Guns no longer welcome at Starbucks

I thought you might ask that question. It is a very good one.

Our Federal Government has a official policy of the right of free passage of shipping sea lanes even in waters claimed by other nations.

To exercise our belief in the right of free passage in disputed waters we regularly send armed U.S. Navy warships through these sea lanes. The principle is if we don't use these sea lanes on a regular basis then we have no basis for our claim of right of free passage.

Why does our Government see the need to send ARMED WARSHIPS through these waters on a regular basis? Wouldn't unarmed merchant ships affirm our belief the same way?

Are we trying to poke a stick in the other nations eye to provoke them into attacking our ship?

Or are we saying we believe so strongly in our right we are prepared to defend it?

All of this leads to my point that exercising your right of open carry is no different than our Government's exercising it's right of free passage shipping lanes.

BSA1 said:

I thought you might ask that question. It is a very good one.

Our Federal Government has a official policy of the right of free passage of shipping sea lanes even in waters claimed by other nations.

To exercise our belief in the right of free passage in disputed waters we regularly send armed U.S. Navy warships through these sea lanes. The principle is if we don't use these sea lanes on a regular basis then we have no basis for our claim of right of free passage.

Why does our Government see the need to send ARMED WARSHIPS through these waters on a regular basis? Wouldn't unarmed merchant ships affirm our belief the same way?

Are we trying to poke a stick in the other nations eye to provoke them into attacking our ship?

Or are we saying we believe so strongly in our right we are prepared to defend it?

All of this leads to my point that exercising your right of open carry is no different than our Government's excerising it's right of free passage shipping lanes.

Click to expand...

Interesting analogy, since currently China and Japan are engaged in a conflict arising from just that kind of scenario, that sending warships through disputed waters is a brilliant show of force to keep rights of passage and resources secure.
Seems to have started a needless conflict/staring contest.
Maybe your analogy was correct after all.

I ask myself, "what were these open carry demonstrators trying to accomplish?"
Nothing. There was no battle to be won, Starbucks was ALREADY on our side.
What they did was disrespect Starbucks by using them as a platform to "show those anti's". there was no battle to be won, it was all about sticking it to the anti's and rubbing their noses in it. There was No thought for the effects on Starbucks.
Again, Starbucks responds with the most logical thing at the time for them to do.
Again, there is an irrational reaction by the pro-gun group, with many people crucifying Starbucks while refusing to acknowledge any responsibility on the part of egotistical, vengeful showboating by gun owners that provoked this response by Starbucks.
It is dismaying to me, as I peruse other gun boards, how the overwhelming response from pro-gun people is "BETRAYAL!! BOYCOTT!!"....with no discussion about how ridiculous it is to carry an AR-15 into a COFFEE SHOP....slung or not.

Yes you have the right to do so. You also have the right to cheat on your wife. You have the right to do many, many stupid and morally wrong things in this country that define you as an idiot.

hso,

There can be no denial that exercising your rights can provoke negative reactions. It happens on a daily basis with what is permissible "free speech."

Frankly I don't understand how this open carry campaign in Starbucks got started in the first place? Was it just a grass roots idea that took off on it's own?

i can still legally concealed carry at Starbucks.

I'm good.

From what I saw in the news, he thread the needle between both sides and "requested" that no one bring guns.

Big difference.

plus the coffee is dang good.

Kleanbore,

I disagree but you expected that. ;-)

If there is no need to exercise a right then is it needed?

Or is it ok to have a right as long as you keep it in the closet?

I can't afford Starbucks coffee, but I can't blame them for their request. The poop storms created by controversy are simply bad for business. This part makes me empathize:

"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.

For these reasons, today we are respectfully requesting that customers no longer bring firearms into our stores or outdoor seating areas—even in states where “open carry” is permitted—unless they are authorized law enforcement personnel."

It seems like what they are really asking is that people not visibly display firearms in their stores. They're not even mandating it, they're kindly asking.

As for me, it's moot. I'm perpetually broke, so the home brewed sadness that is Folger's is what I'm stuck with.

If Starbucks "caves" (which term I do not agree with) any further, it'll be entirely because they were pushed too far, and the blame there will not be on Starbucks' management, it'll be shared EQUALLY by both gun owners and gun-grabbers who've turned what was originally intended as a quiet recognition of gun ownership as legitimate into a national three-ring circus.

They didn't understand how far a fringe element on EITHER side of the issue would carry things.
They do not want to be in the news over any of this, they do not want Show Our Appreciation events in stores, they do not want "I Love Starbucks" gun-toting T-shirt rallies outside their stores.
They just want to get on with the business of selling overpriced coffee.

