Starbucks in crosshairs on gun-control debate by Niki2

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

Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
Here's a little conundrum - if people in the US are so pissed off at any perceived infringement of their right to own weapons - the argument being that it's an individual's right to protect themselves against crime, tyranny and people looking at them funny, then how do you square that argument with forcing Iraq to disarm, or rumbling away threateningly to Iran.

Why is it a US citizen's right to own weaponry, a US government's right to be armed with whatever it damnwell pleases, but other countries are not given that right? Don't we all have the 'God given right' to defend ourselves from tyranny - even we disagree on what tyranny is?

The funny thing is, I *DO* have a problem with the US doing that. Apparently, the feeling around here is that it's wrong when we disarm other nations at gunpoint, but somehow right when we do it to ourselves.

See, I don't "square that argument"; in fact, I'm against the US using such tactics, as I've said many times before.

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

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

Sunday, March 7, 2010 6:19 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
I've been known to carry guns, and I've never shot anyone. Either that's NOT the only reason for them, or I'm using them all wrong.

All wrong.
Never shot a friend?
You are NOT executive material.

The laughing Chrisisall

"I only do it to to remind you that I'm right and that deep down, you know I'm right, you want me to be right, you need me to be right." - The Imperial Hero Strikes Back, 2010

You don't shoot your friends to climb the executive ladder - you stab them in the back! You only shoot them once you've gotten as high as you're going to go.

And if you're really, truly evil, you make them apologize for you shooting them.

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

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

Sunday, March 7, 2010 6:21 PM

CHRISISALL

I stand corrected.

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

Sunday, March 7, 2010 6:28 PM

MAGONSDAUGHTER

seems that everyone is getting upset - but really is there's a fair degree of middle ground between most of the posters

Frem has said
.

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

∑ So long as Starbucks respects my red card AND my weapon, they'll be gettin my business,

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

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

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

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

∑ What I am saying is insane is that the idea of here, in america, banning guns would have all that much of an impact on a society that's gone sour and violent for a whole multitude of reasons that have jack damned all to do with guns,

Kwicko has said

∑ And as uncomfortable as some of Starbucks' regular customers may be at the idea of people walking in and out or hanging around their favorite koffee klatch with firearms strapped on and in plain sight, it may have a positive effect if it becomes common enough.

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

Jongstraw has said

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

Mincingbeast has said

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

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

SignyM has said

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

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

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

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

∑ I OWN A GUN.

Niki2 has said

∑ I have no problem with someone having a gun, if properly trained (wanna bet how many AREN'T?) and in their house for self-protection. I have a big problem with people wearing them out on the street or in Starbucks,

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

∑ Personally, I DO believe it’s intimidation—against those who feel they should watch someone with a gun, and against anti-gun people who are uncomfortable around people carrying something they do not need, with which they might harm others.

∑ I asked MY husband--who owns five guns of various types

Magonsdaughter has said

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

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

∑ I agree it's difficult once the genie is out of the bottle, and from some of the descriptions of the neighbourhoods you live in,hell I'd probably carry a gun. Well maybe some mace or capsicum spray. I also agree that restricting guns does not for a peaceful society make. We have a lot of violent crime here, but not generally gun crime. I agree that there needs to be some more thought about preventing violence in our society that goes deeper than banning weapons.

Pizmobeach has said

∑ Guns in your house = great, protect your property and your family.
Guns at the range or in designated hunting areas = great
Guns in between those places need to be in a locked cases.
A check for all unregistered guns turned in.

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

Sunday, March 7, 2010 7:08 PM

magonsdaughter, i applaud your attempt at nuance and reason, but you might as well try to clean up an oil spill with a wet nap. belief is immune to experience, or reason, and debate is essentially choosing a side and defending it with rancor. sweet, lovely rancor: bask in it.

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

Sunday, March 7, 2010 8:29 PM

MAGONSDAUGHTER

Quote:
Originally posted by mincingbeast:
magonsdaughter, i applaud your attempt at nuance and reason, but you might as well try to clean up an oil spill with a wet nap. belief is immune to experience, or reason, and debate is essentially choosing a side and defending it with rancor. sweet, lovely rancor: bask in it.

I suppose I'm more optimistic than that - I'd say it differently

- belief is often dependent on upbringing and experience and debate is often about choosing a side and sticking to it, bit not always. People can persuade through discussion. You might not turn someone 180˚ but you might manage 20˚

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

Monday, March 8, 2010 6:29 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Yes, I believe there is a middle ground here, and its being proposed by people who (1) own guns and (2) are familiar with violence (3) understand how rights CAN be chipped away :

Gun ownership= fine
Open carry= bad

Frem and Mike see banning open carry as the first step onto the slippery slope of total gun ban. Others don't.

