• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Sorry, Starbucks: You Are In This Debate

ConditionThree

ConditionThree

State Pioneer
Joined
May 22, 2006
Messages
2,231
Location
Shasta County, California, USA
imported post

http://blog.bradycampaign.org/?p=1972
Sorry, Starbucks: You Are In This Debate

by Paul Helmke on March 5th, 2010 Permalink

The Starbucks Coffee Company has become the subject of national media attention because some gun activists have decided to wear their guns openly, with loaded ammunition magazines close by, in Starbucks stores in California.

Starbucks says it doesn’t want to be embroiled in the gun laws debate. I don’t blame them for wanting to avoid controversy – but they can’t be left out of it. By choosing to appease these gun rights demonstrators – demonstrators whose antics make many gun owners in our country blush – they have put the concerns of the rest of their customers aside. By allowing guns in its stores, the company is jeopardizing the safety of its customers and employees.

That’s why we have asked concerned citizens to sign a petition urging Starbucks to change its policy. That’s why we’ve posted on our website a sample letter people can sign and give to the manager of their own local Starbucks, asking them to tell the company to change the policy. And we’re just getting started spreading the word about this issue. Sorry, Starbucks.

Starbucks says it is simply complying with the law. But it would also be complying with the law if it barred guns from its stores. Peet’s Coffee and Tea and California Pizza Kitchen, both of which banned guns after these demonstrations began, also are complying with the law. The law allows Starbucks to set the basic rules for its property. The issue is not the law. The issue is Starbucks’ choice to allow guns in its stores.

Starbucks says it does not want to have to bar customers who are abiding by the law. But when Starbucks bars someone who is not wearing a shirt or shoes from its stores, or ejects someone who is loud and offensive, it is barring a customer who is abiding by the law. It is not against the law to dress differently or to exercise free speech rights, but it may be against company policy.

Retail businesses have the right to set policies that go beyond the minimum requirements of the law in running their businesses. Starbucks has a policy that endangers its customers and employees, particularly since there are virtually no restrictions on who can openly carry guns – no permits, no training, no proficiency requirements and no knowledge of the laws is required. And since law-abiding gun owners can drop, lose or unintentionally misuse guns, allowing openly carried guns in Starbucks is bad policy. (Indeed, just this past September a gun activist at an “open carry” picnic was charged with reckless use of a firearm after his gun went off in a parking lot.) As long as it maintains that policy, we will be critical of that policy.
The gun extremist want an America where there are guns everywhere: not just in coffeehouses, but also in bars, churches, parks, banks and classrooms.

By capitulating to the gun extremists because they want this issue to “go away,” Starbucks has made a hazardous mistake. Having seen what the gun pushers demand when they are given an inch, I again urge the company to reconsider its policy.
Click to expand...

Helmke keeps asserting that Starbucks is capitulating to gun owners, that Starbucks is appeasing the gun lobby. The reality is that Starbucks has not capitulated to the Brady Campaign with their loud and whiny complaints, their petitions that only a vocal minorty have decided to sign. Helmke is on this rant, not because gun owners are welcome atthe corporate coffee franchise, but because he wasnt able to change Starbucks pre-existing 'non'-policy with his bullying and scare tactics.

Helmke is making it clearer that he does not respect rights of any kind... gun rights or property rights. Facsism cannot condone such independence as to allow what private businesses choose to do and whom they will serve. By persuing this with a reiteration of his objection to Starbucks 'non' policy, he is making his organization look like the child in the supermarket stamping his feet, having not gotten his way...

And if justice prevails, Helmke will be in the backseat of the family car pouting as our liberties are restored not just in Starbucks, but in every venue it is our natural right to be. Like restaurants, bars, churches, parks, banks and classrooms.
 
Gundude

Gundude

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 30, 2009
Messages
1,691
Location
Sandy Eggo County
imported post

Fear, lies and intimidation don't seem to be working for the B bunch. But, I guess thats all they have.
 
coolusername2007

coolusername2007

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 28, 2009
Messages
1,659
Location
Temecula, California, USA
imported post

ConditionThree wrote:
http://blog.bradycampaign.org/?p=1972
And we’re just getting started spreading the word about this issue. Sorry, Starbucks.

Starbucks says it does not want to have to bar customers who are abiding by the law. But when Starbucks bars someone who is not wearing a shirt or shoes from its stores, or ejects someone who is loud and offensive, it is barring a customer who is abiding by the law. It is not against the law to dress differently or to exercise free speech rights, but it may be against company policy.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Clearly they are setting the stage for more attacks on Starbucks and other establishments with the first statement I highlighted.

