OMGoodness Laura!
You've out done yourself. You've used a Pun instead of the Gun to get your point across. haha
"Concealed Carry-outs and Glockamole anyone?"
Indeed!
It is a shame we have 'Cultured Butter' but not Cultured Society. Good pont also as to 'what we value'.
There's the story of the Monk, who tells his disciple of the Two Wolves. The Evil one & the Good one, fighting.
"Which one shall win Master?" is the proverbial question.. The answer (as you have also shown) " It is the one that you feed." {in more ways than one.}

Oohhh, Butter Bob. Clever. I like how you write! "The one that you feed." Amen.

Carry-ots = carrots!

I think they stole it too

"1000 mass shootings since Sandy Hook. All by men, except one. Let’s stop selling guns to men until we figure out what the hell is going on with them."

Testosterone, being the worst drug for humanity, combined with stupidity and/or ignorance make for a bad combo. Thus I heartily endorse the above.

Cheddar scones? Make mine WITH butter, please.

"Testosterone, being the worst drug for humanity,..."

Yes, reproductive hormones are bad for the perpetuation of a species. Without testosterone we would have no human made problems...because we'd have no humans made ;)
Now about those people with green eyes....

Wow! Yet another blog filled with blather about how it's the guns fault that there are mass shootings. It is a fact that almost every (if not every) mass shooting has been in a 'gun free zone". Why is that?

Also, the last time I checked, France and England have some pretty stringent laws preventing their citizens from having ANY guns, let alone assault rifles, and yet France had a mass shooting; and a member of the British Government was just shot last week!

Criminals and terrorists will always find ways to get weapons to kill people because they don't respect human life, let alone laws passed by "intelligent progressives" who want to tell the rest of us how to live and always know what's best for everyone else.

The shooting in Orlando was done by an Islamic terrorist. He proclaimed why he was doing it and confessed the reasons for it while he was killing innocent people.

There was a story in the news today about a woman who killed an intruder in her home using a gun she legally owned. Guns are great equalizers for women in case they are attacked by a man, and many of the laws being considered will make it more difficult for women to legally obtain a gun as well as men.

I also found the comment you included about not selling guns to men, to be incredibly sexist! I know you didn't write it, but you made the choice to include it. But it's o.k. because you're politically correct, right?

The part that you anti-gun people don't get is that you can pass all the laws you want and the criminals will still get guns. Last year alone over 1000 guns were stolen from police officers in California! (No gun show loophole there!) Also, the last time I checked, mass murder was against the law, so why are people still committing murders if it's illegal?

We already have sufficient laws to restrict the legal access to criminals, but many of them are not enforced. More laws will only make it more difficult (if not impossible) for law abiding residents to protect themselves if they want to. You say that we can handle the complexity of new laws without endangering the Second Amendment, then in the next paragraph suggest that no men should be allowed to own guns! The problem is that progressives are never satisfied. They will just continue to chip away at the Second Amendment until no one can legally own any gun unless they work for the government.

Lastly, if the choice is which to make first, guns or butter, then the answer has to be guns. If you don't have a gun to protect yourself, then eventually someone is going to come and take your butter or something even more valuable. Unfortunately, we do not live in an ideal world. There will always be people willing to use force to take what they want from others and there will always be a need for people to use force to protect themselves or others. I don't like it any more than you do, but that is reality. Just ask any Jewish person who lived in Nazi Germany, or anyone from Eastern Europe who had to live under Russian rule.

Ahh, What2ndAmendment, I've been waiting for you! I've wondered if all Food Partiers! had gone soft.

I agree with you, another blog about guns - for or against - kind of been there done that. But we do need to make some moves. A majority of the country is on board with some basic gun law changes and it is a democracy.

I've been sitting on this blog since at least December's mass shooting. I knew it might be trite, but the butter tasting shot it to number one. It was time for Guns and Butter.

I love blogging current events with a food connection. My highest hopes would be the tactic brings new ways of looking and discussing subjects, and a lightness to do so. Thanks for your reply.

I really liked the Guns or Butter connection as a writer. Penne from Heaven made me laugh too though. And Brexfast? I think that one still has legs (eggs?), how about you?

Oh, and don't be so fast to put all those labels on me. You might be surprised.

But if you got pleasure calling me sexist - read Men Are Good For Three Things.

