Starbucks Has A New Customer

[ssc]

Any private place of business has the right to set forth a policy regarding firearms. Though I may not agree with signs that state no firearms, I respect the owners right to set forth their policy. Then it is up to me as to whether or not I will patronize their establishment. I support Starbucks right. I also feel for them due to this unwanted attention. I had heard anti gun groups were making demands on business owners to post anti gun signs, yet I never gave it much thought. In my opinion, what a bunch of misanthropic nacissistic bullies.

http://www.seattlepi.com/local/416154_starbucks.html

Regards, Steve

[unwiredadventures]

I support Starbucks right. I also feel for them due to this unwanted attention. I had heard anti gun groups were making demands on business owners to post anti gun signs, yet I never gave it much thought. In my opinion, what a bunch of misanthropic nacissistic bullies.
Regards, Steve

Now would be a good time to go to the Starbucks website and send them a comment with your support.

[Chazz Layne]

I support Starbucks right. I also feel for them due to this unwanted attention. I had heard anti gun groups were making demands on business owners to post anti gun signs, yet I never gave it much thought. In my opinion, what a bunch of misanthropic nacissistic bullies.
Regards, Steve

Now would be a good time to go to the Starbucks website and send them a comment with your support.

Indeed.



...and in my case Starbucks has insured continued visits from me.

[BorregoWrangler]

Yeah I've been keeping an eye on all the open carry events lately. I look at it as a civil rights issue, the Brady Campaign might as well be asking Starbucks to ban anyone of a particular ethnicity or religon.

Whether its a sign banning firearms in a private business or some other "gun free zone" its only going to affect law abiding gun owners, not criminals or people intent on doing harm to others. It wouldn't have stopped Maurice Clemmons from walking into a Parkland, Washington coffee shop and killing those four police officers. It also didn't help anyone during the Virginia Tech massacre or anyone at the High School shooting in my hometown. Banning guns or creating gun free zones does nothing but take away one's right to defend themselves.

I believe Ted Nugent said it best: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LCHtw6WbbnM

[cruiserlarry]

I look at it as a civil rights issue, the Brady Campaign might as well be asking Starbucks to ban anyone of a particular ethnicity or religion.

Whether its a sign banning firearms in a private business or some other "gun free zone" its only going to affect law abiding gun owners, not criminals or people intent on doing harm to others.

Without going into whether or not banning guns is good or bad, your statement is irrational. You seem to be saying if a person wants to keep a gun in his own house or business, that should be his right; yet if someone wants to ban guns from his house or business, it's a civil rights offense analogous to discrimination ???

No company should be coerced into posting policies not required by law. But, if a person chooses to "risk" having a gun-free zone, that should be his prerogative legally and otherwise, if your argument is to be consistent with your view of the rights of gun owners.

And whether or not Starbucks allows armed customers makes no difference to me - I am much more concerned that folks are being misled into believing what they serve is actually considered to be "coffee"

[salad_man]

I like that Starbucks has decided to stay out of choosing sides with the special interest groups. I am also in tune to the right to bear arms

[BorregoWrangler]

I look at it as a civil rights issue, the Brady Campaign might as well be asking Starbucks to ban anyone of a particular ethnicity or religion.

Whether its a sign banning firearms in a private business or some other "gun free zone" its only going to affect law abiding gun owners, not criminals or people intent on doing harm to others.

Without going into whether or not banning guns is good or bad, your statement is irrational. You seem to be saying if a person wants to keep a gun in his own house or business, that should be his right; yet if someone wants to ban guns from his house or business, it's a civil rights offense analogous to discrimination ???

No company should be coerced into posting policies not required by law. But, if a person chooses to "risk" having a gun-free zone, that should be his prerogative legally and otherwise, if your argument is to be consistent with your view of the rights of gun owners.

And whether or not Starbucks allows armed customers makes no difference to me - I am much more concerned that folks are being misled into believing what they serve is actually considered to be "coffee"

No, I'm not saying that at all. My "irrational" statement just shows how I personally would view such a business. It's my opinion. You can do pretty much whatever you want in your own home. The issue is out in public. Like Steve said, a private place of business can set forth a policy regarding firearms. Then it is up to me as to whether or not I will patronize their establishment. Now, if there were laws regarding how a business or company could set policies on firearms, then that would be a different story.

It's also just as you said, no company should be coerced into posting policies not required by law. Starbucks has refused to be coerced by these anti gun groups and I think that's great!

[DaveK]

I look at it as a civil rights issue, the Brady Campaign might as well be asking Starbucks to ban anyone of a particular ethnicity or religion.

Whether its a sign banning firearms in a private business or some other "gun free zone" its only going to affect law abiding gun owners, not criminals or people intent on doing harm to others.

Without going into whether or not banning guns is good or bad, your statement is irrational. You seem to be saying if a person wants to keep a gun in his own house or business, that should be his right; yet if someone wants to ban guns from his house or business, it's a civil rights offense analogous to discrimination ???

No company should be coerced into posting policies not required by law. But, if a person chooses to "risk" having a gun-free zone, that should be his prerogative legally and otherwise, if your argument is to be consistent with your view of the rights of gun owners.

And whether or not Starbucks allows armed customers makes no difference to me - I am much more concerned that folks are being misled into believing what they serve is actually considered to be "coffee"

cruiserlarry, cruiserlarry, cruiserlarry:


You are the one fixed point in this ever changing world. I can always count on you to get on the wrong side of any firearms debate. Whatever shall we do with you.

If you have the energy to get upset here, it should not be for Starbucks "misleading" people, but for charging $5 for a cup of foo-foo coffee!!

Go Starbucks!!!

[cruiserlarry]

You are the one fixed point in this ever changing world. I can always count on you to get on the wrong side of any firearms debate. Whatever shall we do with you.

If you have the energy to get upset here, it should not be for Starbucks "misleading" people, but for charging $5 for a cup of foo-foo coffee!!

Go Starbucks!!!

Can't wait - now we'll have angry, armed folks walking around loaded up on caffeine...that makes me feel safer

Really, my comment wasn't about the firearms debate; In fact, using analogies to defend firearms rights that have no basis in logic only takes away from those arguments - so I'm doing you a favor

I would like to know how many of the folks upset about whether they can enter a Starbucks with their weapons in tow have ever actually been accosted in a Starbucks without their firearms ? Just seems to be much ado about nothing - the need of some to make an issue where none really exists (please don't read me the 2nd amendment here - I'm talking in more general terms). 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. But then again, in my simple way of thinking, going to Starbucks for a "shot" always meant something coffee-related before....

[BorregoWrangler]

Really, my comment wasn't about the firearms debate; In fact, using analogies to defend firearms rights that have no basis in logic only takes away from those arguments - so I'm doing you a favor

That is a very bias statement, Larry. Just because one type of discrimination is punishable by law and another is not, does not mean that such an analogy has no basis in logic. We're talking about basic human rights here.

I would like to know how many of the folks upset about whether they can enter a Starbucks with their weapons in tow have ever actually been accosted in a Starbucks without their firearms ? Just seems to be much ado about nothing - the need of some to make an issue where none really exists (please don't read me the 2nd amendment here - I'm talking in more general terms). 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. But then again, in my simple way of thinking, going to Starbucks for a "shot" always meant something coffee-related before....

You're missing the point here. Its not just about carrying guns (concealed or open) into a coffe shop. Its about having the inalienable right and the ability to defend yourself where ever you are. Nobody ever knows if or when they could become the victim of a violent crime. When seconds count the police are only minutes away. The only person responsible for our safety is ourselves.

The folks here who are parading their weapons into Starbucks are helping to bring awareness to our 2nd amendment rights. I certainaly wouldn't view someone who is standing up for our rights in a pefectly legal manner as fanatic.

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