Starbucks in crosshairs on gun-control debate by Niki2

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)

Haven't read that article yet (I'm in a bit of a time crunch, and shouldn't even be here right now!), but last I heard, Starbucks wasn't having it. They were targetted BECAUSE they're seen as a hangout for lily-livered liberals, and they aren't playing the game. Far as I heard the other day, they're going by the state rules where they are, and NOT confronting people in states where they have a right to carry openly.

So it's becoming a story by NOT becoming a story, it seems.

If I'm behind, I'll catch up when I get home. Maybe. Sister-in-law is in town, so who knows when I'll have any time to check in. Might have to entertain tonight...

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, March 4, 2010 12:05 PM

BYTEMITE

NOW they can call it the Coffee Party.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 5, 2010 2:14 AM

It seems Starbucks is being dragged toward being a bastion of individual respect and rights whether that was ever their intention or not, much to my amusement, cause the IWW has been putting a boot in their ass for quite a while now, you see...
http://www.starbucksunion.org/

And they are indeed progressing with a little more respect for workers rights, and well, when you start learning to respect one right, the others naturally follow.

Besides, if the gunbunnys wanna hang out at Starbucks, it's a pretty damned solid improvement in security - seriously, would YOU try to rob a coffee shop full of gunbunnies with their favorite toys strapped on, being run by freakin Wobblies ?

Conversely, those Wobblies will also react quite badly to any attempted shakedown of the gunbunnies by overeager law enforcement, for a multitude of reasons, not the least of which is how THEY feel about personal and property rights, and badge bearing jackboots in the specific.

As for any insinuation that folks bearing arms will turn Starbucks into the wild west (which was, factually, more peaceful than today), one need look no further than Kennesaw, GA for proof that the notion is laughable.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kennesaw,_Georgia#Gun_law

So long as Starbucks respects my red card AND my weapon, they'll be gettin my business, cause unlike most of the "brady bunch" both gunbunnies and Wobblies can and will put their money where their mouth is, while the "brady bunch" will be ever the hypocrites they always are, and continue to patronize the place when no one is looking who can call em out on it (and prolly carryin an illegal weapon with the serial numbers filed off, as they are wont to do here, and have been CAUGHT doing, repeatedly).

So yeah, let em rant and rave.

-F

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 5, 2010 3:07 AM

And as uncomfortable as some of Starbucks' regular customers may be at the idea of people walking in and out or hanging around their favorite koffee klatch with firearms strapped on and in plain sight, it may have a positive effect if it becomes common enough. People who are anti-gun or exceptionally twitchy about them just might find that there's nothing really freaky about being near someone with a gun; it's no more dangerous that having a construction worker walk in with a hammer hanging in his workbelt. It's just a tool. Frankly, I find someone with a gun on their hip less offensive than folks yelling into their cellphones in the middle of a crowded coffee shop...

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 5, 2010 3:50 AM

HERO

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
...and well, when you start learning to respect one right, the others naturally follow.

Only in boxing...

H

"Hero. I have come to respect you." "I am forced to agree with Hero here."- Chrisisall, 2009.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 5, 2010 3:57 AM

JONGSSTRAW

I probably don't know all the facts, but I believe Starbucks has an obligation to ban the guns from their stores. Their top priority should be the comfort and safety of their customers, and having people sitting around with loaded guns strapped on is just a recipe for disaster. And if there are any kids around it's even worse.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 5, 2010 7:25 AM

BYTEMITE

It's the ultimate question: do you ban something that could be considered unsafe, or do you teach people safety? I wonder which is more effective.

(No really I do, my initial inclination is towards teaching safety to reduce accidents by proximity, but I'd like to see the data for both sides)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 5, 2010 7:52 AM

wow, two things i really hate: sbux and guns! perfect.

i never feel more liberal than on the subject of guns. i am not capable of rational thought on the subject. guns have one purpose: killing things, and you can frame it as "self defense" or liberty if you want, but lets be frank, guns kill things. they are not a neutral tool, defined by the will of the wielder. they are for killing.

i will be blunt: fuck guns, the have no place in a civil society. anybody who says otherwise is a sissy that needs to carry prefabricated masculinity on their hip.

i do not frequent starbucks--they are a force of homogenity and serve shit coffee--but I find the idea of sitting in a public place surrounded by armed wimps to be tremendously unappealing on a variety of levels.

brief nod to the constitutional issue: if you believe that the 2nd amendment articualtes an individual, vs. a collective right, fantastic, now argue that the constitution gives you an inalienable right to own a bazooka.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 5, 2010 8:10 AM

Oh, and why ?

Are the tools themselves dangerous ?
Gonna jump up out of their holsters all by their lonesome and start blasting away ?

Dude, the *ONLY* difference between folks packing a CCW and openly carrying is where they put the friggin holster - and for a fact, if you put a pistol all by its lonesome on a table, even in a crowded room, it's not gonna do a blessed thing unless a PERSON picks it up and operates it.

Tools are NOT dangerous, PEOPLE are dangerous, and frankly anyone who is dangerous with a pistol is very likely to be every bit as dangerous with a table knife - so should we ban tablewear, then ?

Seriously, your argument holds no water.

-F

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 5, 2010 8:15 AM

i agree people are dangerous, too, even more so when they have a dangerous and unnecessary tool that was designed for the sole purpose of putting a projectile through a body.

seriously, what good comes of some dick sitting down in a cafe and displaying his gun, which also serves a proxy for his weakness and insecurity?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 5, 2010 8:23 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by mincingbeast:
brief nod to the constitutional issue: if you believe that the 2nd amendment articualtes an individual, vs. a collective right, fantastic, now argue that the constitution gives you an inalienable right to own a bazooka.

I don't have to argue it, it DOES.

Ain't my fault every damnbody else conveniently ignores what's supposed to be the highest law of the land simply cause it's inconvenient to them.

And it's not ABOUT inferiority/superiority issues, so much as your chances of FORCING me to obey your whim and will when I have the means to prevent it, are about jack shit - and a lot of the anti-gun argument rests in fear of that little problem, you cannot FORCE someone to do your bidding if they are armed.

I suggest you read these more reasoned, rational arguments instead of the macho-bullshit tripe often posted by folks who don't even comprehend the issue.
(and yes, I dislike THOSE as much as you do, but a universal right is just that, universal to EVERYONE, or NO ONE, cause anything less is tyranny.)

http://munchkinwrangler.blogspot.com/2007/03/why-gun-is-civilization.h
tml

http://www.jpfo.org/smith/smith-herefords.htm

Whenever someone takes issue with the idea of me packing, I always in my heart wonder, are they actually really afraid of a mere tool, or is the thought that they cannot force their will upon me if I am armed the true reason for their fear ?

And if so, WHY ?

-Frem

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 5, 2010 8:37 AM

frem, you seem cool, and i would like to remind you that this is the interwebz. hence, nothing i say makes me a dick, right?

the constitution is the highest law in the land, but it is not written in stone. most folks would approach it as an evolving document (minus scalia and other asshoels, who like to pretend that history ended in the 18th century). without getting into the complexities of constitutional law, that there is language about a right to bear arms is not inconsistent with the position that you cant, say, bring a gun into a sbux.

assuming that the second amendment conferrs an individual, versus a collective right (which has been a source of rancorous, if scholarly debate for say, a hundred years or more) you really believe that the state has no legitimate power to keep you from owning a bazooka? no legitimate interest in keeping bazookas out of peoples hands? and sbux, if they don't want you bringing in a bazooka with you when it comes for their crap coffee, is trammelling the constitution? i don't want to mischaracterize your argument.

i doubt that many anti-gun crazies, like myself, base our opinions on our fear of not being able to force people to do shit. rather, its a fear of gun violence, and being as that guns are really designed for violence, i would say that it is not an unreasonable fear. and if you armed, some asshole will still impose his will on you--he will do so with a gun, and all we've really done is a bit of escalation.

i freely confess that this is my totally-crazy issue, and that i would ban all guns, everywhere.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 5, 2010 8:39 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by mincingbeast:
seriously, what good comes of some dick sitting down in a cafe and displaying his gun

Well for one thing it exposes the hypocrisy of the highest law of the land being universally ignored whenever inconvenient by those who swore an oath to uphold it.

That's actually the primary REASON folks do it.

As for insecurity, look guy, am damn near forty, built out of more than 30% non-oem parts including a wonkyass prosthetic leg that is incapable of any speed beyond a fast walk, and doesn't always work well enough to even use, and as of late I spend more days than I would like in a fucking wheelchair.

Be *DAMNED* if I am going to accept that I should physically engage or run away from (yeah, TRY that in a wheelchair) some thug who wants my stuff, or depend on the tender mercies of someone who has already decided to break the laws and rules of society to behave in a socially acceptable manner once they get what they want, especially since it is the idiocy of disarmament and cooperation (which, BTW, gets people killed, another proven fact) that enables and encourages them in the first place - this is pointedly obvious when ANY resistance, even unarmed and hopeless, usually catches them so flatfooted they're unable to cope.

Maybe you live in a safe neighborhood, maybe you're from some other country with a saner society, and that's fine, hell, more power to ya, but I grew up in a hellhole where you had to keep one hand free for a weapon to get your goddamn groceries home...

And where were the cops ?
Why, busting folks for defending themselves, asking directions, or cause she's cute and they want an excuse to feel her up under the guise of a pat down search.

Go watch The Wire - and consider well that I *lived that shit*, right there, point blank, in my face, and couldn't turn it off like you can your TV, 24-7-365, every day, all day.

So save your rhetoric for someone who wouldn't be dead ten times over if they did not have the means to defend themselves, ok ?

-F

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 5, 2010 8:43 AM

On that note though, why not take this conversation itself in a more productive direction ?

While I *do* believe that having a weapon at hand is a viable, individual right, and thus sacrosanct, you know what I believe to be even more important ?

The knowledge and skills to make it not *have* to come to that, lemme explain that one - most folk have no clue of self-defense beyond the crisis point, and this results in a lot of needless violence and bloodshed.

http://www.nononsenseselfdefense.com/pyramid.html
http://www.nononsenseselfdefense.com/five_stages.html
http://www.nononsenseselfdefense.com/shadow_dancing.htm

And this, THE most important facet, and one often neglected badly even by law enforcement and security personnel.

http://www.nononsenseselfdefense.com/deescalation.htm

I don't pack the heat for anticipation of use any more than a spare tire in anticipation of a flat, or a fire extinguisher in anticipation of a house fire, it's there for when things go badly wrong, and a pistol is a stopgap measure to allow an individual to hold their own and see to their own defense long enough to call in the professionals, the same way a house fire extinguisher allows one to hold things under control till the fire department gets there... but all of that is in extremis, a situation that should be a LAST resort.

And frankly, as I am pointing out, the greater part of self-defense is making sure it never comes to a point where you NEED the damned thing.

Which is, in all honesty, a better direction for this conversation to go.

-F

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 5, 2010 8:45 AM

HERO

Quote:
Originally posted by Jongsstraw:
Their top priority should be the comfort and safety of their customers...

Actually their top priority is to generate a profit for their stockholders and franchise owners. Next is to serve a safe product, meaning their coffee does not kill anyone (by cause uncontrolled accelleration for example).

What your talking about is ambiance. If customers want a gun free cup of coffee, they are free to choose another coffee shop. If enough do Starbucks can change their policy to attract more customers.

I note for the record that having been to a variety of coffee shops, none have banned serial killers, terrorists, gang bangers, or mass murderers from the property. I think that doing so would be far more effective at providing the safety you mention then banning guns carried by law abiding citizens.

I further note that a gun ban...like all gun bans...only bans guns carried by law abiding citizens. Criminals will carry regardless of the ban...because they are criminals:

"I'm going into Starbucks to get coffee and murder people...wait, there's a sign banning my gun, guess I'll have to settle for coffee..."

H

"Hero. I have come to respect you." "I am forced to agree with Hero here."- Chrisisall, 2009.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 5, 2010 8:50 AM

frem, with all due respect, i shall inflict my rhetoric, nay sophistry, on the entire 'verse. perhaps if someone had a gun they could stop me...

i sympathize with how your experience shapes your views, and i candidly admit that i'm thoughtless on this issue. dude, i've never had occasion to protect myself with a gun, and i can't claim the same sort of life experience you can. i consider myself foruntate that I can watch the Wire and think "gee, this is fiction." and beyond the natural advantages my humble, yet utterly safe upbringing, i am not the sort of chap that people pick on.

i have been on the wrong end of a gun, twice, and each time it sucked, and i've devoted my life to criminal law. perhaps that gives me some small measure of street cred?

that said, perhaps we could agree that there are distinctions to be made between someone, in say, B-more that has got a weapon to avoid being eaten, and say, a dude who wants to carry his Desert Eagle into Sbux to show 'em sissy liberals a lesson about the 2nd amendment?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 5, 2010 8:52 AM

frem, i endorse your new direction. it is delightfully free of macho-pro-gun-bullshit(theirs, not yours, which is nuanced), and macho-anti-gun-bullshit(mine).

