Starbucks CEO: No Guns In Our Stores, Please

Starbucks is kindly asking customers not to bring guns to their stores.

Starbucks Guns

Starbucks CEO Howard Shultz is asking customers not to bring guns into Starbucks stores:

Tired of being thrust onto the front lines of the nation’s debate over guns, Starbucks is asking customers to leave firearms behind when they are in its stores and its outdoor seating areas.

The policy change came on the heels of a shooting rampage at the Washington Navy Yard on Monday that left 13 people including the gunman dead, but Starbucks said its decision was not in response to that or to the shooting spree that killed 26 children and adults at the Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn., just days before Christmas last year.

“I’ve spent a significant amount of personal time on this issue in the last several months and I’ve seen the emotionally charged nature of this issue and how polarizing it is on both sides,” Howard Schultz, the chief executive of Starbucks, said in a telephone interview. “Nevertheless, customers in many stores have been jarred and fairly uncomfortable to see guns in our stores, not understanding the issue and feeling that guns should not be part of the Starbucks experience, especially when small kids are around.”

Under the change, baristas and other store employees will not ask customers who come in with guns in holsters, say, to leave or confront them in any way, Mr. Schultz said. No signs explaining the policy will be posted in Starbucks stores, either.

“We are going to serve them as we would serve anyone else,” he said. “There are going to be people on both sides who will be disappointed or angry, but we’re making a decision we think is in the best interests of our customers, employees and the company.” He said store officials would evaluate compliance over time and consider posting signs if necessary.

The majority of company-owned Starbucks stores are in states that allow people to openly carry guns, although restrictions and limitations vary from state to state. The company has had a handful of armed robberies in its stores over the years, as well as two recent incidents where guns carried in women’s purses have discharged accidentally, but little other gun violence in its stores.

Under its previous policy, however, Starbucks has been unwillingly co-opted by proponents of “open carry” policies and vilified by those seeking stricter laws on gun ownership. Garry Trudeau devoted six consecutive days of his Doonesbury comic strip in 2010 to mocking the company’s stance, which opened with a barista greeting a customer in a plaid flannel shirt and saying, “Welcome to Starbucks, sir, would you be openly carrying a weapon today?”

“Pro-gun activists have used our stores as a political stage for media events misleadingly called ‘Starbucks Appreciation Days’ that disingenuously portray Starbucks as a champion of open carry,” Mr. Schultz wrote in an open letter to be published in ads in major newspapers.

Last month, Starbucks closed a store in Newtown early after gun rights supporters wearing camouflage and Connecticut Citizens Defense League T-shirts held one of the events there.

Similarly, opponents of guns like the group Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America, which advocated “Skip Starbucks Sundays,” have staged protests outside Starbucks stores and urged consumers to boycott the company.

In 2010, the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence teamed up with Credo Action, an activist group that uses mobile technology and social media to push change, and attracted more than 40,000 signatures on a petition aimed at changing the company’s policy on guns in its stores that was delivered to Starbucks headquarters in Seattle.

“It sounds like Howard Schultz is making a very good business decision,” said Brian Malte, director of legislation and mobilization at the Brady Campaign. “Lots of families with children, college students and young people are Starbucks customers, and they want to feel safe.”

The company has long followed local laws regarding the ability to carry guns in plain sight. Customers in the 44 states that allow legal gun owners to carry weapons openly have been permitted in its stores there, while those in the six other states – New York, California, South Carolina, Illinois, Florida and Texas – have not, according to the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence.

“I want to make it very clear that Starbucks is not a policy maker and as a company we are not pro- or anti-gun,” Mr. Schultz said. “However, there have been a number of episodes over the course of the last few months that have put us in a position to take a big step back and assess the issue of open carry.”

You can read Schultz’s letter here.

There is, of course, no 2nd Amendment issue here. As a private business Starbucks has the right to set the policies that customers must abide by while on company property. In that respect, a rule that there should be no guns on the premises (outside of law enforcement, one presumes) is no different from a sign that says “No Shirt, No Shoes, No Service.” And, indeed, it’s worth noting that Schultz is not saying that he wants to turn company owned stores into “Gun Free Zones.” If someone with a concealed carry permit comes into a story with their weapon, nobody will even know they have it and they won’t really be violating any policy. Indeed, based on what Schultz wrote it’s clear that even someone who’s open carrying isn’t going to be refused service after today. Instead, what this clearly seems to be is an attempt on his part to separate the company from a deeply contentious political debate in a way that doesn’t alienate either side. Some people on both sides of the issue, of course, will be offended in some way. Both strong proponents of “open carry” and those who have been calling on the company to make all stores “gun free” are both likely to be displeased by this latest development but, on the whole, this seems like a common sense way for Schultz to distance his company from an issue that they clearly don’t want to be a part of.

Photo via The New York Times

 

FILED UNDER: Economics and Business, Guns and Gun Control,
Doug Mataconis
About Doug Mataconis
Doug holds a B.A. in Political Science from Rutgers University and J.D. from George Mason University School of Law. He joined the staff of OTB in May 2010. Before joining OTB, he wrote at Below The BeltwayThe Liberty Papers, and United Liberty Follow Doug on Twitter | Facebook

Comments

  1. Rob Miles says:

    For many people on both sides of the debate, their position is practically a religion. Indeed, just like many religious people in the US, they consider any words or actions that aren’t firmly on their side in the debate to be stridently against their side. I hate Starbucks coffee; to me it tastes like burnt ash no matter what over-priced flavor I get. But damned if I’m not tempted to throw $5 a day their way. Not because I fall on one side or the other, but just because of the reasonable aporoach they’re taking.

  2. C. Clavin says:

    My personal opinion only…
    I’m looking at the picture accompanying the Post…and wondering what kind of dickhead walks around with a gun like that???
    Talk about proclaiming your lack of self-esteem.
    HEY!!!! CAN EVERYONE SEE MY PROSTHETIC!!!!
    His name must be Mr. Zer. Mr. Lou Zer.

  3. grumpy realist says:

    Is it just the media pushing the gun nuts front and center, or what? I don’t remember this when I was growing up. Guns used to be considered a useful tool; a potentially dangerous instrument that you were careful about. They were used mainly for hunting food and keeping varmits down on the farm. I grew up in upstate New York and the only problems we ever had with guns were the weekend idiots who would drive up from NYC and shoot at everything that moved during hunting season (including cows, dogs, and each other.)

    When did guns develop into being such a fetish for some people?

  4. I’ve reread this article several times and I can’t see any substantive change in Starbucks’ policy here. Why the Brady Campaign guy thinks this is a positive development vis a vis their position I cannot fathom.

  5. And certain parts of the gun rights community are their own worst enemy. Starbucks tried to accommodate us, but they couldn’t just go there. Nah, they had organize huge victory celebrations in the middle of the store to flaunt their superiority.

    Not surprisingly, a company that just wants to sell coffee, not spearhead a political movement, isn’t happy with having one set of customers constantly creating problems for other sets of customers and now just wants everyone on both sides to go away.

    So now a company that was on our side has been alienated because a bunch of idiots deciding that winning was less important than making sure the other side was seen to lose.

  6. C. Clavin says:

    @ Grumpy…
    Exactly.
    Not only is it a fetish…but if they had their way we would all have to embrace their fetish in order to stay safe from the nut-jobs with the penile substitute-gun fixation.
    Remember what JKB typed yesterday in the other thread…an armed guard can’t stop a perp…unless everyone is armed!!!

  7. C. Clavin says:

    @ Stormy…
    Well, that’s exactly right. And it’s those people I’m ridiculing.
    By extension…when even gun owners support background checks but the Gun Lobby fights it…the backlash will ultimately be worse than if they had simply tried to mold policy to their liking in the first place.

  8. al-Ameda says:

    Seriously, if I walked into a Starbucks and saw an “average person” openly carrying a gun I would leave that Starbucks.

    Not much good can come of being around people who are so insecure that they feel a need to openly carry a gun into the places where the public congregates and purchases goods and services.

  9. mantis says:

    We’ve been talking about changing our culture regarding guns on other threads. This is one step in the right direction. If enough of the public is vocal about the fact that we don’t welcome gun owners flaunting their violent insecurities in public, hopefully some of them will get the message.

    Of course, the gun nuts are going predictably psycho about this across the web. Their freedom to never be disagreed with is being infringed.

  10. JKB says:

    @grumpy realist: When did guns develop into being such a fetish for some people?

    When others started trying to use threat of government violence to keep others from having them. Stop trying to ban them and the issue fades away even for the most ardent.

  11. mantis says:

    @JKB:

    Your tinfoil is showing.

  12. Jeremy R says:

    @grumpy realist:

    Is it just the media pushing the gun nuts front and center, or what? I don’t remember this when I was growing up.

    I don’t really remember it before Obama was elected. In 2009 when the Tea Party folks were becoming ascendant and Obama was doing Town Hall-style events to answer questions about HCR that was being wrangled over on Capital Hill, extremists open carrying handguns and rifles started showing up outside, waving Gadsen flags and holding up signs about “watering the tree of liberty with the blood of tyrants.” I think one of the earliest was in NH with William Kostric, who became a hero to the Paulite / Alex Jones set.

    Here’s Jones praising Kostric for his “Bold Courage” when open carrying with a clearly threatening sign:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l2-ILSfrhJE

  13. C. Clavin says:

    “…When others started trying to use threat of government violence to keep others from having them. Stop trying to ban them and the issue fades away even for the most ardent…”

    Hahahaha…what a maroon.
    The CIA killed Kennedy. And we faked the Moon Landings too!!!!!

  14. Stonetools says:

    I don’t want to be around any jackass who feels he needs to carry a gun into a coffee shop. Period. I don’t think of that as a Second Amendment issue. I think of that as an “avoiding a dangerous dickhead issue.”

  15. C. Clavin says:

    In all seriousness…it’s delusional fantasies and conspiracy theories like JKB’s that prevent gun safety from happening.

  16. @Stonetools:

    For me it’s more that if I’m a Starbucks and a guy on a motorcycle shows up, I’m not going to pay any mind. But if a motorcycle club shows up, I’m probably leaving. And not because I think they’re actually going to hurt me either; just that I think there’s a good chance they’re going to cause a scene, and I really don’t want to deal with histrionics while I’m trying to eat my muffin.

  17. andrew e. says:

    @JKB: Serious question because I don’t know what you’re referring to: I see people seeking to restrict access to guns or regulate gun types but what do you mean threatening ‘government violence’?

    And do you mean ban all guns or just certain types?

  18. Rick Almeida says:

    @C. Clavin:

    And we faked the Moon Landings too!!!!!

    Everyone knows Stanley Kubrick was in on it.

  19. JKB says:

    @mantis:

    Hey, I just answered the question. The issue went big with the “assault weapon” ban back in ’93.

    But you could look at it as a civil rights issue since distant and near historically gun control was implemented with the goal of keeping firearms away from Black people. in the late 19th century due to freed slaves, in the early 1970s because the Black Panthers started open carrying as they observed police interaction with Black citizens. It came to a head when they open carried in the California State Capital. So, embrace the racist roots of you desire for gun control.

  20. Rob in CT says:

    @andrew e.:

    It’s standard Conservative/Libertarian speak for the government. See, anything the government does is, ultimately, backed up by police or other armed agents (“armed agents of the state” is a common way of putting this on the Right). Therefore, any law is enforced via the threat of government violence. Taxes are “confiscated” via the threat of “government violence” and so on and so forth.

  21. JKB says:

    @andrew e.:

    Perhaps you should read other comments here about making guns taboo. And also, the creeping restrictions of “types’ of guns. The stated goal of the gun control movement is no non-governmental possession of guns. Way back they tried to ban handguns, failed. Then they decided to go for scary black guns, fail. It’s not hard to see the pattern.

    You may not now want to ban all gun possession but other do and the fact that if one control is approved, they move to the next is readily evident.

  22. JKB says:

    @Rob in CT:

    It isn’t a “Right” view it is what government is. Government is force. Government functions by the threat of violence for non-compliance.

    If you fail to comply they send men/women with guns to forcibly make you comply or they take you away to be incarcerated for some time as a penalty for non-compliance.

  23. legion says:

    @JKB:

    When others started trying to use threat of government violence to keep others from having them.

    And that right there is the demonstration of why this isn’t going to be productive for you. There’s an enormous gulf between “enacting sane & effective gun laws” and “keeping you from having them”. Everyone – even you, I’d wager – agrees that gun violence in general and these recent mass shootings in particular are horrible things. But you are unwilling to accept any proposed response that requires you to change what you do or how you act in any way at all. You won’t even discuss it in rational terms.

  24. C. Clavin says:

    NSA…if you are reading this…please go make JKB forcibly comply…

  25. legion says:

    @JKB:

    Government functions by the threat of violence for non-compliance.

    Ultimately, if a person absolutely refuses to live by the rules of that society, yes. That’s an aspect of pretty much any conceivable functioning government of any philosophy. A person who threatens to shoot an official who tells him he can’t buy a fully-automatic weapon will – and should be – treated no differently than someone who threatens to shoot a deputy who’s trying to serve a warrant or a cop who’s pulled you over for a traffic violation. Why then do you feel compelled to call it out in this discussion?

    If you loudly proclaim that you will not comply with the law, up to the use of deadly violence, then regardless of what that law is, you should not be surprised to find yourself dead.

  26. anjin-san says:

    @ C. Clavin

    make JKB forcibly comply…

    They will have to get in line behind the team that has been dispatched to force him to become gay.

  27. mantis says:

    @JKB:

    So, embrace the racist roots of you desire for gun control.

    So my desire to see fewer gun massacres (usually perpetrated by white men), fewer gun accidents (usually the fault of dumbass white gun owners), fewer militias stockpiling weapons for their planned revolutions (almost exclusively white) means I should embrace your tinfoil conspiracy that gun control = racism? Yeah, I don’t think so.

    Of course, I also want to see less urban gun violence, so I guess I truly am a racist. After all, JKB is an authority on the subject!

  28. JKB says:

    @legion:

    You got me there. We need to make gun crimes more illegal. That’s the problem, they aren’t illegal enough to stop those who are apt to commit crimes with guns.

  29. Timothy says:

    Is it time for pro-gun rights to dump and drop support of Starbucks?

    “I’ve spent a significant amount of personal time on this issue in the last several months and I’ve seen the emotionally charged nature of this issue and how polarizing it is on both sides,” Howard Schultz, the chief executive of Starbucks, said in a telephone interview. “Nevertheless, customers in many stores have been jarred and fairly uncomfortable to see guns in our stores, not understanding the issue and feeling that guns should not be part of the Starbucks experience, especially when small kids are around.”

    Starbucks appears to be caving to the cowardice of anti-constitutional traitors who claim to shake in fear of the sight of guns! These anti-american citizens are wreaking havoc all over our country!

    Starbucks is now asking patrons to no-longer bring firearms into Starbucks… Do you think it is time for an outright boycott of Starbucks until the openly support our 2nd amendment rights and welcome American Freedom loving patriots back into their stores! I say it is time to attack this early on by: 1 selling all Starbucks stock and 2 boycotting Starbucks as a whole! These two hits will make our voices heard on how we feel about unpatriotic repression of our freedom here in America!

  30. C. Clavin says:

    @ anjin-san…
    You can’t force him to be gay….you can only encourage him to accept who he is deep in his heart…

  31. C. Clavin says:

    Apparently Timothy is the guy in the picture.
    HEY EVERYONE!!!! LOOK AT MY S&W PENIS!!!!!
    That or he is being facetious…I’m not sure.

