TexasCHLforum.com

We did this to ourselves or maybe I should say the behavior of the more insensitive members of open carry were the last straw for the tolerance of the business owner. I just hope we take a lesson from this and "appreciate" businesses where we can carry politely concealed by spending money there without making a big deal out of it. For those states with open carry laws, hopefully gun owners will wake up and exercise more respect for the owners of businesses who just do not want people openly carrying guns inside or outside demonstrating before they force them to throw us all out.

Please. Chill out folks. All he did was ask the nimrod open carry idiots to not do so. Nothing is "banned", nobody "caved to the antis". I can't blame him based on the nonsense that the open carry guys are starting to pull. If I owned a coffee shop and a bunch of idiots started hanging around with their ARs and scaring off my customers I would do more than ASK them no to do so. Go make your political statements elsewhere, you're scaring customers and hurting my sales.

rockinar wrote:Please. Chill out folks. All he did was ask the nimrod open carry idiots to not do so. Nothing is "banned", nobody "caved to the antis". I can't blame him based on the nonsense that the open carry guys are starting to pull. If I owned a coffee shop and a bunch of idiots started hanging around with their ARs and scaring off my customers I would do more than ASK them no to do so. Go make your political statements elsewhere, you're scaring customers and hurting my sales.

Yes and no. He has stated in an interview that he does not want concealed carry in the stores either. I won't post a link as some would argue if you watch the video and hear him say that he doesn't want concealed weapons in the store, you have in fact received oral notice. I'll leave that argument to others.
The rest of your post I agree with.

bdickens wrote:

cb1000rider wrote:

bdickens wrote:Thank you, all you in-your-face open-carry activists. Happy now?

Provide an alternative to inaction, please... Or detail that you accept the fact that we can't openly carry long guns in Texas.
I don't like it either, but due to inaction our "rights" are eroded away to the point that, in my opinion, we're more likely to get arrested over being left alone if walking around with an unloaded long gun...

How about writing Starbucks a letter expressing your appreciation of their policy of allowing law-abiding citizens to carry their lawfully carried sidearms in accordance with State law and indicating that because of that you will continue patronizing their business and encourage others to do so. Wrap it up with a brief reiteration of the non-problem that lawful gun carriers are.

That would be a lot more productive that a bunch of people showing up and pushing guns in everyone's face.

Starbucks said they didn't want to take sides on the issue and that they didn't want to be a battleground for it. But that wasn't good enough: y'all just had to turn it into a battlefield and ended up making them take sides.

When you demand all or nothing, what you most often end up with is nothing.

good option as well.

Here's a great blog post about how the open carry activists did this to themselves. I have to agree with him.

As a libertarian, I believe corporations and store owners have the right to say what is and is not allowed in their stores. I do not believe this should be dictated by government and people who have no vested interest in the operation of the store have no say in it. If you don't own a Starbucks franchise, you have no say in what that store does and does not allow in it.

Put the shoe on the other foot. If you owned a store - any store - you wouldn't want anyone telling you guns are not allowed in it. You wouldn't want outside advocacy groups pressuring you to do something you don't wish to do.

In this case, the open carry folks did this. I firmly believe this. By being so confrontational and in-your-face, they forced Starbucks to change their corporate policy.

Starbucks just wants to be left alone to sell coffee. They never asked to be drug into the gun debate.

http://www.thebangswitch.com/our-own-worst-enemy/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

cprems wrote:

goose wrote:

cprems wrote:Americans think it can't happen here or to them? You are wrong! Just take a look at the last 2 elections.

Again, who here has expressed the opinion that gun control can't happen here? We fight it every day. What have the last two elections done for federal gun control? You know why it hasn't done anything? Because the people you are accusing of doing nothing wrote letters, made donations and were engaged. Just as many state pro gun laws have been passed as anti. Thanks for coming here and telling us how we're screwing up your life. Were we (the US) your second choice? Was there someplace fighting the good fight better than we are? Please tell.

Did I hit a nerve?

Yes, your tone very much said (to me) "America sucks because not enough people want exactly what I want." You said America was great. Fair enough, I'll take you at your word. But you are the one being divisive. You are the one drawing a line in the sand on our side of the fight. We won't in fact (your word) fall if not all of us want the same OC fight today you want today. You said it was a fact. Explain that fact. Explain how incremental bargaining has unquestionably failed. Have we had some setbacks? Yes. Have we had some awesome gains? Yes. How many CC states do we have today that we did not have 20 years ago? Did Illinois make all of it's gains this year because the OC crowd walked around Chicago with rifles over their shoulders? Can you explain how these successes occured when they weren't tied to OC?

cprems wrote: The comment was a generalized comment. Typically, Americans for the most part are apathetic when it comes to their rights. We assume that they will still be there. This presumption provides a false sense of security.

I said nothing about you screwing up my life. The comment was a generalized one. The US wasn't a second choice. It was the only choice I had at the time. I chose America because of the civil liberties and freedoms that many shed blood for. For the record, I am a US citizen, I chose the wonderful Country.

Awesome. but...........

cprems wrote:You fail to understand that I have lived this fight first hand. Apathy won!

No, in fact I DO understand. You chose to be apathetic in a past life

cprems wrote:I lost my guns in one Country due to complacency and not wanting to get involved because it didn't apply to me.

and now you want to sling mud here because not enough 'Mericans want to take up the fight you want. Usually people that make mistakes are less quick to point fingers and judge. Or at least they should be. We were the best choice, a wonderful country, because we aren't apathetic. We weren't apathetic back when you were. You asked if you struck a nerve. Yep. Glass houses and all that. Are many Americans not daily fighting for rights, yes. This isn't an American anomoly, the same can be said for every country on the planet. Did your previous country have 100% voter turn out? (that is a trick question, BTW) The truth is that many, many Americans are readily and completely engaged in the 2A fight. A couple of them hang out here on this board.

cprems wrote: I did my part. I wrote letters, made phone calls and even canvassed for Ted Cruz. I continue to do so today.

There (IMO) has been an anti "OC" issue on this thread. If we can't stick together, we fail, they win. It's really that simple. You may not like the way they do it but until you can come up with a better idea and get everyone together then they will continue. This is NOT CHL v OC... We should be joined solidly at the hip in whatever direction WE take.

The only anti OC I see are people that are anti "in your face." I am one of those. Making scenes and making disinterested third parties like coroprations choose will generally cause us to lose ground and cause us ALL to look like extremists. You say "we" and "us" cannot stand divided. Explain why we will fail if the NRA and so many people like yourself are willing to canvass for conservative officials and fight the good fight even if not all of us want OC today? It isn't a fact that we will fail. We are actually being very successful while our cause contains a spectrum of views. It is a HUGE population. Expecting every single one of us the be stepford wives or clones isn't realistic. Lots of people have lots of different views and yet we (the 2A crowd) also come together and give dollars and make phone calls and get things done. The direction that most of us are taking is CC first, OC second. So if you took that path too we'd be joined at the hip and life would be good? (Know that is a trick question because I suspect you will again say that we all have to want to take your direction for OC now.)

Politics are never simple. Expecting or requiring everyone to hold your view is a great prelude to either a ruling elite deciding what others should think or a revisit of the Red Scare. We can always debate without saying "It's my way or the highway." Good debates, usually involve incremental changes in the perspectives of the opponent. OC would do well to follow the same path, IMO.

I don't know why everyone is jumping on the OC thing here this very well may have been because of the pressure the anti's brought on SB or did I miss something.

suthdj wrote:I don't know why everyone is jumping on the OC thing here this very well may have been because of the pressure the anti's brought on SB or did I miss something.

The CEO stated flat out it was because of all of the unsponsored Starbucks Appreciation Days where OC'ers took it upon themselves to gather at Starbucks with their handguns displayed. I am sure it was due to customer complaints, but may have been employee's as well.

Paraphrasing: "I don't want guns, but I'm not banning them. Please do not bring guns to Starbucks, but they are not banned."

A statement calculated to tell folks to stop using his business to make a point about guns.
Oral notice sufficient for 30.06? No. "not banned".

Good to see that Kythas already posted this: http://www.thebangswitch.com/our-own-worst-enemy/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; A good read if not done already.
Back to the old quote I picked up years ago off Texas Hunting Forum: "Being a redneck is OK. Being a stupid redneck is not."

RoyGBiv wrote:Paraphrasing: "I don't want guns, but I'm not banning them. Please do not bring guns to Starbucks, but they are not banned."

A statement calculated to tell folks to stop using his business to make a point about guns.
Oral notice sufficient for 30.06? No. "not banned".

I'm with RoyGBiv on this one. Unless they put up proper notice for whatever state laws require (30.06 in Texas, gunbusters in some places, etc.) then as far as I am concerned "concealed means concealed". I'm not saying I like the Starbucks CEO or his politics...I am saying that he has a widely varying customer base, of which OC types are a minority of people. He cannot literally afford to tick off a large portion of the people that frequent his establishments and keep the money flowing. The bottom line comes first. That is simply business. If he LOSES money due to this decision, then it will be felt in the corporate wallet and maybe he will figure that out. All of the folks on here and in the wider world have the choice of buying Starbucks coffee or not. Coffee can be gotten at many places. Choose the one that is right for you, as your conscience dictates.

bdickens wrote: How about writing Starbucks a letter expressing your appreciation of their policy of allowing law-abiding citizens to carry their lawfully carried sidearms in accordance with State law and indicating that because of that you will continue patronizing their business and encourage others to do so. Wrap it up with a brief reiteration of the non-problem that lawful gun carriers are.

When you demand all or nothing, what you most often end up with is nothing.

Agreed.

TexasCajun wrote: Lastly. Not being allowed to frequent a business armed isn't an infringement of your rights. It's an exercise of theirs. If you don't like this policy or that of any other business, you're free to patronize any of a number of other establishments.

That about sums it all up right there.

A story I once heard about two bulls applies in situations like this. There once was an old bull and a young bull standing on top of a hill over looking a heard of beautiful cows. The old bull says to the young bull, isn't that a beautiful sight? The young bull responds with "Yeah, let's run down there real fast and get as many of them as we can." The old bull responds, "wouldn't it be better to walk down there calmly and get them all?"

The open carry folks handled this whole situation like a young bull... IMHO.

Go ahead, scream, holler, demand your rights. Run your head about how you aren't going to be pushed around. Puff up your chest as you proclaim you will show them a thing or two. In my earlier post I stated that I have rarely seen positive change come from in your face tactics. A few folks responded, as if they had a different opinion but it seems none of them picked up on the key word I posted..."POSITIVE". So I will agree that "in your face tactics may very well get you some change, but this right here was surely not the change all the exuberant open carry folks were after. I certainly would not describe this as positive change.

Funny thing on this one. I always had trouble believing that the owner of Starbucks was a pro gun person in the first place. he is a liberal from a liberal area!!! Pablum Puker at it's finest! The impression I got was that he wanted to be in the coffee business and was not making a political statement with his policies. If I recall correctly, from the start, his only position was... "A policy of following the laws of the Cities/States that each store was located in. I assumed that meant for any law and I personally never interpreted it as a cry for open carry rights. Yep... somebody sure stepped out there stupid on this one...LOL.

Kythas wrote:Here's a great blog post about how the open carry activists did this to themselves. I have to agree with him.

What a great blog post - absolutely agree! Also a fellow Libertarian BTW!