In this case, though, it seems particularly silly and pointless. I would think that the efforts of activists would be better spent pushing for legislative changes rather than focusing on the private sector.Report

    • Robb Allen in reply to Robb Allen says:

      I assure you, as someone who posts under his real name, I am not a troll.

      To clear the air, I fully support CPK’s right to declare their establishment off limits to gun owners, people who wear shirts decorated with giraffes, close talkers, flamboyant homosexuals, proselytizing Christians, angry atheists, and Gary Coleman. I would fully expect that the Gay Giraffe Nonbeliever’s Gary Coleman Fan Club for Jesus would feel the need to no longer patronize the establishment. If the CPK does not wish to have their restaurant used as a meeting room for a particular group, I have no interest in changing the laws so that they are required to.

      Now, as to the fallacy that a gun is an object whose purpose is to kill people, I hate to break it to you but a gun is an inanimate object. It can no more transfer intent than crystals worn around your neck can cure baldness and bad attitudes. Harald Wüsthof may make each and every chef’s knife with the intent that they only be used on poultry, meats, and vegetables, but that doesn’t mean some idiot isn’t going to stab someone else with it.

      Even if I granted you that argument and guns DID magically transfer ill intent, they’re not very good at it. In the US, there are 9 guns for every 10 people (270,000,000) under civilian control and oddly, we’re not experiencing a 90% reduction in the population. The survival rate of people shot by handguns is around 80%. The reason is that handguns are underpowered as they sacrifice power for portability.

      People who have CCWs are not the problem. People who like to Open Carry are not the problem. Criminals who are not going to follow signs or laws are the problem.Report

      • rob in reply to Robb Allen says:

        (a) As I asked Sean, perhaps you can explain what the purpose of a handgun is, then? (I quite intentionally exempted other categories of firearm, such as rifle, which have long been used for other purposes).

        (b) Inanimate objects have purposes; this seems completely obvious to me. (What is the purpose of a keyboard? To type. What is the purpose of a bottle opener? To open bottles. What is the purpose of a hunting rifle? To hunt animals. And so on, to handguns, whose purpose is to shot people.)

        (c) Purpose and intent are separate issues; I addressed purpose, not intent. I noted that I see no reason to think that any of the gun owners posting here harbor any ill intent towards innocents, but that has little to do with what the purpose of a handgun is.Report

  4. ed bowlinger says:

    I’m fascinated by the 2A activist who immediately compared his desire to carry a gun to erotic love. That’s got to be a troll, right?Report

    • Jaybird in reply to ed bowlinger says:

      I think it’s more that he was more making a comparison between the pearl-clutchers screaming about how easily offended they are than making a comparison between the two acts.

      I make comparisons between people who oppose Loving v. Virginia and those who oppose gay marriage even while I know that SSM is substantially different than white and black people intermarrying. (A fun answer to the “do you support gay marriage?” question: “are they both white?”)Report

    • McDevite in reply to ed bowlinger says:

      “This is my rifle, this is my gun. This is for business, this is for fun.”Report

  5. Bob Cheeks says:

    Best pizza in the world is Orlando’s in beautiful downtown East Liverpool, Ohio. Back in the day when the atrabilious Orlando hisself was still alive not only were guns welcomed but Orlando kept a 1911 under the counter for the drunks who’d wander over from the gin mills across the street.
    An aside, one night in the summer of 1963 my pals put Orlando’s VW on the sidewalk and when he found out he chased them down the street furiously waving his butcher knife while shouting obsenities. His son and grandson run the place fifty years later.Report

    • Now that’s a good pizza joint! I’ve got Phil’s down the road from me a mile or two. No memorable stories, but he’s been there for at least the 25 years I’ve known this area, probably a lot longer. I’ve been going there ever since, and it’s just as good as the first day – crispy, flavorful, thin crust, fresh-made sauce, perfect amount of toppings…I can’t eat any of the chain pizzas without shaking my head in anger at the way they’ve bastardized a simple work of art.Report

      • Jaybird in reply to Mark Thompson says:

        The Roman Forum in Canton (or is it Plymouth?) Michigan.

        We used to go there when I was a little kid and I thought it was the classiest place in the world. Dimmed lights, candles, fake suits of armor in the entryway…

        We went back a couple of years ago. I noticed signs discussing the next rotary meeting… that, apparently, had always been there. The suits of armor were smaller and shorter than I had remembered.