  32. JKB says:

    @legion:

    But if you simply refuse to comply with posted signs on the highway, the government will forcibly seize you and incarcerate you.

    You are trying to nuance the issue but the fact is government is force. It imposes its will by violence. Individuals may voluntarily comply because they think it is a good idea but if they disagree they face having violence done against them. It is what government is.

    It is why I support small, limited government. Having a behemoth overshadowing society with the threat of violence is not good for society.

  33. Todd says:

    I’m not familiar enough with Timothy to know whether that rant is meant to be satire, or serious. Isn’t it funny/sad how often it’s hard to tell sometimes?

  34. C. Clavin says:

    @ Todd…
    I’m pretty sure JKB is serious.
    And yes…that’s sad.

  35. grumpy realist says:

    @JKB: Dude, please give me an example of a small, decentralized government that was actually able to control anything.

    You want small and localized? I give you Italy during the Renaissance, with the plethora of city-states. I also give you all the bickering, skirmishing, and attempted coups d’etat that happened. Know why the original “Laws of War” were written by Bartolus? Because there were so many freakin’ groups of mercenaries running around selling their services so one city-state could declare war on another city-state.

    Is that what you want for the US?

    (Libertarians are idiots, but we knew that.)

  36. JKB says:

    @anjin-san:

    Have you already forgotten that it wasn’t that long ago that the government would use violence, perhaps not to make people stop being gay, but to stop engaging in activities indicative of being gay? That a person found engaging in same-sex sexual relations was arrested, prosecuted and imprisoned? That such individuals were held up for public humiliation by the government?

    You seem to like government because it is doing things you like…now. But it may not always be so. At which point, you may find yourself subject to government violence or forced to stop of perhaps disfavored activity for fear of such violence.

  37. anjin-san says:

    but the fact is government is force. It imposes its will by violence.

    I think what JKB is trying to say is that he is still stuck on Atlas Shrugged, something most of us moved on from in our early 20s…

  38. Rick Almeida says:

    @Timothy:

    When a non-binding request is “unpatriotic repression”, surely the terrorists have won.

  39. grumpy realist says:

    @JKB: So you’re a Marxist? “Permanent revolution!”

    (The number of people who want the benefits of government such as roads, a military, a working legal system, etc. but then don’t want to pay for any of it astound me. Repeat after me: “Taxes are the price of living in a civilized society.” If you don’t want to play, move elsewhere.)

  40. C. Clavin says:

    “…If you fail to comply they send men/women with guns to forcibly make you comply…”

    Why yes…indeed…just last week I was traveling at 56mph…and 6 CT State Police cars full of SWAT Team and K-9’s swooped down on me, bludgeoned me about the head and shoulders, and incarcerated me for a year…most of it in solitary confinement.

  41. john personna says:

    I think some above misunderstanding Mr. Schultz’ request. He would prefer that only uniformed officers carry at Starbucks, and that you not bring a gun in your purse.

    The fact that he very wisely does not ask staff to enforce this request does not mean he approves concealed carry.

    (Posted from a Starbucks!)

  42. James Pearce says:

    I seriously do not know why one would need to bring a gun into Starbucks in the first place. Stormy Dragon is right: “the gun rights community are their own worst enemy.”

    That old “too busy wondering whether they could to wonder whether they should.”

  43. al-Ameda says:

    @JKB:

    But you could look at it as a civil rights issue since distant and near historically gun control was implemented with the goal of keeping firearms away from Black people. in the late 19th century due to freed slaves, in the early 1970s because the Black Panthers started open carrying as they observed police interaction with Black citizens. It came to a head when they open carried in the California State Capital. So, embrace the racist roots of you desire for gun control.

    White people are victims of a racist plot to take away their guns? Given that most people who want more regulation of guns are White, and most gun cultists are White, frankly I fail to see a racial motivation there.

  44. Heisenberg says:

    Personally, if I were a criminal, I’d love open carry. Then you know who to shoot first before they can unholster. Even better, you can see it so you can just shoot them in the back.

    In all seriousness, though, the point of open carry is intimidation, plain and simple. As has the open brandishing of weapons been throughout all of human history.

  45. Rafer Janders says:

    @JKB:

    If you fail to comply they send men/women with guns to forcibly make you comply or they take you away to be incarcerated for some time as a penalty for non-compliance.

    Absolutely. It’s the same way the government violently forces compliance with the stop sign and pedestrian crosswalk at the end of my block.

  46. JohnMcC says:

    @JKB: That’s about as clear a statement as I have ever heard of a political philosophy called anarchism.

    I think of myself as a citizen. Something I was given as a condition of my birth, earned with a purple heart and pass on to my children by participating in my democracy.

    I believe that government protects me when it ‘forces’ us to follow traffic laws. My government does a lot to make my life more pleasant and safer. From my Social Security and Medicare — both wrestled in harsh conflict from the conservative side — to just picking up my garbage twice a week and disposing of it cleanly.

    You look at the same government doing the same for you and have decided you are oppressed at least potentially.

    We are born in a state of nature, my friend, with no rights or freedoms given us by Nature or God. If we have liberties and safety and enjoy our complex human society it is because people have worked their butts off to create them. If you enjoy the freedoms of the 21st century USA, it is the end product of a 2 century process engaged in by an entire nation that found it’s way through a troubled history and emerged here.

    But you who are mere decades from your advent into this world as a squalling and helpless infant have decided that you know what freedom is and by god that offered to you by the United States of America is good enough.

    Go F&CK yourself. Then move someplace better.

  47. al-Ameda says:

    @JKB:

    You are trying to nuance the issue but the fact is government is force. It imposes its will by violence. Individuals may voluntarily comply because they think it is a good idea but if they disagree they face having violence done against them. It is what government is.

    Last year, when I was ticketed for going 65 in a 50 mph zone on a country highway, the CHP violently pulled me over and forcefully demanded that I produce my license and vehicle registration, following that I received a notice to pay the fine, the notice included threatening language as to the consequences of my failure to pay that fine.

    So what did I not do? I did not go out and buy a gun as a response to that force. I did not write angry letters to local media outlets decrying the use of government force against me. Unlike many angry middle aged White guys I paid the fine, and did ruminate over the force used against me by government law enforcement.

  48. Rafer Janders says:

    @JKB:

    It is why I support small, limited government.

    Hey, no one’s forcing you to live here. You’re free to leave any time you want to. Just pack your bags and take off to that small, limited government you like so much.

    At present, of course, I think the only three states which really fit your bill are Somalia, Congo and Afghanistan, but hey, that’s your problem, not ours.

  49. john personna says:

    JKB illustrates a certain mentality. He says liberals have tried to ban guns in America. As proof he cites the old assault rifle ban.

    Now, thousands upon thousands of guns were sold in the US for protection, hunting, and other sport DURING the assault rifle ban.

    That doesn’t matter, because a specific class of weapons was added to the already long list of proscribed types, “they want to take ur guns.”

    This is stupid and irrational, but it is a central theme to US gun politics.

    We even must recognize that, perversely, the old ban has spurred the AR-15 type in sales. Semi-rational people get pulled in, and buy one, because someone doesn’t want them to. Never mind that the stupid thing has extremely limited utility to a sane owner. At the very best, he takes it to the range on occasion. At the very worst … well, we know the worst.

  50. grumpy realist says:

    @Rafer Janders: Oh, there are a few other places in Africa which are equivalent.

    What JKB hasn’t gotten through his fool head is that once you get beyond the size of a small hunter band (15-20 members), any gathering of humans living together is going to have some form of organization. This is called government. You can call it tribal, or familial, or a city-state, or a gang–but the thing is, people organize. It has been noticed that the better organized the government, the more efficient the society is, the bigger the society can be, and the higher the level of technology (and economy) it can achieve.

    Groups which manage to organize themselves without “governments” and “laws” do so via other belief systems all members adhere to: Historically this has been religious. I give you Calvin’s Geneva as an example. They manage to survive (until there are one or more schisms) by informal policing of transgressors and expulsion or homicide.

    Warlords or thug “law” is the other organizing mechanism we’ve seen historically.

    So JKB–it looks like your choices are if you don’t want an organized government: a theocracy or a gaggle of warlords. Which do you want?

  51. Gavrilo says:

    @john personna:

    “Never mind that the stupid thing has extremely limited utility to a sane owner.”

    If the AR-15 has such a limited utility, why does nearly every S.W.A.T. team in America use them?

  52. Rob in CT says:

    Our government, for all its faults, is run by elected representatives. This matters, regarding the use of force.

    The Right-wing line of jackbooted thugs making you pay taxes ignores this, and treats the government as an evil Other.

    It is true that force is the backstop. Ignored, of course, are the intermediate steps. More importantly, totally ignored are the duties of a responsible citizen. Rights are really important, but they’re not all we have. We also have responsibilties.

  53. john personna says:

    @Gavrilo:

    Ah, maybe you should read my sentence again?

    Why would a sane civilian want to act like a SWAT team?

    Those are assault groups, are they not?

  54. Rob in CT says:

    @Gavrilo:

    Hahahahahaha, you think that’s an argument?

    S.W.A.T. teams (of which there are too many) have a very specific job. They exist to deal with the worst/most dangerous criminals. FOR THEM, a weapon such as the AR-15 probably has some utility. For Joe Schmoe, not so much.

    But look, if you want to waste a few hundred bucks (or whatever), go ahead. Try not to shoot anybody, ‘k?

  55. legion says:

    @JKB:

    You got me there. We need to make gun crimes more illegal.

    That’s pretty much the proof of what I just said. Restricting gun ownership – making you prove you’re sane, responsible, and gun-educated while also limiting access to weapons that hove no valid defense or sporting use – is _not_ the same as making gun crimes “more illegal”. That immature attitude right there is why your opinions aren’t taken seriously.
    .
    .
    .
    Let me guess – your immediate response to that last sentence was “My guns will _make_ you take me seriously!”

  56. Jack says:

    @James Pearce: Protest groups aside, the typical person gun owner/concealed/open carrier doesn’t leave the house with the intention of “bring[ing] a gun into Starbucks in the first place. They leave the house intent on protecting themselves and loved ones. They carry everywhere they go and just happen to pass through Star bucks in teh course of a normal day. You make it sound like these people strap on a gun with the sole purpose of going to Star Bucks and then go home, kick up their feet with a self-righteous indignation of knowing they got away with something.

  57. john personna says:

    @Rob in CT:

    Not only that, SWAT are not defensive teams. They do not sit in a home and defend against a single possibly-or-poorly armed intruder (the most likely scenario),

    They must assault the position of armed and desperate men, like bank robbers with hostages and the like.

  58. gVOR08 says:

    @C. Clavin:

    …what kind of dickhead walks around with a gun like that???

    I’m not much concerned about what he’s packing or how it’s holstered, but what kind of dickh loser drags his kid around next to his gun and into his little demonstration to prove…what exactly??

    There is, or so I’m told, a proud history of conservative thought going back to Burke and Hume. Has it all devolved into nothing more than the fear that someone, somewhere, is getting a benefit I’m not and “You’re not the boss of me.”? Is there anything else left?

  59. john personna says:

    @Jack:

    Starbucks changed their policy because guns-rights groups DID make it a party to show up at their stores, strapped.

  60. anjin-san says:

    the typical person gun owner/concealed/open carrier doesn’t leave the house with the intention of “bring[ing] a gun into Starbucks in the first place. They leave the house intent on protecting themselves and loved ones.

    If they are carrying the weapon openly, it is unloaded, no? How will they protect anyone? Ask the bad guy to hold on a sec while they pop a clip in?

    The only function of open carry by a citizen is either intimidation, stupidity, or trying to make up for something that is lacking elsewhere.

  61. Jack says:

    @Heisenberg:

    Personally, if I were a criminal, I’d love open carry. Then you know who to shoot first before they can unholster. Even better, you can see it so you can just shoot them in the back.

    So if you were playing poker with a man whose hand was face up and showing a full house Aces over Kings, you would continue to play that hand, raise the bet in this case, all in the hopes you could beat him? Or would you fold and wait for a better hand?

    The idea that criminals, who are typically less than intelligent, would go into a 7/11 for example, see the open carrier immediately, shoot them, and then proceed with their crime has been disproved time and again.

  62. Gavrilo says:

    @john personna:

    Try this: Why do S.W.A.T. teams use the AR-15 rifle? I’ll answer it for you. Because they don’t want to get shot. They want a firearm that is accurate and dependable and has enough firepower to put down an armed criminal as quickly as possible, minimizing the chance that he will be able to shoot back. Is it really impossible for you to grasp that a homeowner might want one for the same reason?

  63. James Pearce says:

    @Gavrilo:

    If the AR-15 has such a limited utility, why does nearly every S.W.A.T. team in America use them?

    Isn’t it obvious in their name?

    Special
    Weapons

    And
    Tactics

  64. john personna says:

    @Gavrilo:

    First of all, I feel perfectly safe without a gun in the house.

    The national statistics are that not having a gun makes me safer, not more at risk.

    But let’s suppose that someone lives in a place where a gun is a positive influence (and not a prime reason to break, enter, and rob!).

    In that case, why wouldn’t a coach gun, a double barreled 12 gauge, be the absolutely scariest thing an intruder could face?

    Go 10 gauge if you really want to put the fear of God in them … and you have something that is not as fit for mass murder in spree killing.

  65. Jack says:

    @Rob in CT: And yet the .gov send out SWAT teams to serve warrants, shoot a dear, and other such nonsense.

  66. john personna says:

    (I actually knew a guy who propped up an imitation AR-15, non functional, in the corner of his poor apartment, because he thought it would scare away burglars. He didn’t quite get that the AR, if functional would be the only damn thing worth stealing in the place.)

  67. Jack says:

    @john personna: And because the anti-gun nuts protested the gun rights groups support of Star Bucks policy of abiding by state law.

  68. john personna says:

    @Jack:

    I just advised Gavrilo to get a stage coach gun.

    Does that make me an “anti-gun nut” by some weird logic?

  69. Bob @ Youngstown says:

    @al-Ameda:

    if I walked into a Starbucks and saw an “average person” openly carrying a gun I would leave that Starbucks.

    I agree completely, and I feel the same about restaurants, movie theathers, sporting events, public parks, etc.
    But let me make a further point. It’s not about the gun it’s about the person with the gun. If the person with the gun is my wife, my son, someone that I know and trust then I would feel comfortable.

    Someone that I don’t know is an entirely different matter. I don’t know if they have been hearing voices, or if they are a Zimmerman clone, or are under mental duress.

    The gun rights proponents are saying “trust me, I’m a good guy”. But until they really try to get guns out of the hands of the “bad guys” (universal background checks being a good starting point), they are a culture with “bad apples” in their midst. And as such, not worthy of my trust.

  70. Jack says:

    @anjin-san:

    If they are carrying the weapon openly, it is unloaded, no? How will they protect anyone? Ask the bad guy to hold on a sec while they pop a clip in?

    The only function of open carry by a citizen is either intimidation, stupidity, or trying to make up for something that is lacking elsewhere.

    No it is not unloaded. I open carry routinely in OH/PA/VA/WV and I assure you it is always loaded. There is no purpose for an unloaded weapon. I open carry because I can. There is no law against it. The same reason I own a 60″ TV, a large home, multiple vehicles, and drink Pepsi by the gallon.

