[J m HofMarN]

http://www.msnbc.msn...usiness-retail/

So, Canadians... When you go to get your morning coffee from Timmy's, do you routinely strap on a sidearm? If you said no, than you're clearly going to die. American gun nuts have discovered that your morning coffee probably wants to kill you, and the only way to deter it is by packing cold steel. This reminds me of that scene in Fellowship of the Rings, but substituting a raving fucking lunatic for Aragorn:

"Are you frightened?"
"Yes!"
"Not nearly frightened enough! I know what hunts you."

Americans arent nearly frightened enough, so I shutter to think what will happen to our neighbors to the North when they go out to eat without the requisite artillery. But don't take my word for it!

Quote

Dale Welch recently walked into a Starbucks in Virginia, handgun strapped to his waist, and ordered a banana Frappuccino with a cinnamon bun. He says the firearm drew a double-take from at least one customer, but not a peep from the baristas.

Welch's foray into the coffeehouse was part of an effort by some gun owners to exercise and advertise their rights in states that allow people to openly carry firearms.

So.... they're admittedly using their rights just for the purposes of using their rights? That doesnt make a goddamn bit of sense. It's like holding a massive protest march and all the signs say "we are holding a protest march" Like, seriously guys. Theres no law against juggling kittens, but I don't do that while I'm trying to order a big mac.

Quote

"I don't know of anybody who would provide me with defense other than myself, so I routinely as a way of life carry a weapon — and that extends to my coffee shops," he said.

.... As a native of Virginia I can tell you that there are people here known as "the police" whose job it is to stop people from doing bad things, such as walking into a starbucks with the express purpose of assassinating you for no reason. But, hey, maybe you need more protection, I mean, your career could have involved international espionage or informing on the mafia!

Quote

Welch, a 71-year-old retired property manager who lives in Richmond, Va.,

Oh....

Quote

The fight for retailers heated up in early January when gun enthusiasts in northern California began walking into Starbucks and other businesses to test state laws that allow gun owners to carry weapons openly in public places. As it spread to other states, gun control groups quickly complained about the parade of firearms in local stores.

Some were spontaneous, with just one or two gun owners walking into a store. Others were organized parades of dozens of gun owners walking into restaurants with their firearms proudly at their sides.

In one case, about 100 activists bearing arms had planned to go to a California Pizza Kitchen in Walnut Creek, Calif., but after it became clear they weren't welcome they went to another restaurant. That chain and Peet's Coffee & Tea are among the businesses that have banned customers with guns.

Let this be a lesson to you foreign devils. THIS is how you guard your liberty! It also reminds me of how I guarded my liberty when I was a teenager: Me and a friend put weird rugs on our heads and walked into the seven eleven to buy condoms. Because, you see, we were guarding our liberty. Of course, I don't do that anymore, becuase I realize that thats kind of a childish thing to do and theres no point to it.... But the difference is I wasnt endangering anyone with a deadly weapon, so I didnt guard nearly as much freedom as these guys do!

Quote

Just as shops can deny service to barefoot customers, restaurants and stores in some states can declare their premises gun-free zones.

those freedom hating BASTARDS!

Now seriously, the ONLY argument I can come up with for this crap is "I just watched Die Hard" The ass kick fantasies of a few people who want to save a skyscraper from Tim Curry are not more important than the comfort and security of those around them. Now, I'm sure most of these guys are very down to earth, responsible nut jobs who wouldnt do something like shooting cops for trying to disarm them, or brandishing guns at the president. But the rest of society doesnt know that. We just look at them and see potentially unstable white males with too much time and money who are compensating for tiny penises and/or planning to show their boss why firing them was their last mistake.

Quote

"If you want to dress up and go out and make a little political theater by frightening children in the local Starbucks, if that's what you want to spend your energy on, go right ahead," said Peter Hamm, a spokesman for the Brady campaign. "But going out and wearing a gun on your belt to show the world you're allowed to is a little juvenile."

This Brady Campaign you speak of........... can I wear my gun when I come to visit their offices?

[civilian_number_two]

Well that's all well and good, and I agree that carrying guns in public harms more than it helps. Wild West analogy, gun control being the factor that cleaned the place up, not sherriffs and high noon, etc. However, if these guys disagree and want to protest, this IS in fact how they go about doing it.

