Wednesday, September 18, 2013
An Open Letter from Howard Schultz, ceo of Starbucks Coffee Company
Tuesday, September 17, 2013
Posted by Howard Schultz, Starbucks chairman, president and chief executive officer
Dear Fellow Americans,
Few topics in America generate a more polarized and emotional debate than guns. In recent months, Starbucks stores and our partners (employees) who work in our stores have been thrust unwillingly into the middle of this debate. That’s why I am writing today with a respectful request that customers no longer bring firearms into our stores or outdoor seating areas.
From the beginning, our vision at Starbucks has been to create a “third place” between home and work where people can come together to enjoy the peace and pleasure of coffee and community. Our values have always centered on building community rather than dividing people, and our stores exist to give every customer a safe and comfortable respite from the concerns of daily life.
We appreciate that there is a highly sensitive balance of rights and responsibilities surrounding America’s gun laws, and we recognize the deep passion for and against the “open carry” laws adopted by many states. (In the United States, “open carry” is the term used for openly carrying a firearm in public.) For years we have listened carefully to input from our customers, partners, community leaders and voices on both sides of this complicated, highly charged issue.
Our company’s longstanding approach to “open carry” has been to follow local laws: we permit it in states where allowed and we prohibit it in states where these laws don’t exist. We have chosen this approach because we believe our store partners should not be put in the uncomfortable position of requiring customers to disarm or leave our stores. We believe that gun policy should be addressed by government and law enforcement—not by Starbucks and our store partners.
Recently, however, we’ve seen the “open carry” debate become increasingly uncivil and, in some cases, even threatening. Pro-gun activists have used our stores as a political stage for media events misleadingly called “Starbucks Appreciation Days” that disingenuously portray Starbucks as a champion of “open carry.” To be clear: we do not want these events in our stores. Some anti-gun activists have also played a role in ratcheting up the rhetoric and friction, including soliciting and confronting our customers and partners.
For these reasons, today we are respectfully requesting that customers no longer bring firearms into our stores or outdoor seating areas—even in states where “open carry” is permitted—unless they are authorized law enforcement personnel.
I would like to clarify two points. First, this is a request and not an outright ban. Why? Because we want to give responsible gun owners the chance to respect our request—and also because enforcing a ban would potentially require our partners to confront armed customers, and that is not a role I am comfortable asking Starbucks partners to take on. Second, we know we cannot satisfy everyone. For those who oppose “open carry,” we believe the legislative and policy-making process is the proper arena for this debate, not our stores. For those who champion “open carry,” please respect that Starbucks stores are places where everyone should feel relaxed and comfortable. The presence of a weapon in our stores is unsettling and upsetting for many of our customers.
I am proud of our country and our heritage of civil discourse and debate. It is in this spirit that we make today’s request. Whatever your view, I encourage you to be responsible and respectful of each other as citizens and neighbors.
"a respectful request that customers no longer bring firearms into our stores or outdoor seating areas." makes me feel that he wants all gun owners out, not just open carry
"a safe and comfortable respite from the concerns of daily life" I am safer when I carry
"we are respectfully requesting that customers no longer bring firearms into our stores or outdoor seating areas—even in states where “open carry” is permitted" again i feel unwelcome even as a concealer
"First, this is a request and not an outright ban" lazy - don't ask baristas to enforce, but comply with local laws about notices. reasoning: if in TX i do not see a sign on the door, the required one, i would not even think my gun was unwelcome, and if the baristas also say nothing i will have NO IDEA this blog post existed and i am against the companies wishes. Either go through the work of putting up signs - and the cops can enforce if desired not the baristas, or continue to comply with local laws like most businesses do day to day. you are doing nothing different than most stores do day to day. until this blog post.
"For those who champion “open carry,” please respect that Starbucks stores are places where everyone should feel relaxed and comfortable." See above points about lack of legally required signs means most people will have no idea that the store is anti-carry and too lazy to do the legal work.
"The presence of a weapon in our stores is unsettling and upsetting for many of our customers." personal aside this annoys me, how many people see cops carrying all the time? guns are not scary and time we brought gun education back into schools.
