TexasCHLforum.com

jmra wrote:

rbwhatever1 wrote:

jmra wrote:

rbwhatever1 wrote:Starbucks and Guns. Private Property their choice.

I believe Mr Schultz missed the entire US Constitution in his letter. Perhaps he's not read it.

Actually I think he understands it better than most. He was forced to make a business decision that he didn't want to make because of a few stupid people. Don't blame him, blame the stupid people.

The Beauty Of True Liberty given to us all from our Founders. One cannot infringe on a free mans god given right to be armed because one does not like arms just as one cannot silence a free mans speech because one doesn't like the topic. My natural right "to be" outweighs Mr. Schultz "perceived right" to feel good about some "frivolous gun debate" that shouldn't be. I will not force my will on any man to "be armed" and no man will force their will on me to be "unarmed". This is Liberty and the U.S Constitution, written by better men, guarantees my natural right to bear arms will not be infringed. "Come and Take Them" has true meaning in the history of man throughout the ages. Our forefathers understood this and have handed us all a beautiful Constitution to preserve our Freedom...

If one becomes alarmed by the sight of a Law Abiding American bearing Arms one should move to a Country that has abolished this Natural Right of Free men. Politicians and Judges Included...

None of which has anything to do with a bunch of stupid people with guns making very poor decisions that will ultimately result in less places you can carry.

jmra wrote:

rbwhatever1 wrote:Starbucks and Guns. Private Property their choice.

I believe Mr Schultz missed the entire US Constitution in his letter. Perhaps he's not read it.

Actually I think he understands it better than most. He was forced to make a business decision that he didn't want to make because of a few stupid people. Don't blame him, blame the stupid people.