Anyone catch the anti-gun folks vs. Starbucks recently? Here’s one article (of many, many articles. Google/Bing is your friend.): http://www.king5.com/news/No-guns-in-Starbucks-rally-86190562.html

My take is that Starbucks is correct when it says: “The political, policy and legal debates around these issues belong in the legislatures and courts, not in our stores.” Starbucks is a company that values individuality, evidenced by the way people order coffee- their way. Have you seen the baristas there? Case in point.

Anti-gun supporters claim that the stores will be safer, customers won’t be in harm’s way of a violent gun incident. That is wholly untrue, because criminals don’t give a damn about store policies when they decide to rob at gunpoint, or walk in and shoot police officers. Store policies have little, if any, effect on violent crimes.

Gun supporters claim Starbucks is right, it doesn’t have a reason to ban guns if the US Constitution continues to allow citizens to have weapons. However, Starbucks is a company, and have the right to run the operation as it sees fit, within the laws. If it thinks that a no-gun policy would make its bottom line go up, then sure, it may create one.

The Second Amendment, as ratified by the States: “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

A lot of debate rages on the interpretation of that statement, and many people read it differently, depending upon their own ideology. What many people fail to understand is the purpose behind the amendment, and what that amendment means. For that, my suggestion would be to take a history class or read a few Constitution-focused books. As I look at it, the right to bear arms was instrumental in providing the founding citizens of America a way to fight British rule. In essence, it gives power to the people to fight back against violent oppression from an overpowering government. It is a deathly ultimate check and balance- citizens and government.

Imagine if firearms were completely banned and there was a citizen uprising against taxes, or a war effort, or economic hardship. Citizens with rocks and sticks can’t argue with an M4 assault rifle. Banning firearms unevenly weighs the power on the government side, which will eventually lead to the government working against the people, rather than for it.

Is Starbucks right? I think so. I think that this debate should be left to the courts and lawmakers. It isn’t going to be won by picketing a store or threatening boycotts.

Random Stuff:

Statistic from CDC: 2006 Unintentional Deaths from Firearms: 642. 200 or so less than in 1998. Violent deaths from firearms in 2007 (16 states reporting): 7,942. Total violent deaths in 2007: 16,358.

DrugWarFacts.org (http://drugwarfacts.org/cms/?q=node/30) show 2000 numbers of firearm incidences to be 29,000.

http://freestudents.blogspot.com/2007/04/penn-teller-on-gun-control.html (I haven’t watched it, but Penn J. is pretty objective.)