Actually Laura, I have read "Men are good for 3 things" but it was a long time ago so I went back and re-read it. I didn't have any problem with it then or now because I understood what you were trying to say by the way you were saying it, and it didn't mention abridging any of my Constitutional rights.

That being said, I would also like to point out that I didn't call you a sexist, nor would I enjoy doing so. If you re-read what I said, I pointed out that the comment itself was sexist and that because it comes from a politically correct viewpoint, it is o.k. to do so.

I would also remind you that we do not live in a Democracy ( which is at its most basic, majority or mob rule). We instead have (had?) a representative Republic, which has at it's core that the representatives are to uphold the Constitution. If a majority of people supported slavery would that make it o.k? In several States, the majority voted against legalizing gay marriage, did that make it right? Unfortunately, the majority of the people in this country know little about nor care what is in the Constitution and instead are informed by reality tv, twittter, and Hollywood talking heads who have their lines written for them by scriptwriters and are told what to do by directors.

I read most of your articles including the one (back in October I think) about the Top of the Mark. Based on what you wrote I actually went there and had a pretty pleasurable experience aside from the woman that got wasted and was screaming the whole time (Don't worry, if it had been a man acting like a jackass, I would have been equally miffed).

However, my point about the sexist comment is that it is acceptable to say things about certain groups of people ( i.e men or conservatives) and even attack them with impunity (see San Jose Trump rally) for no reason.

People keep telling me that California is so open minded and accepting of people, but that is only true if you agree with the politically correct dogma that has overtaken the state in the last 15 years. If it were just a few people or just an occasional occurrence, I would put it down to just a few ignorant people; but for me and most people who are not politically correct (or unable to hide it), we have to put up with abusive language and threats every day. So when I read a Blog that ostensibly covers food, and then am subjected to more abuse, forgive me if I take exception.

Yeah yeah yeah the criminals will supposedly get the guns if outlawed. Well fully automatic weapons are outlawed and yet somehow the criminals aren't out there robbing and assaulting with fully automatic weapons. Why? Because the risk/benefit of owning and using them doesn't make sense. Sure the gangs could get their hands on automatic assault weapons, RPG's, etc., as their infiltration of the military is known. So what we need to do is go on to ban ALL semi-automatic weapons, both pistols and rifles. If all legal guns were bolt/lever/revolver action and clips/magazines limited to 5, AND background checks, gun shows and internet sales integrated with such or outlawed, that would do wonders for bringing down the horrific gun homicide rate. But at the present, just as one example, 23% of the time when a shooting event happens at a hospital it's because the shooter got a gun from a security guard. Yet the NRA and their followers are vehemently opposed to smart guns (legal user wears a dedicated watch). With single action guns only anyone can still protect themselves, their home, and hunt. If one thinks that the 2nd Amendment exists so that an oppressed citizenry can overthrow a tyrannical government (or going bonkers over President Blackula) then they should have the courage of such convictions and argue for more civilian/military parity---advocate that citizens should be able to possess full auto, RPG's, tanks, etc. Go back to 1790 parity when both military and civilians had muskets (and cannons just balls). The NRA doesn't bend and with the growing pressure and looming defeats (Supreme Court just now) they won't be able to handle any defeat and their house of cards will crumble. We must advocate to make all semi-auto guns and rifles illegal.

What2ndAmendment?, Now I am really flattered, thanks for the reads. I've been thinking about you all night wondering, am I sexist? What IS sexist? Is it different for different people? (of course I have also been asking that about love too...maybe I just think too much!)

And A Noun Ea Mus, you wrote it all in a clump - I need some time to look closer when not off to work.

Manly man, didn't forget about you either. Cheddar and Rasher Scones with Chips and how about Branston Pickle too? Works for me, but at least you have the best butter options for yours.

I love the fresh, fun, teasing of your writing Laura. It helps me remember to read the news with an eye for the humor -- something that would benifit us all. Keep the fun coming!

Laura, I am not sure if you are serious or not, but if my comments gave you or anyone else a new perspective or something to truly think about, then that was my only goal.