    If the only function of open carry is intimidation, stupidity, or “trying to make up for something lacking elsewhere” then our police and military are only intimidatory, stupid, or “trying to make up for something lacking elsewhere?

    Yes, by the way, apparently all of our police and military carry guns to make up for their extremely small penises. We should only hire people with stupendously large penises with which to go around whacking criminals and terrorists.

  71. wr says:

    @Timothy: I agree with you entirely. I think you and all your fellow gun-worshippers should absolutely boycott Starbucks. Hell, just to be on the safe side, you shouldn’t even go near one. Everyone will be better off that way.

  72. rudderpedals says:

    Open carry is cosplay for grown adults

  73. Jack says:

    @john personna: Did I say you were anti gun? No. Coach and shotguns are good home defense weapons. They are however a little impractical to carry open/concealed everywhere you go. Thus many go the alternate route and buy a smaller gun to carry during their daily routine.

  74. Jack says:

    @Bob @ Youngstown: So you think criminals who already have guns are going to participate in background checks before they buy their next gun from the trunk of a car or a back alley?

  75. Jack says:

    @wr: Yes, because all the criminals are surely going to abide by Star Bucks wishes.

  76. Jack says:

    @Bob @ Youngstown:

    The gun rights proponents are saying “trust me, I’m a good guy”. But until they really try to get guns out of the hands of the “bad guys” (universal background checks being a good starting point), they are a culture with “bad apples” in their midst. And as such, not worthy of my trust.

    The background check system isn’t really designed to keep guns out of the hands of prohibited persons — the definition of which can change at the stroke of a pen — it’s there to protect gun dealers from making an illegal transaction.

    On top of everything else, they’re completely unenforceable.

    But there’s also a moral case against mandatory background checks: they essentially revoke Second Amendment protections — universally — by stating that no one has the right to keep and bear arms without first getting the OK from the ATF — and paying a fee to have that right. If this were applied to any other Constitutional rights, there’d be uproar.

  77. Gold Star for Robot Boy says:

    Jack, your arguments seem to be a variation of, “It wouldn’t be 100% effect, so we shouldn’t even try.”

  78. Jack says:

    @Gold Star for Robot Boy: Universal background checks will not be universal, so why pass the legislation? Murder is already illegal yet the DC guy did it 12 times. Should we pass another ineffective law to make it illegaler?

  79. grumpy realist says:

    @Jack: no. None of the Amendment rights are something that trump everything else. Your First Amendment rights are curtailed under certain situations You don’t get to ride around the neighborhood blaring out whatever you want through a loudspeaker at 2 AM. Noise ordinance. You don’t get to scream “First Amendment!” to get around that. Neither does the supposed freedom of the Second Amendment trump all. We don’t allow felons to own guns. Neither do we allow people to carry guns (unless licensed) onto planes, into courtrooms, etc. ALL of your rights are limited.

    And yes, if you have been convicted of a capital crime and sentenced to death, even your right to life is removed.

    It’s called civilization. Get used to it.

  80. Jack says:

    @grumpy realist:

    None of the Amendment rights are something that trump everything else. Your First Amendment rights are curtailed under certain situations You don’t get to ride around the neighborhood blaring out whatever you want through a loudspeaker at 2 AM. Noise ordinance. You don’t get to scream “First Amendment!” to get around that. Neither does the supposed freedom of the Second Amendment trump all. We don’t allow felons to own guns. Neither do we allow people to carry guns (unless licensed) onto planes, into courtrooms, etc. ALL of your rights are limited.

    Wrong.

    I do get to ride around the neighborhood blaring whatever I want through a loudspeaker at 2AM. However, I can be cited. This has nothing to do with the 1st Amendment. Right after I get cited, I can do it again and again and all the police can do is cite me. Rights can only be “limited” with respect to very specific times and very specific places.

    There is such a thing as prior restraint which the courts have routinely said is illegal. The police cannot cite me before I ride around the neighborhood blaring whatever I want through a loudspeaker at 2AM simply because I have access to a car and a loudspeaker.

    Also, anyone who can’t be trusted with a gun can’t be trusted without a custodian.

  81. mantis says:

    @Jack:

    nd because the anti-gun nuts protested the gun rights groups support of Star Bucks policy of abiding by state law

    There is no state law requiring businesses to allow guns inside their doors.

  82. mantis says:

    @Jack:

    So you think criminals who already have guns are going to participate in background checks before they buy their next gun from the trunk of a car or a back alley?

    Those guns are originally purchased legally. Many of us want to see that stop.

  83. john personna says:

    No it is not unloaded. I open carry routinely in OH/PA/VA/WV and I assure you it is always loaded. There is no purpose for an unloaded weapon. I open carry because I can. There is no law against it. The same reason I own a 60″ TV, a large home, multiple vehicles, and drink Pepsi by the gallon.

    That doesn’t really sound like good risk assessment. For most people the gun would discharge accidentally before it went off in self defense. Heck, the most likely use against a human is in suicide.

    I’d need a special condition before I considered it. If I was say a jeweler or gold dealer, or bail bondsman, or knew I was being stalked and had a restraining order on some nut …

  84. Heisenberg says:

    @Jack: Really? Then why do armed security personnel get shot first in bank robberies? Why did the Naval Yard shooting involve the perp shooting a guard who was openly carrying a gun and then stealing his weapon?

  85. David M says:

    @Jack:

    There is no question that gun control can work, arguing otherwise is just silly. Now you’re free to argue that you prefer the shootings continue than be inconvenienced, but you shouldn’t get to avoid making that point explicitly.

  86. Jack says:

    @mantis: I didn’t say there was a law requiring businesses to allow guns inside their oors. Your reading comprehension is off today. Personal property rights typically override my rights to carry a gun. But that is no different than a store saying “no shirts, no shoes, no service”.

    However, Star Bucks in the past, typically responded to queries by anti gun nuts by saying, “We abide by state laws concerning the carrying of a firearm”. In CA where no one may open carry, it was illegal open carry in Star Bucks. In VA where open carry is legal, it is legal to open carry in Star Bucks. In Texas, where only concealed carry is allowed, only concealed carry is legal in Star Bucks. The only policy change is saying we prefer they not carry, but if people do, it is still legal to carry in Star Bucks however carry is legal in that state.

  87. Jack says:

    @mantis: So you admit you want to ban all gun ownership. At least you are open about it.

    P.S. It’ll never happen.

  88. David M says:

    @Jack:

    You clearly distorted what mantis wrote. That’s not the sign of someone arguing in good faith.

  89. Jack says:

    @john personna: Is that why NY police can’t shoot accurately? Because their gun accidentally goes off because they open carry with a round/magazine in the chamber?

    Rule 4: Keep your booger hook off the bang switch until you are ready to fire.

  90. William Wilgus says:

    Starbucks openly welcomed guns to get the business of the gun nuts. That scared the others away, so now they wnt the gun nuts but not their guns. What they actually want is everybodys’ money. Everything else was just ‘marketing’.

  91. Jack says:

    @David M:

    Those guns are originally purchased legally. Many of us want to see that stop.

    How did I distort that? He is saying he wants to see guns illegal to purchase.

  92. David M says:

    @Jack:

    Reading comprehension isn’t your strong suit is it.

  93. anjin-san says:

    @ Jack

    Star Bucks

    Are you confused about the name of this business?

    Starbucks…

  94. john personna says:

    @Jack:

    Police carry guns because they have a high chance of meeting criminals each day. Thus, all the risks of accidental discharge, civilian deaths, and even suicide (it happens though usually off-duty) are balanced by a realistic threat.

    A typical civilian has no such balancing threat.

  95. john personna says:

    @Jack:

    I’ll back Jack on that one. The sentence looks like it want to reduce first-sales.

  96. Jack says:

    @Heisenberg: In bank robberies, the bad guys shoot the bank guard first because they know he’s there and they determined the reward outweighed the risk–and they typically outnumber the guards. In DC, the guard had poor situational awareness and the bad guy knew he was there. In all likelihood he came up on that guard from behind after assembling his shotgun in the bathroom (based upon reports I have read).

  97. Jack says:

    @William Wilgus: Agreed. The bottom line is dollars. This is their business and they can do as they like. I will say, that Cabellas stopped all AR-15 orders after Newtown and they saw a dramatic loss in business from gun owners. So they went back to selling AR-15s.

  98. mantis says:

    @Jack:

    : So you admit you want to ban all gun ownership.

    Nope, I do not.

    At least you are open about it.

    Funny you write that about a position you invented for me.

    If that’s how it works, fine. Thank you for admitting you are in favor of more gun murders. At least you are open about it.

  99. Jack says:

    @anjin-san: I don’t utilize their service so excuse me for my ignorance on the proper noun Starbucks.

  100. JKB says:

    @grumpy realist: So JKB–it looks like your choices are if you don’t want an organized government

    I never said I didn’t “want” or concede a need for government. What I said, was government is force, which is violence and I prefer my force to be small and limited in scope.@

    Rafer Janders: no one’s forcing you to live here.

    Why should I leave my country? I’m a free citizen and can therefore advocate for small and limited government as much as I want. Under threat of IRS targeting granted, but still mostly free.

  101. john personna says:

    @Jack:

    Getting back to gun types, that’s sad, isn’t it?

    Why should the AR-15 be the best selling gun in America?

    It is not ideal for any game hunting, nor for target shooting. Do buyers already have more useful guns? Is this just one more for the (one hopes) secure and locked gun cabinet?

  102. Jack says:

    @mantis: Those guns are originally purchased legally. Many of us want to see that stop.

    That was how I read those sentences. Please explain what you meant me to understand.

  103. mantis says:

    @john personna:

    I’ll back Jack on that one. The sentence looks like it want to reduce first-sales.

    Only if you ignore context: A person buying guns legally and then selling them illegally. That is something many of us would like to see stop. There are ways to lessen such purchases without banning any guns.

  104. David M says:

    @Jack:

    No where in those sentences is the idea of banning all gun ownership even hinted at.

  105. john personna says:

    @mantis:

    OK, thanks for expanding. Expansion is good.

    I think that if we accept (as do many democratic and free nations) individual gun ownership, of certain types, we can also ask for other reasonable things, like secure storage.

  106. john personna says:

    @David M:

    Come on, it was a one-line, two-sentence post.

  107. al-Ameda says:

    @Gavrilo:

    If the AR-15 has such a limited utility, why does nearly every S.W.A.T. team in America use them?

    Kind of begs the question: Do we want an American citizen to be a one-person S.W.A.T. Team?

  108. Raider says:

    The reason he is asking and not trying to enforce his request is because many state laws allow people to legally carry their firearms in an establishment such as Starbucks. Places such as bars, federal, state, and county buildings you cannot carry your firearm.

    Overall, the bottom line is this:

    Amendment II

    “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.”

  109. john personna says:

    @al-Ameda:

    I certainly do not. It leads to an arms race, civilian vs cops, each arming up, in response to the other.

  110. David M says:

    @john personna:

    I don’t have much patience for the “you want to ban all gun ownership” claims unless they are actually clearly spelled out. It’s a common tactic that I think needs extremely aggressive push-back.

  111. mantis says:

    I admit that my earlier post was ambiguous, especially if you ignore context, but that should not be cause to jump to wild conclusions. I do not wish to ban gun ownership or sales, FWIW. I do think national registration and gun sales tracking would allow prosecution of lawbreaking straw purchasers who arm gangs and other criminals. Registration is not an infringement on ownership.

  112. john personna says:

    @Raider:

    Dude. Read up on the 1934 National Firearms Act.

    It establishes limitations to individual gun ownership, even recognizing the right to bear arms.

    Most reasonable people only want to fine-tune the restrictions in the 1934 act, while preserving the right to hunt, sport, and (if you believe you need it) protection.

    The “assault rifle bans” are actually consistent with that, trying again t o fine tune, while preserving your right to own arms.

  113. Jack says:

    @john personna:

    1. It’s marginally priced. AKs are cheaper but a lot of people like to buy American.
    2. Ammunition is plentiful, the military uses it so producers produce it.
    3. Accuracy is in the hands of the user.
    4. I target shoot my AR-15 at 100 yards often and put 30 rounds in a 4×4 triangle.
    5. I do keep mine secured in a RedHead vault and I advise all gun owners to properly secure their firearms.
    6. I like to have “alternatives”. I also have a Remington 870 (the gun of choice by the Navy Yard shooter, does that make me a bad person?), I have a S&W 9mm, a Sig .40, a Ruger .45, a Ruger .357/.38, a 30.06. And I’m not done yet. I need a plinking rifle, and a good sniping rifle. Also ~1000-1500 rounds for each.
    7. Not to be snarky, but none of my firearms have ever killed anyone, are they broke?
    6. Why did New Yorkers get up in arms over Bloomys attempt to ban large sodas?

  114. mantis says:

    @Raider:

    The reason he is asking and not trying to enforce his request is because many state laws allow people to legally carry their firearms in an establishment such as Starbucks.

    I see the troother is back to demonstrate his ignorance.

  115. Jack says:

    @mantis: It’s impossible to enforce laws on resale of a firearm. Otherwise the gangs would be out of business.

  116. JKB says:

    @john personna: It is not ideal for any game hunting, nor for target shooting. Do buyers already have more useful guns?

    You make this statement but by making it you reveal you know nothing about the AR-15, except perhaps it is normally black in color and looks scary to you.

    The AR-15 is infinitely modifiable as well as being lightweight, low recoil. It can easily be adjusted for individuals with shorter arms or smaller body frames. The much maligned “pistol” grip along with the weapons balance makes it easy to use by those who may have limited use of both hands or arms. In addition, it has a nearly uncountable plethora of accessories both useful and not. And if you can only afford one weapon, why seek the ideal for one task when you can have a multi-tasker that is quite adequate for a variety of shooting activities. Oh, and while the .223 is a fine round, the AR-15 may be easily changed to the larger calibers by a simple barrel swap.

  117. john personna says:

    @Jack:

    None of those answers my prime questions. In essence you say that there are other assault rifles people could [buy] and enjoy.

    If you want accuracy for sport of any type, you buy a bolt-action rifle for about 1/3 the cost of an AR.

  118. john personna says:

    @JKB:

    You do understand that you can get a nice bolt-action .223 from Savage for far, far, less than a modded AR, right?

  119. Jack says:

    @mantis:

    I do think national registration and gun sales tracking would allow prosecution of lawbreaking straw purchasers who arm gangs and other criminals. Registration is not an infringement on ownership.

    A straw purchaser is someone by definition that is not prohibited from buying a firearm. Registration could only track the gun back to that person, it cannot determine intent. I can buy a firearm today and sell it tomorrow without registering the new owner and come up with a million reasons why I don’t have that gun if/when it gets used in a crime. Also, the average time to crime for a legally purchased gun is 11 years (according to the FBI statistics).
    A FEDERAL registration is unconstitutional, but that does not bar state registration schemes.

  120. David M says:

    @Jack:

    I can buy a firearm today and sell it tomorrow without registering the new owner

    So you’ve identified the problem. Next step is fixing it.

  121. Jack says:

    @john personna: A bolt action requires multiple reloading. The AR-15 does not. They serve two different purposes.

  122. Jack says:

    @David M: You can mandate that all firearms go through background checks but you cannot enforce it. Enforcement will be piecemeal, no different than that of speeding enforcement. Meanwhile criminals will still get the firearms. Not to mention, they can just claim they are a Mexican drug cartel and Eric Holder will special deliver them to their front door.