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 5, 2010 9:31 AM

Quote:

frem, with all due respect, i shall inflict my rhetoric, nay sophistry, on the entire 'verse. perhaps if someone had a gun they could stop me...

Perhaps. I do, but I wouldn't even think to stop you. Oddly enough, I tend to agree with ALL of the Bill of Rights, not just the ones I like the most. As such, I respect as sacrosanct your right to spout off as much as you want. And I respect that right, even though words and ideas have killed far more people throughout history than have guns.

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 5, 2010 9:48 AM

Well, here's the ticket, Mince...

I'd rather someone with the training to avoid an incident and no gun - than someone with gun who doesn't have the training.

That for a FACT, since the company I run doesn't do armed security - not for legal liability reasons as much as it's friggin pointless, if any of my people screw up the situational awareness, observation, prevention and de-escalation aspects that WE ARE PAID TO DO, to the point where they might find themselves needing a weapon, they might as well just mail their resignation and save me the trouble of booting them from the office.

Plus the fact that, yanno, bullets tend to travel in straight lines, and there's almost nowhere you could draw one of those lines in our protected sites that doesn't endanger innocent people.

Anyhows, check out McYoung's site, it's straight up, real deal "let's not HAVE an incident" defense, instead of macho bullshit, and he knows his shit - I say that both as a former ghetto thug and a current security professional.

And yes, having been the former makes me VERY good at the latter, cause the crooks around here in the dead zone between Detroit and Ann Arbor ?
(This being my current whereabouts, although I grew up in southwest Baltimore)

They are the most sorryass, incompetent, STUPID punks I've ever been offended to lay eyes on, and so out of their league it just ain't funny.

-F

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 5, 2010 10:04 AM

STORYMARK

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:

....frankly anyone who is dangerous with a pistol is very likely to be every bit as dangerous with a table knife - so should we ban tablewear, then ?

Uh.... riiiiight. Every bit? Bull. I'd still rather throw down with a crazy man with a knife than one with a gun.

Quote:
Seriously, your argument holds no water.

Nor does this particular one.

"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 5, 2010 10:29 AM

i assume we all agree with everything in the bill of rights, whatever we think the "everything is." a battle not over the words, but the interpretation of thos goddamn words, perhaps?

note that at no point have i claimed great intellectual consistency on this issue, but have gone to great lengths to suggest that this is something i react emotionally to.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 5, 2010 10:52 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

The Bill of Rights only covers how the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT is to treat you. It doesn't apply to states or businesses, so the Bill of Rights does not guarantee your privacy in the workplace, for example; nor your right to carry guns into the local grocery store.

AFA SBUX, the presence of so many guns on the hips of strangers would not make me feel safer, it would creep me out. I have no idea who they are, but the fact that they would openly carry a firearm into a peaceful suburban coffee shop makes me doubt their motives, and maybe even their sanity. The first time I see a gun at SBUX is the last time I'll ever go there.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 5, 2010 10:53 AM

JONGSSTRAW

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
Quote:
Originally posted by Jongsstraw:
Their top priority should be the comfort and safety of their customers...

Actually their top priority is to generate a profit for their stockholders and franchise owners.

I'm sure the executive folks at Toyota felt the same way you do. Now they have no customers because they put greed ahead of their customers' safety. One gun "incident" at Starbucks would be enough to severely damage their bottom line.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 5, 2010 11:25 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Mincing, you might as well give it up. I KNEW starting this thread would end predictably; we've been there before. All I can tell you is that arguing any kind of anti-gun or even RESTRICTION of guns is useless here. There is a mindset--maybe it's a result of anarchists and semi-anarchists being attracted to Firefly, I don't know. But I've been here, and debating is useless, I learned long ago.

As for the thing that's never mentioned, the right to bear arms was written so that the revolutionaries had an armed militia to fight back against the British. It was never intended for people to go packing into Starbucks, it was never intended to cover automatic weapons; it has long been touted as THE thing that gives everyone a right to pack a gun, a machine gun, gattling gun, whatever they want. But pointing to it as giving that right is fallacious and disingenuous--everyone with half a brain knows WHY it's there and what it MEANT, we don't need the Supreme Court to interpret it for us. Gun advocates just point to it as the Supreme Law of the Land, and it's not. Period.

I have no problem with someone having a gun, if properly trained (wanna bet how many AREN'T?) and in their house for self-protection. I have a big problem with people wearing them out on the street or in Starbucks, a) because that's not what that right means, b) because it's totally unnecessary and merely making a statement, c) because TODAY, at this time in history, there are too many crazies out there now displaying pictures of the "liberty tree" being watered by blood who are being incited by rhetoric to think they have the right to topple the government or do whatever else having a gun might let them--and given the nature of many humans, I don't trust them not to hold their temper and be rational all the time. and c) because I have a general dislike of people packing ANYWHERE except where they might actually NEED it.

Oh, and by the way, Starbucks doesn't seem to like it any more than any other place would; they're forced to allow it because of the law in those states (or at least that's their story and they're sticking to it).

That's just my position.

"I'm just right. Kinda like the sun rising in the east and the world being round...its not a need its just the way it is." The Delusional "Hero", 3/1/10

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 5, 2010 11:37 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by mincingbeast:
i assume we all agree with everything in the bill of rights, whatever we think the "everything is." a battle not over the words, but the interpretation of thos goddamn words, perhaps?

note that at no point have i claimed great intellectual consistency on this issue, but have gone to great lengths to suggest that this is something i react emotionally to.

Oh, I get that you react emotionally to it. But don't get upset if others react strongly and emotionally AGAINST you, and in support of the Second Amendment. We're allowed to get emotional, too, just as long as we don't start shooting over it. ;)

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 5, 2010 12:44 PM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

I repeat my argument:

Quote:
The Second Amendment (Amendment II) to the United States Constitution is the part of the United States Bill of Rights that protects a right to keep and bear arms. The Second Amendment was adopted on December 15, 1791, along with the rest of the Bill of Rights. The American Bar Association has noted that there is more disagreement and less understanding about this right than of any other current issue regarding the Constitution.

For almost a century after the ratification of the Bill of Rights, the intended meaning and application of the Second Amendment drew less interest than it does in modern times

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

The concept of a universal militia originated in England. The requirement that subjects keep and bear arms for military duty dates back to at least the 12th century when King Henry II, in the Assize of Arms, obligated all freemen to bear arms for public defense. King Henry III required certain subjects between the ages of fifteen and fifty (including non-land-owning subjects) to bear arms. The reason for such a requirement was that without a regular army and police force (which was not established until 1829), it was the duty of certain men to keep watch and ward at night to capture and confront suspicious persons. Every subject had an obligation to protect the king’s peace and assist in the suppression of riots.

During the 1760s pre-revolutionary period, the established colonial militia was composed of colonists, which included a number who were loyal to British imperial rule. As defiance and opposition to the British rule developed, a distrust of these Loyalists in the militia became widespread among the colonists, known as Patriots, who favored independence from British rule. As a result, these Patriots established independent colonial legislatures to create their own militias which excluded the Loyalists and then sought out to stock up independent armories for their militias.

Following the Revolution, the United States was governed by the Articles of Confederation. An unworkable division of power between Congress and the states caused military weakness, and the standing army was reduced to as few as 80 men. Subsequently, the Philadelphia Convention proposed in 1787 to grant Congress exclusive power to raise and support a standing army and navy of unlimited size.

It's intended meanng is made even clearer by how it was initially created:

Quote:
James Madison's initial proposal for a bill of rights was brought to the floor of the House of Representatives on June 8, 1789, during the first session of Congress. The initial proposed passage relating to arms was:

The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.

On July 21, Madison again raised the issue of his Bill and proposed a select committee be created to report on it. The House voted in favor of Madison's motion, and the Bill of Rights entered committee for review. The committee returned to the House a reworded version of the Second Amendment on July 28. On August 17, that version was read into the Journal:

A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms.

The Second Amendment was debated and modified during sessions of the House on in late August of 1789. These debates revolved primarily around risk of "mal-administration of the government" using the "religiously scrupulous" clause to destroy the militia as Great Britain had attempted to destroy the militia at the commencement of the American Revolution. These concerns were addressed by modifying the final clause, and on August 24, the House sent the following version to the U.S. Senate:

A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.

The next day, August 25, the Senate received the Amendment from the House and entered it into the Senate Journal. When the Amendment was transcribed, the semicolon in the religious exemption portion was changed to a comma by the Senate scribe:

A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed, but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.

By this time, the proposed right to keep and bear arms was in a separate amendment, instead of being in a single amendment together with other proposed rights such as the due process right. As a Representative explained, this change allowed each amendment to "be passed upon distinctly by the States." On September 4, the Senate voted to change the language of the Second Amendment by removing the definition of militia, and striking the conscientious objector clause:

A well regulated militia, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

The Senate returned to this Amendment for a final time on September 9. A proposal to insert the words "for the common defence" next to the words "bear arms" was defeated.

The Senate then slightly modified the language and voted to return the Bill of Rights to the House. The final version passed by the Senate was:

A well regulated militia being the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

The House voted on September 21, 1789 to accept the changes made by the Senate, but the Amendment as finally entered into the House journal contained the additional words "necessary to":

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

On December 15, 1791, the first ten amendments (the Bill of Rights), having been ratified by three-fourths of the states, were appended to the Constitution.

It was ALL about a "well-regulated militia", not about individual rights to own handguns just 'cuz they wanted to. Ergo, the argument that the Second Amendment gives everyone the right to walk around with a gun strapped on is totally fallacious.

I rest my case.

"I'm just right. Kinda like the sun rising in the east and the world being round...its not a need its just the way it is." The Delusional "Hero", 3/1/10

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 5, 2010 1:50 PM

Niki, this has been hashed over time and time again here. You can rest your case if you like, but that doesn't mean you're right.

That "well-regulated militia" was comprised of THE PEOPLE - every free man who was able was expected to serve if needed, AND THEY WERE RESPONSIBLE FOR BRINGING THEIR OWN WEAPONS. The reason it was assumed that everyone would already HAVE a firearm was because (a) it was necessary by tradition, as you pointed out, and (b) because huge areas of this continent were basically "badlands" - you didn't know what you were venturing into when you walked out the door.

I can as easily argue that you have no free speech rights, because you don't own your very own printing press, and times are dangerous because too many nutcases will act on the words of other nutcases, so you can't write or say what you want, because times have changed.

And it wasn't just ENGLAND that we were supposed to be defending ourselves against, but tyranny, in any form, be it foreign or domestic. The idea was that no tyrant could take over from within while most people were armed and able to resist such a takeover.

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 5, 2010 1:57 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Quote:
Originally posted by mincingbeast:
i assume we all agree with everything in the bill of rights, whatever we think the "everything is." a battle not over the words, but the interpretation of thos goddamn words, perhaps?

note that at no point have i claimed great intellectual consistency on this issue, but have gone to great lengths to suggest that this is something i react emotionally to.

Oh, I get that you react emotionally to it. But don't get upset if others react strongly and emotionally AGAINST you, and in support of the Second Amendment. We're allowed to get emotional, too, just as long as we don't start shooting over it. ;)

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions

duder, nothing on the internet is worth getting mad about. not even PN's jew baiting. plus, the fact that im always right helps thicken my skin up some. ;)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 5, 2010 2:01 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by mincingbeast:
Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Quote:
Originally posted by mincingbeast:
i assume we all agree with everything in the bill of rights, whatever we think the "everything is." a battle not over the words, but the interpretation of thos goddamn words, perhaps?

note that at no point have i claimed great intellectual consistency on this issue, but have gone to great lengths to suggest that this is something i react emotionally to.

Oh, I get that you react emotionally to it. But don't get upset if others react strongly and emotionally AGAINST you, and in support of the Second Amendment. We're allowed to get emotional, too, just as long as we don't start shooting over it. ;)

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions

duder, nothing on the internet is worth getting mad about. not even PN's jew baiting. plus, the fact that im always right helps thicken my skin up some. ;)

Oh, great - you're a sockpuppet of "Hero" or Rappy? Yikes.