Let's say that Black people were not allowed to eat in WHITES ONLY diners, and that society had provided them with a decent alternative, that being diners that would feed blacks. Knowing human nature, waiting for the general white population to say "ah shoot, eat where you like" would not fix the problem (assuming you see that it's a problem ... hint : I do). People don't just wake up one day and decide that society has changed. So the thing to do is for blacks to go into those WHITES ONLY diners, with no other purpose than to declare their right to do so. They're not getting any food they couldn't get anywhwre else (chances are they're not getting any food at all); they're there only to make their argument. So that's what these hicks patriots are doing. They are asserting their misunderstanding of modern English Constitutional Right to carry guns wherever they like, including private coffee shops that have every right to evict them if they like.

Takig the route of common sense other side, the US Secret Service would do well to use the Patriot Act whenever these guys carry guns near a gathering of US politicians, especially one where the President will be in attendance. Yes, you have the right to carry your guns wherever you like. The 2nd Ammendment, you argue, allows that. The Patriot Act allows us to arrest you whenever we want, and then to search your person and your home, on suspicion of domestic terrorism. And more than half the country supports profiling in order to determine suspicion, eg Probable Cause. The US Secret Aervice would do well to profile Domestic Terrorism suspects, not on race, but on on the basis of their willingness to carry assault rifles. Because ALL domestic terrorists have assault rifles, and pop-logic determines that ipso facto presto magico, you's on your way to Guantanamo!

Shame on Starbucks by the way. Not for refusing to get into the gun control argument, but for making single-serve packets of instant coffee. This is a move in opposition to their career-long campaign for environmental solutions to corporate sales. It also goes against the whole coffee culture they have been trying to promote, as well as a drop in the already questionable quality of their product. But that's what you get when you sell your company on the stock market: a change in your corporate values to satisfy the shareholders.

[J m HofMarN]

I have to disagree here. This is totally different from a lunch counter sit in. I realize you're only playing devil's advocate, and its probably a similar argument to what people like this would make, if they had any knowledge of the civil rights movement aside from some vague idea of "em negra trouble starters!"

Segregation was codified in laws, whereas the opposite is true here wherein state laws make it clear that crazies with guns should not be segregated.
It was also codified in signs, whereas most restaurants and other public places that dont want guns in them do not have anti gun signs. They just assume that people are not assholes. And no, there will ne no suggestion that it would be helpful for restaurants to make clear their position for or against on carrying loaded murder devices. I'm sure plenty of people are scared to cross the border as it is, but can you imagine if our fucking burgerkings put signs up that said "dirty harry wannabes welcome" or "show your 22 caliber and get a 22 oz drink!".

A comparison could be drawn to the BPP movement where Panther members legally carried firearms outside the state legislature of California. I think I'm shooting myself in the foot bringing this up, but in my opinion the difference is that the police and government actually DID want to, and were actively engaged in, trying to deny the Panthers their rights to bear arms. What we have here is a government that says "sure, bear arms all you like" and people marching past the espresso machines at a local coffee shop. This brings up another disparity: CONSEQUENCES. Black folks sitting peacefully at a lunch counter got dragged into the streets to be savaged by dogs and sprayed with firehoses to defend their rights. Anti Iraq protesters get nailed with pepperspray or arrested, Stonewall, Kent State, etc etc. These guys risk being politely asked to leave, which, of course, will make them a holy martyr for the constitution, or something.

And, I mean, come on, Race is not something you can leave at your house, in your glove box, or under your seat. If we want to really make a comparison we need to move in the direction of other bill of rights issues. But therein we also see a problem. Starbucks, to the best of my knowledge, doesnt allow people to hold protest marches against the Iraq war inside their restaurants. The excercise of such rights in a dining setting would be inappropriate.

If you want a segregation based example, this is basically akin to a modern, post segregation black guy who doesnt like hockey jumping into a women's hockey locker room full of white women and dancing naked. The law does clearly say that black people can interact freely and share the same facilities as whites. But in this instance he's pushing the envelope, going into a place he would otherwise have no interest in, and just generally being a dickhead.

Of course black people do not do this. In fact, most people who have rights codified in law do not go out of their way to excersise their rights just to make sure they can do it. I'm just continuously amazed that the ammendment that lets people play with their toys and masturbate to their gory bullet riddled ass kick fantasies is the only one that gets any attention from the right. No one is setting up printing presses, holding communion, or anything like that in Starbucks. I could ask them if they've allowed any troops to be quartered in their restaurant. Or maybe next time I go in there I'll ask the manager if they intend to unnecessarily search me or not, and if they don't then I'll know that its safe to get coffee.