  123. john personna says:

    @Jack:

    A bolt action requires multiple reloading. The AR-15 does not. They serve two different purposes.

    Dude. We are back to sane uses. You are not an amateur swat team.

  124. Raider says:

    @ john personna and mantis

    “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”

    It’s the right of the people to have whatever armament the governing authorities have. Should the governing authorities decide to betray and go against the people by using force of arms, then the people need to be equally and adequately armed to resist and put an end to their challenge. All true American men understand this without any doubts.

    God loves you all.

  125. Jack says:

    @john personna: I’m not trying to be a SWAT team. But in the instance of multiple intruders, the AR-15 is much better than a bolt action. Also, I wanted one. I don’t have to explain my reason for wanting on any more than I need to explain why I want extra sour cream on my taco.

  126. JKB says:

    @john personna: You do understand that you can get a nice bolt-action .223 from Savage for far, far, less than a modded AR, right?

    So?

    And a bolt action rifle would not be as accommodating to someone with a arm/hand disability. You want to accommodate Americans with Disabilities, don’t you?

  127. john personna says:

    @Jack:

    I’m not trying to be a SWAT team. But in the instance of multiple intruders, …

    Well, you see this is why I said above “against a single possibly-or-poorly armed intruder (the most likely scenario)” …

    What is it about your life that makes you think multiple armed intruders is within remote possibility?

  128. john personna says:

    @JKB:

    dude. you just told me that AR-15s were ideal for disabled persons.

  129. john personna says:

    @Raider:

    Too bad the law establishing limits has been on the books since 1934, eh?

  130. Jack says:

    @john personna: What is it about your life that makes you think multiple armed intruders is not within remote possibility?

    Why the obsessive cumpulsion to know why people want something that is completely legal?

  131. john personna says:

    @Jack:

    What is it about your life that makes you think multiple armed intruders is not within remote possibility?

    I am not a criminal. I don’t associate with criminals.

  132. john personna says:

    @Jack:

    Why the obsessive cumpulsion to know why people want something that is completely legal?

    Is it a good law? Or does it mis-balance the risk equation?

    Does it actually encourage safer behavior overall?

  133. Jack says:

    @john personna: So home intruders only break into other criminals’ homes and businesses intent on burglary, rape, and murder?

    I guess this guy must be a criminal or associate with criminals.

    http://www.rationalityrebooted.com/2013/08/armed-homeowner-confronts-multiple-home.html

  134. Jack says:
  135. mantis says:

    @Jack:

    Straw purchasers arming criminals follow patterns that could be identified with registration and sales records.

    Also, the average time to crime for a legally purchased gun is 11 years (according to the FBI statistics).

    It’s a lot shorter for straw purchases. If a gun is used in a crime and traced back to a buyer whose purchasing habits imply illegal activity, it’s worth investigating, something only possible with robust record keeping the gun lobby opposes.

    A FEDERAL registration is unconstitutional

    False. You are mistaking registration and regulation, I’m guessing. The SCOTUS saw no problem with licensing in Heller, and the federal vs. local distinction makes no difference.

  136. Jack says:
  137. john personna says:

    @Jack:

    That’s an interesting example. It’s Las Vegas, right? It is not Anytown, USA.

    But beyond that, and this is the important part:

    ” Armed homeowner who shot at the intruders

    The intruders immediately fled.”

    It was NOT a fight to the last bullet. It was a case of “oh shit, someone is shooting at us, run.”

  138. Jack says:

    @mantis: They can trace the crime guns now. It’s more difficult but they can do it. Canada had a national registration but did away with it because it cost to much and it never caught a single criminal.

    Federal law prohibits a federal database of gun owners. Registration is that federal database.

  139. john personna says:

    @Jack:

    Your burden of proof here is that an assault rifle is necessary to “fight off” invaders.

  140. Jack says:

    @john personna: There were still multiple intruders. According to you it doesn’t happen unless one associates or is involved in crime.

  141. Jack says:

    @john personna: I didn’t say “necessary”. I said more useful than a bolt action, less useful than a flamethrower (not withstanding the damage to you r home that may occur), both of which are legal. It’s my choice.

    Again, why the obsession?

  142. john personna says:

    @Jack:

    Think shark attacks, and whether people should go to the beach at all.

    For most Americans, in most neighborhoods, a multiple intruder home invasion is beyond rational expectation.

    Yes, I could link to shark attacks. Should that stop you from swimming? Would you be safer swimming with a boom-stick? Probably not.

  143. john personna says:

    @Jack:

    My obsession with reason is probably genetically ingrained.

    Only by throwing out bad logic do we fine the true path.

  144. Raider says:

    @Mantis

    “If a gun is used in a crime and traced back to a buyer whose purchasing habits imply illegal activity, it’s worth investigating”

    I’m assuming from your statement that we should immediately prosecute “fast and furious” Holder and the rest of the lying fast and furious crew, including the usurper Obama. Am I wrong?

  145. Jack says:

    @john personna: A person’s chance of winning tonight’s Powerball is 1 in 175 million but people still buy tickets. I’m betting the odds of a multiple person home invasion are much less than that.

  146. Jack says:

    @john personna: But you keep asking why. You are like an incessant 5 year old. When given an answer they ask why, why, why again and again.

    My answer is because I can. I don’t need any more reason than that.

  147. JKB says:

    @john personna: dude. you just told me that AR-15s were ideal for disabled persons.

    I did not say ideal, I said accommodating of their disability.

    You got something against disabled people? If one loses the full function of their hand or arms are they to be prohibited from self defense or engaging in an enjoyable hobby?

  148. Jack says:

    @JKB: And in the case of New York police, nor are they barred simply because they lack the ability to reason or shoot straight.

  149. David M says:

    @Jack:

    My answer is because I can. I don’t need any more reason than that.

    That’s a pretty solid argument for massively increasing the gun regulation, registration and tracking right there.

  150. wr says:

    @Jack: “Yes, because all the criminals are surely going to abide by Star Bucks wishes”

    You know, I’d rather take my chances that the Starbucks I happen to be in will not be the subject of a violent criminal assault or robbery than share a Starbucks with a lot of morons who need to carry weapons to show how important they are, or who are so terrified of modern civilisation that that can’t leave home without the tech to kill at least a dozen people.

  151. john personna says:

    @Jack:

    Right, but does buying Powerball increase the users’ chance of death?

    Remember, the statistics are that owning a gun increases, and does not decrease, the owner-family’s chances of violent death.

  152. Jack says:

    @David M: So exercising a right is a pretty solid argument for massively increasing the regulation, registration and tracking? Time to ID all the anonymous posters on the internets, all people practicing religion, all the Occupy nuts for assembling and protesting the government for redress, and Lois Lerner for claiming the 5th.

  153. john personna says:

    @JKB:

    So … what other “enjoyable hobbies” do we support which lead to death among bystanders and non-participants?

    We kind of let skydivers kill themselves, in good part because they don’t take anyone with them.

    We don’t let anyone have a fireworks license, because, even though pyrotechnics is fun, they might hurt someone else.

  154. David M says:

    @Jack:

    There’s something different between buying guns for criminals and going to church, I just can’t put my finger on it.

  155. wr says:

    @Raider: “It’s the right of the people to have whatever armament the governing authorities have.”

    So I have the right to own landmines? Rocket launchers? Nuclear bombs? Please do elucidate.

  156. Jack says:

    @john personna: That old argument? Owning a car also increases the the owner-family’s chances of violent death. I bet having electricity also increase the chance of dying by electric shock. And owning a pool increases the chance of drowning. Who’d of thunk it? We must get the government more involved in the ownership of things that might cause death.

    Owning a gun increases my odds of surviving a violent confrontation. Not having a gun decreases my odds of surviving a violent confrontation.

  157. john personna says:

    @Jack:

    The 1934 act established that there are categories of guns which may not be owned by civilians.

    After that, it is fine tuning. And I say we should tune rapid-change, high-capacity, magazines out of the civilian domain.

    They may hunt, sport, and protect themselves without them.

  158. john personna says:

    @Jack:

    Yes, every one of those laws tries to tune the law for cost and benefit.

    Do you suppose someone who had a swimming pool with no kiddie fence ever said “It’s my right to have this pool without a fence, and because of that, it should never have a fence?”

  159. Phillip says:

    “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.”

    Come on, it was a one-line, two-sentence post.

    Expansion is good.

  160. Jack says:

    @David M: And yet our president sees nothing wrong with buying guns for Syrians who may or not be criminal gangs in collusion with Alqaida who will likely turn said guns on US persons/Westerners at the first chance they get.

    Maybe we should send them bibles.

  161. john personna says:

    I think as this thread runs down, Jack and JKB want their assault rifles, even if they have no good reason for them, and even if owning them (statistically) brings more risk to themselves and their family than not owning them.

    That folks, is gun politics in America.

  162. Jack says:

    @john personna: Yep, fine tune those suckers right out of existence. Heller says you cannot ban guns in common use. The AR-15 is in common use. “Regular” capacity magazines are in common use. The Navy Yard guy had a shotgun with a 6 shell magazine. Should we limit our guns to single shot only? Maybe you are an originalist and think only muskets are allowed.

  163. Jack says:

    @john personna: I don’t need a FU^&*ng REASON. That’s the thing about America. I don’t have to justify myself or my legal actions to anyone.

    Again, I have all those guns and they have never killed anyone.

  164. michael reynolds says:

    This makes me happy. This is what I’ve been pushing for: slow but steady social pressure.

    The way to weaken the gun cult is to turn them into litterers. When I was a kid no one thought twice about throwing a McDonald’s bag out the window of a car. Then came the anti-litter campaign, and now I’m a creep if I spit gum out of the window on a freeway.

    That’s how we take down the gun cult. Don’t go at them with laws, go at them with the fact that they are creepy, disturbing, messed up people who need to stop pretending this is anything but a dangerous and creepy obsession.

    Change the way people treat these creatures, ostracize them, exclude them, don’t let your kids play at their houses, let them keep all their crazy laws until the tipping point is reached and their numbers drop precipitously. They may have a lot of gutless politicians in their pockets, but Senators can’t do a single damned thing about that.

  165. James Pearce says:

    @Jack:

    (T)he typical person gun owner/concealed/open carrier doesn’t leave the house with the intention of “bring[ing] a gun into Starbucks in the first place. They leave the house intent on protecting themselves and loved ones.

    Gimme a break, man….

    There are only a few places in this country where it wouldn’t be unusual to show up with a gun on your hip. A gun range is one. A NRA meeting might be another. But in your daily commercial interactions, it’s completely and totally unnecessary.

  166. Jack says:

    @michael reynolds: I think you should look in a mirror before calling others creepy and disturbing.

  167. john personna says:

    @Jack:

    You end with a declaration that irrationality is all you need, not good logic, good reason, or best practices.

    Tell me, do you believe in American Exceptionalism?

  168. Jack says:

    @James Pearce: Right up until it’s necessary. That’s the thing, criminals don’t call ahead and schedule a time to rob/shoot/kill you.

  169. Jack says:

    @john personna: Yes, I believe in American Exceptionalism.

  170. JKB says:

    @David M: That’s a pretty solid argument for massively increasing the gun regulation, registration and tracking right there.

    So your reasoning is because people are free and aren’t afraid to exercise that freedom, we need gun regulation, registration and tracking?

  171. john personna says:

    @Jack:

    Our right to be stupider than everyone else?

    That’s what it seems it comes down to, each and every time. We’ll do the stupid thing, but we’re special. Special in a short-bus kind of way, I guess.

  172. john personna says:

    @Jack:

    Just to be clear Jack, if you were smart, you’d offer a gun control division that allowed hunting, sport, and home protection, while excluding the worst cases, discouraged criminals.

    It is not smart to draw a stupid line, argue the slippery slope, that any rule which hinders criminals is the end of the world for you too.

  173. JKB says:

    @James Pearce:

    I think you’d be surprised at how many people you interact with who are carrying a firearm. Assuming, of course, you aren’t in NYC, Chicago or DC. Then you’d probably still be surprised but also in danger.

  174. Jack says:

    @john personna: If that’s how you want to define it then I will stand up for your right to have that position. I on the other hand do not think law abiding gun ownership is stupid. Will you defend my right to have that position?

  175. JKB says:

    @john personna: Our right to be stupider than everyone else?

    And from what I’ve seen, you aren’t shy about exercising that right, john.

  176. john personna says:

    @JKB:

    That was pretty empty. Here are some facts for you:

    High gun ownership makes countries less safe, US study finds

    So .. am I being less smart by accepting those studies?

    Wouldn’t dumb people just not care about those studies?

  177. john personna says:

    @Jack:

    We can certainly vote on it, but I fear that the vote in the US is largely irrational.

    Do you know what a tautology is? It’s a circular truth which attempts to confirm itself.

    The tautology you’ve offered is that since you have a right to certain guns and practices, you have a right to those guns and practices. Circular. Tautology.

    It does not strive for the best possible course.

  178. Jack says:

    @john personna: I’m not arguing that any rule which hinders criminals is wrong. I’m OK with NICS checks to purchase a firearm during its initial purchase. That was a compromise from the gun guys if you remember correctly. But a national registration, and universal background checks which will stop a shooting spree never are not the answer.

    Also, the 2nd amendment is not about hunting or sport. It’s about one’s ability to protect liberty. To protect my liberty, I may have to defend myself from others. Hands and fists only get you so far. A gun is an extension of the ability to protect oneself regardless of age, weight, infermaty, and muscle strength against one or more attackers. It increases, not insures, the odds of survival in a violent scenario. It forces others to use persuasion rather than force–or to just leave me the hell alone.

  179. Jack says:

    @john personna: Said study was debunked already.

  180. Jack says:

    @john personna: I have a right to practice religion. To those who would suggest I don’t, I would point them to the 1st amendment. I need no other reasons. You can call that circular all you want, but you cannot argue it’s simplicity and truth.

  181. john personna says:

    @Jack:

    Again, the 1934 law establishes what has been uncontested since, that the government may distinguish between types of guns allowed for citizenry and for police and military.

    You haven’t tried to overturn that above. You haven’t said you should have a tommy gun.

    And yet you have sort of this dull insistence that anything just this side of the 1934 barrier should always be in civilian hands .. no matter the cost in civilian deaths.

  182. john personna says:

    @Jack:

    If your religion involved blood sacrifice, police would be on it pretty quick, eh?

  183. michael reynolds says:

    @Jack:

    Jack:

    Let’s be clear. You have a perfect RIGHT to belong to the Gun Cult. I wouldn’t do a single thing to reduce your right.

    I just want to stop pretending you people are anything but sad, sick fantasists who endanger everyone around you by virtue of your creepy, narcissistic, sexually revealing, irresponsible and ultimately pathetic obsession.

    You have a perfect RIGHT to be a flaming a-hole because the Founders made a few rather stupid mistakes. But that doesn’t change what you are.

  184. Jack says:

    @john personna: And your position is what? We can keep moving the bar until all guns are outlawed? if your answer is no, then there will still be mas killings. I mean if it saves just one life. Think about the children. People in this country want to legislate based upon emotion right after a gun incident/mass shooting/murder spree pick your adjective. Rather than blame the shooter, they want to blame the tool and say by limiting said tool this will solve the problem. Should we pass a “Don’t shoot your mom in the face and steal her guns” law? Or do the laws currently on the books pretty much cover that? If every gun control measure proposed in the last 20 years were in effect, the Navy Yard guy will have been able to get the shotgun and do what he did.

