-
We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
-
If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
-
Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.
SW Washington Extremist Harasses Starbucks
- Thread starter gogodawgs
- Start date
gogodawgs
Campaign Veteran
imported post
My comment:
Ms. McVicker,
There are no 'armed gun extremists', why do we use such words, they simply show your social bigotry towards law abiding citizens. Perhaps your hoplophopia is so irrational that you can not write an unbiased and objective news brief, which is what citizens of Vancouver expect when they read the Columbian. Those of us that are armed are simply going to Starbucks for a cup of coffee. While irrational and anti rights extremists like Ms. Yewman are harassing business that are complying with the law.
gogodawgs[/b] — March 10, 2010 at 1:34 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
My comment:
Ms. McVicker,
There are no 'armed gun extremists', why do we use such words, they simply show your social bigotry towards law abiding citizens. Perhaps your hoplophopia is so irrational that you can not write an unbiased and objective news brief, which is what citizens of Vancouver expect when they read the Columbian. Those of us that are armed are simply going to Starbucks for a cup of coffee. While irrational and anti rights extremists like Ms. Yewman are harassing business that are complying with the law.
gogodawgs[/b] — March 10, 2010 at 1:34 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
acmariner99
Regular Member
imported post
gogodawgs wrote:
gogodawgs wrote:
Here Here!
gogodawgs
Campaign Veteran
imported post
Ms. McVicker corrected her error. Admits to using the anti's press release instead of her objective skills to convey the news brief.
.45ACPaddy
Regular Member
imported post
Hmm... they seem to have changed it.
I wonder why...
Hmm... they seem to have changed it.
I wonder why...
TechnoWeenie
Regular Member
imported post
G22Paddy wrote:
Tomorrows paper....
'Armed extremists harass local paper into changing story'
:banghead:
G22Paddy wrote:
Tomorrows paper....
'Armed extremists harass local paper into changing story'
:banghead:
Gilead_Gunslinger
Regular Member
imported post
I wish one of these people would answer me this... when did peacefully exercising
my rights become "testing state laws"???? I think I've seen this phrase use a few
times. and if this is the threshold for that sort ofthinking , can we not also say that hiedi
yewman is "testing state laws"to her rightof free speech by 'imploring' starbucks to
establish agun free policy?
I wish one of these people would answer me this... when did peacefully exercising
my rights become "testing state laws"???? I think I've seen this phrase use a few
times. and if this is the threshold for that sort ofthinking , can we not also say that hiedi
yewman is "testing state laws"to her rightof free speech by 'imploring' starbucks to
establish agun free policy?
heresolong
Regular Member
imported post
Another example of why politely contacting or replying to an apparent opponent works. In this case she realized her error and made the change. An attack would have just put her on the defensive. Just saying.
Too bad some people felt the need to call her names. She certainly won't have a better opinion of gun owners after those people chimed in.
Another example of why politely contacting or replying to an apparent opponent works. In this case she realized her error and made the change. An attack would have just put her on the defensive. Just saying.
Too bad some people felt the need to call her names. She certainly won't have a better opinion of gun owners after those people chimed in.
.45ACPaddy
Regular Member
imported post
I'd only call it testing state laws if you were trying to get as close to breaking it as possible without technically breaking it. Or entering a gray area and claiming legality.
It's very clear in the RCW that there's nothing prohibiting open carry. It's not a gray area.
I'd only call it testing state laws if you were trying to get as close to breaking it as possible without technically breaking it. Or entering a gray area and claiming legality.
It's very clear in the RCW that there's nothing prohibiting open carry. It's not a gray area.
Pavegunner
Regular Member
imported post
The Columbian newspaper is a huge liberal paper in Clark County...which is why it is going bankrupt very quickly.
The Columbian newspaper is a huge liberal paper in Clark County...which is why it is going bankrupt very quickly.
gogodawgs
Campaign Veteran
imported post
Pavegunner wrote:
Pavegunner wrote:
I know, I used to be a paperboy for them in the late '80s :dude:
Michael B
New member
imported post
What's that????? NEWS in the columbian???? What a rag.
What's that????? NEWS in the columbian???? What a rag.
PoppaGary
Regular Member
imported post
Good job, gogodawgs, but it is unfortunate that the people at the Columbian don't learn or really listen to our feedback.
I left a message for the Business Editor, Elisa Williams, a few weeks back on the Starbucks issue. They had a small blurb, similar to this one, in the business section regarding the anti-gun protests at Starbucks Corp office and used the very exact phrase and also indicated that WE started the brew-ha-ha (pun intended).
I told her it was a none issue UNTIL the anti-gun groups started protesting and we were NOT armed gun extremists, merely ordinary citizens going about our daily lives exercising our rights...same as she.
I guess my mistake was not following up with another call or an email; I know I didn't get any kind of response.
Gary
Good job, gogodawgs, but it is unfortunate that the people at the Columbian don't learn or really listen to our feedback.
I left a message for the Business Editor, Elisa Williams, a few weeks back on the Starbucks issue. They had a small blurb, similar to this one, in the business section regarding the anti-gun protests at Starbucks Corp office and used the very exact phrase and also indicated that WE started the brew-ha-ha (pun intended).
I told her it was a none issue UNTIL the anti-gun groups started protesting and we were NOT armed gun extremists, merely ordinary citizens going about our daily lives exercising our rights...same as she.
I guess my mistake was not following up with another call or an email; I know I didn't get any kind of response.
Gary
sudden valley gunner
Regular Member
imported post
G22Paddy wrote:
Might have to educate those who enforce laws though.
I also think that many Judicial officials are looking at gray areas wrong, they are supposed to give the "offender" the benefit of the doubt when it happens in a gray area.
But as we know this just doesn't seem to happen as much as we like. I know someone who went through this with helmet laws. Ahem, ahem (darn no look above face)
G22Paddy wrote:
Personally I still don't think that is testing it. If you are within the boundaries of the law you are "testing" nothing.
Might have to educate those who enforce laws though.
I also think that many Judicial officials are looking at gray areas wrong, they are supposed to give the "offender" the benefit of the doubt when it happens in a gray area.
But as we know this just doesn't seem to happen as much as we like. I know someone who went through this with helmet laws. Ahem, ahem (darn no look above face)
.45ACPaddy
Regular Member
imported post
I was pointing more to the gray areas, shoulda written it a bit more clearly.
If you enter a gray area where something might be prohibited by law, but it might be legal, don't be surprised if a judge rules against you. Fortunately our firearms are pretty well defined.
I was pointing more to the gray areas, shoulda written it a bit more clearly.
If you enter a gray area where something might be prohibited by law, but it might be legal, don't be surprised if a judge rules against you. Fortunately our firearms are pretty well defined.
sudden valley gunner
Regular Member
imported post
G22Paddy wrote:
Personally, if its gray they shouldn't be able to arrest or prosecute. I feel they should only be able to do this if it is clearly illegal.
G22Paddy wrote:
You are correct. That is why I am trying to get clarity on legal outdoor activity, the opinions range vary greatly on this, some think it only applies to long guns for those "under age" I and others read it differently.
Personally, if its gray they shouldn't be able to arrest or prosecute. I feel they should only be able to do this if it is clearly illegal.