Starbucks caves

[Guest ThePunisher]

Regardless it is wise to understand that we are most likely not a large enough constituency amongst their customer base to make any substantial dent in their bottom line.

And the liberals also know that gun owners as well as conservatives are a dying breed, and soon will be outnumbered by the the liberals in population, politicians, and liberal brain power. That is why they are not afraid to make gun control an issue in politics any more.

[Transplanted Hoosier]

Never went there and more than likely, never will. I don't drink that swill. I'd much rather have a Micky D's coffee.

[TMF]

Policy makes no sense.

 

Just how are they supposed to communicate they don't want guns in the store? Directives already say not to engage customer regarding the matter unless he asks.

 

No mention of any signage going up. Which of course would vary by state as to relevancy anyway.

 

- OS

 

I'm interpreting this as Starbucks' way to communicate to so-called gun advocacy groups to please stop carrying rifles into their stores.  I'm sure they anticipated this going viral throughout the gun community and the Voldemorts would take note.

 

Let me make a prediction about this though.  I see this as in no way seeking to keep people from carrying.  As I see it, they are not looking to ban people from concealed carrying, or even open carrying.  I see this as them looking to curb activism going on in their stores.  Let's face it, the morons in Texas that are carrying rifles into the stores, or folks flooding Starbucks with 30+ OCers are activists making a political statement.  Starbucks just wants to make overpriced coffee, not be put in the center of a gun debate against their will.

 

So, my prediction is that, since this is not going to be enforced, we will have groups of OCers in Tennessee hit up Startbucks in protest by sitting in large groups all OCing in order to flaunt it in the face of management who have been instructed not to engage on the issue.  What will eventually happen is management will engage one of these groups at some point and ask them to leave.  Then some self-riteous moron looking for a fight will argue with the management and talk about how it's not legally posted, therefore not a violation of the law (completely disregarding the fact that a business has the right to tell you to leave, posting or not).  This will be followed by management contacting corporate and explaining that "gun advocates" are intentionally sabatoging business and quoting law, which will result in proper posting, thus making it a crime to carry into Starbucks.  I make this prediction based on this actually happening before; multiple times over by none other than Voldemort and his kind.  Yeah, those types are reaaaaal freedom fighters, advancing our cause.  Nothing advances a cause like being mature and saying "nanna nanna boo boo, you can't stop me (*sticks tongue out)."  The reality is, yes they can stop you.  They can stop you with a 35 cent sticker. 

 

Why not just respect the fact that Starbucks doesn't want to be involved in the gun debate?  They are making that clear.  They don't want to support or attack the 2nd Amendment, which is fine because I don't believe it's in their corporate mission statement to do so.  I'm pretty sure their mission statement is to market coffee products at triple the reasonable cost by convincing hipsters and soccer moms that their blends are exotic and unique with fancy French or Italian names.  Seems to be a successful business model.  I don't see how using this "you're with us or against us" philosophy makes any sense.  They make coffee for crying out loud.  Stop expecting them to take a stand.

[Guest tdoccrossvilletn]

I've never liked star bucks anyhow. Who's voldemort?

Sent from my mind using ninja telepathy.

[Steelharp]

I've never liked star bucks anyhow. Who's voldemort?

Sent from my mind using ninja telepathy.

Wow. Shows not everyone knows. Do a web search for k w i k r n u (no spaces; our software automatically changes it to kwikrnu). You'll learn plenty.

[Spots]

I've never supported starbucks. Why should I pay $8 for a burnt cup of crappy coffee. I'll just make my own since noone cares if I open carry a pistol, or even a long gun in my kitchen. Matter of fact, I could sing remixed selections from the sound of music while open carrying an AR-15 in condition one and dressed in drag while making my coffee and nobody would give a shit. And I can buy a can of ground coffee for less than starbucks cheapest cup.

Tapatalk ate my spelling.

