Now that Starbucks’ non-ban ban has been announced, Shannon Watts and her disarmament org are happier than a soccer mom with a venti decaf vanilla soy latte and a Cheerios-free minivan over what amounts – practically speaking – to a non-win win. From their web site:
Moms Demand Action congratulates Starbucks on its decision to keep weapons out of its stores. SInce July, Moms Demand Action members around the country have been asking Starbucks to change its policy, which had allowed patrons to carry loaded firearms into Starbucks stores in states that allow open and concealed carry. We are grateful to Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz for stating unequivocally, “Everyone is welcome in our stores, but weapons are not.”
It irritates the hell out of me to see this stupid wench happy.
I know. It irritates me more than Starbuck’s policy.
+1 on that… *sigh* I am going to miss Starbucks… glad I don’t own stock in them.
I always thought their coffee was overpriced garbage anyways. Pick some good stuff up from the store or try to find a local coffee house and brew it at home. There always the internet, you can order stuff online have it sent directly to your house. May I suggest The Refinery from Goshen Indiana. Good coffee, ships directly to your home.
Peet’s Coffee – Major Dickason’s blend. I know they’re anti-gun, but their coffee is just so damn good.
What irritates me even more than seeing her happy? That “The people of the Gun” handed this one to her, in it’s very own to-go cup.
The libs played it perfectly didn’t they? Or should I say …. “the ladies” ??
They created the situation, they goaded the men into it and the men just did exactly what they wanted all along.
Go along with what “the ladies” want at your peril, men. It never ends well for you.
I laugh at the people who are like, “Omg, boycott Starbucks!” What did you think was going to happen? Seriously? The People of the Gun just had a NY City or Los Angeles LEO-style incident where an innocent bystander got fragged by our awful aim.
Starbucks is a totally neutral company with no flesh in our battle. All they want to do is make and sell the world’s best (in their mind) coffee. Fine! More power too them. Instead they got totally slimed in a fight they desperately wanted to avoid. And we dragged them into it.
Thank you open carry demonstrators; way to alienate and push away potential supporters.
“Use it or lose it” didn’t really help in this case now, did it? Shoving your rights down other people’s throats is as bad as having restrictions on 2A protections being shoved down our throats by the anti gun crowd via new gun control legislation.
Forget Shannon Watts; she’s just extremist background static. Our own versions of Shannon Watts shot us in the a55 on this one!
I would partly agree. They are trying to sell coffee. When dudes are hanging out in the front of their store with open carry weapons it scares off the “no-gun” customers. To starbucks – it appears they don’t really care about pro-gun or anti-gun. – they only want to sell coffee. So if open carry guys are getting in the way of that – they will address. Likewise if a moms demand action parade were loitering about all over the starbucks patios – they would address that as well.
I am pro open carry and pro concealed carry but ultimately pro-rights. Being on their patio or in their store is starbucks property and we are their guests. Their place – their rules and I respect that. It is disappointing given the benefits of having concealed carriers amongst the people, but again, That is their store, their right, and their choice. There are a great many examples of robberies in starbucks:
but it is their place, not ours, so it is their call.
Corporate property ownership does NOT trump an indivuduals natural right to keep and bear arms.
Personal property rights trump just about everything.
So a business can post signs stating “No Blacks” or “Please leave your yarmulkes at the door” just the same? Where do we find the list of civil rights that are OK to restrict on private property?
Yes, a business should have the freedom to choose who it does business with (and vice versa).
“Corporate property ownership does NOT trump an individuals natural right to keep and bear arms.”
“So a business can post signs stating “No Blacks” or “Please leave your yarmulkes at the door” just the same? Where do we find the list of civil rights that are OK to restrict on private property?”
This is difficult to answer. You have the right to refuse service. If you tell them it is because they are black you will be in trouble. More info here:
But lets be fair. Suppose a man comes to your ranch with a gun and says one of his cattle is in your field. Suppose you don’t recognize him as a neighbor. Suppose you don’t trust him. Maybe you would prefer he leave his gun in his truck, or get off your property before you go looking for his cattle. Your private property – your rules. This is very clear to me and I am in agreement.
Starbucks may be a corporation. It’s stock owners may have a small claim to that company but that company has an appointed board and a CEO. The CEO apparently has made the decision to issue that letter on behalf of the companies stock holders. I don’t see any problem with this. Starbucks property is Starbucks property. If you are a stock holder write the CEO a letter and complain. If not, then stop whining. They are within their rights. I am very much pro gun, but I am ultimately pro rights. This is not explained in the 2nd amendment, probably because it was obvious.
Totally agreed. That little stunt the brain trust over at CT Citizens Defense League pulled sending a contingent to the Newton, CT Starbucks back in August which resulted in Starbucks closing early that day probably was the final straw.
The simple fact is that latte-swilling Soccer Moms like Watts buy more of Starbuck’s products than gun toting in your face open carry pushers. We forced Starbucks to choose and they made the sensible business choice. The sad fact is that the militant open carry crowd will learn the wrong lesson here. It’s not about “normalizing” the sight of open carry. There are simply not ever going to be enough people doing it to make a difference. Some won’t do it because its not legal in their state. Some won’t do it because tactically, it is a poor choice, and some simply don’t want to go through what RF went through that time he tried open carrying (legally) in RI.
It’s a happiness front, Matt. It’s hard, no, it’s impossible, to believe she doesn’t have fears. Everyone does.
For instance, she fears guns, and delusionally believes that by getting rid of guns, we’ll… I mean SHE’ll, be safer.