        The pizza had not changed one jot. No, not one tittle.

        This just might be the only reason to live in the Lower Peninsula.Report

      • Bob Cheeks in reply to Mark Thompson says:

        Mark, Orlando’s pizza was sold by the slice..$.10/piece! And, the secret was the old man made the pizza on a large tray with a Camel cigarette happily burning away in his mouth (that’s before there were tobacco nazis!) and we all watched to see when those ashes were going to drop in to pizza…when they did, we ordered our slices from that tray!
        The dude had 16 inch biceps and threw small pieces of dough at the little kids, who’d try and catch ’em in their mouths…you had to be there, it ain’t like that anymore!Report

  6. Aaron says:

    “Oh – and I’ve had California Pizza Kitchen. The answer to that question is a resounding “NO!” You West Coasters have no idea what real pizza (read: pizza from NY or NJ) tastes like.”

    Okay, as someone who currently lives in California that has also lived in NJ, California Pizza Kitchen is some s—-y knockoff of Cheeseboard Pizza in Berkeley. If you want a really good west coast pizza, you should go there if you’re ever in the Bay Area. It’s not the same as NY pizza, but trust me, it won’t disappoint.

    That being said, people irresponsibly carrying around firearms in the open at commercial establishments gives us that do like to enjoy our second amendment rights responsibly a bad name.Report

    • Robb Allen in reply to Aaron says:

      How is open carrying irresponsible? Are these people twirling their firearms and pretending to be the Lone Ranger or something? I’d wager that there is a much greater percentage of responsible people who carry than there are people who drive.

      If I could, I’d OC most of the time. I live in Florida where shorts and t-shirts are the norm and OC would be much more comfortable in the warm climb.Report

  7. From Mark: “You’re in California, not Kentucky – other customers really do feel uncomfortable sitting next to a dude proudly displaying his Desert Eagle. “

    As much as I would like to say, yes, we Kentuckians are bad mother f-ckers and we aren’t scared of someone carrying a firearm into a restaurant, I’m willing to bet a few people would at least stare if someone walked in strapped. With that said, I don’t really understand the desire to do so. My opinion is this: If you want to carry in public, be respectful and get a CCL. Otherwise, leave the gun in the car. I’ve never ran into any problems carrying concealed in public. That’s why we have the permits. Now a more worthy use of that protest time would be lobbying to get the costs of getting a permit reduced.

    “Oh – and I’ve had California Pizza Kitchen. The answer to that question is a resounding “NO!” You West Coasters have no idea what real pizza (read: pizza from NY or NJ) tastes like.”

    I rarely get their pizza but they have some kick-ass salads. The Thai Crunch Salad is on my short list of things to eat at my last meal if I should ever find myself getting ready to walk the Green Mile.Report

    • Good point about the CCL thing. Although I don’t know whether CA’s CCL requirements are unusually restrictive, which could be a problem.Report

    • Here in Florida, we’re allowed to carry practically everywhere. However it must be concealed. There are very few gotchas (like, I can sit at a table and have a beer within arms reach of the bar, but I cannot sit AT the bar).

      From my understanding, carrying in California is a patchwork of laws.Report

      • Reese in reply to Robb Allen says:

        Also, open carrying in California must be done with an unloaded firearm. You can carry spare magazines/ speed loaders with ammunition in them, but the gun must be empty.Report

      • Sean Sorrentino in reply to Robb Allen says:

        Robb, it’s my understanding that if you can get the California equivalent of a concealed carry permit, there are very few restrictions on where you can carry. it’s just damned near impossible to get in most locations.Report

        • Blake in reply to Sean Sorrentino says:

          This is correct, CA is a MAY issue state, not a SHALL issue state. There was a bill to correct this recently introduced in CA, but it did not make it out of the first committee hearing. It is not impossible to get a concealed carry permit, but is is so difficult that it might as well be impossible. I have heard that in the very rural areas you have a chance of your Sheriff granting you the privilege of exercising your right, but in any populated area you are out of luck (unless connected, famous, or heavy campaign contributer). Therefore, people are stuck with open carry as the only way to go.Report

    • Current law in Kentucky is that we have Concealed Carry Licenses which aren’t hard to get (except for the expense which I believe is a bit too high). We can also keep a loaded firearm in our glovebox which is what a lot of my friends without CCL take advantage of.

