Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 60

Thread: Why gun-control activists are targeting Starbucks

  1. #1
    Regular Member MetalChris's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    SW Ohio
    Posts
    1,215

    Post imported post

    Why gun-control activists are targeting Starbucks

    The Brady Campaign is asking the chain to prioritize customer and employee safety, not take a position in America's gun debate.

    In its March 5 editorial, "At the Starbucks saloon," The Times criticizes the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence for launching a petition drive asking Starbucks Coffee Co. to change its policy welcoming armed patrons into its stores. The Times writes that Starbucks is merely an "innocent bystander" and that our "true foe" is the open-carry crowd.

    We certainly have strong concerns about allowing individuals who are not always required to have a permit, go through testing or training or show any knowledge of guns, gun laws or gun responsibilities carrying their weapons into places frequented by families. Too many "innocent bystanders" are killed or injured each year because our weak gun laws make it too easy for dangerous people to get guns, and because too many others don't realize the risks and responsibilities of legal gun ownership.

    Starbucks owns more than 8,800 coffee houses worldwide; including licensees, there are more than 16,000 locations. If the company were to have a policy that, say, resulted in tainted food and drinks that sickened its customers, we would all agree that such a threat should be communicated to the American public.

    Well, there is a policy that is just as dangerous.

    The decision by Starbucks to welcome guns in its restaurants where the law permits represents a public health risk. While food-borne illnesses are estimated to kill 5,000 Americans each year, more than 30,000 of us are killed annually by firearms. Guns represent a public health threat at least as great as food poisoning. Firearm fatalities are consistently ranked as one of the leading causes of death among young people in America. As Dr. David Hemenway of the Harvard School of Public Health wrote in 2004, "Across U.S. regions and states, where there are more guns, children are at a significantly greater risk of dying."

    After hearing complaints from individuals concerned about "real-life Yosemite Sams," as The Times describes them, the Brady Campaign kicked off its petition drive. Starbucks says it wants to be left alone. But imagine the outrage -- possibly even on The Times' editorial page -- were the company to offer the same response after being cited for serving food tainted by E. coli.

    The Times says Starbucks is only trying to comply with state law. But state law doesn't compel Starbucks to allow guns in its stores and endanger its customers and employees. Businesses can and do establish their own policies on customer conduct, such as turning away patrons who are barefoot or loud and disruptive. Peet's Coffee & Tea and California Pizza Kitchen also comply with state law, but they have chosen to prioritize public and employee safety. Instead of defending Starbucks, The Times should praise Peet's and California Pizza Kitchen for taking a reasonable step to protect customers.

    The Times accepts the reasoning by management that employees should not be put in the "potentially unsafe" position of ejecting people the editorial describes as "armed wingnuts." But isn't this an admission that the current policy is to allow potentially dangerous people with guns into its stores? Is Starbucks suggesting that the other businesses, such as California Pizza Kitchen and Peet's, are putting their employees at risk by having a no-guns policy?

    The Brady Campaign is asking Starbucks management to change its policy, not employees to put themselves at risk by "tossing out" armed individuals themselves. A customer who refuses to follow the rules should be handled by police. We are not asking Starbucks to take a position on America's gun debate. We are asking it to establish a policy to protect its customers -- including gun owners and employees -- against the possibility that misused firearms carried into the stores by those The Times describes as "postmodern cowboy wannabes" could cause great harm. We are not pressuring Starbucks to take a position against anyone's beliefs.

    Starbucks can stay "above the fray" of the gun debate. It cannot do so when its policies endanger its own customers and employees.

    Paul Helmke is president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence.
    textSize()


    Copyright © 2010, The Los Angeles Times

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

    Post imported post

    In its March 5 editorial, "At the Starbucks saloon," The Times criticizes the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence for launching a petition drive asking Starbucks Coffee Co. to change its policy welcoming armed patrons into its stores. The Times writes that Starbucks is merely an "innocent bystander" and that our "true foe" is the open-carry crowd.
    I'm a firm believer that the OC movement really is the Brady Brats "true foe".

    When the general public can see law abiding citizens carrying sidearms in public, without the accompany "gunfights in the streets" the Brady Bunch claim will most certainly occur, they start to wonder if the Brady's know what they're talking about.

