Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: freakazoid on February 08, 2010, 11:37:26 PM
-
This isa peace this guy wrote in response to people open carrying at Starbucks. Holy cow, this guys nuts.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/g/a/2010/02/05/notes020510.DTL
Hello and welcome to our store! Please, feel free to look around, make yourself comfortable, enjoy our fine offerings and, oh yes, by the way? Please, no murdering.
Also, no raping, gang-banging, popping off, stabbing, mauling, stealing stuff, or walking around in a confrontational macho huff, ready at a moment's notice to harass any of our normal patrons with a snarl and a vague threat of violence because you feel it is your God-given right, given how you are a card-carrying member of a pro-gun "Open Carry" sect that likes to strap unloaded handguns to your Wranglers, walk around in public places and freak people out. Thank you so much!
I'm sorry, I see you are still wearing your little weapon and strutting about like you are the rather doughy, bad-skinned king of the sand castle. Perhaps we were not clear? Shall we try it again?
Clearly, you are not a police officer. Therefore, the management, our employees and pretty much everyone within a 100-mile radius would very much appreciate it if you would put away that ego-fluffing man-toy that is designed solely to kill other living creatures and induce fear and ignorance as it regresses every hesitant advancement in the human soul back to caveman grunting lunkishness. Thank you again!
Oh, please do not misunderstand! We are all terribly impressed. It is so very patriotic of you to show off your little popper! Are you in a gang? Are you a drug dealer? Are you going to shoot some scary terrorists, Mr. pallid paranoid Constitution-misquoting videogame-addicted guy? Protect all of us here in the casual neighborhood coffee shop from those crazy liberals and their health care reform and organic pretzels? Thank you so much! But really, I think we'll be OK without your little display. Enjoy your frappucino, won't you?
What, no drink? You now wish to order nothing at all and instead plop yourself down in the corner, plug in your laptop and angrily scour Facebook all day for evidence that your ex-girlfriend, the one who left you two years ago at a full, what-the-hell-was-I-thinking sprint, is now dating a liberal or a pacifist or an atheist and is far, far happier than she ever was with you? We understand. We appreciate your desire to partake of our free Wi-Fi, buy nothing and not give a damn that we can't really stay in business that way.
Why, look at you! Refusing to step away from the counter and instead choosing to read aloud from your little card that says how it's completely legal to carry an unconcealed, unloaded firearm in a public space! Way to stand up for your rights! God bless America!
Turns out you are right. It is legal, sort of. Then again, so is eating gravel, wearing a giant hat made of cow manure and squirrel tails, and slapping yourself in the face repeatedly while ranting semicoherently about Jesus, masturbation and Shania Twain. And you don't see anyone doing that, do you? Except Carl over there?
We realize it might seem unfair. Far be it from us here at the neighborhood cafe, where families and small children and book readers come to chat and feel slightly better about their day, to ask you to leave because your energy is so low and repellant and also downright silly.
But nevertheless, I'm afraid that's exactly what we're going to do. We would appreciate it if you would take your business elsewhere. Right now. No? Very well.
We had hoped it wouldn't come to this. We had hoped to find a better resolution. However, in response to your insistence on carrying a firearm into our premises, we have no choice but to change our official policy, right here and now, on the spot.
Again, we mean no offense, you jingoistic lump of mancrazy. You are indeed well within your rights to be a thoroughly paranoid coward who has no real inner strength, confidence or social skills, to a degree that you feel you must carry a deadly weapon around to feel like you even exist. We understand your thinking completely. It's basic psychology. Very, very basic. Childish, even.
So then. Like any business, we reserve the right to refuse service to anyone. But we realize there are some people for whom this is not specific or clear enough. We realize some people have to have it, you know, spelled out and publicly displayed.
Therefore, we have revised our list. Please note the new sign we have just posted on the front door. We have expanded and clarified a few things. We hope it helps.
Effective immediately on these premises, there will be:
* No murdering
* No raping
* No pillaging
* No gun slinging, pistol-whipping, sucker-punching
* No mauling, jabbing, stabbing, hating or undermining
* No screaming bloody murder
* No morons
* No panicking
* No testing on animals
* No jumping for Joy. While she appreciates your enthusiasm, our cashier is happily married. Thank you
* No live birthing
* No dumping
* No livestock
* No smoking
* No smoking the livestock
* No exit
* No way out
* No diving
* No spitting
* No way!
