Doonesbury vs. Starbucks gun 'activists.' Day six.

[onehandle]

Friday:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x8023477
(Read them all)

[baldguy]

1. Spot-on as always.

[TheCowsCameHome]

2. They don't come any better than Trudeau....

...when it comes to being on top of what's going on in the world.

[aikoaiko]

3. And here you see the conflating of open carry and threatening with a firearm.

A classic bait and switch move. But I'm sure it will resonate with some people on this board.

Its sad to see Trudeau use that kind of rhetorical trick to muddy what is actually happening.

[Fumesucker]

4. That is the purpose of visibly carrying a firearm..

To appear more threatening to others who are potential threats.

[Mopar151]

5. Exactly! n/t

[Mopar151]

49. I would like to add that I live in "huntin country"

A "long gun" whth an open bolt, or a shotgun carried "broken", is regarded, in season, about like a plumber carrying a pipe wrench.
Openly holstered pistols are regarded quite differently, for good reason. Their purpose, WHICH MAY BE LEGITIMATE, is intimidation. Legitimate would be law enforcement, or escort of cash or narcotics.

[cowman]

54. Wrong

legitimate is what the law says not what you think it should be and who gives a shit if you live in "huntin country" the 2nd amend in not about huntin

[Name removed]

58. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

64. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[spin]

67. During hunting season I've seen openly holstered handguns ...

in many states handgun hunting is allowed. If you are in a rural area in a convenience store, a hunter might stop by. People are not intimidated.

[cowman]

69. Couldn't have said it better myself

Later Gator

[PavePusher]

74. How about self-defense?

Or is my life not worth anything to you?

[aikoaiko]

6. Not necessarily and maybe not at all for those who actually open carry.

Open carry is simply a matter of access to a lot of people of who carry. Concealed carry is always slower.

For others its a simple demonstration of their 2nd Amendment rights. "I'm here, there's nothing to fear, get used to it"

But you are correct, for some it a signal that they are prepared to use lethal force to defend themselves from grave threats.

Still, Trudeau makes it seems as if gun owners cocking their guns in response an opposing position is equivalent to openly carrying while simply sipping a latte (and not threatening anyone). Its not. One is legal and peaceful, one is a threatening behavior.

[Fumesucker]

7. Openly carrying a firearm is an implied threat of deadly force..

The person carrying the firearm might not see it that way but the unarmed people around them very often do.

It's a form of intimidation, people who openly carry are either fools or being deliberately obtuse if they won't admit that it is intimidating to many others who aren't carrying.

[aikoaiko]

15. Actually I think the difference is between gun phobic and not phobic.

Really, there are lots of people are not armed or own guns who don't have a problem with others owning them or carrying them (openly or concealed).

Its no more a form of intimidation than someone carrying a pocket knife, multitool, or baseball bat. All those things can be used in a life threatening manner, but most of the time they are not.

[mainer]

36. If someone came in carrying a machete or samurai sword, same thing

It's not just about guns. It's about walking around with tools that have the specific purpose of killing other people.

[aikoaiko]

40. I don't have a problem with a person wearing a sheathed blade either.

And I don't know why you would be have a problem with that. The main "purpose", if you will, of lawful carry is lawful self-defense in most circumstances.

[mainer]

46. Admit it. If someone came in with a sword, you'd watch him.

If a guy walked in with a huge honking sword and placed it on his table in Starbucks, you'd watch him. You'd wonder why he felt the need to bring a sword into a coffee shop. You wouldn't turn your back on him. You'd question his intentions. You wouldn't pay as much attention to the flavor of your coffee or the conversation with your companions; you'd be too busy making sure Mr. Sword Carrier didn't have something bad planned. Even if he sat there quietly drinking his coffee, minding his own business, you don't know him, and you don't know whether he might jump up and lop off someone's head. The whole situation would intrude on your enjoyment of your coffee. It would keep you from fully engaging with your friends.

Because you just don't know what the guy's planning.

That's how it is when you bring in your guns. The rest of us don't know what you're planning, but we keep our eye on you because we want to be able to react. And that sure as heck intrudes on our enjoyment of a visit to a coffee shop.

[aikoaiko]

55. Watch him and everyone else (because I don't know what anyone is planning)

But I would NOT think to ask a business to deny him or anyone else service who was acting lawfully and peacefully.

Its strange to me that any one would ask such a thing of a business.

[cowman]

59. Well it

sounds to me like that is your problem not mine. How can a holstered gun be a threat? All the years I've been carrying my gun has never jumped out of it's holster and threatened anyone.

Whether you like it or not it is the law of many many states

[PavePusher]

78. I'd be jealous.

I'm not good enough with a sword to carry one for self-defense.

I really need to get in practice... sigh.

[SteveM]

151. Frankly, I don't know what ANYONE is planning,...

It's kind of hard to read peoples' minds. If I saw someone carrying a sheathed sword, my first response would be: "Is he/she part of some medieval or swords & sorcerers club?" If that person took the sword out, then I would be concerned, just as I would be concerned if someone took out a holstered gun in similar circumstances (there is a difference between carrying concealed or holstered on the one hand, and "brandishing," which is illegal).

