This Is Why We Cant Have Nice Things – Starbucks

Post image for This Is Why We Cant Have Nice Things – Starbucks

by Admin on September 18, 2013

Well. We have done it.

I say we, as in the collective gun-owners and 2nd Amendment supporters/enthusiasts of this nation. We win together, and we lose together.

Last week, we shared a major victory in Colorado with the recall of two anti-gun politicians. Thats our Win.

This week, we have finally forced Starbucks to choose a side in the great gun debate. All the sabre rattling, and “starbucks appreciation days” and open carry foolishness we could throw at them. They finally made a decision.

Good Job. Well done. We have “educated” them and their “liberal” customers who don’t particularly share our views and affinity for all things that go bang.

The decision is in, and it is not in our favor. Starbucks has said that they do not wish to see “guns as a part of the Starbucks experience.” We have educated them to the point that they would prefer we just go away…or at least leave them out of it. They have said that they will not ask anyone open-carrying to leave, nor will they post signs regarding the policy. Frankly, I wish they would. I hope the “activists” have the intestinal fortitude to respect their wishes…but I’m not holding my breath based on how they have acted in the past. Calling for a boycott is weak-sauce, too.

We have essentially forced neutral Switzerland into the hands of the Nazis. A company that was not restrictive in their corporate policy. A company who followed local law. We forced them onto the national stage– without consulting them about it, I might add– and into the center of a rather divisive debate. Replete with “I Love Guns and Coffee” patches and t-shirts and mugs and all sorts of other cute little trinkets.

Instead of quietly supporting a company through the  purchase of their product to show your appreciation,  you just had to load up an AR, AK, or shotgun or put on that fancy “tactical” drop leg holster, call all of your gun-guy friends to meet you there, and march into the place to “Make a statement” and “educate” people on our rights.

Edit: I was contacted by the individual pictured above. He is in the US Military, and for context, wanted to advise that this photo was taken in a Starbucks in Camp Arifjan, Kuwait in 2005. He did not request the photo be removed, just wanted to add context for this particular photo. -Casey

You had to throw that rifle on your back, knowing damn good and well you were going to cause a scene. If you DIDNT know you were going to cause a scene, you’re an idiot when you consider the multiple “active killer/mass murder” incidents of very recent notoriety. You have allowed those of us who choose to be smart regarding these matters to get a black eye from society and,  you are directly responsible for allowing the left a small victory.

The attention-whoreness of it all is rather disturbing.

My guess is that you are the same ones who only carry when you are trying to bait a cop or ruffle feathers or trying to “educate” people….well, you did. Congratulations. (P.S. Of the eleventy-billion videos of seen on YouTube wherein folks of your ilk try to “educate” cops on the law, Ive seen about 5 that were legitimate)

Don’t complain now because the company had to make a business decision to make their customers and workers feel more comfortable and/or safe. Remember that YOU are responsible. YOU forced their hand. YOU are the reason they made this choice.

We have turned the debate into a joke. Yes, we are all responsible.

Whether youre an (A) “in your face activist” as previously mentioned, or a (B) gun owner who doesnt agree with them but remains silent and thereby complicit, we are all responsible. Own it.

Personally I fall into the latter category (B). I think the first category are a bunch of fools, and open carry is a piss-poor method of carry outside of a few distinct instances. I have remained silent on the issue, but that ends today.  I don’t want to be represented as a gun owner by those who choose to act as those described above. A tactical victory is never worth a strategic defeat. In the end this has hurt us in a battle where we are making progress. If we dont “eat our own” and correct these issues, the OTHER SIDE will. We have lost ground due to tomfoolery, chicanery, and general shenanigans. If we don’t get on the same page, we will continue to give up ground.

Much like how we get irritated when the “not terrorist” muslims dont come out and outright condemn muslim terrorist acts and organizations…we are taking the same track by not raising the bullshit flag when we ought to. We have to police our own. No successful organization, entity, or cause embraces personnel or spokesmen who damage the image and value of the brand.

There is strong precedent that responsible activism, grassroots campaigns, and legal processes can make a tangible difference. Just ask two former Colorado politicians. Ask our Founding Fathers. Ask any number of successful organizations or causes.

And now the internet comes to life on the topic. There are alot of  ”scuffles” and debates going on about how Starbucks is wrong to take this stance, or how we (gun owners) shouldn’t “eat our own” with regards to the fools who just have to “educate the public” with their open carrying of guns, and treating them as if they were nothing more than a high end fashion accessory. Still others say that while they dont disagree with Starbuck’s policy, they dont like being “lumped in” with “those guys” — talking about the aforementioned “educators and keepers of liberty”

One internet poster said: “I never believed Starbucks was an ally anyway.” I would say he may be right. They weren’t. They are an outfit that sells coffee. Period. They just had a policy that wasn’t restrictive, and followed local law. They were unwillingly and unwittingly co-opted by the “rabid gun movement” people, and literally thrust on the national stage in the midst of a highly charged debate without their consultation on the matter.

This is why we can’t have nice things.

Don’t blame Starbucks, and don’t blame liberals. Blame stupid gun owners.

Look in the mirror, own it, give yourself a pep-talk, and go fix it.

Practical takeaway: Just because you CAN doesn’t always  mean you SHOULD.

 

For those living under a rock, or who don’t click links in articles, here is the full letter:

An Open Letter from Howard Schultz, ceo of Starbucks Coffee Company

Tuesday, September 17, 2013

Posted by Howard Schultz, Starbucks chairman, president and chief executive officer

Dear Fellow Americans,

Few topics in America generate a more polarized and emotional debate than guns. In recent months, Starbucks stores and our partners (employees) who work in our stores have been thrust unwillingly into the middle of this debate. That’s why I am writing today with a respectful request that customers no longer bring firearms into our stores or outdoor seating areas.