Speaking of, I honestly cannot imagine that a lot of redneck militia members enjoy frappucinos.... I'm just sayin.

This post has been edited by J m HofMarN: 01 March 2010 - 01:26 AM

[Spoon Poetic]

For living in such a redneck state, you sure have a prejudiced view about 'em, Jm. Rednecks enjoy frappucinos just as much as the next guy. Especially when carrying guns. Just makes it taste better somehow.

Quote

...going out and wearing a gun on your belt to show the world you're allowed to is a little juvenile.

This quote from some guy in the article summed up my feelings exactly. They're already allowed, so... Yeeeah.

Not that I'm advocating them toting their guns around to places they're not allowed to bring them in.

I do believe in the right to bear arms. But there should be more control in place in regards to required education, permits, what type of guns are allowed, etc.... I don't really care for the idea of people having them out in plain sight in places like coffeeshops and libraries though - but at the same time, I understand what the guy is saying about no one else is going to defend him. Jm, you say cops, but when was the last time you got into an altercation and a cop was conveniently around to step in and take the beating or the rape for you? Or have you even been in an altercation? I have, a few times, and I have always had to defend myself.

I'm not saying there's going to be tons of opportunities in everyone's life to defend themselves with a gun, just saying I understand where he's coming from.

I figure guns are like anything, really. Yes, you can hurt people with them. But you can also hurt people with lots of things. A car, for instance. Can actually cause just as much or more damage than a gun. So we don't let just anyone drive them. They are required by law to be a certain age, and to take a certain number of hours of driving education, and pass a series of driving tests. THEN they can drive the car, in hopes that they now know enough and are responsible enough to not hurt anyone with them. (And yet accidents still happen, just like with anything.)



And let's say you are against the idea that you can't drive your car somewhere it's not allowed - some road that's closed due to construction, or the public beach or something. Well you're certainly not going to get your point across by driving your car around places you ARE allowed to drive. That's just stupid.



So in summation of my meandering, exhaustion-affected post: I am for regulated gun ownership but this "protest" is a load of shit.

[J m HofMarN]

Spoon- not only does carrying a gun make your drink taste better, but it ensures you get the best possible service!

As for me, nope, I've never been in a gun battle. I've been in a few fights, sure, but that's different. You have to consider escalation here. If someone just wants to punch you or something, and you punch them back, well, hey, ok, everyones been punched, we're even, lets go home. Or maybe someone gets their dome rocked and falls over. Whatever. But I would much rather get punched in the face than get in a fight, get mad, pull out a gun and blow someones face into the back of their skull. Crime? Ok, sure. But I dont see it being that common of a thing to be robbed at gunpoint. In any event, I can imagine that the cops would look into the matter afterwards. No, they wont magically prevent the crime, but as long as I get my wallet back and have an adventure story to tell, hey its cool. I can kind of see having a gun to defend your home. Thats your property. But bringing it out into public is going too far. Do the people on the street near me have a say in whether I defend myself with a gun? I think they should, since they could end up getting hit by ricochets and so forth.

And, ok, prevention is a valid argument. Someone walking around with a gun clearly displayed is unlikely to be messed with. But I don't think yet that our society has devolved to the point where there is any need for that. Example: In olde britain, you drove on the other side of the road so that, should you meet someone that wanted to kill you, your right, sword baring hand, would be towards them. The US did not follow this custom because we no longer expected this to occur.

Perhaps we could try an experiment: Offer everyone who supposedly doesnt feel safe and therefore needs to tote a gun into restaurants a police escort whenever they are out to get their coffee. See how many take the offer. My theory is that people want to bring guns with them due to their pathetic ass kick fantasies, and not because of any inherent feeling of menace they get from baristas et al. The problem is that if they said this it would sound rather childish, like some kid begging to bring his legos into the living room where the grownups might step on them. So they couch it in terms of self defense.

This post has been edited by J m HofMarN: 02 March 2010 - 06:46 PM

[civilian_number_two]

It's more than self-defence, JM. That's why in the UNited States of America, more people per capita are killed with guns than in any other country on Earth (refuse to find and cite a source; we all know this). Americans will accept some accidental deaths - or even an inordinate number of deliberate ones - if it means personal liberty. This is also why your state governments routinely refuse to ban gay marriage, the right to die, or the smoking or injesting of numerous biological substances in favour of others. Because liberty is more important than "protectionism."

