Starbucks in crosshairs on gun-control debate by Niki2

I know someone who likes to shoot the whipped cream off the top of his cocoa latte using an Uzi in Starbucks. Then he usually follows that by going out and making love to a couple of sheep. That's just what he says though, because I've never actually seen any of it.

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

Saturday, March 6, 2010 7:10 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Thanks River for proving my point. Mike and Frem would be better off without you.

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

Saturday, March 6, 2010 8:05 AM

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

Pizmo, you didn't say where you live? Just curious, 'cuz it sounds like here in CA. And I agree.

I just reread and it says the policy BEGAN in No. Ca. I didn't know open crry was allowed anywhere in the state. It can't be a state law--but if they mean FAR No. Ca., yes, that's logging-country-gone-poor...believe it or not, we got our own narrow-minded, gun-toting rednecks. Maybe that's where it started, but I'm still very surprised.

I agree with Sig, too...in many ways it's a copout on the part of Starbucks. We shall have to see how it goes over time, yes? I admit I'm sorry for people who live in those areas where people are doing this; it's unnecessary as hell, I'm glad I don't live in those places--by the way, I've never set foot in a starbucks. The only thing they're good for to me is Chai, and they have booths in the super markets. I'm not that social that I want to sit around a coffee shop, but I can empathize with those who do.

Gee, do you think that means open carry will be legal in supermarkets which have Starbucks' booths, too?

"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

Saturday, March 6, 2010 9:08 AM

You know, until I hear a Starbucks executive clearly state that they were intimidated via threat of force, imma call bullshit on that.

What it smells like to me, and has from the start, is more like "How DARE they disagree with ME!" and a whole bunch of bullshit to justify trying to force your will on someone elses business and property "for their own good", uh huh.

Again, if Sbux doesn't like it, they can post a sign, if you don't like it, you don't have to patronize their business - it's a pretty durned simple concept and one that seems lost on folk who think they got some kinda all fired moral super-right to tell other folks what to do.

And yanno, *I* would be fine either way with it, I was just amused cause apparently someone in Sbux corporate noted the bump in profit that came from playing nicely with the Wobblies and likely felt they could repeat that event with the Gunbunnies, seemingly unaware that they were taking a principled stand (or appearing to) as a side order to makin a buck.

This whole argument reminds me of the incident which caused me to blacklist the Denny's next to the DMV on Ritchie Hwy, back where me, Ray and Donnie used to meet up for lunch.

Now, at the time, they had a smoking, and a non smoking, section, adequately ventilated and not only on opposite sides of the building, but with a physical divider between them, and we were sitting in the far corner of the smoking section over coffee, having just placed our order, along with maybe 3-4 DMV employees on lunch.

In comes this businessman, who then loudly and rudely DEMANDS we stop smoking, all of us, despite being in the smoking section, and with the business's permission to smoke on their property within this area.

I point out that there *IS* a non-smoking section, trying heading off more rude commentary before things get unpleasant, and he starts railing and cussing at me, and then goes off to find the manager.

Which he does, and for whatever reason the manager caves to the guy, comes over and tells us to put em out, and we stand up, and walk out, as did all but one of the DMV clerks - *all* of whom (cause that story apparently got around) decided to eat somewhere else, depriving the guy of his core business and thus sending him into bankruptcy.

It was his property, his business, and therefore he had the right to decide things like that, as we did to never darken his doorstep again, but that businessman ?

He did not, and when pressed with a choice like that the owner of a business must make his choice in a fashion that makes business sense, which this guy didn't.

Sbux has apparently decided that the Gunbunnies will put their money where there mouth is, and the anti-gun folk won't, something I feel is an accurate assessment given direct experience with that kinda thing up here.

If they did NOT want it, they could post a sign, and risk those folks they offended taking their money and business somewhere else - alternatively, they risk anti-gun folk being offended and taking their money and business somewhere else...

And they made their choice about that, which has jack diddly to do with your hysterical, unreasonable, and downright insane assertation that the gunbunnies threatened violence against them, something that, frankly, scares me MORE than clueless idiots without proper training practicing open carry, cause the anti-gun folk are oh so VERY quick to engage the states gun wielding lackwits against things that offend them "for their own good".

Having your dirty work done for you doesn't mean your hands are clean, and honestly, you people scare me MORE with the lunatic lengths you are willing to go when someone dares have the nerve to exercise a constitutional right in a manner you don't like, that offends you, or you simply don't like the person doing so, cause that speaks to me that you cannot ever be trusted since you don't truly respect folks rights at all.

I do, and if sometimes that means taking a position and defending something I, personally, am ambivalent about, or that I feel is in fact idiotic, well then, that's what it means.

It's one thing to stand up for rights when you agree, when you like those people, when you are supporting the way they are used - but when the rubber meets the road, when you find yourself in a position of having to defend someone offensive, who's maybe using a right in a dangerous, stupid or offensive manner, who you don't care for...

Well, that's when folk get to see what you're made of.

As for the exact arguments behind the Second amendment, if you really *want* to know, the Federalist Papers, Anti Federalist Papers, and Pat Henry's speeches on the topic are a matter of public record and can easily be dug up and read in their entirety, they were pretty clear about the nature, intent and scope, I've ever been amused by Madison and Hamiltons contention that there would never be a NEED for the Second amendment cause any attempt to disarm folk would start a revolt which would crush even an unconstitutional standing army, had one been raised... but rather than digging up the whole documents and poring through pages worth at a time (cause they were really explicit, down to the nitpickery details) I'll hand off a properly sourced set of relevant comments and if necessary, will then link to the full text of the original documents so they can be viewed in context.
http://econfaculty.gmu.edu/wew/quotes/arms.html

Anyhow, I do find it passing strange that it's the anarchist standing in defense of the rule of law here against folk who'd trample it on a whim when they happened to disagree with it.

-F

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

Saturday, March 6, 2010 9:21 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:
Gee, do you think that means open carry will be legal in supermarkets which have Starbucks' booths, too?

On a lighter note, regarding that, there's a couple suburbs just north of Houston were open carry was a fad at the time, and honestly, it being Texas, nothing much came of it, folks carried openly for a while, and without any controversy to keep the pot stirred, after a while stopped bothering cause CCW keeps it out of the way and properly secured, and there wasn't any kind of sufficient threat to really justify hauling out the iron and strapping it on.