From the beginning, our vision at Starbucks has been to create a “third place” between home and work where people can come together to enjoy the peace and pleasure of coffee and community. Our values have always centered on building community rather than dividing people, and our stores exist to give every customer a safe and comfortable respite from the concerns of daily life.

We appreciate that there is a highly sensitive balance of rights and responsibilities surrounding America’s gun laws, and we recognize the deep passion for and against the “open carry” laws adopted by many states. (In the United States, “open carry” is the term used for openly carrying a firearm in public.) For years we have listened carefully to input from our customers, partners, community leaders and voices on both sides of this complicated, highly charged issue.

Our company’s longstanding approach to “open carry” has been to follow local laws: we permit it in states where allowed and we prohibit it in states where these laws don’t exist. We have chosen this approach because we believe our store partners should not be put in the uncomfortable position of requiring customers to disarm or leave our stores. We believe that gun policy should be addressed by government and law enforcement—not by Starbucks and our store partners.

Recently, however, we’ve seen the “open carry” debate become increasingly uncivil and, in some cases, even threatening. Pro-gun activists have used our stores as a political stage for media events misleadingly called “Starbucks Appreciation Days” that disingenuously portray Starbucks as a champion of “open carry.” To be clear: we do not want these events in our stores. Some anti-gun activists have also played a role in ratcheting up the rhetoric and friction, including soliciting and confronting our customers and partners.

For these reasons, today we are respectfully requesting that customers no longer bring firearms into our stores or outdoor seating areas—even in states where “open carry” is permitted—unless they are authorized law enforcement personnel.

I would like to clarify two points. First, this is a request and not an outright ban. Why? Because we want to give responsible gun owners the chance to respect our request—and also because enforcing a ban would potentially require our partners to confront armed customers, and that is not a role I am comfortable asking Starbucks partners to take on. Second, we know we cannot satisfy everyone. For those who oppose “open carry,” we believe the legislative and policy-making process is the proper arena for this debate, not our stores. For those who champion “open carry,” please respect that Starbucks stores are places where everyone should feel relaxed and comfortable. The presence of a weapon in our stores is unsettling and upsetting for many of our customers.

I am proud of our country and our heritage of civil discourse and debate. It is in this spirit that we make today’s request. Whatever your view, I encourage you to be responsible and respectful of each other as citizens and neighbors.

Sincerely,

Howard Schultz

 

UPDATE

 

Starbucks Letter Internal

 

PTP Check out Forum 600px

377 comments
PatrioticVietVet
PatrioticVietVet

I conceal carry also,even in Starnuts if i were to go. NO ONE NEEDS TO KNOW EXCEPT ME. 

Michael Cosgrove
Michael Cosgrove

My right to carry ends at the front door or the property line of another person if they decide so.  Are you saying the 2nd trumps their rights as a business to conduct their business as they see fit?  The 2nd trumps the rights of a home owner to say you can't bring your firearm on to their property?  You can take your business or friendships elsewhere than as your right.

My employer has very clear rules about firearms.  Nada...not even in the trunk of my car in a locked case with a trigger lock on it too boot.  Fine their rule and I do need the job (and unless you want to hire me and pay me what I'm making now...don't say just find another job.)

Oh....I do own and will carry where I am able, but it won't be open carry. 

Lyvnxxl
Lyvnxxl

What we have here is a failure to communicate.  Fact:  Law abiding citizens have the right to bear arms.  Fact 2:  This makes some people uncomfortable.  OK.  It is a right of a mother to breastfeed her baby in public (Starbucks).  That also makes people uncomfortable.  It is a right for people to express their opinion.  Some opinions make people uncomfortable.  Everyone is an individual.  We each have our rights and our OWN opinions, some are similar and some differ.  The fact remains, Starbucks is asking gun owners to respect their request, and the people who are customers can choose to respect that request or they can choose to spend their money elsewhere.  These debates about guns get all of us nowhere, because the fact remains the same.  Some people like to bathe in the nude, and some people think they should put something on to cover themselves.  I myself have my own opinion and likes and dislikes.  I am not going to ask or tell someone else that they have to do what I like or dislike, as I respect other's rights and opinions.  So, I'm just saying, I myself won't be spending my money at Starbucks, but that's just my choice.   Some anti-gun activists have also played a role in ratcheting up the rhetoric and friction, including soliciting and confronting the customers and partners.  So, I believe both sides have to bear the blame.  There will always be conflict between disagreeing people.  I think, at this time we should just agree to disagree and accept the facts.

WilliamStarks
WilliamStarks

First they came for the long arm OCers and I said nothing because I don't OC a long arm.

Then they came for the OCers and I said nothing because I didn't OC.

Then they came for the concealed carriers and I said nothing because I don't carry.

Then they came for those who hunt and I said nothing because I don't hunt.

Then they came for anyone who has a gun in their home -- and no one was left to defend me.

EdMurphy
EdMurphy

In response to Vince and OpenCarry Texas. I do not believe that  the government is our master - I believe the opposite. I do not believe that Starbucks is or ever was on the "right" of the Second Amendment issue either-but at least they were neutral.  We must recognize that we live in a democratic republic and, as a result, the rights that are (in my view and yours)  clearly set forth in our constitution unfortunatgely are not always unversally recognized by all courts and all people. What I am arguing about is not what our rights are or even what our rights should be but about the best way to persuade those who are or may be on the fence. The rights we cherish can, whether we like it or not, be taken away by legislatures and courts. On his podcast Casey suggested that intoducing someone to firearms and taking them  shooting is a lot better way to advance the 2nd Am cause than carying an AR-15 to Starbucks. I could not agree more.

