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
THX-1138 July 29th, 2014 at 15:32
I have witnessed people in department stores in my area carrying their firearms openly. I informed the workers in the store that I left my cart with items for purchase in the aisle, gave them a description, and was taking my family out of the store immediately. I didn’t run or act like I had a bee in my shorts. I then called the cops and let them know that there was a man in the store with a gun strapped to his side and gave them a description. And then I left. The store missed out on about $100 of mine and I never returned. You protest with a gun on your back and I’ll protest with my $$$.
Joe Kendall July 29th, 2014 at 15:58
I support your right to do so.
Patty Ramirez July 29th, 2014 at 17:57
Good for you!
fentoozler July 29th, 2014 at 18:23
Wow, what a baby.
THX-1138 July 30th, 2014 at 15:19
Wow, what a moron.
PavePusher December 4th, 2014 at 12:28
Your unreasoned fear and bigotry are noted.
THX-1138 December 4th, 2014 at 16:00
Your timely response has been noted as well. Happy Holidays!
John Crawford December 28th, 2014 at 17:46
The person with his firearm is also voting with his wallet. It’s nice to not have to bump into one more crazed shopper.
Semper fi
THX-1138 January 6th, 2015 at 13:04
Wal Mart is all yours.
danah gaz July 29th, 2014 at 16:12
So who left the bag of idiots open?
mea_mark July 29th, 2014 at 16:19
Since your comment is the 666th comment, let’s say the Devil did, just for fun.
danah gaz July 29th, 2014 at 16:12
So who left the bag of idiots open?
mea_mark July 29th, 2014 at 16:19
Since your comment is the 666th comment, let’s say the Devil did, just for fun.
John Billings July 29th, 2014 at 16:33
I love gun, I have guns.. these twit-twats are ruining the second amendment with their asinine open carry BS.
Joe Kendall July 29th, 2014 at 21:51
I agree with you too an extent. I think they ended up working against their intended cause. 1 step forward, 10 steps back.
PavePusher August 3rd, 2014 at 23:20
So, Constitutional Rights should only be concealed?
John Billings August 11th, 2014 at 15:16
Has nothing to do with concealed or not! It’s about not doing stupid things with guns… If I was in a restaurant..(And I always have a handgun) and these tards walk in like they did?? There is a good chance they won’t leave alive.
PavePusher December 4th, 2014 at 11:27
Interesting that you would make a public threat to kill people for peacefully and lawfully exercising a Constitutional Right in a way you don’t like.
Anything else you want to unlawfully kill people for?
John Billings July 29th, 2014 at 16:33
I love gun, I have guns.. these twit-twats are ruining the second amendment with their asinine open carry BS.
Joe Kendall July 29th, 2014 at 21:51
I agree with you too an extent. I think they ended up working against their intended cause. 1 step forward, 10 steps back.
PavePusher August 3rd, 2014 at 23:20
So, Constitutional Rights should only be concealed?
John Billings August 11th, 2014 at 15:16
Has nothing to do with concealed or not! It’s about not doing stupid things with guns… If I was in a restaurant..(And I always have a handgun) and these tards walk in like they did?? There is a good chance they won’t leave alive.
PavePusher December 4th, 2014 at 12:27
Interesting that you would make a public threat to kill people for peacefully and lawfully exercising a Constitutional Right in a way you don’t like.
Anything else you want to unlawfully kill people for?
Just Wondrin July 29th, 2014 at 17:13
What about MY rights to not have some idiot brandishing a weapon around me?
Joe Kendall July 29th, 2014 at 20:41
Who has ever brandished a weapon on you?
Mo Reno July 29th, 2014 at 20:48
Those rights are protected by the various penalties for assault. Thank goodness.
PavePusher August 3rd, 2014 at 23:19
First, you’d need to understand the practical and legal definitions of ‘brandishing’, which you clearly currently do not.
Just Wondrin July 29th, 2014 at 17:13
What about MY rights to not have some idiot brandishing a weapon around me?
Joe Kendall July 29th, 2014 at 20:41
Who has ever brandished a weapon on you? For the record, nobody has a right to brandish a weapon, seeing as how it is illegal in all 50 states and the District of Columbia.
Mo Reno July 29th, 2014 at 20:48
Those rights are protected by the various penalties for assault. Thank goodness.
PavePusher August 3rd, 2014 at 23:19
First, you’d need to understand the practical and legal definitions of ‘brandishing’, which you clearly currently do not.
angelfire July 29th, 2014 at 17:30
Can you imagine these two nuts walking into a local diner and another one of them who was eating his lunch but concealing a gun opened fire on them thinking they were a couple of gun nut crazies. Poetic justice.