She might remain safe; life has a random sort of nature, but causality is far stronger than randomness.
The most believable option, to me, is that she’s a bit delusional, but a willing pawn in a disarmament process. This is where her thought-pattern crumbles and falls into dust: she falsely believes that, by doing the bidding of those who manipulate her, they will “keep her safe”.
I will continue to carry concealed handgun(s) into Starbucks, so Ms. Watts put that in your pipe and smoke it.
I wonder about the “pipe” you’re referring to. 😉
I hope an employee tinkles in her latte.
What ever happened to not publishing the names of deranged psychopaths? (Editorially speaking of course)
Starbucks should sue for unlawful use of their trademark.
Weapons are still allowed. Just not welcomed.
“We are respectfully requesting those customers carrying a gun respect that and don’t bring their gun into Starbucks,” said Howard Schultz, Starbucks CEO, on CNN’s “New Day” on Wednesday morning.
He emphasized that it was a request, not a ban, and that those who carried firearms into the store would still be served and would not be asked to leave.
Note that a lot of us made comments along the lines of “this is just about open carry,” but Schultz isn’t making that distinction at all. I guess police officers should leave their gats in the car also, then.
The memo explicitly exempts LEOs from Howard’s ire.
Whoops, you’re right! Listening more carefully (http://newday.blogs.cnn.com/2013/09/18/starbucks-ceo-keep-guns-away/) and reading the entire memo more carefully, it actually does sound like he’s concerned with open carry fairly specifically, even if most of the actual statements are all-inclusive.
Would someone please take one for the team and give Shannon Watts some much demanded “action”?
It might take her mind off of being such a douche…………
I wouldn’t do her with your, well, you know the rest.
Ralph – That was harsh……really harsh……
But I wouldn’t do her with my……either
I’d do her with yours . . . lmao.
From my understanding, Shannon, there’s been no policy change. For once, the left-coast liberal company is forthcoming with its true opinion, though: “We don’t want guns in our stores”. However, no anti-gun signs will be posted, and no one will be asking customers to leave.
I would bet if you asked 100 business men, at least 95 of them would say they didn’t want guns in their stores. I’m also glad to know Starbucks has been hiding it’s true feelings about guns all this time. Of course, all they had to do is say “No Open Carry” when they first opened and none of this would have ever happened.
If you really want to push “open carry” starting wearing you gun in to your bank. That should go well. Also when you go to the post office or maybe a police station. I’m sure those people know and understand you constitutional rights, and will respect you for showing the world you’re on the side of truth and justice.
Before the MDA and OC at Newtown drama, there was no need for Starbuck’s Management to differentiate between Open Carry and Concealed Carry. They made a purely business decision that alienated what they hoped was the smallest number of customers, present and potential. If you concealed carry and don’t “make a scene” about it, I’m sure not one word will be said by anyone.
They don’t want Dirty Harry in their stores, and I can’t blame them at all.
Except that’s not true. There has been a policy change. They were officially neutral before, now they’re officially anti-gun, though in a halfhearted, wishy-washy way.
As an analogy, suppose Starbucks had said “we were neutral before, but we have decided Catholicism doesn’t fit with our atmosphere, so we’re requesting Catholics no longer enter our stores. However, we don’t want to put our employees in the position of confronting fanatic Catholics, so we’re not asking them to enforce it.” How could that be interpreted in any way other than anti-Catholic?
^^This is how I look at it.
Their official position has changed, but no policy has changed.
Very true, Carlos. And I’m sick and tired of all the statist games. Go on, one by one, and bar us from your businesses. We are the many, and WE WILL TAKE YOU DOWN.
Store OWNERS tend to NOT be left wing kooks. You estimate is way off.
Business owners come in all shapes, colors, and political persuasions. You’ve bought into the idea that business and business owners are conservative/republican. They are not. They are people who want their businesses to do well (usually). That’s it. That is not inherently liberal or conservative or democratic or republican. Starbucks decision makers have a history of supporting lefty causes. That’s why they got in hot water for trying to be neutral on this issue.
+100. Business owners are far from monolithic. A whole load of ’em are stone ill-informed assholes.
I guess Starbucks believe they buy more coffee.
Starbucks is hitching a ride on what they believe is the winning side; it’s not anything beyond that.
They chose wrong; make sure they continue to get the message: WE’LL CHOOSE AGAINST YOU ASSHOLES, if you don’t change your ways…
Keep calm and carry on!
Eh, I’ll do whatever I want. Of course, I live in NY and have a restricted license so I can’t risk being “outed” in our local ‘Bucks. When I get to move to America I will carry in their stores and anyone who doesn’t like it can kiss my azz.
Nice. And yuuuup. Last time I was in NYC I went with family to tour the Empire State Building and step out on the deck and such. Interestingly enough, you have to go through a security screening with metal detectors to do it. I was carrying a small (maybe 2.5″ blade) folding pocket knife and didn’t think for a second they would care. Tossed it in the tray with my phone and keys and whatever. WOW, they reacted like I had a second head. Guy holds it up and is like, “well whaaat do we have here?” and calls a few other guys over. They examine the knife and look at me all sideways and critically. Then one of them asks, somewhat condescendingly, “so where are you from, then?” and by the tone it’s obvious he’s thinking I’m from some backwoods rural place (even though I was dressed fairly nicely). I said, “America. I didn’t realize I had left it, actually.” Got some smirks in response. Then I answered honestly, “I’m from San Francisco. Sorry if you were expecting Alabama or something. I’ve carried a pocket knife every day since I was like 6 years old and they’re extremely handy tools. Is there some sort of problem with this one?” …They put it in a bag and gave me a tag and told me they would have to hold onto it in their locker and I could pick it up when I was on my way out. Ugghhh.
