Starbucks and Guns

[Wind Song]

How would you feel going in for your latte and finding all the other patrons armed to the teeth?

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/2012/0216/How-Starbucks-became-the-darling-of-American-gun-owners

[Gaffer]

Safe. :dunno:

[fj1200]

How would you feel going in for your latte and finding all the other patrons armed to the teeth?

About as comfortable as reading a post loaded with hyperbole.

[Wind Song]

Safe. :dunno:


I'd feel the exact opposite. I don't want to live in an 1800's wild west town.

[Wind Song]

About as comfortable as reading a post loaded with hyperbole.


I guess you're not a fan of creative writing. It's a quite descriptive term. I think it harkens back to when pirates carried knives in their teeth.

[DragonStryk72]

How would you feel going in for your latte and finding all the other patrons armed to the teeth?

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/2012/0216/How-Starbucks-became-the-darling-of-American-gun-owners

"Did they switch out all the regular for decaf again?!

[fj1200]

I'd feel the exact opposite. I don't want to live in an 1800's wild west town.

You would have been quite safe in a "wild" west town.

http://www.unpopulartruth.com/2009/04/myths-of-old-west.html


I guess you're not a fan of creative writing. It's a quite descriptive term. I think it harkens back to when pirates carried knives in their teeth.

Save your creative writing for your journal, serious discussion does not start with irrational exclamations.

[DragonStryk72]

I'd feel the exact opposite. I don't want to live in an 1800's wild west town.

Why would it become the wild west? I love the sheer degree of prejudice inherent in this statement of yours, and even the article seems to assume that gun owners can't be "high brow".


Btw, there are no gun victims. The are victims of human beings who fired guns. Guns have no volition of their own, and can do nothing without someone operating them in some capacity. They are otherwise inert objects.

The real problem is human beings, we should ban them from every public place, cause let's face it, if you took the guns away, we'd stab each other, and if you take the knives and forks away, we'll just club each other to death. Better to blame the human than to blame the inanimate, unintelligent tool.

[Wind Song]

You would have been quite safe in a "wild" west town.

http://www.unpopulartruth.com/2009/04/myths-of-old-west.html



Save your creative writing for your journal, serious discussion does not start with irrational exclamations.

Armed to the teeth is a perfectly descriptive term of people who are overly armed.

[Wind Song]

Why would it become the wild west? I love the sheer degree of prejudice inherent in this statement of yours, and even the article seems to assume that gun owners can't be "high brow".


Btw, there are no gun victims. The are victims of human beings who fired guns. Guns have no volition of their own, and can do nothing without someone operating them in some capacity. They are otherwise inert objects.

The real problem is human beings, we should ban them from every public place, cause let's face it, if you took the guns away, we'd stab each other, and if you take the knives and forks away, we'll just club each other to death. Better to blame the human than to blame the inanimate, unintelligent tool.

Fine. I have no problem looking at a display of guns. It's the human beings who are armed and dangerous that bother me.

[tailfins]

Armed to the teeth is a perfectly descriptive term of people who are overly armed.

It has been a practice in suburban Atlanta as long as I can remember. I don't care one way or another. I wouldn't be surprised if some of them were carried without bullets as a fashion statement.

[fj1200]

Armed to the teeth is a perfectly descriptive term of people who are overly armed.

But not for those who are openly carrying a sidearm per their legal right when buying coffee. This would be about when dmp jumps in to point out your fallacy so I'll save him the trouble. :)

[Wind Song]

It has been a practice in suburban Atlanta as long as I can remember. I don't care one way or another. I wouldn't be surprised if some of them were carried without bullets as a fashion statement.


Fashion statement or fetish? A group of men wearing their guns into Starbucks, WTF is up with that? Impotence?

[ConHog]

Armed to the teeth is a perfectly descriptive term of people who are overly armed.

Fine my dear, but very few people go around overly armed. Even when I was working I carried two firearms. I would say 99.9% of those who carry carry ONE handgun. So are you saying that ONE handgun is over armed?

[fj1200]

^To her I'm sure one is overly armed.

[Wind Song]

Fine my dear, but very few people go around overly armed. Even when I was working I carried two firearms. I would say 99.9% of those who carry carry ONE handgun. So are you saying that ONE handgun is over armed?

In Starbucks? You bet one handgun is over doing it.

[Dilloduck]

Seriously---I hate to be out of fashion. Overly armed ? Heaven forbid.

[Wind Song]

Seriously---I hate to be out of fashion. Overly armed ? Heaven forbid.

If you want to be overly armed wear an octopus costume to Starbucks and leave your gun at home.

[Dilloduck]

If you want to be overly armed wear an octopus costume to Starbucks and leave your gun at home.

I decided to carry it in my teeth :coffee:

[darin]

I'd feel the exact opposite. I don't want to live in an 1800's wild west town.

The 1800s West was among the safest, low-crime periods/locations in history; at least compared to the 'civilized' cities back east.


In a thorough review of the “West was violent” literature, Bruce Benson (1998) discovered that many historians simply assume that violence was pervasive—even more so than in modern-day America—and then theorize about its likely causes. In addition, some authors assume that the West was very violent and then assert, as Joe Franz does, that “American violence today reflects our frontier heritage” (Franz 1969, qtd. in Benson 1998, 98). Thus, an allegedly violent and stateless society of the nineteenth century is blamed for at least some of the violence in the United States today.
In a book-length survey of the “West was violent” literature, historian Roger McGrath echoes Benson’s skepticism about this theory when he writes that “the frontier-was-violent authors are not, for the most part, attempting to prove that the frontier was violent. Rather, they assume that it was violent and then proffer explanations for that alleged violence” (1984, 270).
In contrast, an alternative literature based on actual history concludes that the civil society of the American West in the nineteenth century was not very violent. Eugene Hollon writes that the western frontier “was a far more civilized, more peaceful and safer place than American society today” (1974, x). Terry Anderson and P. J. Hill affirm that although “[t]he West . . . is perceived as a place of great chaos, with little respect for property or life,” their research “indicates that this was not the case; property rights were protected and civil order prevailed. Private agencies provided the necessary basis for an orderly society in which property was protected and conflicts were resolved”

http://www.independent.org/publications/tir/article.asp?a=803

[fj1200]

In Starbucks? You bet one handgun is over doing it.

So the first step to acceptance would be to accept that your issue here is within you.


The first step is to recognize that the cause of anger is not what stimulated or triggered it. Anger is the response to the trigger. The cause of anger is the part of of that responds to the trigger, not the trigger itself.

[fj1200]

The 1800s West was among the safest, low-crime periods/locations in history; at least compared to the 'civilized' cities back east.

She has already ignored that information once in this thread.

[tailfins]

Fashion statement or fetish? A group of men wearing their guns into Starbucks, WTF is up with that? Impotence?

So if it's women carrying in their purse, no problem right? Shall I mark you down as being in favor of concealed carry?

[Wind Song]

I decided to carry it in my teeth :coffee:

Be careful now, don't trip and fall and blow your own head off!


So if it's women carrying in their purse, no problem right? Shall I mark you down as being in favor of concealed carry?

No, I'm not in favor of concealed carry either.


She has already ignored that information once in this thread.


You guys with your NRA links crack me up.


So the first step to acceptance would be to accept that your issue here is within you.


The first step to acceptance would be that I feel the way I do. I have a need for safety, and hanging out with a bunch of armed yahoos isn't safe.

[tailfins]

You guys with your NRA links crack me up.

What NRA link involves spending time in suburban Atlanta and commonly seeing firearms in public places? You're free to visit Norcross, Marietta, Smyrna, Duluth, Alpharetta, Cumming, Lake Lanier, etc. and see for yourself.

[Wind Song]

What NRA link involves spending time in suburban Atlanta and commonly seeing firearms in public places? You're free to visit Norcross, Marietta, Smyrna, Duluth, Alpharetta, Cumming, Lake Lanier, etc. and see for yourself.



I dream of a society where Americans come to truly respect one another and put their guns away. Forever. May American culture mature and may we as a people grow out of our gun fixation.

In the meantime, please stay away from me with your pistolas, boys.

[ConHog]

The first step to acceptance would be that I feel the way I do. I have a need for safety, and hanging out with a bunch of armed yahoos isn't safe.

WIndy, I am highly in favor of stringent standards on who can carry a handgun in public; but to just lump everyone together and call them yahoos if they carry a gun is stupid. Would you like us to lump you in with the weirdos who parade through the streets half naked screaming that they are here they are queer and we should get used to it?

Every group has it's nuts. But by and large most gun owners 1. don't even carry on a regular basis anyway 2. are responsible folks.

The idiot who walks into a starbucks and starts shooting up the place in all likelihood is just an idiot who if not for a gun would have found some other way to be an idiot.

[fj1200]

You guys with your NRA links crack me up.

Please point out the NRA's involvement in my link. Or is an NRA link any that shows the folly of your insecurities?


The first step to acceptance would be that I feel the way I do. I have a need for safety, and hanging out with a bunch of armed yahoos isn't safe.

You'll either have to show how open carry is harmful to your safety or accept that the issue is within you.

[ConHog]

Personally I think the open carry crowd are idiots and 99% of them wouldn't know what to do if a situation where they needed a gun came up anyway. So the whole argument is laughable, BUT Sky is trying the old "everyone who carries handguns is dangerous" routine here, and that shit isn't going to fly.

[tailfins]

WIndy, I am highly in favor of stringent standards on who can carry a handgun in public; but to just lump everyone together and call them yahoos if they carry a gun is stupid. Would you like us to lump you in with the weirdos who parade through the streets half naked screaming that they are here they are queer and we should get used to it?

Every group has it's nuts. But by and large most gun owners 1. don't even carry on a regular basis anyway 2. are responsible folks.

The idiot who walks into a starbucks and starts shooting up the place in all likelihood is just an idiot who if not for a gun would have found some other way to be an idiot.

Places from Georgia to Vermont don't restrict guns in public. It doesn't appear to be a problem in practice. However you raise an interesting point. Regarding idiots, should disorderly conduct laws be more vigorously enforced? The same can be said about those who parade through the street. If they don't tie up traffic, who cares? Ignore them and they will go away.

[Wind Song]

WIndy, I am highly in favor of stringent standards on who can carry a handgun in public; but to just lump everyone together and call them yahoos if they carry a gun is stupid. Would you like us to lump you in with the weirdos who parade through the streets half naked screaming that they are here they are queer and we should get used to it?

Every group has it's nuts. But by and large most gun owners 1. don't even carry on a regular basis anyway 2. are responsible folks.

The idiot who walks into a starbucks and starts shooting up the place in all likelihood is just an idiot who if not for a gun would have found some other way to be an idiot.

I think some places should be gun free. Gun owners want to walk into any place on earth wearing their guns. Consider what a posse of armed customers in Starbucks communicates to young people?

[ConHog]

Places from Georgia to Vermont don't restrict guns in public. It doesn't appear to be a problem in practice. However you raise an interesting point. Regarding idiots, should disorderly conduct laws be more vigorously enforced? The same can be said about those who parade through the street. If they don't tie up traffic, who cares? Ignore them and they will go away.

I think there are a LOT of laws which should be more vigorously enforced; and I think the Courts have went too far in defending the mythical proportions of the first amendment. I think we can all agree that the founding fathers never intended for running through the street naked to be protected as free speech; just as an example.

Yes, same thing with the second. I don't believe the founding fathers ever meant the second to mean you could carry a bazooka through town if you wanted, again just as an example.


I think some places should be gun free. Gun owners want to walk into any place on earth wearing their guns. Consider what a posse of armed customers in Starbucks communicates to young people?

SOME places are gun free.

Airports, schools,churches, government facilities.............. etc etc. Your OWN home if you so choose.


Oh, and do you REALLY want to know what seeing a group of responsible gun owners does to young people? Why it trains them to be responsible gun owners.

SO I ask again, why are you pretending like everyone who is in favor of guns is some crazy idiot who is likely to shoot the place up?

How would you like it if Jim came into this thread and said " I don't think kids should be exposed to Dorothy b/c she's a lesbian and we all know lesbians are ALL sex crazed , drug using, STD ridden dirt bags?"

[fj1200]

I think some places should be gun free.

Declare your property to be gun free then.


Gun owners want to walk into any place on earth wearing their guns.

Doesn't mean that they have that right.


Consider what a posse of armed customers in Starbucks communicates to young people?

Starbucks values liberty, the second amendment, and the rule of law? Hyperbole ignored of course.

[darin]

I dream of a society where Americans come to truly respect one another and put their guns away. Forever. May American culture mature and may we as a people grow out of our gun fixation.

In the meantime, please stay away from me with your pistolas, boys.

Americans? It's not an American Problem...it's a HUMAN NATURE Problem. Humans will ALWAYS choose violence to dominate others; Guns gives us a fighting chance against Evil.



I think some places should be gun free.

Do you believe those will ill-intent - criminals - would follow gun-free rules?


Gun owners want to walk into any place on earth wearing their guns. Consider what a posse of armed customers in Starbucks communicates to young people?

Lots of things: The importance of being prepared, number one. They MIGHT be able to communicate proper shooting stances, and help with trigger control, too!

My Daughter loves guns. Has since she was 10, pictured here:

http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3475/3859064823_d281291eac_z.jpg

[Wind Song]

SOME places are gun free.

Airports, schools,churches, government facilities.............. etc etc. Your OWN home if you so choose.


Excuse me, but I see no reason for citizens to wear their guns to Starbucks except for making some kind of political statement. It's absurd.

Here's where we differ. You think guns make you safer, I feel guns make us less safe. We both want to feel safe in our communities.

I live in a rural community. Lot's of people own guns and I don't worry it about it that much. I would if I had to encounter people with guns everywhere I go to shop or have a cup of coffee.

Here are two real life experiences for me in this county. One of my neighbors had his pool table outside all year round. He and his buddies would gather to shoot pool and get drunk. One time they decided to shoot their guns off. They shot in the direction of my property when I was sitting under a tree.

Another guy had a fist fight with this neighbor (who got the better of him) so he got his gun and drove by my neighbors house shooting up his house and car. The guy who did the shooting was a county commissioner.

[tailfins]

Excuse me, but I see no reason for citizens to wear their guns to Starbucks except for making some kind of political statement. It's absurd.

If making a political statement makes them happy, why do you want to rain on their parade? If I owned a Starbucks and 1,000 people who would not otherwise enter my store and buy something want to walk in, bring a gun and buy a cup of $4 coffee I want to know if they will buy two cups if I let them bring two guns.

[ConHog]

Excuse me, but I see no reason for citizens to wear their guns to Starbucks except for making some kind of political statement. It's absurd.

Here's where we differ. You think guns make you safer, I feel guns make us less safe. We both want to feel safe in our communities.

No Sky. I've already said I think most of those who are all "let us carry our guns" are stupid and are only arguing for the sake of arguing. Most of them probably would never carry again if the laws were changed to where they could.

Same as can be said for your own movement. Most of the queers who are out prancing around in the streets screaming about being queer, are idiots looking for attention that just happen to be gay. All groups have such people, but that doesn't mean they represent the entire group. WHY do you keep IGNORING that fact?

As for seeing a reason for carrying guns. We don't HAVE to have a reason. That's the beauty of freedom, we don't have to explain it, it just is. Have you noticed for example that I ALWAYS argue that YOU don't have to explain to anyone why you're gay? It is irrelevant, you have the right to be gay whether you were born that way OR you choose to be that way. I don't care which it is. All I care about is this is America god dammit and if you aren't hurting someone else with your activities you by God have a right to do them.

You're basically arguing that all gun owners who carry in public are hurting someone else and that is just as stupid as when someone else argues that all gays are hurting someone else just by being gay.

[Wind Song]

If making a political statement makes them happy, why do you want to rain on their parade?

If that's all they wanted to do, I wouldn't care. These shmoes want to go everywhere armed, and so far, my experience with neighbors who own guns is that they shoot them when they're pissed off.


No Sky. I've already said I think most of those who are all "let us carry our guns" are stupid and are only arguing for the sake of arguing. Most of them probably would never carry again if the laws were changed to where they could.

Same as can be said for your own movement. Most of the queers who are out prancing around in the streets screaming about being queer, are idiots looking for attention that just happen to be gay. All groups have such people, but that doesn't mean they represent the entire group. WHY do you keep IGNORING that fact?

As for seeing a reason for carrying guns. We don't HAVE to have a reason. That's the beauty of freedom, we don't have to explain it, it just is. Have you noticed for example that I ALWAYS argue that YOU don't have to explain to anyone why you're gay? It is irrelevant, you have the right to be gay whether you were born that way OR you choose to be that way. I don't care which it is. All I care about is this is America god dammit and if you aren't hurting someone else with your activities you by God have a right to do them.

You're basically arguing that all gun owners who carry in public are hurting someone else and that is just as stupid as when someone else argues that all gays are hurting someone else just by being gay.

Gays have nothing to do with this topic. I don't like it that everyone here is continually throwing gay topics at me that are irrelevant to the thread.

When you get back on topic, I will answer your posts.

I have very good reasons for not liking guns. I haven't seen sensible people with them, but I have seen plenty of bozos.

[ConHog]

Excuse me, but I see no reason for citizens to wear their guns to Starbucks except for making some kind of political statement. It's absurd.

Here's where we differ. You think guns make you safer, I feel guns make us less safe. We both want to feel safe in our communities.

I live in a rural community. Lot's of people own guns and I don't worry it about it that much. I would if I had to encounter people with guns everywhere I go to shop or have a cup of coffee.

Here are two real life experiences for me in this county. One of my neighbors had his pool table outside all year round. He and his buddies would gather to shoot pool and get drunk. One time they decided to shoot their guns off. They shot in the direction of my property when I was sitting under a tree.

Another guy had a fist fight with this neighbor (who got the better of him) so he got his gun and drove by my neighbors house shooting up his house and car. The guy who did the shooting was a county commissioner.


You know, given the stories you tell you either live in a very shitty area or are a very shitty neighbor who everyone hates. I mean seriously.


Gays have nothing to do with this topic. I don't like it that everyone here is continually throwing gay topics at me that are irrelevant to the thread.

When you get back on topic, I will answer your posts.



Gay has EVERYTHING to do with the topic Dorothy because either you are for everyone's freedoms or you can shut up when your own are abridged.

[tailfins]

If that's all they wanted to do, I wouldn't care. These shmoes want to go everywhere armed, and so far, my experience with neighbors who own guns is that they shoot them when they're pissed off.

If they do that you should be grateful. First of all, it guarantees it won't happen again. Secondly, the amount they pay in probation fees for aggravated assault is enough to send a kid to school for an entire year.

[Wind Song]

You know, given the stories you tell you either live in a very shitty area or are a very shitty neighbor who everyone hates. I mean seriously.


I've had a couple of bad experiences in this county in the last five years.


If they do that you should be grateful. First of all, it guarantees it won't happen again. Secondly, the amount they pay in probation fees for aggravated assault is enough to send a kid to school for an entire year.


I should be grateful? Oh yeah, I'm grateful for being traumatized. I've learned to help many people because of it. The fees here wouldn't support a kid in school for a year.


Gay has EVERYTHING to do with the topic Dorothy because either you are for everyone's freedoms or you can shut up when your own are abridged.


If you can only see me as my sexual orientation, then you are really limiting our human connection. I'm not discussing marriage equality on this thread. Please stick to the topic.

[ConHog]

If you can only see me as my sexual orientation, then you are really limiting our human connection. I'm not discussing marriage equality on this thread. Please stick to the topic.

If you can't see the correlation between rights here you are dumber than your biggest detractors have claimed .

[tailfins]

If you can only see me as my sexual orientation, then you are really limiting our human connection. I'm not discussing marriage equality on this thread. Please stick to the topic.

I only care about your orientation when you make it a burden for me and/or my family.

[ConHog]

I only care about your orientation when you make it a burden for me and/or my family.

She's blind. Only HER freedom matters to her, and that is exactly why she won't address my point.

[Wind Song]

If you can't see the correlation between rights here you are dumber than your biggest detractors have claimed .

Conhog--

I gave you a chance to be civil and you've decided not to take it.

See ya next time.

Sky

[ConHog]

Conhog--

I gave you a chance to be civil and you've decided not to take it.

See ya next time.

Sky

Civil? I didn't call you an names. In fact I don't think you're dumb. I think you're willfully ignoring the correlation.

[Wind Song]

Civil? I didn't call you an names. In fact I don't think you're dumb. I think you're willfully ignoring the correlation.

I respectfully asked you to stick to the topic. Use some other correlation. I'm sick of having my sexual orientation thrown at me in every thread.

I'm sorry if this sounds judging or that I'm blaming you for your post. I'm trying hard to figure out a way to make a request that isn't a demand, and yet meets my needs.

Try and imagine what it might be like if every topic you started became all about you being heterosexual. Most of the time, that stuff is irrelevant.

[ConHog]

I respectfully asked you to stick to the topic. Use some other correlation. I'm sick of having my sexual orientation thrown at me in every thread.

I'm not throwing it in your face, I'm making a point. You're grouping all gun owners together and calling them all crazy and then saying "who cares what they want?" How would YOU like it if gays were treated the same? That is a fair and legitimate question.

[Wind Song]

I'm not throwing it in your face, I'm making a point. You're grouping all gun owners together and calling them all crazy and then saying "who cares what they want?" How would YOU like it if gays were treated the same? That is a fair and legitimate question.


I'm sorry if you think I'm grouping ALL gun owners together. I think it's stupid to be showing up at Starbuck en masse wearing your pistolas. That's the point of this thread.

Can I go get a cup of coffee in peace? Can I sit in front of the tree in my yard without being shot at? Does the gun owner have more rights than the non-gun owner?

[jimnyc]

Can I go get a cup of coffee in peace? Can I sit in front of the tree in my yard without being shot at? Does the gun owner have more rights than the non-gun owner?

Sure you can, and someone simply possessing a gun won't stop you from enjoying your coffee in peace, unless you're paranoid.

And of course you can sit in front of your yard without being shot at. Not sure what that has to do with starbucks.

Gun owners have the right to own guns, and in many places to possess them in public places. You have the right not to own a gun. You have the right to not go to an establishment if someone is in there with a gun. You do not have the right to step on others constitutional rights though.

[Wind Song]

Sure you can, and someone simply possessing a gun won't stop you from enjoying your coffee in peace, unless you're paranoid.

And of course you can sit in front of your yard without being shot at. Not sure what that has to do with starbucks.

Gun owners have the right to own guns, and in many places to possess them in public places. You have the right not to own a gun. You have the right to not go to an establishment if someone is in there with a gun. You do not have the right to step on others constitutional rights though.

So Starbucks becomes a guns only establishment? Even in open carry states, businesses are allowed to ban guns.

[jimnyc]

So Starbucks becomes a guns only establishment?

Nope, those without guns are just as welcome as those exercising their constitutional rights. Equality to all.

[Wind Song]

Nope, those without guns are just as welcome as those exercising their constitutional rights. Equality to all.

I'd hardly call having a gun shoved in your face equality for all. Any gun any time any place must end. What message does a posse of armed gun nuts give a group of high school students in Starbucks?

[jimnyc]

I'd hardly call having a gun shoved in your face equality for all.

Where is it reported that someone was shoving their gun in anothers face? THAT would in fact be a crime. Just possessing guns in public though is a constitutional right. Were they just possessing in public, or actually committing crimes with their weapons?

[tailfins]

Where is it reported that someone was shoving their gun in anothers face? THAT would in fact be a crime. Just possessing guns in public though is a constitutional right. Were they just possessing in public, or actually committing crimes with their weapons?

It would in fact be a felony: Aggravated Assault With A Deadly Weapon

[Wind Song]

Where is it reported that someone was shoving their gun in anothers face? THAT would in fact be a crime. Just possessing guns in public though is a constitutional right. Were they just possessing in public, or actually committing crimes with their weapons?

I had a one neighbor, a county commissioner, get in a fight with my other neighbor, (a drunken bully) and he drove by shooting at the house and car. I had a neighbor and his drunken friends shooting off their guns. I was sitting beneath a tree in my yard while branches were falling on me.

I'm not a big fan of gun rights or gun demonstrations.

[jimnyc]

It would in fact be a felony: Aggravated Assault With A Deadly Weapon

Something tells me her wording is rhetoric and this is her interpretation of what DIDN'T happen at Starbucks.

[jimnyc]

I had a one neighbor, a county commissioner, get in a fight with my other neighbor, (a drunken bully) and he drove by shooting at the house and car. I had a neighbor and his drunken friends shooting off their guns. I was sitting beneath a tree in my yard while branches were falling on me.

I'm not a big fan of gun rights or gun demonstrations.

And I'm not a big fan of things that others do in life. We all don't agree, but we agree to disagree - but we DON'T try and step on anothers constitutional rights.

[Wind Song]

This same neighbor brandishes his weapon at some teenagers who were having a party.

[jimnyc]

This same neighbor brandishes his weapon at some teenagers who were having a party.

This has what to do with guns/starbucks? So is it ok to now go off topic?

[Wind Song]

And I'm not a big fan of things that others do in life. We all don't agree, but we agree to disagree - but we DON'T try and step on anothers constitutional rights.

Your constitutional rights to have a gun end at my right to live. I've seen too many people with guns use them inappropriately.

[jimnyc]

Your constitutional rights to have a gun end at my right to live.

Your demands to have "equality" and equal marriage rights must end as well then.

[Wind Song]

This has what to do with guns/starbucks? So is it ok to now go off topic?

My mistake. I want to feel safe in Starbucks and I don't feel safe when 25 people come in with their guns. It feels menacing.

[Thunderknuckles]

I dream of a society where Americans come to truly respect one another and put their guns away. Forever. May American culture mature and may we as a people grow out of our gun fixation.

In the meantime, please stay away from me with your pistolas, boys.
The right to bear arms was not given because citizens could not respect each other. It was granted because governments could not respect their citizens.

[Wind Song]

Tons of teenagers go to Starbucks. What message are YOU sending them when you and your pals come into Starbucks armed?

[jimnyc]

Tons of teenagers go to Starbucks. What message are YOU sending them when you and your pals come into Starbucks armed?

You're telling them that you are a believer in the Constitution of the US and you are a responsible gun owner. It shows the kids what a responsible gun owner looks like as opposed to the crap they see from thugs in the movies and their video games.

[Wind Song]

I regret Starbucks becoming an aggressive corporate advocate for guns and gun violence.

[Wind Song]

You're telling them that you are a believer in the Constitution of the US and you are a responsible gun owner. It shows the kids what a responsible gun owner looks like as opposed to the crap they see from thugs in the movies and their video games.


It tells them to get armed in order to be cool.

[jimnyc]

I regret Starbucks becoming an aggressive corporate advocate for guns and gun violence.

Can you show where Starbucks has actively supported violence in any way at all? Why do you consistently make things up?

[jimnyc]

It tells them to get armed in order to be cool.

I've been seeing people armed my whole life, including my father and eldest brother. I never saw it as "cool" and never carried a gun myself. But that's THEIR RIGHT to do so.

[Wind Song]

THE GOAL OF THE PRO-GUN AGENDA: To maximize gun sales, the goal is that guns be carried any place, any time, by anyone. This is significantly increasing everyone’s risk of being a victim of gun violence.

Starbucks is far from the socially conscious company they once conveyed.

[Thunderknuckles]

THE GOAL OF THE PRO-GUN AGENDA: To maximize gun sales, the goal is that guns be carried any place, any time, by anyone. This is significantly increasing everyone’s risk of being a victim of gun violence.

Starbucks is far from the socially conscious company they once conveyed.
If you want to stop Starbucks from doing this, that's OK by me. If you're asking that the 2nd Amendment be abolished then you're a lunatic.

[jimnyc]

THE GOAL OF THE PRO-GUN AGENDA: To maximize gun sales, the goal is that guns be carried any place, any time, by anyone. This is significantly increasing everyone’s risk of being a victim of gun violence.

Starbucks is far from the socially conscious company they once conveyed.

Don't backtrack now. You stated that Starbucks was an advocate for gun violence, and I'm simply asking you to back that up with something they did or said that shows that. Simply standing up for the rights of gun owners, CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS, does not mean they are advocating violence. You're AGAIN just making shit up to make your post seem more fancy. They did no such thing. Funny though how YOU cry about YOUR rights...

Come here and discuss why you're a hypocrite so as not to go off topic:

http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?t=34890

[Wind Song]

I've been seeing people armed my whole life, including my father and eldest brother. I never saw it as "cool" and never carried a gun myself. But that's THEIR RIGHT to do so.


You support the gun bubbas bullying their way around Starbucks. I hope no one is injured or killed at Starbucks by one of these bullies.

[Wind Song]

If you want to stop Starbucks from doing this, that's OK by me. If you're asking that the 2nd Amendment be abolished then you're a lunatic.


I want to stop Starbucks from doing this. The Open Carry Movement are a bunch of bullies. Bullies with guns are a bad combination.

[jimnyc]

You support the gun bubbas bullying their way around Starbucks. I hope no one is injured or killed at Starbucks by one of these bullies.

What about when it's filled with queers having a "sit in" demanding equal rights? And we should just shut up and accept it when we feel awkward in a store filled with queers?

[Wind Song]

What about when it's filled with queers having a "sit in" demanding equal rights? And we should just shut up and accept it when we feel awkward in a store filled with queers?


Sit ins are non-violent. One hundred armed people taking over a Starbucks is not a non-violent protest.

[jimnyc]

Sit ins are non-violent. Being armed is not non-violent protest.

There is no violence in either. It is FAR from violent to carry a sidearm.

[jimnyc]

Sit ins are non-violent. One hundred armed people taking over a Starbucks is not a non-violent protest.

YOU feel uncomfortable around a bunch of people with guns. I feel uncomfortable around a bunch of queers. Why should you have these rights you desire, but I should have mine taken away?

[Wind Song]

There is no violence in either. It is FAR from violent to carry a sidearm.

It is threatening to others. That's the point. Gun owners feel powerful when they show off their weapons.

[jimnyc]

It is threatening to others. That's the point. Gun owners feel powerful when they show off their weapons.

Look up "violent" and then "threatening". I'm sorry, people with guns fit neither profile. YOU may feel that way, but they are simply not being violent nor threatening.

[Wind Song]

YOU feel uncomfortable around a bunch of people with guns. I feel uncomfortable around a bunch of queers. Why should you have these rights you desire, but I should have mine taken away?

I'm really sorry that your fallback position on debating any topic with me is to bait me or attack me for being gay. I am so sorry that the fact of me being gay makes you so uncomfortable.

[jimnyc]

I'm really sorry that your fallback position on debating any topic with me is to personally attack me for being gay. I am so sorry that the fact of me being gay makes you so uncomfortable.

I've created another thread to discuss the similarity so as to remain on topic. I've linked to said thread so as to remain on topic. You just want to be a hypocrite and not be called on it, and then when you are you just cry "stay on topic". Sorry, I'm not ignoring the obvious. You want to DEMAND rights and SCREAM "equality" from the top of the mountains when it comes to "rights" for queers, but you try to stamp out 200 years of Constitutional rights because YOU feel uncomfortable.

[Wind Song]

Too bad you can't just discuss the topic of Starbucks being invaded by armed NRA protestors. I certainly regret not allowing all of you to presume I'm heterosexual. Now all you do is try and bait me for that on EVERY topic.

[jimnyc]

Too bad you can't just discuss the topic of Starbucks being invaded by armed NRA protestors.

Fine, then reply in the other thread instead of being a coward and you won't hear another peep about it in this thread from me...

I still don't think you have any reason to be upset at all with gun owners or those that carry openly. The only reason to bitch would be over crimes committed with them, none of which I see here. Hell, why not ban knives too, they can scare people away and kill people. So can cars, totally easy to just run someone over, a a whole bunch in a few seconds. Should ban them too. Fact is, it's the guns being used by idiots and criminals, not peaceful gun owners simply carrying their sidearm while getting a few cups of coffee.

[jimnyc]

I certainly regret not allowing all of you to presume I'm heterosexual. Now all you do is try and bait me for that on EVERY topic.

Nope, only when you act like a HUGE hypocrite. I'm not calling you out for your sexuality, but rather for your hypocritical stances, your actions.

[tailfins]

Too bad you can't just discuss the topic of Starbucks being invaded by armed NRA protestors. I certainly regret not allowing all of you to presume I'm heterosexual. Now all you do is try and bait me for that on EVERY topic.

Why do you TAKE the bait? Notice how I don't take the bait on race.

[Wind Song]

Fine, then reply in the other thread instead of being a coward and you won't hear another peep about it in this thread from me...

I still don't think you have any reason to be upset at all with gun owners or those that carry openly. The only reason to bitch would be over crimes committed with them, none of which I see here. Hell, why not ban knives too, they can scare people away and kill people. So can cars, totally easy to just run someone over, a a whole bunch in a few seconds. Should ban them too. Fact is, it's the guns being used by idiots and criminals, not peaceful gun owners simply carrying their sidearm while getting a few cups of coffee.

No, I'm not going to respond to your flame thread.

Peaceful gun owners do not need to make a second amendment statement by coming armed to take over a coffee shop. The second amendment is in no way endangered.

[jimnyc]

Why do you TAKE the bait? Notice how I don't take the bait on race.

Because it's NOT bait. If she is FOR rights, based on the constitution, then it's a legitimate question to ask why she does a 180 a few seconds later on a different topic. Either you believe in the rights granted to us in the constitution, or you don't. 100% legit questioning, IMO.

[jimnyc]

No, I'm not going to respond to your flame thread.

Peaceful gun owners do not need to make a statement by taking over a coffee shop.

Fine, then don't tell others they are speaking off topic.

You're a hypocrite. You demand constitutional protections while speaking out one end of your mouth while the other end is trying to stamp out rights to others.

[tailfins]

Because it's NOT bait. If she is FOR rights, based on the constitution, then it's a legitimate question to ask why she does a 180 a few seconds later on a different topic. Either you believe in the rights granted to us in the constitution, or you don't. 100% legit questioning, IMO.

I'm just pointing out that she has the option to ignore you rather than letting it get to her.

[jimnyc]

I'm just pointing out that she has the option to ignore you rather than letting it get to her.

True, but ignoring a question about an accusation of hypocrisy, which can be very easily proven, only screams "I am a hypocrite".

[tailfins]

True, but ignoring a question about an accusation of hypocrisy, which can be very easily proven, only screams "I am a hypocrite".

It can also scream "I don't give a s**t"

[Wind Song]

It was Starbucks choice to place itself in the middle of gun controversy by allowing large groups of armed protestors to hold meetings in their stores. For a company that has in the past tried to be a conscious business, this was pretty stupid, IMO.

[jimnyc]

It can also scream "I don't give a s**t"

It's a fact that she has sought constitutional rights for queers, and is now married based on those protections.
It's also now a fact that she thinks others should have constitutional protections changed/abridged/halted, whatever term you want to use.

To me, that sounds rather hypocritical, and quite on topic to ask "Why the discrepancy". It also makes me wonder whether that person truly believes in the COTUS. One can't truly respect what the document is if they solely look at it from how it benefits them.

[Wind Song]

Guns in Starbucks is the topic. It's a great topic. I wish you'd stick to it, Jim. I'm sure you can find some other "queer" to flamebait.

[ConHog]

My mistake. I want to feel safe in Starbucks and I don't feel safe when 25 people come in with their guns. It feels menacing.

Hey Sky, you in fact have NO right to go to Starbucks. You DO realize that right?

[jimnyc]

It was Starbucks choice to place itself in the middle of gun controversy by allowing large groups of armed protestors to hold meetings in their stores. For a company that has in the past tried to be a conscious business, this was pretty stupid, IMO.

People in the USA care a LOT more about gun rights than they do queer rights, I can ASSURE you of that one. Sticking with the COTUS and allowing patrons to express those rights, shows that Starbucks has respect for the Constitution.

[jimnyc]

Guns in Starbucks is the topic.

And so are queers in starbucks. You don't like one, I don't like the other.

[Kathianne]

Guns in Starbucks is the topic.

Starbucks chooses to follow local and state ordinances. It seems your problem is you want them to hang signs that disagree with the ordinances. They aren't doing it, so you whine. Reading the CS Monitor link you provided, seems lots of whiners are with you, your problem is that those that agree with Starbucks 'no signs' policy are supporting them.

[Kathianne]

It was Starbucks choice to place itself in the middle of gun controversy by allowing large groups of armed protestors to hold meetings in their stores. For a company that has in the past tried to be a conscious business, this was pretty stupid, IMO.

Where do you find references to the bolded above? I see they allow patrons to openly carry, in the 47 states it's allowed in, but 'large groups of armed protestors?' No.

[Wind Song]

Hey Sky, you in fact have NO right to go to Starbucks. You DO realize that right?


I have the same right as anyone else who can afford a 4 buck cuppa.

[Wind Song]

And so are queers in starbucks. You don't like one, I don't like the other.

I'm sorry you don't like gay people. We're just any other human being. I hope you learn that one day.

[jimnyc]

I have the same right as anyone else who can afford a 4 buck cuppa.

And so do those who have permits to carry a gun.

[tailfins]

Hey Sky, you in fact have NO right to go to Starbucks. You DO realize that right?

If you want to know what a Lefty constitution would look like, see Roosevelt's 1941 State of the Union address:

*The first two are empty references to reduce the shock factor

Freedom of speech and expression
Freedom of worship
Freedom from want
Freedom from fear

[jimnyc]

I'm sorry you don't like gay people. We're just any other human being. I hope you learn that one day.

I'm sorry you don't like honest people who possess guns. They're just regular folk like you and I, simply exercising their Constitutional rights. I hope you learn that one day.

[Wind Song]

Where do you find references to the bolded above? I see they allow patrons to openly carry, in the 47 states it's allowed in, but 'large groups of armed protestors?' No.

Starbucks has allowed itself to be a meeting place for armed open carry protestors. Considering the size of the average Starbucks, what would be a LARGE protest to you?

Filling the place up with people carrying guns is a big demonstration.

[Wind Song]

I'm sorry you don't like honest people who possess guns. They're just regular folk like you and I, simply exercising their Constitutional rights. I hope you learn that one day.

I'd love to meet them. Maybe when you stop disliking gays I'll stop disliking people who abuse their gun ownership and act like bullies.

[Kathianne]

Starbucks has allowed itself to be a meeting place for armed open carry protestors. Considering the size of the average Starbucks, what would be a LARGE protest to you?

Filling the place up with people carrying guns is a big demonstration.