  185. Jack says:

    @john personna: Depends on where I got the blood. I bet I can sacrifice a chicken today in the name of religion and the cops can’t do squat.

  186. Jack says:

    @michael reynolds: And I fought for your right to call me a flaming ahole. When will you fight for my rights to own a gun? Or do you only support those rights with which you agree?

  187. michael reynolds says:

    @Jack:

    Do you know what a non-sequitur is? If not, read your comment. That’s a non-sequitur. And now you know.

  188. Jack says:

    @michael reynolds: So when they come after your 1st amendment rights I suppose you’ll just roll over like you expect me to do?

  189. john personna says:

    @Jack:

    I think slippery slope arguments are stupid and limiting.

    They EXPLICITLY say “let’s not find the best solution, because it might someday lead to a worse one.”

    We should go for the best solution, without fear.

  190. michael reynolds says:

    And who are “they?”

    And, really, are you capable of reading? See where I wrote that I totally support your RIGHT to be a small, frightened man hiding behind a gun?

  191. rudderpedals says:

    Wow someone’s putting a lot of faith into a carbine. If the risk is a coordinated assault why aren’t we talking about kill zones, claymores and other traps, sentries and bunkers and what have you? Otherwise I don’t think you’re serious.

  192. michael reynolds says:

    @john personna:

    Look how helpless they are when the conversation shifts away from law to social pressure. All their cultist brainwashing is built around alleged threats to their 2d amendment rights. Push outside that paradigm and they got nothing.

  193. john personna says:

    And the best solution on guns is to set as legal those types which provide hunting, target, and home protection abilities, while not being paramilitary types more easily adaptable to all kinds of crimes.

  194. grumpy realist says:

    @Raider: so by that logic I should be able to keep an A-bomb in my basement.

    You’re nuts.

  195. Jack says:

    @john personna: So if the best solution for preventing a Civil war was to just hang onto that whole slavery thing, I guess we should have gone forward without fear? How about the abolitionists that refused to return escaped slaves, the law of the land said they must return them. I guess they should have gone for that whole best solution thing and sent them back south, huh?

  196. michael reynolds says:

    @rudderpedals:

    In his head it’s him with a rifle against a Blackhawk coming to take him away to a concentration camp. And in his fantasy he wins that confrontation. Him and his little popgun.

  197. john personna says:

    @michael reynolds:

    There seems some cognitive dissonance. At first strike they [think] the 1st amendment thinks they can have anything. They don’t really register that the 1934 law set a second pattern, that there are reasonable limits.

  198. john personna says:

    @Jack:

    Um, the armed citizenry that rebelled was the group that wanted to keep slaves?

    (In the best of all possible worlds, slaved would have been freed in the Declaration of Independence.)

  199. michael reynolds says:

    @john personna:

    I think a good compromise would be to allow them to carry whatever weapons the Founders had. So, muzzle-loaders and black powder it is. See how many mass shootings you can pull off with a musket.

  200. Jack says:

    @michael reynolds: Um, “they” are already defining into law what “they” deem a journalist to be. Which by all accounts does not include bloggers or those not being paid by a news organization. This is a creep into 1st amendment rights. How much longer before “they” get to you because someone doesn’t like what you have to say?

  201. michael reynolds says:

    @Jack:

    And again, “they” are?

  202. Jack says:

    @michael reynolds: Let’s see how many articles you can write while we limit you to typeset print and ink passed out on street corners only.

  203. grumpy realist says:

    @Jack: And up to the point that a large number of people took out their guns and blew people away, they were “law-abiding gun owners.”

    It seems you don’t mind if other people have to pay the price. Just so long as you get to do what you want and own as many penile-replacements as you wish.

    Yes, gun nuts are creepy. Living in society means compromise. And if you are acting in a way (anger management issues, history of violence) I’d much rather make sure you DON’T own a gun before you snap and mow down someone. You keep blabbing about rights. What about the rights of all the people around you not to live in fear of your going nuts one day with a loaded weapon?

  204. Jack says:
  205. Jack says:

    @grumpy realist:

    What about the rights of all the people around you not to live in fear of your going nuts one day with a loaded weapon?

    Show me where that right is written? I can’t find it in my copy of the Constitution.

  206. michael reynolds says:

    @Jack:

    Can you tell me who “they” are? I’ve asked a couple times now. You seem to be having a conversation with yourself, unable to respond to what people are actually saying. That’s prima facie evidence of mental illness and should disqualify you from possessing firearms.

  207. john personna says:

    @Jack:

    So .. we are Exceptional in that way?

    We put the rights of gun owners above the rights of victims?

    Sadly, I think you are right, and that is the current political dynamic. Guns make people less safe, but they make some people feel safer, and that’s good enough for us.

    We are a stupid nation.

  208. C. Clavin says:

    “…No it is not unloaded. I open carry routinely in OH/PA/VA/WV and I assure you it is always loaded. There is no purpose for an unloaded weapon. I open carry because I can…”

    Man…I’m sorry…what happened???
    Were you born tiny??? Or did it fall off??? Or did your boyfriend cut it off???

  209. Jack says:

    @grumpy realist: So by your logic; because a large number of men commit rape, and I am a man, I should be considered a potential rapist ? And because I don’t immediately call for the imprisonment of all males who have committed no rape…right up until they do…I “don’t mind if other people have to pay the price?

    And yes…guns, little dicks–it’s as old and worn out as you moms pu$$y.

  210. grumpy realist says:

    P.S. Unrestricted possession of guns wasn’t so much of a problem back in 1776. Population of the US was 2.5M back then. Now it’s 310 Million. You could be an ass with a gun back then and do a hell of a lot less damage. Now if you do something dumb like shooting into the air, you’re far more likely to actually hit someone.

  211. Jack says:

    @C. Clavin: yes…guns, little dicks–it’s as old and worn out as your crusty ahole.

  212. john personna says:

    @michael reynolds:

    At this point Jack is reduced to:

    “It’s my right, because it’s my right, because it’s my right …. exceptionalism!”

    [oops, worse than that, heading off to truly vile comments]

  213. Jack says:

    @grumpy realist:

    Now if you do something dumb like shooting into the air, you’re far more likely to actually hit someone.

    Or, you know, fire indiscriminately into crowds like the NYC police. You know, the target group of your “only the military and police” mantra?

  214. James Pearce says:

    @Jack:

    Right up until it’s necessary. That’s the thing, criminals don’t call ahead and schedule a time to rob/shoot/kill you.

    Made it almost 37 years without being robbed or shot. Not one day with a gun on my hip.

    I have a more comprehensive idea of “self-defense” than merely carrying a gun.

    @JKB: @JKB:

    I think you’d be surprised at how many people you interact with who are carrying a firearm.

    I don’t think I’d be surprised at all. I know a lot of people who own guns.

    They do not carry them around in public, though, because that would be irresponsible.

  215. john personna says:

    @Jack:

    Jack, buddy. If you want to show how safe and sane carry is, you the carrier should show that you don’t get upset and don’t let the lower comments inflame you.

    Sure, they should have stayed off the whole dick size thing, but how hard is it to shrug off?

    It shouldn’t be hard, and if we knew that gun carriers could shrug it off, we’d feel a lot safer.

  216. grumpy realist says:

    @Jack: If you don’t want to be accused of using your gun as a phallic extension, stop waving it around in everyone’s faces, mmmkay?

    And when you keep claiming that you have a RIGHT to have as many guns as you want with as much firepower as you want, you’re not coming off as a mature adult human being, wise in introspection, conscious of the responsibilities of being a citizen of this country. You’re coming off as a whiny 3-year old.

  217. michael reynolds says:

    Well, Jack has certainly proved himself to be the sort of level-headed fellow who should be heavily armed.

  218. Jack says:

    @john personna: No, at this point I’m reduced to Molon Labe.

    You. Not the police, not the military…you know because I don’t want you to admit that a good guy with guns is needed to react to a bad guy with guns. You.

  219. Jack says:

    @john personna: You mistake snarky as upset. I’m enjoying this opportunity to educate and share my position. I don’t expect everyone to understand but everyone should accept. Until it is unlawful for me to own and carry a gun I will own and carry a gun.

  220. michael reynolds says:

    I’ve managed 59 years during which I owned a gun for one year.

    I was held up at gunpoint. Had I been armed, he’d have shot me and I’d be dead.

    My wife was attacked at gunpoint. She escaped by screaming and pretending to faint. Had she had a gun, she’d be dead.

    I accidentally fired a Colt 45 in a room full of people. Had the weapon been elevated another few degrees, someone would have been dead, and I’d be in prison.

    Of course that was all in the real world, so much duller than Jack’s Red Dawn fantasies.

  221. john personna says:

    @Jack:

    I’m the guy who thinks the Australians and the Canadians are better than us, because they demonstrate they are smarter than us.

    They don’t let the crazy rule them.

    They try for the sensible solution.

    We are not the good kind of Exceptional.

  222. Jack says:

    @grumpy realist: But Grumpy. I do have a right to own as many and as powerful as I can legally obtain. I’m not waving that fact, I’m celebrating it.

  223. Jack says:

    @michael reynolds: Guns aren’t for everyone. Not everyone is capable of owning a gun AND following the 4 rules of gun safety. I’m glad you admit that you are not the right type of person and found a way to rid yourself of your gun before you did real damage.

  224. grumpy realist says:

    I think it’s also how the gun fanatics absolutely refuse to admit that there’s any problem with guns or the possible need of further testing and registration that makes us wonder how rational they’re being about all of this. All this “mah gun is mah FREEDUM!” talk while carefully cradling it in your arms and never, ever, ever giving it up….there’s definitely something psychological about it. Never mind the kids killed accidentally–oops, SOL. Never mind the number of people who might have not committed suicide—oops, SOL. Never mind the fistfight that rapidly escalated between two drunks into a shootout because both of them were armed—tsk tsk, too bad.

    I wonder–if it were their own child or sister who have been killed in one of those “oops” accidents, would they be so quick to dismiss our worries?

  225. Jack says:

    @john personna: How about the Japanese? Do you admire their exceptionalism too because guns are outlawed? Yet their suicide rate is the highest in the world. You cannot look at one aspect of a society and say “they” are exceptional because of it while ignoring all the flaws. America is not an a la cart menu.

  226. Tillman says:

    As I look at a thread that’s ballooned to hundreds of comments, most from people trading barbs with one dude, I think on a neat quote I heard in a video game recently:

    “I shall inflict the greatest insult that an enemy can suffer: to be ignored.”

  227. Tillman says:

    @grumpy realist: It makes me wonder about the insane lobbying the car drivers must have undertaken when the government sought to place limits on who could be licensed to drive a car, what lanes they could drive in, etc.

  228. Grewgills says:

    @john personna:
    and it is less likely to go through your walls and accidentally hurt or kill your wife or children.
    When my mother worked as a prosecutor, the police suggested loading the shell with toothpicks. They won’t go through walls, won’t likely kill the person, but will hurt them enough to send them running.

  229. Jack says:

    @grumpy realist: “…any problem with guns or the possible need of further testing…”

    Nope, guns work fine. There’s no problem with them if the go pop when the trigger is pulled. The problem is the individual behind teh trigger.

    Yes! There is too much crime. Not to much gun crime, or too much knife crime, or too much fist crime (which is way higher than AR-15 crime by the way). There is too much crime. What do we do about that problem?

  230. grumpy realist says:

    @Jack: and who are you to determine that you are, in fact, the “right” person to be in charge of a gun? The voices in your head?

    I’m not against gun ownership. But what I want is for gun owners to prove that they have the temperment and the ability to act responsibly with something that is a killing machine. I want to keep guns out of the hands of idiots who have hair-trigger tempers, or who act irresponsibly (e.g. shooting your gun into the air with live ammunition). I want to keep guns out of the hands of people who are depressed, suicidal, or mentally ill.

    I also want gun owners to take RESPONSIBILITY for their guns. That means: you own a gun, you are responsible for what is done with it. You don’t get to dump it on the bed, armed, and then your five year old starts playing with it and kills himself. In such a case, YOU are responsible for his death–and yes, I would send you to jail and take away all your gun-owning privileges in the future. You have demonstrated that you are too irresponsible to be trusted with owning a gun.

    And bugger the Second Amendment freaks. “The Constitution is not a suicide pact.”

  231. Jack says:

    @Tillman: Cars we new and not yet part of Americana. Try to limit a car to one color today and see the outcry.

    But, there was a lot of outcry from buggy whip (not a whip for buggys but a whip the rider of a buggy used on the horse) manufacturers claiming that the automobile would put them out of business. I’m sure a politician or two had their pockets filled and objected to cars on their behalf.

  232. john personna says:

    @Jack:

    Japan beats us on the combined statistics of suicide/murder and life expectancy:

    The result is that the life expectancy for men in the United States ranked the lowest among the 17 countries reviewed, at 75.6 years, while the life expectancy for U.S. women ranked second lowest at 80.7 years. The countries reviewed included Canada, Japan, Australia and much of Western Europe.

    That from:

    Americans far more likely to suffer violent deaths than any other wealthy nation

  233. michael reynolds says:

    @Tillman:

    He’s the one respondent, not the only reader.

  234. john personna says:

    @Tillman:

    Who reads the bottom of a thread, anyway?

  235. James Pearce says:

    @Jack:

    No, at this point I’m reduced to Molon Labe.

    That can be arranged, Jack.

  236. Jack says:

    @grumpy realist: 1st of all, I agree with practically EVERYTHING you just wrote. But how do we get there from here without violating the civil liberty of every gun owner in America?
    A parent who leaves a gun laying around for a kid to use on him/herself should be treated no differently than a parent who leaves a baby in a locked car in the middle of summer. Accident, yes. Is there fault on the part of the parent, yes. But you don’t then incriminate every other parent because of the deed of one.
    It seems too many want to automatically label every gun owner a criminal and limit his rights because of the actions of a few.

  237. Jack says:

    @James Pearce: Bring it fat boy.

  238. Tillman says:

    @Jack:

    Cars we new and not yet part of Americana. Try to limit a car to one color today and see the outcry.

    That analogy doesn’t work. Maybe if you weren’t allowed to buy SUVs and instead had to make do with tricycles or something.

    I mean, you can kill a guy with a tricycle, but it’s not going to be the first choice. You’d pick the SUV.

  239. James Pearce says:

    @Jack:

    Bring it fat boy.

    Time for the ban hammer, is it?

    Perhaps so.

  240. Jack says:

    @Tillman: And I thought all you guys were humorless. That had me busting a gut.

    What I was saying is that because cars were new, the laws grew with them, thus no outrage. While guns have changed, become more lethal, hold more rounds, etc., they are effectively no different than what the framers knew in that period (An 11 round gravity fed semiautomatic existed then). A bullet/cartridge, gunpowder, chamber, and barrel are the major components. The musket was an improvement on the bow and arrow. The bow and arrow an improvement on the spear. The spear and improvement on the hatchet. the hatchet an improvement on the knife. The knife an improvement on the rock/bat. Implements of death have been around a long time.

  241. C. Clavin says:

    @C. Clavin: yes…guns, little dicks–it’s as old and worn out as your crusty ahole.

    Dude…its old because its true…and keep your little stunted member away from my ahole.

  242. john personna says:

    @Jack:

    None of that helps us find the BEST policy for all involved.

    All it does is make the false claim that the Constitution leaves us no choices (1934 NFA).