[Sam1]

Doesn't sound like they're caving to anyone. Sounds to me like they're tired of being used as a pawn in the attention whore game of idiots strapping a long gun on and getting coffee. They aren't for or against, but the Kwik's of our crowd have pushed them over the edge where it is no longer about guns or gun rights. Sounds to me like they don't want to be pawns in the game.

Yeah, those fucking morons "exercising their rights" really taught everyone a lesson here. This is the kind crap that makes me against those YouTube freedom fighters.

[TGO David]

Congrats, "open carry" activists. I seem to remember saying this was going to happen.

[Paladin132]

Instead of being against them, why not be against the idea that we are making people uncomfortable by exercising our right and that should result in us limiting our rights? Is that not something more frustrating, that by making someone uncomfortable you can face a charge of disturbing the peace or be told to leave some place?

The OC folks (and no I am not one, but may in a national park or something so yes I think it should be allowed) are not the problem. They are highlighting the problem, IMO - that suddenly there is a mindset that people have a right not to feel uncomfortable. I think that is a dangerous rationale.

[TMF]

Instead of being against them, why not be against the idea that we are making people uncomfortable by exercising our right and that should result in us limiting our rights? Is that not something more frustrating, that by making someone uncomfortable you can face a charge of disturbing the peace or be told to leave some place?

The OC folks (and no I am not one, but may in a national park or something so yes I think it should be allowed) are not the problem. They are highlighting the problem, IMO - that suddenly there is a mindset that people have a right not to feel uncomfortable. I think that is a dangerous rationale.

 

Let's be honest, this has absolutely nothing to do with the few OCers who are just going about their business.  This policy is directly tied to the OC activism, such as groups of folks taking Starbucks by force with open carry sidearms or carrying long guns.  Yes, it is legal, but I would like for someone to give me a rational explanation for why they need to strap a rifle to them when they go to Starbucks.  The common answer to that is "because I can."  Well, okay; I'll accept that as an answer as soon as people accept that any business can ask you to leave if you're carrying a rifle... because they can. 

 

Rights are a two way street.  It isn't about the right to not feel uncomfortable, it's about a business controlling the environment they operate in.  I doubt Starbucks gave two craps about CCers or even OCers during the conduct of everyday operations.  If they did they would have come up with this policy a looooooooonnnng time ago.  So what's changed?  Do you think this is the first time liberals came after Starbucks for not having an anti-gun policy?  No, it isn't.  What has changed is the guntards using Starbucks as a political platform.  As pro 2A that I am, I would adopt a similar policy if my business was being hijacked by a bunch of aholes who represent a marginal amount of my customer base.  We are now those aholes.  Don't thank Starbucks for that, thank the Voldemorts within our midst.

[Guest tdoccrossvilletn]

[quote name="Steelharp" post="1034908" timestamp="1379496151"] Wow. Shows not everyone knows. Do a web search for k w i k r n u (no spaces; our software automatically changes it to Voldemort). You'll learn plenty.[/quote] I know who kwik/Leonard Embody is. I've just never heard him referred to as Voldemort. I've mostly heard him referred to as dumbass or any other such choice words. Sent from my mind using ninja telepathy. Edited September 18, 2013 by tdoccrossvilletn

[TGO David]

My last post was composed with two thumbs and an iPhone; not the best of platforms.  Allow me to expand on my thoughts a bit more:

 

 

 

Today, the Internet will undoubtedly be aflame with posts by angry gun owners giving Starbucks the what-for over Howard Schultz's request that they be left out of the open-carry vs. concealed carry debate.  In his Open Letter posted to their corporate web site on Tuesday, September 17, 2013 (read it here) Schultz respectfully requested that handgun carriers no longer use Starbucks stores as a soap-box in support of Open Carry.  He stated his case as follows:

 

 

" Recently, however, we’ve seen the “open carry” debate become increasingly uncivil and, in some cases, even threatening. Pro-gun activists have used our stores as a political stage for media events misleadingly called “Starbucks Appreciation Days” that disingenuously portray Starbucks as a champion of “open carry.” To be clear: we do not want these events in our stores. Some anti-gun activists have also played a role in ratcheting up the rhetoric and friction, including soliciting and confronting our customers and partners. "

 

 

Schultz goes on to state that this is a request and not an outright ban as they want to give responsible gun owners the opportunity to respect their wishes of their own free will, and states that Corporately they believe that their stores are not the proper arena for legislative changes to be championed.