The longer the acrimony continues, the more headlines appear, and the more customers they lose because somebody has to wear a visible gun in sheeple neighborhood stores JUST BECAUSE THEY CAN, the outcome is pretty much inevitable.
And it won't be Starbucks "caving".

It'll be a business that tried to do the right thing & got bit by it, attempting to get out of the gun spotlight & back into their niche- the designer coffee spotlight.
Denis

To the contrary. If Starbucks "caves" they are simply responding to the anti-gun attitudes of many of their Liberal customers which is 89 percent of their business. (Well actually it is 91 percent but I don't count children).

I don't think wanting to stay in business as a bad thing.

Normal open carry isn’t the problem it’s the in your face types that take an AR into Starbucks to go with their latte. That isn’t the responsible exercise of a right it’s over the top extremism and it’s going to cause far more problems than it solves.

BSA1 said:

Kleanbore,
Or is it ok to have a right as long as you keep it in the closet?

Click to expand...

I've always had this oddball notion about rights: Rights come with responsibilities.

Is it responsible to disrupt someone's business by holding a political rally on their property without prior permission? No.

Is it responsible to brandish firearms in public? No.

I was also taught something odd in school: When your rights come into conflict with someone else's rights, including causing harm to someone else, then the government can and will step in to either decide the matter or to curtail the right that you're exercising in a harmful manner.

If your right to bear arms interferes with a property owner's right to conduct business, you will lose that conflict. You'll notice that the CEO has not gone so far as to ban firearms, which could get you served with a trespass notice in most jurisdictions, and banned from the property. I'd say that's more than fair after having had a bunch of yahoos (on both sides) interfere with their business.

Brandishing is already illegal, and many of those pictured posing with their weapons earlier in the thread were treading a thin line on that one, depending on how the law is written in their area.

Yelling fire in a crowded theater is illegal. Possessing child pornography is illegal. Inciting violence is illegal. The First doesn't protect these activities, because they are all harmful to other people.

If a government decided that too many people were abusing their right to carry openly and creating a public safety issue, then they would be well within their power to ban open carry. If anything, Starbucks should be thanked if they can curb these idiot displays before the government decides to step in.

RESPONSIBLE open carry is FINE. Acting like a jackass, disrupting someone's livelihood, and irresponsible and dangerous gun handling is NOT.

On a side note, whoever's producing the shirts and images using the Starbucks logo is lucky that Starbucks hasn't gone after them for trademark violations. I don't think a parody claim would fly very well in this case since it's a clear attempt to place Starbucks on a side in a political debate. Appropriating someone else's trademark to tie them to your cause isn't really smart.

I'd like to thank BSA for his post in #302. Probably the best way I've heard it explained.

I've noticed that even among gun owners here on THR open carry is taboo like it makes you a mental patient. I believe that idea had been reinforced over the years by the gov and media to keep gun owners in the closet and I've seen the same trend with knives too out amongst the sheep.

Given the choice (not here, yet) I believe open carry does good in the end by pushing others comfort zones and resetting the norms people live with every day.

Starbucks has always sucked and has always been overpriced. I only drink black coffee and I do not care for theirs. Now I have even more reason not to go to a place I never went to before.

Oh, and they should give a ten percent discount to ccw holders to smooth those ruffled feathers.....

Colion Nior made a video about this topic. I think he was right on, and you can see it in this thread. There is a split amongst gun owners, CC vs OC, blame those guys that OC, etc. In fighting is what the anti-gun folks want. It's the best way to break down those they stand against.

If you are not one united front, they can continue to chip away at what little 'liberty' is left.

Colion Nior made a video about this topic. I think he was right on, and you can see it in this thread. There is a split amongst gun owners, CC vs OC, blame those guys that OC, etc. In fighting is what the anti-gun folks want. It's the best way to break down those they stand against.

If you are not one united front, they can continue to chip away at what little 'liberty' is left.

Click to expand...

So that suggests we can not have differing opinions?

No, it suggests that if you let the anti-gun people divide those that are pro-2nd amendment, causing in-fighting and bickering, it makes pushing their anti-gun agenda a bit easier.

Watch the video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cYnT6mjSy84

If I own a restaurant I would allow any person to quietly say whatever version of their religion's grace is at their table before the meal. Every religion would be allowed to now their heads and mumble quietly whatever they want.

Now I grew up Methodist and my wife baptist. If any religion decided to take advantage of my hospitality as a restaurant owner and go one step further and start holding religious services I would draw the line. Even a baptist or Methodist. Can't say I blame Starbucks and I would most likely do the same, even though I am a gun guy

No, it suggests that if you let the anti-gun people divide those that are pro-2nd amendment, causing in-fighting and bickering, it makes pushing their anti-gun agenda a bit easier.

Click to expand...

Sorry, sounds like double talk to me. I'll stick to my opinion, CC whenever possible, but I don't really worry about it if reaching to the top shelf. Indiana is an OC state.

DNS said:

I'd like to thank BSA for his post in #302. Probably the best way I've heard it explained.

Click to expand...

It was a bad analogy, actually. See the second part of post 306.

I've noticed that even among gun owners here on THR open carry is taboo like it makes you a mental patient.

Click to expand...

I've read a number of the open vs concealed carry threads. I didn't see that in the threads I looked at. The opposition to open carry seems to me to come down mostly to a tactical decision. I've seen far fewer suggesting that open carry may make people uncomfortable in general.

What draws the most fire is open carriers who deliberately make scene. For example, those who try to draw the attention of the police so they can video record how they gave the cops a civics lesson. Most of the time, those people are talking out their behinds and need such lessons themselves.

I don't think there's a general consensus here of condemning open carry activism and public education, just some very reasonable objections as to the methods. You don't help people get over their fear of spiders by sneaking up on them with the biggest, hairiest tarantula you can find and throwing it in their laps while they're minding their own business.

There are open carry advocates who take a more measured approach. You start with information, education, and discussion. If you have an event, have it in a controlled, rational manner. Have calm, rational discussions with the media when they cover your event. Encourage people to come out to a local range and learn how to shoot. Just like with phobias. You start with some information (almost all spiders are completely harmless, and explanation of why), to distanced exposure (some pictures of spiders that support the assertion that they aren't so dangerous), to closer, controlled exposure (getting into a room -- probably across the room -- with a caged spider to observe it), and EVENTUALLY, much later, touching a spider.

You should also acknowledge and respect that guns are, indeed, dangerous. We have the four rules for a reason. Violating any of them for the sake of making a political argument only blows holes in that argument.

I believe that idea had been reinforced over the years by the gov and media to keep gun owners in the closet and I've seen the same trend with knives too out amongst the sheep.

Click to expand...

I think terms like "in the closet", calling people "sheep" or criminals "goblins" and other ways of dehumanizing the opposition (or criminals, for that matter) are low road, personally.

My wife's family don't really get why I carry a knife. It's not a particularly scary knife to me, but they sure think it is (and they'll tell me how my under 3.5" folder is scary from the kitchen, where they're chopping merrily away with an 8" chef's knife...). They don't "get" it. But hey, come Christmas time, I'm the one busting open all of those darned plastic clamshells. It makes them silly, but it doesn't make them "sheep" or less than human.

You know what else they are? They're not gun owners, but they're pro-gun. Using low road terms to dehumanize people like this, who have no particular interest in having a gun, but aren't opposed to us having guns, is NOT productive.

Besides, you'd best be advised on who you call a "sheep." A lack of interest in weapons doesn't make someone a soft target. The last time someone started something physical with my brother in law (and it was the last time), he slammed their face into a tree repeatedly. And he's small enough I can pick him up with one hand. Just like weapons don't make you a badass, lack of weapons doesn't make you a "sheep."

Given the choice (not here, yet) I believe open carry does good in the end by pushing others comfort zones and resetting the norms people live with every day.

Click to expand...

Responsible open carry, sure. But do you think resetting the norm to carrying a rifle into a coffee shop is a realistic goal? I think a more realistic goal would be to not have the neighbors freak out when you're carrying your rifle to and from your vehicle when taking to somewhere where using it is the norm. I don't think a single civilian who claims to open carry a rifle everywhere for self defense is telling the truth. They're only carrying it to make a point. To drop a spider into the public lap.

Arbo said:

Colion Nior made a video about this topic. I think he was right on, and you can see it in this thread. There is a split amongst gun owners, CC vs OC, blame those guys that OC, etc. In fighting is what the anti-gun folks want. It's the best way to break down those they stand against.

If you are not one united front, they can continue to chip away at what little 'liberty' is left.

Click to expand...

A couple nights ago, one of the 18 year old neighbor "kids" fired a 12 gauge out his upstairs window and into the yard just because he could.

Should I stand united with him just because we both own guns?
Should I race to his defense when the police show up and protest that he is just exercising his 2nd Amendment rights?

Or is it with the bounds of reason to decide that some behavior with a gun is idiotic and that I just can't support it?

I am totally supportive of responsible OC.
I am not supportive of some of the idiocy I've seen in surfing the webs for "Starbucks AND guns" pictures.
People brandishing handguns and long guns, drawing and handling them when it's not necessary in public places (which increases the risk of an accidental discharge), and generally acting like disrespectful tools to look cool on the internet and scare a couple soccer moms DO NOT represent me.

My Starbucks still allows guns. I still wouldn't buy their crap coffee though.

-Dan