Moms Demand Action Announce Another Exciting Non-Win!

MV5BMjI1OTQ2MjU0MV5BMl5BanBnXkFtZTcwNzEwOTM4Mw@@._V1_SX640_SY720_

Bloomberg owned and operated Mothers Demand Action for Gun Sense in America are trumpeting their latest victory. Or so they say. Whenever the hoplophobic harridans announce a “win” it’s best to take the news with a large grain of salt. Remember their Staples and Starbucks non-win wins? Neither retailer prohibits firearms in any of their stores in states where conceal carry is legal. And the announcement they’ve extracted from Jack in the Box is no different. Here’s the Moms’ email blast . . .

We did it again! Just 24 hours after we launched a petition asking Jack in the Box to enforce its policy prohibiting guns in its restaurants, the company issued this statement:

“Creating a warm and inviting environment for all of our guests and employees is a top priority for Jack in the Box. The presence of guns inside a restaurant could create an uncomfortable situation for our guests and employees and lead to unintended consequences. While we respect the rights of all of our guests, we would prefer that guests not bring their guns inside our restaurants.”

Jack in the Box also said it will have copies of this statement available at all of its restaurants so that its customers are crystal clear about the policy.

Please join me in thanking Jack in the Box for having gun sense by spreading the news of this victory on Facebook and on Twitter.

Screen Shot 2014-05-12 at 1.36.00 PM

 

Did you catch the artfully applied weasel wording from JitB? “…we would prefer that guests not bring their guns inside our restaurants.” In other words, just like Starbucks, they issued a non-statement announcing the non-prohibition of firearms in their stores to get Shannon and her two dozen or so moms off their backs, letting MDA announce another non-victory.

It’s another big juicy nothing-burger for Mayor Mike’s $50 million. Who’s up for a Jumbo Jack? With cheese!

comments

  1. avatar Parnell says:

    While I don’t have an English degree, isn’t there a major difference in meaning between “prohibit” and “prefer”?

    1. avatar Leadbelly says:

      Indeed. No matter how much I may “prefer” eighteen year old redheads, my wife “prohibits” them.

      1. avatar Matt in FL says:

        Well done. You very nearly caused a low level explosive expulsion of Pepsi.

      2. avatar JimmyDelta says:

        BAH!!!! I’m dyin’ ova here!

      3. avatar Jm R says:

        Do you know how much it hurts when Dr. Pepper goes up your nose? I do now. Thanks for that.

      4. avatar Rich Grise says:

        Hmph. I have yet to find an 18-year-old redhead who prefers me. 🙁
        [edit: That’s supposed to be a sad frowny-smiley, not angry, which it looks like on my monitor.]

        1. avatar cmeat says:

          umm, what about when you were eighteen? on second thought, nah.

        2. avatar Rich Grise says:

          Yeah, “Nah” – that’s about it. 😉

        3. avatar cmeat says:

          ralston purina dragged they’re delicious horse burgers out of chicago a long while ago. super taco. but i sure see lots of them while riding out to cave creek or down to karchner’s cavern. if they’re prevalent in arizona, how could they tell ‘those damned blue collar tweakers’ to go to carl’s junior instead? never happen.

      5. avatar Fler says:

        +5 Internets

      6. avatar Tom in Oregon says:

        OMG!
        Now my wife is asking me what I’m laughing at.
        I dare not tell her.

      7. avatar MountainBunny says:

        You deserve a spot in the thesaurus for that. Awesome.

    2. avatar DJ9 says:

      Yes, and as long as they don’t “post” their stores as no-carry zones, I believe that gunnies should still support them with their business.

      However, if they cross the line into participating in gun-owner shaming and demonizing by hanging up the circle-and-slashed-handgun sign, then they need to be reminded that they just removed half or more of their customer base, with absolutely no upside (they will gain no significant amount of customers from such a move, but will lose many).

    3. avatar Wyfaggro says:

      Yes, there is.

    4. avatar Old Ben turning in grave says:

      I prefer to carry my gun when I go to Starbucks. Did before MDA got a non-ban from Starbucks. Still do. No JitB where I live. But if there was, it would be the same. Suck it, MDA/MAIG.