      I think the fact that CCL’s are so widespread now should render the need for open-carry moot. As a gun owner I am all about our Rights but I also think we have to be respectful of changing cultural norms. Open carry hasn’t been a public norm since the 1800’s. It’s exactly the same reason that hunters stopped strapping deer to the hood of their station wagons. It makes us look bad and it causes unneccessary animosity.Report

      • Sean Sorrentino in reply to Mike at The Big Stick says:

        “but I also think we have to be respectful of changing cultural norms”

        Cultural norms be damned. Cultural norms change, rights do not. In PA, to carry concealed or in a car i have to have a government issued permission slip. To walk down the street open carrying, i do not. It is up to us to change those cultural norms back.

        as for strapping the deer to the hood, there seems to be two reasons for not doing that. One, the engine heat spoils the meat, and two, there are a LOT more pickup trucks in general use these days.Report

  8. Sam M says:

    I am not sure the ban is “silly.” Apparently, this was a group of open-carry enthuiasts looking for a place to hold a meeting. I think it pretty much makes sense for them meet in a place that allows them to, you know… engage in the practice that serves as the motivating, organizing reason for their group’s existence. You wouldn’t consider it silly for a group of people united in their love of swimming to choose not to meet at a beach where swimming is not allowed. A group of opera singers might choose not to meet at a library. Sure, taking that next step to an organized boycott seems like it’s taking things too far, but many groups care deeply about things I don’t care about. And I sort of expect them to put whatever public pressure they can on whatever establishements that shut them out.

    But I might add that these people would seem to have standing for some kind of lawsuit, no? There are all kinds of laws that impact a business’s rights. For instance, in many places, I am not allowed to permit smoking in my bar, even if my patrons and I agree that we want that kind of environment. And smoking is not a constitutionally recognized right.

    If the law permits me to open-carry, and a business is a public accomodation… is there any reason I should not expect to be able to carry in such a place? The business owner’s wishes do not carry any weight at all, in most cases.

    The libertarian in me would prefer that business owners be permitted to allow whatever they want to allow and ban whatever they wanted to ban. But then you recall the whole lunch counters in the South thing.

    These slopes. Slippery!Report

    • Mark Thompson in reply to Sam M says:

      It strikes me as exceedingly unwise to turn gun rights into a positive rights question, as public accommodations laws are. Once you enter the realm of positive rights, you enter the realm of allowing the State to pretty tightly define those rights.Report

      • Sean Sorrentino in reply to Mark Thompson says:

        “It strikes me as exceedingly unwise to turn gun rights into a positive rights question”

        they aren’t. No one wants to further abridge the property rights of the owners of any property. but people need to know that actions have consequences. when you piss off a group of people, you lose money. while there are few open carriers anywhere, there are a lot of 2A rights people. we are all looking for a place to eat on friday nights. it only takes something like this to make us pass by with our dollars still in our wallets. how stupid is it to lose money to Del Taco because you are too tightly wound to serve a bunch of guys who are carrying the only way the law allows. and not bothering anyone.

        one of these days the anti-gun bigots will learn to let it go. we don’t have to justify WHY we want to exercise our rights. it is up to the other side to justify why we can’t, and justify it to the Supreme Court, not the Court of Public Opinion. Even then, expensive pizza joints will be perfectly within their rights to lose money to Del Taco.Report

    • Mike Schilling in reply to Sam M says:

      You wouldn’t consider it silly for a group of people united in their love of swimming to choose not to meet at a beach where swimming is not allowed.
      No, but I’d think it’s idiotic to meet at a restaurant dressed in swim trunks and snorkels.Report

  9. Sam M says:


    But isn’t the logic pretty similar to the smoking bans? The idea seems to be that people have a right to clean air. Smoking dirties the air. So we ban smoking.Report

    • Sean Sorrentino in reply to Sam M says:

      oh, yeah, that’s the ticket. carrying guns dirties the view? gun oil makes your pizza taste funny? or is it that when you see a gun your balls shrink up into your belly and you know yourself for a coward? and since we MUST protect your self-esteem, we should ban the carrying of guns.

      go take a gun safety course, learn to shoot, and get over the childish fear of an inanimate object.Report

      • zic in reply to Sean Sorrentino says:

        Does this imply that in order to be brave and have big, brazen balls, you must carry a gun? Or, perhaps, that folks who feel compelled to carry guns don’t feel big and brave without them?Report

        • Robb Allen in reply to zic says:

          The grown ups are trying to have a conversation. Please leave the childish insults at the door, okay?