    CC is "Out of Sight - Out of Mind" and just doesn't have much impact on public opinion, because..... well they don't see the guns in their midst. CC just doesn't give the public anything to work with in regards to observability, to form an opinion. OC does.

    And the Brady Camp knows it. They also know that the propaganda will not withstand scrutiny as long as OC is proving them wrong.

    Open Carry = Brady Brats Worst Nightmare :what:

  3. #3
    Founder's Club Member ixtow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Suwannee County, FL
    Posts
    5,069

    Post imported post

    Task Force 16 wrote:
    In its March 5 editorial, "At the Starbucks saloon," The Times criticizes the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence for launching a petition drive asking Starbucks Coffee Co. to change its policy welcoming armed patrons into its stores. The Times writes that Starbucks is merely an "innocent bystander" and that our "true foe" is the open-carry crowd.
    I'm a firm believer that the OC movement really is the Brady Brats "true foe".
    An I'll be insulted for stirring the pot on this one, but the NRA have teamed up with Brady more than opposed them.

    A good parasite keeps it's host alive.... The NRA doesn't want to win, and thus, won't support Open Carry. They have to keep the fight alive to keep you giving them your money.
    "The fourth man's dark, accusing song had scratched our comfort hard and long..."
    http://edhelper.com/poetry/The_Hangm...rice_Ogden.htm

    https://gunthreadadapters.com

    "Be not intimidated ... nor suffer yourselves to be wheedled out of your Liberties by any pretense of Politeness, Delicacy, or Decency. These, as they are often used, are but three different names for Hypocrisy, Chicanery, and Cowardice." - John Adams

    Tyranny with Manners is still Tyranny.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    , California, USA
    Posts
    82

    Post imported post

    Jesus, Joseph, and Mary!!! Where do I even begin to address this?

    I guess the most obvious thing here is that the whole argument is based on a very elemental false premise; that anyone carrying a firearm is a dangerous person. Take that away and the whole argument collapses. It's akin to going into long drawn out debate over what makes the sky purple and who is to blame for it and what can be done about it. It's a moot point because the sky is not purple.

    OK, maybe there's a VERY VERY slightly higher chance of an accidental discharge in a business where people are OCing (remember that there have always been people CCing in these businesses), but I'll GUARANTEE you that the likelihood of the business being the victim of an armed robbery or shooting rampage is now probably pretty close to zero. In all likelihood I'd bet it's more probable that you'll be hit by Toyota crashing through the front window of your local Starbucks than by an AD.

    The whole e. coli analogy is so full of holes that I won't dignify it with a response.

  5. #5
    Regular Member Dreamer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Grennsboro NC
    Posts
    5,358

    Post imported post

    My Comments are in GREEN:
    Why gun-control activists are targeting Starbucks

    The Brady Campaign is asking the chain to prioritize customer and employee safety, not take a position in America's gun debate.

    By following state laws, Starbucks is not taking a position in the "gun debate". They ARE, however, taking a position on the debate of whether or not the Constitution actually applies to ALL citizens, not just teh super-rich, the politically connected, and the uniformed representatives of the state-sponsored monopoly on force. They ARE taking a stand on the FUNDAMENTAL HUMAN RIGHT of self-defense, unlike the Brady CAmpaign, which believes that the only people who have that right are those rich or well-connected enough to afford their own personal bodyguard details...


    In its March 5 editorial, "At the Starbucks saloon," The Times criticizes the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence for launching a petition drive asking Starbucks Coffee Co. to change its policy welcoming armed patrons into its stores. The Times writes that Starbucks is merely an "innocent bystander" and that our "true foe" is the open-carry crowd.

    No, you've already shown through your actions and words, that your "true foe" is human rights, liberty, and Constitutionally-guaranteed freedoms You've proven time and time again, that your REAL "true foe" is the general population of this nation, people who actually WORK for a living rather than extorting money from people who tou terrorize with propaganda...


    We certainly have strong concerns about allowing individuals who are not always required to have a permit, go through testing or training or show any knowledge of guns, gun laws or gun responsibilities carrying their weapons into places frequented by families. Too many "innocent bystanders" are killed or injured each year because our weak gun laws make it too easy for dangerous people to get guns, and because too many others don't realize the risks and responsibilities of legal gun ownership.

    Ah, the old "wrong kinds of people" argument. I think we ALL know what you REALLY mean by that...


