Tuesday, August 6, 2013

I'm a Gun Owner Butt.... Keefer's Restaurant

Looks like I'll never eat at Keefer's Restaurant in Chicago again. The owner apparently forces people to drink alcohol when the go there.
Glenn Keefer, managing partner of Keefer's Restaurant, said he's a supporter of the Second Amendment and its emphasis on the right to bear arms. His family owns guns for protection.
"I just don't think alcohol and guns go together," Keefer said of his decision to ban them in his restaurant.
So he supports the right to keep and bear arms, just not at his place.  Does everyone who eats at his restaurant get sh!tfaced when they go there?  Not the kind of place I'ld want to eat at then.  Nevermind the fact it will be illegal to carry and drink anyway.

Keefer is a big fan of gov't regulations that effect other people.  I wonder what he would say about his ability to 'own guns for protection' if he lived in Chicago where that wasn't permitted. I bet he would scream bloody murder if it actually effected him.

Oh, and of course criminal enabling State Sen. Dan Kotowski supports Keefer.

Unorganized Militia Gear Unorganized Militia Gear
Follow TrailerDays on Twitter
Unorganized Militia Gear


Sailorcurt said...

You linked to a paid article. Sorry, I'm not paying to read their drivel.

At any rate, based only on the quoted part of your post, I agree with you that I would never eat there, but I don't begrudge him his stance.

His restaurant, his rules. If I don't like them I can choose to stay out.

What really irks me is the ones who decide that "alcohol and guns don't mix" but, instead of banning them in their restaurants, they try to get legislation passed to ban them in ALL restaurants.

See, that way, they don't have to have the courage of their convictions. If they ban them in their own places only, then customers have the choice to go somewhere that actually supports their rights, however if they can get the legislature to ban them for their competitors as well...

At least (from what I can tell based on what you posted) Keefer's making a decision for his own place only and accepting the consequences should he lose customers over it, rather than soliciting the government to shield him from the consequences of his actions, as most would do.

Thirdpower said...

Oh sure, I have no problems w/ private property not wanting firearms. My issue is that he's giving support to the anti's by claiming to support the 2A/being a gun owner and then going on w/ the BS about drinking and CCW. Also the fact his restaurant's in Chicago yet we've never heard a peep of his alleged 'support' while real supporters where trying to get the laws overturned, laws that didn't apply to him, living outside of the city.
Basically your everyday hypocrite.

Sailorcurt said...

I see what you mean now.

I'm so used to "But Monkeys" ("I support the 2nd Amendment BUT...") I hardly even notice them any more.

When you place a "but" at the end of the sentence you are basically saying "please ignore anything that has previously come out of my pie hole as it meant nothing".

I really don't think they're fooling anyone anymore, except possibly those who already agree with them and want to be fooled by it...if you can consider that really being fooled.

But, in Keefer's defense, he's absolutely right that guns and alcohol don't mix. The gun doesn't dissolve or melt in the alcohol and bangs into your teeth every time you try to take a drink.

Seriously, though, we ran into this same thing in Virginia. Strangely, in Virginia, you could OPENLY carry in places that serve alcohol, you just couldn't conceal it. Logically, it kind of makes sense because the bartender could then see that you were armed and could decline to serve you. But all arguments against lawful concealed carry were (as usual) based on emotion rather than logic so that never even entered the equation. Probably because the anti's wouldn't ever even hint that carrying anywhere might be OK under certain circumstances.

At any rate, what I could never figure out is: if they truly believe that a law against concealed carrying in bars was really going to stop bad people from doing it, why not just make it illegal to drink while carrying. Why would one law be any more effective than the other?

I really think that reasoning is what took it over the top and convinced most people that such laws were useless. People who have an inclination to follow the law wouldn't drink while carrying either way...and people who don't, would. The only real change was that those good people could also be armed when the drunked up criminal pulls his piece in a bar and starts shooting. A net positive.

To my knowledge, there has not been an incident in Virginia involving a lawfully carried concealed handgun and a place that serves alcohol since the law was changed a few years ago. It's pretty much a non-issue now.