Pagan
Regular Member
imported post
Nelson_Muntz wrote:
Nelson_Muntz wrote:
That there is funny I don't care who you are:lol:oc spray
That there is funny I don't care who you are:lol:oc spray
Sure do respect Starbucks position. They stated that they do not want to be in the middle. The old addage, if you are not going to be part of the solution at least don't be part of the problem. Starbucks, byNOT being part of the problem is part of the solution.http://www.huffingtonpost.com/paul-helmke/sorry-starbucks-you-are-i_b_487407.html
Paul Helmke:
Sorry, Starbucks: You Are In This Debate
". . . The gun extremist want an America where there are guns everywhere: not just in coffeehouses, but also in bars, churches, parks, banks and classrooms.
By capitulating to the gun extremists because they want this issue to "go away," Starbucks has made a hazardous mistake. . . ."
Yep, and most important to observe is that after Starbucks very publicly stated that they did NOT want to be caught up in this, it was not our side but the Bradyites who, as shown above, basically said that they did not give a F&*K what Starbucks wants. And in so doing also exposed who are the "extremists" in this arguement. Hint: It ain't us.DanM wrote:Sure do respect Starbucks position. They stated that they do not want to be in the middle. The old addage, if you are not going to be part of the solution at least don't be part of the problem. Starbucks, byNOT being part of the problem is part of the solution.http://www.huffingtonpost.com/paul-helmke/sorry-starbucks-you-are-i_b_487407.html
Paul Helmke:
Sorry, Starbucks: You Are In This Debate
". . . The gun extremist want an America where there are guns everywhere: not just in coffeehouses, but also in bars, churches, parks, banks and classrooms.
By capitulating to the gun extremists because they want this issue to "go away," Starbucks has made a hazardous mistake. . . ."
I thinik most reasonable people would figure that it would be pointless to carry a gun, if your not going to carry ammo for it, too.I like how the article author stated:
The Starbucks Coffee Company has become the subject of national media attention because some gun activists have decided to wear their guns openly, with loaded ammunition magazines close by, in Starbucks stores in California.
Taking careful note to say loaded ammunition magazines. I had to read it twice to be sure I did not misconstrue it as loaded weapons, which we all know by now is illegal in California. I'm sure some will read it and misconstrue it but it is a moot point considering, for example, here in North Carolina, we have no restrictions on mode of carry as long as the weapon is not being brandished in a threatening manner.
What would you do in that situation?
They'd have there private armed body guards shoot you. :lol:Should put signs in front of these people's homes "Member of Brady Campaign! Does not believe in privately owned firearms!" and take bets on how many times they're robbed in a month.
Uh, oh. I only wear a size 8 (about a men's size 6). Does that mean I have to kick twice?Alexcabbie wrote:A size 12 to the groin. Puts a stop to any action very quickly.:uhoh:What would you do in that situation?
Ding, ding, ding, we have a winner! That's exactly what I was thinking. A face full of OC is great for taking the fight out of a belligerent person.oc spray
Luckily, YES!:dude:bigdaddy1 wrote:Uh, oh. I only wear a size 8 (about a men's size 6). Does that mean I have to kick twice?Alexcabbie wrote:A size 12 to the groin. Puts a stop to any action very quickly.:uhoh:What would you do in that situation?
To better understand the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution it is helpful to consider how almost every reasonable person would interpret this amendment if it did not involve something which is considered controversial or politically incorrect by some and idolized by others. Arms in the possession of ordinary citizens meet both criteria. Let's, for the sake of argument, suppose that the Second Amendment dealt with books, not arms or weapons, and read like this: "A well educated electorate, being necessary to the maintenance of a free State, the right of the people to own and read books, shall not be infringed." Does anyone really believe that liberals would claim that only people who were eligible to vote should be allowed to buy and read books? Or that a person should have to have voted in the last election before the government would permit him or her to buy a book? Would the importation of books be banned if they did not meet an "educational purpose" test? Would some States limit citizens to buying "one book a month"? Would inflammatory "assault books" be banned in California?