    The decision by Starbucks to welcome guns in its restaurants where the law permits represents a public health risk. While food-borne illnesses are estimated to kill 5,000 Americans each year, more than 30,000 of us are killed annually by firearms. Guns represent a public health threat at least as great as food poisoning. Firearm fatalities are consistently ranked as one of the leading causes of death among young people in America. As Dr. David Hemenway of the Harvard School of Public Health wrote in 2004, "Across U.S. regions and states, where there are more guns, children are at a significantly greater risk of dying."

    There were nearly 12,000 people who were killed in alcohol-related automobile accidents in 2008. Perhaps we should prohibit alcohol and automobiles. Over 3000 people died from drowning in 2008--perhaps we should restrict access to kiddie pools and 5-gallon buckets. If you take all the gang-related shootings out of the statitstics, gun-related deaths in the US are actually LOWER than most European nations. If you take gang-related firearms deaths out of the statistics, then gun-related deaths among "children" (even if we, like you, consider "children" to be anyone under the age of 24) are actually lower than deaths by drowning, car accidents, bacterial-related deaths, and poisonings.

    To equate gun-related deaths with food poisoning is simply an emotional appeal to the programmed helplessness of the American Public, and is a despicable ploy using the fears and insecurities of law-abiding people to further your agenda.


    After hearing complaints from individuals concerned about "real-life Yosemite Sams," as The Times describes them, the Brady Campaign kicked off its petition drive. Starbucks says it wants to be left alone. But imagine the outrage -- possibly even on The Times' editorial page -- were the company to offer the same response after being cited for serving food tainted by E. coli.

    There are, by some estimates, over 5 million (some estimates are as high as 10 million) concealed-carry permit holders in the US. Assuming that those people carry--even occasionally, that means about 1 in every 40-80 people you walk by during the day is carrying a firearm. People who carry (Open or concealed) are NOT "cowboys" or "hoodlums" or "Yosemite Sams". They tend to be VERY law-abiding citizens. Open Carriers spend a LOT of their free time researching the laws, talking with other OCers, and trying to figure out how they can ALWAYS be within the law in their actions. OCers tend to be patriotic, harworking, intelligent, resourceful and independent. Maybe that's the REAL reason why you see them as such a threat...


    The Times says Starbucks is only trying to comply with state law. But state law doesn't compel Starbucks to allow guns in its stores and endanger its customers and employees. Businesses can and do establish their own policies on customer conduct, such as turning away patrons who are barefoot or loud and disruptive. Peet's Coffee & Tea and California Pizza Kitchen also comply with state law, but they have chosen to prioritize public and employee safety. Instead of defending Starbucks, The Times should praise Peet's and California Pizza Kitchen for taking a reasonable step to protect customers.

    And exactly how, by disarming it's law-abiding customers are Peets and CPK "taking reasonable steps to protect their customers"? Are they going to call teh police if some armed thugs attack them while in their store? Oh, yeah, response time in most major urban areas is between 15 and 45 minutes for 911 calls--THAT should work out well. What about when those customers are walking to and from their vehicles? Is Peets going to provide armed security in their parking lots, and safety escorts to ferry folks in and out of their store? And what about those legally-carried firearms that these customers must leave in their cars? Are Peets and CPK going to have roving security guards in their parking lots to ensure that theor cars won't be broken into by criminals who know that these customers must disarm?


    The Times accepts the reasoning by management that employees should not be put in the "potentially unsafe" position of ejecting people the editorial describes as "armed wingnuts." But isn't this an admission that the current policy is to allow potentially dangerous people with guns into its stores? Is Starbucks suggesting that the other businesses, such as California Pizza Kitchen and Peet's, are putting their employees at risk by having a no-guns policy?

    Please cite one SINGLE incident of a legal, law-abiding OCer who ever even so much as verbally threatened a business owner when asked to leave. Just one. I'll wait.

    I didn't think so...



    Starbucks can stay "above the fray" of the gun debate. It cannot do so when its policies endanger its own customers and employees.

    Allowing people to exercise their HUMAN RIGHT of self-defense does not endanger customers and employees. In fact, in many documentable cases, legal gun carriers have actually saved their own lives, and the lives of other customers and staff. Forcing legally-carrying gun owners to leave their firearms in their vehicles endangers our ENTIRE society because it establishes a business model that shows fundamental disrespect for the lives and safety of common people, and whittles away at Constitutionally-recognized rights. Such incremental infringement of human rights cannot and should not be tolerated in a free society. Businesses that institute such policies should be (and WILL be) shunned by gun owners and ANY citizen who values the rule of law.


