Results 1 to 21 of 21

Thread: Hows that working again. OOOPPS

  1. #1
    Regular Member 1911er's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Port Orchard Wa. /Granite Oklahoma
    Posts
    836

    Hows that working again. OOOPPS

    I truly Love my Country, But the government scares the he!! out of me.

    DEMAND IT
    Congress SHALL NOT receive A salary greater than any service member and will be given EQUIVELANT insurance as any service member

    I came into this world kicking and screaming covered in someone else's blood. And if necessary to protect the Constitution of The United States of AMERICA. I will go out the same way

    All hail the Domain of Neptunus Rex

  2. #2
    Regular Member 1911er's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Port Orchard Wa. /Granite Oklahoma
    Posts
    836

    I guess its not working.

    I truly Love my Country, But the government scares the he!! out of me.

    DEMAND IT
    Congress SHALL NOT receive A salary greater than any service member and will be given EQUIVELANT insurance as any service member

    I came into this world kicking and screaming covered in someone else's blood. And if necessary to protect the Constitution of The United States of AMERICA. I will go out the same way

    All hail the Domain of Neptunus Rex

  3. #3
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by 1911er View Post

    Police are searching for a man who held up at Colorado Springs Starbucks Sunday morning.

    Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/...#ixzz2oE0C7MTG
    Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook


    fixed it

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Plummer Id
    Posts
    67
    Well i just read the article and i think that Howard Schultz needs to reconsider his position on not letting Law abiding Gun Ocing citizens carry in the stores while enjoying coffee and such..

  5. #5
    Regular Member Grim_Night's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Pierce County, Washington
    Posts
    792
    though I do think this is an ironic issue, it probably doesn't belong in the washington state forums.
    Armed and annoyingly well informed!

    There are two constants when dealing with liberals:
    1) Liberals never quit until they are satisfied.
    2) Liberals are never satisfied.

  6. #6
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    People who were there should sue SB for not providing security when they just disarmed them ...

    mental stress
    Last edited by davidmcbeth; 12-22-2013 at 09:57 PM.

  7. #7
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,620
    Apparently GFSBX held up by man with > > > > a gun.

    So how is that no guns thing working out?

    Just give them what they want........and hope they don't take more.
    You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training. Archilochus, 650 BC

    Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time. Yata hey.

  8. #8
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    El Paso, TX
    Posts
    1,877
    Quote Originally Posted by Pat Gardner View Post
    Well i just read the article and i think that Howard Schultz needs to reconsider his position on not letting Law abiding Gun Ocing citizens carry in the stores while enjoying coffee and such..
    Why would you or ANYONE want to be "security" for a business that is (being anti-gun) against what you stand for? And why would you want to spend your money there making the owner richer, and even possibly putting your life on the line -- if a crimes takes place while you're there (and you intervene) -- for an anti-gun corporation? And do all of this for FREE?

    Besides, by the time one has arrived at one's political orientation (let's say conservative or liberal to keep the example simple) -- especially deciding on one or the other road as an older adult and after living life and giving it all much thought -- one is probably NEVER going to change, as one believes he/she has finally found the "truth." So even if CEO Shultz DID change his policy, he still would remain anti-gun, yes?

    So why EVER patronize a Starbucks in the future, regardless of any future policy change?

    Once this "We'll still serve you gun-people but we'd rather not" policy was stated, I have not gone back (I used to OC at 2 of them here in the NE part of 'The Springs') -- and even decided against going anyway but carrying concealed (so "no one would know"), like some OCers are doing. And when I found out his liberal stance on OTHER issues, that pretty much nailed it. At least for ME: I will never go to a Starbucks again. Ever. At least as long as it's owned by a anti-gun liberal with a corporate/boardroom anti-gun environment.

    So personally, I don't care if he DOES change his policy although I think it'd take a WHOLE LOT of such robberies before he changed anything. I mean weren't 2 Starbucks employees killed back in 1997 in DC? And IIRC, there've been other instances of violence outside various Starbucks if not in them. Any changes made to store security after the 1997 murders? No...but he's just like all the other businesses and even public schools: They refuse to hire armed security to protect employees and customers, yet also refuse to let employees and customers have the means (tools) to protect themselves. And no one sues them for their criminal negligence, and the businesses & schools get away scott-free after every "tragic" incident. As they have for decades now every time this has happened. Same will be true for the next incident, and the one after that, and the more to come after those.

    Whatever, since Shultz has already been outed (in more ways than his position on armed citizens) for the through-and through flaming liberal he is, so let him and his business be.

    Forget Starbucks and move on...
    Last edited by cloudcroft; 12-23-2013 at 12:39 PM.

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Tacoma, Washington, USA
    Posts
    1,327
    No the CEO didn't really declare SBUX a gun-free zone. Read the announcement carefully, including the part about not booting out people who don't follow his request.

    It's really a request to make SBUX a "don't make use the focal point of your dispute" zone, and can you blame him???

  10. #10
    Regular Member mobiushky's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Alaska (ex-Colorado)
    Posts
    840
    Quote Originally Posted by kparker View Post
    No the CEO didn't really declare SBUX a gun-free zone. Read the announcement carefully, including the part about not booting out people who don't follow his request.

    It's really a request to make SBUX a "don't make use the focal point of your dispute" zone, and can you blame him???
    Yes he did. He may have not made it an enforced policy, but let's turn the tables. Say he said "We don't like whites being in our stores. We won't kick them out, we'll still serve them, but we'd rather they just not come." Yeah, that made you really happy and felt all warm and fuzzy about going if you're white. Or not.

    Fact is he openly and unnecessarily stated that legally owned guns are not welcome in his stores. And then tried to make everyone happy by not have enough backbone to own up to his childish tantrum.

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Nampa, Idaho, USA
    Posts
    1,096
    Google "Starbucks Robberies" and you will find an upsurge of robberies after the announcement. I only found one before that time.
    Chuck Norris/Ted Nugent That's the ticket for 2016!

  12. #12
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by mobiushky View Post
    Yes he did. He may have not made it an enforced policy, but let's turn the tables. Say he said "We don't like whites being in our stores. We won't kick them out, we'll still serve them, but we'd rather they just not come." Yeah, that made you really happy and felt all warm and fuzzy about going if you're white. Or not.

    Fact is he openly and unnecessarily stated that legally owned guns are not welcome in his stores. And then tried to make everyone happy by not have enough backbone to own up to his childish tantrum.
    Since the CEO has announced his unfriendliness for lawful gun owners they have been visited by unfriendly gun owners ... that'sa tooo bad.

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    US Navy
    Posts
    34
    Quote Originally Posted by cloudcroft View Post
    And no one sues them for their criminal negligence, and the businesses & schools get away scott-free after every "tragic" incident. As they have for decades now every time this has happened.

    The problem with this logic is that it is flawed. There is no standing expectation or legal precedent that states places in the public sector have a duty to provide security from the possibility of these types of tragedies happening.

    The logic is also flawed because for one to prove the other party is criminally negligent in your implied scenario (the creation of a gun free zone), one would have to prove beyond reasonable doubt that there would have otherwise been a law abiding citizen with a firearm in the vicinity and prepared to take action...the problem is that on any given day at any given time the business owner or their agents cannot predict if a LAC with a firearm or other weapon for that matter would be present or not...so it is nearly impossible to prove criminal negligence in this type of matter based on what you imply.

    Don't get me wrong though, I am "rubbed the wrong way" about the exclusion of LACs with firearms from areas where the public are generally accepted just as much as anyone can be but my sentiments about the matter do not equate to a binding legal precedent nor should yours.

    -Z

  14. #14
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    El Paso, TX
    Posts
    1,877
    Z,

    If home-owners are liable for someone getting injured on said homeowner's property -- even if just slipping and falling -- then SO MUCH MORE should business-owners be liable for employees/students/customers being maimed/killed while on said business owners property.

    Nothing wrong with THAT logic whatsoever.

    That said, I will not "debate" this further as I'm done here, but just will add that I still disagree with you (for what my opinion is worth, which is nothing, so it doesn't matter anyway -- it's just here for the record).
    Last edited by cloudcroft; 12-29-2013 at 01:00 PM.

  15. #15
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,620
    Quote Originally Posted by cloudcroft View Post
    Z,

    If home-owners are liable for someone getting injured on said homeowner's property -- even if just slipping and falling -- then SO MUCH MORE should business-owners be liable for employees/students/customers being maimed/killed while on said business owners property. Period.

    That said, I will not "debate" this further, but just will add that I disagree with you (for what my opinion is worth, which is nothing, so it doesn't matter anyway -- it's just here for the record).
    Two different animals - one involves possible negligence of property owner and the choice of cheaper to pay than to litigate by the insurance carrier.

    The other involves an action by a 3rd party - the one directly causing the harm.

    Then consider criminal conduct vs civil and the position becomes more convoluted.

    Would I like businesses that invite the public to be treated as if they were public for these purposes? You bet I would.
    You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training. Archilochus, 650 BC

    Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time. Yata hey.

  16. #16
    Regular Member WalkingWolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    12,278
    It is stupid on the CEO's part to endanger his employees by removing the only people who were insuring their safety. What a idiot!
    Last edited by WalkingWolf; 12-29-2013 at 01:56 PM.
    It is well that war is so terrible otherwise we would grow too fond of it.
    Robert E. Lee
    The patriot volunteer, fighting for country and his rights, makes the most reliable soldier on earth.
    Thomas Jonathan "Stonewall" Jackson
    What separates the winners from the losers is how a person reacts to each new twist of fate.
    President Donald Trump

  17. #17
    Regular Member JamesB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Lakewood, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    703
    Quote Originally Posted by Zohan View Post
    The problem with this logic is that it is flawed. There is no standing expectation or legal precedent that states places in the public sector have a duty to provide security from the possibility of these types of tragedies happening.

    The logic is also flawed because for one to prove the other party is criminally negligent in your implied scenario (the creation of a gun free zone), one would have to prove beyond reasonable doubt that there would have otherwise been a law abiding citizen with a firearm in the vicinity and prepared to take action...the problem is that on any given day at any given time the business owner or their agents cannot predict if a LAC with a firearm or other weapon for that matter would be present or not...so it is nearly impossible to prove criminal negligence in this type of matter based on what you imply.

    Don't get me wrong though, I am "rubbed the wrong way" about the exclusion of LACs with firearms from areas where the public are generally accepted just as much as anyone can be but my sentiments about the matter do not equate to a binding legal precedent nor should yours.

    -Z
    Actually, this is precisely the logic being followed in the case going forward against the Aurora theater. They disarmed the people inside and failed to make accommodations for security based on it.

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Northglenn, Colorado
    Posts
    243
    As an injured party from a holdup in a gun free zone and someone who would otherwise would have been carrying I think your second point about the chance of a LAC on hand to resist the attack is moot. The plaintiff would be the otherwise armed citizen.

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Ffld co.
    Posts
    337
    I have a hard time considering theStarbuck's unenforced policy to be anything but a store policy prohibiting guns. The public notice is out there, property owners/possessors are entitled to ban guns from their property and anyone carrying a gun would be liable for criminal trespass under the laws of many states. Don't go tempting fate on that one.

    Good luck trying to win any sort of premises liability case against Starbuck's based on their GFZ policy...unforeseen/sudden criminal acts of third parties are pretty far outside Starbuck's duty to maintain a reasonably safe environment for their customers. The key is that Starbuck's would have to have NOTICE of the particular danger...and to my knowledge stickup men don't phone ahead.

  20. #20
    Regular Member Maverick9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Mid-atlantic
    Posts
    1,505
    Quote Originally Posted by davidmcbeth View Post
    Since the CEO has announced his unfriendliness for lawful gun owners they have been visited by unfriendly gun owners ... that'sa tooo bad.
    I kinda like the way you put that. 'Since the CEO has announced his disdain for FRIENDLY lawful gun owners, they have been visited by UNFRIENDLY gun owners' would have been cherry.

    Yeah, I just can't understand the idea 'oh some employees were killed in a robbery, let's ban guns' mentality. I mean it's so totally emotional. It's like saying 'some guy got run over crossing the street, let's ban crossing the street'.
    Last edited by Maverick9; 01-10-2014 at 06:08 PM.

  21. #21
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Actually, its working the way the law was meant to ... have more shootings to support more gun control.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •