NRA Targeted This Dallas Restaurant, Prompting Death Threats. Its Owners Responded With Love

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Commodus

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 2004
9,215
6,818
136
The NRA didn't call for violence. They called for a boycott. Nothing wrong with that at all. Because there are assholes out there that take it over the top doesnt mean the whole of the group is at fault. Would you say the same about any other social group within this country? That the entire group is at fault for a small group of assholes? If you did, you would be mad at every group out there because of the acts of a few fanatics.

Here's the problem: the NRA singled out the restaurant for daring to say "hey, maybe reasonable gun control would be good" on receipts. It probably knew there would be threats against the restaurant. And even if it didn't, it hasn't even tried to denounce threats.

This was not just the product of a "small group of assholes;" this came about with the full knowledge of the NRA's leadership (the NRA's leadership is also a small group of assholes, but that's another story). Until the NRA denounces the threats and stops singling out business and individuals the way it does, all active NRA members support harassment and threats.

The NRA isn't a flawed spouse you're supposed to stick with through bad times. If it does unacceptable things, cancel your membership; restore your membership if it changes its ways. It's not that hard.
 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,091
513
126
Here's the problem: the NRA singled out the restaurant for daring to say "hey, maybe reasonable gun control would be good" on receipts. It probably knew there would be threats against the restaurant. And even if it didn't, it hasn't even tried to denounce threats.

This was not just the product of a "small group of assholes;" this came about with the full knowledge of the NRA's leadership (the NRA's leadership is also a small group of assholes, but that's another story). Until the NRA denounces the threats and stops singling out business and individuals the way it does, all active NRA members support harassment and threats.

The NRA isn't a flawed spouse you're supposed to stick with through bad times. If it does unacceptable things, cancel your membership; restore your membership if it changes its ways. It's not that hard.

Is this your first day of how boycotts happen? How else would you propose the NRA call for a boycott without singling out whom they want to boycott?
Can you provide proof the NRA leadership called for the threat of violence against this establishment?
And will you apply this same level of outrage at every other group that boycotts something and the fanatics take it to an extreme?
 

Commodus

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 2004
9,215
6,818
136
Is this your first day of how boycotts happen? How else would you propose the NRA call for a boycott without singling out whom they want to boycott?
Can you provide proof the NRA leadership called for the threat of violence against this establishment?
And will you apply this same level of outrage at every other group that boycotts something and the fanatics take it to an extreme?

To start, they shouldn't ask for boycotts on small businesses -- full stop. There's too much of a risk of harassment.

And I never said the NRA called for threats. What I said is that there's a real chance it knew the consequences of calling out this restaurant. I will apply a similar level of outrage if there's a similar chance a group knew exactly what would happen.

I'll repeat: if you support the NRA, you support harassment and threats.
 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,091
513
126
To start, they shouldn't ask for boycotts on small businesses -- full stop. There's too much of a risk of harassment.

And I never said the NRA called for threats. What I said is that there's a real chance it knew the consequences of calling out this restaurant. I will apply a similar level of outrage if there's a similar chance a group knew exactly what would happen.

I'll repeat: if you support the NRA, you support harassment and threats.

1. That is your opinion. Plenty of organizations call for boycotts across the country. The threat of violence from a few assholes being a reason to not call for one would mean no boycotts.
2. Then can you provide proof they expected the threat of violence?
3. I see the goalposts already being moved when it comes to showing the same outrage for other groups. Shocking.
 
Last edited:

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,879
4,266
126
The thread isn't about boycotting, it's about the gun nut maniacs threatening to shoot them or burn them down.

"Don't eat there" wasn't an invitation on the part of the NRA to attack, but sick fckers will sick fsck.
 

Commodus

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 2004
9,215
6,818
136
1. That is your opinion. Plenty of organizations call for boycotts across the country. The threat of violence from a few assholes being a reason to not call for one would mean no boycotts.
2. Then can you provide proof they expected the threat of violence?
3. I see the goalposts already being moved when it comes to showing the same outrage. Shocking.

Different organizations have different expectations of how their members will respond to a boycott. Greenpeace supporters aren't likely to threaten Samsung just because they don't like its environmental practices, for instance. But the NRA is not only a pro-gun entity, it happily courts gun fetishists who wrap their self-esteem in their firearm collections. What do you think is going to happen when the NRA effectively tells them to chase after a company?

Evidence? The NRA routinely uses vaguely threatening language against anyone that disagrees with its views. The New York Times. Virtually any group that criticizes Trump. Personal attacks against Parkland shooting survivors. It's not explicitly saying "harass these people," but let's not be naive -- it's an organization that thrives on intimidation tactics.

The goalposts have not moved.
 
Last edited:

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,091
513
126
Different organizations have different expectations of how their members will respond to a boycott. Greenpeace supporters aren't likely to threaten Samsung just because they don't like its environmental practices, for instance.

Evidence? The NRA routinely uses vaguely threatening language against anyone that disagrees with its views. The New York Times. Virtually any group that criticizes Trump. Personal attacks against Parkland shooting survivors. You see what I'm getting at? It's not explicitly saying "harass these people," but let's not be naive -- it's an organization that thrives on intimidation tactics.

The goalposts have not moved.

This is all based on your bias. Vaguely threatening language is a perception by you. I am asking for you to provide actual factual proof of your claims.
And yeah, the goalposts have been moved. The new goalpost isn't to hold each group equally accountable for the few assholes within said group. It is whomever you disagree with will be held to a higher standard. And when the groups you disagree with call for a boycott and some assholes show up, the whole group is responsible and should receive collective condemnation.
 

