Anti-gun groups aka pants pissers

Funny guns are banned in New York City yet their are shootings every single day how could this be...

I agree. The last thing I want to see is some guy full of 75oz of caffeine and a hair trigger.

I find it hard to believe that some StarBucks allow people to bring guns into the store.

Yes you will be much safer with the armed convicted criminal during the robbery...

I really have no problem with this. Now from a business perspective, I am guessing (stereotyping?) that most of Starbucks' customers are Liberal and therefore it seems strange they would have such a policy. Maybe they know something we don't, maybe not all their customers are Liberals.

I can't believe people actually pay $5.00 for a cup of their crappy coffee when the best coffee in the world is only $20.00 a pound if they brewed their own.

I also wonder how many of those toting guns on their sides get relieved of them by burglar or a robber that actually has the balls to use one?

They know they are going to lose the Chicago case in the SCOTUS, so now they are scrambling to put new bans in place.

The Brady campaign even owns up to it:

I find it hard to believe that some StarBucks allow people to bring guns into the store.

#4 | Posted by rcade

I find it hard to believe some states have armed criminals and then take away the right of self defense...

Recently in Florida 2 masked men robbing a local diner WITH GUNS were shot to death by a retired 65 year old Marine with a concealed weapon permit...

First they banned handguns in schools.

Then they banned hunting rifles on Capitol Hill.

Haven't been able to haul a Walther PPK past the White House police for ages.

And how the hell do you take your S&W Police Special onto a regularly scheduled airline these days?

Thank God for a few forward looking, right thinking places where you can sit in a bar, downing buckets of Yuengling with Revolucion Tequila chasers while reading Tiffany's "Dear John" letter --- who the hell is John, anyway? --- playing solitaire with a 50-card deck of cards and loading and unloading your .357 Magnum and spinning the cylinder just to listen to it whirrrrrrrrr.

Roy, you think they are going to lose the Chicago case? I wish I was as optimistic. I have learned over the years not to count on the supreme court to always make the right decision when it comes to protecting individual rights. I mean, commong sense would dictate that if in Heller they found it is an individual right that they would throw out the Chicago ban, but thesese justices are wacky and unpredicable sometimes.

I agree. The last thing I want to see is some guy full of 75oz of caffeine and a hair trigger.

#3 | Posted by kanrei

Yaa... them starbucks drinking libs are a scary lot.

"And how the hell do you take your S&W Police Special onto a regularly scheduled airline these days?"

In your checked baggage.
But you better declare it.

"In your checked baggage."

Seriously? Jeebus, what happens at the other end when you retrieve your bag?

Ringmaster - Hawaiian coffee is only $20 a pound in-state?

Washington is an open carry state.
Deal with it.

#7 Ringmaster> I also wonder how many of those toting guns on their sides get relieved of them by burglar or a robber that actually has the balls to use one?

Probably very few. See #9 post for an example of what happens when a career criminal decides to ply their trade with an armed citizen around. Guess that is one job hazard they just live or die with.

I'd like to know which one of the pimply faced, weird haired baristas is going to throw someone out with a gun. That would be funny to see. Seriously, is Starbucks getting run over by gun toaters? This is absurd.

" Jeebus, what happens at the other end when you retrieve your bag? "

You leave the airport.

Seriously? Jeebus, what happens at the other end when you retrieve your bag?

#15 | Posted by Doc_Sarvis

Are you that stoopid? You take it out of your bag, put the magazine back in it and put it back in your holster. What a moron.

Seriously? Jeebus, what happens at the other end when you retrieve your bag?
#15 | Posted by Doc_Sarvis

Are you that stoopid? You take it out of your bag, put the magazine back in it and put it back in your holster. What a moron.
#21 | Posted by Sniper

Riiight, Snoops. In the middle of Sky Harbor Airport I'm going to open up the suitcase I just retrieved from the baggage carousel, open it up, take out the pistol, slap in a magazine, and put it in my holster.

Go ahead, Snoops, give it a try. Please.

It would only be illegal if they could prove that there was malicious intent or that the safety of others was threatened. So more then likely there would be no issue.

Give me a break. Like shootouts are a daily occurrence in Starbucks across the nation.

These idiots should look for another cause celebre to keep 'em busy.

How about banning StarBucks from gun zones?

I'm sure the people planning to rob Starbucks would vote for the gun ban as well...some people simply refuse to learn from reality..

I find it hard to believe that some StarBucks allow people to bring guns into the store.

#4 | Posted by rcade

Even if Starbucks did ban guns in their stores...

...trespassing would be the only alleged crime.

You can openly carry a firearm anywhere in the State of Arizona (including banks and schools), with the exception of bars, Federal buildings, and...

...establishments with signs specifically saying not to. In that case, the crime is trespassing.

#4 | Posted by rcade

Are you kidding me?

The Brady group are complete tools. They have a little scorecard that gives laughable school grades to states that implement their silly ideas. California, the murder capital of the USA, gets the highest score with 4 stars and 79 points. I live in RI, which only got 2 stars and 45 points. Gee, wonder which state has more gun crimes per capita? As stated, it's laughable...

I find it hard to believe that some StarBucks allow people to bring guns into the store.

#4 | Posted by rcade

And I find it hard to believe that some people are attempting to use Starbucks, who is 100% unrelated to guns, to make a political statement. Starbucks complies with local laws, so what?

I can concealed carry in a bar in Texas as long as I don't become "intoxicated." I can concealed carry in a courtroom as long as I have a letter from the judge. I can't concealed carry at The University, which is where the last five armed robberies I'm aware of occurred. Coincidence?

"I can't concealed carry at The University, which is where the last five armed robberies I'm aware of occurred. Coincidence?"

Hang on a second, are you telling me that only people predisposed to follow the law obey gun laws?

You must be joking.

"You must be joking."

Gun free zones: A target rich environment.

Go back to my Jefferson quote.

I can't concealed carry at The University, which is where the last five armed robberies I'm aware of occurred. Coincidence?

Indeed. Charles Whitman was never robbed.

Charles Whitman was a Marine.

And an Eagle Scout.

Let's make licensed gun carriers leave their guns in the car instead where it will be more easily stolen!

--Bed Wetting Anti-Gun Nuts

Seriously? Jeebus, what happens at the other end when you retrieve your bag?

The same thing that happened when you walked into an airport with an unloaded and locked gun, except in the reverse order.

You pick up your baggage, walk out of the airport.

Don't have an issue with a private business asking that firearms not be brought on their property.

Roy, you think they are going to lose the Chicago case? I wish I was as optimistic. I have learned over the years not to count on the supreme court to always make the right decision when it comes to protecting individual rights. I mean, commong sense would dictate that if in Heller they found it is an individual right that they would throw out the Chicago ban, but thesese justices are wacky and unpredicable sometimes.

#11 | Posted by member2586 at 2010-03-03 12:40 PM

Chicago's gun ban is going to be overturned, no question about it.

I read the entire transcript of the oral arguments that were presented yesterday, and I wouldn't be surprised if even one of the more liberal Justices rules in favor of McDonald.

The court did not pass Heller, just to make a federal enclave, protected, and the rest of the country left to wait on the police.

"Gun free zones: A target rich environment."

#37 | Posted by Axiom

I just think I would have a problem with loonies using my business to further their propaganda.

Guns don't kill people. People kill people. We are a violent species as are most animals. Its just the way it is. You either accept it and defend yourself or become a victim.

Starbucks should get an AVO for anyone who signed the petition.

FYI: An AVO is similar to a restraining order.

I just think I would have a problem with loonies using my business to further their propaganda.

Anyone with a little more than jello between their ears would. By the by, every time I see the Brady Campaign scorecard, I giggle.

a few more

"You either accept it and defend yourself or become a victim."

I don't think we're a safer society because more people feel the need to carry a gun with them at all times. A lot of those people are idiots who will end up using the gun in a moment of anger.

#45 | Posted by Doc_Sarvis

Right look at where they live. If anarchy existed here you would be dead. You've been spoiled with a stable government and organized law enforcement that can't be bribed for the most part. Unfortunately evil still exists here and crimes still happen. Why?

#46 | Posted by rcade

So your whole argument to ban devices to defend yourself with is with a hyperbole. "Well he might get angry and start shooting everyone!" - logic leap. Can't he do the same thing with a car or beer bottle?

Anyone can run home and get stuff to make a bomb which is available at any store and blow you up. Should we ban that too? Silly yes but so is your argument.

What will happen is a criminal who does have a gun can kill you and you got nothing to defend yourself with.

A lot of those people are idiots who will end up using the gun in a moment of anger.

#46 | Posted by rcade at 2010-03-03 02:04 PM

"A lot of those people are idiots who will end up using the gun in a moment of anger."

#46 | Posted by rcade at 2010-03-03 02:04 PM

Yeah, that's what they said when they passed CCW in Texas.
Reality didn't quite work out that way.
Concealed handgun licensees have a lower crime rate than cops.
Deal with it.

#46 Rcade> A lot of those people are idiots who will end up using the gun in a moment of anger.

I still recall all the hoopla from the anti-gunners when Florida enacted a state wide, 'shall issue' CCW law. They nicknamed it the "gunshine state" and many predicted frequent shootouts in stores and highways when people just couldn't control their temper ... with a firearm close at hand.

The results were NOTHING like what the anti-gun folks said and happened just like many on the pro-gun side said: CCW shootings were rare and almost every one of them was justifiable. Violent crime didn't skyrocket but in fact dropped a bit.

Seems like the facts and recent history argue against your assertion.

"I don't think we're a safer society because more people feel the need to carry a gun with them at all times. "

Ignore facts much?

this is a waste of time. if someone has a concealed carry permit, they should be able to carry. if they intend harm on someone, or is the type of person who would use a gun in an unwise manner in the first place, they aren't going to let a store policy stand between them and a cup of joe.

Just got back from Starbucks, where I enjoyed a very nice cup of coffee, read a magazine, while carrying a Baby Glock 9mm in the small of my back.