Your reactions are yours. Frankly, I'm struck by the number of folks in this forum who claim pro-2A people are "paranoid;" yet, my responses to people with weapons have never been as you have described. Have you seen some big down-turn in the number of people going to Starbucks which, BTW, does not have a pro-gun policy, only a policy of following existing law? Certainly, this is a better policy than voluntarily putting up a "No Guns Allowed" sign, an open invitation to every spittle-flying psychopath and HyperPunk who wants to get some juice.

[tburnsten]

166. I'd guess he just came from an Aikido class actually

Or maybe he works at a themed sushi place.

Most likely he was out and about and stopped in for coffee. Not everyone has the luxury of going home in between every single appointment they have to make, with the time to carefully divest themself of anything they don't have a specific need for at the next place.

[tburnsten]

165. The purpose of a machete is clearing brush

Bushwhacking if you will. There are literally hundreds, if not thousands, of absolutely legitimate uses for machetes, from cooking, to splitting very tough fruit, to chopping smaller pieces of firewood, to killing snakes, that have nothing to do with hurting a person.

They are a tool which can be used on people, doeesn't mean that is their primary purpose or that they only exist for that purpose. They are like a lighter, more compact ax. I know you don't think the only purpose of an ax is to dismember people, or else you are watching way too many horror movies and have lost your connection to the real world.

[Indy Lurker]

19. You are simply wrong

Just because you feel threatened, doesn't mean a threat exists.

This has been beat to death by various courts over the years.

A holstered firearm, even if it's loaded in a crowded place is not a threat as long as open carry is legal.


Most recently, New Mexico police had paid $21,000 to settle with Matthew A. St. John whom police detained for open carrying a holstered handgun at a movie theater. This settlement follows a host of settlements by police departments around the country with plaintiffs who were detained by police for openly carrying a holstered handgun, including Pennsylvania, Louisiana, Virginia.

See:

St. John v. McColley (D.N.M. Sept. 8, 2009)
United States v. Ubiles, 224 F.3d 213 (3rd Cir. 2000)
United States v. King, 990 F.2d 1552 (10th Cir. 1993)

[oneshooter]

38. That is why I prefer concealed carry. n/t

[oneshooter]

41. But if you open carry in California

You are carrying a unloaded firearm. That is the law in California, that you can only open carry a small unwieldy club. If a LOADED firearm is carried then it is concealed.

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[Pavulon]

60. So is talking on your phone and driving, or aggressive driving

or being a sleepy resident on hour 28 of your shift.

[PavePusher]

77. If you intend me no harm...

there is no threat.

What are you so afraid of?

[S_B_Jackson]

132. Well using that theory...

Openly carrying a firearm is an implied threat of deadly force..

The whole purpose of the 2nd Amendment is an implied threat of deadly force by "WE THE PEOPLE" to our creation, the government of the United States of America.

[donco6]

18. You really believe that bullshit?

Now I know why I never go to the gungeon. I get enough moronic nonsense on the news.

[aikoaiko]

21. No bullshit to believe.

What I wrote is true. People carry (openly or concealed) for different reasons.

[cowman]

61. then leav

[mainer]

11. Gun carriers appear more threatening to EVERYONE.

And it makes a lot of us uncomfortable. In my opinion, it's just plain bad manners to walk around making everyone uncomfortable. It's like openly farting in an elevator.

[Fumesucker]

13. Everyone is a potential threat.. n/t

[aikoaiko]

16. Gun carriers DO NOT appear more threatening to EVERYONE.

Fixed it for you.

It only scares some people.

[mainer]

25. It scares people who don't walk around carrying guns.

And that's the majority.

You're within your legal rights to fart openly and proudly in an elevator, too. It says more about you than about anyone else.

[aikoaiko]

28. It scares SOME people who don't walk around carrying guns.

There are lots of people who don't arm themselves or even own guns who are fine with open carry.

[friendly_iconoclast]

50. +1 Me, for instance

n/t

[spin]

71. I don't open carry but seeing someone who is doesn't scare me ...

bad guys conceal their weapons and don't use holsters.

[michreject]

26. It's bad manners alright

To make me uncomfortable because of your insecurities.

[aikoaiko]

29. Sorry, but unless someone does something threatening, you get to live your own insecurities

[michreject]

37. I don't have any insecurities

My post was directed to the person who runs in circles screaming "He's got a gun. the sky is falling".

Myself, I have a CCW and carry every place I go. I don't care what others think about it.

[aikoaiko]

44. my apologies -- I got mixed with the order of responses.

sorry.

[michreject]

76. No problem. NT

[Warren Stupidity]

73. and claim you have no insecurities

try reflecting on why you feel the need to carry a gun everywhere you go.

[michreject]

75. Because I can

No other reason needed.

[Warren Stupidity]

93. right. "because I can"

but not because you are insecure. Self awareness is lost on most humans.

[oneshooter]

39. So you also prefer concealed carry? n/t

[PavePusher]

79. Please, don't be you in public...

It makes me uncomfortable, and that's just rude and inconsiderate. After all, what about my feelings?

[proteus_lives]

87. Not to me.

I'm not afraid of inanimate objects.

Why are you?

[SteveM]

152. Hmm, openly-carrying and "openly-farting." Interesting comparison...

If you let out a "seeper," SBD, or a High Plains Interceptor, would that be better since the latter are not really "open?" A Flutter-Blast, of course, is "open." (F)rankly speaking, the louder the fart, the more the potential for entertainment value, which should neutralize any questions about manners.

[Walk away]

110. And every one else. n/t

[annabanana]

8. I'm sorry... what IS actually happening?

[aikoaiko]

17. People lawfully carrying a weapon.

That's it.