YES, you should move to free America if you have the chance. I left San Francisco for [the conservative side of] WA and it is almost like a different country. In multiple good ways.
You encountered Bloomberg’s concept of freedom in America. He’s pushing the head of his secret police, Kelly, for Department of Homeland Security Secretary.
VERY afraid. I mean, raise your hand if you don’t believe you’re a conquered populace….
I hear you, Jeremy.
In my travels I’ve been scoping out potential alternative places of abode in areas supportive of good gun rights, good attitude, good manners, and good conservative politics none of which prevails much in CA any more unless you live in the open desert or backcountry; and even there it’s iffy.
The Stratosphere in Las Vegas has the same thing if you go to the top, although I don’t recall checking in a knife being a big deal (don’t recall if you could check a gun, was a long time ago). But I had to wonder what it was about the extra altitude that would make you more likely to stab someone than you would be on the ground floor. You couldn’t throw something off if you wanted to, there was a double fence about 8ft high.
In all fairness, my honest guess is that they have had problems with vandalism — people tagging things with markers or spray paint or engraving with a knife or some other sharp object. I bet they would have taken a Sharpie or other permanent marker as well. You first go through a museum with photos on walls (behind glass/plexi, of course) and other things before you get out onto the deck. That said, the way they treated me for simply having a pocket knife of my person was completely derisive and as though I was some prepper tin foil hat lunatic. To them it couldn’t be anything but a weapon, and that’s honestly the last reason I carry a small pocket knife. I don’t know how people survive without one! It gets used all the freakin’ time, and if I had a buck for every time I’ve loaned it to somebody for a minute so they could use it, I’d be retired. Well… it would have paid for every knife I’ve ever purchased.
My favorite thing is that half of the time when I loan my pocket knife to somebody who needs it, they ask “why do you carry a knife?” in a sort of weird, suspicious way. Gosh, I don’t know, that seems like a stupid question coming from somebody who obviously needs one and just had to go around asking random people for help just so they could open a box and get on with their day.
When they asked “where are your from”? You should have shouted, ROLL TIDE BABY!!!
Wait a second. Starbucks didn’t ban anything. They made a request. And then said in the request that it wasn’t a ban, and that they weren’t going to enforce a ban, which they have no legal way to do in most states in the first place. Please let’s not spread disinformation the same way that gun control advocates do…not even as a joke. It’s bad enough we have to listen to this idiot say her group “won” without spinning up those in the gun culture whose reading comprehension leaves a bit to be desired.
The fact is, the request would never have been made if a bunch of “advocates” hadn’t decided that carrying ARs and AKs into Starbucks was a great public relations stunt, and thereby freaked out the sheople who, thanks to the media, see an AR and immediately think Shooting Spree.
What did they think was going to happen? Do you honestly think the number of people who carry and will feel the need to not frequent a crappy coffee shop any more, comes anywhere near to the number of people who get freaked out by open carry? As a numbers game, we lose…and we get to look bad in the media because idiots like Watts will get more positive press than we ever will.
It was a losing proposition from the get go when OC advocates tried to portray a company who had no opinion as a supporter. And now we get a public relations hit, and bad press, on top of yet another spree shooting, to add to the shit sandwich this week.
Yeah I don’t think “Starbucks Appreciation Days” were the
We show our appreciation every day when go in either open carry
or concealed to buy our favorite cup of coffee … no need to tout
it in large numbers.
The best thing we can do, is to continue to go in and carry as we normally do and have for as long as we have been doing so … People need to realize that firearms owners are responsible, law abiding citizens. The more good character we exude, the more people will lose their hoplophobia.
You obviously have never been in a constitutional carry state, say…
Because when one is in one, and sees perhaps ordinary people walking around with sidearms, or a rifle slung on their shoulder….
It’s no different than seeing someone carrying a cell phone….
Or a woman carrying her purse….
Such a big deal over nothing!
I live in Missouri, which is an open carry state. But if I walk down Main Street with a 9mm openly on my hip, it will take about 10 minutes for the police to come and talk to me. They won’t do anything except ask a few question, then probably talk about guns in a friendly manor for a while but I will still be stopped. It would be nice if the whole country was Arizona, but since we’re not, we have to contend with what we have. A group of people pushed what Starbucks allowed, and Starbucks changed it rules.
I’m not sure what is your definition of “Constitutional Carry State”, but I assume you mean the right to open carry without a permit. If so, then New Hampshire is one such state. You need a license to carry concealed but can open carry freely. In the 20 years that I have lived in this area, I have seen exactly two people open carry (outside of a gun store). I can’t speak to how things are in AZ having never been there, but I have been to many other states across the country with similar results. Aside from the occasional person and the open carry demonstration, you just don’t see people walking around with guns on their hips or slung over their shoulders.
And before anyone goes off with some smart-ass comment about the Northeast, do your homework. NH is has some of the most liberal gun laws in the country as does VT, which allows concealed carry as well as open carry without a permit. Seems as I can recall that bastion of Gun Rights, Texas still doesn’t allow open carry and its gun licensing program is a lot stricter than what they have in NH or VT. The simple fact is that while people can do it (open carry) the vast majority choose not to.
Considering there is only 4 of them, and 2 of those are very recent, neither has the majority of Starbucks customer base.
