TexasCHLforum.com

Worth reading

What Can Starbucks Teach Us As A Community?
http://www.pagunblog.com/2013/09/19/wha ... community/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Keith B wrote:

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.

And why did they show support for SB, because the anti's were out up in arms, because SB did not forbid firearms. This may have not worked out in favor of the OC people but it was not because they showed support, that is just the excuse. SB should of came out an just said stop dragging us into social issues instead they took a side. That is Sb's choice, mine is not to use SB's anymore.

suthdj wrote:SB should of came out an just said stop dragging us into social issues instead they took a side. That is Sb's choice, mine is not to use SB's anymore.

SBX has been saying that since at least 2010 when this started to gain steam (no pun intended). Here we are three years later and clearly the message of "please leave us out of it" still wasn't being received.

suthdj wrote:

Keith B wrote:

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.

And why did they show support for SB, because the anti's were out up in arms, because SB did not forbid firearms. This may have not worked out in favor of the OC people but it was not because they showed support, that is just the excuse. SB should of came out an just said stop dragging us into social issues instead they took a side. That is Sb's choice, mine is not to use SB's anymore.

Except of course, they didn't pick a side, and did what you said.

Instead of showing support via letters etc(including Gift Cards numbers to let them know you're a real customer) it got dicey.

This is what will happen in Texas if the issue is heavily pushed in this manner instead [abbreviated profanity deleted] the manner that the TSRA has been working on for CHL rights.

Cedar Park Dad wrote:

suthdj wrote:

Keith B wrote:

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.

And why did they show support for SB, because the anti's were out up in arms, because SB did not forbid firearms. This may have not worked out in favor of the OC people but it was not because they showed support, that is just the excuse. SB should of came out an just said stop dragging us into social issues instead they took a side. That is Sb's choice, mine is not to use SB's anymore.

Except of course, they didn't pick a side, and did what you said.

Instead of showing support via letters etc(including Gift Cards numbers to let them know you're a real customer) it got dicey.

This is what will happen in Texas if the issue is heavily pushed in this manner instead [abbreviated profanity deleted] the manner that the TSRA has been working on for CHL rights.

Yep, I went out and read some more on this an you are right they did do that, just the same for whatever reason and I understand why, but they still took a side.

I think Realistically, in any major metropolitan area if he were to open up two Starbucks side by side (gun free and guns welcomed) the gun free store would do much more business. It would also be the one being robbed.....at gunpoint

Wall Street Journal had a good article about this today. It's not quite what you all think. Although I can't reproduce the article if anyone is interested I can send them a link to the article. PM me if you want to see it or buy the Wall street Journal.

I wonder how this is going to be spun?

http://www.ktnv.com/news/local/172377151.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

cprems wrote:I wonder how this is going to be spun?

http://www.ktnv.com/news/local/172377151.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Spun is the proper conjugation to use in this instance (past tense). This happened October 2012, almost a year ago.

Other than this one mention of it here in the forum, I doubt it will come up anywhere else in the US.

Regardless of age, it needed to be covered. You won't hear about these stories from SB or the main stream media.

Thanks for pointing out my correct grammar use. I appreciate it.

cprems wrote:Regardless of age, it needed to be covered. You won't hear about these stories from SB or the main stream media.

Thanks for pointing out my correct grammar use. I appreciate it.

My comment was about your question, "How is this going to be spun?" My response is: "It's not going to be."

Nobody else in a position to spin anything in the MSM is going to research a year-old story as a response to something that happened two days ago, particularly because it does not fit their agenda. Bringing it up here so WE can spin it is an exercise in futility - because we don't bite on old stories that much either (although we do have some year-plus old threads that will never seem to die: viewtopic.php?f=83&t=53427&hilit=florida).

Had it been a story about a shooting gone bad, sure, it would get life breathed into it relentlessly by the MSM, but not in this case, I can safely assume.

Instead, we'll get this, relentlessly: http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/20 ... n-control/

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.

Gun shows post 30.06. Starbucks doesn't. It would be impossible for Starbucks to not realize that they must post 30.06 signs to legally ban us from their Texas stores; and they have chosen not to. If we all go around telling them that we'll boycott them, they'll have no reason not to just post the 30.06 signs. As far as I'm concerned, no 30.06 means they're the good guys.

Embalmo

Embalmo has a point I have not thought of. People are going to avoid SB because they are saying please do not bring firearms in their stores although they are not banning them.

Every Gun Show I have ever attended had a valid 30.06 sign posted.

I want being avoiding SB because I never did like their product, but it sure makes me second guess Gun Shows.

rbwhatever1 wrote: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.