Antis will be protesting at Starbucks in Alexandria

[Uber_Olafsun]

imported post

Abbey was the phone trying to hold a sign behind me while talking to NBC. Being pretty sneaky about it too.

Did you see the stormtroopers during the parade? Nice open carry of blasters.

 

[HankT]

imported post

Petty cool. Dueling photogs:

You finally got some video, NSL. Good work!

 

[bohdi]

imported post

That last one was kinda creepy. I was talking to some friends of mine I happened to literally run into on the other side of the street. We were catching up and she came up and snapped that photo. My friends were like WTF was that all about.

The second to the last shot really shows about how big of a crowd they had. I'd be surprised if they had 30 people there including the kids. I felt sorry for that Starbucks for these guys making a spectical on the corner. I didn't go armed. I did buy coffee

 

[scarletwahoo]

imported post

bohdi wrote:

That last one was kinda creepy. I was talking to some friends of mine I happened to literally run into on the other side of the street. We were catching up and she came up and snapped that photo. My friends were like WTF was that all about.

The second to the last shot really shows about how big of a crowd they had. I'd be surprised if they had 30 people there including the kids. I felt sorry for that Starbucks for these guys making a spectical on the corner. I didn't go armed. I did buy coffee

Ditto. I am going to my local Starbucks to get a cup of coffee, unarmed.

 

[ChinChin]

imported post

Abby's lost some weight! Filled out that T-shirt quite nicely. Still whacky as a moonbat but you know what they say, crazy in the head. . .

::wolf call::

 

[Tomahawk]

imported post

Very rude, but not bad-looking for an anti.

 

[buster81]

imported post

twistedbill wrote:

I understand the point of a boycott and I am sure starbucks is not hurting as much as other places, but if I had my own place I would rather you come in spend money and say your piece about not liking something. Of course I think this attention has done the exact opposite of what the anti's would like now guys like me who don't even like coffee go there just to prove a point and help support a company that supports my rights.

Sure that is what you would rather if you owned a store. Me too. I wouldlove it if a big giant protest came by and they all spent a bunch of money.Iwould be sure to keep my policies in place so theycame by every week and protested, and spent money. Even better is the counter protesters who also spend money. It doesn't make the protest very effective though.

However, IfIstarted losing money, and you made it apparent that I was losing revenue because of all the ex-customers that were now protesters, I might consider changing the policy. (I wouldn't, but Starbucks might.)

Of course, this tiny group of bed wetters isn't going to make a dent in Starbucks $9.7 Billion totalrevenue. The anti'sare running around with their panties in a bunchsaying that they are really going to show Starbucks what's upby not purchasing their$6 half-caf-frapi-mocha-lattes five times a week. They won't add up to anything, and will move on to the next panic in a few days or weeks.

 

[bealaskan]

imported post

Hello All,

Just wanted to pose a question. I am aware that there are members of the anti-gun crowd monitoring this site and welcome their answers as well.

1) Why Starbuck's and not Wal-Mart, Home Depot, etc... I think I know why. It has nothing to do with national exposure or causing a real financial impact. Is is about trying to force a company to acquiesce to their social agenda. The anti-gun people know that their protest would have no impact, on companies such as Wal-Mart and Home Depot. These companies are serving a mostly blue-collar and very conservative customer base. They are catering to customers who do not share the social agenda voiced by anti-gun groups.

Where Starbuck's is concerned, there is a perception that it serves a primarily white collar and liberal customer base. While this may be true in Alexandria this is not true in Hampton Roads, Richmond, and points west. I can argue the majority of the country for the matter. Even if Starbuck's caves to to the anti-gun protest, what has accomplished? Companies that cater to liberal urban area's already tow the line and don't allow firearms on their premises. Companies that cater to Blue Collar and Rural areas allow firearms on theirs.

Starbuck's is not going to cave to your rhetoric. They are not going to risk losing their market share, just because a few people show up and protest. Nothing will be gained by the anti-gun movement. The anti-gun groups are continually losing ground in state legislatures and soon lose even more ground in the upcoming Supreme Court decision. The anti-groups are grasping at straws. The only thing that could hope to keep them relevant is for Starbuck's to cave and they know it.

If these groups want to remain relevant and (dare I say useful), help law abiding and responsible gun owners protect the rights of American Citizens and find a mutually agreeable way to reduce violent crime. We will never be able to prevent criminals from acquiring and using illegal firearms, by controlling the possession and carrying of legal firearms. The approach only serves to provide a soft target to those who wish to do harm to others.

I have sacrificed the last 23 years of my life to protect my nation, by serving in the military. I applaud those who are taking the responsibility to protect themselves and others from harm.

