Hooray For Starbucks
Chuck Baldwin
March 2, 2010
The major news media was replete with reports over the weekend that the coffee company, Starbucks, “has no problem with customers packing heat while placing their orders.”
“The coffee giant says it won’t take issue with gun owners who take advantage of ‘open carry’ laws and bring firearms into their restaurant.” (Source: NBC News)
To tell you the truth, I’m not sure why this is even considered “newsworthy.” Perhaps because Starbucks is a Seattle-based company that caters to the “yuppie” crowd? Maybe because the anti-gun national news media is shocked and chagrined at Starbucks’ statement? Who knows? That Starbucks would not want to alienate millions of gun owners (many of whom lawfully carry concealed weapons for personal protection) makes perfectly good sense to me. I’m sure the statement by Starbucks has little to do with guns and everything to do with business. But the fact is, there are tens of thousands of lawfully armed citizens who carry either concealed or open that have been peacefully doing business with thousands of companies around the country for years.
At last glance, 12 states allow unrestricted open carry. Those states are Alaska, Montana, Idaho, Wyoming, Nevada, Arizona, New Mexico, South Dakota, Vermont, Kentucky, North Carolina, and Virginia. Plus, at least 13 other states allow restricted open carry (meaning a permit is required). I know it infuriates gun-grabbing liberals to admit this, but the facts are absolutely undeniable that an armed citizenry is far and away a more civilized and peaceful citizenry.
Founding Father, author of the Declaration of Independence, and our third President Thomas Jefferson rightly said, “Laws that forbid the carrying of arms . . . disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes . . . Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.”
Founding Father, the man called “the father of the U.S. Constitution, and our 4th President James Madison, agreed with Jefferson. He wrote in Federalist, Number 46, “[The Constitution preserves] the advantage of being armed, which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation . . . [where] the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.”
Founding Father and author of the classic Revolution-era books, “Common Sense” and “Rights of Man,” Thomas Paine concurred. He said, “Arms discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property . . . Horrid mischief would ensue were the law-abiding deprived of the use of them.”
And should there be any doubt in the minds of sincere men regarding the advantages and appropriateness of an armed citizenry, the research of John R. Lott, Jr. is more than sufficient to dispel it. Lott is a senior research scientist at the University of Maryland, College Park. He was previously the John M. Olin Visiting Law and Economics Fellow at the University of Chicago Law School. His book, “More Guns, Less Crime: Understanding Crime and Gun Control Laws,” is the most authoritative and thoroughly researched volume on the subject. And the title of his book is exactly what his research proves: More guns, less crime!
Lott’s analysis “is based on data for all 3,054 counties in the United States during 18 years from 1977 to 1994.” Lott said carry laws reduce violent crime because “victims who have guns are in a much better position to defend themselves.” DUH!
See a University of Chicago-sponsored interview with Mr. Lott at:
http://www.press.uchicago.edu/Misc/Chicago/493636.html
Of course, liberal gun-grabbers love to instill fear into people by saying that citizens carrying guns will result in more incidents of violence. However, the facts just do not substantiate this hysteria. Even our local “mullet wrapper” recently ran a column excoriating the new law that allows concealed carry permit holders to carry his or her sidearm in national parks and forests. The basis of their diatribe? “It’s a risky change that will endanger families, hikers, those who work in these places and the park rangers themselves.”
See the rant at:
http://www.pnj.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=20102260311
Like all gun-grabbers, however, the fearmongering of the editorial board at the Pensacola, Florida, News Journal just does not square with the facts. As Lott observes, “Criminals are deterred by higher penalties. Just as higher arrest and conviction rates deter crime, so does the risk that someone committing a crime will confront someone able to defend him or herself. There is a strong negative relationship between the number of law-abiding citizens with permits and the crime rate–as more people obtain permits there is a greater decline in violent crime rates. For each additional year that a concealed handgun law is in effect the murder rate declines by 3 percent, rape by 2 percent, and robberies by over 2 percent.”
Accordingly, the new law allowing concealed carry permit holders to carry in national parks and forests serves only to make those parks and forests safer.
I well remember being invited to speak in the rural Montana town of Hamilton last year. Somewhere between 600 and 800 people assembled at the local fairgrounds to hear me speak. It was a terrific rally with some of the most patriotic and enthusiastic people I have ever spoken to. (They have invited me back to speak, this time at the University of Montana in Missoula, to a much larger crowd of probably several thousand later this May.)