As you can see, A Noun Ea Mus proved my point perfectly "If one thinks that the 2nd Amendment exists so that an oppressed citizenry can overthrow a tyrannical government (or going bonkers over President Blackula)"; and then goes on with a rambling set of straw man arguments. No one has said or even suggested anything of the kind, yet is is always the assumption that those who do not agree with PC orthodoxy are automatically racist, sexist, homophobes.

Today, Turkey, which has some of the toughest security in the world had a suicide bombing and apparently there was shooting as well at the airport. If all guns are made illegal, and murders are committed by those with bombs, knives, and illegal guns will we feel better? The problem as I alluded to previously is a lack of respect for life and the attitude that it is o.k. to attack or kill those who have different philosophical or religious ideologies.

All that being said, I will look forward to the time when the MV Voice bloggers go back to speaking about things that really interest me such as food and the great places to find it, instead of finding ways to inject politically correct dogma.

Laws do not work unless there is an enforcement agency to make sure the laws are followed.
The ATF is that enforcement arm, but it has been gutted by the politicians over the past 20+ years, most of that time never even having a full time chief, only interim leaders.

Pass all the traffic laws you want, but what would the roads look like if we cut the cops budget by 80% and the cops had no dept head for 20 years?

We are now driving ion the NRA highway. The NRA defunded the policing arm of gun laws and then says they don't work.
Uh-huh. That's why this clear thinking multiple gun owner finds disgust with the NRA and amusement at the ignorance of those who try and say gun laws don't work, when there is no enforcement arm to make them work.
You cannot hide from that reality no mater how hard you try.

@ Laura

There are already legal methods to restrict gun ownership from convicted felons, domestic abusers and the mentally ill.
In regards to No Fly, No Buy, it would be easy enough to add suspected terrorists to that process. The NRA and responsible gun owners are supportive of keeping weapons out of the hands of dangerous criminals.

Why are you not concerned about due process when taking away a 2nd amendment protection in our constitution? Would you feel the same about the other rights to free speech, press, religion, assembly, trial by jury etc.?

I propose you are falling victim to the temptations that our founders understood so well. That weakness is exactly why we have the Bill of Rights.

@A Noun Ea Mus

Your statements are incorrect. The U.S. gun violence statistics you and most liberals use are inflated because they group together suicides, drug gangs, mentally ill rampages, domestic violence and terrorism. An honest review of the data shows that pistols used in gang warfare are the real problem. Yet the media and the left obsess on assault rifles rather than community policing. I guess that by broadening the definitions and labeling terrorist shootings as mass shootings it helps to skew your numbers.

The NRA and responsible gun owners place the emphasis on people and not inanimate objects. Lock up violent felons, provide mental health services to the sick and restrict access to select individuals who are a menace to society through a transparent due process.

Don't disarm law abiding citizens and deny them their constitutional rights to self defense.

Gun laws do not equal violating the 2nd amendment anymore than laws prohibiting screaming fire in a movie theater do no violate the 1st.
Also, traffic laws do not lead to confiscation of cars.
The responsible gun owners know this. The ideologues, like this woman in TX are destine to repeat this sort of tragedy: Web Link

Oh, Laura, you sexist person! And wanting to take away our gun rights as well! Or at least talk about the issue in a clever, amusing, and yet thoughtful way...

As for you, What2ndAmendment?,your only comment with redeeming social value was the number of gun thefts from police! Actually, the number is slightly less than 1000, but that's still an appalling bit of news!

I can remember going to a range in Pacifica years ago, nobody on duty, signs warning people not to practice quick draws lest they shoot themselves in the foot...

Now, how to protect ourselves from foot in mouth problems?

I have no problem with debating both sides of guns or butter, but the arguments would slide down better if they were stated more cleverly. More logic would help too...

Keep on being politically incorrect anytime you feel like it, Laura, you paradoxical liberal...

@Pro Gun

I don't think the NRA or most gun owners object to gun laws in principle. There are already many of them. Other than a few specific exceptions, it is illegal to shoot people with guns. Felons, domestic abusers and the mentally ill can be legally restricted from access to guns.

In addition, in California gun buyers must register their firearm, pass a background check, complete a safety course and wait for a cooling off period before receipt of the weapon. They cannot buy guns with high capacity magazines (>10 rounds) or ones that are not on the current certified roster list which is arguably about 10 years old.

What else could be reasonably justified? Now, there is another round of legislation that clearly attempts to make gun sale or ownership by law abiding citizens probitively expensive and difficult that it effectively impairs the 2d amendment. I think most gun owners question the logic.

