Starbuck's Caving In

[ViperJock]

Would Dunkin donuts appreciate a gun appreciation day?

How many people were shot in Starbucks when all those guns were there? I mean, don't the liberals always say that more guns = more murders? So how many of those guns went berzerk really? Did someone shoot a hole in their floor or something? Why did Starbucks not like the gun appreciation day? Did other customers leave when they saw reputable adults wearing holstered sidearms?

How many people were shot in Starbucks ever?

 

[HoughMade]

MAC (fullauto) hit the nail on the head as to this issue a month ago in his blog.

Slapping an Ally in the Face | The Bang Switch

 

[ArcadiaGP]

Yep, this did it for me. As a former Starbucks partner and long-time customer... I'm done.

 

[netsecurity]

I woudln't want people holding pro-OC rallies on my private property either if I were running a non-gun-oriented business.

Why not? People have Star Trek conventions and are welcomed, even though they wear crazy costumes, and carry light sabers. People have needlework get togethers or what not. Why is a group of law abiding armed men and women a bad thing? How is it different when gun owners congregate, except that liberals have to cover their eyes in imaginary fear? I think such people need to be exposed to guns if they are ever to mature enough to realize that cops are not the only people who should be able to defend themselves.

 

[TippecanoeSportsman]

Yep, the only folks to blame are gun owners who decided it was ok to gloat in front of angry liberals. Had we just taken our victory in stride and not acted like an 8 year old on the playground chanting "nana nana boo boo, you can't get me" this wouldn't be happening. Once again this will help vindicate groups like MAIG that they've somehow come that much closer to winning the "war on guns".

It seems that everyone forgot that gun toting conservatives are not Starbuck's core demographic; liberal soccers moms are.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

a J-Frame in his lap that is pointing at the direction where his genitals used to reside. You don't want to be THAT GUY!!

But, but pointing the gun at your nads in the new hotness!

 

[cobber]

Were the year 1513 and not 2013 this would be a legitimate rebuttal.

Please tell me how many states around the globe in 2013 recognize a citizen's right to bear arms.

It's a civil right recognized by precious few governments (one?). For now.

What good is "equality" for official minorities if we're basically serfs? Like the proles in 1984. Free to be peasants equal in the eyes of the sovereign. Ants are also equal in the eyes of the sovereign. Their equality one to another is nothing much to trumpet about.

Unless you view yourself as an ant, and Feinstein as your overlord.

 

[jrogers]

It seems that everyone forgot that gun toting conservatives are not Starbuck's core demographic; liberal soccers moms are.

Nah, they cater to people with broken taste buds.

 

[ViperJock]

Total capitulation. There used to be a day when people had principles and scruples. These days all someone has to do is organize a bunch of rich housewives to carry a sign for a few days, and they capitulate. The Democrats use Saul Alinsky's principles over and over and have perfected it to the point that their Alinsky meister got control of the presidency. Over and over, they carry their hippy signs, and people actually pay attention to them! Why do they always capitulate? I guarantee the dirty hippies and rich soccer moms will go away if they wait long enough.

Look at what happened to Chic Fil A, they stood up for what they believed in and now they have more loyal customers than ever--the protesters are a tiny fraction of the minority. Just because they carry a stupid sign doesn't make them equal to ten NORMAL people. I don't get it!

In principle I agree with you. Any proof that chic fil a has more customers that is not on pace with current population increases?

 

[JetGirl]

Sounds like a good time for someone to start up an openly 2A-friendly coffee house.

 

[KittySlayer]

It's a political statement for them to try to appease both sides.

Sounds more like a business statement trying to keep both sides spending money in their stores. Another goal seems to be to stop making their core customers, who are not on the extreme right/left of the issue, from having to wade through a group of idiots trying to make a point while not spending money. Doesn't sound too much different than a compromise a parent might issue when dealing with fighting siblings in the back seat, both of you STF up and drink your coffee, I have a car to drive.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

Whelp, I didn't expect to wake up this morning and it be my last visit to Starbucks. Now that I've had time to sit and think about this, I'll elaborate more.

For those that visit the "Where did you OC" thread, you know I'm a Starbucks frequent. I used to work there years ago, I was a "coffee master", and shift manager.

After I left the company and began carrying, I carried into many (many, many) Starbucks stores. I never once had a negative encounter.

I actually made some new friends through positive firearms conversation. My Starbucks stores knew I carried, they talked to me positively about it, and all was well. I know this isn't a store-level decision, but unfortunately, the stores will feel the brunt of it.

Due to Uncle Howie stepping out of the neutral zone as far as gun laws go... I have to speak with my wallet and no longer visit Starbucks locations. I know he said we are "welcome" and they aren't going to "enforce" anything... but he also said the firearms are "not welcome"... and my firearm is a part of my person. As a whole, I am no longer welcome.

This is a real shame to know this morning was my last time visiting a Starbucks. I had partners interested in my upcoming wedding, I've even hung out with them off-hours... I've only really ever had positive times regarding Starbucks. I've always treated it as more than just a coffee place, I guess... hell, I even still got free drinks because so many people knew me from when I was a partner.

So... yeah... that's my spiel. I may go to my local Starbucks just to say "goodbye" to a couple of people and give them my contact info, but I won't be spending my money there anymore.

 

[jrogers]

Why not? People have Star Trek conventions and are welcomed, even though they wear crazy costumes, and carry light sabers. People have needlework get togethers or what not. Why is a group of law abiding armed men and women a bad thing? How is it different when gun owners congregate, except that liberals have to cover their eyes in imaginary fear? I think such people need to be exposed to guns if they are ever to mature enough to realize that cops are not the only people who should be able to defend themselves.

Because the drama is bad for business. That's it. You can feel free to list all sorts of ideological reasons why people should be able to hold open carry rallies with impunity everywhere, but at the end of the day the only issue is profit. I'm not willing to have the CC/OC debate, but I'll happily go so far as to say that if people object to being around open carry when they get a coffee or bagel their objection is genuine whether you call it imaginary or not. I suppose it's possible that a some point some person who didn't care for firearms experienced an epiphany and became a die hard 2nd Amendment supporter as a result of seeing some guy walk by with a 1911 on his hip, but I don't find that narrative compelling in the least. If everyone could just behave themselves I would have no issue with open carry in my hypothetical establishment, but it's clear that neither side is mature enough to do so.

Also at issue is that gun owners made it a point to involve the Starbucks brand with a cause they do not support. I wouldn't want my business to be cited as a supporter of a cause simply because I follow local law allowing it. Starbucks has essentialyl said "We are not 2nd Amendment advocates. Don't make us a party to your dispute." Honestly, I think Starbucks is absolutely correct to try to PR the drama away without actually taking any real action. The only real issue is people completely failing to understand the statement. That's not so surprising given the histrionics so common on both sides.

Please tell me how many states around the globe in 2013 recognize a citizen's right to bear arms.

It's a civil right recognized by precious few governments (one?). For now.

What good is "equality" for official minorities if we're basically serfs? Like the proles in 1984. Free to be peasants equal in the eyes of the sovereign. Ants are also equal in the eyes of the sovereign. Their equality one to another is nothing much to trumpet about.

Unless you view yourself as an ant, and Feinstein as your overlord.

I have no idea what you are even trying to argue at this point. Whatever it is it's completely incoherent.

my firearm is a part of my person

That sounds profoundly uncomfortable.

 

[churchmouse]

Because the drama is bad for business. That's it. You can feel free to list all sorts of ideological reasons why people should be able to hold open carry rallies with impunity everywhere, but at the end of the day the only issue is profit. I'm not willing to have the CC/OC debate, but I'll happily go so far as to say that if people object to being around open carry when they get a coffee or bagel their objection is genuine whether you call it imaginary or not. I suppose it's possible that a some point some person who didn't care for firearms experienced an epiphany and became a die hard 2nd Amendment supporter as a result of seeing some guy walk by with a 1911 on his hip, but I don't find that narrative compelling in the least. If everyone could just behave themselves I would have no issue with open carry in my hypothetical establishment, but it's clear that neither side is mature enough to do so.

Also at issue is that gun owners made it a point to involve the Starbucks brand with a cause they do not support. I wouldn't want my business to be cited as a supporter of a cause simply because I follow local law allowing it. Starbucks has essentialyl said "We are not 2nd Amendment advocates. Don't make us a party to your dispute." Honestly, I think Starbucks is absolutely correct to try to PR the drama away without actually taking any real action. The only real issue is people completely failing to understand the statement. That's not so surprising given the histrionics so common on both sides.

There is some truth in this.

 

[Fred78]

I can't afford their coffee anyway

 

[ViperJock]

Sounds like a good time for someone to start up an openly 2A-friendly coffee house.

I have often wondered why Tomlinsons doesn't have a gourmet coffee bar? I don't drink the stuff, but I'd come for an exceptional cup of cocoa.

 

[cobber]

I have no idea what you are even trying to argue at this point. Whatever it is it's completely incoherent.

Let me say the incoherence is mutual.

The right to bear arms is as much a fundamental civil right in 2013 as it was in 1513, or 513 B.C.

Any other form of equality based on race, national origin, or sexual orientation, is meaningless if you are not treated as a citizen by the powers that be.

A government that declares all residents to be equal, but then holds those residents in thrall, is not a government that recognizes civil rights in any meaningful way. And those residents are not "citizens" but chattels of the regime.

Welcome to 1513.

 

[SmokinSigs357]

An Open Letter from Howard Schultz, ceo of Starbucks Coffee Company | Starbucks Coffee Company

The actual blog from Starbucks.

 

[Willie]

I wish I liked Starbucks coffee......

........so I could boycott them


Starbucks CEO says guns not welcome in stores

 

[VUPDblue]

4 threads on the same topic merged.