And even in those 4 states, it would have been unusual for dozens of people open carrying with ARs and AKs to show up all at once for an “appreciation” day.
It was a dumb move. Guns aren’t a political tool…they’re for self defense. And scaring people who aren’t comfortable with them, on purpose, never ends well for gun owners. There are better ways to show your support than dragging a business that just wants to sell overpriced, average coffee, and isn’t a part of the debate, into that debate.
And just how many MSM anchors and producers live in open carry states? And why do you think we get no favorable press?
So now we just need some CCW’s to take pictures “post-ban” inside a Starbucks with their shirt accidentally pulled up, or a bit of holster poking out the bottom, but still being served, to show those moms how effective the “ban” is.
Sounds like a good way to get Starbucks to enact an outright ban on guns in stores.
Exactly. This is where we lose our cool and get exploited. We are more concerned over the other side “rejoicing” than the issue at hand. Send calm, level-headed letters to Starbucks. Tell them you are not pleased with their decision and will now have to take your money elsewhere because of that decision. Respect their rules and take the high road. Don’t let a bunch of desperate housewives change or influence your behavior. If you wouldn’t “accidentally” take a picture of your concealed gun in a Starbucks, don’t do it now. The way to beat the other side is to not become the other side.
What are they going to do…use harsh language? Concealed means concealed, and the majority of states don’t recognize “no guns allowed” signs as having any force of law for those with permits.
Disney bans guns too…but that doesn’t stop hundreds of people from legally carrying concealed there every day.
They do have the force of law in AZ. You can be charged for trespassing if you carry into a business with a “no guns” sign.
Why not wear a button that says something like “Ask me why I carry?” A non-threatening, attention-getting item that could win converts and change attitudes instead of scaring sensitive, docile people away.
Maybe use MDA’s tactics against them. It’s called effective PR.
I don’t blame Starbucks. They just want to be left alone and sell overpriced coffee. They had a better policy than some because they didn’t post “gunbuster” signs. Then some obnoxious OC’ers started doing things like carrying M-4s into Starbucks. Then the antis started shouting.
Starbucks’ “action” — really just a weasely non-action with some good PR, since they are not enforcing anything or putting up signs which would have legal effecfts — is just trying to get the issue to go away. They are a business, and not a firearms business. This is the best compromise they could come up with. I don’t see how we can blame them.
I don’t blame them. I just can’t bring myself to drink burned coffee.
Burned coffee. That’s phrase jumps to mind whenever I see or hear the name Starbucks. They had to move out of my town.
Yeah, they do tend to over roast their coffee, and the dark roast is often burned. Which is too bad, since I tend to like the darker roasts.
Yeah Howard Schultz is doing this to appease the Anti’s as he’s under pressure from them, some of who are politically connected. I’m sure he and his top brass don’t really care either way … they just want to keep Starbucks out of controversy and to keep the Anti’s quiet by doing this. This appeases the gun grabbers, and still lets us carry in Starbucks. Think about it … it’s a diplomatic “feel good” piece. And he’s asking the Barista’s or management at the stores NOT to enforce it. It’s a request, that is all, not a ban.
Here’s the memo to store partners here: https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=610680338984276&set=a.481136825271962.123362.364791260239853&type=1&theater
Crazy, really crazy. With but a single exception, every atrocity in the last 50 years has happened in a gun-free zone.
It is way past time that people should see gun-free zones for what they really are: a target-rich, reduced risk, shooting gallery for lunatics, where victims are deprived of the ability to protect self or others.
The most dangerous places in this entire country are gun-free zones. Proven over and over again. That should be crystal clear to anyone with more than a quarter of a functional brain.
Now they want MORE gun-free zones?
The efforts of Moms Demand Action will result in more innocent deaths, not less. I hope they are held to account if one of these atrocities is committed in a Starbucks, or anywhere else they convince to go this ill-advised and dangerous route.
Me, I try to avoid places where my chances of being shot by a crazy person are highly increased. I guess I will have to include Starbucks on that list now. Shame.
That’s not actually true. The big crazy shooting sprees for no discernible reason other than crazy… sure. But the fact is, there are 4 or more people killed in drug related shootings all the time that don’t get counted into those numbers, and are not in gun free zones.
It’s a comfortable fiction, but it’s fiction none-the-less.
Yes, those are the ones I meant. I could never consider anyone mixed up in drug dealing to be “innocent” in that sense. If we do not include idiots getting blown away over drug deals, and gang turf wars, then the statement is valid. Tweak the numbers as you wish, but the fact remains that gun-free zones are killing grounds.
I tend to think of mass killings of drug dealers as urban renewal. So let’s rephrase: mass killings of innocent people occur in gun free zones.
Couldn’t agree with you more. Well put indeed.
For all their claims of not being pro or anti gun, Starbucks has now chosen a side, and it’s not the side of the Constitution. Of course antis are going to chalk this up as a win, because it is. And the pro-gun side should absolutely put this down as a loss, because it is.
The Constitution protects private property rights from government, and Starbucks is participating in that right.
Where was the government involved in any of this?
I understand Starbucks isn’t restrained in any way by the Constitution. Those are specifically protections for citizens from government. However, one side is fighting to gut the Constitution and one side is fighting to preserve it. When choosing a side, Starbucks chose the wrong side.
Starbucks hasn’t done a single thing against the Constitution. The freedom to dictate terms for your private property is part of what the Constitution is there to protect.
They chose the side of profit…which is the only responsibility they have, and what their shareholders demand.