          If you’d like, please visit my website and start clicking on my 2A links. You’ll find links to a handicapped librarian, a young mother, a rape victim, lesbians who do not wish to be bashed, a paraplegic veteran, a young gentleman with a debilitating disease, as well as plenty of us healthy males. Not everyone here can simply run away or fight against a single attacker. Even I, as a former Marine, would not be a match against a group of younger males. It’s no more about being ‘ballsy’ than wearing a seatbelt makes you a NASCAR wannabe.

          I can walk around without a pistol. I have no crippling fear of leaving my house without it. People like you, on the other hand, appear to have a crippling fear of others taking care of themselves.Report

          • zic in reply to Robb Allen says:

            The grown ups are trying to have a conversation. Please leave the childish insults at the door, okay?

            Where are they? You’re still trying to prove how brave you are, even when you don’t have a gun.

            Not proof of grown-upness in my childish world view.Report

        • Sean Sorrentino in reply to zic says:

          “Does this imply that in order to be brave and have big, brazen balls, you must carry a gun?”

          No. It means that when you have an unfounded fear reaction to the MERE SIGHT of a firearm, you are a coward. If you were brave, or at least not a whining chicken, you would shrug your shoulders and walk on. Instead, your stomach knots up and your run whining and crying to the nearest authority figure (mommy and daddy, the cops) and demand that this scaaaaarrry gun be removed from your sight.Report

        • Blake in reply to zic says:

          Zic, my mom doesn’t have balls of any size. She does have a bad back, high blood pressure, and arthritis on the way. She also lives in what is now a crappy neighborhood (in a crappy town; google Vallejo, CA police layoff). She is 5 feet tall and 100 lbs. She carries a pistol in her purse (concealed, illegally, since this is California, and she is not a celeb, or a politician). She doesn’t feel big and brave with or without her gun. Shall we have her prove herself by hand-to-hand combat with the packs of 19 year old thugs that roam her neighborhood? Self-defense is a human right, no matter where in the world you are, and no matter what your government has written on a piece of paper.Report

          • Jaybird in reply to Blake says:

            Castle Rock v. Gonzales is an interesting case.
            DeShaney v. Winnebago County is another.

            The Supreme Court has found that The State is not obliged to provide protection to individuals. It’d be nice, of course… but if, say, the cops fail to enforce a restraining order? Eh. These things happen. If the state fails to remove an abused child from his abusive father despite social services knowing all about the abuse? Eh. These things happen.

            The state is not your friend. It is not your protector. It is not looking out for you.

            Buy a gun.Report

          • Bob Cheeks in reply to Blake says:

            Blake, God bless and protect your mom, though appears she’s doing and excellent job! And, yes if we ever had a ‘right’ , inalienable or otherwise, it’s surely the one to self-defense.Report

    • Joe in reply to Sam M says:

      The Logic of the smoking bans ? You mean where the people that hate smoking weren’t smart enough to not patronize an establishment that allowed smoking, or start up their own business that provided the same services in a smoke free environment ? Where they forced the business owners to bend to their will and did not compensate them for lost revenue ?Report

      • Sam M in reply to Joe says:

        Sean and Joe,

        For what it’s worth, I am about as pro-gun as they come. And I dislike smoking bans, despite being a non-smoker.

        My point goes back to the logic of these bans and questions of property rights. Someone who hates smoking and thinks he deserves “clean air” in a restaurant can demand that the restaurant owner provide him this atmosphere. Despite the fact that smoke-free air is not metnioned anywhere in the constitution. What I was getting at is that gun owners might have an interesting case to make: You, California Pizza Kitchen, MUST provide me the atmosphere I am looking for, which means you must allow me to open carry. I was suggesting that the case might be MORE compelling because there is actually a constitutional amendment attached to firearms.

