TexasCHLforum.com

gringo pistolero wrote:

The Annoyed Man wrote:That is why today we have a MLK day and not a Malcolm X day.....because people understand that it was the quiet dignity and tireless efforts, and above all the spiritual anointing that MLK had which gave the civil rights movement its legitimacy.......not because of thoughtless confrontationalism.

Dr. King advocated nonviolence but when somebody says his tactics weren't confrontational, I have to wonder if they weren't alive back then or just weren't paying attention. Protests, rallies, marches, etc. are confrontational, and intentionally so. MLK didn't change society by sitting at home and writing letters.

No, he changed society by writing them from the Birmingham Jail, after he was arrested when he announced that he would ignore the order of a racist federal judge who had issued an injunction against any expression of free speech in favor of civil rights. Being arrested gave MLK the opportunity to write one of the most eloquent and convicting letters in the history of the American Civil Rights movement. MLK's people marched peacefully in favor of something that was beyond an moral questioning. They were confronted by klansmen with dogs and firehouses, hiding behind uniforms and tin stars, in support of continuing a great evil. That is a FAR cry different than what happened with Starbucks. And yes, I was alive and paying attention when MLK was alive. My own family was directly involved as activists in the Civil Rights movement in California. I was paying attention.

cprems wrote:

C-dub wrote:

cprems wrote:The CEO just said NO GUNS. Which part of that are you failing to understand?

Regardless of the what the law states, he has said NO GUNS. That is effective warning and its enough for me. I'll spend my money elsewhere!

Cprems, do you have your CHL or have you actually read 30.06? This is a written request, not an oral request. You may certainly choose to do business elsewhere, as will many others, but this is in no way effective notice according to Texas law.

Yes and yes. As I stated in my previous posts, it may not be effective notice but its good enough for me.

What I don't get is the division between open carry and CC. This is the Second Amendment we're talking about here. If we fail to come together and support BOTH, then we are no better than those who wish to take away BOTH!

We need to get it together and do it quick.

You (generalized) either support the Second Amendment or you don't, we cannot have it both ways. This is an all or nothing issue. We don't get to choose bits that we like.

Absolutely we get to choose, because it isn't about choosing to support the 2nd Amendment, it's about choose HOW we go about that. There is a wrong way, and a right way. Malcolm X started off as a Nation of Islam black firebrand, and he ended as a non-violent pacifist, agreeing with MLK that confrontational tactics were counterproductive. Early in his career as an activist, he was the equivalent of the heedless OC crowd. At the end of his career, before he was murdered by the more radical elements of Nation of Islam, he was more like a thoughtful activist who understands that getting in other people's faces is counterproductive. That is why today we have a MLK day and not a Malcolm X day.....because people understand that it was the quiet dignity and tireless efforts, and above all the spiritual anointing that MLK had which gave the civil rights movement its legitimacy.......not because of thoughtless confrontationalism.

Also, a lot of the more heedless among the OC crowd fail to take something else into consideration: there has ALWAYS been a segment of our society, going back to the days of the founders, who are afraid of the open brandishing of firearms because it often has presaged actual violence. My own mother lived through the nazi occupation of her native land. To her, guns ARE weapons of war, because the only people who carried them were either invading oppressors, or invading liberators. Otherwise, firearms were not really a common part of the culture (European), and outside of law-enforcement, war, or hunting, they were really only used by criminals. She became a citizen back in the 1980s, but she's held onto her worldview for too long to change. That mentality has ALSO been a part of our national culture for decades now, Texas notwithstanding. Add to that the fact that there are thousands upon thousands of people transplanted to Texas from gun-banning states, and you've got a very different culture even here in Texas from that of 4 or 5 decades ago. It's too bad, but it is a fact; and those people have just as many rights as you or I do........whether or not they choose to recognize and exercise all of them.

Inconveniently the way the law is worded.........and I assume has been worded for a very long time.....the idea of an otherwise legally open-carried weapon being displayed in a manner intended to create alarm leaves a LOT of room for self-centered anti-freedom nazis to claim that your gun created alarm in them. It's a short leap from there for an arresting officer to give you a ride, and let the courts determine your intention (or lack thereof) to cause alarm.

