Why gun-control activists are targeting Starbucks

[Notso]

imported post

TFred wrote:

Notso wrote:

I went to California Pizza Kitchen tonight in San Antonio. There was no "No Firearms Allowed" sign to be seen. I thought they were all supposed to now be gun free zones.

Texas is not an Open Carry state. Remember these are anti-gun liberals. If they can't see it, it isn't there.

TFred

The Brady Bunch petition doesn't talk about concealed or unconcealed, they want to bar all guns and they're muddying the issue between the 2. Texans can only conceal carry, so I would think this issue needs to be brought up in the debates. Do they think concealed carry is ok? Make them(and their partners)take a stand.

 

[PavePusher]

imported post

Alexcabbie wrote:

Does anybody know what Helmke's political affiliation is?

He is the former Mayor of Fort Wayne, Indiana:

AND HE IS A FREAKING REPUBLICAN.

Ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh Lorrrrrrd.......:banghead:

Republicans are not automatlically friends to firearm ownership.

 

[PavePusher]

imported post

Alexcabbie wrote:

Speaking of California Pizza Kitchen, that is one of those outfits that thinks they can put ANYTHING on a flat piece of dough and call it "pizza". Sort of like the abominable habit of putting exotic liquiers in a Martini glass and calling it a (fill in the blank) Martini. By those lights, putting a Black Russian in a Martini glass would make it a "Kaluha Martini". I draw the line at "vodka martinis".

In the same vein, for me the pizza line was crossed by "pineapple pizza" :what:CPK has taken that and run with it. No guns? Fine! I wouldn't go into a CPK to watch Beyonce blowing bubbles in the tub.

Since "pizza" was originally a means of getting rid of whatever leftovers were hanging around, it's historically legitimate to put anything you want on it. To each, their own.

Kinda like I prefer 1911's. But I don't insist that be the gun everyone carries. That would be rude and unlikely. Anyway, I figure the rest of you will realize the error of your ways eventually, and mend your mistake on your own. :lol::celebrate

(Just keeping the drift gun-related... yeah, that's it...)

 

[Alexcabbie]

imported post

PavePusher wrote:

Alexcabbie wrote:

Does anybody know what Helmke's political affiliation is?

He is the former Mayor of Fort Wayne, Indiana:

AND HE IS A FREAKING REPUBLICAN.

Ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh Lorrrrrrd.......:banghead:

Republicans are not automatlically friends to firearm ownership.

Not if they are RINOS. And of course to be fair it must be pointed out that "whorehouse Harry" Reid was a good friend of ours, at least until he decided to throw in with the Ratz and their hijacking of the Democrat Party. Still, on the whole Republicans are much more 2A friendly than are members of the hijacked Democrat party. Some say that the solution is a "viable" third party. Good luck with that. Third parties invariably function to siphon off votes from the mainstream party whose agenda they most closely resemble. Ross Perot gave a big boost to Clinton, and Ralph Nader siphoned off votes from Algore and Kerry. Ron Paul advocates (although Paul never formed a third party) who took their ball and went home might well have been responsible for what we are dealing with today.

Party majority carries with it such things as committee chairs and the power of subpoena. Helmke is what I call a "Republican by Opportunity"; ie he runs to the Republican side because in his part of Indiana Democrats are not very popular for reasons going back to the Civil War.. (And I was born in Indiana. I know wherefrom I speak!)

Now the Ratz have vowed to return to their damned "common sense gun control" when - in the words of the Wicked Witch of the Left Coast Diane Fienstien - "the time is right". The only hope is to vote the Democrats out of the majority in November. If the Democrats remain in control of both houses after the November elections, they will be emboldened, and no doubt about it. Go ahead and fantasize about a "third party" or dismiss the conversation by saying that "both paties are alike".
The stone-cold fact is that third parties only weaken the causes they purport to support. And if a Republican Senator Helmke would give the advantage to the Republican party as a whole, I would urge everyone in Indiana to hold their noses and vote for him. The Ratz have GOT to be kncked out of these powerful committee chairs. Maybe after the Democrats have rid themselves of the Ratz I will feel differently.

Ya feel me, Brutha?"

 

[UtahProf]

imported post

Alexcabbie wrote:

PavePusher wrote:

Alexcabbie wrote:

Does anybody know what Helmke's political affiliation is?

He is the former Mayor of Fort Wayne, Indiana:

AND HE IS A FREAKING REPUBLICAN.

Ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh Lorrrrrrd.......:banghead:

Republicans are not automatlically friends to firearm ownership.

Not if they are RINOS. And of course to be fair it must be pointed out that "whorehouse Harry" Reid was a good friend of ours, at least until he decided to throw in with the Ratz and their hijacking of the Democrat Party. Still, on the whole Republicans are much more 2A friendly than are members of the hijacked Democrat party. <snip> I would urge everyone in Indiana to hold their noses and vote for him. The Ratz have GOT to be kncked out of these powerful committee chairs. Maybe after the Democrats have rid themselves of the Ratz I will feel differently.

Ya feel me, Brutha?"

