Starbucks

I'm not really surprised, but I am disappointed.  Howard Schultz posted an open letter which basically says:

Please don't bring your guns to Starbucks.

It's not a ban, it's a request. I suspect it was really an attempt to get people to stop using Starbucks as a rallying point for their gun agenda (pro or anti). He states that part very clearly, and I agree completely.  Starbucks appreciation is one thing, slinging an AR across your shoulders to piss-off anti's wasn't useful, nor was it much appreciated by Starbucks - I suspect it wouldn't be appreciated by any business.  If you normally strap an AR to your back, well then - good for you.  But I've been around a few years, and I've NEVER seen it happen.  Around here, I'd have to say it' a rare thing.  Having the store full of people doing open carry as a planned even - also not useful.     

As such it's a good idea, the problem was the wording.  He specifically requested that we not bring guns to Starbucks, rather than reaching out to the gun community and asking them to please stop using his business as a political tool.  Which I suspect we'd have complied with, I would have done so happily -  Sadly, what it's going to do, is alienate gun owners, and it's not going to make the anti's any any happier at all.   The upside if there is one, will be for people in the middle, those who just wish we'd both go away.  The end result will be for a lot of gun rights activists to eventually find some other place to buy their coffee.

I am one of those. Not because I'm mad at Mr. Schultz, I'm not, just a bit disappointed.  I'll stop going there because he very politely asked me to. Given the choice of having to handle my gun in the parking lot, or finding another coffee shop, there's really only one sensible choice.

I've been a Starbucks customer for a long time, not particularly because I like their coffee, there's really only a couple blends I really like.   I'll be canceling my Starbucks card, hopefully I'll be able to get the cash back.  There are lots of other coffee's quite a few I think are noticeably better than Starbucks

It's not really about that.

There are all sorts of proposals in the wake of EPS1 attack on Aurora.   There's one by Lautenberg and McCarthy that will supposedly make it harder for ciminals to anonymously purchase ammo on-line.   Bitter over at Shall Not Be Questioned has more info.

Normally I agree with those guys 99+%

This time I'm going to take exception; minor, but and exception.

It's not about Gun Control - it's about CONTROL.  They're not trying to control guns, or ammo, they're trying to control people.  That's what governments do - if you let them.   They eventually reach a point where they control every aspect of your life.   Every law is there as a means of controlling people.  If you control the people you win.  Granted it's a long term loosing proposition, but folks like Pelosi and Obama are incapable of seeing beyond they're own desires.  Hell most politicians are incapable of even realizing they're short sighted.

At times it seems like they do it because they think we're too stupid to make our own decisions. I've got to admit having elected Obama - they may have a point - a lot of people are apparently too stupid.  On the other hand, my internal Wookie says: "It's their life to screw up, we must allow them to make their own bad decisions."  Then the Objectivist voice in my head says - but they're inflicting their stupid decisions on me!

Sad but true - it's the way we let the system evolve.  The reality is worse I think.   They know if they tell the right lies, and scare people enough, the people will beg them to take control.  And they will, every chance we give them.  Doesn't matter if it's about Guns, or Finance, or Freedom of Speech.  They want to control it.

The laws aimed at guns are really just the most insidious of the lot, the ultimate goal is to remove our ability to defend ourselves, which makes us nothing more than another dependent of the system.

An interesting approach

Sebastian pointed this little gem out.    The approach seems to be: Find an example of someone doing it wrong and use that as an argument to invalidate the law.

So:

We have someone speeding - which is against the law.  Obviously the law doesn't work and needs to be eliminated.

Someone murders someone - which is against the law.  Guess  we need to eliminate that law too - since it didn't work.

Hmmm....

News bias and Conspiracy Theories

I havent' read this book yet, but it's on my list - hard to resist a free book.   Well free after the price of a kindle (and I'm on my 4th - really have to stop bouncing them off the cement).

Matt Braken's Novel Enemies Foreign and Domestic

Read This  - Then on March 1, go get your free book.   Why do I care?  Let's just say that there are a few (very very few) conspiracies theories that I think might be true and the DOJ attempting to kill the 2nd Amendment is one.

There is only one reason to disarm the people - and that's to convert them from citizens to subjects.   Any other reason you might have heard is just smoke screen.

I don't get my news From FOX - don't have Cable,  I get my news from various sites - some domestic, some foreign (completely different view points).  I do listen to NPR.  The trick is not finding an unbiased source - no such critter, the trick is knowing what the bias is.