Mike
Site Co-Founder
imported post
http://network.nationalpost.com/NP/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2010/03/18/matt-gurney-get-me-a-decaf-non-fat-dark-cherry-mocha-and-a-glock-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.
http://network.nationalpost.com/NP/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2010/03/18/matt-gurney-get-me-a-decaf-non-fat-dark-cherry-mocha-and-a-glock-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.
