Results 1 to 10 of 10

Thread: Starbucks Gets It

  1. #1
    Regular Member OPS MARINE's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    , California, USA
    Posts
    392

    Post imported post

    CNN Money & Starbucks

    "...The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence then wrote a letter to Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz, urging Starbucks to enforce a similar policy. On its Web site, the Brady Campaign is soliciting supporters through an online petition that urges Starbucks to offer "espresso shots, not gunshots" and reverse its corporate policy.

    On the other side of the debate, gun rights advocates are pleased with Starbucks' decision. Forum members of OpenCarry.org, a pro-gun Internet community with nearly 28,000 members, are posting that they are "impressed" with Starbucks' stance and will regularly buy the company's coffee to show support.

    Starbucks said if it were to adopt a policy prohibiting customers from carrying guns in states where it is legal to bear firearms, that would require its employees to ask law abiding customers to leave stores, putting them in an unfair and potentially unsafe position."


    "Most people respect the badge. Everybody... respects the gun."

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    San Luis Obispo, California, USA
    Posts
    289

    Post imported post

    We can take that two ways:

    "Unsafe condition" could mean that the store is unprotected from criminal activity.

    Or:

    A normally law abiding armed citizen suddenly goes kooky and personally creates the "unsafe condition".



    Guess which one the Brady's think it to be?

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    542

    Post imported post

    We really need to take the heat off of starbucks, they've been good to us, but we are pushing our welcome a bit by drawing so much attention to them.

  4. #4
    Regular Member Gundude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Sandy Eggo County
    Posts
    1,691

    Post imported post

    heliopolissolutions wrote:
    We really need to take the heat off of starbucks, they've been good to us, but we are pushing our welcome a bit by drawing so much attention to them.
    It seems to me that the B bunch are trying to put the heat on StarBucks, not us. All we are doing is buying coffee. Since the B bunch has become ineffective and impotent in the legislative process, they have been reduced to harassing business's. Next they will be reduced to sitting in the corner sucking their thumbs.
    A citizen may not be required to offer a ―good and substantial reason-- why he should be permitted to exercise his rights. The right‘s existence is all the reason he needs.

  5. #5
    Regular Member coolusername2007's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Temecula, California, USA
    Posts
    1,660

    Post imported post

    This really is huge. It correctly sets the argument squarely where it belongs and it provides much needed guidance for smaller companies that often look to larger organizations for examples on good business practices. The fact that Starbucks came out and said, hey if its legal then we're good to go and you're welcome will impact many otherbusinesses, both large and small,in their decision making process who may or may not be aware of the issue. So Starbucks has once again served us exceptionally well,only this time it will have further reaching implications than just their stores.

    Our position with other businesses is to highlight those businesses that choose to follow the law as opposed to getting in the middle of social debate. Companies you should mention are Starbucks (of course), Bass Pro Shops, Walmart, and any other large national organizations that respect the rights of the People.
    "Why should judicial precedent bind the nation if the Constitution itself does not?" -- Mark Levin

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    542

    Post imported post

    Gundude wrote:
    heliopolissolutions wrote:
    We really need to take the heat off of starbucks, they've been good to us, but we are pushing our welcome a bit by drawing so much attention to them.
    It seems to me that the B bunch are trying to put the heat on StarBucks, not us. All we are doing is buying coffee. Since the B bunch has become ineffective and impotent in the legislative process, they have been reduced to harassing business's. Next they will be reduced to sitting in the corner sucking their thumbs.
    True story.

    So say we all stop poking the bear.

    How do we keep the BB from poking the bear in our honor?

  7. #7
    Regular Member coolusername2007's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Temecula, California, USA
    Posts
    1,660

    Post imported post

    heliopolissolutions wrote:
    Gundude wrote:
    heliopolissolutions wrote:
    We really need to take the heat off of starbucks, they've been good to us, but we are pushing our welcome a bit by drawing so much attention to them.
    It seems to me that the B bunch are trying to put the heat on StarBucks, not us. All we are doing is buying coffee. Since the B bunch has become ineffective and impotent in the legislative process, they have been reduced to harassing business's. Next they will be reduced to sitting in the corner sucking their thumbs.
    True story.

    So say we all stop poking the bear.

    How do we keep the BB from poking the bear in our honor?
    You can't. They will dowhatever they will do. If they interpret Starbucks' announcement as a sign of weakness or as them (the Bradys)having an affect upon them, they will not only not stop, they will push even harder.

    It might be time to open carry in front of the Bradyoffices. It might be time to begin protesting all the anti-liberty loving organizations in this state and country. It might be time to start calling them out as the liberty haters that they are. They do not have the stats, they do not tell the truth, they quite possibly take federal monies to speak out against and limit our liberties, they harass businesses for doing nothing other than following the law, and they are puttingupstanding, law abidingpeople's lives in danger as a result.

    The question to me isn't how to keep them from poking the bear, the question is why aren't we poking back?




    "Why should judicial precedent bind the nation if the Constitution itself does not?" -- Mark Levin

  8. #8
    Regular Member Gundude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Sandy Eggo County
    Posts
    1,691

    Post imported post

    OK, I'm in for lunch at the B bunch office. Where is the one in San Diego. We can take the battle to their doorstep, and see how they like a little heat.
    A citizen may not be required to offer a ―good and substantial reason-- why he should be permitted to exercise his rights. The right‘s existence is all the reason he needs.

  9. #9
    Regular Member OPS MARINE's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    , California, USA
    Posts
    392

    Post imported post

    coolusername2007 wrote:
    heliopolissolutions wrote:
    Gundude wrote:
    heliopolissolutions wrote:
    We really need to take the heat off of starbucks, they've been good to us, but we are pushing our welcome a bit by drawing so much attention to them.
    It seems to me that the B bunch are trying to put the heat on StarBucks, not us. All we are doing is buying coffee. Since the B bunch has become ineffective and impotent in the legislative process, they have been reduced to harassing business's. Next they will be reduced to sitting in the corner sucking their thumbs.
    True story.

    So say we all stop poking the bear.

    How do we keep the BB from poking the bear in our honor?
    You can't. They will dowhatever they will do. If they interpret Starbucks' announcement as a sign of weakness or as them (the Bradys)having an affect upon them, they will not only not stop, they will push even harder.

    It might be time to open carry in front of the Bradyoffices. It might be time to begin protesting all the anti-liberty loving organizations in this state and country. It might be time to start calling them out as the liberty haters that they are. They do not have the stats, they do not tell the truth, they quite possibly take federal monies to speak out against and limit our liberties, they harass businesses for doing nothing other than following the law, and they are puttingupstanding, law abidingpeople's lives in danger as a result.

    The question to me isn't how to keep them from poking the bear, the question is why aren't we poking back?



    Perhaps this is something that needs to be explored. We are not taking the fight right back to where it's coming from. The Bradys want to place the "heat" on other entities, and not pointing the finger at themselves, the root of the problem. It's time we had a chat with them...in a public forum.
    "Most people respect the badge. Everybody... respects the gun."

Posting Permissions

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