EdMurphy
EdMurphy

Greg: I am not at all advocating violations of any constitutional right – whether 2nd, 4th, 5th or any other of the rights enumerated in the first ten (bill of rights). We are on the same side—that of law abiding gun owners.  I am only offering my perspective on the best way to assure that those rights are preserved in our republic. Reasonable minds can differ on the issue of the most persuasive methods to use to convince those who are not of the same mind – while agreeing on the importance of the right to keep and bear arms. Let us not unnecessarily make enemies of those folks who may be in the middle and perhaps undecided on the issue. We want them on our side also.

EdMurphy
EdMurphy

Gus Philpott and Admin have it right - the gun rights / pro Second Amendment side of the ongoing debate will not persuade anyone of the rightness of the cause by intentionally scaring or irritating them unnecesarily. Similarily, those who insult police officers and react angrily when stopped and asked a few reasonable questions about the fact that they are carrying a firearm do no favors to  the movement to restore and preserve gun rights. Front line police officers (as distinct from some of the "higher-ups" who are closer to the politicians than to the working stiffs)  are inclined to be on the correct side of this issue -- do not alienate them! Just because you have a RIGHT TO DO IT it does not mean it it always and everywhere RIGHT TO DO.

Ed Murphy.

LeighRich
LeighRich

So much information on the web.

From reviewing the comments it is not a ELK Club anymore. The area is in a ghetto gang infested area.

Here is an update...

[url=http://www.mlive.com/news/muskegon/index.ssf/2013/09/police_release_names_of_2_dead.html]Police release names of 2 dead from Elks Charity Lodge shooting | MLive.com[/url]

There was a total of seven people shot around 2 a.m. Sunday, Sept. 22 outside the lodge, police have confirmed.
Two of the three deceased are: Dupree Johnson, 20, and Ja'Colby Brown, 20.
The lodge was the same location where another shooting incident occurred earlier this year.

Comments:
GANG violence is what it boils down to... How many of these young folks were here to actually listen to music? I listened to the scanner video on youtube a minute ago ([url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gZXBeC3FtfQ]Muskegon Elks Lodge Shooting - Scanner Audio - YouTube[/url]) Check it out... Sounds like one chaotic night at the club for these negro young people...

LISTEN TO THE SCANNER... I'd hate to be a responding Officer... Obama's children.

Sing at Elks.

Gus Philpott
Gus Philpott

I am pro-gun and anxiously awaiting approval of concealed-carry licenses in Illinois (estimated to be in April 2014), but those idiots toting their AR-15s into Starbuck's have really hurt the cause. If they wanted to carry at 63rd & Halsted in Chicago, maybe (which would be unlawful), but to take in these weapons just because they could, has really hurt the other law-abiding pro-gun folks - and inflamed the anti-gunners. Thanks a lot, jerks.

OpenCarryTexas
OpenCarryTexas

I completely agree. Private business may choose to force victimhood on their employees and customers. Thankfully, capitalism dictates I can also take my business to places that respect the free exercise of my rights.

kerriekerns28
kerriekerns28

Bunch of gun-nuts... Glad Starbucks came forward and asked them to stop bringing firearms into their stores. People in the civilized world appreciate this. 

OpenCarryTexas
OpenCarryTexas

What a complete and utter crock of elephant manure. This is what the 50%er, or "Butter," says. "I support gun rights, but..." Then proceeds to say how OCers are ruining it for everyone. That's pure, unadulterated bullshit. We did not ruin it for anyone. "Blame stupid gun owners." For what? For peacefully going into a coffee shop, peacefully paying for an overpriced cup of joe or tea, and then peacefully sitting at a table - usually away from other customers?! No, the people that ruined it were the liberal, unwashed hippie Thugs With Jugs that were carrying signs protesting Starbucks, refusing to patronize the business on Saturdays or whatever other day, confronting and harassing customers also wanting to enjoy a peaceful cup of joe or tea, and otherwise interfering with a business in any way they could. This author is a complete and utter waste of digital space and obviously not smart enough to differentiate between media brainwashing and reality.

wandersage
wandersage

I like this.  I am not a gun rights advocate, in fact I think it's somewhat stupid when people cling to the idea that owning a semi automatic rifle of shot gun is going to somehow constitute a legitimate resistance against a theoretically tyrannical government who has nuclear weapons, drones, bombs, and every other manner of insane military capacity to wipe you off the face of the earth before you get a bullet in the chamber.  The second amendment, no matter how it is interpreted today, is a relic from a very different time.  That all said, I love guns.  They are insanely fun to shoot, I feel powerful and capable when I fire one.  I'm a hunter, I own multiple guns.  I've worked on farms and understand especially the necessity of guns as tools.  If I had that chance I would love to fire a fully automatic rifle, a bazooka, or a tank, without a second thought.  But none of this really matters

You see in this debate, what matters is not who is right, It's not going to come down to who has the best thing to say, it's going to come down to who can say what they want to say the best.  The side that organizes around a singular message, and is able to conduct themselves in an unemotional manner to explain their side calmly is going to win.  neither side at the moment is behaving this way though, they both throw out crazy emotional arguments that are irrational and effect nothing. 

I don't think guns should be worshiped as they are, that creeps me out, and I frankly think there are much bigger issues in the world than whether we should be allowed to have guns or not.  But I'm more interested in seeing what happens next.  The truth is every single time there is a shooting there will be a debate, gun nuts will fight this battle every few months for the rest of their lives.  the question is going to be when one side or another finally gets its shit together and behaves like a rational entity and wins over the rest of the American people.

bnnby
bnnby

@Lyvnxxl 

You are deluded if you think a breastfeeding mother in Starbucks is the equivalent of a gun-toting ruffian wanting to make a statement. The one can kill me whether I look at him or not. I can at least choose to look away from the breastfeeding mother. 

