Comments on: Gun controversy hits Starbucks and Supreme Court http://blogs.ajc.com/bob-barr-blog/2010/03/08/gun-controversy-hits-starbucks-and-supreme-court/ Where experience, logic and ideas trump political correctness and the status quo every time Tue, 06 Sep 2011 18:28:31 -0400 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 By: Dennis A. Henigan: Starbucks and Guns: Open Danger, Concealed Danger « In The News « Obama America http://blogs.ajc.com/bob-barr-blog/2010/03/08/gun-controversy-hits-starbucks-and-supreme-court/comment-page-3/#comment-12178 Dennis A. Henigan: Starbucks and Guns: Open Danger, Concealed Danger « In The News « Obama America Tue, 16 Mar 2010 00:45:24 +0000 http://blogs.ajc.com/bob-barr-blog/?p=1029#comment-12178 [...] 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 [...] [...] 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 [...]

]]> By: Dennis A. Henigan: Starbucks and Guns: Open Danger, Concealed Danger | Goo News http://blogs.ajc.com/bob-barr-blog/2010/03/08/gun-controversy-hits-starbucks-and-supreme-court/comment-page-3/#comment-12177 Dennis A. Henigan: Starbucks and Guns: Open Danger, Concealed Danger | Goo News Tue, 16 Mar 2010 00:41:00 +0000 http://blogs.ajc.com/bob-barr-blog/?p=1029#comment-12177 [...] 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 [...] [...] 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 [...]

]]> By: Dennis A. Henigan: Starbucks and Guns: Open Danger, Concealed Danger http://blogs.ajc.com/bob-barr-blog/2010/03/08/gun-controversy-hits-starbucks-and-supreme-court/comment-page-3/#comment-12174 Dennis A. Henigan: Starbucks and Guns: Open Danger, Concealed Danger Mon, 15 Mar 2010 21:21:47 +0000 http://blogs.ajc.com/bob-barr-blog/?p=1029#comment-12174 [...] 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 [...] [...] 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 [...]

]]> By: Starbucks and Guns: Open Danger, Concealed Danger-- Brady Campaign Blog http://blogs.ajc.com/bob-barr-blog/2010/03/08/gun-controversy-hits-starbucks-and-supreme-court/comment-page-3/#comment-12168 Starbucks and Guns: Open Danger, Concealed Danger-- Brady Campaign Blog Mon, 15 Mar 2010 20:33:47 +0000 http://blogs.ajc.com/bob-barr-blog/?p=1029#comment-12168 [...] 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 [...] [...] 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 [...]

]]> By: John Bates Thayer http://blogs.ajc.com/bob-barr-blog/2010/03/08/gun-controversy-hits-starbucks-and-supreme-court/comment-page-3/#comment-11959 John Bates Thayer Thu, 11 Mar 2010 00:07:08 +0000 http://blogs.ajc.com/bob-barr-blog/?p=1029#comment-11959 To better understand the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution it is helpful to consider how almost every reasonable person would interpret this amendment if it did not involve something which is considered controversial or politically incorrect by some and idolized by others. Arms in the possession of ordinary citizens meet both criteria. Let's, for the sake of argument, suppose that the Second Amendment dealt with books, not arms or weapons, and read like this: "A well educated electorate, being necessary to the maintenance of a free State, the right of the people to own and read books, shall not be infringed." Does anyone really believe that liberals would claim that only people who were eligible to vote should be allowed to buy and read books? Or that a person should have to have voted in the last election before the government would permit him or her to buy a book? Would the importation of books be banned if they did not meet an "educational purpose" test? Would some States limit citizens to buying "one book a month"? Would inflammatory "assault books" be banned in California? To better understand the Second Amendment to the United States
Constitution it is helpful to consider how almost every reasonable
person would interpret this amendment if it did not involve something
which is considered controversial or politically incorrect by some and
idolized by others. Arms in the possession of ordinary citizens meet
both criteria. Let’s, for the sake of argument, suppose that the
Second Amendment dealt with books, not arms or weapons, and read like
this: “A well educated electorate, being necessary to the maintenance
of a free State, the right of the people to own and read books, shall
not be infringed.” Does anyone really believe that liberals would
claim that only people who were eligible to vote should be allowed to
buy and read books? Or that a person should have to have voted in the
last election before the government would permit him or her to buy a
book? Would the importation of books be banned if they did not meet
an “educational purpose” test? Would some States limit citizens to
buying “one book a month”? Would inflammatory “assault books” be
banned in California?