I *did* at the time find it terribly amusing because the letter of the law didn't specify firearms, and I was kinda friendly with some SCA and re-enactor folk, and we'd make it a game to go to the supermarket (and actually shop for groceries) visibly armed to the teeth like a horde of vikings - which, again, this being Texas, didn't even so much as raise an eyebrow and in fact was prolly the best recruiting drive those guys ever had.

But again, absent any threat or attempts to infringe on their right to do so, that eventually just petered out of it's own - I mean, other than a few folks who wanna make a point, who in their right mind wants to strap on a couple pounds of metal and lug it about all freakin day in the hot Texas sun ?

Still, memories of viking grocery runs do still bring a smile to my face, that was actually quite fun, especially when no one freaked out or even got upset about it whatever.

-F

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

Saturday, March 6, 2010 9:53 AM

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

I notice no mention of I and others saying we thought you were over the top, and my curiosity about why you got so vehement and angry yet accused others of being so, as well as my theory that you were either unable or unwilling to conceive of how people felt, but rather took to calling them names.

Is this something you recognized, do you feel it was unfair, did you even read it, or do you deny you are emotionally involved in this issue? Just curious; your reactions were SO strong, to me, and your choice of words so telling, I thought I'd quote you and maybe bring it to your attention.

I'd like to know how you felt about this. It means something to me, in how I view you, but is probably unimportant to others. There may be some who saw what I saw, however, so I'd like to know your feelings, respectfully. And I do mean respectfully.

"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

Saturday, March 6, 2010 12:05 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Frem, on this point, you're being unreasonable.

I have to put up with how people carry their guns? Uh huh? What about if they sight on me? What about if they point it at someone else?

The right to carry a gun is NOT an absolute right to be a jackass about it. So until you can get your head wrapped around THAT, we have nothing more to talk about.

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

Saturday, March 6, 2010 12:49 PM

MINCINGBEAST

egads, how dare these insane and nefarious pro-gun folk inflict their pro-gun views, and guns, on me. surely, this violates most of my inalienable constituional rights.

this thread just reminds that debate is a fantasy. facts and arguments mean nothing if they do not support your point of view. we call carry around a master narrativer that explains our lies, and our place in the world, and anything that doesn't fit the plot is disregarded. whatever doesn't support your irrational impulses is obvbiously inane and to be disregarded. persuasion is more a matter of framing an argument so someone think it fits their world view, than it is of advancing some incontrovertible truth.

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

Saturday, March 6, 2010 12:56 PM

"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)

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Frem, on this point, you're being unreasonable.

I have to put up with how people carry their guns? Uh huh? What about if they sight on me? What about if they point it at someone else?

That's called "brandishing". It's a crime. Look it up. And if you get a chance, get some cellphone video of it; it will help at the trial.

Quote:

The right to carry a gun is NOT an absolute right to be a jackass about it. So until you can get your head wrapped around THAT, we have nothing more to talk about.

Likewise, NOT LIKING guns is not an absolute right to be a jackass about it, either.

What we've shown in this thread is that it's a subject with some pretty clear sides, and plenty enough jackassery to go around on both sides of the issue.

"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

Saturday, March 6, 2010 1:00 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by mincingbeast:
egads, how dare these insane and nefarious pro-gun folk inflict their pro-gun views, and guns, on me. surely, this violates most of my inalienable constituional rights.

Can you please point out to me where in the Constitution is says anything about your right to not have your feelings hurt?

Also, that "inalienable" thing? That's not the Constitution; you're misquoting the Declaration of Independence there. Lots of people make that mistake.

Quote:

this thread just reminds that debate is a fantasy. facts and arguments mean nothing if they do not support your point of view. we call carry around a master narrativer that explains our lies, and our place in the world, and anything that doesn't fit the plot is disregarded. whatever doesn't support your irrational impulses is obvbiously inane and to be disregarded. persuasion is more a matter of framing an argument so someone think it fits their world view, than it is of advancing some incontrovertible truth.

Yes, it's a complete fantasy to assert that guns exist only to murder other human beings.

"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

Saturday, March 6, 2010 1:12 PM

Coffee Buddies and Their Guns

Hey, it's nothing new, but there have been changes over the years.

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

Saturday, March 6, 2010 1:21 PM

RL, is that you in the middle, with the pink hat? You look a little more butch than I imagined you. And those chaps make your ass look big. Or maybe it's just your big ass that makes your ass look big.

By the way, none of them seem to 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

Saturday, March 6, 2010 1:25 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:

By the way, none of them seem to have guns.

Wanna bet?

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

Saturday, March 6, 2010 1:33 PM

Besides, I spotted one of your buddies entering a Texas Starbucks recently.

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

Saturday, March 6, 2010 1:39 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Riverlove:
Besides, I spotted one of your buddies entering a Texas Starbucks recently.

He should take a look in the end of it and see if it's loaded. Or maybe put it up to his ear to see if he hears anything.

"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

Saturday, March 6, 2010 1:41 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
That's called "brandishing". It's a crime. Look it up. And if you get a chance, get some cellphone video of it; it will help at the trial

Ah, so there ARE limits on what you do with your gun, besides pulling the trigger! So clearly, somewhere in the Constitution there is something there about not feeling threatened. In CA its a form of assault.

So at this point, we're not arguing about whether or not you can have a gun, or whether there are limits on HOW you carry your gun, we're just dickering about where to draw the line.

But to be clear- I'm not trying to "take your guns away" from you or Frem.

But "open carry" is a threat. The point is to show people that you HAVE a gun: it's an implicit threat of violence. It's like carrying a machete, or a hand-grenade, or a bazooka. It's meant to make people afraid.... there's no two ways about it. That's why cops do it.

Now, if you happen to trust the guy with a gun... then you feel that threat is directed towards "others" (criminals, blacks, whites, muslims, librulz, or what-have-you) and it may make you feel safer. If you DON'T happen to trust the guy with the gun, then it will make you feel uneasy. However way you see that threat pointed, it is still, nonetheless, a threat of violence. That is why the peeps showing up at Obama's rallies openly carrying a weapon raised so many hackles: Everyone clearly understands it for the threat that it is.

I personally don't happen to trust ANYBODY openly carrying. I tend not to hang out where cops go for coffee, and I certainly wouldn't want to hang out where people come just to show off their weapons. That shows a tremendous disdain for everyone else, and terrific arrogance.. the kind of arrogance that cops are so rightly accused of. Combine that arrogance with a weapon, and what have you got?

