Home > 2nd amendment/guns/weapons > A good day to NOT go to Starbucks

A good day to NOT go to Starbucks

February 22nd, 2013

guns and starbucks

Washingtonpost.com:

Many people who love guns and coffee particularly appreciate Starbucks. In the 12 states with unfettered rights to “open carry” a gun, including Virginia, and the 16 others that are mostly open carry, Starbucks has rebuffed attempts by gun control activists to keep guns out of the national coffee shop chain.

So on Friday, 2-22 (for the Second Amendment), gun rights supporters are holding “Gun Owners Support Starbucks Day,” and will be drinking their joe while openly packing their heat. In Northern Virginia, this is being organized by Ed Levine, who already has an “I Love Guns and Coffee” website (there are two) and mints a guns and coffee challenge coin, seen above. He wants 2-22 to be an annual day of support for Starbucks  by gun owners.

I guess it is a good time to not go to Starbucks.   I don’t like being around strangers carrying weapons.  I know Scout’s argument about being able to assess the environment.  I tend to be more the “you can’t judge a book by its cover” type.  I see no reason to pack heat (unless its your job) in the suburbs of Northern Virginia.

I don’t feel one bit safer seeing someone armed in any store.  In fact, most of the time I leave.  I don’t know that pistol-packing Harry isn’t some crazed nut job who is getting ready to blow my brains out.

Ed Levine of Virginia Defense League is heading up the appreciation day here in Virginia.  He has chosen 2-22 as the official gun owner Starbucks Appreciation Day. 2-22 represents  the 2nd amendment.

Starbucks has taken the position that rather than engage in a political uproar, they will simply follow state law wherever the store is located.  They are probably smart.  They aren’t supporting any political cause, just following state law.  I wonder what home office thinks of the alteration of their logo?  Mr. Levine should not be surprised if he gets a call from corporate lawyers.

 

  1. Scout
    February 22nd, 2013 at 07:14 | #1

    I won’t go into a public space (other than a police station) where there are a lot of firearms. If the folks mentioned in the post are going to Starbucks carrying openly, I will stay away. If they carry concealed, I don’t know whether they’re armed or not and can’t make a rational decision. That’s why I oppose concealed carry.

    For Starbucks, I suppose that it’s a rational decision to say that they will permit what local law permits. On the other hand, if I ran a business with a lot of people coming and going, I would require gun owners to leave their weapons outside. I probably would lose some business, but one always has to make choices.

    • February 22nd, 2013 at 11:35 | #2

      @Scout,

      If I owned the store, I would make them leave their arms outside also. However, home office sets this policy. I just wouldn’t go there today.

      All the people I know who go around armed all think they are sane and will tell you so. However, what they won’t accept is that I don’t know if they are sane, especially if I don’t know them. I also assume that avocational firearms enthusiasts have not have training to react in an emergency situation–that includess those with military service.

  2. February 22nd, 2013 at 07:30 | #3

    This “appreciation” day happened because Starbucks was under political pressure to take sides, and since they didn’t, gun owners decided to show their appreciation and to show Corporate just how many of their customers actually were armed. Last year, lines formed out the door at some places. It was quite profitable for them. They didn’t lose any business.

  3. Lyssa
    February 22nd, 2013 at 07:47 | #4

    Good. Then they won’t need mine. Why on earth would I go to a place with a large number of amateurs with weapons proving a point?!

  4. February 22nd, 2013 at 08:30 | #5

    Well, since the “accident” rate and crime rate of CCW is miniscule compared to..well, almost anything….

    you would be in more danger getting there, than you would be while there.

  5. Morris Davis
    February 22nd, 2013 at 09:19 | #6

    @Lyssa

    The point they prove is that a nine millimeter on your belt doesn’t make the nine millimeters below it any bigger.

  6. February 22nd, 2013 at 10:23 | #7

    @Morris Davis
    Congratulations on being the first to invoke Markley’s Law.

  7. February 22nd, 2013 at 11:48 | #8

    @Cargosquid

    Unless you were some crazed idiot who wanted to go plant yourself amongst the die hards……

    Actually Starbucks made the decision to go with state law without much debate at all. There really wasn’t that much political pressure. The word got sent right down the line that if people came in the store carrying weapons and you were in an open carry state, then ignore it and business as usual.

    Let’s be honest here, the open carry people brought the issue to a head, not the other way around.

  8. blue
    February 22nd, 2013 at 11:48 | #9

    LOL, I actually had to look it up, but might also suggest to you Markley’s second axiom, to wit:

    He often accuses men with guns of “compensating for something.” The truth is quite the reverse. After all, how is he supposed to feel knowing there are men out there who aren’t intimidated by the big bad inanimate villain? How is he to feel in the face of adolescent boys who have used the family gun effectively in defending the family from an armed intruder? So if he can’t touch a gun, he doesn’t want other men to be able to either. And to achieve his ends, he’ll use the only weapon he knows how to manipulate: the law.

  9. February 22nd, 2013 at 11:49 | #10

    @Morris Davis

    @Moe

    snicker….remind me to tell you about the survey…. :wink:

  10. February 22nd, 2013 at 11:57 | #11

    So Blue, who gets to decide if it is true or not? Do cars get to fit into the discussion?

    Are you telling us that those who carry weapons are well -endowed?

    I am trying to follow your logic here and I simply can’t.

    why are you quoting something that simply doesnt fit into the discussion?

    http://blog.joehuffman.org/2013/02/20/an-explanation-for-markleys-law/

  11. Emma
    February 22nd, 2013 at 14:24 | #12

    It’s a great day to go to Starbucks. Grande latte with skim, please.

    I don’t carry, though. At least until they finally make holsters that flatter the hips.

  12. February 22nd, 2013 at 15:00 | #13

    @Emma
    I bet Dragon Leather Works can help you out.

  13. February 22nd, 2013 at 15:01 | #14

    @Moon-howler
    Actually it was the CSGV and the VPC that “brought it to a head” when they called for a national boycott. So the gun owners decided to show their appreciation for Starbucks’ decision not to play politics and just follow the laws.

    • February 22nd, 2013 at 16:03 | #15

      As usual I have no idea what you just said in acronym-ese. Who called for a national boycott of whom, in English por favor.

      The xyz and the cht all went down to the 896 to get some dvb. huh??

  14. Emma
    February 22nd, 2013 at 15:30 | #16

    Starbucks figured it would work just as well as the Chick-fil-A boycotts did. They have nothing to fear.

  15. February 22nd, 2013 at 17:14 | #17

    @Moon-howler
    CSGV is Colin Goddard’s group. Coalition to Stop Gun Violence and the other is the Violence Policy Center, another gun ban group.

    I see you have ol’ Joe linked. He has a great site. He does the yearly Boomer Shoot out west. Long range rifle shooting….the targets explode. Some quite large.

    Talking about carrying in public, Joe has a piece up. Chicago just lost in court. They MUST revamp their carry laws, per the courts. Their laws were unconstitutional. And if they don’t do it by a certain deadline….they may end up with “constitutional” carry…no permit needed. Their laws will be null and void.

  16. Lyssa
    February 22nd, 2013 at 19:06 | #19

    How ridiculous this whole thing is.

    NRA officials handed out a flyer titled: “NO to ‘Universal’ Background Checks” saying “While banning guns and magazines is being actively promoted by the anti-gunners, the criminalization of private firearm transfers is the centerpiece of their anti-Second Amendment efforts. This is part of a strategy to chip away at our Second Amendment rights under the guise of being ‘reasonable.’”

    • February 22nd, 2013 at 19:25 | #20

      That is just extremist talk. Again it is a math problem….and the NRA isn’t doing their homework. The more extremist they appear, the less likely they are to win in upcoming elections.

      Nothing gets your attention like 20 dead kids who were just minding their own business. Americans don’t care all that much about thugs getting mowed down in cold blood. Kids is another story.

  17. February 22nd, 2013 at 19:15 | #21

    @Moon-howler
    The gun control organizations tried to do a national boycott.

    And Ol’ Joe is that link…. JOE Huffman.

    @Lyssa
    But they aren’t wrong.

    • February 22nd, 2013 at 19:22 | #22

      but why? A national boycott of what?

      Start at A and take me to F I feel like I am coming in in the middle.

      People aren’t going to boycott coffee shops one way or the other. They can be completely out of money and still have to have their starbucks fix.

      Both ‘sides’ should have chosen a different vice.

    • February 22nd, 2013 at 19:26 | #23

      Oh I know what you are talking about with Huffman. I just matched the quote, I didnt look at the name. That comment was just so random and didnt fit with the rest of the conversation.

  18. Lyssa
    February 22nd, 2013 at 19:26 | #24

    Oh yes they absolutely are wrong. Dead wrong. Completely wrong. Civilly wrong. Totally wrong. Morally wrong. Wrong, wrong wrong and wrong.

  19. Lyssa
    February 22nd, 2013 at 19:36 | #25

    Wrong seems to be in mode today..

    “..They stormed into office two years ago willing to knock heads and make enemies. But now several Republican governors are suddenly in a fix – up for reelection next year in states that Barack Obama carried in November, and with dangerously low approval ratings.
    So the GOP executives — including well-known figures like Scott Walker and John Kasich —are swearing off polarizing battles over union power and budget cuts and presenting a softer side to voters. Instead of red-meat conservative causes, they’re emphasizing the pocketbook issues that got them elected in the first place — a shift that will likely be on display this weekend at the National Governors Association’s winter meeting in Washington.”

  20. February 22nd, 2013 at 21:51 | #26

    I also believe most Americans think it is wrong. Something must change. The NRA resists making ANY changes, defiantly.

  21. Lyssa
    February 22nd, 2013 at 22:25 | #27

    Exactly. Their inflexibility will get them. Got the Tea Party.

    • February 23rd, 2013 at 11:18 | #28

      The Tea Party hasn’t been gotten enough, according to my way of thinking.

  22. Emma
    February 23rd, 2013 at 08:49 | #29

    The problem is that many on the gun-control side are unwilling to do any homework first. Many of them don’t even have a clear idea of what they want to control in the first place. It’s hard to trust that it will all just stop at “universal background checks” and limitations on “assault weapons” when no one bothers to take the time to define what they mean by that. I’m not going to trust anyone who still thinks the “AR” in “AR-15″ stands for “assault rifle,” and there are still many out there.

    Those vagaries are naturally going to make people feel defensive of their rights, and very wary that it won’t stop there. There are so many legislative proposals flying around these days–some states want to allow sheriffs to come into your home to ensure that you are storing your guns properly (so much for the Fourth Amendment). Others want to enrich insurance companies by forcing gun owners to buy liability insurance (so only the hated 1 percenters can afford guns?).

    So I stand by what I said early on in the gun-control discussion here–I and many others are willing to see a compromise, but only when the discussion is based on facts and reason, and not emotion, bald opportunism and exploitation of the victims. Many Americans don’t like to be manipulated into submission when it comes to giving up some of their rights.

    • February 23rd, 2013 at 11:17 | #30

      Yet its perfectly ok for another set of Americans to be beaten into submission over their rights. Last year was a textbook case for those who value reproductive rights.

      The place to start is to accept that there are many people out there who believe in some restrictions. Right now, those who believe in any restrictions at all are seen as the “gun control crowd.” As long as I am forced into binary thinking mode, I don’t particularly want to be reasonable.

      I frigging hate right wing binary thinking. Things aren’t ever all right or all wrong.

  23. Lyssa
    February 23rd, 2013 at 09:31 | #31

    The initial reaction by the NRA was dreadful. To say that background checks are an infringement on the 2nd is a stretch. Thats a liberal interpretation.

  24. Lyssa
    February 23rd, 2013 at 09:53 | #32

    Last week,a man was shot and killed by a weapon stolen from a car. Last summer a two year old was killed when he got his fathers gun which was also kept in a car. Both have secondary issues but i question gun owners judgement as to how they store their weapons. Gun owners like these are a danger. In a perfect world two year olds would never escape the watchful eye of adults and no one would steal

  25. Emma
    February 23rd, 2013 at 11:23 | #33

    Unfortunately, we will never have that perfect world. But it’s hard to support abridging the rights of the millions of responsible Americans just because someone might steal what they have. If a criminal wants to get into your gun safe, he or she is going to get into it. Criminals break into safes all the time. It’s no different than if someone steals my car and then crashes and kills someone else. I don’t think I should be held legally responsible for that death. Ultimately, the responsibility for the gun crime rests with the person who pulled the trigger, or even the parent of a two-year old who was stupid enough to give his baby access to a gun.@Lyssa

    I will try to look it up later, but I’m pretty sure that it was New Jersey that imposed registration on certain weapons several years ago while assuring gun owners that it would stop there. A year or so after that, there was a mandatory turn in of those classes of guns. So I don’t think that a lot of the concerns of gun owners are based on paranoia. There is history that supports their concerns.

  26. Lyssa
    February 23rd, 2013 at 12:58 | #34

    Resposible use is pushed by the NRA. I know they are responsible folks. My husband was a member. It their stance today and short sighted comments that are irresponsible. Husband glad he quit with Bush. M

  27. Lady Emma
    February 23rd, 2013 at 17:37 | #35

    @Moon-howler What “right-wing binary thinking” are you talking about? Was it when I said “I and many others are willing to see a compromise, but only when the discussion is based on facts and reason, and not emotion, bald opportunism and exploitation of the victims”?

    Speaking of “reproductive rights,” a 29-year-old patient of Dr. Carhart, the darling of the pro-choice crowd because of his late-term abortion procedures, died from complications of abortion at 33 weeks gestation. But at least her rights are intact.

    • February 23rd, 2013 at 18:58 | #36

      She also died of natural causes according to the coroner. That was a wanted pregnancy. There was a gift registry to prove that point. The autopsy report also showed severe fetal anomoly.

      As for your remarks about ‘the darling of the pro-choice crowd. Pardon me, but that entire statement was callus and unnecessary and basically nasty. In your frenzy to take a dig, you failed to also report that this was a medical crisis pregancy and I know you knew because of the other details.

      So you turn what for this family was obviously a tragic event into political opportunity? Don’t people ever just get tired of being mean?

      As for the question on binary thinking, the discussion has now turned into you are either for no restrictions on firearms or their accessories or you are part of the gun control crowd. You are either with us or you are against us. Nothing or all. No middle ground.

      The NRA has really lost a lot of respect because of its unwillingness to even consider or reasonable discuss options.

  28. Censored bybvbl
  29. Emma
    February 23rd, 2013 at 21:02 | #38

    There are just a few categories in the cause-of-death section of a death certificate. They are generally as follows: Natural, accident, suicide, homicide, pending investigation, could not be determined. Any botched medical procedure would fall under “natural”. And a botched abortion could certainly result in “severe fetal anomaly,” although we may never know whether that was the case. I read that article earlier this week. There are a lot of missing details, but the WaPo did a great job in trying to steer the reader to certain conclusions.

    Moon, we’re just going to have to disagree on whether my comments about gun control are “binary thinking.” I think I’ve been pretty open to the discussion since the beginning. I just insist that policies be based on facts and not pure emotion, that the issues are defined clearly, and that those who would impose those policies on law-abiding citizens make sure they know what they are talking about first, and that they don’t threaten other rights, such as ones that protect illegal search and seizure.

  30. Second Alamo
    February 23rd, 2013 at 21:04 | #39

    “I don’t like being around strangers carrying weapons.” That’s why I rarely drive through Northeast DC!

  31. February 24th, 2013 at 11:27 | #40

    right wing binary thinking.

    A) Many “liberals” are against the new gun law proposals.
    B) binary thinking like the gun control groups that refuse to compromise except to define “compromise” as “Give up your rights and do it my way?

    The gun control groups found out last year that Starbucks allowed guns into that holy of holies for the “liberal” crowd. They thought that going public with a “boycott” and demonstrations would shame corporate into changing the policies. Unfortunately for them, they overestimated their influence, underestimated the pro-gun side, and on the day of the boycott/demonstration start, the stores were swamped with customers, both gun carrying and not. And not one single untoward incident occurred. And the gun control groups efforts fizzled. Until Sandy Hook, that was the last national effort by them. Their membership was almost nonexistent, their funding was almost gone. Then Sandy Hook happened and they started fund raising within 12 hours of the shooting. All the while stating that the NRA was politicizing the event….by being silent.

  32. February 24th, 2013 at 11:42 | #41

    Universal background checks are fine as long as their current system is not used to infringe upon rights. For the current system to work as a universal (for lawful people) check, you would have to register all guns. THAT is why the NRA is against it.

    Now…if the gun control groups want to think outside the box and devise a system that allows private citizens to access the NICS (the background check) without an FFL, that allows citizens to get a YES or NO answer on the buyer…. we would go for that. Or an endorsement on the ID stating the status of the individual.
    But they refuse to consider it because their purpose is not the background check but to require more control, more limitations, and to require registration. Once registration happens, the gov’t can control exactly what is done with firearms and ammo. They can target the owners.

    So, since they refuse to compromise and seek more control, we are at an impasse. The polls showing that the public wants it never actually explains what would be needed for it to work. Like most polls….the questions “sound” good until you get to the details.

    The NRA was instrumental is setting up the current background checks. The problem is once you give the controllers an inch..they want another foot. No gun control group has ever admitted what would satisfy them. They have stated in their past that they do want to “get rid of guns” or impose more laws until there are “zero gun deaths.” That last is from a sitting board member of the Brady organization.

    So we are far from “binary” thinking. We just don’t like the current proposals. All we are seeing are proposals for more gov’t control and seizures.

  33. Lyssa
    February 24th, 2013 at 17:22 | #42

    If I sell you a car….

Comments are closed.