AS LONG AS THAT IS THE LETTER OF THE LAW, antis will use the law to limit yours and my rights. If as and when it ever gets to the point where "they" are randomly snatching up gunowners without warning and sending us to detention camps, I will gladly join you and anybody else in a revolutionary war to reclaim my government. But pending such a scenario, I am totally unwilling to go to jail with you just so that you can walk around with a long gun. I can always keep a long gun in my car.....loaded or not....if I want to. I can carry a loaded and concealed pistol pretty much anywhere I want to. The list of places where I can't is so short that it doesn't affect me that much. I don't have a need to sit in Starbucks with my AR15 slung over my shoulder. It gets heavy after a while, and besides, it is more fun to shoot or hunt with than it is to just carry around on a hot day. I'm getting old and my back hurts, and I've no patience for hot-heads who won't listen to reason.

Search all of my posts for the words "Constitutional Carry" and you'll see that I've got nothing to apologize for in support of the 2nd Amendment. I'm right there with you in that. But I'm old enough that I've learned some things about human nature. People who cannot understand the effect they have on other people when they openly carry their long guns are refusing to take human nature into account, and my 2nd Amendment rights are too precious to hitch them to a wagon being driven by foolish people. For me, watching this whole process of open carry demonstrations has been like watching a slow-motion train wreck, and realizing that I am powerless to stop it. I flat KNEW that Starbucks would eventually react this way if OC'ers kept pushing it and pushing it. It was utterly predictable, and it is a setback for achieving ultimate Constitutional Carry because it makes others view that cause as being populated by nutters and extremists. Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice (to paraphrase Ben Franklin), but extremism in trying to change existing law is just foolishness unless the law is being used to justify the rounding up and imprisoning of peaceful law-abiding people. Changing existing law for the better requires patience, intelligence, and dedication. It is grownup work.

Keith B wrote:

cprems wrote:CEO of Starbucks just stated he doesn't want CC weapons in his stores.

This was on FOX news with Neil Cavuto.

If this is the case, then where are those who said getting open carry legalized would not impact the view of concealed carry in stores by the management?

They are nowhere, because the facts are not convenient to their wishful thinking.

Texsquatch wrote:Glad I gave up on Starbucks years ago. Their weak coffee drinks have become nothing more than a fashion accessory for junior high girls.

You're obviously ordering the wrong stuff.

Cedar Park Dad wrote:I can't think of any Tea Partiers that were arrested.

OBAMA’S AMERICA: ‘IMPEACH OBAMA’ PROTESTERS ARRESTED FOR PEACEABLY ASSEMBLING

Tea Party Gun-Nut Arrested, Posted Liberal Kill List

Tea Party activists hit the Hill, arrested outside Pelosi's office.

But you're right.....generally speaking, Tea Party protestors don't get arrested—because they are not typically violating any laws and they tend not to behave outrageously.

TexasGal wrote:If I see a valid 30.06 sign at the store, I will obey it and not enter. If a manager verbally tells me he/she does not want any guns in the store, I will leave. Otherwise, I see no problem carrying concealed. Even if Texas ever allowed open carry, I would still go concealed except when in rural areas, camping, etc. Places where most would not be alarmed.

The verbiage of the letter is an earnest plea to please stop making Starbucks any public part of the gun argument--and especially pertaining to visible guns. Some in the open carry crowd just will not stop pushing all of their fellow citizens to become completely accepting of strangers to stand next to them and their children with a visible gun. As a gun enthusiast, I totally understand how gun owners feel, but before I was who I am now, I was for many years a woman who would have thrown a fit over some guy openly carrying a gun near me or my kids. I would have had no idea why or if he was some nut that was a threat or just simply negligent. These days with mass shootings being played up endlessly by the anti's we are simply not going to win this by being insensitive to those who are truly fearful and ignorant of guns. It WILL backfire.

THIS ^^ ..........and by the way, there was a time in my life when I shared her past viewpoint. I have made the switch 100%, but I can GUARANTEE you that I didn't get there by people getting in my face about it. I got there by the patient and considerate efforts of intelligent men of purpose, who understood that I could not be "confronted into" accepting their viewpoint. They had to make their case, and PROVE it. I'm not a stupid person, and I don't react well to people who talk to me like I am. I want the same things that the OC crowd wants, but I want it to be arrived at patiently and intelligently, because THAT is the method that A) yields the best results, and B) the lasting results.