Brent Slensker July 29th, 2014 at 19:44
It will happen, probably already has.
angelfire July 29th, 2014 at 17:30
Can you imagine these two nuts walking into a local diner and another one of them who was eating his lunch but concealing a gun opened fire on them thinking they were a couple of gun nut crazies. Poetic justice.
Brent Slensker July 29th, 2014 at 19:44
It will happen, probably already has.
TimM73 July 29th, 2014 at 18:42
This guys plan is to to make it so that businesses only paying customers are gun owners…GENIUS!
TimM73 July 29th, 2014 at 18:42
This guys plan is to to make it so that businesses only paying customers are gun owners…GENIUS!
Joe Kendall July 29th, 2014 at 20:43
Do you still want a response from me despite my ignorance?
“Joe get you head out of your ass. You’re just ignorant.”
Ellen Wingrove July 29th, 2014 at 22:22
I’m going to do this – except I will yell “Oh my God!!” and sprint out of the store
blisschick July 31st, 2014 at 11:27
I thought about that, too Problem is that yelling would probably set off the gun nuts and then some horrific accident would ensue. And that’s the problem. These dudes get to sling their guns around while the rest of us tiptoe around them so no one makes a scene.
PavePusher August 3rd, 2014 at 23:18
No-one is ‘slinging guns around’, but some folks here (yourself included) sure are slinging some concentrated bovine excrement.
Anomaly 100 August 4th, 2014 at 08:55
Ewww! You have cooties!
Ellen Wingrove July 29th, 2014 at 22:22
I’m going to do this – except I will yell “Oh my God!!” and sprint out of the store
blisschick July 31st, 2014 at 11:27
I thought about that, too Problem is that yelling would probably set off the gun nuts and then some horrific accident would ensue. And that’s the problem. These dudes get to sling their guns around while the rest of us tiptoe around them so no one makes a scene.
PavePusher August 3rd, 2014 at 23:18
No-one is ‘slinging guns around’, but some folks here (me included) sure are slinging some concentrated bovine excrement.
Anomaly 100 August 4th, 2014 at 08:55
Ewww! You have cooties!
Seth July 29th, 2014 at 22:57
He talks about people carrying “automatic weapons”, proof that he doesn’t know what he’s talking about.
mjb784533 July 29th, 2014 at 23:37
Doesn’t matter. The object of the discussion is to get the store or restaurant to know that ANY weapon will lose them business. Even if it is a .22
Seth July 29th, 2014 at 23:58
Your statement that it doesn’t matter whether he knows what he’s talking about says a lot, none of it good.
In reality, what happened (in MN) is that businesses that banned weapons lost business and changed their minds. And that was without anybody stealing from them, because permit holders are more law-abiding than those who “dine and dash”.
crowdog July 30th, 2014 at 00:35
Tell us all about your guns, Seth! It’s always great listening to a gunnut go on and on about the details of their guns and their hard-on for the Constitution. I’ll bet you’re an expert on so many things, not to mention a very deep thinking philosopher who only has the best for us all in mind. Tell us about libertarianism! Tell us about how you’re a libertarian but you only vote Republican and only criticize Democrats, and how you’re not a racist yourself, but you just happen to be on the same side as the racists. I’m just kidding. Please show us all your erudition– complain about how many assumptions I’ve made about you and how wrong that is.
Seth July 30th, 2014 at 01:00
Please don’t share your drugs.
PavePusher August 3rd, 2014 at 23:15
Your bigotry is noted.
David A. Copeland July 30th, 2014 at 03:36
Seth, as a fellow gun owner, I agree that the discussion regarding firearm control can frequently be full of misinformation and extreme attitudes. But as responsible citizens, which I assume you are. We “gun nuts” own guns for safety, protection, sport, and recreation. I want to point out that protection and safety is a two way street. As responsible citizens, it is up to us to respect a persons right to not want to touch a gun, to not want to live in a world with gun violence as a lifestyle. By open carrying in busy areas, or open carrying at all. We make people who don’t know, and may not want to know about guns, feel unsafe. That is something called terrorism. If we want our rights to be respected. We need to respect others rights to feel safe. We need to respect that people don’t want guns to be central to their lives, we need to understand that other people have equally valid views and opinions, that do not agree with our own. We need to show people that gun owners are responsible and courteous people. Not lunatic, bigoted, fear mongering losers with nothing better to do then bring our guns into a chipotle.