I don't think I'm being a jackass. But I think that you're defending jackassery.

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

Saturday, March 6, 2010 1:55 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Quote:
Originally posted by Riverlove:
Besides, I spotted one of your buddies entering a Texas Starbucks recently.

He should take a look in the end of it and see if it's loaded. Or maybe put it up to his ear to see if he hears anything.

If that were to happen to Bush I believe the eulogy in Crawford or Dallas would go something like this.

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

Saturday, March 6, 2010 3:24 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
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.

True. That's because I'm giving my opinion, and I'm talking about what I know, which is my country. I cant see that prejudices me any more than your views on gun laws. We're both talking about our own perceptions. I'm not trying to dictate what you should do in your country, but I guess what I'd like to point out is that restricting gun ownership does not necessarily lead to tyranny nor to increased crime and the evidence is it leads to less gun violence.

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

Saturday, March 6, 2010 3:54 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
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.

Again, your perceptions are not mine. A construction worker carrying a hammer is someone doing their job. Yep, they could beat me to death with it, but they'd have a job catching me. Whereas someone with a gun, unless having a gun forms part of their occupation, could mean a potentially lethal situation with very little I can do about it. Unless of course, we are both armed and then it could mean death or injury for us both and a number of passer bys as well.

Guns are not the same as knives or hammers, otherwise your armed forces would be sending their troops out purely with those sort of weapons. Guns are killing implements, purely and simply, with not other use...unlike a hammer. A man with a hammer is simply a man with a tool of his trade, a man with a gun is armed with a weapon purely designed to kill or injure another living being.

Quote:
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.

Your experience determines how you see things and my experience determines that for me. Me, I'd be in trauma at the sight of someone wearing a gun in a holster.

Quote:
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.

Comparing abortion laws to gun laws is apples and oranges. Having an abortion is a matter of conscience for the individual woman. She forms no threat to others outside her own body.

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

Saturday, March 6, 2010 4:03 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
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.

Anti abortion lobbyists never claim that changes in the law will reduce unwanted pregnancies. Their aim is to reduce abortions.

Quote:

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.

As has been discussed before, Swiss laws around guns are probably closer to what the Second Amendment intended than the current laws in the US. Guns are only owned by people who have trained as part of the military service and then they are obliged to own one. The laws surrounding the storing, security and maintenance of such weapons is extremely strict. No open carry, no keeping one under your bed, no buying your five year old a pink one with a kitty painted on it. As I said earlier, something like that might be something I could support, if it meant getting rid of most of a standing army.

And as for opinion that people in the US being more quick to violence, isn't that a good reason not to enable liberal arms laws until that has been looked at?

Quote:

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. :)

Well I would say the same. I wouldn't feel safe in a neighbourhood that was violent even carrying a weapon, but that was Frem's response.

Quote:

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.

Thanks for correcting my typo. I don't think you needed to be so bitchy about it because we disagree on some matters.

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

Saturday, March 6, 2010 4:25 PM

Quote:

Thanks for correcting my typo. I don't think you needed to be so bitchy about it because we disagree on some matters.

Absolutely no intention of bitchiness there. A little snarkiness, maybe, because it struck me funny (as in, humorous AND odd) to think that you'd say such a thing. I noted that I actually DIDN'T think you'd say anything like that. If my words were taken as bitchiness, then I framed them wrong; they were an attempt at levity, intended to bring a smile.

"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

Saturday, March 6, 2010 4:39 PM

Well to quote you in an earlier post

Quote:
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.

Emoticons can be quite useful if you're intending to be snarky rather than bitchy (although I'm not entirely sure of that distinction) - otherwise, knowing each other not, as we do, we're likely to take things the wrong way.

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

Saturday, March 6, 2010 4:41 PM

Yup, shoulda winked. There really does need to be a sarcasm emoticon...

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

Saturday, March 6, 2010 4:50 PM

Although winking can get tiresome. One of the nastiest posters I ever came across ended every post filled with bile and hatred with a

as if that meant we all had to suck it up.

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

Saturday, March 6, 2010 5:28 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
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.

And, what IS a soldier's trade, Kwicko? Killing people.

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

Saturday, March 6, 2010 6:54 PM

Niki, look at this from my end for a moment - I've done mentioned that the little popgun I carry has saved my life time and time again, and this despite being pretty good at avoiding or defusing situations where things are headed toward that kind of impasse.

And yet, knowing and aware of this, I got people sayin to me a total gun ban would be a good idea, subscribing to the same kind of magical-thinking they would go completely ballistic over and shred to bits on any other topic, cause I'd really like to see the magic wand they plan to wave to make those weapons disappear from the hands of criminals, or perhaps an example of a gun free zone barrier actually functionally preventing the entry of someone with a weapon and a grudge...
*shakes head*
And they don't even see the dichotomy of it.

But think about what they've just said to me, whether they meant to or not.
"The world would be a better place if you were dead."

Sure, wasn't their intention, but when you tell someone whos weapon has been the defense of their very life that they ought not to have it, how do you think those situations WOULD have gone if I didn't ?

And I am not supposed to be offended by that ?

I've been trying pretty hard to be reasonable, to turn the conversation in a problem-solving direction instead of verbally pounding on each other, which is a great part of why I didn't address that, but what would you have me say other than I feel it is hypocritical and somewhat lunatic for folk who would rabidly defend other rights to passionate extremes, to vilify this one when it is supposed to be part of a larger whole, and in a fashion that would completely outrage and offend them were someone else to do it to them ?

Psshh, down that road lies madness, and that'd be ok with me - if those same folks weren't very keen on enforcing their madness upon me without respect for my person, beliefs, or rights secured by the highest law of the land, so yeah, I found it offensive, still do, and it pisses me off that folks want THEIR rights respected, but don't seem to give a shit about anyone elses, or the rule of law, or even the harsh realities which their kneejerk reactionism wouldn't do a lotta good in solving.

I will address some other points too, since I gotta do rounds in a few and needs be keep this... well, brief it ain't, but I am on the clock here, heh.

Re: Jackassery.

To quote Simon Phoenix,
"Look, you can't take away peoples right to be assholes!"