No crimes committed. No one looked nervous. A very nice morning all around!

A lot of those people are idiots who will end up using the gun in a moment of anger.

#46 | Posted by rcade at 2010-03-03 02:04 PM

That's the same tired nonsense that was proven false when the streets didn't run with blood after concealed carry laws were passed.

More Guns: There are 250+ million privately-owned firearms in the United States.3 The number of guns typically rises by about 4.5 million every year,4 though between 2007-2008, firearm transactions cleared by the National Criminal Instant Background Check rose 14 percent.5

Less Violent Crime: Since 1991, the nation's violent crime rate has decreased 40 percent (murder, 45 percent; rape, 31 percent; robbery, 47 percent; and aggravated assault, 37 percent. From 2007-2008, the violent crime rate decreased 3 percent (murder, 5 percent; rape, 2 percent; robbery, 2 percent; and aggravated assault, 3 percent.)

*States with Right-to-Carry laws have lower violent crime rates, on average, compared to the rest of the country: *

HELLO?

total violent crime by 31 percent, murder, 39 percent; robbery, 55 percent; and aggravated assault, 19 percent. States that have the most restrictive gun control laws tend to have the highest ratios of robberies (confrontational violent crimes) to non-confrontational property crimes. 6

"States that have the most restrictive gun control laws tend to have the highest ratios of robberies (confrontational violent crimes) to non-confrontational property crimes."

Needed repeating.

Time to start figuring out why vermont has such a low crime rate.

Nothing worth stealing unless you are really into maple syrup.

They should just "vote with their feet" and not go to Starbucks...plenty of coffee houses in Washington.

#46 | Posted by rcade

I'll lie and say that if you ban alcohol and cigarettes first I'd join a ban on guns. Yes it'd be wrong to lie, but the ends may justify the means.

More innocent people are killed accidentally by drunks than intentionally by guns, 13k to 11k respectively. You don't even want to start about cigarettes. 1 in 5 deaths are related to smoking!? 440,000 annually in the US die from the effects of smoking? And what about the added health care burden? I shudder.

Do you support an alcohol/cigarette ban? It's for the safety of the community after all. Of course you don't. So why guns, which are a specifically mentioned right in the Constitution?

Personal choices, right? Cigarettes and alcohol are personal choices, but guns kill innocent people...except that most alcohol related deaths are innocent victims. And aren't alcohol and cigarettes addictive? Our nation is flooded with ways to quit smoking and AA groups. I offer our President as an example. How many millions of people try to quit and end up dying with a cigarette stuck in a hole in their throat? Personal choice, I know. Guns are inherently evil and are only used for one thing, murder. Isn't that the insinuation? Cigarettes and alcohol don't kill people, guns do. Personal choices! I get it now! And my personal choice is to allow private citizens the right to keep and bear arms.

Ignore the facts. You're a liberal, liberal agenda says guns are bad, and like a good loyal party member you fall in line. Or is the liberal party going to take it a step further and ban cigarettes? I won't hold my breath.

BTW: Our President can't quit smoking and drinking, so that's a battle I wouldn't try to fight if I was the left. Stick to your guns.

"plenty of coffee houses in Washington"

No shit.

It's comments like these that show anti-gun bed wetters as the emotionally driven people they are. ...

You need a gun to walk into a StarBucks and I'm the bedwetter?

"You need a gun to walk into a StarBucks and I'm the bedwetter?"

These are the same people that need to take a gun to Yosemite to protect them from man-eating black bears.

You need a gun to walk into a StarBucks and I'm the bedwetter?

#61 | Posted by rcade at 2010-03-03 02:59 PM

#61 | Posted by rcade

Can't speak to black bears but them brown ones get freakin' BIG!

RCADE can predict when you'll need a gun. It's a recently acquired power so there are no records of him using it so far. He'll be sure to post the date, time, and place you'll need a gun for future events though. Right now he's about 2 months behind schedule so please be patient.

I thought it was a .454 Casull.

Just got back from Starbucks, where I enjoyed a very nice cup of coffee, read a magazine, while carrying a Baby Glock 9mm in the small of my back.
#53 | Posted by Sabbatai

We thought you were wagging your tail because you were happy to see us!?!?!
~Your Friendly Neighborhood Starbucks Coffee Masters

"hat's the difference. LOD - no fear of legally carrying law abiding citizens. RCade - bed wetting fear of legally carrying law abiding citizens."

It is not nice to make fun of other peoples phobias.

You need a gun to walk into a StarBucks and I'm the bedwetter?

Yes, you're a bed wetter. A dishonest, talking-point-parroting bed wetter.

These are the same people that need to take a gun to Yosemite to protect them from man-eating black bears.

I carry spray in bear country. My pack has bells on it that jingle so as not to startle any bears and I'm always paying attention to the things going on around me so I don't stray between a mother and her cubs.

But..

Do you think this guy would have liked to have been allowed to have at least a pistol that could have possibly saved him?

[Link deleted; don't link to gore here]

"I carry spray in bear country. My pack has bells on it that jingle so as not to startle any bears and I'm always paying attention to the things going on around me so I don't stray between a mother and her cubs."

Very wise. That's a lot smarter than expecting a gun to protect you. Of course, in Yosemite, there's only black bears, whose only threat is breaking into your car and stealing food.

That's a lot smarter than expecting a gun to protect you.

#71 | Posted by nullifidian at 2010-03-03 03:59 PM

I don't pack a gun because I'm a lightweight hiker, not because I don't believe it would protect me. I could buy a scandium framed S&W .357, but then I'd need to add weight for a holster, extra rounds, figure out where to store it at night so that I don't shoot myself but keep it nearby.

So I use bear spray and keep it within reach.

Why didn't you answer my question in the post?

"A smart thing to do would be to include a gun in the equation along with everything else Axiom's doing."

You don't need a gun in a national park. Millions visit national parks every year. When's the last time a bear killed anybody in a U.S. national park? You're more likely to die in a national park from drowning, falling, hypothermia, etc.

You don't need a gun in a national park

So don't take one. But don't be a control freak and tell someone else they can't.

Serious question:

How powerful a weapon do you need to stop an 8' bear?

How powerful a weapon do you need to stop an 8' bear?

I had a friend in N Georgia who dropped a 6.5 foot one with a .3030. When he had it stuffed, he gave me the skull. I still have it.

You don't need a gun in a national park.

Maybe YOU or I don't NEED a gun in a national park, but if someone else feels they need one, it's their right to carry.

Personally, I've weighed the risk of being attacked by anything two or four legged in the wilderness. For me, it's not enough to warrant carrying the extra pound or so of weight nor is it worth dealing with the limp wristed nancy boys who shit their pants at the site of a gun.

You can hold the .45 with my coffee, the fewer armed knobs around myself and those I care about the better. I just love it everytime the gun issue comes up and some pro-gun person calls the anti-gun people pants pissers. It seems to me the folks that feel the need to carry a gun for "protection" in the big scary world out there are the true pants pissers. I personally have never once felt the need to own, let alone carry, a gun. I don't hunt. Why else would you need a gun unless you are a cop or a serious, afraid of everything, pants pisser? Honestly.

"How powerful a weapon do you need to stop an 8' bear?"

Not much, if it's done right. I've known plenty of folks that hunt such animals with a bow. I wouldn't, fuck that! But a .338 rifle is plenty, even a 7mm if one shoots well. Other people try with a .454 revolver and similar, but again I'd rather have a nice, fat center-fire cartridge.

"You don't need a gun in a national park."

True, but that's not necessarily the point. I've done dozens of backcountry trips with bears present, particularly in Denali and Katmai, and never felt any real danger. But that doesn't change the "right" of someone to carry if they wish.

#79 | Posted by boyracer_x at 2010-03-03 04:31 PM | Flag: Fear of guns and people who legally carry, giant pants pisser

Funny how some of these people are so psychic.

Being able to predict that they'll never be accidentally between "a bear had her cubs" or perhaps "a criminal and your wallet." How can they be so prescient about the future? What is the source of their clairvoyance?

Amazing. Do you carry bear spray to Starbucks too? Or do you just use your jingle bells hoping to chase away the evil spirits?

How do you make sure that you are upwind when you let loose with that Bear Spray?

Maybe YOU or I don't NEED a gun in a national park, but if someone else feels they need one, it's their right to carry.

Isn't it funny how the very same people who say, "You don't need a gun in a national park, therefore there should be a law preventing you from having one" are the very same ones who say, "If you don't agree with abortion, don't get one". I'll bet they are too stupid to see the extreme hypocrisy, too.

SPOKANEJIM

Head shot? Chest Shot? Any pistol that'll work? Carrying a rifle around hiking seems like it'd be a pain.

"Maybe YOU or I don't NEED a gun in a national park, but if someone else feels they need one, it's their right to carry."

Well it's their right if the government says so. Unfortunately the Obama administration said yes, but that's subject to change.

Isn't it funny how the very same people who say, "You don't need a gun in a national park, therefore there should be a law preventing you from having one" are the very same ones who say, "If you don't agree with abortion, don't get one". I'll bet they are too stupid to see the extreme hypocrisy, too.

#84 | Posted by goatman at 2010-03-03 04:36 PM

You don't need a gun in a national park

So don't take one. But don't be a control freak and tell someone else they can't.

#75 | Posted by goatman

That's like the argument, if you don't like abortion, don't have one. Or, if you're against the death penalty, don't commit a capital crime. It's really stupid, but then, you are Goatman.

"Head shot? Chest Shot? Any pistol that'll work? Carrying a rifle around hiking seems like it'd be a pain."

Head shots are difficult, pretty much has to be from the side. If you're shooting for protection from a charging bear, damn near impossible. Center chest is preferred, for pretty much any type of weapon, bow, rifle, or pistol. For real protection, a 12 gauge with slugs is the way to go. Many fishermen carry a .44 or better, certainly wouldn't trust anything smaller. Fact is, though, in most areas off the river the bear is on you before you realize, so nothing will really work. Hunting, of course is different. In all reality, though, I think bear spray is far better. In the vast majority of cases, it's a curious bear, not an attacking bear, or one that is "bluffing." In Denali there's a great deal of education required before heading into the back country.

