Category Archives: Business

“If you don’t win, cheat”; that’s the Chicago way

“If you don’t win, cheat”; that’s the Chicago way

From the city that gave us Barack Obama, Al Capone and the term “Chicago Politics” now gives us a mash up of all three in order to fight against the recent ruling recognizing Chicagoan’s right to keep and bear arms.

The Chicago City council has taken it upon themselves to try and infringe and limit the newly recognized right within their city by any means necessary.  By using coercion and threats the thugs of the City Council are forcing the owners of businesses that serve alcohol to place a sign in their window banning guns on the premises.

That doesn’t mean just bars, anyplace that serves alcohol will be forced to acquiesce to the whims of the City Council.  This includes restaurants, hotels, bars, clubs, sporting venues, carnivals and festivals etc. Though liquor and grocery stores are exempt.

The stance on this matter is reminiscent of a scene in the Godfather when Michael speaks of the time his father and Luca Brazzi give the bandleader a choice

The city council’s Consigliere in this case is Donal Quinlan who said:

“What we’re essentially doing is making it mandatory for establishments to exercise that right to say, ‘No guns here’. We can’t regulate guns, but we can revoke their liquor license if they don’t exercise that right.

There are so many things wrong with that statement it boggles the mind. If you are making it mandatory to do something you are not allowing people to exercise that right, you are actually doing the opposite.  

I have the right to vote for a candidate, but if you force me to vote for them if i don’t want to that doesn’t mean I’m exercising my right, it means I am being crushed under a tyrannical heel.  This is how third world dictatorships operate.

And the fact that the Chicago City Council has to threaten people in order to get their way because the courts ruled against them is both disgusting and unethical.  Though I guess that is business as usual in Chicago. 

Somehow, the City Council of Chicago, the murder capital of America with over 1200 murders and countless shootings over the past 30 months , believes what; that by harassing business owners and infringing upon a persons right to protect themselves these shootings will stop?

Then again, gun control isn’t about stopping crime…it’s about control…and Chicago and the politicians it produces are all about control, freedom and choice be damned.

How’s Obamacare working for everyone?  I guess Obama learned that trick back in Chi-town.



How the Kenyan Mall Massacre Can Easily Happen in the US…Thanks Gun Control

How the Kenyan Mall Massacre Can Easily Happen in the US…Thanks Gun Control

Last week Islamic Terrorists stormed the Westgate shopping mall in Nairobi, Kenya killing at least 68 people.  Four days later, the armed men have continued to hold off police attempts to retake the mall.

These terrorists executed anyone who wasn’t a muslim or couldn’t answer questions about Islam such as what Muhammed’s mother’s name was or couldn’t recite passages from the Koran.

The first thing I could think of is how easily that could happen here.  The second was how did it happened in Kenya in the first place?

The answer is the fallacy of gun control.

A quick run down of gun control measures in Kenya:

  • The Washington DC National Commission on the Causes and Prevention of Violence categorizes the regulation of guns in Kenya as restrictive.
  • The right to private gun ownership is not guaranteed by law
  • Civilians are not allowed to possess semi-automatic self-loading military assault rifles of 7.62mm or 5.56mm calibre, or of any other calibre from time to time specified by the Minister, or firearms fitted with sound suppressors
  • Private possession of fully automatic weapons is prohibited
  • Carrying a handgun either openly or concealed while in a public place is prohibited.

With all these gun control laws, how is it that the terrorists were able to enter the “Gun Free Zone” that is Westgate Mall and execute the non-believers?

Because the ones executed were the only ones who were following the law.

The terrorist didn’t care about gun bans or not carrying in public or pretty much any of the nonsense that gun control fosters.

Could a group of armed citizens have stopped the attack completely and saved everyone’s life?  Doubtful, but they could have saved some lives by at least making it difficult for the terrorists or at the very least have died on their feet rather than on their knees.

Could this happen in America?  Absolutely. And rather easily too.

A great number of shopping malls fall under the fallacy of “Gun Free Zones” so the terrorists can target high trafficked areas with little resistance.  This incident also showed how effective a nationwide “assault” weapons ban is, so even if they couldn’t buy their AK-47’s legally here, they could always just swing by Mexico and pick up some that the Obama administration smuggled down.

Speaking of Mexico, the country where money talks and blind eyes are turned, it would be a simple matter for terrorists to arm up with all the automatic weapons they want and simply sneak across the border unchallenged.

Once slipping through our unsecured southern border they would simply stroll over to California (the nearest gun control utopia) and rain bloody murder down upon the disarmed innocent people going about their shopping.

Malls are also great places to hole up in too.  An abundance of food and supplies to wait out a siege, take hostages, defend against assault etc.

Of course, if 20 or 30 terrorists storm a mall in Texas or Arizona they may quickly find themselves outnumbered.  And the great thing about malls that appeal to the terrorists would benefit the US citizens.  Places to hide for an ambush, to bide their time, avenues for escape etc.

When you have to go store to store looking for someone the effectiveness of your rifle is mitigated and the law abiding citizen with the pistol has the advantage at close range.

That is, of course, if he is ALLOWED to have his weapon in the mall.

After all, Colorado used to be a pretty pro gun spot, yet the Aurora movie theater was a “Gun Free” zone and that only stopped the people who didn’t want to murder everyone from carrying a gun.

As gun control is want to do, it is the mass shooters and terrorists best friend.  Either here or abroad the song remains the same.

Gun Control and Gun Free Zones should be as vilified as those they empower to commit these heinous crimes.

Do Open Carriers ruin it for us all?

Do Open Carriers ruin it for us all?

I have found in the years I have been involved in the firearms and 2nd Amendment community that often times gun owners are their own worst enemy.

From that statement you might assume that I mean open carriers metaphorically shoot themselves in the foot because they make waves.  Unless you are an open carrier, then you might assume that I mean that close minded concealed carry only folk are causing a fracture in the firearms community.

It should be no surprise to those who subscribe to this site and those who know me personally where I fall in the OC vs CC debate.  Back in July I penned an article entitled:  Open Carry Should Not Only Be Legal, But Encouraged.

Of course, open carrying is back in the news because Starbucks CEO Howard Shultz recently came out saying that guns are no longer welcome at the coffee shops.  The vitriol I see from gun owners who hate the idea of open carrying is as prevalent and heated, if not moreso, than that coming from gun controllers.

So did open carrying cause this move?

Yes and no.  I never attended a “Starbucks Appreciation Day”, gun on hip.  I just simply went to Starbucks on occasion with my gun on my hip and ordered my Chai Tea Latte, drank it, then left.

So did I and the tens of thousand other open carriers force Starbucks to quasi-change their policy? (remember Starbucks isn’t banning guns, just telling you they aren’t welcome but won’t kick you out).

Doubtful.  What did it, were the big to-do’s about it.  The pomp and ceremony of making a big deal out of it.  Which of course caused the gun controllers to try and match it.  They failed of course, but still got media coverage for their anemic efforts because that’s the way the press works.

So yes, the in your face, i’m armed and i’m proud, pushing the envelope attitude of some open carriers probably made Howard Shultz’s left coast hippie friends push for him to do something and so he did.

Kinda blew up in the OCers’ faces.

Fortunately (sarcasm) we have the CC-only crowd waiting in the wings to dog pile on and fracture those who support the 2nd Amendment.

It’s funny, as I started writing this article I was fully prepared to side against the in-your-face OC activists.  I open carry because I prefer it, because I am against the need to have a permit for a Constitutional right, and I believe in passive activism.

Yet, the more I thought about it the more I realized that sometimes you need to push the envelope.  You need to make some noise and some waves and push some buttons.

For those hating on the OCer’s for doing so I imagine them as the southern blacks who 50 some years ago decried Rosa Parks and Martin Luther King Jr as uppity and were happy at the back of the bus.

Sometimes. in the course of demanding what is right you have to make noise in order to be heard.

Was Starbucks the right venue to hold this proxy war between Pro-Gun and Anti-Liberty parties?  Probably not.  But i’m not gonna cut down those willing to be vocal because it rocks the boat a little.

Speaking of Starbucks, maybe neutrality isn’t good enough.  Welcome gun owners and accept our money, ban us and lose our business…but make a choice.

So do Open Carriers ruin it for us all?  I guess…the same way Rosa Parks ruined riding the bus.


Starbucks CEO Shultz wants his overpriced macchiato and drink it too regarding guns

Starbucks CEO Shultz wants his overpriced macchiato and drink it too regarding guns

I never said Starbucks had to be pro-gun.

I completely accepted and respected their not taking a position in the gun/no-gun conversation with regards to their store.

Respecting state law in regards to whether firearms were allowed in their stores seemed perfectly reasonable and while I didn’t count them among business that support the 2nd Amendment outright I still appreciated the logical reason and lack of hostility they showed to gun owners.

CEO Howard Shultz basically crapped all over that.

I don’t want to mischaracterize Starbucks stance, they will not kick you out if you are carrying a firearm.

They just want you to know that you are not welcome in their store and they strongly advise you not to bring your firearm with you.

Apparently Shultz does not care for the numerous “Starbucks Appreciation Days” that 2nd Amendment supporters have been fostering.

That’s fine.  I for one WILL honor their request.  I mean, should a black man go to a Klan owned business that will serve them just because that business is legally forced too?  If Howard Shultz doesn’t want my patronage and is now openly hostile to me, then I will take my money to the other local cafe’s in Pittsburgh (and everywhere I travel) that don’t have a problem whatsoever with my 2nd Amendment rights.