Tuesday, September 10, 2013
Wednesday, February 27, 2013
Thursday, February 21, 2013
we like litigation too much
while we're at it let's sue car manufactures when people kill one another with cars
Wednesday, February 20, 2013
They do want disarmament
Tuesday, February 19, 2013
USF Executive Director
NRA Past President
On February 13, 2013, the NRA sent a letter to members of the U.S. Congress concerning the White House proposals to require background checks for all firearms purchases.
The letter lays out facts that every concerned citizen needs to know -- just the facts, no fluff, no hyperbole, just simple, straight forward facts.
To view a copy of the letter from the NRA-ILA’s Executive Director Chris Cox to the U.S. Congress regarding so-called “universal background checks” click here.
THESE ARE THE FACTS — READ THEM — LEARN THEM — SHARE THEM
NRA and NICS
The National Rifle Association supported the establishment of the National Criminal Instant Background Check System (NICS) , and we support it to this day. At its creation, we advocated that NICS checks be accurate; fair; and truly instant. The reason for this is that 99% of those who go through NICS checks are law-abiding citizens, who are simply trying to exercise their fundamental, individual Right to Keep and Bear Arms.
Since 1986, those engaged in the business of selling firearms for livelihood and profit have been required to have a Federal Firearms License (FFL). All retail sales of firearms currently require a NICS check, no matter where they occur.
Regarding the issue of private firearms sales, it is important to note that since 1968, it has been a federal felony for any private person to sell, trade, give, lend, rent or transfer a gun to a person he either knows or reasonably should know is not legally allowed to purchase or possess a firearm.
Mental Health Records and NICS
According to a recent General Accounting Office study, as of 2011 23 states and the District of Columbia submitted less than 100 mental health records to NICS; 17 states submitted less than ten mental health records to NICS; and four states submitted no mental health records to NICS.
A common misrepresentation is that criminals obtain firearms through sales at gun shows.
A 1997 Bureau of Justice Statistics survey of state prison inmates who had used or possessed firearms in the course of their crimes found that 79 percent acquired their firearms from “street/illegal sources” or “friends or family.”
Only 1.7 percent obtained firearms from anyone (dealer or non-dealer) at a gun show or flea market.
In 2010, the FBI denied 72,659 NICS checks out of a total of 14,409,616. But only 62 of these cases were actually prosecuted, and only 13 resulted in a conviction.
“Universal Background Checks”
While the term “universal background checks” may sound reasonable on its face, the details of what such a system would entail reveal something quite different. A mandate for truly “universal” background checks would require every transfer, sale, purchase, trade, gift, rental, or loan of a firearm between all private individuals to be pre-approved by the federal government. In other words, it would criminalize all private firearms transfers, even between family members or friends who have known each other all of their lives.
According to a January 2013 report from the U.S. Department of Justice’s National Institute of Justice, the effectiveness of “universal background checks” depends on requiring gun registration. In other words, the only way that the government could fully enforce such a requirement would be to mandate the registration of all firearms in private possession – a requirement that has been prohibited by federal law since 1986.
Thursday, February 14, 2013
Decorated Combat Veteran arrested in New York: Charged With 5 Felonies For Possession of AR Magazines
A Left Argument for Gun Rights
Monday, February 11, 2013
Sunday, February 10, 2013
I ran across this article on WaPo. I think a reasonable point is made here by Sen. Nancy Jacobs in opposition to State's Attorney Scott Shellenberger. There is a fine line between regulation and restriction. When you are dealing with a right, you need to take into account how the right you are trying to "regulate" can "restrict" other rights. Restricting the right to yell fire in a theater makes sense, restricting the right to peacably assemble to enjoy entertainment does not. Restricting the rights to of violent criminals, those deemed mentally unfit and those who would supply the prior two classes with firearms (straw purchasers) makes sense. Restricting those who lawfully purchase and own firearms for defense of all types (self-defense and tyranny included), hunting, competition and target shooting does not. Perform your background check, keep the databases up to date and let people be.
