McDonald's and Dunkin' Donuts Abide by the Laws of the States

[stealthyeliminator]

I think everyone (not just people here, everyone) is over-reacting. Honestly, I'm glad Starbuck's hand was forced. Why would it be better for them to remain closet-anti-2a instead of being seen in their true light? Why would it be better for the majority of the pro-2a community to be under the false impression that they're supportive of 2a exercise?

I do honestly believe that Corp Starbucks is essentially anti-2a. That they'd have allowed the occasional open carry without saying anything in order to maximize profit doesn't really make them neutral, it just meant their greed was momentarily overruling their desire for public disarmament.

 

[WalkingWolf]

I believe that, if carriers had simply gone for coffee with a handgun concealed or unconcealed on their hips, SB would not have changed their policy. The question over their policy would have eventually just died out. Folks pushing the "ally" crap (including, but not limited to, handling ARs, taking pictures of the stupidity, and making it appear that SB was pro-gun) forced SB's hand in a way we don't like.

Knock it off. Just carrying and going about your business is opening up our ability to exercise the Right more and more. These other extra-curricular activities are closing down that exercise, wrongly, but certainly.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

And with you the first amendment dies with the second. I repeat there is no evidence that antis are any less offended by long guns than handguns. IN FACT Brady Bunch makes a point of going public with concealed carry abuse of, get this HANDGUNS.

 

[eye95]

Keep believing that is wasn't the long-gun carry and the handling of the long guns. Keep believing that it wasn't SB appreciation days.

It is not you whom I am trying to convince.

 

[WalkingWolf]

Keep believing that is wasn't the long-gun carry and the handling of the long guns. Keep believing that it wasn't SB appreciation days.

It is not you whom I am trying to convince.

I am willing to listen, please by all means post some evidence(cites) that it was long gun carry. Otherwise you are blowing smoke, or like others just making brown stuff up. In fact YOU have chastised others for doing what you are doing on this issue.

Shame on you!

 

[eye95]

I am willing to listen, please by all means post some evidence(cites) that it was long gun carry. Otherwise you are blowing smoke, or like others just making brown stuff up. In fact YOU have chastised others for doing what you are doing on this issue.

Shame on you!

Again, I am not trying to convince you. Clearly you have your own conclusion as to why SB did what they did.

I am simply putting out the FACTS (no cites necessary, the evidence is riddled throughout the threads on this topic) that folks OCed long guns, including ARs into SB. They handled them. They took pics of this foolishness. Carriers had SB appreciation days.

My conclusion (you don't cite for conclusions, just for asserted facts) is that SB reacted to this foolishness. Believe my conclusion or not. I don't care. I know that most folks reading this thread would agree that SB reacted this overblown crap and not to the simple unadorned OC.

So, keep arguing. Keep asking for cites for conclusions . I won't bother responding to you about my reasonable conclusion.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

 

[WalkingWolf]

Again, I am not trying to convince you. Clearly you have your own conclusion as to why SB did what they did.

I am simply putting out the FACTS (no cites necessary, the evidence is riddled throughout the threads on this topic) that folks OCed long guns, including ARs into SB. They handled them. They took pics of this foolishness. Carriers had SB appreciation days.

My conclusion (you don't cite for conclusions, just for asserted facts) is that SB reacted to this foolishness. Believe my conclusion or not. I don't care. I know that most folks reading this thread would agree that SB reacted this overblown crap and not to the simple unadorned OC.

So, keep arguing. Keep asking for cites for conclusions . I won't bother responding to you about my reasonable conclusion.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

I don't care who you are trying to convince you are spreading lies without a shred of proof as if they are fact. When in fact they are just your weak arse opinions.

Put up or shut up!

If anybody is responsible it is people like you who all to willing to accuse others without facts, empowering the anti gun crowd.

 

[45 Fan]

I think the issue you have eye is you want to try to convince us to follow your personal opinion on a very large, complex situation. SB made a decision based on whatever pressure it had applied to it, from an unknown amount of sources and made a decision it felt was best for it.

Now, stop trying to override reality with your petty complaining about 2 singular items being the chief causes, especially when only one was mentioned in the press release.

You can decide to not carry an AR or Shotgun as is your right, but do not be abusive of others becasue you have made a personal decision for yourself to not carry one. I do not carry one, but I do not condemn them. They are the most visible of all of us most days, because most sheeple dont pay attention and a little thing at the hip in the corner of their eye gets dismissed as nothing more then a cellphone...

 

[eye95]

I think the issue you have eye is you want to try to convince us to follow your personal opinion on a very large, complex situation. SB made a decision based on whatever pressure it had applied to it, from an unknown amount of sources and made a decision it felt was best for it.

Now, stop trying to override reality with your petty complaining about 2 singular items being the chief causes, especially when only one was mentioned in the press release.

You can decide to not carry an AR or Shotgun as is your right, but do not be abusive of others becasue you have made a personal decision for yourself to not carry one. I do not carry one, but I do not condemn them. They are the most visible of all of us most days, because most sheeple dont pay attention and a little thing at the hip in the corner of their eye gets dismissed as nothing more then a cellphone...

I am not trying to convince YOU of anything. Clearly, you have made up your mind. I am looking for the still-open minded to present with some facts and the conclusion I drew. I am sure many (likely most) will come to the same conclusion.

Fact: SB was neutral on carry, choosing to follow State law.

Fact: Some took this as carte blanche and started carrying ARs into SB, handling them, taking photos of the nonsense. Others started have SB appreciation days, as though SB were an ally. (They weren't. They were precisely what we should want businesses to be: neutral, following the law.)

Fact: Some just quietly went about their business carrying wherever the went, including SB.

Fact: SB is now no longer neutral, making it crystal clear that they do not want folks to carry in their stores.

Time for a conclusion: Do you think that quiet, unadorned carry caused them to change their stance? Do you think that wackadoodles fondling their ARs influenced their decision. Do you think that unwelcome "appreciation" days had a motivating or demotivating influence on the memo?

I think it is a reasonable conclusion that if we had only viewed SB as we view almost every other place that "follows the law," simply carrying and going about our business, including patronizing SB, there'd be no memo. There is a memo, IMO, because of the buffoonery with long guns and "appreciation" days that kept the controversy fueled, motivating the other side, and causing SB to say, "Enough!"

Feel free to come to a different conclusion. Like I said, most will see the reality and realize that we surely did it to ourselves.

As I have with the other poster, I will stop responding to you on this matter (as you are decidedly NOT the target of my rhetoric). Moving on.

 

[WalkingWolf]

Eye you have not provided one, nada, fact that SBX CEO's decision was based on long guns. NOT one single fact, you are insulting the right to bear arms. I never took you for a hoplophobe, what a surprise.

 

[mpguy]

Eye you have not provided one, nada, fact that SBX CEO's decision was based on long guns. NOT one single fact, you are insulting the right to bear arms. I never took you for a hoplophobe, what a surprise.

I some what agree with eye. I've seen pictures of ars in Sb un-slug. Has there been any pictures pre-request of people doing the same?

I'm not saying what Sb did was OK.

Sent from my XT1080 using Tapatalk 2

 

[WalkingWolf]

I some what agree with eye. I've seen pictures of ars in Sb un-slug. Has there been any pictures pre-request of people doing the same?

I'm not saying what Sb did was OK.

Sent from my XT1080 using Tapatalk 2

I have seen MANY pictures of citizens openly carrying handguns in Starbucks, far more than long guns. So if we take that as reasoning, it is the open carry of handguns that brought about this decision.

But intelligent people know better, they know it is the irrational fear of guns that brought this about. I conclude that Eye has a irrational fear of long guns, so he brings that into play with absolutely NO facts.

 

[bbMurphy]

Opiniion... NOT fact.

My own personal Opinion is that SBX did this because of the "Appreciation Day" demonstrations along the anti's so called boycott day. SBX repeatedly had said that they didn't want to be involved in any pro or anti movement and these publicity seeking demonstrations is what forced their anti stand.

This next statement is a fact. My OC/CC handgun are no longer welcome in SBX so I'm not and my money is not by way of proxy. I've found a better and cheaper alternative right on my kitchen counter.

 

[eye95]

My own personal Opinion is that SBX did this because of the "Appreciation Day" demonstrations along the anti's so called boycott day. SBX repeatedly had said that they didn't want to be involved in any pro or anti movement and these publicity seeking demonstrations is what forced their anti stand...

