Starbucks caves

[TMF]

And...

http://www.pagunblog.com/2013/09/19/what-can-starbucks-teach-us-as-a-community/

Good stuff. Of course, the people who need to read that won't. It's much easier to stick your fingers in your ears and scream "I'M NOT LISTENING!" than to objectively look at your opinion.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Yeh, that is a good article. Erik, you look at it?

 

If you want to win more victories, get the right people in office. Rome wasn't built in a damned day, nor will all libertarians

get anywhere unless they start at the local level and work their way up the ladder.

 

The way to beat fear from the government is to replace bad with good until all the bad ones are gone. That doesn't get

accomplished by OC'ing in Starbucks. It just pisses off hippies and soccer moms.

[mikegideon]

Good stuff. Of course, the people who need to read that won't. It's much easier to stick your fingers in your ears and scream "I'M NOT LISTENING!" than to objectively look at your opinion.

 

That's why we call 'em guntards :)

[TMF]

That's why we call 'em guntards :)

I shudder using that word as it comes from the left, but it seems to fit so well.

[RichardR]

I believe George Washington & Thomas Jefferson wouldn't give a F about what some fearful soccor mom or part-time coffee barista would think about them publically bearing arms while drinking their coffee.

They certainly didn't give a flying F what the King of England, his soldiers or his Loyalists thought about them exercizing their naturaly inherent God given rights, in fact they were willing to fight & die in order free themselves from those who attempted to curtail their liberties.

[TMF]

I believe George Washington & Thomas Jefferson wouldn't give a F about what some fearful soccor mom or part-time coffee barista would think about them publically bearing arms while drinking their coffee.

They certainly didn't give a flying F what the King of England, his soldiers or his Loyalists thought about them exercizing their naturaly inherent God given rights, in fact they were willing to fight & die in order free themselves from those who attempted to curtail their liberties.

So the manager of Starbucks is going to come into your home, quarter his Soldiers there and take your powder?

If we're gonna invoke the names of Jefferson and Washington to fit our narrative let me give my interpretation of what they would actually say. No, they would not care about soccer moms, but they sure would care about personal property rights as much as the right to keep and bear arms.

If a time comes that our nation is fighting a war on our soil, then yes, I believe soccer moms and baristas wouldn't freak out at seeing firearms. In fact, I've walked into Starbucks in foreign countries carrying a belt fed machine gun and no one batted an eye. However, in the context of every day America, it's quite a different story. If you walk into a Starbucks toting a rifle for the expressed purpose of "making a point" then you deserve to be marginalized. You deserve to be called guntards. You deserve to be shunned by the rest of the gun owning community. Make your political stand against government in the ballot box, letters to representatives in Congress or on the steps of the courthouse. Using a private business as your personal soapbox, and then getting mad when they don't let you shows a self centeredness that is usually reserved for the unwashed occupy-tards.

The fact that you and others are so obtuse that you refuse to look up "context" in a dictionary and see how it applies here tells me you don't care about truth. You only care about what you want to believe, and no reasonable facts will cloud your stubbornness. So, by all means be mad and carry on about it while the anti-gunners exploit you and win the debate. Be mad as you continue to marginalize responsible gun owners to those on the fence. Keep it up and some day you may just get that self fulfilling prophecy that you secretly want so bad, despite all your rhetoric to the contrary.

[RichardR]

TMF, you've got me confused for an OC'er, which I'm not.

I do however support the 2nd Amendment as it was originally intended, not the current corrupt version that it has become.

As far as property rights, I fully support those as well, I believe Starbucks has every right to deny service to anyone they want, for what ever reason they want.

If Starbucks refuses service to 2nd Amendment supporters/activists that's fine by me, the 2nd Amendment supporters/activists (or "guntards" as you've labeled them) can just go spend their coffee money elsewhere or disarm before entering a Starbucks establishment.

I see no problem here other than a lot of "closeted" 2nd Amendment supporters viciously attacking a group of "openly" 2nd Amendment supporters/activists.

I personally have no desire to carry my firearms publically, I do however support the rights of those who choose to lawfully do so, fearful soccor-moms & part-time baristas be damned ...

[TMF]

TMF, you've got me confused for an OC'er, which I'm not.

I do however support the 2nd Amendment as it was originally intended, not the current corrupt version that it has become.

As far as property rights, I fully support those as well, I believe Starbucks has every right to deny service to anyone they want, for what ever reason they want.

If Starbucks refuses service to 2nd Amendment supporters/activists that's fine by me, the 2nd Amendment supporters/activists (or "guntards" as you've labeled them) can just go spend their coffee money elsewhere or disarm before entering a Starbucks establishment.