  243. Jack says:

    @James Pearce: What? People can say I have a little dick, I’m an asshole, I’m secretly gay, but I call you a fat boy and I get banned?

    Class…can you say Selective Enforcement? I knew you could.

  244. Jack says:

    @john personna: The USC already ruled that you cannot ban a select class of guns because they were in common use.

    BTW, the NFA would not pass muster today. It’s stays there because of this odd duty to honor past courts.

  245. Jack says:

    @john personna: Gun shops are illegal in Chicago.

    The city has bans on both assault weapons and high-capacity magazines. And yet each week people continue to die in the streets from gunshot wounds.

    No one can argue that more gun laws in Chicago are going to help. What’s that saying about trying the same thing over and over yet expecting different results?

  246. john personna says:

    @Jack:

    So, can I require a mod to guns in common use?

    Why not? Because “Americans far more likely to suffer violent deaths than any other wealthy nation” and we just don’t care?

    I’m also not sure that the Supreme Court could object to a buy-back.

  247. Jack says:

    @john personna: Run all the voluntary buy backs all you want. You will get crap guns. I on the other hand will stand right next to the gun buyback and offer double what the .gov is offering and hand pick the good guns for my collection.

  248. john personna says:

    @Jack:

    Drafters of Chicago’s law probably had limited expectation. They knew that the city did not have a Border Patrol, nor Customs Agents, not a Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms.

    I don’t really know what they expected, but certainly it is not a good test for a system of national law. For that we have actual national comparisons, and “Americans far more likely to suffer violent deaths than any other wealthy nation”

  249. Jack says:

    John

    I’m out. 0400 is rapidly approaching and I need my beauty rest.

    It was good to have a sensible, albeit heated at times, exchange with you. You haven’t convinced me and I likely haven’t convinced you but hopefully we both learned something and retained some food for thought. I salute your efforts to stay above the ugliness on display here by a select few trolls. (not the internet kind, the bridge kind).

  250. john personna says:

    @Jack:

    I don’t believe the Supreme Court has ruled on a change in law plus a mandatory buy-back.

    For instance, turn in your large capacity magazines for cash now, or face a fine for possession at the end of the year.

  251. James Pearce says:

    @Jack:

    People can say I have a little dick, I’m an asshole, I’m secretly gay, but I call you a fat boy and I get banned?

    You’re right, Jack.

    Your participation in this discussion has not really been helpful.

  252. john personna says:

    @Jack:

    Take care, and try leaving the guns in a safe for a week.

  253. Jack says:

    @john personna: One last comment.

    You keep throwing the sentence “Americans far more likely to suffer violent deaths than any other wealthy nation” around like it’s a club. Again, America is not an a la cart menu. There are things about America that make us unique. Not everything is pretty. But to take those things away reduces what it means to be American. Where would we be today without the free market? Many say the free market causes poverty, leaves the poor behind to suffer. But many great Americans overcame poverty to become wealthy. Many of those wealthy are extremely charitable, some aren’t. But they could not have gotten that way without the free market system, warts and all.

  254. Jack says:

    @James Pearce: Eff off, fat boy.

  255. James Pearce says:

    @Jack:

    One last comment.

    You mean…..two last comments? Or will there be a third?

  256. john personna says:

    @Jack:

    Broadly “exceptionalists” hold a curious contradiction. They’ll accept that we are worse than other nations on this, that, or another scale … but then they say that we can’t change because what we are makes us the best.

    Ah, if we were the best (exceptionalism!) we wouldn’t be worse on all those scales.

    We’d have lower rates of violent crime, longer life expectancy, and cheaper health care.

  257. john personna says:

    Basically “exceptionalism” is a emotional belief which blocks us from rational change.

  258. aFloridian says:

    Two things:

    1. As a serious supporter of CCW and a CCW holder, I don’t carry very often, but I respect other’s rights to do so and there are time when it’s been a great relief, potential lifesaver for me. At the same time, I have always been opposed to open carry, even when I lived in a state that allowed it and knew people who did it. I think that it should probably be legal, but at the same time only a real asshole carries a gun openly in public. It’s in-your-face, you risk someone trying to grab or steal the gun, and it is not very sensitive to many people (including lots of you OTBers who are downright unfamiliar and afraid of guns. Even I am made uncomfortable by open carry and, and like I said, I’m a strong proponent of Second Amendment rights (though never an NRA member) and a CCW holder.

    2. You guys on the anti-gun side really need to chill about the “small penis” comments. Yes, I realize that’s a nice fun way to mock a segment of society you like to disdain…you know, the Great Southern Unwashed, but there’s plenty of legitimate reasons and times to carry a firearm…concealed… and not every is overcompensating for something. It’s one thing if you carry around a gun every day (or do the open carry thing), making sure everyone knows you’ve got one, how big it is, how you aren’t afraid of them, and so forth. Me? Like I said, I rarely carry, only when work requires me to go to a high crime part of town, and always when I’m traveling, staying in a hotel room, or for some stupid reason need to go to Walmart at 2am. These are all times when I feel it is most likely that I, as a fully-grown male, might be targeted for violent crime. I can count on 2 hands the entire number of people who know I have a CCW, and I’ve had one since…2009? 2010? It really is just a tool. Guns are fun to shoot, but they are not sexy, and they don’t make me any tougher than I am without it. But if the criminals are going to have knives/guns, I figure I should be able to level the playing field. Plus I’m probably a better shot anyway.

  259. Liberal Capitalist says:

    Jack,

    You’ll come to find that this group doesn’t cotton to fools, fanatics, or the ignorant.

    … just sayin.

  260. rodney dill says:

    @aFloridian:

    You guys on the anti-gun side really need to chill about the “small penis” comments. Yes, I realize that’s a nice fun way to mock a segment of society you like to disdain…you know, the Great Southern Unwashed

    Showing their “huge” indignation is their way for overcompensating.

  261. Pharoah Narim says:

    @Gavrilo: Mercy! AR-15 block incoming rounds as well?!?!?!? Those SWAT guys are pretty silly for wearing all that body armor then…

    siiiighhhhhhh……..

  262. bill says:

    wow, 261 comments so far-in just one day? funny, most people just conceal their guns and take no offense at any signs like that. sorry i missed all the fun today, hate when work interferes with fun.

  263. Pharoah Narim says:

    @Raider: Ohh boy. Another air head. For the last time–citizens who work for a living are NO MATCH FOR A PROFESSIONAL MILITARY. They could have exactly the same weapons–its the training and tactics that win the day in combat. You have no idea of what you are talking about nor of the nuances and art involved in armed conflict. Its a shame that we have a generation of citizens that see stuff of t.v. and think–“I could do that…looks easy”–and that’s IF the T.V. is giving an honest portrayal (which they absolutely don’t for war) Which means most people are left with misconceptions about mus-portrayals.

    O.k. back in the bunker.

  264. al-Ameda says:

    @Raider:

    I’m assuming from your statement that we should immediately prosecute “fast and furious” Holder and the rest of the lying fast and furious crew, including the usurper Obama. Am I wrong?

    and I’m assuming from your statement and question that you have no intention of answering Mantis logically.

  265. Bob @ Youngstown says:

    @Jack:

    Jack, my point was that I am uncomfortable in an environment where there are armed persons of unknown background, reputation or motivation. I will not knowingly patronize restaurants, movie theaters, coffee shops, etc that cater to universal armament. In fact I will go out of my way to thank the manager for a “no guns” policy.

    I also suspect that there are a significant number of people who feel the same way. In that respect, I am the one that Starbuck’s policy is responding to.

    Do you undertand me, and can you respect my position?

  266. Bob @ Youngstown says:

    @Jack: In response to:

    So you think criminals who already have guns are going to participate in background checks before they buy their next gun from the trunk of a car or a back alley?

    I don’t know why you limit your scene to only those” who already have guns”. That your criminal already has a gun is not germaine to your question.

    No, I don’t think a back alley sale will use a background check, however while that is going on, we ignore light-of-day sales that can be subjected to background checks. So instead of taking some sort of action to limit the purchasers, you would prefer to be paralyzed because there is no way to completely eradicate the problem? (I’m assuming that you feel that criminals should not have access to firearms, despite their constitutional right to do so)

    But as to a criminal attempting to make a purchase from a FFL; Yes, there are a significant number of prohibited persons attempting to purchase everyday. And more specifically, fugitives (with active criminal arrest warrants) attempt to purchase everyday. CBI data from Colorado and Pennsylvania (who report this data) proves that.

    Shouldn’t we at least try to capture the stupid criminals?

  267. JKB says:

    @Bob @ Youngstown:

    So I assume you will not be visiting Starbucks?

    They are asking for no guns but they are not lawfully posting their shops to ban guns or even posting a sign not in compliance with the law. Nor are employees going to ask those carrying to leave.

    Starbucks screwed up with this announcement. They’d done better to simply ask that people stop open carrying in their stores, which is understandable since some open-carry activist have dragged Starbucks into an controversy they wanted no part of. Instead they’ve asked all individuals who lawfully carry, even those who concealed carry, to not patronize their stores but are not taking the steps outlined in law to make their shops lawfully no-carry zones.

  268. Rafer Janders says:

    @Jack:

    I open carry because I can. There is no law against it. The same reason I own a 60″ TV, a large home, multiple vehicles, and drink Pepsi by the gallon.

    That’s pretty much the reason a child does stuff — “because I can, and because you don’t want me to! Nyah-nyah so there!”

    Most of us outgrow that by the time we’re adults. This clown, not so much.

  269. anjin-san says:

    I open carry because I can. There is no law against it. The same reason I own a 60″ TV, a large home, multiple vehicles, and drink Pepsi by the gallon.

    So in addition to the gun fetish, you consume far more than you need, and drink toxic sludge in mass quantities.

    I can’t imagine why our country is going downhill.

  270. anjin-san says:

    when I’m traveling, staying in a hotel room,

    I’ve covered a lot of miles in my travels, and stayed in a lot of hotel rooms. Never even crossed my mind that I needed a gun.

  271. rodney dill says:

    @James Pearce:

    Time for the ban hammer, is it?

    Probably since the second comment in the thread, but it would have to be more than just Jack.

  272. markm says:

    “Please don’t bring your guns in our stores….but if you do, we will serve you and we will not throw you out”.

    Add to that they won’t put up a “gun free zone” sign.

    Seems very reasonable to me.

  273. Rob in CT says:

    @rodney dill:

    This. Jack has been far from the only one to go low in this thread, and he didn’t start it.

    Also, thanks to aFloridian, who has a sensible take from a pro-gun rights perspective. A couple of Jacks many posts teetered on the brink of being reasonable from my point of view, but alas mostly not. The crazy multiple armed intruder scenarios, the “I do because I can” and such… it’s sad. I’ve heard it too many times: there is a fantasy at work here, and many folks indulge in it.

    As for Starbucks, hey, they’re asking some of their customers to not scare their other customers. The response, hopefully, will mostly be “well, ok, some silly folks are scared of my gun oh well” instead of “you’re not the boss of me! Screw you, I’m coming in with a gun on my hip and anybody that doesn’t like it can pound sand.”

  274. rodney dill says:

    @Rob in CT:

    This. Jack has been far from the only one to go low in this thread, and he didn’t start it.

    Pretty much the sentiment of my comment. I didn’t mean starting with Jack’s second comment, but the overall second comment in the entire thread. I meant ‘if’ there were to be any banning it would need to include consideration of more than just Jack, as you mentioned, a number of people chose the low road on this thread.

  275. Franklin says:

    @aFloridian: I don’t own any guns, but I can basically agree with both of your points there.

  276. beth says:

    @Rob in CT: As for Starbucks, hey, they’re asking some of their customers to not scare their other customers.

    Hey, how about their employees too? This is the side I never hear mentioned in this debate. For those of you who work at a desk in an office, just how would you like it if every half hour a stranger carrying some sort of gun walked in and stood in front of your desk? Wouldn’t you be just the tiniest bit scared and want it to stop? Think how the cashiers at Starbucks feel. I bet Howard Schultz wouldn’t personally put up with it.

  277. Rafer Janders says:

    @Raider:

    Should the governing authorities decide to betray and go against the people by using force of arms, then the people need to be equally and adequately armed to resist and put an end to their challenge.

    A bunch of yahoos with shotguns and rifles versus the United States Army, the US Marine Corps, the US Air Force, and the US Navy.

    Yeah, I doubt that would take long.

  278. john personna says:

    @Rafer Janders:

    Hey, the government has nerve gas, right? And conservatives defend the right of governments to use it in their internal affairs?

  279. grumpy realist says:

    @aFloridian: Thank you! You have demonstrated the reasonable side of gun ownership, as opposed to Jack, who seems stuck at a five-year-old mentality. “I’m going to do what I want and you can’t stop me, nyah-nyah-nyah!”

    Even in the Old West, gunslingers were asked to park their guns when they entered town. So that there wouldn’t be shoot-outs and shots killing innocent bystanders.

    One of the responsibilities of being a citizen is don’t act in ways that frighten people around you.

  280. rudderpedals says:

    No bans, please, not yet anyway. That path leads to a boring comments section. Do continue to dispatch the offenders with rapier wit.

  281. john personna says:

    I agree that aFloridian does pretty rational risk analysis.

    The problem is that the Jacks and JKBs are driving the politics of this in this country.

    Remember, the AR-15 was the best selling gun in recent years.

    That just doesn’t make sense.

  282. Pharoah Narim says:

    @Rafer Janders: As a reference, look at what about 150 lightly armored Army troops did in the city of Mogadishu at the “Blackhawk Down” battle. This was without tanks or heavy air support. Basically ground guys in light armored vehicles with chopper support surrounded by a CITY of people with every weapon you can think of because, well, there is no regulation of weapons there. Mogadishu is one of the largest open-air arms bazaars in the world. You can buy it all there.

    They took 20 casualties and inflicted a couple of THOUSAND — It wasn’t even close. Basically 150 men could have taken an entire city that was armed to the teeth. The problem is that Americans are participating in military service at fewer and fewer rates which is why they have these silly fantasies their fathers and grandfathers (who were WWII/Korea vets) never would have entertained. An AR-15 is not protection against a rogue goverment…at best its a speed bump.

  283. al-Ameda says:

    @Jack:

    @john personna: A person’s chance of winning tonight’s Powerball is 1 in 175 million but people still buy tickets. I’m betting the odds of a multiple person home invasion are much less than that.

    Yet well-below the level of probability that a reasonable person might expect such an occurrence. Well, certainly, many people still feel that the odds justify their fears, as well their need and right to purchase automatic weaponry.

    Based on the number of guns in this country you’d think this was the safest advanced country in the world.

  284. Richard Rider says:

    If only the DC Navy shipyard had put this Starbucks policy in place, 12 lives could have been saved.

    No . . . wait . . . .

  285. Richard Rider says:

    As a supporter of limited government, I respect and will honor Starbucks’ right to make such a private property rights decision on guns — even though Starbucks management and most of their customers too often have little respect for the property rights of others.

    And note that the “guns not welcome” decision is a “request,” and not a ban. In essence, they don’t like “open carry” patrons — folks who make others nervous. In the real world, the bringing of CC (concealed carry) weapons into Starbucks is going to continue without interruption or pressure from management.

    On the other hand, I won’t be frequenting Starbucks, as I long ago decided that their support for progressive policies and catering to liberal clientele (coupled with absurdly high prices) makes ME feel uncomfortable spending my money there.