Along with the vibrancy, energy, and sheer enthusiasm of that audience I observed that scores of people were openly carrying handguns on their hips. (No telling how many people were carrying concealed. Scores more, I’m sure.) Can one imagine a would-be killer trying to open fire in that meeting? Needless to say, not only did I feel at home, I felt absolutely safe–a whole lot safer than I feel when I travel to Washington, D.C. (or any other city or State restricting gun possession), that is for sure!
Obviously, the executives at Starbucks are wiser and more discerning than a majority of newspaper editors and television news anchors. They have seen several other business establishments that have introduced corporate policies prohibiting lawfully armed citizens from entering their establishments–and they’ve seen their profits and customer bases shrink dramatically! They’ve also, no doubt, seen what happened in Luby’s Cafeteria in Killeen, Texas, when a madman crashed his vehicle into the restaurant and began shooting patrons at will. The total carnage on that horrific day back in 1991 resulted in 23 people dead and 20 more wounded, and the killer eventually killing himself. Some 80 people were in the restaurant when the shooting occurred, but Texas did not have a concealed carry law at the time, so no one was armed and able to fight back.
At this point, I strongly urge readers to watch the eyewitness testimony of former Texas State Representative Dr. Suzanna Gratia-Hupp–whose parents were killed in the Luby’s Cafeteria rampage–given before the US Congress. See her testimony at:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WznSA4EU1Gk
Therefore, the sadness and chagrin of liberal gun-grabbers notwithstanding, I say, “Hooray for Starbucks!” And I don’t even like their coffee. Maybe I’ll give them another chance.
URL to article: http://www.infowars.com/hooray-for-starbucks/
Gun case presents quandary for Supreme Court justices
Robert Barnes
Washington Post
March 1, 2010
As a member of the Junior ROTC, teenager Antonin Scalia toted his rifle on the subway ride back and forth to Queens. As a hunter, he speaks lyrically of stalking wild turkeys. And as a justice, he may have reached the pinnacle of his more than two decades on the Supreme Court when he wrote the majority opinion that said the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to own a firearm.
But when the justices on Tuesday confront the question of whether the amendment applies to state and local governments — not just the federal government and its enclaves, such as the District of Columbia — the court’s most prominent gun enthusiast faces something of a constitutional quandary.
The most likely path to recognizing gun ownership as a fundamental right is one that has been heavily criticized by Scalia and other conservative scholars, and it seems inconsistent with his belief that the Constitution should be interpreted in terms of its framers’ “original meaning.”
URL to article: http://www.infowars.com/gun-case-presents-quandary-for-supreme-court-justices/
ATF Seizes 30 Toy Guns
KOIN Local 6
February 27, 2010
Alexis Del Cid A local business owner is flabbergasted after a shipment of 30 toy guns for his store was confiscated by ATF agents in Tacoma.
Brad Martin and his son, Ben, sell the Airsoft BB guns from their store in Cornelius where they’ve been in business for seven years.
The Martins said they buy their stock from Taiwan because the merchandise is less expensive. But the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives seized a shipment of 30 in October. That shipment is worth around $12,000 and the ATF is promising to destroy the entire shipment.
Special Agent Kelvin Crenshaw said the toys can be easily retro-fitted into dangerous weapons.
DPS plan would put x-rays, metal detectors at Texas capitol entrances
Grits for Breakfast
February 25, 2010
Texas Department of Public Safety Director Steve McCraw told the Senate Transportation and Homeland Security Committee earlier this month that DPS plans to put metal detectors and X-Ray machines at the entrances to the state capitol to aid in “gun detection.” DPS solicited a security review from the US Secret Service and is in the process of updating legislative leadership on the plan.
This idea was considered and discarded after 9/11, but has apparently been revived after a man fired off gunshots outside the capitol in January after an argument with state Sen. Dan Patrick’s staffers.
I’ve long considered the Texas Legislature one of the most “little d” democratic political institutions in the country, and a big part of what makes that true is the ability for average citizens to move freely around the capitol.
After 9/11, the Austin city council turned their offices into their own little fortress, installing metal detectors and ceasing the longstanding practice of allowing constituents to go directly to councilmembers’ offices to talk to staff, the councilmember, etc.. The result was to make them much less accessible, more insular, and ultimately IMO more aloof and full of themselves. The physical infrastructure created to protect these “important people” more than the rest of us had an unintended side effect on officeholders and staff, creating an even more significant psychological distance from constituents than the physical one. The change dramatically altered the culture at city hall, very much for the worse as far as I’m concerned.