“We all agree that the First Amendment right, the freedom of speech, is not absolute,” Shellenberger said. “We all agree that you cannot walk into a crowded theater and yell fire. So if we can agree that the First Amendment freedom . . . of speech has reasonable limitations we should be able to find a place where the Second Amendment has reasonable limitations.”
Sen. Nancy Jacobs (R-Harford), the committee’s most outspoken opponent of O’Malley’s plan, said the comparison to gun ownership didn’t work.
“We don’t prevent people from going to the movies in the off chance that they might yell fire,” Jacobs said.
See this link for the full story.
Friday, February 8, 2013
Thursday, February 7, 2013
Thursday, January 31, 2013
“A deliberate attempt to bypass the Constitutional process” NY Sheriff’s PBA blasts Cuomo, Legislature over NY SAFE « Bob Owens
As Prohibition-era America showed, banning a highly in-demand substance increases the violence surrounding that substance. When legal methods cannot be used to settle contract and other disputes, extra-legal methods (i.e., the point of a gun) will be used. Moreover, unsavory characters will tend to traffic the prohibited substances, further escalating violent business practices. These new businessmen also facilitate the illegal gun trade, brazenly ignoring assault weapons bans and other cosmetic limits on gun ownership. Those guns then flood the black market, giving easy access to would-be criminals and mass shooters. A 2001 Justice Department study found that 20 percent of prison inmates received their guns from a drug dealer or off the street. Comparatively, only 0.7 percent of the weapons were obtained at gun shows. Which "loophole" should we be focusing on closing?
Wednesday, January 30, 2013
South Dakota House Passes Bill Allowing School Districts to Arm Teachers
San Diego Police Chief: We Can Disarm Americans Within a Generation
Tuesday, January 29, 2013
In contrast, the Republicans wanted to bring guns that are “not covered by any ban but routinely used for self protection and sporting purposes.”
The Great Assault Weapon Hoax | TheGunMag – The Official Gun Magazine of the Second Amendment Foundation
Sunday, January 27, 2013
See article on AK being great home defense
what if there are multiple intruders? are 3 extra bullets that scary?
Click to see the complete list of those people and organizations who have lent their name in support of Feinstein's bill.
Friday, January 25, 2013
Thursday, January 24, 2013
not exactly but..not bad better than other comparisons
Wednesday, January 23, 2013
The data is available for researchers to explore at the Interuniversity consortium on political and social research (ICPSR) at the University of Michigan. Digging deeper, we find that the survey sample was just 251 people. (The survey was done by telephone, using a random-digit-dial method, with a response rate of 50 percent.) With this sample size, the 95 percent confidence interval will be plus or minus 6 percentage points.
Irons in the Fire: Guess what? It wasn't the NRA that called BATFE a 'jack-booted group of fascists'
Tuesday, January 22, 2013
Monday, January 21, 2013
Joe D commented
Sorry, this author makes a few good points, but fails at so many others. "...qualifying the right by couching it in terms of a military organization". They they go on to argue that it's a moot argument, since the federal military obviously trumps that. What a load of crap.
The "militia", at the time, was all able-bodied adult (white) men. We don't discriminate (much) based on gender or skin color anymore, so in today's world that would be all adult citizens. When the state felt it needed an armed force, it called up this militia to fight. It has absolutely nothing to do with a standing army.
The author then goes on to argue for a modern-day "militia". Personally, I think this is a great idea. But the last time this was attempted (the National Guard), the federal government nationalized it, sending it overseas to fight. This defeated the entire purpose.
Then the author *really* lost me when they argued the modern militia would be overseen by full-time people, who would report to the execute branch of the federal government. I'm sorry, but you are a farking moron. Having the only armed bodies we have all reporting to the same branch of the federal government is stupid, wasteful, and dangerous.
10 reasons that an assault weapons ban is ineffective. Brought to you by the letters, N, R, and A.
After this, the AR-15 doesn't seem quite so bad.
Sunday, January 20, 2013
Saturday, January 19, 2013
we should be doing this
But not adding gun control into the mix, this is a skill that reduces escallation, which is very impotant, but won't always stop escalation
MLK wanted guns, applied for a permit even
so if you are not a cop you are a second class citizen?