No matter what states allow, there is no reason to ban the ownership and carry of firearms in this country. Being allowed to openly carry a firearm in public does not make the citizenry violent, and guns only become dangerous when they aren’t handled properly or someone has intent to harm others. Situations can arise where law enforcement is unavailable and the influence and power of a firearm is needed. And guns don’t have to be fired to keep a violent criminal from hurting innocent people. The display of a firearm is quite enough to deter that intent.
I've also been pointed towards a segment from Fox News's "Red Eye"
The host seems pretty cool about it, but his guests (with the exception of the hamster) are what I have come to expect from the media when it comes to guns. The... guy (trying to keep it family friendly here) at 3:30ish is an idiot. Everyone that I know that OCs, including myself, do not want places making a big deal of it and kicking us out. When I stopped at Fleet Farm today I didn't want to have a long conversation with the manager and possibly the SPPD, I wanted a couple boxes of buckshot, some drill bits, and a tackle box to organize my various extra AR parts. Thankfully I was simply able to walk in and get my stuff, like every other time I've been there, and the check-out girl seemed flirtier than normal, despite the full size 1911 riding in plain view on my right hip.
If I wanted to make a big deal of it and get the cops called, I'd get an AK pistol and sling that baby while I'm out shopping...
That hamster, on the other hand, is probably one of the most intelligent commentators I've seen on the news in a gun related story.
(I am also performing a face palm for the guy that showed up with a shotgun... not helping.)
The Wall Street Journal also ran a story today (well yesterday now) in regards to how Starbucks is asking to be left out of things. I agree, they didn't ask for the press, the Brady idiots forced it upon them. Kudos to Starbucks for not caving and telling the Brady people where they can stick their petition. It's their business and they'll run it how they see fit. Thankfully that includes not discriminating against law abiding citizens. Also, thankfully, the poll attached to the article shows most reader's feel the same. (Granted I'm sure there's is a bit of padding going on with linking and whatnot from the gun community, it's not like we've never done that before...)
Some bits-
Allowing customers who are armed with unconcealed guns on the premises "can't be good for business—it galvanizes people, and some of them won't patronize Starbucks after this," said Joshua Horwitz, executive director of the Educational Fund to Stop Gun Violence, a gun-control organization in Washington, D.C.
I've also noted quite a few people suggesting that this decision is placing Starbucks employees in danger.
Indeed, not all baristas agree that the Starbucks policy protects them. "I think the policy shows complete disregard for the safety and sentiments of their workers. The only thing worse than a yuppie upset with how their frappuccino turned out is a yuppie with a gun who's unhappy with how their frappuccino turned out," says Erik Forman, a Starbucks barista and union member in Minneapolis.
Well, it hasn't been an issue before, otherwise they would have had a no gun policy a long time ago. What I wonder is what Starbucks's policy is on employees openly carrying. I also didn't know that they had a barista union...
Of course there's a few rather skewed articles in the mix, I made the mistake of clicking on the editorial from the Los Angeles Times written by some idiot who assumes all OCers just never grew up and still want to be cowboys (good god what would they think if they ever saw a SASS gathering?) Some people make my head hurt.
Posts
1 comment:
Post a Comment