PavePusher August 3rd, 2014 at 23:14
Your definition of ‘terrorism’ is quite faulty and insulting.
Seth July 29th, 2014 at 22:57
He talks about people carrying “automatic weapons”, proof that he doesn’t know what he’s talking about.
mjb784533 July 29th, 2014 at 23:37
Doesn’t matter. The object of the discussion is to get the store or restaurant to know that ANY weapon will lose them business. Even if it is a .22
Seth July 29th, 2014 at 23:58
Your statement that it doesn’t matter whether he knows what he’s talking about says a lot, none of it good.
In reality, what happened (in MN) is that businesses that banned weapons lost business and changed their minds. And that was without anybody stealing from them, because permit holders are more law-abiding than those who “dine and dash”.
crowdog July 30th, 2014 at 00:35
Tell us all about your guns, Seth! It’s always great listening to a gunnut go on and on about the details of their guns and their hard-on for the Constitution. I’ll bet you’re an expert on so many things, not to mention a very deep thinking philosopher who only has the best for us all in mind. Tell us about libertarianism! Tell us about how you’re a libertarian but you only vote Republican and only criticize Democrats, and how you’re not a racist yourself, but you just happen to be on the same side as the racists. I’m just kidding. Please show us all your erudition– complain about how many assumptions I’ve made about you and how wrong that is.
Seth July 30th, 2014 at 01:00
Please don’t share your drugs.
Ymmit Sebrof July 30th, 2014 at 01:06
Please. You sound EXACTLY like those you criticize. I am a gun owner, C&C permit holder AND a democrat. Want to know about my guns? Tough shit. That’s my business, not yours. How about a couple of statistics for you (and a little liberal philosophy you so easily eschew for a hypocrite’s attitude)…in MN 1 in every 14 people carries a gun (but you wouldn’t know it. We conceal it). How about another juicy tidbit? The fastest growing segment of gun buyers? Liberals. Yup. We can enjoy shooting as much as the other guys. Now onto philosophy and your hypocritical BS…one of the basic tennets of being liberal is education. Yet you REFUSE to educate yourself about guns. That sounds like a conservative’s ideal…I don’t like it, so I don’t need to learn about it. Even Dr Seuss had it right! TRY the green eggs and ham…and if you STILL don’t like it, that’s ok…but I do and I have rights too…
Joe Kendall July 30th, 2014 at 16:10
Shouldn’t liberals support liberal gun-rights? Or am I using that term too liberally…
mea_mark July 30th, 2014 at 17:44
If you wish to post here try to not be so condescending. Rewrite your post with the points you wish to make without being so judgmental of others.
Ymmit Sebrof July 30th, 2014 at 18:16
Hmmm…what, exactly, was condescending? The comparison of tactics of the two parties? My “drink the kool aid” remark? I tried to match the rather condescending remark from Mr Kendal (but I see his was ok)…
mea_mark July 30th, 2014 at 18:35
You were escalating it in numerous ways. Tone it down or leave. This debate is heated enough as it is. I don’t need you throwing gas and both sides.
mea_mark July 31st, 2014 at 11:04
You are banned for going way off topic and being even more condescending toward management and the people that help make this site run.
ihumpguns August 2nd, 2014 at 01:01
I don’t see posts claiming gun owners are less of men, have small dicks, or are homosexuals being deleted. Those are pretty judgemental and condescending.
PavePusher August 3rd, 2014 at 23:16
Perhaps you could be even-handed and impartial with that judgment?
PavePusher August 3rd, 2014 at 23:15
Your bigotry is noted.
David A. Copeland July 30th, 2014 at 03:36
Seth, as a fellow gun owner, I agree that the discussion regarding firearm control can frequently be full of misinformation and extreme attitudes. But as responsible citizens, which I assume you are. We “gun nuts” own guns for safety, protection, sport, and recreation. I want to point out that protection and safety is a two way street. As responsible citizens, it is up to us to respect a persons right to not want to touch a gun, to not want to live in a world with gun violence as a lifestyle. By open carrying in busy areas, or open carrying at all. We make people who don’t know, and may not want to know about guns, feel unsafe. That is something called terrorism. If we want our rights to be respected. We need to respect others rights to feel safe. We need to respect that people don’t want guns to be central to their lives, we need to understand that other people have equally valid views and opinions, that do not agree with our own. We need to show people that gun owners are responsible and courteous people. Not lunatic, bigoted, fear mongering losers with nothing better to do then bring our guns into a chipotle.
