February 14th Support Starbuck's.

Status
Not open for further replies.
hso said:
The question should be what marginalizes the Antis in this case more than whether Starbuck's is pro-RKBA.
Click to expand...

I agree, and I'll be there too, but saying that "Starbucks supports gun owners" is not only incorrect, it also puts Starbucks in a position they have publicly stated they don't want to be in. Nowhere in that letter I posted does it say they support gun owners or anyone else. They are trying to stay completely neutral, and it doesn't seem wise of us to try to slant this in our favor by making untrue claims. 99.9% of the stores in my area also abide by the laws, but that surely doesn't suggest they support gun owners. In fact, we don't know that behind the scenes Starbucks isn't doing everything they can to support new gun control measures. If stricter laws are passed, it's actually in their best interest; it takes the pressure off of them.

I was at Starbucks this morning, and I'll be there on the 14th, and obviously I felt strong enough about this to send them a letter. But I won't fool myself into thinking their stand is anything but based on the bottom line.
 
It amazes me how people can fight the Constitution and actually succeed on many occasions.
 
Let us be sure we understand that Starbuck's may not "support" us, but that they're standing up to the Antis trying to force them into something against us. All the same. but "The enemy of my enemy...".;)
 
I got the exact same reply today. The way it's worded, I think they'd probably send the same response to an "anti" as well.

Basically what they're saying is "We don't want to take a side in this debate, but we will uphold and respect the law. If you don't like the law, then contact your local officials and have it changed." I can completely appreciate that.

R
 
Sgt R said:
I got the exact same reply today. The way it's worded, I think they'd probably send the same response to an "anti" as well.

Basically what they're saying is "We don't want to take a side in this debate, but we will uphold and respect the law. If you don't like the law, then contact your local officials and have it changed." I can completely appreciate that.
Click to expand...

I got the same canned response and I must say that I agree with your entire take on it.

Of course, I still plan on the venti and muffin on the 14th if nothing more than to provide financial equilibrium during the boycott.
 
Remember, we're not "supporting" Starbucks, but confounding the Anti group that wants to punish them into changing their national policy against us.

Oh, the other relevant fact is that his National Gun Victims Action Council was just formed in 2010 and is only trying to get attention to make themselves relevant. By taking a public poke at a large company like Starbucks they hope to draw attention.

The best thing we can do is to confound them by quietly seeing to it that Starbucks has a banner day on Feb. 14 and higher sales this Feb. than last Feb. Let the folks at Starbucks know that you're bringing money to them to make sure that crybaby organizations seeking attention like this one don't profit from their behavior and that we appreciate their neutrality. No flashy overt attention seeking behavior on our part should be seen lest we're equated to these fools.

BTW, if you don't want to drive to get a cup of coffee you can always buy a bag of beans online at http://www.starbucksstore.com/. Just be sure to place your order on Feb. 14 and make a comment that we respect Starbucks' neutral policy and appreciate their not bowing to pressure from a fringe group trying to have them set national policy outside of local laws.
 
Last edited:
For the last decade I have noticed the label of weapon is the new description of firearms. Becareful what you say the 2nd ammendment does not protect weapons.

(What you say can and "WILL" be used against you in a court of law.)
 
Becareful what you say the 2nd ammendment does not protect weapons.
Click to expand...

I beg to differ:

Me said:
The 2nd Amendment protects our right to keep and bear ARMS. ARMS are WEAPONS. ARMS does not indicate toys, tools for procuring food, or interesting pieces of memorabilia.

The fact that we have the 2nd Amendment and that it recognizes a legitimate and rightful need for honest people to keep and bear implements of destruction and death is incredibly significant and helps define a bit about who we are as Americans.

We are not unique in that we may hunt, or that we may poke holes in paper from far away, or that we may hang shiny things on our walls. We are unique in that we recognize an inherent right to the means, and at times the USE, of lethal weapons in the defense of ourselves, our loved ones, and our country.

Mamby-pamby soft-peddling of the concept to try to hide the purposely lethal utility of our ARMS is a serious mistake and shirks from the right and responsibility belonging to free peoples.
Click to expand...

Support and thank Starbucks (and any other company who does likewise) for recognizing that the right of a free people is to be armed -- to bear weapons -- in their daily lives.
 
Not at all opposed to supporting Starbucks, or the notion that we as residents of this republic have a right to bear arms. What is alarming to me is the notion people have that within the confines of a privately owned (or publicly traded) company that the proprietor's right to forbid firearms is trivial. There is no law I am aware of that allows one to carry in opposition to posted signs, and owners/individuals have that right.

I am pleased to hear that a company like Starbucks has chosen to ALLOW carry in accordance with local laws and I too will support them with my business. I will not however make overt attempts to display any weapons or otherwise make spectacle over a cup of coffee. That is the sort of tactic that changes corporate policies and IMO is reticent of the radical minority. Best case scenario, as has been mentioned, is for corporate to note no significant impact or indeed a spike in sales. We've already given a fringe group more than their 15 minutes.
 
