A few days ago, I blogged about a group of OCTards (Open Carry Texas) who decided to make a statement at Chipotle by carrying their long guns into the restaurant. My contention, and judging by the vast majority others’ in comments, was that these idiots have once again gone too far. They staged their little drama to shove their rights in other people’s faces – people who were merely there to enjoy a meal – and dragged a business that was completely neutral into their political demonstration.
A tool by the name of William Baker began screeching in comments that this site was anti-gun, and that he’s boycotting the Liberty Zone and telling all his friends to do so instead. (I’ll wait for you to stop laughing)
I’m going to boycott this anti-gun site and inform my friends of it as well. Are you really so stupid you can’t see that attacking others who are pro-gun whether you agree with them or not guarantees that the liberals win on this one? wow, sickening
You can go to the entry and read my reply, and those of others, yourselves. I won’t rehash them here. I will, however, submit the following: if holding the view that lack of decorum and respect on the part of gun owners is now viewed by some extremist reactionaries as being “anti-gun,” I would submit I’m not alone.
A poll started yesterday by the Guns Save Lives (GSL) blog, in the wake of Chipotle’s announcement that it doesn’t want people bringing guns into its restaurants, shows an overwhelmingly negative reaction to what another story called an “outrageous stunt” that apparently frightened other patrons at the Dallas-area eatery.
According to the GSL poll, the image and the idea of openly carrying long guns is drawing nearly 85 percent negative reaction, and the GSL website is not one frequented by Brady Campaign activists. It is popular with firearms rights activists. If gun people think this was a bad idea, that’s not good news for people who push the envelope with rifles.
At the end of the day, reality is that these morons weren’t merely open carrying. The rifles weren’t slung. They were borderline brandishing. They were bragging. They were taking photos, as if to say, “LOOK AT ME! I CAN!” This was not about educating, or promoting mature conversation. This was about showing off. That’s not responsible gun ownership. That’s puerile drama.
And. It. Hurts. Gun. Rights.
So stop. Just stop!
My latest from JPFO explores so-called “civility.”
Have you ever noticed how gun grabbers belittle, vilify and berate those of us who vocally support and defend the Second Amendment as “paranoid,” “irrational” and “extremist,” while hypocritically demanding “civility” when we begin to push back?
We are supposed to bow to their recently-invented, unreasonable “right to feel safe,” (which must be in the Constitution right between the right to a pony and the right to your very own leprechaun with a pot of gold) as justification for relieving us of our fundamental right to defend ourselves against violence. We are supposed to show respect for their hoplophobia, even if it harms us and destroys our freedoms in the long run. We’re supposed to be polite and civil, even as they berate us for merely wishing to freely exercise our rights. We’re supposed to subordinate very real basic freedoms to their irrational whims.
We asked two Starbucks competitors, McDonald’s and Dunkin’ Donuts, if they had gun policies for their thousands of restaurants.
Both companies said they simply abide by the laws of that state or region.
This was the policy of Starbucks, before certain strident, rude attention whores decided to drag the coffee company into the middle of the gun control debate.
Maybe this time overzealous open carry advocates will simply exercise their rights without drama. Maybe they will show some restraint, be polite and not shove their “BECAUSE I CAN” in people’s faces.
One can hope, right?
Sorry, that’s not going to happen any longer.
I’m going to do something in this blog entry I haven’t done. I’m going to slam some gun owners. Specifically I’m going to address open carry advocates – not all of you – but those of you who insist on bringing drama and screeching from the rooftops about how you’re going to exercise your rights, instead of just doing so.
See, Starbucks policy has always been to abide by the state law. They welcomed open carry, concealed carry and non carry coffee drinkers to their stores, as long as state law was followed. They didn’t want to be in the middle of a gun control debate. They just wanted to serve coffee and make money.
Unfortunately some concealed carry advocates decided that simply exercising their rights wasn’t enough. They thought it was a great idea to rub their ability to do so into the faces of those who oppose that right by drawing attention to themselves at Starbucks, staging media events, such as “Starbucks Appreciation Days,” claiming Starbucks is some kind of open carry champion, instead of a damn coffee shop! To be fair, the hoplophobes did what hoplophobes do – confronted, abused and castigated people merely for exercising their rights. But that’s nothing new and different.
Look… no one is saying you shouldn’t exercise your rights. They are your rights and you should be free to assert them. But what you people have done is drag a company into a political debate – a debate it wanted no part of.
Yes, Starbucks is left-leaning, but you know what? They respected your rights, and didn’t want to discriminate against those willing to exercise them.
So instead of exercising your rights in a peaceful manner, you people decided to thump your chests and screech about your rights from the rooftops.
What was the result?
Well, according to an open letter from Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz, you are no longer welcome there with your firearms.
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.
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.
Congrats, open carry advocates!
