Results 1 to 8 of 8

Thread: Canada's National Post - Sorry, anti-gun crowd. In the great Starbucks battle, you are outgunned

  1. #1
    Moderator / Administrator
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    8,711

    Post imported post

    http://network.nationalpost.com/NP/b...ck-please.aspx

    SNIP



    Man, I sure could use a coffee after this...


    A growing grassroots movement across the United States is seeing public meetings of armed citizens gathering together just to prove their right to gather in public with weapons. I'm sure many Canadians are appalled by the very thought, but there really isn't anything wrong with a bunch of people standing around in a park with holsters on their hips. What's provoked the controversy has been the increasing number of these meetings that are occurring in those shrines to urban leftism — Starbucks coffee shops.


    Symbols matter in politics. Rightly or wrongly, Starbucks coffee shops have indeed become synonymous with lefty, latte-swilling urbanites. While plenty of right-wingers and apolitical types enjoy getting their caffeine fix there, too, there's enough truth to the perception to have made Starbucks the location of choice for those Americans eager to flaunt their Second Amendment rights.


    As reported here, Starbucks shops have become meeting points for Americans testing the boundaries of the right to carry arms in 43 states. The advocates of Open Carry (wearing a holstered handgun in plain sight, as opposed to the more typical option of Concealed Carry, where it is obscured under a shirt or jacket) believe that their right to bear arms includes the right to do so publicly and overtly. While I support, in theory, the right of a citizen of carry a weapon for self-defence, I've never considered such to be a practical option for Canada, so I've admired those Americans who've stood by their belief that a responsible armed citizen is an effective way of deterring crime and maintaining law and order in the absence of uniformed authority. (After all, the closest cop sometimes isn't close enough).

    . . .

    The politics of how best to carry a handgun, or if it's best not to, is really secondary to the more interesting issue. Starbucks, as stated above, certainly is seen with some justification as an elite, urban chain. On the one hand, their core constituency would no doubt applaud a decision by the company to ban the open display of handguns in their stores (No shirt, no shoes, a gun, no service). But at the same time, while the urban lefty might be the stereotypical Starbucks customer, there is no way that the chain could have gotten as large as it is (thousands and thousands of locations across the U.S. alone) without reaching out into the American heartland, including those areas most supportive of gun rights. Simply put, there aren't enough yuppies in Chicago, New York and Boston to drink all the coffee Starbucks needs to sell to stay afloat.

    . . .

    There had been some musing that several of the larger U.S. anti-gun coalitions, in particular the Brady Campaign, would seek to boycott the company in the hopes of bringing Starbucks firmly into the anti-gun camp. Take it from me, that won't happen. The kind of American that wants to carry a gun in public, openly, is fiercely independent and proud, loath to submit to any form of pressure. Should any boycott movement develop, I guarantee you, within a day, every proud gun-carrying American would make it their business to buy a Starbucks every day. And there's enough of them to make a difference. Indeed, having the anti-gun crowd boycott Starbucks might be a good thing for the company — Americans who'd never have dreamed of spending that much money on a cuppa would suddenly find it in their hearts to open their wallets.

    Sorry, anti-gun crowd. In the great Starbucks battle, you are quite simply, and literally, outgunned.

    Matt Gurney is Assistant Editor, Comment and a member of the National Post Editorial Board.

  2. #2
    Regular Member TFred's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    7,705

    Post imported post

    Starbucks shops have become meeting points for Americans testing the boundaries of the right to carry arms in 43 states. The advocates of Open Carry (wearing a holstered handgun in plain sight, as opposed to the more typical option of Concealed Carry, where it is obscured under a shirt or jacket) believe that their right to bear arms includes the right to do so publicly and overtly.
    The author raises an interesting question. Virginia has issued approximately 215,000 Concealed Handgun Permits, among a total population of nearly 8 million people. Open carry requirements are quite simple, generally be 18 or over, and be allowed to possess a handgun.

    Yet he claims that concealed carry is "the more typical option". My question is: is this really true? When you compare the significant majority of 8 million to 215,000, it sure doesn't seem like it should be.

    TFred

  3. #3
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    El Paso, TX
    Posts
    1,877

    Post imported post

    IIRC, in every state that allows some form of carry (CC and/or OC), only a TINY MINORITY do so (maybe 3% or less). The VAST MAJORITY of people will NEVER carry a firearm, includingmost so-called gun-owners.

    Consequently,I don't think the socialist/lefties/liberals need worry aboutany "vast movement" because in the end, hardly anything will change in reality: Very few people will choose to carry even if laws become less restrictive.

    Even instates like HI -- where NO ONE (in reality) can carry presently -- if the law changed tomorrow allowing carry,VERY FEW Hawaiians will choose do so...just like all the rest of the states' carry statistics show.

    Again, liberals will hardly notice any difference.