Skylerbone said:
Not at all opposed to supporting Starbucks, or the notion that we as residents of this republic have a right to bear arms. What is alarming to me is the notion people have that within the confines of a privately owned (or publicly traded) company that the proprietor's right to forbid firearms is trivial. There is no law I am aware of that allows one to carry in opposition to posted signs, and owners/individuals have that right.

I am pleased to hear that a company like Starbucks has chosen to ALLOW carry in accordance with local laws and I too will support them with my business. I will not however make overt attempts to display any weapons or otherwise make spectacle over a cup of coffee. That is the sort of tactic that changes corporate policies and IMO is reticent of the radical minority. Best case scenario, as has been mentioned, is for corporate to note no significant impact or indeed a spike in sales. We've already given a fringe group more than their 15 minutes.
Click to expand...

This plus I don't like their coffee, atmosphere or prices. Plus, let's be real, they won't notice the dent in sales. Volume is way too high to notice a few thousand cups either way and it will likely cancel out to an even lower number if people actually boycott/support as they say they will.

So good on them for making one choice I like, I just don't like anything else about them.
 
Skylerbone said:
Not at all opposed to supporting Starbucks, or the notion that we as residents of this republic have a right to bear arms. What is alarming to me is the notion people have that within the confines of a privately owned (or publicly traded) company that the proprietor's right to forbid firearms is trivial. There is no law I am aware of that allows one to carry in opposition to posted signs, and owners/individuals have that right.
Click to expand...
My understanding is that in most states (there are exceptions) it is not illegal to carry in a business that prohibits firearms on the premises. There is no law in my state that gives such signs the power of law. It is illegal to refuse to leave when asked, but that is not the same thing.

I am pleased to hear that a company like Starbucks has chosen to ALLOW carry in accordance with local laws and I too will support them with my business. I will not however make overt attempts to display any weapons or otherwise make spectacle over a cup of coffee. That is the sort of tactic that changes corporate policies and IMO is reticent of the radical minority. Best case scenario, as has been mentioned, is for corporate to note no significant impact or indeed a spike in sales. We've already given a fringe group more than their 15 minutes.
Click to expand...
I agree 100%. Open display of firearms would be counterproductive.
 
Flopsweat said:
I agree 100%. Open display of firearms would be counterproductive.
Click to expand...

So, even though I normally open carry in Starbucks about once a month (everytime I visit them), that I can't open carry like I normally do on February 14th?
 
I'll be stopping at the Starbucks for a drink on Valentines Day. Anyone who respects that Starbucks respects our rights (for whatever reason) should too. If I were over the age of 21 I'd OC to show my solidarity with the 2nd amendment and would explain why I was patronizing them on that day. I think it's silly to let the anti's voice be the only one heard. I say show them that normal, everyday Starbucks patrons own and carry firearms.
 
So, even though I normally open carry in Starbucks about once a month (everytime I visit them), that I can't open carry like I normally do on February 14th?
____
Click to expand...
Don't be silly. That's not what he's saying and you know it.

If, on the 14th, there's suddenly a flood of dudes open carrying guns and wearing propagunda t-shirts, it will be a bad thing for our cause.
 
Just a suggestion for folks who will also be spending money at Starbucks to confound the boycott by anti-firearm rights activists of February 14th:

Making the rounds in several other forums I frequent is a suggestion to use $2 bills for your purchases that day.

I think this is an excellent idea. For those who live in CC only states or choose not to OC, this could be also be a good way to let Starbucks know that this particular money comes from 2nd Amendment supporters since you can't obviously appear as one. (Unless you have the NRA coat, hat, belt-buckle, shoe strings, ballpoint pen, checkbook cover, etc. as a dead giveaway.) This way, our support is easily figured out when the accountants wonder, "Where'd all these $2 bills come from?" without forcing the support/not support decision onto them. It lets them maintain their neutrality while also subtly letting them know where the money is coming from. (If they have the wherewithal to figure out the $2/2A correlation.)
 
It isn't about "supporting" Starbuck's as much as it is about taking advantage of an opportunity to confound the Antis.
Click to expand...

Actually, it's both. I'm always up for anything to confound the antis, and this has the advantage, if enough of us gunnies patronize Starbucks on Feb 14th, of partially, or even completely offsetting any business loss they might experience as a result of the boycott. If they actually increase sales on Valentine's Day, other businesses that might be contemplating gun-ban signs, or those who have posted such signs, might re-think their position. :what::eek::cool:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Seminole
  • Locked
Mas Ayoob: Sipping on Starbucks and Listening to the Radio
Replies
3
Views
787
captainmarko
C
D
  • Locked
Citizens Report from Second Amendment Rally at AZ State Capitol (8 February, 2013)
Replies
5
Views
416
2ifbyC
2ifbyC
armedandsafe
  • Locked
Alert!
Replies
1
Views
636
armedandsafe
armedandsafe
J
  • Locked
A little luck in California
Replies
8
Views
840
50 Shooter
5
G
  • Locked
Dem’s working with the NRA / Carolyn McCarthy admits no support for extra gun control
Replies
19
Views
999
Rem700SD
R
Back
Top