I see no problem here other than a lot of "closeted" 2nd Amendment supporters viciously attacking a group of "openly" 2nd Amendment supporters/activists.

I personally have no desire to carry my firearms publically, I do however support the rights of those who choose to lawfully do so, fearful soccor-moms & part-time baristas be damned ...

So then maybe I misunderstood you invoking the name of our founding fathers? I'm confused. I've never suggested there be any law against OC, rifle or pistol, so by definition I support a person's right to OC. Of course, we're not talking about gun rights here. This debate has nothing to do with support or opposition to gun rights. So what exactly is your point?

[RichardR]

My point was George Washington & Thomas Jefferson wouldn't have cared if the public exercise of their freedoms "scared" Sally the Shoemaker or Tammy the Tea-Wench.

There seems to be a whole lot of "fear of their fear" in this thread ...

[Dolomite_supafly]

This has NOTHING to do with gun rights. It has everything to do with a business trying to get the largest amount of people to come in and buy something.

 

I know those who participated in the "appreciation" day think they were doing something good for Starbucks but it had the opposite affect. When a person, who doesn't like guns, walks in to buy something and sees a 1/2 dozen guntards standing around holding guns then that person is going to turn around and walk out. So those guntards just removed a segment of Starbuck's customer base because that customer who doesn't like guns isn't likely to come back, at least not initially. And I don't even think this was driven by those who OC. I think it was driven by those who chose to come to Starbucks carrying their rifles and shotguns or having them slung over their shoulders. I have seen people OC in Starbucks and most people sitting around couldn't care less.

 

In trying to show support for Starbucks the guntards just affected them in a negtive way. And this is going to go farther than just Starbucks and that is why the rest of the gun community is so pissed. What is going to happen now is these guntards are going to try to find another business to "appreciate" by storming their business with guns. And what do you think that business' response is going to be? The same as Starbucks because the guntards will have ran off a segment of their customer base as well.

 

Starbucks is doing this to get those customers back, nothing more or less. It is not some grand scheme by the left to take away our rights as gun owners. It is only Starbucks trying to get more cusomers through their doors, especially the ones that the guntards ran off. It has nothing to do with them trying to limit your right to protect yourself.

 

I think Starbucks did the right thing by making this decision. The reason is these guntards, who want to impose their beliefs on others, will get pissed off at Starbucks and never return. It is unfortunate that Starbucks lost a segment of their customer base but I think it is a much smaller segment than those the guntards have ran off with their antics. And I can honestly say that if I owned a business and any crowd affected my ability to make money they would be asked to leave.

 

And yes I like Starbucks and have NEVER been in their store without a gun but I don't scare the crap out of other customers by flaunting it either.

[RobertNashville]

My point was George Washington & Thomas Jefferson wouldn't have cared if the public exercise of their freedoms "scared" Sally the Shoemaker or Tammy the Tea-Wench.

There seems to be a whole lot of "fear of their fear" in this thread ...

They may not have "cared" but I'd bet that George and Tom also never intended to and would not support forcing or trying to coerce a business owner into allow arms on/in his property if he didn't want them there.

 

The right to arms is ONE right, there are others and the all need to be respected (and when necessary, a balance struck when they start to conflict) or all of them mean nothing at all.

Edited September 20, 2013 by RobertNashville

[tnguy]

I shudder using that word as it comes from the left, but it seems to fit so well.

 

Be careful. Divide and conquer is their M.O.

[TMF]

Be careful. Divide and conquer is their M.O.

They no longer harm us as much as we harm ourselves.

[RichardR]

I've got to disagree with ya Dolo, the issue really does boil down to "gun-rights" or more specifically the fear of the fear of fearful folks who may be scared into supporting future gun-control legislation.

At least that is the vibe that I am getting from some folks this thread, which is why I thought it important enough to point out for discussion.

George Washington & Thomas Jefferson wouldn't have been afraid of someone elses fear, which is why I bothered to mention them as an example & the original intent of the 2nd Amendment.

Those two men helped to rally their fellow freedom loving colonists & bravely fought against the worlds most powerful military at the time, they literally risked everything & was ultimately victorious, leaving behind a legacy of freedom & liberty which we've collectively slowly but surely squandered generation after generation.

And now here we are, our Constitutional protections have literally become the punch-line of a very bad a joke, what little remain are under constant ideological assault, legislative revision & purposeful judicial misinterpretation, it is only a matter of time before the freedom inclined American people (just as George Washington & Thomas Jefferson did) have to make a choice, a very hard, frightningly scary choice to surrender the Constitution or to defend it, really defend it.