        I honestly doubt this would hold any water at all, of course. I am just surprised nobody has tried this angle. Lots of lawyers out there.

        To be clear, I think such a lawsuit would be ridiculous in addition to being ineffective. For the same reason I think smoking bans are ridiculous.Report

        • Joe in reply to Sam M says:

          The gun owners could make that case but unfortunately, like with the smoking bans, the Antis could make the claim as well. They could claim that it is their right to be provided a gun free environment everywhere they go to eat, shop, etc. (Of course they pitch a fit when it is shown how badly their policy fails like with Luby’s, San Ysidro McDonald’s, Virginia Tech, Columbine, etc.)

          There are 2 camps of banners, The one that wants an environment where they don’t have to look at a gun unless it’s attached to a badge, or on a big/little screen (where they get all their factual knowledge). The 2nd being the enablers who think they are better then the average citizen and think they should be the only ones allowed to protect themselves because they are special (Politicians, Judges, Police, Actors, etc. can fall into this category). Guns scare them; whether it is because the news reports on how they are misused or accidents that happen, projection of how they wouldn’t be able to control themselves if they had a gun therefore everyone who has one will act the same way, or outright contempt for the “little” people that dare think of protecting themselves.

          We should not use the tools they employ, like with the smoking ban, to force a business owner to allow guns in their establishment. It would make the gun owners just as bad as the anti-smoking/anti-gun zealots for trampling others rights.

          I have taken my stance one step further, I have told the anti-gun people that I respect their right to not like guns and I would honor that right. My gun is to protect me, my family, friends that I know are pro gun ownership, a child who is too young to protect themselves, and if the situation arose a police officer who needed it in the course of duty. I will not use my gun to protect another who has not taken the steps to obtain the ability to protect themselves. I will simply call 911 and wait for the police to handle the situation. After all, that is what they want, that is what I will give them.Report

        • Sean Sorrentino in reply to Sam M says:

          The owner’s property rights trump all. It’s his (or her) house. If he or she want to tell me and my friends that we are not welcome, that’s legal and binding. They do need to understand that when my friends and I get told that we are not welcome because of our guns, we will not simply put them away and come back. We will also tell all of our friends that we will not patronize this place, and this is why. We will vote with our dollars. I will not participate in anything that takes even more property rights away from the owners. We need to move away from the paradigm of “there ought to be a law.”

          Here in PA, we really don’t have that much of a problem. Mostly people don’t care. We don’t make a big show of things, we just sit down and eat. Waving a gun around and/or acting in an unsafe manner gets people hurt or jailed. We carry to protect ourselves from criminals, not to BE criminals.

          The other end of this is the signal that is sent to anyone who might have criminal intent. That signal is “Hey! No one in here can fight back!” Do you want to post a big sign on your door that says “Gun Free Easy Victim Zone?” Then why would you eat at a restaurant that posts such a sign?

          The simplist and easiest solution is, when a customer complains, you (as the manager) tell him that the people he is complaining about are peaceable citizens that are not bothering anyone. They are following the law. Once you tell someone that no one is breaking the law, almost all of them let it drop.

          The other thing that has to happen is for Police Dispatchers, upon receiving the “Man with a Gun” call is to ask one simple question. “What’s he DOING with the gun?” If he isn’t doing anything illegal, advise the citizen that no laws are being broken.Report

  10. Sam M says:

    “I’d think it’s idiotic to meet at a restaurant dressed in swim trunks and snorkels.”

    Do you? I used to tend bar at a restaurant located right next to a marina. People showed up in that kid of attire all the time.

    Besides, since when do we base or decisions on what’s idiotic and what’s not? I think all kinds of people do all kinds of idiotic things where they eat. I certainly think that the restaurants are within their rights to ban them. But come on. Is it “idiotic” for people to meet in a place that allows them to engage in the pursuit they are meeting to discuss? Is it really “idiotic” for nudists to prefer meeting at, say, a nudist colony? Yes, I think Burger King should be allowed to ban nudists. But when they do, I would fully expect the nudists to say, “Well, I guess we shouldn’t meet there. And you know what? Screw Burger King. In the next issue of the Nudist Colony News, we ought to tell people we got banned from there, and encourage them not to patronize Burger King.”

    I come from a backwoods place, where lots of people carry. I have seen people carrying in restaurants quite often. None of it struck me as particularly idiotic. I assume of the manager at one of these restaurants had asked the people to put the guns in the car, they would have. Maybe a few of them would have refused to come back. But people choosing where to eat based on the atmosphere of the place hardly strikes me as a sign of low intellect.Report

    • Mike Schilling in reply to Sam M says:

      Oh, I don’t think there are any villains here. If more patrons are made uncomfortable by the carriers than want to carry, the restaurant should be free to ban carrying. And then the carriers should feel free to express their displeasure and advise people not to eat there. And we all get to be pizza snobs who wouldn’t be caught dead at a big chain in the first place.Report

  11. Chirol says:

    Real pizza? NY and NJ have crappy Americanized pizza from 20th generation working class retards. If you want real pizza go to Italy. Then you’ll stop calling the stuff here ‘pizza’ just like a trip to Belgium/Germany will make you realize AMerica does not have any domestic “beer.”Report

  12. Jeff says:

    I carry concealed and am not a mass murderer. I carry all the time, on par with having car keys and a cell phone in my pocket. This restaurant is a private business, and I respect their right to make the decision that suits their needs. Consumers who carry have a right to not patronize those places. Business 101.Report

  13. Uncle Lar says:

    Any firearm is an engine designed to convert stored chemical energy (gunpowder) into kinetic energy (the projectile aka bullet) much as an auto converts gasoline into vehicle travel. The reasons for creating that energy conversion are many, from hunting to sport to self defense. A handgun is merely a power tool for applying energy designed such that it is more readily available than larger firearms. In truth almost any long arm will do the same job as a handgun better, the only problem being they are more difficult to keep close to hand. So, in some respects the handgun serves the same purpose as that silly baby spare tire some vehicles carry, sacrificing functionality for portability. Then too, if handguns are such evil devices why do all American cops carry them, and why do nearly all police insist on remaining armed even when off duty? And do not say it’s a matter of training as a typical permit holder may easily study and practice far more than a typical law enforcement officer.Report

  14. zic says:

    Open carry would be so much more relevant if it were about cans of PBR on the street or into your fav dining establishment.Report

  15. perlhaqr says:

    Power of the internet… After reading this, I believe I’ll inquire as to the policies of the local franchises of CPK before I eat there again. I’m not in California, so the question is more than academic.Report

  16. Cascadian says:

    Why is it assumed that only “criminals” shoot people? Is this an after the fact designation. A story just popped up on my google page about a granny with a concealed weapons permit that gunned down her ex daughter in law. I suppose she’s a criminal now, though that hardly helps.Report

  17. zic says:

    Meh. The second amendment is written to support “a well organized militia.” The origins of the phrase “to bear arms” means to serve in the military bearing arms. I’m sure even Martha asked Geroge to leave his gun at the door when he came to the table. Spinning it the way you guys are, we’re talking about your right to bear fighter jets, nukes, and predator drones to dinner.

    And while your at it, demand my right to open-carry a spleef, a weapon of peace, while walking down Main St.Report

    • Robb Allen in reply to zic says:

      Maybe if you were better read or paid attention to things like… oh, I dunno, the Heller case, you’d not make such demonstrably false statements.

      C for effort. Try again.Report

      • zic in reply to Robb Allen says:

        Oh goody, I was hoping for this. Didn’t the SC just decide it was okay to overturn settled legal precedent when it comes to the Bill of Rights?Report

        • Jaybird in reply to zic says:

          Oh, wonderful.

          Maybe we can get the Supreme Court to agree that waterboarding isn’t torture so we can do that to people who are snarky to TSA agents.Report

          • zic in reply to Jaybird says:

            Or on blogs, too.

            Virtual water boarding, it’s what friends are for. My avatar, if I had one, would obviously have gills.Report

            • Jaybird in reply to zic says:

              Overturning settled legal precedent is something that ought not be done lightly, sure.

              Even I am not so conservative that I think it ought never be done.Report

              • Bo in reply to Jaybird says:

                For example, on legal precedents I disagree with.Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Bo says:

                My definition is a (typically) crazy one.

                Is the court shifting power away from the government toward the citizenry?
                Then it’s a good overturning of precedent.

                Is the court shifting power away from the citizenry and giving it to the government?
                Then it’s probably “judicial activism”. See, for example, Kelo v. New London.Report

              • Bo in reply to Jaybird says:

                So, on legal precedents you disagree with?Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Bo says:

                There are many ways to disagree with something.

                One could say “the leprechaun in my head says that it’s evil and I ought to set it on fire along with everything else in this wicked world”.

                One could say “I don’t like people who look like you and you said that so I disagree with it because I don’t like you based on what you look like”.

                One could say “your argument has a number of logical fallacies and thus I disagree with it”.

                To conflate the last example with the first or second and bundle all of them up and say “so you disagree with it?” as if disagreement is evidence in itself of having leprechauns in one’s head or insurmountable bias is…

                Well, it’s a logical fallacy.Report

              • Bo in reply to Bo says:

                If I noted that I don’t believe for a second that you ever disagree with anyone because of the leprechauns in your head or how your opponents look, would you be offended? You are, however, a spectacularly one trick pony on framing political arguments as returning government power to the people. Which I don’t think should offend you either.Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Bo says:

                Pointing out that someone disagrees with things that go against fundamental premises they make is…

                Well. It doesn’t strike me as terribly fruitful.

                As for folks who think that Dick Cheney and/or Obama and/or the next flavor of the week ought to make their decisions for them, it never ceases to amaze me that they are oh-so-very thick on the ground.Report

              • Bo in reply to Bo says:

                Sigh. Sure, and we could eliminate our Army and police so people can decide how to defend themselves on their own, and our courts so people can decide whether to fulfill contracts on their own, and our healthcare system so we can decide to spend twice as much for worse healthcare. Oh wait, that last one actually is what happens.

                The state where decisions are completely returned to the individual is generally known as lawlessness, an idea that a judicial system (by definition no less) can not and should not exist to further. That’s true even if you have a clever quip postulating that that means I support Cheney deciding whether to cover my crown replacement or not.Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Bo says:

                I don’t see your crown replacement as Cheney’s business, on any level, whatsoever.Report

    • Scott in reply to zic says:

      Try reading the U.S. Code about the militia—-000-.htmlReport

    • mike w. in reply to zic says:

      Spinning it the way you guys are, we’re talking about your right to bear fighter jets, nukes, and predator drones to dinner.

      The only one bringing up jets, nukes & predator drones is you oh paranoid one.

      Still sticking to the “collective rights” interpretation despite all evidence to the contrary eh? What other rights in the BOR are “collective?”Report

    • Dave in reply to zic says:


      Your interpretation of the Second Amendment was soundly rejected by the majority opinion in Heller and brought more than enough convincing evidence of the 2nd Amendment’s origin as an individual right.

      Escalating the issue of the constituitonal language of arms to military grade weapons is the 800-lb strawman in the room. We have been discussing property rights, self defense and the permissibility of open-carry and concealed carry laws.

      Didn’t the SC just decide it was okay to overturn settled legal precedent when it comes to the Bill of Rights?

      No. Precedents have been overturned in the past. I’m sure you were turning cartwheels over Lawrence v Texas, which overturned prior precedent known as Bowers v Hardwick (good riddance). There was that whole Brown v Board of Ed thing too.Report

  18. mike w. says:

    A gun is not “designed to kill” anymore than a spoon is “designed” to make people fat.

    The question is HOW do the gun, spoon, car or any other inanimate object DO the things they’re designed to do?

    The gun doesn’t kill, maim or destroy targets, doesn’t prevent tyranny or launch projectiles without (and these are key words….) INTENT or CONSCIOUS MANIPULATION by a HUMAN BEING.

    Likewise, a car doesn’t drive without those 3 factors I’ve capitalized and bolded above, nor does a spoon feed someone (or overfeed them) without the presence of those 3 things.

    The purpose of your car is for transportation, however if someone INTENDED to they could drive up onto the sidewalk and kill pedestrians. In that case, as with a gun, it is the intent of the person weilding the object that ultimately matters.

    Is the purpose of box cutters to hijack passenger jets? Are those jets “designed” to be flown into buildings? Of course not, those objects are used every day in a non-violent manner, but one day a handful of jihadists used them to murder several thousand Americans.

    Some people criminally misuse objects while the majority of us use them lawfully and without causing harm to others. Guns are no different.Report