Starbucks Has A New Customer

[ssc]

I was concerned we would get off topic and we are. Larry you begin by saying your comments were not about the gun debate, yet the body of your last post definately addresses that issue. This is about the fundamental rights of a private business owner. A "group" has demanded that this owner take a stand/change business policy to their way of thinking. The owner has decided to politely decline. The owner is now faced with publicity he never wanted due to this groups obnoxious conduct, which is directed at the owner. They have brought the media and protesting members to attempt to coerce the owner. Their actions and that of the media are disgusting.

Regards, Steve

[Chazz Layne]

All of those folks who had nothing better to do than parade their weapons into a Starbucks are not helping gun rights advocates, IMO - just cementing the view, to many of those on the other side of this debate (and there are certainly many) that gun owners are fanatics. Just doesn't seem productive to me.

I have to agree with you on this. I support the goals of the "open carry movement" in California, but I feel pretty strongly that the only change their methods are going to bring about is more restrictions. Showing the world that you are exercising your rights when you are surrounded by people made uncomfortable by those rights doesn't condition them to such things, it makes them lobby against those rights. Frankly, while I respect the folks choosing to "stand and fight" to keep their gun rights, I sincerely believe California is a lost cause (and this goes a lot deeper than just gun rights, as proven by the "disgusting" conduct Steve mentioned).

How many on the other side of this debate would change their tune if one of these "fanatic" gun owners saved their life?

Probably not many, most of them don't seem too bright...

[BorregoWrangler]

I was concerned we would get off topic and we are.

Sorry about that. I'll be good!

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/c ... =obnetwork

Starbucks asks not to be put in the middle of open-carry gun issue

Posted by Melissa Allison


Starbucks asked in a press release this morning that groups on both sides of the open-carry gun issue "refrain from putting Starbucks or our partners [employees] into the middle of this divisive issue."

It's responding to a public debate that's coming to Seattle this morning, when the Brady Campaign will hold a press conference near Pike Place Market before taking 28,000 signatures to Starbucks' headquarters to try to push the company to ban guns in its stores.

The Brady Campaign is reacting to Open Carry advocates who have appeared at Starbucks stores in other states to make a point about their right to openly carry guns. Other chains where they have appeared, including Peet's Coffee & Tea and California Pizza Kitchen, have complied with the Brady Campaign request.

Starbucks said in the release that it complies with local laws. "In this case, 43 of the 50 U.S. states have open carry weapon laws. Where these laws don't exist, we comply with laws that prohibit the open carrying of weapons. The political, policy and legal debates around these issues belong in the legislatures and courts, not in our stores," it said.

If it adopted a policy different from local laws allowing open carry, the company said, "we would be forced to require our partners to ask law abiding customers to leave our stores, putting our partners in an unfair and potentially unsafe position."

Starbucks knows the dangers of illegal and irresponsible gun use, it said. "Without minimizing this unfortunate reality, we believe that supporting local laws is the right way for us to ensure a safe environment for both partners and customers."

People on both sides commented on my post yesterday about this issue. One self-proclaimed liberal and NRA member brought up the coffee shop shootings in November of four police officers in Parkland:

"To me, it's the same as the Brady Campaign saying, 'If only that coffee shop had this ridiculous rule in place, Maurice Clemmons would've never walked in there and killed those four brave officers.'.... Could the Brady Campaign have picked a worse time and place for this? They might as well do it right at the door of Forza Coffee Shop in Parkland."

[OU812]

As much as we think we own the property we purchase here in the US, we do not. It’s not like feudalism. What do you get in exchange for the $500,000 it takes to "buy" a piece of property? The land. No, you are buying the assistance of the US government to defend it. If someone is on this piece of property and you are unable or unwilling to remove them yourself the US government will help you. Why should the Brandy group think that they should be able to take this right away from anyon in thier home or business? Personally I would be very reluctant to even go into a store that I know only criminals had guns. Because even the stupidest criminal can see that he would rather rob a store that is guaranteed not to have anyone able to defend themselves in it. This brandy group is the same group of people who would tell me that I should not have the ability to defend my own home. They would tell me that I should let the police do it for me and hope that they are never too busy or unable to defend me. There is no reasoning here. Just emotional irrational people bullying people out of their constitutional rights.

[Chazz Layne]

Here's another reason to go: Nalgene-sized coffees

I think I'll have a TRENTA white mocha on my way to LA tomorrow.

[cruiserlarry]

Seems some of my humor was taken seriously, and my serious comment was twisted with, IMO, unrelated issues. I didn't read, or comment on, the Brady group's issue with Starbucks...

Gun control and racial discrimination are completely different issues, even if both might involve discrimination. Still a bad analogy, IMO.

I agree it would be idiotic for anyone to post a "no guns allowed" sign in their business; if we could outlaw idiots, there would be no gun control issue to debate. However just because a store owner wants to restrict his customers from carrying does not mean the proprietor is unarmed - it just means he doesn't want the general public, whose skills or emotional control is unknown to the him, to be packing in his establishment...

Obviously, I always get the rebuttal that criminals don't follow the law (by definition, so this statement is redundant). That point is not relevant, to me, in any of the arguments related to this issue, even though it seems to be the primary argument used to defend open carry and gun rights issues at any level. Yes, criminal behavior is a very important concern, but it's priority in this debate is ranked differently for me. I am concerned about criminals, but my odds of a direct violent criminal interaction are far less than being effected by the actions of someone within a couple of hundred yards who feels the need to display his testosterone while having less that adequate training, both in his ability to quickly analyze a threat, and in his ability to take proportional action to the threat. This is nothing we can debate - we have had different life experiences related to self-defense or the defense of loved ones, and I really do understand why some feel differently.

I just feel the arguments presented in most instances are based on a more emotional need to be armed than the actual odds of a threat. And obviously, most, at least here, feel differently than I do...

Besides, what would you guys do without me to beat up on these threads ???

[cruiserlarry]

This brandy group is the same group of people who would tell me that I should not have the ability to defend my own home.

Actually, Steve, it's the Brady Group.

The Brandy group would tell you that you must be intoxicated while defending your home

(I know it's a typo - I'm just having fun... )

[DaveK]

To:

SSC - don't give up the fight, brother. Good job!

Chazz - very funny stuff!!!

BW - Amen!!

Scott: good points.

cruiserlarry: don't ever change.

DaveK: you lucky bastard!! How did you avoid this skirmish?

[ssc]

Just trying to keep this ship sailing straight. I think we all agree that the shop owner has the right to decide their policy. I think we can agree that the "Brady bunch" are acting like spoiled children who didn't get their way on the playground. This specific issue is not about open carry, but a business owners rights. (If someone wants to start a thread about open carry, we can really get this party off to a bang .)

There is a restaurant in Lake Havasu that the wife and I wanted to try. As we approached the door, they had a large sign that said no guns allowed. That is their right. I didn't see any reporters or protests from the NRA. However, I didn't go in, nor will I spend any money in this establishment. By the way, when are you all coming out to Havasu for a bit of wheeling, shooting and cruising?

Larry, I am glad to see that we have another Steve on board

Regards, Steve

[Chazz Layne]

By the way, when are you all coming out to Havasu for a bit of wheeling, shooting and cruising?

May looks like it needs a long-weekend event, and there are a ton of areas I'd love to explore right around there...