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 5, 2010 2:44 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by mincingbeast:
frem, you seem cool, and i would like to remind you that this is the interwebz. hence, nothing i say makes me a dick, right?

the constitution is the highest law in the land, but it is not written in stone. most folks would approach it as an evolving document (minus scalia and other asshoels, who like to pretend that history ended in the 18th century). without getting into the complexities of constitutional law, that there is language about a right to bear arms is not inconsistent with the position that you cant, say, bring a gun into a sbux.

assuming that the second amendment conferrs an individual, versus a collective right (which has been a source of rancorous, if scholarly debate for say, a hundred years or more) you really believe that the state has no legitimate power to keep you from owning a bazooka? no legitimate interest in keeping bazookas out of peoples hands? and sbux, if they don't want you bringing in a bazooka with you when it comes for their crap coffee, is trammelling the constitution? i don't want to mischaracterize your argument.

i doubt that many anti-gun crazies, like myself, base our opinions on our fear of not being able to force people to do shit. rather, its a fear of gun violence, and being as that guns are really designed for violence, i would say that it is not an unreasonable fear. and if you armed, some asshole will still impose his will on you--he will do so with a gun, and all we've really done is a bit of escalation.

i freely confess that this is my totally-crazy issue, and that i would ban all guns, everywhere.

You're not crazy. Or if you are, your share that craziness with a lot of other people. I'm pretty much with you on this one.

When I hear of hoards of people entering a coffee shop wearing weapons, and that somehow that's the kind of reality of that place - it makes me think that the US is not so much another country compared to where I live, but another planet.

Guns = gangsters in my mind. If I saw someone wearing a gun, I'd leave immediately. I wouldn't be comfortable. I don't know that person or what they were capable of and I wouldn't take the chance.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 5, 2010 2:55 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:
Mincing, you might as well give it up. I KNEW starting this thread would end predictably; we've been there before. All I can tell you is that arguing any kind of anti-gun or even RESTRICTION of guns is useless here. There is a mindset--maybe it's a result of anarchists and semi-anarchists being attracted to Firefly, I don't know. But I've been here, and debating is useless, I learned long ago.

3/1/10

Niki, I don't think these discussions are a waste of time. I've really gotten a sense of where people are coming from when they support gun ownership in the US, having discussed it on various forums for years. Prior to the Internet, I would have assumed there was just some bat shit crazy stuff happening in the US that meant that people supported owning weapons. I kind of get the nuances of the debate , even though it's not a position I support.

Strangely enough, i have changed my position somewhat. I like the idea of a 'well armed militia' swiss style. Get rid of most of our army, replace it with some sort of mandatory service which includes firearm ownership for life. In my world, the firearm would be locked away separately from any ammo, to be used in the event of some security breach - when the militia could be mobilised.

So even when you think you've all gone around in circles, you may not change a rabid gun owner to give up his or her weapons or a rabid anti gun owner to purchase one, but you can tinker with those of us sitting around the middle.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 5, 2010 3:08 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
Quote:
Originally posted by mincingbeast:
frem, you seem cool, and i would like to remind you that this is the interwebz. hence, nothing i say makes me a dick, right?

the constitution is the highest law in the land, but it is not written in stone. most folks would approach it as an evolving document (minus scalia and other asshoels, who like to pretend that history ended in the 18th century). without getting into the complexities of constitutional law, that there is language about a right to bear arms is not inconsistent with the position that you cant, say, bring a gun into a sbux.

assuming that the second amendment conferrs an individual, versus a collective right (which has been a source of rancorous, if scholarly debate for say, a hundred years or more) you really believe that the state has no legitimate power to keep you from owning a bazooka? no legitimate interest in keeping bazookas out of peoples hands? and sbux, if they don't want you bringing in a bazooka with you when it comes for their crap coffee, is trammelling the constitution? i don't want to mischaracterize your argument.

i doubt that many anti-gun crazies, like myself, base our opinions on our fear of not being able to force people to do shit. rather, its a fear of gun violence, and being as that guns are really designed for violence, i would say that it is not an unreasonable fear. and if you armed, some asshole will still impose his will on you--he will do so with a gun, and all we've really done is a bit of escalation.

i freely confess that this is my totally-crazy issue, and that i would ban all guns, everywhere.

You're not crazy. Or if you are, your share that craziness with a lot of other people. I'm pretty much with you on this one.

When I hear of hoards of people entering a coffee shop wearing weapons, and that somehow that's the kind of reality of that place - it makes me think that the US is not so much another country compared to where I live, but another planet.

Guns = gangsters in my mind. If I saw someone wearing a gun, I'd leave immediately. I wouldn't be comfortable. I don't know that person or what they were capable of and I wouldn't take the chance.

IN YOUR MIND. That's the operative phrase, I think.

What if it were a cop? Why is it just assumed that all cops are automatically "good" when it comes to guns, and everyone else is automatically "bad"?

I find that curious.

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 5, 2010 3:48 PM

Jeepers, do I *really* need to go dig up the Federalist Papers and the explanation in their own words to point out that you folks are badly misconstruing the intent ?

Seriously, read Madisons rather extremely detailed rantings on the topic, or how about Hamiltons (historically proven to be bullshit, and a deliberate lie at the time) contention that it would be IMPOSSIBLE to create a standing army, yanno, like we actually have, under the Constitution they were writing.
http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa29.htm

Patrick Henry and the other Anti-Federalists were absolutely correct in almost every respect, about the deficiencies of that document, history has proven it out.

The entire purpose of the second amendment was a check AGAINST the possibility of a national force muchlike our own militarized police force which sees anyone who isn't wearing a badge as an enemy, and in fact they are closer to the "standing army" that the founders feared than our actual military, a point rendered near moot by how blurred the line between them has become.
See Also: Section 722 of this essay.
http://www.constitution.org/lrev/roots/cops.htm

But frankly, I don't see the point of arguing this, since folks have already stated that they're going to believe what it suits them to despite any grounds, evidence, case precedent or what have you - and seem to have no problem whatever trying to forcibly inflict those beliefs upon others, which is what bothers me the most.

See, as I stated, I would not in any way chose to force you to bear arms, nor would I tell someone else what they can allow or disallow on their own property, it "neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg" whether YOU choose to pack heat or not, nor does it particularly confound me what other people do on their own property....

But that respect is not offered to me, is it now ?
Nor, for that matter, is it being offered to Starbucks, by the folk who oppose effective self defense, and why is that ?

I mean, I concur that Starbucks coffee is less than impressive, and you've every right to take your business elsewhere if you like for any reason you like...

But when it comes down to you wanting to TELL ME WHAT TO DO with my own life, and telling others what they can do on their own property, and despite your supposed anti-gun stance, seem perfectly happy to enlist the governments gun-bearing lackwits to enforce your will upon those who'd brook it - yeah, I draw the line.

And looked at in THAT light, your assertion that I should not be armed in my own defense looks damned nefarious to me, in the same fashion as a group of hoodlums trying to box me in while asking me how much cash I got on me does.

I don't have to have the reason spelled out to me to know what's up in a situation like that, nor do I have to have it spelled out here, the fact is that you do NOT respect my personal rights as I do yours, and would be much mollified if I made that easier for you by being defenseless against aggressions unto them.

And yanno, I don't care for that, I really don't.

You wanna make bullshit assumptions about everyone who chooses to excercise their rights, a right you respect only if no one ever uses ?

Then I will assume you are insane, and have nefarious intent, because i firmly believe that you do.

-Frem

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 5, 2010 4:03 PM

Frem: Well said. Thank you.

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 5, 2010 4:05 PM

GINOBIFFARONI

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
Quote:
Originally posted by mincingbeast:
frem, you seem cool, and i would like to remind you that this is the interwebz. hence, nothing i say makes me a dick, right?

the constitution is the highest law in the land, but it is not written in stone. most folks would approach it as an evolving document (minus scalia and other asshoels, who like to pretend that history ended in the 18th century). without getting into the complexities of constitutional law, that there is language about a right to bear arms is not inconsistent with the position that you cant, say, bring a gun into a sbux.

assuming that the second amendment conferrs an individual, versus a collective right (which has been a source of rancorous, if scholarly debate for say, a hundred years or more) you really believe that the state has no legitimate power to keep you from owning a bazooka? no legitimate interest in keeping bazookas out of peoples hands? and sbux, if they don't want you bringing in a bazooka with you when it comes for their crap coffee, is trammelling the constitution? i don't want to mischaracterize your argument.

i doubt that many anti-gun crazies, like myself, base our opinions on our fear of not being able to force people to do shit. rather, its a fear of gun violence, and being as that guns are really designed for violence, i would say that it is not an unreasonable fear. and if you armed, some asshole will still impose his will on you--he will do so with a gun, and all we've really done is a bit of escalation.

i freely confess that this is my totally-crazy issue, and that i would ban all guns, everywhere.

You're not crazy. Or if you are, your share that craziness with a lot of other people. I'm pretty much with you on this one.

When I hear of hoards of people entering a coffee shop wearing weapons, and that somehow that's the kind of reality of that place - it makes me think that the US is not so much another country compared to where I live, but another planet.

Guns = gangsters in my mind. If I saw someone wearing a gun, I'd leave immediately. I wouldn't be comfortable. I don't know that person or what they were capable of and I wouldn't take the chance.

IN YOUR MIND. That's the operative phrase, I think.

What if it were a cop? Why is it just assumed that all cops are automatically "good" when it comes to guns, and everyone else is automatically "bad"?

I find that curious.

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions

Disarm the police too....'

fine idea

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 5, 2010 4:15 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Frem, you're 120% wrong.

Quote:
See, as I stated, I would not in any way chose to force you to bear arms, nor would I tell someone else what they can allow or disallow on their own property, it "neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg" whether YOU choose to pack heat or not, nor does it particularly confound me what other people do on their own property....

But that respect is not offered to me, is it now ?
Nor, for that matter, is it being offered to Starbucks, by the folk who oppose effective self defense, and why is that ?

Because it is not the gun-holder's property, it is SBUX property and a public venue. And therefore, while SBUX has the right (according to business law) to determine who or what enters their place of establishment, they WILL BE pressured by general public sentiment, however that turns out. That is the nature of a PUBLIC PLACE.

Now, according to SBUX, they're not allowing guns because they HAVE to, according to the 2nd Ammendment. That's pure horsehit. They can say "No guns, no spitting, and no swearing" just as easily as they can say "No soliciting" and "No shirts, no shoes- no service." According to your quote, they won't forbid people from carrying because they're afraid to do otherwise....

"that would require its employees to ask law abiding customers to leave stores, putting them in an unfair and potentially unsafe position."...

In other words, they're intimidated, and their rights have just been violated- by you, the gun carrier.

Quote:
I mean, I concur that Starbucks coffee is less than impressive, and you've every right to take your business elsewhere if you like for any reason you like... But when it comes down to you wanting to TELL ME WHAT TO DO with my own life, and telling others what they can do on their own property, and despite your supposed anti-gun stance, seem perfectly happy to enlist the governments gun-bearing lackwits to enforce your will upon those who'd brook it - yeah, I draw the line.

Well, that's what laws generally are all about: You can't rob the store, you can't pistol-whip the patrons. THAT'S "telling you what to do", isn't it?

AND BTW Mike and Frem... I've been sighted on more than once by idiots playing with guns. I've seen more CARELESS gun-handling than careful gun-handling. And the peeps in SBUX ARE NOT YOU. Like I said before: anyone who comes tromping into a peaceful coffee shop openly carrying a weapon is not carrying it for self-defense. If that were their only concern, they'd conceal. They're making a point: To intimidate the peeps inside. It's a power play, pure and simple.

To anyone who supports that I say: Take your gun and stick it.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 5, 2010 4:43 PM

Actually, I'd like to thank you, Mince - for unintentionally providing me with an opportunity to teach something I feel vitally important, not about this topic, but about these kind of arguments, and the peculiar insanity of them.

Since you don't strike me as much of an idealogue, I think you'll find this very informative, as will others if they can see past their own prejudices for just five minutes, and I'll even show you how.

I want you to go back to the abortion ban thread HERE.
http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.asp?b=18&t=42105

And look carefully at your own thoughts and comments on it, while pondering what your feelings were behind it when you posted.

And now, realize that here, in this thread, you are arguing FOR the same kind of idiotic measures you were arguing AGAINST, over there.

Banning guns will have no more effect on violence than banning abortion will for unwanted pregnancy, because in both cases it's coming ass backwards at the problem and addressing symptoms instead of cause, and frankly, that's like treating tuberculosis with cough syrup.

But here on THIS issue, think about how YOU felt, about those wanting to ban abortion, and why, and realize that unintentionally, you have *become* "them" on this issue, see how easy that happens, right down the garden path ?

That happened to "them" too.

I want you to have that understanding, to lessen your hate - to truly understand just how damned easy it is to get rooked into that sort of thing by your own prejudices without even realizing it.

As for solutions, well, as I pointed out with abortion, the real solution lies at the OTHER end, with education and access to alternatives, contraception, etc...

Same with violence, you can't stuff the genie back in the bottle once it's out, the answer to it is to not screw folks up mentally to where you create a society where in many places it's a damned good idea, if not a survival requirement, to carry a gun, and where you have to wonder about the sanity of everyone you meet to where someone carrying one frightens you - or your own sanity to be so frightened of a mere tool, however awful it's purpose.

One could start by addressing the problem of a mandatory public school system that's every bit as traumatising and dehumanizing to both the educated, and the educators, as is the penal system to guards and inmates alike, and for much the same reasons, and in much the same fashion - which I've been addressing for a bit, as well as other socially destructive structures that are pyschologically damaging to anyone involved in them.

And the real payoff is that while not immediate in it's effect, which makes it unsupportable to a politician only interested in the next election cycle, every ounce of effort put into THAT end pays off a hundredweight further down the line, rather than spending resources at a prodigious rate for mere mustard grains of progress quickly erased as each generation becomes more unstable than the next.

Fuck banning guns, remove the *need* for the damned things by creating a saner society.

So, in essence, you're arguing the wrong point, from the wrong end.

And I wanted to show you just how easy it is to wind up doing exactly that when you let your own prejudices get in the way.

-Frem

PS. Siggy, this is *why* I don't take you seriously anymore, just so you know.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 5, 2010 4:52 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
In other words, they're intimidated, and their rights have just been violated- by you, the gun carrier.

Uh huh, lemme turn that idiotic "how dare the law and other peoples support of it defy MY will!" logic around on you.

They're NOT intimidated by you, and that just pisses you off, doesn't it ?

Maybe if they were defenseless they'd be easier for you to intimidate, eh ?

Same logic, different application, every bit as ridiculous.

Reason > Emotion.

-Frem

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 5, 2010 4:57 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
IN YOUR MIND. That's the operative phrase, I think.

What if it were a cop? Why is it just assumed that all cops are automatically "good" when it comes to guns, and everyone else is automatically "bad"?

I find that curious.

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions

No. You are distorting what I am saying. I don't assume anything about anyone. In this country - you can't open carry anywhere much. If you see someone with a gun and out of uniform, you'd be pretty sure they were going to do something nasty.

Personally, I have a preference for cops not to be armed to the teeth either. I think you'll find in the UK that the average cop on the beat is not armed with a gun. I wish it were that way here. If you need to use a gun, then you should be forced to call in the assault team. That makes more sense to me. At least you can assume that the cops with the guns have a chance of being well trained and mentally stable. That last one is a bit of ask, given what I know about cops. Of course, that wouldn't work in the US because of the amount of gun crime. It's a viscous cycle, one I hope we don't enter into here. Knife crime is more common here, which needs a different response and it would be better that they didn't have the option of drawing a pistol.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 5, 2010 5:09 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:

Banning guns will have no more effect on violence than banning abortion will for unwanted pregnancy, because in both cases it's coming ass backwards at the problem and addressing symptoms instead of cause, and frankly, that's like treating tuberculosis with cough syrup.

I think you are wrong on both accounts. In countries where abortion is legal and easily available, the number of abortions increases exponentially. Making it illegal or hard to obtain reduces the number. It also brings about a whole host of practices which endanger women's lives, but that is another story all together.

Countries with restricted gun ownership have less gun violence per capita than the US. That's been proven statistically over and over again, and is ignored over and over again by the gun lobby. I agree it's difficult once the genie is out of the bottle, and from some of the descriptions of the neighbourhoods you live in,hell I'd probably carry a gun. Well maybe some mace or capsicum spray.

I also agree that restricting guns does not for a peaceful society make. We have a lot of violent crime here, but not generally gun crime. I agree that there needs to be some more thought about preventing violence in our society that goes deeper than banning weapons. I'd also say 'that tough on crime' strategies are not ideal for anything more that increasing prison populations.

I'd also lie to dispel the notion that having a heavily armed population (or segments of the population) make for a peaceful society, as some of the world's hotspots can demonstrate. Can also mean civil war and anarchy prevail.

Guns seem to be about power, in my book. I'd rather not live somewhere where the only law that counted was the fittest, meanest, toughest and best armed survive.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 5, 2010 5:39 PM

Quote:

No. You are distorting what I am saying. I don't assume anything about anyone. In this country - you can't open carry anywhere much. If you see someone with a gun and out of uniform, you'd be pretty sure they were going to do something nasty.

If I'm misreading you, my apologies. I'm not trying to "distort" your words; your WORDS are all I have to go on - I can't judge your inflection, sarcasm, or tone here on the typed screen; I can only go on the words I read, and try to imbue them with what I *think* you mean to say.

But as has been pointed out before, prejudices DO come into play. You've said earlier, "in my mind" - and now you've stated, "In this country" - which is NOT *THIS* country. I've been around guns pretty much all my life, growing up on military bases around the world, and it's nothing to me to see someone with one, any more than it would disturb me to see someone who looks like a construction worker carrying a hammer with him. I wouldn't get concerned until and unless I saw someone unholstering their weapon in public, or readying to do so, at which point I'd be moving to an action plan to deal with the situation.

Now, if I'm somewhere and there's a patron with a gun - and this includes a cop in uniform - I'm going to go about my business, but I'm also going to KNOW WHERE THAT PERSON IS, AT ALL TIMES. And I'm going to be watching them, without actually WATCHING them. Do they scare me? Nope, but they do raise my alert levels.

Personally, I have no use for open-carry. I *don't* see it as purely "intimidation", though, unless you mean it's intimidation against criminals, in the same way a marked police cruiser is meant as intimidation, or a visible security camera is supposed to be intimidating.

I'm basically of the mindset that if you don't want a gun, don't have one. And if you don't want an abortion, don't have one. If guns offend you, tough. Sorry to be so blunt about it, but there's not constitutional right to not be offended. Frankly, I find fat people in spandex far more upsetting and offensive, and obesity kills a fuck of a lot more people than guns do in this country. And a Big Mac is designed only to kill; it just does it a lot more slowly. Honestly, the bullet might be the more merciful of the two... :)

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 5, 2010 5:49 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:

Banning guns will have no more effect on violence than banning abortion will for unwanted pregnancy, because in both cases it's coming ass backwards at the problem and addressing symptoms instead of cause, and frankly, that's like treating tuberculosis with cough syrup.

I think you are wrong on both accounts. In countries where abortion is legal and easily available, the number of abortions increases exponentially. Making it illegal or hard to obtain reduces the number. It also brings about a whole host of practices which endanger women's lives, but that is another story all together.

I think you misread Frem's statements. He said outlawing abortion wouldn't end unwanted pregnancies. And I *DO* think we need to consider that whole host of other dangerous practices.

Quote:

Countries with restricted gun ownership have less gun violence per capita than the US.

Switzerland has less gun violence per capita, too, with a large gun-owning population. It's not the guns. There's something about attitudes that makes the U.S. more quick to violence, it would seem. Maybe it's the rampant capitalism, the teaching of "dog-eat-dog", only the best can win, etc.

Quote:
I agree it's difficult once the genie is out of the bottle, and from some of the descriptions of the neighbourhoods you live in,hell I'd probably carry a gun. Well maybe some mace or capsicum spray.

I've lived in some of those areas. I've been to places where even WITH a gun, and inside my locked car, I didn't feel even a little bit safe. Frankly, being in the car made me feel safer than having the gun with me at the time; at least I knew if things got truly ugly, I could just floor it. :)

Quote:
I also agree that restricting guns does not for a peaceful society make. We have a lot of violent crime here, but not generally gun crime. I agree that there needs to be some more thought about preventing violence in our society that goes deeper than banning weapons. I'd also say 'that tough on crime' strategies are not ideal for anything more that increasing prison populations.

Yup. And if the answers were all easy, everybody'd come up with them. :)

Quote:

I'd also lie to dispel the notion that having a heavily armed population (or segments of the population) make for a peaceful society, as some of the world's hotspots can demonstrate. Can also mean civil war and anarchy prevail.

I REALLY don't think you meant "lie" in that statement. I think the word you're looking for is "like". You wouldn't really LIE to dispel a notion, would you? I think not. I have a better impression of you than that, and you've always struck me as very reasonable and upfront.

Again, the gun is just a tool. Having some or many doesn't guarantee any kind of society, any more than having none guarantees tyranny.

Quote:

Guns seem to be about power, in my book. I'd rather not live somewhere where the only law that counted was the fittest, meanest, toughest and best armed survive.

Well, they can be about the power to not be cowed...

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 5, 2010 6:22 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Frem

I find your arguments to be FAR more extremist than SignyMs. They much more resemble the type of argument made by clinic bombers than SignyM's.

It happens when a person holds ONE value to be paramount ABOVE ALL, without proportion, without moderation, without exception. As you do. As they do.

BTW, I happen to agree with SignyM that YOU have no automatic RIGHT to carry a gun onto someone's property - in the case a business - unless and until they agree.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 5, 2010 6:35 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Frem

I find your arguments to be FAR more extremist than SignyMs. They much more resemble the type of argument made by clinic bombers than SignyM's.

It happens when a person holds ONE value to be paramount ABOVE ALL, without proportion, without moderation, without exception. As you do. As they do.

BTW, I happen to agree with SignyM that YOU have no automatic RIGHT to carry a gun onto someone's property - in the case a business - unless and until they agree.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

Actually, Rue, the way the laws are set up for carrying firearms, if it's legal to carry, it's legal UNLESS the business posts certain signage stating otherwise. For instance, the possession of a firearm without a permit inside a bar is a felony punishable by up to 10 years in prison. Every bar in Texas has to put that sign up, I believe. But if you have a permit, it's no issue, UNLESS they put up other signs that say that firearms are strictly forbidden for all.

So if it's legal in your state, county, or city, it's legal in Starbuck's unless and until they say otherwise, and post it as such.

But to me, the funniest part of this story is still how Starbucks DIDN'T react the way the "gun-nuts" thought - and HOPED - they would, but rather just acted respectfully and didn't let it be a big deal - which pissed off the gun-nuts even more than if they HAD made it a big deal. Their attitude - "Hey, as long as you're buying something, welcome, come on in, have a seat, and enjoy!" - has taken the wind out of the gunbunnies' sails.

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 5, 2010 7:14 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
They're NOT intimidated by you, and that just pisses you off, doesn't it ? Maybe if they were defenseless they'd be easier for you to intimidate, eh ? Same logic, different application, every bit as ridiculous.Frem

You just lost a whole lot of support, not only from me but a lot of other peeps too.

First of all, I didn't say that you shouldn't carry a gun. But "open carry"???

YOUR logic:

...................
Open carry tells any "bad people" not to mess with "us".

Because I'm here to protect you.

If you're not a "bad guy" you have nothing to fear.

So trust me to handle this power over "them" (and you) responsibly.
..............

Gee, where have I heard this before? US Patriot Act?

No matter whether other people see a gun-wielder as a danger or a protection, whether they see him (her) as threat against them or for them, it is still a threat, a statement of power. That rationale applies to cops AND TO YOU. And unless OTHER people have a gun, it is a statement of power over everyone.

So I say again: stick your self-righteousness up yours, along with you gun.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 5, 2010 9:02 PM

But they *did* agree, and that makes it a pact of mutual consent and you have a problem with it simply because you cannot see the fallacy in your own thinking ?

YOU do not get to make the decision whether a private property owner allows or disallows people to carry on their own property - and you are throwing a fit because how and where someone exercises a constitutional right offends you ?

The bill of rights is not a buffet table, you either respect em all, for everyone, or you shouldn't even bother, you don't get to pick and choose - believe me, I think some of those folks shouldn't be trusted with power tools, much less a firearm, but *that is not MY decision to make* and nor is it yours, you can remove yourself from their company, you can choose not to patronize the business - but when you go touting that YOU have some super-right and moral superiority to revoke the rights of those you do not like, who use them in ways you do not agree with, you expose the very reason that while I respect your intellect, I do not trust you one whit, because for you, and people like you, rights are only valid when YOU agree with who uses em and how.

And I have tried very hard to be reasonable, and point the conversation in a lets-solve-the-problem kinda way, only to have it dragged back by other peoples fanaticism over fear of a mere tool, which again, makes me question their motives - and frankly, look at your own arguments and rhetoric getting more frayed and ragged along with your temper as you allow emotional investment in "being right" trample right over the freakin issue to where the issue itself gets lost...

I wasn't kiddin, when it comes to this one issue, I do think you're four-plus crazy, but you stand in good company with a lot of the folk on the other side of it in that, this I'll not deny.

I just ain't one of em.

-F

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 5, 2010 10:35 PM