Starbucks' CEO makes a "respectful request that customers no longer bring firearms."

I agree with andeyhall I cant think of a single reason to carry a rifle into starbucks or any other overpriced coffee shop or restaurant .. unless its deer season and I'm walking to my stand and just have to have a mochalatte. all this does is give more ammunition to the ant gun cidiots to point to and say" see they are gun crazy"
 

Blues, all I can say is we're going to have to agree to disagree.

I agree to nothing. If I disagree with someone, I don't "agree" to it, I continue to disagree until I'm given a reason not to. I also articulate my reasons for the disagreement. I honestly don't think I stick like glue to trivial issues. If it's trivial, I'll leave it alone. If it's important though, and what makes it important is a deep belief and conviction in certain principles, then yeah, I'm going to respond each time those principles are challenged or left unresolved. And so.....

Although I doubt either sides of our argument are anymore right than the other....

....I guess you're sticking with the following because, as you say, neither "side" of our argument is anymore right than the other:

Cops have every right to get an attitude with you and get in your face when they wanna ask you questions.

I'm here to tell you that you are wrong about that on several levels.

I started to write (another) well-reasoned post on why you're wrong about it, but nothing you've said suggests that you're ready or willing to consider it. All I can say is that if you take that attitude into your career as a cop, you will just be another (of many) example of what many Americans detest and distrust about LE these days. Your "doubts" that, "...either sides of our argument are anymore right than the other...." is indicative of the lack of introspection and empathy for citizens' rights that WAY too many cops display on a daily basis.

I guess all I can really say is that I wish you good luck in your career, but wish even more good luck on the public upon which you will be turned loose after having that "anything-a-cop-wanna-do-is-fine-by-me" attitude thoroughly inculcated in you.

I personally will never "agree to disagree" with such jack-booted-thuggishness that that one sentence reveals. I will disagree with, and oppose it, until the day I die.

Blues
 
I think OCing an AR-15 is ruining the image of legitimate OCers. It's a childish way to prove a point. People like that are fighting the other side's battle for them.

Even worse, he is handling the weapon, because it appears he does not even have a sling. What would the reaction be if anyone walked into any business with a handgun in their hand?

This is a huge "look at me" statement if the gun was slung over his chest or back, but in his hands :confused: These "look at me" stunts are why the CEO wrote the letter.
 
Even worse, he is handling the weapon, because it appears he does not even have a sling. What would the reaction be if anyone walked into any business with a handgun in their hand?

This is a huge "look at me" statement if the gun was slung over his chest or back, but in his hands :confused: These "look at me" stunts are why the CEO wrote the letter.

If I had to do a profile on that picture alone, I would say that the guy bought the gun early this when there was the threat of another ban. He paid too much for it. He got the idea from a guy at work, which is also where he heard about there being an OC event at Starbucks, but he has no clue what he is doing other than the fact that it is legal and he wants someone to challenge him on it. AND... for a woman carrier, she has an ugly holster.
 
I agree to nothing. If I disagree with someone, I don't "agree" to it, I continue to disagree until I'm given a reason not to. I also articulate my reasons for the disagreement. I honestly don't think I stick like glue to trivial issues. If it's trivial, I'll leave it alone. If it's important though, and what makes it important is a deep belief and conviction in certain principles, then yeah, I'm going to respond each time those principles are challenged or left unresolved. And so.....



....I guess you're sticking with the following because, as you say, neither "side" of our argument is anymore right than the other:



I'm here to tell you that you are wrong about that on several levels.

I started to write (another) well-reasoned post on why you're wrong about it, but nothing you've said suggests that you're ready or willing to consider it. All I can say is that if you take that attitude into your career as a cop, you will just be another (of many) example of what many Americans detest and distrust about LE these days. Your "doubts" that, "...either sides of our argument are anymore right than the other...." is indicative of the lack of introspection and empathy for citizens' rights that WAY too many cops display on a daily basis.

I guess all I can really say is that I wish you good luck in your career, but wish even more good luck on the public upon which you will be turned loose after having that "anything-a-cop-wanna-do-is-fine-by-me" attitude thoroughly inculcated in you.

I personally will never "agree to disagree" with such jack-booted-thuggishness that that one sentence reveals. I will disagree with, and oppose it, until the day I die.