Sheople frightened of big scary firearms vastly outnumber butt hurt patriots who will take there overpriced shitty coffee dollars elsewhere. It’s simple economics.
Don’t be so hard on the lady. They have had so little to celebrate since they decided to take a
gun controlcivilian disarmament stance. Do we really need to ruin their day by letting them in on the fact that they didn’t actually win anything?
“…not a ban…”
“….not a policy change…”
Yes, technically true, but it is the furthering of the demonization of legal gun owners. Keep in mind that’s the first step in ostracizing a group of people and making it easier to take away their rights.
Maybe next time we’ll try not to make a very large corporation a lightning rod for a very divisive issue. We should take cues from the LGBT movement. If their way to gain acceptance was to barge into southern churches and start making out and being very flamboyant, they probably would not have had the gains their movement has had over the past couple of decades.
That’s exactly what some tried to do at Chick-Fil-A, though
..didn’t hurt Chik-fil-A all that much, did it?
Let them do their happy dance. Guns are not banned from Starbucks. The CEO just kindly asked open-carry folks to stop making his stores the center of the open-carry debate. The moms win a Pyrrhic victory, the people of the gun still get to carry in his stores. Very corporate move.
Starbucks just shot themselves in the foot with this one. Though id guess this was more the result of political bribery in the shadows then some random banshee screaming all the time, because screaming doesn’t work when nobody listens.
And concealed carry works when nobody sees. Read the memo.
I just contacted Starbucks and let them know that I will never do business at any of their stores that post a no guns sign, I’m a Dunkin Donuts guy anyway and Starbucks coffee sucks, so it doesn’t really matter to me what they ban. http://customerservice.starbucks.com/app/contact/ask_confirm/refno/130918-002153
Whatever, their coffee sucks and their prices are too high anyway. I’d rather support my local coffee house ESPECIALLY because they don’t post No Weapons signs!
Harold has one job – maximize shareholder value. That’s it. If this move makes you want to boycott SBUX then you should let him know. Personally, I like their coffee and I’m not terribly offended by him asking people to not drag his coffee shops into a divisive issue. I think it would have been better if he just stated that and did not say don’t bring firearms into our stores. When I can I will still carry there. I have one job too – keep the wife happy and she’s not going to be pleased if I try to cut her off from those skinny vanilla lattes !
” Personally, I like their coffee and I’m not terribly offended by him asking people to not drag his coffee shops into a divisive issue.”
You can use that at the eulogy of the next person shot in their store where a No Weapons sign was posted.
Anmut, you’re preaching to the converted my friend. I’m forcibly disarmed in NY so I have no choice right now. If I make it to a free state, I will be ording my venti iced coffee’s with a firearm on my hip…openly if I can, concealed if I can’t.
Frank – get your arse to Wisconsin and you can come to Non-Starbucks coffee shops, concealed or open, with your new friend Anmut. 🙂
Until then, don’t give these clowns a dime more – even if it doesn’t apply to you because of your location.
If you read the memo, you’d realize that they will not be posting “No Weapons” signs. Carry in Starbucks if you want, just don’t be an ass about it.
Great, now Starbucks will be as safe as a Naval Yard or a public school.
It always was. Remember the Starbuck’s killings in NW DC a few years ago? Back when only the cops could possess in DC? The entire chain mourned for a day.
Non issue for me, I don’t drink coffee. But I’m predisposed to not liking Starbucks, because the zombies in my town block traffic with the backed up drive-thru. My wife used to stop a few times a week, until she realized how much cheaper it was to make her own at the house.
I told my wife that we need to change coffee brands. Preferably something known for NOT being fair trade, definitely NOT organic(al) and cheaper.
That said, what do I do with the few bags of ground beans in the cabinet?
Drink them? Are you really surprised Howard Schultz doesn’t like guns? He’s a both-coast liberal.
No, not surprised. Though, WA is pretty pro gun….
Anyway, I was hoping to get someone to comment on the futility of publicly dumping starbucks coffee.
If you can return the coffee for your money back, do so.
Otherwise drink it (but not publicly in such a way as to endorse them); they already have your money, throwing it out would cut off your nose to spite your own face.
If you have any of their paraphernalia (cups wit their logo on it, etc., stop using them where others can see it.
I don’t like for MDA to be rewarded in any fashion, and I won’t be going to Starbuck’s anymore (hey, I carry, and they asked me politely to not come in with a gun, so I will respect their request and not come in).
So, did MDA (and the money behind them) post a win? Maybe. Not on the same order of magnitude as, say, forcing CC down the throats of the Chicago machine, but anything that encourages MDA is bad.
MDA would claim victory using any pretext, including the absence of a pro-gun memo from Starbuck’s.
Add MDA to the enemies of freedom list. They’ve shown they have teeth and they should now have our attention.
They are a bunch of little girls in Yoga pants and push up bras.
Are you seriously unable to counter them?
Hang up your man club card. You’re ejected.
Mina, never underestimate your enemy. Never overestimate your own forces. Ignoring any of the above will lead to disaster. Plus, it’s a man card not an man club card.
That’s great, focus on the tiny semantic issue in my post.
There is a bigger point … see below.
“They are a bunch of little girls in Yoga pants and push up bras.”
Some of them, I’m sure. Not their leader. She has some serious PR exec credentials. She knows how to play dirty, and she’s funded. This group wants people to believe they are the local PTA, but they are not.
That isn’t to say they shouldn’t be countered. They certainly should.
and they are playing their game exactly as they plan.
counter them, each point with your counter point and you lose.
the only way to play and win is to change the game.
MINA!!!!!!! +1,000,000,000+ !!!
Goddamn. YOU GOT IT! The way to revolution is ALWAYS to CHANGE THE GAME.
There needs to be a serious dialogue on this, but I fear a lot of people here want to change the game.
Change the nature of the game, WE WIN. We are already winning, but most can’t perceive it yet.
And our only way to victory is to change the game, so the enemy is left flat-footed on an end run.
My point, which I am trying very hard to drive home is that you men do not seem to understand the women playbook.
If you did you would be winning. If you did you’d have never have responded to them in the first place. If you would stop allowing them to set the game and the rules they would not win.
You cannot win until you understand the game. You cannot win when you play the game the women’s way. It is so simple I don’t know how else to explain it.
“A strange game. The only winning move is not to play. How about a nice game of chess?”
I was hearing the computer in my head as I typed it, I admit.
It is a great analogy, though.
and yes just reading it makes me hear the computer saying it. one of my favs.
This is one of those situations where gun owners went too far. Starbucks was gun friendly until the @sshats in our camp decided to make their business a battleground. Starbucks just wants to sell coffee, not be the center of a rights debate. They put out this statement to get everyone out of their hair.
If a business is carry friendly, don’t put them in the spotlight unless they are openly proclaim it. If not, you will find a hole in your foot, and a door hitting you on the way out. Choose your fights wisely, or else you will make enemies where there were none before.
Some of us believe that the Right To Keep & Bear Arms should be taken as seriously as the right to go into a store as a black person or gay person. It is about discrimination and about safety. My safety – not the safety of Starbuck’s image.
Their house, their rules. Unless you want to own a business and be forced to allow a picket line inside for a cause you are indifferent about…
Sure, but there is a difference between just going about your business carrying for your protection and making a big deal of the fact that you are armed. Starbucks is reacting to the latter. I’m not thrilled about this either, but we should understand we got ourselves into this one.
The only people who make a big deal about open carry of firearms are the uninformed – hence the reason we open carry to inform and desensitize. It’s so funny that uniformed police open carry all the time, but a guy without a badge ordering a coffee with a gun on his hip – well that guy’s an a**hole!
They were not “Carry Friendly” they were Carry *Neutral*, in that they didn’t officially care one way or the other. (When someone thanks you for carrying, or posts a sign welcoming it, THAT is carry friendly). They have now been pushed from what I call “white” to “yellow” on the carry friendliness scale. (Green being genuinely friendly, and red being posted no whatever it is (oc, cc, guns in general, etc.)
BTW, everyone keeps calling them “MDA”
yes and I get a contact high every time they say it.
It also stands for Mogen David Adom, which is Israel’s equivalent of the Red Cross.
And the Muscular Dystrophy Association, whose initials they are sullying. Why isn’t there a cease and desist order?
Mmmm… I feel infinite empathy towards ye….
Peggy Noonan in the Wall Street Journal has the results of a personal discussion with Starbucks’ CEO at http://blogs.wsj.com/peggynoonan/2013/09/18/starbucks-ceo-on-guns-2/
It’s pretty clear he’s not considering this a win for *anyone* and might even be perturbed at the MDA stance.
At the end, she asked him if he owned guns and he deftly sidestepped the issue.
It seems he knows he’s running a business where there is no upside in catering to one side or the other of this issue and I can’t really fault him for that.
“We’re not pro-gun or anti-gun, and we decided to respectfully ask gun owners to leave their guns out of Starbucks.”
That’s the problem. You should have asked BOTH sides to leave the POLITICS out of Starbucks, and either side that cannot do that will be asked to leave.
I’d have no problem with Starbucks kicking out a group of OC’ers if they’re actually causing a disturbance (or simply gathering without purchasing anything), but I’d expect the same response if a group of MDA’ers were there starting a rally.
Despite trying so hard to remain neutral, they’ve actually picked a side.
I never visited their website, but the pictures of the MDA rallies are pretty embarrassing. I could get larger crowds standing on the street corner with a sign that says “Free Hugs”.
My notes are lost in the comments but here it is guys:
You are dealing (mostly) with a bunch of women who are acting in fear of guns.
Women are irrational beings who process information much differently then men. Many of them, particularly the anti-gun women, are more than likely married to men who are very Beta (i.e. doormats) and they are used to getting their way – and they do! with their husbands, with their politicians, with our culture, etc. etc. etc. (just look at feminism and how it has screwed us up for proof.)
If the men in the pro-gun camp could see their way to acting like men (I don’t mean this facetiously) and learn a bit about “solipsism” and “game” you’d easily be able to pull this out in victory.
Meeeting women on their battlefield will never, ever work. That’s where they want you. When you go to their battlefield you have failed the test.
If there is one segment of the male population that can and should pull off (finally) getting men back into the drivers seat in this country, it is you guys.
Ignore my words at your peril. Play their game and hunker down for the long haul and a lot of frustration. Play the game the “man’s way” and laugh your way to quick, efficient victory.
Mina, that is easier said than done. One of the problems we have in America is that our system is designed to focus on the victim and that the perpetrator is generally male and/or white.
Zimmerman kills Martin and its clearly a hate crime. Roderick Scott (a black man) walks out of his house to confront three white punks, proceeds to drill one of them (in New York, no less) and not only walks but no accusations of hate crimes are ever uttered.
Police are called to the scene of a domestic dispute. Irrespective of what really happened, the immediate assumption is that the man is the aggressor.
