Watch: A Professor’s Amazing Idea On Dealing With Open Carry Activists
A philosophy professor offers an amazing response to open carry activists who enter family-friendly establishments with guns strapped to their backs. He notes,”As many have pointed out, there is no way for bystanders to know whether the people with guns are “good guys” or “bad guys.” It is rational to be afraid of someone with a weapon, especially if you know nothing about them.”
That’s been my argument for awhile when gun activists claim there’s nothing to fear from an “inanimate object” but we don’t know the person whose hand is on the trigger. We do see their blatant disrespect for others though.
Jack Russell Weinstein, professor of philosophy and director of the Institute for Philosophy in Public Life at the University of North Dakota, came up with a solution as to how we should respond when witnessing these gun toting groups entering a store.
Weinstein writes:
My proposal is as follows: we should all leave. Immediately. Leave the food on the table in the restaurant. Leave the groceries in the cart, in the aisle. Stop talking or engaging in the exchange. Just leave, unceremoniously, and fast.
But here is the key part: don’t pay. Stopping to pay in the presence of a person with a gun means risking your and your loved ones’ lives; money shouldn’t trump this. It doesn’t matter if you ate the meal. It doesn’t matter if you’ve just received food from the deli counter that can’t be resold. It doesn’t matter if you just got a haircut. Leave. If the business loses money, so be it. They can make the activists pay.
Following this procedure has several advantages. First, it protects people. Second, it forces the businesses to really choose where their loyalties are. If the second amendment is as important as people claim, then people should be willing to pay for it. God knows, free speech is tremendously expensive.
Watch:
A YouTube commenter writes, “The best way to react is to thank them for supporting your rights and the Constitution. Advocating theft at restaurants is not a moral argument.”
We can thank our founding fathers, not gun carrying gangs, thank you very much. As for the allegation of “theft,” the professor covered that topic in the video.
There’s nothing to thank these two young men for after their group entered a Chipotle restaurant in Texas.
While activists have certain “rights” — which they have abused — nowhere on our favorite restaurant’s menu does it read, “Cheeseburger with a side of gangsta, yo.”
H/T: Shamelessly stolen from Wonkette.
Image: Crooks and Liars.
Click here for reuse options!Copyright 2014 Liberaland
By: Anomaly100
2,668 responses to Watch: A Professor’s Amazing Idea On Dealing With Open Carry Activists
« Previous 1 … 11 12 13Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
amongoose December 28th, 2014 at 23:59
Extend his idea to other situations. Not all muslims are terrorists, but there are enough who are that one could be assume they might be. Would then be getting up from a meal, leaving groceries at the checkout because someone of that faith came in make sense?
Not to mention as the writer noted, eating a meal and not paying is theft.
Guest December 29th, 2014 at 00:06
Nice comment, and I like the “kellys heroes” avatar. You’re right, If I said:
“If we see a muslim come in, we should all leave. Immediately. Leave the food on the table in the restaurant. Leave the groceries in the cart, in the aisle. Stop talking or engaging in the exchange. Just leave, unceremoniously, and fast”,
social liberals would go nuts. Don’t you just love their selective defense of people and their liberties? :)
whatthe46 December 29th, 2014 at 01:59
stupid. your post and logic is STUPID.
Wfeather1940 December 29th, 2014 at 05:30
It is the same illogic all anti gunterds use!
amongoose December 29th, 2014 at 06:44
So how is that?
It makes the same assumptions about a group of people that he does because of the actions of others of that group without any evidence that they are same as he does?
.
If you are going to accuse someone of doing something you generally need some evidence that they have or will, or is pre-crime judgement permitted now.
amongoose December 29th, 2014 at 00:59
Extend his idea to other situations. Not all muslims are terrorists, but there are enough who are that one could be assume they might be. Would then be getting up from a meal, leaving groceries at the checkout because someone of that faith came in make sense?
Not to mention as the writer noted, eating a meal and not paying is theft.
Guest December 29th, 2014 at 01:06
Nice comment, and I like the “kellys heroes” avatar. You’re right, If I said:
“If we see a muslim come in, we should all leave. Immediately. Leave the food on the table in the restaurant. Leave the groceries in the cart, in the aisle. Stop talking or engaging in the exchange. Just leave, unceremoniously, and fast”,
social liberals would go nuts. Don’t you just love their selective defense of people and their liberties? :)
whatthe46 December 29th, 2014 at 02:59
stupid. your post and logic is STUPID.
Wfeather1940 December 29th, 2014 at 06:30
It is the same illogic all anti gunterds use!
amongoose December 29th, 2014 at 07:44
So how is that?
It makes the same assumptions about a group of people that he does because of the actions of others of that group without any evidence that they are same as he does?
.
If you are going to accuse someone of doing something you generally need some evidence that they have or will, or is pre-crime judgement permitted now.
Wayout December 29th, 2014 at 08:33
No, no, no. The proper response would be: “Hands up, don’t shoot”.
rlemerysgt December 29th, 2014 at 08:57
Proper response would be:
I can breathe, because I am not committing a criminal act!
Wayout December 29th, 2014 at 09:33
No, no, no. The proper response would be: “Hands up, don’t shoot”.
rlemerysgt December 29th, 2014 at 09:57
Proper response would be:
I can breathe, because I am not committing a criminal act!
Scott Erb June 23rd, 2015 at 13:59
People who think they need guns to feel secure are pitiful, scared little creatures who need some kind of prop to make them think they are tough. I just look at them with pity and think, “there but for the grace of my own self-esteem go I…” And if they think they are defending constitutional rights, I realize that beside being scared little things, they also are very ignorant. They are to be pitied, not hated.
SharpStick June 8th, 2016 at 12:42
You are very comfortable in your bigotry. The idea that no one has a right to be even the least bit more secure is absurd assertion.
You sound scared and flat earth paranoid Here is the Data: US gun murder has plunged 65% as guns have increased, and as gun carry has increased about 2,000%.
thefool June 8th, 2016 at 13:38
Even if your stats were true (they aren’t), you seem not to understand the difference between correlation and causation. If you think guns make you more secure, go ahead – I keep reading about moms killed by toddlers with their guns “for security.” I have to agree you’re just a scared little thing.
whatthe46 June 8th, 2016 at 13:52
Only paranoid idiots have to go everywhere with a gun. So, exactly who are you referring to when you use the term “scared?”
Taymie July 5th, 2015 at 14:07
So your saying the only people who shot up restaurants and stores are gang bangers? Cause no one would strap on a weapon and blow away a theater full of Batman enthusiasts unless there’s was a gang connection right?
If you can provide a real means of identifying who is and is not crazy so we can tell if we have a good guy with a gun or a bad guy with a gun that would be enough. But lack of gang colors or gang signs is not actually proof of mental stability
mercedeslackey March 2nd, 2016 at 21:22
You’re so stupid you lose at tac-tac-toe with a slime mold.
whatthe46 June 8th, 2016 at 13:53
Why don’t you get the fk out!