* No Crusades
* No "Star Trek" re-enactments
* No skinny-dipping in the half-n-half
* No doubt
Thank you so much for understanding. Free sample biscotti on your way out?
-
Think his skull would explode if he knew women CCW as well?
-
Let me guess. A freshman year creative writing student, right? Who else could manage to stuff three or four dozen cliches into so short a piece?
-
He's someone with issues, for sure.
-
I have a little rule for that guy.
No writing.
The horror.
-
Mark Morford does gunguys.com.
-
While Peet's Coffee & Tea respects all individuals' rights under local, state and federal laws, our policy is not to allow customers carrying firearms in our stores unless they are uniformed or identified law enforcement officers. - The Scavenger
I would make a point to go in there every single day, in uniform, with my Tim Horton's coffee and bagel just to show them the business they are missing.
-
I stopped at a Starbucks this morning. I bought a 12oz black coffee for $1.52, and then went and sat in a corner for a 1/2 hour to killed time while I was waiting for someone. I managed not to maul, steal, etc. despite the concealed pistol I was wearing.
Even if open carry was normal in this area I think I'd still cover up, just to avoid unpleasantness with people like this. I'd rather go unnoticed than make a statement.
-
Meh, it's San Francisco what do you expect? The sooner that place slides into the ocean the better off we'll all be.
-
Think his skull would explode if he knew women CCW as well?
Hell, someone inform him! We got nothing to lose, and everything to gain. I'm having thoughts of Gallagher and his sledge... =D
DD
-
Mark Morford does gunguys.com.
Seriously? That would explain a lot, actually - there's a poster on one of Yahoo's gun boards who quotes gunguys.com religiously, and can't stand the fact that every other poster there can utterly destroy both his gunguys.com regurgitations and his own allegedly-independently-thought-up posts. I'm slightly ashamed to say that I'm one of those who slaps Max upside the head with the facts so lacking in his posts. Sure, I consider it to be a necessary job, but it feels a lot like the old cliche of having a battle of wits with an unarmed man. Every pro-rights poster there destroys Max's positions with HIS OWN POSTS, most of the time, and he simply refuses to acknowledge it. He's... dedicated, I suppose is one way to put it.
No surprise that his idol has all the same unthinking prejudices and hatreds.
-
Even if open carry was normal in this area I think I'd still cover up, just to avoid unpleasantness with people like this.
So just so we're clear, your behavior hinges on your desire not to offend guys like Mike Moford, a VPC volunteer?
-
/finishes reading article
It's... like he KNOWS me... :O :O =D
-
given how you are a card-carrying member of a pro-gun "Open Carry" sect that likes to strap unloaded handguns to your Wranglers
Obviously a Californian.
I never carry an unloaded gun. Open or concealed.
Never used the pro-carry business card routine, either. I should probably get some of those printed up. ;)
-
So just so we're clear, your behavior hinges on your desire not to offend guys like Mike Moford, a VPC volunteer?
Desire not to offend? Not really, more my desire to avoid confrontation. Also so I don't have a big "Shoot me first" sign on.
My motivations and reasoning are my own, and I won't defend them any further than that.
-
I'd say more a desire to not have some VPC tool freak out and call the cops. Guess I'm not a big enough hero of the revolution to want to risk having a bunch of nervous guys with guns getting all SWAT on my ass for no particular reason. Now, when I was in AZ I open carried all the time, mostly because I wasn't 21 so I couldn't get a permit.
-
Wait a minute... People go about, open carrying an unloaded pistol? :facepalm:
That's about the stupidest thing I've ever heard of. It has every disadvantage of carrying (shoot me first, not blending in, causing a stir, extra weight, carrying something valuable on your person) and none of the advantages (being able to shoot when needed!).
-
Wait a minute... People go about, open carrying an unloaded pistol? :facepalm:
That's about the stupidest thing I've ever heard of. It has every disadvantage of carrying (shoot me first, not blending in, causing a stir, extra weight, carrying something valuable on your person) and none of the advantages (being able to shoot when needed!).
They're doing what they have to in CA.
