Results 1 to 6 of 6

Thread: Another OC & Starbucks article

  1. #1
    State Researcher Bill Starks's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Nortonville, KY, USA
    Posts
    4,291

    Post imported post

    http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/htm...the_latte.html

    Civil Disagreement: A Shot at Starbucks

    Posted by Lynne Varner

    Civil disagreements, with Lynne Varner and Bruce Ramsey of the Seattle Times editorial board, is a feature of the Ed Cetera blog. Here Lynne and Bruce examine the spectre of open-holstered guns at Starbucks.


    Lynne Varner: Bruce: Starbucks is playing it a little too coy in its public pleadings to be left out of the gun control debate.

    Gun owners have targeted Starbucks because they see it as a West Coast symbol of liberal politics, says this article. I see it as a place to go for an overpriced cup of joe. Go figure.

    The Second Amendment is being stretched thin to make a political point by the pro-gun group OpenCarry.org.

    Businesses can choose to ban guns from their premises. Starbucks should. It can acknowledge and accept our constitutional right to own a weapon and accept the laws in 43 states that allow weapons to be carried openly. Then the coffee chain can assert its right to regulate behavior in its stores. Peet's Coffee & Tea chain did it. Sometimes it isn't just individuals that must take a courageous stand, but corporations too.

    Bruce Ramsey: Corporations don't like to get involved in disputes like this because they don't want to anger any segment of the public. Starbucks just wants to sell coffee and treats. The open carry people are forcing a decision on them. Well, it is their right, and Starbucks has to make a decision. (And to do nothing is also to make a decision.)

    It makes me uneasy to see ordinary citizens with holstered guns. And yet, I have to admit that I probably encounter lots of people who have guns in their pockets or purses. I have to also admit that I have not a shred of evidence that an open-carry gun is more dangerous than a concealed gun, and this is a cocealed-carry state. It could even be that open carry guns are safer. There could be a robber casing out that Starbucks to knock it over. The robber sees the people with the open-carry guns and says, "Forget this."

    Then there is a thought that it is an odd thing to go around with a pistol on your hip, and that the problem is not so much the pistol but the oddness of the person carrying it. What's with these people, anyway? All of this is theory only. I have never seen any open-carry people at Starbucks or any other coffee place. Maybe I will.


    Lynne Varner, Editorial Writer
    lvarner@seattletimes.com; 206-464-3217

    Bruce Ramsey, Editorial Writer
    bramsey@seattletimes.com; 206-464-2057






  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Spokane, Washington, USA
    Posts
    1,268

    Post imported post

    Lynne strikes me as a typical Seattle lib.

    "The Second Amendment is being stretched thin to make a political point by the pro-gun group OpenCarry.org."

    Oh, I am sorry maam. I didn't know practicing something that was legal in 86% of the country was stretching a constitutional ammendment or attempting to make a political point.

    "Businesses can choose to ban guns from their premises. Starbucks should. It can acknowledge and accept our constitutional right to own a weapon and accept the laws in 43 states that allow weapons to be carried openly."

    I am confused. She is saying two things. Starbucks should ban firearms... Yet she goes onto exlpain that it is a constitutional right and allowed in the far majority of this country...

    Two faced *female dog*. Wants all the ammendments to be allowed and acknowledge their legality but doesn't want it to be allowed in the public places she may be...

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Edmonds, Washington, USA
    Posts
    41

    Post imported post

    Interesting attempt by Bruce to show "both sides" of the argument, but really all this editorial does is take the side of the fringe protestors, and then the ignorant average joe who knows nothing about our constitution, guns, or the people that carry them. Where's the actual "other side" in this editorial? So much for journalism...

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Blaine, WA, ,
    Posts
    1,315

    Post imported post

    M1Gunr wrote:
    Gun owners have targeted Starbucks because they see it as a West Coast symbol of liberal politics, says this article.
    We didn't target Starbucks at all. We were minding our own business when the Brady bunch started having a cow about it. How did we get put into the position of being the ones making a political point because an anti-gun organization decides to make a big public stink about something.