OpenCarryTexas
OpenCarryTexas

Says who? Because the media says we shouldn't carry "scary looking" semi-automatic rifles we should hide them instead of showing that a gun is just a tool, no different than a hammer or hacksaw? It doesn't matter if 99% of people disagree with my right to keep and bear arms, I still have that right. The constitution didn't give me that right, my existence did. You must recognize that our rights aren't dependent on yellow-bellied, panty waists with irrational fears. We persuade people by carrying our weapons openly and safely to show them for the cowards they are when nothing happens. We've done that over Texas in the past three months. Dispatchers now ask follow up questions when these liberal wastes of oxygen call in with their irrational, fictitious fears of seeing soneone with a gun. LEOs now just drive by upon seing us peacefully carry. We didn't do that by sitting on our asses and hiding our guns. We did that through education and the EXERCISE of our rights.

VincePerna
VincePerna

@EdMurphy The problem is you wrongfully assume Starbucks was ever in the middle. They have always been on the left and have supported obama this entire time. The only reason guns have not been banned is because they know gun owners buy their coffee. As much as they hate it they tolerate it so they will not lose that customer base. That is the only reason they have not banned firearms or put signs on the door, they know that sign will immediately cost them money.

OpenCarryTexas
OpenCarryTexas

That's right, Ed. The state must not be questioned. Citizens must be obedient to authority in all times and places. These gun rights/pro-2A people need to shut their face and know their place. They need ti stop demanding allegiance to a 200+ year old piece of parchment. How dare anyone demand respect and adherence to oaths and a respect for our rights. It's just sickening there are still people who think We the People are the masters of government.

GregKitsinian
GregKitsinian

@EdMurphy Wow Ed, so instead of advising some to give up just their 2nd Amendment rights, now you are advocating for giving up the 4th Amendment and 5th Amendment, but hey they are reasonable right?  Front line police officers who know and respect the laws and rights of the citizens have no reason to harass (including stopping and asking some reasonable questions) if there is no crime being committed or RAS (carrying a gun is not RAS in Open Carry states).  

Because you have a right to do it, you should definitely not give up that right.  Keep up the division, start with rifle OC, then move to pistol OC, then finish it off with CC.  Nobody needs to carry a gun outside of their home right?

OpenCarryTexas
OpenCarryTexas

You are the problem with gun rights because you presume to dictate how they can be legally exercised. We have done more for gun rights in Texas in the short three months of our existence than you will do in your entire lifetime. We are getting laws changed, others clarified, and others repealed. WE are the jerks out there educating people that an AR15 is nothing to fear and explaining how it is no different than any other rifle. US JERKS are the ones changing the mindset that these guns aren't the "people killers" the left and people like you make them out to be. You've fallen for the media narrative of stigmatizing a piece of metal and plastic. No sir, the jerks aren't the OC supporters out there educating people. The jerks are people like you dictating limits on our uninfringable right to keep and bear arms.

OpenCarryTexas
OpenCarryTexas

What makes the legal exercise of a right qualify someone as gun-nut?

yacope2254
yacope2254

@OpenCarryTexas I can attest that Mom's Demand Action (MDA) or "thugs with jugs" were the ones to still the coffee pot. Take a little trip through their pages and tell me what you see.

I saw a bunch of women that want to stop any kind of OC or CC. No civilian guns whatsoever, depend on the police or else. If you try to post an intelligent and coherent question or post that "may" smack of support of any kind for the 2nd amendment and they immediately post some condescending answer and before you can answer back the delete the post AND ban you from the page. They are nothing but Nazis with mammary glands hiding this behind the guise of "keeping the children safe".

OC where is legal is not wrong. You have every right to carry or not as you choose. You don't have the right to make people to "stop" just because you are nervous and irrationally afraid of guns. You don't like'em? Don't buy them. The same way I'll refrain from giving my business to anyone that's more afraid of lawful abiding citizens than of criminals walking in the door and robbing you uncontested.

jshe
jshe

@wandersage it's because you don't understand the concept of gun owners disallowing a tyrannical government to take over and make slaves of us peons.  There are 1,000,000's more of us than there are of them.  When you get right down to it, the people would outnumber a tyrannical government probably 2 or 3 THOUSAND  to ONE and I think people will fight back if worse comes to worse.  We all hear rumblings int he distance every day about armed revolts, etc, etc, etc.  Imagine if millions of people armed citizens banned together with organization and leaders.  It would also be a gorilla warfare so nukes, drones, bombs are pretty much out of the question.  It would be a boots on the ground, house to house fight.  The military will usually stand with the people also instead of a tyrannical government.  They certainly wouldn't want to kill us all.  Who would do the grunt work and clean their house.  What good is a kingdom without subjects.   Look what has happened all over the world in just the last 50 years or so.  People are taking their countries back from dictators.  If you believe it can't happen in the U.S., I think you're living in a fantasy world.  I know lots of folks that think like that.  They've not seen it before, so it can't happen in our own country.  It only happens in 3rd world countries (which is what Obama is doing to the U.S.)    Maybe my thoughts are a fantasy but I don't think so. 

I can appreciate your stance on guns in-so-much as you're not a die hard advocate of NO GUNS. but your interpretation of the second amendment is something I certainly can't agree with.  ALSO remember what Isoroku Yomamoto, Fleet Admiral and Commander-in-Chief of the Imperial Japanese Navy during World War said:  You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass.  The same holds true today to any enemy of the U.S. trying a hostile takeover of the U.S.  I certainly wouldn't want to be leading that charge. 

Just some thoughts to ponder.

