Restaurant Ettiquete While Carrying

[jgrauman]

just read this entire thread again. pretty disappointed in it. If the thread applies to you then learn from it. if it doesn't move on. In no way was the OP saying EVERYONE reading this post is an idiot and has no clue how to carry their gun. He was venting and making general comments about what he sees in his day to day on the job. THERE ARE a$$hats that act EXACTLY like he described. If you found this to be preachy, then you are the choir and should know who he is talking about, which EVERY person in this thread that responded does. Just to add fuel to the fire, IF this post was made by a 65 year old who just witnessed some fool acting this way in a restaurant he owned, NOT a single person in here would have been defensive. So take the info for what it is, information, if you didn't learn anything from it then click the next post. Now that is preaching

[DaveTN]

You can of course talk about whatever you want at your table, but if you engage the server in such talk, then you might not get a warm response.

I use to travel for a living and eat most of my meals in restaurants. I know that waiters and waitresses put up with a lot of jerks and cry babies. I either tip well or don’t tip at all; there is no middle of the road.

But quite frankly I couldn’t give a rolling rip down a razor blade what your opinion is on gun carry anymore than I care what it is on gay marriages or the state GM. I most assuredly will not just pop up and ask your opinion on any of those issues. If you overhear my conversation and want to comment; that fine. Just know that your tip is riding on it.

However… as I said in another post if you serve liquor I will be drinking and won’t have a gun on me. So you won’t have to worry about me laying it on the table, waving it around, or deciding to be your security guard.

[Guest cowboy20th]

I really didn't mean to offend anyone with my comments, if you are offended then the information was probably completely useless to you which is a good thing, because you already have manners and good ones too, I appreciate people such as yourself.

If my table engages me with political or religious conversation (talking to tables is a MAJOR part of my job) and I disagree on the issue, I usually will politely excuse myself since I am representing the restaurant and do not wish to give people the idea that the establishment is pro/anti anything. I simply mentioned this because I personally know of some wait staff that are not that smart and will royally p*ss off the table. And I know from experience how bad it sucks to get mad while trying to enjoy yourself.

And for the people who don't tip because you engaged the server with political disscussion and they did not agree with you, that is simply wrong. The guest pay our wages since 2.13 equals about 30 bucks a week. How would you like to walk into work one morning, your boss pulls you over, says, "since your christian and I am Jewish I am going to pay you 10,000 less a year because you refuse to fold over like a pansie and abandon your principals and beliefs for the sake of money." But if you guys really feel the need to stiff your server because they politely disagreed with your views then please go ahead I do not need to take money from someone who is unamerican anyway. If I wanted to be punished for having and standing for my poltical views I would move to a communist country where the exchange of ideas and freedom of speech are restricted.

Yes I am 21, yes most 21 year olds are drunken fools with little to no ambition. No I am not one of them, so I really don't appreciate being lumped into the category. I was raised on the idea of respect and honor, something that I am very proud of. Sir and mam are probably the most used words in my vocabulary and I can't remember a time in my life I ever disrespected my elders. But I am a man as well and will not take being bullied or discriminated against because of my age. Age discrimination is one of the fastest growing problems in this country and it will only get worse as the baby boomers get older and their kids take the powerfull positions they once had. Please don't discriminate.

I have no idea why Applebee's is around. I assume it is for the same reason Mcdonald's is still packed all day despite the health warnings, reports of bad meat, etc. Possibly something to do with conspiracy mind control socialist government thing?

Lemons must cost restaurants a million dollars each. The easiest way to make your boss's mad is to throw some lemon on the floor. You are the guest though and they can't argue with that, ask for a small plate of them when you order your drink and your wishes shall be granted.

[Fallguy]

LOL....ok I'm with ya cowboy.

One last thing on table conversations...sounds like maybe it's your fellow workers that need the advice about engaging themselves in the conversation.

On tips and disagreeing with a topic at hand...I agree that the tips shouldn't be based on opinion, but I think for most of us it would depend on whether the waiter was asked for his opinion or interjected it on his own. If he is asked and gives an honest answer and or respectfully declines to opine no harm no foul (IMO), but if he decided to just blurt out his disagreement with what is being dicussed...well that could be a different matter.

Anyway...I do believe your intentions were good and just came across wrong as you are new to the board and we really don't know you well or you us.

About to take the family out to eat shortly....may lay an extra tip on the wait staff in your honor.

[Guest cowboy20th]

LOL, thanks fallguy, I agree with you.

No one should interject themselves into a private conversation anywhere anyway. Especially if you are representing an establishment or group.