These people are complete idiots. They are trying to compare law abiding activities with protected civil liberties. Really?! Wearing / not wearing shirt and shoes is clearly more of a cleanliness/grossed out issue, and does not even begin to compare with the 2nd Amendment or other protected rights. Their arguments are so stupid - its amazing anyone even listens to these people.

You see this is the problem with NANNY-STATERS, STATISTS, and POLICE-STATERS, they simply CANNOT take their business elsewhere. They CANNOT CONTROL their own urges to CONTROL YOU OR OTHERS who don't fall in line with their BIG GOVERNMENT CONTROL positions.

What did we do? We simply told PEET's and CPK, fine we'll take our business elsewhere. What did they do? They threatened more attacks, more lies, more propaganda.
 
C

Captain_Awesome

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 25, 2009
Messages
60
Location
Fresno, California, USA
imported post

The Brady bunch is really starting to act like big babies. They're not only arrogant, but they're acting downright rude. If I was Starbucks, even if I didn't want to get involved in the debate, I'd give these guys a great big ":cuss:-you, don't tell us how to do business, and please don't lie to us."



PS, I can't wait to hear Starbucks' reply to this one.
 
D

dirtykoala

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 27, 2009
Messages
644
imported post

i dont understand the Brady Campaign to Preven Gun Violence... they have good core idea, but they have nothing to do with that idea. they dont care about preventing gun violence, they only care to prevent guns. i kind of want to start a group to prevent gun violence that tries to prevent gun violence.

im sure brady would be happy if the US adopted similar laws to england...

england_crime-2.gif
 
demnogis

demnogis

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 21, 2008
Messages
911
Location
Orange County, California, USA
imported post

I like the idea on starting an organization that truly works to prevent gun violence. Maybe you can start on providing expert analysis on how to change biz policies to respect peoples' rights but only negatively impact criminals.
 
coolusername2007

coolusername2007

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 28, 2009
Messages
1,659
Location
Temecula, California, USA
imported post

That's because gun control isn't about guns...its about CONTROL.

I know we've heard it hundreds of times, but now some here are seeing it first hand, so it bears repeating.

A Pro-2A gun group that is interested in reducing gun violence isn't a bad idea. Positioning uncomprimising gun rights against the sensless violence cause by guns would be a worthy effort. The question I have is this, unlike the CONTROL groups out there, how do you achieve your goal? Most here I suspect believe in the concept of innocent until proven guilty, and are against the concept of the thought police. So the question that must be answered is how do you prevent senseless violence caused by the whack-job before he causes it? Good luck with that. When you have a plausible solution I'll donate to your cause. In the meantime, I'll stick to what we know works, mitigating (not eliminating) violence through the lawful RKBA.
 
K

KS_to_CA

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 27, 2008
Messages
443
Location
National City, CA, ,
imported post

Walked in to Starbucks Coffee National Citylast weekand together with my bill, handed the cashier with a business card that says: "Thank you Starbucks Coffee for choosing to allow law-abiding citizens like me freedom to exercise my 2nd amendment right in your store."

I was not even carrying a firearm at the time (business meeting).

The cashier looked at the card, looked at me and smiled. I asked if she would hand it to the manager, and she gladly said yes.
 
ConditionThree

ConditionThree

State Pioneer
Joined
May 22, 2006
Messages
2,231
Location
Shasta County, California, USA
imported post

CA_Libertarian wrote:
ConditionThree wrote:
...(Indeed, just this past September a gun activist at an “open carry” picnic was charged with reckless use of a firearm after his gun went off in a parking lot.)...
Click to expand...
Anybody have details on this? This is the first I've heard of this...
Click to expand...


That would be this story from 5 months ago;

http://www.mlive.com/news/kalamazoo/index.ssf/2009/09/kalamazoo_man_at_gun-rights_pi.html



Kalamazoo man at gun-rights picnic at South Haven beach charged after inadvertently firing weapon
By Kalamazoo Gazette staff
September 24, 2009, 11:25AM
By Rex Hall Jr. | Kalamazoo Gazette

SOUTH HAVEN — A Kalamazoo man attending a gun-rights picnic at South Haven’s South Beach has been charged with reckless use of a firearm after his weapon discharged, police said Thursday.

Jonathan Wayne Sager, 28, was unloading his semiautomatic handgun and preparing it for transport after the Sept. 13 picnic when it discharged at 5:44 p.m., said Chief Rod A. Somerlott of the South Haven Police Department.