Part of it is how you feel about guns- whether you see them as part of the problem of violence, or as the solution. I refer you to the diverse reactions in Rachel Maddow Found Wulfie www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.asp?b=18&t=42159

Mike and others saw this as a good thing... or at least, a defensible thing.

I see this as the typical American reaction to a problem: Bad schools? Get a gun! Poor trash pickup? Get a gun! Dark-skinned neighbors? Get a gun! I see this as the slippery slope towards social chaos and breakdown, a Mad Max world of bands of small armed groups shooting first and asking questions later.

Personally I find this kind of fracturing to be exactly the WRONG things to do, bc while we are fighting amongst ourselves, the REAL problem- the PTB (who, BTW, you are not about to "solve" with small squabbling armed groups) find this oh so very amusing. They would look on this exactly as they currently look on gang violence... as way to solve overpopulation of the lower classes. (and trust me, the middle class looks very low from their lofty heights.)

Its as Frem said: the real power is in allies. (Funny, that word is so close to alliance) You become allies by finding common interest, not by poking at people needlessly. That arrogance does NOT win friends; it's a bad idea to being with. (And BTW, the open gun-toters are assuming that people in Sbux don't have guns and aren't familiar with them and must somehow be "educated" about them. BAD assumption!)

Now the question is: What to do?

Well, we can ignore them like the petulant, nasty children that they are (emotionally, anyway) and perhaps the problem will go away. Or we can revisit our open carry laws and make open carry illegal. SOMEONE has to be the adult in this dynamic- it sure isn't the gun toters. So I will have to set aside my fear (schoolyard bullies with guns make me afraid) and anger, and think about how to bring "them" into OUR fold.

You do that by opening a DIALOG. I think the first thing to do is to walk up to someone openly carrying a gun, and them about it, and then ask them politely to put their gun in their vehicle. And if they say "no", just say: You're making me and other here very uncomfortable, and we would appreciate it very much.

That takes more balls than the all open gun-toters have put together.

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

Monday, March 8, 2010 7:03 AM

PIZMOBEACH

... fully loaded, safety off...

Biggest problem for me is thinking it's possible to treat a Country as diverse as this one, like it's "one country." Like one size fits all. If the people in Abilene are fine with open carry then why should I care? Let people decide what they want where they are, the US doesn't have to have one law - it's too diverse and too big and it's what causes these kinds of endless disagreements.

Thumbnail RANT: The constitution was written oh so freaking long ago when things were so very different. Time for Constitution 2.0. or are we so afraid that if we touch it (like the Bible) we'll be lost? It's like some kind of scifi story where this civilization is still following the rules that were set thousands of years ago by some 'Mystical Ancients," like they would somehow know back then, what's right for us now...

Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.com

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

Monday, March 8, 2010 7:10 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

RE DIVERSITY: That's why I suggest "local response". Open carry in a relatively rural environment might make sense, but in an urban or suburban environment maybe not so much.

RE CONSTITUTION: The Constitution was a compromise, which enshrined slavery. SOME FF were adamant about gun ownership, others were not. The wording in the Constitution took that into account, and reflects the compromise of that day.

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

Monday, March 8, 2010 8:31 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Yes, I believe there is a middle ground here, and its being proposed by people who (1) own guns and (2) are familiar with violence (3) understand how rights CAN be chipped away :

Gun ownership= fine
Open carry= bad

Frem and Mike see banning open carry as the first step onto the slippery slope of total gun ban. Others don't.

Well, it's a lot easier to see that "slippery slope" when it's been STATED AS THE GOAL right here in this very thread.

Quote:

Part of it is how you feel about guns- whether you see them as part of the problem of violence, or as the solution. I refer you to the diverse reactions in Rachel Maddow Found Wulfie www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.asp?b=18&t=42159

Mike and others saw this as a good thing... or at least, a defensible thing.

And every time the argument comes up about the 2A, someone feels the need to bring up the "well-regulated militia" part of it. And those are usually the EXACT SAME PEOPLE who then have a problem when folks try to band themselves together to form that "well-regulated militia". You question these peoples' motives in wanting to work together as a form of neighborhood watch; I question your questioning of their motives.

