The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence: is whining again. This time it is about the people legally “open carrying” weapons in Starbucks stores. Oh my what shall we do now… legal citizens, carrying legal weapons in a business. I think everyone should buy 2 coffees a day from Starbucks (one for you and one for your gun), to show your support for their refusal to ban guns in the stores. Brady Campaign whining:
But Starbucks is refusing to prohibit the open carrying of firearms in its stores, despite protests from loyal customers. Because of Starbucks’ refusal, the Brady Campaign has teamed up with CREDO Action to tell Starbucks to keep guns out of its coffee shops. 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. It’s everyone’s right to sit in a restaurant or coffee shop with their families without intimidation or fear of guns, either concealed or openly carried. Under the law, Starbucks has the right to adopt a gun-free policy, with an exception for uniformed police officers. Such a policy can easily be implemented in most cases by putting up signs at store entrances. We need to tell Starbucks to bar guns in its stores. These individuals who have been carrying guns into Starbucks have all the firepower of a SWAT team, and none of the law enforcement training.
More here: Tell Starbucks: Offer Espresso Shots, Not Gunshots.
Related posts
The 5th Amendment rights vs. police investigations (0)
Positive Gun Story… (0)
Man arrested carrying weapons at hotel where Speaker Pelosi was staying. (0)
CHL / CCW and Law Enforcement (0)
California attempts to create another felon (0)
Jimmy Carter… shut up already. This op-ed proves you know nothing of this subject. Go back to your peanut farm!
Carters conjecture on why none of us want to own an assault weapons is quite a leap in logic. It is the equivalent to: “None of us want to eat peanuts, because we don’t want to dig them out of our turds.” This kind of absurdity gets the ignorant masses wound up.
But none of us wants to own an assault weapon, because we have no desire to kill policemen or go to a school or workplace to see how many victims we can accumulate before we are finally shot or take our own lives. That’s why the White House and Congress must not give up on trying to reinstate a ban on assault weapons, even if it may be politically difficult.
An overwhelming majority of Americans, including me and my hunting companions, believe in the right to own weapons, but surveys show that they also support modest restraints like background checks, mandatory registration and brief waiting periods before purchase.
via Op-Ed Contributor – What Happened to the Ban on Assault Weapons? – NYTimes.com.
Related posts
U.S. Supreme Court Oral Arguments McDonald v. City of Chicago (0)
Oakland Police Shootings (1)
This Day in History – December 15, 1791 (0)
The 5th Amendment rights vs. police investigations (0)
Positive Gun Story… (0)
Great comments from Coulter on Gun Control:
Let’s All Surrender Our Weapons — You First!
Ann Coulter
Wednesday, April 08, 2009The rash of recent shooting incidents has led people who wouldn’t know an AK-47 from a paintball gun to issue demands for more restrictions on guns. To be sure, it’s hard to find any factor in these shootings that could be responsible — other than the gun.
So far, this year’s public multiple shootings were committed by:
– Richard Poplawski, 23, product of a broken family, expelled from high school and dishonorably discharged from the Marines, who killed three policemen in Pittsburgh.
– Former crack addict Jiverly Wong, 41, who told co-workers “America sucks” yet somehow was not offered a job as a speechwriter for Barack Obama, who blockaded his victims in a civic center in Binghamton, N.Y., and shot as many people as he could, before killing himself.
– Robert Stewart, 45, a three-time divorcee and high school dropout with “violent tendencies” — according to one of his ex-wives — who shot up the nursing home in Carthage, N.C., where his newly estranged wife worked.
– Lovelle Mixon, 26, a paroled felon, struggling to get his life back on track by pimping, who shot four cops in Oakland, Calif. — before eventually being shot himself.
– Twenty-eight-year-old Michael McLendon, child of divorce, living with his mother and boycotting family funerals because he hated his relatives, who killed 10 of those relatives and their neighbors in Samson, Ala.
It might make more sense to outlaw men than guns. Or divorce. Or crack. Or to prohibit felons from having guns. Except we already outlaw crack and felons owning guns and yet still, somehow, Wong got crack and Mixon got a gun.
After being pulled over for a routine traffic violation, Lovelle Mixon did exactly what they teach in driver’s ed by immediately shooting four cops. Mixon’s supporters held a posthumous rally in his honor, claiming he shot the cops only in “self-defense,” which I take it includes the cop Mixon shot while the officer was lying on the ground.
I guess Mixon also raped that 12-year-old girl in “self-defense.” Clearly, the pimping industry has lost a good man. I wish I’d known him. I tip my green velvet fedora with the dollar signs all over it to him. Why do the good ones always die young? Pimps, I mean.
Liberals tolerate rallies on behalf of cop-killers, but they prohibit law-abiding citizens working at community centers in Binghamton, N.Y., from being armed to defend themselves from disturbed, crack-addicted America-haters like Jiverly Wong.
It’s something in liberals’ DNA: They think they can pass a law eliminating guns and nuclear weapons, but teenagers having sex is completely beyond our control.
The demand for more gun control in response to any crime involving a gun is exactly like Obama’s response to North Korea’s openly belligerent act of launching a long-range missile this week: Obama leapt to action by calling for worldwide nuclear disarmament.
If the SAT test were used to determine how stupid a liberal is, one question would be: “The best defense against lawless rogues who possess _______ is for law-abiding individuals to surrender their own _______________.”
Correct answer: Guns. We would also have accepted nuclear weapons.
Obama explained that “the United States has a moral responsibility” to lead disarmament efforts because America is “the only nuclear power to have used a nuclear weapon.”
So don’t go feeling all morally superior to a country whose business model consists of exporting heroin, nuclear bombs and counterfeit U.S. dollars, and of importing Swedish prostitutes, you yahoo Americans with your little flag lapel pins.
On the other hand, the Japanese haven’t acted up much in the last, say, 64 years …
Fortunately, our sailors didn’t wait around for Obama to save them when Somali pirates boarded their ship this week. Stop right now or I’ll ask the U.N. to remind the “international community” that “the U.S. is not at war with Somali pirates.”
Gun-toting Americans are clearly more self-sufficient than the sissy Europeans. This is great news for everyone except Barney Frank, who’s always secretly wondered what it would be like to be taken by a Somali pirate.
Police — whom I gather liberals intend to continue having guns — and intrepid U.N. resolution drafters can’t be everywhere, all the time.
If a single civilian in that Binghamton community center had been armed, instead of 14 dead, there might have only been one or two — including the shooter. In the end, the cops didn’t stop Wong. His killing spree ended only when he decided to stop, and he killed himself.
“The shooter will eventually run out of ammo” strategy may not be the best one for stopping deranged multiple murderers.
But it’s highly unlikely that any community center in the entire state would be safe from a disturbed former crack-addict like Wong because New York’s restrictive gun laws require a citizen to prove he has a need for a gun to obtain a concealed carry permit.
Instead of having Planned Parenthood distribute condoms in schools, they ought get the NRA to pass out revolvers. It would save more lives.
Copyright © 2009 Salem Web Network. All Rights Reserved.
Related posts
Attorney General Eric Holder said that the Obama administration will seek to reinstitute the assault weapons ban (2)
Assault Weapons Ban Confusion (0)
Oakland Police Shootings (1)
California attempts to create another felon (0)
Assault Weapons Education (1)
I really like getting up in the morning and seeing the news headlines calling for a new Assualt Weapons Ban to get these evil weapons off the street. Most of these headlines are based on the Oakland Police Shootings (March 2009). While these shootings were tragic and my condolences go to the families; I can not help but wonder what the press is thinking.
One needs to look at this from a logical perspective. Lets say we had a current AWB in place banning the purchase of AK47’s (which I believe is currently the law in CA). This would ban all law-abiding citizens from buying an AK47. Lets look at the case of the gunman Lovelle Mixon.
From the SF Chronicle
Lovelle Mixon was convicted in 2002 of assault with a deadly weapon after an armed robbery in San Francisco, family members said. He served time in San Francisco County Jail and Corcoran State Prison. He had been released on parole in 2007, then was sent back to prison for nine months in 2008 after he had violated his parole. His attorney in the assault case, Lisa DewBerry, declined comment Sunday.
His family said that while he was behind bars, Mixon married his childhood girlfriend, Amara Langston, and worked briefly as a janitor in Hayward once he got out. He was most recently released from prison in November, his family said.
Then, about three weeks ago, Mixon skipped a home visit from his parole officer, his family said. Mixon’s grandmother said he had gotten angry at his parole officer because the agent had missed earlier appointments. Gordon Hinkle, a spokesman for the state Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, said the family’s assertion that the parole agent had missed a meeting was “highly unlikely,” but added that he is researching the matter. He said the department had issued a no-bail, parole revocation warrant for Mixon’s arrest after he failed to appear for a meeting with his parole officer.
As we can all see Lovelle Mixon was a convicted and jailed FELON. From his history of bouncing in and out of the prison system we can tell he was an upstanding citizen. Being a felon, who could not complete parole, he certainly must have been a good person and would want to abide by any AWB.
Here is a note for the press, the State of California, and the US Congress. This person was a FELON who should not have been in possession of any firearm. Having and AWB in this case would have done absolutly NO GOOD.
Perhaps you should all work on the revolving-door prison system, rather than trying to take away everyones guns.
Related posts
California attempts to create another felon (0)
Assault Weapons Ban…Loonacy (1)
This Day in History – December 15, 1791 (0)
The 5th Amendment rights vs. police investigations (0)
Op-Ed Contributor – What Happened to the Ban on Assault Weapons? (0)
Communist California LEO arrested this guy for transporting an assault weapon he had paperwork for…
So this begs the question: If you legally own an assult style weapon, and you have the proper paperwork are you not allowed to move the weapon to use it?
Also if I have to hear in a “Post 9/11 world” one more time I am going to kick someones butt.
Man with guns at airport says he’s law-abidingSunday, January 11, 2009LOS ANGELES The man arrested at Los Angeles International Airport with a trunk full of guns and nearly 1,000 rounds of ammunition said Saturday that he is a law-abiding weapons enthusiast who had no idea he might be breaking the law.
A day after he was arrested for suspicion of felony transportation of an assault rifle, Phillip Dominguez said he’s confident he’ll be exonerated.
“I’m a law-abiding, taxpaying gun enthusiast. I have no felonies up until now,” Dominguez said.
Airport police saw it a little differently.
“In the post-Sept. 11 (2001) environment, it is well-known by weapon owners that airports and weapons simply do not mix,” said Los Angeles Airport Police Chief George Centeno.
“He just made a very bad decision, and should not have been carrying those weapons,” airport police Sgt. Jim Holcomb said on Friday. A call to an airport police spokesman seeking further comment Saturday was not immediately returned.
Dominguez, 47, of Orange, said he went to the Los Angeles airport to pick up a friend from Baltimore on Friday. They intended to go target shooting at an outdoor range in San Bernardino County.
As Dominguez entered the airport’s ring road, his truck was pulled over for inspection. Dominguez says he knew police would want to look inside the locked cover of the truck bed so he got out, opened it and declared that he had firearms there.
Dominguez said he had 16 pistols, including an 1858 black-powder Army revolver. He also had five rifles one of them an assault rifle and nearly 1,000 rounds of ammunition.
Dominguez said he didn’t think he was breaking any laws since all the weapons and ammunition were in separate, locked boxes. At least half a dozen times since Thanksgiving, Dominguez said he made similar stops at the airport carrying his guns and never saw a police checkpoint.
He showed officials the paperwork proving the assault rifle was registered and gave them the keys and combinations of all the lockboxes, he said.
Dominguez said he was handcuffed, taken to a jail, and held for six hours before he was booked. He was released after his family posted $50,000 bail. But his guns and his truck were confiscated.
He faces a Feb. 6 arraignment.
Dominguez, who owns a construction company - as well as about 80 guns – says he doesn’t blame airport authorities for stopping his truck for inspection. But he believes security should be looking for ex-felons and bank robbers. And he intends to fight.
“I’m contacting their worst nightmare - an attorney,” he said.
Dominguez’ laywer, Bruce Colodny, said it’s true that carrying weapons at airports is a sensitive subject but “there’s nothing sinister about this. Despite the fact they’re controversial, assault weapons continue to be lawfully possessed.”
Related posts
Assault Weapons Ban Confusion (0)
Man arrested carrying weapons at hotel where Speaker Pelosi was staying. (0)
Assault Weapons Education (1)
The 5th Amendment rights vs. police investigations (0)
Positive Gun Story… (0)
