The American Spectator : Clingin' in Pittsburgh

Text Size

Clingin' in Pittsburgh

Reflections on guns and religion, and a Goldendoodle at Starbucks.

It took only a few seconds the other day to see how candidate Obama got the idea that we have a propensity in Pennsylvania to "cling to guns and religion."

I was in the lobby of the Jefferson Regional Medical Center in the outskirts of Pittsburgh leafing through a stack of magazines on the reading table. There was one copy each of Woman's Day and House Beautiful, but no Forbes, Newsweek or National Geographic. Everything else was guns and religion!

What first caught my attention, because I had just purchased two small fig trees at Lowes a few days earlier, was an article in the Believer's Voice of Victory about a fig tree on the road to Jerusalem back in Biblical times.

The parable told of a fig tree that didn't bear fruit for the hungry travelers and stated that man will not eat fruit from the fig tree "hereafter forever." I'm no Bible scholar, so I'm not sure if that meant that all future fig trees would be barren, or just that one tree, or if it meant that we should abstain from eating figs.

Either way, the tags on my new trees says I'll be getting figs by September, but I don't know who to believe -- Lowes or the Believer's Voice. And if the figs do happen to show up, I not sure I won't get hit by lightning if I eat one (remember the apple?). It's probably best to stick with peaches.

The gun magazines included an issue of America's First Freedom. Among the ads for combat pistols and ammo, there was a "Viva La Starbucks" editorial praising the refusal of Starbucks to ban legally carried firearms in their stores, despite threatened boycotts by gun control advocates.

The editorial quoted Boston Globe columnist Derrick Jackson as saying, "If Starbucks wants to run Wild West caffeine saloons, the least it can do is provide gunsmoking and nongunsmoking sections."

I wonder if Derrick considered that, just like second-hand smoke, bullets travel. Some nut could shoot right through the glass of the pastry case, past the blueberry crumb cakes, and straight into the hot coffee cup of some motor-mouth liberal who's arguing that the Second Amendment is obsolete.

Actually, Derrick has a point. If you think alcohol is a problem, you should see the minefields created by the over-caffeinated characters at my local Starbucks. The baristas have been reported to corporate headquarters in California for allegedly siding with the Democrats, and one guy has been banished by the regulars for sitting his Goldendoodle on the patio chairs. When he left, rumors flew that he had stuffed his big dog into his trunk.

Taking umbrage, the Doodle's owner called corporate to say his dog couldn't sit on the patio floor due to the other guys' discarded butts. Corporate sent him a gift certificate, which he said he'll wear pinned to his shirt forever. So far, no shots have been fired.

Understandably, people worry about individual acts of gun violence, but history shows that it's far more dangerous when governments strip citizens of the right to defend themselves.

On November 11, 1938, the day after Kristallnacht in Germany, when the windows of stores owned by Jews were smashed, a new gun control was signed, including a provision that banned knives and clubs: "Jews are prohibited from acquiring, possessing, and carrying firearms and ammunition, as well as truncheons and stabbing weapons."

Permitted to "cling" to those weapons, millions might have been saved.

About the Author

Ralph R. Reiland is the B. Kenneth Simon professor of free enterprise and an associate professor of economics at Robert Morris University in Pittsburgh.

Letter to the Editor View all comments (26) | Leave a comment

Dr_X| 8.31.10 @ 7:25AM

I’ll have to track down Dr. Reiland and ask him to be a reader for my dissertation.
I just assumed that you had to be a leftist to be a facility member. Maybe that is why he is ONLY an associate and not a university professor!

Tomas| 8.31.10 @ 2:21PM

I guess the leftists feel they own Starbucks, too. Hence the furor over the Pennsylvania policy.

Remember Jeanne Assam, the security guard at the New Life Church in Colorado Springs? She had a concealed weapons permit. And because of that - and her carrying her gun to church - Matthew Murray was not able to waste dozens of people, as was his intent. She was in the lobby, and popped him (probably three taps) after he got his first rounds off.

We have a cop attending our church. Obviously, he has a permit, and he packs it; we see his gun under his shirt every Sunday. Are we frightened of this gun? Yeah, right. We're glad he's there. He sits in the back... no one's going to waste our church.

Cigarette butts on the ground have always been disgusting. But they're no excuse for putting your dog in the trunk. The butts are just gross, not deadly. And no dog is going to eat them, much less sit on them. Thy stink.

BTW, Goldendoodles rock. As do Labradoodles, Spinones, and Border Collies.

Ret. Marine| 8.31.10 @ 8:12AM

When properly educated, people understand the second amendment rights, when properly utilized a reasonable people understand the power in their hands the gun represents. It is not up to the people who disrespect the rights of man to defend himself to be so loud and busy trying to take away that right, when in fact one hardley hears of a person "preventing, or subdueing a person about to commit a violent crime, or even killing" the person in any form of public forum, with the execption of gun magazines. Yet they are the first ones to blame the gun for the killing of innocence at the hands of a lunitic or deranged person doing the dasterdly deed. Guns don't kill people, people kill people. The gun, like any other tool, has it's purpose, and it's purpose is to defend. It is my God given right to prevent the act of murder by killing the person who does not understand my right to defend myself, others in my location, or for that matter, a government who thinks it has the right to act like GOD. Any questions?

Ken Old Texican)| 8.31.10 @ 8:13AM

government guns around the world have murdered more people than the other criminal murderors have.
DON'T FORGET IT!

Louis Jenkins| 8.31.10 @ 8:29AM

Guns and Crime! Oh my! The Second Amendment stands thanks to the Supreme Court. How much longer? It should stand forever. But make no mistake, the gun grabbers are out there. Starbucks is the one place I would have never guessed was gun friendly. This otherwise Gun Control Central has moved up a notch in my opinion. So have a cup of coffee, and keep your ammo dry, we're going to need it.

Petronius| 8.31.10 @ 9:39AM

Just remember, Illinois has no concealed carry and there's more blood in the streets of Chicago than anywhere else.

Dave In California| 8.31.10 @ 11:08AM

Louis Jenkins, Starbucks is NOT gun friendly. In fact they have contributed to many anti-gun causes. However, they are most certainly pro state and federal law, and have made a strong stance to follow the law....even if it means allowing law-abiding citizens to legally carry guns into their stores. Bless them for that.

Joe Oliva| 8.31.10 @ 12:15PM

Don't get too excited about having our gun rights intact, because they are not!

The entire purpose of the Second Amendment was to make sure the people could defend themselves against a tyrannical government. If you think for one minute that a bunch of us running around with shotguns and 357 mag. revolvers will save the nation, you are nuts.

How could we stand up against machine guns, hand grenades, night vision goggles, bullet proof vests, helicopters, drones, etc. etc. etc.? And furthermore, where do you think we could hide while we train with ourselves and the newbies? Is there any place we could go to escape the ever seeing eyes in the sky?

The entire Second Amendment argument is a scam and until we are allowed to possess the same weapons as the government, we are no threat to the corrupt elites who are stealing our inheritance! At least Washington had the same weaponry as old King George's boys. We are out manned and outgunned . The first thing a conservative majority in congress should do is eliminate all laws regarding guns of any type, including assault weapons. Then, if push comes to shove, we might stand a chance.

Even if it came down to that and we had the weapons, the unanswered question is: Will the military, which trains its people to follow orders, side with the people or the government, especially if they are told that these people in the streets are a terrorist threat to the Constitution? If you try to discuss that with a young soldier as he is telling you to put down your weapon, you will wind up dead. He will be trained to say to you, take your case up in the courts, but for right now, put down your weapon.

The idea of an armed revolution like we had in 1776 is not feasible. The gun rights we are now fighting for are good however for shooting the S.O.B. who is trying to break into your home and harm your family. But do not be under any illusion that we have our complete right to bear arms intact. We do not!

Ken (Old Texican)| 8.31.10 @ 1:40PM

Joe Oliva,

Fear not!

There are a hundred million of us patriots...and a couple of thousand "Ruling Class" idiots.

PS: racoon hunters have night vision glasses.

Terry Lane| 8.31.10 @ 1:50PM

Sorry Joe. The military and LEO's are trained to obey LAWFUL orders. Don't know which soldiers and LEOs you associate with but of the many hundreds of LEOs and military I know, very few would obey an unlawful order to disarm a law abiding citizen.
As for rag tag citizens not being able to compete with well equipped military, look to Afganistan against the great Soviet war machine. Take care.

Louis Jenkins| 8.31.10 @ 2:25PM

You may still buy the armament that the "Soldjas" carry. It just takes a bit of cash. As is said, 'coon hunters have night vision and the military is having a dickens of a time dealing with Afganhistan. I think naught that an armed citizen can go up against a Bradley Fighting Vehicle, nor against a company of fighting military men. But then, who in their right mind would want to. There is part of our military that would not follow an illegal order, much like having a coffee at Star Bucks. Where the 'cops' in N.O. the real deal, or where they rental 'cops?' I just read an a post that said there were so many LE officers roaming around the flooded wastelands of N.O. it was hard to tell.

Larry in Iowa| 8.31.10 @ 2:51PM

One of the comforts I have in these times is the knowledge that the vast majority of military personnel come from the red states and most of the others are red staters at heart.

I spent a career in the military and am fairly familiar with the mindset of military officers. They took an oath and most took it, and take it, seriously.

Pete| 8.31.10 @ 4:34PM

Amen. No amount of "not asking, not telling" or other BS changes are going to change that any time soon.

Joe Oliva| 8.31.10 @ 5:06PM

I hope you guys are correct, but if you can remember the Kent State fiasco, no matter the political side of the protesters, they were unarmed.

I do however have faith that most American soldiers would not fire upon their fellow citizens. Maybe it won't come to that, we shall see.

Texas Mom| 8.31.10 @ 12:51PM

You just have to remember Katrina to know that the government is one disaster away from forcibly taking the guns you have now. I will never forget the film of the 70 year old woman having the only means of protection she had in the mist of all that looting and lawlessness in the aftermath of Katrina.

Texas Mom| 8.31.10 @ 12:53PM

Whoops posted a little too quick...Correction:

You just have to remember Katrina to know that the government is one disaster away from forcibly taking the guns you have now. I will never forget the film of the 70 year old woman having the only means of protection THAT she OWNED FORCIBLY TAKEN FROM HER BY POLICE in the mist of all that looting and lawlessness in the aftermath of Katrina.

Joe Oliva| 8.31.10 @ 1:00PM

Exactly Texas Mom. Where the hell did these police get the right to take the woman's weapon?

Terry Lane| 8.31.10 @ 1:54PM

They had no right. Bad cops are bad cops wherever and whenever they are. No LEO I know would do the same. Take care.

Richard| 8.31.10 @ 2:28PM

Simple question for those who claim to be conservative. Does a property owner have the right to determine whether he/she/it (in the case of a corporation) will or will not allow guns on his/her/its property? Please don't confuse the issue with whether guns, outlaws, immigrants, or al qaeda terrorists kill people. Simply this: does a property owner have the right to determine what activities can or cannot occur on its property?

Terry Lane| 8.31.10 @ 2:46PM

Under the doctrine of competing harms (right of property owner vs. right of individual defense of life) I'd say no, unless a very good case could be made for denying a God given and constitutional ly affirmed right. I personally could never bring myself take away a law abiding citizen's right to self protection any more than I'd like mine taken away. Take care.

Larry in Iowa| 8.31.10 @ 2:57PM

Sure they do. And we have the right to not patronize those establishments.

Another question, do those companies that restrict their customers and employees from protecting themselves also assume a responsibility to protect them? If I, as a concealed weapon permit holder, am restricted from carrying my weapon and some nut shoots up the place killing or wounding me, do I or my heirs have a cause of action against them? If not, then why not?

Terry Lane| 8.31.10 @ 3:28PM

As I said above, in theory, I don't believe a property owner can deny a God given and Constitutionally affirmed right. That being said, I always honor the owner's request and not enter his/hers/its property.

Jim Brown| 9.1.10 @ 9:03AM

Maybe it is a form of dyslexia but when I see signs on doors saying an establishment is a "gun free zone" I read "free fire zone for crazies who fear return fire".

I have told several store owners/managers that standing in their doorway to explain why I will not come into their store.

Sarge| 9.1.10 @ 1:29PM

Don't worry 'bout your fig trees. Jesus prophesied that Israel (the fig tree) would become desolate because she rejected her Messaiah, until the full number of the gentiles are come in (Romans 11:25).

REB| 9.1.10 @ 10:44PM

We dont nessesarily need the same weapons the military has to engage them if need be,but direct confrontation is not always the best strategy. Sometimes enough persons running around starting "brush fires" is all it would take to stop a superior force.
And the other point is why do people suppose that patriots dont have in their possession the means to utterly destroy a tank or a Bradley? Understand for certain they do; and they also possess the ability to use said weapons!
If God forbid push ever comes to shove all bets are off because Americans who love liberty are mean,as mean as they come,regardless of what some anti freedom liberals in DC might believe,I wouldnt want to be in uniform going against true woodsmen fighting for freedom,no sir!

Dave In California| 9.8.10 @ 11:42AM

"As I said above, in theory, I don't believe a property owner can deny a God given and Constitutionally affirmed right. That being said, I always honor the owner's request and not enter his/hers/its property."

Terry Lane, the Constitution is what the GOVERNMENT is allowed to do. The Bill of Rights is what they CANNOT do.

The Constitution does not limit what a private person on their own property can say or do. If the property owner does not want guns there, that is his right as the owner and his fully legal stance, and it is YOUR obligation to honor his decision.

If this property is a business, he has the right to evict you from the premises for any reason. It is also YOUR right to not do any business with him, and to go to a more gun friendly establishment.

As for the military, we are only obliged to follow legal and Constitutional orders.