• 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.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • 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.

OC article in HuffingtonPost

JBURGII

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 9, 2008
Messages
612
Location
A, A
imported post

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/paul-helmke/guns-and-starbucks-espres_b_454312.html

What would your reaction be if you and your kids walked into the local Starbucks and, while contemplating the choice between a latte and a mocha cappuccino, you noticed several fellow customers had semi-automatic pistols and ammunition magazines hanging from their hips?
This scenario has become more than a flight of imagination. In several communities in California, and elsewhere, it has become reality.
Welcome to the "open carry" movement, an effort by "gun rights" extremists to foist their interpretation of the Second Amendment on the rest of us by openly carrying handguns in public places. While virtually all states have at least some minimal restrictions on the carrying of concealed weapons, few states do anything to regulate the "open carry" of firearms.
Particularly in the Bay Area in Northern California, "open carry" adherents have been gathering in Starbucks and other coffee shops and restaurants -- their semi-automatic pistols and revolvers in plain view -- apparently to make an ideological statement.
The sight of such gun-toters in Starbucks reminds us of the incidents last summer, when anti-Obama protestors appeared at political events and "town hall meetings" with handguns and assault rifles openly strapped to their bodies -- including events attended by President Obama himself.
The "open carry" folks view this as "normalizing" their self-defined "right" to carry guns with them at all times wherever they please, regardless of its impact on public safety. But what about the rights of everyone else who wishes to be free from lethal weapons in public places, except for trained law enforcement?
Surveys show that the presence of more guns in a community does not make people safer, or feel safer; indeed, it has the opposite effect. Studies show that the more guns there are, the more gun violence there is in that location. In addition, 80 percent of those who don't own guns say they would feel less safe if more people in their community acquired guns; only eight percent would feel safer. Even among gun owners, roughly equal proportions would feel less safe if more people had guns versus those who would feel more safe.
Take the reaction of one coffee shop customer in San Ramon, California when faced with a group of pistol packers: "I'm scared. I'm getting out of here. They say they want to make a statement. What's wrong with a T-shirt?"
The "open carry" gatherings provoked an immediate reaction from Californians who were appalled that coffee shops and restaurants would allow guns on their premises. At least two national chains have responded responsibly.
For example, Peet's Tea & Coffee stated that its policy "is not to allow customers carrying firearms in our stores" unless they are uniformed law enforcement officers. It also indicated that it would post a notification of that policy in all its stores and would call the local police for assistance should a customer display a firearm in the future.
After being alerted by local chapters of the Brady Campaign about a scheduled "open carry" meeting at one its Northern California stores, California Pizza Kitchen issued a statement that it "does not allow guests other than uniformed officers to display firearms in our restaurants" because of its concern "that the open display of firearms would be particularly disturbing to children and their parents."
But now we come to Starbucks. When asked about the company's policy on the "open carry" of firearms in its stores, its Customer Relations Department responded to the Brady Campaign's California chapters that "Starbucks does not have a corporate policy regarding customers and weapons; we defer to federal, state and local laws and regulations regarding this issue."
Here's the problem with that answer: generally speaking - and certainly in California - businesses have the right to bar guns on their premises. It is their property and, just as they can prohibit entry by people with bare feet, they can do the same for people with guns.
Despite its response, Starbucks clearly does have a policy and it is one that should be deeply disturbing to the vast majority of its customers.
Starbucks has apparently chosen to allow civilians to carry semi-automatic pistols and possibly even assault weapons into its stores.
Such a policy is disturbing to law enforcement officials as well as Starbucks patrons. As a San Mateo County Sheriff's Lieutenant put it, "Open carry advocates create a potentially very dangerous situation," because when police respond to a "man with a gun" call, they have no idea what the intentions of the gun carrier are and "the result could be deadly."
If a mistake in judgment or perception results in a shooting at a Starbucks, will the company still have no "corporate policy regarding customers and weapons"?
This is no idle consideration. Just this past September, at a picnic hosted by "open carry" activists at a Michigan state park, a gun activist was charged with reckless use of a firearm after he unintentionally fired his semi-automatic handgun in a parking lot. Then there was the California "open carry" activist in December who was arrested for carrying his .357 magnum revolver near a school, complaining, "I just can't see what I did wrong."
Even more disturbing was the man - "of high interest to the FBI because of his alignment with violent demonstrators at abortion clinics" - who was arrested for possession of a semi-automatic handgun which he was carrying openly outside a North Carolina abortion clinic last October.
As these and other incidents show, the "open carry" movement clearly has implications beyond Starbucks. It is part of a broader campaign, led by the National Rifle Association, to force guns into every corner of American society by "normalizing" the carrying of guns in public places, openly and concealed.
The gun pushers want an America where there is nowhere that you and your family can go to be free from guns.
As just one example, the same lawyer who won the U.S. Supreme Court case two years ago which declared a Second Amendment right to have a gun in your home for self defense, has filed a new lawsuit seeking to force localities to allow civilians to carry guns on the streets.
The "open" carrying of guns is just the visible tip of the "guns everywhere" iceberg. The gun lobby's clout in state legislatures has forced consideration of dangerous proposals to allow people to legally carry concealed weapons into bars, churches, workplace parking lots, airports, parks, college campuses and elsewhere.
While most states do not require any permit, license or training of any kind to carry a semi-automatic pistol openly, the NRA assures us that those who have permits to carry concealed weapons are all "law-abiding citizens" whose gun-toting behavior protects the rest of us. Since May, 2007, however, these "law-abiding citizens" have killed at least 117 people, including nine law enforcement officers. During that same period, they have committed eleven mass shootings.
So, Starbucks, what will it be? Like Peets Tea & Coffee, will you do the socially responsible thing and stand up for the rights of families and children to be free from guns when they visit your coffee shops?
Or will you take the chance that there will be more than just shots of espresso being served up in your stores?
 

Grapeshot

Legendary Warrior
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
35,317
Location
Valhalla
imported post

Yep OCers are really bad for business :lol: and that was only 1/4 of the total that day.

fudd1.jpg


Yata hey
 

Kivuli

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2008
Messages
208
Location
North Carolina
imported post

I wonder if the people on the other side of the fence view the things we espouse, and the articles we laud in the media, as being as completely, utterly, packed full of mindless drivel as we perceive this to be. Who's to say we don't a'times exaggerate as much as they do? Granted, I rarely find civil discussions on their part in lieu of emotional responses, but still.

Don't get me wrong, I think that article is nothing more than mouth-foaming fear-mongering to push an anti-gun agenda, but I often wonder about philisophical quandaries like that. Don't mind me. :uhoh:
 

cscitney87

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2009
Messages
1,250
Location
Lakewood, Colorado, USA
imported post

because when police respond to a "man with a gun" call, they have no idea what the intentions of the gun carrier are and "the result could be deadly."

That's the Real Deal scare tactic that the author is trying to put over on everyone here. He wants you to subconsciously read that the cops can and sometimes will shoot you dead for OC (due to a misunderstanding)
 

NY2AZ

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 5, 2009
Messages
75
Location
Yuma, Arizona, USA
imported post

But what about the rights of everyone else who wishes to be free from lethal weapons in public places, except for trained law enforcement?????????

Sorry, there is no such right. Your argmument is invalidated
 

Thundar

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 12, 2007
Messages
4,948
Location
Newport News, Virginia, USA
imported post

JBURGII wrote:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/paul-helmke/guns-and-starbucks-espres_b_454312.html


This is no idle consideration. Just this past September, at a picnic hosted by "open carry" activists at a Michigan state park, a gun activist was charged with reckless use of a firearm after he unintentionally fired his semi-automatic handgun in a parking lot. Then there was the California "open carry" activist in December who was arrested for carrying his .357 magnum revolver near a school, complaining, "I just can't see what I did wrong."
Even more disturbing was the man - "of high interest to the FBI because of his alignment with violent demonstrators at abortion clinics" - who was arrested for possession of a semi-automatic handgun which he was carrying openly outside a North Carolina abortion clinic last October.

Theremight bea smart anti out there reading HOCIAHDO (Handgun Open Carry In A Holster Dot ORG.

All three of these cases were discussed in the forum. Then again, there was no mention of A.... in LA
 

Thundar

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 12, 2007
Messages
4,948
Location
Newport News, Virginia, USA

marine77

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 13, 2008
Messages
167
Location
, ,
imported post

Liberal bullsh*t, about things they have been programmed to believe.
 

ComradeV

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Feb 17, 2009
Messages
428
Location
Maple Hill, North Carolina, USA
imported post

protias wrote:
I still don't know what an assault rifle is... :quirky

An assault rifle is a select fire shoulder fired weapon system using a removable box magazine and firing an intermediate cartridge.

The origin of the term was the German STG-44/MP-44(STORM RIFLE!)which was was fully automatic and used a shortened rifle cartridge in order to make automatic fire more controlable.

the most popular assault rifle in the world, the AK-47 was very similar in implementation, with the Red Army using the 7.62x39(the original battle rifle calibre was 7.62x54R)

Basically the weapon system needs to be able to use removable magazines and be capable of select fire to be an assault rifle.
 

protias

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 18, 2008
Messages
7,308
Location
SE, WI
imported post

ComradeV wrote:
protias wrote:
I still don't know what an assault rifle is... :quirky

An assault rifle is a select fire shoulder fired weapon system using a removable box magazine and firing an intermediate cartridge.

The origin of the term was the German STG-44/MP-44(STORM RIFLE!)which was was fully automatic and used a shortened rifle cartridge in order to make automatic fire more controlable.

the most popular assault rifle in the world, the AK-47 was very similar in implementation, with the Red Army using the 7.62x39(the original battle rifle calibre was 7.62x54R)

Basically the weapon system needs to be able to use removable magazines and be capable of select fire to be an assault rifle.
That's the point I'm trying to make. Very few people own a rifle that is select fire. The majority out there are semi-auto only. So the very term they are using is false the majority of the time.
 

The Donkey

New member
Joined
Sep 21, 2006
Messages
1,114
Location
Northern Virginia
imported post

Helmke appears to want to make open carry a major theme of the Brady Campaign, having failed to get any traction on any of their other initiatives.
 

ComradeV

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Feb 17, 2009
Messages
428
Location
Maple Hill, North Carolina, USA
imported post

Thankfully, he will most likely fail, because he is after all very full of fail, and most people in America know WIN when they see it, which they would see if they have seen normal people carry handguns in holsters.
 

cloudcroft

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 13, 2007
Messages
1,908
Location
El Paso, TX (formerly Colorado Springs, CO)
imported post

So who's writing equally "persuasive" counter-articles (i.e., pro-gun) that will reach as many people/have as much effect onpublic perception as the Brady Bunch does (or seems to), be it addressing this currently hot "Starbucks & Guns"issue or others that come up (or have)?

I know "public perception" is so easly manipulated since most sheeple arenaive, shallow, fickle, ignorant and therefore so easily swayed -- OR simply confirmed in their anti-gun beliefs by such Brady BS subjective rhetoric --so where is the pro-gun "Brady equivalent" (if you will) for just-as-persuasive pro-gun counterpoints?

Yeah, we have the NRA, GOA and such, but which seems either toreach more of the general public and/or is the more relevent re: impacting public (sheeple) opinion? It seems Brady canpublically statelies like this with complete impunity, doesn't it? Yet those lies DO impact people, especially the fence-sitters (neither anti-gun nor pro-gun), possibly tipping them over to the anti-gun side.

Ican even see this eventually making Starbucks cave-in and change their policy down the road due to all this Brady-type hysterical, panderingand negavitive publicity (for Starbucks). After all, lots of liberal yuppie sheeplepatronize them, right? So how about a whole lot of limp-wristed liberal "metrosexuals" complaining to Starbucks management...and inlots more numbers than pro-gun people thanking Starbucks for their policies? What then?

Doesn't Bradyhave more public visibility to publicize that BS, yet pro-gunners do not? Dosn't Brady reach/influence more of the general public (sheeple) that any of the pro-gun groups, meaning the NRA/GOS and such?

It seems like the Brady people can write whatever they want, sway a whole lot of sheeple, yet there is no equally "powerful" counter source to rebut them. And there is no recourseagainst them for stating lies. I guess it's protected free speech, true or not?

I don't know...just asking...

-- John D.
 

cscitney87

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2009
Messages
1,250
Location
Lakewood, Colorado, USA
imported post

Not knocking the OP at all- Just a general thought on The Huffington Post
Where the heck did they come from? Seems like one second they were fringe conspiracy theory articles that fit well in The Onion. The next second- articles are being sited by MSM, forums everywhere, and I've even seen their employees on television. Wen did The Huffington Post become a reliable news outlet? I missed that one is all I'm saying. Personally, I just don't know. I think we can all judge this writers intent, none the less.
 

cloudcroft

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 13, 2007
Messages
1,908
Location
El Paso, TX (formerly Colorado Springs, CO)
imported post

We HEREknow better -- as do most conservatives -- but the majority of people?

I don't give the average personany credit at all re: their ability (or desire) to sort out the facts.

Whatever, I think they believe everything the Brady Bunch puts out as fact.

-- John D.
 
Top