September 7, 2013
Infuriated! Outraged! Angry! Disgusted! Disappointed! Stompin' mad! Spittin'! Appalled! Demanding!
Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America, often known as MDA, is all of these things. It shows amply in their rhetoric and promotional materials.
I am too! I've rarely seen a group of such lying, manipulative, deceitful, closed minded people in my entire life as MDA! If lying were illegal in America they'd all be in jail. If lying had a spell cast upon it then all their noses would be so long they couldn't pass through any doorways. If lying was as banned as they want firearms to be then we'd never hear from them again. If lying were physically impossible to do then they'd lose the power of speech. That's how bad they are. They're either in complete denial of facts, truth and reality or they're strongly opposed to it.
What's caused my rant? The trigger was this article about their campaign to affect the recall election of two state senators in Colorado but that was just the tipping point. If you've followed MDA and its rhetoric for any amount of time and are in possession of any of the facts surrounding the pertinent issues, or if you've ever tried to engage them reasonably with a different point of view, then you probably understand me. MDA has no credibility!
http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2013/09/robert-farago/moms-demand-action-infuriated-colorado-recall/
===
September 7, 2013
Even more Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America (MDA) nonsensical BS! There are so many things wrong with this campaign I don't know where to begin.
http://www.everydaynodaysoff.com/2013/04/16/moms-demand-keeping-m4%E2%80%B2s-out-of-kids-hands/
===
Related blogs:
http://us2ndamendment.blogspot.com/2013/09/moms-demand-action-for-gun-sense-in.html
Firearms Blog Collections
Starbucks Becomes Battleground Over Gun Control
Saturday, September 7, 2013
Friday, September 6, 2013
Firearms Tracking or Identification Through Technology
September 6, 2013
I came across this quote I thought was interesting in some comments to an 8-month old article about implanting RFID chips in all firearms.
"It's safe to trust a sane person with the keys to nuclear weapons, but it's not safe to trust an insane person with the cleaners under the kitchen sink."
The article is at this link but since I don't know this site and don't know if it'll be around forever I'll also include it in its entirety, below. I thought it interesting enough to not want to lose it.
I'm completely AGAINST this proposal! I'm thankful this isn't an actual legislative proposal but it does have some close similarities to some that have been discussed. This is NOT the United States where I want to live. And as for that statement about "this doesn't violate anyone's rights"... There's still the pesky "...shall not be infringed" part of our 2nd Amendment. I'd also consider this a violation of my right to privacy. What's next? Shall we have cars notify local authorities when we're speeding? Using the same logic, this wouldn't be a violation of anyone's rights unless they were speeding. How about if we chip sexual anatomy in a way that allows us to automatically report people who are committing sodomy in places where that's on the books as being illegal?
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/01/09/1177623/-OK-why-not-imbed-RFID-chips-in-ALL-guns#
"WED JAN 09, 2013 AT 12:55 PM PST
This proposal in not meant to THE solution, just the beginning of a (hopefully) civil discussion."
===
September 6, 2013
What caused me to find the above article was finding this next article in my news feed today - about RFID chips becoming mandatory on all firearms in Clark County, Kentucky.
Now, before you blow a gasket, take a deep breath and do some reading. Start with the article. Then, whether you know anything about RFID capabilities and how they differ from GPS or not, read the comments. There may be too many to read them all, so I'd say look for the comment responses by the article's author, Jane M. Agni. Her name appears in blue in the comments. Then read the comment immediately above hers and then hers to see what she's responding to and how. You may fall out of your chair laughing. :)
http://nationalreport.net/weapon-rfid-system-kentucky/
===
Related blogs:
http://us2ndamendment.blogspot.com/2013/09/firearms-tracking-or-identification.html
Firearms Blog Collections
Firearms Safety Mechanisms
I came across this quote I thought was interesting in some comments to an 8-month old article about implanting RFID chips in all firearms.
"It's safe to trust a sane person with the keys to nuclear weapons, but it's not safe to trust an insane person with the cleaners under the kitchen sink."
The article is at this link but since I don't know this site and don't know if it'll be around forever I'll also include it in its entirety, below. I thought it interesting enough to not want to lose it.
I'm completely AGAINST this proposal! I'm thankful this isn't an actual legislative proposal but it does have some close similarities to some that have been discussed. This is NOT the United States where I want to live. And as for that statement about "this doesn't violate anyone's rights"... There's still the pesky "...shall not be infringed" part of our 2nd Amendment. I'd also consider this a violation of my right to privacy. What's next? Shall we have cars notify local authorities when we're speeding? Using the same logic, this wouldn't be a violation of anyone's rights unless they were speeding. How about if we chip sexual anatomy in a way that allows us to automatically report people who are committing sodomy in places where that's on the books as being illegal?
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/01/09/1177623/-OK-why-not-imbed-RFID-chips-in-ALL-guns#
"WED JAN 09, 2013 AT 12:55 PM PST
This proposal in not meant to THE solution, just the beginning of a (hopefully) civil discussion."
===
September 6, 2013
What caused me to find the above article was finding this next article in my news feed today - about RFID chips becoming mandatory on all firearms in Clark County, Kentucky.
Now, before you blow a gasket, take a deep breath and do some reading. Start with the article. Then, whether you know anything about RFID capabilities and how they differ from GPS or not, read the comments. There may be too many to read them all, so I'd say look for the comment responses by the article's author, Jane M. Agni. Her name appears in blue in the comments. Then read the comment immediately above hers and then hers to see what she's responding to and how. You may fall out of your chair laughing. :)
http://nationalreport.net/weapon-rfid-system-kentucky/
===
Related blogs:
http://us2ndamendment.blogspot.com/2013/09/firearms-tracking-or-identification.html
Firearms Blog Collections
Firearms Safety Mechanisms
Washington State Ballot Initiatives
September 6, 2013
Washingtonians, are you aware of the ballot initiatives (still seeking signatures) in our state surrounding gun rights and gun control? There are two, one on each side.