Because of this some of the more freedom inclined, liberty-loving Americans have chosen to become 2nd Amendment activists bearing their arms as originally intended by our founding fathers in order to make a political/social statement, or as some of us have taken to name-calling them "guntards".

IMHO the act of lawfully openly carrying long-guns in public was a very brave thing to do especially in this day & age where "gun-owning patriotic Americans" are considered potential terrorists by our own government.

Some of you will argue that it wasn't brave, but that it was stupid, I am certain many of George Washington & Thomas Jefferson's fellow colonists thought that standing up against the crown was also stupid.

“We believe that preparation eradicates cowardice, which we define as the failure to act in the midst of fear.” ― Veronica Roth.

"Guntards" as some of us have taken to name-calling them have acted in the midst of the widespread fear in this country of armed individuals, they've done so inorder to show their fellow Americans that not every armed civilian they see is dangerous.

I believe it is cowardice which prevents many of us from supporting their activism, cowardice of the potential reprecussions which may spark something no-one of sound mind would desire, yet is probably inevitable anyway.

The only way to avoid it would be for all those who swore an oath to start upholding it, that is the only salvation I believe is left to us.

Anyway sorry for being so long-winded, it's a slow morning & I have to entertain myself somehow :)

[RichardR]

They may not have "cared" but I'd bet that George and Tom also never intended to and would not support forcing or trying to coerce a business owner into allow arms on/in his property if he didn't want them there.

The right to arms is ONE right, there are others and the all need to be respected (and when necessary, a balance struck when they start to conflict) or all of them mean nothing at all.

No arguement there, a privately owned business should be free to serve or not serve to whomever they choose, I'm guessing if asked to leave George & Tom would have just taken their money elsewhere.

They'd probably have informed their fellow patriots that they were not welcome to patronize that business though ...

[RobertNashville]

I wish someone would cite for me, the passage in the Constitution that says I have a "right" to do anything on another entity's property if that entity doesn't want me to do it because no matter how many times I've read the Constitution I've never seen it??? :confused:

 

To the best of my knowledge, unless it's MY property or PUBLIC property I have no right to carry arms or say anything I want or demonstrate or practice religions acts and even those "rights" can have restrictions placed on them when it's necessary for good of society (i.e. I can't just decide to hold a parade down Main Street; I have to go through a process to get a permit, arrange for traffic re-routing ,etc. because my parade will/can negatively impact other people).

[Clod Stomper]

Well done...

http://practicaltacticalpodcast.com/starbucks/

It doesn't appear that anyone read the edit under the pic of the guy with the shotgun.

"Edit: I was contacted by the individual pictured above. He is in the US Military, and for context, wanted to advise that this photo was taken in a Starbucks in Camp Arifjan, Kuwait in 2005. He did not request the photo be removed, just wanted to add context for this particular photo. -Casey"

Sorry if I missed anyone else point it out.

[TMF]

I've got to disagree with ya Dolo, the issue really does boil down to "gun-rights" or more specifically the fear of the fear of fearful folks who may be scared into supporting future gun-control legislation.

At least that is the vibe that I am getting from some folks this thread, which is why I thought it important enough to point out for discussion.

George Washington & Thomas Jefferson wouldn't have been afraid of someone elses fear, which is why I bothered to mention them as an example & the original intent of the 2nd Amendment.

Those two men helped to rally their fellow freedom loving colonists & bravely fought against the worlds most powerful military at the time, they literally risked everything & was ultimately victorious, leaving behind a legacy of freedom & liberty which we've collectively slowly but surely squandered generation after generation.

And now here we are, our Constitutional protections have literally become the punch-line of a very bad a joke, what little remain are under constant ideological assault, legislative revision & purposeful judicial misinterpretation, it is only a matter of time before the freedom inclined American people (just as George Washington & Thomas Jefferson did) have to make a choice, a very hard, frightningly scary choice to surrender the Constitution or to defend it, really defend it.

Because of this some of the more freedom inclined, liberty-loving Americans have chosen to become 2nd Amendment activists bearing their arms as originally intended by our founding fathers in order to make a political/social statement, or as some of us have taken to name-calling them "guntards".

IMHO the act of lawfully openly carrying long-guns in public was a very brave thing to do especially in this day & age where "gun-owning patriotic Americans" are considered potential terrorists by our own government.

Some of you will argue that it wasn't brave, but that it was stupid, I am certain many of George Washington & Thomas Jefferson's fellow colonists thought that standing up against the crown was also stupid.

“We believe that preparation eradicates cowardice, which we define as the failure to act in the midst of fear.” ― Veronica Roth.

"Guntards" as some of us have taken to name-calling them have acted in the midst of the widespread fear in this country of armed individuals, they've done so inorder to show their fellow Americans that not every armed civilian they see is dangerous.

