Brady Campaign is going NUTS on Starbucks!

imported post

Nelson_Muntz wrote:

oc spray

Click to expand...

That there is funny I don't care who you are:lol:

imported post

i think it would be funny. especially baiting you to draw. they'd never expect it. isn't unwanted touching called 'battery'? commit battery and get a faceful.

imported post

DanM wrote:

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. . . ."

Click to expand...

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.

imported post

DEFENSOR wrote:

DanM wrote:

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. . . ."

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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.

imported post

The story has made it's way to the BBC. There is a clip at about 00:20 of that weasel Helmke. Is he creepy or what? He makes my skin crawl. I hope he hasn't reproduced.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/8553101.stm

imported post

tekshogun wrote:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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.

imported post

Alexcabbie wrote:

What would you do in that situation?

Click to expand...

A size 12 to the groin. Puts a stop to any action very quickly.:uhoh:

imported post

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.

imported post

ABNinfantryman wrote:

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.

Click to expand...

They'd have there private armed body guards shoot you. :lol:

imported post

bigdaddy1 wrote:

Alexcabbie wrote:

What would you do in that situation?

Click to expand...

A size 12 to the groin. Puts a stop to any action very quickly.:uhoh:

Click to expand...

Uh, oh. I only wear a size 8 (about a men's size 6). Does that mean I have to kick twice?

imported post

Nelson_Muntz wrote:

oc spray

Click to expand...

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.

As a side benefit it would clearly show who has restraint and good judgment, and who has a foul temper and bad judgment.

imported post

Riana wrote:

bigdaddy1 wrote:

Alexcabbie wrote:

What would you do in that situation?

Click to expand...

A size 12 to the groin. Puts a stop to any action very quickly.:uhoh:

Click to expand...

Uh, oh. I only wear a size 8 (about a men's size 6). Does that mean I have to kick twice?

Click to expand...

Luckily, YES!:dude:

imported post

Starbucks isn't here to fight our war.

They are respectful and welcoming of us.

This is madness that the BB won't just STFU and let a private business do what they will.

When Buckhorn Grill asked us to go sod off, we said, "suit your damn selves". No muss, no fuss. Their house, their rules.

In the words of Dr. Rockso, "back off, jackoff".

imported post

Yesterday - natch when the media was in town covering the Alexandria St. Pats parade so as to guarantee maximum exposure - the Brady Bunch did a protest at the Old Town Starbucks. I didn't go down there as I was asleep (workng mids); but boy you should have heard the breathless biased coverage they got from WTOP.

And, it seems they dragged along - and this too is getting way tiresome - a Virginia Tech survivor, a young lady who said: "Ummm, I don't want to - uh- drink any coffee..because I --umm-don't want to get shot...again.."

Really this using Virginia Tech survivors and/or their weepy relatives to plug their agenda is reprehensible, and I am getting a bit out of patience with the survivors and victim relatives too. This is worse than the abortion nuts waving their jars with pickled fetuses about.

"I don't want to drink any coffee because I don't want to get shot again?" So they're saying that coffee causes gun violence? No, seriously, I know they were trying to say that Starbucks is putting people in danger of being shot. But what a stupid thing to say.

Me, I am not aoout to OC across a Brady line unless someone is with me to explain to any would-be interviewer that I have laryngitis and am going for some throat-soothing coffee. Otherwise I am likely to give them both barrels of truth, as harshly and as plainly as i have stated it here. And of course the media will make me - and by extension the rest of us - look like a-holes. Unlike the Bradyites, I know my linitations.

imported post

Iloved this comment posted 6:05 pm on 3/06/10:

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?

Click to expand...

Logic wins every time.