Personally I think open carry in an urban environment is idiotic, and I have said as much, but so long as they act within the law they got a right to do that, and I cannot demand infringement upon it without stooping to a level of hypocrisy which I find passionately offensive.

And yes, I too have issues with improper and unsafe gun handling, moreso than most folk, and am not at all shy about calling someone on it, although initially I try to do so without being insulting since they may well not know better - you gotta remember I *do* support the idea of proper training being a requirement to purchase and own a firearm, I just don't trust folks who have made it clear they're not gonna be reasonable with that kind of authority, and I did suggest an alternative.

Re: Firearms and evil purpose.

I'm mostly ambivalent about that, to me it's just a tool, and my little popgun is not really efficient for anything but as I said, the last ditch defense of my person, so I can't really see that in regard to it.

That said, the Super Saiga-12 I call Forquet ?
I deliberately broke with my own tradition of not caring what a weapon looks like in order to make it abundantly clear to anyone viewing it that it is a tool with an evil purpose, absolutely, I am not sure I could explain the logic behind it to someone else, but I want anyone who sees it at the range to realize without a doubt that the idea of ever needing to USE that monster for it's designed purpose is so fucking horrific that we ought to do all we can to make real sure it never, EVER happens.

Same basic premise that's behind ICBMs, really - no one in their right mind WANTS to use them, but as recent history shows, not having one tends to encourage aggression against you from folks who do, I don't like it, I don't think it's sane, but nor will I deny the ugly realities of our world, our society - although I do seek and strive to change them.

And Siggy, in regard your to post entire, other than how severe the implied threat is, that *IS* prettymuch how I feel about it myself - do you think I *like* having to stand up for the rights of someone like Fred Phelps, or these open carry nitwits ?

No, but I will do so, because my own personal morality REQUIRES it.

But I wanted to point out something about all that, how you feel about someone openly displaying and carrying a weapon...

You know, *I* feel that way about people carrying icons of religion openly.
Because historically most of those religions have slaughtered more folk than guns ever probably will, and most of them are hostile to me, my values, and my entire belief system.

But I can and will, still defend their right to do so.

-Frem

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

Saturday, March 6, 2010 7:21 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:

Niki, look at this from my end for a moment - I've done mentioned that the little popgun I carry has saved my life time and time again, and this despite being pretty good at avoiding or defusing situations where things are headed toward that kind of impasse.

And yet, knowing and aware of this, I got people sayin to me a total gun ban would be a good idea, subscribing to the same kind of magical-thinking they would go completely ballistic over and shred to bits on any other topic, cause I'd really like to see the magic wand they plan to wave to make those weapons disappear from the hands of criminals, or perhaps an example of a gun free zone barrier actually functionally preventing the entry of someone with a weapon and a grudge...
*shakes head*
And they don't even see the dichotomy of it.
-Frem

I'm not sure I've seen that argument here. Plenty against open carry, but not in favour of total gun ban. Hell, even over here there isn't a total gun ban.

I've also seen you post your ideas on how we should reduce violence in general in society. I think that's a good idea, although I'm not sure I agree with your hypothesis on schooling.

Although it's not probably not a very popular theory, I'd say that violence in society has a number of complex causes.

Here are some of my ideas -

Human beings are not psychologically equipped to live in large, complex urban environments. It leads to large numbers of people suffering psychologically - from feeling depressed, angry, disengaged from others. Cities, large cities, tend to have the most violent crime, whereas smaller communities do not on the whole.

The cult of the individual - "I have the right to have everything I want at the expense of everyone else and the health of the planet. Fuck em all - my wants must be satisfied, and if they aren't I'm going to get as angry as hell"

Family breakdown - I hate to sound all kind of rightie and Christian, which I am not - but societies where children are not largely nurtured in a stable environment by a number of adults who also nurture and support each other, are going to have high numbers of citizens who suffer from poor mental health.

Social inequity - where you have a big divide between rich and poor, where it is difficult to get out of the poverty trap, you also tend to have higher crime, including violent crime. Double that when you live in a highly materialistic society that has one definition of success - how much money you possess.

A population that is saturated by violence in the media, and considers it common place to witness the grossest acts of violence, even if it is simulated. Also add into that mix, the common theme of popular entertainment - that force, violent force is the main way of solving any problem.

Chuck into that mix some antiquated concepts about gun ownership and make arms incredibly easy to purchase....

Houston, you've probably got a problem

(Before anyone accuses me of being anti American - most of those points apply to much of the Western world.)

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

Saturday, March 6, 2010 7:30 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
You know, *I* feel that way about people carrying icons of religion openly.
Because historically most of those religions have slaughtered more folk than guns ever probably will, and most of them are hostile to me, my values, and my entire belief system. But I can and will, still defend their right to do so.

Well, the next time someone beats you to near-death with a neckchain and cross, let me know.

As far as defending the so-called right of "open carry"... there is NOTHING in the Constitution supporting it, so maybe we should just make it illegal.

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

Saturday, March 6, 2010 7:56 PM

*blink*
*blink*

Quote:
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.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/bear

*headdesk*

-F

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

Saturday, March 6, 2010 8:00 PM

Magons ?

NOW you're talkin, and yeah, I've taken to trying to address some of the more disastrous problems, at least those rare few someone with such a comparitively small crew can, and we have had victories, including a rather major one in the past year.

I do believe a discussion of those factors and what to do about it deserves it's own thread, but I am currently on the job, and posting from a laptop on my break in site three's park, so I cannot address em in detail, but I would LIKE to, certainly it'd be a more productive conversation than this one.

So let's do that, just keep in mind I might not be able to respond in detail for a while.

-F

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

Saturday, March 6, 2010 8:08 PM

Looking forward to hearing your response, Frem. If I don't respond for awhile it's because the power's gone out again. Wild storm fronts are passing over us and we've just been 24 hours without power. I'm going to have hurl out most of the contents of my freezer.

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

Saturday, March 6, 2010 8:14 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:

*blink*
*blink*
Quote:
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.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/bear

*headdesk*

-F

AS much as I hate to weigh in on this discussion of your Constitution because it's not applicable to me, seems to me that if the intention of the second amendment was regarding militias and not personal security, isn't one possible meaning - "we have the right to group into armed militias to oppose a tyrannical threat"

I know Starbuck's coffee is shite, but I'd hardly say they were a tyrannical threat.

