WEATHER »

Guns and Coffee


Saturday, September 21, 2013
Article Tools
Print friendly
E-mail story
Tip Us Off
iPod friendly
Comments
Share Article

Progress in gun safety and gun control does happen in America, but slowly. When I wrote an April 11, 2010, Voices piece decrying the blatant “open carry” of weapons into Montecito’s Starbucks, a lot of the 104 comments were pretty harsh and derisive.

I’m happy to say that not only has California clamped down on the open carry of weapons in our state, after three and a half years the whole Starbucks chain has now been told by CEO-guru Howard Schultz that guns are no longer welcome at Starbucks cafés.

Happily, this is an important trend. And we’ve seen Colorado make some important gun safety laws. How sad, however, that it takes more mass killings like the one September 16 at the Washington Navy Yard to get supposedly “progressive” institutions like Starbucks to step up to the plate and do something significant.

Comments

Independent Discussion Guidelines

WTF!? The Navy Yard has nothing to do with your getting Starbucks to discriminate against gun owners who choose to 'Open Carry', to deter Criminal Behavior. I should know, I work at the JBAB (http://www.cnic.navy.mil/regions/ndw/...) right across from the DC Navy Yard (http://www.cnic.navy.mil/regions/ndw....

dou4now (anonymous profile)
September 24, 2013 at 9:52 a.m. (Suggest removal)

What the writer doesn't understand is that criminals don't care about gun laws and criminals will always be able to get guns.

The only thing the government can do is take away guns from law abiding citizens, which puts more guns in the hands of criminals and less in the hands of good citizens to protect themselves.

That's why you see such high crime rates in places like Chicago and D.C. with very strict gun laws. The criminals know that law abiding citizens will very likely be unarmed and so they are able to use that knowledge to their criminal advantage.

The other issue that the writer of the article doesn't seem to understand regarding gun rights is that in order to disarm the public, the government must arm agents and threaten violence onto an entire population of non-violent non-criminals. In other words, violence is required to disarm the populace which if the author believes they are a truly non-violent individual should rethink their stance on that portion of the issue as well.

The thing is, I am a very strong 2nd amendment advocate, but I am also completely ok with Starbucks statement regarding open carry in their stores. They did not issue an outright ban, they simply asked their customers not to use their store as ground zero for a political protest as they wish to remain neutral on the issue. Businesses have every right to do that and they should have every right to control their property. If you don't like it, go to a different business or open your own.

loonpt (anonymous profile)
September 24, 2013 at 12:06 p.m. (Suggest removal)

FYI: Scarier by the day. High school AP History textbook has rewritten 2nd amendment as

"the people have the right to keep and bear arms in a state militia"

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Governme...

The DailyPaul (Ron & Rand) has created a "Call to Action" plan in an effort to remove the book from Guyer High School curriculum.

14noscams (anonymous profile)
September 30, 2013 at 2:02 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Right, I don't understand why progressives throw all logic and the English language out the window just to prove a non-point.

Let's pretend the 2nd amendment says:

"A nice silver colored fork, being necessary to enjoy the consumption of a well cooked meal, the right of the people to keep and bear forks shall not be infringed."

Tyrannical dictator says, "You can only have silver colored forks, and they must remain put away at all times unless you are about to eat a cooked meal!!"

Tyrannical dictator doesn't understand english.

The law says the right to keep and bear forks cannot be infringed, PERIOD. The beginning is a justification of why the govt. CANNOT INFRINGE ON PEOPLE'S RIGHTS TO KEEP AND BEAR FORKS.

If somebody has a pink fork and they are eating a meal that wasn't cooked, you still cannot infringe on their right to keep and bear forks!! PERIOD! That is exactly what the sentence says, in english.

loonpt (anonymous profile)
September 30, 2013 at 3:18 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Tyrannical dictator doesn't understand separation of powers, checks and balances, speaks executive order exclusively, as in (left-wing) socialism with strong central control and central ownership, and (right wing) fascist government - something for everyone who favors global tyranny. Both extremes agree - let the people eat cake with their hands; maximum fingernail length mandated by law.