    -- John D.
    (formerly of Colorado Springs, CO)

  4. #4
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Lobelville, Tennessee, USA
    Posts
    2,615

    Post imported post

    TFred wrote:
    Starbucks shops have become meeting points for Americans testing the boundaries of the right to carry arms in 43 states. The advocates of Open Carry (wearing a holstered handgun in plain sight, as opposed to the more typical option of Concealed Carry, where it is obscured under a shirt or jacket) believe that their right to bear arms includes the right to do so publicly and overtly.
    The author raises an interesting question. Virginia has issued approximately 215,000 Concealed Handgun Permits, among a total population of nearly 8 million people. Open carry requirements are quite simple, generally be 18 or over, and be allowed to possess a handgun.

    Yet he claims that concealed carry is "the more typical option". My question is: is this really true? When you compare the significant majority of 8 million to 215,000, it sure doesn't seem like it should be.

    TFred
    As of Jan 1, 2010 Tn had about 269,000 valid HCP holders out of a population of about 6 million. (HCP required to carry in either mode) I'd hazard a guess that less than 5 percent of HCP holders OC. Here in my county of about 7800, we had 506 HCP holders at the first of the year. I've only seen one other person OC, so far; he's a gunsmith.

    I think what the author was referring to in regards to "typical option" is that CC is the typical choice of the 2 options. In states that do not require a permit to OC there really aren't any stats on how many people in those states OC.

  5. #5
    Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter Venator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Lansing area, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    6,445

    Post imported post

    cloudcroft wrote:
    IIRC, in every state that allows some form of carry (CC and/or OC), only a TINY MINORITY do so (maybe 3% or less). The VAST MAJORITY of people will NEVER carry a firearm, includingmost so-called gun-owners.

    Consequently,I don't think the socialist/lefties/liberals need worry aboutany "vast movement" because in the end, hardly anything will change in reality: Very few people will choose to carry even if laws become less restrictive.

    Even instates like HI -- where NO ONE (in reality) can carry presently -- if the law changed tomorrow allowing carry,VERY FEW Hawaiians will choose do so...just like all the rest of the states' carry statistics show.

    Again, liberals will hardly notice any difference.

    -- John D.
    But a 3% increase in coffee sales for Starbucks equals a lot of money and can be the difference in opening or closing stores.
    An Amazon best seller "MY PARENTS OPEN CARRY" http://www.myparentsopencarry.com/

    *The information contained above is not meant to be legal advice, but is solely intended as a starting point for further research. These are my opinions, if you have further questions it is advisable to seek out an attorney that is well versed in firearm law.

  6. #6
    Founder's Club Member ixtow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Suwannee County, FL
    Posts
    5,069

    Post imported post

    cloudcroft wrote:
    IIRC, in every state that allows some form of carry (CC and/or OC), only a TINY MINORITY do so (maybe 3% or less). The VAST MAJORITY of people will NEVER carry a firearm, includingmost so-called gun-owners.

    Consequently,I don't think the socialist/lefties/liberals need worry aboutany "vast movement" because in the end, hardly anything will change in reality: Very few people will choose to carry even if laws become less restrictive.

    Even instates like HI -- where NO ONE (in reality) can carry presently -- if the law changed tomorrow allowing carry,VERY FEW Hawaiians will choose do so...just like all the rest of the states' carry statistics show.

    Again, liberals will hardly notice any difference.

    -- John D.
    Everything the Liberals hate is labeled "Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy."

    I'm still wondering how it is a conspiracy when it is vast.... If it's that big, it's majority vote, not a 'conspiracy.'

    You'd think that DEMOCRATS, their name is MADE FROM the word "Democracy," would understand that, but no.....

    The blatant disparity in their agendas and opinions would be humorous if it weren't so dangerous.
    "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.

  7. #7
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Lobelville, Tennessee, USA
    Posts
    2,615

    Post imported post

    cloudcroft wrote:
    IIRC, in every state that allows some form of carry (CC and/or OC), only a TINY MINORITY do so (maybe 3% or less). The VAST MAJORITY of people will NEVER carry a firearm, includingmost so-called gun-owners.


    -- John D.
    What is a "so-called" gun owner?

    A person is either a gun owner or they're not. How do you get to be a "so-called" gun owner? Is like having allot of pictures of firearms in the house, but no real firearms?

  8. #8
    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:
    cloudcroft wrote:
    IIRC, in every state that allows some form of carry (CC and/or OC), only a TINY MINORITY do so (maybe 3% or less). The VAST MAJORITY of people will NEVER carry a firearm, includingmost so-called gun-owners.

    -- John D.
    What is a "so-called" gun owner?

    A person is either a gun owner or they're not. How do you get to be a "so-called" gun owner? Is like having allot of pictures of firearms in the house, but no real firearms?
    Posers?

    I think he means gun owners who would pull the roof on their own heads by supporting the elimination of their own rights.
    "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.

Posting Permissions

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