VincePerna
VincePerna

@bnnby @Lyvnxxl  I see your problem. You assume that a man open carrying is a ruffian, who even uses that word anymore, and the breast feeding mother is the safe one. Maybe you should find out how many mothers are in prison, will change your mind about all mothers being safe. That breast feeding mother might also be carrying the same gun as that ruffian, just because you do not see it does not mean it isnt there.

rebelphoenix
rebelphoenix

@OpenCarryTexas I'm still trying to figure out what place an AR-15 really has in an open carry situation. Intimidation? Compensation? You'd think it would be rather awkward to try to defend yourself with one. I'm a massive proponent of CC and responsible gun ownership. This seems completely irresponsible on those brandishing (lets face it in most cases they weren't using responsible gun handling methods) and really hurt the cause.

EdCocks
EdCocks

@yacope2254 @OpenCarryTexas "..a bunch of women that want to stop any kind of OC or CC." That's the sad part in this situation. People turning on each other despite being on the same side. One thing that I will give the anti crowd is that they don't have the in-fighting we suffer from. While many pick fights over Open or Concealed, deride choices of caliber, debate ARs vs Shotguns, yada, yada, yada, the antis manage to chip away another block from our foundations.

yacope2254
yacope2254

@OpenCarryTexas Oh and BTW I posses mammary glands too and tried to establish a conversation with those women...smh dammed bullies

wandersage
wandersage

@jshe @wandersage The trouble with that though is that you must imagine who it is we'd be fighting.  The government leaders?  Well the government leaders are not the military.  If as you say the military usual supports the people then who are the people?  We have a government made up of our own citizens, we have a profoundly stable (at least compared to most other countries in the world) election system that means we have a continuously churning batch of leaders moving through the positions of power.  If the world started falling apart and someone or some group actually started to try and pull a Hitler, taking control of the country through force, then how would they do it?  if as you say the fact that it would be a gorilla fight means drones are out, bombs are out, nukes are out, and the military supports the people, then how in the world would any government be able to succeed?  The military is us, our military are our fathers, sons, mothers and daughters.  Our government is our neighbors.  Who is this entity that we might have to fight against?  If the military is with "us" then we win (depending on how you define "us" perhaps just the people who agree with you?  or perhaps just the people of the same ethnic background?  or just people of your socioeconomic class? or all american citizens except those American citizens who are on the other side? even that gets complicated) and if the military is against us, we lose, flat out.  Whether individual citizens have guns wouldn't make a significant difference because of the integration of our society and the technological advantage the military already possess.

And besides all of that, if the folks who are so pro gun are the type of people who throw a tantrum because they can't take an assault rifle into a wal-mart I can't imagine them organizing a "well maintained militia" when shit hits the fan.

As far as Mr. Yomamoto is concerned, he's probably right, but the number of households with assault rifles is tiny, a population of citizens with hand guns and shot guns is likely as much of a deterrent as one that also has a minor sprinkling of assault weapons in the mix.  What I'm saying is, why are these weapons needed at all, I can't think of any good reason. 
 

it's also important to realize that for over a hundred years in the US the 2nd amendment was not interpreted as it is now.  it wasn't till the 80's that a very small organization decided it should mean that every individual should be allowed to have a personal physical gun in their possession.  (This of course being the same organization that managed to lobby the government to prevent an expansion of background checks that was supported by 90 percent of the country and which possibly could have prevented this recent mentally disturbed individual from shooting up a naval yard.)  It doesn't say that every person should be able to have a gun, if it did we couldn't keep criminals from having them.  Through lobby efforts in the past 30 years we have come to the 2nd amendment interpretation that we have today.  we already restrict fire arms including explosives, fully automatic weapons, and rocket launchers because we have decided as a community that those are too dangerous for a general population to own, why can we not also make that claim on assault weapons, that they are a danger to our communities because while 90 percent of owners are responsible, we cannot abide the consequences of the 10 percent that are stupid, crazy, or homicidal

EdCocks
EdCocks

@bnnby @VincePerna @Lyvnxxl You still miss the several salient points in this discussion. 1. Like the breastfeeding mother, the man is performing a legal act. In both instances, your fears, beliefs and sensibilities are the problem, not their actions. 2. If either action offends you, it is certainly your right to look away and if your fears are so great , leave the premises. That is freedom in action, no one forces you to stay in the presence of firearms or breast-feeders, it is a choice. 3. A man with a legally-carried firearm is no more, indeed probably less, of a threat than a man carrying a Bible/Koran or trying to get you to sign a petition. 4. Your statistics are a great basis for you avoiding men, but what will you do as more and more women carry firearms? Hint: Check the gun sales stats for the last 5 years, women are the fastest-growing segment. Soon, your fears and statistics will drive you into seclusion from humanity. Hopefully, mental health programs will keep you from sliding over the edge.


VincePerna
VincePerna

@bnnby @VincePerna @Lyvnxxl Actually anyone open carrying in a holster, drinking coffee is a law abiding citizen. Criminals do not open carry, they do not want to alert the police they are violating the law. Drinking coffee and minding ones business does not make you a criminal if you are following the law. And the law of some States is that it is legal to open carry.



bnnby
bnnby

@VincePerna @bnnby @Lyvnxxl 

I'll concede that most of those who openly carry firearms are not ruffians, but you have to admit that some of them are. And although some breastfeeding mothers may certainly be carrying concealed weapons, and some small fraction of those might even be cold blooded killers, my assessment of the relatively low threat posed by breast feeding mothers is based on the fact that men are 5 times more likely than women to end up behind bars. And of the 62 mass shootings in the USA since 1982, only one of them was committed by a female.  

EdCocks
EdCocks

@ManBehindTheCurtain @OpenCarryTexas Yeah, those arrogant SOBs! Exercising their rights, following the law, making people afraid by doing something that makes people nervous, going against the agendas of recognized authorities, just who do they think they are, Americans or something?

Lyvnxxl
Lyvnxxl

@wandersage @VincePerna @jsheI know many have said this but it needs to be said as much as possible. Criminals BREAK THE LAW. You can create all the laws in the world. Criminals DON’T CARE and will continue to do as they see fit. Any gun control measure(s) will only take guns from the law abiding citizen. I would like to use Ireland and England as an example of what happens in places guns are banned.

Read more at http://patriotupdate.com/articles/time-offense-gun-control-debate/#g1RqfEBiZVi426sH.99

http://www.ksl.com/?sid=26639259&nid=757&title=gun-control-does-not-decrease-violence-study-finds&fm=home_page&s_cid=queue-15

StacyWhite1
StacyWhite1

@wandersage @jshe  About 980,000 murders are prevented each year by legal firearms, while about 9,000 people are actually killed.  Those are some real statistics for you. The argument that gun control makes us safer is a complete and utter lie generated by the left. Criminals do NOT submit to background checks or registration. Obama wants to control healthcare, but has not issued ONE mandate regarding mental health and guns. Only laws affecting law-abiding gun owners. It's a ploy, and we will not submit to it...ever.

yacope2254
yacope2254

@wandersage @jshe I want to know where are those assault weapons you say were carried into Starbucks. Please show documentation.

VincePerna
VincePerna

@wandersage @EdCocks @jshe Kennesaw GA has required every household to have at least one gun and ammo since 1982. They have a low crime rate compared to all the cities around them.

EdCocks
EdCocks

@wandersage @jshe Oooops, my edit period expired before I noticed that I missed typing the "no" in front of "more gun deaths". Before the typo police attack, consider it corrected.

EdCocks
EdCocks

@wandersage @EdCocks @jsheHere you go:

Harvard Study on International Gun Control and Violent Crime

http://www.examiner.com/article/harvard-study-shows-gun-control-doesn-t-save-lives

Pew Research w/ FBI stats.

http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2013/05/07/gun-homicide-rate-down-49-since-1993-peak-public-unaware/

Read up on some basic facts:

http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp

The article, and much of the discussion, is NOT a legal debate. This is a corporate policy decision (Corporate Statement on the ir website, signed by their CEO and on their letterhead) and the public's reaction to it. The people's interpretation of the Second Amendment has been that ownership and use of firearms is a basic right of the people since the founding of the country.


And yes, if guns didn't exist there would obviously be more gun deaths. Of course, if we still went everywhere on horses and read by the light of a candle we wouldn't have a fossil fuels resource problem. If nobody cared about money and crops grew themselves, there would be milk and honey for all. If homes were built by fairies and gnomes, then everyone would sit and talk of puppies and rainbows all day. Enjoy your fantasy life but let us know when you return to the real world,

wandersage
wandersage

@EdCocks @wandersage @jshe

Vince, you're not really saying anything, I don't have anything to say to you.

EdCocks

"More Guns = Less Gun Deaths"

I'm sorry but what research in the world shows this?  At the very least if there were no guns, there would be no gun deaths which disproves your statement at least on mathematical grounds.   I'm not saying there is definitely no truth to the idea that an armed population MIGHT reduce crime because it does have a kind of logical sense to it, but I personally don't think more guns is the answer and have never heard any study that shows the more guns in a community the fewer gun deaths, in fact I would strongly suspect that the more guns in a community the more shooting deaths if only by accidental shooting deaths alone.  Unless you have some info to back up that statement then it's just more useless noise in an already loud and fruitless debate.

And we are talking about the nature of the second amendment as it relates to people's legal rights, therefor a legal analyst along with the opinion of the supreme court matters a great deal to this debate. 

EdCocks
EdCocks

@wandersage @jshe Oh yeah, when I want to know something about firearms, I ask The New Yorker, or any New Yorker. Toobin is a legal analyst, not a sociologist. The American people have interpreted the Second Amendment as a right to own firearms and carry them "as needed" from the beginning of our country's history. The context of Mr. Toobin's comments are with regard to the interpretation of the 2A BY THE COURTS. Guns, in the hands of responsible people, save lives, every day. More Guns = Less Gun Deaths.

VincePerna
VincePerna

@wandersage @VincePerna @jshe" that no one is noticing our civil liberties to vote and choose what happens to our country are being eroded by a few very powerful people at the top of a few very powerful organizations?"

Yes you did bring it up.

People being well informed or educated has been long lost, obama being elected is proof of that. The common core education guarantees it will never come back.

wandersage
wandersage

@VincePerna @wandersage @jshe One, we weren't talking about voter ID laws, so I don't know why you brought it up.  I was saying that when the politicians we've elected listen to private lobbyists rather than to the will of the people then the power inherent in voting is greatly diminished if not entirely neutralized .

Two, my argument is not at all based on politicians acting responsibly, in fact it's exactly the opposite, I'm claiming that the checks and balances within our system are designed specifically so that no particular person will ever be able to take power, but also that any politician is by definition a power seeker and will do what ever they can to accumulate as much of it as possible, and by the time we get to a point where we actually need to fight a war with our own government anything that we could conceivable call "The United States of America" will be long gone. 

There will never been a hostile take over of the government by itself, not only because that's rationally makes no sense, but also because if anyone is going to take control of the US they are going to do it entirely through none violent means.  They are going to manipulate lawmakers, utilize complex bureaucracies, and use the system itself to take power away from the citizens in the US without ever firing a shot, and everyone waiting for a civil war won't even know that it's happened.  The greatest protection a people can have against their government is NOT a well armed populace, it is a well educated one that can understand and protect the checks and balances built into the system, through the civil duty of self education and voting. 