My friend’s wife (who had a traumatic childhood experience which he did not know about prior to marrying her) goes batshit crazy one day and takes his young children across the country to Idaho to live in a battered women’s shelter. Both people are attorneys. During court proceedings, it becomes clear that the wife is a pathological liar, yet the state (Massachusetts) still extends her the benefit of the doubt and leaves the kids with her in the shelter.
The problem is that the deck is pretty heavily stacked against men. We let it get this way, no argument there, but the way out is going to be tricky. Women have been getting their way for centuries. Just look at the temperance movement that led to prohibition – it was largely spearheaded by women assisted by men who did what they were told (to your point).
The best thing we can do is to continue to push our points during those periods between highly emotional events. Men are better able to process difficult things than women are. The sight of dead children after a Newton cuts men very deeply – particularly when like me you have children of the same age as the victims. That said, we still have the ability to step back and take the longer view. Women completely shut down their logical processing center and operate on emotion – “we must do whatever we need to do to make sure this horrible event never happens again.”
A woman’s battlefield is emotion. Men’s battlefields are reason. The second can overcome the first, but we need to choose the appropriate battles.
…. but we also must resist their attempts to play the game their way. that is critically important. they are better at it, they have more practice at it and as you acknowledge they have been winning it for a long time.
By making our stand at Starbucks in ~response~ to the Moms … we agreed to play their game their way. And lost.
Take the lesson, that’s all I’m saying. Just take it.
I don’t believe that emotion is the opposite of reason. Emotion is a signal that causes desire to avoid or approach something. Reason is used to determine whether the thing should be avoided or approached.
I frequently hear the implication that emotion is the opposite of reason.
One could argue that women are irrational. One could argue that women are emotional. I’m not taking a stand on either of those statements right now, but I think that people making those statements should clarify just what it is that makes a heightened sense of emotion lead to bad decision making. Maybe it is unbalanced emotion, prioritizing some things over others.
The perception of an irrational and highly emotional person is largely based on our observances of people who are displaying actions which show their emotions, doing so in an irrational manner. A person feeling similar emotions but choosing to not behave irrationally is not recognized as an emotional person.
Interesting point, and an appealing one to me. Reason and emotion are not necessarily polar opposites, I agree. Just as hate is not the opposite of love (the opposite of love is FEAR), reason shouldn’t universally be thought of as opposite of emotion.
I always thought that the opposite of love is apathy, rather than fear. Love is when one feels authentic compassion, sympathy, or caring for another. Apathy is not feeling that.
I see the opposite of hate as being admiration. One does not approve of a hated person. One approves (possibly too much) of an admired person.
Approaching love selfishly results in misplaced priorities, taking things too far, refraining from necessary discipline. Approaching hate selfishly results in unnecessary violence and destruction. Love and hate go well together, but are not opposites. Hate in our culture usually means hate mixed with bad decisions and aggression.
+100,000. Farking best post I’ve ever READ. Mina, you’ve touched upon… no, you’ve BULLDOZED, into such a profound truth, that I have tears streaming down my cheeks.
I’m for YOU heading this blog! If it’s impossible, can we start our own together? It matters not if we ever meet. You’ve said something so profound, I’d be happy to be a small part of it.
I have actually reached out to a couple of men who I think can help and give more direction and better ideas than I can.
I am waiting to hear back from them.
Yes, I think we are at a critical juncture and it’s time for the men to bring out “the big guns” that the women don’t even know they have, and drag them onto the field they haven’t seen.
But, at the end of the day, the ladies will be happy that they were shown the way and will be the better for it. And so will we all.
Women are irrational beings
You seem pretty rational to me.
A huge compliment, Thank You.
MOAR! Cognitive Dissonance – Starbucks has not changed their policy.
Big damn deal. Get a CCW, put your shirt over your heater and go get your coffee. Or don’t.
Please also leave your yarmulke at the door, and if you’re gay/lesbian no holding hands inside the store.
Oh wait, only some civil rights need to be hidden from public view, gotcha.
time to organize an open carry event in her hubby’s art gallery . . . . with Dunkin Donuts coffee
or we could go to John and Shannon’s house . . . anybody want the address?? 🙂
Why not bring and display art like the Remington and Winchester posters to their gallery? Sort of a non-protest.
The Google tells me that he/she/they closed the gallery last year due to lackluster sales.
Or a political front?
I hate this…I travel on biz for a living. I’m not in love with starbucks, but dammit I can always find them in airports and hotel lobbies. Not great, but I know how to doctor it to make it something I actually like. And I can get it pretty much anywhere in the world that I travel.
Now wtf do I do? At home, no problem. Airplane coffee…no flippin way.
Howard, why did you cave to these idiots?
No problem we just get NRA,GOA,all progun organizations to boycott Starbucks Nationally, by the way Miss’ no nothing about firearms and hope to be a victim’,two can play that game.I say since Starbucks wants it both ways ,we don’t give it to them, If you want the stupid libatard moms ,go for it but we need to do some ‘grass root’ boycott, be public too and just like ‘buy American’ DON’T buy Starbucks.Let’s SEE who produces more business GUNOWNERS OF AMERICA, OR LIBERAL SOCCER MOMS.I personally will never go there again ever.Ther are plenty of coffee shops that will accept my business and my Firearm.
Do you really believe that all those moms gave up their lattes during the “boycott?” Get real. It was a fantasy.