Quote:

I see this as the typical American reaction to a problem: Bad schools? Get a gun! Poor trash pickup? Get a gun! Dark-skinned neighbors? Get a gun! I see this as the slippery slope towards social chaos and breakdown, a Mad Max world of bands of small armed groups shooting first and asking questions later.

So when you were "sighted on" by the neighbors, when you were subjected to gang violence, did you go over to their house for tea and cookies, in the spirit of working together? Or did you get a gun? You DO own a gun, right?

Quote:

Personally I find this kind of fracturing to be exactly the WRONG things to do, bc while we are fighting amongst ourselves, the REAL problem- the PTB (who, BTW, you are not about to "solve" with small squabbling armed groups) find this oh so very amusing. They would look on this exactly as they currently look on gang violence... as way to solve overpopulation of the lower classes. (and trust me, the middle class looks very low from their lofty heights.)

Its as Frem said: the real power is in allies. (Funny, that word is so close to alliance) You become allies by finding common interest, not by poking at people needlessly. That arrogance does NOT win friends; it's a bad idea to being with. (And BTW, the open gun-toters are assuming that people in Sbux don't have guns and aren't familiar with them and must somehow be "educated" about them. BAD assumption!)

But isn't that EXACTLY the way you look down on gun owners? You feel the need to poke them, to needle them, to confront them, or at the very least to contact the business owners and insist that they BAN them from being in the same vicinity as you, because you think so much less of them. That strikes me as supremely arrogant. Why couldn't you simply engage them and speak with them, and try to make them your allies?

Quote:

Well, we can ignore them like the petulant, nasty children that they are (emotionally, anyway) and perhaps the problem will go away. Or we can revisit our open carry laws and make open carry illegal. SOMEONE has to be the adult in this dynamic- it sure isn't the gun toters. So I will have to set aside my fear (schoolyard bullies with guns make me afraid) and anger, and think about how to bring "them" into OUR fold.

Funny, you seem to have a problem with Starbucks doing exactly what you say we could all do - ignore them and carry on with our lives like it's no big deal.

Quote:

You do that by opening a DIALOG. I think the first thing to do is to walk up to someone openly carrying a gun, and them about it, and then ask them politely to put their gun in their vehicle. And if they say "no", just say: You're making me and other here very uncomfortable, and we would appreciate it very much.

Here's a tip: don't start your "dialog" by yelling "Fuck all guns, all gun owners are fucking crazy assholes who should be banned from civil society like the animals they are." That pretty much ends any chance at a reasoned dialog.

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

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

Monday, March 8, 2010 8:39 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
RE DIVERSITY: That's why I suggest "local response". Open carry in a relatively rural environment might make sense, but in an urban or suburban environment maybe not so much.

RE CONSTITUTION: The Constitution was a compromise, which enshrined slavery. SOME FF were adamant about gun ownership, others were not. The wording in the Constitution took that into account, and reflects the compromise of that day.

Can we allow "local response" to all constitutional issues, then? Abortion? Can states outlaw it outright if they want to? How about counties? Towns?

What about free speech? Is it a universal right? One size fits all? What if I'm in a small rural town and I don't want certain books allowed in the library? Will you support my local right to ban those books from my library, and indeed, from my town? What if I want evolution thrown out of my schools and replaced by teaching Creationism? Will you support my state's right to do that?

You're right about the Consitution being an old document. It couldn't possibly foresee the internet, flying planes into buildings, 4chan, or LOLCats. Maybe we should revisit it and do away with LOTS of the quaint little things contained in the Bill of Rights. Hell, we're about halfway to abolishing them anyway; might as well go ahead and finish 'em off.

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

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

Monday, March 8, 2010 9:19 AM

BYTEMITE

There are many flaws in the US Constitution. The Bill of Rights as they currently stand I do not consider one of them. Hell, honestly I think we should add some.

The stated reason for the 2nd Ammendment is "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."

I'm not a gunowner. I find it rather pointless for day to day life. It's not really at the point where people generally need a gun to protect yourself from the State or Federal Government. Frem can give some examples of times when he's drawn on official law enforcement and had THEM arrested, but the most likely result, if you don't know what you're doing, is a massive beatdown. When this happens, it could be both brutality AND complete idiocy.

But that doesn't mean I think gun ownership isn't a check against the authority of the State and Federal government. Generally gun ownership in this regard is more useful when the citizenry sides with the gunowner versus authority figures (not the current state of things), but back in the days gun ownership was the way to defend yourself against unlawful/unwarranted search, seizure, and arrest, and this still comes up sometimes.

I'm willing to consider any gunowner in a state who is not a murderous felon or dangerously reckless part of a loosely organized militia. Back in those times, that's what a militia kind of meant. I mean, Paul Revere's ride, right? You really think every house along the stretch of roads he rode were enscripted members of the then being formed colonial army? Nope. Would those people who found this message alarming have gone back into their houses, gotten their guns and acted as an impromptu militia? Yep.

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

Monday, March 8, 2010 9:35 AM

if our founders couldn't agree on what our founding document meant--and they couldn't--then i doubt that with an extra 250 years to argue over and interpret it, that we'll reach any agreement over what it means.

a perfect, if humorous, articulation of our attitude towards the con:

http://www.theonion.com/content/news/area_man_passionate_defender_of

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

Monday, March 8, 2010 2:02 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
Well, it's a lot easier to see that "slippery slope" when it's been STATED AS THE GOAL right here in this very thread.

Well, the people who don't want open carry are not the same people who want to ban all guns. So if you're discussing the issue WITH ME, please restrict yourself to discussing what I propose, not what someone else wants. That would be the reasonable thing to do.

Quote:
And every time the argument comes up about the 2A, someone feels the need to bring up the "well-regulated militia" part of it. And those are usually the EXACT SAME PEOPLE who then have a problem when folks try to band themselves together to form that "well-regulated militia". You question these peoples' motives in wanting to work together as a form of neighborhood watch; I question your questioning of their motives.

A small town is worried about terrorists??? Really? What the frak would a terrorist want with some podunk town? And what does that have to do with bringing the big bad gubmint to heel- the supposed purpose of the 2nd Amendment (according to Frem)? The FF recognized that by FORCING people to decide on a national basis, it would blunt the prejudices of the individual groups, and they spoke explicitly in those terms, I kid you not. Seems like you want to go backwards, which I think is a retreat from the real problems at-hand.

Quote:
So when you were "sighted on" by the neighbors, when you were subjected to gang violence, did you go over to their house for tea and cookies, in the spirit of working together? Or did you get a gun? You DO own a gun, right?

Mike, bad schools and late trash pickup are not the same as gang violence. Guns are useful for some things but not others. Wow, I've really tweaked you, haven't I? 'Cause you're way over the top.

Quote:
But isn't that EXACTLY the way you look down on gun owners?

NO. Man, you have lost all nuance. I AM a gun owner. I can see in some situations... hunting season in a rural area for example... that open carry would be entirely appropriate. But what IS going on at Sbux? Are these hunters who've just stopped by for a quick cuppa? Do they feel the need to protect the patrons because the neighborhood is so violent? NO. They are there SPECIFICALLY and AVOWEDLY to tweak people.

Quote:
You feel the need to poke them, to needle them, to confront them

Who's tweaking who? Did I go up to some random person, ask them if they were a gun owner and go off on them if they were? If I'm poked, I tend to poke back. Fair is fair

Quote:
or at the very least to contact the business owners and insist that they BAN them from being in the same vicinity as you, because you think so much less of them

Again, I don't think less of gun owners. I am one. I think less of gun owners who use their weapons to intimidate others.. who openly carry weapons into inappropriate situations. Since you're not one of them and neither am I, what's your problem?

Quote:
That strikes me as supremely arrogant. Why couldn't you simply engage them and speak with them, and try to make them your allies?

That is exactly what I propose. And I think it's telling that this didn't come form the "open carry" people, who prolly feel they can do whatever they want and there ain't nutin' anyone will dare to do about it.

Quote:
Funny, you seem to have a problem with Starbucks doing exactly what you say we could all do - ignore them and carry on with our lives like it's no big deal.

Yeah, like walking by a mom ranting at and threatening her child and pretending its OK, bc it's free speech?

Quote:
Here's a tip: don't start your "dialog" by yelling "Fuck all guns, all gun owners are fucking crazy assholes who should be banned from civil society like the animals they are." That pretty much ends any chance at a reasoned dialog.

But nobody has said that. Now you're just making shit up.

Quote:
Can we allow "local response" to all constitutional issues, then?

I meant... and I thought it was clear from my example.. PERSONAL response. If the guy on the other end wants a dialog, great.

OTOH, you seem to get behind people forming local militias. So it's coming across like: if it's a local response and its pro-gun you're fine with it, and if it's anti-open-carry you're not. One-sided much?

But let me be very clear... YOU GO FIND ME WHERE THE CONSTITUTION PROTECTS OPEN CARRY. And stop getting in a huff about rights that don't exist.

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

Monday, March 8, 2010 2:16 PM

"Fuck all guns, all gun owners are fucking crazy assholes who should be banned from civil society like the animals they are."

Actually, I came pretty close to saying this. Something to the effect of "fuck guns, they have no place in civil society." by civil society, i meant the part of public life that is separate from the force-backed faust-recht state apparatus. i actually really like the idea of soldiers having guns, and maybe even cops, too (all the better to take your precious freedoms from you). and if wanted to drop an invective bomb, i'm pretty sure I'd throw in sissy, in addition to crazy.

So dude isn't making shit up, so much as doing a little bit of creative reading--perhaps filling in the gaps with his own fears and insecurities? its something i often do myself.

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

Monday, March 8, 2010 2:26 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Mike, best as I can tell, directed his post at ME. So I would appreciate it if he would respond to what I said, not what someone else said, and not to what I didn't say.

What I see is that Frem and Mike conflate my reaction to bad gun behavior as a reaction to ALL gun ownership, and xfer that response to themselves. And since guns are a very important part of their psyche, they wind up feeling personally threatened.

Funny thing is... up until this thread, I prolly would have felt very comfortable being in their "open carry" presence because I would believe them to be responsible and responsive to the reactions of their fellow human beings. But after this, I'm not sure HOW I would feel, because they seem to have placed themselves firmly and viscerally in the camp of defending bullies.

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

Monday, March 8, 2010 2:31 PM

Just wanted to clarify, is all. You've been the consistently reasonable person in this thread, and while I'd hate for your thoughtful responses to get lumped together with my drooling ones, duder wasn't totally inaccurate. just mis-citing.

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

Monday, March 8, 2010 4:11 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

BWAHAHAHAHA!!!!!

IMHO, open carry doesn't belong in a civilized society. But who said this IS a civilized society???

Quote:
The goal, at least in part, is to make the case for liberalized concealed weapon laws by demonstrating how uncomfortable many people are with publicly displayed guns

Yup, a textbook example of how to win friends, start a dialog, and forge alliances.

hee hee hee

ETA: HEY! I have a better idea! What about open carry in church?? In schools? In banks?

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

Monday, March 8, 2010 4:51 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
BWAHAHAHAHA!!!!!

IMHO, open carry doesn't belong in a civilized society. But who said this IS a civilized society???

Quote:
The goal, at least in part, is to make the case for liberalized concealed weapon laws by demonstrating how uncomfortable many people are with publicly displayed guns
Yup, a textbook example of how to win friends, start a dialog, and forge alliances.

hee hee hee

ETA: HEY! I have a better idea! What about open carry in church?? In schools? In banks?

how about mandatory open carry, everywhere? it would be good for the economy!

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

Monday, March 8, 2010 6:47 PM

MAGONSDAUGHTER

Aeroplanes?

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

Tuesday, March 9, 2010 1:50 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Sure! Why not?

If it's a good idea at Sbux and family-friendly pizza places, it's a good idea everywhere!

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

Tuesday, March 9, 2010 8:42 AM

NIKI2

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

Just wanted to come in and say that Sig has pretty much been speaking for me in this argument. My point as well was that

Quote:
What I see is that Frem and Mike conflate my reaction to bad gun behavior as a reaction to ALL gun ownership, and xfer that response to themselves. And since guns are a very important part of their psyche, they wind up feeling personally threatened.

Quote:
the people who don't want open carry are not the same people who want to ban all guns.

Quote:
Again, I don't think less of gun owners. I am one. I think less of gun owners who use their weapons to intimidate others.. who openly carry weapons into inappropriate situations. Since you're not one of them and neither am I, what's your problem?

Quote:
So dude isn't making shit up, so much as doing a little bit of creative reading--perhaps filling in the gaps with his own fears and insecurities?

Those are points I was trying to get across to Frem...it probably would have gotten about the same reaction, but it's the point I was trying to get across.

"A little bit of creative reading" is one of the things that screws up communication. If we don't try to read what people actually say, how can we communicate?

I, and my husband, have no problem with gun ownership in general, but my opinions have been overblown, I've been lumped in with those who want total bans, and the strength of the reactions and misunderstanding of what both Sig and I have been saying surprised and saddened me. I tried to communicate, but I feel an AWFUL lot of "creative reading" went on unfairly, so I gave up.

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

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

Tuesday, March 9, 2010 10:41 AM

PIZMOBEACH

... fully loaded, safety off...

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:

Can we allow "local response" to all constitutional issues, then? Abortion? Can states outlaw it outright if they want to? How about counties? Towns?

What about free speech? Is it a universal right? One size fits all? What if I'm in a small rural town and I don't want certain books allowed in the library? Will you support my local right to ban those books from my library, and indeed, from my town? What if I want evolution thrown out of my schools and replaced by teaching Creationism? Will you support my state's right to do that?

Those are good questions Mike. When I mentioned "OC should be a local issue" I almost threw in, "same with abortion..." but I thought one flash bomb was enough. But I do think there are a lot of similar issues we try to address with a single solution where that's really just impossible given the range of people we have to consider. When the constitution was written that range was a great deal narrower.

But that's the question isn't it? What do we need have apply to all the 50 states to keep our "One Nation" identity, and what can we relegate to smaller gov levels so that we can preserve people's sense of individual freedom? And to keep them from hating Washington? And keep smart people from opposite camps from being lost forever in a deadlock? So we can get actually get somewhere and not spend eternity discussing and trying to bring the other side down...

Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.com

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

Tuesday, March 9, 2010 11:05 AM

Quote:
I... have no problem with gun ownership in general, but my opinions have been overblown, I've been lumped in with those who want total bans, and the strength of the reactions and misunderstanding of what both Sig and I have been saying surprised and saddened me. I tried to communicate, but I feel an AWFUL lot of "creative reading" went on unfairly, so I gave up.

"Creative reading", indeed. I have no use for open carry, find concealed carry more than adequate (and even vastly preferable, personally), but by trying to point out its legality or suggest that it just MIGHT be a defensible position for Stabucks to take to allow people acting within the law to enter their stores, I was lumped in with gun-loving nutjobs and all but accused of using guns as dildoes and brandishing them openly in a clear effort to bully others into doing my bidding at gunpoint.

That, along with an ongoing battle with depression which I'm currently losing, have me rethinking and reprioritizing.

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

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

Tuesday, March 9, 2010 11:15 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Quote:
I... have no problem with gun ownership in general, but my opinions have been overblown, I've been lumped in with those who want total bans, and the strength of the reactions and misunderstanding of what both Sig and I have been saying surprised and saddened me. I tried to communicate, but I feel an AWFUL lot of "creative reading" went on unfairly, so I gave up.

"Creative reading", indeed. I have no use for open carry, find concealed carry more than adequate (and even vastly preferable, personally), but by trying to point out its legality or suggest that it just MIGHT be a defensible position for Stabucks to take to allow people acting within the law to enter their stores, I was lumped in with gun-loving nutjobs and all but accused of using guns as dildoes and brandishing them openly in a clear effort to bully others into doing my bidding at gunpoint.

That, along with an ongoing battle with depression which I'm currently losing, have me rethinking and reprioritizing.

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

i have been an absolute unfair dildo myself in this thread, and confessed to a bit of my own "creative reading." for what its worth in the world of the interwebs, i regret being such a dildo, and wish you victory in your battle against depression. remember, attack depression in the nads. no mercy.

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

Tuesday, March 9, 2010 11:30 AM

PIZMOBEACH

... fully loaded, safety off...

Mike, to be fair I believe the exact words were, "It's unconstitutional to enter a Star Bucks while brandishing a dildo." It seems a might technical distinction I know, but the law is the law.

Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.com

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

Tuesday, March 9, 2010 11:41 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
"Creative reading", indeed. I have no use for open carry, find concealed carry more than adequate (and even vastly preferable, personally), but by trying to point out its legality or suggest that it just MIGHT be a defensible position for Stabucks to take to allow people acting within the law to enter their stores, I was lumped in with gun-loving nutjobs and all but accused of using guns as dildoes and brandishing them openly in a clear effort to bully others into doing my bidding at gunpoint.

That, along with an ongoing battle with depression which I'm currently losing, have me rethinking and reprioritizing.

Oh, dear. Did I do that? I didn't think so, I THOUGHT I was responding to your posts but mebbe I was doing what I accused others of.

Didn't mean to push your buttons.

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

Tuesday, March 9, 2010 11:49 AM

Yeeshhhh... I don't even know WHAT it is, or WHY, but I've been in a funk for weeks now. Maybe months. It's gotten markedly worse the last few days, and I can't seem to pull out of it. I'm off in search of natural remedies.

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

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

Tuesday, March 9, 2010 12:09 PM