Vol Texan wrote:Note the wording he selects:

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.

To me (and this is my interpretation only, yours may vary), those of the words of a smart businessman who likely supports guns, but doesn't want his store to become a tool used by both sides against each other. His position makes perfect sense. Why alienate half your customer base to please the other half, when you can simply invite all in equally? Remember, he makes money by selling coffee, not by promoting any specific agenda.

My wife does the same, by the way: she's a jeweler, and she owns an independent jewelry store in the Houston Heights area. Her area is so liberal that Sheila Jackson Lee's office is only a block away. The vast majority of her customer base swings far to the left of center, by virtue of her store's location. Any discussion of guns being welcome in her store would cause many of her customers to not just stop coming, but also convince their friends never to come in again. It would be a death knell for her business, so she avoids the topic. But don't make any mistake - she's carrying 100% of the time in there, and welcomes CHL holders to do the same. She evenJust don't force the conversation into the open while others are in the store.

A unique parallel exists here with the gay community. I don't care a person's orientation any more than I care their religion or whether they prefer Peter Pan vs. Jif peanut butter. Do what you want in your own room, and I don't care. In the business world I have hired and promoted both straight vs. gay people, and their orientation did not matter one bit, as long as they were the right person for the job.

But acceptance is not the same as embracing - and I'm not interested in embracing or celebrating alternative lifestyle choices. My wife and I have a much more conservative belief structure, and we're encouraging that in our daughter as well. So, if you force my hand on the subject, then you might not like my answer. Just be happy that I accept it, and will not use your personal choices against you in my business decisions.

The same thing happens with this latest generation of 'YouTube' open carry video makers. They're not content with easing people into the idea of being comfortable with guns - they need to make it 'in your face'. This does little to help our cause, and (as demonstrated by Mr. Schultz), can hurt us demonstrably. His letter was quite neutral - he supports the 2A, he refuses to ban, but openly requests that open carry stops in his stores. Antis perceive this as a victory, and many 2A supporters (as witnessed here) perceive this as a loss. Unfortunately, both are right, because perception is reality.

And by the way...Peter Pan is clearly better than Jif.

First of all, you're wrong. Planter's extra crunchy is the best, and I'll fight you for it if I have to.

Secondly, THANK YOU, for so clearly stating the difference between acceptance and embracing. Like you, I personally hold fairly conservative beliefs, but I am not going to hold those over the heads of other people. But accepting that others are different from me does not mean that I will embrace all of their life choices. I guess that makes me a libertarian. I am not yet in the position to hire other people in my business—except as temporary independent contractors—but if I were, like you I would not hold their personal life choices against them so long as they did the best work for me they could do, and met my standards for their production. I am a fair man, and I recognize that not everybody is going to agree with me no matter how right I believe myself to be in those matters.

That said, I would not likely knowingly advance someone whose political activities I knew to be contrary to the best interests of my business, regardless of how unfair that might be to some. If I had knowledge of someone's personal political choices being destructive to my business, I could not in good conscience promote such a person, no matter how well they performed their duties while at work, because their ultimate interests are destructive of my own..........which is why it is best for employees to not talk about politics at work. I'm not saying that I would forbid employees to talk about politics on their own time....lunch breaks, etc.......I'm just saying that I would incorporate the things they say into my opinion about their intelligence, reliability, and dedication; and that might have a negative impact on whether or not I would consider them for advancement.

As to Starbucks, he is asking, not telling people with openly carried guns to not carry them into the store. Let's cast it in a different light....since 2nd Amendment issues are fundamentally a human rights issue..... If aggressively pro gay rights patrons started demonstrating inside the store premises by groping and necking one another in same-sex displays, it might reasonably be expected to offend those Starbucks patrons who are less than accepting of the gay lifestyle. Those patrons might start letter-writing campaigns and organizing protests and boycotts against Starbucks for permitting this behavior in their stores. In response, Howard Schultz might write and open letter to the gay community asking (not telling) them to please not make Starbucks the focal point of their demonstrations. In that letter, he might say that Starbucks respects the personal gender attraction choices of its clientele, but it does not want to be the battle ground for the debate.

That is what has happened here, except that it is about guns instead of genitalia.