i will still eat there, because my son and I love their chicken and don't care for the muppets. I think the business with the recall sign posted is a little fishy. I debated this a little on facebook this morning. We don't know for sure that kids did not get their finger stuck in the toys. My son has gotten his finger stuck in toys on multiple occasions, however why not just state that they were recalled, that is the truth. I personally don't think CEO did anything wrong. I support gay rights and I don't care who gets married, but chick fil A has never changed their stance or beliefs and this is no different. He was asked a question and gave an honest answer.
Grace, I couldn't agree more. I believe you're absolutely right. Thank you for sharing your opinion. I know others may not agree, but I do. Also, thank you for pointing out the fact that had someone else actually had a weapon in an auditorium full of people, that the number of injured and dead could have been higher. More guns does not necessarily equal more safety. Especially in these types of situations.
I believe the idea that if everyone is armed, fewer people will get hurt is an absolute myth. People involved in an unexpected shooting, panic, don't know where the shots are coming from, and can't read the scene accurately. The one person with a gun at the Gabby Gifford event almost killed one of the rescuers. Fortunately, he had sense to realize he didn't know enough about where the shooting was coming from to use his weapon. The attacker was brought down by a 60+ YO woman when he stopped to reload. The worst aspect of the Aurora situation was the shooter had a 100 bullet clip. He never had to reload and the bullets were going everywhere. Lots of people were wearing costumes. The victims had no idea at first who the shooter was or how many there were. If he had had to stop to reload, everyone in the place would have rushed him and brought him down. If other people had pulled out guns, there would have been a lot more injuries and deaths and a lot of people living with that guilt. The simple fact is we don't need assault rifles or hundred bullet clips. You don't need that firepower to hunt, to defend your family or even to bear arms against a tyrannical government. You can say that banning assault weapons and hundred bullet clips impacts your freedom. What about MY freedom to go the movies without going through a metal detector. If one more such incident happens, I guarantee that we will be looking at xrays and metal detectors at the movie theater, at the grocery store. Sometimes a few must have their freedom restricted for legitimate reasons (because they own a lethal weapon), so the rest of us can remain free. I don't believe that the 2nd amendment trumps the pursuit of happiness and the idea of getting my purse and body screened everywhere I go does not make me happy.
When President and CEO of Chick-fil-A Dan Cathy came out against marriage equality I was not the least bit surprised. If I had actually liked their food a lot I might have still eaten there in the future. I probably eat lots of places that don't necessarily agree with every political view I share, but I still get hungry. What strikes me as humurous is the recent move by Chick-fil-A to claim they are voluntarily recalling the toys due to "safety" issues because children's fingers are.... ....wait, it is so hard to say this with a straight face.... ....getting stuck in the finger puppets. LMAO. Are you f#@%ing serious? You didn't want to tell your public the truth so you decided to lie about it, and this... ....THIS was the best you could possibly come up with? Why do they honestly expect people to believe this crap? What do they put in their chicken for flavoring? STUPID pills? I find it absolutely hilarious that their self-righteousness will not allow them to destroy the sanctity of marriage, but hey, it's still okay to LIE. Right? If I never eat at a Chick-fil-A again it will not be because of their moral views of "traditional" marriage, but because their food wasn't that good anyway, and no... ...not every consumer of your food is that F#$@ING STUPID!!!
This reply is for Ryan's earlier response. Now, Ryan, you have suggested that there is some sort of difference between the words “militia” and “people” as it is written and used in the Constitution and subsequent amendments known as the Bill of Rights. While there may in fact be a definitional difference between the two words there is no difference in how our founding fathers meant to use them in terms of constitutional language.
mi·li·tia
[mi-lish-uh] Show IPA
noun
1. a body of citizens enrolled for military service, and called out periodically for drill but serving full time only in emergencies.
Oxford Dictionary of the US Military:
militia
n. 1. a military force that is raised from the civil population to supplement a regular army in an emergency.
2. a military force that engages in rebel or terrorist activities, typically in opposition to a regular army.
3. all able-bodied civilians eligible by law for military service.
The following is an excerpt from the United States section of the term “militia” from Wikipedia.org
“In colonial era Anglo-American usage, militia service was distinguished from military service in that the latter was normally a commitment for a fixed period of time of at least a year, for a salary, whereas militia was only to meet a threat, or prepare to meet a threat, for periods of time expected to be short. Militia persons were normally expected to provide their own weapons, equipment, or supplies, although they may later be compensated for losses or expenditures.”
The following is Section 4 of the Militia Act of 1792. It was ratified by Congress May 2, 1792 and signed by President George Washington. It specifically states the difference between the militia (a body of armed and trained citizens which may be called to regular service) as opposed to troops (the regular army of the United States also known as the Continental Army).
Sec. 4. And be it further enacted, That the militia employed in the service of the United States, shall receive the same pay and allowances, as the troops of the United States, who may be in service at the same time, or who were last in service, and shall be subject to the same rules and articles of war: And that no officer, non-commissioned officer or private of the militia shall be compelled to serve more than three months in any one year, nor more than in due rotation with every other able-bodied man of the same rank in the battalion to which be belongs.
This act was an immediate response to the Whiskey Rebellion of 1791 in which the Continental Army was not sufficient in arms to suppress the rebellion and required the additional services of the state militias (citizens aka “people“) in order to quell the protests. Unlike the regular standing armies these “people” were later relieved of their military duties and allowed to return to their civilian lives.
