Contributor Post Created with Sketch. Recommended by Ricochet Members Created with Sketch. My Encounter with Gun Control Fanatics

 

We had been seated for only a few minutes at the Grille, the restaurant in our gated community. Suddenly I saw my husband’s eyes open, then roll, as he shook his head in disgust. He was looking behind me, and as I turned around, I saw a couple sitting down at a table for two. Standing in front of their table for all to see was a white sign with the large letters “AR IS FOR WAR.” We live in a 55+ community, so the man was no youngster. His hair was grey, as was his wife’s, and he was wearing a distinctive military cap on his head, although I couldn’t read what it said.

We called our waiter over, who is a very nice young man, and said this was not the place for a political statement. He said he couldn’t do anything, but said he would let the manager know. After several minutes, the manager didn’t appear, so my husband lost his patience and went to fetch her. She told him she didn’t realize it was a political sign. Right. Several minutes later she appeared at the table with the sign, chatted, and left. Nothing else was done.

I could see that my husband was working up a head of steam; neither of us could let go of the couple’s insistence on making what we considered to be an offensive political statement. I finally told my husband that I was going over to see what kind of statement they thought they were making. I saw that the man was a Seabee from his hat, and said my husband was a Vietnam War vet. The conversation went somewhat like this:

Me: What’s your intention in displaying the sign here?

Them: We just returned from the march in Orlando and we’re displaying the sign for the kids. After all the kids were leading the march and needed our support.

Me: Ah, yes, the gun control march; you know that outside organizations are supplying money and coordination for them.

The conversation went downhill from there.

Me: The second amendment allows the right to bear arms.

Them: The second amendment only allows the right to form a militia. And this doesn’t have to do with the second amendment anyway.

Me: You are not well-informed.

Them: Oh, you must watch too much Fox News. How would you feel if someone wore a MAGA hat?

Me: I’d be fine except hats shouldn’t be worn indoors. And a hat is not comparable to a 3’x4’ sign.

Them: The kid in Parkland could have been stopped if he hadn’t had an assault rifle.

Me: Seriously? A person with a pistol and enough scared people could have done the same thing.

Them: I used an assault weapon (really) in the military and people don’t need them.

As I anticipated, we kept interrupting and talking over each other. Our voices were raised a little, but we both confessed we were hard of hearing. I finally walked away in disgust.

Someone may say the discussion was a waste of time. But it wasn’t for me.

I learned a lot. These folks confirmed for me that some gun control folks are uninformed (and these people owned guns); they are governed by emotion (it’s for the kids); they believe the propaganda of the left; they aren’t interested in civil discussion (although I wasn’t very helpful in making that happen).

This exchange gave me the opportunity to stand up not only for truth and the second amendment, but I stood up for me and my husband and everyone who believes in the Constitution. (I was relieved that my husband didn’t join me in the discussion because it would have gotten more vocal.) I also stood up for freedom and for our country.

I plan to write to the restaurant management. They should have a policy regarding this kind of behavior. In these times, it could happen again. The next time I may not be so nice.

There are 184 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. Mountie Coolidge

    Susan Quinn:

    THEM: The second amendment only allows the right to form a militia. And this doesn’t have to do with the second amendment anyway.

    ME: You are not well-informed.

    I’m seeing a lot of this lately. Seems the Supreme Court doesn’t amount to much anymore.

    • #1
    • March 25, 2018, at 8:09 AM PDT
    • 7 likes
  2. Susan Quinn Contributor
    Susan Quinn

    Mountie (View Comment):

    Susan Quinn:

    THEM: The second amendment only allows the right to form a militia. And this doesn’t have to do with the second amendment anyway.

    ME: You are not well-informed.

    I’m seeing a lot of this lately. Seems the Supreme Court doesn’t amount to much anymore.

    Yep. They must have missed that. You all can go to @mountie‘s link–here’s a summary–in case you missed it:

    District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), is a landmark case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home, and that Washington, D.C.’s handgun ban and requirement that lawfully-owned rifles and shotguns be kept “unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock” violated this guarantee.

     

     

     

    • #2
    • March 25, 2018, at 8:16 AM PDT
    • 5 likes
  3. Doug Watt Moderator

    People become emotionally invested in their arguments. Reason and angry rationalizations do not mix well, when reason confronts the emotional, the emotional person is stunned, and resents the fact that their views have been challenged.

    Keep your distance from the person driving this vehicle, the vehicle has become an extension of themselves, to include the portion of the road that they are driving upon. This is not unlike your encounter in the restaurant, that table became their platform to display their virtue for all to see. They could have left their sign in the car, but then no one else would know what wonderful people they are.

    • #3
    • March 25, 2018, at 8:18 AM PDT
    • 21 likes
  4. Susan Quinn Contributor
    Susan Quinn

    Doug Watt (View Comment):

    People become emotionally invested in their arguments. Reason and angry rationalizations do not mix well, when reason confronts the emotional, the emotional person is stunned, and resents the fact that their views have been challenged.

    Keep your distance from the person driving this vehicle, the vehicle has become an extension of themselves, to include the portion of the road that they are driving upon. This is not unlike your encounter in the restaurant, that table became their platform to display their virtue for all to see. They could have left their sign in the car, but then no one else would know what wonderful people they are.

    So well said, Doug!! For many people, their cars are extensions of themselves, so this is even a worse danger. Heaven help us all.

    • #4
    • March 25, 2018, at 8:20 AM PDT
    • 6 likes
  5. Hoyacon Member

    Once you hear “Fox News,” any chance of dialogue is over. The degree of indoctrination is pretty stunning.

    • #5
    • March 25, 2018, at 8:20 AM PDT
    • 22 likes
  6. Ruthenian Member
    Ruthenian Joined in the first year of Ricochet Ricochet Charter Member

    Thank you for sharing this story. It appears that politics invade every available space with in-your-face virtue signaling. Not long ago I got an email from a friend – yes, we are still friends – for avoiding political discussions with him. He was upset that I would not let him engage me, so he could show me error of my ways. At the end, when I pointed how emotional he could get during our political conversations/exchanges – that is why I avoid them, as we have many other areas of interest to discuss – he concluded “I guess, I will keep my mouth shut.” The guests at the restaurant could have benefited from this perspective. There should be spaces where one can engage without interferance in what these spaces are designed for, e.g, restaurants = food consumption… They probably would have gotten upset over a sign that said “Ownership of AR-15 is protected by the 2nd Amandement” displayed in the very same restaurant…

    • #6
    • March 25, 2018, at 8:21 AM PDT
    • 6 likes
  7. Susan Quinn Contributor
    Susan Quinn

    Hoyacon (View Comment):

    Once you hear “Fox News,” any chance of dialogue is over. The degree of indoctrination is pretty stunning.

    I gave myself a pat on the back for not calling them idiots, @hoyacon. I was really upset. I should have asked them which media they relied on–actually we exchanged other comments and afterward my husband and I both thought of things we could have said, but it would have been a waste of time. Can you believe this guy owned several guns and had been in the military, too? Okay, rant over . . . .

    • #7
    • March 25, 2018, at 8:24 AM PDT
    • 7 likes
  8. Hoyacon Member

    Doug Watt (View Comment):

    People become emotionally invested in their arguments. Reason and angry rationalizations do not mix well, when reason confronts the emotional, the emotional person is stunned, and resents the fact that their views have been challenged.

    Keep your distance from the person driving this vehicle, the vehicle has become an extension of themselves, to include the portion of the road that they are driving upon. This is not unlike your encounter in the restaurant, that table became their platform to display their virtue for all to see. They could have left their sign in the car, but then no one else would know what wonderful people they are.

    Ever notice that cars like this are invariably Subarus?

    • #8
    • March 25, 2018, at 8:25 AM PDT
    • 7 likes
  9. Susan Quinn Contributor
    Susan Quinn

    Ruthenian (View Comment):
    “Ownership of AR-15 is protected by the 2nd Amandement” displayed in the very same restaurant…

    H.m.m.m.m….. now there’s a thought . . . . . Thanks for your comment, @ruthenian

    I have no Lefty friends I can speak to about politics anymore.

    • #9
    • March 25, 2018, at 8:26 AM PDT
    • 4 likes
  10. Mate De Inactive

    Ah the old leftist trope of “you must watch too much Fox News” it is the annoying response in an argument. Just because they have been brainwashed by the media doesn’t mean the rest of us are

    • #10
    • March 25, 2018, at 8:34 AM PDT
    • 8 likes
  11. Rodin Member

    @susanquinn, I don’t know whether you missed or simply failed to mention the key argument to the sign bearer: “So you are OK with keeping women defenseless?!” The value of gun ownership particularly for women and anyone who may be less physically imposing than an attacker is the parity a gun brings to the fight. Ergo, denying a woman (of any age) access to a firearm is to keep them defenseless. 

    Pitting two progressive causes against each other creates confusion in the progressive mind. Try it, and watch the fun.

    • #11
    • March 25, 2018, at 8:38 AM PDT
    • 25 likes
  12. cdor Member
    cdor Joined in the first year of Ricochet Ricochet Charter Member

    Mountie (View Comment):

    Susan Quinn:

    THEM: The second amendment only allows the right to form a militia. And this doesn’t have to do with the second amendment anyway.

    ME: You are not well-informed.

    I’m seeing a lot of this lately. Seems the Supreme Court doesn’t amount to much anymore.

    I would say, it depends on whose ox they ( the Supreme Court) are goreing. 

     

    • #12
    • March 25, 2018, at 8:39 AM PDT
    • 5 likes
  13. Susan Quinn Contributor
    Susan Quinn

    Rodin (View Comment):

    @susanquinn, I don’t know whether you missed or simply failed to mention the key argument to the sign bearer: “So you are OK with keeping women defenseless?!” The value of gun ownership particularly for women and anyone who may be less physically imposing than an attacker is the parity a gun brings to the fight. Ergo, denying a woman (of any age) access to a firearm is to keep them defenseless.

    Pitting two progressive causes against each other creates confusion in the progressive mind. Try it, and watch the fun.

    I mentioned in a later comment that he told me he had guns, @rodin. He just thinks this particular gun is a bad idea. His wife asked me why people had to have assault rifles. I said, why not? End of that train of thought . . .

    • #13
    • March 25, 2018, at 8:43 AM PDT
    • 3 likes
  14. Rodin Member

    Susan Quinn (View Comment):

    Rodin (View Comment):

    @susanquinn, I don’t know whether you missed or simply failed to mention the key argument to the sign bearer: “So you are OK with keeping women defenseless?!” The value of gun ownership particularly for women and anyone who may be less physically imposing than an attacker is the parity a gun brings to the fight. Ergo, denying a woman (of any age) access to a firearm is to keep them defenseless.

    Pitting two progressive causes against each other creates confusion in the progressive mind. Try it, and watch the fun.

    I mentioned in a later comment that he told me he had guns, @rodin. He just thinks this particular gun is a bad idea. His wife asked me why people had to have assault rifles. I said, why not? End of that train of thought . . .

    The correct (IMO) response to the question “why [do] people [have] to have assault rifles” is: “Aren’t all rifles and handguns ‘assault weapons’?” 

    • #14
    • March 25, 2018, at 8:49 AM PDT
    • 13 likes
  15. Susan Quinn Contributor
    Susan Quinn

    Rodin (View Comment):
    The correct (IMO) response to the question “why [do] people [have] to have assault rifles” is: “Aren’t all rifles and handguns ‘assault weapons’?” 

    Darn, great point! I’ll put that in my gun toolkit for the next time!

    • #15
    • March 25, 2018, at 8:50 AM PDT
    • 4 likes
  16. Spin Coolidge
    Spin Joined in the first year of Ricochet Ricochet Charter Member

    I have three problems:

    First, why is the sign offensive? I don’t agree with them, but they have every right to spout their nonsense.

    Second, who says a hat is not to be worn in doors?

    Third, why should the restaurant have a policy regarding “this kind of thing”? No doubt the other couple feels the restaurant should have a policy regarding carrying a gun in to the establishment. At what point do we all just do our thing?

    • #16
    • March 25, 2018, at 9:01 AM PDT
    • 10 likes
  17. KentForrester Moderator

    Susan, your moxie is undermining your serenity. I can only imagine what their conversation was like after the “crazy lady” left.

    BTW, what about the couple’s First Amendment rights? Didn’t they have every right to display that sign, as long as the owner of the restaurant didn’t object to it. That is, his property rights (which I’m a big fan of) would have allowed him not to serve the couple. But he did.

    I agree that the couple was obnoxious, but the world is full of jerks. To confront even a small portion of them would completely destroy my serenity—which I value more and more as I grow older. You’re a bold woman, Susan. 

    Kent

     

    • #17
    • March 25, 2018, at 9:01 AM PDT
    • 9 likes
  18. Susan Quinn Contributor
    Susan Quinn

    KentForrester (View Comment):

    Susan, your moxie is undermining your serenity. I can only imagine what their conversation was like after the “crazy lady” left.

    BTW, what about the couple’s First Amendment rights? Didn’t they have every right to display that sign, as long as the owner of the restaurant didn’t object to it. That is, his property rights (which I’m a big fan of) would have allowed him not to serve the couple. But he did.

    I agree that the couple was obnoxious, but the world is full of jerks. To confront even a small portion of them would completely destroy my serenity—which I value more and more as I grow older. You’re a bold woman, Susan.

    Kent

    I doubt I sounded crazy; it was a fairly cordial discussion. The owner/executive manager was not present. (Our waiter said the manager on duty was not a high-level manager. The development has strict rules about the display of political signs at our homes; it will be interesting to see if they have policies regarding their facilities.

    Finally, I have plenty of serenity in my life, fortunately, and few opportunities to speak my truth. When those show up, I act.

     

    • #18
    • March 25, 2018, at 9:07 AM PDT
    • 8 likes
  19. Susan Quinn Contributor
    Susan Quinn

    Spin (View Comment):

    I have three problems:

    First, why is the sign offensive? I don’t agree with them, but they have every right to spout their nonsense.

    Second, who says a hat is not to be worn in doors?

    Third, why should the restaurant have a policy regarding “this kind of thing”? No doubt the other couple feels the restaurant should have a policy regarding carrying a gun in to the establishment. At what point do we all just do our thing?

    Yes, but see my comment to Kent #17; I don’t think they have the right to do it in a development facility. The hat thing is meh. And frankly, @spin, I did do my thing. That’s precisely what I did.

    • #19
    • March 25, 2018, at 9:09 AM PDT
    • 8 likes
  20. Susan Quinn Contributor
    Susan Quinn

    This is what I wrote to management:

    Dear Mr. –,

    Last night (Saturday) around 5pm we went to the Grille for an early dinner. A few minutes after we were seated, a couple came in and sat down at a table nearby and prominently displayed a 3’X4′ sign that said AR is for War. We were offended by their decision to make a political statement inside the restaurant. We spoke to our waiter who spoke to the manager on duty. We waited for several minutes, and when she didn’t come into the dining room, my husband went to the bar area to speak to her. A few minutes later she came to the other couple’s table, spoke to them, and left. Nothing else happened.

     

    I took it upon myself to speak with them courteously; they felt they were entitled to make this display. Although I know you have policies regarding political signs at Solivita homes, I don’t know if you have a policy regarding the display of signs inside of Solivita facilities. (I would have been less bothered if they’d held a sign outside, although I don’t know if outside is considered private or public property.

     

    I recommend that if there is a policy, your managers be educated. If there is no policy, I suggest one be developed and that managers be instructed on how to address these political actions. In these times, I wouldn’t be surprised to see more of these kinds of displays.

     

    If this complaint needs to be directed to someone else, please let me know. If you would like to discuss this with me, you can reach me at 863-852-3068; either my husband or I would be happy to talk to you.

    • #20
    • March 25, 2018, at 9:11 AM PDT
    • 7 likes
  21. Spin Coolidge
    Spin Joined in the first year of Ricochet Ricochet Charter Member

    Susan Quinn (View Comment):
    And frankly, @spin, I did do my thing. That’s precisely what I did.

    What I mean is, I come in with my gun on my hip and eat a nice meal, you come in with your sign, and eat a nice meal, and we just have our meals and who gives a rip? That’s what I mean. they think you shouldn’t have an AR, and you think they shouldn’t have a sign in the Grille. I think you should both have your AR and your sign and your nice meal.

    • #21
    • March 25, 2018, at 9:25 AM PDT
    • 10 likes
  22. Rodin Member

    Susan Quinn (View Comment):

    Spin (View Comment):

    I have three problems:

    First, why is the sign offensive? I don’t agree with them, but they have every right to spout their nonsense.

    Second, who says a hat is not to be worn in doors?

    Third, why should the restaurant have a policy regarding “this kind of thing”? No doubt the other couple feels the restaurant should have a policy regarding carrying a gun in to the establishment. At what point do we all just do our thing?

    Yes, but see my comment to Kent #17; I don’t think they have the right to do it in a development facility. The hat thing is meh. And frankly, @spin, I did do my thing. That’s precisely what I did.

    The answer to offensive speech is not “more” speech when the setting is not a rally or the establishment is not the target of informational picketing. No doubt a raucous party would have been cautioned to try and “keep it down” even if it were a nonpolitical conversation if it interfered with the enjoyment of the meals of other patrons. It is entirely reasonable that an establishment have rules to maximize the enjoyment of all the patrons. Yes, a sign might be a “quiet” statement (providing its size was not imposing), but an establishment festooned with “quiet” statements all about, may drive customers away unless the draw of the establishment is that it is a soapbox with luncheon meats.

    • #22
    • March 25, 2018, at 9:29 AM PDT
    • 4 likes
  23. The Reticulator Member

    Doug Watt (View Comment):
    This is not unlike your encounter in the restaurant, that table became their platform to display their virtue for all to see.

    I don’t see any virtue there.

    • #23
    • March 25, 2018, at 9:40 AM PDT
    • 4 likes
  24. EJHill Podcaster
    EJHill Joined in the first year of Ricochet Ricochet Charter Member

    Susan Quinn: Standing in front of their table for all to see was a white sign with the large letters AR IS FOR WAR.

    You should have said, “Yes, you’re right. An AR is for war against a tyrannical government, even if it has a majority consent to take away your natural rights.”

     

    • #24
    • March 25, 2018, at 9:44 AM PDT
    • 14 likes
  25. Quake Voter Inactive

    Spin (View Comment):

    I have three problems:

    First, why is the sign offensive? I don’t agree with them, but they have every right to spout their nonsense.

    Second, who says a hat is not to be worn in doors?

    Third, why should the restaurant have a policy regarding “this kind of thing”? No doubt the other couple feels the restaurant should have a policy regarding carrying a gun in to the establishment. At what point do we all just do our thing?

    Why not be more cooperative? You could walk over and ask “Hey, are you going to be using that sign now that the protest is over? I can recycle it for you. It would make a great target at the gun range.”

    • #25
    • March 25, 2018, at 9:46 AM PDT
    • 25 likes
  26. Ralphie Member

    Hoyacon (View Comment):

    Doug Watt (View Comment):

    People become emotionally invested in their arguments. Reason and angry rationalizations do not mix well, when reason confronts the emotional, the emotional person is stunned, and resents the fact that their views have been challenged.

    Keep your distance from the person driving this vehicle, the vehicle has become an extension of themselves, to include the portion of the road that they are driving upon. This is not unlike your encounter in the restaurant, that table became their platform to display their virtue for all to see. They could have left their sign in the car, but then no one else would know what wonderful people they are.

    Ever notice that cars like this are invariably Subarus?

    The UAW votes Democrat, and Democrats buy foreign.

    • #26
    • March 25, 2018, at 9:48 AM PDT
    • 3 likes
  27. Quake Voter Inactive

    Susan Quinn (View Comment):

    This is what I wrote to management:

    Dear Mr. –,

    Last night (Saturday) around 5pm we went to the Grille for an early dinner. A few minutes after we were seated, a couple came in and sat down at a table nearby and prominently displayed a 3’X4′ sign that said AR is for War. We were offended by their decision to make a political statement inside the restaurant. We spoke to our waiter who spoke to the manager on duty. We waited for several minutes, and when she didn’t come into the dining room, my husband went to the bar area to speak to her. A few minutes later she came to the other couple’s table, spoke to them, and left. Nothing else happened.

     

    I took it upon myself to speak with them courteously; they felt they were entitled to make this display. Although I know you have policies regarding political signs at Solivita homes, I don’t know if you have a policy regarding the display of signs inside of Solivita facilities. (I would have been less bothered if they’d held a sign outside, although I don’t know if outside is considered private or public property.

     

    I recommend that if there is a policy, your managers be educated. If there is no policy, I suggest one be developed and that managers be instructed on how to address these political actions. In these times, I wouldn’t be surprised to see more of these kinds of displays.

     

    If this complaint needs to be directed to someone else, please let me know. If you would like to discuss this with me, you can reach me at 863-852-3068; either my husband or I would be happy to talk to you.

    If they stand on principle Susan, there are some very provocative Meat is Murder signs you can bring to the table next time to test that virtue.

    • #27
    • March 25, 2018, at 9:48 AM PDT
    • 6 likes
  28. The Reticulator Member

    Ralphie (View Comment):

    Hoyacon (View Comment):

    Doug Watt (View Comment):

    People become emotionally invested in their arguments. Reason and angry rationalizations do not mix well, when reason confronts the emotional, the emotional person is stunned, and resents the fact that their views have been challenged.

    Keep your distance from the person driving this vehicle, the vehicle has become an extension of themselves, to include the portion of the road that they are driving upon. This is not unlike your encounter in the restaurant, that table became their platform to display their virtue for all to see. They could have left their sign in the car, but then no one else would know what wonderful people they are.

    Ever notice that cars like this are invariably Subarus?

    The UAW votes Democrat, and Democrats buy foreign.

    Not in Detroit, they don’t.

    • #28
    • March 25, 2018, at 9:50 AM PDT
    • 2 likes
  29. Susan Quinn Contributor
    Susan Quinn

    Ralphie (View Comment):
    The UAW votes Democrat, and Democrats buy foreign.

    Dontcha love the irony??

    • #29
    • March 25, 2018, at 9:51 AM PDT
    • 2 likes
  30. Ralphie Member

    I probably would have walked out of the place. People with tats that cover their body and who carry big signs want notice.

     

    • #30
    • March 25, 2018, at 9:53 AM PDT
    • 2 likes

Comments are closed because this post is more than six months old. Please write a new post if you would like to continue this conversation.