According to this first article, "...the Washington Alliance for Gun Responsibility (WAGR) filed its citizen initiative to the State Legislature, pushing for gun control..." Dissatisfied with the fact that gun control legislative proposals didn't make it out of committee during this year's session, advocates are trying to go straight to voters to push their 2nd Amendment rights-limiting agenda.
It also says:
"...there are now 433,223 active CPLs. On May 13, the last time TGM checked with the agency, there were 426,180 CPLs in circulation. That’s a difference of 7,043 carry licenses in just over a month."
"Washington has seen a steady climb in the number of CPLs for more than two years. Last year ended with 392,784 active licenses. That’s more than 40,400 CPLs issued in the Evergreen State since the first of the year, which is more than the total number of new carry licenses or permits issued annually in some states.
For Washington, that averages to about 8,000 licenses issued per month since the start of 2013, which is a considerable bump in volume from last year’s average at this time of about 2,500 to 3,000 CPLs."
Well at least that's good news.
http://bearingarms.com/wa-concealed-carry-numbers-soar-with-gun-control-initiative-filing-2/
This second article mentions there is also a pro-gun rights initiative although it doesn't go into the details. It does provide a pretty good explanation of some of the initiatives' background, although it's admittedly written from a biased point of view.
http://www.examiner.com/article/king-county-executive-takes-sides
I don't know where they're collecting signatures to get them on the ballot. I know that if i come across any I'll gladly sign in favor of Initiative 591 in favor of gun rights. If I'm approached by the so-called "gun responsibility" one I'l gladly take their forms so I can trash them. (The article says the forms cannot be downloaded and had to be printed - so a form in the trash is one less they have to work with.)
If these make it to the ballot next year, remember to vote YES on Initiative 591; and to vote NO for the so-called 'gun responsibility' one.
More to come on the 'gun control playbook' mentioned in the article. But as a rule of thumb, you can pretty accurately judge that any groups, proposals or initiatives with phrases like "gun responsibility," "gun sense," "common sense," "reform," "gun violence," etc. in their titles are about anything BUT common sense and should be rejected out of hand. Some of these people may have good intentions but as a class they have no idea what they're talking about and refuse to engage in real debate about the issues, statistics or gaping holes in their so-called arguments. They prefer to stick to emotional appeals, not facts, because the facts don't support them.
===
Related blogs:
http://us2ndamendment.blogspot.com/2013/09/washington-state-ballot-initiatives.html
Firearms Blog Collections
Washingtonians, are you aware of the ballot initiatives (still seeking signatures) in our state surrounding gun rights and gun control? There are two, one on each side.
According to this first article, "...the Washington Alliance for Gun Responsibility (WAGR) filed its citizen initiative to the State Legislature, pushing for gun control..." Dissatisfied with the fact that gun control legislative proposals didn't make it out of committee during this year's session, advocates are trying to go straight to voters to push their 2nd Amendment rights-limiting agenda.
It also says:
"...there are now 433,223 active CPLs. On May 13, the last time TGM checked with the agency, there were 426,180 CPLs in circulation. That’s a difference of 7,043 carry licenses in just over a month."
"Washington has seen a steady climb in the number of CPLs for more than two years. Last year ended with 392,784 active licenses. That’s more than 40,400 CPLs issued in the Evergreen State since the first of the year, which is more than the total number of new carry licenses or permits issued annually in some states.
For Washington, that averages to about 8,000 licenses issued per month since the start of 2013, which is a considerable bump in volume from last year’s average at this time of about 2,500 to 3,000 CPLs."
Well at least that's good news.
http://bearingarms.com/wa-concealed-carry-numbers-soar-with-gun-control-initiative-filing-2/
This second article mentions there is also a pro-gun rights initiative although it doesn't go into the details. It does provide a pretty good explanation of some of the initiatives' background, although it's admittedly written from a biased point of view.
http://www.examiner.com/article/king-county-executive-takes-sides
I don't know where they're collecting signatures to get them on the ballot. I know that if i come across any I'll gladly sign in favor of Initiative 591 in favor of gun rights. If I'm approached by the so-called "gun responsibility" one I'l gladly take their forms so I can trash them. (The article says the forms cannot be downloaded and had to be printed - so a form in the trash is one less they have to work with.)
If these make it to the ballot next year, remember to vote YES on Initiative 591; and to vote NO for the so-called 'gun responsibility' one.
More to come on the 'gun control playbook' mentioned in the article. But as a rule of thumb, you can pretty accurately judge that any groups, proposals or initiatives with phrases like "gun responsibility," "gun sense," "common sense," "reform," "gun violence," etc. in their titles are about anything BUT common sense and should be rejected out of hand. Some of these people may have good intentions but as a class they have no idea what they're talking about and refuse to engage in real debate about the issues, statistics or gaping holes in their so-called arguments. They prefer to stick to emotional appeals, not facts, because the facts don't support them.
===
Related blogs:
http://us2ndamendment.blogspot.com/2013/09/washington-state-ballot-initiatives.html
Firearms Blog Collections
Antagonizing Photo of Teenager with Rifle
September 6, 2013
===
Related blogs:
http://us2ndamendment.blogspot.com/2013/09/antagonizing-photo-of-teenager-with.html
Firearms Blog Collections
Incredibly stupid? Yes. Antagonistic? Yes. Illegal...? The question this family should be asking itself is how they'd react if their son was shot and killed during this stunt by someone who thought he was a real criminal or terrorist.
All Americans should be knowledgeable, respectful, thankful and supportive of their 2nd Amendment rights but this is not the way to express it. This just further entrenches the opposition and damages the credibility of the pro arguments.
===
Related blogs:
http://us2ndamendment.blogspot.com/2013/09/antagonizing-photo-of-teenager-with.html
Firearms Blog Collections
Rewriting the 2nd Amendment
September 6, 2013
How's this for a rewritten 2nd Amendment?
"Because a well-regulated National Guard and Reserve, and well-regulated Federal, state, and local public safety departments, are necessary to the security of our free states and our free nation, the rights of citizens, while serving in their capacity in the aforesaid organizations, to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
...as opposed to the one agreed upon by our Founding Fathers?
"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
The National Constitution Center has a "Next 10 Amendments" project that has come up with constitutional amendments and is asking people to vote on them.
So go vote on this preposterous 2nd Amendment rewrite - and reject it!
The voting has already been adjusted at least once. When I first looked at the site and registered my vote on September 4th there was a >93% rejection rate with well more than 13,000 votes in. The next day they had added a captcha requirement to register votes and reset the vote count. When I last looked it had >95% rejection with >4800 votes.
On the right-side panel there's also an amendment proposal concerning term limits for public office. In my opinion, it's not perfect but it's better than what we have.
http://blog.constitutioncenter.org/2013/09/vote-now-a-constitutional-right-to-bear-arms/
===
Related blogs:
http://us2ndamendment.blogspot.com/2013/09/rewriting-2nd-amendment.html
Firearms Blog Collections
How's this for a rewritten 2nd Amendment?
"Because a well-regulated National Guard and Reserve, and well-regulated Federal, state, and local public safety departments, are necessary to the security of our free states and our free nation, the rights of citizens, while serving in their capacity in the aforesaid organizations, to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
...as opposed to the one agreed upon by our Founding Fathers?
"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
The National Constitution Center has a "Next 10 Amendments" project that has come up with constitutional amendments and is asking people to vote on them.
So go vote on this preposterous 2nd Amendment rewrite - and reject it!
The voting has already been adjusted at least once. When I first looked at the site and registered my vote on September 4th there was a >93% rejection rate with well more than 13,000 votes in. The next day they had added a captcha requirement to register votes and reset the vote count. When I last looked it had >95% rejection with >4800 votes.
On the right-side panel there's also an amendment proposal concerning term limits for public office. In my opinion, it's not perfect but it's better than what we have.
http://blog.constitutioncenter.org/2013/09/vote-now-a-constitutional-right-to-bear-arms/
===
Related blogs:
http://us2ndamendment.blogspot.com/2013/09/rewriting-2nd-amendment.html
Firearms Blog Collections
Wednesday, September 4, 2013
"Emily Gets Her Gun"
September 4, 2013
For those who are not familiar, Emily Miller is a Washington Times senior editor and columnist. A rarity in mainstream media, Emily is pro-gun rights / pro-2nd Amendment and has been very vocal about it. She's written several well written and informative columns since the Sandy Hook Elementary tragedy triggered the current war on guns being waged by the gun control crowd. I'm not familiar with her work prior to that.
Her latest on the topic comes in this 3-part series. I found the second one to be most informative but all are worth reading. Take a look for this synopsis of what's been going on in the nationwide gun control campaign.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/aug/29/inside-obamas-war-on-guns-rick-perry-decries-effor/?page=all#pagebreak
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/sep/1/liberal-media-distort-the-gun-debate-loaded-langua/?page=all#pagebreak
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/sep/2/obama-enraged-gun-control-couldnt-pass-democrat-le/?page=all#pagebreak
She has also written and published a book, "Emily Gets Her Gun ...But Obama Wants to Take Yours". I haven't read it but believe it chronicles, among other things, her quest to become a lawful handgun owner as a resident of Washington DC - home to some of the nation's toughest gun control laws.
http://www.amazon.com/Emily-Gets-Her-Gun-But/dp/1621571920/
===
September 7, 2013
Here's an interesting review of Emily Miller's new book, "Emily Gets Her Gun ...But Obama Wants to Take Yours". The review is worth reading. It looks like the book is too.
http://clashdaily.com/2013/09/pro-second-amendment-emily-miller-takes-aim-politicians/
http://www.amazon.com/Emily-Gets-Her-Gun-But/dp/1621571920/
===
September 10, 2013
Here's the NRA review of Emily Miller's new book, Emily Gets Her Gun ...But Obama Wants to Take Yours.
I already wanted to read this book. This just reinforces it.
http://www.nraila.org/news-issues/articles/2013/9/emily-gets-her-gun!.aspx
Probably due to the publication of Miller's book, she was recently interviewed by Piers Morgan on his CNN show. The most surprising thing here is that Morgan treats her with any amount of courtesy and respect. If you've seen him rant, berate, bully, etc. with his other guests opposing gun control then you know what I mean. He probably treats her better because she's a journalist and perhaps because she's a woman.
http://thegunwire.com/blog/youtube-video-cnn-emily-miller-schools-piers-morgan-on-gun-crime-statistics-in-america-cnn-9-9-13/
I keep finding myself wishing these 'debates' on Morgan's show would go on longer. There's so much more to be said that could destroy his arguments that never come out or should be reinforced more strongly when they do. Morgan has very recently been caught red-handed with a blatant lie about gun crime statistics but wasn't held accountable in that show, or any others I'm aware of, even though he was compelled to admit his 'error' in the press. He couldn't defend against that guest's argument so he simply lied about Virginia violent crime statistics. Like many outspoken gun control advocates, he also frames a lot of his statements in a very particular way and ignores all the surrounding context that make for a very compelling counter argument. He's not even very good at it but he keeps getting away with it because it's his show.
===
Related blogs:
http://us2ndamendment.blogspot.com/2013/09/emily-gets-her-gun.html
Firearms Blog Collections
For those who are not familiar, Emily Miller is a Washington Times senior editor and columnist. A rarity in mainstream media, Emily is pro-gun rights / pro-2nd Amendment and has been very vocal about it. She's written several well written and informative columns since the Sandy Hook Elementary tragedy triggered the current war on guns being waged by the gun control crowd. I'm not familiar with her work prior to that.
Her latest on the topic comes in this 3-part series. I found the second one to be most informative but all are worth reading. Take a look for this synopsis of what's been going on in the nationwide gun control campaign.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/aug/29/inside-obamas-war-on-guns-rick-perry-decries-effor/?page=all#pagebreak
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/sep/1/liberal-media-distort-the-gun-debate-loaded-langua/?page=all#pagebreak
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/sep/2/obama-enraged-gun-control-couldnt-pass-democrat-le/?page=all#pagebreak
She has also written and published a book, "Emily Gets Her Gun ...But Obama Wants to Take Yours". I haven't read it but believe it chronicles, among other things, her quest to become a lawful handgun owner as a resident of Washington DC - home to some of the nation's toughest gun control laws.
http://www.amazon.com/Emily-Gets-Her-Gun-But/dp/1621571920/
===
September 7, 2013
Here's an interesting review of Emily Miller's new book, "Emily Gets Her Gun ...But Obama Wants to Take Yours". The review is worth reading. It looks like the book is too.
http://clashdaily.com/2013/09/pro-second-amendment-emily-miller-takes-aim-politicians/
http://www.amazon.com/Emily-Gets-Her-Gun-But/dp/1621571920/
===
September 10, 2013
Here's the NRA review of Emily Miller's new book, Emily Gets Her Gun ...But Obama Wants to Take Yours.
I already wanted to read this book. This just reinforces it.
http://www.nraila.org/news-issues/articles/2013/9/emily-gets-her-gun!.aspx
Probably due to the publication of Miller's book, she was recently interviewed by Piers Morgan on his CNN show. The most surprising thing here is that Morgan treats her with any amount of courtesy and respect. If you've seen him rant, berate, bully, etc. with his other guests opposing gun control then you know what I mean. He probably treats her better because she's a journalist and perhaps because she's a woman.
http://thegunwire.com/blog/youtube-video-cnn-emily-miller-schools-piers-morgan-on-gun-crime-statistics-in-america-cnn-9-9-13/
I keep finding myself wishing these 'debates' on Morgan's show would go on longer. There's so much more to be said that could destroy his arguments that never come out or should be reinforced more strongly when they do. Morgan has very recently been caught red-handed with a blatant lie about gun crime statistics but wasn't held accountable in that show, or any others I'm aware of, even though he was compelled to admit his 'error' in the press. He couldn't defend against that guest's argument so he simply lied about Virginia violent crime statistics. Like many outspoken gun control advocates, he also frames a lot of his statements in a very particular way and ignores all the surrounding context that make for a very compelling counter argument. He's not even very good at it but he keeps getting away with it because it's his show.
===
Related blogs:
http://us2ndamendment.blogspot.com/2013/09/emily-gets-her-gun.html
Firearms Blog Collections
Friday, August 23, 2013
Starbucks Becomes Battleground Over Gun Control
August 23, 2013
Support your local Starbucks... tomorrow, Saturday, August 24th, 2013, because they support your rights. Support them as you normally do, of course, but make a special effort for tomorrow.
Starbucks has been at the center of a raging 'war' between gun control and gun rights advocates. The gun control advocate group, Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America (MDA), has targeted Starbucks in a public relations campaign and now a boycott. Their efforts have been countered by the gun rights advocate group, 1 Million Moms Against Gun Control, INC (1MMAGC).
Starbucks' crime in the eyes of MDA is that they wish to remain neutral and allow local laws to prevail. They're not telling their customers how to live or what to value.
My awareness of this conflict began last month with this article: http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2013/07/daniel-zimmerman/omg-starbucks-allows-guns-in-their-stores-still-omg/
This email that seems to have started it all is included in the article. I've also included it here.
"If you are like me, you enjoy your daily cup of coffee or tea. You may go to Starbucks several times a week, to grab a latte, meet friends or colleagues, or to take the kids for a treat after school. But did you know that at Starbucks you may be sipping your coffee next to someone carrying a loaded gun? It’s true. Starbucks allows people to carry guns into their stores where state and local laws permit them to do so. It’s a dangerous and ill-advised policy, especially in light of several recent accidental shootings that have happened inside Starbucks stores.
The article is written sarcastically and that makes some sense. Why?
1) That 'person next to you' who may be carrying a loaded firearm exists EVERYWHERE in our society! With the recent law that passed in Illinois, now ALL 50 STATES allow some form of lawful concealed carry of firearms, although Illinois is yet to implement its law. It has a few months to get the program up and running. There are restrictions on where firearms can be carried but they do not include coffee shops by law. And, oh, by the way, there are people carrying them illegally too who simply won't care what policies Starbucks or any other corporation put in place, or what laws are passed.
Any of you who may think MDA is right and Starbucks should change their policies, here's my challenge to your line of thought. How many McDonalds restaurants have you seen with 'no guns' signs? Think of all the other places you frequent regularly, with or without your children. Most don't have public policies prohibiting lawful carrying of firearms.
2) Shannon Watts' letter mentions "several recent accidental shootings that have happened inside Starbucks stores". My first reaction to this was, 'what the hell is she talking about?' I hadn't heard about ANY "recent accidental shootings" at Starbucks so I was very skeptical. I did, however, take some time to search Google. I found 2 incidents. One occurred in Cheyenne, Wyoming in 2011 and the other in the Tyrone Square Mall (Tampa Bay, Florida?) in May 2013. There was another coffee shop incident in Jacksonville, Florida in 2010 in a "cyber cafe" that was not a Starbucks.
Now I didn't exactly exhaust myself looking for more but I gave it an honest look. Two incidents? Even if I missed some, that's hardly enough to justify a call to action against a particular company. Typical of gun control pleas and rhetoric, Watts was short on details and sources for her statements.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michele-swenson/starbucks-and-the-more-gu_b_554583.html
http://www.wyomingnews.com/articles/2011/12/28/news/19local_12-28-11.txt
http://www.tampabay.com/news/publicsafety/crime/woman-injured-after-friends-gun-accidentally-goes-off-at-starbucks-inside/2120697
In the weeks since that letter and the July 9th article, there's been plenty more buzz about MDA and Starbucks.
1) While Watts' letter from earlier this year explicitly does not call for a boycott, it seems she and MDA has changed their minds and want a 1-day boycott for tomorrow.
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=424244921026767&set=a.300767940041133.70846.300719666712627&type=1
This is likely a direct response to a show of support of Starbucks and its policy organized by 1MMAGC for August 3rd. Using MDA's tactic, 1MMAGC had gun supporters open carry their firearms at Starbucks, where it was legal to do so, and submit photographs of themselves. This event was executed across the country and participants were asked to acquire $2 bills and use them at Starbucks to make the movement more visible to the company and stores.
In response to MDA's 1-day boycott, 1MMAGC is asking gun rights supporters to support Starbucks through their patronage on Saturday, August 24th to help make up the potential revenue loss for the company.
Well before MDA's change in tactics, other gun control supporting groups were calling for a Starbuck boycott. This article from April 2013 predates Watts' letter. I don't know what started it.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/martha-rosenberg/starbucks-guns_b_2988849.html
That article also mentions that "Gunshot accidents have already been reported in Starbucks stores" but it links to the single incident in Wyoming in 2011: http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/nation/story/2011-12-28/starbucks-gun-fires/52252886/1 The May 2013 incident hadn't yet occurred.
Here's another laughable quote from the Huffington Post article - "An estimated 100 million people want sane guns laws and only one million do not." I wonder what cherry-picking and illogical math was applied to come up with those numbers.
2) MDA is often portrayed as a "grass roots movement" that begin in the immediate aftermath of the tragic Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting last December. That's partially true. But it's hard to call something "grass roots" when it's founded by a professional media expert, as Shannon Watts has been shown to be here: http://gunfreezone.net/wordpress/index.php/2013/06/05/moms-demand-action-shannon-watts-the-plastic-gardener/ As the article points out, Watts isn't exactly the stay at home mom / homemaker / cookie baker some people would like to believe she is.
This Forbes article discussed some of the Starbucks controversy: http://www.forbes.com/sites/clareoconnor/2013/08/12/latte-with-an-extra-shot-as-gun-lovers-hold-armed-rallies-at-starbucks-howard-schultz-faces-call-to-ban-weapons/
In it, Watts says this: " “good old grassroots activism,” “We’re moms — we make 80% of spending decisions,” “We don’t want to expose our kids to loaded assault weapons while we’re getting lattes.” "
She just couldn't avoid invoking the dreaded so-called "assault weapon," could she? In my opinion she also misrepresents Starbucks with her statement, "It’s gone too far now. They’re not just allowing guns in their stores. They’re becoming a meeting place for people with weapons to congregate" considering that Starbucks hasn't invited any of this. They've simply remained neutral and within their long-standing policy. What's truly caused Starbucks to become a meeting place for "people with weapons" openly carrying them is the attention drawn to the company by Watts and MDA.
3) Hypocrisy Alert: While Watts openly asked people to contact Starbucks' CEO, Howard Shultz, directly to express their dissatisfaction with the long-standing corporate policy, people on Facebook are being banned for 12 hours from the popular social media site for doing the same to Shannon Watts. The 1MMAGC website has several posts about this. It happened to them, among others.
I also wrote a recent blog about being banned altogether from posting on the MDA Facebook page simply for disagreeing with them. You can see the blog and the post that caused me to be banned here: http://us2ndamendment.blogspot.com/2013/08/speech-and-debate-banned-by-gun-control.html
Finally, here's a good 2-part series of articles that provides counterpoints to MDA's arguments. If you've made it to this point then spend a few extra minutes and read these. They're relatively short and sweet.
http://www.thebrennerbrief.com/2013/08/13/guns-and-starbucks-5-ways-moms-demand-action-are-wrong-on-gun-control-pt-i/
http://www.thebrennerbrief.com/2013/08/14/guns-and-starbucks-5-ways-moms-demand-action-are-wrong-on-gun-control-pt-ii/
Have you noticed the Starbucks-esque logos that have been developed? They're basically the Starbucks logo with the words "Guns & Coffee" or "I (heart) Guns & Coffee". I believe they're rooted in this controversy.
===
September 6, 2013
Here's another story about a negligent gunshot in Starbucks. This one is from April 2012. It occurred in a restroom without any eyewitnesses. No one was hurt.
http://www.guns.com/2012/04/10/man-accidentally-shoots-bathroom-sink-in-starbucks/
More recently, Connecticut Democratic politicians and some parents of Sandy Hook Elementary victims are adding additional pressure on Starbucks' CEO, Howard Shultz. They've sent him a letter asking him to "foster a culture of peace and ban guns from your stores." He responded via phone but did not commit to their request.
You have to (grudgingly) admire the passion of gun control advocates but I have no respect for what they're doing. It doesn't matter how tragic the loss is of any individual or family or group. Their loss does not trump our constitutional rights!
The letter to Shultz contained "[T]o prevent another Sandy Hook, we as a society must prioritize the sanctity of human life over the individual’s 'right to carry' ". If they were truly concerned about the "sanctity of human life" they would consider the number of lives saved and assaults and other crimes prevented or reduced by the presence of firearms in society and that 'right to carry' that is responsible for it.
Thank you, Starbucks, for this - "it should be up to legislators — not Starbucks — to decide what restrictions, if any, are necessary on gun possession".
In typical fashion "Gun control advocates are quick to point out that Starbucks does not allow its employees to carry guns and wonder why there's a discrepancy between workers and customers.
"When it's their safety, they care a little bit more," one gun control advocate charged this week.
Riley said "safety is certainly a consideration" in the company's ban on employees carrying guns." That position can be argued when it comes to their corporate offices but I would argue that it holds no weight when arguing about their stores. Why? Because their employees, while not carrying themselves, are in the same environment as their customers - where there are firearms being openly carried and concealed every day. They are accepting at least the same risks as everyone else in the stores and arguably more since customers have the right to carry while store employees don't.
The outspoken, gun control advocating politicians have absolutely no credibility in these issues since they've proven time and again that we cannot trust anything that comes from their mouths about the pertinent issues. They've lied and manipulated in so many nonreputable ways that they're impossible to count! It's likewise with the Newtown victims' families. I'm sure their feelings are powerful and they may actually believe what they're saying and in what they're doing. But some day they're going to realize they've been used as pawns in a much larger chess game. It is so blatantly obvious when you listen to them and hear the exact same sound bites and phrases from them that are used by the gun control supporting organizations nationwide. They're not even speaking to us in their own words! Some of them are even identifying themselves as advocates now, not simply as victims or family members of victims and it's obvious they've taken a drink of the Flavor Aid.
http://thehill.com/homenews/news/319713-dems-join-push-to-bar-guns-in-starbucks#ixzz2dpfkEmAQ
===
September 10, 2013
Another anti-gun blogger, Brian Ross of "truth-2-power", thinks he knows better how all people should be forced to live has put his 'common sense' words out there in "An Open Letter to Starbucks About Concealed Carry"; and proven, once again, that these outspoken gun control advocates don't know what they're talking about so they fill their propaganda with lies and misinformation.
Ross goes a step further though. From the results of his self-imposed survey and the following comments, he doesn't know who his audience is. Perhaps if he wants a better outcome to his ideas he should adopt the strategy in use by Moms Demand Action For Gun Sense in America (MDA) and prohibit comments altogether or delete the ones he finds disagreeable. At last glance, more than 95% of more than 3500 survey respondents disagree with him on his position attacking Starbucks for its policy of following local laws pertaining to carrying of firearms.
Unlike many forums, the commenters here mostly stay civil but have a field day pointing out the flaws in the article and position and poking holes in the author's position. The article itself is disturbing to read because of its embedded nonsense but when you couple that with the comments the whole becomes quite entertaining.
http://truth-2-power.com/2013/09/08/an-open-letter-to-starbucks-about-concealed-carry/
===
Related blogs:
http://us2ndamendment.blogspot.com/2013/08/starbucks-becomes-battleground-over-gun.html
Firearms Blog Collections
Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America (MDA)
Support your local Starbucks... tomorrow, Saturday, August 24th, 2013, because they support your rights. Support them as you normally do, of course, but make a special effort for tomorrow.
Starbucks has been at the center of a raging 'war' between gun control and gun rights advocates. The gun control advocate group, Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America (MDA), has targeted Starbucks in a public relations campaign and now a boycott. Their efforts have been countered by the gun rights advocate group, 1 Million Moms Against Gun Control, INC (1MMAGC).
Starbucks' crime in the eyes of MDA is that they wish to remain neutral and allow local laws to prevail. They're not telling their customers how to live or what to value.
My awareness of this conflict began last month with this article: http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2013/07/daniel-zimmerman/omg-starbucks-allows-guns-in-their-stores-still-omg/
This email that seems to have started it all is included in the article. I've also included it here.
"If you are like me, you enjoy your daily cup of coffee or tea. You may go to Starbucks several times a week, to grab a latte, meet friends or colleagues, or to take the kids for a treat after school. But did you know that at Starbucks you may be sipping your coffee next to someone carrying a loaded gun? It’s true. Starbucks allows people to carry guns into their stores where state and local laws permit them to do so. It’s a dangerous and ill-advised policy, especially in light of several recent accidental shootings that have happened inside Starbucks stores.
Starbucks has the right to change their policy on guns. It’s put the health and safety of its customers first before. Starbucks recently banned smoking outside its stores, where it would otherwise be legal to smoke. It also bans firearms at all of its corporate offices and prohibits its employees from carrying guns in the interest of “workplace health, safety and security.” Why, then, won’t it extend this ban to its stores?
Help us tell Starbucks: It’s time to get gun sense.
Here are three things you can do to let Starbucks know that YOU take gun sense with your coffee, and demand that they do so as well:
1) Click here to sign our petition, which we will hand-deliver to Starbucks; send an email or Tweet to Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz; or send a letter to the editor of your local newspaper letting other moms in your community know that Starbucks allows loaded guns in their stores.
2) Take a picture of yourself with your coffee mug and a sign that says how you take your coffee (“milk, sugar and gun sense”) and send it to photos@momsdemandaction.org. See our example below.
3) Join our Thunderclap! Click here to donate a post on your Facebook page or your Twitter feed on Monday, July 22.
We are not calling for a boycott of Starbucks. We’re simply asking you—and tens of thousands of moms like you—to pressure that Starbucks to ban guns from all of their stores, regardless of state laws on open carry.
Join moms around the country and me. Demand that Starbucks bring gun sense to their stores!
Shannon Watts
Founder, Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense In America"The article is written sarcastically and that makes some sense. Why?
1) That 'person next to you' who may be carrying a loaded firearm exists EVERYWHERE in our society! With the recent law that passed in Illinois, now ALL 50 STATES allow some form of lawful concealed carry of firearms, although Illinois is yet to implement its law. It has a few months to get the program up and running. There are restrictions on where firearms can be carried but they do not include coffee shops by law. And, oh, by the way, there are people carrying them illegally too who simply won't care what policies Starbucks or any other corporation put in place, or what laws are passed.
Any of you who may think MDA is right and Starbucks should change their policies, here's my challenge to your line of thought. How many McDonalds restaurants have you seen with 'no guns' signs? Think of all the other places you frequent regularly, with or without your children. Most don't have public policies prohibiting lawful carrying of firearms.
2) Shannon Watts' letter mentions "several recent accidental shootings that have happened inside Starbucks stores". My first reaction to this was, 'what the hell is she talking about?' I hadn't heard about ANY "recent accidental shootings" at Starbucks so I was very skeptical. I did, however, take some time to search Google. I found 2 incidents. One occurred in Cheyenne, Wyoming in 2011 and the other in the Tyrone Square Mall (Tampa Bay, Florida?) in May 2013. There was another coffee shop incident in Jacksonville, Florida in 2010 in a "cyber cafe" that was not a Starbucks.
Now I didn't exactly exhaust myself looking for more but I gave it an honest look. Two incidents? Even if I missed some, that's hardly enough to justify a call to action against a particular company. Typical of gun control pleas and rhetoric, Watts was short on details and sources for her statements.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michele-swenson/starbucks-and-the-more-gu_b_554583.html
http://www.wyomingnews.com/articles/2011/12/28/news/19local_12-28-11.txt
http://www.tampabay.com/news/publicsafety/crime/woman-injured-after-friends-gun-accidentally-goes-off-at-starbucks-inside/2120697
In the weeks since that letter and the July 9th article, there's been plenty more buzz about MDA and Starbucks.
1) While Watts' letter from earlier this year explicitly does not call for a boycott, it seems she and MDA has changed their minds and want a 1-day boycott for tomorrow.
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=424244921026767&set=a.300767940041133.70846.300719666712627&type=1
This is likely a direct response to a show of support of Starbucks and its policy organized by 1MMAGC for August 3rd. Using MDA's tactic, 1MMAGC had gun supporters open carry their firearms at Starbucks, where it was legal to do so, and submit photographs of themselves. This event was executed across the country and participants were asked to acquire $2 bills and use them at Starbucks to make the movement more visible to the company and stores.
In response to MDA's 1-day boycott, 1MMAGC is asking gun rights supporters to support Starbucks through their patronage on Saturday, August 24th to help make up the potential revenue loss for the company.
Well before MDA's change in tactics, other gun control supporting groups were calling for a Starbuck boycott. This article from April 2013 predates Watts' letter. I don't know what started it.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/martha-rosenberg/starbucks-guns_b_2988849.html
That article also mentions that "Gunshot accidents have already been reported in Starbucks stores" but it links to the single incident in Wyoming in 2011: http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/nation/story/2011-12-28/starbucks-gun-fires/52252886/1 The May 2013 incident hadn't yet occurred.
Here's another laughable quote from the Huffington Post article - "An estimated 100 million people want sane guns laws and only one million do not." I wonder what cherry-picking and illogical math was applied to come up with those numbers.
2) MDA is often portrayed as a "grass roots movement" that begin in the immediate aftermath of the tragic Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting last December. That's partially true. But it's hard to call something "grass roots" when it's founded by a professional media expert, as Shannon Watts has been shown to be here: http://gunfreezone.net/wordpress/index.php/2013/06/05/moms-demand-action-shannon-watts-the-plastic-gardener/ As the article points out, Watts isn't exactly the stay at home mom / homemaker / cookie baker some people would like to believe she is.
This Forbes article discussed some of the Starbucks controversy: http://www.forbes.com/sites/clareoconnor/2013/08/12/latte-with-an-extra-shot-as-gun-lovers-hold-armed-rallies-at-starbucks-howard-schultz-faces-call-to-ban-weapons/
In it, Watts says this: " “good old grassroots activism,” “We’re moms — we make 80% of spending decisions,” “We don’t want to expose our kids to loaded assault weapons while we’re getting lattes.” "
She just couldn't avoid invoking the dreaded so-called "assault weapon," could she? In my opinion she also misrepresents Starbucks with her statement, "It’s gone too far now. They’re not just allowing guns in their stores. They’re becoming a meeting place for people with weapons to congregate" considering that Starbucks hasn't invited any of this. They've simply remained neutral and within their long-standing policy. What's truly caused Starbucks to become a meeting place for "people with weapons" openly carrying them is the attention drawn to the company by Watts and MDA.
3) Hypocrisy Alert: While Watts openly asked people to contact Starbucks' CEO, Howard Shultz, directly to express their dissatisfaction with the long-standing corporate policy, people on Facebook are being banned for 12 hours from the popular social media site for doing the same to Shannon Watts. The 1MMAGC website has several posts about this. It happened to them, among others.
I also wrote a recent blog about being banned altogether from posting on the MDA Facebook page simply for disagreeing with them. You can see the blog and the post that caused me to be banned here: http://us2ndamendment.blogspot.com/2013/08/speech-and-debate-banned-by-gun-control.html
Finally, here's a good 2-part series of articles that provides counterpoints to MDA's arguments. If you've made it to this point then spend a few extra minutes and read these. They're relatively short and sweet.
http://www.thebrennerbrief.com/2013/08/13/guns-and-starbucks-5-ways-moms-demand-action-are-wrong-on-gun-control-pt-i/
http://www.thebrennerbrief.com/2013/08/14/guns-and-starbucks-5-ways-moms-demand-action-are-wrong-on-gun-control-pt-ii/
Have you noticed the Starbucks-esque logos that have been developed? They're basically the Starbucks logo with the words "Guns & Coffee" or "I (heart) Guns & Coffee". I believe they're rooted in this controversy.
===
September 6, 2013
Here's another story about a negligent gunshot in Starbucks. This one is from April 2012. It occurred in a restroom without any eyewitnesses. No one was hurt.
http://www.guns.com/2012/04/10/man-accidentally-shoots-bathroom-sink-in-starbucks/
More recently, Connecticut Democratic politicians and some parents of Sandy Hook Elementary victims are adding additional pressure on Starbucks' CEO, Howard Shultz. They've sent him a letter asking him to "foster a culture of peace and ban guns from your stores." He responded via phone but did not commit to their request.
You have to (grudgingly) admire the passion of gun control advocates but I have no respect for what they're doing. It doesn't matter how tragic the loss is of any individual or family or group. Their loss does not trump our constitutional rights!
The letter to Shultz contained "[T]o prevent another Sandy Hook, we as a society must prioritize the sanctity of human life over the individual’s 'right to carry' ". If they were truly concerned about the "sanctity of human life" they would consider the number of lives saved and assaults and other crimes prevented or reduced by the presence of firearms in society and that 'right to carry' that is responsible for it.
Thank you, Starbucks, for this - "it should be up to legislators — not Starbucks — to decide what restrictions, if any, are necessary on gun possession".
In typical fashion "Gun control advocates are quick to point out that Starbucks does not allow its employees to carry guns and wonder why there's a discrepancy between workers and customers.
"When it's their safety, they care a little bit more," one gun control advocate charged this week.
Riley said "safety is certainly a consideration" in the company's ban on employees carrying guns." That position can be argued when it comes to their corporate offices but I would argue that it holds no weight when arguing about their stores. Why? Because their employees, while not carrying themselves, are in the same environment as their customers - where there are firearms being openly carried and concealed every day. They are accepting at least the same risks as everyone else in the stores and arguably more since customers have the right to carry while store employees don't.
The outspoken, gun control advocating politicians have absolutely no credibility in these issues since they've proven time and again that we cannot trust anything that comes from their mouths about the pertinent issues. They've lied and manipulated in so many nonreputable ways that they're impossible to count! It's likewise with the Newtown victims' families. I'm sure their feelings are powerful and they may actually believe what they're saying and in what they're doing. But some day they're going to realize they've been used as pawns in a much larger chess game. It is so blatantly obvious when you listen to them and hear the exact same sound bites and phrases from them that are used by the gun control supporting organizations nationwide. They're not even speaking to us in their own words! Some of them are even identifying themselves as advocates now, not simply as victims or family members of victims and it's obvious they've taken a drink of the Flavor Aid.
http://thehill.com/homenews/news/319713-dems-join-push-to-bar-guns-in-starbucks#ixzz2dpfkEmAQ
===
September 10, 2013
Another anti-gun blogger, Brian Ross of "truth-2-power", thinks he knows better how all people should be forced to live has put his 'common sense' words out there in "An Open Letter to Starbucks About Concealed Carry"; and proven, once again, that these outspoken gun control advocates don't know what they're talking about so they fill their propaganda with lies and misinformation.
Ross goes a step further though. From the results of his self-imposed survey and the following comments, he doesn't know who his audience is. Perhaps if he wants a better outcome to his ideas he should adopt the strategy in use by Moms Demand Action For Gun Sense in America (MDA) and prohibit comments altogether or delete the ones he finds disagreeable. At last glance, more than 95% of more than 3500 survey respondents disagree with him on his position attacking Starbucks for its policy of following local laws pertaining to carrying of firearms.
Unlike many forums, the commenters here mostly stay civil but have a field day pointing out the flaws in the article and position and poking holes in the author's position. The article itself is disturbing to read because of its embedded nonsense but when you couple that with the comments the whole becomes quite entertaining.
http://truth-2-power.com/2013/09/08/an-open-letter-to-starbucks-about-concealed-carry/
===
Related blogs:
http://us2ndamendment.blogspot.com/2013/08/starbucks-becomes-battleground-over-gun.html
Firearms Blog Collections
Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America (MDA)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)