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/
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/
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/
The Gun-Grabbers are on the Move Again
Alan Caruba
Borderfire Report
September 10, 2009
Every despotic regime in the last century favored gun control laws. Today, the gun-grabbers are on the move again and are being led by the Obama regime.
During last year’s campaign both Hillary Clinton and John McCain tore into Barack Obama for saying that residents of small-town America “cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them out of bitterness over lost jobs.”
Obama quickly retreated from that statement, but it revealed his real thinking and real feelings about people who own guns for any reason, as well as his contempt for people whose religious values are an important part of their lives. In both cases he was condemning large segments of the nation’s population.
In America today, the figure I hear most often is an estimated ninety million people who own guns. No matter the source one cites, there is no question that most Americans have no qualms about owning guns for hunting, sport shooting, or for protection. It is no coincidence that, since Obama’s election last year, gun and ammo sales have been off the chart.
Look back at what history teaches us regarding the right to bear arms. The Soviet Union established gun control in 1929. Unable to defend themselves, the regime killed an estimated twenty million Russian dissidents.
Turkey established gun control in 1911 and, from 1915 to 1917, an estimated 1.5 million Armenians were rounded up and killed.
Germany established gun control in 1938. Prior to and throughout World War II, the Nazis systematically murdered an estimated six million Jews and another five million others deemed “enemies of the state.” This pattern was repeated in China which outlawed gun ownership in 1935. Gun ownership was outlawed in Guatemala, Uganda, and Cambodia.
It is estimated that 56 million people were killed by their own governments in the last century. Despite that, both England and Australia passed laws prohibiting gun ownership. The result has been a surge in deaths of people who were killed because they were left defenseless against criminals. In Australia, armed robberies increased 44 percent.
- A d v e r t i s e m e n t
As this is being written, there are proposed laws in the House and Senate that would strip Americans of their Second Amendment right to “to keep and bear arms.” A right the Constitution says “shall not be infringed.”
Recently, Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) introduced S.1317 that would give the Attorney General the discretion to block gun sales to people on terror watch lists. The government’s consolidated watch list, used to identify people suspected of links to terrorists, has now grown to more than a million names since 9/11.
In Lautenberg’s New Jersey, one must have a government issued certificate to purchase a firearm and undergo a difficult process to secure the right to carry a weapon, concealed or otherwise.
A similar law, the Blair Holt Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act of 2009 would make it illegal to own a firearm unless you are fingerprinted and can provide a current driver’s license along with your Social Security number. It requires people to submit to a physical and mental evaluation each and every time a firearm is purchased.
In addition, Blair-Holt would require that guns must be locked away and inaccessible to any child under age 18. It would empower law enforcement officers to come into your home to inspect whether or not you are in compliance. Failure to comply includes a fine and incarceration up to five years in prison. In a case of criminal home invasion this law renders the gun owner defenseless.
This replicates the 1938 German Weapons Act that restricted ownership of firearms to “persons whose trustworthyness is not in question and who can show a need for a (gun) permit.”
These proposed laws also abrogate the Fourth Amendment that says “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures” shall not be violated without a warrant.
To learn more about these “under the radar” efforts to restrict gun ownership and the right to carry firearms, visit http://www.saf.org/, the website of the Second Amendment Foundation and http://www.ccrkba.org/, the website of the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms.
What I have described are incremental steps taken to ultimately render the Second Amendment null and void.
If you oppose these efforts, you need to write your representatives in Congress and let them know. A donation to the Second Amendment Foundation and/or the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms will assist their efforts on your behalf.
Despite the anti-gun attitude of the current White House I have always found it incongruous that the President is surrounded by men and women in the Secret Service, all of whom carry firearms to protect whoever holds that office. Members of Congress are protected by a Capitol Hill police force, all of whom are armed. We all know that a gun is an essential part of what every police officer wears daily while enforcing the law.
When writing the Constitution, the Founding Fathers first protected free speech, freedom of the press, and the freedom of citizens to peaceably assemble and petition the government for a redress of grievances.
The Second Amendment gave priority to the right to own and bear arms because you cannot have the freedoms enumerated in the First Amendment without those protected in the Second.
URL to article: http://www.infowars.com/the-gun-grabbers-are-on-the-move-again/
Pittsburgh City Council Considers “Assault Weapons” Ban for G-20
KDKA
August 28, 2009
August 28, 2009
- A d v e r t i s e m e n t
As the G-20 Summit nears, Pittsburgh City Council is considering the possibility of instituting an assault weapons ban during the high-profile event.
According to our news partners at the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, city officials are talking about reviving an old law that would ban those types of weapons.
If approved, the ban would likely be in effect until after the G-20 Summit ends.
City council members are expected to consider the assault weapons ban today along with many other pieces of legislation during a special session on the G-20 Summit.
URL to article: http://www.infowars.com/pittsburgh-city-council-considers-assault-weapons-ban-for-g-20/
FBI Says Boston Cops Need M-16s to Prevent City from Becoming Next Mumbai
Kurt Nimmo
Infowars
August 19, 2009
Infowars
August 19, 2009
- A d v e r t i s e m e n t
I kid you not. This is the reasoning used by the FBI. The cops need automatic weapons to respond if the city falls victim to a Mumbai-like terror attack. It’s more likely Boston will get hit by a hurricane, but you don’t see the government building levees and boarding up windows. A terror attack launched against Boston figures pretty low on the probability chart.
“Warren Bamford, the special agent in charge of the FBI in Boston, said Tuesday that he is baffled by opposition to a proposal to give some neighborhood police officers the semiautomatic weapons,” reports the Associated Press. “In May, Boston Mayor Tom Menino criticized a proposal to arm up to 200 officers with M-16s that the police department had ordered from the U.S. military. Menino said only specially trained units should have the guns.”
Menino, after all, has to face the wrath of citizens who will naturally resent the cops walking around as if Boston is Baghdad.
The FBI is merely playing its assigned role. From the Pentagon to the Department of Homeland Security to the FBI, the government is on the fast track to turn the country into a police state from sea to shining sea. A major part of that effort is the militarization of the police, a process already well along.
Let’s hand it to Boston Mayor Tom Menino — he didn’t buy into the FBI’s malarkey about a terrorist event that will probably never happen.
URL to article: http://www.infowars.com/fbi-says-boston-cops-need-m-16s-to-prevent-city-from-becoming-next-mumbai/
How the Repeal of All Gun Laws Will Free America
John Longenecker
NewsWithViews
August 19, 2009
Most Americans do not make the connection between American Gun Control and today’s scandals of bank bailouts, corporate takeovers, immense failures, government intrusion and indifference, massive disrespect for the electorate, and other harassment of the sovereign. There is a connection.
For a long time, I have urged the repeal of all gun laws. Since the very inception of gun control in this country, abuses of powers has served the public servants more than the electorate, and few of the promises have ever come true. The fears of liberty purists have all come true, right on schedule it seems. All of this goes without saying, but how do we find our way back home again to a nation of Independence from our own servants?
Gun laws – more than 20,000 of them – serve officials by unwinding natural values and rights of armed defense of the person and permit massive transfers of our wealth to others little by little. How gun control is related to modern crises is in how experiments and trials tested and proven on gun bans, restrictions and regulations give valuable feedback to social engineers as to how far they can go against the electorate. It’s not enough to say that citizens must be disarmed first before any tyranny, it is more: it is a feature-rich test which surrenders up valuable information.
URL to article: http://www.infowars.com/how-the-repeal-of-all-gun-laws-will-free-america/
PortalScape 