Starbucks folds to antis

[jmra]

Starbucks and Guns. Private Property their choice.

I believe Mr Schultz missed the entire US Constitution in his letter. Perhaps he's not read it.

Actually I think he understands it better than most. He was forced to make a business decision that he didn't want to make because of a few stupid people. Don't blame him, blame the stupid people.

The Beauty Of True Liberty given to us all from our Founders. One cannot infringe on a free mans god given right to be armed because one does not like arms just as one cannot silence a free mans speech because one doesn't like the topic. My natural right "to be" outweighs Mr. Schultz "perceived right" to feel good about some "frivolous gun debate" that shouldn't be. I will not force my will on any man to "be armed" and no man will force their will on me to be "unarmed". This is Liberty and the U.S Constitution, written by better men, guarantees my natural right to bear arms will not be infringed. "Come and Take Them" has true meaning in the history of man throughout the ages. Our forefathers understood this and have handed us all a beautiful Constitution to preserve our Freedom...

If one becomes alarmed by the sight of a Law Abiding American bearing Arms one should move to a Country that has abolished this Natural Right of Free men. Politicians and Judges Included...

None of which has anything to do with a bunch of stupid people with guns making very poor decisions that will ultimately result in less places you can carry.

[rbwhatever1]

Starbucks and Guns. Private Property their choice.

I believe Mr Schultz missed the entire US Constitution in his letter. Perhaps he's not read it.

Actually I think he understands it better than most. He was forced to make a business decision that he didn't want to make because of a few stupid people. Don't blame him, blame the stupid people.

The Beauty Of True Liberty given to us all from our Founders. One cannot infringe on a free mans god given right to be armed because one does not like arms just as one cannot silence a free mans speech because one doesn't like the topic. My natural right "to be" outweighs Mr. Schultz "perceived right" to feel good about some "frivolous gun debate" that shouldn't be. I will not force my will on any man to "be armed" and no man will force their will on me to be "unarmed". This is Liberty and the U.S Constitution, written by better men, guarantees my natural right to bear arms will not be infringed. "Come and Take Them" has true meaning in the history of man throughout the ages. Our forefathers understood this and have handed us all a beautiful Constitution to preserve our Freedom...

If one becomes alarmed by the sight of a Law Abiding American bearing Arms one should move to a Country that has abolished this Natural Right of Free men. Politicians and Judges Included...

None of which has anything to do with a bunch of stupid people with guns making very poor decisions that will ultimately result in less places you can carry.

And that thought my friend is why history always repeats itself...

[Jaguar]

Starbucks and Guns. Private Property their choice.

I believe Mr Schultz missed the entire US Constitution in his letter. Perhaps he's not read it.

Actually I think he understands it better than most. He was forced to make a business decision that he didn't want to make because of a few stupid people. Don't blame him, blame the stupid people.

The Beauty Of True Liberty given to us all from our Founders. One cannot infringe on a free mans god given right to be armed because one does not like arms just as one cannot silence a free mans speech because one doesn't like the topic. My natural right "to be" outweighs Mr. Schultz "perceived right" to feel good about some "frivolous gun debate" that shouldn't be. I will not force my will on any man to "be armed" and no man will force their will on me to be "unarmed". This is Liberty and the U.S Constitution, written by better men, guarantees my natural right to bear arms will not be infringed. "Come and Take Them" has true meaning in the history of man throughout the ages. Our forefathers understood this and have handed us all a beautiful Constitution to preserve our Freedom...

If one becomes alarmed by the sight of a Law Abiding American bearing Arms one should move to a Country that has abolished this Natural Right of Free men. Politicians and Judges Included...

So if Fred Phelps and the Westboro Baptist Church folks showed up at a Starbucks holding signs and shouting at people, Mr. Schultz would just have to let them protest in his stores?

There is also a very strong private property right in this country and Texas codifies it in PC 30.06 when it comes to firearms. A private business or private person no more has to allow Westboro than firearms, their property, their rules. On public property you have a point, but to use a business that makes it money from people wanting coffee - all kinds of people, not just those that agree with Westboro, means that they have a right to exclude demonstrations by Westboro in their stores. I bet if Fred Phelps showed up at a Starbucks without signs or yelling his hate, they would serve him a cup of coffee.

Go open carry at the Capitol, it is public property and they cannot force you to disarm (well they can, but I would agree that is a violation of your liberties.) Write to your representatives, that is free speech. Protest on the grounds of the Capitol, I drove 250 miles to do so last spring. But don't tell me that every business must support your view and allow you to carry on their property, that is an infringement on the business owner's natural rights.

Mr. Schultz is not forcing you to go unarmed, he is forcing you to choose a different place to purchase coffee if you are. And even that is not exactly true, Starbucks hasn't put up 30.06 signs yet so carry concealed if you really need a cup of Starbucks.

[suthdj]

My take on all this is SB made a bad choice when they went and made their statement. I won't argue he had his reasons and valid reasons. However he could have handled it on a case by case base if they were causing problems and tell them to leave, so simple, no different than if a bunch of XYZ crowd came by and was a problem.
Now as for the open carry part of this here is my take on it, it may be legal to walk down the street with your weapon slung across your back but how many morons do you see walking around with a wood saw, chain saw, wood splitter or a hammer etc.... they are all tools and have a place to be in the open SB's is not that place.

[Redneck_Buddha]

Ever since Schultz publicly excoriated a stockholder regarding his stance on gay marriage and basically said people who favor traditional marriage have no right to their opinion, I have not been to a Starbucks.

[CHLLady]

Just watched Colion Noir's response and found it BRILLIANT and right on.

[terryg]

For what it's worth, here is the webform email I just sent to Starbucks:

-----
Regarding Open Letter on Guns:

Let me start by apologizing that Starbucks got drawn into this battle. I don't know for sure whether it was gun control activist (with campaigns such as “BREW not BULLETS”), or gun rights activist (with “Starbucks Appreciation Days”, etc) that first drew the line in the sand right though the middle of your stores. But Starbucks made it clear from the beginning that they did not wish to be drawn into the debate. As a gun right supporter, I did appreciate your original policy of following the various local and state laws in Starbucks locations. But it became clear fairly early on that Starbuck’s neutral stance was not going to satisfy certain groups on both sides of the equation.

I am ashamed that many people who support easing restrictions on open carry, think that the best way to promote their cause is to push the boundaries and make others uncomfortable in the process. When they insist on doing this, it only hurts the case for the rest of us law-abiding gun owners who just want to retain the right to private self-defense.

So when I first read the open letter, I truly felt empathy for the plight that was forced upon Starbucks as an entity. Many of us honestly saw the writing on the walls and were not surprised. I was mostly pleased by the tenor of the written response and thought it did a decent job at explaining the circumstances accurately.

Based upon the fact that the written letter focused on open carry and did not ban all guns outright, my intention was to keep doing as I always do which is to carry concealed pretty much everywhere that I go. This is just the way that I live my life (wallet, keys, money clip, gun). It is a lifestyle driven not out of fear, but much like the Boy Scout motto of simply being prepared. Since I thought the response was reasonable under the difficult circumstances, I intended to still support Starbuck’s with my dollars.

However, during the interview with Neil Cavuto; Mr. Schultz made it very clear, in a way that the letter did not, that his hope is that his request would apply to those who would carry concealed into the stores as well. So now, while I understand why and empathize with Starbucks because they were essentially forced to choose a side, I feel I have little choice but to find alternative businesses to support with my dollars.

In my opinion, it is the open carry advocates and gun control advocates who initiated this battle. So I understand having to make a choice in that regard. But by expanding the request to those of us who have always chosen to fly under the radar, Mr. Schultz drew his own line further than was needed. But beyond that, I simply refuse to visit places that require me to disarm unless I absolutely have to. And since there are plenty of other options, I don’t have to disarm to get a good cup of coffee.

Sincerely,

-----

[tbrown]

They had three choices. They could officially side with those who oppose human rights, such as RKBA. They could officially side with those who want to advance human rights. Or, despite the lies, they actually had the ability to take no official position on the issue, while dealing with problem individuals as individuals instead of discriminating against groups of people.

[The Annoyed Man]

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.

[Sport Coach]

This is very similar to motorcycles and loud pipes (not to open another debate). Some motorcyclists say that loud pipes are a "right" but people who don't like motorcycles for any reason use the loud ones to ban all others. With Starbucks, the open carry has set off enough controversy that the CEO has simply said he doesn't want the controversy anymore - carry concealed but quit making the store a battleground. For motorcycles, the American Motorcycle Association, the overriding organization finally made a statement that loud pipes irritate more than anything. For Starbucks, the CEO is saying open carry irritates more than it is worth. We (pro 2nd A) now decide if we want to continue to carry in Starbucks, concealed and welcomed as I read it, or force a business to put up 30.06 signs and keep us out for business reasons. It is our decision and our fate. I vote to conceal and carry the debate/conflict/argument/stand elsewhere.

[gringo pistolero]

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.

[goose]

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.

This may be an over simplification but I think the difference would still be that MLK took the protest/marches/etc to the places and buisnesses that were fighting against his desire for change. He didn't take his protests to the houses of his contributors and sympathizers.

If you repeatedly punch a friend in the face, regardless of how good a friend they are, they will at some point ask you to leave. IMO, Starbucks got tired of the bruising.

[Cedar Park Dad]

Starbucks and Guns. Private Property their choice.

I believe Mr Schultz missed the entire US Constitution in his letter. Perhaps he's not read it.

Actually I think he understands it better than most. He was forced to make a business decision that he didn't want to make because of a few stupid people. Don't blame him, blame the stupid people.

The Beauty Of True Liberty given to us all from our Founders. One cannot infringe on a free mans god given right to be armed because one does not like arms just as one cannot silence a free mans speech because one doesn't like the topic. My natural right "to be" outweighs Mr. Schultz "perceived right" to feel good about some "frivolous gun debate" that shouldn't be. I will not force my will on any man to "be armed" and no man will force their will on me to be "unarmed". This is Liberty and the U.S Constitution, written by better men, guarantees my natural right to bear arms will not be infringed. "Come and Take Them" has true meaning in the history of man throughout the ages. Our forefathers understood this and have handed us all a beautiful Constitution to preserve our Freedom...

If one becomes alarmed by the sight of a Law Abiding American bearing Arms one should move to a Country that has abolished this Natural Right of Free men. Politicians and Judges Included...

So if Fred Phelps and the Westboro Baptist Church folks showed up at a Starbucks holding signs and shouting at people, Mr. Schultz would just have to let them protest in his stores?

There is also a very strong private property right in this country and Texas codifies it in PC 30.06 when it comes to firearms. A private business or private person no more has to allow Westboro than firearms, their property, their rules. On public property you have a point, but to use a business that makes it money from people wanting coffee - all kinds of people, not just those that agree with Westboro, means that they have a right to exclude demonstrations by Westboro in their stores. I bet if Fred Phelps showed up at a Starbucks without signs or yelling his hate, they would serve him a cup of coffee.

Go open carry at the Capitol, it is public property and they cannot force you to disarm (well they can, but I would agree that is a violation of your liberties.) Write to your representatives, that is free speech. Protest on the grounds of the Capitol, I drove 250 miles to do so last spring. But don't tell me that every business must support your view and allow you to carry on their property, that is an infringement on the business owner's natural rights.

Mr. Schultz is not forcing you to go unarmed, he is forcing you to choose a different place to purchase coffee if you are. And even that is not exactly true, Starbucks hasn't put up 30.06 signs yet so carry concealed if you really need a cup of Starbucks.

Jaguar has the way of it.

[Charles L. Cotton]

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.

I was alive and paying a great deal of attention. The marches and rallies as carried out by MLK were not confrontational at all. The attracted attention, but they were not confrontational unless the observers wanted to interpret them as such. Governor Wallace was confrontational, Malcolm X was confrontational, the New Black Panthers are confrontational, in-your-face open-carry folks who invade private businesses with rifles and shotguns in a doomed attempt to obtain a political goal are confrontational.

Chas.

[VMI77]

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.

How could you select a better Statesmen to be like than George Washington?

If they are good workmen, they may be from Asia, Africa or Europe; they may be Mahometans, Jews, Christians of any sect, or they may be Atheists.... [George Washington, to Tench Tighman, March 24, 1784, when asked what type of workman to get for Mount Vernon, from The Washington papers edited by Saul Padover]