    Such choice is the cornerstone of America. Respect it. And use it.

  286. john personna says:

    @Richard Rider:

    I’m afraid on a crazy scale, from 1 to 10, you break above 5. Maybe even a 7.

    First the crazy idea that Starbucks must “stop” shootings (there or elsewhere) and the crazy refuge that it is only a “request” and not a “ban” so it’s not a “gun free zone” after all.

    You offer a big string of self-referential delusion.

  287. john personna says:

    Here is the actual request:

    For these reasons, today we are respectfully requesting that customers no longer bring firearms into our stores or outdoor seating areas—even in states where “open carry” is permitted—unless they are authorized law enforcement personnel.

    Note that Doug and Chris make the early claim that this doesn’t change anything because it doesn’t “stop” concealed carry.

    WTF, right?

    That is directly ignoring the owner’s request and relying on the fact that (a) the customer behind you might not see the gun “hidden” in your waistband, and (b) that no one is asking the barrista to draw down on you, and disarm you.

  288. john personna says:

    Maybe some of you are too slow to get it. I keep saying how sensible it is not to try to enforce this request. You get why that is, right?

    Mr. Schultz does not want some barrista killed when a nut-job opens up in a Starbucks, to defend his Constitutional rights.

  289. James Pearce says:

    @rodney dill:

    I meant ‘if’ there were to be any banning it would need to include consideration of more than just Jack, as you mentioned, a number of people chose the low road on this thread.

    I’m glad it’s not my call. I have a high tolerance for the low road.

    But “Eff off fat boy” is the epitome of lameness. I’m not offended so much as amused. It’s 2013 and some dude says “Eff off fat boy” in a comments section. Last time I saw that was during my free trial of AOL.

  290. al-Ameda says:

    @Richard Rider:

    On the other hand, I won’t be frequenting Starbucks, as I long ago decided that their support for progressive policies and catering to liberal clientele (coupled with absurdly high prices) makes ME feel uncomfortable spending my money there.

    Exactly how does Starbucks cater to a so-called liberal clientele? Is it the music they play in the stores?

  291. KM says:

    @ Jack: “Show me where that right is written? I can’t find it in my copy of the Constitution. ”

    Jack? Right there you just lost everything. Are you seriously arguing that the right to not be intimidated is not explicitly spelled out, no one has it Constitutionally? So a mother has no right to be worried that the armed man hanging out near a school is a threat? A person should be allowed to visibly threaten others and they should just take it?

    What the hell, man?!

    I tend to be sympathetic to some arguments on the pro-gun side but this will never be one of them. YOU DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO INTIMIDATE PEOPLE JUST FOR THE LULZ. I guarantee if you asked it in a poll you’d have numbers so low they’d practically be negative. A gun owner that’s trying to be a big man and flash his piece isn’t a responsible gun owner – which is the overarching argument being made to separate the “bad guys” from the “good guys”. He’s nothing more than a bully (“Look at me. I can hurt you so you better not piss me off”). Open carry isn’t about having what you need to defend yourself. Its about making a statement; if that statement is intending to deliberately make people uncomfortable and defensive, that in itself is a threat.

    Starbucks is totally right in this. Their job is to sell coffee. They can’t sell to people who are worried about the wired freak at the next table that displaying his gear for shits and giggles.

  292. rodney dill says:

    @James Pearce:

    But “Eff off fat boy” is the epitome of lameness

    It was “Bring it Fay Boy” not ‘Eff off’, I’m not sure the intent was any different. This was right after a “That can be arranged” response (somewhere between a taunt to specious threat) to a ‘molon labe’ comment. How is that an any different ‘epitome of lameness.’ My point being the low road is a big tent on this post. (I like that mixed metaphor) and Jack is not the only one I would consider for banning, if banning were on the table.

    And you are right you are in my opinion one of the more civil commenters in avoiding the lower path, so I’m not really trying to make an equivalence between Jack’s and your comments, just between Jack’s and others.

    I have seen a number of eff-off type comments in OTB posts so I’m not sure what you’re reading. It’s 2013, you’re likely to see more of the same in the future.

  293. Rafer Janders says:

    @al-Ameda:

    Exactly how does Starbucks cater to a so-called liberal clientele? Is it the music they play in the stores?

    It’s WORLD MUSIC, al-Almeda! IT’S WORLD MUSIC!!!!!

  294. C. Clavin says:

    As a supporter of limited government

    …and the Husband of a Public School Teacher…it’s hard to take you seriously.

  295. Rob in CT says:

    @beth:

    That’s a damn good point.

  296. James Pearce says:

    @rodney dill:

    It was “Bring it Fay Boy” not ‘Eff off’

    It was both.

    right after a “That can be arranged” response (somewhere between a taunt to specious threat) to a ‘molon labe’ comment.

    Point…however, I submit that “Molon labe” was the taunt and “that can be arranged” the natural, if not expected, response. Reminds me of that guy talking about “killing people” on Youtube only to find that his handgun permits were pulled. As my Mom would say, “What did you think was gonna happen?”

    I have seen a number of eff-off type comments in OTB posts so I’m not sure what you’re reading.

    True, but usually in the context of other frothing. A comment that just says “Eff off fat boy” is little more than graffito.

  297. Rafer Janders says:

    @JKB:

    Why should I leave my country? I’m a free citizen and can therefore advocate for small and limited government as much as I want.

    Sure, you can stay. But you seem to be voting with your feet: you can at any moment move to a country with a small and limited government, but when it comes to where you actually live, you seem to prefer life in the totalitarian freedom-destroying hell-hole of the United States.

    Basically, you talk the talk, but you don’t walk the walk.

  298. rodney dill says:

    @James Pearce: You’re right I missed the ‘Eff-off’ from a different comment. I do consider both Molon Labe and the response as ‘taunts’ or verbal sparring, both probably within the norm for a post at OTB. I’m not trying to justify Jack’s comments as I don’t find them acceptable either. You brought up the point of ‘banning’ and I mainly sought to point out that I thought others’ comments (not yours) were as unacceptable as Jacks.

    You really had no reason to bring up the comments of others as none of them were directed toward you.

  299. anjin-san says:

    Starbucks management and most of their customers too often have little respect for the property rights of others.

    Could you flesh this concept out a bit?

  300. C. Clavin says:

    @ Rafer…

    “…you can at any moment move to a country with a small and limited government…”

    I’m curious…where exactly would that be??? Frankly I think these folks are calling for a radical experiment in governance…because every time I ask for an example, current or historic, I get crickets.
    Ayn Rand…goddess to the Libertarian set…jumped on Medicare the minute she got sick.
    This Richard Rider guy who commented about limited government above is, according to his website, married to a woman drawing a Public School Teachers pension.
    Then there is Rand Paul, Paul Ryan, Ted Cruz, and the rest…chirping about small government while they suckle at the Government teet.
    The fact is that every single private fortune was created on the back of public investments…public investments that are responsible for establishing the US as the easiest place in the world for enterpreneurs to succeed.
    It seems to me these greedy f’ers just want to pull the ladder up behind them.
    And then there is JKB…who apparently has no idea what the f’ he is talking about, ever.

  301. C. Clavin says:

    Cool…I was the 300th commenter…what do I get????

  302. rudderpedals says:

    Hope I wasn’t the only one who had to google “molon labe”.

    /hangs ape head in shame

  303. C. Clavin says:

    @ Rudder…
    I was ignoring it until I saw your comment…so then I googled it.
    I found a buxom woman with the motto on a T-shirt…come and take them…indeed.

  304. john personna says:

    @rudderpedals:

    Apparently “molon labe” is a thing among the “we have them because we can” set.

    Owning an AR-15 makes you a Spartan.

    Man, how often can you put something like that on a credit card?

  305. john personna says:

    “for only $29.99 per month*, you too can be a Spartan!”

    (* – with established credit)

  306. C. Clavin says:

    “…Owning an AR-15 makes you a Spartan…”

    Apparently another case of zealots mis-reading and mis-appropriating history.

  307. JKB says:

    @Rafer Janders:

    I took an oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies foreign and domestic. I cannot just walk away. Sure, the future of the Constitution may look grim but that doesn’t mean I can quit or leave.

    The best way to secure the Constitution is to push for small and limited government, which will reduce the number of bureaucrats and politicians that have a vested interest in usurping the Constitution. There are so many of them, the only way is to change the culture and return Americans to a time where they took pride in their country and the Constitution that governs it.

  308. john personna says:

    @JKB:

    And yet the 1934 NFA is Constitutional.

  309. rudderpedals says:

    @C. Clavin: [cli kity clickity]
    I have enough latin picked up off the street (alas, not a classical education) and was disappointed it was all Greek to me and didn’t mean “grabby lips”. The tee shirt gives me hope

    john personna: OK it’s like a Red Dawn bumper sticker. Fred Thompson shows up at the end and the boys with the guns wind up with the orphaned girls with the guns and live happily ever after. No one goes home to mom on his shield.

  310. rodney dill says:

    @john personna:

    Owning an AR-15 makes you a Spartan.

    If they’d had AR-15’s 300 probably would’ve been enough.

  311. george says:

    @JKB:

    The best way to secure the Constitution is to push for small and limited government, which will reduce the number of bureaucrats and politicians that have a vested interest in usurping the Constitution. There are so many of them, the only way is to change the culture and return Americans to a time where they took pride in their country and the Constitution that governs it.

    That, of course, includes having a small and limited military, since the military is part of the government. Unless of course you’re pushing to privatize the military …

  312. Moosebreath says:
  313. rudderpedals says:

    It’s a Question of Honor

  314. john personna says:

    @rodney dill:

    You know, a Persian told me that the “bad” side of that engagement had freed the slaves much earlier, had all kinds of advanced and compassionate government …

    Being “west” and therefore not of any “eastern” or “evil” axis did a lot for the Spartan PR.

    But yes, if the Spartans had ARs and the Persians had only elephants …

  315. Raider says:

    Pharoah Narim said:

    “Ohh boy. Another air head. For the last time–citizens who work for a living are NO MATCH FOR A PROFESSIONAL MILITARY.”

    Rafer Janders said:

    “A bunch of yahoos with shotguns and rifles versus the United States Army, the US Marine Corps, the US Air Force, and the US Navy.”

    There were a lot of voices from guys like you in the times leading up to the revolutionary war who trembled and said things such as “OOHhhh, the British have big guns and cannons, scary red uniforms, and swords. OOHhhh, we can’t win, we can’t win.”

    Guys like that hid amongst the women and children while the men faced their duties and went to battle. The fear lovers also snitched on the real American men for 10, 20, or 30 pieces of silver. Do you have a sell out price?

  316. john personna says:

    @Raider:

    We had a revolution. Fine, we won.

    There is however this counter-factual.

    Canada and Australia did not have a revolution, and turned out just fine. They are really nice places, where many Americans vacation, own vacation homes, and even immigrate.

    Now, if the British had done death camps in Canada, or oppressed commonwealth subjects into slavery, you might have something … but life actually turned out OK for them too.

    So I’m sorry to say that those lives lost, on both sides, are hard to justify.

  317. john personna says:

    @Raider:

    For extra credit, why did we support that hellish oppressor in two world wars?

  318. C. Clavin says:

    “…the only way is to change the culture and return Americans to a time where they took pride in their country and the Constitution that governs it. …”

    OK…I’ll bite…when exactly was this magical time you envision returning to????

  319. Grewgills says:

    @C. Clavin:
    I’m guessing the 1950s

  320. Rafer Janders says:

    @Raider:

    There were a lot of voices from guys like you in the times leading up to the revolutionary war who trembled and said things such as “OOHhhh, the British have big guns and cannons, scary red uniforms, and swords. OOHhhh, we can’t win, we can’t win.”

    The British soldiers had muskets and cannon, and the rebel colonists had….muskets and cannon. As well as the French Army and the French Navy.

    These days, the US military has heavy machine guns and mortars and artillery and bazookas and Cobra and Apache attack helicopters and F-16s and B-52s and nuclear submarines and aircraft carriers and Vulcan machine guns and A-1 Warthogs and Marines and Navy Seals and Special Forces and the 101st Airborne and invisible flying drones that can shoot a missile under your ass before you know what’s even happening, and you have…a rifle and a handgun, and no French Army and French Navy to come to your rescue.

    Again, it’s really not much of a contest. But enjoy living in your little fantasy world, away from the grown-ups.

  321. Rafer Janders says:

    @JKB:

    I took an oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies foreign and domestic. I cannot just walk away. Sure, the future of the Constitution may look grim but that doesn’t mean I can quit or leave.

    Guys like you always have some excuse, don’t they? When it comes time to put up or shut up, there’s always some reason not to….

  322. Raider says:

    Rafer, I see you are stuck in your “OHHhhh, they have that, they have this,” fear crippling mentality. That’s your choice.

    I don’t think like you. For example I realize that regardless of all those big, bad, and scary weapon systems you mentioned, it still takes human beings to operate them. That’s all I’ll say because I won’t reveal strategies to cowards like you, who don’t even lift a finger to try, but instead immediately submit to fear and surrender.

    Repent Rafer, and get a hold of yourself.

  323. C. Clavin says:

    “…There were a lot of voices from guys like you in the times leading up to the revolutionary war who trembled and said things such as “OOHhhh, the British have big guns and cannons, scary red uniforms, and swords. OOHhhh, we can’t win, we can’t win.”
    Guys like that hid amongst the women and children while the men faced their duties and went to battle. The fear lovers also snitched on the real American men for 10, 20, or 30 pieces of silver…”

    You guys???
    We went over this a few weeks back.
    Todays Republicans would have been the British Loyalists in the 18th century.
    Why? Glad you asked.
    Todays Republicans:
    *Abhor change of any kind…especially radical change like breaking away from the Mother Country
    *Bow to their monied benefactors…today it’s the Koch Brothers…in the 18th century that would have been the British Aristocracy
    *Colonists were rebeling against the power of the Church…todays Republicans want the Church to be all powerful — see abortion, ten commandments in public places, planned parenthood funding, creationism
    *The Founders were elites who believed in enlightenment…todays Republicans deny science and reject knowledge
    *18th Century Britian used mercanaries…todays Republicans also rely on mercanaries to fight their wars of choice…see Blackwater, Halliburton, KBR, etc.
    *But most of all todays Republicans are cowards…see Cheney, Rumsfeld, etc…as were the loyalists of the 18th Century.
    You Raider…definitely a Loyalist. No question.

  324. al-Ameda says:

    @Richard Rider:

    even though Starbucks management and most of their customers too often have little respect for the property rights of others.

    I too am appalled at the Starbuck’s management decision to have local government agencies invoke Eminent Domain to seize the homes and weapons of conservative customers.

  325. wr says:

    @JKB: “I took an oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies foreign and domestic. I cannot just walk away”

    Speaking for the sane members of this society, let me say we’re good, We can handle protecting the constitution without you. So thanks, but no thanks.

  326. wr says:

    @Raider: “That’s all I’ll say because I won’t reveal strategies to cowards like you, who don’t even lift a finger to try, but instead immediately submit to fear and surrender.”

    So now those who don’t want to violently overthrow the democratically elected government of what I’m sure Raider believes is the greatest country in the history of the world are cowards.

    Funny, in my book we call those people “patriots.”

    And those who agitate for armed revolution and for the murder of solders and police officers working for our government — we call them traitors.

    Or terrorists.

    Fortunately most of them are scared little boys who are fierce fighters only in their minds.

