First Starbucks, now Staples office supply store

[mjbskwim]

that moron is getting paid by somebody to make open carry look bad.......these antics will get worse as this fight intensifies

I dunno,besides the guy in Beaverton that the cops try to ignore and the lame brain in Ca that used to open carry his unloaded pistol,there are plenty more OCers that make us all look stupid.

Open carry is fine,in some communities. We, as responsible gun owners need to decide the good places and the bad ones.
Sure 2 members on here OC all the time without problems. One lives in the middle of nowhere and the other looks like G Gordon Liddy so everyone probably assumes he is a detective.
Sure it's a inalienable right we want to keep....but at the expense of loosing our rights to carry at all?

PS: Starbucks was pushed by the gun community and made Starbucks take a side.
They didn't give a hoot a few months ago

 

[bestfromnw]

just wow

 

[U201491]

PS: Starbucks was pushed by the gun community and made Starbucks take a side.
They didn't give a hoot a few months ago

In a nutshell that IS what happened.

 

[simon99]

People that want to OC their "scary rifle" are not really helping our cause. Sure its our right, but at this political juncture you're giving aid to the enemy ( pun intended) .

 

[GunnyG]

In a nutshell that IS what happened.

...except for the fact that this was a 3 year old boycott, first attempted in 2010 by Brady, revived by CSGV in 2012 and rebranded by the demanding Moms. The label changed, but their stated goals never did.

They've always wanted the symbolism of SBux barring all legal carriage of firearms in their stores, not just OC.

 

[U201491]

...except for the fact that this was a 3 year old boycott, first attempted in 2010 by Brady, revived by CSGV in 2012 and rebranded by the demanding Moms. The label changed, but their stated goals never did.

They've always wanted the symbolism of SBux barring all legal carriage of firearms in their stores, not just OC.

True, but SB would not give in to them until this began and people shoved it in their face. There were no problems with CC or OC before that.

 

[simon99]

True, but SB would not give in to them until this began and people shoved it in their face. There were no problems with CC or OC before that.

Exactly, Starbucks didn't ask to be at the epicenter of the pro-gun/anti-gun issue. If you read the leader by Schultz, he's just asking for no OC...have a CCW? Then carry on as you would anywhere else. Had some of our overzealous gun rights guys not showed up toting their AR to get a tall non-fat caramel macchiato on Monday morning rush hour ( even though its their right) , this probably wouldn't have ever been an issue.

 

[U201491]

cut ad

I think some that pushed it were cloaked anti gun proponents !

edited... people that sneak ads into quoted responses are tu__S.

 

[GunnyG]

True, but SB would not give in to them until this began and people shoved it in their face. There were no problems with CC or OC before that.

Well... if being the subject of a boycott for 3+ years isn't a problem, I don't know what is. Brady started this. The OC'ers didn't start this. Why are you so quick to throw them under the bus, when your stomach gets a little queasy?

I would not blame the OC'ers for this. This Brady initiative can be traced back to 2009, long before the OC crowd got there.

Another problem to consider: Why wouldn't we want our politically motivated over 18, but not yet 21, year old allies to get involved? They can't exercise the privilege of CC.

...Or do you really prefer telling them that they aren't as worthy of fighting for, or having the rights that "real" adults get?

 

[simon99]

Well... if being the subject of a boycott for 3+ years isn't a problem, I don't know what is. Brady started this. The OC'ers didn't start this. Why are you so quick to throw them under the bus, when your stomach gets a little queasy?

I would not blame the OC'ers for this. This Brady initiative can be traced back to 2009, long before the OC crowd got there.

Another problem to consider: Why wouldn't we want our politically motivated over 18, but not yet 21, year old allies to get involved? They can't exercise the privilege of CC.

...Or do you really prefer telling them that they aren't as worthy of fighting for, or having the rights that "real" adults get?

Good points...

 

[Kevinkris]

Damn why can't open carry with just a handgun be enough?
Who is gonna need a rifle?

rifle = higher power and increased accuracy. why not?

 

[U201491]

Well... if being the subject of a boycott for 3+ years isn't a problem, I don't know what is. Brady started this. The OC'ers didn't start this. Why are you so quick to throw them under the bus, when your stomach gets a little queasy?

I would not blame the OC'ers for this. This Brady initiative can be traced back to 2009, long before the OC crowd got there.

Another problem to consider: Why wouldn't we want our politically motivated over 18, but not yet 21, year old allies to get involved? They can't exercise the privilege of CC.

...Or do you really prefer telling them that they aren't as worthy of fighting for, or having the rights that "real" adults get?

It brought all the worms out of the woodwork that were at least dormant prior in regard to SB.

<broken link removed>

Open carry was no problem in any SB until this all came up.
I am for carry in any way you want, but why did they make a big scene to push the point to show they could.
I don't think that was a very wise move.
Kind of like what I said in another post.
I like good hotdogs, but if someone tries to push one in my face when I don't want one, they will end up with it in an uncomfortable orifice.

 

[mjbskwim]

. The OC'ers didn't start this. Why are you so quick to throw them under the bus, when your stomach gets a little queasy?

I would not blame the OC'ers for this. This Brady initiative can be traced back to 2009, long before the OC crowd got there.


...Or do you really prefer telling them that they aren't as worthy of fighting for, or having the rights that "real" adults get?

It's a PRIVATE COMPANY. It has no responsibility to care about your political beliefs.

The OCers decided that since Starbucks allowed open carry or what ever was legal,they would do OC days there and buy SB goods.
Had they not done this so many times,the antis wouldn't have brought this up with Starbucks.

How else does it have to be put? The OCers made Starbucks a target.
Starbucks is in predominantly liberal areas
What do you think the outcome would be.

Again, if the open carry guy wouldn't have brought it to light that Starbucks allowed open carry or whatever was legal,nobody would have said a thing.

Hence blaming the open carry crowd.

Read it slow if you need to

 

[GunnyG]

... Again, if the open carry guy wouldn't have brought it to light that Starbucks allowed open carry or whatever was legal,nobody would have said a thing...

Read it slow if you need to

Hey there numb nuts,

Brady Campaign had targeted Sbux way back in 2009. Look at the copyright date at the bottom of their page: <broken link removed>

While you might claim that you support all of the other lawful uses of firearms that we may have, you are supporting their campaign on excluding one more place where we may exercise a right.

Where legislation has failed their goals, they seek any other possible means to drive the right into extinction. By actively denying as many opportunities to exercise that right, they are hoping to drive the right into extinction. When and where that has failed to gain traction, their cohorts are seeking ways to price the right into extinction, with threats of extortionate insurance and licensing fees.

You are undermining our cause, by allowing them to define what our rights will look like.

 

[Misterbill]

Hey there numb nuts,

Brady Campaign had targeted Sbux way back in 2009. Look at the copyright date at the bottom of their page: <broken link removed>

While you might claim that you support all of the other lawful uses of firearms that we may have, you are supporting their campaign on excluding one more place where we may exercise a right.

Where legislation has failed their goals, they seek any other possible means to drive the right into extinction. By actively denying as many opportunities to exercise that right, they are hoping to drive the right into extinction. When and where that has failed to gain traction, their cohorts are seeking ways to price the right into extinction, with threats of extortionate insurance and licensing fees.

You are undermining our cause, by allowing them to define what our rights will look like.

Sorry, you're mistaken. I'm not going to Starbucks anymore because they've chosen to make my weapon unwelcome. that also makes ME unwelcome, because I won't be disarmed.

But if you think that was because of Sarah Brady, you're just dead wrong. It was because a bunch of people started doing very in-your-face demonstrations with the INTENT of drawing attention to themselves or provoking an incident. Starbucks essentially had enough and told us to "take it outside."

I can't fault Starbucks for that decision. They didn't ask to be in the middle. O/C idiots trying to get attention in places where O/C is REALLY inappropriate to the culture did that, especially when like the jerkwad in the picture here, they decide to carry an EBR. (Tell me how his gun, especially as carried, is in anyway useful as a defensive tool for any remotely plausible situation and I'll give you a special prize).

So what happened is that idiots like this INTENTIONALLY scared the primary customer-base of a business and anyone's surprised that business said "please don't?"

I respect the wishes of property owners. If Starbucks doesn't want my guns, I respect the right to make that call. It also happens to mean that Starbucks won't be getting my business because I won't go anywhere that I'm disarmed except by law. -Somehow I doubt they'll be losing any sleep over my $30 a year.

 

[renfield]

that moron is getting paid by somebody to make open carry look bad.......these antics will get worse as this fight intensifies

All you have to do is Google "open carry". Plenty of point proving going on everywhere (and apparently fake anti-pro-gun rallies too!?. It wouldn't have taken a genius to figure out that places of business who are trying to maintain a neutral image and recognizing the law, NOT individual rights, OR taking a side, don't want their establishments to be used as political staging grounds. So when everyone felt the need to go into Starbucks with their open carry on, just because they could, all they really did was shoot us in the foot. I hope the light slap in the face you gave those pesky people was worth it, because you, and the people who felt the need to open carry a rifle, just because they could helped the enemy achieve their goal.