That being said, if you bring someone into your conversation, you get what you get whether you agree or not. If you don't wish to have your views challenged then only converse with those you know will agree.

Before I left for college seemingly too long ago, One of my very inspirational teachers told me to allow myself to be challenged by others. He said your beliefs are only as strong as your defense for them. If someone can poke logical holes through your argument for your beliefs then maybe you should rethink your stance, because you obviously believe in something that has a weak or nonexistence basis with you.

Just like the antigun types have a very weak argument for the limitation or eradication of the 2nd ammendment. Pro gun arguments are very much stronger and our wise founding fathers agreed on this issue unamanously and gave us the ammunition to protect our legal rights.

I hope you enjoy your meal fallguy, and I hope you have an excellent service well deserving of your generosity

[DaveTN]

Before I left for college seemingly too long ago, One of my very inspirational teachers told me to allow myself to be challenged by others. He said your beliefs are only as strong as your defense for them. If someone can poke logical holes through your argument for your beliefs then maybe you should rethink your stance, because you obviously believe in something that has a weak or nonexistence basis with you.

Good advise. As you will constantly see on this (and many other) forums people want to make arguments based simply on the way they think things should be instead of the way they are. There is nothing wrong with that as long as you understand the difference.

Just like the antigun types have a very weak argument for the limitation or eradication of the 2nd ammendment. Pro gun arguments are very much stronger and our wise founding fathers agreed on this issue unamanously and gave us the ammunition to protect our legal rights.

And here is a very good example of what I am saying above.

You want to believe that you have 2nd amendment rights guaranteed by the United States Constitution, and that the antigun types have very weak arguments.

However I would say to you that I have been jailed for no crime other than having a loaded gun in my car. It was explained to me by many lawyers and the Judges that the 2nd amendment is not an individual right.

3% of the population of the state of Tennessee can legally carry a loaded handgun off their property; 97% would be committing a crime. Please explain to me how something limited to 3% of the population can even remotely be construed as a right.

Now…. If you want to make an argument that you have or should have a right to carry; I’m with you. But if you want to make an argument that you have a right to carry, or that you have gun rights off your property; the anti gunners will kick your azz every time. Sorry, but waving a flag or pointing to something in the Constitution that clearly is not enforced won’t get you very far, even on a gun forum. My ability to carry a gun does not come from the 2nd amendment and the SCOTUS will never rule that it does.

[Guest cowboy20th]

Hey dave, help me understand these stats.

did 97% commit a felony or otherwise have legal issues which would warrant their disarmament in public such as history of violent crime, numerous restraining orders, etc. I am studying pre-law with the hopes of becoming a well respected attourney.

I agree as well though, the 2nd does not give everyone not in prision the right to carry loaded firearms. But the 2nd does give us the legal basis for an argument in a court of law for the state to not harrass those that do legally carry.

Unfortuneatly in this day and age the need to have these rights monitored is somewhat neccessary. If every gangbanger was allowed to walk out from his crib with a gun tucked in his crotch, we would be living in a very dangereous place. Luckily we live in a state which has a slow but effective and fair system for educating those that wish to carry legally and deterring the ediots that would cause more problems than help.

Now I also know that every gangbanger who wants to carry does it illegally anyway, but by making this illegal the police have a legal way to approach the offender without violating constituional rights. Thus making crime prevention more effective because we as responsible gun owners have given to the state some of our right in exchange for safety. Thats the relationship between state and man as John Locke or even Thomas Hobbes might say.

Even though your statistics probably came from a credible source, the basis of the statistic is probably altered in order to come out with an impressive statistic. For instance, was the data compiled from a list of people who don't already legally carry or people who were denied for ccw permits, or democrats, or republicans of the state of tennessee? We could probably come up with our own statistics saying that on 3% carry illegally as well.

And if someone legally carrying is illegally detained or otherwise arrested our court system does give the avenue for you to seek justice. Anyone who does have a bad experience does need to pursue legal action in a court of law. Your case could set a valuable precedent that would change carry laws within our favor. Unfortuneatly most incidents are just small inconviences and are not worth the investment of time and money to pursue justice with.

[Guest cowboy20th]

And those that believe the bill of rights do not apply to every free man and woman who have not committed a crime against society and are citizens of our great nation have sadly lost their patriotism and should move to Canada.

[Mousegun]

In the last few months, there have been more carry permits issued than ever before (gee I wonder why ???) but before that, there was a level number being issued. These went to people that really were informed and decided inwardly to become the masters of their own self protection. My bet is that many of the recent permit requests could be attributed to a panic condition (look at what is happening to ammo availability) and a bit of schooling may be in order when it comes to the paniced ones.