  327. john personna says:

    @Raider:

    I hope to God he’s 14.

  328. JKB says:

    @john personna: And yet the 1934 NFA is Constitutional.

    That’s not strictly true. It just hasn’t adequately been challenged. Even under the current decisions, the 1934 NFA could come under challenge if say NFA weapons become necessary for self defense if say such weapons start to be used in a significant number of crimes outside of TV and movies. But until then, I’m okay with working to overturn the act legislatively.

    @Rafer Janders:

    I’m not sure what you are talking about. Just because you challenge me to doesn’t mean I will leave my country. Far better to work to change the laws for all Americans.

    @wr: We can handle protecting the constitution without you. So thanks, but no thanks.

    That certainly isn’t in evidence as I see a whole lot of effort to infringe the right to keep and bear arms here.

  329. C. Clavin says:

    “…That certainly isn’t in evidence as I see a whole lot of effort to infringe the right to keep and bear arms here…”

    That’s the problem with you psycho cultists who need penile prosthetics.
    You see even tiny common sense steps as the wholesale confiscation of you dicks…I mean guns.
    But if that’s true then I assume you would in turn endorse the unregulated distribution of hate speech, pornography, sedition and government secrets…because those are all infringements of our 1st Amendment rights.
    Douche-bag.

  330. Moderate Mom says:

    It never ceases to amaze me how off the beaten path comments here can get. How about we stick to the story that Doug wrote about, which the the polite request by Starbucks CEO for people not to open carry in their stores, even if open carry is legal in that location.

    The request has been put forward, and they have even said that if someone is rude enough to ignore their request, they won’t refuse service or confront the customer. Starbucks just wants to sell you coffee and other drinks. They are not interested in getting involved in a political war.

    My husband is a gun owner with a number of different types of guns used for hunting, as well as a couple of handguns. Never, ever would he consider walking into any establishment with his 44 Magnum in a holster hanging off his belt, especially an establishment that had asked him not to. It’s called good manners folks.

  331. Bob @ Youngstown says:

    @Moderate Mom:

    Starbucks just wants to sell you coffee and other drinks. They are not interested in getting involved in a political war.

    And they are politely saying to the gun rights advocates, we really don’t want (or need) your Appreciation day. They don’t want to be used as a pawn in this controversy (by either side).

    I’ve heard the carry proponents say that “it would be more dangerous to lock my gun in the car while I go into (Starbucks)”, so I’m really doing the safer thing with my weapon by ignoring the request of the shop keeper.

    But you hit the bullseye, manners and respect have taken a backseat to “it’s my right”.

  332. anjin-san says:

    Well, we have learned that Jenos’ creepy man crush on guys that pack heat extends beyond George Zimmermann…

  333. JKB says:

    @C. Clavin: the unregulated distribution of hate speech, pornography, sedition and government secrets…

    You see right there. You reveal your ignorance even of an amendment you supposedly like. Pornography is only regulated in distribution to a favored subset, children, due to their reduced ability to make decisions, similar to how we regulate contracting with them. Sedition, while there is a very narrow element for sedition in the U.S. Code, what generally qualifies as sedition is not regulated in the US or for US citizens. Or are you forgetting the free speech right to burn the flag, have yourself photographed stomping it, even for “educators” to demand students stop the flag and Constitution. And government secrets, well, the distribution of government secrets is really not regulated except for those who freely entered into a signed agreement not to disclose them to unauthorized persons as a condition of being given access to those secrets. Reporters aren’t prosecuted for publishing secrets but people with clearances who disclose them are. Hate speech regulation as enacted by legislation is problematic but we need to wait an see how it sorts out after challenges in court.

  334. Jenos Idanian #13 says:

    @anjin-san: Well, we have learned that Jenos’ creepy man crush on guys that pack heat extends beyond George Zimmermann…

    I literally just came to this thread for the first time, and I see your crush on me is still strong. Over 330 comments before you, none from me, but I’m still first and foremost on your mind.

    Let me make it very simple for you: when it comes to guns, I don’t own any, don’t want any, and have pretty much no problems with them. You’re the one that probably wets himself when someone starts waving around a gun-shaped poptart or something.

  335. Ernieyeball says:

    @C. Clavin: what kind of dickhead walks around with a gun like that???

    Pretty much all of them…

  336. john personna says:

    @JKB:

    The 1934 NFA has been on the books for 80 years.

    It is not actually a sane argument that maybe it isn’t constitutional after all, after all this time.

  337. wr says:

    @Jenos Idanian #13: “I literally just came to this thread for the first time, and I see your crush on me is still strong.”

    Hmm. It seems that everyone here is obsessed with you. Fascinating.

    Or maybe it just goes like this: You’ve been here saying deliberately stupid and noxious things for years with no actual interest in anything but annoying people. (Hence your discovery that you loved guns only when you discovered this would irritate liberals.) Now you pop up and say something stupid and people who find you annoying respond out of irritation at you polluting the bandwidth.

    Trust me, in between your lame trolling, no one ever wastes a second thinking about you. But I guess you know that, which is why you keep bragging about how important you are.

  338. grumpy realist says:

    @Moderate Mom: Thank you! Our problem is that far too many gun owners (albeit a small percentage of the entire population of gun owners) are refusing to act like mature, sensible humans.

    Judging from some of the comments above, they seem stuck in the mentality of a 5 year old: “I’ll do what I want and you can’t stop me! Nyah nyah nyah!”

    No care as to whether they’re disturbing other people.
    No care as to whether just because they have the RIGHT to carry around a gun it might just not be an intelligent idea to do so.
    No care as to whether their openly packing heat in or near a commercial establishment might cause potential customers of said commercial establishment to go elsewhere, thus impacting the profitability of the business.

    In other words, they see the 2nd Amendment as a get-out-of-jail free card that allows them to continually act like jerks in society with all the negative consequences of their activity being born by other people.

    I don’t want to be anywhere NEAR some idiot who thinks that carrying guns openly among other people “to make a statement” is a good idea. He’s already shown his ego is more important than anything else.

  339. anjin-san says:

    @ Jenos Idanian #13

    I literally just came to this thread for the first time.

    I can understand why you don’t want to be held accountable for things you say in other threads, but you did say this:

    The message I get from someone armed is “I’m a serious person who has chosen to take on a certain level of responsibility, and I would appreciate it if you would respect that.” And, as the saying goes, since an armed society is a polite society, I will be polite.

    Yes, these are serious people. Like your boy George Zimmermann. Funny, a short while back you could not stop talking about him. Not a peep in the last two weeks. Has something changed?

    You’re the one that probably wets himself when someone starts waving around a gun-shaped poptart or something.

    I own a number of guns, have been shooting for 40+ years, and though my eyes are not what they once were, I am still a good shot. Once upon a time, my father got paid to teach people to shoot at summer camp. He taught me for free. If you want to go the the range some time and see who can handle himself around guns and who can’t, I am up for it.

    I see your crush on me is still strong.

    Hmm. And you were just telling wr how he is “obsessed” with you. Generally, this “he has a crush on me, he is obsessed with me” thing is the realm of girls in the 7th grade, but if it floats your boat, go for it.

  340. anjin-san says:

    @ Moderate Mom

    My husband is a gun owner with a number of different types of guns used for hunting, as well as a couple of handguns. Never, ever would he consider walking into any establishment with his 44 Magnum in a holster hanging off his belt

    He sounds like a guy that does not have any issues around his manhood. Good for him.

  341. al-Ameda says:

    @Jenos Idanian #13:

    Let me make it very simple for you: when it comes to guns, I don’t own any, don’t want any, and have pretty much no problems with them. You’re the one that probably wets himself when someone starts waving around a gun-shaped poptart or something.

    Yes but, you still haven’t explained why you are MORE deferential and respectful to patrons who are carrying a gun than to those who are NOT carrying a gun. Are you somewhat intimidated by the gun carrying person?

    Am I intimidated by the gun carrying person? No. I just feel that the odds that something could go wrong increase once guns (carried by ‘average’ people) are in places where people congregate and do business. Again, if I see an open-carry gun in a Starbucks, I’m leaving.

  342. wr says:

    @Moderate Mom: “It’s called good manners folks. ”

    There are many in our society — and yes, on the left as well as the right — who believe that following good manners is the same as being forced to follow good manners, and that this is the essence of fascism.

  343. Jenos Idanian #13 says:

    Oh, look: three blind turds. See how they babble.

    In no particular order:

    I was interested in talking about the Zimmerman case while it was going on. I think I was pretty much alone in that — there was a blackout (formal or informal) around here during the trial. Not one article on the case from the first day until the verdict.

    But the jury spoke, the case was settled, and now it’s not news.

    I am respectful to those carrying guns because of two concepts that are (to no surprise) unfamiliar to the three blind turds: common courtesy and common sense.

    There’s no way I’d ever compete against anyone in gun-handling or shooting skills, unless I could bet against myself. I know enough about guns to respect them, and know my own limitations. I’m not that stupid.

    But back on topic: Starbucks is trying to do the safest thing, and not get involved on either side. They backed into the issue in the first place, and now they’re trying to extricate themselves. I don’t care for their products and other policies (especially how they have to use fancy words for Small, Medium, and Large, and insist that their customers learn how to speak Starbucks), and their clientele is stereotypically arrogant a-holes, but I think that they’re doing the right thing by trying to stay neutral on this issue.

    And one last time: I had nothing to say about this story, and still don’t have any strong feelings on the matter. I was curious to see what got everyone so worked up, and damn if my name didn’t come up.

    If annie, alameda, Cliffy, and wr (just to name four of the most recent twits) were to disappear, I’m not sure how quickly I’d notice. But the reverse is hardly true — even when I’m not around, I’m still foremost on their minds.

    Truly pathetic.

  344. Moderate Mom says:

    @anjin-san: No, he doesn’t have any issues with his “manhood”. He does, however, have a strong sense of safety. His office and warehouse are in what would be considered not the best area of town, and after a series of break ins and after a second employee was robbed at gunpoint as they left the office, he decided that having a hand gun might not be a bad idea, for protection at work, as well as at home. He also uses it to shoot snakes at the farm.

    He took a gun safety course and obtained a concealed carry permit. He also decided to buy me a gun, without asking me if I wanted one. Given I am scared to death of handguns (all the shotguns and rifles he has for hunting don’t bother me at all, and are kept in a gun safe), I was not particularly appreciative of his unexpected gift. I am the not so proud owner of a Ruger LC9 with a laser sight. It is also in the gun safe, and has never been touched. He’s trying to get me to take a gun safety course so that I won’t be so scared of hand guns, but I just haven’t been able to do it so far. Maybe I will in the future, and will be able to overcome my fear but, at 55 years of age, I think that fear is pretty ingrained at this point.

  345. anjin-san says:

    @ Jenos

    I know enough about guns to respect them, and know my own limitations. I’m not that stupid.

    But you are stupid enough to make utterly uninformed assumptions about my limitations, and babble about them in public.

    Well, I have to head over to the People Republic of Berkeley. I leave you to your truly bizarre ramblings about turds and people being obsessed with you. I mean, OMFG…

  346. anjin-san says:

    there was a blackout (formal or informal) around here during the trial.

    And in spite of it, you just could not stop talking about ol’ GZ 🙂

  347. john personna says:

    @Jenos Idanian #13:

    But back on topic: Starbucks is trying to do the safest thing, and not get involved on either side. They backed into the issue in the first place, and now they’re trying to extricate themselves. I don’t care for their products and other policies (especially how they have to use fancy words for Small, Medium, and Large, and insist that their customers learn how to speak Starbucks), and their clientele is stereotypically arrogant a-holes, but I think that they’re doing the right thing by trying to stay neutral on this issue.

    You got it wrong. They were neutral. Now they ask that only law enforcement officers bring guns to Starbucks, all others “please leave them home.”

  348. Jenos Idanian #13 says:

    @anjin-san: If the blackout had been formal, I most likely would have respected it. If the authors had said that they weren’t going to discuss the case during the trial, that would have been different.

    Instead, we had dozens of articles about the most pointless minutiae of the case, and then absolutely nothing once the case started. My own theory was that since the news was completely bad for the prosecution from day one right up until the verdict, the authors didn’t want to have to walk back all those dozens and dozens of articles.

    I could be wrong, of course. Happened before, will happen again. But I haven’t heard an alternate explanation.

  349. anjin-san says:

    common courtesy

    Ah, Bevis? You have made it quite clear that you treat people who carry guns with extra courtesy. That is, by definition, not “common” courtesy.

    common sense

    Common sense would be to have nothing (or as little as possible) to do with an armed person of unknown character, motives, competence, and mental stability.

    Unsurprisingly, you are 0 for 2.

  350. anjin-san says:

    @ Moderate Mom

    Given I am scared to death of handguns

    If your gut is telling you to avoid handguns, you are probably wise to listen to it. Sometimes it is good to push ourselves outside of our comfort zone, but sometimes it’s there for a reason.

  351. al-Ameda says:

    @Jenos Idanian #13:

    Oh, look: three blind turds. See how they babble.

    If annie, alameda, Cliffy, and wr (just to name four of the most recent twits) were to disappear, I’m not sure how quickly I’d notice. But the reverse is hardly true — even when I’m not around, I’m still foremost on their minds.

    By the way, who is “annie”?

    Quick follow-up associated with your avoidance issue: Why do you show deference to gun carrying patrons, compared with other non-gun carrying patrons? Your responses seem to indicate that you’re intimidated by the gun carrying patron?

  352. wr says:

    @Jenos Idanian #13: “I am respectful to those carrying guns because of two concepts that are (to no surprise) unfamiliar to the three blind turds: common courtesy and common sense. ”

    To be respectful to all people until they prove themselves unworthy of respect is common courtesy. To be respectful of those carrying lethal weapons is either cowardice or bootlicking or, in your case, both.

  353. wr says:

    @Jenos Idanian #13: “If annie, alameda, Cliffy, and wr (just to name four of the most recent twits) were to disappear, I’m not sure how quickly I’d notice. But the reverse is hardly true — even when I’m not around, I’m still foremost on their minds. ”

    Hey, I bet you’d love the chance to prove this completely unsupported assertion, right? Well it’s really easy. All you’ve got to do is stop posting here completely for, say, six months. Watch and see how many times your name comes up in that time. Then you’ll know just how obsessed people are with you.

    Come on, man. Give it a chance.

  354. wr says:

    @wr: Oh, and no fair posting as “Hoot Gibson” or any of your other sock puppets. Because when a poster here recognizes your obvious and dreary style and says “hey, this new moron is actually Jenos,” that doesn’t count as obsession. You’ve got to stop altogether.

  355. Pharoah Narim says:

    @Raider: The Colonists were actually militia-men who had similar training in tactics and weapons systems as there British counterparts. Since that example doesn’t hold today for American citizens who have no access to 1st World weapon systems or training in their employment, your 300 year old analogy pretty much qualifies you for a clown car license. If people of your mind actually had sense, they’d train in resistance warfare…99% of which doesn’t involve guns or direct engagements. It’s an intelligence warriors game and therefore beyond your capability to comprehend or perfect.

  356. Pharoah Narim says:

    @Raider: There have be dead hero’s that never survived the battlefield and cowards that were there and lived to tell about it. Neither distinction is relevant in a gun fight… I wouldn’t expect the lesser mature to comprehend that though. I find that notions such as hero’s always winning and cowards always losing placate those that find comfort in mythical lore and fantasy…. you know, the NOT real world.