Gun battle on the Starbucks FB Page!


PDA






prplflh71
February 27, 2012, 12:25 PM
Please take the time to visit Starbucks FB page and thank them for "sticking to their guns!"

The Director of Communications for The Coalition to Stop Gun Violence (formerly The Coalition to Ban Handguns) Ladd Everitt, has been on their page since the failed boycott attacking gun right and pro-gun comments on the page.

He and his supporters have tried to incite threatening replies so they can "screeen scape" an image of the post onto their FB page as an "example of why people should be prohibeted from carrying guns in public." Don't bother trying to take the discussion to the CSGV pahe. Even polite comments disagreeing with their views are deleted and the user is banned from their page!

" A lie left unchallanged becomes the truth." Please take a moment to politely represent the gun community and provide facts to counter the lies. There are many customers who visit their page (over 28 million likes) who may be easily swayed by their rheteric. I'd also ask that gun images and "in your face" type comments not be posted.

Thanks!

Brian

If you enjoyed reading about "Gun battle on the Starbucks FB Page!" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
mljdeckard
February 27, 2012, 01:53 PM
On it.

Demitrios
February 27, 2012, 02:02 PM
I don't mind being a keyboard warrior, count me in.

Owen
February 27, 2012, 02:10 PM
dangerously close to forum wars...

Rail Driver
February 27, 2012, 02:45 PM
dangerously close to forum wars...
On the one hand I can see where you're coming from, Owen... On the other hand, the argument put forth in the OP definitely lands this topic well within the short list of High Road material. It's well known that anti gun groups troll the internet looking for anything pro-gun to defame. That the OP specifically requested that participators refrain from posting pictures of guns and "in your face" (ie: rude, disrespectful, violent or threatening) comments says much for his intent here.

None of the responses here have been in any way inflammatory.

No disrespect intended, but I think your pre-moderation statement is "jumping the gun" in this instance.

*Edit to add: I've added my comment to the Starbucks page as well.

leadcounsel
February 27, 2012, 02:51 PM
Which Starbucks? There's a lot of FB pages...

cyclopsshooter
February 27, 2012, 02:59 PM
http://www.facebook.com/Starbucks

Never heard of "forum wars" before today but after checking this out I don't think this would qualify. It is an internal Facebook deal, which seems to be happening more lately (probably election cycle) A few FB firearm groups I belong to are having more of these conflicts.

Ryanxia
February 27, 2012, 03:28 PM
Poor Starbucks, getting caught in the middle as another place we fight our ongoing battle. Freedom vs Tyranny.

prplflh71
February 27, 2012, 03:30 PM
dangerously close to forum wars...
Was I wrong in assuming I could post a request within the "Activism" area of this forum a request to call to action pro-rights activists to provide civil counter arguments to a paid anti-gun lobbyist who is using a public forum to attack our Second Ammendment Rights?

Like I said before, "A lie left unchallanged becomes the truth." In my opinion the civil rights war goes where the battle is taking place. Right now there is a battle taking place on the Starbucks Facebook page in view of the more than 28 million subscribers to that page. I'd like our voice heard in this debate.

prplflh71
February 27, 2012, 03:58 PM
Poor Starbucks, getting caught in the middle as another place we fight our ongoing battle. Freedom vs Tyranny.
I agree. This started as many of us pro-rights folks dropping in to the Starbucks page to show support during a time when a boycott was called against them for simply following local laws. The anti's have bullied there way into the posts on the page, insistent on spreading lies and attacking the character of gun owners.

The Starbuck's page moderators have been very generous in allowing both sides a voice in the debate. The irony here is many of us have invited the anti's to move the debate to their page or to one of our pages. They have refused. Many of us have tried posting civil arguments on the anti pages and have had them deleted and our accounts blocked.

Not suprisingly, they have a dislike of both the First and Second Amendments. Utilizing the First only when it suites their needs.

To address the "Forum Wars" comment. Yes, there have been posts from the Anti-rights groups advising they have called on their supporting religious, social justice, community action and other groups to the page to assist them in their attacks.

I agree, it's a shame this has to be done on the Starbucks page but the Anti's have left no other option other than to be the only voice.

Twmaster
February 27, 2012, 04:04 PM
As I refuse to engage in 'social media' (I much prefer 'anti-social' media :D) I can only join this skirmish in spirit.

The two faced tactics of the antis never fail to astound me. They appear to be all about spreading their agenda in places they are not welcome yet censor those with opposing viewpoints. Seems maybe they are not fond of the First Amendment either.

I also wonder just how scared and panicked these clowns are? With gun sales and CCW permits at all time highs and their totally failed efforts to 'punish' Starbucks it seems Mr. Everitt needs to change his soiled undies as he and his kind become ever more marginalized.

TurtlePhish
February 27, 2012, 05:01 PM
I can confidently say we are winning by far in this "war".... The few antis that are bothering to post have absolutely no realistic arguments. Their comments are mainly baseless name-calling and personal attacks, absolutely no facts or examples.

Wait, did I say "mainly"? I meant "entirely".

hso
February 27, 2012, 05:22 PM
Use the "elevator speach" from the earlier Starbuck's thread to form your own short message.

"Irrelevant", "hysterical", "irrational", "baseless", etc. are good terms to describe the group and their attention getting "call to arms" in attacking Starbucks. A pathetic also ran trying to get attention by pretending that there's something to fear in getting a latte.

conw
February 27, 2012, 06:36 PM
Apparently I'm an "elitist gun nut retards."

There are some anti-gun trolls on there and frankly I am having trouble figuring out whether they are really anti-gun, or are some pro-gun people attempting to be agents provocateurs.

Prophet
February 27, 2012, 09:06 PM
I've been following the whole Starbucks fiasco from the get go and have been called many nasty names; I have yet to experience any attempt by someone from the other side to engage in proper, intelligent debate with me over the issue even though I've made my best efforts to be polite yet straightforward. It's hopeless. But at least we're winning and Starbucks is willing to allow 2A supporters to have this dialogue.

Stay on the high-road going forward, folks. Use proper spelling, capitalization and punctuation, and always be reasonable and polite; don't worry so much about how your posts will impact the other side because they're pretty much a lost cause. Think about how your posts will sway passersby. Show them that we are indeed the educated and well-reasoned side of the debate. However, don't be afraid to put some bite into your arguments if necessary. It is possible to do this without coming off as a smart-aleck. The terms hso posted above are a good place to start.

Twmaster
February 27, 2012, 11:44 PM
Agreed. The derogatory terms used by the 'anti gun nut' does more to harm his cause than anything.

While I am indeed pro gun I am not a 'gun nut'. I'm just a nut who likes guns....

prplflh71
February 28, 2012, 11:09 AM
I've been following the whole Starbucks fiasco from the get go and have been called many nasty names; I have yet to experience any attempt by someone from the other side to engage in proper, intelligent debate with me over the issue even though I've made my best efforts to be polite yet straightforward. It's hopeless. But at least we're winning and Starbucks is willing to allow 2A supporters to have this dialogue.

Stay on the high-road going forward, folks. Use proper spelling, capitalization and punctuation, and always be reasonable and polite; don't worry so much about how your posts will impact the other side because they're pretty much a lost cause. Think about how your posts will sway passersby. Show them that we are indeed the educated and well-reasoned side of the debate. However, don't be afraid to put some bite into your arguments if necessary. It is possible to do this without coming off as a smart-aleck. The terms hso posted above are a good place to start.
Well said! Thank you.

rajb123
February 29, 2012, 03:44 PM
A story about this was broadcast recently on CNBC. The person interviewed went into a rant of why Starbucks should post notices in all stores telling people not to bring guns into stores and that he felt the boycott was a good idea.

Really? These people are trully dangerous IMO.

silvermane_1
March 3, 2012, 01:52 AM
gee, i wonder what these what the anti-gun activist think about all of the LEO's OCing in starbucks?

If you enjoyed reading about "Gun battle on the Starbucks FB Page!" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!