[Warren Stupidity]

9. Right - of course - walking around with a loaded gun openly displayed

is not threatening or intimidating at all, and certainly the intent is not to threaten or intimidate. Of course not. How silly of Trudeau. A gun is just a fashion accessory.

[aikoaiko]

14. In some ways it is silly.

I kind of get it that some people think that a regular people shouldn't carry guns or that only criminals or people with bad intent carry guns (unless they are police).

Lawful open carry by a regular person is not a threat anymore than a police officer carrying a weapon in his holster is a threat.

[Warren Stupidity]

22. In a civil society people do not walk around armed to the teeth.

What part of that don't you get?

[aikoaiko]

24. What part of that don't I get? If you think lawfully carrying a handgun is extreme....

...then you are the one who has the problem.

Keeping and bearing arms is a civil right.

[Warren Stupidity]

30. I think it is uncivil.

Yes it is your right under the laws of many states. However, as I said, a civil society is not one in which people walk around in public armed to the teeth. That is an uncivil society.

You seem to be confusing "civil rights" with "civil society". You do understand that those are not the same things, don't you?

[aikoaiko]

32. I'm not confusing the two. I don't think its a part of a civil society to pressure businesses,

like Starbucks, to enact rules and policies that make it more difficult for people to express their civil rights.

Carry a handgun is not, in my opinion, "armed to the teeth". Can lawful people be armed at all? I think so.

I hope that clears up the confusion.

[Warren Stupidity]

42. So in your world view

it is wrong to exercise one's first amendment rights to protest Starbuck's policy tolerating gun totting people in their stores, but right to exercise one's second amendment right to walk around dressed for a gunfight. Have I got that approximately right?

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

45. It certainly is hypocritical...

Standing on your 1A soapbox whining and encouraging a business to enact policy that limits other civil rights.
But it is your right to not want guns somewhere and to express it openly. We will give you that.

Just remember what fucking hypocrites you are - running around proselytizing against other civil rights.
How progressive :eyes: :puke:

[Warren Stupidity]

70. You do understand that you have no right to bear arms in Starbucks?

And that in fact I do have first amendment right to protest Starbuck's policy of allowing immature idiots dressed up like gunfighters onto their private property?

[PavePusher]

81. Yes I do...

unless Starbucks prohibits it. Private property and all that.

You, however, do not get to chose for me.

Sorry you're not O.K. with that.

[Callisto32]

102. No, you don't.

It is private property, so you have whatever rights the owner wants you to have on that property. You have First Amendment rights there if they want you to. Same for guns. It is well within the rights of a property owner to prohibit whatever he wishes upon that property.

[jazzhound]

105. Could not have been more perfectly stated

And keep in mind that the hypocrisy is multi-layered, since liberals love to rail against bigots and those who stereotype. But of course it's o.k. to climb into the minds of gun owners in claiming that they're all out to intimidate, compensate, or (add your favorite slur).

Heaven forbid we single out women, gays, or people of color. But gun owners --- everyone knows they're all a bunch of knuckle-dragging Neanderthals.

And then there is the love of all things scientific......until the science of criminology refutes your intellectually lazy assumptions.

[aikoaiko]

53. My position is more subtle than that, but ....

....I do think it is wrong to use first amendment protected speech to ask businesses to deny service to people who exercising their 2nd Amendment rights.

But I WOULD NOT ask Starbucks to deny those people (who are protesting their policy) service in their restaurants for merely exercising their 1st Amendment rights to free speech.

Hopefully you see the difference in my position and what you asked.

[Pavulon]

65. Gun crime is about income, then race

general rule of thumb no matter your race if you live in greenwich ct you dont worry about gun crime. See the beach or a golf course, you are all good. If you live in a ghetto neighborhood of any race you may need to worry. Gun control is just a way to hide real social issues that no one really wants to address. Like drug laws, poverty (and its disproportional impact on blacks and hispanics) and mental health, those take real effort to "fix".

[SteveM]

153. Starbucks is not doing anything they haven't done before...

They are following the law.

If Starbucks wishes to post a sign which said "No Guns Allowed," they can. But they don't. Why? They haven't given a reason, but I suspect they don't wish to advertise to any psycho, gang-member, wannabee, etc. that the pickings are easy.

Hey, if you want to protest Starbucks' policy of following existing law, go ahead. If you want to pressure them to post "No Guns Allowed" signs, go ahead.

You really like those "powerful" signs, don't you?

[PavePusher]

80. Are you offering to guarantee my personal security?

I bet you won't... and therefore my methods of self-defense are up to me and, as long as they are legal, none of your business.

[PavePusher]

174. No response. How telling. n/t

[pipoman]

92. Cali is a prohibitionist state

The movement to carry in Starbucks began in Cali. Cali doesn't allow for the public to legally carry concealed as is legal in 44 other states. Maybe in the interest of those scared whiners feelings in this thread, Cali should pass shall issue concealed carry and take this off the table.

[S_B_Jackson]

135. No, people walking around with an UNLOADED WEAPON openly displayed...

in accordance with California statutes.

[branders seine]

20. I can see you are frustrated.

Why not go to the range and blast something to smithereens with your gun? You'll feel better after you squeeze off a few rounds.

[aikoaiko]

23. Your concern is noted.

Frustration is caused when people can't reach their goals. My goals are being achieved.

Those people who fear the lawful carrying of guns are frustrated by the law and now Starbucks.

Make your recommendations to them.

[branders seine]

35. congratulations on your goal and on being an achiever.

but, man, I had a rug that really tied the room together, man! This will not stand, man!

Lots of awful things are "lawful."

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

48. ROFL! ... but I'm pretty sure that a chinaman pissing on somebody's rug is anything but lawful.

[proteus_lives]

88. More stereotypes.

What, don't actually have anything to say?

[proteus_lives]

85. +1

But that will go over the head of a lot of DUers.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

10. K&R, because I'm evil.

[SidDithers]

12. The "openly nursing" line is fantastic...

thanks for posting these all week.

Sid

[-..__...]

34. If a group of mothers had gathered at Starbucks...

and openly nursed, I wonder what the DU reaction would be if those mothers were attacked, mocked and scorned the way
the Brady Campaign, Trudeau and other paranoid drama queens have reacted to the open carry advocates?

[comrade snarky]

130. Well... to be fair

Very few people have been killed by boobs. Even when wielded in an unsafe manner.

[PavePusher]

134. I'm willing to be a test subject.... n/t

[paulsby]

139. except those fembots in austin powers

with ballistic boobs

[-..__...]

144. Machine Girl...

and her drill bra laughs at your fembots!

[-..__...]

143. Yes...

however, so far safety issues haven't been the focus of the nay-sayers... be it the Brady Campaign, Trudeau and/or several posters here.

If safety was a primary concern, it would be irrelevant if patrons were open carrying or carrying concealed... either one is no less or more safe than the other.

Most of the complaints seem to be about "intimidation"... feeling uncomfortable or feeling put-off by the practice.

It's no big secret that there's a segment of society that does/would feel intimidated or uncomfortable with mothers openly breast feeding in public areas. Should their concerns be given any consideration or attention?

Legal protections aside... if an organization implemented a 'public decency' campaign to compel Starbucks (or any other ), to change their policy, the outrage here would be deafening.

[comrade snarky]

147. Most of what you wrote

I do agree with.

The trouble is that in many ways I am 5 years old and cannot resist a "dangerous killer boob" joke. It's an affliction.

I do have some issues with these guys in the Starbucks though. The protests I know of were in Walnut Creek, a greater hive of white bread privilege you'll not find (Obi Wan Kenobi voice) and it's there that they choose to express their rights. As if they're taking some big risk like a heavy Rosa Parks.

Yeah, you can strap a gun onto your belt and walk around a suburb in CA if it's unloaded which to me... kind of defeats the purpose. It turns a powerful weapon into a small club. A small expensive club. Like a $600 to $1,200 dollar club based on what I saw on the news. Frankly, it's a good thing they didn't leave the safe, safe suburb because they'd have made a great target for any real robber. Those things are money on the street. They wouldn't last 20 minutes in Richmond or E. 14th. I wouldn't want to be anywhere near 'em there. Safer to be a few blocks away at least.

Like I say though, it is their right to do it, just like it's Pete's Coffee's right to tell them "we don't want you meeting here" or Starbucks to say come on in and order a venti frap. It's just the whole thing seems kind of lame.

I have a long history around guns. I grew up in Texas, it's the law there. For my 12th birthday I got a kid sized 22 bolt action that had been my dads. Hell, I just rearranged my living room to have a place to display my grandfathers hunting shotgun from when he was a kid. It has a broken spring so it cant be fired and is OK to display. For DU I'm practically a gun nut! It seems to me though that the kind of person who wants to carry an unloaded gun openly, in a place they know it will cause a stir, is probably not the who should be the spokesman.

If I were carrying a handgun or rifle and someone said it was making them uncomfortable, I cant imagine doing anything but saying "Oh, sorry about that. I'll put it in the trunk of my car." Deciding to get on a high horse because it's my right to make them uncomfortable is a dick move whether it's true or not and is certainly no way to convince anyone else over to my side. I have a brother in law who goes on about his constitutional right to drive 55 on the highway and not use a fastrak for bridge tolls. He's right. Incredibly annoying yes, but it is his right.

God, I wish I was making that up.

[mainer]

175. I'm with you.

Most of the gun owners I know (and there are plenty around here) consider their guns nothing more than useful tools with which to hunt, control vermin, or target shoot. They'd no more wear a gun to Starbucks than they would ride their tractor into Starbucks. They don't feel the need to shout out the world they're gun owners. They know they are, and so what? It's no big deal to them.

They'd wonder why anyone feels the need to lug their guns around in public, just for show.

[SteveM]

154. Hell, why don't you protest Starbucks' policy on open-nursing?

[The Straight Story]

27. Maybe we need segregation to come back, separate places for people we don't like (nt)

[leftyladyfrommo]

31. I think this has been hysterical.

I live in the Midwest where lots of people own guns. I have no idea how many have concealed weapons now but I bet the figure is pretty high.

Just as long as they don't shoot them around me.

[aikoaiko]

33. Welcome to the Guns Forum.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

43. Why are paranoid people so intimidated by people who are clearly not threatening them?

[mainer]

47. How do you know what the gun carrier intends?

Maybe he's just there to enjoy his coffee. Or maybe he's planning to walk over and put a bullet in your head. How do you know? The point is, he has the means to end your life with a flick of the finger.

That's enough to make a lot of people nervous.

[friendly_iconoclast]

51. See post #19. You don't have to like it, but you do have to accept it.

n/t

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

52. Is that fear founded in comparison to the rest of your daily experiences?

Personally, I'd be more scared of 16yr olds mowing me over in the parking lot after they get off thier shift.
There are many things people can do to end the lives of others' on a daily basis, but being nervous about each them is a bit over the top.
Heck, getting out of bed every morning is an assumed risk.

In all honesty, a nutjob shooting someone up is probably going try hide a firearm before they use it.
Most criminals try to avoid raising attention until they plan to act.
Starbuck's policies are not encouraging or detering any illegal action - blowing your brains out is already extremely illegal.
Do you really think Starbucks's store policy would have changed such a determined criminals mind?

[Pavulon]

62. Your kid updating its facebook on their cute iphone behind the wheel

is a far far greater threat. Little suzy or jimmy can kill you just as splattery dead and they get to walk away because it was an "accident".

[PavePusher]

82. And I could say the same for you.

I don't know you, why should I trust you?

[proteus_lives]

89. How do know what a protester intends?

How do you know what a driver intends?

How do you know what a man reading a book intends?

How do you know what a woman entering a a voting booth intends?

That makes people nervous too.

Get the point?

[SteveM]

155. How do you know what ANYBODY intends? Goodness. nt

[PavePusher]

167. I think someone is "living in fear".

Several someones, actually.

<Sarcasm>, just in case...

[Euromutt]

170. We accurately predict human behavior every single day

I'm getting repetitive, but consider this excerpt from Gavin de Becker's The Gift of Fear:

People do things, we say, "out of the blue," "all of a sudden," "out of nowhere." These phrases support the popular myth that predicting human behavior isn't possible. Yet to successfully navigate morning traffic, we make amazingly accurate high-stakes predictions about the behavior of literally thousands of people. <...> So here we are, traveling along faster than anyone before the 1900s ever traveled (unless they were falling off a cliff), dodging giant, high-momentum steel missiles, judging the intent of their operators with a fantastic accuracy, and then saying we can't predict human behavior.

We predict with some success how a child will react to a warning, how a witness will react to a question, how a jury will react to a witness, how a consumer will react to a slogan, how an audience will react to a scene, how a spouse will react to a comment, how a reader will react to a phrase, and on and on. Predicting violent behavior is easier than any of these, but since we fantasize that human violence is an aberration done by others unlike us, we say we can't predict it.

De Becker's key thesis is that our intuition is highly capable of warning us when something is going, or may go, wrong; that is genuine fear, and we should listen to it (which all too frequently we do not, rationalizing it away). But much of what we call "fear" is actually worry, and:

Worry is the fear we manufacture--it is not authentic. If you choose to worry abut something, have at it, but do so knowing it's a choice. Most often, we worry because it provides some secondary reward.
<...>
In Emotional Intelligence, Daniel Goleman concludes that worrying is a sort of "magical amulet" that people feel wards off danger. They believe that worrying about something will stop it from happening.

Understand that discomfort--unease, nervousness; whatever you want to call it--that you are talking about is not something someone else is inflicting on you; it is something you are doing to yourself, and you are not doing so involuntarily. The solution to your problem is simple (though I acknowledge that "simple" does not mean "easy"): if you don't want to be worried, stop worrying yourself.

[Mopar151]

56. It's not paranoia to be worried if sombody is packin heat

in Dunkin' Donuts. It is NOT clear, to those of us who know those who "open carry", that we are not being threatened.

[PavePusher]

83. If you can't tell the difference between a threat and a non-threat...

Your days must be very confusing.

[Mopar151]

106. I can tell just fine.

If they let you know they're packin' , they're trouble. Double that if the talk about hot loads and extra-lethal (Black Talon, Hydra-shock) bullets, or how bad-ass their gun is. Constant diatribes about revenge, torture, and sabotage up the ante some more. There are other multipliers, too, but I don't want to give anybody's voices new ideas.
And bear in mind that, to me, Tuesday night rifle club = bowling, skeet & Trap = loud golf.

[PavePusher]

109. You seem to have very strange ideas...

about the average daily carrier.

Edit: You also know, of course, that "Black Talon" and "Hydrashock" bullets are no more "lethal" than any other hollow-point bullet, right?

[Mopar151]

116. All I'm doing is relating personal experiences

I'm not the one with "funny ideas" - and I ain't the guy was braggin' on the bullets.

[PavePusher]

122. You seem to color everyone...

with your isolated incident. We call that "painting with a broad brush", also known as "stereotyping". Your "personal experiences" are not indicitive of the positions and attitudes of 80 million-odd firearms owners.

And what is wrong with discussing the relative merits of various self-defense ammunition? The same types police forces use?

[Mopar151]

148. Hardly an isolated incedent

Here in "live free or die" country. You may not have noticed, in your rush to defend those who beleive that the 2nd amendment's purpose is to allow them to intimidate the public, that those gun owners are a very vocal, tiny minority of the millions of gun owners.
How about slob hunters, or backyard popshooters? Show me the NRA programs to deal with these neighborhood menaces, who do more to denigrate gun owners and promote gun control than any of the Brady initiatives ever could.

[PavePusher]

149. I'm from "LFOD" country. Born in Hanover, to be exact.

Partially raised in Etna, and Thetford, VT, and Mt. Vernon, ME.

Pretty rural country, many places it's perfectly safe to shoot in your back yard. Even in some towns.

The NRA is not responsible for people being stupid. The program that exists to deal with that is called "Notify the police, get video if neccesary, and push the issue until resolved". But also, it's "If they are shooting in a safe direction, mind your own business".

Noel Perrin wrote some pretty good observations of country life, I suggest you look up his books.

[PavePusher]

150. Also...

"...those who beleive that the 2nd amendment's purpose is to allow them to intimidate the public..."

Who are you talking about? There are some people who believe that the exercise of Constitutionally protected Civil Rights is a good thing, no intimidation is intended or implied.

Oddly, being a rather Constitutional person myself, I agree with them.



I'll note you haven't readdressed the ammo issue.

[friendly_iconoclast]

161. Here are some more open carriers intimidating the public:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x263537

[SteveM]

156. And to think, pro-2A folks are called paranoid...

"if they let you know they're packing', they're trouble."

If they DON'T let you know (as in states which allow concealed-carry), are they still trouble?

Check the post upstream where it was suggested that California adopt a concealed-carry law and take the steam out of its peculiar open-carry-unloaded law. That should make you feel better.

[Mopar151]

168. In the answer to your question - no.

It's the "being very sure to let you know" kind I have trouble with - but that's just me.

[SteveM]

171. Then is it safe to assume you would support concealed-carry in Cali.?

In this manner, you wouldn't be "troubled," and the whole Starbucks/open-carry controversy would be moot.

In the event you do NOT support concealed-carry, then I suppose you will continue to be troubled?

It doesn't bother me that someone is carrying a gun (open or concealed); I have my own.

[Mopar151]

172. Depends on the criteria for a permit n/t

[SteveM]

173. And what would those be? nt

[proteus_lives]

86. Why do you use stereotypes?

[friendly_iconoclast]

57. Just like fundies complaining about Pride Day events...

"Those people" exercising their rights make them uncomfortable.

[Pavulon]

63. Maybe they can draw a cartoon about blacks or mexicans who look scary next

you know maybe they need to be put in the back of the bus... I mean think of the children.

[Katya Mullethov]

66. Dont forget the Mari-huana smoking jazz musicians

Whose only aim , is to seek out carnal knowledge with our young women .

[spin]

72. Always remember gun control has racist roots. (n/t)

[onehandle]

113. Tell it like it is, Rosa Parks...

'We shall overcome...'

...being white dudes that control everything, make all the decisions for everyone, and have all the guns we want.

That includes me, by the way.

I feel So oppressed.

Pity me.

LOL! This room cracks me up.

[Pavulon]

125. I cant think of a faster way to lose political office

than to mess with gun control.

[cowman]

68. Gotta go train now

all you gun controllers have fun now and don't get your little feelings hurt too bad

Be back later, Peace Out

[slackmaster]

84. I see plenty of bigotry expressed in the series

Very unfortunate.

[proteus_lives]

90. Trudeau is acting like a bigot on this one.

[pipoman]

91. Trudeau is an urban

elitist. Usually he effectively portrays a liberal philosophy....gun control isn't liberal...by definition it is conservative. Gary and Jane no doubt enjoy a high level of security in their daily lives....a level of security not afforded the less than elite. (I guess I really don't know if Gar and Jane are still together and really don't give enough of a shit to look it up)

[Warren Stupidity]

94. Starbucks is an urban elitist store.nt

[pipoman]

95. Sort of depends on the neighborhood...

started out that way, now they are in neighborhoods which couldn't possibly be mistaken for 'upscale'.

[Warren Stupidity]

96. woosh

The irony of attacking Trudeau over his Starbuck's series because he is an urban elite is perhaps too much for the dressed for a gunfight crowd.

[pipoman]

97. How about a civil rights nonviolent protest crowd?

How utterly arcane, huh?

[Warren Stupidity]

98. Ah yes Gandhi With a Gun.

utter bullshit I'd say.

You have no right to play dress up like a gunfighter in Starbucks. You have a right to do that out on the street.

[PavePusher]

99. Starbucks doesn't, apparently, have a problem with it.

You, apparently, do.

Starbucks is private property, they set the rules.

Too bad for you, I guess, you're not the boss of them.

[Warren Stupidity]

118. Oh they will.

The intersection between the Starbuck's demographic and the Gun as Fashion Accessory demographic is basically the Empty Set, and Starbuck's will (or already has) figured that out.

[PavePusher]

121. "Gun as Fashion Accessory demographic"?

That's the best you have?

I'm suddenly not at all concerned by you. Good day.

[Warren Stupidity]

123. I guess I found the right button

took long enough.

[PavePusher]

124. What button?

You simply proved that you are not here to debate facts, bring evidence or pose rational, thoughtful questions, so I will no longer pander to what I perceive as your angst.

Have a nice day.

Edit: All your stereotypes are long deceased around here. I suggest you try something new. Come on, suprise us..!

[shedevil69taz]

169. you mean the

"which generalization will get the the response I want button"?

[friendly_iconoclast]

128. You have good evidence Starbuck's will change their minds Real Soon Now?

Really? Give over, then.

[pipoman]

103. But boy howdy how you are howling

and gnashing your teeth trying to strip Starbucks of a choice you disagree with regarding THEIR private property....how liberal of you..

[Warren Stupidity]

117. I'm a customer using their services

consequently I have every right to demand that Starbuck's keep out idiots wearing guns as fashion accessories.