    Paul Helmke is president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence.

    Paul Helmke
    is a serial liar, who's blatant disregard for the truth and compulsive twisting of statistics borders on the sociopathic. He is an opportunistic ghoul who routinely dances in the blood of the victims of violent crime to push his agenda of control. He is a racist, an elitist, and a misogynist who wishes for anyone who isn't rich enough, white enough, or strong enough, to be at the total mercy of criminals and madmen.

    And he has a personal detail of armed bodyguards on his payroll. So he's a hypocrite as well...
    It is our cause to dispel the foggy thinking which avoids hard decisions in the delusion that a world of conflict will somehow mysteriously resolve itself into a world of harmony, if we just don't rock the boat or irritate the forces of aggression—and this is hogwash."
    --Barry Goldwater, 1964

  6. #6
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Laveen, Arizona, USA
    Posts
    432

    Post imported post

    MetalChris wrote:
    Why gun-control activists are targeting Starbucks


    We certainly have strong concerns about allowing individuals who are not always required to have a permit, go through testing or training or show any knowledge of guns, gun laws or gun responsibilities carrying their weapons into places frequented by families. Too many "innocent bystanders" are killed or injured each year because our weak gun laws make it too easy for dangerous people to get guns, and because too many others don't realize the risks and responsibilities of legal gun ownership.
    It's interesting that they talk about people not having training, yet all of their communications talk about banning all firearms from the stores, including concealed carry by those that are supposedlylicensed and trained. Don't be fooled by them(Brady's), they want all guns banned everywhere, including your home.

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Hodgenville, Kentucky, USA
    Posts
    1,261

    Post imported post

    Bottom line is that Starbucks is coming out on top in sales and stock gains.

    The Brady bunch had a BIG backfire on this one.:P

  8. #8
    Regular Member Alexcabbie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Alexandria, Virginia, United States
    Posts
    2,290

    Post imported post

    Helmke's argument is as weak as a clip-joint cocktail. "dangerous people" usually conceal their firearms. And a "dangerous person" isn't going to even bother to read a "no guns" sign. Helmke is talking about deterring people intent on committing violent felonies with the threat of a misdemeanor gun charge. The man is an Allen wrench short of a gunsmith.

  9. #9
    Regular Member bigdaddy1's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Southsider der hey
    Posts
    1,320

    Post imported post

    IMOanything spewed out by the Brady's should be discarded as being too far from fact to be taken as fact. The lies and exaggerated crap they spread does nothing butshow them for the fear mongers they really are. If they were forced to tell only the truth and the WHOLE truth their group would quickly loose support.

    If we were to say that when all guns are outlawed, and only the Government agencies are allowed to have guns that total anarchy can happen they would say how that's total fabrication etc...

    Try to show them it happens time and time again through out history they will not believe you.



    You cant fix stupid.
    What part of "shall not be infringed" don't you understand?

  10. #10
    Regular Member Alexcabbie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Alexandria, Virginia, United States
    Posts
    2,290

    Post imported post

    Does anybody know what Helmke's political affiliation is?

    He is the former Mayor of Fort Wayne, Indiana:

    AND HE IS A FREAKING REPUBLICAN.

    Ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh Lorrrrrrd.......

  11. #11
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    across Death's Door on Washington Island, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,382

    Post imported post

    Some of my best friends are RINOs, but the GOP is dead (Bush-41) dead (Bush-43) dead at McCain's hand.

  12. #12
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    San Diego County, CA, California, USA
    Posts
    1,402

    Post imported post

    Alexcabbie wrote:
    Does anybody know what Helmke's political affiliation is?

    He is the former Mayor of Fort Wayne, Indiana:

    AND HE IS A FREAKING REPUBLICAN.

    Ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh Lorrrrrrd.......
    Criminal Mayors Against Legal Guns!

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    1,040

    Post imported post

    So, the message here is keep OC'ing and taking your business to Stabucks and others that support OC rights (where legal)!





  14. #14
    Founder's Club Member ixtow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Suwannee County, FL
    Posts
    5,069

    Post imported post

    Master Doug Huffman wrote:
    Some of my best friends are RINOs, but the GOP is dead (Bush-41) dead (Bush-43) dead at McCain's hand.
    After all the GOP did, it deserves to be dead.