For once I’d like to see a company with a ‘common sense’ approach to the issue:
XYZ, Inc. is in the business of serving the needs of our customers. We are not in the business of advocating for or against politically charged issues such as ‘gun control’. As such, XYZ, Inc. recognizes that we cannot provide security that guarantees that our facilities will be completely safe from the actions of criminals or the criminally insane. Further, we recognize that enacting a corporate policy that prevents our employees and customers from protecting themselves while at our facilities would place the company at great legal and moral risk. XYZ, Inc. simply asks that our customers and employees that choose to exercise their right to bear arms do so in a safe and discrete manner, in accordance with applicable laws.”
I would really like for some busnesses to not only allow firearms in this manner, but to raise the spectre of legal liability for banning them and then not providing the security needed to ensure their customers’ and employees’ safety. That might get some corporate lawyers rethinking their policies.
Oh, you mean like Starbuck’s did with their non-ban? Read the memo. All the words.
Okay, neighbors. Lottery time. How long until a “gun-free” Starbucks is shot up by a “deranged” shooter?
A month? Three? Six? A year?
Of course, he might be “deranged”. He might also have a semi-legit beef of some kind, albeit unjustifiable.
Or he might be on a mission from the ones who want us disarmed.
Ye who scoff at mind control: you have NOT done a shred of investigation. Search “MK-ULTRA”, “Project Artichoke”, and those will lead you to a dozen or more others.
Or just be idiot cockroaches and believe mind control doesn’t exist.
It always speaks volumes to me when groups like these post their press releases and articles, but don’t include a comments section. Nor do they have a “contact us” plainly visible; one must go digging for it if there is one at all. But, hey, if you’ve got a buck to give them, there’s a HUGE button plaingly visible at all times!
““We’re thrilled. We believe that this is the beginning of the end for guns in public,” Shannon Watts, founder of the group, told MSNBC. “It’s similar to when it became so distasteful to smoke in public or drink and drive. This is the first domino to fall.””
“But the organization will continue to pressure Starbucks—as well as other companies—to ban weapons completely from stores and premises.
“We absolutely expect to see a full-fledged ban within the next 12 months,” Watts said. “This is just the beginning.””
So…. Starbuck’s non-decision, in an effort to get MDA off their back, may end up causing MDA to ramp up their lobbying efforts against Starbucks to have a ban implemented.
Perhaps they made the same type of “mistake” the open carriers did… unintended consequences?
They will reap what they sorta sewed. McDonalds has a better brew at far more affordable price (unless your addicted to that sissy stuff Starbucks sells)
Unfortunately this now frees up Moms Demand Absurdity to attack new fronts. As long as they were tied up fighting over Starbucks, they were distracted by a pointless battle.
ding! ding! ding! exactly why we should have ignored it, and not escalated it.
Open-carried a fine-looking, full-size Kimber CDP II into my local Starbucks this morning, and got the thumbs up from the regular barista (name witheld to protect her identity). I never carry this gun, but it was such a nice morning that it called for something with bit of panache. Or at least better-looking than the all-black regular carry pieces.
This Starbucks rents space inside a large grocery store that doesn’t take a position on guns, so I felt fine in leaving it on my waistband when I ordered my regular, black coffee. My barista said they all rolled their eyes when they got the gun memo from HQs. The CEO is trying to execute a balancing act, and please everyone at the same time. The employees just want to be left alone to make coffee and tips.
From the photo:
“What should I do if a customer openly carries a weapon into my store? Should I serve the customer?
Welcome and serve all customers as usual. Partners are not to confront a customer or ask them to leave because they are carrying a weapon into our stores.”
I just wanted to point that out.
I say get your coffee at the local gas station. The clerk(s) inside will not mind a responsible, legal CC/OC citizen stopping in for a bit.
Open carry is for spergtards.
I really appreciate you expressing your twisted notions through conundrums and nonsense phrases, freaked-up Yoda….
Concealed means concealed. Who is going to know. My guess is that Starbucks management knows this and what they are really saying is they don’t want open carriers in their stores. A wiser choice would have been just to say that and leave it up to the individual franchises to enforce the policy. In a place like Arlington or similar liberal enclave in a free state that rule would be enforced. Laramie Wyoming not so much.
Legal or not, I’m still gonna do it. Not that I ever go to Starbucks – I don’t even drink coffee.
Dunkin has better coffee and Starbucks is overpriced. I never visit them by choice.
As long as there aint no sign on the door forbidding guns….business as usual.
And if a sign does appear on the door forbidding guns…carry anyway (concealed or open). The worst thing that can happen is you would be asked to remove the firearm from the property.
No, you’re basically on-target, but the worst thing is having the cops called on you, and being unlawfully arrested. It’s civil disobedience, an American tradition. Use it well.
Not saying that a nasty cop would not arrest you, but I was not aware that they could, under such conditions, legally. I thought they were only able to enforce the employers right to ask you to remove the gun from the property (If you refused, they would/could indeed arrest you).
You mean if you don’t “see” any firearms then there are none? Is that the way it works? OK.
Yep, you got it: no woman, no cry.
I don’t get the Starbucks rant. They didn’t ban guns, read the letter. They simply asked all the nut jobs to stop bringing their AR’s into the store. Not an unreasonable request in my mind. They are a retail establishment that caters to all sides of the issue. You can still carry in a Starbucks, open or concealed, if the law allows, just don’t be so obvious and in their face about it. A 938 on your belt clip is reasonable open carry, leave your Barrett .50 at home please. No need to boycott Starbucks, they’ve done nothing wrong besides asking to stay out of this.
He said “now that Star B has announced the non-ban ban” and you even quoted it.