I demand that you provide citations for your conclusion and opinion. Oh, wait, that would be ridiculous and controlling of me. Never mind.

OK, I demand that you provide citations for your claims of "Appreciation Day" and anti demonstrations. Oh, wait, OCDO is literally riddled with references to these facts. Never mind.

Hmmm...I guess I should just accept your opinions and conclusions, and possibly let them influence mine, or not, as I choose.

Damn, being reasonable is so freakin' anti-climactic.

Thank you for being reasonable too. Carry on.

 

[mpguy]

I believe that, if carriers had simply gone for coffee with a handgun concealed or unconcealed on their hips, SB would not have changed their policy. The question over their policy would have eventually just died out. Folks pushing the "ally" crap (including, but not limited to, handling ARs, taking pictures of the stupidity, and making it appear that SB was pro-gun) forced SB's hand in a way we don't like.

Knock it off. Just carrying and going about your business is opening up our ability to exercise the Right more and more. These other extra-curricular activities are closing down that exercise, wrongly, but certainly.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

I have seen MANY pictures of citizens openly carrying handguns in Starbucks, far more than long guns. So if we take that as reasoning, it is the open carry of handguns that brought about this decision.

But intelligent people know better, they know it is the irrational fear of guns that brought this about. I conclude that Eye has a irrational fear of long guns, so he brings that into play with absolutely NO facts.

Hand guns, I don't think are the issue at hand, as seen in this quote from eye. Heck, I don't think a slung AR is the problem. At least with most. I just tend to agree with Eye that, most people don't get the warm fuzzy feeling, when the see something like a AR coming in a coffee shop.

Most in this country, believe it to be for the greater part civilized. I think we can all agree on that.

Now comes the opinion.

1st. I like to think that everyone believe that matter how many good apples your going to have, there's always a bad one. I'll conclude that most wouldn't mind people, carrying a handgun. Most reasonable people will agree, a lot can happen before a cop can get to you.

2nd. This is where I think eye is trying to make his point. People will get uneasy when a properly slug/holstered gun comes from it's lawfully carry position, to something like we saw earlier in this post, of a man holding a AR in his hands.

This is why, I said something about the pictures. I can personally only speak for myself. If your going to carry a long gun, it needs to stay slung appropriately. I won't bat a eye, and watch accordingly if you put the gun in both hands.

If I'm wrong I'm sure Eye will pop in. Of course we all have differences of opinions on the matter, and hope I don't pull strings for voicing mine. Sorry if there are any typos. Auto correct is a lovely thing I can't address right now.

Sent from my XT1080 using Tapatalk 2

 

[WalkingWolf]

Hand guns, I don't think are the issue at hand, as seen in this quote from eye. Heck, I don't think a slung AR is the problem. At least with most. I just tend to agree with Eye that, most people don't get the warm fuzzy feeling, when the see something like a AR coming in a coffee shop.

Most in this country, believe it to be for the greater part civilized. I think we can all agree on that.

Now comes the opinion.

1st. I like to think that everyone believe that matter how many good apples your going to have, there's always a bad one. I'll conclude that most wouldn't mind people, carrying a handgun. Most reasonable people will agree, a lot can happen before a cop can get to you.

2nd. This is where I think eye is trying to make his point. People will get uneasy when a properly slug/holstered gun comes from it's lawfully carry position, to something like we saw earlier in this post, of a man holding a AR in his hands.

This is why, I said something about the pictures. I can personally only speak for myself. If your going to carry a long gun, it needs to stay slung appropriately. I won't bat a eye, and watch accordingly if you put the gun in both hands.

If I'm wrong I'm sure Eye will pop in. Of course we all have differences of opinions on the matter, and hope I don't pull strings for voicing mine. Sorry if there are any typos. Auto correct is a lovely thing I can't address right now.

Sent from my XT1080 using Tapatalk 2

So then post proof that the CEO made his decision based solely on long guns.

 

[mpguy]

He don't say he did on what I quoted. He said he believed. As in his opinion, which everyone has a right to.

I have no proof, I guess as the courts called it, I/We have suspicion that they did. Again a opinion is all I'm suggesting. Guess I wouldn't use we, as I don't speak for Eye, but still.

Sent from my XT1080 using Tapatalk 2

 

[WalkingWolf]

He don't say he did on what I quoted. He said he believed. As in his opinion, which everyone has a right to.

I have no proof, I guess as the courts called it, I/We have suspicion that they did. Again a opinion is all I'm suggesting. Guess I wouldn't use we, as I don't speak for Eye, but still.

Sent from my XT1080 using Tapatalk 2

NO he said it was fact, in fact he posted that several times, yet he has yet provided any facts to back up his outrageous claim.

 

[eye95]

I will do some eye-popping anyway.

mpguy, you represent me well.

A certain poster is having great difficulty between someone asserting facts and someone arriving at a conclusion. He is being obtuse. Deliberately, I conclude. So, no, I cannot cite proof that he isn't accidentally or genetically obtuse.

 

[mpguy]

NO he said it was fact, in fact he posted that several times, yet he has yet provided any facts to back up his outrageous claim.

Well this is how I read it, again this is entitled to opinion.


eye95 wrote:

I believe that, if carriers had simply gone for coffee with a handgun concealed or unconcealed on their hips, SB would not have changed their policy. The question over their policy would have eventually just died out. Folks pushing the "ally" crap (including, but not limited to, handling ARs, taking pictures of the stupidity, and making it appear that SB was pro-gun) forced SB's hand in a way we don't like.

Knock it off. Just carrying and going about your business is opening up our ability to exercise the Right more and more. These other extra-curricular activities are closing down that exercise, wrongly, but certainly.

This statement start's with I believe, so it's his opinion. The Italic/bold show's not only the AR problem that he believes was the problem, but the publicity they were getting, was not wanted.

Again eye95:

I am not trying to convince YOU of anything. Clearly, you have made up your mind. I am looking for the still-open minded to present with some facts and the conclusion I drew. I am sure many (likely most) will come to the same conclusion.

Fact: SB was neutral on carry, choosing to follow State law.

Fact: Some took this as carte blanche and started carrying ARs into SB, handling them, taking photos of the nonsense. Others started have SB appreciation days, as though SB were an ally. (They weren't. They were precisely what we should want businesses to be: neutral, following the law.)

Fact: Some just quietly went about their business carrying wherever the went, including SB.

Fact: SB is now no longer neutral, making it crystal clear that they do not want folks to carry in their stores.

Time for a conclusion: Do you think that quiet, unadorned carry caused them to change their stance? Do you think that wackadoodles fondling their ARs influenced their decision. Do you think that unwelcome "appreciation" days had a motivating or demotivating influence on the memo?

I think it is a reasonable conclusion that if we had only viewed SB as we view almost every other place that "follows the law," simply carrying and going about our business, including patronizing SB, there'd be no memo. There is a memo, IMO, because of the buffoonery with long guns and "appreciation" days that kept the controversy fueled, motivating the other side, and causing SB to say, "Enough!"

Feel free to come to a different conclusion. Like I said, most will see the reality and realize that we surely did it to ourselves.
I am not trying to convince you of anything.

Again, I believe is said in the beginning, again stating his opinion. I'm personally taking the Fact's that he's listed...which are...facts, that God knows, how many topic's we have on this subject, are to back up his belief/conclusion.

I'm not picking a fight btw, and hope you or no one takes it that way, it just the way I'm reading it. You have to admit, until all the publicity that's been going on about it, SB seemed some what content with the way things were.

 

[awnuts]

Can we all agree that carrying a holstered weapon is the norm? A secured in the waist handgun is more likely to gain acceptance than a rifle to non shooters. Its accepted even with folks perception of law enforcement. We see anyone with a rifle on the street it raises attention more than a sidearm. This includes myself. My rifles are set for target and hunting. The rifle is not a personal defense weapon of choice to carry. Then theres the issue of gun play in public. What if everyone was at the starbucks posing around a handgun from their belt as in the folks posing with their rifles. A rifle is hard to conceal and it doesn't look secured as a holstered handgun to any of us pro/anti folks. I always thought we carried holstered and kept a low profile. I thought this was the image we wanted to project in public. Not scare off folks with likes of an AR strapped on. In our drive to promote OC we need to project a higher standard and image. First impression is everything. So with this in mind I do really believe the folks with long guns helped push the decision. We need to walk before we run.