I believe it is cowardice which prevents many of us from supporting their activism, cowardice of the potential reprecussions which may spark something no-one of sound mind would desire, yet is probably inevitable anyway.

The only way to avoid it would be for all those who swore an oath to start upholding it, that is the only salvation I believe is left to us.

Anyway sorry for being so long-winded, it's a slow morning & I have to entertain myself somehow :)

You are not even talking about what the rest of the class is talking about. You're attempting to derail the original point by getting into circular arguments about irrelevant nitnoid crap. How about you start at the front of the thread and work your way here. Read one of the half dozen op-ed links posted. You're ranting on about irrelevant nonsense in hopes someone takes the bait so you can distract from the core issue. That core issue is this business wants nothing more than to sell coffee. They do not want to be affiliated with any political movement. Guntards have sought to involve them against their will so now they have asked (nicely) to keep the activism out of their stores. What in the blue f**k does that have to do with George Washington fighting the British?

[TMF]

It doesn't appear that anyone read the edit under the pic of the guy with the shotgun.

"Edit: I was contacted by the individual pictured above. He is in the US Military, and for context, wanted to advise that this photo was taken in a Starbucks in Camp Arifjan, Kuwait in 2005. He did not request the photo be removed, just wanted to add context for this particular photo. -Casey"

Sorry if I missed anyone else point it out.

That Starbucks is like a beacon of awesome in one of the worst buttholes in the world. But yes, there are armed people in there all the time. No one cares. Context. People don't understand effing context.

[E4 No More]

Wow! 15 pages for a coffee shop!

[Guest ThePunisher]

Wow! 15 pages for a coffee shop!

Or
Wow! 15 pages for the right to bear arms uninfringed or the rights of property owners. Edited September 20, 2013 by ThePunisher

[bersaguy]

I was kinda thinking the same thing. I think this has been blown totally out of proportion and don't really know why but I'm sure someone will tell me after this post. folks Starbucks is not the first business to post or consider posting a gun free zone sign in their place of business yet we myself included in a limited capacity have blown this news totally out of proportion. I have gotten over it because like I said I cannot afford to buy coffee there to begin with but for those of you that are customers of Starbucks that can and have taken offense it's like I said before, if you like their products that well go through the drive up window , buy your products and just move on with it. I'm sure this is not the first business that you have done business with that has posted their doors as Gun free zones and it won't be the last, as I am quite sure of that. But now with all of this said, I'm sure in a short time Starbucks just like other businesses have learned that those pieces of paper on their windows will in a short time begin effecting their bottom lines at the end of the day and they will begin coming down and then all they can do is hope that teh customers will come back. I know of two businesses that put the signs up and with in two weeks removed them as they began to see less and less people sitting in their dining areas.  Ok now you can begin beating me up..............jmho

[mikegideon]

Wow! 15 pages for a coffee shop!

 

Did you even read those 15 pages? This isn't about a coffee shop. This is about Voldemort disease, and the fact that we are being damaged by those retards. It's like the misspelled Tea Party signs. Some folks are just gonna believe that ALL Tea Partiers are illiterate. 

 

I'm not stupid enough to carry an AR-15 in public, at least not until it's absolutely necessary. But, I'm being viewed as that kind of idiot because it has become the face of gun ownership in the media. I'm sick of it. 

 

It's reasonable to think... If a group picks a bunch of idiots to represent them, THEY must be idiots too. The Voldemorts of the world don't represent me, and going forward, I'm gonna make damn sure everybody knows it.

 

EDIT: And BTW, this is not about daily open carry either. That's a separate debate that we've had a gazillion times. 

Edited September 20, 2013 by mikegideon

[Guest 6.8 AR]

But it is still 15 pages. I would have thought this one wouldn't have lasted this long. Politics is smack dab in the middle of

it, already, but when are the gays, abortion and Greenpeace getting their piece in?

 

I will still patronize Starbucks. They haven't done anything except put up with this crap.

[TMF]

It's reasonable to think... If a group picks a bunch of idiots to represent them, THEY must be idiots too. The Voldemorts of the world don't represent me, and going forward, I'm gonna make damn sure everybody knows it.

The positive thing coming out of this is that the major voices in the online gun community seem to see this for what this is. Only the fringe folks who want a windmill to tilt towards (thanks for that analogy Oh Shoot) aren't going to listen to reason. Luckily they are not present in legitimate gun owner media. Moving forward I think this is a good lesson that the majority of the carry community will learn from, and perhaps use the dummy stick on their buddies who want to show off their piece just to show it off and get a reaction.