I’d very much prefer not to see that happen to the Texas state capitol.
Last session, DPS operated metal detectors going into the balconies in the Texas House and Senate chambers respectively. At times it created significant logistical problems, not just from long lines to get into the gallery, but because there are actually offices on the other side of the chambers. In at least one instance to which I was privy, the long wait to get through security actually bogged up time-sensitive legislative communications related to the innocence compensation bill. How much more frequently will that happen when everyone entering the capitol must go through the equivalent of airport security lines?
In this case the shooter fired off shots outside the capitol. Wouldn’t he have more targets if there’s a huge gaggle of people waiting at the door to get through the metal detector?
For that matter, most of these legislators (including Sen. Patrick) claim to be pro-Second Amendment and supportive of the right to bear arms. How does that jibe with rhetoric about the need for “gun detection,” as though a gun is some scary bogeyman, even in the hands of the law abiding? How well will that message play, one wonders, with NRA members in Republican primaries?
There are plenty of armed troopers and cops at the capitol at any given moment (and often even one or two armed legislators!), plus committee chairmen can already request security at hearings if they think there’s a risk. I’d much rather see them beef up staffing for capitol security than waste every visitor’s time (including busloads of schoolchildren, tourists, countless lobbyists, etc.) with metal detectors, X-rays, taking off their belts and shoes, etc..
Even better: Maybe if legislators are concerned about security they should use some of their campaign funds to send themselves and their staff through the necessary training to get their concealed carry permits.
But for heaven’s sake, state officials shouldn’t let either fear or an overblown sense of self-importance spur security measures that degrade the fundamental culture of the institution. It’s important to protect legislators, but we hold elections every two years precisely to remind each of them that they’re replaceable. It’s not their capitol, it’s ours.
URL to article: http://www.infowars.com/dps-plan-would-put-x-rays-metal-detectors-at-texas-capitol-entrances/
Man takes Chicago to Supreme Court over handgun ban
Paul Meincke
ABC Local
February 25, 2010
A grandfather is taking his 2nd Amendment fight to the U.S. Supreme Court in what is expected to be a landmark case. Otis McDonald, 76, is suing the city of Chicago over its handgun ban.
McDonald says he wants the right to protect himself from gang members who threaten the Morgan Park neighborhood where he lives.
McDonald’s case will be argued before the nation’s high court next week. ABC 7’s Paul Meincke talked with McDonald.
McDonald is a retired maintenance engineer who moved to Chicago in the early 1950s with $18 in his pocket. At this point in his life, he says, he surely didn’t set out to make history, but that’s clearly where he finds himself.
URL to article: http://www.infowars.com/man-takes-chicago-to-supreme-court-over-handgun-ban/
Newspaper Establishes Registered Gun Database, Equates Gun Owners to Sex Offenders
NRA
December 8, 2009
On November 30, 2009, the Bloomington Herald-Times made the following announcement:
“This week, HeraldTimesOnline.com will launch its new gun permit database. You’ll be able to search gun permit records by county, city or town and street.”
The Herald-Times has begun receiving calls and emails, and their response is a defiant defense of their online gun permit database.
Anyone who visits the newspaper website will be able to search the number of permits on a given street or neighborhood. Although at this point the names and house numbers are not listed, the newspaper’s website treats law-abiding Indiana gun owners like sex offenders on a searchable database.
It is NRA’s firm belief that there is no public good served by the publishing or cataloguing private citizens’ gun ownership information, and that more harm is done by such an action. Law-abiding Hoosiers should not be subjected to the same treatment as sex offenders, and if the newspaper won’t listen to their constituents and customers, then NRA Members and Indiana gun owners should send a financial message by cancelling their subscriptions to the Bloomington Herald-Times.
Please contact the Bloomington Herald-Times to respectfully voice your displeasure at the irresponsible action the newspaper has made.
Scott Schurz, Sunday Hoosier Times/Editor-in-Chief
(812) 331-4250
E. Mayer Maloney Jr., Publisher
(812) 331-4251
Bob Zaltsberg, Editor
(812) 331-4364
URL to article: http://www.infowars.com/newspaper-establishes-registered-gun-database-equates-gun-owners-to-sex-offenders/
Goldman Sachs Bankers Buy Guns to Defend Against “Populist Uprising”
Alice Schroeder
Bloomberg
December 1, 2009
“I just wrote my first reference for a gun permit,” said a friend, who told me of swearing to the good character of a Goldman Sachs Group Inc. banker who applied to the local police for a permit to buy a pistol. The banker had told this friend of mine that senior Goldman people have loaded up on firearms and are now equipped to defend themselves if there is a populist uprising against the bank.