Yeah, I feel you Brutha ... to me, it is almost preferable for the ratz to stay in power and pull some stunt move like a gun ban - that way, we could simply vote with our trigger fingers and be done with the lot of them - repubs and dems - no worries with a viable third party then ... just sayin.

Yes, i know i am a radical and napolitano would love to rubber stamp my forehead with "Domestic Extremist" ... in reality, i am a constitutionalist and a patriot so give me liberty or give me death - i mean it - i am tired of this screwing around.

 

[Master Doug Huffman]

imported post

UtahProf wrote:

no worries with a viable third party then ... just sayin.

Recommendation please.

 

[UtahProf]

imported post

Master Doug Huffman wrote:

UtahProf wrote:

no worries with a viable third party then ... just sayin.

Recommendation please.

Personally, I would like to see Ron Paul head up something new. The existing parties - especially the Tea Party are just "business as usual" with another name (my opinion). If I HAD to pick something that is in existence, it would probably be the Constitutional party or the Libertarians - not that I am in 100% alignment but their core principles seem to make sense. Regardless of party, my personal belief is that all congressional terms should be limited to 3 years with a lifetime limit of 2 terms - "career politicians" (from both sides) have destroyed this country. We need "ordinary/average people" in DC representing us regardless of which party they are aligned with - this was the original intent of our forefathers.

 

[Master Doug Huffman]

imported post

Thank you. I agree.

 

[Alexcabbie]

imported post

UtahProf wrote:

Master Doug Huffman wrote:

UtahProf wrote:

no worries with a viable third party then ... just sayin.

Recommendation please.

Personally, I would like to see Ron Paul head up something new. The existing parties - especially the Tea Party are just "business as usual" with another name (my opinion). If I HAD to pick something that is in existence, it would probably be the Constitutional party or the Libertarians - not that I am in 100% alignment but their core principles seem to make sense. Regardless of party, my personal belief is that all congressional terms should be limited to 3 years with a lifetime limit of 2 terms - "career politicians" (from both sides) have destroyed this country. We need "ordinary/average people" in DC representing us regardless of which party they are aligned with - this was the original intent of our forefathers.

There is much merit in this. But right now we have to work with the conditions waht pervail. Ideals should be, could be and would be. But the perfect is the eternal enemy of the good.

 

[UtahProf]

imported post

Alexcabbie wrote:

UtahProf wrote:

Master Doug Huffman wrote:

UtahProf wrote:

no worries with a viable third party then ... just sayin.

Recommendation please.

Personally, I would like to see Ron Paul head up something new. The existing parties - especially the Tea Party are just "business as usual" with another name (my opinion). If I HAD to pick something that is in existence, it would probably be the Constitutional party or the Libertarians - not that I am in 100% alignment but their core principles seem to make sense. Regardless of party, my personal belief is that all congressional terms should be limited to 3 years with a lifetime limit of 2 terms - "career politicians" (from both sides) have destroyed this country. We need "ordinary/average people" in DC representing us regardless of which party they are aligned with - this was the original intent of our forefathers.

There is much merit in this. But right now we have to work with the conditions waht pervail. Ideals should be, could be and would be. But the perfect is the eternal enemy of the good.

Very true - November may not be perfect but it is coming

 

[Master Doug Huffman]

imported post

We struggle with exactly that issue, voting principles may not be voting to 'win', here in a community of 700.

I learned "better is the enemy of good enough" from an orthopedic surgeon.

I just bought another of The Teaching Company's Great Courses, 'Tools of Thinking: Understanding the World through Experience and Reason', by James Hall.

 

[UtahProf]

imported post

Master Doug Huffman wrote:

We struggle with exactly that issue, voting principles may not be voting to 'win', here in a community of 700.

I learned "better is the enemy of good enough" from an orthopedic surgeon.

I just bought another of The Teaching Company's Great Courses, 'Tools of Thinking: Understanding the World through Experience and Reason', by James Hall.

Very cool - thanks for that! Just ordered it from Amazon .... cheers!

 

[Sonora Rebel]

imported post

I don't ordinarly frequent Starbucks. Not for any particular reason... 'just one of those things. However... I do feel I owe them some kind'a support for not caving in to the Brady's. I'm going to make it a point to stop in one of 'em at least once a week... OC. When I'm there... I'm gonna mention why.



Perhapsif enough of us open carriers do that... (and let 'em know at the counter) it'll trickle up to corporate. Just a thought.

 

[ABNinfantryman]

imported post

UtahProf wrote:

We need "ordinary/average people" in DC representing us regardless of which party they are aligned with - this was the original intent of our forefathers.

The original intent was to have a house of lords (senate) and a house of commons (house) so you are only partly correct in that the house was meant to be voted in by the people and thus would represent the people. The two senators were to be chosen by the governor of each state to represent the state in congress and be a counter balance to the whim of the mob that the house would inevitably bring to the table. The two senators were meant to represent the educated. One of the worst mistakes we made in this nation was amending the constitution to have senators voted into office, it threw off the balance and put everything at the whim of the masses.

 

[UtahProf]

imported post

ABNinfantryman wrote:

UtahProf wrote:

We need "ordinary/average people" in DC representing us regardless of which party they are aligned with - this was the original intent of our forefathers.