Zaap

Diamond Member
Jun 12, 2008
7,162
424
126
1. That is your opinion. Plenty of organizations call for boycotts across the country. The threat of violence from a few assholes being a reason to not call for one would mean no boycotts.
2. Then can you provide proof they expected the threat of violence?
3. I see the goalposts already being moved when it comes to showing the same outrage for other groups. Shocking.
It is amusing to watch the goalposts shift and lame excuses.

This is up there with the hilariously insane backpeddaling in the other NRA obsession thread where everyone involved was supposed to ignore laws and 'Buuuut they should have done this that and the other juuuuuust so I could be riiiiight!!!' bunch of stupidity.

Now, magically only lefty-approved groups are allowed boycotts. LOL.
 

Commodus

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 2004
9,215
6,818
136
This is all based on your bias. Vaguely threatening language is a perception by you. I am asking for you to provide actual factual proof of your claims.
And yeah, the goalposts have been moved. The new goalpost isn't to hold each group equally accountable for the few assholes within said group. It is whomever you disagree with will be held to a higher standard. And when the groups you disagree with call for a boycott and some assholes show up, the whole group is responsible and should receive collective condemnation.

How are "we are coming for you" and personal attacks on Parkland survivors just a "perception?" Those are observable facts. The NRA uses threatening language; this is not up for dispute.

And no, it's not "whomever I disagree with." It's groups that have a history of courting threats and doing nothing to discourage them when they occur. The NRA is one of them; I would feel the same if it was a gun control group that had a habit of harassing pro-gun outfits.

Please stop purposefully misinterpreting my words.
 

dphantom

Diamond Member
Jan 14, 2005
4,763
327
126
Fayto6t.gif
Completely agree with both of you.

That being said should ‘Islam Rules’ apply? Why isn’t the NRA and gun owners everywhere denouncing this? Should every gun owner be held responsible in public opinion for the bad behavior of a few?
I don't know what "Islam Rules" mean so cannot answer that. Question 2 as a gun owner and CPL holder, I have spoken against this. Question 3 the answer is the same as for any other heinous or otherwise reprehensible act of the few...no.
 

zinfamous

No Lifer
Jul 12, 2006
111,136
30,086
146
No one should receive a death threat over a difference of opinion. Not David Hogg, Emma Gonzalez, Dana Loesch or Wayne LaPierre. Certainly not a business owner in Dallas or anywhere else.

I agree.

...well unless you are a teenager that wants to date some would-be governor's daughter. Death threat: totally legit.
 

zinfamous

No Lifer
Jul 12, 2006
111,136
30,086
146
The NRA didn't call for violence. They called for a boycott. Nothing wrong with that at all. Because there are assholes out there that take it over the top doesnt mean the whole of the group is at fault. Would you say the same about any other social group within this country? That the entire group is at fault for a small group of assholes? If you did, you would be mad at every group out there because of the acts of a few fanatics.

Yeah, just tell that to the vast majority of BLM supporters. See: that's the point you are missing and what everyone has been saying here. This is exactly what has been going on with public opinion against the typical "enemies" of the typical NRA supporter. Now that some NRA assholes are (supposedly) misrepresenting their clubhouse, some NRA supporters seem to be crying that it isn't fair?

....Why? It seems like typical behavior from that expected fan base.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ch33zw1z

dainthomas

Lifer
Dec 7, 2004
14,635
3,509
136
This is all based on your bias. Vaguely threatening language is a perception by you. I am asking for you to provide actual factual proof of your claims.
And yeah, the goalposts have been moved. The new goalpost isn't to hold each group equally accountable for the few assholes within said group. It is whomever you disagree with will be held to a higher standard. And when the groups you disagree with call for a boycott and some assholes show up, the whole group is responsible and should receive collective condemnation.

No true NRA member.
 
Mar 11, 2004
23,280
5,721
146
The NRA panders to the fringe because they're the ones who keep buying more guns.

Somebody tell me that this isn't nuts-

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news...ork-times-video-coming-for-threat-dana-loesch

Yep. Its the same idiocy of how the NRA decries violent media or the phrase "assault weapons" when they themselves were behind it (the term assault weapon) in order to market them (where they openly courted the violent nature of them).

Fuck these clowns and fuck anyone that can't see them for what they are. If you're pissed about guns being politicized, you should be most pissed about the NRA as they're the ones doing it more than anybody.
 
Apr 27, 2012
10,086
58
86
Death threats against the business is just unacceptable and wrong, The restaurant should never have attacked the 2nd Amendment, that is reprehensible. Screw the idiots who think its alright for the restaurant to attack the 2nd Amendment but not alright for the NRA to respond.
 
Nov 25, 2013
32,083
11,718
136
Death threats against the business is just unacceptable and wrong, The restaurant should never have attacked the 2nd Amendment, that is reprehensible. Screw the idiots who think its alright for the restaurant to attack the 2nd Amendment but not alright for the NRA to respond.

Time to change socks

Here's a nice set

41-aqroGC2L._SX342_.jpg
 

zerocool84

Lifer
Nov 11, 2004
36,041
472
126
Death threats against the business is just unacceptable and wrong, The restaurant should never have attacked the 2nd Amendment, that is reprehensible. Screw the idiots who think its alright for the restaurant to attack the 2nd Amendment but not alright for the NRA to respond.
Ellen's, a restaurant that specializes in Southern dishes, informed customers that part of the week's proceeds would go toward funding "organizations dedicated to implementing reasonable and effective gun regulations."

Yup, such a huge attack on the 2nd Amendment!!! I can't believe any would want reasonable and effective gun regulation!!!! How dare they attack with such hateful words...........