To use your example, there have been several high profile cases of mothers committing suicide by driving their vans into the lake/ocean to kill themselves and their children. If we used gun control reasoning, then we would ban all law abiding citizens from buying vans and force the automobile industry to only build Model A cars using 100 year old technology in the hopes of eliminating suicide by car.

I think we all agree (Even the NRA) that dangerous people/criminals should not have access to guns. Unfortunately, the Left wants to ban them from everyone.

Dear Laura Stec,
I would like to invite you to understand the issue you have chosen to write about, my treat. I would be happy to provide you with real experience and thus real knowledge about firearms, not the orchestrated disinformation spread around by the main-stream media.

Laura, Senator Ted Kennedy and 74 agents for the Department of Homeland Security were found on the no-fly-list. There have been countless examples of high-profile government employees with security clearance who found themselves put on the no-fly list.

Laura, the "no-fly no-buy" concept is being challenged by the ACLU, that is American Civil Liberties Union. Does that cause you any pause?
There is no due-process of law involved in putting a name on the no-fly list. ANYONE can be put on the list by mistake or other improper reasons.

The no-fly list is a secret list of Americans and foreigners who were suspected by anyone in law-enforcement of various nations for any number of reasons which are all secret. Once someone is on the list, they cannot find out if they are on the list until it's too late. Once they find out they are on the list, there is no process to get off the list and no way to find out WHY they got on the list or who put them there.

Laura, clearly most of what you think about firearms and firearms-owners is simply false. It's not your fault that pretty much everything you think you know is false, it's simply that the people you listen to on TV are either themselves utterly ignorant of the truth or they just don't care if they are lying. The gun-control people don't care that they are lying, they only care about pushing their agenda, which NEVER has anything to do with reducing violent crimes.

Laura, you wrote:
"I think our brains can handle the complexity of making law changes, such as no fly-no buy, and background checks, without worrying about losing 2nd amendment rights. So, it’s really scary to be held hostage by a highly armed nonprofit 501(c)(3). Wait. The NRA is a nonprofit?"

Laura, look, the gun-control laws that already exist are NOT being enforced. When a known felon goes into a gun store to buy a gun, they fill out a form #4473 and they must lie to several questions and then sign it. Then the information is sent to the FBI NICS (National Instant Check System) to get approval for the sale. The NICS check will show the guy is a felon. What the LAW says should happen next is the FBI should notify he local police to go arrest the guy and collect the form 4473. The felon can then be prosecuted under Federal and state laws and sent to prison for 5-15 years. However, since Obama was elected only 17 such felons have even had charges filed against them.

When a known felon is caught with a gun in his possession, the state and Federal laws REQUIRE the guy be arrested and prosecuted and sent to prison for 5-15 years. But, normally, all that happens is the cops confiscate the gun and let the felon go on his way to go get another gun.

Convicted felons have nothing to fear from attempting to buy a gun and nothing to fear if they are caught with a gun because law-enforcement, prosecutors, judges and politicians wont enforce the laws that have been in place since "The Gun-Control Act of 1968".

Only about 6,000 actual unlawful homicides are done with a gun each year and almost all of those are committed by people who are already forbidden to possess a gun.

Why do the people screaming about "gun-violence" not do something about that?

Laurua, why don't you take me up on my offer to give you some firearms lessons so you will actually know something factual about firearms before you make more ignorant statements in public?

Puh-leeze, LiberalGuns,

If you can't even try to approach topics with style and panache, at least do some basic fact-checking:

Web Link

Snipes gives the lie to your "74" employees on the no-fly list...

Hey Fairness...
Just goes to show you that the TV news cannot be trusted!
I mistakenly believed the TV news about the DHS agents, in any case, Senator Ted Kennedy was indeed stopped repeatedly because of a similar name on the no-fly list and it took him 3 weeks to get off the list. What chance to ordinary people have to correct such a mistake? What will it cost innocent people to remove themselves from these lists?

The bulk of all NICS denials are also mistakes on the part of law-enforcement officials. And to get on the NICS list requires due process of law and a court judgement of guilt. And still the vast majority of NICS denials are mistakes.