Give the OP a break. He made a over the top statement about putting guns on tables ---- true, but the concept of the post is not that far off base. There are a lot of new CCW carriers out there now that may not have the "experience" that some of the old timers have and could just possibly make it difficult for us as a whole without meaning to, due to that lack of experience.

The choir is partially now a new breed that may need a little bit of practice so any suggestions on how to sing is not preaching. I have confidence that we will do well but all it takes is one slip up to blacken the eye of us all. We are all responsible for not only ourselves but for everyone that has a carry permit. The media has made that so.

Edited May 26, 2009 by Mousegun

[Guest m&pc9]

Thank you for educating me on proper gun Etiquettes. That would have been embarrassing when I whipped out my gun and laid it on the table.

[Fallguy]

Cowboy,

Great meal, fair service, he was nice enough anyway...lol and although he doesn't know you (or me either for that matter), he owes you.

Dave's 97% - 3% comes from that roughly 3% of TN residents have a Handgun Carry Permit and therefore the other 97% (LEOs and certain others excepted) can not legally carry a handgun of their property.

I understand Dave's argument...if it was a true right, you would not need permission (permit) from the state to exercise it.

[DaveTN]

did 97% commit a felony or otherwise have legal issues which would warrant their disarmament in public such as history of violent crime, numerous restraining orders, etc. I am studying pre-law with the hopes of becoming a well respected attourney.

No, only 3% of us paid for the privilege. There are probably a lot (especially abused women) that can’t afford to pay for the 2nd amendment rights some say we have.

I don’t want to be a spelling Nazi, but if your goal is to be a well-respected attorney you should probably learn how to spell it.

Sorry…. I couldn’t help it.

I agree as well though, the 2nd does not give everyone not in prision the right to carry loaded firearms. But the 2nd does give us the legal basis for an argument in a court of law for the state to not harrass those that do legally carry.

One has nothing to do with the other; states can do as they please.

Unfortuneatly in this day and age the need to have these rights monitored is somewhat neccessary.

Okay, if you believe that; lets have a written test to vote.

Luckily we live in a state which has a slow but effective and fair system for educating those that wish to carry legally and deterring the ediots that would cause more problems than help.

That is true. You should be thankful to those that allow you to buy the gun privileges you have. But that is your state legislators; not the United States Constitution.

Now I also know that every gangbanger who wants to carry does it illegally anyway, but by making this illegal the police have a legal way to approach the offender without violating constituional rights. Thus making crime prevention more effective because we as responsible gun owners have given to the state some of our right in exchange for safety. Thats the relationship between state and man as John Locke or even Thomas Hobbes might say.

We have traded nothing. Rights under the Constitution are enjoyed by everyone in the county or they are not rights.

Even though your statistics probably came from a credible source, the basis of the statistic is probably altered in order to come out with an impressive statistic. For instance, was the data compiled from a list of people who don't already legally carry or people who were denied for ccw permits, or democrats, or republicans of the state of tennessee? We could probably come up with our own statistics saying that on 3% carry illegally as well.

There is not slight of hand. I used the number of valid permits that the state says are issued, compared to the number of people in the state. You can call Charlie Epps if you like; but its not a high level of math.

And if someone legally carrying is illegally detained or otherwise arrested our court system does give the avenue for you to seek justice. Anyone who does have a bad experience does need to pursue legal action in a court of law. Your case could set a valuable precedent that would change carry laws within our favor. Unfortuneatly most incidents are just small inconviences and are not worth the investment of time and money to pursue justice with.

Certainly our system gives you recourse. I have preached and preached that people have recourse. Especially with bad cops. Just because you don’t agree with a courts decision doesn’t mean there is no recourse.

And those that believe the bill of rights do not apply to every free man and woman who have not committed a crime against society and are citizens of our great nation have sadly lost their patriotism and should move to Canada.

Sorry but law is not emotions, flag waving, and telling people they should move to Canada.

A good example of that would be me telling you that I joined the service during war time, have two honorable discharges, served my country as a Police Officer, and then asking you what you have done that makes you think you are a Patriot.

[Mike.357]

yep, no arguing that there is no right to carry a firearm off your property.

No way, no how in TN can you tote a gun around without paying for it first.

We do not have to pay for rights.

[Punisher84]

I have said it before and I'll say it again. A right restricted is no less a right. Would most here not consider it a right to live? How would you feel if someone started restricting that right? I am not naive enough to understand that there are going to be restrictions on some rights, but those restrictions should only be what we the majority voting people allow.