A warrant authorized Wednesday by the Van Buren County Prosecutor’s Office charged Sager with reckless use of a firearm, which is a misdemeanor, police said.

No one was struck by the bullet.

Somerlott said officers found remnants of the bullet in the parking lot, leading police to conclude the gun was pointed in a downward direction when it was fired.

“Was his intention to fire the gun? No,” Somerlott said. “At least, I don’t believe so.”

However, police said they believe about 150 beachgoers left the area voluntarily after the shot was fired.

Police responded to the area after receiving calls about the gunshot being fired.

They later stopped Sager, who was riding in a friend’s pickup truck, and three friends in the 800 block of LaGrange Street.

At the time of the stop, Somerlott said Sager and his friends told police they were looking for the local police station so they could report the incident.

At the scene of the stop, Sager’s weapon was checked and returned to him and he was allowed to leave, police said.

Sager voluntarily turned himself in Wednesday at Van Buren County District Court following the issuance of a misdemeanor warrant and was later released pending a formal court arraignment, a news release said.

Sager and his friends had attended a picnic on the afternoon of Sept. 13 that was organized by Michigan Open Carry, which promotes awareness of the state law that allows citizens to openly carry a firearm in most places
Click to expand...
I would point out that this would be less likely to occur if he wasn't handling the firearm to prepare it for 'transport'- Here in California both PC626.9 and 12031 are creating the unnecessary hazardous conditions where armed individuals arehandling their weapons to abide by restrictions in state law. Im not defending the negligent discharge, but we are suceptable to similar conditions at our events as well.
 
C

chewy352

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 11, 2009
Messages
769
Location
Harrah, Oklahoma
imported post

Out of respect for Starbucks I wont be setting up or attending any more organized meetups at Starbucks but I will continue to UOC alone there and buy all the coffee I can afford.
 
N

N6ATF

Banned
Joined
Jul 22, 2009
Messages
1,401
Location
San Diego County, CA, California, USA
imported post

SomeGuyInCali wrote:
By what "authority" are the Brady Bunch claiming that other customers are placed in danger??? What danger? Seriously?
Click to expand...
The only people the Brady Bunch cares about being in danger are CRIMINALS. Law-abiding gun owners put CRIMINALS in danger, and we must be disarmed so we can be completely submissive to CRIMINALS.

Brady Campaign For Criminal Safety is their actual overriding principle.
 
We-the-People

We-the-People

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2009
Messages
2,221
Location
White City, Oregon, USA
imported post

This is from a powerpoint presentation I gave in college speech class. Sources were scholarly and dependable though I don't have them close at hand like I do the chart.

EDIT ADD SOURCE (page 7): http://www.freewebs.com/imperialpolkgunclubinc/gun-facts-5.1-screen.pdf

DATA FROM PREVIOUS FILES (individual countries added page by page)

Australia, gun control - 4.1% of population is violently victimized each year

Britain, gun ban - 3.6% of population is violently victimized each year

Canada, full firearms registration - 3.4% of population is violently victimized each year

Switzerland, 740,000 military "assault rifles" in private homes, many fully automatic - 2.1% of population is violently victimized each year

United States,more guns than any othercountry - 1.9% of population is violently victimized each year
 
T

Theseus

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Jul 6, 2008
Messages
964
Location
Lamma Island, HK
imported post

coolusername2007 wrote:
That's because gun control isn't about guns...its about CONTROL.

I know we've heard it hundreds of times, but now some here are seeing it first hand, so it bears repeating.

A Pro-2A gun group that is interested in reducing gun violence isn't a bad idea. Positioning uncomprimising gun rights against the sensless violence cause by guns would be a worthy effort. The question I have is this, unlike the CONTROL groups out there, how do you achieve your goal? Most here I suspect believe in the concept of innocent until proven guilty, and are against the concept of the thought police. So the question that must be answered is how do you prevent senseless violence caused by the whack-job before he causes it? Good luck with that. When you have a plausible solution I'll donate to your cause. In the meantime, I'll stick to what we know works, mitigating (not eliminating) violence through the lawful RKBA.
Click to expand...
You can't really stop the whack-job from doing something, but what you can solve or attempt to prevent are the other causes of the more common forms of gun violence, criminal activity.

Believe it or not, I have argued for some time to start a gun range and club dedicated to introducing the inner city youth to the shooting and marksman sports and discipline.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top