From Self-defense instructor, and law enforcement officer Massad Ayoob comes word of an upcoming boycott of Starbucks due to their policy of following state laws regarding the legal carrying of firearms on their premises. Per Ayoob,

We discussed here in February, 2010 how the Starbucks chain, when gun haters demanded that firearms be banned from their coffee shop premises, stood up and said no, they would follow the laws of the given state, and those legally carrying guns would be welcome…

It seems than an anti-gun group has called for a boycott of Starbucks on this coming Valentine’s Day, February 14. As Dave explains, many of us in the gun movement will be buying something at Starbucks on that day, just to make sure that Starbucks has a profitable holiday despite being boycotted by the antis.

The boycott they refer to is being promoted by the National Gun Victims Action Council. Per their website,

A nationwide boycott of Starbucks stores and its products will be launched on Valentine’s Day 2012. Its goal is to eliminate the risk of guns in public places and ultimately to bring sane gun laws to the U.S.

Ayoob states that thehighroad.org, a firearms related forum, is promoting its own anti-boycott of sorts, encouraging supporters of the 2nd Amendment to make a special trip to Starbucks on Valentine’s Day. Also, sending an e-mail of support along the lines of,

I’ve just heard that there’s a planned boycott on Feb. 14 by anti-Second Amendment groups attempting to punish Starbucks for their decision to follow state and local law instead of changing company policy on law abiding customers carrying firearms legally. While I’m an occasional customer I’ll make a point of doing my share to offset any business Starbucks may lose due to this proposed boycott. I’ll see to it that my family and I are in Starbucks at least once on Feb. 14.Thank you for not caving in to the radical beliefs of a small vocal group of marginalized extremists.

Now that’s a good idea.

If you get the chance, stop by Starbucks today as well as e-mailing them a note of support.

Update:

I received this reply, from Starbucks –

Dear Rusty,

Thank you for your feedback regarding Starbucks’ policy on open carry laws.

At Starbucks, we deeply respect the views of our customers and recognize that there is significant and genuine passion surrounding the issue of open carry weapons laws. We comply with local laws and statutes in the communities we serve. Our long-standing approach to this issue remains unchanged and 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.

As the public debate around this issue continues, we encourage customers and advocacy groups from both sides to share their input with their public officials. We are extremely sensitive to the issue of gun violence in our society and believe that supporting local laws is the right way for us to ensure a safe environment for both partners and customers.

Sincerely,

Matthew

customer service

Starbucks

Look at them yo-yos, that’s the way you do it
It would seem that Canada is, indeed, in dire straits.

I recall watching a movie, during the late ’70s, broadcast from a television station in San Francisco, California. Being from southern California, it was notable to me to see the difference in what the station owners allowed to be broadcast vs. what I was accustomed to at home (e.g., partial nudity, vulgar language, etc.). What was striking, however, was one instance where the use of “jeezus” as a curse word was left audible, while a derogatory term for a homosexual was bleeped out.

###

If we should ban 30 round magazines, because someone used one while killing six people
Then we should ban scissors, because someone used one to kill seven newborns.

###

The Glock ~ AIDS connection?
And, yes, the Glock cannot teach children (but, then, the public school system doesn’t seem to do that very well either).

###

Hey. What could go wrong with this sales promotion on January 17th?

###

Geek News: NASA Telescopes Help Identify Most Distant Galaxy Cluster

Human nature was displayed this past week, since the catalyst event of the mass shooting in Tucson. Initiated by the heinous act of a crazed individual, we’ve seen both the good – and the bad – in humanity since. Following are a few quick links and thoughts:

Palin breaks silence on Tucson
So reads the title to a post in the New Mexico Independent. Following the herd of liberals who immediately began blaming the Right for the shooting, the title of this post leads us to believe that Sarah Palin had some obligation to respond to, due to her implicit responsibility for, the attempted assassination of Rep. Giffords.

###

The New MSM Mantra: Publish first, check later
Initial reports, from “trusted” news organizations, indicated that Rep. Giffords had, in fact, been killed. From a Reuters report (via Malkin),

Representative Gabrielle Giffords of Arizona died after being shot in the head while meeting constituents at a grocery store in Tucson, NPR reported on Saturday.

As we saw, beginning at least back at 9/11, and continuing through major events such as Hurricane Katrina, the instantaneous response time of 21st century technology does not negate the need for real time (and, sometimes slow time) fact checking.

###

“It was crazy. A photographer with a [telephoto] lens was outside and he yells ‘Shooter! Shooter! Get down! And I didn’t,”
You may have heard about Rep. Giffords intern Daniel Hernandez, indeed, the President referenced him, and his heroic acts, in his memorial speech. Or perhaps you heard about the 74 year-old veteran, Bill Badger, who helped tackle the shooting suspect. But how many of you heard about Joe Zamudio, who happened to be buying cigarettes as the shooter commenced his mayhem? Zamudio heard the gunshots (and he recognized them as gunshots – something most people have a difficult time doing), and instead of running away from the sound, he ran towards it. Why? Zamudio was armed, legally, with his own handgun, and was ready to use it on the shooter.

###

Boxer’s lack of common sense
Senator Barbara Boxer (D – Calif) thinks that part of the cause for the mass shooting in Tucson, other than a deranged individual deciding to shoot other human beings, is that laws on concealed carry are too lax. From Boxer,

I am particularly interested in California’s concealed weapons law, which requires someone who wants to carry a concealed weapon to first receive a permit from their local sheriff or police chief.

In California, you need to be at least 21 years old, show good cause for carrying and show good moral character to carry a concealed weapon. There is a check – an important check – on who is carrying a concealed weapon.

Perhaps someone should educate M’am Boxer that: 1) the Tucson mass shooting had nothing to do with concealed carry and, 2) concealed carry laws, whether strict or lenient, have no bearing on whether a criminal chooses to conceal his weapon.

###

Twisted Thinking
In A Right to Bear Glocks?, we read,

If Loughner had gone to the Safeway carrying a regular pistol, the kind most Americans think of when they think of the right to bear arms, Giffords would probably still have been shot and we would still be having that conversation about whether it was a sane idea to put her Congressional district in the cross hairs of a rifle on the Internet.

…

Loughner’s gun, a 9-millimeter Glock, is extremely easy to fire over and over, and it can carry a 30-bullet clip. It is “not suited for hunting or personal protection,” said Paul Helmke, the president of the Brady Campaign. “What it’s good for is killing and injuring a lot of people quickly.”

Setting aside the silly notion of a “regular pistol” that is somehow connected to “the right to bear arms”, I would agree with Helmke – the 30 round magazine is not suited for hunting or personal protection. I would imagine that the extended length of the magazine, combined with the added weight of the cartridges, would affect the shooter’s accuracy and, when one is interested in personal protection, one is also interested in accuracy. Understand that while the 30 round magazine, for a handgun, is a cumbersome oddity, the use of standard capacity magazines (in the range of 10 – 19 rounds) would not appreciably alter the situation. If a shooter knows how to exchange magazines, a magazine replacement can be accomplished very quickly.

Suzanna Hupp, whose parents were murdered in the Luby’s Cafeteria mass shooting, explained to lawmakers this very point (around the 1:50 mark).

###

Oh my… Did he really say that?
Per the WSJ, a quote from Newsweek’s Jonathan Alter (HT: Ron’s Bloviaing),

Conservatives like to argue that these are isolated incidents carried out by lunatics and therefore carry no big lessons (unless the perpetrator is Muslim, in which case it’s terrorism); liberals view them as opportunities to address various social ills. Obama is in the latter category and should act accordingly. “You never want a serious crisis to go to waste,” Rahm Emanuel famously said in 2008. The same goes for a shooting spree that gravely wounds a beloved congresswoman.

It’s been about a year since I began pursuing an interest in firearms (aka guns) for both recreational and self-defense use. In that time, I’ve been impressed with the variety of opinions people have on the “gun” issue in general, as well as the varied responses I’ve gotten to the mere fact that I now own firearms. People who I thought would have had a positive response to the owning of firearms have reacted negatively, and people who I would have never thought would be interested in shooting have pleasantly surprised me.

In another silly twist to my expectations, I ran into what I consider a worldview paradox, with a few acquaintances at work. One person, upon overhearing a conversation about shooting, anxiously exclaimed, “You have a gun?!”, while another expressed the sentiment that he could see nothing good at all coming from owning a gun. And yet another claimed to be frightened whenever the mere topic was discussed.

However, imagine my surprise when I later overhear this same group discussing some of their favorite movies, the likes of which include Pulp Fiction, No Country for Old Men, and Inglourious Basterds. Further imagine my surprise at their reveling over the violence occurring in these movies!

Of course, upon my questioning, their excuse was that “it’s only a movie” and that they are merely praising the “artistic” merits of the films.

Nope. I don’t buy such nonsense, and I consider their stance to be hypocritical. In the meantime, they can have their cinematic artistry… I’ll stick with the reality of my Glock.