RobertNashville

.. Very true.   I'm trying to figure out why the hell we have a (at thit point) 12 pages of posts about a coffee house chain that I'd bet 90% of the members of TGO have never even utilized. :shrug: It's Starbuck's business...they have NO obligation to cater to anyone's desire to carry arms but they aren't even saying that you can't; all they are asking is to not be a focal point for the issue...frankly, if I owned a coffee house and the kind of stuff that's gone on in some Starbucks were going on in my shop I'd tell the gun community to leave their guns in their vehicels too and I probably wouldn't be as nice about as Starbucks has been.

A person's race or infirmity is not something they generally have much control over so, the Federal government stepped in and said that a business can't discriminate against someone for these basic (and so far, limited) things...it was a response to "colored" water fountains, restrooms and lunch counters as much as it was anything else and while I wish the government didn't need to step in and do that I think they clearly DID need to step in and do that and we are a better society for it because it ended an abhorrent and disgusting practice that shouldn't have been happening in the first place.   Maybe someday the Federal government will mandate that every business must allow anyone who wants to carry be allowed to carry any weapon of any design into anyplace they want; but I doubt it and frankly, there is no reason for them to do so...your right to arms does not trump and should not trump a business owner's right to say "not in my coffeehouse" unless there is a significant and overriding societal reason for the government to do so and I don't see any such reason here.   As to 'people getting used to guns"...why should people have to do that?  

I can't quite see how a "bad LEO" in another state has any real relevance to Tennessee other than something to talk about.   In any case, the direction was clearly given that such stories taking place in other states are not to be on TGO any longer so I'd say the relevance is somewhat moot anyway.  That aside; it's been my experience that any "ban LEO" story gets PLENTY of play/discussion of dozens of other forums...if that's what someone wants' to discuss TGO is hardly the only place where one can do that. ;)

I guess I'm missing the big constitutional issue here or how this is caving to the liberals.  Even if it is caving to the liberals it's Starbuck's business and if they don't want people carrying in their businesses then they have not just the legal authority to make that request (in TN) but they have the right to do so which I believe is proper and fair.   I wish they hadn't taken this position but they did and frankly, I believe most of the reason for it rests on the shoulders of those who showed their "support" for Starbucks by having planned open carry events/meetings there (with cameras rolling) to make a "statement".

If Starbucks decided to completely refuse any firearms within their business proper, is that a violation of my constitutional right to arms or is it exercising their right to control what is allowed inside of their business?   Maybe I'm just not getting what you are getting at here?

I prefer wine or Jack on the rocks with my cigars but if it was only coffer there wouldn't be a need to go through all the trouble of a liquor license (not to mention that we don't need people carrying and drinking anyway!) :)

Nope; it needs to be, at a minimum, a cigar, coffee and gun shop.   Actually, Outpost Armory was close to that...I loved going there for lunch on a Saturday and then browsing the store but then they got rid of the restaurant and turned that whole section into reloading heaven.   Nothing against reloading but there aren't many places (that I know of anyway) around here were you could get alligator! ;)

Please read Lumber_Jack's spot on analysis; he got exactly what I was saying.

Could not have said it better. :)

I'm sure it's very common to find such success stories on an OPEN CARRY forum...if you go to a gun grabber forum you'll find lot's of their success stories too! ROTFLMAO

I'll admit I kept looking at it for a while...even made sure the punctuation was all the same.  ROTFLMAO

Take me to do what???  ;)

You crack me up sometimes you old fart

I love that movie, even as campy as it was...especially loved Sheriff J.W. Pepper.   I especially loved it when the officer was explaining to Sheriff Pepper that James Bond was a secret agent and Pepper responded "On Whooooos Side?"  :)     EDIT: Jane Seymour being in that movie didn't hurt anything either!

I don't really care what Starbuck's "stand" is...if they post then I'll go somewhere else (not that I go to Starbucks all that often)...if they don't post then this seems like a lot of anger for no good reason.

I have to disagree with you there a bit.   I used to love McDonals's coffee until they went to this BS practice of THEM dispensing the cream/sweeter into their coffee for you and no longer letting you go off to the side and putting in/not putting in whatever and how many of those items you wanted.*   I've never been able to get their coffee to taste "right" to me since they started that stupid practice so I simply stopped getting their coffee any longer.      * There may be individual restaurants where they still so it the "old way" but none of the ones around me let you do your own.

I don't own an AR in a sissy caliber or otherwise...I went solely with SCARs and at this point, see no reason to go "old school" with a design that's nearly 60 years old...after all, this aint a 1911 we are talking about.  :)

Yeah...I did misunderstand what you were referring to. It doesn't actually change my stand on the "pretend quotes" I was talking about but thanks for clearing it up.

I throw a "hissy fit" when it's done for the sole purpose of insulting/berating/belittling/disparaging the person being quoted/the person's position.  I guess I don't get why it's hard to get why that would be upsetting, Mike?  ;)   Words mean things and on an internet forum they hold ALL the meaning because we aren't sitting across a table from each other have a shot of Jack on the rocks...the words on the screen are all we have to know not just what someone said but what they meant.

I wasn't replying to you or talking about the actions of any moderator (nor was I quoting a moderator). The purpose of my last post was in support of the statement that an administrator had told mav that "no one should be editing other people's posts". I was and am referring to the practice of some members here who take posts (of mine or others), alter what was said (often completely changing the meaning) and then presenting it as a "quote".   I suppose some of those doing it think it's funny...I do not.   It's dishonest, it's disrespectful and it's childish and it shouldn't be allowed...many of the boards I belong to run software that mechanically doesn't allow it to happen at all.

Editing other people's posts is somehing that, in my humble opinion, shoudl have a hard rule against the act.   For someone to change the wording of a person's post and then present it as a "quote" is beyong childish...it's dishonest; most especially when it's done for no other reason than to diaparrage the person being "quoted".  

As I understand it, this is a primer for testing; not a textbook.  Now before anyone starts replying in anger to tell me it doesn't make any difference let me say that I'm not happy about it either but if it's not an actual "textbook" then let's not call it that.   Perhaps more important is that it pretty well butchered ALL the amendments, not just the 2nd.   On a personal not if I might be allowed my soapbox for a moment, I'm frankly stunned that people even still have their children in public schools at this point.  Even in TEXAS they tend to be nothing but indoctrination stations to turn kids into good little socialists who believe that government always knows best and it makes me fear for the future of the country (not that this is the only reason).

I think I understand where you are coming from here but I can also see the view that stories that do or tend to paint police in a bad light are probably not needed here unless they have some local connection.   I remember the totally out of control cop in Akron, OH about a year ago that was posted here (and just about everywhere else)...I admit that I was a bit interested because I'm from Ohio and know Akron a bit but I doubt the story had any real relevance to firearms in Tennessee.   My other problem with these types of stories is that we hardly ever have all the facts; sometimes even weeks or months after the event and what could seem like a horrible overreaction of a bad cop when the story first breaks could be 100% the opposite once all the facts come out (assuming they ever do) but all those facts rarely get posted because by then we've all moved on to a new story.

As a general rule, gun control legislation is never truly "dead".   More specifically with the current situation; their first attempt early in the year provided with all the info Obama and his cronies needed to know who's arms they have to twist (make promises to) to get their votes next time. Whether they can get anything through the House is questionable but every time we have mass shooting like this (and this on IN DC) I can almost guarantee you that a few who would have voted against such legislation last time would change the their position the next time around.   I'd be surprised if we don't see some new "common sense" changes get passed such as universal background checks (gun registration).

It's the job of your quarter-million$ to half-million$ defense team and expert wittnesses to educate the jury (and for you to lear how to testify properly if you take the stand) should you find yourself in that position and if yoy don't have a half-mill$ lying around that's where insurance comes into play.   Juries can make the right decision if they get the right evidence. However, "I shoot to kill" posts on an internet forums" such as I've seen here from time to time or putting a "skull" endplage on your Glock may not play well with a jury even with a great defense team...something that folks should consider!