PavePusher August 3rd, 2014 at 23:14
Your definition of ‘terrorism’ is quite faulty and insulting.
Ellen Yarbrough July 30th, 2014 at 10:28
You don’t have to tell me to leave if someone enters a place with a gun. It’s a scenario I think about all the time…what do I do at work if a gunman comes through the building, or at a restaurant or in public. I’m getting out anyway I can if I see a gun.
PavePusher August 3rd, 2014 at 23:13
So, all people carrying guns have homicidal intent?
Ellen Yarbrough July 30th, 2014 at 10:28
You don’t have to tell me to leave if someone enters a place with a gun. It’s a scenario I think about all the time…what do I do at work if a gunman comes through the building, or at a restaurant or in public. I’m getting out anyway I can if I see a gun.
PavePusher August 3rd, 2014 at 23:13
So, all people carrying guns have homicidal intent?
edik415 July 30th, 2014 at 10:42
I have some problems with this professor’s theory. (And, for the record, I do not support open carry policies.)
1) He tap dances around the “theft” question in an unconvincing manner. As he clearly states, he is a philosopher and therefore is interested in human intentions. And yes, I agree that, if you walk out of the restaurant because you don’t want to pay, it is theft, and if you you walk out because you fear for your life, it is at least not the same kind of theft. But he presents it as though these were the only two options. First, he ignores the possibility of returning to the restaurant after your fear is gone to pay your bill. Unless your fear of that restaurant runs so deep that you will be afraid of it for the rest of eternity, then you are stealing from them. Second, he ignores the human intention about which he claims to be theorizing. If your intention is to “respond to open-carry activists,” then you are leaving the restaurant only IN PART out of fear — you are also leaving the restaurant to make a point. And if you have the time and the mental calmness to think, “I remember reading a blog where a philosopher said that I should leave quickly without paying,” then I would argue that you aren’t really fearing for your life, or at least not immediately.
2) The “get up and leave” approach is potentially problematic in a number of situations. Let’s say I’m in the middle of that haircut that he talks about and a woman with a semi-automatic weapon walks in. I can politely ask my hair dresser to stop because I need to leave. And how far out the door am I going to get before someone stops me/takes a picture of me/looks out the window and writes down my license plate?
3) This is also a problematic way of “responding to open-carry activists” because it is based on placing a third party in a potentially uncomfortable situation. In his blog, he writes the following: “If the business loses money, so be it. They can make the activists pay.” So, if I run out the door because I’m afraid of the man with a six-shooter at his side, and leave the 16-year old Chipotle cashier to demand that he pay for my meal, I haven’t made a point to anyone, except the point that I am willing to sacrifice another human being to save my own skin. I’m leaving because I’m afraid for my life, right? But only my life?
edik415 July 30th, 2014 at 10:42
I have some problems with this professor’s theory. (And, for the record, I do not support open carry policies.)
1) He tap dances around the “theft” question in an unconvincing manner. As he clearly states, he is a philosopher and therefore is interested in human intentions. And yes, I agree that, if you walk out of the restaurant because you don’t want to pay, it is theft, and if you you walk out because you fear for your life, it is at least not the same kind of theft. But he presents it as though these were the only two options. First, he ignores the possibility of returning to the restaurant after your fear is gone to pay your bill. Unless your fear of that restaurant runs so deep that you will be afraid of it for the rest of eternity, then you are stealing from them. Second, he ignores the human intention about which he claims to be theorizing. If your intention is to “respond to open-carry activists,” then you are leaving the restaurant only IN PART out of fear — you are also leaving the restaurant to make a point. And if you have the time and the mental calmness to think, “I remember reading a blog where a philosopher said that I should leave quickly without paying,” then I would argue that you aren’t really fearing for your life, or at least not immediately.
2) The “get up and leave” approach is potentially problematic in a number of situations. Let’s say I’m in the middle of that haircut that he talks about and a woman with a semi-automatic weapon walks in. I can politely ask my hair dresser to stop because I need to leave. And how far out the door am I going to get before someone stops me/takes a picture of me/looks out the window and writes down my license plate?
3) This is also a problematic way of “responding to open-carry activists” because it is based on placing a third party in a potentially uncomfortable situation. In his blog, he writes the following: “If the business loses money, so be it. They can make the activists pay.” So, if I run out the door because I’m afraid of the man with a six-shooter at his side, and leave the 16-year old Chipotle cashier to demand that he pay for my meal, I haven’t made a point to anyone, except the point that I am willing to sacrifice another human being to save my own skin. I’m leaving because I’m afraid for my life, right? But only my life?