"Give me the liberty to know, to utter, and to argue freely according to conscience, above all liberties. Truth was never put to the worse in a free and open encounter..."
~ Milton
Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
~Benjamin Franklin

A Fistful of Euros
Andrew Tobias
Angry Liberal
Bad Attitudes
Common Dreams
Informed Comment
Madelaine Kane
Obsidian Wings
Off the Kuff
Sarah Kendzior
War and Piece
Washington Monthly

The Emerging Democratic Majority (Judis & Teixeira)
Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them (Franken)
Rush Limbaugh Is A Big Fat Idiot (Franken)
The True Believer (Hoffer)
Still Being Bushwhacked

All Book Reviews
Race, Gender, and Sexuality
It's always "us" vs "them"
Women's March on (fill in your location)
Children learn what their parents teach them.
You Got My Support. But.
Even Endangered Penguins Do It

All Race, Gender, and Sexuality
Campaigns and Voting
Where do we go from here?
It's always "us" vs "them"
Some interpretations
On and on I go
Just appalled

All Campaigns and Voting
Lecture Circuit
It Was 40 Years Ago Today
July 2, 1964
May 14-15, 1970
The Erotica of Bare Knees

All Lecture Circuit
The Liberal Media, At It Again
Fairly UNbalanced
What's this?

All Media
Big Brother
Shoulda' Guessed
Where did my country go?
You know what you never thought you'd read?
Not in his name
Sleight of Hand

All Big Brother
World O'Blog
It's Vocabulary Time!
They wrote it
Mighty-fine blogging
Other People Said....

All World O'Blog
Aimless Ranting
It's always "us" vs "them"
So, I'm thinking with half my brain
Do You Know Peter?
Long, Little Privacy Rant
My Takeaway

All Aimless Ranting
February 05, 2017 - February 11, 2017
January 22, 2017 - January 28, 2017
January 15, 2017 - January 21, 2017
November 13, 2016 - November 19, 2016
October 09, 2016 - October 15, 2016

All Weekly Archives

Open Secrets
Political Wire Exit Polls
Polling Report

American Research Group
Center for Democracy and Technology
Center for Public Integrity
Center on Budget and Policy Priorities
Congressional Report Cards
Death Row Roll Call
Democracy Now
Economic Policy Institute
FairVote Colorado
Foreign Policy In Focus
Global Exchange
Human Rights Watch
Independent Judiciary
Institute on Money in State Politics
Institute for Public Accuracy
Lying in ponds
Media Reform
Media Transparency
Move On
One World
Open Democracy
Pew Research Center
Project Censored
Public Citizen Health Research Group
Stockholm International Peace Research Institute
Take Back The Media
The Urban Institute
WHO Outbreak News

Peevish for PDA

Blog Directory


Powered by Movable Type

Site Design by Sekimori

All content © 2002-2005 Anne Zook

March 04, 2010
The Essence

Or maybe I mean, "the money quote." Either way, there's always one line in a news story that tells the story. Sometimes you just have to read for it.

Starbucks in crosshairs on gun-control debate is obviously about one of those fence-straddling issues. Personally, I dislike guns and I most emphatically don't think people need to carry guns around casually in our society. No sane person really needs to have a pocketful of lead to get through their day.

Over and over and over, we read the headlines. Disgruntled ex-employees gunning down former co-workers. Disturbed students opening fire on school campuses. Poorer neighborhoods suffering from periodic outbursts of armed warfare. How can any reasonable person argue that gun control is not in society's best interest?

Don't even get me started on the hypocrisy of the NRA.

However, it's a right covered by Constitutional law and while I think an amendment to ban rapid-fire or automatic assault rifles of a kind never envisioned by the Founding Fathers would be a wise and civilized step, I mostly stay out of the debate.

The "28,000 members" boasted of by the 'internet community' referenced is unimpressive. It's just a rather small fringe group and the only reason I can think of for the article getting posted is the national media's ridiculous groping after drama for each day's headlines. Other national chains have successfully implemented a ban on firearms-toting customers, illustrating that it's quite possible to do so. Starbucks, much like Google, tries to take a more laissez-faire approach to their clientele. And that's fine--it's not really their job to make or enforce laws.

We should do that. Seriously. My thought is that if we can require shirts and shoes in food-dispensing areas for safety and health reasons, we should certainly be equally able to ban potential lead poisoning under the same grounds.

The aforementioned money quote (emphasis mine):

Starbucks said if it were to adopt a policy prohibiting customers from carrying guns in states where it is legal to bear firearms, that would require its employees to ask law abiding customers to leave stores, putting them in an unfair and potentially unsafe position.

Bottom line? The only reason for someone to walk into Starbucks carrying a gun is so that they can shoot any coffee-pouring employee unwise enough to ask them to leave their guns on the other side of the door.

I'd like to see guns banned in a lot of places. Schools. Shopping malls. Grocery stores. Pharmacies. Restaurants. Car washes. Gas stations. Water treatment plants. Office buildings. Doctor's offices. Libraries. Pawn shops. Hospitals. Sidewalks. Public parks. National parks. Public buses. Trains. Airplanes. Bike paths. Pre-schools. Government buildings. Nuclear reactor sites. Warehouses.

I think guns should be licensed under a system considerably more restrictive than what it takes to get a driver's license. I think concealed carry of handguns should be absolutely illegal for anyone who isn't a law enforcement officer. I think cash-and-carry gun shops and gun shows should be outlawed.

For those people who simply must wander around slaughtering wildlife and pretending to be Davy Crockett, there are a limited, very limited number of guns that are actually suitable for "sporting" and they can get licensed for those accordingly. You don't need an AK-47 to shoot pheasant and while you might need a heavier rifle to shoot a bear, you shouldn't be hunting bears.

Now that I think of it, the people who demand the right to slaughter wildlife as a "sport" should be confined to bows and arrows. After all, it's not a "sport" if both sides don't have a fair chance of winning, is it? Those who argue differently are just revealing that for them, the bottom line is killing things which is not precisely a sport. More of a mental illness.

I don't always feel quite this strongly about the subject, but I'm irritated today.

Posted by AnneZook at 01:09 PM


Yes, yes, and yes.

Posted by: Ahistoricality at March 4, 2010 08:31 PM

LOL. Every time I suspect I've gone right 'round the bend in ranting, you come along and make me feel more sane. :)

Posted by: Anne at March 5, 2010 11:55 AM

(Thank you, by the way.)

Posted by: Anne at March 5, 2010 11:56 AM