B O Y C O T T!!! ALL restaurants that serve alcohol....

[Good_Steward]

Sorry, I've always enjoyed statistics. Yes, I am a geek sometimes.

Now, for my 2 cents. There are establisments in my area that serve alchohol, and did not post. I will continue to eat at those places. The other places, I did frequent, but not after they decided to post. Their choice, my choice.

[Guest strelcevina]

I dont go to any Establishment that serves Alcohol ,just because I dont Drink Alcohol.

and If you have Battle Guns vs Alcohol,

Alcohol would win big time. that is a power of Addiction.

so any Boycott is just meaningless

[Oh Shoot]

This is incorrect. There would be an exactly equal chance that 8 of the 100 patrons would be permit holders as there would be that 0 of the 100 patrons were permit holders. ..

You keep assuming ALL TN HCP holders eat out somewhere each day in a place that serves booze. None of this matters, though. Even my stand is not statistically valid, was merely using a couple of parameters of more that exist.

More importantly, even if a "boycott" DID cause every restaurant in TN that serves alcohol a 4% decrease in revenue, it is still illogical, ineffective, and indeed, likely detrimental to public perception (and perhaps even to perception of our lawmakers). I also see no moral high ground by attempting to harm all those establishments that either tolerated carry, or even openly welcomed it.

- OS

[Wingshooter]

I'm not leaving my gun in the car if I don't have to, and I don't have to eat in a restaurant that serves alcohol. I don't drink, so their loss. Net result, a family of 5 will be directly or indirectly boycotting restaurants that serve.

I intend to write/call the legislature and maybe some restaurants that are members of this Hospitality Assoc.

[Guest HexHead]

I also see no moral high ground by attempting to harm all those establishments that either tolerated carry, or even openly welcomed it.

Pardon my French, but f*ck the "moral high ground" theory. Playing nice hasn't exactly worked out well for us has it?

[Guest gunslinger707]

Anybody wanna bet the legislature WON'T do ANYTHING to change this come January ??

[Guest HexHead]

Anybody wanna bet the legislature WON'T do ANYTHING to change this come January ??

I agree, we may still have Curry and Jackson's support, but how much of the rest of the legislature still has the stomach for this fight? They'll probably just take the "well, we tried, but the people clearly don't want this" attitude and move on.

This needs to be addressed in the appeals and if necessary the State Supreme court. Unfortunately, we have a completely worthless AG. Here is a very high profile State law, being challenged on constitutional grounds and he can't be bothered to show up himself? He sends a couple of lackeys? WTF???

Edited November 21, 2009 by HexHead

[dralarms]

Excellent post.

TGO does not support any such boycott of all restaurants that serve.

If you want to be specific and boycott only those restaurants owned by the parties who presented this silly case back to the court, by all means do so. I doubt many of us ate at any of Randy Rayburn's establishments in the first place, but whatever.

There is absolutely no sense or practicality in hurting every single restaurant that serves beer or alcohol because of some liberal activist judge's actions. It's pathetic and only serves to alienate those who have been on our side.

Case in point: Pie In The Sky (Coolsprings) welcomed us into their establishment to celebrate the law going into effect. The manager and owners knew who we were and why we were there. Do you propose that we turn now and stab them in the back because of what someone else did?

Poor form. Very poor form.

Well you are right, but since I have to disarm to eat I guess I'll be eating a lot more at Cracker Barrel & Ryans.

I would even go as far as to say that one of the resturants I regularly visit would probally not even look at me if I was to carry in there. As a matter of fact I was told by one of the employees that that they thought I was always carrying anyway (this was before the law).

I will abide by the law and I will also let the resturants that did not post know that their "brothers" are the ones costing them money not us.

[aquaman67]

[aquaman67]

[USMCJG]

You keep assuming ALL TN HCP holders eat out somewhere each day in a place that serves booze. None of this matters, though. Even my stand is not statistically valid, was merely using a couple of parameters of more that exist.

I'm sorry OhShoot, I respect you and don't really want to argue with you. But you are incorrect. I am not assuming all 4% of HCP holders will eat at a restaurant that serves alcohol every day. I am assuming that there is an equal chance that any individual who has an HCP permit will eat out on a given day as there is any other individual member of the population will eat out on a given day.

[Guest gunslinger707]

nvm

Edited November 21, 2009 by gunslinger707
not applicable to current thread

[Fallguy]

Think it's time for me to unsubscribe from this thread......

[DaveTN]

In my opinion the above statement is the exact same mentality representing the bulk of American people in this day and age, thats why we make no progress, and we fail to stand together to take action.

That’s not true. What is being suggested here is a thug mentality. I absolutely refuse to take action against business owners that support us. I also hope that any of those business owners reading this will see that this action will go nowhere and the owner of this forum has stated that he does not support it.

This is an emotional reaction to the court ruling the other day that now has some members so upset they can’t tell the good guys from the bad (or don’t care) and are ready to spray and pray with total disregard for any damage they may do.

[Guest 70below]

That’s not true. What is being suggested here is a thug mentality. I absolutely refuse to take action against business owners that support us. I also hope that any of those business owners reading this will see that this action will go nowhere and the owner of this forum has stated that he does not support it.

This is an emotional reaction to the court ruling the other day that now has some members so upset they can’t tell the good guys from the bad (or don’t care) and are ready to spray and pray with total disregard for any damage they may do.

How is the business owner supporting me, if they don't take action as simple as a letter to get my business? Just because they allowed me there when the law said they could? I don't remember a bunch of 20% off specials for carry permit holders when the law passed.

If O'charleys thought they could spend $10,000 on an ad campaign to increase their sales 4%, do you think they would do it? If they believe that their sales will go down 4%, they may not panic, but they'll notice. What am I out for eating elsewhere, or an extra night at home? Nothing.

[Guest TurboniumOxide]

I already boycott restaurants, they are too expensive for what they serve anyway. One year my wife and I spent 30K eating out. We cut it off quite abruptly. Now it is Burger King, Subway, and a little texmex place down the road. TexMex serves alcohol, so I guess I am going to be saving even more money now.

If I was going to attack the restaurants however, I wouldn't do it through boycotts. I know of another little texmex place that went out of business because of cockroaches in their food.

[TGO David]

How is the business owner supporting me, if they don't take action as simple as a letter to get my business? Just because they allowed me there when the law said they could? I don't remember a bunch of 20% off specials for carry permit holders when the law passed.

That's absurd.

If I was going to attack the restaurants however, I wouldn't do it through boycotts. I know of another little texmex place that went out of business because of cockroaches in their food.

I don't want to assume that you're implying something you're not, so I am just going to say that the way I read this sounds like it could be suggesting dirty pool. Please tell me I'm wrong.

[extremescene]

All a boycott will do is prevent you from eating the food that you and your family enjoy. You will feel like you are making a huge statement but you won't be. How would these restaurant even know you skipped them... you would have to call and tell them you're at cracker barrel instead. Absurd.

I understand the frustration, but you really have to step back and think about how such an idea could even possibly work. It will only inconvenience you!

I agree with the early reply that states that the effort would be better spent contacting legislators.

[JayC]

I disagree the vast majority of TNHA probably don't even know about the lawsuit, let alone support it.

Keep in mind this is the same group that said 86% of their member restaurants couldn't even be bothered to answer the survey they sent out about it.

What good does it do going after all restaurants when the vast majority didn't post, aren't in any way shape or form parties to the lawsuit, nor did anything negative?

A phone campaign, or something targeting the TNHA could have a drastic impact, if a number of their members woke up, or were encouraged to force a change at TNHA, then their lobbyist could be supporting new legislation next session, and the loony left guys like Rayburn would be left to pound the halls without the big $$$ support of the TNHA.

The TNHA are the folks who need to be targeting because their money has actively gone to support people fighting pro-2nd carry legislation for years. I'm happy to help in anyway towards a rational target, but going after people who largely supported our rights isn't the right idea IMHO.

I guess we disagree on the tactics. My feeling on this is we need to take a "scorched earth" view. For the great majority of the restaurants that didn't post, it had nothing to do with supporting us, it was just the path of least resistance.

Just targeting the members of the TNHA will be ineffective, because if they are still members of the organization, they are already believers of their views. We need to make the other restaurant owners be pro-active against any further limitations that will continue to impact their business. We need them to band together against the plaintiffs and convince them they are hurting all their businesses with their stupidity. This can only be accomplished by targeting their bottom line. This truly needs to be "you're either with us or against us." Otherwise, we're just going to continue to lose this fight.

The plaintiff's attorneys have already stated that they intend to continue legal action on any attempts the legislature may make to circumvent the Chancellor's decision. They think the public is with them and are citing that stupid MTSU poll as "proof" they are on the right track. The only shot we have at stopping this is making the other restaurant owners pressure them to back off. Make them be vocal in their opposition so that the newspapers can't say things like "most restaurants support the ban". Show that it's only a handful of restaurant owners that are causing all the trouble.

No, it has to be everyone, or it won't work at all. Yeah, it'll be inconvenient for us. We'll have to give up some dining habits for a while. Maybe we're just of a generation that's not willing to sacrifice anything for principle any more. Even "Two for $20" at Applebee's?

[JayC]

I'm sorry OhShoot, I respect you and don't really want to argue with you. But you are incorrect. I am not assuming all 4% of HCP holders will eat at a restaurant that serves alcohol every day. I am assuming that there is an equal chance that any individual who has an HCP permit will eat out on a given day as there is any other individual member of the population will eat out on a given day.

And the truth is that because of mean income and lack of a criminal history, and the indication that HCP's have more disposable income they likely eat out at restaurants which serve beer and liquor more often than the average citizen.

I'm not saying it's gone to make a ton of a difference but it will make a slight difference.

Also keep in mind that the 4% figure is based on total population, once you factor out kids that number becomes much larger.

Edited November 22, 2009 by JayC

[Oh Shoot]

Think it's time for me to unsubscribe from this thread......

Me too.

Oh wait, can I still make it read only?

- OS

edit: Oh, USMCJG, I bow out, I concede equal opportunity from both samples to reach 4% participation among HCPers.

It's fine, as there's not way it will happen - unfortunately, what's more important, even a well publicized attempt to do so can only

spotlight carry proponents in a Bad Way.

Edited November 22, 2009 by OhShoot

[extremescene]

And the truth is that because of mean income and lack of a criminal history, and the indication that HCP's have more disposable income they likely eat out at restaurants which serve beer and liquor more often than the average citizen.

Where do you get that HCP holders have more disposable income? More income than who... everybody else who doesn't carry a weapon?

Seems like quite an assumption. We carry a weapon so we must have more money... BS!!!

[macville]

Where do you get that HCP holders have more disposable income? More income than who... everybody else who doesn't carry a weapon?

Seems like quite an assumption. We carry a weapon so we must have more money... BS!!!

I agree!!! Disposable income is not going to be my life considering I am building up a business, the economy is bad, and I need to be saving for the kids I've yet to have... In fact, we've waited almost until the last week my wife's class certif. is valid because we haven't had the money to get it!

If you consider ages only you might be right as there are more people in the 40-60 age bracket that get permits than any other bracket. However, that really means nothing in reality because it doesn't take into account the areas of where these people are from. If it was from south FL, then yeah, probably more money...

Matthew

[titan14]

got 2 words for everyone on this thread....

SECOND AMMENDMENT!!!!

These BS laws and regs and "cant carry here, but can carry here" is a bunch of BS!!!!.....

Please please please...talk to your reps, email them, call them.....give them a REASON to think about how WE feel.

If they don't listen...call them again....email them again.....

VOTE THEM OUT!!!!!

tell everyone you know and come in contact with, that these people are infringing on OUR rights as American citizens!

[Mike.357]

Like 4% of the TN population, even IF every single one participated, would make a whisker of difference state wide to any given restaurant, or chain.

- OS

true dat. I will participate in the boycott, but I doubt anyone will notice. Seeing as the only time I have been to place to eat was the group outing when the law took effect. I don't exactly ever go to restaurants that serve anyway. I am more of a Shoney's kind of guy.