I will also add this, any person who would question another's patriotism based only on their own meandering experiences is a fool. The finest patriot's that brought this nation to being had not all been in war.

[Guest unreconstructed1]

I have to somewhat disagree with the sentiments given in the last couple of posts. regardless of whether or not we are infringed of those rights, they are still ours. regardless of whether the government says we can do this, or do that, we still have a right to it.

the millions of genocide victims throughout the 20th century had a right to live, their governments infringed upon those rights, or do you suggest that some people do not have a right to life?

we DO have a natural right to keep and bear arms for our defense; it is a part of the natural right of man for self preservation. that right is recognized by the constitution, however obviously not protected by it.

[Mike.357]

maybe you all have a right, maybe TN does not recognize it.

Go carrying without your bought and paid for permit and tell me how it works out for you.

I agree we have a right, but tell that to a judge and see what happens

[Punisher84]

maybe you all have a right, maybe TN does not recognize it.

Go carrying without your bought and paid for permit and tell me how it works out for you.

I agree we have a right, but tell that to a judge and see what happens

Mike here is our point. The bill of RIGHTS guarantees a RIGHT to keep and bear arms. The only reason it is considered a privilege now is because the people have let it become that.

I'm not even adverse, like some, to a permitting system. I think it is a restriction that makes sense nowadays, but I do NOT believe I should be restricted on my carry choices, what type of weapons I want to own,etc.

Following the law, but wishing for and working to change those laws is what gets a RIGHT re-established as just that. I usually agree with you, rarely ever agree with Dave, but I can't agree with either of you on this.

I can only think to put it like this, if it's not a right I guess you'll have no problem being the first ones in line to turn them over if it ever came to that?

[Mike.357]

Punisher, we are on the same page. I think I ought to be able to tote around whatever I want.

The BoR and 2A stops the government from taking away our right to keep and bear arms. Unfortunately TN does not recognize this right.

all I am saying is this. Let your permit expire. Go toting your gun around. get arrested. Tell the judge you are innocent on account of 2A. See if you win.

Thats all I am saying.

I agree we have a right. Natural law trumps all other law.

but I am not going up in front of the man without a permit.

[Punisher84]

Punisher, we are on the same page. I think I ought to be able to tote around whatever I want.

The BoR and 2A stops the government from taking away our right to keep and bear arms. Unfortunately TN does not recognize this right.

all I am saying is this. Let your permit expire. Go toting your gun around. get arrested. Tell the judge you are innocent on account of 2A. See if you win.

Thats all I am saying.

I agree we have a right. Natural law trumps all other law.

but I am not going up in front of the man without a permit.

Word.

[timcalhoun]

Yep. It is called the Bill of Rights. Not the Bill of privlidges that may or may not be granted by the states as they see fit.

And of course articlde 2 ends with a period.

[Guest Jamie]

Everybody keeps going on about rights, but I've got a news flash for ya; they're a human construction. They only exist as long as there are people around to say they do, and to grant them.

They don't come from god, mother nature, the universe, or anything other than the people around you, or your own ability to enforce them.

You think you have a "right to life"? Take a walk with nothing more than the clothes on your back through any number of places on this planet... The Alaskan wilderness areas, the African savanna, South American rain Forrest, etc., and see how long it takes for your "right to life" to run up against some critter's "right to a full belly", or the right to be left alone.

And the right to arms? That only lasts as long as there's a large enough group of people to say it exists, and/or there's a large enough group of armed people who can resist being disarmed.

The fact is, our constitution and bill of rights are nothing more than a bunch of words on pieces of paper, if enough people say so and have the means and ability to enforce their view.

So far we've been lucky... at least there's enough people in this country to maintain a great deal of what we consider "rights". But in the end, it's the larger group ( or the more powerful one ) and their opinion that's going to determine what is or isn't a right. And unless he/she/it suddenly takes a personal and very active hand in the decision, god... or even God... has absolutely nothing to do with it.

[Smith]

Everybody keeps going on about rights, but I've got a news flash for ya; they're a human construction. They only exist as long as there are people around to say they do, and to grant them.

They don't come from god, mother nature, the universe, or anything other than the people around you, or your own ability to enforce them.

You think you have a "right to life"? Take a walk with nothing more than the clothes on your back through any number of places on this planet... The Alaskan wilderness areas, the African savanna, South American rain Forrest, etc., and see how long it takes for your "right to life" to run up against some critter's "right to a full belly", or the right to be left alone.

And the right to arms? That only lasts as long as there's a large enough group of people to say it exists, and/or there's a large enough group of armed people who can resist being disarmed.

The fact is, our constitution and bill of rights are nothing more than a bunch of words on pieces of paper, if enough people say so and have the means and ability to enforce their view.

So far we've been lucky... at least there's enough people in this country to maintain a great deal of what we consider "rights". But in the end, it's the larger group ( or the more powerful one ) and their opinion that's going to determine what is or isn't a right. And unless he/she/it suddenly takes a personal and very active hand in the decision, god... or even God... has absolutely nothing to do with it.

That's moral relativism and is at philosophical odds with the framers understanding of "rights." The framers and many here believe that there are absolutes of right and wrong that exist regardless of personal consent. For instance, even if a society decides that murder is legal it is irrelevant to the fact it is always wrong. Just because a majority rules does not make them right. That is Fascism - might is right. True democracy is flawed because of this issue and exactly why we wanted a republic instead of pure democracy. When man becomes morally relativist, society will fail. In fact I heard Michale Savage discussing this very thing tonight concerning the summer of '69 and the fall of American morality. There has to be an extensional rule of law that is not subject to consent.

However you are correct in your frustration that these "rights" can become subjective when a large enough group of individuals are willing to rebel against absolutes and force their hedonistic will on others. This is what is known as persecution. Get ready.

[Guest Jamie]

That's moral relativism and is at philosophical odds with the framers understanding of "rights." The framers and many here believe that there are absolutes of right and wrong that exist regardless of personal consent.

Call it whatever you will, it's still a fact that society determines what your rights are. And given that society evolves, so too does those rights.

And given that, what the framers did or did not believe is irrelevant. The only thing that really matters is what the people currently alive now believe.

For instance, even if a society decides that murder is legal it is irrelevant to the fact it is always wrong.

Says who? You and I may believe it so, but someone from another culture might not. Besides, "murder", by definition, is an unjustified killing. And where some may not see a reason, someone else might. Sort'a like that whole Capital Punishment thing...

Again, it's the society that determines what is or isn't "just".

Just because a majority rules does not make them right. That is Fascism - might is right. True democracy is flawed because of this issue and exactly why we wanted a republic instead of pure democracy. When man becomes morally relativist, society will fail. In fact I heard Michale Savage discussing this very thing tonight concerning the summer of '69 and the fall of American morality. There has to be an extensional rule of law that is not subject to consent.

The problem is, a law with no "teeth"... one that can't be or isn't enforced, is pretty much useless. And if enough people decide to ignore that law, there effectively becomes no way to enforce it.

In the end, no matter what label you want to put on it, any form of government or control of a population takes a large enough group of people to either agree to and abide by whatever laws are decided on, or a large enough group to agree to them and enforce them. After all, no dictator anywhere or at any time would have much luck at gaining or holding power without an army of some kind to enforce his will. That army has to be willing to go along with the dictator's wishes. Otherwise... nothing.

However you are correct in your frustration that these "rights" can become subjective when a large enough group of individuals are willing to rebel against absolutes and force their hedonistic will on others. This is what is known as persecution. Get ready.

Persecution... Persecute. To annoy persistently; to bother. That term can be applied to any group of any size. But it's a term most often claimed by any smaller group that isn't getting it's way with a larger one. I'm sure if you ask anyone who's made to follow a law they don't like, they'll tell you they're being persecuted unjustly.

Still, it's all really just semantics, when you come right down to it. Because it's always going to be the larger or more powerful group that decides what is or isn't just. The only real differences in one labeled one way and one labeled another will lie in how their will is enforced.

Edited May 26, 2009 by Jamie

[Smith]

Jamie, your assertion just isn't true. While there can be a temporary swing in moral relativism, every society that has ever existed has always swung back to a set of universal principles that hold true throughout the world. Murder is an example. Think of it like the free market. There are absolutes in control that dictate flow. While folks can try to alter them and "regulate" them out they will eventually self correct. Why? they are universal truth principals.

and that is my point. The framers were not deciding some new "truths" that hadn't been seen before but that they were simply recognizing as a society that these extensional universal truths of life would be our governing force.

I'm not at odds with you as much as you may think.

Edited May 26, 2009 by Smith

[Smith]

Still, it's all really just semantics, when you come right down to it. Because it's always going to be the larger or more powerful group that decides what is or isn't just. The only real differences in one labeled one way and one labeled another will lie in how their will is enforced.

If that is true then, we as gun owners would never have gotten 2a opened up like it has recently, the USA would not exist, no empire that has fallen would have fallen. Think about it. It is the small ground swells of justice rooted in these "rights" that have led revolutions and nation building. It is moral relativism that has brought them down.