You have accomplished something gun-banning asstards couldn’t. You have caused Starbucks to decide that you are no longer welcome with your firearms. Don’t blame them! You had every opportunity to exercise your rights in peace. You had every opportunity to simply get your coffee, assert your rights and move on. Instead you created drama and dragged a coffee company into the middle of one of the most contentious debates in the United States! Instead of getting your coffee and being on your way, like a kid with a new toy, you had to show how cool you were by loudly proclaiming your rights and your exercise thereof (although tactically, it’s better to carry concealed anyway).
Starbucks is a business. They’re in the business of serving overpriced coffee, not championing your rights. Your “Appreciation Days” have wreaked havoc and caused a disruption to their business. And like any business, they have changed their policy in order to protect their profits.
This is not about your rights. They didn’t even ban you outright. They simply requested that you cease and desist visiting their stores if you insist on loudly exercising your rights to the detriment of their business. You are no longer welcome there.
And you have no one to blame but yourselves.
I’m nothing if not helpful. I figure you all need my superior intellect (granted, it takes the intellect of a flea to be superior to hoplophobic idiots) to translate what they’re really trying to tell you as they work to disarm you.
Translation: Starbucks’ abiding by state laws prompts us to throw a histrionic hissy fit, because they’re not actively joining us in undermining customers’ rights.
A nationwide boycott of Starbucks stores and its products will be launched on Valentine’s Day 2012. Its goal is to eliminate the risk of guns in public places and ultimately to bring sane gun laws to the U.S.
Translation: A few panty-shitting hipsters will go without their venti mocha lattes, because 20,000 laws are just not enough to make us stop soiling ourselves at the thought of law-abiding citizens exercising their rights.
This boycott is being called by the National Gun Victim’s Action Council (NGAC), a network of 14 million gun victims, the faith community including the: Episcopal Peace Fellowship, United Church of Christ, Fellowship of Reconciliation (46 peace fellowships and 43 affiliate fellowships), secular groups working to reduce gun violence and many of the organizations that support passing sane gun laws. WHY STARBUCKS? Currently, Starbucks allows guns and assault weapons to be openly carried in its stores (in 43 states) and concealed and carried in its stores (in 49 states) (See Photos). Starbucks’ compliance with the National Rifle Association’s Pro-Gun Agenda was exposed in 2010 when members of the “open carry” movement began meeting in popular chains, such as California Pizza Kitchen, Peets, IKEA, Disney and Starbucks openly carrying their handguns and assault rifles. (Types of Guns)
Translation: Assault weapon = any gun; NRA’s pro-gun agenda = state laws.
To protect their customers and employees, all of the retail chains—except for Starbucks— banned guns from being carried in their stores.
Translation: Major retail chains have been harassed and excoriated by us, and all of them (except Wal-Mart, Best Buy, Home Depot, Barnes and Noble and Starbucks) have toed the line and disarmed their customers despite state laws protecting their rights.
“Starbucks allowing guns to be carried in thousands of their stores significantly increases everyone’s risk of being a victim of gun violence,” says Elliot Fineman, CEO of the NGAC. “Open and conceal and carry are among the reasons there are 12,000 gun homicides each year in the U.S. If we had England’s gun laws we would expect 375 gun homicides each year—97% less than we have. England’s gun laws are based on protecting public safety, ours on maximizing sales for the gun industry.”
Translation: Despite our lack of evidence that concealed and open carry cause 12,000 gun homicides each year, despite the verifiable fact that states that have passed concealed carry laws either saw a decrease in crime, or saw no appreciable increase in crime, despite the fact that the FBI’s UCRs confirm that states without right-to-carry laws have much higher violent crime rates than national averages, we will use any disingenuous tactic to fear monger our way. If we had England’s gun laws, we’d have 375 homicides each year, even though our population is five times the size of theirs and our demographics are much different.
Starbucks has the legal right to ban guns but despite having been petitioned by thousands, asked at a shareholder meeting, and a direct appeal made to their Board, Starbucks clings to this policy that puts millions of Americans at risk every day and encourages the spread of guns being carried in public.
Translation: Starbucks has not bowed to our pressure and fear tactics, even though it has the legal right to allow guns on its premises, and is complying with state laws.
IMPACT OF STARBUCKS BOYCOTT: Fineman says, “Starbucks steadfast support of the NRA’s lethal pro-gun agenda damages its ‘socially conscious company’ brand. Further,” adds Fineman, “Monte Carlo Simulation risk analysis indicates that 90% of the time, our boycott will reduce Starbucks stock price by an amount no rational company would allow.”
According to NGAC, the boycott will end when Starbucks rejects the NRA’s Pro-Gun agenda by banning all guns from their stores and committing to be an Aggressive Corporate Advocate for sane gun laws.
Translation: We’re delusional, but we’ll keep our dirty leftist hippies out of Starbucks, so that the rest of the population can enjoy a cup of coffee without worrying that they’ll be accosted by filthy whiners.
I like Starbucks quite a bit, and will ensure I get coffee there every chance I get. I would encourage everyone who values fundamental rights to do the same.