Springfield XD Forum banner

1 - 20 of 25 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
855 Posts
Discussion Starter #2
This old guy is a freakin idiot! listen to it all the way the debate gets pretty good.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,422 Posts
It's obvious this old dumb kcuf has absolutely no idea what the purpose of the 2nd ammendment actually is. The orginial intent was to create an armed society that would deter the government from becoming a tyrannical entity. More recently through legal precendence by the Supreme Court, it also encompasses the right to self defense.

If he spent half the time researching the framework of our nation and what we as Americans officially recognize as inalienable rights in our Constitution as it took him to make his stupid sign and eat his granola breakfast he might have learned something.

The truth is they don't want to learn. They don't care what the original intent is. They don't want people being able to arm themselves so they twist and pervert the 2nd ammendment to fit their reasoning. It all boils down to one word: Fear. They are afraid and want to avoid confronting those fears by making the source of their fear illegal. I guess claustrophobic people should hang outside elevators with, "I'd rather be in a big room than die in your death box" signs and warn would-be riders of the dangers inherent with small spaces.

I say, who cares what they want. It isn't up for debate. Our rights are our rights. If you don't like it, vote.

Everyday these anti-gun fear mongers get in a 2000 lb metal hammer and throw themselves at 70+ mph past 1000s of strangers doing the exact same thing. They don't outlaw cars because they can't verify the experience, sobriety or intent of each person they drive past. They simply trust the common person on the road to obey the laws and not fling themselves into their car head on. If someone is acting erratically, they call the cops.

Why can't they do the same thing with armed citizens? Trust them to be rational and report anything outside of the law.

News flash anti-gun p*ssies:

A gun is no more lethal than a car. I could kill more people walking down a busy sidewalk in 10 seconds than I could with the dreaded "ak47 witha 30 round clip."
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
855 Posts
Discussion Starter #5
It's obvious this old dumb kcuf has absolutely no idea what the purpose of the 2nd ammendment actually is. The orginial intent was to create an armed society that would deter the government from becoming a tyrannical entity. More recently through legal precendence by the Supreme Court, it also encompasses the right to self defense.

If he spent half the time researching the framework of our nation and what we as Americans officially recognize as inalienable rights in the Constitution as it took him to make his stupid sign and eat his granola breakfast he might have learned something.

The truth is they don't want to learn. They don't care what the original intent is. They don't want people being able to arm themselvs so they twist and pervert the 2nd ammendment to fit their reasoning.

I say, "who cares what you want. It isn't up for debate. Our rights are our rights. If you don't like it, vote."

Here is the official starbucks statement on the issue:

Starbucks Position on Open Carry Gun Laws

(updated March 16, 2010)



We recognize that there is significant and genuine passion surrounding the issue of open carry weapons laws. Advocacy groups from both sides of this issue have chosen to use Starbucks as a way to draw attention to their positions.

While we deeply respect the views of all our customers, Starbucks long-standing approach to this issue remains unchanged. We comply with local laws and statutes in all the communities we serve. That means we abide by the laws that permit open carry in 43 U.S. states. Where these laws don’t exist, openly carrying weapons in our stores is prohibited. The political, policy and legal debates around these issues belong in the legislatures and courts, not in our stores.

At the same time, we have a security protocol for any threatening situation that might occur in our stores. Partners are trained to call law enforcement as situations arise. We will continuously review our procedures to ensure the highest safety guidelines are in place and we will continue to work closely with law enforcement.

We have examined this issue through the lens of partner (employee) and customer safety. Were we to adopt a policy different from local laws allowing open carry, we would be forced to require our partners to ask law abiding customers to leave our stores, putting our partners in an unfair and potentially unsafe position.

As the public debate continues, we are asking all interested parties to refrain from putting Starbucks or our partners into the middle of this divisive issue. As a company, we are extremely sensitive to the issue of gun violence in our society. Our Starbucks family knows all too well the dangers that exist when guns are used irresponsibly and illegally. Without minimizing this unfortunate reality, we believe that supporting local laws is the right way for us to ensure a safe environment for both partners and customers.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
855 Posts
Discussion Starter #7

This idiot just said that california citizens can open cary an unbulleted gun. UNBULLETED now thats a word you dont hear everyday. haha
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
403 Posts
Basically, the underlying rationale of all anti-gun arguments is "guns are icky!"

Yes, guns are dangerous. They're weapons. As such, they wouldn't serve their intended purpose otherwise.

Anti-gun people get hung up on the item, when anyone with actual concerns about public safety should be concerned about behaviors. Dangerous people are dangerous with or without guns, and disarming sane, responsible, law-abiding citizens will do nothing to make those dangerous people safe. Concerned about drunk people whipping their guns out and shooting people? Make it a major felony to drink while carrying. I think the vast majority of gun owners would be okay with that, just like the vast majority of drivers are okay with drunk driving being a crime.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
895 Posts
these people are idiots, they would drink the punch, they would follow and jump off a bridge. these are the same people that would regret their actions if our rights were taken away because of their actions. i'm sure a majority of them voted obama too they just wont admit it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,885 Posts
If all they want is a shot of espresso they should go get that and then beat off. The next time I will see pro gun people try to force guns on people that don't want them will be the first.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
463 Posts
If all they want is a shot of espresso they should go get that and then beat off. The next time I will see pro gun people try to force guns on people that don't want them will be the first.
BEAT OFF:shock:!!!!! well that should calm them down atleast.:p
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
768 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
17,758 Posts
Wow...just wow

I am so amazed and confused there are ignorant people like this...

And I agree with the above posters...anti-guns want to take guns, pro-guns don't want to force guns...they just want to KEEP the option to be able to carry a firearm.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
343 Posts
Wow...just wow

I am so amazed and confused there are ignorant people like this...

And I agree with the above posters...anti-guns want to take guns, pro-guns don't want to force guns...they just want to KEEP the option to be able to carry a firearm.
That's the thing that gets me. The mind set of AG's is we fear them so no one should be allowed to have them. This in my eyes is just as idiotic and intolerant as it would be for a Muslim to say Christians shouldn't be allowed to carry bibles because they COULD be used as a blunt weapon. Or if a christian said that muslims shouldnt be allowed to carry worry beads because they COULD be used as a strangling weapon.

Its amazing to me that this type of attitude runs so rampant in a "civilized" and "tolerant" society such as ours.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,540 Posts
Here is the official starbucks statement on the issue:

Starbucks Position on Open Carry Gun Laws

(updated March 16, 2010)



We recognize that there is significant and genuine passion surrounding the issue of open carry weapons laws. Advocacy groups from both sides of this issue have chosen to use Starbucks as a way to draw attention to their positions.

While we deeply respect the views of all our customers, Starbucks long-standing approach to this issue remains unchanged. We comply with local laws and statutes in all the communities we serve. That means we abide by the laws that permit open carry in 43 U.S. states. Where these laws don’t exist, openly carrying weapons in our stores is prohibited. The political, policy and legal debates around these issues belong in the legislatures and courts, not in our stores.

At the same time, we have a security protocol for any threatening situation that might occur in our stores. Partners are trained to call law enforcement as situations arise. We will continuously review our procedures to ensure the highest safety guidelines are in place and we will continue to work closely with law enforcement.

We have examined this issue through the lens of partner (employee) and customer safety. Were we to adopt a policy different from local laws allowing open carry, we would be forced to require our partners to ask law abiding customers to leave our stores, putting our partners in an unfair and potentially unsafe position.

As the public debate continues, we are asking all interested parties to refrain from putting Starbucks or our partners into the middle of this divisive issue. As a company, we are extremely sensitive to the issue of gun violence in our society. Our Starbucks family knows all too well the dangers that exist when guns are used irresponsibly and illegally. Without minimizing this unfortunate reality, we believe that supporting local laws is the right way for us to ensure a safe environment for both partners and customers.

It started out very well written. Letting people know that they will not refuse service to someone just because they carry a gun. They they try to please these morons and open mouth insert foot.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
343 Posts
It's obvious this old dumb kcuf has absolutely no idea what the purpose of the 2nd ammendment actually is. The orginial intent was to create an armed society that would deter the government from becoming a tyrannical entity. More recently through legal precendence by the Supreme Court, it also encompasses the right to self defense.

If he spent half the time researching the framework of our nation and what we as Americans officially recognize as inalienable rights in our Constitution as it took him to make his stupid sign and eat his granola breakfast he might have learned something.

The truth is they don't want to learn. They don't care what the original intent is. They don't want people being able to arm themselves so they twist and pervert the 2nd ammendment to fit their reasoning. It all boils down to one word: Fear. They are afraid and want to avoid confronting those fears by making the source of their fear illegal. I guess claustrophobic people should hang outside elevators with, "I'd rather be in a big room than die in your death box" signs and warn would-be riders of the dangers inherent with small spaces.

I say, who cares what they want. It isn't up for debate. Our rights are our rights. If you don't like it, vote.

Everyday these anti-gun fear mongers get in a 2000 lb metal hammer and throw themselves at 70+ mph past 1000s of strangers doing the exact same thing. They don't outlaw cars because they can't verify the experience, sobriety or intent of each person they drive past. They simply trust the common person on the road to obey the laws and not fling themselves into their car head on. If someone is acting erratically, they call the cops.

Why can't they do the same thing with armed citizens? Trust them to be rational and report anything outside of the law.

News flash anti-gun p*ssies:

A gun is no more lethal than a car. I could kill more people walking down a busy sidewalk in 10 seconds than I could with the dreaded "ak47 witha 30 round clip."
+1 mbquimby! Very well written, Sir!
 
1 - 20 of 25 Posts
Top