The problem is being well informed about the way our government functions and why it does is a way less fun way of protecting our country than practicing tactical maneuvers in your cousins backyard.

VincePerna
VincePerna

@wandersage @jshe Your whole argument is based on politicians making "responsible" choices. Hate to break it to you but nothing they do is responsible or thought out in the least. None of the gun control proposals would have done anything to prevent any of the past or present shootings. You write slippery slope like it is not a valid reason to be against gun control. Just look at California, year after year their gun rights are taken away one after another. 

No one's right to vote is being taken away, unless you mean their ability to commit voter fraud. I live in a State where a valid ID is required to vote and no one is complaining that their right to vote has been restricted. All your obama talking points are old and lame, get some new material.

wandersage
wandersage

@jshe @wandersageHere is an article explaining the history of how the second amendment has been interpreted.  It's from The New Yorker, which I understand might make some discount it immediately because it is not usually a news source, and likely has a liberal bias, but if you want to know where I got my information at least you can read this.  in summery, before the 80s the second amendment was intrpreted as stating that people were allowed to form militias, and those militias were allowed to keep guns.  The interpretation that individuals had a constitutional right to own guns came with a change of the guard within the NRA and their birth and a political entity rather than a gun enthusiasts club.  http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/comment/2012/12/jeffrey-toobin-second-amendment.html

I did make up my statistics, you're right, the statistics about the expanded background checks was a generalization of infomation I didn't take the time to look up, and the one about how many people are irresponsible gun owners was completely invented (though I wasn't trying to say 10 percent are crazy, just that 10 percent could be considered irresponsible gun owners in general which includes psychos as well as people who go shooting while drunk, or shoot their hunting partners in the face while hunting birds...)  Here are some real statistics about background checks at the bottom of an article by politifact, which I think is one of the least biased news sources around.  http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2013/apr/18/gabrielle-giffords/gabby-giffords-says-americans-overwhelmingly-suppo/

If people want to define the 2nd amendment as a right for individuals to carry guns, that's fine with me.  If people want to carry assault weapons into a Starbucks in order to celebrate their American rights, or to show everyone they've got a giant cock, then I don't particularly care, if that's what the people want.  I also wouldn't particularly care if the second amendment was struck down tomorrow and no one could ever use a gun again, perhaps I'd get into bow hunting, or trapping, like the old days.  But the NRA lobby right now is so entrenched that it isn't allowing politicians to make any responsible choices about gun control, even choices that the American citizens support.  If there is a way that we can make the country safer while not taking away people's guns, then why in the world would we not?  Because it's a slippery slope?  Because there's a government conspiracy to take away all our guns and this is just the first step?  Or because some people just want to be in power and the NRA loves telling our elected officials what to do so much that they can't see past their own noses?  Is there no concern that our politicians, our judges, and our law makers are being influenced by an organization that has more sway in the direction our country is going in than the voting citizens do?  Is there any chance, even a small one, that people are so concerned about a government trying to take itself over by force, that no one is noticing our civil liberties to vote and choose what happens to our country are being eroded by a few very powerful people at the top of a few very powerful organizations?

jshe
jshe

@wandersage @jshe you are too far out in left field for me to even interrupt some of your comments.  BUT just a few points:  Saddam Hussein was a tyrant hated by 'most' all, military included but he was able to control the whole country.  What about Fidel Castro?  Do you think he is supported by a majority.  I know hundreds of military personnel that says if "any president" and congress etc gives them orders to do anything to U.S. citizens they will not follow those orders and will retaliate against their leaders (if the leaders support it and most do not).  Under your thought process, yes we win but there will be those that support a tyrannical government and those are the ones we outnumber my thousands to one.    

I wasn't talking about "assault rifles" when i referenced a gun behind every blade of grass.  I know there are only 200 million privately owned guns in the U.S. and probably only 30 to 50 million "assault rifles" are among them.  I know that's not a big number considering the overall number but that's still a bunch and many, many times the size of any army in the world.  Most gun enthusiasts own 1000's upon 1000's (if not 10's of thousands of rounds of ammunition.   Just a lot of firepower out there that most people don't know about.   

You better think twice before you underestimate these nuts that want to carry a semi-auto rifle on their shoulder to get a cup of coffee.  Don't think they wouldn't gang up behind some really good leaders if worse turns to worse.  It happens all over the world.  They take over and take out governments,  

Your last paragraph sounds like the Democratic platform with a bunch of made up statistics.  You know they are and I know they are so lets not even go there.  That's silly that 90% of the people support this or that.  AND especially that 90% are responsible and 10% are not.  The real numbers are no where even close to that.  They are not 1 in 1000, they are not 1 in 10,000 but maybe 1 in 100,000.  With that said I do understand your point.

OH, and I've never in my lifetime heard that the second amendment has been interrupted any differently than it is now.  It's been to court dozens of times over the last 100 years and the supreme court only made one change in the 1920's (I believe).  That is when they outlawed real assault weapons because of the murders during the depression and prohibition.  AND I'm not talking about a semi-automatic long gun that looks scary and the media coined as 'assault weapon'.  I'm talking about a real assault weapon. 