 

 

"... We know we cannot satisfy everyone. For those who oppose “open carry,” we believe the legislative and policy-making process is the proper arena for this debate, not our stores."

 

 

Sadly I am concerned that the pro Second Amendment community will fail to hear what Shultz and Starbucks are saying, and instead use this as an opportunity to launch vitriolic attacks against Starbucks claiming that some grave injustice has been done.  At times like this, we gun owners tend to be our worst enemies as we lose sight of the end goal and begin to engage in behavior that ultimately will cost us the "Public Relations Battle" as we fight to preserve the rights guaranteed under the Second Amendment.

 

For a moment, put aside your anger over losing yet another PR battle and think for a moment about how we got here:

 

Over the past few years it had become assumed by the pro-gun community that because Starbucks would not prohibit legal carry in their stores, Starbucks shared our "Love for Guns and Coffee".  Someone even copied the Starbucks mermaid logo and altered it to state as such, and undoubtedly made a boatload of money off of a satirical play on their trademarked logo.  To be honest I've frequently wondered when Starbucks would start suing for trademark infringement, but that's beside the point.

 

Starbucks has stated all along that they were neither supporters of nor dissenters of legal carry, but that they preferred the matter be decided by local laws.  If a community allowed legal carry, their stores would oblige.  If a community did not, their stores would not.  Simply, they wanted to be left out of the argument.

 

However gun owners haven't really allowed them to remain neutral, have they?  Immediately upon previously hearing that Starbucks would not prohibit legally carried firearms in their stores, Open Carry Activists began staging "Guns & Coffee" events and encouraged folks to visit their closest Starbucks franchise while openly and visibly armed.  The cry was "Support Starbucks!", but take your gun with you and make sure people could see it.  That plan has clearly backfired and will continue to backfire for as long as the visible wearing of arms is a polarizing issue.  And in light of recent events such as the Washington Navy Shipyard shooting and the numerous other mass shootings before it, the public opinion is not likely to change anytime soon.

 

Perhaps Shultz put it best in his Open Letter:

 

 

" For those who champion “open carry,” please respect that Starbucks stores are places where everyone should feel relaxed and comfortable. The presence of a weapon in our stores is unsettling and upsetting for many of our customers. "

 

 

My opinion on Open Carry is well known here on TGO.  I think it has it's place at times, and I am glad that it is legally allowed, but I do not believe it was made legal for the reasons that some seem to think.  I believe that Open Carry was left as a legal option to protect gun owners from prosecution should their firearms accidentally become visible while being carried in a concealed manner.  As has been pointed out numerous times in the past, there are states that issue concealed carry permits that will absolutely fine you if your cover-garment slips and exposes your firearm.  Tennessee issues a handgun carry permit without the requirement of it being concealed, and conversations with those involved in past legislative efforts suggest that this was done to protect us, not to enable us.

 

The fact remains that the visible carrying of firearms scares a large percentage of the voting public, or at the very least they find it off-putting.  As I have also said previously, I do not use my handgun as a tool for activism.  It is a tool for protection of myself and my loved ones.  My holster is not a ballot box.

 

I believe that it is time for responsible gun owners to start thinking about how we will win the hearts and minds of the voting public and stop trying to "scare the sheep".  Scared voters are reflexive, reactive voters.  They do not cast ballots using logic and reasoning.  They cast ballots against us out of emotion, fear, and uncertainty.

 

If you want to persuade someone, smacking them in the face with the sight of your firearm while they're trying to enjoy their coffee isn't the way to do it.  Scaring a mom of three enjoying a latte with her friends isn't the way to do it.  Frightening a table of college students hovering over their laptops and sipping on macchiatos isn't the way to do it.

 

Howard Shutlz gets this.  Why do so many of us not?  How many more PR battles do we have to lose before responsible gun owners change their tactics and start winning hearts and minds?

[nightrunner]

Anybody that carries a long gun in public needs a big black stick upside their head. Too bad the cops are no longer allowed to provide that public service.

Amen!

Truer words have never been spoken

[G27]

Congrats, "open carry" activists. I seem to remember saying this was going to happen.

Yup. It was obvious something like this would eventually happen. smh

[Guest nra37922]

I am not a fan of Starbucks as they are overpriced.  One can get better and cheaper coffee elsewhere.  Starbucks is just the 'hip' place to get coffee and 'hip' isn't worth the price.

[macville]

Let's be honest, this has absolutely nothing to do with the few OCers who are just going about their business.  This policy is directly tied to the OC activism, such as groups of folks taking Starbucks by force with open carry sidearms or carrying long guns.  Yes, it is legal, but I would like for someone to give me a rational explanation for why they need to strap a rifle to them when they go to Starbucks.  The common answer to that is "because I can."  Well, okay; I'll accept that as an answer as soon as people accept that any business can ask you to leave if you're carrying a rifle... because they can. 

 

Rights are a two way street.  It isn't about the right to not feel uncomfortable, it's about a business controlling the environment they operate in.  I doubt Starbucks gave two craps about CCers or even OCers during the conduct of everyday operations.  If they did they would have come up with this policy a looooooooonnnng time ago.  So what's changed?  Do you think this is the first time liberals came after Starbucks for not having an anti-gun policy?  No, it isn't.  What has changed is the guntards using Starbucks as a political platform.  As pro 2A that I am, I would adopt a similar policy if my business was being hijacked by a bunch of aholes who represent a marginal amount of my customer base.  We are now those aholes.  Don't thank Starbucks for that, thank the Voldemorts within our midst.

 

I am sorry, but it's people like you giving up rights over the last 100+ years that have caused us to be in the mess we currently are. We don't politically have much of a way to stand up for our rights now because to get laws back to being Constitutional, we have to sue and that costs a lot of money. Disagree with me on that? How long have we had republicans running TN and how far have our gun laws moved towards being Constitutional??? Hint: almost none. It's time for a line to be drawn our country. Are you for the Constitution or are you against it? Our country wasn't founded by people who didn't push the edge. Heck, these guys are doing LEGAL things, while our founders were doing ILLEGAL things according to the king.

 

Starbucks may be caught in the middle, but guess what, it's run by PEOPLE, it's not a soulless identity. We need to remember this fact about business AND government. It has become us vs them because we've strayed so far fromt he Constitution. How did the gay community get so accepted in our country? How did black people get their rights equal to whites? How did abortion become legal? Hint: it wasn't by staying in the closet or being quiet! Yet, so many in the gun community seem very content to be very quiet about it and want to force others to be also.

 

It seems like we are winning, but ultimately we are losing because we aren't winning the entire war, just battles here and there. It's great when we win court cases, but if people are not comfortable with seeing a firearm in public, we have won NOTHING. Court cases don't change peoples mind and that's what matters in the long run. Maybe if more people started OC'ing in an everyday fashion the rifle carrying wouldn't be weird and wouldn't really be necessary. People will not accept things until they are around them in an everyday fashion. This is very basic human psychology that the gun community has ignored.

 

And to those of you who call OC'ers and especially rifle OC'ers (where it's legal), jerks, dicks, (insert insult name here), don't take offensive if they call you the same thing back for exercising your 1st amend rights. I think it's shameful that you throw such people under the bus and it's more hurtful to our cause than what they are doing because it gives the anti gun people ammo. If it's legal you can say, I wouldn't do that, but it's legal and I support legal activity. It certainly would be a better use of your time and energy to go combat the anti's than grumbling about the tactics that other people are using.

Edited September 18, 2013 by macville

[Erik88]

I guess I have a different take on this than some of you. They clearly said they don't want guns in their stores regardless of whether it's carried openly or concealed. Open carry may have certainly played a role in their decision but I doubt it was the only consideration. I really doubt open carry of long guns was the final straw since that's such a rare occurance. You guys seem to be taking the default approach and blaming open carry when what you should really be doing is seeing this for what it really is. Starbucks is a store that caters to hipsters and yuppies, they don't give a damn about us.

 

If we stop shopping there it will be a drop in the bucket.

 

Their coffee sucks but my GF likes it so I've supported them in the past. I'll go to Dunkin from now on.

[TMF]

I am sorry, but it's people like you giving up rights over the last 100+ years that have caused us to be in the mess we currently are. We don't politically have much of a way to stand up for our rights now because to get laws back to being Constitutional, we have to sue and that costs a lot of money. Disagree with me on that? How long have we had republicans running TN and how far have our gun laws moved towards being Constitutional??? Hint: almost none. It's time for a line to be drawn our country. Are you for the Constitution or are you against it? Our country wasn't founded by people who didn't push the edge. Heck, these guys are doing LEGAL things, while our founders were doing ILLEGAL things according to the king.

 

Starbucks may be caught in the middle, but guess what, it's run by PEOPLE, it's not a soulless identity. We need to remember this fact about business AND government. It has become us vs them because we've strayed so far fromt he Constitution. How did the gay community get so accepted in our country? How did black people get their rights equal to whites? How did abortion become legal? Hint: it wasn't by staying in the closet or being quiet! Yet, so many in the gun community seem very content to be very quiet about it and want to force others to be also.

 

It seems like we are winning, but ultimately we are losing because we aren't winning the entire war, just battles here and there. It's great when we win court cases, but if people are not comfortable with seeing a firearm in public, we have won NOTHING. Court cases don't change peoples mind and that's what matters in the long run. Maybe if more people started OC'ing in an everyday fashion the rifle carrying wouldn't be weird and wouldn't really be necessary. People will not accept things until they are around them in an everyday fashion. This is very basic human psychology that the gun community has ignored.

 

And to those of you who call OC'ers and especially rifle OC'ers (where it's legal), jerks, dicks, (insert insult name here), don't take offensive if they call you the same thing back for exercising your 1st amend rights. I think it's shameful that you throw such people under the bus and it's more hurtful to our cause than what they are doing because it gives the anti gun people ammo. If it's legal you can say, I wouldn't do that, but it's legal and I support legal activity. It certainly would be a better use of your time and energy to go combat the anti's than grumbling about the tactics that other people are using.

 

Simmer down there Nancy.  Clearly I'm not the problem.  The problem is, and always will be, people who push their values on other people.  Whether it be liberals or conservatives, it is wrong.  It doesn't bother me if someone is anti-gun.  Why should it?  It is their business.  What bothers me is when someone wants to push their anti-gun ideals on me.

 

Now, a place like Starbucks that does not care one way or the other (because it's a business, and in case you weren't aware they exist solely to make money; don't kid yourself).  They don't want to be part of this debate, because it puts them in a position where they could potentially lose money by siding with activists on one side or the other.  People who want to push them to one side (lets call them "fascists") are putting them in a position they don't want to be.  Turns out there are fascists on both sides, pulling them in two directions; both claiming that they are with them or against them.  How about the fascists just leave them alone and let them make some friggin coffee?

 

No matter what YOU'RE opinions are, they don't matter squat at a private business.  They aren't curtailing any of your rights, unless I missed the amendment which states you have the right to Starbucks.  By ignoring their right to property you would actually be infringing on their rights by trespassing.  The principles of liberty apply to more folks that just yourself and those who agree with you.  It's like that for a reason.... ref: fascists.

 

And don't misunderstand me, I could care less if someone OCs.  I promise you it doesn't bother me one bit.  What bothers me is the activism done in conjunction with OCing.  And really, that doesn't even bother me much other than the risk of liberals trying to outlaw something else.  What bothers me are folks who are using a PRIVATE entity as a soapbox for their activism then spewing their nonsense with righteous indignation when that PRIVATE entity tells them not to do it.  It's rediculous.  It flies in the face of the basic principles of liberty; freedom for you and freedom from you.  Feel free to OC all day long; I'll not think you an idiot at all.  Strap on a rifle, walk into a private business for the purpose of activism then get pissy when they say they don't want you there?  Yah, idiot doesn't begin to describe.

[TMF]

I guess I have a different take on this than some of you. They clearly said they don't want guns in their stores regardless of whether it's carried openly or concealed. Open carry may have certainly played a role in their decision but I doubt it was the only consideration. I really doubt open carry of long guns was the final straw since that's such a rare occurance. You guys seem to be taking the default approach and blaming open carry when what you should really be doing is seeing this for what it really is. Starbucks is a store that caters to hipsters and yuppies, they don't give a damn about us.

 

If we stop shopping there it will be a drop in the bucket.

 

Their coffee sucks but my GF likes it so I've supported them in the past. I'll go to Dunkin from now on.

 

Of course they don't care about us; that isn't the point.  They have clearly stated that they have no intention of enforcing this policy.  They are simply distancing themselves from the activism associated with it.  I bet you that if you OC'd into any Starbucks just to grab a coffee no one would say a thing to you.  If you walked in there with a rifle or 30+ guys doing a silent protest?  Yah, that's what they're talking about.

[TMF]

My last post was composed with two thumbs and an iPhone; not the best of platforms.  Allow me to expand on my thoughts a bit more:

 

 

 

Today, the Internet will undoubtedly be aflame with posts by angry gun owners giving Starbucks the what-for over Howard Schultz's request that they be left out of the open-carry vs. concealed carry debate.  In his Open Letter posted to their corporate web site on Tuesday, September 17, 2013 (read it here) Schultz respectfully requested that handgun carriers no longer use Starbucks stores as a soap-box in support of Open Carry.  He stated his case as follows:

 

 

" Recently, however, we’ve seen the “open carry” debate become increasingly uncivil and, in some cases, even threatening. Pro-gun activists have used our stores as a political stage for media events misleadingly called “Starbucks Appreciation Days” that disingenuously portray Starbucks as a champion of “open carry.” To be clear: we do not want these events in our stores. Some anti-gun activists have also played a role in ratcheting up the rhetoric and friction, including soliciting and confronting our customers and partners. "

 

 

Schultz goes on to state that this is a request and not an outright ban as they want to give responsible gun owners the opportunity to respect their wishes of their own free will, and states that Corporately they believe that their stores are not the proper arena for legislative changes to be championed.

 

 

"... We know we cannot satisfy everyone. For those who oppose “open carry,” we believe the legislative and policy-making process is the proper arena for this debate, not our stores."

 

 

Sadly I am concerned that the pro Second Amendment community will fail to hear what Shultz and Starbucks are saying, and instead use this as an opportunity to launch vitriolic attacks against Starbucks claiming that some grave injustice has been done.  At times like this, we gun owners tend to be our worst enemies as we lose sight of the end goal and begin to engage in behavior that ultimately will cost us the "Public Relations Battle" as we fight to preserve the rights guaranteed under the Second Amendment.

 

For a moment, put aside your anger over losing yet another PR battle and think for a moment about how we got here:

 

Over the past few years it had become assumed by the pro-gun community that because Starbucks would not prohibit legal carry in their stores, Starbucks shared our "Love for Guns and Coffee".  Someone even copied the Starbucks mermaid logo and altered it to state as such, and undoubtedly made a boatload of money off of a satirical play on their trademarked logo.  To be honest I've frequently wondered when Starbucks would start suing for trademark infringement, but that's beside the point.

 

Starbucks has stated all along that they were neither supporters of nor dissenters of legal carry, but that they preferred the matter be decided by local laws.  If a community allowed legal carry, their stores would oblige.  If a community did not, their stores would not.  Simply, they wanted to be left out of the argument.

 

However gun owners haven't really allowed them to remain neutral, have they?  Immediately upon previously hearing that Starbucks would not prohibit legally carried firearms in their stores, Open Carry Activists began staging "Guns & Coffee" events and encouraged folks to visit their closest Starbucks franchise while openly and visibly armed.  The cry was "Support Starbucks!", but take your gun with you and make sure people could see it.  That plan has clearly backfired and will continue to backfire for as long as the visible wearing of arms is a polarizing issue.  And in light of recent events such as the Washington Navy Shipyard shooting and the numerous other mass shootings before it, the public opinion is not likely to change anytime soon.

 

Perhaps Shultz put it best in his Open Letter:

 

 

" For those who champion “open carry,” please respect that Starbucks stores are places where everyone should feel relaxed and comfortable. The presence of a weapon in our stores is unsettling and upsetting for many of our customers. "

 

 

My opinion on Open Carry is well known here on TGO.  I think it has it's place at times, and I am glad that it is legally allowed, but I do not believe it was made legal for the reasons that some seem to think.  I believe that Open Carry was left as a legal option to protect gun owners from prosecution should their firearms accidentally become visible while being carried in a concealed manner.  As has been pointed out numerous times in the past, there are states that issue concealed carry permits that will absolutely fine you if your cover-garment slips and exposes your firearm.  Tennessee issues a handgun carry permit without the requirement of it being concealed, and conversations with those involved in past legislative efforts suggest that this was done to protect us, not to enable us.

 

The fact remains that the visible carrying of firearms scares a large percentage of the voting public, or at the very least they find it off-putting.  As I have also said previously, I do not use my handgun as a tool for activism.  It is a tool for protection of myself and my loved ones.  My holster is not a ballot box.

 

I believe that it is time for responsible gun owners to start thinking about how we will win the hearts and minds of the voting public and stop trying to "scare the sheep".  Scared voters are reflexive, reactive voters.  They do not cast ballots using logic and reasoning.  They cast ballots against us out of emotion, fear, and uncertainty.

 

If you want to persuade someone, smacking them in the face with the sight of your firearm while they're trying to enjoy their coffee isn't the way to do it.  Scaring a mom of three enjoying a latte with her friends isn't the way to do it.  Frightening a table of college students hovering over their laptops and sipping on macchiatos isn't the way to do it.

 

Howard Shutlz gets this.  Why do so many of us not?  How many more PR battles do we have to lose before responsible gun owners change their tactics and start winning hearts and minds?

 

 

The people who need to read this post will never, ever understand what you're trying to say.  All they hear is bah bah bah sheeple bah bah bah.  It's so sad and why our whole gun owning community is easily dismissed by middle America.

[Erik88]

Simmer down there Nancy.  Clearly I'm not the problem.  The problem is, and always will be, people who push their values on other people.  Whether it be liberals or conservatives, it is wrong.  It doesn't bother me if someone is anti-gun.  Why should it?  It is their business.  What bothers me is when someone wants to push their anti-gun ideals on me.

 

Now, a place like Starbucks that does not care one way or the other (because it's a business, and in case you weren't aware they exist solely to make money; don't kid yourself).  They don't want to be part of this debate, because it puts them in a position where they could potentially lose money by siding with activists on one side or the other.  People who want to push them to one side (lets call them "fascists") are putting them in a position they don't want to be.  Turns out there are fascists on both sides, pulling them in two directions; both claiming that they are with them or against them.  How about the fascists just leave them alone and let them make some friggin coffee?

 

No matter what YOU'RE opinions are, they don't matter squat at a private business.  They aren't curtailing any of your rights, unless I missed the amendment which states you have the right to Starbucks.  By ignoring their right to property you would actually be infringing on their rights by trespassing.  The principles of liberty apply to more folks that just yourself and those who agree with you.  It's like that for a reason.... ref: fascists.

 

And don't misunderstand me, I could care less if someone OCs.  I promise you it doesn't bother me one bit.  What bothers me is the activism done in conjunction with OCing.  And really, that doesn't even bother me much other than the risk of liberals trying to outlaw something else.  What bothers me are folks who are using a PRIVATE entity as a soapbox for their activism then spewing their nonsense with righteous indignation when that PRIVATE entity tells them not to do it.  It's rediculous.  It flies in the face of the basic principles of liberty; freedom for you and freedom from you.  Feel free to OC all day long; I'll not think you an idiot at all.  Strap on a rifle, walk into a private business for the purpose of activism then get pissy when they say they don't want you there?  Yah, idiot doesn't begin to describe.

 

So how do you differentiate between some guy carrying openly because it's more comfortable or he just feels like it vs. someone trying to stir the pot? It seems to be that Starbucks certainly doesn't care what reason someone is OCing, they don't want it in their stores.

 

But again, this is about more than just open carry. Putting all the blame on that crowd is not what we should be doing. We need to stick together as a community rather than drive a wedge between us.

[DaveS]

I am sorry, but it's people like you giving up rights over the last 100+ years that have caused us to be in the mess we currently are.

Sir; I don't think TMF had anything to do with our current situation. Let's point at Columbine, Fort Hood, the theatre in Colorado, Sandy Hook, Boston Marathon gun killings and now the DC Navy Yard. Maybe the sight of guns is scaring the crap out of people right now! Why should any of us want to "push" this on other folks? Some people on here call them "Sheeple". I call them PEOPLE that see you with a gun wanting to know if all your eggs are still in the nest, what kind day you are having, did you take your meds this morning ect., ect.. Don't blame them, but lets blame ourselves. We bring this on ourselves do we not?

 

DaveS

Edited September 18, 2013 by DaveS

[macville]

The people who need to read this post will never, ever understand what you're trying to say.  All they hear is bah bah bah sheeple bah bah bah.  It's so sad and why our whole gun owning community is easily dismissed by middle America.

 

I understand what the guy is saying, but he never offers an answer to how we change minds. Because if it's what we've been doing, it's not working because changing laws does not change minds. Acceptance happens through being around, not just because someone says it's the law. Otherwise OC would be accepted no problem since it's legal. This is what the gun community seems to not understand.

[E4 No More]

As expected, many in this thread want to comment on their personal taste in coffee, or lack of taste for coffee, so that it doesn't matter to them what Starbucks does, and this misses the fundamental point. Starbucks' official policy is now publicly stated that they want your money; not you. It DOES effect you because other large companies will be watching the consequences of this action before deciding on THEIR course of action. They are defacto against legal activity with this policy. They could have said that we ban open carry in our stores - which to me is reasonable because it clearly disturbs a large portion of their customer base - but that's not what they're saying. They are saying that only guns carried by law enforcement are welcomed, and that my concealed weapon is not welcomed - which is NOT disturbing to their customer base and NOT reasonable, IMHO. This is why they'll no longer get any of my money. I don't care if they are trying to appease anyone on both sides of the problem.

[ShamGlock]

I'm surprised it took Starbucks this long to do this. They have repeatedly asked both the OC activists and MDA to leave them out of this debate. If you want to have your political views recognized and validated, go to the ballot box, stop trying to force your beliefs on a disinterested private business. Show up at city council meetings, hell, run for office. All they wanted to do was sell people coffee. It seems to me that this was the best way for Starbucks to bow out of a fight they didn't get themselves in to begin with.