Humorous Observations about Starbucks

Lloyd Garver wrote an article for the Taunton Daily Gazette about the Starbucks situation.

I’ve always been confused by Starbucks, the great American institution and symbol of yuppies and carefree consumerism.

This is the place where the smallest cup of coffee is called a “Tall.” Depending on what you order, you can easily spend two or three bucks for a cup.

In other words, it’s the sort of place with the kinds of products mocked by right-wing opponents of vegetarians, elitism and free-range chicken potpies. That's why I was surprised to learn that some gun-toting, Second Amendment-loving customers were sitting in Starbucks, sipping tea.

He mentions the controversy within the gun rights community of whether these open carry folks actually benefit the cause, but mainly the article is pointing out the incongruity of your typical gun owner and the Starbucks atmosphere.

It just seems weird to think of Starbucks being a hangout for urban cowboys and cowgirls. You’ve got to admit that it’s odd to think of someone who spent the last few hours cleaning his gun standing in line so he can say, “I'd like a decaf grande cappuccino, with a biscotti on the side.”

Being a fan of legend, I hope he’ll add something from the tough cowboys of the Old West like, “And barista, you make that soy instead of milk ... or else.”

What's your opinion? Aside from the humor, the article points out a serious concern.

In many states, people who carry their guns openly don't need a permit or any sort of training. That’s right. No gun safety training at all. In other words, if you happen to be sitting next to someone who is wearing a gun while he spoons the whipped cream from his drink, you might want to move to another table.

Do you think this might be a place where gun laws are too lax? Not only do the States that allow open carry not require any training, more and more states are allowing "shall issue" concealed carry licenses. Doesn't this ensure that some people who should be disqualified are passing as law abiding? Is the ratio so great in favor of the truly responsible that this is just a price we must pay for freedom? It doesn't seem right to me.

What do you think? Please leave a comment.

What does God Think about Pat Robertson?

Glossynews reported on the latest from God Almighty.

In a rare public announcement, God Himself admitted today that Pat Robertson, who by all rights should have choked to death long ago on his own venomous rhetoric, continues to exist at His whim as an object lesson intended to teach humans not to tolerate bigoted, ranting nutjobs.

Robertson’s most recent tirade attributing a devastating 7.0 earthquake to a pact made between Satan and the entire island nation of Haiti seems to have precipitated the enlightening declaration made by the Almighty.

He was heard to admit that, though He is frequently tempted to smite Robertson with “a lightning bolt, meteorite, or some catastrophic organ failure,” His forbearance persists due to His hopes that mankind will soon become so sick of Robertson that He won’t have to get His hands dirty after all. “You’re bringing it upon yourselves every time you give him any attention, let alone all the times you’ve allowed him to unofficially represent America.” The Lord added, “Really…do you all have no shame whatsoever??”

The Maker of All also went on to question why so many people, most of whom claim to be His most devoted servants, treat Rush Limbaugh as though he is anything but a spiteful dope-addicted douchebag. He then closed his statement by reminding people that President Barack Obama should not be worshiped in any Godlike manner, no matter how cool he is. “It’s the first friggin’ commandment, people. Not like it’s in the fine print or something…”

Bloomberg Won't Be Going to West Virginia

The Charleston Daily Mail published a report on the law in West Virginia making Bloomberg-type sting operations of gun dealers illegal. Thanks to FatWhiteMan for the link.

CHARLESTON, W.Va. (AP) - New York City has sent out undercover investigators to catch gun dealers violating background check laws. But West Virginia lawmakers want to make it a crime for investigators to conduct such sting operations in West Virginia.

The Legislature passed a measure Saturday that targets anyone who tries to entice a firearms dealer or private seller under circumstances that the individual knows is unlawful.

The bill addresses a tactic employed by New York during stings conducted last year at seven guns shows in Tennessee, Ohio and Nevada.

The bill had also proposed allowing felons and others otherwise barred from having guns to possess antique firearms. But the House Judiciary Committee removed that provision, and the Senate agreed to the change Saturday.

Why do thet need a special law for this? I thought people told me this was already illegal activity? What's wrong with these pro-gun types? Do they want to make this "illegaler?" Why do they need more laws when they have the Constitution on their side?

Perhaps they were wrong about this being illegal. Perhaps with the cooperation of local authorities, Mayor Bloomberg was within his rights to investigate the provenance of guns associated with crime in his city. But, I guess he won't be doing it in West Virginia.

What do you think? Please leave a comment.

The Power of the Federal Government

"Telocratic," wow. Many thinks to The Humble Libertarian, whose site I like very much.



It is interesting how few pro-gun voices have expressed this idea. Why do you think that is?

Please leave a comment.

Dennis Henigan on Starbucks and Other Things

Dennis Henigan wrote a wonderful piece about the Starbuck's situation. In it he pointed out two very interesting reactions, one from Starbucks and one from pro-gun supporters.

Starbucks recently issued a statement defending its policy by citing concern for the safety of its employees. To prohibit the open carry of guns in its stores, says Starbucks, “we would be forced to require our partners [employees] to ask law abiding customers to leave our stores, putting our partners in an unfair and potentially unsafe position.”

Mr. Henigan goes on to draw the obvious inferences from that mention of putting the staff in an unsafe position, all of which touches on the very sensitive question of what percentage of so-called lawful gun owners are truly responsible and trustworthy. Some people think 90% is good enough; I disagree.

The other revealing reaction – from leaders of the “gun rights” movement – is to suggest that the “open carry” people may be hurting the gun rights cause. For example, Bob Barr, my erstwhile debate opponent when he was in Congress, recently suggested that “firearms advocates might be better advised not to press the issue publicly by pointedly visiting Starbucks establishments with firearms openly displayed. Sometimes quiet advocacy speaks louder than waving a red flag in someone’s face.” Alan Gottlieb, founder of the Second Amendment Foundation (generally considered more extreme than the NRA) told the New York Times, “I’m all for open-carry laws. But I don’t think flaunting it is very productive for our cause. It just scares people.”

Henigan goes on to describe the huge strides gun-rights advocates have made in concealed-carry laws, suggesting that much of that "progress" could be placed in jeopardy by the open-carry movement. I agree with that. It makes perfect sense to me.

Finally, he talks about one of the most prolific distortions being repeated over and over again by the pro-gun folks: that more guns means less crime.

The evidence is overwhelming that the “shall-issue” concealed carry laws have been a disaster for public safety. They have allowed dangerous people to obtain concealed carry licenses, those people have committed grievous crimes, and the scholarly research shows that the laws generally have been “associated with uniform increases in crime.” But the danger becomes evident to the public only episodically – when someone with a concealed carry license shoots someone accidentally or commits a violent act, such as the six multiple shootings committed by concealed carry licensees in 2009 alone. What if concealed carry licensees had to reveal they were packing whenever they entered Starbucks or other public places? The debate over guns in public would be far different.

“Gun rights” advocates like Barr and Gottlieb have good reason to fear that their “guns anywhere” agenda would be threatened if the open carry movement starts causing the public to understand the true danger of guns in public – the open danger, and the concealed danger as well.

What's your opinion? Please feel free to leave a comment.

Jim Gray on the War on Drugs

Thanks to Phuck Politics. James P. Gray is one helluva speaker. What do you think?

A Fun Solution for Road Rage