Buckeyefirearms posted article blames open carry for Starbucks.

zack991 · Oct 10, 2013

Rights advocates, not satisfied with merely being able to exercise their rights, also wanted to take the opportunity to taunt their opponents. They called for gun owners not only buy coffee and muffins on days the antis were boycotting Starbucks, but to do it while openly carrying their favorite firearms. They called these "Starbucks Appreciation Days." The rallies went without a hitch of any kind, but they placed Starbucks in the middle of the debate – exactly where they had said they didn't want to be. To top it off, some advocates chose to express their rights to the fullest by carrying long guns – scary, ugly, black long guns. While their actions were completely legal, the end result was not what anyone was looking for – at least not anyone on the pro-rights side.

The open carry rallies at Starbucks attracted media attention and coverage that the antis' boycotts could never have generated. Suddenly, the issue of open carry of firearms in Starbucks stores was national news. That put Starbucks in an even more uncomfortable position than before; they found their company name and logo as a rallying cry, and some of their stores as a rally point for a cause that was not theirs.

As far as we at The Firearms Coalition are concerned, Starbucks is still holding a neutral position. If we happen to be near a Starbucks when the urge for a good cup of overly-roasted coffee hits us, we will not hesitate to stop in – whether we are carrying (as we usually are) or not – and we suggest that other gun owners should do likewise. If some anti-rights group again calls for a boycott of Starbucks, we will go out of our way – and encourage others to do likewise – to give the company a bit of our business.
http://www.buckeyefirearms.org/node/9138

Permission to reprint or post this article in its entirety is hereby granted provided this credit and link to www.FirearmsCoalition.org is included

.
They blame the open carriers and they Look past a extremely obious letter from the CEO that gun owners are not welcome.

OC for ME · Oct 10, 2013

From the post on http://www.buckeyefirearms.org/node/9138

As a company, Seattle-based Starbucks tends to lean left, supporting "progressive" causes and candidates,....

this is why Starbucks must not receive our hard earned dollars. They openly work to elect liberals who would infringe upon and more likely eliminate or 2A right. Buckeyefirearms remains oblivious to this point even after acknowledging it in print.

Boycott Starbucks, not for their stance on firearms but for their work to eliminate our 2A right via proxies.

davidmcbeth · Oct 10, 2013

OC for ME said:
From the post on http://www.buckeyefirearms.org/node/9138

this is why Starbucks must not receive our hard earned dollars. They openly work to elect liberals who would infringe upon and more likely eliminate or 2A right. Buckeyefirearms remains oblivious to this point even after acknowledging it in print.

Boycott Starbucks, not for their stance on firearms but for their work to eliminate our 2A right via proxies.

+1

zack991 · Oct 10, 2013

You should see their Facebook page. They have people agreeing with this article and making excuses for Starbucks as being neutral in their latest policy that it was those horrible open carry people who are responsible. Many claim they will still support them because they have not posted a no gun sign even though a child can read the CEO's letter as hugely anti-gun. It is sicking for gun owners to blindly look past the obvious "we hate gun owners, but we still want your money letter" just because they hate open carry.

OC for ME · Oct 11, 2013

It seems that Buckeye Firearms Association does not desire non members to read any posts in the Open Carry Discussion & Activism sub forum. Requires a login to view.

It seems that every other sub forum is available for viewing without a login.

Buckeye Firearms Association is apparently anti-OC.....why?

Though, this may be common knowledge for Ohio citizens who are liberty centric.

http://forums.buckeyefirearms.org/index.php

I do like the attachment of "activism" to the sub forum title.....nice touch.

zack991 · Oct 11, 2013

OC for ME said:
It seems that Buckeye Firearms Association does not desire non members to read any posts in the Open Carry Discussion & Activism sub forum. Requires a login to view.

View attachment 10880

It seems that every other sub forum is available for viewing without a login.

Buckeye Firearms Association is apparently anti-OC.....why?

Though, this may be common knowledge for Ohio citizens who are liberty centric.

http://forums.buckeyefirearms.org/index.php

I do like the attachment of "activism" to the sub forum title.....nice touch.

I am a member there and I am not sure why they require that, they do have quite a few members who are pro-open carry and we set up meets from time to time. I am not sure why they would hold such a position.

stealthyeliminator · Oct 11, 2013

I think it can be summed up to elevation of status. Any time they put their hand on the top of someone else's head and push it down, they're pushing them self up. They blame oc to rally people under their influence. The more influence they have, the more power they have. the more centralized they can make the 'pro-2a' movement, the easier their climb to the top.

eye95 · Oct 11, 2013

I choose not to belong to any of the Ohio groups, because none of them have committed enough to open carry, or (more precisely) unlicensed carry. So I remain an Indy, like I became in Alabama when I became disenchanted with the organizations there. The fight is against infringement. Until there is unfettered unlicensed carry, the Right is infringed.

C'mon, Ohio! Fight for unlicensed carry.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

marshaul · Oct 12, 2013

OP is conflating "open carriers" with "people who held Starbucks appreciation days", most of whom were not regular open carriers.

MAC702 · Oct 12, 2013

marshaul said:
...most of whom were not regular open carriers.

Bingo.

They really don't want anyone to remember that.

acmariner99 · Oct 12, 2013

I think they are also confusing those who open carry regularly and responsibly and those who are carrying to deliberately make a political point. I would argue that there are a few "in your face" types and those who carried long guns into Sbux's establishments just because they could. I don't see those efforts as advancing our cause. I have said repeatedly that how you carry yourself is more important than how you carry your weapon. The image I try to portray is that I am acting and being 'normal' even when my sidearm is in plain sight. IMO - I don't think carrying a long arm qualifies as acting normal, so more people will get surprised or startled if they see it.

OC for ME · Oct 14, 2013

zack991 said:
I am a member there and I am not sure why they require that, they do have quite a few members who are pro-open carry and we set up meets from time to time. I am not sure why they would hold such a position.

As a member, why don't you ask them and then let us all know where Buckeyefirearms stands on this minor point.

Buckeyefirearms posted article blames open carry for Starbucks.

zack991

Regular Member

OC for ME

Regular Member

davidmcbeth

Banned

zack991

Regular Member

OC for ME

Regular Member

zack991

Regular Member

stealthyeliminator

Regular Member

eye95

Well-known member

marshaul

Campaign Veteran

MAC702

Campaign Veteran

acmariner99

Regular Member

OC for ME

Regular Member