[PavePusher]

120. Sure you have a right to demand anything you want...

And they have every right to ignore you and uphold Civil Rights.

You will note that their stock price has gone up during this controversy.

I'm sure they will miss your business.

[Warren Stupidity]

129. There is no civil rights issue.

You have no right to wear a gun in the store.

[friendly_iconoclast]

131. Starbuck's seems to disagree with you. Feel free to go to Peet's, Dunkie's or another coffee shop.

And keep us updated on how well your boycott is doing while you're at it.

[PavePusher]

133. Certainly there is a Civil Rights issue.

It is about the right of Starbucks to run their stores as they see fit. You seem to have an issue with that. You can disagree with their policy, but that does not mean they have an obligation to please you. Just as if the policy and our positions were reversed. Have have every right to try to get them to change their policy. Good luck with that.

And, as long as they allow it, I do have that right.

Good day to you.

[Pavulon]

126. People make silly demands all the time..

this issue is done. 1990's are gone and this issue stopped being politically viable in 1995. gone.

[DonP]

176. You know for a moment there you sounded just like George Wallace

He felt he had every right to demand that "those people" stay out of his schools and universities.

Not an attractive parallel.

[paulsby]

138. reminds me of the smoking ban in WA state where i live

i HATE HATE HATE cigarette smoke. but i hate legislators who exert authority over private bars and tell them they cannot allow smoking in their businesses.

let the marketplace decide

don't want to go to a smoky bar, go to one that CHOOSES to ban smoking or open your own smokefree bar and reap the $$ rewards from the smoker haters. i'd go to it.

[Euromutt]

140. Especially considering it was supposedly to protect the workers

When I did Mandatory Alcohol Servers' Training to get my Class 12 permit (allowing me to legally tend bar in the state of Washington), the instructor told us that because of the risk of being held civilly liable if some idiot slammed his car into someone else's and then fingered you as having "overserved" him, not enough people are willing to work as alcohol servers to fill the available jobs (that's probably a bit different now, given the economy, but it was true in 2005). Combine that with the fact that 85% of bars and restaurants were already non-smoking before the state-imposed ban, and the fact was that any bar or restaurant employee who didn't want to work in a smoky environment didn't have to. Which made the rationale for the law--protecting the workers--utterly bogus.

[paulsby]

141. much like the law WA state passed to ban online gambling

to "protect" people

this in a state where casinos are all over the place

the online casinos offfered MUCH lower rake. i made quite nice money playing online poker

i had to stop when they made it a C felony

they have no problem with players playing at CASINOS, cause the state makes MONEY (Taxes)

but if i play a $5 tournament on a saturday night (good entertainment, and cheaper than a movie), they need to PROTECT me

crap

and they said they don't intend to enforce it!

which makes it doubly stupid

[pipoman]

145. Yeah, but who'd want a bunch o'cops hanging out at their bar?

:rofl:


edit...kidding...just kidding...

[SteveM]

157. Law permitting, people have the right to carry in Starbucks. Understand?...

People have the right to carry on the street, laws permitting. Understand?

Now that we have firmly cleared that up, Gandhi was no wilting flower when it came to confronting violence. He said if you cannot stop a person from threatening you, your family, property and religion using non-violence toward the threat, then it is your duty to "dispatch" him.

Would you like citations?

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

164. "Ghandi With a Gun" --> Odd you should mention that. Ghandi supported ownership of arms.

While he preached nonviolent resistance, he fully understood and valued the concept of the ability to defend yourself.

"Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the Act depriving a whole nation of arms as the blackest."
-Ghandi

[shadowrider]

119. Then don't go there

And your problem is solved.

[baldguy]

100. Another term for "urban elitist" is "American Patriot"

A phrase that applies to Trudeau more than anyone promoting Guns' Rights.

[pipoman]

101. Or a relic of a lost issue

echoing through the halls of the mansions of Manhattan...how difficult it must be to see real street level reality from such a lofty position..

edit...interesting choice of words, patriot that is, the first I have heard the moniker, 'American Patriot" affixed to a person who wishes to suppress Constitutional rights and advocates a conservative interpretation of that right...interesting...

[paulsby]

137. trudeau is a cafe constitutionalist

supporting SOME rights and discarding and mocking others

making fun of those who support RKBA with offensive stereotytpes is as silly as making fun of those who (for example) support right to choice (he could portray them as sluts and etc.) or free speech or whatever

[onehandle]

104. 'Elitist' is right-wing speak.

I am shocked... shocked to see it in this room.

[pipoman]

107. Elitist is no more "right wing" than 'brown' is when describing

a brown dog....shocked? Of coarse there is no elitism in the Democratic party, huh? Tell it to the millions of unemployed union members whose jobs were sold south when Washington Elitists (right and left) decided to 'agree' and 'fast track" their ability to collectively bargain away, despite 80% public disapproval...no elitism there, huh?

[baldguy]

108. And the recent legal successes of Guns' Rights advocates

Has been predicated on the rightward imbalance in the courts, which is a direct result of political dominance of the most extreme brand of conservatism over the last thirty years.

Thankfully, that seems to be changing with the "urban elitist" influence of Barack Obama & the Democratic Party.