I admit, I was pretty firmly in the "Jeez, what a bunch of attention whores.. ;/ " mindset about the whole OC movement as little as two years ago. However, in fits and starts, I've since done a complete 180, seeing the great work they've done in many places to push the RKBA envelope, and how it makes the anti's absolutely foaming-at-the-mouth livid, and say things that start to insult all gun owners in the process. Which serves to only marginalize them further and further.
And when OC becomes the debate, the truly dangerous debate about simple ownership/bans/confiscation gets moved a little further off the stage every time.
OC is not for me on a daily basis, but it absolutely has it's place as a form of very potent political expression.
The civil rights movement had those who did the sit-ins, braved the beatings, the dogs, and the fire-hoses, at the risk of engaging in hyperbole, this is the same thing in microcosm.
-
The civil rights movement had those who did the sit-ins, braved the beatings, the dogs, and the fire-hoses, at the risk of engaging in hyperbole, this is the same thing in microcosm.
I see what you're saying, but this isn't directly comparable.
Civil rights activist broke laws they wanted changed, and risked prosecution for it.
OC an unloaded gun isn't breaking any laws, it's just stirring the pot without any real legal risk. Comparable to standing on a soapbox on the street corner and ranting to whomever will listen.
Following in the footsteps of the civil rights movement would be carrying a loaded gun, illegally. That's the law you want changed, yes?
Edited to add: Yes, I can see the other side of the argument... that you're desensitizing the public to ordinary Joe's carrying firearms. And yes, I see how this shift in public opinion could make it easier to pass CCW laws.
From a personal perspective, it still seems like a very poor idea. Letting everyone know you have a gun... without having the usefulness of a gun?
-
What counts as "loaded"? Can you OC an unloaded firearm and have a mag in a pouch on the belt? ??? I'd take that option if I could. Would be far better than what we currently enjoy here.
-
What counts as "loaded"? Can you OC an unloaded firearm and have a mag in a pouch on the belt? Huh? I'd take that option if I could. Would be far better than what we currently enjoy here.
That is what they are doing. The pistols don't have the mag in them, but they are carrying loaded mags on there belt.
-
i want to OC in front of that guy =D
i'll be wearing a pretty blue dip dyed skirt, white tank top, blue flip flops and a Springfeild Armory Mil Specs 1911A1.
i like it. the vibe, hippy chick with a gun. :laugh:
-
Here is a pretty good news segment, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OYWz7BEEg1k I think the guy they interview that is OC does a pretty good job defending his position.
-
And when OC becomes the debate, the truly dangerous debate about simple ownership/bans/confiscation gets moved a little further off the stage every time.
This. I noticed this in Texas during the last session. OC became the gun issue. The other stuff the TSRA wanted was all behind the scenes. It also drowns out the leftist ban-all-guns arguments.
In Texas at least, have the issue discussed in the media at all is a step in the right direction. Forces a lot of people to think about it more.
-
i want to OC in front of that guy =D
i'll be wearing a pretty blue dip dyed skirt, white tank top, blue flip flops and a Springfeild Armory Mil Specs 1911A1.
i like it. the vibe, hippy chick with a gun. :laugh:
Tsk tsk tsk. You don't understand. You are a woman. You are supposed to weak, submissive and most certainly not armed. Why, good heavens, you could hurt yourself. No no, you are too fragile to be trusted with a firearm. Besides, don't you know that only racist redneck males carry guns?
Ok, sorry, I couldn't continue that without starting to feel nauseous.
Yea, as I said, this guy's head would probably explode if he met most gun owners.
-
i want to OC in front of that guy =D
i'll be wearing a pretty blue dip dyed skirt, white tank top, blue flip flops and a Springfeild Armory Mil Specs 1911A1.
i like it. the vibe, hippy chick with a gun. :laugh:
Oooh, post a picture - please! :cool:
-
Oooh, post a picture - please! :cool:
actually, i would need to get a new holster and gun belt for that. i don't think balistic nylon and black leather would match.
i think a light tan leather would work...
-
actually, i would need to get a new holster and gun belt for that. i don't think balistic nylon and black leather would match.
i think a light tan leather would work...
I don't think anyone here would notice the difference....or actually care.
-
This thread is getting creepy. :lol:
-
This thread is getting creepy. :lol:
i would say thats a facet of 40% of thread drift here.
-
This just in from a media source with solid leftist credentials. Is anyone aware of an organization effort in other states?
http://www.alternet.org/story/145616/starbucks_cop-out_to_gun_nuts%3A_customers_served_coffee_while_strapped Starbucks' Cop-Out to Gun Nuts: Customers Served Coffee While Strapped
Starbucks has become a popular gathering spot for some Second Amendment crusaders, and the company is pretending it doesn't have the power to keep them out.
February 9, 2010
So you're at your neighborhood Starbucks, maybe with your kids, and you notice a man sitting at the next table who has a revolver strapped to his waist. Next to him, another man has a pistol. In fact, you realize as you look around, there's a table full of gun-toting customers just a few feet away, sipping coffee and doing nothing to conceal their deadly weapons. Aside from steering clear -- or else getting the hell out of there -- what can an unarmed citizen do?
If you live in California, or a state with similar "open carry" gun laws, the answer is not much. Starbucks, according to numerous media reports, has recently become a popular gathering spot for Second Amendment crusaders, who have generated a lot of local press in California over the last several weeks for going out en mass, their guns conspicuously at their sides, to assert their right to carry firearms in public.
"We're just a bunch of citizens exercising their Second Amendment rights," a large dark-clothed man named Gus Konstantaras told local news station ABC7 at a Starbucks in Antioch, CA last month. Konstantaras argues that, when it comes to Americans' Second Amendment rights, "if you don't use them, you'll probably lose them."
He didn't come up with that all by himself. "A right unexercised is a right lost!" is the slogan of the official Open Carry organization, of which Konstantaras is an East Bay chapter member, and which proudly displays a blurb calling its organizers the "shock troops of the gun lobby."
"Open carry," by definition, means "openly carrying a firearm in public," which is to say overtly rather than covertly. Most states have some sort of open carry laws on the books, with varying degrees of enforcement. At OpenCarry.org, the Internet home of the open carry movement, the group brags that their mission is growing in popularity, with more and more people discovering that carrying firearms in public is "legal and wholesome."
Starbucks denies that it has an official policy that embraces firearms. "Starbucks does not have a corporate policy regarding customers and weapons," a Starbucks spokesperson recently told the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, claiming that "we defer to federal, state and local laws and regulations regarding this issue."
But Brady Campaign President Paul Helmke says this is a cop-out. "Here's the problem with that answer," he wrote at the Huffington Post this week. "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."
-
Already being discussed in Political as well as here:
http://www.armedpolitesociety.com/index.php?topic=22972.0
Brad
-
Being combined.
-
Aside from steering clear -- or else getting the hell out of there -- what can an unarmed citizen do?
Go on about their business?
Thank the gun-toters for defending a human right and being prepared to deal with emergencies?
-
i don't see why starbucks would kick them out. there little demonstrations bring out nice sized groups who are gonna pay for overpriced latte's and muffins.
if i was a starbucks manager, i wouldn't kick 'em out either. i would say that silly line about 'compleing with state/fed laws' and rub my greedy hands over all the extra business.
-
Starbucks denies that it has an official policy that embraces firearms. "Starbucks does not have a corporate policy regarding customers and weapons," a Starbucks spokesperson recently told the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, claiming that "we defer to federal, state and local laws and regulations regarding this issue."
But Brady Campaign President Paul Helmke says this is a cop-out. "Here's the problem with that answer," he wrote at the Huffington Post this week. "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."
Does Paul Helmke have some sort of reading comprehension issue? I mean, aside from The Constitution? Starbucks says "We don't have a policy." And he replies as if he heard them say "We can't legally create a policy."
-
Paul Helmke has a lot of issues, starting with basic honesty.
-
I've open carried in a few local starbucks >:D
-
Evil grubby... Sigh. Starbucks has to be reasonable. So now I HAVE to go to Starbucks and buy overpriced chai. Ah well. I'll try to consider that I'm not buying overpriced goods, but rather giving the finger to the Brady Bunch.
Actually, I was curious to how many members both the VPC and Brady Campaign have. ... And I think it's zero. I looked on both sites. No "join" thingie, only donation thingies. Interesting that. Because they claim that the Brady Campaign makes 48% of its revenue on membership. Methinks I need to look over their tax returns, which are public because they're registered non-profits.