Trackbacks

  1. […] Posted by Camper4lyfe So, what's your take on the coffee that this thread is about? This Is Why We Cant Have Nice Things – Starbucks There's my take on it. Attention whores got the attention they wanted, good job. […]

  2. […] Today, 01:43 PM This Is Why We Cant Have Nice Things – Starbucks Reply With […]

  3. […] Today, 02:00 PM This Is Why We Cant Have Nice Things – Starbucks This guy about sums it up for me. I cannot stand far left liberals…but I also cannot stand […]

  4. […] is strongly stated, but makes a very valid point. This Is Why We Cant Have Nice Things ? Starbucks And for the record, this is not another "open carry" debate. I fully support open carry. […]

  5. […] ARs, AKs and shotguns down to buy coffee. Its a coffee shop not a damn gun show or gun range! This Is Why We Cant Have Nice Things ? Starbucks "Now I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds." J. Robert Oppenheimer […]

  6. […] I posted in another thread about this subject, I agree with these authors' take on the situation. This Is Why We Cant Have Nice Things – Starbucks Is this how "responsible" gun owners behave? I don't think so, and neither does […]

  7. […] Based on the OVERWHELMING and rather unexpected response (mostly positive) to the article we published earlier this morning, we decided a Special Edition Podcast was in order. You can read the article HERE […]

  8. […] Meh. I never go to Starbucks anyway. Overpriced coffee that, frankly, isn’t even good. But, I don’t think he is being unreasonable. It’s one thing to casually go in, openly carrying, and be nonchalant about getting your coffee. It’s a totally different story to walk in with an AR strapped to your back. You’re just forcing confrontation that doesn’t do our side any favors. […]

  9. […] This Is Why We Cant Have Nice Things – Starbucks __________________ A government big enough to give you everything you want, is a government big enough to take everything you have. My Reverse Flow BBQ Pit Build http://www.pirate4x4.com/forum/gener…pic-heavy.html […]

  10. […] I completely agree with this article. Some people cant take a piece, they want to whole thing. This Is Why We Cant Have Nice Things ? Starbucks "Get yourself a Glock! Lose that nickel plated sissy pistol." Reply With […]

  11. […] via Practical Tactical Podcast:  This Is Why We Cant Have Nice Things – Starbucks. […]

  12. […] This is the “good sense” part of “energy,” mentioned above. There are about 80 to 100 million gun owners in a country of 300 million. Gun owners are a minority, even if  close to 80% of the population supports some vague, ill defined idea about the people having a right to keep and bear arms. People who are politically involved in the issue, that is people willing to vote the gun issue, are a minority of that minority. Everything we’ve built in the past several decades rests upon the acquiescence of that majority of citizens who don’t have a dog (or gun) in this fight. Anything you do to antagonize that majority is detrimental. Starbucks ultimately took this action because that majority are their customers, and they don’t want gun rights to be part of their branding. This is an entirely sensible and understandable decision on their part of a company who just makes coffee. They were happy to live and let live, but then we kept re-inserting them into it, and trying to make their brand ours. […]

  13. […] Just my humble opinion but this says it all for. This Is Why We Cant Have Nice Things ? Starbucks […]

  14. […] This has been making the rounds. “Don’t blame Starbucks, and don’t blame liberals. Blame stupid gun owners. Look in the mirror, own it, give yourself a pep-talk, and go fix it.” I think the best outcome would be for open carry people to reign in the worst instincts of their fringe. Every movement has a fringe, but effective movements step up and try to manage it. […]

  15. […] to add: per the shotgun-wielding gentleman in the photo above via practicaltacticalpodcast.com via Tam, that particular Starbucks is in fact in Kuwait circa 2005 … so no harm no foul, […]

  16. […] guy holding the shotty in the link was an Army individual and that pic was taken in 2005 This Is Why We Cant Have Nice Things – Starbucks __________________ […]

  17. […] And Your Gun: Congratulations, Idiots.” (TwoWheeledMadWoman.blogspot.com) LINK: “This Is Why We Cant Have Nice Things – Starbucks” (PracticalTacticalPodcast.com) LINK: “Why I’m done with Starbucks (at least for now)” […]

  18. What a week! says:

    […] article on Starbucks has garnered quite a bit of attention. And while not our intent, per se, the Open Carry vs. […]

  19. […] This Is Why We Cant Have Nice Things – Starbucks […]

  20. […] Re: Is Starbucks' guns policy headed into Chick-fil-A-sized controversy? The reason the owner changed his policy is because of retards like this: This Is Why We Cant Have Nice Things – Starbucks […]

  21. […] to add: per the shotgun-wielding gentleman in the photo above via practicaltacticalpodcast.com via Tam, that particular Starbucks is in fact in Kuwait circa 2005 … so no harm no foul, buddy, […]

  22. […] you were scared to ask about the Federal Reserve. Gun Control is coming back. Speaking of which, this is the best reaction to Starbucks’ decision last week. What’s a RINO? Russia offers […]

  23. […] Matt’s Philosophy on concealed carry/ thoughts on Starbucks […]

  24. […] Matt’s Philosophy on concealed carry/ thoughts on Starbucks […]

  25. […] you were scared to ask about the Federal Reserve. Gun Control is coming back. Speaking of which, this is the best reaction to Starbucks’ decision last week. What’s a RINO? Russia offers troops to […]

  26. […] David’s thoughts on concealed carry/ thoughts on Starbucks CEO open letter. […]

  27. […] Matt’s Philosophy on concealed carry/ thoughts on Starbucks […]

  28. […] predicament in being pulled into the debate against their will. This article – This is Why We Can’t Have Nice Things – covered the issue quite well. However, the Starbucks press release made no distinction […]

  29. […] just show up and financially support Starbucks, they arrived in small platoon-like groups with shotguns and tactical rifles slung fore and aft as they sipped their way swaggering about between adult and child patrons […]

  30. […] just show up and financially support Starbucks, they arrived in small platoon-like groups with shotguns and tactical rifles slung fore and aft as they sipped their way swaggering about between adult and child patrons […]

  31. […] Grisham Incident and Starbucks […]

  32. […] On the other hand, I don’t trust most people to not be idiots, that goes for NDing gun owners; when I see pictures like these, I can understand why people who are unfamiliar with firearms would be uncomfortable (pics heisted from http://practicaltacticalpodcast.com/starbucks/): […]

Previous post:

Next post: