Starbucks Does Not Want Our Business

[IRacknBack]

I don't even see a sling on that AR so he'd have to carry it in his hands which could EASILY be construed as brandishing. What a douche.

[Army Chief]

Not to put too fine a point on all of this, but the inescapable conclusion for me is that we did this entirely to ourselves. I'm half-surprised that the company didn't just direct a total prohibition ... even if it remains to be seen how this will actually be implemented across the nation.

OC isn't necessarily stupid in-and-unto itself, but it is needlessly confrontational (at best), and sometimes making no statement at all is the far wiser course to take. We gained nothing of value here, unless you happen to think that shocking a few soccer moms is high art.

Be the Gray Man. Not the ham-and-egger creating a stir, just because he might technically have the force of law behind him if/when someone objects. Those who go looking for a fight will eventually find one. Starbucks is merely the latest example.

AC

[rob_s]

we did this entirely to ourselves.

Agree completely, if by "we" you mean the dirt-shooting, AR-as-male-Barbie-doll, no training, ignoramuses that have been attracted to the "gun culture" in the past decade.

Those two idiots in that picture, and pretty much every other one I've ever seen in various Starbucks open-carry photos, are not my "we". These open carry nitwits are to my kind of gun owner what the Branch Davidians are (were?) to Christianity.

[Jerry R]

Be the Gray Man.

AC, my sentiments exactly. While I live in an OC state, I don't want anyone knowing I'm carrying. I just want to live my life (safely) and be left alone.

[FortTom]

So, as you folks don't want to be branded as "gun nuts", etc..etc.. you definitely have absolutely no compunction in lumping us who choose to OC in our states, with the morons pictured with a rifle and OC handgun in Starbucks? Chief, don't tell me what to be, so as to suit what you think gun owners should be, that is to be seen as you wish to be seen to yourself. With enough friction coming from the anti-crowd, we (gun owners) are probably more splintered in how we should be seen, what and how we should carry, and comparing our intellectual capacity, to that of someone who is obviously in need of a kick in the butt, than the very united anti 2A folks. Our side suffers from enough fractured stances, which I feel folks like yourself help create, and pales in comparison of unity that the anti-2A folks portray. If you choose not to carry OC, then by all means, don't. I've never seen a single problem with it here, although I would admit there are limits and places that I wouldn't OC. We don't have a "technicality" in our state law, in KY, we have the total authority of the law.

FT

[Army Chief]

FortTom,

I actually own a house in Kentucky, carry on a Kentucky CCW and am pretty familiar with the laws and political climate are there. Frankly, I love the Bluegrass, and respect the approach they have to all-things-firearms; that said, we have to keep in mind that those in many other parts of the country do not enjoy these same atmospherics. Change the setting, and the very same actions can generate a much different kind of response. Not everyone in New England, for example, grows up with a .22 in their hands. Many people fear guns, and they may have good reason for it.

From my perspective, the problem with Open Carry is that is seems to be about making a statement that really doesn't need to be made. It strikes me as the sort of debate that young, cocksure males want to stir up simply because they can, with little thought given to whether or not it really makes much sense as a means of advancing the cause. As I've said before, that doesn't make me oppose the practice as a matter of principle, nor do I pre-judge, but you have to admit that there a lot of clowns out there trying to carry the banner for the movement. Crappy guns, crappy holsters, zero training ... and a burning need to rub their freedoms in everyone's faces.

No, this is not an accurate reflection of every OC proponent, and I know that. At the same time, it does speak to more than a few of them, and this is what the public sees, responds to and generates corporate responses like those we've just seen from Starbucks. Honestly, who is the idiot among us that ever expected this to play out any other way? We as a community forced their hand, and got an all-too-predictable response: your guns are not welcome here.

This could all have been avoided if they didn't even realize that we had our guns with us in the first place.
Think about it: we picked a fight that never had to happen at all. Our own doing entirely.

I'm not going to dwell upon the fact that OC also not only gives up an important tactical advantage, but it is worth keeping in mind here that it can actually makes things worse in that regard by drawing unwanted attention to the man with the gun. Instead, I'll be gregarious and suggest that I could even see doing it myself under certain circumstances. I just think those circumstances are a lot more limited for me than for most, because my real objective is to be left alone to exercise my freedoms without drawing attention from, or seeking to influence, anyone else. It is not their business. They can make their own decisions on the matter.

I do "get it." In some places and at some times, OC is benign, and even may do some good. I won't argue that point. There are doubtless many dudes out there doing it quite responsibly and putting a fairly good face on the movement inasmuch as anyone can. I'm simply suggesting that there is very little to be gained by it overall, and potentially much to be lost; especially when much of the public views the shooting community as a fringe element in the first place.

To me, this isn't about sticking together to defend the 2A, or getting our message out or even addressing the divisions that some perceive within our community; it's about making smart decisions, being solid citizens and going above and beyond to present an intelligent and cogent defense of our rights. Walking into a coffee shop with a shotgun that is neither needed nor wanted there just isn't in keeping with those goals. If someone walked up to me on the street in middle America brandishing an AR, I would presume that he was unstable, a moron or an active threat. All would be reasonable suspicions.

Do as you feel is appropriate to your own situation, but let us not lose sight of the fact that OC is what led to these battle lines being formed in the first place, and once that happened, there was absolutely no way to win. That is the real point of failure in all of this for me.

AC

[Jerry R]

So, as you folks don't want to be branded as "gun nuts", etc..etc.. you definitely have absolutely no compunction in lumping us who choose to OC in our states, with the morons pictured with a rifle and OC handgun in Starbucks?

Tom, sorry if you misunderstood my post. I speak for me and me alone. I try very hard not to make generalizations about people. However, things that members of a group do will reflect on the group as a whole - good or bad. Please try to remember the adage "Perception is Reality." It is how "we" are perceived that the group should be concerned about.

[FortTom]

Tom, sorry if you misunderstood my post. I speak for me and me alone. I try very hard not to make generalizations about people. However, things that members of a group do will reflect on the group as a whole - good or bad. Please try to remember the adage "Perception is Reality." It is how "we" are perceived that the group should be concerned about.

Jerry, I think there are plenty of people on both sides of the OC issue, who seem to make it their life's mission to make the rest of us look stupid. The best we can do about them (I'm referring to folks like the idiots pictured standing in Starbucks), is to marginalize them as much as possible as far as being any part of a legitimate "brotherhood" of (for lack of better word) firearms owners, LEO, military, and other professionals). I suppose my issue is with people who have a certain perspective of how we all must act and behave, or face a public lashing about how much lower we are on the mental rung of the common sense ladder. I'm not referring to your post necessarily but rather, a synthesis of many, many posts that seem to pop up when this subject comes up. In these posts , they usually start by "correcting" attitude, rather than addressing ones ideas, in the most condescending manner, posting past accomplishments as if they were the only folks in the world who may have the same credentials.

Sincerely,

FT

[Army Chief]

FT,

We got this one figured-out. Just broadcast on different frequencies when the first net call was made. No worries.

AC

[Hmac]

I don't blame Starbucks a bit. They unwillingly became a focal point for both pro and anit-gun forces. All they want to do is sell coffee. We can thank the pro-gun activists for getting gun rights this negative press. I sincerely hope that those same activists don't plan some kind of backlash in light of Starbucks' announcement and leave their assault weapons at home next time they feel like a cup of coffee.

In this state, a request by a store, written sign, verbal warning, or blog posting doesn't constitute notification of "no guns allowed" for the purposes of trespass. We have to be physically confronted, specifically ordered to leave, then refuse to leave before it becomes trespassing.

[rob_s]

If the only time you ever went to starbucks was expressly because you could open carry in order to post pictures on your facebook page, you're an idiot.

[13SAVAGE13]

Even in most sportsmans stores and gunshops they wouldn't allow or appreaciate someone walking around with an unchecked AR in hand, I wish that people would think things out a little bit more before they do something like this for "the cause".
We all know, I guess I should say most, know how freedom should be. knowing unfortunatly doesn't make it so. It takes tact and strategy to win this battle.