Fish or cut cheese?

armed shoppers

Whole Food shoppers pick their poison

Our two senators have written from Washington, demanding that food stores, of all places, ban customers from carrying guns on their premises.

There is simply no reason someone would need to bring their gun with them in order to purchase milk, bread, or other necessities at a grocery store. Customers should feel safe while shopping, and employees should not be fearful while doing their jobs. 

You have the opportunity to take a strong stance in support of creating a safe, welcoming environment in Connecticut’s food retailers. Again, we urge you to implement a new policy that would prevent the open carry of guns in your member stores.

There would seem to be no obvious need to use a pistol to borrow a book, buy a pair of shoes or watch one’s car detailed, either, so this proposed ban is rather disingenuous -our senators want a ban on carrying guns, period. But carrying a weapon is about deterring crime, not causing it (except, of course, when it is, but those people are already banned from possessing guns) and has nothing to do with the everyday activity of shopping itself.

So why seek to protect the fish and the cheese counters, specifically? No reason at all, but a woman got upset the other day when she saw a pistol on the belt of a man reaching for a quart of milk, and freaked out. The dangerous character turned out to be a detective, but the “incident” spurred a drive to ban guns in food stores and our senators have seen a way to get their names in the news by joining the circus.

It’s just another opportunity to attack gun owners, again – safety has nothing to do with it, except in a negative way: when there is a need for a gun to protect fellow citizens, the gun won’t be there.



Filed under Uncategorized

8 responses to “Fish or cut cheese?

  1. AJ

    Yes, why not disarm the police. Cop Shoots Hostage Taker in the Head. A bold move and a clean shot. VIDEO.

  2. Libertarian Advocate

    when there is a need for a gun to protect fellow citizens, the gun won’t be there.

    …. Which is EXACTLY why Adam Lanza picked Sandy Hook Elementary to fulfill his slaughter fantasies AND why he was able to kill so many people before he ended the rampage on his terms. Of course, the logical thought processes needed to reach what should be an obvious conclusion – that “Gun Free Zones” are in fact massive low risk killing fields for the bad guys – no longer exist in the mental quivers of “progressive” minds. Politicians of course are perfectly happy to deprive the messy masses of their right to self-defense all of course in the name of “feeling safe.”

  3. Walt

    Dude –

    Gun free zones are killing zones. It’s proven they don’t work, and are in fact dangerous. So any politician pushing for more gun free zones is a moron. If the general public doesn’t have the right, or the need, to protect itself, why will the anti-gun poltico’s like Bloomberg and Hillary still need armed security? Why is it good for us, but not for them?

    We don’t need more gun laws. We need to enforce the gun laws we already have. All new gun laws only serve to further restrict the rights of law abiding citizens, and do NOTHING to stop criminals and crazies from getting guns. A gun free zone just provides them with more opportunities.

    Any moron could see that. You see it? Right?

    Your Pal,

  4. weakleyhollow

    I would like to see those two schmucks banned from being openly in Virginia. Just my two cents.

  5. just_looking

    and what is the gun owner suppose to do, leave the weapon in the car? Seems a bigger risk to leave weapon in car, for it to be stolen than to carry it on person.