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

Saturday, March 6, 2010 8:34 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Frem, if that "blink blink" was meant for me... The right to bear arms doesn't give you the right to "brandish" a weapon, according to Mike. It prolly doesn't give you the automatic right to open-carry either. But nothing says you can't conceal-carry. And for a guy who so firmly believes in de-escalation, why would you defend a practice that automatically escalates tension? Just because?

ETA: Analogize to freedom of speech. Yes, you have the right. But not the right to shout into a loudspeaker all night and keep your whole neighborhood awake. Same with open carry.

'Nuff said?

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

Sunday, March 7, 2010 6:32 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
I know Starbuck's coffee is shite, but I'd hardly say they were a tyrannical threat.

Oh, but those latte-drinking librulz.... what a tempting target.

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

Sunday, March 7, 2010 7:04 AM

MINCINGBEAST

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Quote:
Originally posted by mincingbeast:
egads, how dare these insane and nefarious pro-gun folk inflict their pro-gun views, and guns, on me. surely, this violates most of my inalienable constituional rights.

Can you please point out to me where in the Constitution is says anything about your right to not have your feelings hurt?

Also, that "inalienable" thing? That's not the Constitution; you're misquoting the Declaration of Independence there. Lots of people make that mistake.

Quote:

this thread just reminds that debate is a fantasy. facts and arguments mean nothing if they do not support your point of view. we call carry around a master narrativer that explains our lies, and our place in the world, and anything that doesn't fit the plot is disregarded. whatever doesn't support your irrational impulses is obvbiously inane and to be disregarded. persuasion is more a matter of framing an argument so someone think it fits their world view, than it is of advancing some incontrovertible truth.

Yes, it's a complete fantasy to assert that guns exist only to murder other human beings.

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

dude, credulous much? explaining sarcasm robs it of its effect, but apparently, my sarcasm sucks and must be shorn up with emoticons to have any effect. damn it. ;)

guns are for killing things, plainly. even if we assert that a gun is to be used for self defense against, say, hordes of illegal immigrant scum bent on vicitimizing us, or the government whose aim is to violate our rights, that defense is premised on the fact that a gun is used for killing things. this is not fantasy.

the utility of necessity of guns, however, probably has some fantastic elements to it. because i am an asshole, perhaps now would be a good time to articulate my suspicion that many gun owners sit around stroking their guns, dreaming of the chance to use them "in the right", all the while sighing and explaining to themselves that they are quite reluctant to use the damned thing, after all. ;) this is just what i a claim it to be: a suspicion, not a statement of incontrovertible truth.

also, despite the technical definition of murder ("the intentional killing of a human, by another, with malice aforethought) I prefer a fuzzier one that most people intuitively apply: a murder is any killing that i find objectionable.

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

Sunday, March 7, 2010 7:38 AM

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

That didn't answer my question Frem. You asked me to look at it from your point of view, but nowhere have I seen you make ANY effort to look at it from the other point of view.

I HAVE very clearly looked at from your end; I repeatedly said your background and where you live give you complete right to feel the way you do to a degree; but nowhere have you even acknowledged the other side, that there are people who have a RIGHT to feel uncomfortable about someone brandishing a killing weapon around them. In some places it may well be necessary; in Starbucks, it's felt BY MANY as a statement and a threat.

I quoted you over and over to show it. The THREAT that "you're insane if you want me NOT to brandish a weapon wherever I like". That's not nsane, but you continue to call it that. NOWHERE in this discussion has total gun ban been debated; the debate has been around the right to openly carry a gun in perfectly safe places.

Aside from that, my question was if you reread what you'd written and couldn't see that it was over te top compared to what others had said, and that the wording indicated a bit of obsession about others infringing on your rights, which might indicate something deeper.

Gun "brandishing" isn't the same as any other discussion, as is obvious from some of the corollaries people have presented. It stands alone; it's the only "right" given that constitutes a physical threat to others.

Of COURSE you have the right to be offended by the scenario you described, and many others you've been through as well I'm sure. But WE'RE not THEM, and you have written to us as if we are, calling people names and exaggerating their points to the extreme. THAT's what I'm trying to get you to see. that and that alone. About everyone here has agreed that, in an unsafe environment, a gun might be a good thing to have; you alone have insisted that doing so IN ANY ENVIRONMENT is something which must not be curtailed.

Turning the discussion to prevention is a) not what the topic is about, and b) unrealistic; I think you know that. America is so full of guns and people who don't give a damn about how they're handled, it's an enormous task which will never be accomplished. We have been trying to talk about merely one aspect; walking into a coffee shop with a gun strapped to your leg. Yet you continually referred to that as if we were trying to limit YOUR rights, to impose on YOUR freedoms, with no recognition whatsoever that it might be others' rights which are being infringed upon by the open brandishing of weapons.

"Enforcing their madness upon me without respect for my person". It's not madness to feel threatened in the scenario above; and it's not disrespecting your person to suggest that it's disrespectful of others rights and freedoms. You seem so myopically bent on seeing it as so much more, and seeing in ANY way that doing so infringes on the rights of others.

Feeling as you do about open icons of religion has no bearing whatsoever. Hell, I feel threatened by aggressive drivers in huge pickup trucks sometimes on the freeway, 'cuz I know they can crush my little car with minimum effort. THAT is about the threat of violence, religious icons are a private matter...nobody's gonna burn you at the stake, you're not actually THEATENED by the person wearing it.

I say, and others have as well, that displaying a gun in a coffee house full of people NOT armed is a statement and a threat...and given your responses, about distrusting the motives of people who are uncomfortable, and that doing so threatens your rights, does not jive with feeling threatened by a completely unnecessary act which DOES make the wearer the "biggest, baddest guy in the room" and essentially saying "I can use this against you if you give me any reason". Given that would make many people not packing feel intimidated at the very least, just as you said and seem to wish them to be. Assuming others are trying to intidate YOU, and if you have a gun they can't, so neener neener, shows a problem you might be unaware of.

If that person broke in front of me in line, do you really think I'd challenge him, or even THINK of challenging him? I maintain it's a statement of power, a completely unnecessary one, and DOES intimdate those around one...which you've essentially stated would be your intent.

There is NO reason to brandish a weapon, it can be kept on the person but not baldly displayed; to do so DOES infringe on the feeling of safety and comfort of people in a coffee shop. There are ways in which laws are used (and I don't happen to think that one is THE "highest loaw in the land") which are unacceptable. Yet you cannot even see or admit that; all you see is a threat to you in people not wanting guns in coffee shops.

That was my point; that you take any restriction on openly carrying a weapon as a personal attack, and your focus on your "will" being impinged upon is so blinded by your own feelings that you can't even conceive of the validity of others feeling THEIR will is being impinged upon and their rights infringed.

I guess I'm pissing into the wind, here, given your response, but I wish you could see that your feelings on this issue are one-sided and over the top. Yes, you admit in an urban environment brandishing a weapon is idiotic, but things like "magical thinking", "madness", believing a desire not to have guns openly brandished is saying ""The world would be a better place if you were dead", "vilify", "knee-jerk reaction", "hypocricy"...those don't respond to US, here, trying to have a reasonable debate about one thing: Open carry. Nothing else. It's no threat to anyone's way of life, disrespect of their rights, or any of the other things you have claimed.

People here HAVE been reasonable in their arguments, I reread the entire thread to see if what you were claiming and the name-calling you were doing was justified, I see no knee-jerk reactions or hypocrisy in their statements, nor madness nor magical thinking. Those are words similar to the others I quoted; I maintain that your emotions are over the top IN THIS DISCUSSION, you are the one who has thrown around names--nobody has called you any that I'm aware of--you have assumed that by not liking openly-carried weapons in a coffee shop there is a desire to disrespect your rights, and your choice of wording has been extremely aggressive. That's the point I was hoping to make you see, nothing more.

Oops, Mincing posted while I was writing, and I agree

Quote:
guns are for killing things, plainly. even if we assert that a gun is to be used for self defense against, say, hordes of illegal immigrant scum bent on vicitimizing us, or the government whose aim is to violate our rights, that defense is premised on the fact that a gun is used for killing things. this is not fantasy.

the utility of necessity of guns, however, probably has some fantastic elements to it

I think that's true; I think some element of feeling empowered by brandishing a killing item around others who do not, the concept of themselves as some kind of "cowboy"--which is true of MANY, and the feeling of power and invincibility some experience as a result, carry fantastical elements.

"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

Sunday, March 7, 2010 10:55 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

This is the reason why I don't trust gun nuts: Just talk about something as trivial as "open carry" and they jump right away to the "cold dead fingers" scenario. Even Frem and Mike, who are usually reasonable about many things, are unreasonable out this.

BTW- referring to a carpenter carrying a hammer... even carpenters take off their tool belts to go into a coffee shop, out reasonable consideration for others. I should know, I have several carpenters working for me.

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

Sunday, March 7, 2010 1:22 PM

Only got time for one post, mind, stuff has come up which needs be addressed.

Quote:
AS much as I hate to weigh in on this discussion of your Constitution because it's not applicable to me, seems to me that if the intention of the second amendment was regarding militias and not personal security, isn't one possible meaning - "we have the right to group into armed militias to oppose a tyrannical threat"

Actually, Magons, the people who wrote and debated the Constitution were very, very explicit in what they meant, I am talking like 150 PAGES worth of explicit, the federalist papers, anti federalist papers, speeches, editorials, down to the last very minutae they were abundantly clear, and formerly I have posted not only links to these documents but often enough long passages from them complete and in context so that there was no doubt whatever of exactly what it meant - AND some of the folk arguing the point were here for that, but they choose to ignore all that in favor of their own specific assumptions despite knowing otherwise, and that annoys me quite a bit, when you have the founders own words and folks discard them like they don't exist or shrug them off while arguing what the definition of "is" is and the like - they meant what they meant, they said it in terms a twelve year old could understand, and did so explicitly (and stated as much) so that should it come down to something like this in society or the courts, those words could not be twisted to mean otherwise.

Case in point:

Quote:
That the said Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms ... "

- Samuel Adams, Debates and Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, at 86-87 (Pierce & Hale, eds., Boston, 1850)

I'd say that's a pretty clear statement of intent, wouldn't you ?
Like I said, pages and pages and pages worth, they were not terse men, our founding fathers, and they made REAL sure that years down the line, their words would be available should there be any doubt.

To which, I can almost hear the "trite, dated document" defense, which, when applied to the First or Fourth, sends the same folk into frenzied rage as they demolish the same argument they're throwing at the Second.

But I digress... suffice it to say what our founders meant is not in any doubt whatever, folks just don't like what they said, is all.

And imma make one last attempt to engage your point, Niki.

See, from my end, either you're not listening, or your not getting what I am saying.

I *did* in fact say, repeatedly, that open carry in an urban environment is ridiculous, that it makes ME uncomfortable because some of them are not using a proper retention holster and I have concerns about their level of training as well as safe gun handling ability.

And yet, here you are saying that I did not acknowledge those arguments ?

As for insanity, while not debated per se, folks acknowledging they'd LIKE a total ban, and THEN while doing so rail against open carry clearly defines an intention of "give me this inch, and another, and another" as the game plan, and when someone tells me RIGHT UP FRONT that their intention is to "ban em all" - hell yes, imma draw the line right there on the spot, I'd be a damn fool not to!

What I am saying is insane is that the idea of here, in america, banning guns would have all that much of an impact on a society that's gone sour and violent for a whole multitude of reasons that have jack damned all to do with guns, but it's an easy, pre-vilified target for the same idiotic knee-jerk reactionism that got us mired in two pointless wars, smacked with the Patriot Act, and all manner of stupidity, and despite that, folks wanna go right to the knee jerk without addressing the root concerns that could make this issue rather moot were they addressed effectively.

Again, did we learn nothing from Prohibition ?

As for "over the top", again, when someone states clearly an intent and desire for a total ban, and THEN asks me to give them an inch - me bein me, I ain't JUST gonna draw the line, imma start takin extra territory, you understand ?

As for infringing rights - well, what besides the ability to vote with your wallet gives you any right to dictate to Starbucks what their policy about it is ?
Seriously, this matter is THEIR decision and theirs alone, so long as they comply with the law, and arguing with me, or the people openly carrying is futile - if you must argue it, then argue it with Starbucks instead of using it as an excuse to attack firearms ownership in general.

You obviously know what Sbux policy is, and so going in there and being offended when someone comes in openly carrying is like being in a bar or restaurant that has a smoking section, and being offended when someone lights up - that's a mite ridiculous, don't you think ?