    But the vacuum was filled by something even worse...
    "The fourth man's dark, accusing song had scratched our comfort hard and long..."
    http://edhelper.com/poetry/The_Hangm...rice_Ogden.htm

    https://gunthreadadapters.com

    "Be not intimidated ... nor suffer yourselves to be wheedled out of your Liberties by any pretense of Politeness, Delicacy, or Decency. These, as they are often used, are but three different names for Hypocrisy, Chicanery, and Cowardice." - John Adams

    Tyranny with Manners is still Tyranny.

  15. #15
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Lobelville, Tennessee, USA
    Posts
    2,615

    Post imported post

    Alexcabbie wrote:
    Helmke's argument is as weak as a clip-joint cocktail. "dangerous people" usually conceal their firearms. And a "dangerous person" isn't going to even bother to read a "no guns" sign. Helmke is talking about deterring people intent on committing violent felonies with the threat of a misdemeanor gun charge. The man is an Allen wrench short of a gunsmith.
    Just one allen wrench? I'd say he's missing the whole dang tool bax.

  16. #16
    Founder's Club Member ixtow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Suwannee County, FL
    Posts
    5,069

    Post imported post

    Task Force 16 wrote:
    Alexcabbie wrote:
    Helmke's argument is as weak as a clip-joint cocktail. "dangerous people" usually conceal their firearms. And a "dangerous person" isn't going to even bother to read a "no guns" sign. Helmke is talking about deterring people intent on committing violent felonies with the threat of a misdemeanor gun charge. The man is an Allen wrench short of a gunsmith.
    Just one allen wrench? I'd say he's missing the whole dang tool bax.
    He's not 'short of' being anything. He's not even close. The best of such a phrase you could use would be to say 'he's a few tires short of a snow ski.'
    "The fourth man's dark, accusing song had scratched our comfort hard and long..."
    http://edhelper.com/poetry/The_Hangm...rice_Ogden.htm

    https://gunthreadadapters.com

    "Be not intimidated ... nor suffer yourselves to be wheedled out of your Liberties by any pretense of Politeness, Delicacy, or Decency. These, as they are often used, are but three different names for Hypocrisy, Chicanery, and Cowardice." - John Adams

    Tyranny with Manners is still Tyranny.

  17. #17
    Campaign Veteran marshaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia
    Posts
    11,487

    Post imported post

    Alexcabbie wrote:
    Does anybody know what Helmke's political affiliation is?

    He is the former Mayor of Fort Wayne, Indiana:

    AND HE IS A FREAKING REPUBLICAN.

    Ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh Lorrrrrrd.......
    The only thing that could possibly have surprised me any less was if you had said "democrat". Still, color me unsurprised.

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Niles & Lawton, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    295

    Post imported post

    "Instead of taking aim at its true foe, the open-carry crowd, the Brady Campaign is spraying ammo at an innocent bystander"

    Thats what the article says, makes WSJ much more neutral.

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    145

    Post imported post

    Why is Starbucks the only chain taking the "heat" from gun-control proponents?

    I could create a list a mile long of businesses that have decided to defer to State Law concerning the carry of firearms. Some of them include: Wal-Mart, Best Buy, Home Depot, Lowes, Fudruckers, etc, etc. Now, we can include the National Park Service.

    Why haven't the Brady Group included them in their protests?

    I suspect Starbucks is considered the "symbol" of Liberal America and their decision "ruffled some feathers"; but that is just my opinion.

  20. #20
    Founder's Club Member ixtow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Suwannee County, FL
    Posts
    5,069

    Post imported post

    Don Barnett wrote:
    I suspect Starbucks is considered the "symbol" of Liberal America and their decision "ruffled some feathers"; but that is just my opinion.
    This is pretty well known. The patrons of Starbucks were tofu and granola chomping hippies. It was ASSUMED that the company was the same.

    Apparently, they like money AND bathing. This has pissed off those hippies who considered it a home away from home.

    It's patrons were the main reason why so many non-hippies avoided the place.

    They clearly don't support ANY perspective on the matter. They like money and not getting involved with things that don't concern them. Some of their patrons, as all hippies, feel betrayed, as if they had their homes taken from them and given to someone else........... They like it there, so they believe they own the place.

    What's really happening is Starbucks has told them "Uh, it's our store and you don't tell us what to do with it, stinky; now get a haircut!" the wording of their press release even implies that they think gun owners would shoot them if they were asked to leave.... Asinine.

    But they have decided money is worth more than an ego-tripping insult by proxy of submitting to a bunch of moonbat bullies. In this much, they DO support us, as most gun-owners believe that a business should put profits first if it wants to succeed. Our economy has suffered greatly due to placing other priorities where they don't belong.
    "The fourth man's dark, accusing song had scratched our comfort hard and long..."
    http://edhelper.com/poetry/The_Hangm...rice_Ogden.htm

    https://gunthreadadapters.com

    "Be not intimidated ... nor suffer yourselves to be wheedled out of your Liberties by any pretense of Politeness, Delicacy, or Decency. These, as they are often used, are but three different names for Hypocrisy, Chicanery, and Cowardice." - John Adams

    Tyranny with Manners is still Tyranny.

  21. #21
    Regular Member Riana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Fairfax County, VA
    Posts
    943

    Post imported post

    MetalChris wrote:
    Peet's Coffee & Tea and California Pizza Kitchen also comply with state law, but they have chosen to prioritize public and employee safety.
    I'm so confused... how can they be complying with state law by not allowing carry (which is allowed by state law)???

  22. #22
    Founder's Club Member ixtow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Suwannee County, FL
    Posts
    5,069

    Post imported post

    Riana wrote:
    MetalChris wrote:
    Peet's Coffee & Tea and California Pizza Kitchen also comply with state law, but they have chosen to prioritize public and employee safety.
    I'm so confused... how can they be complying with state law by not allowing carry (which is allowed by state law)???
    I'm still not sure how they have prioritized public and employee safety by turning the place into a shooting gallery.... How does that make it safer for the public and the employees?

    Being helpless never made anyone safe.
    "The fourth man's dark, accusing song had scratched our comfort hard and long..."
    http://edhelper.com/poetry/The_Hangm...rice_Ogden.htm

    https://gunthreadadapters.com

    "Be not intimidated ... nor suffer yourselves to be wheedled out of your Liberties by any pretense of Politeness, Delicacy, or Decency. These, as they are often used, are but three different names for Hypocrisy, Chicanery, and Cowardice." - John Adams

    Tyranny with Manners is still Tyranny.

  23. #23
    Regular Member Alexcabbie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Alexandria, Virginia, United States
    Posts
    2,290

    Post imported post

    Speaking of California Pizza Kitchen, that is one of those outfits that thinks they can put ANYTHING on a flat piece of dough and call it "pizza". Sort of like the abominable habit of putting exotic liquiers in a Martini glass and calling it a (fill in the blank) Martini. By those lights, putting a Black Russian in a Martini glass would make it a "Kaluha Martini". I draw the line at "vodka martinis".

    In the same vein, for me the pizza line was crossed by "pineapple pizza" :what:CPK has taken that and run with it. No guns? Fine! I wouldn't go into a CPK to watch Beyonce blowing bubbles in the tub.

  24. #24
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Lobelville, Tennessee, USA
    Posts
    2,615

    Post imported post

    Riana wrote:
    MetalChris wrote:
    Peet's Coffee & Tea and California Pizza Kitchen also comply with state law, but they have chosen to prioritize public and employee safety.
    I'm so confused... how can they be complying with state law by not allowing carry (which is allowed by state law)???
    It's simple Riana, State law also provides private businesses to choose between allowing or barring firearms from their premises. These businesses have rights, too.

    We all have the right to make choices. Businesses will make choices concerning firearms and so will we, accordingly. As long as we have alternatives we shouldn't fuss too much.

    Those businesses that choose to bar firearms will have to live with the potential consequence of experiencing more robberies and assaults against their customers and employees, while the businesses that welcome armed customers will not.

  25. #25
    Campaign Veteran marshaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia
    Posts
    11,487

    Post imported post

    Alexcabbie wrote:
    In the same vein, for me the pizza line was crossed by "pineapple pizza" :what:Â*CPK has taken that and run with it.Â* No guns? Fine! I wouldn't go into a CPK to watch Beyonce blowing bubbles in the tub.
    "Hawaiian" pizzas are old hat.

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

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