[pipoman]

111. Uh,

Isn't it 43 states now which have loosened state gun laws in the last few years? All run by the NRA I know...that is why there isn't any movements in those states to repeal the liberalized gun laws. Because the NRA is paying each and every voter 1milllllion dollars to approve of these liberalized laws....no, the self proclaimed intellectuals and urban elite liberals have lost the debate of public opinion on this issue....they have lost to the very hillbillys who have always been responsible for the success of the Democratic party...labor..

[friendly_iconoclast]

114. Some people are incapable of admitting their cause is not popular...

...and have to come up with some murky conspiracy that keeps Americans from what they "really" (or so the follower of the
lost cause believes) want.

Hence the frothing of the teabaggers, as well as the promulgation of the "Protocols of The Elders of The NRA" meme.

[jazzhound]

112. And the recent legal successes of Guns' Rights advocates

"Has been predicated on the rightward imbalance in the courts, which is a direct result of political dominance of the most extreme brand of conservatism over the last thirty years.

Thankfully, that seems to be changing with the "urban elitist" influence of Barack Obama & the Democratic Party."

As pipoman has just pointed out, that would be a resounding NO!!! The SCOTUS didn't have any say in the fact that the number of states allowing for concealed carry has steadily increased. The constant shrill lies of the Brady Bunch regarding the imminent "Wild West
Shootouts" and "Blood in the Streets" haven't come to pass.......and the citizens have become hip.

Just another example of an anti posting under the influence of ignorance.

[SteveM]

158. Obviously, you have never read C. Wright Mills...

"The Power Elite."

[Name removed]

115. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[DissedByBush]

127. I'm more scared of a cop carrying than a civilian

With the cop I'm wondering if I did anything wrong, if I broke some some stupid law I didn't even know about.

With the civilian I know he's not a criminal (criminals don't open carry) and he's not going to take all my stuff under drug forfeiture laws.

[spin]

136. If you dislike open carry, how would you feel sitting near me ...

in a Starbucks in Florida. Florida does NOT allow open carry but I have a concealed weapons permit.

When in a restaurant or coffee shop, I have a snub nosed S&W Model 642 in a holster in my front pants pocket.



I also normally have two knives on me. One is a Spyderco Endura " folder with a 3 3/4 sully serrated blade.



The other is a fixed blade knife. A Bark River Bird and Trout with a 4 1/4" blade.



Note: I don't carry knives as weapons but as tools. The Spyderco is an excellent tool for cutting rope or cardboard, the Bark River is a very useful knife to cut food as a fixed blade knife is far easier to clean than a folding knife. Both knifes are normally concealed by a long tailed T shirt or jacket and since Florida has a concealed WEAPONS permit are legal.

My daughter, if she is with me, has a concealed Smith & Wesson 351PD Snub Nose 22 Mag Revolver




and a NAA .22 Long Rifle Mini-Revolver.



She also carries an inexpensive switch blade knife which she likes far more than the expensive Benchmade folder I bought her.



If my son in law is with us he has a Ruger .380 LCP in his pants pocket



And his favorite inexpensive switchblade which he has put through amazing abuse by cutting wire and prying.



Concealed switchblade knifes are not illegal in Florida with a concealed carry permit

So imagine yourself sitting in a Florida restaurant and looking at the locals. You can't tell who is armed and who is not. And even if the family at the table beside you is legally packing heat, so what. You are in no danger from them. Millions of people visit Florida every year and how many times do you hear of a tourist being shot by a Florida resident with a concealed license in a restaurant or coffee shop? Sure the Brady Campaign and the VPC have conniption fits about states like Florida but statistics fail to support their overblown claims.

So why all the concern about some individuals open carrying in a Starbucks in a state that does allow open carry? It's the same thing, except you see the weapon and know it's there.

No big deal. Enjoy your coffee and just realize that any fool who stumbles into the Starbucks with the intention of robbing it will glance around and meekly leave. It's as safe as a Dunkin Donuts when the cops are hanging out.

The Brady Campaign should pay Garry Trudeau some money for helping push their baseless propaganda. They need all the help they can get to remain relevant.

[PavePusher]

142. I'm going to be elitist as all hell here..

and say that your kids have terrible tastes in knives! Eeeeewwwwwww!

Where did they go wrong? What did you do to them? They must be re-educated immediately!!1!


Edit : Just in case: :evilgrin:

[spin]

146. I agree...

despite my best efforts and even an offer to buy them some quality switchblade knives (which are very expensive), they refused saying that they would never use such a nice tool.

I'm not fond of switchblades at all, as to me they are just toys. I can open my Benchmade 710 as fast as they can open their switchblades and I have a much stronger lock on my blade then they do on theirs.



I even went so far as to buy my daughter a Benchmade Gravitator, but she rarely carries it.



And my fixed blade knives don't require opening. They are ready for action as soon as they leave the sheath. Tomatoes, celery and sausage tremble in fear.

Oh well, at least I don't have to sharpen the knives they use.

[SteveM]

159. The NRA has paid for cartoons like this in the past. nt

[gorfle]

160. I don't get them.

I've gone back and read all the cartoons.

None of them are funny, and most of them are factually incorrect.

For example, today's cartoon implies that people who carry firearms in Starbucks are going to draw down on someone simply for speaking? Is he serious? I don't get it.

[AtheistCrusader]

162. Doesn't miss a bigoted stereotype does he?

Sharp one, that Doonesbury.

[friendly_iconoclast]

163. For those of you made squirmy by open carry activists:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x263537

Enjoy!