I called Goldman Sachs spokesman Lucas van Praag to ask whether it’s true that Goldman partners feel they need handguns to protect themselves from the angry proletariat. He didn’t call me back. The New York Police Department has told me that “as a preliminary matter” it believes some of the bankers I inquired about do have pistol permits. The NYPD also said it will be a while before it can name names.
While we wait, Goldman has wrapped itself in the flag of Warren Buffett, with whom it will jointly donate $500 million, part of an effort to burnish its image — and gain new Goldman clients. Goldman Sachs Chief Executive Officer Lloyd Blankfein also reversed himself after having previously called Goldman’s greed “God’s work” and apologized earlier this month for having participated in things that were “clearly wrong.”
URL to article: http://www.infowars.com/goldman-sachs-bankers-buy-guns-to-defend-against-populist-uprising/
Obama “Czar” Sunstein Talks About the Second Amendment
Kurt Nimmo
Infowars
September 10, 2009
In the following video, Obama’s “regulatory czar” Cass Sunstein — who was confirmed by the Senate on Wednesday – talks about the Second Amendment.
Harvard professor Sunstein has odd ideas about the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. He is in favor of “reformulating” the First Amendment. The purpose of this reformulation would be to “reinvigorate processes of democratic deliberation, by ensuring greater attention to public issues and greater diversity of views.” Sunstein would apparently have the government apply a sliding scale of importance to First Amendment and free speech issues favored by the state (under the control of ideologically biased intellectuals such as Sunstein) at the expense of those disfavored or deemed less important. The first Amendment specifically prohibits the government from infringing the freedom of speech, infringing the freedom of the press, limiting the right to peaceably assemble, or limiting the right to petition the government for a redress of grievances. It does not say anything about the government creating hierarchical categories of importance for free speech.
Sunstein also misinterprets the Second Amendment. His argument about government restrictions on the amendment — in particular, gun locks — is predicated on the self defense argument. In fact, the founders naturally assumed individuals would use weapons for self defense and they did not include the Second Amendment in the Bill of Rights to ensure self defense against criminal acts — rather, they explicitly crafted the Second Amendment as a bulwark against government tyranny. Armed militia — citizens of a country — were to defend against tyranny and were not organized for hunting expeditions. So-called liberals inherently sidestep this basic principle and insist the Second Amendment is about hunting and to a lesser degree self defense. It is unimaginable to them that the people may one day be required to defend themselves against a tyrannical state.
Sunstein either misunderstands the original purpose of the Second Amendment or stands opposed to an armed citizenry guarding against tyranny. “Your first question involved the Second Amendment. I strongly believe that the Second Amendment creates an individual right to possess and use guns for purposes of both hunting and self-defense. I agree with the Supreme Court’s decision in the Heller case, clearly recognizing the individual right to have guns for hunting and self-defense. If confirmed, I would respect the Second Amendment and the individual right that it recognizes,” he assured Sen. Saxby Chambliss of Georgia and other senators during his confirmation.
It would seem senator Saxby and the other Congress critters share a dim understanding of the Second Amendment as well. For them, it is all about hunting and self defense, not a tyrannical state.
URL to article: http://www.infowars.com/obama-czar-sunstein-talks-about-the-second-amendment/
California Lawmakers Pass Gun Show Ban
Neil Gonzales
San Mateo County Times
September 10, 2009
- A d v e r t i s e m e n t
The days of gun shows at the Cow Palace appear numbered.
By a 45-33 margin, the California Assembly on Wednesday passed legislation banning the sale of firearms and ammunition at the state-owned entertainment venue.
The Assembly’s vote came three months after the state Senate approved the bill, which is expected to head to the governor’s desk in the next few weeks.
If Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger signs Senate Bill 585 into law, the ban will take effect Jan. 1, 2013.
The bill is “about respecting local values and local standards,” said state Sen. Mark Leno, D-San Francisco, who authored the legislation. The residents around the Cow Palace “do not want gun shows there.”
According to Leno, 44 percent of the homicides and more than 30 percent of the guns seized in the city and county of San Francisco have happened in the surrounding communities of Visitacion Valley, Bayview-Hunters Point and the Mission District since 2005.
URL to article: http://www.infowars.com/california-lawmakers-pass-gun-show-ban/
PortalScape 