And yes, I do feel intensely threatened by the open display of religious icons, and while you can SAY nobody is going to try to burn me at the stake, you were not there when some hicktown dickheads in Pennsylvania actually made an effort to do so, or in Brooklyn when the local congregation, encouraged by someone with personal issues, jumped me and beat me within an inch of my life, or in Florida, where I was hired to take action in defense of a Coven who's rites the local rednecks started firing on.

Conversely, I have allies from many religions, but my experiences have colored my view, I *DO* feel threatened by those icons, but I refuse to let that dictate my actions, and while I struggle with it and occasionally fail, I ALSO make a substantial effort to NOT view every religious person as a bloodthirsty, hateful monster - the same way y'all seem to see every gun owner as an idiotic bucktoothed redneck, which I find a little offensive cause my ancestry is west virgina hillfolk on one side, not that a lot of em WEREN'T idiotic bucktoothed rednecks, but still, I at least TRY to use a narrower brush and question my own prejudices.

I do not distrust the motives of folk who feel uncomfortable about it, hell, I sympathize, it is the folk who would deliberately and with malice aforethought attack a constitutional right because it was used in a manner they disagreed with, by folks they disagreed with, and if at all possible engage the governments gun-bearing lackwits to enforce that, over an issue that is more properly a matter of a business owners decision on what to allow or disallow on their own property - by going after those open carrying, by going after the right, instead of taking it up with Sbux, AND openly advocating a complete ban ?

Yeah, damn right I distrust the motives there.

And I would challenge someone openly carrying same as I would anyone else, but I can maybe-barely see why someone else might be reluctant - but only barely cause I really do not, can not, understand peoples fear of a mere tool, I've done said that, it's not rhetoric, I really DO NOT UNDERSTAND in a way that I can empathize, I'm sorry.

Weapons don't scare me, PEOPLE scare me.

As for reasonable, imma say this one last time.
IF YOU DO NOT LIKE IT, TAKE IT UP WITH STARBUCKS.
Other than that, I got nothin left to say to it.

-F

ETA:

Quote:
This is the reason why I don't trust anti-gun nuts: Just talk about something as trivial as "open carry" and they jump right away to the "total ban" scenario.

Quid Pro Quo.

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

Sunday, March 7, 2010 2:09 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
This is the reason why I don't trust gun nuts: Just talk about something as trivial as "open carry" and they jump right away to the "cold dead fingers" scenario. Even Frem and Mike, who are usually reasonable about many things, are unreasonable out this.

BTW- referring to a carpenter carrying a hammer... even carpenters take off their tool belts to go into a coffee shop, out reasonable consideration for others. I should know, I have several carpenters working for me.

Signy, I'm terribly sorry you find my willingness to defend the Constitution and the support of someone following the law to be "unreasonable". I also apologize for being utterly unreasonable in not joining you and others in going into a full-blown tizzy at the mere sight, thought, or mention of a gun. How unreasonable of me to refuse to panic.

"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

Sunday, March 7, 2010 3:28 PM

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

Okay Frem, I give up. I tried to say clearly that this discussion/debate...THIS ONE, has not been about a total ban on guns, nor do I think, without going back and re-reading the entire thing, that anyone has suggested such a thing. I respect people here enough to know they are aware of the times and place we live and that such a thing isn't conceivable, much less possible.

I DID, quite clearly, even QUOTE you saying it was idiotic in an urban environment, by the way, so you must have missed that. I tried to see things from your perspective, and said at least twice that, given your background and what you deal with, I understood your feelings.

But I can't get you off of believing that a disagreement with a gun-carrying person coming into a Starbucks means wanting a total ban on guns...I don't, just to be clear. I'm not stupid.

As to taking it up with Starbucks, this has been a debate about whether it's RIGHT or not to carry one openly into Starbucks. If we didn't want to discuss it, we could just raise our complaint with them. We discuss many topics...to each one, you could say "you don't like it, do something about it", but I believe you know that's not what we're about here. We discuss and debate things.

As to defending the Constitution, I believe in this case that's not what's happening by the people wearing the guns. I think it's a threat and a statement--in places where no gun is necessary, not in places such as you have described. There I would have no problem in someone wearing a gun, I understand the need for self-defense and the statement "don't mess with me". In a plain old coffee shop, I see it as intimidation and/or swaggering. Do you understand what I'm saying at all?

Again as to defending the Constitution; I can only extrapolate that both of you would defend just as vociferously someone walking into Starbucks with whatever is the biggest, most dangerous weapon the law allows (and I know not what that is, I only know gun nuts and gun lobbies would like it to be ANYTHING, no restrictions at all). That truly doesn't make sense to me.

Again as to the Constitution, given the matter was debated in detail, the wording changed, etc., I will take as the final intention the wording as written, not whatever went before. The wording as written clearly says "well-regulated militia", and that has nothing to do with wandering around wearing a gun.

What I'VE been debating, I don't know about anyone else, is whether it is right and fair or not for someone to go into Starbucks brandishing a gun. I think it's wrong, I think it infringes on other people's rights for no reason (remember "pursuit of happiness"???) except to make a statement, be a bully, or express their sense of invulnerability. There is NO correlation to me between a hammer and a gun, nor do I see it as a "tool". I recognize neither of you can see or understand what I've been trying to say, so I hereby agree to disagree and exit from this discussion. Before I do, I will say I agree with Sig; on this topic, I find pro-gun people to be more unreasonable and able to debate than I do the vast majority of people, who don't want a total gun BAN, but reasonable gun responsibility. I also believe fully that "defending the Constitution" is a convenient argument, and that's not at all what it's about.

I'm sad we couldn't debate/discuss without you degenerating into the kind of name calling and anger you have expressed, Frem; that's not usually what I see from you. I maintain that the wording you have used indicate over-the-top feelings, but I realize there's no use trying to get you to see that.

"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

Sunday, March 7, 2010 3:49 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Neither you nor Frem are defending "the Constitution". You are defending your own fears and prejudices.

I OWN A GUN. I have a shortest-legal-possible shotgun for home defense. At one time, I also used to like plinking with a 22. But I would no more walk into Sbux with my shotgun than I would walk in naked, and I seriously question the motives of anyone who would do either... but clearly, a gun constitutes a much greater threat. And if you wonder how I define a "gun nut", it would be on this basis : Anyone who thinks walking into a busy public place with a gun strapped to their hip is a defensible thing to do IS a "gun nut".