The fact is that a militia is a group of able bodied armed men who could be called into service by their state and federal governments to supplement the standing army. To further prove that point I will show the following excerpt from the Constitution of the United States Article II Section 2:
Section. 2.
The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States
When our founding fathers used the distinct language of the two terms in the same sentence of the Second Amendment they did so deliberately to cover both parties, but make no mistake, that they were in fact one in the same. Militia personnel did not grow on trees, magically appear, and to my knowledge were not commissioned by Darth Tyranus to be cloned by the Kaminoans. They were normal people and citizens called to service in times of emergency and impending war. Do not forget that the very same founding fathers that drafted, ratified, and signed these documents were also responsible for the very same language later used in the Militia Act.
Sarah, after reading yours and Grace's responses I see that I was a little vague in my rivalry description. Basically the left side is for those who do agree that some regulation is necessary to the safety of normal every day citizens. The right side is really for those who believe that less or very little regulation is necessary. I apologize for the confusion.
All I really want to say is we choose to keep what is ours. We choose to be gun owners and don't want the government telling us we can't. If this was left up to we the people as a vote, it would not be an issue. There is a reason gun sales sky rocketed After the Colorado tragedy. People know that the bad guys will always find a way to do bad things and if we have no way to protect ourselves they will always win. I do agree that we need some stricter regulations on who purchases guns, how long the waiting period is and how many you can buy in a time period. Al. Maybe I don't fully understand the context of this debate.
I'm not on the fence at all about the need to regulate firearms. We have basic needs for food and employment that are common to all and that almost always involves a car but because car use, if not properly regulated, is a dangerous weapon, we have regulations on their use and the driver must demonstrate basic mastery of the car. And yet someone mentally ill can purchase an assault weapon and six thousand rounds of ammunition. Demonstrating competency is not in conflict with the right to bear arms. An assault rifle can kill 12their and injure 57. You eon't kill that many with a car unless you run a bus off a cliff. You might argue that you shouldn't place conditions on a right, in which case I must ask, do you support votet ID to enjoy the right to vote. And how about the right to the oursuit of happiness, which is what gay couples are seeking in a legal marriage. What about the right to just go to a movie and not be a duck in a shooting gallery for a militia of one eho is bearing arms against the shadowy enemies from his own twisted mind?
Don't get me wrong I LOVE Breaking Bad but it isn't doing it for me this season like it did last season. We have seen two so far and its just not as good.
I will definitely be looking out when I am at the theaters and will be thinking of this tragic event. It really makes you think because it could happen to any of us. I also heard there were threats made at other theaters. People are so sick!
http://www.businessinsider.com/chick-fil-a-recalls-muppet-toys-after-jim-henson-co-diss-2012-7
mi·li·tia
[mi-lish-uh] Show IPA
noun
1. a body of citizens enrolled for military service, and called out periodically for drill but serving full time only in emergencies.
Oxford Dictionary of the US Military:
militia
n. 1. a military force that is raised from the civil population to supplement a regular army in an emergency.
2. a military force that engages in rebel or terrorist activities, typically in opposition to a regular army.
3. all able-bodied civilians eligible by law for military service.
The following is an excerpt from the United States section of the term “militia” from Wikipedia.org
“In colonial era Anglo-American usage, militia service was distinguished from military service in that the latter was normally a commitment for a fixed period of time of at least a year, for a salary, whereas militia was only to meet a threat, or prepare to meet a threat, for periods of time expected to be short. Militia persons were normally expected to provide their own weapons, equipment, or supplies, although they may later be compensated for losses or expenditures.”
The following is Section 4 of the Militia Act of 1792. It was ratified by Congress May 2, 1792 and signed by President George Washington. It specifically states the difference between the militia (a body of armed and trained citizens which may be called to regular service) as opposed to troops (the regular army of the United States also known as the Continental Army).
Sec. 4. And be it further enacted, That the militia employed in the service of the United States, shall receive the same pay and allowances, as the troops of the United States, who may be in service at the same time, or who were last in service, and shall be subject to the same rules and articles of war: And that no officer, non-commissioned officer or private of the militia shall be compelled to serve more than three months in any one year, nor more than in due rotation with every other able-bodied man of the same rank in the battalion to which be belongs.
This act was an immediate response to the Whiskey Rebellion of 1791 in which the Continental Army was not sufficient in arms to suppress the rebellion and required the additional services of the state militias (citizens aka “people“) in order to quell the protests. Unlike the regular standing armies these “people” were later relieved of their military duties and allowed to return to their civilian lives.
The fact is that a militia is a group of able bodied armed men who could be called into service by their state and federal governments to supplement the standing army. To further prove that point I will show the following excerpt from the Constitution of the United States Article II Section 2:
Section. 2.
The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States
When our founding fathers used the distinct language of the two terms in the same sentence of the Second Amendment they did so deliberately to cover both parties, but make no mistake, that they were in fact one in the same. Militia personnel did not grow on trees, magically appear, and to my knowledge were not commissioned by Darth Tyranus to be cloned by the Kaminoans. They were normal people and citizens called to service in times of emergency and impending war. Do not forget that the very same founding fathers that drafted, ratified, and signed these documents were also responsible for the very same language later used in the Militia Act.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/militia?s=t&ld=1065
http://www.answers.com/topic/militia
http://www.constitution.org/mil/mil_act_1792.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia#Twentieth_Century
http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html