    5. avatar Hannibal says:

      Somehow I don’t think the customers will be ‘clear’ on the policy if it reads like that…

      1. avatar Zealot says:

        My thoughts exactly! How are customers supposed to be “crystal clear” about that watered down, try-to-win-both-ways, marketing speak? MDA isn’t the only group earning a FAIL for this one.

  2. avatar NYC2AZ says:

    Moms Demand Heart Attacks and Clogged Arteries in America!

    1. avatar Gene says:

      At least their news is fluten-free. Hey, that’s another win for them!

      1. avatar Gene says:

        Fluten ==gluten

        Stupid soft keyboard and lack of attention

    2. avatar dh34 says:

      Cue the Sarah McGlaughlin background score…

      … for just pennies a day, that’s less than the cost of a high capacity clip thingy, you can sponsor one of these privileged suburban children who have become scared of the NRA bogeymen.

      Your generous gift will provide a child a hot nutritious meal of a Bloomburger with lactose-free cheese, genetically modified Monsanto fries cooked without trans-fat and a 31oz MDA koolaid. Each meal comes with a toy unicorn, the official mascot of Everytown…don’t worry we’ve still got plenty of clowns too…

  3. avatar Mina says:

    … and in other news … NPR story about private gun buy/sell/trade groups on Facebook enjoying using the system to purchase and trade firearms.
    http://www.npr.org/2014/04/26/306845758/facebook-gun-clubs-buy-sell-trade-and-cause-a-stir

    “Facebook declined a request for an interview, but in a statement, the company says it tries “hard to balance people’s interest in sharing things that they care about, while making sure Facebook is a safe and responsible community.””

    So much for that old #MomsDemand “win” He who laughs last laughs best.

    1. avatar Daniel Silverman says:

      AAwwww more fake wins for astro turf.

  4. avatar LJM says:

    These type of “victories” and Mayor Mike taking credit Debbie Halvorson’s defeat, ring hollow. It will be nice to see Bloomberg waste all that money during the Mid-terms supporting Anti 2A candidates.

  5. avatar Gyufygy says:

    *facepalm* The Hanlon’s Razor is strong with this one.

  6. avatar left Leaning Gunny says:

    JitB “says NO to guns.”

    Where does it say that? I guess MDA can make up anything they want.

    And JitB would rather issue a non-statement for 50 Moms, than PO 5+ million hamburger eating gun owners.

    1. avatar Jus Bill says:

      JitB really doesn’t care either way, as shown by the clever wording of their Non-Ban. It’s just more free advertising for their chain. I’ll bet they wish they could get the tree huggers to start a petition they could weasel around, so they could get even more free props.

      The Post Menopause Marauders may be sly, but they’re also pretty dense. And it appears that Shannon counts every “absence of an arrest for trespassing” as a win.

  7. avatar Albaniaaaaaaaa says:

    Obesity leads to much more death and suffering than any firearms in America. I laugh as MDA denounces tools used to protect millions of people every year while cheering for fast food that can lead to a truck load of health issues that cause more death than anything else in America.

    Just goes to show, just because someone big left your vaginal opening does not mean you gained any intelligence.

    1. avatar mark_anthony_78 says:

      Ha, you should steal that MDA poster and re-word it…

      “Only one of these things causes thousands of deaths per year (i.e. the hamburger)…”

    2. avatar Defens says:

      Did JiTB have a similar non-statement when Bloomie tried to prohibit large capacity soft drink containers from the menu in NYC?

    3. avatar Jus Bill says:

      Does this men the #Big Momma Michelle now opposes MDA? JitB is about as far from health food as you can get.

  8. avatar Hal says:

    Why the f*ck anyone would even eat in one of these shit holes is beyond me. CHL holders are the least of this chain’s worries.

    1. avatar JasonM says:

      What do you have against diarrhea?
      (I use the word to describe the results of eating there, not the “food” they serve. It’s Jack in the Box, so that clarification seemed necessary.)

    2. avatar Vhyrus says:

      Where I come from it is called ‘Yack in the sack’

      1. avatar cmeat says:

        here it was ‘jack in the crack’

    3. avatar Scott says:

      I used to know a guy that worked there. We all started calling it Jackoff-in-a Box, for some reason…

      1. avatar Paul G. says:

        Special sauce for that mom demanding action.

  9. avatar mark_anthony_78 says:

    Firearms sales are approximately $12 billion per year, which means gun owners have money.

    That’s a slice of financial pie that few smart businesses will cut from their bottom line by banning customers with fat wallets…

  10. avatar Daniel Silverman says:

    Ok well we all knew this was the case. There were some bogus addendums to some articles that said they would start enforcing a policy. Only one problem….
    Unlike Startbucks which actually released a statement to the general public.
    Jack in the Box, has not as of this morning released any statement the events that took place in Fort worth Texas, or any policy update, or even a publish of an existing policy.
    In other words other than a nicely worded email, I am guessing to Shannon Watts, nothing and I mean nothing has changed.
    Besides the fact that we know, NO one hid in a freezer, and No employee dialed 911, or hit a silent alarm, yeah this is a big nothing.

    1. avatar Another Robert says:

      Well, nothing about it at their corporate website, under “Press Releases” or “Responsibility”

      1. avatar Daniel Silverman says:

        Exactly, or via facebook or twitter. It is like it never happened.

        1. avatar Jus Bill says:

          Naturally. They never saw a revenue stream they didn’t like.

  11. avatar Hal says:

    Moms demand poor nutrition and child neglect in Amerika.

  12. avatar Sean N says:

    It’s been a few days…
    Has anybody seen anything from Jack In The Box about this?
    That wasn’t released by MDA members?

    Cause, I still haven’t.

    1. avatar Another Robert says:

      oops–put my reply in the wrong place. Went to their corporate website, nothing whatsoever about it there. I’m wondering if they said anything to anyone other than directly to MDA.

  13. avatar Paul53, says:

    Another resounding “whatever!”

  14. avatar Hal says:

    “policy.”

    Policy? WTF. That’s not a policy. It’s a polite way of telling you to go away and stop bothering their corporate office. Words mean things Shannon.

    Ms. “only two T’s in her last name not three” Watts needs to brush up her vocabulary.

    1. avatar William Burke says:

      I see what you did there.

      1. avatar RockOnHellChild says:

        I didn’t, might need someone to spell it out for me.

        1. avatar dph says:

          _watts, put a T in front of the w.

        2. avatar MudPuppy says:

          “twat” is a british-ism for idiot or fool, i.e twit, which is appropriate when describing Shannon and her organization. Unfortunately it will be deliberately misunderstood by the MAIG/MDA and generate tons of fauxtrage.

      2. avatar cmeat says:

        nah that would still be two… and this ain’t england and that’s not what it means here.

  15. avatar Cubby123 says:

    I always go through the drive thru anyway,hey did they call it a restaurant? Really? Looks like I and 80 million other gun owners will be spending our money elsewhere .But if I do go there I will make it a point to Open Carry ,and if they say we would prefer I not,then I will say”that’s nice”.By the way have you ever heard of the ACLU ,by chance?”

    1. avatar JasonM says:

      Depending on the state, that could result in a trespassing charge.
      They’ll probably refuse to serve you, while they wait for the police to arrive, if you carry against their will.
      More important, it’s perfectly within their rights as property owners to put any restriction they choose as a prerequisite for entering their property.

      1. avatar Paul G. says:

        Trespassing for violating a preference? Not at all. I’d tell them “Yes, and I prefer to eat elsewhere, but don’t see anything else nearby, so this will work….Thanks.”

        1. avatar Jus Bill says:

          Um, their corporate policy does not trump local law.

        2. avatar JasonM says:

          I was thinking more about if they ask you to leave.

      2. avatar JR says:

        I’d love for the lawyers to correct this if it’s wrong, but my understanding is that they would have to INFORM you of that prerequisite to being on their property before it is trespassing.

        In other words, they cannot have this policy, you show up, and they call the cops. Well, they can call the cops, but they cops will (likely) say, “okay, you gotta go. If you don’t, that’s trespassing, and you are taking a ride with me.”

        If they ask you to leave and you don’t and THEN they call the cops, you are indeed trespassing. But, if you just show up and they don’t say anything, you have not done anything improper.

        The business owner can’t expect you to be a corporate policy mind reader.

        If it’s posted with a sign, it’s very state dependent what the result would be if you go inside carrying.

        1. avatar JasonM says:

          The way I’ve always heard it, management has to ask you to leave in front of a cop, and if you then refuse, the cop can arrest you for trespassing.

        2. avatar Another Robert says:

          The deal is this–to make out a trespassing case, you have to show that the “trespasser’ had notice that his entry was without permission before he entered, or that he remained after he had notice that his entry or continued presence was without permission (permission from the owner or person in control of the property that is). That notice can come about in various ways, but it has to be there, and something amorphous like “we prefer” won’t cut it.

  16. avatar Adam says:

    Number of children killed by Jack in the Box – 4

    Number of children killed by law abiding citizens carrying guns in Jack in the Box – 0

    1. avatar Mack Bolan says:

      Ah yes I remember their tainted beef outbreak.

  17. avatar Zach says:

    And I prefer my chicken sandwiches without lettuce, but they still manage to put it on there every time even when I ask.

  18. avatar DamDoc says:

    Wasn’t Jack in the Box the fast food chain that killed kids with tainted beef a number of years ago?.. So, more kids have died eating hamburgers than guns in the jack in the box?.. Just wondering!

    1. avatar JasonM says:

      How many kids have died eating guns?

      1. avatar Matt Richardson says:

        Is that a… loaded question?

  19. avatar GSRpositive says:

    Yes, and force-feeding your child a mass-produced cheeseburger shows how much moms care for the health and safety of their children. Nice poster pic.

    1. avatar William Burke says:

      You beat me to it by a hair. I am a bit disturbed by an image of a little girl being hand-fed, like a baby bird, by a gun-fearing Mom. Maybe the child has been paralyzed by her mother’s irrational fears of inanimate objects. SMILE, darling! Mama’s fears will keep you safe!

      In other news, Chuck Schumer calls for limiting other people’s First Amendment rights:

      http://godfatherpolitics.com/15416/chuck-schumer-wants-change-first-amendment-limit-free-speech/

      1. avatar Defens says:

        I saw the SMILE in all caps, and somehow translated it to SMLE. I thought to myself, yeah, an Enfield will keep you safe, but be harder to conceal in a fast food restaurant.

        Look at this baby!

  20. avatar TheOtherDavid says:

    i love me some Breakfast Jacks. I remember thinking how amazing it was that they were open 24 hours, and that they had breakfast food. Also my favorite fast-food commercial of all time, the hook-and-ladder driver placing the order and the rear driver picking up the food.

    But I digress. Problem with these non-win-wins is that while we know nothing has changed, mainstream low-info people will go “gee, another company says no to guns – I guess guns ARE weird and scary and dangerous”

    Shannon Watts knows this. She has made millions of dollars in PR work for GE, Monsanto, etc….it has nothing to do with facts. It is all about perception. Just like “common sense gun laws” have nothing to do with facts. They have everything to do with fear-mongering, demonization, and emotional appeals.

    1. avatar William Burke says:

      And MONEY. There is one thing Shannon Watts is all about, and that thing is MONEY. Moms Demand Betrayal of Rights may be about icky guns for some members, but for Shannon it’s about money and her career advancement.

      1. avatar Jus Bill says:

        Correct!

    2. avatar Another Robert says:

      Again, I’m wondering if anybody knows about this “win” other than Shannon and her empty-nester zombie moms, and the odd “journalist”. I’m fairly certain if I venture into the local Jack outpost here in the next few weeks I’m not gonna find any stack of notices about their newly-revealed “preference”.

  21. avatar Roscoe says:

    Watts et al know perfectly well they were blown off, after all she was a corporate propagandist spokeswoman for many years and knows exactly what such a statement from J/B means. All she is doing is applying spin to make the statement *appear* to be something it isn’t for the low information masses. To that end she has made another small gain.

    1. avatar William Burke says:

      Straight out of the Saul Alinsky playbook: “Proclaim every defeat as a victory.”

    2. avatar JR says:

      “To that end she has made another small gain.”

      I see what you mean, but I do disagree.

      The only people that will take her word for this “victory” are her sycophantic followers that are VERY small in number.

      She has not ‘gained’ anything, if we define “gain” as “convincing more people to jump onto her bandwagon.”

      1. avatar Roscoe says:

        Small gain as in chipping away with her (their) repetitive message; the propaganda stream which the biased MSM is so willing to promote.

  22. avatar Dave357 says:

    Looks like a Starbucks style veiled suggestion to carry concealed rather than openly at their establishments.

  23. avatar A says:

    Let say the anti’s got what they wanted and the 2nd amendment was repealed, all gun stores and shooting ranges disappear, all law-abiding citizens turn in their guns, and only cops and military can bear arms. Home invasion and other violent crime increase like in Jamaica. Would the group disappear or would they still campaign against “gun violence”? Or obesity? Would some of them convert once their house gets invaded?

  24. avatar Sixpack70 says:

    You are probably more likely to die of e. Coli at Jack in the Box than from someone with a concealed or open carried weapon.

  25. avatar Tim says:

    Problem here is that the dim-witted, slow to react NRA needs to (but won’t) release their own puff stating “Jack In The Box affirms the individual right to keep and bear arms….”

    MAIG is winning the message war, which by the way cares not a damn about the “truth”.

    1. avatar Jus Bill says:

      Correct.

  26. avatar former water walker says:

    No Jack in the Box around here. This is a non-story. Boycott if they put signs up. Or use the drive up.

  27. avatar Puyallup devil doc says:

    I know what we should do now. We should all start showing up to Jack In The Box open carrying ARs. That will surely help push corporate over onto the pro 2nd side of things…

  28. avatar JasonM says:

    The statement says they respect their customers’ rights, but they prefer the customers not carry firearms.
    Does this mean they’ll ask people to leave? Reading it literally, the first bit means they’ll let their respect for people’s rights trump their preference. But it’s ambiguous whether that means generally, or in the “restaurant”.

    But then I suspect this was worded specifically to make Shannon stop bothering them, while minimizing any annoyance among potential gun-owning food poisoning victims customers.

  29. avatar No_Smoking says:

    Does anyone have a direct link to the statement JitB made? All I see is something MDA says they said….

  30. avatar TXGal says:

    Last Weds. met my sister-in-law at our farm outside Frederricksburg TX. Went to lunch at the Airport Diner,
    Went to gun range, Hill Country Shooting Sports Center, located in Kerrville, Texas, after putting couple of hundred rounds down range, enjoyed an iced coffee at Starbucks in Kerrville, Texas. None of these places prohibits concealed carry, not matter how much it might be preferred. US Post Office prohibits guns in their post office but not parking lot, so I package, print postage and use the the drive up mailbox to mail things now. At 63 yrs. old and just recently recieved Texas CHL, I appreciate my right to keep and bear arms (CC) more every day. Have no idea if sis in law was tooled up that day, souhern ladies don’t ask personal questions. But knowing her, bet she was!

  31. avatar Jake Tallman says:

    Does anyone else find MDA’s picture on that poster a little…creepy? The hand feeding that little girl is obviously not hers, but she’s clearly old enough to be feeding herself.

    And the way she’s looking up at the camera with a partially open mouth while the hand of an unseen person feeds her…. It just feels very pedophile-ish. And I have no problem with MDA making a pedi-ish poster. The more they hurt their own credibility, the better.

    1. avatar TheOtherDavid says:

      Not too pedophilish to me but as I look at it, it does make me think of the gun control world view. We’ll have ALL the rights, we’ll tell you what rights you can have, and we’ll feed them to you when we’re damn good and ready.

      Shannon’s rent-a-thugs look like they do have frequent eater miles at fast food joints….

  32. avatar DerryM says:

    You’ll know Jack is serious if he features this in one of his usually funny commercials. Otherwise it’s just so much bloviation.
    I stopped going to Jack when it came clear to me that his “we don’t make it until you order it” campaign was probably a bunch of prevarication. I came to that conclusion when I bought two Cheeseburgers on successive occasions where the patty had obviously been cooked for some time and was thrown back on the grill to slightly melt the cheese. The patty was dry, tasteless and somewhat tough and a dull flat brown color. I recognized this because I managed in fast food places a number of years and knew this was exactly how a patty cooked more than an hour and stored in a heated pan looks and tastes like. This was what we found in some testing we did to determine quality standards. We continued to cook fresh and did not serve anything more than five minutes old off the grill. Plays hell with food Cost of Sales, but you are not cheating your Customer.
    Caveat emptor.

  33. avatar KC in norcal says:

    I sometimes look at the MDA facebook page and had to chuckle at a post asking why on earth anybody “needs a gun to buy a hamburger”? This was right below an article about a teen who was shot near his house (by somebody with a stolen handgun he was to young to even buy anyway) in a “peaceful neighborhood”. You dont need a gun to buy a burger but you need one because something can happen any time anywhere, even outside your home in Mayberry.

    1. avatar TheOtherDavid says:

      They just don’t get it – they never see a firearm as a routine safety tool just like a fire extinguisher or smoke detector. Why does she need a cellphone to buy a burger? Did she feel compelled to text her order or something? Yet she had it with her in the restaurant.

      Same thing for us. We carry because we can and we recognize the need. It’s a tool, like any other tool or device I carry. But the way they talk, you’d think that Voldemort himself was gonna take control of my Glock before I get my fries.

      Still think “Glock In The Box” would be a great name for a store. Drive up, talk to the clown, your 50 count box of Federal HSTs is waiting at the pick up window.

      1. avatar Jus Bill says:

        Good point! I now have just four words for Shannon: “Hang up and drive!”

  34. avatar PJTalker says:

    “A man’s rights rest in three boxes. The ballot box, jury box and the cartridge box.” ~ Frederick Douglas, 1867 ~ Jack In The Box is not one of them.

  35. avatar RockOnHellChild says:

    Apparently, MDA is a fan of 2AM munchies places, probably after a long night of demanding action at the local watering hole.

  36. avatar dh34 says:

     

    I am not opposed to open carry, but it’s not something I would normally do in public for a number of reasons.   The primary one being that I prefer discretion and maintaining a low profile.  It has served me well in the past, and should I need to employ force or the threat of it, I want to be in control of when I tip my hand.  I do however, want to preserve that right should I deem it necessary. 

    Though I think some tend to take it too far, I’m not going to say “no one needs to open carry”.  It’s not my place to make that call, but I think folks need to use good judgment on when and where to do it.  I have been around firearms most of my life and am very comfortable around them, others are not.  And it’s going to be hard to socialize those people, because a lot of them have already made up their minds that guns are scary.  Many of these people are sheep, it’s sad to say, and they raise their children to be “generation victim”.   They have not served in the military, they are not law enforcement or first responders, nor are the type that can fix a car, hunt, or do much in the way of self-reliance.  They depend on others for pretty much everything including the freedom to be fast and loose with the rights of others, and frequently hold in contempt those that provide that protection.  They are blissfully unaware of the big bad world that exists outside their comfortable existence, be it inside or outside of the US.   That is the nature of the system that we live in. 

    It is unfortunate that this battle forces businesses to make statements like this.  They don’t want to pick a side and have to straddle the fence carefully.  Unfortunately the open carry supporters force these things, and though they are not real wins for the MDA, it gives the appearance to the uninformed of a victory.  I’m not a big fan of Starbucks, but generally when I go there, I am carrying.  I carry according to the laws of my state, and if for some reason they should ask me to leave because of it, I will out of respect for the law and their wishes.  I will treat Jack in the Box the same.  Should they at some point place legal signage prohibiting firearms, I will comply and at that point take my business elsewhere.  I respect them taking a stand, but they will lose my business as I take mine.  I’m not going to punish Starbucks (other than for serving overpriced mediocre products) or Jack in the Box, for taking a non-stand, because they have pretty much been dragged into it without their consent.  MDA/Bloomberg, #monsantomommy, etc..are going to pressure businesses to take a side.   I jus;t don’t think putting businesses in the middle helps anyone.

     

  37. avatar James Miller says:

    What Ms. Watts fails to understand is that “policy” or no-policy, if they don’t put up a 30.06 sign, they can go pound sand.

  38. avatar anon says:

    Sweet! Now those clowns who rifle OC’d at JitB can go back and do it again. And think they’re helping. Again. Still.

