Results 1 to 17 of 17

Thread: SW Washington Extremist Harasses Starbucks

  1. #1
    Campaign Veteran gogodawgs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Federal Way, Washington, USA
    Posts
    5,666

    Post imported post

    http://www.columbian.com/news/2010/m...y-loca/#c21669

    Vancouver woman protests Starbucks gun policy locally

    By Laura McVicker
    Columbian staff writer

    Wednesday, March 10, 2010


    Vancouver, WA — A Vancouver woman will make the rounds today at Starbucks coffee shops with a letter to managers imploring them to establish a gun-free policy.

    Heidi Yewman, president of the Vancouver Million Mom March Chapter, will go to Starbucks coffee shops at 304 W. Eighth St., 2420 Main St., 7720 N.E. Highway 99 and 1900 N.E. 162nd Ave.

    Her letter will come in response to gatherings of armed gun extremists who have recently walked into Starbucks and other businesses to test state laws that allow gun owners to carry weapons openly in public places. Gun control advocates statewide, like Yewman, have protested.

    Earlier this month, petitions signed by an estimated 28,000 people were delivered to the Starbucks headquarters in Seattle, asking them to adopt a gun-free policy with an exception for uniformed police officers.
    Live Free or Die!

  2. #2
    Campaign Veteran gogodawgs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Federal Way, Washington, USA
    Posts
    5,666

    Post imported post

    My comment:

    Ms. McVicker,

    There are no 'armed gun extremists', why do we use such words, they simply show your social bigotry towards law abiding citizens. Perhaps your hoplophopia is so irrational that you can not write an unbiased and objective news brief, which is what citizens of Vancouver expect when they read the Columbian. Those of us that are armed are simply going to Starbucks for a cup of coffee. While irrational and anti rights extremists like Ms. Yewman are harassing business that are complying with the law.

    gogodawgs[/b] — March 10, 2010 at 1:34 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
    Live Free or Die!

  3. #3
    Regular Member acmariner99's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Renton, Wa
    Posts
    662

    Post imported post

    gogodawgs wrote:
    My comment:

    Ms. McVicker,

    There are no 'armed gun extremists', why do we use such words, they simply show your social bigotry towards law abiding citizens. Perhaps your hoplophopia is so irrational that you can not write an unbiased and objective news brief, which is what citizens of Vancouver expect when they read the Columbian. Those of us that are armed are simply going to Starbucks for a cup of coffee. While irrational and anti rights extremists like Ms. Yewman are harassing business that are complying with the law.

    gogodawgs — March 10, 2010 at 1:34 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
    Here Here!

  4. #4
    Campaign Veteran gogodawgs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Federal Way, Washington, USA
    Posts
    5,666

    Post imported post

    Yep, you guys are right that the word 'extremist' sounds over the top. That phrasing was used in the press release. I changed it. Thanks. --Laura McVicker

    lmcvicker[/b] (Columbian Staff) — March 10, 2010 at 1:48 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
    Ms. McVicker corrected her error. Admits to using the anti's press release instead of her objective skills to convey the news brief.
    Live Free or Die!

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Lakewood, WA
    Posts
    1,001

    Post imported post

    Hmm... they seem to have changed it.

    I wonder why...
    Quote Originally Posted by SayWhat View Post

    Shooters before hooters.

  6. #6
    Regular Member TechnoWeenie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    2,086

    Post imported post

    G22Paddy wrote:
    Hmm... they seem to have changed it.

    I wonder why...

    Tomorrows paper....

    'Armed extremists harass local paper into changing story'


    Evangelical lessons are provided upon request. Anyone wishing to meet Jesus can just kick in my door.

  7. #7
    Regular Member Gilead_Gunslinger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    mid-world (somewhere between tacoma and seattle)
    Posts
    80

    Post imported post

    I wish one of these people would answer me this... when did peacefully exercising

    my rights become "testing state laws"???? I think I've seen this phrase use a few

    times. and if this is the threshold for that sort ofthinking , can we not also say that hiedi

    yewman is "testing state laws"to her rightof free speech by 'imploring' starbucks to

    establish agun free policy?
    I aim with my eye... I shoot with my mind... I kill with my heart....
    - The Gunslinger's Litany (paraphrased)

    It has been brought to my attention that the stick figure decals on
    the back windows of vehicles are NOT pedestrian 'kill' scores, but are
    actually meant to represent family members. I'll be removing mine
    ASAP to avoid any further confusion.........

    First comes smiles, then lies. Last is gunfire.

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Blaine, WA, ,
    Posts
    1,315

    Post imported post

    Another example of why politely contacting or replying to an apparent opponent works. In this case she realized her error and made the change. An attack would have just put her on the defensive. Just saying.

    Too bad some people felt the need to call her names. She certainly won't have a better opinion of gun owners after those people chimed in.

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    265

    Post imported post

    Another example of why politely contacting or replying to an apparent opponent works. In this case she realized her error and made the change. An attack would have just put her on the defensive.
    Good on the reporter for changing the language. Maybe she'll change the "testing state gun laws" language too.


  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Lakewood, WA
    Posts
    1,001

    Post imported post

    I'd only call it testing state laws if you were trying to get as close to breaking it as possible without technically breaking it. Or entering a gray area and claiming legality.

    It's very clear in the RCW that there's nothing prohibiting open carry. It's not a gray area.
    Quote Originally Posted by SayWhat View Post

    Shooters before hooters.

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Spokane, ,
    Posts
    32

    Post imported post

    The Columbian newspaper is a huge liberal paper in Clark County...which is why it is going bankrupt very quickly.



  12. #12
    Campaign Veteran gogodawgs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Federal Way, Washington, USA
    Posts
    5,666

    Post imported post

    Pavegunner wrote:
    The Columbian newspaper is a huge liberal paper in Clark County...which is why it is going bankrupt very quickly.

    I know, I used to be a paperboy for them in the late '80s
    Live Free or Die!

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Vancouver, Washington, USA
    Posts
    6

    Post imported post

    What's that????? NEWS in the columbian???? What a rag.


  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Vancouver, Washington, USA
    Posts
    119

    Post imported post

    Good job, gogodawgs, but it is unfortunate that the people at the Columbian don't learn or really listen to our feedback.

    I left a message for the Business Editor, Elisa Williams, a few weeks back on the Starbucks issue. They had a small blurb, similar to this one, in the business section regarding the anti-gun protests at Starbucks Corp office and used the very exact phrase and also indicated that WE started the brew-ha-ha (pun intended).

    I told her it was a none issue UNTIL the anti-gun groups started protesting and we were NOT armed gun extremists, merely ordinary citizens going about our daily lives exercising our rights...same as she.

    I guess my mistake was not following up with another call or an email; I know I didn't get any kind of response.

    Gary

  15. #15
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338

    Post imported post

    G22Paddy wrote:
    I'd only call it testing state laws if you were trying to get as close to breaking it as possible without technically breaking it. Or entering a gray area and claiming legality.

    It's very clear in the RCW that there's nothing prohibiting open carry. It's not a gray area.
    Personally I still don't think that is testing it. If you are within the boundaries of the law you are "testing" nothing.

    Might have to educate those who enforce laws though.

    I also think that many Judicial officials are looking at gray areas wrong, they are supposed to give the "offender" the benefit of the doubt when it happens in a gray area.

    But as we know this just doesn't seem to happen as much as we like. I know someone who went through this with helmet laws. Ahem, ahem (darn no look above face)


    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Lakewood, WA
    Posts
    1,001

    Post imported post

    I was pointing more to the gray areas, shoulda written it a bit more clearly.

    If you enter a gray area where something might be prohibited by law, but it might be legal, don't be surprised if a judge rules against you. Fortunately our firearms are pretty well defined.
    Quote Originally Posted by SayWhat View Post

    Shooters before hooters.

  17. #17
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338

    Post imported post

    G22Paddy wrote:
    I was pointing more to the gray areas, shoulda written it a bit more clearly.

    If you enter a gray area where something might be prohibited by law, but it might be legal, don't be surprised if a judge rules against you. Fortunately our firearms are pretty well defined.
    You are correct. That is why I am trying to get clarity on legal outdoor activity, the opinions range vary greatly on this, some think it only applies to long guns for those "under age" I and others read it differently.

    Personally, if its gray they shouldn't be able to arrest or prosecute. I feel they should only be able to do this if it is clearly illegal.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

Posting Permissions

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