But Starbucks, the largest chain targeted, has refused to take the bait, saying in a statement this month that it follows state and local laws and has its own safety measures in its stores.

Hooray for Starbucks! They know who and what is good for business, and it surely isn’t the small bands of crybaby protesters who occasionally gather at a Starbucks to discuss the glories of wealth redistribution and the greatness of government. Then there’s this loon:

Ralph Fascitelli of Washington Ceasefire, an advocacy group that seeks to reduce gun violence, said allowing guns in coffeehouses robs residents of “societal sanctuaries.”

“People go to Starbucks for an escape, just so they can get peace,” Fascitelli said. “But people walk in with open-carry guns and it destroys the tranquility.”

Societal sanctuaries? Tranquility? And a sidearm on some peaceful person’s hip destroys his day, his world?

Special Agent Kelvin Crenshaw said the toys can be easily retro-fitted into dangerous weapons.

“With minimal work it could be converted to a machine gun,” Crenshaw said.

And then there was the orange tip “problem.”

ATF said it also seized the toys because they are missing the blaze orange tips required on all imported toy guns.

The Martins said they’ve received shipments before from Taiwan that were missing the orange tips and were simply asked by customs agents to drive up to Tacoma and paint the tips orange themselves. They are wondering why it is an issue now.

Thanks to Charles Everett for the link.

A coalition led by the country’s Social Democrat party and the Greens has collected nearly 120,000 signatures to force a national referendum on whether the weapons should be stored at military bases.

…Switzerland’s armed forces consist of just a few thousand permanent full-time staff, with the rest essentially a militia.

Service in the militia is compulsory for men aged between 19 and 31 and in between call-ups they store their weapons at home. There are currently around 220,000 conscripts.

The Green Socialists say that too many guns are used in murders and suicides in Switzerland, and thus more controls on gun ownership and use are needed. And they get their air time, in spite of the fact that they spew nothing but blatant fiction. The truth is:

Guns are deeply rooted within Swiss culture – but the gun crime rate is so low that statistics are not even kept.

…In addition to the government-provided arms, there are few restrictions on buying weapons. Some cantons restrict the carrying of firearms – others do not.

Stephen P. Halbrook has written quite extensively on the gun issue, and according to him:

Although there is more per capita firepower in Switzerland than any place in the world, it is one of the safest places to be. To the delight of Americans who support the right to keep and bear arms, Switzerland is the proof in the pudding of the argument that guns don’t cause crime.

Says Halbrook: “The bottom line is one of attitude. Populations with training in civic virtue, though armed, generally do not experience sensational massacres or high crime rates. Switzerland fits this mold. But the United States does not. As H. Rap Brown declared in the 1960s, “Violence is as American as apple pie.”"

Americans have become a bunch of hyper-sensitive, whiny, complaining, soft, politically correct, clingy, needy, infantilized sissies who expend their valuable energy on being offended and afraid. The culture shift away from independence and resourcefulness, and the move toward helplessness, oh-help-me-ness, and government-granted everything has been a really gruesome phenomenon to watch.

Fred Solop, a Northern Arizona University political scientist, said the incidents in New Hampshire and Arizona could signal the beginning of a disturbing trend.

“When you start to bring guns to political rallies, it does layer on another level of concern and significance,” Solop said. “It actually becomes quite scary for many people. It creates a chilling effect in the ability of our society to carry on honest communication.”

He said he’s never heard of someone bringing an assault weapon near a presidential event. “The larger the gun, the more menacing the situation,” he said.

Policies by force, or by majority tyranny, which are created, accelerated, and funded by wealthy special interests and mega-corporations with monetary interest in the policies, are called “honest communication.” If you think that the majority of the population understands the nature of government and its powers, think again. And this came from a political science academic that teaches your kids.

I always enjoy your articles and posts on LRC, and was appropriately nauseated by the video clip you posted  (in which sundry talking heads are “amazed” that it’s possible for lawfully armed citizens to protest peacefully on private property here in New Hampshire).  A couple of clarifications to the picture as presented in the clip: 

1.  New Hampshire law does indeed allow open carry on both private and public property, and there’s no requirement that the gun be “registered” to the person carrying it (as the newscasters imply).  Actually, New Hampshire has no system of gun registration at all.  There’s no permit required for open carry, either.  

2.  Concealed carry permits in New Hampshire are shall-issue, cost $10, and can be obtained by filling out a simple one-page form and dropping it off at the local police station.  Once you have a permit, you can legally carry anywhere in the state except in a courthouse or on federal property.  In this case, the entire crowd at the protest could have been carrying concealed, and provided they were CCW holders it would have been 100% legal.  

We take our gun rights seriously here in New Hampshire, and as a result our beautiful state is routinely ranked as one of the safest in the nation.  Someone needs to inform this cadre of self-infatuated blighters that we’re under no obligation to scuttle our most cherished traditions for the temporary convenience of a few federal bureaucrats and their adoring toadies in the mainstream media.

All the best from Bedford, New Hampshire, and keep up the good fight.  You and the LRC team are a daily inspiration to me, and to many others as well.

This was “developing news” on MSNBC. Obama was on his way to a town hall in Portsmouth, New Hampshire. There were many protesters standing around waiting for his arrival. One man was openly carrying a handgun. The man, it is said, had a permit, had a registered gun, and had permission from the property owner (church property) to be on the property with his open carry gun. Watch Larry, Curly, and Moe debate this endlessly, stating that the guy should be removed from the private property immediately. They are demanding that Feds round the guy up and remove him from the same vicinity of the Great Messiah who is soon to grace the proletariats of Portsmouth with his legendary and divine presence. Curly says, “I can’t imagine there aren’t enough lawyers in New Hampshire who can’t file some kind of emergency injunction.” 

In fact, at 4:20 of the video, watch Curly talk about the “spirited” debates, where he actually says that some of the town hall protests went too far because “sometimes words can turn into actions, and those actions in some cases can be violent.” The three stooges them imply that something should be done about the protests. These hysterical milquetoasts are an embarrassment to themselves, their profession, and their American heritage. Here is Chris Matthews interviewing the “would-be killer.” Watch Matthews press him to try and make him comment that Obama’s presidency is illegitimate so he can disqualify him as a “birther.” Then watch his reaction to the man’s endorsement for Ron Paul.

Update: Here is Chris Matthews interviewing the “would-be killer,” William Kostric. Watch Matthews press him to try and make him declare that Obama’s presidency is illegitimate so he can disqualify him as a “birther.” Then watch his reaction to the man’s endorsement for Ron Paul. Thanks to Damon and Harold for the links.

———————

I was asked to start what we hope will become a sequence of blog posts from LRC bloggers talking about what guns they prefer for purposes of self-preservation in a defensive mode (yep, The Boss had something to do with this). The question is – What do you prefer to own or carry? Before I answer my own question, that question brings me to this video interview with Ted Nugent (thanks to Richard Nikoley for the tip). Indeed, make fun of my linking to Ted if it amuses you, but there is virtually no one, especially of celebrity status, who so consistently gets it so right and so clear on guns and self-defense. I am so unforgiving of anyone – especially the allegedly pro-gun yet pro-permit Republican types – who thinks that we need, or should have, a series of licenses and permits (permissions from self-serving authorities) in order to stand prepared to defend ourselves. Anyone who thinks I should have to grovel at the feet of local establishment officials to be granted government licenses in order to exercise my natural rights to defend myself and my property is on par with Satan. Elected officials cannot and will not defend me, so I will do it myself, whether or not their authoritarian-tainted paper with my name on it gets their stamp of government approval. And how dare they, the citizen tyrants who lecture me on the necessity of official government licenses, operating with their minuscule knowledge of the Constitution, the Second Amendment, the traditions of our American roots, and natural rights. And these wretched people believe they are acting favorable to the self-defense view by telling the rest of us they support gun rights if and when our privileges are fully in line with all state permissions and enforced by the jack boots of arbitrary government laws.

As Nugent says, the Second Amendment, along with the understanding of natural rights, is so obvious that it is insane that this issue is an argument. My view: no one should ever declare statements, or issue passes, licenses, or whatnot, that tell another individual where, when, and how (or if!) they can defend themselves (obeying private property rules, of course). How politically incorrect has it become, even among the “pro-gun” Republican-conservative types, to insist, as I do, that there should never be any limitation whatsoever on the ownership and carry habits of firearms, and that anything else is undeniably totalitarian. The NRA has long been limp on this issue; thank goodness Nugent remains on its board. GOA (Gun Owners of America) is better, and JPFO (Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership) is unyielding.

For me, asking me what I prefer to use for personal protection doesn’t get a clear-cut answer. In fact it’s complicated because of the many things I do, and each situation demands a unique approach. It’s like shoes, only I say, Gee, what gun do I carry today? Except that unlike most women, I like guns better than shoes. My choice of choices is the 1911 .45 ACP, with mine being the Taurus in the duotone model. When I told Mr. Rockwell why I like the .45, he asked that I please not spell it out. I like it because it stops s _ _ _. My Ruger LCP .380 makes a nice backup piece, but also, due to its size and weight, it is my choice of weapon when I am rollerblading or cycling (mountain biking and road), or when I am working outside on the property and wearing shorts and summer clothing. It’s a great pocket gun, even for someone as small as me. I’ll use a Speer Gold Dot Hollow Point or a Buffalo Bore +P. I also carry a Smith & Wesson .38 Model 642 Airweight. I am also adding a Springfield Armory sub-compact 3″ 9mm to the concealed carry closet.

One of my favorite rifles, as my friend Michael Gaddy knows, is the Springfield Armory M1A SOCOM. At home, my Remington 870 Express 20-gauge shotgun, an all-American workhorse, makes a fine home defense weapon, and the youth model is especially great for smaller shooters. This past weekend I shot a Barrett .50 BMG Model 99, and what a treat that was! At $6k for the gun, scope, mount, etc., and about $5-6 per round, I won’t be buying one of those soon.

LRC bloggers, please do reply to this post and chime in with your preferences. LRC writers who don’t/won’t blog: email me (click on my name above for my address) and I will blog yours for you if you’d like. Update: Dear gentlemen, PLEASE REFRAIN from writing me to “give a woman advice.”

———————

I hesitated starting this blog thread, and why? Because my past experiences allow me to be very good at predicting things. When I post on this issue, I immediately get tons of emails from macho, insecure men offering their definitive opinions on the matter to a total stranger who they know nothing about. But they are know-it-alls, and in spite of the fact that my post tends to show people I know a little bit about the topic at hand, those people never disappoint. One fella “corrected” all of my gun choices which are very individualized to me, my skills, my experience, my needs, my desired financial outlay, my likes and dislikes, etc. His email was completely arrogant and condescending (as always there’s some “dumb female” that needs his glorious advice), and when I replied – nicely – that I did not seek or need his very forceful advice, I received a nasty hate mail in return. Alas, that was to be expected. My fault for not ignoring a guy who I immediately determined was a jerk.

I received several emails that weren’t quite nasty like that, but very macho-opinionated on a subject that is extremely subjective to the individual. It’s very strange how a gal knowledgeable about guns – and I am just a light hobbyist – can make men insecure enough to reach out to a total stranger and  act like arrogant, know-it-all, rude fools. Now I know most of you guys aren’t like that, but I do receive an awful lot of ‘arrogant advice’ emails on this topic. And yes, it is rude and arrogant to boldly offer up advice to others, treating them as if they are idiots, without them first soliciting your advice.

Despite the incomplete data, GAO investigators conclude that the U.S., and in particular the Southwest border states of Texas, California and Arizona, are the source of most weapons trafficked into Mexico.

What’s truly remarkable is that the US government is propagandizing Americans and pushing them into thinking they should be disarmed in order to help the country to our south to “control” its gangs and drug cartels. Is this supposed to be of grave concern to Americans, especially those who are losing their jobs, house, cars, and financial wherewithal? Well gee, my priorities happen to be elsewhere. Selfish me.