-
Paul Helmke has a lot of issues, starting with basic honesty.
I knew Helmke when he was mayor of Fort Wayne. Was involved in local politics with him.
He's a lot of things, but dishonest isn't one of them. He's one of Heinlein's honest politicians, he stays bought. He's a fool, and a *expletive deleted*che, and a self-serving sack of human waste. But when he was mayor he belonged to us, and he did his job (advocating for our policies) as best he could. He got term-limited out, and the only other work he could find was with Brady.
So now he belongs to Brady, doing their advocacy as honestly and successfully as he can. Guys like him exist to be the human face of a message or an organization. He smiles, he looks friendly, and he tells the cameras what he's been told to say. I have no problem with people being hired to advocate for a cause. That he's advocating for Brady is entirely coincidental. He never had an anti-gun thought in him back when he was mayor, nor a pro-gun thought either. If the NRA had offered him a job he'd be working for us as well as he could.
-
I knew Helmke when he was mayor of Fort Wayne. Was involved in local politics with him.
He's a lot of things, but dishonest isn't one of them. He's one of Heinlein's honest politicians, he stays bought. He's a fool, and a *expletive deleted*che, and a self-serving sack of human waste. But when he was mayor he belonged to us, and he did his job (advocating for our policies) as best he could. He got term-limited out, and the only other work he could find was with Brady.
So now he belongs to Brady, doing their advocacy as honestly and successfully as he can. Guys like him exist to be the human face of a message or an organization. He smiles, he looks friendly, and he tells the cameras what he's been told to say. I have no problem with people being hired to advocate for a cause. That he's advocating for Brady is entirely coincidental. He never had an anti-gun thought in him back when he was mayor, nor a pro-gun thought either. If the NRA had offered him a job he'd be working for us as well as he could.
He's making $118,807.
And I really like that it's just a job to him. Means he'll be only mildly efficient, at best. He has no stake in his argument but a paycheck.
-
He'll do it as well as he can. He's a professional tool, and he takes his job seriously.
-
I knew Helmke when he was mayor of Fort Wayne. Was involved in local politics with him.
He's a lot of things, but dishonest isn't one of them. He's one of Heinlein's honest politicians, he stays bought. He's a fool, and a *expletive deleted*che, and a self-serving sack of human waste. But when he was mayor he belonged to us, and he did his job (advocating for our policies) as best he could. He got term-limited out, and the only other work he could find was with Brady.
So now he belongs to Brady, doing their advocacy as honestly and successfully as he can. Guys like him exist to be the human face of a message or an organization. He smiles, he looks friendly, and he tells the cameras what he's been told to say. I have no problem with people being hired to advocate for a cause. That he's advocating for Brady is entirely coincidental. He never had an anti-gun thought in him back when he was mayor, nor a pro-gun thought either. If the NRA had offered him a job he'd be working for us as well as he could.
What you described isn't honesty. It's loyalty. He is more than willing to speak outright lies about guns in order to achieve the agenda of his masters. He is loyal to them as he was to you as a mayor. But his is indeed dishonest.
-
He's making $118,807.
And I really like that it's just a job to him. Means he'll be only mildly efficient, at best. He has no stake in his argument but a paycheck.
He'll do it as well as he can. He's a professional tool, and he takes his job seriously.
somehow that seems just as bad as being a dishonest. =| glad he works for their side, not ours. i'd rather have someone who speaks the truth and wants his side to win, then a lier or a proffessional tool.
-
So the anti-gun guy is a hired gun ? :laugh:
-
somehow that seems just as bad as being a dishonest. =| glad he works for their side, not ours. i'd rather have someone who speaks the truth and wants his side to win, then a lier or a proffessional tool.
Well, we have our own [deleted] lawyer working for the NRA on the Chicago SCOTUS case that Gura started.
His credentials?
Former US District Attorney. As a goobermint lawyer, he argued against Gura and represented the goobermint during the Heller SCOTUS case. :facepalm: Yep. Represented the anti-agenda, goobermint control, outright bans... oh, yeah: and he LOST.
Now the NRA has forced Gura to allow this [deleted] to consume some of Gura's precious oral argument time in front of SCOTUS.
So, we get our fair share of DBs, too.
Language, folks!
-
Well, we have our own [deleted] lawyer working for the NRA on the Chicago SCOTUS case that Gura started.
His credentials?
Former US District Attorney. As a goobermint lawyer, he argued against Gura and represented the goobermint during the Heller SCOTUS case. :facepalm: Yep. Represented the anti-agenda, goobermint control, outright bans... oh, yeah: and he LOST.
Now the NRA has forced Gura to allow this DB to consume some of Gura's precious oral argument time in front of SCOTUS.
So, we get our fair share of [deleted], too.
Yep, this one is an unforced error by the NRA.
It is one thing to hire the DB lawyer if he has a track record of winning and beating you like a drum. Hire him and have him do a whole lot of nothing to remove a man of his proven skill.
But, hiring a guy you have wiped the floor with to carry your water? Pass me some of what the NRA is smoking, 'cause it has to be the good stuff...
-
* No murdering
* No raping
* No pillaging
* No gun slinging, pistol-whipping, sucker-punching
* No mauling, jabbing, stabbing, hating or undermining
I hope that foppish screeching works out well for him in enforcing those rules.
I hope that any gunowners that frequent charbucks skip the place and use their saving to buy a few boxed of SD loads.
-
I hope a long ship of vikings overruns his little hippy enclave..
You think gun nuts are good at raping and pillaging? You ain't seen nothin' yet, skippy.
-
i don't see why starbucks would kick them out.
I would have expected them to, just out of fear that they would scare away more business than the gun folks bring in.
But maybe the Starbucks customer base is really not as bed-wetting leftist as they're made out to be.
-
Check out this article that the Brady Campaign wrote for the website, Opposing views:
http://www.opposingviews.com/i/crazy-continues-starbucks-still-allowing-guns-in-its-stores
Please try and stomach the article enough to read the comments.
We're winning.
-
But maybe the Starbucks customer base is really not as bed-wetting leftist as they're made out to be.
Yeah, I don't like coffee but maybe I'll have to start going to Starbucks and acquiring a taste for the stuff.
-
What you described isn't honesty. It's loyalty. He is more than willing to speak outright lies about guns in order to achieve the agenda of his masters. He is loyal to them as he was to you as a mayor. But his is indeed dishonest.
No more dishonest than an actor in a play or an attorney defending a murderer. These are all jobs that need to be done, all part of the process, and an honest man does the job to the best of his ability.
You need to remove your emotion from the analysis and understand how the process works. Political messages don't speak themselves. You need people to speak the message, and that's all Helmke is here. Our side does it this way, their side does it this way, it's just the nature of the 'game'.
Those who know Helmke, or other workers like him, understand that he's just a messenger. You don't blame the messenger because you dislike the message. I strongly dislike Helmke on a personal level, but I know better than to blame him for the actions and agendas of the Brady Group and VPC. He isn't the driving force here, he's just a coincidence. He and Brady are just passing travelers working together out of mutual self interest.
-
But maybe the Starbucks customer base is really not as bed-wetting leftist as they're made out to be.
Oh no, they are just as leftist as you think.
I think leftists really aren't what many of you think they are, at least in regards to guns.
I work from time to time with plenty of "leftists" (ACLU, pro-choice orgs, pro-GBLT orgs, etc) and many people these days in the 18-30 range are either pro-gun, or not anti-gun. What I mean by "not anti-gun" is, they hold a view much like, "I'd never own one, but if some nut wants to, thats fine by me as long as they aren't hurting anyone."
Sure, there are plenty of politicians, especially at the federal/national level that are quite anti gun, but they are outdated. Many folks, like my parents are from the "guns killed John Lennon, Martin Luther king, John and Bobby Kennedy, PANIC!!" generation. We've got two generations seperating away from them, and sanity is returning at the grassroots, at least in regards to the topic of guns, and at least where I see it.
-
Yeah, I don't like coffee but maybe I'll have to start going to Starbucks and acquiring a taste for the stuff.
they have tea, smoothies and other drinks as well as pastry/muffin type food.
my issue with starbucks is that its WAY over priced. but thats a whole 'nother thing.
Oh no, they are just as leftist as you think.
I think leftists really aren't what many of you think they are, at least in regards to guns.
I work from time to time with plenty of "leftists" (ACLU, pro-choice orgs, pro-GBLT orgs, etc) and many people these days in the 18-30 range are either pro-gun, or not anti-gun. What I mean by "not anti-gun" is, they hold a view much like, "I'd never own one, but if some nut wants to, thats fine by me as long as they aren't hurting anyone."
Sure, there are plenty of politicians, especially at the federal/national level that are quite anti gun, but they are outdated. Many folks, like my parents are from the "guns killed John Lennon, Martin Luther king, John and Bobby Kennedy, PANIC!!" generation. We've got two generations seperating away from them, and sanity is returning at the grassroots, at least in regards to the topic of guns, and at least where I see it.
yeah, what he said...
-
Well, we have our own DB lawyer working for the NRA on the Chicago SCOTUS case that Gura started.
His credentials?
Former US District Attorney. As a goobermint lawyer, he argued against Gura and represented the goobermint during the Heller SCOTUS case. :facepalm: Yep. Represented the anti-agenda, goobermint control, outright bans... oh, yeah: and he LOST.
Now the NRA has forced Gura to allow this DB to consume some of Gura's precious oral argument time in front of SCOTUS.
So, we get our fair share of DBs, too.
And if our [deleted] and tools can win back some rights for us, why shouldn't we use them?
Language, folks!
-
Oh no, they are just as leftist as you think.
I think leftists really aren't what many of you think they are, at least in regards to guns.
Yeah, that's kinda what I meant.
-
Someone who will tell vile lies and attempt to destroy my freedom because someone is paying him is kind of the definition of dishonest. Are you seriously saying we can't hold people accountable for their actions if they don't really believe in what they're doing? "I'm sure Horiuchi didn't really care about the Weavers, he was just doing what he was told." ;/
-
Someone who will tell vile lies and attempt to destroy my freedom because someone is paying him is kind of the definition of dishonest. Are you seriously saying we can't hold people accountable for their actions if they don't really believe in what they're doing? "I'm sure Horiuchi didn't really care about the Weavers, he was just doing what he was told." ;/
BALOG AND I AGREE ON SOMETHING!?!?!?! :O
find the record books cause this don't happen all that often!
deeds, not intentions, have the final say when it comes to the history books.
-
Someone who will tell vile lies and attempt to destroy my freedom because someone is paying him is kind of the definition of dishonest. Are you seriously saying we can't hold people accountable for their actions if they don't really believe in what they're doing? "I'm sure Horiuchi didn't really care about the Weavers, he was just doing what he was told." ;/
So now holding different political opinions from yours is as bad as murdering someone?
:lol:
The Brady and VPC people like to stretch the truth, sure. They use dubious research and questionable facts. They're about like the NRA and GOA in that regard. The only real difference is that you and I disagree with Brady and VPC, whereas we don't disagree much with the NRA.
All political organizations do this stuff. This is how the system works. Blaming figureheads like Paul Hlmke for the beliefs of entire organizations misses the point.
Think about it. If Wayne LaPiere disappeared tomorrow, would the NRA suddenly change its views on gun rights? If Helmke vanished, would VPC suddenly support gun ownership?
-
Look, nobody is saying these people need to be imprisoned or something. They're just not good people. I don't see why I need to respect them as persons when all they do is try to pass laws that would put innocent people in prison.
-
I'm not saying you need to respect them as people. I certainly don't respect Helmke, and I've said so several times.
What I want is for everyone to understand the process, and to act like they understand the process, so that we can all be effective in fighting these guys off. Letting ourselves get emotionally worked up about a guy like Paul Helmke is beyond pointless.
Our side seems to have big problems working within the system. We refuse to get involved in any process that might be tainted or imperfect. We refuse to work with anyone imperfect or with questionable "morals", regardless of how much those people can help us. We get pissed off at the stupidest little things and miss the big picture. Most times we'd rather stand on our empty piety than get our hands dirty improving things. We're far more interested in theoretical abstractions that with real world realities.
Consequently, the left cleans our clock every time in the political process. Most of the country is conservative, and yet most of the government policies enacted are liberal. They're simply much better at it than we are.
We need to get real so we can start fixing things.