FA+
Shop
A Shot of .45 in my Expresso Please
16 years ago
General
Just read an AOL news report about "Starbucks" decision to allow unloaded open-carry of firearms in their San Fransisco stores.
Up until now I hadn't heard that "Starbucks" had become a battleground for gun-control issues, and it seems somewhat absurd to me that activists on either side would choose as middling a place as a trendy coffee shop to fight over such a thing.
But apparently, Bay area residents are quite displeased that a local pro-gun group has been using Starbucks as a meeting ground to plan events (such as picking up trash at Baker Beach in Presidio National Park). They've been pressuring Starbucks to ban all guns from their stores saying that the sight of gun carrying people is "unsettling". Current law allows unloaded open-carry.
Quote from the article:
"Tell Starbucks: Espresso Shots, Not Gunshots," the group (the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence) says on its Web site. "The practice of packing heat in places like Starbucks is intimidating and could be potentially dangerous to our families and communities -- and it must be stopped."
My own opinion in this case is that state law prevails. Naturally I'm sympathetic to gun owners and I would like to see all states allow responsible owners to carry if they choose.
To me, the BCPGV's argument that gun carrying individuals at Starbucks could be "potentially dangerous to our families and communities" is an empty, almost slanderous piece of fear-mongering.
As further argument for their case, the BCPGV wrote a letter to Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz reminding him of a shooting that took place in a Starbucks outlet in 1997.
It's true that firearms have the potential for misuse, but insinuating that gun-carrying individuals sitting at a Starbucks sipping coffee might suddenly explode into violence is not only absurd, but to my mind, terribly naive.
The right to bear arms is not only a part of the constitution of this country, but also, I personally believe, a part of every human beings natural right to defend themselves.
If there had been an armed man sitting inside that Starbucks in 1997, or the possibility of one, those criminals may have thought twice before trying to rob the place.
I really only post this because I found the BCPGV's arguments to be asinine. I don't want to become the next J. Naylor or Ron Schmeits, but I do enjoy my collection of vintage rifles and feel that there is nothing wrong with allowing responsible citizens to openly carry their firearms.
I don't consider myself a hardcore conservative, or a bleeding-heart liberal, and I don't let political affiliations or dogma tell me what should be right or wrong - I follow my own conscience.
D.O.P.R
Up until now I hadn't heard that "Starbucks" had become a battleground for gun-control issues, and it seems somewhat absurd to me that activists on either side would choose as middling a place as a trendy coffee shop to fight over such a thing.
But apparently, Bay area residents are quite displeased that a local pro-gun group has been using Starbucks as a meeting ground to plan events (such as picking up trash at Baker Beach in Presidio National Park). They've been pressuring Starbucks to ban all guns from their stores saying that the sight of gun carrying people is "unsettling". Current law allows unloaded open-carry.
Quote from the article:
"Tell Starbucks: Espresso Shots, Not Gunshots," the group (the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence) says on its Web site. "The practice of packing heat in places like Starbucks is intimidating and could be potentially dangerous to our families and communities -- and it must be stopped."
My own opinion in this case is that state law prevails. Naturally I'm sympathetic to gun owners and I would like to see all states allow responsible owners to carry if they choose.
To me, the BCPGV's argument that gun carrying individuals at Starbucks could be "potentially dangerous to our families and communities" is an empty, almost slanderous piece of fear-mongering.
As further argument for their case, the BCPGV wrote a letter to Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz reminding him of a shooting that took place in a Starbucks outlet in 1997.
It's true that firearms have the potential for misuse, but insinuating that gun-carrying individuals sitting at a Starbucks sipping coffee might suddenly explode into violence is not only absurd, but to my mind, terribly naive.
The right to bear arms is not only a part of the constitution of this country, but also, I personally believe, a part of every human beings natural right to defend themselves.
If there had been an armed man sitting inside that Starbucks in 1997, or the possibility of one, those criminals may have thought twice before trying to rob the place.
I really only post this because I found the BCPGV's arguments to be asinine. I don't want to become the next J. Naylor or Ron Schmeits, but I do enjoy my collection of vintage rifles and feel that there is nothing wrong with allowing responsible citizens to openly carry their firearms.
I don't consider myself a hardcore conservative, or a bleeding-heart liberal, and I don't let political affiliations or dogma tell me what should be right or wrong - I follow my own conscience.
D.O.P.R
Whether it should be against the law or not to carry them, I think carrying should be allowed, I am as Republican as the next guy but... When relationships fray, or someone owes you money, or you are mad at somebody, having a gun in your hands is the worst thing ever. I had a bad experience with it with that roomate and its hard for me to say having guns in public is a great idea anymore... People are people.
Unfortunately, a lot of the problems this country has with guns are due more to our society and how it looks at firearms then it does the firearms themselves.
My firearms are a collection. The majority of my rifles are wartime antiques. I'm allured by the intrinsic history behind them, as well as just the simple joy of shooting.
For many other people, guns are either a status symbol, compensation for something, or a replacement for courage. Many people in this country see guns as a way to make themselves feel more powerful, or (if they want) to intimidate others or threaten them, mostly because they know that the chances are good that the other guy isn't armed themselves.
It's easy to be "big-man-on-campus" when you're the only guy with a gun.
Heck, I know people now (one of whom is even in law enforcement) that I don't necessarily trust with firearms. But those tend to be the same people I wouldn't trust with a fully-loaded semi, or a chainsaw, or my paycheck, or in some cases even to tie their own shoes...
It's a similar situation to the way alcohol is handled in this country. Alcohol is a huge problem here, yet other countries where the drinking age is much lower and beer much easier to obtain have fewer issues. It's just the way Americans view and handle the stuff. It's "taboo", "forbidden", and all the more alluring. Those who take it feel naughty and powerful, those who don't feel vulnerable and fearful.
D.O.P.R
I agree with you.
I can understand how that can be comforting...
:-P
You're as bad as the police!
But I still bite!