Frankly, I'm far more concerned with black bears than grizzlies. As scavengers, they'll try to take anything, and have been known to track hikers. Not so with the big brownies.

Recommendations: Hiking in open country, don't worry about it. Hiking in brush, worry a lot, and make noise. Fishing on a bear river, carry something really, really big. Hunting, then whatever is sporting for your skill. (baiting is for pussies). I only carry on the river, never in a park, but it's because I don't feel the need, not because I have some hang up.

Do you think this guy would have liked to have been allowed to have at least a pistol that could have possibly saved him?

The issue being discussed here is whether people need a gun at StarBucks. I was not aware that bear attacks have been taking place in our coffee shops.

I don't own any hand guns, I'm just not afraid of those who legally do. That's the difference.

Perhaps you should read what I wrote and respond to that, not a misperception of it. My belief that we're not a safer society because of all the concealed carry permit holders has nothing to do with fearing guns. I just think most people are too stupid to handle the responsibility of a gun and won't be properly trained or sensible about using deadly force.

Having a gun doesn't even mean it will stop a criminal from harming you. The four cops in Lakewood, Washington, were all armed last November. That criminal walked in and executed them.

It's really stupid...

Well, you're a poopy-head. So there.

If you don't like murder, don't murder anyone.

--Goatman

"The issue being discussed here is whether people need a gun at StarBucks. I was not aware that bear attacks have been taking place in our coffee shops."

Doesn't hurt to be prepared!

--Pants pissing gun nuts

If you don't like murder, don't murder anyone.

With residents like dull, no wonder california is in the shitter.

#93 | Posted by nullifidian at 2010-03-03 04:53 PM | Reply | Flag: control freak

Amazing. Do you carry bear spray to Starbucks too?

maybe you'll want to read my post again. start with this one.

Maybe YOU or I don't NEED a gun in a national park, but if someone else feels they need one, it's their right to carry.

Personally, I've weighed the risk of being attacked by anything two or four legged in the wilderness. For me, it's not enough to warrant carrying the extra pound or so of weight nor is it worth dealing with the limp wristed nancy boys who shit their pants at the site of a gun.

Hope that clears things up.

Isn't it funny how the very same people who say,..

Yes, it is funny.

I just love it everytime the gun issue comes up and some pro-gun person calls the anti-gun people pants pissers.

I just love how every time a pro-gun person demonstrates that an anti-gun person's talking points are bullshit lies, the anti-gun person calls the pro-gun person a "gun nut".

The issue being discussed here is whether people need a gun at StarBucks. I was not aware that bear attacks have been taking place in our coffee shops.

For a guy running a blog where reading is crucial, your ability to follow along sucks, Rcade. The question was addressed to Nullifidian who mentioned hikers carrying for protection from bears.

Rcade, how did you manage to twist this statement

A lot of those people are idiots who will end up using the gun in a moment of anger.

Into this statement?

I just think most people are too stupid to handle the responsibility of a gun and won't be properly trained or sensible about using deadly force.

rcade,

That is an false argument, and you know it. One incident does not invalidate the thousands of cases where an armed potential victim avoided harm, even if they didn't hit their assailant. Otherwise the tables could be turned and I could say "Remember when X prevented Y from killing Z? Therefore guns are always the right answer." Neither is right in and of itself.

Instead, the evidence shows that firearms in civilian possession save more lives by a significant factor. And the studies of the data show that conclusively.

Additionally, those of us who carry will never have a need to use our firearm. And we hope we never do...we aren't "mall ninjas" but just citizens who believe that we have a right to protect ourselves against harm perpetrated by those of criminal intent.

Carrying a firearm to a "gunfight" doesn't guarantee you'll win. But not carrying one to a "gunfight" pretty much guarantees you'll lose.

My belief that we're not a safer society because of all the concealed carry permit holders has nothing to do with fearing guns.
#90 | Posted by rcade at 2010-03-03 04:49 PM

I just think most people are too stupid to handle the responsibility of a gun and won't be properly trained or sensible about using deadly force.
#90 | Posted by rcade at 2010-03-03 04:49 PM

Having a gun doesn't even mean it will stop a criminal from harming you. The four cops in Lakewood, Washington, were all armed last November. That criminal walked in and executed them.
#90 | Posted by rcade at 2010-03-03 04:49 PM

Remember when X prevented Y from killing Z? Therefore guns are always the right answer.

That's exactly the argument that some people make. Every incident proves that people need to be armed all the time. The truth is not that simple. Put more guns in more hands, and more people will get killed or kill themselves using those guns. More kids will find some of those guns.

Everyone in this discussion who owns and uses guns knows -- or ought to know -- the responsibility it takes to handle and use them safely.

Everyone in this discussion knows that a lot of people in this country are stupid.

Do the math.

So based off of your hunch you want to restrict rights?

StarBucks has the right to ban guns on its premises. What I'm in favor of is businesses exercising that right. The people who think they need to be packing heat all the time can get their ridiculously overpriced coffee someplace else.

I have a question for people who support the right to carry guns openly into places of business. If you saw this guy walk into your local StarBucks ...

Make sure he buys decaf?

#100 | Posted by rcade

I'd laugh and shake my head. In that case it's obviously someone just trying to make a point. But then again, if he starts popping off at the employees or other customers, cap his ass. Better than a shop full of dead people. Imagine if their had been people on Fort Hood carrying firearms instead of just the one fucked up terrorist.

I have a question for people who support the right to carry guns openly into places of business. If you saw this guy walk into your local StarBucks ...

#100 | Posted by rcade at 2010-03-03 05:37 PM

But then again, if he starts popping off at the employees or other customers, cap his ass. Better than a shop full of dead people.

So the first legal gun carrier in StarBucks is safer, but the second one might get a cap in his ass.

I hope you aren't trying to pretend that openly hauling around guns that aren't in their holsters in a fire ready position is the end goal of the gun supporters on this thread.

I'm just trying to work out how guns in StarBucks makes us all safer.

I'm just trying to work out how guns in StarBucks makes us all safer.

#104 | Posted by rcade at 2010-03-03 05:55 PM

I guess if he starts lighting the place up you could try throwing your latte at him.

"try throwing your latte at him."

That could cause a multi-million dollar civil suit because of the burns. It would be cheaper to just shoot him.

You would shoot a legally armed American exercising his right to bear arms while ordering a double ristretto venti nonfat organic chocolate brownie frappuccino extra hot, Live or Die?

Ordering a double ristretto venti nonfat organic chocolate brownie frappuccino, extra hot, in the presence of a long line of other customers is probable cause for arrest and detention, and if resisted, warrants deadly force.

Jim makes a good point.

I hope I never see someone walk into a Starbucks carrying a shotgun in firing position.

Guess if I did I could close the top of my laptop. I'm a pretty good Frisbee tosser, although I've rarely been in a Starbucks unless someone else wanted to pay exorbitant prices for my cup of coffee.

"I'm just trying to work out how guns in StarBucks makes us all safer."

I'm just trying to work out how guns in Luby's makes us all safer.

FTFY

Would a store get such support if they banned customers from brining in newspapers? What if before you got your frothy beverage you had to pledge your support to whoever the president is?

It is a constitutional right, and provided a citizen has obeyed all laws to carry a gun in public why shouldn't they be able to carry one in a store?

"guns that aren't in their holsters in a fire ready position"

That's a good way to find out how many CHLs and plainclothes cops are in the store.

I'm just trying to work out how guns in Luby's makes us all safer.

You're dodging the question. Guy walks into StarBucks carrying a shotgun. You're in StarBucks and armed. What do you do? Sit back and wait to see if he has hostile intent? If he does, he'll kill people before you draw your gun. Do you draw your gun just in case he's hostile?

If the answer is yes, I have a question for somebody else: Guy walks into StarBucks carrying a shotgun. Another guy draws a gun on him. What do you do?

Run out the door as fast as my feet will carry me!!

Ditto, run, obviously one or more of them are fucking nuts. Doesn't change the fact that those with a right to carry should be able to do so if they wish. The guy who drew down on the other, simply because the other was carrying a weapon is in the wrong. In the real world though, beyond the Starbucks issue, someone walking into a business carrying a shotgun is probably not there to clean the floors.

Nothing to worry about here. The pants pissing pussies that needs a gun to feel safe in Starbucks are probably too afraid to leave the safety of their mommy's basement and will never go to Starbucks anyway.

In the real world though, beyond the Starbucks issue, someone walking into a business carrying a shotgun is probably not there to clean the floors.

Why should anyone assume that someone in civilian clothes walking into StarBucks with a holstered gun on his hip is benign?

I have a question for people who support the right to carry guns openly into places of business. If you saw this guy walk into your local StarBucks ...

cache.gawkerassets.com

... and you were armed, what would you do?

Nothing. He's not pointing it at anyone. I will, however, make sure to keep an eye on him. If he brings it up and levels it on someone, one dead person is better than 10 dead people.

I'm just trying to work out how guns in StarBucks makes us all safer.

Ask Suzanna Gratia Hupp. She'd love to answer that question for you.

I have a question for people who support the right to carry guns openly into places of business. If you saw this guy walk into your local StarBucks ...

cache.gawkerassets.com

... and you were armed, what would you do?

Nothing. He's not pointing it at anyone. I will, however, make sure to keep an eye on him.

I'm just trying to work out how guns in StarBucks makes us all safer.

Ask Suzanna Gratia Hupp.

If he brings it up and levels it on someone, one dead person is better than 10 dead people.

If you're carrying your gun legally, it is holstered, correct? There's no way your holstered gun does squat to shotgun man before he kills one or more people. Maybe even you. But until you determine his intent, he's one of those legal gun carriers, no?