The original intent was to have a house of lords (senate) and a house of commons (house) so you are only partly correct in that the<snip> senators voted into office, it threw off the balance and put everything at the whim of the masses.

Yes, society/population was different then - the rules were also changed to cap the total number of members in congress so as not to tie the numbers to the population - another reason that the census is a farce as that is why it is supposed to be conducted in the first place ... useless. I still maintain that we need to do away with "career politicians" one way or another ...

 

[Alexcabbie]

imported post

UtahProf wrote:

Master Doug Huffman wrote:

We struggle with exactly that issue, voting principles may not be voting to 'win', here in a community of 700.

I learned "better is the enemy of good enough" from an orthopedic surgeon.

I just bought another of The Teaching Company's Great Courses, 'Tools of Thinking: Understanding the World through Experience and Reason', by James Hall.

Very cool - thanks for that! Just ordered it from Amazon .... cheers!

WTF? "Understanding the world through experince and reason"? Is that not commonly known as "growing up"?? Sheesh, It always amazes me how some freaking egghead always thinks he can get our humaan interactons down to a science. I remember how my parents tried to raise us "by the book" (Dr. Benjamin Spocks' "Baby and child care"). We started playing a little gane called "The Book Says"

 

[UtahProf]

imported post

Alexcabbie wrote:

UtahProf wrote:

Master Doug Huffman wrote:

We struggle with exactly that issue, voting principles may not be voting to 'win', here in a community of 700.

I learned "better is the enemy of good enough" from an orthopedic surgeon.

I just bought another of The Teaching Company's Great Courses, 'Tools of Thinking: Understanding the World through Experience and Reason', by James Hall.

Very cool - thanks for that! Just ordered it from Amazon .... cheers!

WTF? "Understanding the world through experince and reason"? Is that not commonly known as "growing up"?? Sheesh, It always amazes me how some freaking egghead always thinks he can get our humaan interactons down to a science. I remember how my parents tried to raise us "by the book" (Dr. Benjamin Spocks' "Baby and child care"). We started playing a little gane called "The Book Says"

Another perspective is always welcome and simply helps you build a larger database of possibility when gauging human actions - very powerful (Know thy Self/Know thy Enemy) - Besides, am a psychologist, it is my nature.

 

[ABNinfantryman]

imported post

UtahProf wrote:

Yes, society/population was different then - the rules were also changed to cap the total number of members in congress so as not to tie the numbers to the population - another reason that the census is a farce as that is why it is supposed to be conducted in the first place ... useless. I still maintain that we need to do away with "career politicians" one way or another ...

I totally agree. Senators should be limited to single terms and we should redact the 17th Amendment (which has them voted in). What we essentially have now is two houses that are influenced by the electorate.

 

[Theseus]

imported post

I posted this comment a few days ago. . .no answers.

[line]As always the Brady Campaign is bending the facts to achieve their goal.
When we purchase a handgun we have to do all of the things below before we can even take it home unless we are otherwise exempt.

· Pass a criminal background check.
· Obtain a Handgun Safety Certificate and
· Perform a safe handling demonstration

A criminal background check is required as part of the Brady law and is approved by the Brady’s.

To receive a Handgun Safety Certificate one has to study the basic rules of safety and liability of owning a handgun in the State of California and pass a 25 question test.
In a safe handling demonstration we are required to demonstrate, using the same or similar model handgun we purchased, the ability to drop a magazine, clear a round of ammunition from the chamber (unload), clear the weapon, and install a gun lock.

By the time the average Californian completes the requirements to take a handgun home they are in truth educated and tested almost equal to that of a person seeking a drivers license.

Please, before you take their emotional pleas at face value learn the facts.
[line]
Unfortunately I was not completely correct in all of it, but not really in any major way that I can tell. . . I might be wrong with the number of questions, and didn't say you have to demonstrate loading the handgun during the safety demonstration.

 

[Task Force 16]

imported post

Notso wrote:

TFred wrote:

Notso wrote:

I went to California Pizza Kitchen tonight in San Antonio. There was no "No Firearms Allowed" sign to be seen. I thought they were all supposed to now be gun free zones.

Texas is not an Open Carry state. Remember these are anti-gun liberals. If they can't see it, it isn't there.

TFred

The Brady Bunch petition doesn't talk about concealed or unconcealed, they want to bar all guns and they're muddying the issue between the 2. Texans can only conceal carry, so I would think this issue needs to be brought up in the debates. Do they think concealed carry is ok? Make them(and their partners)take a stand.

No, the Brady Camp is against CC as well. They especially don't like that many states have adopted "Shall Issue" policies in CC licensing. CC was easier to deal with because the general public had no clue as to how many armed citizens there were in their midst. OC is harder to fight with their false propaganda. OCers are making a mocker of the Brady rhetoric, as the general pop can now observe armed citizens that aren't being as dangerous as the Brady's claim they are.

To put it bluntly, the Brady Campaign does not care one wit about public safety. They don't want any of us to be able to defend ourselves from the criminal eliment of society, and that includes (possibly most importantly)government tyranny.

If they were honest, they would call their organization the Brady Campaign to Disarm America for Marxism.