Published by Washington Post:
U.S. Sen. Edward M. "Ted" Kennedy said yesterday that he was stopped and questioned at airports on the East Coast five times in March because his name appeared on the government's secret "no-fly" list.

Federal air security officials said the initial error that led to scrutiny of the Massachusetts Democrat should not have happened even though they recognize that the no-fly list is imperfect. But privately they acknowledged being embarrassed that it took the senator and his staff more than three weeks to get his name removed.

Keep it up. No laws will be needed.
Web Link

The government (particularly in California) could pursue court orders to prevent every one of the people on the no fly and terror watch lists from buying or possesing a firearm today if it wanted to do so. It chooses not to for the following reasons:

1. It is a nice political distraction from the real failures of the administration to prosecute the war on terror and domestic violence in inner cities like Chicago and Baltimore
2. It would have to actually recognize radical islamic terrorism as a real movement
3. It would need to provide legitimate evidence which it probably does not have on most of the people on the list

Once again, more redirection to keep people focused away from the real problem.

So I am looking for some help. The Food Party! wrote Guns or Butter this week. As expected, Big Gun didn't talk butter, but responded as expected - "We are an oppressed lot. Don't take our rights away." But Big Gun, I see you with ALL the rights. And now you know about butter too. When do I get a piece of Liberty Pie?

P.S. D in Duveneck - you're cute.

@Mike and Laura

I am glad posting links to the accidental death of a black professional football player makes you feel smug and superior. I would suggest that a more healthy response would be to consider sorrow or at least sympathy.

According to your morality, it is fun to laugh at other peoples' misery from the smug vantage point of the hypocritical liberal pulpit.

Point taken.

@Laura

You can have a piece of Liberty Pie every Memorial Day along with your barbecued hot dogs and hamburgers. Perhaps the rest of the year, you can reflect on how good men with guns have provided and maintained those freedoms for over 200 years.

You can also reflect on how men with guns have caused so much harm and pain in this country. You can think about both, which is something many seldom do as exemplified in these posts.

Thanks for the clarification Laura. I made the mistake of thinking that you might actually be giving serious thought to the other side of the argument, but your dismissive attitude and words show otherwise.

I don't know who you are referring to by 'big gun", but it is not me unless you mean someone who thinks the 2nd Amendment is just as much part of the Constitution as all the others. I am not a member of the NRA, I do not own and never have owned a gun, gun store, gun range, or anything else affiliated with firearms.

A previously stated, I read your articles to find out about good food and where to find it, not to be insulted, talked down to or have to wade through politically correct nonsense. If I wanted that, I could read the New York Times instead of your blog, but now you've caused me to wonder why I waste my time even bothering to read it any more.

If you only want those who agree with your PC point of view to read your blog, just write a disclaimer and we won't waste our time.

If you are looking for some help, here it is: "Stick to the subject or don't complain when someone uses their right to free speech to point out the other side of an argument that YOU started"

Lastly, if you think conservatives aren't oppressed in California, try walking through San Jose or San Francisco with a Bush or Trump shirt or hat on for a few hours and get back to me on how well you were treated.

Thanks for the clarification Laura. I made the mistake of thinking that you might actually be giving serious thought to the other side of the argument, but your dismissive attitude and words show otherwise.

I don't know who you are referring to by 'big gun", but it is not me unless you mean someone who thinks the 2nd Amendment is just as much part of the Constitution as all the others. I am not a member of the NRA, I do not own and never have owned a gun, gun store, gun range, or anything else affiliated with firearms.

A previously stated, I read your articles to find out about good food and where to find it, not to be insulted, talked down to or have to wade through politically correct nonsense. If I wanted that, I could read the New York Times instead of your blog, but now you've caused me to wonder why I waste my time even bothering to read it any more.

If you only want those who agree with your PC point of view to read your blog, just write a disclaimer and we won't waste our time.

If you are looking for some help, here it is: "Stick to the subject or don't complain when someone uses their right to free speech to point out the other side of an argument that YOU started"

Lastly, if you think conservatives aren't oppressed in California, try walking through San Jose or San Francisco with a Bush or Trump shirt or hat on for a few hours and get back to me on how well you were treated.

You have a VERY low thresh hold for seeing Oppression. I think you're mistaking people voicing THEIR opinion as oppression.