So what does Suzanna Gratia Hupp do to shotgun man, since she lost her parents in the Luby's massacre? Is her policy to take her gun out and point it at everyone carrying a gun around, which could be a lot of people in this great new armed future she's campaigned to achieve?

I feel safer already.

"here's no way your holstered gun does squat to shotgun man before he kills one or more people"

If you're carrying your gun legally, it is holstered, correct?

Certainly is.

There's no way your holstered gun does squat to shotgun man before he kills one or more people.

Probably gets off a round or two before I've drawn, aimed and fired into center mass. Maybe he's kill a few people. That's still better than hiding behind a table waiting for my turn to get shot in the head.

Maybe even you.

Them's the breaks. It could be me without a gun, too. I could get hit by a car or a piece of steel could cut me in half. I don't think about it. Wearing my pistol on my hip is as second nature putting on pants. It's there, I know it's there, but I don't pay it any attention unless I need it.

But until you determine his intent, he's one of those legal gun carriers, no?

Pretty much. It's not really that strange for me to see someone come into a gas station or restaurant with a rifle or shot gun slung across their shoulder. If they came in with it at the ready, I'd be a little wary of them, but they're not breaking the law and they aren't a thread until they point it at someone.

So what does Suzanna Gratia Hupp do to shotgun man, since she lost her parents in the Luby's massacre? Is her policy to take her gun out and point it at everyone carrying a gun around, which could be a lot of people in this great new armed future she's campaigned to achieve?

You'd have to ask her. I answered your question that you posed to all of us. I don't speak for her.

The video was posted as a response to your statement that you can't figure out how people carrying guns in a starbucks makes you any safer.

How many of those 23 people do you think would be alive today had it not been illegal for someone to carry a weapon on their person rather than having to leave it in the car.

You've done a lot of jumping around on this thread. First the people who carry guns were idiots that were going to cause more death and destruction. Patently false and proven so. Now you're questioning how it makes you any safer.

You're a walking, talking Brady Campaign pamphlet.

"and you were armed, what would you do"

The same thing a cop would do, nothing. He has broken no law, he is not using his gun to threaten anyone, there is no issue. Well, unless you are suggesting that the ability to commit a crime should be punished.

Salaman -

" It's there, I know it's there, but I don't pay it any attention unless I need it."

It's always been funny to me, the attitude of the anti-gun nuts that seem to believe we are all just kids who want to play cowboy or cops and robbers. I think it would amaze them to find out how many people they know and deal with on a daily basis are carrying.

The same thing a cop would do, nothing. He has broken no law, he is not using his gun to threaten anyone, there is no issue.

So you're not in much of a better situation than you would be without a gun. A StarBucks might not be packed with people to shoot at, unlike the Luby's example that keeps coming up. So if your gun is holstered, if a second gunman had malicious intent your options are pretty limited. And if your holstered gun is in plain sight, who gets shot first?

I think the open carry crowd has an extremely unrealistic idea of what their gun could accomplish in a StarBucks.

You're a walking, talking Brady Campaign pamphlet.

I didn't realize that trying to apply logic was an assault on gun rights.

"Far more realistic."

But somehow less impressive.

"I think the open carry crowd has an extremely unrealistic idea of what their gun could accomplish in a StarBucks."

So why bother to have offices carry guns?

It is a deterrent, as a criminal would you hold up a store that has a no gun policy or one you knew was crawling with guns?
Aside from assisted suicides how often are gun stores robbed?
Is thinking that the fact that there are multiple armed peoples inside a factor? I would think so.

You talk about applying logic but you avoid the facts presented regarding the statistics. It makes no sense,
to refuse facts based on your own unfounded assumptions and then to tell us its logic. It boggles my wee little mind.

I went on a ski trip with some buddies. We were one bedroom short in the chalet, so we made the guy who always carried sidearms sleep on the couch near the door to 'protect us' from invading bears, raccoons who might steal our food, and people without decent skis who might steal ours in the middle of the night. Cheap couch.

I didn't realize that trying to apply logic was an assault on gun rights.

When will you start applying logic?

So far you've done no more than run down the list of anti-gun talking points put out by organizations like those mentioned in the article. Each of which has been shown to be false. Now you're on to dreaming up scenarios. You've been talking to Bob, huh?

Is this how a liberal admits that they're assaulting gun rights?

Rcade, while this is going to be a little bit on the biased side you might want to leaf through this.

Its information is fairly well cited.

You're dodging the question. Guy walks into StarBucks carrying a shotgun. You're in StarBucks and armed. What do you do? Sit back and wait to see if he has hostile intent? If he does, he'll kill people before you draw your gun. Do you draw your gun just in case he's hostile?

No.

Here's one for you RCADE:

Gal walks into a Starbucks with a bow and arrow, the arrow drawn and pointing at someone and she's apparently ready to fire that arrow. Do you get ready to throw your double latte on her?

We can be hypothetical all night long....

GunFacts.Info is published by a guy who describes himself as an activist for gun owner rights. It's hardly a place to look for facts. He's making an argument for his side.

So far you've done no more than run down the list of anti-gun talking points put out by organizations like those mentioned in the article.

I haven't cited a single talking point about guns. I've asked simple questions about how carrying your own gun into a StarBucks would be applied to situations where other people have guns and might or might not wish you harm.

No.

Then how much good is your gun doing for you?

Here's a thread on open carry on a police forum:

I didn't realize that trying to apply logic was an assault on gun rights.

#126 | Posted by rcade

logic, smodgic. all i want to know is how do i feel about it, ya know, emotionally.

Gal walks into a Starbucks with a bow and arrow, the arrow drawn and pointing at someone and she's apparently ready to fire that arrow. Do you get ready to throw your double latte on her?

That would depend on how big her rack is.

This is the dumbest thing I read today...

First of all, it's called a "concealed weapon" for a reason. All of these anti-gun people stand next to armed people everyday and don't know it...

And, how the hell would Starbucks know if I was armed???

Are they going to install metal detectors in all their stores? This is an absolutely stupid waste of time, once again, brought to you by the anti-gun groups of America: making a stink about nothing in an attempt to control others...

What other group claims to be "for the people", but lobbies government to deny the freedoms of Americans in direct contradiction to our constitution???

All of these anti-gun people stand next to armed people everyday and don't know it...

This whole story started because open carry advocates began carrying their guns openly in StarBucks as a political demonstration. The other side protested the fact that StarBucks was allowing them to enter the stores.

That would depend on how big her rack is

I haven't cited a single talking point about guns

Really?

That's funny, because everything prior to your scenario of a guy with a shotgun in Starbucks is the same shit that is regurgitated every time a gun ownership/gun control thread is started.

GunFacts.Info is published by a guy who describes himself as an activist for gun owner rights. It's hardly a place to look for facts. He's making an argument for his side.

The anti-gun organizations mentioned in the article are activists against gun owner rights. Hardly a place to look for facts. They're making an argument for their side.

Yep, I was right. It does sound just as dumb. Of course one side is going to publish information that pushes their agenda. Jumpin' Jesus on a pogo stick! Are you sure you didn't have ghost writers for all those programming books?

I've asked simple questions about how carrying your own gun into a StarBucks would be applied to situations where other people have guns and might or might not wish you harm.

You've asked questions that can be answered by looking at any of the several various communities in the United States of America with open carry laws. Can you find one example that meets the scenario you painted so vividly above?

Have any of the people who are openly carrying in starbucks freaked out at other people openly carrying in starbucks and started a shoot out? Seems to me that if there haven't been any shootouts in starbucks due to all the people carrying pistols in the open, both your questions and the stance of the organizations mentioned in the article are based on emotion, not reason.

If starbucks wants to ban armed people from carrying on their property, let them go for it.

Plucked from the Internet:

Things that I found helpful by living this long.

The purpose of fighting is to win.

The sword is more important than the shield, and skill is more important than either.... The final weapon is the brain. All else is supplemental.

1. Don't pick a fight with an old man. If he is too old to fight, he'll just kill you.

2. If you find yourself in a fair fight, your tactics suck.

3. I carry a gun because a cop is too heavy.

4. When seconds count, the cops are just minutes away.

5. A reporter did a human-interest piece on the Texas Rangers. The reporter recognized the Colt Model 1911 the Ranger was carrying and asked him 'Why do you carry a 45?' The Ranger responded, 'Because they don't make a 46.'

6. The old sheriff was attending an awards dinner when a lady commented on his wearing his sidearm. 'Sheriff, I see you have your pistol. Are you expecting trouble?' 'No Ma'am. If I were expecting trouble, I would have brought my shotgun.'

7. Beware the man who only carries one gun. HE PROBABLY KNOWS HOW TO USE IT!

-----------------
And a story that floats in the ether of the Internet:

I was once asked by a lady visiting if I had a gun in the house. I said I did. She said 'Well I certainly hope it isn't loaded!' To which I said, of course it is loaded, it can't work without bullets!' She then asked, 'Are you that afraid of someone evil coming into your house?' My reply was, "No not at all. I am not afraid of the house catching fire either, but I have fire extinguishers around, and they are all loaded too".

My father's girl's rifle team won the state championship back in the forties; Houston Lamar High School ROTC. Look it up.

I have no problem with civilians who have undergone the same level of vetting as law enforcement personnel (at their own expense) carrying concealed weapons.

You would shoot a legally armed American exercising his right to bear arms while ordering a double ristretto venti nonfat organic chocolate brownie frappuccino extra hot, Live or Die?

#107 | Posted by rcade at 2010-03-03 06:12 PM

#139 | Posted by rcade at 2010-03-03 08:14 PM

Got me; I didn't read the whole article...

Pardon the pun; I guess I went off kind of "half cocked"...

NeverMind~

;~}

What is it with a group of peoples delusion that criminals will obay rules or that a set of rules will stop anyone from doing what they've set their mind on doing?

Whup, cant shoot up a starbucks, they have a "no gun" policy....more like, cool, no guns in there, lets shoot it up for as long as it takes for the police to arrive and then i'll just shoot myself.