  39. avatar uncommon_sense says:

    Why is it that we never seem to hear company statements like this:

    Creating a warm and inviting environment for all of our guests and employees is a top priority for Jack in the Box. Prohibiting guns inside a restaurant could create an uncomfortable situation for our guests and employees and lead to unintended consequences.

    I for one am incredibly uncomfortable going to any location that outright prohibits good responsible people from being armed. I am so uncomfortable with such locations in fact that I don’t go to them. And while that may not seem like a big deal to some businesses, I must remind those businesses that they don’t just lose my business … they lose my entire family’s business. Looking at it another way, say that only 1 out of 20 people carry in public. Turning away those 1 in 20 people doesn’t just cost the business 5% of sales. They have turned the typical family of four and just cost the business more like 20% of sales.

  40. avatar Barstow Cowboy says:

    I’m pretty sure that banning Jack in the Box food would save far more lives than a complete gun ban. It’s kinda funny that a Bloomberg group would jump in bed with an outfit that peddles the dreaded 20+ oz soda pop.

  41. avatar Yossarian says:

    “Please don’t scare other customers with your guns.”

    Sounds like an endorsement for concealed carry, if anything.

  42. avatar Jus Bill says:

    And now I’m seeing that the whole thing may be a hoax, and proving Shannon and her PMS Marauders to be out-and-out liars.

    Over on Ammoland, Dean Weingarnte tells us:

    DFW NBC News reporter Ken Kalthof says the open carriers were peaceful and courteous, and were served without incident. The Po-Po descended later.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cQpIGSKrbjE

    Then there’s the infamous 911 call:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JRaYd7rxfqg
    h/t for the above to Open Carry Texas and Ammoland.

    And a possibly uncorroborated but telling quote:
    “Jack in the Box officials deny their employees were in fear of their lives or locked themselves in a freezer.”
    h/t for the above to Dean Weingarnten and Ammoland.
    http://gunwatch.blogspot.com/

    Stay tuned, and pass the popcorn.
    Shannon may have put her foot firmly in it this time.

  43. avatar Lfshtr says:

    Ammo is costly enough, why go to a Starbucks for what a $3.50? Coffee. I guess shooters have the $$$

  44. avatar BigDaddy says:

    How about a statement like “we would prefer that criminals and evil doers not come into our restaurants”

  45. avatar Ardent says:

    I just sent JIB a kudos email thanking them for their ‘artful’ handling of MDA and reminding them that concealed carry permit holders outnumber MDA members several 1000 times at least. I also mentioned that while MDA is a flash in the pan and poorly committed we actually would avoid restaurants that disallowed our carry both on principle, out of concern for safety, and because it’s actually inconvenient for us to eat in a place where we must first disarm.

    Channeling the voice of Sean Connery: “If they send a company 500 emails we need to send 5000.”

    (Think: If they send one of ours to the hospital we’ll send one of theirs to the morgue.)

  46. avatar Alex B says:

    what great mothers they are. not only are they feeding their children poisonous food, but they hand feed them, when they are perfectly capable of lifting their own food to their mouth.

    this is just as asinine as demanding there be no guns allowed in a car dealership, or an OFFICE SUPPLY STORE. what are children purchasing there?
    the burgers pose the more PROBABLE health threat.

  47. avatar TZChris says:

    I like turtles!

  48. avatar Bill Gray says:

    I would prefer that the Moms knock it off. Is that binding on them? Which police agency do I call if they violate my wishes? I think I have the right not to be made uncomftable by their actions. It is in the Constitution right next to where their right to impose their wishes on me is listed.

  49. avatar Zachariah says:

    Does this mean that law enforcement officers are no longer welcome to patronize Starbucks, Jack in the Box and Staples? I don’t know about the other corporate statements, but the excerpt above is worded to exclude LEOs.

    1. avatar dh34 says:

      IIRC Staples told MDA to pack sand and wouldn’t meet with them, which is what Jack in the Box should have done, if they wanted to avoid the drama. They could have quietly called the OC guys and said, please don’t put us in the middle. As it is, they’ve alienated some folks unnecessarily.

      1. avatar Paul G. says:

        If you never “put them in the middle” you will only have your rights so long as you are willing to pretend that you don’t have them. Given long enough, you won’t have to pretend anymore.

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email