Blues
Forgive me for not including this in that sentence that you are losing sleep over, but no, cops do not have the right to walk up to you out of the clear blue sky and start questioning you with an attitude. The point I was trying to get across is that if an officer has reasonable suspicion to be questioning a person, he has just as much a right to do it with a pissed off, aggressive, hot head attitude as he does a respectful one. But why would he want to do that when he could do it in a calm, respectful manner and probably resolve the situation in a much more controlled way? I was trying to say that that behavior in which we hate so much, is the same principle behavior that we are displaying when some d-bag like the one pictured above open carries an AR-15 into a Starbucks just because he can. That is viewed by the public as an aggressive, in-your-face way of pushing gun rights and it's pushing the left's cause more than it is ours. I'm sorry if I was not clear enough in my wording to convey that point to you, and if you still disagree, then you're just going to have to find some way to get over that because I'm done trying to argue this. I know what I meant and by the responses to my latest post about the Starbucks couple it seems as though several others do too. Sorry and good luck to you.
 
If they see you going about your daily business armed and unconcerned (and not taking pictures of yourself like a tourist) they are more likely to be at ease with people walking around armed.

Which describes the overwhelming majority of OC'ers who OC legally across this country. Trying to paint them all with the negative stereotypes that a set of only three pictures are meant to foment in the public-perception is giving into the enemy's propaganda. You're much smarter than that. Seriously, it doesn't become you.

Is the goal to make people feel bad or scared because they are not carrying? Is the goal to rub peoples noses in our rights? IMHO the goal is to be allowed to exercise our God given human rights and be left alone in the process.

The goal for the overwhelming majority of OC'ers who legally OC across this country is to exercise their rights as they see fit, not as you or the cops or the antis see fit.

If I have the right to do something, and I actually do it, how can that action conceivably be construed as "rubbing people's noses in" the exercise of my right when they have zero say-so in how I exercise my rights?

The pretzel logic contained in the anti-OC crowd would make Steely Dan feel inadequate!

The irony is that I'm not and never have been an OC'er, but the anti-OC types are helping Bikenut, Firefighterchen, NavyLCDR and others convince me that I should start just to help counter the ignorance and idiocy that passes for intelligent commentary on the subject. I'm actually disappointed in myself that I have allowed the "authorities" and public opinion to define my "comfort zones" for me. Screw dat. Individualism, self-reliance, self-sufficiency and going against the tide are all traits of practitioners of The American Way. I've become too comfortable and compliant to entities that don't have my best interests at heart. Anyone who would lecture me about, or impugn my motivations for any method that I might choose to legally exercise my God-given rights is not concerned with my best interests. All you "gun rights advocates" who oppose (with words or deeds) OC should keep in mind that many other real gun rights advocates are taking into consideration your opposition to our rights.

Blues
 
I CC. I do so because in my state that is all that is legal. While I am stationed here in VA where it is legal, I OC on occasion, such as heading to the range or spending the whole day out somewhere. CC is a new habit, and even when OC'ing I have my concealed weapon as a back-up. I am completely comfortable carrying open, and have been for the 25 years that my job has required it. I feel no different OC'ing in civilian clothes than in uniform. It is merely a tool I have at my disposal, available should the need arise. I have not CC'd except for the past few years, and I got my permission slip and started getting used to it simply because I am retiring to SC and that will be my only option. I am a creature of habit, and I do not OC frequently now because I want my conditioned responses and muscle memory to be trained for how I will need to respond henceforth until SC decides to allow OC.
-
That said, I think I can speak intelligently about both options.
 
I swing both ways.........Yea, that's right, I OC and CC. The choice is mine in my state of residence. I do and will exercise to the NTH degree. Ain't gonna split hairs on the pros and cons. This dog has been beaten to death on this site. ALL I will say is carry. If not, be a unarmed statistic.
_
I'd sooner be manacled and signing bail paperwork, then having a toe tag applied and family asked to identify. The choice is yours my friends. When I carry, I carry Cocked & Locked.
 
Ten seconds of google searching reveals some people you all should be pissed at. What's the mentality of someone who thinks that Starbucks would appreciate you taking a selfie with your gun in their store?:

Link RemovedLink RemovedLink Removed

If I was the CEO I would have posted every store in the franchise the day this happened

What morons. No wonder Starbucks back tracked.
 
No the irony is that you post such and have th eballs to call anyone else in the world a poser

Are you under the mistaken impression that I called you a poser somewhere on these forums? When I did use the word recently, it was not in relation to OC, Starbucks or you in any way, shape, manner or form. It was in relation to dismissals of a person's whom I knew personally affliction with a severe case of PTSD. I implied the OP of a completely different thread in a different sub-forum was a "poser" for the bilge he was spewing with obviously no personal experience to draw from.

Sorry if you thought that was out of line in context to the discussion that was going on, but I must say also that I'm a bit surprised that you would take such offense at a couple or three Caucasians going at each other. One might expect that you would take pleasure in it, what with your short, though prolific, history here so far.

Just so you know Giant Chip On His Shoulder, OC became legal where I live about a month ago. I'll get around to it, but in the meantime, there is nothing "poser-like" or hypocritical or inconsistent with my fully supporting others' right to carry any damn well they please. It shouldn't take "balls" to exercise one's rights, it should just take a desire and decision to do it, and though I have yet to take advantage of it, I do have the ability to for the first time since 1901 in this state. It's not the very first thing I think about when I get dressed every morning with a concealed weapon as part of my wardrobe, just like it has been for over 30 years, but 30+ year old habits die hard, so like I said, I'll get around to it. I'll be sure to let you know when I do, since you're apparently so interested in how I dress.

I even support your right to carry any damn way you please, but any support I might be able to provide you would apparently be unwanted because 520+ years ago Christopher Columbus landed on the shores of the freakin' West Indies.

So "we" are not "your" people, you resent and oppose the founding of the US of A, the laws of which this site is devoted in large part to preserving and expanding for gun owners and gun rights advocates and activists, in only 35 posts you have established a strong pattern of displaying that chip on your shoulder at every conceivable opportunity, all of which begs the question; why are you here?

Blues
 
I'm still betting 10 : 1 odds the pictures, with the exception of the man holding the shotgun, are horribly misguided conceal carriers or non carriers.

Sent from my HTCONE using USA Carry mobile app
 
What morons. No wonder Starbucks back tracked.

Exactly! SB or any business is in business for one purpose, to make money. When their business is used as a soapbox for some agenda (doesn't really matter what the issue is), the business can easily eliminate the disruption to their business by exercising their property rights.

It is a business decision, nothing more.
 
Exactly! SB or any business is in business for one purpose, to make money. When their business is used as a soapbox for some agenda (doesn't really matter what the issue is), the business can easily eliminate the disruption to their business by exercising their property rights.

It is a business decision, nothing more.

How does that fit in to the fact they made record sales the days anti guns boycotted and gun owners showed up to show their support?

Sent from my HTCONE using USA Carry mobile app
 
How does that fit in to the fact they made record sells the days anti guns boycotted and gun owners showed up to show their support?

Really?!? It's called marketing. If there was an anti-beef rally at burger king, people would show up. People showing up is the first thing required for a business to turn a profit.
-
What does Starbucks have to do with gun rights? NOTHING! Other than the fact that people on each side chose that as a place of gathering to voice their opinions.
 
Really?!? It's called marketing. If there was an anti-beef rally at burger king, people would show up. People showing up is the first thing required for a business to turn a profit.
-
What does Starbucks have to do with gun rights? NOTHING! Other than the fact that people on each side chose that as a place of gathering to voice their opinions.

I went back and bolded the part of the post I was responding about. If a company is there for one thing, money, it wouldn't make sense to ban the people who gave you record sales. Rights were not addressed in the post you quoted.

Sent from my HTCONE using USA Carry mobile app
 
Exactly! SB or any business is in business for one purpose, to make money. When their business is used as a soapbox for some agenda (doesn't really matter what the issue is), the business can easily eliminate the disruption to their business by exercising their property rights. It is a business decision, nothing more.

I went back and bolded the part of the post I was responding about. If a company is there for one thing, money, it wouldn't make sense to ban the people who gave you record sales. Rights were not addressed in the post you quoted.

Sure they were, the rights of a capitalist to make money were addressed. Why would a business owner "exercise his property rights" and ban guns? No matter what he believes personally, that would hurt his bottom line. If the CEO was a politician, then making a stand for what he believes in would make sense. As a CEO, what he did was keep people from dropping stock in his company like it was infected with the plague. He made a "request" even knowing that it held no legal and binding consequences. He appeased the gun grabbers while still maintaining neutrality with gun-rights people who know that a request is not a law.
 
Sure they were, the rights of a capitalist to make money were addressed. Why would a business owner "exercise his property rights" and ban guns? No matter what he believes personally, that would hurt his bottom line. If the CEO was a politician, then making a stand for what he believes in would make sense. As a CEO, what he did was keep people from dropping stock in his company like it was infected with the plague. He made a "request" even knowing that it held no legal and binding consequences. He appeased the gun grabbers while still maintaining neutrality with gun-rights people who know that a request is not a law.

I'm not sure where you are going with this.

Why would they ban guns? Because he didn't wants guns in his store, with no thought to his bottom line. If the decision to allow guns in his store or not was determined based on capitalism, they would not have banned the source of his highest profitable days.

As you said, people will show up, either way. If anti guns sold sbx stock, and sbx remained following the law and no more, gun owners would have bought those stock.

I do not see how requesting, banning, or passing laws is considered remaining neutral. Do you still feel they are gun neutral?

Sent from my HTCONE using USA Carry mobile app
 

Members online

Forum statistics

Threads
49,527
Messages
610,761
Members
74,965
Latest member
Roosince1911
Back
Top