I just don't get it.

Of course one side is going to publish information that pushes their agenda.

GunFacts.Info was recommended to me as a source for information. Do you think any fact that is contrary to that guy's agenda is going to be reported there?

I find it hard to believe that some StarBucks allow people to bring guns into the store.

Spud finds it hard to believe that this has become an issue.

Responsible concealed carry holders are not the problem and, indeed, may be a part of the solution to increased gun crime.

Spud thinks that open carry is perhaps a bit too provocative and may lead to unnecessary confrontation.

The gun bans in DC and Chicago have proven to be as useless as they were unConstitutional.

Be Well.

Responsible concealed carry holders are not the problem and, indeed, may be a part of the solution to increased gun crime.

Spud thinks that open carry is perhaps a bit too provocative and may lead to unnecessary confrontation.

The gun bans in DC and Chicago have proven to be as useless as they were unConstitution

well said.

GunFacts.Info was recommended to me as a source for information. Do you think any fact that is contrary to that guy's agenda is going to be reported there?

Nope. I don't.

Do you think the Brady Campaign is going to report anything contrary to their agenda? That doesn't stop anti-gun activists from using the one-sided, inaccurate information to form their opinions and lend flimsy credence to their argument.

You're guilty of it here, whether your consciously aware of it or not.

The problem with your argument is that there are states that already allow open carry. At least one of those states has the lowest crime rate in the United States of America. That fact and those crime statistics alone blows holes in your theory that people buy a cup of coffee with guns on their hips are going to wonder who to shoot first.

The answer is still "no one unless they're using their firearm in a threatening manner".

I find your inability to grasp that simple concept astonishing.

You're guilty of it here, whether your consciously aware of it or not.

I'm guilty of using one-sided information from groups I don't pay any attention to? Neat trick.

The problem with your argument is that there are states that already allow open carry. At least one of those states has the lowest crime rate in the United States of America.

Crime rates have a lot of factors beyond gun ownership and open carry laws. The biggest factor in the rise and drop of the crime rate the past 30 years was the reduction in lead exposure. Once we got rid of leaded gas and lead paint, there were fewer kids growing up with brain damage that gave them a marked propensity for violence.

Treating my simple questions as if I'm parroting the propaganda of gun control groups is intellectually dishonest. I asked questions. If guns make us safer at StarBucks it should not have been difficult to answer them.

I think a lot of gun-rights advocates have a hair-trigger response to anything critical that might negatively impact their unfettered ability to own and carry guns. They end up ignoring the fact that there's a cost associated with increasing gun ownership, often because of people who have no business carrying a gun because they never learned how to handle them properly. Check Google News for the term "gun accident." Every day there are casualties because of mishandled guns.

You can argue that there's a net benefit to increased gun ownership and the liberalization of open carry laws. But pretending there's no cost at all ignores reality.

#90 RCade

The question isn't whether or not they "need" to carry a gun into Starbucks, the question is do they have the right to.

I do have my CCL but I rarely carry under normal circumstances. When I do, however, you would never know that I am armed. It's not a macho thing, it's not a "oh my god I might get shot thing", it's just in case I happen to need it.

I've carried more often in recent months than I ever have. Here's why:

About two months ago, my daily driver (a 2008 Jeep Wrangler) was broken into, and the would be thieves attempted to hotwire it. In doing so, they managed to burn up all of the electronics behind my dash, and it has been in the shop ever since (may get her back tomorrow). As a result, I've had to use my project car, a 1950 Plymouth with the original powertrain, as a daily driver. It's a great car, and I believe that she is mechanically sound, however, she's 60 years old and really slow. I run the engine very when I'm on the freeway, it's difficult to merge, and probably not the safest thing to blast down the freeway at 70MPH in a car that wasn't designed for that.

As a result, I avoid the freeways whenever possible and often have to travel through the really bad parts of town (5th Ward for those familiar with Houston) at night. So when I know, or suspect, that I'm going to have to take that route, I stick my .38 underneath my seat. In the event that something transpires that would cause me to have to pop the hood on the side of the road, I can just slip my revolver into my coat pocket, and go about getting my car back on the road without as much concern over whether or not I will be robbed or worse. Does it keep me up nights, and am I pissing my pants over it? Of course not. I'm honestly not terribly concerned about my car dieing on the side of the road either, but I carry a flashlight and some wrenches with me just in case. Nobody's life is endangered by my carrying a gun, it's just a tool that's in my possession in the unlikely event that I need it.

Now back to the original question, do they have the need to carry a firearm in Starbucks? I contend that they don't, just as I didn't need to carry my pistol last night (which I did, even though my drive home was uneventful). I don't get a text message or an email update saying "You should probably carry your pistol today... also, you might want to check the condensor in the distributor". Life just doesn't work that way.

You would deprive them and myself the right to defend to self defense since you don't deem there to be a "need". I'd rather have the right and the ability to defend myself should I find myself in a position where I have the need.

John

The question isn't whether or not they "need" to carry a gun into Starbucks, the question is do they have the right to.

That may be your question, but mine is whether it makes you or anyone else safer to pack heat at StarBucks.

The people who started this controversy were open carry advocates taking their guns into StarBucks to prove they could, not because they thought they needed the guns to be safe there.

Personally, I think people are safer at establishments that exercise their right to ban customers from carrying guns on the premises.

"Personally, I think people are safer at establishments that exercise their right to ban customers from carrying guns on the premises."

#153 | Posted by rcade at 2010-03-04 10:40 AM | Reply | Flag: never ate at Luby's in Killeen or paid attention to facts

never ate at Luby's in Killeen or paid attention to facts

Flag: Spends entire life preparing for things that have a one-in-a-million chance of happening to him because he doesn't understand probability. Expects to win Lotto to fund his retirement.

RCADE

your a true tard that has no clue about guns.... A gun is a tool... Nothing more....

"A gun is a tool... Nothing more...."

So screwdrivers, shivs, sticks of dynamite, and Claymore mines are tools?

yes, all tools.

when was the last time you seen a gun jump out of the holster and shoot someone on it's own?

when was the last time you seen a gun jump out of the holster and shoot someone on it's own?

Honestly, I have never seen a person pull a gun out of a holster and shoot someone either.

sure but you know thats how it has to be done. right?

They don't jump out and shoot people........ I.E. it's a tool...

Why do you care if a Legal gun owner is packing a gun on his hip?

"Personally, I think people are safer at establishments that exercise their right to ban customers from carrying guns on the premises."

Really? And how are they gonna enforce that ban? Metal detectors at the door? I can remember some massacres in establishments that would have been curtailed if a law abiding armed individual had been in attendance. I'm sure every gangbanger in every major city will leave his gun in the car when he goes into StarBucks because StarBucks has banned them. What a big, huge laugh. How naive can you people be?

I think they should ban purses. after all that's what the robbers are after.. right..

Hmmm.....a cost to letting people carry in Starbucks?

I'm trying to think of anything that it would cost anyone? Maybe Starbucks will start carrying leather conditioners for holsters? Heck, a whole new profit center for Starbucks

I find it hard to believe that some StarBucks allow people to bring guns into the store.

#4 | Posted by rcade at

why?
its not a school and there isnt alcohol served...and surely even your caffiene fix wouldnt cause your LOOSE SCREW to explode now would it??
and in fact THAT might be where we need someone 'packing' anyway...

I'm guilty of using one-sided information from groups I don't pay any attention to? Neat trick.

I'm sure you never pay attention to any of the talking points put out by these groups. Your argument just happens to be similar. Purely coincidence.

Crime rates have a lot of factors beyond gun ownership and open carry laws. The biggest factor in the rise and drop of the crime rate the past 30 years was the reduction in lead exposure. Once we got rid of leaded gas and lead paint, there were fewer kids growing up with brain damage that gave them a marked propensity for violence.

In the words of Doc Sarvis. Link, please.

If guns make us safer at StarBucks it should not have been difficult to answer them.

You finally asked questions after your original statements in this thread were disputed and proven inaccurate or down-right wrong by documented evidence. What is intellectually dishonest is the assumption that everyone who carries a pistol is both scared of their own shadow and idiots who will lose their temper and go on a killing spree.

I think a lot of gun-rights advocates have a hair-trigger response to anything critical that might negatively impact their unfettered ability to own and carry guns.

if you want to offer up some honest criticism and some ideas to reduce crime that doesn't involve broad gun bans that do nothing more than placate the gun-control groups, I'm all ears.

Instead, you started your participation in this discussion by insulting just about everyone that owns a gun.

They end up ignoring the fact that there's a cost associated with increasing gun ownership, often because of people who have no business carrying a gun because they never learned how to handle them properly.

I practice. I have no issue with open or concealed carriers being required to pass annual reviews both at the range and through written tests concerning the law.

Check Google News for the term "gun accident." Every day there are casualties because of mishandled guns.

That has zero to do with concealed or open carry. Also addressed by the point I made above. Do a search for "dies from lung cancer due to smoking" or "killed in DUI".

But pretending there's no cost at all ignores reality.

I've never pretended that there's no cost at all. I say that everyone should be allowed to carry, so long as they are subject to yearly reviews.

You think everyone with a gun is a potential criminal.

Really? And how are they gonna enforce that ban?

By calling the cops on anybody who openly carries a gun and anyone else caught with a gun on the premises. Next question.

Personally, I think people are safer at establishments that exercise their right to ban customers from carrying guns on the premises.

#153 | Posted by rcade at 2010-03-04 10:40 AM

and so do the stats I believe..

OKAY OKAY I WILL SAY IT

when you are at a starbucks that BANS guns then the only people there WITH guns will be the bad guys...

OF COURSE>..anyone know what the latest number of shootouts there have been at starbucks????

right, I'm sure all the States with right to carry, concealed or not, will rush right back to their offices and begin working on this legislation right away.

It's not like there's anything more important going on in the world or US right now.

What a fucking tool.

"Next question."

In Texas a very specific sign is required, called a 3006 sign. Otherwise all they can do is ask you to leave and if you refuse then they can charge you with trespassing. Texas is not an open carry state. Concealed carry requires a license. Since concealed means just that no one will notice anyway.

At the risk of repeating myself, Washington is an open carry state.

"all the States with right to carry"

That would be 48.
Only Wisconsin (39 out of 50 in gun murder rate) and Illinois (31 out of 50 in gun murder rate) don't abide by the 2nd Amendment. Vermont's #34, Washington's #35, they are both open carry states. Go figure.

Anyone who carries a gun, openly or concealed has been, is, and will aways be a potential "VIOLENT" criminal.They are only lacking the immediate motive.

An armed person who shoots a criminal, even in self defense, has the potential to injure an innocent person as much as a criminal that injures innocent "bystanders". This makes the law abiding as potentially guilty as a true criminal.

A holier than thou approach, by "law abiding citizens", can turn into a reverse racially motivated crime as quickly as they draw a weapon. Basically MOST people who carry firearms are racially charged individuals. Let's call a spade a spade here.

If you carry, either openly, or concealed as I do, BE CAREFUL...period.

In Texas a very specific sign is required, called a 3006 sign.

I think it's the same in Florida.

I don't care much for what these roll over and die types think. I have a permit to carry and will do
so regardless of any company policy.

Speak for yourself ZATOICHI. You must not be a good shot u racist.

One-shot kills at home:

One-shot kills at home:

i179.photobucket.com

i179.photobucket.com

#180 | Posted by Zatoichi at 2010-03-04 01:52 PM

Like I give a shit or not if people hunt. I grew up in Texas and went fishing many times as a kid. I've never been hunting, but plenty of my relatives are avid outdoorsmen.

#176 ArmyVet> Anyone who carries a gun, openly or concealed has been, is, and will aways be a potential "VIOLENT" criminal.They are only lacking the immediate motive.

Sounds the same as the argument that all women are potential prostitutes, they have the equipment but just lack the "immediate motive" (in your words).

>An armed person who shoots a criminal, even in self defense, has the potential to injure an innocent person as much as a criminal that injures innocent "bystanders". This makes the law abiding as potentially guilty as a true criminal.

Potential injury by lawful gun owner: yes. As potentially guilty: no.

>A holier than thou approach, by "law abiding citizens", can turn into a reverse racially motivated crime as quickly as they draw a weapon.

Big stretch here, I'm talking MILES not yards.

>Basically MOST people who carry firearms are racially charged individuals. Let's call a spade a spade here.

You have really leaped over the fence into fantasy land. Might as well paint all white people as KKK members and all black people as Gangstas.

>If you carry, either openly, or concealed as I do, BE CAREFUL...period.

Finally something we can agree on. That is why most states with CCW have training that covers the legal aspects of carrying and using a firearm. The stats show that only a tiny fraction of CCW folks end up causing problems.

"The issue being discussed here is whether people need a gun at StarBucks. I was not aware that bear attacks have been taking place in our coffee shops."

Doesn't hurt to be prepared!

--Pants pissing gun nuts

#93 | Posted by nullifidian

That's the emotional issue being discussed.

The legal issue is whether or not the 2nd Amendment applies inside of Starbucks.

To which I respond, why wouldn't it.

Personally, I don't hunt.

The primary reason I keep firearms (never carry one), is so the Government will fear me (rhetorically speaking of course).

The legal issue is whether or not the 2nd Amendment applies inside of Starbucks.

To which I respond, why wouldn't it.

#184 | Posted by BENDOR at 2010-03-04 03:36 PM

That said, it sounds like the Starbucks in question allowed guns, and the libbies are butt hurt about it.

Let them ban it; if I'm carrying a gun it's concealed anyway, and no one would be the wiser...

Besides Starbucks sucks anyway, go to a real coffee shop; an independent like Stumptown or the like...

I do think that all people who carry a weapon in public should have it concealed as to avoid the anxiety of those who are afraid of guns; it's just simple respect...

Besides Starbucks sucks anyway ...

Something we can agree on. I would only buy coffee there at gunpoint.

#187 | Posted by rcade at 2010-03-04 05:04 PM

FF

Starbucks is a private business. Now, while the libbies have no problem forcing private businesses to do shit they don't want to (like ban cigarettes), I'm going to be consistent and say that Starbucks should be allowed to ban guns from their stores if they want to. It's their property. I would do the same if some nut was walking around my back yard with a shot gun and grin on his face.

That said, it sounds like the Starbucks in question allowed guns, and the libbies are butt hurt about it.

#185 | Posted by LIVE_OR_DIE

Not really. Starbucks is a privately owned business that caters to the public; in a public forum. I think that distinguishes them from a private backyard setting.

For example, could Starbucks demand that nobody say nice things about Republicans? No way right? Because that right of free speech is guaranteed - as long as the speaker does not infringe on someone else's rights by being abusive about it.

I believe the same situation applies with the 2nd amendment.

The 2nd amendment is an unalienable right to carry a gun - that infers the right to do it in public places like Starbucks.

But then again, I could be entirely wrong on this too.

"For example, could Starbucks demand that nobody say nice things about Republicans? No way right? Because that right of free speech is guaranteed - as long as the speaker does not infringe on someone else's rights by being abusive about it.
Posted by BENDOR"

You're right - you are entirely wrong on this. The First Amendment applies to government action. If you have no government action, you have no First Amendment issue. (Don't feel bad - Lil' Joe fancies that he'll be a lawyer some day, and he got this wrong a few months ago too.)

"For example, could Starbucks demand that nobody say nice things about Republicans? No way right? Because that right of free speech is guaranteed - as long as the speaker does not infringe on someone else's rights by being abusive about it.
Posted by BENDOR"

You're right - you are entirely wrong on this. The First Amendment applies to government action. If you have no government action, you have no First Amendment issue. (Don't feel bad - Lil' Joe fancies that he'll be a lawyer some day, and he got this wrong a few months ago too.)

#190 | Posted by mOntecOre

So Starbucks could put up a sign demanding "No Nice Talking About Republicans"?

I do not see how. The 1st amendment is an individual right of speech. The 2nd amendment also acknowledges an individual right.

If a person can not carry a gun openly in a public place, how is the 2nd amendment being upheld?

I believe you are wrong.

If you think I wrong, try this in your dry cleaning shop - No Laundry From Chinese Working in Restaurants Will be Accepted - I do not believe this would work out to well for you.

Who knows how the Supreme Court would rule though so I call a truce.

Oh, before you state, again, there is no government action here and therefore a non-issue...

...let me ask you, then who would enforce the gun ban in Starbucks?

If you say the police, then we are back to a 2nd amendment issue.

Right?

"So Starbucks could put up a sign demanding "No Nice Talking About Republicans"?"

Maybe not. What the hell do I know? I thought that was right, but maybe it's wrong. I need to stay at a Holiday Inn.

Why should anyone assume that someone in civilian clothes walking into StarBucks with a holstered gun on his hip is benign?

#118 | Posted by rcade

btw, how could someone so clever as to make a living stealing the intellectual property of others be so dumb?

btwII, after this thread I'd hunt Zat down & give him a hug (platonic, of course)

So Starbucks could put up a sign demanding "No Nice Talking About Republicans"?

Yes. And as an American, you'd be free not go to there if it upset you. Have you even read the First Amendment? it says "Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech." Congress isn't making the law about talking inside of Starbucks.

We are also definitely in a First Amendment situation if Harbucks if the cops tried to enforce a "no nice talking about republicans" sign. I think I might have conflated private clubs with places of public accommodation. In other words, ignore me. I'm suffering from the Whiskey Flu.

That's right, Joe. But can a private business legally exclude Blacks? My head hurts.

I should know this shit. Damn Maker's Mark.

That's right, Joe. But can a private business legally exclude Blacks? My head hurts.

No, they can't do that. But this is not specifically barred by the Constitution, it has been legislated at the federal level. I don't have the statute in front of me.

That's sounds right to me.

Fuck you guys.

Next time you see me in a Starbucks, I'm gonna carry an M16.

What's that you say? You are gonna bring a Howitzer then?

Well then, I'm gonna bring a nuclear fuckin' warhead.

btw, how could someone so clever as to make a living stealing the intellectual property of others be so dumb?

The Drudge Retort is completely legal and has been online since 1998.

The 2nd amendment is an unalienable right to carry a gun - that infers the right to do it in public places like Starbucks.

It doesn't do anything of the kind. Some states have laws that prohibit concealed weapons from being carried in private places that have posted a sign forbidding them. Here's the one for Texas:

Only through violence can we solve our problems.

Wherever you, whatever you're doing, I want you to turn to the person next to you and shoot them in the face with your sidearm.

There, doesn't that feel better.

R Cade: A) "the 2nd amendment is an unalienable right to carry a gun - that infers the right to do it in public places like Starbucks"

It doesn't do anything of the kind. Some states have laws that prohibit concealed weapons from being carried in private places that have posted a sign forbidding them. Here's the one for Texas:

#202 | Posted by rcade

yes . . SOME places DO post "no guns", however the fine print on many signs contains a "disclaimer/waiver"

and . . . while some areas DO prohibit "concealed carry" . .
most states adherring to the US Constitution DO NOT PROHIBIT "open carry" of firearms . . it's kinda one of them Constitution things . . ya know?

PS - don't hold me to the ZAT huggy deal

Violence may not be the best solution...but it is a solution...

Ironically, if the gun carrying folk were so inclined, there wouldn't be so many people able to express their belief that guns are dangerous. But those that carry firearms actually aren't inclined to violence.

In Texas a very specific sign is required, called a 3006 sign.

I think it's the same in Florida.

#177 | Posted by rcade at 2010-03-04 12:59 PM | Reply | Flag: incorrect.

RCADE,
In Florida you can post it, but it can be ignored if you have a CCW permit. You can be asked to leave and asked to not come back, but there is no prohibition, sign or not, to carrying your weapon concealed in a business*.

NB: If your firearm is being carried concealed, no one will know you have it anyway.

*Just the standard "sporting events, courtrooms, etc." prohibitions apply.

I have to add:

Waiting for Starbucks...gotta have a scone:

;)

It was that or the blunderbuss!

DAPROF

Be extra careful not to impugn or besmirch anyone's honor while at Starbucks LOL

So Starbucks could put up a sign demanding "No Nice Talking About Republicans"?

Yes. And as an American, you'd be free not go to there if it upset you. Have you even read the First Amendment? it says "Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech." Congress isn't making the law about talking inside of Starbucks.

#195 | Posted by JOE

Yes; of course. The rest of the conversation concerned whether it would be enforceable under the law or not. They could have the sign (and get a lot of attention for it) but they could not enforce the no nice talking ban.

My point was to illustrate the same constitutional question as openly carrying a gun in a public place (such as Starbucks).

Both actions, speaking and gun carrying, are protected as individual rights under the 1st and 2nd amendment to the constitution (aka bill of rights).

Starbucks is following the law in this case - in fact, they can not legally do otherwise. In my opinion.

Why are there only 9 members on the facebook page for this website. Even if you disagree add yourself and let people know there is a site like this worth commenting on..............

That's right, Joe. But can a private business legally exclude Blacks? My head hurts.

No, they can't do that. But this is not specifically barred by the Constitution, it has been legislated at the federal level. I don't have the statute in front of me.

#199 | Posted by JOE

The 1964 Civil Rights Act?

I'll be careful, AmericanUnity.....but so should they!

Remember rule number 2:

If you find yourself in a fair fight, your tactics suck.

Here's an interesting legal question for you Joe...

...If we are endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights, including life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness...

...do those rights become endowed to us at the moment of our creation?

In other words, with our first awareness as a living being, shouldn't our rights endowed to us in that very moment?

This is why I've always maintained that the abortion issue will eventually be settled...

...as a result of science.

I believe the Supreme Court would find that the most basic fundamental individual rights under the Constitution begin...

...at the moment of human awareness.

Otherwise the concept of a Creator or being Created are meaningless - and none of us, therefore, have rights. The word Creator can not be separated out, under the law, because it evokes a power higher than even the Constitution itself.

Therefore, someday, this will all boil down to a very simple question. When does the fetus become aware that it's alive?

Joe...

...a loaded question to be sure.

But the Declaration of Independence has been upheld as Constitutional on numerous occasions and is, in fact, one of the legal underpinnings (including other documents such as the Magna Carta), of the Constitution itself.

Therefore, the right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness are "constitutional" even though those words are not to be found in the document itself.

"Therefore, someday, this will all boil down to a very simple question. When does the fetus become aware that it's alive?"

You're joking, right?

Were you "aware" you were being born?

Get an expert witness to...

..."communicate" in real time with a human fetus...

...and abortion, in cases not involving the physical health of the mother, will be no more.

On that day, the human fetus would be recognized as having individual Constitutional Rights.

But that's the future...

"Therefore, someday, this will all boil down to a very simple question. When does the fetus become aware that it's alive?"

You're joking, right?

Were you "aware" you were being born?

#221 | Posted by Danforth

Even a dog is aware of his own birth. The fact that we don't remember it has nothing to do with awareness while in the moment itself.

They don't jump out and shoot people........ I.E. it's a tool...

#162 | Posted by libslayer | Flag: DOES NOT JUMP OUT AND SHOOT PEOPLE; I.E., HE'S A TOOL

"The fact that we don't remember it has nothing to do with awareness"

Then what's your definition of "awareness"?

I know that "communicating" with a human fetus sounds so ridiculous that it's laughable...

...nevertheless, it's merely a question of how, not if.

Science will eventually discover a way.

" it's merely a question of how, not if."

You could say the same about a paramecium.

I think the "We" only applies to humans.

"I think the "We" only applies to humans."

I think science will prove you wrong.

"I think the "We" only applies to humans."

I think science will prove you wrong.

#229 | Posted by Danforth

Very possibly. I said science would prove the case, either way.

My personal opinion is life begins at awareness.

"My personal opinion is life begins at awareness"

Define "awareness".

If other words, once a fetus experiences human emotions such as anger, fear, and love...

...its life can no longer be taken simply for the convenience of the mother.

The fetus would have become endowed, by its Creator, with unalienable rights in that moment.

I don't see how the Supreme Court could rule any other way because to do so they would need to say when rights do begin...

...and would have a hard time justifying any other legal artifice as to the "beginning" of individual rights; i.e., at birth? just before birth? just after birth?

"once a fetus experiences human emotions such as anger, fear, and love..."

You've just suggested a newborn could be slaughtered prior to being slapped.

"they would need to say when rights do begin..."

They already do.

"...and would have a hard time justifying any other legal artifice as to the "beginning" of individual rights; i.e., at birth? just before birth? just after birth?"

Already done. At birth.

"once a fetus experiences human emotions such as anger, fear, and love..."

You've just suggested a newborn could be slaughtered prior to being slapped.

"they would need to say when rights do begin..."

They already do.

"...and would have a hard time justifying any other legal artifice as to the "beginning" of individual rights; i.e., at birth? just before birth? just after birth?"

Already done. At birth.

#233 | Posted by Danforth

Ummm..not really.

Kill a pregnant woman and get two counts of murder. Abortion is founded on some very shaky legal ground.

They could have the sign but they could not enforce the no nice talking ban.

What makes you think they can't? They could ask you to leave and eventually force you out if you refused to follow their rules, just like when you break the rules at any other private business. The fact that you have come up with a stupid rule as an example that no business owner in their right mind would ever enact does not mean that they wouldn't be able to enforce it if they wanted to.

They could have the sign but they could not enforce the no nice talking ban.

What makes you think they can't? They could ask you to leave and eventually force you out if you refused to follow their rules, just like when you break the rules at any other private business. The fact that you have come up with a stupid rule as an example that no business owner in their right mind would ever enact does not mean that they wouldn't be able to enforce it if they wanted to.

#235 | Posted by JOE

True; they could indeed bully me out of the place.

That is not the question.

A ban on nice talking would not be legally enforceable. They could not get the police to move folks out just because they broke your rule of making nice statements about somebody else.

My point was to illustrate the same constitutional question as openly carrying a gun in a public place (such as Starbucks). Both actions, speaking and gun carrying, are protected as individual rights under the 1st and 2nd amendment to the constitution (aka bill of rights).

That doesn't mean the same rules apply to both rights no matter where you are or what you are doing, and its not always an issue of federal law. Most states with open or concealed carry laws either allow all businesses to ban weapons (so long as they post a clearly visible notice) or certain types of businesses, and with good reason.

They could not get the police to move folks out just because they broke your rule of making nice statements about somebody else.

Who said they need police? A private business can enforce its own rules by way of a private security service.

How about this one, AmericanUnity?

Or perhaps:

Is the first one a paint ball gun?

If so, it could easily be converted to shoot cream in coffee

"Ummm..not really."

Yes, really. How does a fetus experience "human emotions such as anger, fear, and love..."? Be specific.

Finally bendor, you're wrong on the gun point. There are plenty of private businesses who already ban people from bringing any weapons inside their establishment. And if you want to ignore their clearly posted signs and wander in anyways, they can call the police and have you arrested for trespassing (again, depending on what state you are in). No private security firm needed there.

"Ummm..not really."

Yes, really. How does a fetus experience "human emotions such as anger, fear, and love..."? Be specific.

#242 | Posted by Danforth

The same way you do, I would think. Can you explain how you experience of those emotions?

They could not get the police to move folks out just because they broke your rule of making nice statements about somebody else.

Who said they need police? A private business can enforce its own rules by way of a private security service.

#238 | Posted by JOE

To a point. For establishments open to the general public, and can be consider public places, rules must be in keeping with certain local regulations, commerce laws, the civil rights act, etc., and generally for the purpose of keeping of good order and discipline. Spurious or frivolous rules imposed on the public under the threat of physical detainment or harm, would land such private business owner in a world of legal trouble.

Disallowing speaking nicely or carrying a gun, as in this case, would be considered spurious or frivolous by the courts. Why? Because no direct harm can be demonstrated and the rights of the gun bearer in no way infringes on the rights of the public at large. Offending of ones point of view is not protected under the law.

Starbucks is a public place.

Starbucks is a public place.

It's private property.

It's a private business.

Maybe yer confused cos it's a publicly traded company?

Be Well.

/Back in this mutha
stage left.

Starbucks has a right to request no guns in their shops...

BUT Starbucks has a right to allow guns in their shops...

--

AU: It is allegedly a "pain gun" that uses microwaves to inflict pain on the target.

Disallowing speaking nicely or carrying a gun, as in this case, would be considered spurious or frivolous by the courts. Why? Because no direct harm can be demonstrated and the rights of the gun bearer in no way infringes on the rights of the public at large. Offending of ones point of view is not protected under the law.

You've got it backwards. Courts don't sit there and review every rule imposed by a private business under a "spurious or frivolous" standard. If the rule offends YOUR point of view, YOU are not protected by the law.

I absolutely love it that the anti-gun bed wetters are losing. The reason? Easy: exponentially more women are getting interested in guns as the most EFFECTIVE means of self-defense. People are tired of being the victims of gun-toting criminals. And people are tired of the Big Brother bed wetters saying nobody has the right of self-defense. Most constitutionally illiterate "gubmint-is-my-god" bed wetters are unaware that the cops have ZERO legal obligation to protect them. Check out DeShaney v. Winnebago City Social Services Department, 489 U.S. 189 (1989). By definition, criminals will ALWAYS find ways have guns. Therefore, also by definition, anti-gun laws disarm ONLY the law-abiding. It's not rocket science, folks!

And people are tired of the Big Brother bed wetters saying nobody has the right of self-defense.

I don't think anyone on the left has ever argued that no one has a right to defend themselves.

Their argument is that the abundance of guns leads to more crime. They're wrong of course, but being wrong has never stopped anyone from saying or doing anything.

Starbucks is a public place.

It's private property.

It's a private business.

Maybe yer confused cos it's a publicly traded company?

Be Well.

/Back in this mutha
stage left.

#247 | Posted by dethspud

Starbucks is a private business operating in a public venue or public place.

I think you will shocked to learn that I am right on this one.

Starbucks is following the law by upholding the 2nd amendment in their stores.

It's that simple.

It is what happens, Axiom, when people "think with their emotions" instead of using reasoning and deduction from facts.

It also blinds them to the facts and conclusions of many other issues, unfortunately. Intelligent, but illogical, or perhaps emotionally too involved.

Maybe it DOES go back to bedwetting for them.

Personally, I think people are safer at establishments that exercise their right to ban customers from carrying guns on the premises.

#153 | Posted by rcade

Why?

The wonderful thing about a "concealed/carry" license is that the weapon being carried is concealed. If everyone was carrying or nobody was, the outer appearce would be exactly the same.

Personally, I think people are safer at establishments that exercise their right to ban customers from carrying guns on the premises.

#153 | Posted by rcade

Why?

#254 | Posted by BENDOR

I don't know the answer either. I do however wonder if it is possible to prove or disprove your assertion statistically.

Is comparing gun crime rates a good approach? You know, jurisdictions with no open carry laws vs. those with?

You would also need to convince me that the early pioneers would have been safer without guns.

"If so, it could easily be converted to shoot cream in coffee
#241 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY"

"To a point. For establishments open to the general public, and can be consider public places, rules must be in keeping with certain local regulations, commerce laws, the civil rights act, etc., and generally for the purpose of keeping of good order and discipline. Spurious or frivolous rules imposed on the public under the threat of physical detainment or harm, would land such private business owner in a world of legal trouble.

#245 | Posted by BENDOR"

It is clear that you are just making shit up. With all due respect, you have no clue what you are talking about.

"Like this? rodgers.smartvideochannel.com
#257 | Posted by mOntecOre"

Bad link, sorry.

Starbucks is following the law by upholding the 2nd amendment in their stores.
It's that simple.

There are private businesses all over the United States that do not allow people to bring firearms inside, and they are perfectly within their rights to do so. You cannot bring a gun into any Costco in the United States. Drive past a bar in the ghetto sometime - there will be a sign that says no guns. Quick - file a lawsuit. I want to see how far you get with it.

There are private businesses all over the United States that do not allow people to bring firearms inside, and they are perfectly within their rights to do so. You cannot bring a gun into any Costco in the United States. Drive past a bar in the ghetto sometime - there will be a sign that says no guns. Quick - file a lawsuit. I want to see how far you get with it.

#260 | Posted by JOE

Would those same businesses be within their rights to refuse service to Blacks?

Why not?

Businesses that cater to the public have to follow the law - be it civil rights or individual rights.

Try removing me from a Starbucks in an open carry state and you will get your lawsuit - that's why Starbucks has decided to support the 2nd amendment in this case.

Things you thought were legal - like the DC ban on handguns - are now being challenged in the courts.

And guess who is winning the argument?

This will be settled soon enough. I suggest you get used to the idea of seeing lots and lots of people openly carrying guns in public.

I have no idea where the legal line on guns will be drawn...

...guns in schools and bars?...

...I do however believe the Supreme Court will err on the side of the 2nd amendment.

The right to carry a gun infers the right to do it in a public place.

Sorry, but that is a simple fact.

By the way, visit an open carry state someday. You see folks carrying openly all over town.

It is no big deal.

I have no more concern of them than I do for the driver of the semi loaded with 10,000 gallons of gasoline.

Would those same businesses be within their rights to refuse service to Blacks?

Can you read, dumbass? I posted yesterday that no, businesses cannot do this, but not because of the Constitution, but because of a specific statute enacted by Congress. There is a difference.

And I've got nothing against guns or gun owners. I support gun rights. I just think private property rights should (and do) trump them. I also think you're making shit up, as there are plenty of private businesses in open carry states that have banned guns entirely.

Can you read, dumbass? I posted yesterday that no, businesses cannot do this, but not because of the Constitution, but because of a specific statute enacted by Congress. There is a difference.

And I've got nothing against guns or gun owners. I support gun rights. I just think private property rights should (and do) trump them. I also think you're making shit up, as there are plenty of private businesses in open carry states that have banned guns entirely.

#265 | Posted by JOE

I never said it wasn't done. A lot of things that are wrong are done nonetheless.

I did say I believe that "house rules" imposed by private businesses on citizens exercising the constitutional right to bear arms in public places...

...is unenforceable under the Constitution. And, the Supreme Courts will, given the chance, basically say the same thing and finish this once and for all.

That's what I did say.

Hey, if the courts decide otherwise, I will come back here on congratulate you on your analysis of the issue and legal jurisprudence.

#261 | Posted by BENDOR at 2010-03-05 12:36 PM

Though I agree with you in principal, the law doesn't back you up on this. However, I don't think that violation of the rules of a private business can bring on legal repercussions in-and-of itself, but every private business "reserves the right to deny service to anyone". Therefore, if you were in a private business and were asked to leave (for any reason), and you did not do-so the police may choose to take you in for trespassing, or just give you a ticket. At this point the gun would be superfluous.

-Places Prohibited-

-School property
-A childcare center while children are present
-Public colleges and universities may have policy restricting the carrying of weapons on their premises by employees and students while on campus
***-Private establishments that have posted a sign banning guns on their premises
***-Private establishments who have personally informed the permit holder that guns are prohibited and demands compliance
-Places of employment, public or private, if employer restricts the carry or possession of firearms by is employees
-State correctional facilities or state hospitals and grounds (MN Statute 243.55)
-Any jail, lockup or correctional facility (MN Statute 641.165)
-Courthouse complexes, unless the sheriff is notified (MN Statute 609.66)
-Offices and courtrooms of the Minnesota Supreme Court and Court of Appeals
-Any state building unless the commissioner of public safety is notified (MN Statute 609.66)
-In a field while hunting big game by archery, except when hunting bear (MN Statute 97B.211)
-In federal court facilities or other federal facilities (Title 18 U.S.C. 930)

I would rather ban StarBucks than curb citizens right to bear arms. They make crap coffee consistently and do not deal in fair trade beans. Their removal would instantly add to unemployment, so they should be locally owned through a trans-American co-op - the bean pickers to the milk steamers should all be able to partake.

Guns in public is merely to show off and intimidate. Quite stupidly the wrong advertising for responsible gun owners.

>I think a lot of gun-rights advocates have a hair-trigger response to anything critical that might negatively impact their unfettered ability to own and carry guns.

I think a lot of abortion-rights advocates have a hair-trigger response to anything critical that might negatively impact their unfettered ability to have and seek abortions.

Tool!

#268 | Posted by redlightrobot at 2010-03-05 09:34 PM

I have to agree with all that...

#269 | Posted by happyending at 2010-03-05 11:44 PM

Yeah, or they just want to have sovereignty over their own body, and don't want some bigot telling them what to do with it...

Potato/Potatoe...

>sovereignty over their own body...

Fleeting moments of control at best. Whatever makes you think you're important. Better to err on man's propensity to get it wrong, I guess.

Enjoy!

#272 | Posted by happyending at 2010-03-06 11:26 AM

Since, as humans, all we really have is the sovereignty we do posses, I guess that to deny a person theirs to insure just the "possibility" of life to another being is asking a lot from someone, aye???

And, since that possible life is a by-product of the first, I guess that taking the decision away from that first person is to consider that person less capable of making their own decisions than you are, as an uninvolved third party...

So, you must really think a lot of yourself... "Whatever makes you think you're important"...<

That's pretty much the most incomprehensible thing I've read in a while.

You're screwed!

#274 | Posted by happyending at 2010-03-06 07:10 PM

"Incomprehensible"? I think that says a bit more about you than it does my post...

Try taking some English reading/comprehension courses at your local library; they're free and it could help you with your cognitive skills...

Or, maybe I can help. Tell me what part/parts you're having trouble with and I'll explain it/them to you with less grown-up verbiage...

>abortion-rights advocates have a hair-trigger response to anything critical

Step right up, Captain. You're first in line.

>all we really have is the sovereignty we do posses

Is that making a posse plural? Oh, possess. If all you "possess" as a human is the right to control your body (and kill little babies growing within you) then I really don't care to read anything you have to write.

To "deny" someone the right to kill a "possibility"? Current "law" provides compensation to the "possibility" of future wages all the time when someone is injured. Current "law" also allows someone to kill that "potential" w/ no ramifications.

One thing we do agree on though:

Potato/Potatoe...

#276 | Posted by happyending at 2010-03-07 10:34 AM

***"abortion-rights advocates have a hair-trigger response to anything critical"

And, politicians lie...

Every political issue on the globe has its reactionaries...

Are you trying to say that the anti-choice crowd is reserved and contemplating? The Christian Conservatives are plagued with some of the most fanatically visceral reactionaries one could ever have the misfortune to endure (at least here in America). And when one's political opponent is this same group of people it seems disingenuous to feign expectations of cordiality...

***"Is that making a posse plural?"

No, actually it was a grammatical error...

***"If all you "possess" as a human is the right to control your body (and kill little babies growing within you) then I really don't care to read anything you have to write."

My point was: no one should be able to force someone else to carry and give birth to a child that they don't want to have. Regardless...

And, you're breaking my heart...

***"Current "law" also allows someone to kill that "potential" w/ no ramifications."

No, when someone other than the mother precludes the possibility of another person's fetus developing, it is murder (or manslaughter)...

However, once again, to force a person to carry and give birth to a child they do not want, is to deny them their most fundamental right; to control ones own body...

#276 | Posted by happyending at 2010-03-07 10:34 AM
***"then I really don't care to read anything you have to write"

"Wahh. I'm taking my toys and going home; the mean man is scary!"

FTFY...

But, I'm keeping your lunch money...