Christopher

 

[bohdi]

imported post

Now I can say Abby Spangler "shot" me.....

 

[HankT]

imported post

bealaskan wrote:

Starbuck's is not going to cave to your rhetoric. They are not going to risk losing their market share, just because a few people show up and protest. Nothing will be gained by the anti-gun movement. The anti-gun groups are continually losing ground in state legislatures and soon lose even more ground in the upcoming Supreme Court decision. The anti-groups are grasping at straws. The only thing that could hope to keep them relevant is for Starbuck's to cave and they know it.

I don't see why not. Starbucks, once a great (and expanding) company, was headed for the toilet 2-3 years ago. They were doing a ton of things wrong. SBUX has been turning things around in the last two years but its future is still fraught with uncertainty--due to competition, the economy, and management issues.

The emerging question before Starbux is this: If it is going to be a never resolved fight between the pros and the antis, regarding OC (CC too) in its stores, which constituency (pros, antis, employees, stockholders, etc.) is best disappointed by the future policy on the subject? If is the big variable, of course.

If I were an anti, I'd pick Starbucks as a target, too. Good chance for success...



bealaskan wrote:

If these groups want to remain relevant and (dare I say useful), help law abiding and responsible gun owners protect the rights of American Citizens and find a mutually agreeable way to reduce violent crime. We will never be able to prevent criminals from acquiring and using illegal firearms, by controlling the possession and carrying of legal firearms. The approach only serves to provide a soft target to those who wish to do harm to others.

This is really a good thing--the idea that "these groups" (antis of various flavors) can and should "help" or cooperate with us pros (the good guys!) so that we together can find a good way to reduce violent crime.

This cooperative bent you have has been pretty much deemed unthinkable by the faithful pro-gunners here and elsewhere.

Cooperation is good. Perpetual fighting is bad.

Both the antis and the pros need to understand that. But each side is, well, basically each side is too hard-headed, although I think that the antis are a bit more receptive to it--mostly because they've been losing so many legal and social battles lately.


I'd say it's a toss-up as to who wins the Starbucks battle...but the funny thing is that the winner won't significantly affect violent crime.




bealaskan wrote:

I have sacrificed the last 23 years of my life to protect my nation, by serving in the military. I applaud those who are taking the responsibility to protect themselves and others from harm.

Thank you for your service...and your analysis.

 

[2a4all]

imported post

The woman holding up the "Enter at Your Own Risk" sign speaks for both sides. It's the reason the we C/OC, as we do expect to provide for our own safety. It's not clear if she thinks that others are in danger from LACs who carry, or from the GFZ hazard that would exist if no LACs carried.

Perhaps we'll se her in front of alcohol-serving restaurants on July 1.

 

[longwatch]

imported post

HankT wrote:

This is really a good thing--the idea that "these groups" (antis of various flavors) can and should "help" or cooperate with us pros (the good guys!) so that we together can find a good way to reduce violent crime.

This cooperative bent you have has been pretty much deemed unthinkable by the faithful pro-gunners here and elsewhere.

Cooperation is good. Perpetual fighting is bad.

Both the antis and the pros need to understand that. But each side is, well, basically each side is too hard-headed, although I think that the antis are a bit more receptive to it--mostly because they've been losing so many legal and social battles lately.


I'd say it's a toss-up as to who wins the Starbucks battle...but the funny thing is that the winner won't significantly affect violent crime.

Our goal is to preserve our right to bear arms not to reduce crime, there is little point in seeking middle ground with the antis because their goal is to remove guns from society, at the least to the point where normal citizens would never be able to utilize them for defense. I don't believe there is a middle ground between our side and theirs unless it is outside the regulation of bearing arms. They offer nothing but more restrictions while it has been common for our side to offer increased penalties for those who misuse firearms in criminal acts, neither has really affected crime rates.

 

[bealaskan]

imported post

HankT,

Thank you for the gracious reply to my grammatically flawed posting.

I have have learned to stop debating the anecdotal and measurable statistical data with the anti-gun membership. However, we are going to learn to work together. There are going to be fringe aspects of both those who are pro and anti gun. Granted, I am so far right that I make Limbaugh look like a leftist but I am also able to shape my opinion from my own research and those of others.

I do think it is possible for a gun owner and a non-gun owner to work together. Realize that the most boisterous pro-gun and anti-gun can't see forrest through the trees. I do think that both sides of the issue can agree that the a police officer is not going to prevent you from being a victim. They can can only arrive after the act as been committed and react. It is our responsibility as individuals to prevent ourselves from becoming a victim.

As far as Starbucks market share, they were dealing with the same effects of over-expansion that effected Krispy Kreme. Starbucks has since re-organized and are once again on stable footing. The anti-groups know this and are well aware that their protest will have no financial impact. The two protests, in Seattle and Alexandra, in my estimation are merely a tempter tantrum. Starbucks was suppose to be one of "their guys" like Apple Computer and Nike.

And while I am a farm boy at heart, there is just something about a Venti 5-shot Americano, from my local Starbucks. So, if Starbucks does cave, I guess I will have to lock my OC firearm in the truck, but I will still CC. Just don't tell the barista.

Christopher

 

[Mike]

imported post

nakedshoplifter wrote:

She's power-walking over toward me...

And illegally jaywalking! Were there no police around to issue her a summons?

 

[2a4all]

imported post

longwatch wrote:

HankT wrote:

This is really a good thing--the idea that "these groups" (antis of various flavors) can and should "help" or cooperate with us pros (the good guys!) so that we together can find a good way to reduce violent crime.

This cooperative bent you have has been pretty much deemed unthinkable by the faithful pro-gunners here and elsewhere.

Cooperation is good. Perpetual fighting is bad.

Both the antis and the pros need to understand that. But each side is, well, basically each side is too hard-headed, although I think that the antis are a bit more receptive to it--mostly because they've been losing so many legal and social battles lately.


I'd say it's a toss-up as to who wins the Starbucks battle...but the funny thing is that the winner won't significantly affect violent crime.

Our goal is to preserve our right to bear arms not to reduce crime, there is little point in seeking middle ground with the antis because their goal is to remove guns from society, at the least to the point where normal citizens would never be able to utilize them for defense. I don't believe there is a middle ground between our side and theirs unless it is outside the regulation of bearing arms. They offer nothing but more restrictions while it has been common for our side to offer increased penalties for those who misuse firearms in criminal acts, neither has really affected crime rates.

Longwatch is right. There will always be a rift.

We quote gun crime stats to bolster our case (more guns = less crime), they quote gun violence stats to make theirs (more guns = more people getting shot). We don't want to compromise our right to self defense, they think that reducing access to guns will reduce the number of people getting shot. We realize that criminals do most of the shooting (except suicides), and want the ability to shoot back if need be. They don't distinguish between criminal acts and shootings by LACs.

 

[Tomahawk]

imported post

Mike wrote:

nakedshoplifter wrote:

She's power-walking over toward me...

And illegally jaywalking! Were there no police around to issue her a summons?

Well, so was NSL, Mike, so you might not want to bring that up...

 

[HankT]

imported post

longwatch wrote:

HankT wrote:

This is really a good thing--the idea that "these groups" (antis of various flavors) can and should "help" or cooperate with us pros (the good guys!) so that we together can find a good way to reduce violent crime.

This cooperative bent you have has been pretty much deemed unthinkable by the faithful pro-gunners here and elsewhere.

Cooperation is good. Perpetual fighting is bad.

Both the antis and the pros need to understand that. But each side is, well, basically each side is too hard-headed, although I think that the antis are a bit more receptive to it--mostly because they've been losing so many legal and social battles lately.


I'd say it's a toss-up as to who wins the Starbucks battle...but the funny thing is that the winner won't significantly affect violent crime.

Our goal is to preserve our right to bear arms not to reduce crime, there is little point in seeking middle ground with the antis because their goal is to remove guns from society, at the least to the point where normal citizens would never be able to utilize them for defense. I don't believe there is a middle ground between our side and theirs unless it is outside the regulation of bearing arms. They offer nothing but more restrictions while it has been common for our side to offer increased penalties for those who misuse firearms in criminal acts, neither has really affected crime rates.

This is the problem with the pros---gross misrepresentation of the antis.

Please prove your statement that:

a. our goal is should not be to "reduce violent crime, and

b. That the antis' (let's use the Brady Campaign as the primary example, OK?) "goal is to remove guns from society...."

Let's see whatcha got to support your conclusions, LW.

 

[bealaskan]

imported post

if she was doing that in D.C. the fuzz would be all over her...

 

[ChinChin]

imported post

Mike wrote:

nakedshoplifter wrote:

She's power-walking over toward me...

And illegally jaywalking! Were there no police around to issue her a summons?

I spy with my little eye two marked police cruisers in the background of the photo posted.

I also spy with my little eye one pair of tight-fitting jeans, wind blown long strawberry blond hair and pouty lips; a little rebel who won't conform to "the man's" rules of walking between the lines. No she's going to make her own rules and be a naughty girl!

 

[ProShooter]

imported post

hunter45 wrote:

At a coffee shop, "fully loaded" should refer to cream and sugar.

Cute...very creative and funny....

Still neurotic though...