Remember, the 1st amendment protects you from GOVERNMENT retribution to your speech. It makes no promises that other people will accept what you have to say without voicing their own opinions. You can even loose your job if your company thinks you're a big enough tool about things, esp insults of groups of others.

Yes, we are the most highly educated section of the country and we have little tolerance for BS, so that may be what you're experiencing.
Good luck with your struggle.

Dear Tissue, -- How nice of you to put words in my mouth or assume you even know what I was referring to. Like many progressives you make assumptions, then attack based on the assumptions you just made. I was actually talking about the physical assaults taking place against people who express anything except PC liberal dogma ( Web Link ). For people who claim to be so educated, tolerant and egalitarian, you certainly don't behave that way.

Yes, I agree the SJ thugs were wrong, but when a presidential candidate actually courts violence to silence others words, it can be no surprise that he harvests what the seeds of encouraged violence have grown.

I detest the condoning of violence from anyone, but when a candidate for the POTUS actually tries to farm violence, well, payback is a bitch. Not condoned, but not surprised.
Web Link

Now put on your big boy pants and quit being such a victim. Maybe you should cuddle up with your gun...clean it, rub it, tell it how great it is. That might cheer you up.

@Progressive Pajama Boy (You apparently are using multiple names so I will address my response to a single descriptive moniker)

You have hit upon a point for which I think we can all agree. No reasonable person wants bad people to have access to guns and do bad things.

The problem is the liberal approach to gun control. It wants to disarm the good people in the hopes of preventing the bad people from getting guns. You don't want to build a wall to prevent weapons smuggling do you? It is not too late to jump on board the Trump train yet if you favor that approach.

Unfortunately, the bad people that commit violent crime are habitual criminals, the mentally compromised or terrorists. By definition, none of them will be prevented from getting weapons by removing them from law abiding citizens. It only leaves the good people more vulnerable.

By your thinking, we should only give vaccines to people who are already sick (the bad ones) and not give them to people who are healthy (the good ones). What kind of logic is that?

You seem to take pride that we live in one of the most educated parts of the world but the liberal gun control orthodoxy is just not very smart. In your words, it is time to call BS.

Awwright, Laura Stec, the gloves are coming off. Because--I am marinating chicken breasts for the first of three weekend BBQs, and I have no idea what I put into the marinade. You probably have the ultimate marinade recipe, but do I have it? Negative, negative, big N-O. It, like so many things, is your fault!

But that's not all. Do you realize that Guv MoonB just signed a bill to regulate ammo buying? And do you further realize that I can't even fire my Uzi here in Palo Alto to see if my old ammo is ok? Well, even if I owned an Uzi, I couldn't fire it...Or my shotgun. Or my M-17. If I owned any of those things. Now, is that fair?

Worst of all, I have been waiting for my fellow gun-rights fanatics to show even a trace of liveliness, wit, and creativity, and they have let me down. I'm not sure I can face this long, patriotic, fireworks-laden weekend at all!

If you can't have Liberty Pie, will you settle for American Pie?

PS So glad you think I'm cute--I think you're cute too and the most enjoyable writer around...

Dear Harvesting,

So what I am getting from what you are saying is that if a political figure makes a statement about committing violence (which Trump did not do), then it is o.k. to target, harass, beat, and attempt to kill anyone who goes to hear him or her speak. Is that it? This is tolerance? And how is attacking innocent women, children, and minorities payback? It sounds to me like the same attitude that resulted in the deaths of the people in Orlando.

I watched the video from the link you posted, but it seems you didn't. In the link YOU provided, Trump is clearly talking to the security personnel escorting a protester from the event. He tells them to be gentle with the protester. Trump then goes on to talk about a different event where there was a violent protester who was throwing punches and some men in the crowd took him down ( which sounds like they were defending themselves or others to me).He then pointed out that if protesters against him attack people, nothing is said, but if his supporters get physical while defending themselves, then he and they get the blame. Which is exactly what you are doing.

If making statements about violence gives people license to attack anyone who goes to listen to the person speak, does that mean people should be attacking those who attend Obama's events because he said "If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun" (Web Link ) (Web Link ?

Lastly, It is clear that you only read those parts of what people say that you want to or you would have noticed that I said that I have never owned a gun, so I can't clean something I don't have. And don't worry about me being a victim, I can take care of myself.