Just OOC I asked my my hubby and his friend what they thought of your positions. My hubby, you may recall, survived a war when he was young: tanks, 50-caliber guns, rockets, people hung upside down on lampposts and flayed with razors left to bleed to death. His dad was violently abusive, and literally drove his mom into a psychiatric hospital.

My hubby's friend grew up in gang territory. His dad taught him to box for self-defense, and this guy's hands are registered as deadly weapons. Later, his dad beat his mom to death slowly and horrifically. This guy used to sleep with a gun under his pillow.

Now, if anyone knows about violence and danger, its those two. I doubt either one of you can one-up them in terms of life experience.

When my hubby read your posts, he just guffawed. What he said was "These guys don't belong in civilized society. Tell them, if they like their guns so much, to move to Alaska".

His friend came within a couple of seconds of shooting a robber last year ... had the gun right on his chest... he realized that he was becoming his father, and he sold that gun the very next day. He just read your posts and swore in Spanish, and walked away.

So moan and cry all you want about your upbringing and why you get so bent out of shape when someone asks you to put your security blanket in your pocket instead of putting your insecurity, anger and arrogance on display. Take your over-reaction and stuff it.

On this issue, I have totally lost respect for you both.

ETA: Frem, I would not bother to take this up with Sbux. I'd go to our state legislature about "open carry", and may the majority win

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

Sunday, March 7, 2010 4:11 PM

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

One addition: After reading Sig's post, I asked MY husband--who owns five guns of various types--what HE thought about the Starbucks thing.

"They're fucking stupid" was his response. He wrinkled up his forehead and said "They're open carry states, okay, but why DO IT? Has nothing to do with Constitutional rights. The only reason to carry a gun is to shoot someone".

So there is another NON-ANTI-GUN person who thinks this argument is senseless, that carrying guns into Starbucks makes no sense at all.

Thank you Sig.

"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

Sunday, March 7, 2010 4:47 PM

>>nor do I think, without going back and re-reading the entire thing, that anyone has suggested such a thing.

They did.

And you folk have been nothing but downright malicious, insulting, deceitful and all manner of hateful about it, up to and including the supposition that the open carry folk threatened the Starbuck management at gunpoint, including really hostile comments at gun owning folk in particular, and I have let slide being called insecure, full of macho bullshit, a bully, and countless other slams I wouldn't have let go so easily were it not for trying real hard to be reasonable, on top of which when I show you the evidence, in their own words both before and after the fact what the founding fathers meant, you just blow it off cause it contradicts what you want to believe.

And the crowning moment here ?

Quote:
ETA: Frem, I would not bother to take this up with Sbux. I'd go to our state legislature about "open carry", and may the majority win

Yeah, well, then do not complain to me whatever about right to privacy, or the patriot act, or anything of that nature, ever again, cause "the majority" approves all those measures you ain't so fond of, up to and including preventative detention, waterboarding and the like, so if "the majority" trumps all, you really, truly DO believe in might-makes-right.

I've done stated that my own personal morality requires me to stand where I do on this, and acknowledged many of the counterpoints, and still you have nothing for me by malice and bile unless I bow down in absolute submission to your point of view, just like the neocons you supposedly oppose, but yanno, after seeing this I ain't so sure, cause I been on the receiving end of them too, and it was exactly like this, so I am starting to wonder if there's really a dimes worth of difference.

Mostly though, I feel ill just talkin to you people anymore.

-Frem

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

Sunday, March 7, 2010 5:02 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Frem,

You don't get it, do you? People have "freedoms from" as well as "freedoms to". I'll bet you dollars to donuts you'll find nothing in the Constitution protecting "open carry", no matter how much you try to connect the two... wrapping yourself in the Constitution is just so much hyperbole in this case.

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

Sunday, March 7, 2010 5:08 PM

Also, Signy - You're full of shit on the "majority decides" thing. In 43 states, they DID decide, and voted to allow open carry. So while you SAY you leave it to the legislatures and their majorities, when they've spoken, you rail against their decision.

You're also full of shit in attempting to label me as someone who would wear a gun in public. I've maintained that these people who are doing so HAVE A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT, AND A STATE RIGHT to do so. I've also said before, that in the case of the Town Hall meetings, it was fucking stupid of them to do so.

So on this issue, you're as biased as Liz Cheney when she tries to portray lawyers who act as legal defense counsel for terror suspects as if they were Al Qaeda members themselves. You've lumped my legal defense of an action as an explicit endorsement of said action and desire on my part to carry out such an action.

"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

Sunday, March 7, 2010 5:11 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

My point, Mike, is that since peeps have made a point to be utterly disrespectful - if not downright intimidating- with their "right" to open carry...maybe it should be looked at again.

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

Sunday, March 7, 2010 5:13 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:
One addition: After reading Sig's post, I asked MY husband--who owns five guns of various types--what HE thought about the Starbucks thing.

"They're fucking stupid" was his response. He wrinkled up his forehead and said "They're open carry states, okay, but why DO IT? Has nothing to do with Constitutional rights. The only reason to carry a gun is to shoot someone".

So there is another NON-ANTI-GUN person who thinks this argument is senseless, that carrying guns into Starbucks makes no sense at all.

Thank you Sig.

Niki, no offense to you, but your husband's full of shit, too. I've been known to carry a gun quite often. I carry them from my home to my car, where I put them in the trunk, unloaded, then put the ammo and magazines in the rear seat footwell, out of reach of the driver's seat. Then I drive to the range, where I carry them inside and "kill" paper targets.

So I've been known to carry guns, and I've never shot anyone. Either that's NOT the only reason for them, or I'm using them all wrong.

"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

Sunday, March 7, 2010 5:17 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
My point, Mike, is that since peeps have made a point to be utterly disrespectful - if not downright intimidating- with their "right" to open carry...maybe it should be looked at again.

Can we look at all the other alleged "rights" while we're at it? I mean, "some peeps" have made it a point to be utterly disrespectful - if not downright intimidating - with their "right" to free speech, freedom of association, freedom of the press, and freedom of AND *from* religion. Shall we take a good hard look at all those things again, and see if maybe we shouldn't restrict them since they've been abused to often?

"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

Sunday, March 7, 2010 5:44 PM