14noscams (anonymous profile)
September 30, 2013 at 4:46 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Don't forget that the bad guys don't obey gun laws and if they know a place is gun-free guess where they wil go to commit their bad deeds? Remember how Virginia Tech was a gun-free zone?

The more gun laws that are passed, the harder for people interested in self-defense to get them--sort of like the way anti-drug laws simply make it harder for people who need medical marijuana to get it while not stopping it from being sold on the street.

Keep dreaming of the Progressive Utopia,and don't lets fact get in the way of ideology.

billclausen (anonymous profile)
September 30, 2013 at 9:44 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Exactly the point bc - the Obama/NWO terrorist plan is that only the bad guys, UN and Russian troops and contract mercenaries (FEMA 3-39-40) have guns, and US citizens have no means of self-defense.
The UN ATT only mentions States haing guns, not citizens.

1982 survey of male felons in 11 state prisons dispersed across the U.S. found:[21]
• 34% had been "scared off, shot at, wounded, or captured by an armed victim"
• 40% had decided not to commit a crime because they "knew or believed that the victim was carrying a gun"
• 69% personally knew other criminals who had been "scared off, shot at, wounded, or captured by an armed victim"[22]
Based on survey data from a 2000 study published in the Journal of Quantitative Criminology,[17] U.S. civilians use guns to defend themselves and others from crime at least 989,883 times per year.[18]

* A 1993 nationwide survey of 4,977 households found that over the previous five years, at least 3.5% of households had members who had used a gun "for self-protection or for the protection of property at home, work, or elsewhere." Applied to the U.S. population, this amounts to 1,029,615 such incidents per year. This figure excludes all "military service, police work, or work as a security guard."[19]

A 1994 survey conducted by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found that Americans use guns to frighten away intruders who are breaking into their homes about 498,000 times per year. [20]

[19] Paper: "Armed Resistance to Crime: The Prevalence and Nature of Self-Defense with a Gun." By Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, Fall 1995. http://www.law.northwestern.edu/jclc/...

[20] Paper: "Estimating intruder-related firearm retrievals in U.S. households, 1994." By Robin M. Ikeda and others. Violence and Victims, Winter 1997. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/95...

http://www.law.northwestern.edu/jclc/...

http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp

14noscams (anonymous profile)
October 1, 2013 at 10:26 p.m. (Suggest removal)

@14noscams: Guns to emotional Lefties are what marijuana is to emotional right-wingers, a wedge issue.

Just as right-wing Do Gooders don't want to hear the facts about marijuana and any mention of re-legalizing conjures up images in their narrow minds of drug-crazed sybaritic hippies guns to the radical left-wing social engineers connote testosterone-crazed Rednecks. The antidote to such people are the following links, which refute such judgemental stereotypes:

http://jpfo.org/

http://www.2asisters.org/

and finally...

http://www.pinkpistols.org/

billclausen (anonymous profile)
October 2, 2013 at 12:25 a.m. (Suggest removal)

billclausen: I checked out the first 2 of yours & want to comment, but first this; You can only access the database on this topic as an existing USPO user, which translates to opening a saved HTML file, in my case. Once you're in the database, you can do searches. The db was altered around April 2012 - prior to that I could access all patents on the topic as with any other website. Now, entering this patent # on the USPO website gives a patent unrelated to the subject. Viral, in the best interest of humanity. The second link has chemical formulas.

US Patent 6630507 Cannabinoids as antioxidants and neuroprotectants
Inventors: Hampson; Aidan J. (Irvine, CA), Axelrod; Julius (Rockville, MD), Grimaldi; Maurizio (Bethesda, MD)
Assignee: The United States of America as represented by the Department of Health and Human Services (Washington, DC)
Family ID: 26767641
Appl. No.: 09/674,028
Filed: February 2, 2001
PCT Filed: April 21, 1999
PCT No.: PCT/US99/08769
PCT Pub. No.: WO99/53917
PCT Pub. Date: October 28, 1999

http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Pa...

6630507 Images
http://pdfpiw.uspto.gov/.piw?Docid=06...

14noscams (anonymous profile)
October 2, 2013 at 8:54 p.m. (Suggest removal)

event calendar sponsored by: