Results 1 to 14 of 14

Thread: Starbucks and Brady And OpenCarry: Biggest Battleground Yet

  1. #1
    State Researcher HankT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Invisible Mode
    Posts
    6,217

    Post imported post

    Some interesting details in this article about the Starbucks/Brady Campaign subject...

    1. Brady is playing the guns are a danger to employees card.

    2. Some OCers at today's Brady event are accused of chuckleheadedly interrupting the Brady speakers.

    3. Bradyis using bubba-styleemotional calls-- e.g., "wearing a gun on your belt to show the world you're allowed to is a little juvenile" and"expresso shots, not gunshots."

    4.The Starbucks venue may be the biggest OC battleground yet.

    5. Mucho press coverage of OC at the national level. More than I've ever seen before.

    6. Great quotes by John Pierce and OCDO.

    7. The Starbucks prepared position statement released todayabout OC laid the groundwork for it to reverse its current policy.





    Starbucks: Letting customers wear guns is just business

    SEATTTLE (AP) — Coffee chain Starbucks said Wednesday it's sticking to its policy of letting customers carry guns where it's legal and is asking not to be put in the middle of a larger gun-control debate.
    The company's statement, issued Wednesday, stems from recent campaign by some gun owners, who have walked into Starbucks (SBUX) and other businesses to test state laws that allow gun owners to carry weapons openly in public places.


    READ: Starbucks position on open-carry gun laws


    Now, gun control advocates are protesting the policy. The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, launched a petition drive demanding that the company "offer espresso shots, not gunshots" and declare its coffeehouses "gun-free zones." And Wednesday, that group planned to deliver 28,000 signatures to the coffee giant's headquarters in Seattle.

    The group also held a press conference near Seattle's Pike Place Market, just a few yards away from the where the first Starbucks cafe opened. Gun rights advocates showed up as well, some carrying handguns in holsters around their waists.


    Brian Mantel of the Brady Campaign said the carrying guns intimidates and frightens people, and said the group thinks Starbucks will "do the right thing" and change its policy.

    "They're putting their workers in harm's way by allowing people to carry guns into their stores, especially open carry," Mantel said.

    More than a dozen pro-gun supporters, some with Starbucks coffee cups in hand, chanted during the press conference, at points interrupting speakers.

    "I think the (Brady campaign is) trying to strong-arm private businesses into banning the rights of the people," said Bev Carman of Everett, Wash. Carman held a sign that said: "Criminal Control not Gun Control."

    Starbucks asked both gun enthusiasts and gun-control advocates "to refrain from putting Starbucks or our partners into the middle of this divisive issue."

    Even in some "open carry" states, businesses are allowed to ban guns in their stores. And some have, creating political confrontations with gun owners.

    Starbucks said that it complies with local laws in the 43 states that have open-carry weapon laws. Not to do so, the chain said, would make the chain "require our partners to ask law abiding customers to leave our stores, putting our partners in an unfair and potentially unsafe position."

    It said security measures are in place for any "threatening situation" that might occur in stores.

    "Starbucks is a special target because it's from the hippie West Coast, and a lot of dedicated consumers who pay $4 for coffee have expectations that Starbucks would ban guns. And here they aren't," said John Bruce, a political science professor at the University of Mississippi who is an expert in gun policy.

    The fight for retailers heated up in early January when gun enthusiasts in northern California began walking into Starbucks and other businesses to test state laws that allow gun owners to carry weapons openly in public places. As it spread to other states, gun control groups quickly complained about the parade of firearms in local stores.

    Some were spontaneous, with just one or two gun owners walking into a store. Others were organized parades of dozens of gun owners walking into restaurants with their firearms proudly at their sides.

    In one case, about 100 activists bearing arms had planned to go to a California Pizza Kitchen in Walnut Creek, Calif., but after it became clear they weren't welcome they went to another restaurant. That chain and Peet's Coffee & Tea are among the businesses that have banned customers with guns.

    Just as shops can deny service to barefoot customers, restaurants and stores in some states can declare their premises gun-free zones.

    The advocacy group OpenCarry.org, a leading group encouraging the demonstrations, applauded Starbucks in a statement for "deciding not to discriminate against lawful gun carriers."

    "Starbucks is seen as a responsible corporation and they're seen as a very progressive corporation, and this policy is very much in keeping with that," said John Pierce, co-founder of OpenCarry.org. "If you're going to support individual rights, you have to support them all. I applaud them, and I've gone out of my way personally to let every manager of every Starbucks I pass know that."

    Gun control advocates hope the coffeehouse firearms displays end up aggravating more people than they inspire.

    "If you want to dress up and go out and make a little political theater by frightening children in the local Starbucks, if that's what you want to spend your energy on, go right ahead," said Peter Hamm, a spokesman for the Brady campaign. "But going out and wearing a gun on your belt to show the world you're allowed to is a little juvenile."

    The coffeehouse debate has been particularly poignant for gun-control advocates in Washington state, where four uniformed police officers were shot and killed while working on their laptops at a suburban coffeehouse. The shooter later died in a gun battle with police.

    Ralph Fascitelli of Washington Ceasefire, an advocacy group that seeks to reduce gun violence, said allowing guns in coffeehouses robs residents of "societal sanctuaries."

    "People go to Starbucks for an escape, just so they can get peace," Fascitelli said. "But people walk in with open-carry guns and it destroys the tranquility."

    Gun control advocates have been on the defensive. Their opponents have trumpeted fears that gun rights would erode under a Democrat-led White House and Congress, but President Obama and his top allies have largely been silent on issues such as reviving an assault weapons ban or strengthening background checks at gun shows.

    Gun rights groups are looking to build on a 2008 U.S. Supreme Court ruling that struck down Washington, D.C.'s handgun ban, and cheered legislation that took effect Monday allowing licensed gun owners to bring firearms into national parks. Obama signed that legislation as part of a broader bill.

    Legislators in Montana and Tennessee, meanwhile, have passed measures seeking to exempt guns made and kept in-state from national gun control laws. And state lawmakers elsewhere are considering legislation that would give residents more leeway to carry concealed weapons without permits.

    Observers say the gun rights movement is using the Starbucks campaign to add momentum and energize its supporters.

    "They're trying to change the culture with this broader notion of gun rights," said Clyde Wilcox, a Georgetown University government professor who has written a book on the politics of gun control. "I think they are pressing the notion that they've got a rout going, so why not just get what they can while they're ahead?"

    http://www.usatoday.com/money/indust...s_N.htm?csp=hf



  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Salem, Oregon
    Posts
    94

    Post imported post

    OC at a Brady event? I think I missed that one.

    I do think it would be appropriate to demonstrate at Brady locations. Maybe they would be so intimidated by their own propaganda that they'd not come to work. That did, in fact, happen to some soccer moms that were supposed to take the MMM info door to door.

  3. #3
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Lobelville, Tennessee, USA
    Posts
    2,615

    Post imported post

    Here's a thought.

    Why not join the anti-gunners in protest, by pretending to be one of them and carrying signs that say,

    "DON'T DENY MY RIGHTS TO BE A VICTEM _ BAN GUNS NOW!"

    or

    "GUNS PREVENT ME FROM EXCERCIZING MY VICTEMS RIGHTS!"

    or

    "IDON'T WANT to BE PROTECTED -I WANT TO BE VICTEMIZED!"

    This would really help them out in front of TV cameras, don't you think?

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    , Mississippi, USA
    Posts
    224

    Post imported post

    http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,587938,00.html

    It's making National news everywhere which is can be good or bad depending on how we handle it. I say rather than protest we buy large amounts of coffee and other itemsfrom Starbucks. It's certain that the protestors for the Brady Campaign to Ban Gun Ownership aren't buying anything at their protests. I'll be visiting a Starbucks as often as I can. It probably wouldn't hurt to purchase one of these either.

    http://www.starbucks.com/card


    It is a quick way to put money in their pocket and reward them for for their stance. If they see a sudden uptick in card sales it can't help but but make an impact especially if they receive an email explaining why we bought the card from everyone who does. Just a thought.


  5. #5
    State Researcher HankT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Invisible Mode
    Posts
    6,217

    Post imported post

    JT wrote:
    It's certain that the protestors for the Brady Campaign to Ban Gun Ownership aren't buying anything at their protests.
    That's an interesting position.

    What makes you say that?

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    , Mississippi, USA
    Posts
    224

    Post imported post

    HankT wrote:
    That's an interesting position.

    What makes you say that?
    Common sense. Their intent in standing there with signs is to drive away customers and blame us for the loss in business. You really think thesign waving protesters are buying?

  7. #7
    State Researcher HankT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Invisible Mode
    Posts
    6,217

    Post imported post

    JT wrote:
    HankT wrote:
    That's an interesting position.

    What makes you say that?
    Common sense. Their intent in standing there with signs is to drive away customers and blame us for the loss in business. You really think thesign waving protesters are buying?
    Sure.

    All kinds of people like coffee. And it's a no-brainer to buy some coffee from the company you'retryinjg to persuade to provide a "safer"environment.Actually, it's implicit in the rationaleBC is using to petition their case.

    I think you're straining, awfully much, to ascribe some bad thing on the Bradies.

    Maybe pick some other point to criticize. This one isn't persuasive...

  8. #8
    Regular Member buster81's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Richmond, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    1,461

    Post imported post

    Based on what I've been reading in the comments sections, a lot of the antis are saying they won't be back to Starbucks until they change their policy.

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Burton, Michigan
    Posts
    3,361

    Post imported post

    buster81 wrote:
    Based on what I've been reading in the comments sections, a lot of the antis are saying they won't be back to Starbucks until they change their policy.
    Perfect! That's the best news Iread all morning.

    Edit: grammatical

  10. #10
    State Researcher HankT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Invisible Mode
    Posts
    6,217

    Post imported post

    SpringerXDacp wrote:
    buster81 wrote:
    Based on what I've been reading in the comments sections, a lot of the antis are saying they won't be back to Starbucks until they change their policy.
    Perfect! That's the best news Iread all morning.
    It's always interesting to see how people, who have a high level of involvement in an issue, perceive new information about such an issue.

    Sometimes, actually quite often, high involvement people will take some stratightforward info--and come to the exact opposite conclusion that a clear look at reality would provide.



  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    , Mississippi, USA
    Posts
    224

    Post imported post

    HankT wrote:
    Sure.

    All kinds of people like coffee. And it's a no-brainer to buy some coffee from the company you'retryinjg to persuade to provide a "safer"environment.Actually, it's implicit in the rationaleBC is using to petition their case.

    I think you're straining, awfully much, to ascribe some bad thing on the Bradies.

    Maybe pick some other point to criticize. This one isn't persuasive...
    I don't really care what you think. I'll decide for myself what is a valid point. Feel free to be unpersuaded. People don't protest on site in order to drum up business for the company they are protesting. If that were the case the protesters would be welcomed.

    I think it's laughable that you pick out one minorpart of my post to criticize and ignore the main point. But hey...It's what you do. My bad for posting in a thread you started.

  12. #12
    State Researcher HankT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Invisible Mode
    Posts
    6,217

    Post imported post

    JT wrote:
    HankT wrote:
    Sure.

    All kinds of people like coffee. And it's a no-brainer to buy some coffee from the company you'retryinjg to persuade to provide a "safer"environment.Actually, it's implicit in the rationaleBC is using to petition their case.

    I think you're straining, awfully much, to ascribe some bad thing on the Bradies.

    Maybe pick some other point to criticize. This one isn't persuasive...
    I don't really care what you think. I'll decide for myself what is a valid point. Feel free to be unpersuaded. People don't protest on site in order to drum up business for the company they are protesting. If that were the case the protesters would be welcomed.

    I think it's laughable that you pick out one minorpart of my post to criticize and ignore the main point. But hey...It's what you do. My bad for posting in a thread you started.
    Uhm, this is a discussion forum.

    You're supposed to post and read ideas and positions.

    There is no rule here at OCDO that limits discussion based on who starts a thread. What the heck are you talking about, JT?

  13. #13
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    across Death's Door on Washington Island, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,382

    Post imported post

    HankT wrote:
    What the heck are you talking about, JT?
    That it ain't free association stream of un-consciousness.

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    , Mississippi, USA
    Posts
    224

    Post imported post

    HankT wrote:
    JT wrote:

    I don't really care what you think. I'll decide for myself what is a valid point. Feel free to be unpersuaded. People don't protest on site in order to drum up business for the company they are protesting. If that were the case the protesters would be welcomed.

    I think it's laughable that you pick out one minorpart of my post to criticize and ignore the main point. But hey...It's what you do. My bad for posting in a thread you started.
    Uhm, this is a discussion forum.

    You're supposed to post and read ideas and positions.

    There is no rule here at OCDO that limits discussion based on who starts a thread. What the heck are you talking about, JT?
    Since you again fail to see the point let me see if I can help. I said nothing about rules in the post you quoted above. I was expressing the fact that I made a mistake in participating in a discussion that you started. The reason I feel that way is because I should haveknown that I would be wasting my time. My original point is that we should find ways to reward Starbucks for their policy because we approve. I doubt seriously that the Brady campaign is trying to find ways of rewarding Starbucks for a policy that they disapprove. The ramifications of that point should be apparent . I'm done in this thread.

Posting Permissions

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