-
If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership The benefits pay for the membership many times over.
Brady Campaign attacks Starbucks
- Thread starter copterdoctor
- Start date
![[rolleyes]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/042.gif "Roll Eyes [rolleyes]")
rep308
NES Member
Always a day late and a dollar short, Derrick Z. Jackson, rabid anti gunner of the Globe checks in. He is so damn predictable I could write his columns for him:
http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/e...cles/2010/03/09/want_a_glock_with_your_latte/
Want a Glock with your latte?
By Derrick Z. Jackson
Globe Columnist / March 9, 2010
IF STARBUCKS wants to run Wild West caffeine saloons, the least it can do is provide gunsmoking and nongunsmoking sections.
The coffee mega chain, which made the Fortune 500 by convincing millions of us that $3 coffee is more critical than water for morning hydration, caved into a grassroots campaign of gun owners who are testing “open-carry’’ laws by dropping in at popular establishments and flaunting their firearms.
Some companies, like the California Pizza Kitchen and Peet’s Coffee, have responded to these posses by telling the open-carry forces to go take their guns and holsters somewhere else. A spokesperson for California Pizza told the Wall Street Journal, “We are concerned that the open display of firearms would be particularly disturbing to children and their parents.’’
But Starbucks, hiding behind states’ rights in places such as California, Virginia, and its corporate home state of Washington, is offering no resistance. In a press release last week, the company noted that 43 states have open-carry laws on the books. “Were we to adopt a policy different from local laws allowing open carry,’’ the company said, “we would be forced to require our partners to ask law-abiding customers to leave our stores, putting our partners in an unfair and potentially unsafe position.’’
To wit, Starbucks further whined that it is innocently caught in the middle. Asking people to suspend the common knowledge that companies of course set restrictive policies all the time for their premises - like, “no-shirt, no-shoes, no service’’ - the company said, “The political, polity and legal debates around these issues belong in the legislatures and courts, not in our stores . . . as the public debate continues, we are asking all interested parties to refrain from putting Starbucks or our partners into the middle of this divisive issue.’’
I do not know about you, but I suddenly became even more a fan of Peet’s than I was before and as far as I am concerned, I can go without Starbucks the rest of my life as long as it plays the cowardly bartender. This movement has not come yet to Massachusetts, but you never know, with the advocacy organization OpenCarry.org saying that while Massachusetts is not a traditional open carry state, “it is not a crime for Class A license holders to open carry.’’
In a statement yesterday, the state Department of Public Safety confirmed as much. “There is no prohibition . . . for a person with a license to carry firearms . . . as long as it is in the possession and control of the license holder, and not used in a manner that constitutes a crime.’’
In a new book, “The Insecure American,’’ editors Catherine Besteman and Hugh Gusterson write that fear “has fueled a growing fortress mentality among the American public and the government . . . The obsessive focus on securitizing the landscape means turning American neighborhoods, schools, transportation centers, shopping malls, public spaces, and government buildings into fortresses surrounded by walls and monitored by surveillance systems.’’
Or, as in the case of Starbucks, allowing public spaces to be turned into fortresses for the individual. It may be a coincidence, but shares of Starbucks, in the week the controversy hit the Wall Street Journal and the New York Times, has fluctuated at around $23 a share. Peet’s went up from about $37 a share to about $39. Until Starbucks has a nongunsmoking section, I hope to maintain those ticker trends by heading over to Peet’s. I prefer my coffee black: no cream, no sugar, no Glock.
Derrick Z. Jackson can be reached at [email protected].
© Copyright 2010 Globe Newspaper Company.
http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/e...cles/2010/03/09/want_a_glock_with_your_latte/
Want a Glock with your latte?
By Derrick Z. Jackson
Globe Columnist / March 9, 2010
IF STARBUCKS wants to run Wild West caffeine saloons, the least it can do is provide gunsmoking and nongunsmoking sections.
The coffee mega chain, which made the Fortune 500 by convincing millions of us that $3 coffee is more critical than water for morning hydration, caved into a grassroots campaign of gun owners who are testing “open-carry’’ laws by dropping in at popular establishments and flaunting their firearms.
Some companies, like the California Pizza Kitchen and Peet’s Coffee, have responded to these posses by telling the open-carry forces to go take their guns and holsters somewhere else. A spokesperson for California Pizza told the Wall Street Journal, “We are concerned that the open display of firearms would be particularly disturbing to children and their parents.’’
But Starbucks, hiding behind states’ rights in places such as California, Virginia, and its corporate home state of Washington, is offering no resistance. In a press release last week, the company noted that 43 states have open-carry laws on the books. “Were we to adopt a policy different from local laws allowing open carry,’’ the company said, “we would be forced to require our partners to ask law-abiding customers to leave our stores, putting our partners in an unfair and potentially unsafe position.’’
To wit, Starbucks further whined that it is innocently caught in the middle. Asking people to suspend the common knowledge that companies of course set restrictive policies all the time for their premises - like, “no-shirt, no-shoes, no service’’ - the company said, “The political, polity and legal debates around these issues belong in the legislatures and courts, not in our stores . . . as the public debate continues, we are asking all interested parties to refrain from putting Starbucks or our partners into the middle of this divisive issue.’’
I do not know about you, but I suddenly became even more a fan of Peet’s than I was before and as far as I am concerned, I can go without Starbucks the rest of my life as long as it plays the cowardly bartender. This movement has not come yet to Massachusetts, but you never know, with the advocacy organization OpenCarry.org saying that while Massachusetts is not a traditional open carry state, “it is not a crime for Class A license holders to open carry.’’
In a statement yesterday, the state Department of Public Safety confirmed as much. “There is no prohibition . . . for a person with a license to carry firearms . . . as long as it is in the possession and control of the license holder, and not used in a manner that constitutes a crime.’’
In a new book, “The Insecure American,’’ editors Catherine Besteman and Hugh Gusterson write that fear “has fueled a growing fortress mentality among the American public and the government . . . The obsessive focus on securitizing the landscape means turning American neighborhoods, schools, transportation centers, shopping malls, public spaces, and government buildings into fortresses surrounded by walls and monitored by surveillance systems.’’
Or, as in the case of Starbucks, allowing public spaces to be turned into fortresses for the individual. It may be a coincidence, but shares of Starbucks, in the week the controversy hit the Wall Street Journal and the New York Times, has fluctuated at around $23 a share. Peet’s went up from about $37 a share to about $39. Until Starbucks has a nongunsmoking section, I hope to maintain those ticker trends by heading over to Peet’s. I prefer my coffee black: no cream, no sugar, no Glock.
Derrick Z. Jackson can be reached at [email protected].
© Copyright 2010 Globe Newspaper Company.
MisterHappy
NES Member
- Joined
- Jul 28, 2009
- Messages
- 28,409
- Likes
- 17,595
Commnets are open.....let's get busy! ![[smile]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/001.gif "Smile [smile]")
Commnets are open.....let's get busy!
it's up to 3 pages now
The Doonesbury cartoons have picked up on the Starbucks thing, starting with 03/22
http://www.doonesbury.com/strip/dailydose/index.html?uc_full_date=20100322
http://www.doonesbury.com/strip/dailydose/index.html?uc_full_date=20100323
http://www.doonesbury.com/strip/dailydose/index.html?uc_full_date=20100324
http://www.doonesbury.com/strip/dailydose/index.html?uc_full_date=20100322
http://www.doonesbury.com/strip/dailydose/index.html?uc_full_date=20100323
http://www.doonesbury.com/strip/dailydose/index.html?uc_full_date=20100324
- Joined
- May 17, 2008
- Messages
- 16,975
- Likes
- 2,820
Wow. Anti much? ![[shocked]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/007.gif "Shocked [shocked]")
Holy crap, can they put any more absurd bias into those.
Holy crap, can they put any more absurd bias into those.
Wait, hold on a second, where's my shocked face? Oh, there it is...Wow. Anti much?
![[hmmm]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/009.gif "Hmm [hmmm]")
It does a poor job soaking up soil as it is already saturated...
![[laugh]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/012.gif "Laugh [laugh]")
bfm
NES Member
Oh, I don't know, I find it very absorbant.
From the Starbucks annual meeting.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/fl...rbc3.html?bcpid=30884189001&bctid=73740835001
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/fl...rbc3.html?bcpid=30884189001&bctid=73740835001
What's this "unloaded" nonsense he's talking about? Generally I think they've made the smart move...don't get involved and follow local laws.
The only way to legally open carry in CA (at least for the average non credentialed peon) is with an unloaded handgun. Most of the flap behind this is coming out of CA.
ETA: Now I know what you're talking about, now that I watched the video... apparently this guy isn't keyed
in to the laws very well. He's probably referring to the unloaded issue because I'd place a fair wager that
99% of his communications with stores/owners/etc on the issue have been coming out of CA, where the largest
number of "Starbucks OC incidents" have occurred. (Bear in mind CA is loaded with moonbats, which are
more likely to complain, than say, people at a Starbucks in Arizona. )
-Mike
Last edited:
The guy in the video either mis-spoke or doesn't realize that California is the only state where the openly carried firearms are unloaded and that standard procedure is to carry a loaded firearm - where legal to do so.
I'd hate to see SBUX flip on this issue.
I'd hate to see SBUX flip on this issue.
I've seen the Doonesbury "coverage". Lamentable, but predictable.
ETA: As a cartoon character myself, I'm offended. But then, Bill Griffith is a Marxist. [sad2]
Actually, I'm happy that they have a firm understanding of property rights. It's their property they should be able to allow whomever they wish into their stores.
Somebody should email that Doonesbury clown that there's plenty of uniformed officers that frequent Dunkin Donuts establishments nationwide at a pretty alarming frequency.
I've emailed that slimeball a few times. Never received a reply. I guess facts are simply unimportant to Jackson and the rest of his anti-civil liberties ilk.
IMHO, this is the key. They are only using the "it's the law" line to deflect criticism from people who want to tell them how to operate their business. It's more diplomatic than saying "It's our property, and we'll do as we wish". Smart move on their part, as they don't really have to take sides in dispute they have been dragged into the middle of.
Similar threads