Plus…they have better coffee that than overpriced swill at Starbucks.  Yeah..I know…easy to say now but seriously, there are better coffeehouses out there without the sneering condescension from their CEO’s.

Apparently many have agreed with me because the stock for Starbucks has plummeted so far today.

Starbucks Corporation

NASDAQ: SBUX – Sep 18 10:46am ET


This, after a steady and consistent rise ever since the first Starbucks Appreciation Day started in California back in 2009.

Starbucks Corporation

NASDAQ: SBUX – Sep 18 10:32am ET


I’ve no doubt that Startbucks would have continued on unencumbered with the patronage of gun owners if Shultz had just kept his trap shut but we gun owners tend to be a funny bunch.  We have this crazy notion that we want to spend our money on businesses that appreciate and respect us.

Now that Starbucks has made the official stance that it does not do either, I and many other gun owners will simply go elsewhere.

Ironically, I imagine that the gun control crowd that will champion Shultz’s words will not start to flock to Starbucks to show THEIR appreciation.  If the pictures of gun control rallies vs gun rights rallies is any indication.

I don’t know who got into Shultz’s ear about this but they probably need to be fired.  And no, not because of the gun issue.  Because this is just TERRIBLE business.  You decided to openly vent hostility towards the source of your company’s recent financial boom, yet don’t actually change your policy to fully satisfy the opposition who pushed for it in the first place.

A series of half measures and wishy-washiness pleases no one.  But, boneheaded as it is, if Starbucks wants me and the millions of other gun owners to take our money elsewhere in THIS economy…that is their prerogative.

Gun owners act with class…the hateful left acts with crass

Gun owners act with class…the hateful left acts with crass

Depending on where you live, the chances are you have come across those who disagree with your choice to exercise your right to keep and bear arms.  There is also a chance you have found businesses that do not recognize your 2nd Amendment rights.

There are plenty of those of the “tolerant” left who have causes they believe in as well.

The difference between in how gun owners react to rejection and the way those of the hateful left is quite telling.

If a business is anti-gun, we as gun owners will most likely avoid it in order to support another company that believes in the 2nd Amendment.  We’ll let others in our community know that a certain business is anti-gun and may even reach out to that business to let them know that they are losing business but it doesn’t extend further than that.

Then you have the hateful left, and I’m not talking about those stooges who impotently try to boycott Starbucks


but rather those hate mongering “tolerant” intellectuals.  Those that wish those who disagree with them to die, or their families to die are are threatening them directly with murder.


This kind of hateful rhetoric is not limited to the anti-gun zealots but rather to any person who dares disagree with an opinion of a hateful left member.

The most recent example of this is the vicious and continued attack by the hateful left against “Sweet Cakes By Melissa”.  What did the owners of the cake shop, Aaron and Melissa Klein, do that was so reprehensible to the hateful left?

They chose to not bake a cake for a lesbian wedding since, on religious grounds, they do not agree morally with a homosexual marriage.

While every gun owner I know and anyone who is not a member of the hateful left would have just found another place to have their cake baked and been content to know that Sweet Cakes lost business, the lesbian couple decided to sue in order to force the Klein’s to betray their own beliefs.

The courts in Oregon, being one of the west coast havens for the hateful left, ruled that the Klein’s had to invalidate their 1st Amendment right of freedom of religion and betray their religious belief in order to placate this lesbian couple.

I can only imagine if I went to a Muslim Bakery and demanded they put bacon into a cake.  Somehow I doubt the court would back me up on that in the same manner.

But on top of forcing a business owner to betray their own religious rights, the hateful left wanted to also punish the owners by threatening them until they decided to close their shop.

Threatening calls, letters promising violence and hateful posts on social media flooded the Kleins.  From proclamations that Aaron should be shot to one apparent threat that he be raped, the hate and angst being thrown the Klein family’s way is certainly serious in nature. Some have even wished for the couple’s five children to be stricken with illness.

One of the tamer ones:

“You stupid bible-thumping, hypocritical b**ch. I hope your kids get really, really, sick and you go out of business,”

That is the tolerance of the hateful left.  You are free to believe in anything you want…so long as you completely agree with them or else they will threaten you and your family.

The Klein’s, refusing to betray their values decided to close the doors to their business and move the operation to a home-based business.  That is called conviction and I salute them for it.  I wish them all the luck and congratulate them on staying true to their beliefs in the face of the ugly and hateful response by the hateful left.

As a vocal gun owner, I have been all too familiar with death threats and just vicious hateful trash being spewed at me from the sewers the hateful left calls mouths.

It is important as a gun owner, or as any rational and reasonable human being to avoid the violence and vitriol of the hateful left and in doing so showing the contrast to an outside party of what we stand for and what the hateful left stand for.

We stand for freedom…they stand for hate mongering and groupthink.

This holiday weekend, hit the shooting range and patron pro gun businesses…here’s how.


If, like many Americans you find yourself on a long weekend, be it near home or on a trip, here are 2 sites that you might want to consult in order to maximize your enjoyment this holiday.

For anyone who shoots on a regular basis you probably know where all the ranges are near your house.  But what about when you are visiting family or friends, or just out of town on vacation?

Well, if you are in need of finding a range to squeeze off some rounds look no further than

This site gives you a list of ranges that you can easily find either by state or zip code.  The site even breaks down the ranges by what they offer and provide, such as Archery, handgun, rifle, retail, rental, women or youth programs etc.

Not only that, if you have a range that you like and it is not listed, the site is a cooperative in which you can submit the range and bolster their catalog.

If you are like me, and considering how many “I like guns and coffee” folk read this blog many of you are, you like to patronize businesses that support your rights to keep and bear arms.  Or at the very least are not actively supporting the infringement of the 2nd Amendment.

While you may know of the businesses around you that have pro and anti gun policies when you are on a trip or vacation, how can you know that your businesses as a gun owner will be welcome?

The answer can be found at

This site is also a cooperative catalog of experiences and interactions that gun owners have had with businesses around the country.  Using google maps as their template, allows you to easily find businesses and read the experience and ratings that gun owners who have gone their before had.

While I admit that some areas are vastly underrepresented, it is a work in progress and as more gun owners utilize the site the information and number of businesses covered will improve.

All in all, have a fun safe and enjoyable holiday weekend.


Being Gay trumps being a Gun Owner in New Mexico

Being Gay trumps being a Gun Owner in New Mexico

The Supreme Court of New Mexico has ruled that, by refusing to photograph a gay wedding, a photography studio violated the law.

Long story short, private business owners, Jonathan and Elaine Huguenin don’t agree with gay marriage and chose not to provide photography services to a lesbian couple.

According to the New Mexico Supreme Court,the case

“teaches that at some point in our lives all of us must compromise, if only a little, to accommodate the contrasting values of others. A multicultural, pluralistic society, one of our nation’s strengths, demands no less.”

Compromise.  Funny, this doesn’t seem like a compromise but rather forcing a someone to do something they are diametrically opposed to.

The court goes on to say:

The owners of Elane Photography, Jonathan and Elaine Huguenin, “are free to think, to say, to believe, as they wish, yet in the world of the marketplace, of commerce, of public accommodation, the Huguenins have to channel their conduct, not their beliefs, so as to leave space for other Americans who believe something different.”

Doing so, Bosson said, is “the price of citizenship.”

Ok.  So the price of citizenship is being forced to run your private business in a manner you disagree with on a religious level.  Plus, the court has the hubris to actually geld the 1st Amendment by stating “you are free to say what you believe but it doesn’t matter as you have to still do as we say.”

And to liken this to Blacks being refused service in the south is a false analogy.  It would be more akin to the Ku Klux Klan hiring an all black photography studio to film a cross burning and having the courts force the studio to do it.

(and before you start with the “why would the Klan hire blacks?” talk, i don’t know what goes on in the minds of racists, maybe they’d like forcing blacks to serve them, whatever.  I mean, why didn’t the lesbian couple just find another photography studio instead of suing Elane?)

But speaking of refusing service to blacks in the south, there are civil rights abuses going on in New Mexico that line up more closely to it.

Every day over 22,000 New Mexicans have their civil rights violated by being refused service at businesses around the state by statute*.  They simply exercise their right to keep and bear arms yet are discriminated against by these businesses.  Peaceful refusal to accept this bigoted stance results in the civil rights activist facing a 4th Degree felony which carries an 18-month prison sentence and a $5000 fine.

I believe in the rights of a private business to refuse service if they so choose.  I believe they have a right to allow smoking in their establishment, to serve trans-fats and salt and wash it down with oversized beverages and in general dictate how their business is to be run.


If the New Mexico Supreme Court is ruling that, as a business owner, “the price of citizenship” is to “compromise your beliefs” and “leave space for other Americans who believe something different” then the statute allowing the banning of firearms in private businesses must be struck down.

And the 2nd Amendment is not a choice.  I was born this way, with the right to defend myself by use of martial arms and as such it is my civil right as an American to have that protected from bigoted anti-gun business owners.

Regrettably, I can’t help but feel that the New Mexico Supreme Court picks and chooses who they believe deserve to have their civil rights protected.  But who knows, maybe this is the verdict that brings down the state backed bigotry toward gun owners in New Mexico.



*NMSA 29-19-12 C. C.   provision of authority for a private property owner to disallow the carrying of a concealed handgun on the owner’s property;