]]> By: Jim In Houston http://blogs.ajc.com/bob-barr-blog/2010/03/08/gun-controversy-hits-starbucks-and-supreme-court/comment-page-3/#comment-11956 Jim In Houston Wed, 10 Mar 2010 23:20:56 +0000 http://blogs.ajc.com/bob-barr-blog/?p=1029#comment-11956 Scout March 9th, 2010 9:38 pm To James and Jim in Houston: "May I kindly remind you (see my 3:56 on page 1), that you are trying to debate with sheep ? Sheep and sheepdogs can never talk the same language. It’s not in their nature." Yes, I am aware of that. I try to take the high road in most of these discussions and actually treat reasonable-sounding questions as such. I will find out soon enough whether or not the question was disingenuous. Believe it or not, I've actually had some converts to looking at FACTS! I generally avoid getting involved in puerile ad hominem exchanges...you know the old saying about wrestling with a pig. Scout

March 9th, 2010
9:38 pm

To James and Jim in Houston:

“May I kindly remind you (see my 3:56 on page 1), that you are trying to debate with sheep ?

Sheep and sheepdogs can never talk the same language. It’s not in their nature.”

Yes, I am aware of that. I try to take the high road in most of these discussions and actually treat reasonable-sounding questions as such. I will find out soon enough whether or not the question was disingenuous. Believe it or not, I’ve actually had some converts to looking at FACTS! I generally avoid getting involved in puerile ad hominem exchanges…you know the old saying about wrestling with a pig.

]]> By: James http://blogs.ajc.com/bob-barr-blog/2010/03/08/gun-controversy-hits-starbucks-and-supreme-court/comment-page-3/#comment-11942 James Wed, 10 Mar 2010 20:29:31 +0000 http://blogs.ajc.com/bob-barr-blog/?p=1029#comment-11942 Scout - I'm not so much concerned with convincing THEM as convincing some of the other people reading who may not be solidly convinced one way or the other. Scout – I’m not so much concerned with convincing THEM as convincing some of the other people reading who may not be solidly convinced one way or the other.

]]> By: Scout http://blogs.ajc.com/bob-barr-blog/2010/03/08/gun-controversy-hits-starbucks-and-supreme-court/comment-page-3/#comment-11821 Scout Wed, 10 Mar 2010 02:38:55 +0000 http://blogs.ajc.com/bob-barr-blog/?p=1029#comment-11821 To James and Jim in Houston: May I kindly remind you (see my 3:56 on page 1), that you are trying to debate with sheep ? Sheep and sheepdogs can never talk the same language. It's not in their nature. To James and Jim in Houston:

May I kindly remind you (see my 3:56 on page 1), that you are trying to debate with sheep ?

Sheep and sheepdogs can never talk the same language. It’s not in their nature.

]]> By: James http://blogs.ajc.com/bob-barr-blog/2010/03/08/gun-controversy-hits-starbucks-and-supreme-court/comment-page-3/#comment-11820 James Wed, 10 Mar 2010 02:03:25 +0000 http://blogs.ajc.com/bob-barr-blog/?p=1029#comment-11820 iRun - that's based on legal advice a large building association in Texas gave to it's members when the subject of banning firearms on their property was raised (and in Texas a gun ban has legal effect, in Georgia, it's only a crime if you refuse to leave when asked to do so, typically in the presence of a police officer). Posting the signs was considered an affirmative act towards taking responsibility for the safety of anybody on the property against violent crime, not posting a sign does not involve any additional liability on the part of the property owner. If a property owner assumes that liability by posting signs, they would be negligent if they failed to have armed security present to protect people on their property (and unarmed security is a joke, I've worked armed and unarmed security in Alabama and Georgia for multiple companies, even armed security is generally there just to be "eyes and ears" and to call the cops, they are generally instructed NOT to intervene unless their own life is in danger, and certainly not to take any actions beyond the property lines of the client they are working for). As for Luanda, there's a reason the police refer to themselves as the "thin blue line between forces of darkness" (usually represented by a solid black emblem with a thin blue line through it). It doesn't take a lot for civil society to break down, look at the rioting and looting in Chile (Haiti was already a snakepit, but Chile had reasonably civil society) after the earthquake. Or downtown Atlanta during Freaknik. New Orleans after Katrina. Of course, the city whose laws are under challenge right now is a known haven of corruption, the principle author of the handgun ban was a made member of the Chicago mob and even placed a mobster as the Chief of Detectives, and later served time in Federal prison for his corruption, iRun – that’s based on legal advice a large building association in Texas gave to it’s members when the subject of banning firearms on their property was raised (and in Texas a gun ban has legal effect, in Georgia, it’s only a crime if you refuse to leave when asked to do so, typically in the presence of a police officer). Posting the signs was considered an affirmative act towards taking responsibility for the safety of anybody on the property against violent crime, not posting a sign does not involve any additional liability on the part of the property owner. If a property owner assumes that liability by posting signs, they would be negligent if they failed to have armed security present to protect people on their property (and unarmed security is a joke, I’ve worked armed and unarmed security in Alabama and Georgia for multiple companies, even armed security is generally there just to be “eyes and ears” and to call the cops, they are generally instructed NOT to intervene unless their own life is in danger, and certainly not to take any actions beyond the property lines of the client they are working for).

As for Luanda, there’s a reason the police refer to themselves as the “thin blue line between forces of darkness” (usually represented by a solid black emblem with a thin blue line through it). It doesn’t take a lot for civil society to break down, look at the rioting and looting in Chile (Haiti was already a snakepit, but Chile had reasonably civil society) after the earthquake. Or downtown Atlanta during Freaknik. New Orleans after Katrina. Of course, the city whose laws are under challenge right now is a known haven of corruption, the principle author of the handgun ban was a made member of the Chicago mob and even placed a mobster as the Chief of Detectives, and later served time in Federal prison for his corruption,

]]> By: Jarhead1982 http://blogs.ajc.com/bob-barr-blog/2010/03/08/gun-controversy-hits-starbucks-and-supreme-court/comment-page-3/#comment-11819 Jarhead1982 Wed, 10 Mar 2010 01:54:21 +0000 http://blogs.ajc.com/bob-barr-blog/?p=1029#comment-11819 Hey Rational Fool, you referenced a data set for one year, which does nothing to compare what effect that concealed carry may have had on a states violent crime rate, which requires data from the time prior to or equal to the date concealed carry was initiated. Then again, anti nazi's never do provide real facts. Real facts like the following set, one of multiple sites http://www.keepandbeararms.com/ where what, over 55 incidents of self defense in just the last month. My, my, real evidence,real facts of succesful self defense. Oh my, there are how many people killed. much less shot by concealed license carriers per year? We had a patently useless study by the anti's claiming something like 137 deaths by concealed carry licenseholde over 1-2 years. Yeah we also see the JAMA that 98,000 deaths from malpractice by the 700,000 physicians in the US each year. 98,000/137 is what a 715 times more likely that a doctor will kill you than a concealed license carrier will. Of course planning and preparing for self defense in the hopes you never have to do so is such a stupid thing. So stupid that we guess you no longer need to have life, home owners, medical, car insurance, or emergency procedures such as fire drills, tornado warnings, earthquake procedures, and practice because to do so is utterly stupid right? Hey Rational Fool, you referenced a data set for one year, which does nothing to compare what effect that concealed carry may have had on a states violent crime rate, which requires data from the time prior to or equal to the date concealed carry was initiated. Then again, anti nazi’s never do provide real facts.

Real facts like the following set, one of multiple sites http://www.keepandbeararms.com/ where what, over 55 incidents of self defense in just the last month. My, my, real evidence,real facts of succesful self defense.

Oh my, there are how many people killed. much less shot by concealed license carriers per year? We had a patently useless study by the anti’s claiming something like 137 deaths by concealed carry licenseholde over 1-2 years. Yeah we also see the JAMA that 98,000 deaths from malpractice by the 700,000 physicians in the US each year.

98,000/137 is what a 715 times more likely that a doctor will kill you than a concealed license carrier will.

Of course planning and preparing for self defense in the hopes you never have to do so is such a stupid thing. So stupid that we guess you no longer need to have life, home owners, medical, car insurance, or emergency procedures such as fire drills, tornado warnings, earthquake procedures, and practice because to do so is utterly stupid right?

]]>