My lunch counter protest is in fact not a bad analogy. If the "right to bear arms" in fact DOES allow these guys to carry their guns around, then it should be no big deal. That media will report on it and that folks will continue to MAKE a big deal out of it indicates that the state doesn't really agree that the "right to bear arms" allows these guys to carry their guns around, no big deal. So even if I disagree with their goals, and even if I think their idea of a protest is juvenile and asinine, it seems they still have a point to make.

A better analogy to their behaviour, of course, and one I'm sure these lovers of LIBERTY would appreciate, is the idea of a gay pride parade in a state that does not imprison men and women for being gay. If it's not illegal, what's the point of a public demonstration? Next you'll be telling me that the Chinese want their own New Year's celebrations. I imagine at some point in the near future, these guys will put two and two together, and in an act of symbolic solidarity, they will march alongside the fags and the dykes and the bis and the trasgendered, carrying their AK-47s high above their heads, shouting "We're here! We kill deer! We're not going away! Get used to us!"

[J m HofMarN]

Civ - A gun pride parade would be literally the coolest thing ever. I still have to point out that likening this in any way whatsoever to the civil rights movement is, while perhaps not entirely inaccurate vis a vis tactics, (they walk into restaurants where guns are not wanted and deliberately bring guns as opposed to walking into restaurants where blacks are not wanted after being born black with no choice in the matter) still deeply insulting to the courage of an unarmed minority with little or no political clout who suffered inexcusable brutality for their ideals, who are being compared to an organized group of armed jackasses with a massive political lobby who suffer, at the very worst, being politely asked to go get their coffee at another restaurant and/or or take off the hand cannon strapped to their side.

[Madam Corvax]

Not a very long time ago I watched whole two seasons of US series Sons of Anarchy. The said Sons being a motorcycle club (i.e. gang) residing in a town aptly named Charming. You see, these guys were supposed to be the GOOD guys and we as audience were supposed to root for them. And what these allegedly "good" guys do? Well, they protect Charming against prostitution and drugs while deriving their income from smuggling illegal weapons and selling them to other gangs, thus further promoting violence. And you see, the town of Charming is totally cool with it. These guys are local heroes, because they are all for protection of local society again an occasional joint or a quickie in a local motel.

This is something my little European brain is not able to comprehend. And yes, I know drugs and prostitution are also likely to induce violence, but it is far more less likely to do you harm than open fire in your face should you perchance rub the redneck the wrong way.

CIv - if allowing your citizens to carry weapons to protect themselves is "liberalism" vs "protectionism", why the same prionciple does not pertain to use of recreational drugs?Why not allow the poor stressed guy in the street relax with a joint after speding 8 hours at Woolmart checkout? Or 8 hours of frying hamburgers? I am sure stress and fat fumes are just as likely to kill him than an occasional psycho with lead pipe agains whom we should all carry our Glocks around.

Oh please

[civilian_number_two]

JM: Oh, fine. Communists then. These guys are fighting a McCarthyist backlash against liberal politics. They weren't born that way, and they can change to conform to society if they like. If they put away their ideals and simply disarm when the well-armed military and police demand it of them, they can blend in with all of the others. And when the powers that be later decide to enforce unacceptable rules, they will have no way to defend themselves. Or they're fags. I tried that analogy as well and I think that worked. But really, any protest in defense of liberty should do.

MC: I was being sarcastic. The same lobbies that promote the personal freedom of handguns and assault rifles (while always using the imagery of the far more acceptable hunting rifle) generally oppose drug use and homosexuality. These guys claim to promote personal freedom, so long as it is the freedom to worship the same god and to follow the rules of the same restrictive society they want to create.

This post has been edited by civilian_number_two: 04 March 2010 - 08:55 PM

[Supes]

We used to have a "Gay Pride Parade" in Sydney... it turned into the Gay & Lesbian Mardi Gras and is now one of the biggest events on the countries social calendar. I think most people have forgotten it started out as a protest march.

[J m HofMarN]

Civ: I'm sorry, the correct rebuttal to my statement was, obviously, "would you call the system of government that the iroquis onandaga tuscarora etcetera had was communism?"

In all seriousness, really, mad props for taking up the insane side of the argument, even only in jest. It's good to keep our skills up til the next troll comes by to inform us about wolf gods or star wars nazis or homocest.

This post has been edited by J m HofMarN: 04 March 2010 - 09:46 PM

[Madam Corvax]

Right, seems that CIv and I have problems picking each other's sarcasm these days Yeah, most probably practise is lacking. Thing is, we all seem to think alike in this subject, so where the fun is in rebutting your own arguments. I have half a mind to start topic on man- made global warming - that should create some nice sparks...

This post has been edited by Madam Corvax: 05 March 2010 - 03:10 AM

[Spoon Poetic]

J m HofMarN, on 02 March 2010 - 06:44 PM, said:

As for me, nope, I've never been in a gun battle. I've been in a few fights, sure, but that's different. You have to consider escalation here. If someone just wants to punch you or something, and you punch them back, well, hey, ok, everyones been punched, we're even, lets go home. Or maybe someone gets their dome rocked and falls over. Whatever. But I would much rather get punched in the face than get in a fight, get mad, pull out a gun and blow someones face into the back of their skull. Crime? Ok, sure. But I dont see it being that common of a thing to be robbed at gunpoint. In any event, I can imagine that the cops would look into the matter afterwards. No, they wont magically prevent the crime, but as long as I get my wallet back and have an adventure story to tell, hey its cool.

Well you can't really give back a rape, or a being murdered, or a loved one being murdered in front of you while you watch, helplessly. Cops can't really help you there. And if you think you're going to want to tell things like that as an "adventure story," I have a list of trauma education programs and rape survivor's websites you might want to check out.



(Just think what Bruce Wayne's life might have been like, had daddy been carrying a gun that night at the opera. Much happier, right? )




I don't carry a gun and I never will; and I'm not gaga about all this gun rights stuff. I am just saying I have a comprehension of the fear mentality that causes a lot of people to want to carry guns.

And they want those rights to stick around, and to spread to places that don't have those rights, so they protest in this manner... Which I still don't think is the best way to go about it, but at least they are getting attention.



(No one wants to tear apart my gun-to-car comparison? )

This post has been edited by Spoon Poetic: 05 March 2010 - 12:52 PM

[Madam Corvax]

Spoon - I think the analogy car-guns is a bit lost on me. You can hurt people with a lot of things which are in common use, knives being the best example. And yes, we allow just about anyone to buy and carry around kitchen knives - some of those in my kitchen would be lethal for sure. Thing is, the basic purpose of a car is to get from point A to point B in most convenient manner and the basic purpose of a knife is to cut my veggies for lunch.

The basic purpose of a gun, however, is to shoot-to-kill. No, it is not "to defend yourself" If someone is really, I mean really scared that a psycho is going to attack her/his in the street, there are several other options before allowing everybody to carry deadly projectile weapon which your kid can find in your drawer and which can hurt other people too. Think about pepper sprays, taser guns, self-defense lessons. Or hiring body guard. Or not leaving your home and ordering your groceris on the net.

Come to think of it, the probability of a psycho with a lead pipe coming at you in the street, yelling (only in such situation would you be able to effectively pull out your gun, aim and shoot in self defense) is about the same as a psycho sniper on the rooftop randomly aiming at passers by, or kids throwing bricks at passing cars. In the latter two instances, your carrying a gun would not be very effective, would it,

Hence, the self-defence argument is not a good one for me

[Spoon Poetic]

That's the argument I was waiting for, haha. Same one I used against my dad. A gun's only purpose is to cause harm or even death.

I do think the way a person is licensed to drive a car could work better for guns than some of the current systems, though. Lots of education, training, testing, and registration.
It sickens me that in some places, you can just go sign up, and have the gun pretty much immediately, not knowing a thing about it or how to use it/not use it safely.

And no, a gun is not all that useful in many self-defense situations, but people *think* it is, and that's why it's important to them.

Also they think the government is going to start taking over bad movie style and they want to be able to form rebel militias and fight back.
(That argument always reminds me of Star Wars. The rebel forces gathering to fight the government that's gone bad...)

I get what they're after, though. It's basically fear governing their choices and opinions. Fear is a valid, though not perfect, motivator. And the gun makes them much less afraid. They're fighting for their right to be unafraid, to feel secure.