    Edit: Just read the comments.

    "The Inc 500 is certainly right that anyone with a little martial arts training and speed can quickly disarm someone carrying openly, even with a gun pointed directly at them."

    This person has been watching too many movies.

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Edmonds, Washington, USA
    Posts
    41

    Post imported post

    heresolong wrote:
    M1Gunr wrote:
    Gun owners have targeted Starbucks because they see it as a West Coast symbol of liberal politics, says this article.
    We didn't target Starbucks at all. We were minding our own business when the Brady bunch started having a cow about it. How did we get put into the position of being the ones making a political point because an anti-gun organization decides to make a big public stink about something.
    "How did we get put into the position of being the ones making a political point"

    Seriously! Aren't the anti-gunners the ones who make political statements? After all, we just mind our own business and abide by the law (which OC is), and they are the ones throwing a fit over us exercising our rights... hmmmm. Let me think about that one. Operating within the law, exercising my rights, and that makes us the ones making a "political" statement? I should expect nothing less than that bass ackwards thinking from a liberal...

  6. #6
    Regular Member Machoduck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Covington, WA & Keenesburg, CO
    Posts
    566

    Post imported post

    An annotated version of the times piece.

    Lynne Varner:
    Bruce: Starbucks is playing it a little too coy in its public pleadings to be left out of the gun control debate.

    Starbucks says "Leave us out of this." How is that being coy? There's no law that says they have to take a political stand on anything.

    Gun owners have targeted Starbucks because they see it as a West Coast symbol of liberal politics, says this article. I see it as a place to go for an overpriced cup of joe. Go figure.

    I beg your pardon! It was the Brady Campaign to Promote Gun Violence who targeted Starbucks. Our guys were simply drinking coffee.

    The Second Amendment is being stretched thin to make a political point by the pro-gun group OpenCarry.org.

    What part of "shall not be infringed" is being stretched thin? If you want to refer to the Washington Constitution, the question would be: What part of "impaired" is being stretched thin?

    Businesses can choose to ban guns from their premises. Starbucks should. It can acknowledge and accept our constitutional right to own a weapon and accept the laws in 43 states that allow weapons to be carried openly. Then the coffee chain can assert its right to regulate behavior in its stores. Peet's Coffee & Tea chain did it. Sometimes it isn't just individuals that must take a courageous stand, but corporations too.

    Starbucks has asked you not to place them in the middle of this argument. Why can't you honor their request?

    Bruce Ramsey:
    Corporations don't like to get involved in disputes like this because they don't want to anger any segment of the public. Starbucks just wants to sell coffee and treats. The open carry people are forcing a decision on them. Well, it is their right, and Starbucks has to make a decision. (And to do nothing is also to make a decision.)

    You too, have it backwards. All we've ever wanted to do is enjoy coffee there. We also like to educate people but we never approach them: We let them approach us, if they choose to, unlike Brady, et al.

    It makes me uneasy to see ordinary citizens with holstered guns. And yet, I have to admit that I probably encounter lots of people who have guns in their pockets or purses. I have to also admit that I have not a shred of evidence that an open-carry gun is more dangerous than a concealed gun, and this is a concealed-carry state. It could even be that open carry guns are safer. There could be a robber casing out that Starbucks to knock it over. The robber sees the people with the open-carry guns and says, "Forget this."

    Congratulations! You're thinking instead of feeling. Actually the turning away of criminals has happened, if only temporarily, in Sea-Tac.

    Then there is a thought that it is an odd thing to go around with a pistol on your hip, and that the problem is not so much the pistol but the oddness of the person carrying it. What's with these people, anyway? All of this is theory only. I have never seen any open-carry people at Starbucks or any other coffee place. Maybe I will.

    We are odd, if choosing to see the reality of life in America, with all its dangers, is odd.

    MD

    ETA: This was posted to Seattle Times comments at 1828 hrs




Posting Permissions

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