EDITORIAL: Packing a gun in Starbucks

It's NOT about starbucks being dangerous. It's about being prepared anywhere; regardless of how safe an area is supposed to be.

Another reason is, as someone who used to conceal carry in AZ (before I moved to this stupid state of IL), I used to avoid going into stores that didn't allow CC because I didn't want to leave my gun in the car. There is a lot of car theft/break-ins in AZ and I did not want my gun to fall into the wrong hands.

ROTFLMAO!!!!!!

Afraid to go into stores!!!!

...[removed based on not being relevant to conversation]...
But you are afraid to go in without a gun.

I told David he was paranoid and he said he had no enemies. Gosh! like poor David, you have no idea how deeply paranoid you are!

You know, there used to be a man in Chelmsford, MA who ate at a certain restaurant every day and talked to himself while he waited for his meal to be served. When the waitress brought him his lunch, he said good-bye to himself. If I didn't know that he had died, I would assume that you were that fellow.

Another reason is, as someone who used to conceal carry in AZ (before I moved to this stupid state of IL), I used to avoid going into stores that didn't allow CC because I didn't want to leave my gun in the car. There is a lot of car theft/break-ins in AZ and I did not want my gun to fall into the wrong hands.

And I think this is a relevant discussion point for this thread.

You are NOT going to get people to stop carrying concealed weapons legally w/o changing a lot of laws (which, be honest, you don't have the support for).

Because you're not going to change the law. These people (if Starbucks changes it's policy, and these people continue to go to Starbucks) will be leaving their guns in their cars (where legal) where they can easily be stolen.

Is that the alternative you prefer? Because it's the one that will occur in reality (as far as I can see, but I'm open to other suggestions).

Because you're not going to change the law. These people (if Starbucks changes it's policy, and these people continue to go to Starbucks) will be leaving their guns in their cars (where legal) where they can easily be stolen.

But, David, commie and nazis are politically opposite!
You are closer to Nazi as they are on the right!

David, you took what I said the wrong way.
I was not questioning your actions against another member.
But the way you answered my questions was as if it was a perfect world.
You answered from your point of view, which was not where I was coming from.
Not everyone is level headed and will think to "save ammo",

nor will you ever be able to get EVERYONE to take a safety course and tactical training.

To me it's like putting a gun in the hands of Homer Simpson. Just not a smart idea.

David, you don"t agree with the Founders.
You agree with a mid-20th century interpretation
of what some people thought a subset, a minority,

of the Founding Fathers said, coupled with a robber baron version
of late 19th-century capitalism, which was far from anything in
existence at the time of the Constitution.

Anybody who says there was one outlook our founding fathers all
shared has absolutely no idea what he's talking about.

There were dozens of views, and you guys essentially made up your "conservatism:.

They were not into "weak" and "fragile" limited government.

They'd tried that in the Confederation. It didn't work.

Nor, if you look at the actual record, were they in favor of limited powers. the questiion of a "general grant" of powers (basically whatever proved to be needful over time), versus "enumerated powers" (listing specific powers) came up twice in the Constitutional Convention and the general grant concept won twice. It was only in the end process when the Committee of Detail was set up to write a final draft that the enumerated powers were snuck in by the minority with the "necessary and proper" clause to cover additional powers as they came up. In the debates that followed, many delegates had long lists of additional powers they wanted added. They were hardly for the "weak" government you think they were.

And, I might add, as soon as the new government started, Founding Fathers like Alexander Hamilton,
with the tacit support of President Washington, immediately started expanding those powers as needed.

Sex is a part of life, and parents object to sex ed in schools.
In today's age, with all the school shootings and bombings and
pretty much threat level "OMG" going in schools around the world,
Parents would see a class on "gun safety" as something of the plague.
They would recoil from it like cat from a dog.

With that said, there are the parents that would embrace it.
I am not arguing this point. It is a good idea, but it is not an idea
that would go over well with many parents, even if it was for the safety of children.

As for no gun laws in Vermont, do you have a percent of residences that own guns? Just curious.

You don't need to post one for Alaska as I would assume that it would be
over 50 percent of house holds own a fire arm of some sort.

Though a question was just brought to my mind.
Would you be ok with people walking around with bows and arrows?

Or maybe machetes strapped to their hips?