If you are claiming that Starbucks allows folks with open carry guns into the store and calling that a 'demonstration' you are mashing the meaning of demonstration.

[jimnyc]

I'd love to meet them. Maybe when you stop disliking gays I'll stop disliking people who abuse their gun ownership and act like bullies.

Not liking someone and taking their rights away are 2 totally different things. I'm not asking to have any rights taken away from law abiding citizens - you are.

[Wind Song]

Where do you find references to the bolded above? I see they allow patrons to openly carry, in the 47 states it's allowed in, but 'large groups of armed protestors?' No.


When they allow groups of gun owners to have their meetings at Starbucks then they are allowing the store to be filled with gun owners, which isn't comfortable for non-gun owners.

We don't matter in their universe.

[Kathianne]

Starbucks has allowed itself to be a meeting place for armed open carry protestors. Considering the size of the average Starbucks, what would be a LARGE protest to you?

Filling the place up with people carrying guns is a big demonstration.

So now we've gone to meetings for pro-carry to calling serving customers that are following the law as demonstrations. You certainly are good at this debating stuff.

While Starbucks hasn't hung signs saying that one must leave their guns outside the store, contrary to their state/local laws; I've not seen anything that intimates they are advertising to those with guns to 'bring 'em on in.'

[jimnyc]

When they allow groups of gun owners to have their meetings at Starbucks then they are allowing the store to be filled with gun owners, which isn't comfortable for non-gun owners.

We don't matter in their universe.

And the exact same scenario applies when and if they would allow their store for a sit in for queers. MANY people would feel uncomfortable. I guess hetero's wouldn't matter in your universe.

[tailfins]

what would be a LARGE protest to you?



This (a TEA party protest):

3411


Besides, the difference between gun activists and occupiers is that the gun activists BUY SOMETHING.

[Kathianne]

When they allow groups of gun owners to have their meetings at Starbucks then they are allowing the store to be filled with gun owners, which isn't comfortable for non-gun owners.

We don't matter in their universe.

They hadn't a problem when about 15 of us came and met and drank coffee while discussing the War of the Roses or Vlad Dracula either. Sometimes the discussions were rather vile. Perfectly legal though. Sure some didn't like the references to Turks being strung up on pikes through their anuses though.

[Wind Song]

Starbucks committment to the NRA's Pro-Gun agenda was evident when members of the open carry movement started meeting in popular chains, openly carrying rifles and handguns; California Pizza, Peets Coffee, IKEA, Disney and Starbucks. To protect the security of their customers and employees all of these chains except Starbucks banned guns from their stores.

[tailfins]

And the exact same scenario applies when and if they would allow their store for a sit in for queers. MANY people would feel uncomfortable. I guess hetero's wouldn't matter in your universe.


The sit-in comparison falls apart here. People at sit-ins were waiting to be served (buy something). If one disrupts the business, they are occupying, not doing a sit-in. My aunt had to endure a sit-in. She doubled the prices and decided to serve.

[Wind Song]

And the exact same scenario applies when and if they would allow their store for a sit in for queers. MANY people would feel uncomfortable. I guess hetero's wouldn't matter in your universe.


I feel sorry for you. Your prejudice against "queers" must be so painful. I wish you well. Hetero's matter in my universe. So does the safety of customers and employees in Starbucks regardless of their sexual orientation.

[jimnyc]

The sit-in comparison falls apart here. People at sit-ins were waiting to be served (buy something).

I'm confident that gun owners drink coffee or other drinks. Any company would be within their rights to ask a non-customer to leave. But if they are customers just like everyone else, maybe even like gay people, they too have the right to come in, with or without their legal gun.

[Wind Song]

I'm confident that gun owners drink coffee or other drinks. Any company would be within their rights to ask a non-customer to leave. But if they are customers just like everyone else, maybe even like gay people, they too have the right to come in, with or without their legal gun.

You might consider that gun owners would make more friends with non-gun owners if they weren't showing up armed when they protest.

[jimnyc]

I feel sorry for you. Your prejudice must be so painful. I wish you well.

That's too funny, you're calling me out for being prejudiced while failing to see that I'm simply pointing out your hypocrisy and prejudice towards those who own guns. I'm not asking that gay people stop going to Starbucks. I'm 99% sure a few are ALWAYS at my local Starbucks, and I really don't give a shit. I'm not the one acting like I'm in fear of law abiding citizens.

[jimnyc]

You might consider that gun owners would make more friends with non-gun owners if they weren't showing up armed when they protest.

What makes you think they would be at a Starbucks looking to make friends with anyone?

[tailfins]

You might consider that gun owners would make more friends with non-gun owners if they weren't showing up armed when they protest.

Coming to a gun demonstration without a gun is like entering a car show without a car.

[Kathianne]

Starbucks committment to the NRA's Pro-Gun agenda was evident when members of the open carry movement started meeting in popular chains, openly carrying rifles and handguns; California Pizza, Peets Coffee, IKEA, Disney and Starbucks. To protect the security of their customers and employees all of these chains except Starbucks banned guns from their stores.



Good lord, don't know where you got that 'quote' from, certainly wasn't CS Monitor article you referenced:

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/2012/0216/How-Starbucks-became-the-darling-of-American-gun-owners


...On one hand, the stand is merely a reflection of law: 43 states permit open carry. Yet other companies – such as Peet's Coffee, IKEA (http://www.csmonitor.com/tags/topic/Inter+IKEA+Systems+BV), and California Pizza Kitchen (http://www.csmonitor.com/tags/topic/California+Pizza+Kitchen+Inc.) all post signs against open carry, even in states where it's allowed...

As I said, your outrage seems focused on their not following a political agenda you want followed. Starbucks just seems to be running their businesses, serving the customers that come in the door. If that's folks with guns, so be it. If it's a bunch of history nerds, so be it.

[tailfins]

As I said, your outrage seems focused on their not following a political agenda you want followed. Starbucks just seems to be running their businesses, serving the customers that come in the door. If that's folks with guns, so be it. If it's a bunch of history nerds, so be it.

I agree. It is comparable to Sonic stopping cruise-ins because they feature "gas guzzling" and "polluting" vehicles, never mind that it packs the establishment with customers.

[Missileman]

How would you feel going in for your latte and finding all the other patrons armed to the teeth?

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/2012/0216/How-Starbucks-became-the-darling-of-American-gun-owners

You fallaciously assume armed equals danger. If all the armed patrons were police officers, would you feel threatened? Law abiding citizens, even armed, are no more a threat to you than a cop.

[DragonStryk72]

Fine. I have no problem looking at a display of guns. It's the human beings who are armed and dangerous that bother me.

So what you're saying is that if *you* were armed, you are automatically dangerous? Your ethics, morals, and years of not shooting every person who crosses your path goes away because you now have a gun on you? You are still removing the actual human element from this.

Here, we'll use the VA Tech shooting and Columbine as examples. In both locations, guns were barred, and also in both locations, mass murderers killed people with guns. Sure, the guys cared about whether or not people were armed, they chose the locations specifically because they didn't have any guns to defend themselves with. There was no chance in either location that someone was going to pull out a gun and shoot them in the back before they got the body count up.

The armed and dangerous ones are exactly the reason that seeing people carrying guns in public shouldn't be a problem. Law abiding citizens with guns is not, and never has been, the problem. Mass murderers are a problem, but gun control laws favor them instead of penalizing them, since they'll just ignore and work around the laws regardless.

[Kathianne]

So what you're saying is that if *you* were armed, you are automatically dangerous? Your ethics, morals, and years of not shooting every person who crosses your path goes away because you now have a gun on you? You are still removing the actual human element from this.

Here, we'll use the VA Tech shooting and Columbine as examples. In both locations, guns were barred, and also in both locations, mass murderers killed people with guns. Sure, the guys cared about whether or not people were armed, they chose the locations specifically because they didn't have any guns to defend themselves with. There was no chance in either location that someone was going to pull out a gun and shoot them in the back before they got the body count up.

The armed and dangerous ones are exactly the reason that seeing people carrying guns in public shouldn't be a problem. Law abiding citizens with guns is not, and never has been, the problem. Mass murderers are a problem, but gun control laws favor them instead of penalizing them, since they'll just ignore and work around the laws regardless.

step in the right direction:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/03/06/us-guns-colorado-university-idUSTRE82504920120306


Colorado court says students can carry guns on campus Mon, Mar 5 2012
By Keith Coffman
DENVER (Reuters) - The University of Colorado overstepped its authority when the school's board of regents imposed a ban on the carrying of concealed weapons at its four campuses, the state's Supreme Court ruled on Monday.


In overturning the policy, the court said that a concealed -carry law passed by the state legislature trumped the school's ban because it did not carve out an exception for the state's flagship university.


"We hold that the (concealed carry law's) comprehensive statewide purpose, broad language, and narrow exclusions show that the General Assembly intended to divest the Board of Regents of its authority to regulate concealed handgun possession on campus," the ruling said.


"This is a victory for gun rights as well as civil rights," said James Manley, an attorney with the Mountain States Legal Foundation that sued on behalf of three students who challenged the ban.


"The University of Colorado has to follow state law and the regents can't ignore that."...

[DragonStryk72]

Fashion statement or fetish? A group of men wearing their guns into Starbucks, WTF is up with that? Impotence?

And what location would you have them put the guns they've been carrying all day up until they made it to the starbucks' front door, WS? Why is it only wrong when they suddenly need some herbal tea and a scone?

[Kathianne]

Actually what Wind is upset about, along with those that agree with her is that when the anti-gun lobbyists started their protests on Starbucks for not following their lead; the second amendment endorsers supported Starbucks:

http://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local/Anti-Gun-Group-Boycotting-Starbucks-139304753.html


Anti-Gun Group Boycotting Starbucks Group wants coffee chain to ban guns in stores
Tuesday, Feb 14, 2012
A gun victims advocacy group called a national boycott against Starbucks coffee stores on Valentine's Day in protest of the company's policy toward guns.


The group National Gun Victim's Action Council (http://gunvictimsaction.org/) wants Starbucks to ban customers from openly carrying firearms in its stores.
Guns in Starbucks has become a perennial issue. In the past, the company has taken the position that its stores follow state and local laws and has its own safety measures in stores.


"Starbucks respects the views of our customers and recognizes that there is significant and genuine passion surrounding this issue," read a statement from the company. "It is Starbucks' long standing approach to abide by the laws that permit open carry and where these laws don’t exist, openly carrying weapons in our stores is prohibited. As the public debate around this issue continues, we encourage customers and advocacy groups from both sides to share their input with their public officials."


So in Virginia, gun owners are allowed to openly carry their firearms in Starbucks stores.


"It causes fear and intimidation among the public, and we don’t think Starbucks customers or the public in general should have to deal with people who are obviously not uniformed police officers carrying loaded, open-carry guns in public," said Brian Malte, of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence.


The NGVAC said that Starbucks should follow the lead of other retail chains, like IKEA and California Pizza Kitchen, and enforce a ban within in its stores.


"Starbucks allowing guns to be carried in thousands of their stores significantly increases everyone's risk of being a victim of gun violence," said Elliot Fineman, CEO of the NGVAC. "Open and conceal and carry are among the reasons there are 12,000 gun homicides each year in the U.S."


Gun advocate Ed Levine countered the boycott by calling on gun owners to support Starbucks on Valentine's Day.


"I'm here today to support Starbucks for staying neutral in the gunfight that's been going on with gun owners and non-gun owners," he said at a Starbucks in Sterling, Va.




So this happened:

http://www.facebook.com/events/261743290558881/

http://gunssavelives.net/blog/gun-owners-show-your-support-to-starbucks-on-feb-14-2012/

and best summed up here:

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/nationnow/2012/02/starbucks-guns-boycott.html


Buy latte, pack gun: Starbucks hit with boycott -- and 'buycott' <style type="text/css">.comment_button_container { margin-right: 10px; }</style> February 15, 2012

Those who prefer to drink their lattes packing protection on their hip turned out at Starbucks across the country on the first day of a "buycott" organized by gun owners -- countering the Starbucks boycott called this week by the National Gun Victims Action Council.


The issue of Starbucks allowing gun owners to openly carry their weapons in states that have "open carry" laws has been simmering for years. The new boycott, which launched Tuesday, aims at persuading Starbucks to join a growing list of retail chains, including Peet's Coffee, California Pizza Kitchen and IKEA, which prohibit guns even when they're otherwise legal.


"Starbucks allowing guns to be carried in thousands of their stores significantly increases everyone's risk of being a victim of gun violence," Elliot Fineman, head of the Chicago-based council, said in a press release (http://gunvictimsaction.org/blog/2012/01/press-release-starbucks-boycott/) announcing the boycott.


Most of the visible action Tuesday seemed to be on the buycott side of things, though, as gun groups across the country urged their members to show up at Starbucks -- not necessarily with their weapons -- and spend.


Joe Huffman, a Seattle software engineer who writes a gun blog based in his native Idaho, reported (http://blog.joehuffman.org/2012/02/15/StarbucksAppreciationDayReport.aspx) that he and his friends spent $131.64 at the Starbucks in Seattle's main shopping district Tuesday.


"I wasn't carrying a gun. I did have a jacket on that had an [National Rifle Assn.] life member patch," Huffman said in an interview. "I wanted to demonstrate that even though they're under a lot of pressure, we're very appreciative of them standing up against those people."


Similar "Starbucks Appreciation Day" demonstrations were reported in several states, including Hawaii, Tennessee, and Michigan, as well as in several suburban communities around Seattle, where Starbucks is headquartered.


In Columbus, Ohio, students promoting the right to carry guns at Ohio State University protested outside a Starbucks, carrying signs with such slogans as, "Because I CAN'T carry a cop," the Lantern (http://www.thelantern.com/mobile/campus/concealed-carry-laws-trigger-protests-1.2780735) student newspaper reported.


"I threw out the idea of a Starbucks appreciation day (http://www.examiner.com/gun-rights-in-seattle/drink-up-with-your-valentine-at-starbucks) on my online forum, and God Almighty, it caught fire," Dave Workman, editor of the Gun Mag, based in Bellevue, Wash., said in an interview.







It seems that the 'gun totting' folks weren't the ones protesting, just supporting the company that didn't cave to protesters demands.

[Wind Song]

You fallaciously assume armed equals danger. If all the armed patrons were police officers, would you feel threatened? Law abiding citizens, even armed, are no more a threat to you than a cop.


I don't feel comfortable hanging around strangers who are carrying lethal weapons. If I opened the door to Starbucks and it was filled with armed customers, I would go elsewhere.

I don't want to live in a country where every man, woman and child is armed. Rush Limbaugh does, but I don't.

[DragonStryk72]

I don't feel comfortable hanging around strangers who are gay. If I opened the door to Starbucks and it was filled with gay customers, I would go elsewhere.

Yes, I edited your post, and marked my edits in blue. Judging everyone, and your own safety by one fact that you dislike is not rational thinking, WS. Switch gay to Jewish, Black, Muslim, Lesbian, or Democrat. Would you see someone who walked away from businesses on that basis as being reasonable people?

[jimnyc]

I don't feel comfortable hanging around strangers who are carrying lethal weapons. If I opened the door to Starbucks and it was filled with armed customers, I would go elsewhere.

And if I opened the door to a Starbucks, and it were full of queers, I would go elsewhere.

^ Why is my comment any different than yours?

Do you support and/or want rights, as a group, based on the Constitution of the US? Yes or no will do just fine!

[jimnyc]

Yes, I edited your post, and marked my edits in blue. Judging everyone, and your own safety by one fact that you dislike is not rational thinking, WS. Switch gay to Jewish, Black, Muslim, Lesbian, or Democrat. Would you see someone who walked away from businesses on that basis as being reasonable people?

Thank you. I made the same comments in this thread, not to pick on her, but to make a point. I don't think it's fair of someone to EXPECT protections based on the Constitution, and then in the next breath try and take away another persons right based on the Constitution.

[Wind Song]

Yes, I edited your post, and marked my edits in blue. Judging everyone, and your own safety by one fact that you dislike is not rational thinking, WS. Switch gay to Jewish, Black, Muslim, Lesbian, or Democrat. Would you see someone who walked away from businesses on that basis as being reasonable people?

Are you really telling me I should force myself to go into a business, like Starbucks who by their gun advocacy policy is clearly not interested in my safety or comfort? No thanks.

I'd rather go have coffee at Peets.

[jimnyc]

Are you really telling me I should force myself to go into a business, like Starbuck,s who by their policies is clearly not interested in my safety or comfort? No thanks.

I'd rather go have coffee at Peets.

No one ever stated you should HAVE to go. That's the beauty of America, you can go wherever you please! Just understand, other groups get to do so as well, like gun owners & gay people.

[Wind Song]

And if I opened the door to a Starbucks, and it were full of queers, I would go elsewhere.

^ Why is my comment any different than yours?

Do you support and/or want rights, as a group, based on the Constitution of the US? Yes or no will do just fine!


If you're so "queer" phobic why even post with me?

[Wind Song]

No one ever stated you should HAVE to go. That's the beauty of America, you can go wherever you please! Just understand, other groups get to do so as well, like gun owners & gay people.


So far, not one of you gun advocates gives a shit if anyone is scared of guns. That speaks volumes to me. Tell me if you're the kind of person who wants to walk into Starbucks armed so you can scare the crap out of people.

[Kathianne]

Are you really telling me I should force myself to go into a business, like Starbucks who by their gun advocacy policy is clearly not interested in my safety or comfort? No thanks.

I'd rather go have coffee at Peets.

Quite the contrary, they are saying what you are saying. If confronted with a situation they weren't comfortable, they'd choose, just like you above with Peet's, to go elsewhere.

So you are all birds of a feather.

Friends now?

[Wind Song]

Quite the contrary, they are saying what you are saying. If confronted with a situation they weren't comfortable, they'd choose, just like you above with Peet's, to go elsewhere.

So you are all birds of a feather.

Friends now?


No. They want to bully their way around with lethal weapons.

[jimnyc]

If you're so "queer" phobic why even post with me?

I thought we got past this hurdle already? I'm not afraid of queers and am unsure why you would think that. In fact, my only mention of it in this thread was to point out your discrepancies towards what the constitution means, and what it means to you. It appears to serve you when you like, but you want rights taken away from others when you don't like the document.


So far, not one of you gun advocates gives a shit if anyone is scared of guns. That speaks volumes to me. Tell me if you're the kind of person who wants to walk into Starbucks armed so you can scare the crap out of people.

Has anyone remotely stated anything like this? It's YOU with an irrational fear. Not everyone goes bananas when they see an armed person.

There will ALWAYS be groups of people that others don't like, or are fearful of. Should they all be allowed to be banned, based on your guidelines? Because if so, let's suppose there was a Starbucks in an all white town, and it was filled one evening with all black people. Quite a few white people might be scared and not go into get their coffee as a result. Who is wrong in that scenario - 1- Starbucks for allowing the blacks in 2- The blacks for purposely going into a white town and trying to scare the whites in the coffee shop 3- or the ignorant people that are too afraid to just go about their business?

[jimnyc]

No. They want to bully their way around with lethal weapons.

Utilizing ones constitutional right to own and bear arms is HARDLY bullying anyone. WHO was bullied? And where? Or are you just making shit up again?

[DragonStryk72]

Are you really telling me I should force myself to go into a business, like Starbucks who by their gun advocacy policy is clearly not interested in my safety or comfort? No thanks.

I'd rather go have coffee at Peets.

Hold on, there. Again, you've given guns all the power. Why? Starbucks has not come out pro-guns, nor are they anti-guns. This is your prejudice, not theirs, so let's stay on topic shall we?

You say you are unsafe, how? the mere presence of an inanimate object? You seem to assume that all the Starbucks customers as barely hinged mass murderers that will snap at any moment, but they're just people, and somehow you've stopped seeing that. That isn't Starbucks' problem, that's your prejudice, not theirs. They're just serving coffee.

[Kathianne]

No. They want to bully their way around with lethal weapons.

Who? Jim already said he doesn't want anything to do with guns. I'll go on record as the same.

Now can you get honest? Your earlier posts claimed many things that were presented as 'facts' by the way you wrote your posts, that weren't 'facts' but your feelings. Not the same thing.

Starbucks wasn't holding or encouraging NRA meetings. No such links to anything of the sort. Your post with a 'quote' of them being pro-gun wasn't any quote at all, other than perhaps a copy and paste from some liberal site. BTW, what you 'quoted' didn't make sense.

[Wind Song]

I thought we got past this hurdle already? I'm not afraid of queers and am unsure why you would think that. In fact, my only mention of it in this thread was to point out your discrepancies towards what the constitution means, and what it means to you. It appears to serve you when you like, but you want rights taken away from others when you don't like the document.



Has anyone remotely stated anything like this? It's YOU with an irrational fear. Not everyone goes bananas when they see an armed person.

There will ALWAYS be groups of people that others don't like, or are fearful of. Should they all be allowed to be banned, based on your guidelines? Because if so, let's suppose there was a Starbucks in an all white town, and it was filled one evening with all black people. Quite a few white people might be scared and not go into get their coffee as a result. Who is wrong in that scenario - 1- Starbucks for allowing the blacks in 2- The blacks for purposely going into a white town and trying to scare the whites in the coffee shop 3- or the ignorant people that are too afraid to just go about their business?


1. You stated you "don't like queers".

2. You stated that if you walked into a Starbucks full of gay's you would leave.

3. You started a flame thread to bait me into discussing a topic I'm not interested in talking to you about.

4. Other companies sensibly banned the open carry of lethal weapons.

Tell me what would be in your mind, what would possess you or motivate you, to go into a Starbucks with a handgun or a shotgun?

[DragonStryk72]

Tell me what would be in your mind, what would possess you or motivate you, to go into a Starbucks with a handgun or a shotgun?

Ahem, here, we'll try one: I happen to have a gun on me, I'm thirsty, and I know tastiness resides within the Starbucks.


Good, now prove your assertion that everyone's doing it just to bully people around cause they have a gun, and provide actual facts, please.

[Kathianne]

1. You stated you "don't like queers".

2. You stated that if you walked into a Starbucks full of gay's you would leave.

3. You started a flame thread to bait me into discussing a topic I'm not interested in talking to you about.

4. Other companies sensibly banned the open carry of lethal weapons.

Tell me what would be in your mind, what would possess you or motivate you, to go into a Starbucks with a handgun or a shotgun?

BS. You have claimed basically that Starbucks is encouraging gun slingers into their stores, when the facts are that you really want then to deny anyone carrying a gun service. You just refuse to admit that the issue, as always, is centered around Sky aka Wind.

[Wind Song]

Hold on, there. Again, you've given guns all the power. Why? Starbucks has not come out pro-guns, nor are they anti-guns. This is your prejudice, not theirs, so let's stay on topic shall we?

You say you are unsafe, how? the mere presence of an inanimate object? You seem to assume that all the Starbucks customers as barely hinged mass murderers that will snap at any moment, but they're just people, and somehow you've stopped seeing that. That isn't Starbucks' problem, that's your prejudice, not theirs. They're just serving coffee.

The other businesses that pulled this stunt took steps to ensure their employees and customers safety by banning weapons in their places of business.

You want to FORCE businesses to open their doors to people with guns?

[Kathianne]

The other businesses that pulled this stunt took steps to ensure their employees and customers safety by banning weapons in their places of business.

You want to FORCE businesses to open their doors to people with guns?

No, a few businesses posted the note, you want Starbucks to agree with you. Do you really think that only coffee places are where open carry laws apply?

[Trigg]

In Starbucks? You bet one handgun is over doing it.

From your original post


In short, Starbucks won't prohibit customers from openly carrying guns into its stores, at least in states that allow it.



The store is hardly putting out the welcome sign for armed customers, they are simply not banning them from someing in to get an overpriced coffee.


There's no record of anyone being hurt at a Starbucks store by a legal carrying customer, but the brand has had brushes with violence, including the deaths of three people during an armed robbery of a Starbucks near Washington, D.C. (http://www.debatepolicy.com/tags/topic/Washington%2c+DC), in 1997. In January 2010, the Hell's Angels (http://www.debatepolicy.com/tags/topic/Hells+Angels+Motorcycle+Club) and Vagos biker gangs fought with weapons


Do you real the articles you post, or is it just a knee jerk reaction to hate everything you disagree with?

I bet the 3 people murdered in 1997 wish there had been someone with a legal carry permit in the store when it was robbed. So, in regards to your statement. NO one handgun is not over doing it.

[Wind Song]

BS. You have claimed basically that Starbucks is encouraging gun slingers into their stores, when the facts are that you really want then to deny anyone carrying a gun service. You just refuse to admit that the issue, as always, is centered around Sky aka Wind.


Starbucks policy is to open their doors and welcome people who are carrying lethal weapons into their stores. I think people should leave their weapons in their homes or cars when out in public.


All the other businesses made policies prohibiting guns in their businesses. That is safe policy.

[SassyLady]

It was Starbucks choice to place itself in the middle of gun controversy by allowing large groups of armed protestors to hold meetings in their stores. For a company that has in the past tried to be a conscious business, this was pretty stupid, IMO.
So, only your opinion about guns is considered "conscientious"? Perhaps supporting gun rights is considered "conscientious".

[Missileman]

So far, not one of you gun advocates gives a shit if anyone is scared of guns. That speaks volumes to me. Tell me if you're the kind of person who wants to walk into Starbucks armed so you can scare the crap out of people.

Why in hell are you scared of an inanimate object?

[Wind Song]

From your original post



The store is hardly putting out the welcome sign for armed customers, they are simply not banning them from someing in to get an overpriced coffee.




Do you real the articles you post, or is it just a knee jerk reaction to hate everything you disagree with?

I bet the 3 people murdered in 1997 wish there had been someone with a legal carry permit in the store when it was robbed. So, in regards to your statement. NO one handgun is not over doing it.


Starbucks placed itself in the middle of the controversy pro and anti gun. That wasn't real smart, IMO. Public safety is a value we all share. We just differ in how to accomplish that.

I do not want to live in a country where every person is armed.

[Wind Song]

Why in hell are you scared of an inanimate object?

I've seen guns misused too often. I've seen them used by drunks and people with anger problems.

[Trigg]

Starbucks policy is to open their doors and welcome people who are carrying lethal weapons into their stores. I think people should leave their weapons in their homes or cars when out in public.


All the other businesses made policies prohibiting guns in their businesses. That is safe policy.

It would be wonderful if EVERYONE did that, but from your own article people do not. THAT is the reason for legal carry permits.

Again, if you read YOUR OWN ARTICLE it states that not all the other businesses banned guns.

The only thing starbucks did was remove themselves from the debate by simply following state laws.

[Wind Song]

So, only your opinion about guns is considered "conscientious"? Perhaps supporting gun rights is considered "conscientious".

I didn't say that at all.

[Wind Song]

It would be wonderful if EVERYONE did that, but from your own article people do not. THAT is the reason for legal carry permits.

Again, if you read YOUR OWN ARTICLE it states that not all the other businesses banned guns.

The only thing starbucks did was remove themselves from the debate by simply following state laws.

Starbucks opened its doors to the open carry movement and groups of protestors showed up at Starbucks armed. If a group of people want to TALK about their guns at Starbucks, I could care less. I don't intend to walk into one where everyone else is armed.

[Kathianne]

Starbucks policy is to open their doors and welcome people who are carrying lethal weapons into their stores. I think people should leave their weapons in their homes or cars when out in public.


All the other businesses made policies prohibiting guns in their businesses. That is safe policy.

Link to that! LOL! 47 states have open carry laws. List ALL the businesses you say with the exceptions!

Truth is, you quoted via CS Monitor article the FEW that post contrary to state law. THEY are the exceptions, not Starbucks.

Truth is, the left expected Starbucks to fall in line with the few. Called a boycott when they didn't. Instead Starbucks found that those in support of 2nd amendment chose to give them bling.

You hate that.

[Kathianne]

Starbucks opened its doors to the open carry movement and groups of protestors showed up at Starbucks armed.

Nope, Starbucks failed to cave to the anti-gun folks and were singled out. The gun folks chose to step in and help Starbucks for just doing business, without an agenda.

[Missileman]

I've seen guns misused too often. I've seen them used by drunks and people with anger problems.

Then you should be afraid of DRUNKS and ANGRY PEOPLE, not guns. If a drunk punches you in the nose, are you going to want to ban people with hands from going to Starbucks?

[Wind Song]

No, a few businesses posted the note, you want Starbucks to agree with you. Do you really think that only coffee places are where open carry laws apply?

Open carry law is one thing. Having groups of armed citizens showing up in a business for protest reasons is another.

[Trigg]

Starbucks opened its doors to the open carry movement and groups of protestors showed up at Starbucks armed.

Do you have an artice to go along with this claim, or are you simply pulling it out of your ass?

[Kathianne]

Open carry law is one thing. Having groups of armed citizens showing up in a business for protest reasons is another.

The only 'protests' were from anti-gun. Get it?

[Wind Song]

Then you should be afraid of DRUNKS and ANGRY PEOPLE, not guns. If a drunk punches you in the nose, are you going to want to ban people with hands from going to Starbucks?

If a person is drunk and angry and is carrying a lethal weapon, chances are someone's gonna be hurt, badly, perhaps fatally.

[Wind Song]

The only 'protests' were from anti-gun. Get it?

Not true. Groups of open carry advocates go to Starbucks for their meetings and they are all armed.

[Kathianne]

If a person is drunk and angry and is carrying a lethal weapon, chances are someone's gonna be hurt, badly, perhaps fatally.

Drunks and Starbucks don't usually go together. Can't say they won't, but most drunks aren't looking for the $4 buck coffee.

[Kathianne]

OT sorta. I just want to give a mass 'thanks' to all who've given me thanks for my posts. I can't reply individually, well at least not today! LOL!

[DragonStryk72]

The other businesses that pulled this stunt took steps to ensure their employees and customers safety by banning weapons in their places of business.

You want to FORCE businesses to open their doors to people with guns?

You want to FORCE businesses to close their doors to people with guns?

That doesn't prove anything, WS. How are you or anyone else made unsafe by the mere presence of firearms?

[Missileman]

If a person is drunk and angry and is carrying a lethal weapon, chances are someone's gonna be hurt, badly, perhaps fatally.

So your position really IS that people with hands should be banned from Starbucks?

[Kathianne]

You want to FORCE businesses to close their doors to people with guns?

That doesn't prove anything, WS. How are you or anyone else made unsafe by the mere presence of firearms?

Not to mention, illegal according to state law.

[Trigg]

If a person is drunk and angry and is carrying a lethal weapon, chances are someone's gonna be hurt, badly, perhaps fatally.

You are 100% correct!

Now I think we should also ban

forks
baseball bats
hammers
knives- for sure
fingernail clippers-the airlines deem those a weapon afterall so we should also.
cast iron skillets- dangerous little suckers
lamps
glass bottles


I bet you don't even realize how irrational you sound :laugh:

[jimnyc]

1. You stated you "don't like queers".

2. You stated that if you walked into a Starbucks full of gay's you would leave.

3. You started a flame thread to bait me into discussing a topic I'm not interested in talking to you about.

4. Other companies sensibly banned the open carry of lethal weapons.

Tell me what would be in your mind, what would possess you or motivate you, to go into a Starbucks with a handgun or a shotgun?

Points 1-4 I'm trying to show you the hypocrisy of YOUR words. I wouldn't leave if Starbucks were full of queers, but you can't possibly imagine why someone even would. I don't want to take away rights from queers, but you want to take them away from gun owners. In fact, just me talking about an opposing opinion makes you want to ignore me. So you will stand up for what rights you think you have, but you want rights taken away from others. But you refuse to address this here, or in the other thread. It wasn't flaming, but showing that your logic makes no sense, and you want to make law based on your emotions, and disregard the COTUS when it's convenient to you.

[jimnyc]

Starbucks policy is to open their doors and welcome people who are carrying lethal weapons into their stores. I think people should leave their weapons in their homes or cars when out in public.


All the other businesses made policies prohibiting guns in their businesses. That is safe policy.

No, that would be YOUR policy. Guns are already VERY safe when in the hands of responsible people. AND, that's their right to carry/own a gun. Simply because YOU don't like the idea of them being in Starbucks, you feel they as a company should side with you, COTUS aside.

[MtnBiker]

How would you feel going in for your latte and finding all the other patrons armed to the teeth?




I would feel less threatened by patrons armed with constitutional guns rights then liberals armed with wastefull tax and spend policies.

[Wind Song]

I would feel less threatened by patrons armed with constitutional guns rights then liberals armed with wastefull tax and spend policies.


I hope you enjoyed your liberal bash post.

[Wind Song]

No, that would be YOUR policy. Guns are already VERY safe when in the hands of responsible people. AND, that's their right to carry/own a gun. Simply because YOU don't like the idea of them being in Starbucks, you feel they as a company should side with you, COTUS aside.

I can feel anyway I like. That's MY right.

[Wind Song]

Points 1-4 I'm trying to show you the hypocrisy of YOUR words. I wouldn't leave if Starbucks were full of queers, but you can't possibly imagine why someone even would. I don't want to take away rights from queers, but you want to take them away from gun owners. In fact, just me talking about an opposing opinion makes you want to ignore me. So you will stand up for what rights you think you have, but you want rights taken away from others. But you refuse to address this here, or in the other thread. It wasn't flaming, but showing that your logic makes no sense, and you want to make law based on your emotions, and disregard the COTUS when it's convenient to you.


You were flaming, using queer bait. Nothing new.

[Wind Song]

You are 100% correct!

Now I think we should also ban

forks
baseball bats
hammers
knives- for sure
fingernail clippers-the airlines deem those a weapon afterall so we should also.
cast iron skillets- dangerous little suckers
lamps
glass bottles


I bet you don't even realize how irrational you sound :laugh:

I work with domestic violence victims. Fatality increases exponentially in DV homes with guns. I know too many scary dudes with guns. The last thing I need to do on a break is to walk into a coffee shop filled with armed strangers.

Gun owners aren't content to own lethal weapons, keep them at home or in their cars. Now they want to parade around EVERYWHERE and be in EVERY public place. I object.

[fj1200]

I'd hardly call having a gun shoved in your face equality for all. Any gun any time any place must end. What message does a posse of armed gun nuts give a group of high school students in Starbucks?

I just identified your tag line for this, and probably other, threads. How did "Skittles and iced tea" work for you last time?

[Wind Song]

I just identified your tag line for this, and probably other, threads. How did "Skittles and iced tea" work for you last time?

Oh yes, lets hang out at Starbucks with 25 George Zimmerman types looking for "suspicious" people. What you've got going on in Starbucks is a group people coming in carrying weapons for political reasons.

Why is it these "open carry" demonstrations don't happen in crime infested neighborhoods? Why make a point out of scaring people in neighborhoods where there isn't any crime?

Starbucks in Seattle was asked about about its policy on guns. They let guns in, but camcorders weren't allowed in. Does that make sense?

[DragonStryk72]

I work with domestic violence victims. Fatality increases exponentially in DV homes with guns. I know too many scary dudes with guns. The last thing I need to do on a break is to walk into a coffee shop filled with armed strangers.

Gun owners aren't content to own lethal weapons, keep them at home or in their cars. Now they want to parade around EVERYWHERE and be in EVERY public place. I object.

Wait, wait wait, hold on: You're saying that people who beat their spouses like weapons? OH MY GOD!!!!! Stop the presses, we've finally cracked this sucker! Of course, that means any buddhist training in the martial arts, even Aikido, has to be arrested for the weapons that go with that training, since clearly, only abusers and murderers carry weapons.

Yeah, so clearly we've all already been wiped out by the rampant gun owners of the world, and the crossbowmen before them, and the bowmen before those guys, and the slingers before that.

Clearly everyone who owns guns are mass murdering everyone every day.

Oh, not wait, they're human beings, too. you just refuse to treat them as such.

[ConHog]

Ive learned two things in this thread

Jim has obviously seen the error of his ways and is noe pro gsy marriage

Sky is a lost cause and i made a mistake in thinking differently before now

[fj1200]

Guns in Starbucks is the topic. It's a great topic. I wish you'd stick to it, Jim. I'm sure you can find some other "queer" to flamebait.

Meh, it was a 3 page topic at best except for you ignoring any evidence to the contrary of your feelings and constantly harping on your talking point list. There are two issues IMO, 1. Open carry laws, and 2. Private Property rights. Can you set your hyperbole aside for awhile?

[ConHog]

I work with domestic violence victims. Fatality increases exponentially in DV homes with guns. I know too many scary dudes with guns. The last thing I need to do on a break is to walk into a coffee shop filled with armed strangers.

Gun owners aren't content to own lethal weapons, keep them at home or in their cars. Now they want to parade around EVERYWHERE and be in EVERY public place. I object.

I am aghast that you refuse to recognize your own hypocrisy here. Just unbelievable

[Wind Song]

I am aghast that you refuse to recognize your own hypocrisy here. Just unbelievable

The whole point of open carry law is for gun owners to go wherever they choose with their lethal weapons.

[Wind Song]

Meh, it was a 3 page topic at best except for you ignoring any evidence to the contrary of your feelings and constantly harping on your talking point list. There are two issues IMO, 1. Open carry laws, and 2. Private Property rights. Can you set your hyperbole aside for awhile?

Right. Starbucks supports open carry in their stores. It's completely inappropriate for gun owners to pack weapons in a cafe. They should leave their guns home or safely stored in their cars.

[Wind Song]

Ive learned two things in this thread

Jim has obviously seen the error of his ways and is noe pro gsy marriage

Sky is a lost cause and i made a mistake in thinking differently before now

I've learned that you aren't interested in discussing the thread topic.

[Wind Song]

"Gun owners have responded to a boycott of Starbucks locations by a gun victims advocacy group by encouraging large turnouts to the coffee chain and the "open carry" of weapons in those states that allow it."

http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news/regions/americas/united-states/120216/starbucks-seattle-gun-laws-weapons-open-carry-violence

What's the point? Intimidate people who have already suffered from gun violence? My heart will always go out in support of victims of violence and their causes.

[fj1200]

Oh yes, lets hang out at Starbucks with 25 George Zimmerman types looking for "suspicious" people. What you've got going on in Starbucks is a group people coming in carrying weapons for political reasons.

Why is it these "open carry" demonstrations don't happen in crime infested neighborhoods? Why make a point out of scaring people in neighborhoods where there isn't any crime?

Starbucks in Seattle was asked about about its policy on guns. They let guns in, but camcorders weren't allowed in. Does that make sense?

Yes, it does make sense.


Right. Starbucks supports open carry in their stores. It's completely inappropriate for gun owners to pack weapons in a cafe. They should leave their guns home or safely stored in their cars.

No it's not.


I've learned that you aren't interested in discussing the thread topic.

You've stopped discussing the topic pages ago. Fingers in ears is not an effective debating technique.


"Gun owners have responded to a boycott of Starbucks locations by a gun victims advocacy group by encouraging large turnouts to the coffee chain and the "open carry" of weapons in those states that allow it."

http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news/regions/americas/united-states/120216/starbucks-seattle-gun-laws-weapons-open-carry-violence

What's the point? Intimidate people who have already suffered from gun violence?

No, they're hoping they can plink off a few idiots. Never mind, that would be illegal. :rolleyes:

[ConHog]

Sky i think u should at this point be banned from your own thread. Discussing why youre okay with taking away the right of those uou dont like while at the same time demanding rights for people you do like is not derailing the thread

[Wind Song]

Tampa officials prepping (http://www2.tbo.com/news/politics/2012/apr/02/permitted-handguns-will-be-allowed-in-citys-clean--ar-387365/?referer=None&shorturl=http://tbo.ly/H5vNbx) for this summer's Republican convention want to set up a "clean zone" where protesters will be forbidden (http://www.theledger.com/article/20120403/POLITICS/120409851?Title=Firearms-Will-Be-Allowed-at-GOP-Convention) to wield water or air pistols, plastic or metal pipe, or wood longer than a ruler - but guns, thanks to Florida's loopy laws, are fine by them.

[Wind Song]

Sky i think u should at this point be banned from your own thread. Discussing why youre okay with taking away the right of those uou dont like while at the same time demanding rights for people you do like is not derailing the thread


Conhog--

Last time I checked you weren't a mod.

Report me to the mods if you're so disturbed.

[Wind Song]

Yes, it does make sense.



No it's not.



You've stopped discussing the topic pages ago. Fingers in ears is not an effective debating technique.



No, they're hoping they can plink off a few idiots. Never mind, that would be illegal. :rolleyes:

Starbucks allows lethal weapons in their stores but not the camcorders that take pictures of them. Tell me why it makes sense to you and is a good idea.

Are you demanding that I agree with your views? Why? Debate involves differences of opinion and the reasons we hold the opinions. That's what I've done all the way through this thread.

Since I'm the only person AGAINST Starbucks allowing guns in their stores, it makes sense that I would stick to my position. Sounds like only ONE view is allowed here and it's PRO_GUN.

[ConHog]

Starbucks allows lethal weapons in their stores but not the camcorders that take pictures of them. Tell me why it makes sense to you and is a good idea.

Are you demanding that I agree with your views? Why? Debate involves differences of opinion and the reasons we hold the opinions. That's what I've done all the way through this thread.

Since I'm the only person AGAINST Starbucks allowing guns in their stores, it makes sense that I would stick to my position. Sounds like only ONE view is allowed here and it's PRO_GUN.

It maks sense bc its their god damned business and they should be the ones deciding what they let in the door.

When you are forced to go into starbucks then you will have a beef until then just shut up drama queen

[Wind Song]

It maks sense bc its their god damned business and they should be the ones deciding what they let in the door.

When you are forced to go into starbucks then you will have a beef until then just shut up drama queen


It's ironic that you think I should be banned from this thread when you are the one telling me to shut up and name calling. Grow up.

Starbucks decision is bad business.

[fj1200]

Starbucks allows lethal weapons in their stores but not the camcorders that take pictures of them. Tell me why it makes sense to you and is a good idea.

It's their property, they can do what they like. I'll need to see the context of your comments but I can certainly understand why they wouldn't want a bunch of idiots with camcorders inside their establishment.


Are you demanding that I agree with your views? Why? Debate involves differences of opinion and the reasons we hold the opinions. That's what I've done all the way through this thread.

Since I'm the only person AGAINST Starbucks allowing guns in their stores, it makes sense that I would stick to my position. Sounds like only ONE view is allowed here and it's PRO_GUN.

Why do you think I'm "demanding" that you agree with my views? I'm telling you that you're not debating when you constantly repeat the same talking points while ignoring evidence that is contrary to your feelings. I certainly think you should stick to your position but fingers-in-ears is not a debating technique.

Statistics related to open carry violence would be helpful, instances where their customers are unsafe due to their policy would be helpful. Your feelings about those policies are not helpful after constant repetition.

[Wind Song]

It's their property, they can do what they like. I'll need to see the context of your comments but I can certainly understand why they wouldn't want a bunch of idiots with camcorders inside their establishment.



Why do you think I'm "demanding" that you agree with my views? I'm telling you that you're not debating when you constantly repeat the same talking points while ignoring evidence that is contrary to your feelings. I certainly think you should stick to your position but fingers-in-ears is not a debating technique.

Statistics related to open carry violence would be helpful, instances where their customers are unsafe due to their policy would be helpful. Your feelings about those policies are not helpful after constant repetition.

It's their property, they can do what they like. I don't like their policy. I'd rather have coffee at Peets, a cafe who cares about customer and employee safety.

[fj1200]

It's their property, they can do what they like. I don't like their policy. I'd rather have coffee at Peets, a cafe who cares about customer and employee safety.

You finally had a correct post... up until that last part. Have any customers or employees been harmed by the law and/or Starbucks policy?

[jimnyc]

It's their property, they can do what they like. I don't like their policy. I'd rather have coffee at Peets, a cafe who cares about customer and employee safety.

Then why this long thread? Acknowledge that they stand alongside 2nd amendment rights, but you happen to disagree with that, so you will take your business elsewhere. Why should others have their constitutional rights infringed in ANY WAY so that you can "feel more comfortable" when you get your coffee?

Again, the EXACT same argument you are making can be made for gays on the premises, which you continually ignore, because it outright shatters your entire argument.

ALL people have the right to go to Starbucks. Those that don't like Starbucks, or who they are letting into their store - go elsewhere.

[jimnyc]

You finally had a correct post... up until that last part. Have any customers or employees been harmed by the law and/or Starbucks policy?

Not a single one, except for the emotionally unstable who fear even the police, because *gasp* they carry guns.

[jimnyc]

Sky i think u should at this point be banned from your own thread. Discussing why youre okay with taking away the right of those uou dont like while at the same time demanding rights for people you do like is not derailing the thread

Nah, not worth all of that, nor fair...

One person wants rights they claim are afforded to them via the COTUS. That same person wants rights taken away from another afforded to them via the COTUS. CLEARLY on topic and a valid question.

It's a win-win situation for me. She answers it honestly and looks like a fool. She ignores it continually and looks like a fool who doesn't want to acknowledge their hypocrisy. I don't need her to answer in order for anyone reading to see that she's all about HER rights, but to hell with the rights of others if SHE doesn't agree or like them.

[ConHog]

Nah, not worth all of that, nor fair...

One person wants rights they claim are afforded to them via the COTUS. That same person wants rights taken away from another afforded to them via the COTUS. CLEARLY on topic and a valid question.

It's a win-win situation for me. She answers it honestly and looks like a fool. She ignores it continually and looks like a fool who doesn't want to acknowledge their hypocrisy. I don't need her to answer in order for anyone reading to see that she's all about HER rights, but to hell with the rights of others if SHE doesn't agree or like them.

Honest question. Why haven't you answered me. Have you changed your mind about gay marriage recognizing that making you feel icky isn't a good enough reason to take away someone's right to happiness? I pray to God you say yes.

[Wind Song]

You finally had a correct post... up until that last part. Have any customers or employees been harmed by the law and/or Starbucks policy?

You crack me up. A "correct" post is one that agrees with yours. People who have been traumatized by gun violence have likely been harmed by Starbucks policy. They are the ones protesting Starbuck's policy.

I stand in solidarity with them, because I work with domestic violence and sexual assault victims.

[jimnyc]

Honest question. Why haven't you answered me. Have you changed your mind about gay marriage recognizing that making you feel icky isn't a good enough reason to take away someone's right to happiness? I pray to God you say yes.

Honestly didn't see you ask me a question, you should know by now I don't take the cowards way out. "That's off topic Con"!

I don't think the COTUS protects the rights for gays to marry. And I never wanted to take away rights from queers, I'm just against creating "new" rights.

[Wind Song]

Then why this long thread? Acknowledge that they stand alongside 2nd amendment rights, but you happen to disagree with that, so you will take your business elsewhere. Why should others have their constitutional rights infringed in ANY WAY so that you can "feel more comfortable" when you get your coffee?

Again, the EXACT same argument you are making can be made for gays on the premises, which you continually ignore, because it outright shatters your entire argument.

ALL people have the right to go to Starbucks. Those that don't like Starbucks, or who they are letting into their store - go elsewhere.

Why the long thread? Because people like you participate in it, ask questions and go off on tangents. I didn't start this thread as a second amendment rights thread, nor a gay rights thread.

I oppose Starbuck's policy and I applaud the businesses who ban people coming into their place of business with handguns and rifles.

Do businesses have the right to set company policy for safety and security or not? Should they be forced to serve armed customers? I don't think so.

[jimnyc]

You crack me up. A "correct" post is one that agrees with yours. People who have been traumatized by gun violence have likely been harmed by Starbucks policy. They are the ones protesting Starbuck's policy.

I stand in solidarity with them, because I work with domestic violence and sexual assault victims.

Oh boy, here comes the victim again. Does EVERY thread have to be about YOU being victimized? YOUR life doesn't and shouldn't dictate laws and the COTUS.

[jimnyc]

Why the long thread? Because people like you participate in it, ask questions and go off on tangents. I didn't start this thread as a second amendment rights thread, nor a gay rights thread.

I oppose Starbuck's policy and I applaud the businesses who ban people coming into their place of business with handguns and rifles.

Great, so you said what you had to, I guess you're done in this thread then since you no longer want to participate in anything at all other than your stated post. We'll continue without you, like adults.

[Wind Song]

Oh boy, here comes the victim again. Does EVERY thread have to be about YOU being victimized? YOUR life doesn't and shouldn't dictate laws and the COTUS.

I work with domestic violence and sexual assault victims. I am NOT a DV or sexual assault victim.

[ConHog]

Honestly didn't see you ask me a question, you should know by now I don't take the cowards way out. "That's off topic Con"!

I don't think the COTUS protects the rights for gays to marry. And I never wanted to take away rights from queers, I'm just against creating "new" rights.

That's a cop out Jim. The COTUS doesn't address marriage at all so a person could say you don't have a right to marry a woman; BUT we've already established that marriage is a right even though it isn't in the COTUS (unless you wish to argue with the SCOTUS?) , so the ONLY legitimate stance you can take here is to say "I've rethought it and you're right, I'm either for EVERYONE'S rights being protected, or I'm Sky Dancer"

Don't be like Sky Dancer, recognize you were wrong and fight for everyone's rights. That of course doesn't mean you have to like, or even approve of gay marriage. Just like we're telling Sky, you don't have to like guns or approve of them being owned, you just have to accept that you have no right to tell others no.

[Wind Song]

Great, so you said what you had to, I guess you're done in this thread then since you no longer want to participate in anything at all other than your stated post. We'll continue without you, like adults.

You really have quite a temper Jim. I hope you're not a gun owner.

[jimnyc]

I work with domestic violence and sexual assault victims. I am NOT a DV or sexual assault victim.

You need to quit that job if it's going to turn you into an emotionally unstable person who wants to take away others Constitutional rights as a result.

[ConHog]

Why the long thread? Because people like you participate in it, ask questions and go off on tangents. I didn't start this thread as a second amendment rights thread, nor a gay rights thread.

I oppose Starbuck's policy and I applaud the businesses who ban people coming into their place of business with handguns and rifles.

Do businesses have the right to set company policy for safety and security or not? Should they be forced to serve armed customers? I don't think so.

You've done FAR more than that missy. You've outright stated that YOU have a right to not see guns in Starbucks. When in fact you have no such right.

[jimnyc]

That's a cop out Jim. The COTUS doesn't address marriage at all so a person could say you don't have a right to marry a woman; BUT we've already established that marriage is a right even though it isn't in the COTUS (unless you wish to argue with the SCOTUS?) , so the ONLY legitimate stance you can take here is to say "I've rethought it and you're right, I'm either for EVERYONE'S rights being protected, or I'm Sky Dancer"

Don't be like Sky Dancer, recognize you were wrong and fight for everyone's rights. That of course doesn't mean you have to like, or even approve of gay marriage. Just like we're telling Sky, you don't have to like guns or approve of them being owned, you just have to accept that you have no right to tell others no.

I don't see it as a copout. Queers CLEARLY state their rights are secured via the COTUS. Then one wants to take away rights of another based on the same document. That's hypocrisy. Her hypocrisy doesn't need to be my beliefs for it to still be hypocritical.

[jimnyc]

You really have quite a temper Jim. I hope you're not a gun owner.

Nothing displayed my temper in that post. This is what proves you are emotionally unstable.

[ConHog]

You really have quite a temper Jim. I hope you're not a gun owner.

Sky, I've owned guns nearly all my life. Most of my friends have also, and not once have any of us ever shot anyone just out of anger. Why do you just ASSUME that every one who owns guns is a violent person who is likely to shoot their wife? How would you like it if someone just assumed that every gay in the military was going to try to rape a fellow soldier? Oh, I forgot you're not smart enough to grasp correlairies and will just scream that I'm off topic.

[ConHog]

I don't see it as a copout. Queers CLEARLY state their rights are secured via the COTUS. Then one wants to take away rights of another based on the same document. That's hypocrisy. Her hypocrisy doesn't need to be my beliefs for it to still be hypocritical.

It is a cop out Jim and your condemning Sky rings hollow because of it. She can't see her hypocrisy and apparently neither can you. Either we ALL have the freedom to do as we please (of course within not harming others) or none of us do.

I know it goes against your "conservatism" but truly that is looking at it wrong. Real conservatives value freedom. Even freedom to do things we don't like.

Oh, and anyone gay or straight who says state sanctioned marriage is a constitutional right is WRONG. Government out of marriage, problem solved. But that's another topic.

[Wind Song]

You need to quit that job if it's going to turn you into an emotionally unstable person who wants to take away others Constitutional rights as a result.


First of all, please tell me how you think I'm trying to take away second amendment rights? I'm not. I think people openly carrying their guns into a cafe for political reasons is inappropriate. Nonetheless, Starbucks is free to do what's legal. I don't have to like it or agree with it.

You give me more power than I have. What are you so worried about?

Further, you cannot post EVER without using insults. As long as you insist on doing so, I will ignore your posts. I'm not going to let you or anyone else here treat me like shit.

[Wind Song]

Sky, I've owned guns nearly all my life. Most of my friends have also, and not once have any of us ever shot anyone just out of anger. Why do you just ASSUME that every one who owns guns is a violent person who is likely to shoot their wife? How would you like it if someone just assumed that every gay in the military was going to try to rape a fellow soldier? Oh, I forgot you're not smart enough to grasp correlairies and will just scream that I'm off topic.


Con--

I salute you for being a responsible gun owner. Unfortunately, I've known many irresponsible gun owners.

I'm sorry that you also insist on using insults in your posts.

See you guys later.

Sky

[jimnyc]

It is a cop out Jim and your condemning Sky rings hollow because of it. She can't see her hypocrisy and apparently neither can you. Either we ALL have the freedom to do as we please (of course within not harming others) or none of us do.

I know it goes against your "conservatism" but truly that is looking at it wrong. Real conservatives value freedom. Even freedom to do things we don't like.

Oh, and anyone gay or straight who says state sanctioned marriage is a constitutional right is WRONG. Government out of marriage, problem solved. But that's another topic.

It's a constitutional right to own/bear arms. I hope we all can agree on this now.
WS "believes" she has a right to gay marriage, and to do other things as a gay person, based on the COTUS.
WS wants rights removed from gun owners.

She's a hypocrite in her stance. But it hardly makes me a hypocrite, as I don't believe gays "rights" are rooted in the COTUS.

I do believe gays have the right to go to any store they like, as that is their right as consumers, just as Starbucks has the right to determine whether or not they'll allow gun carriers in their shop. But that's not where my hypocrisy claim comes from.

It's hypocritical to want/demand/expect rights based on the COTUS, and then want rights taken away from another that is ALREADY guaranteed by the COTUS.

Me pointing out her "hypocrisy" is based on her words/claims/desires - but that doesn't mean I agree with every little detail she does. She can be incorrect and still be a hypocrite. Additionally, and perhaps most importantly - I'm not advocating taken away rights from another person based on the COTUS. In fact, I'm not even advocating someone having their consumer rights infringed upon by a corporate company. Hell, I haven't advocated a damn thing being taken away from queers in this thread! Unless you count my rhetorical words which were stated to show her hypocrisy.

[ConHog]

First of all, please tell me how you think I'm trying to take away second amendment rights? I'm not. I think people openly carrying their guns into a cafe for political reasons is inappropriate. Nonetheless, Starbucks is free to do what's legal. I don't have to like it or agree with it.

You give me more power than I have. What are you so worried about?

Further, you cannot post EVER without using insults. As long as you insist on doing so, I will ignore your posts. I'm not going to let you or anyone else here treat me like shit.

Where did you get off ? Jim's post that you accused him of being an angry person wasn't an angry post at all. So you insulted him all the while crying that we're insulting you.

Stop acting like a crackpot and we'll stop treating you like one. The OVERWHELMING majority of gun owners are law abiding citizens who would never misuse their guns, in fact most pride themselves on that fact. The fact that you've pissed off a couple of your neighbors doesn't negate the second amendment, nor does it mean that every gun owner is going to meet you and thus want to shoot you.

[Wind Song]

Jim

I think you should start writing posts for me, since you consider yourself an authority on what I think and feel.

Enjoy yourself. Clearly, you've decided to not communicate courteously with someone who holds a view different than your.

sky

[jimnyc]

First of all, please tell me how you think I'm trying to take away second amendment rights? I'm not. I think people openly carrying their guns into a cafe for political reasons is inappropriate. Nonetheless, Starbucks is free to do what's legal. I don't have to like it or agree with it.

You give me more power than I have. What are you so worried about?

Further, you cannot post EVER without using insults. As long as you insist on doing so, I will ignore your posts. I'm not going to let you or anyone else here treat me like shit.

Oh please, you're all over the place about gun "nuts" and how anyone wanting to go out in public with their guns is because they want to bully others. Their "carry rights" would be the same whether in Starbucks, K-mart or just walking down the road. Of course policy may dictate that, but it's very clear from your own words throughout this thread that you don't like the idea of "gun nuts" being anywhere in public that you may be, as it may be uncomfortable.

But if it's ONLY gun owners who frequent Starbucks, then this whole thread is for nothing. Just go to "Peets" or wherever you prefer, and you'll never have a problem with gun owners carrying their weapons ever again!

[jimnyc]

Where did you get off ? Jim's post that you accused him of being an angry person wasn't an angry post at all. So you insulted him all the while crying that we're insulting you.

Stop acting like a crackpot and we'll stop treating you like one. The OVERWHELMING majority of gun owners are law abiding citizens who would never misuse their guns, in fact most pride themselves on that fact. The fact that you've pissed off a couple of your neighbors doesn't negate the second amendment, nor does it mean that every gun owner is going to meet you and thus want to shoot you.

Rather than answer her post just below yours, I'll answer this one. I have not "attacked" WS in this thread or been out of line with her more than I am with any other member here. But I'm sure as hell not going to coddle someone either. I was not "angry" with her as you saw. But if she's going to play victim every time I respond to her, I'll just avoid replying to her I suppose.

[ConHog]

It's a constitutional right to own/bear arms. I hope we all can agree on this now.
WS "believes" she has a right to gay marriage, and to do other things as a gay person, based on the COTUS.
WS wants rights removed from gun owners.

She's a hypocrite in her stance. But it hardly makes me a hypocrite, as I don't believe gays "rights" are rooted in the COTUS.

I do believe gays have the right to go to any store they like, as that is their right as consumers, just as Starbucks has the right to determine whether or not they'll allow gun carriers in their shop. But that's not where my hypocrisy claim comes from.

It's hypocritical to want/demand/expect rights based on the COTUS, and then want rights taken away from another that is ALREADY guaranteed by the COTUS.

Me pointing out her "hypocrisy" is based on her words/claims/desires - but that doesn't mean I agree with every little detail she does. She can be incorrect and still be a hypocrite. Additionally, and perhaps most importantly - I'm not advocating taken away rights from another person based on the COTUS. In fact, I'm not even advocating someone having their consumer rights infringed upon by a corporate company. Hell, I haven't advocated a damn thing being taken away from queers in this thread! Unless you count my rhetorical words which were stated to show her hypocrisy.


Jim, you do agree that the COTUS is pretty clear that rights aren't limited to what is explicitly listed in the COTUS, yes?

Good, now we can see in Loving http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CCUQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FLoving_ v._Virginia&ei=nxOYT9zGBOqK2wWe-7SqBw&usg=AFQjCNG-nDlJ9jqhFeJX8YIXFUF2ZssSpg&sig2=pWG7udDC2lIkdvKmjh5nJQ that the COURT has ruled that as far as the government is concerned MARRIAGE is a civil right. Notice it does NOT say heterosexual marriage, it merely says MARRIAGE is a civil right.

[Wind Song]

Where did you get off ? Jim's post that you accused him of being an angry person wasn't an angry post at all. So you insulted him all the while crying that we're insulting you.

Stop acting like a crackpot and we'll stop treating you like one. The OVERWHELMING majority of gun owners are law abiding citizens who would never misuse their guns, in fact most pride themselves on that fact. The fact that you've pissed off a couple of your neighbors doesn't negate the second amendment, nor does it mean that every gun owner is going to meet you and thus want to shoot you.


Jim is angry that I refuse to answer his flame bait about gay rights. The people who were shooting guns off in my neighborhood weren't doing so because of being pissed off at me.

Alcohol was involved each time. Why are alcoholics allowed to have guns?

[ConHog]

Jim is angry that I refuse to answer his flame bait about gay rights. The people who were shooting guns off in my neighborhood weren't doing so because of being pissed off at me.

Alcohol was involved each time. Why are alcoholics allowed to have guns?

NO ONE IS FLAMING YOU SKY. But I'll ask Jim for your sake. Jim please stop referring to homosexuals as queers, Sky obviously feels its flaming her, and I would like to have an honest debate with her about why she can't see the hypocrisy. Please for the sake of the debate , in this thread at least, stop using the word queer.

Now, back to Sky. Can you REALLY not see Sky that telling others that you have rights that they can't take away simply because they don't like the activity rings hollow when you try to take away the rights of others?

[jimnyc]

Jim, you do agree that the COTUS is pretty clear that rights aren't limited to what is explicitly listed in the COTUS, yes?

Good, now we can see in Loving http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CCUQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FLoving_ v._Virginia&ei=nxOYT9zGBOqK2wWe-7SqBw&usg=AFQjCNG-nDlJ9jqhFeJX8YIXFUF2ZssSpg&sig2=pWG7udDC2lIkdvKmjh5nJQ that the COURT has ruled that as far as the government is concerned MARRIAGE is a civil right. Notice it does NOT say heterosexual marriage, it merely says MARRIAGE is a civil right.

I don't agree with that, nor do the states that have voted to amend their constitution at a rate of 30-0 thus far. I think it's a very blurry issue right now that's still being decided. If it were THAT clear, these states wouldn't be kicking ass AGAINST what would clearly be in the COTUS. If and when the COTUS is amended, or the SC steps in and clears the matter like they did with the 2nd amendment, it's open for interpretation right now.

Loving is NOT the COTUS, which is what we're talking about. I would be more than happy to defend ANY stance of WS's if it were in the COTUS. I love the document and won't try and take away someone's rights that are clearly spelled out within the document. Do you agree that there is a big difference between a court decision and the COTUS?

[jimnyc]

NO ONE IS FLAMING YOU SKY. But I'll ask Jim for your sake. Jim please stop referring to homosexuals as queers, Sky obviously feels its flaming her, and I would like to have an honest debate with her about why she can't see the hypocrisy. Please for the sake of the debate , in this thread at least, stop using the word queer.

Now, back to Sky. Can you REALLY not see Sky that telling others that you have rights that they can't take away simply because they don't like the activity rings hollow when you try to take away the rights of others?

Not gonna happen. Same as I'll freely say "nigger" whenever I want. If both groups want to refer to themselves with these terms, they certainly have no right to tell me I can't use them. And this is a term that THEY and everyone I know has referred to them as since the 60's - my entire life. I'm not going to suddenly change. Fuck, queers have been calling themselves that since forever, and still do.

[Wind Song]

Oh please, you're all over the place about gun "nuts" and how anyone wanting to go out in public with their guns is because they want to bully others. Their "carry rights" would be the same whether in Starbucks, K-mart or just walking down the road. Of course policy may dictate that, but it's very clear from your own words throughout this thread that you don't like the idea of "gun nuts" being anywhere in public that you may be, as it may be uncomfortable.

But if it's ONLY gun owners who frequent Starbucks, then this whole thread is for nothing. Just go to "Peets" or wherever you prefer, and you'll never have a problem with gun owners carrying their weapons ever again!


You don't seem to care if some people feel intimidated or frightened by a group of political activists with guns in Starbucks. You seem to object to businesses establishing "no gun" policies.

You also object to me having an opinion that isn't yours. Sorry about that. I think differences of opinion make for a more interesting posting experience.

[Wind Song]

NO ONE IS FLAMING YOU SKY. But I'll ask Jim for your sake. Jim please stop referring to homosexuals as queers, Sky obviously feels its flaming her, and I would like to have an honest debate with her about why she can't see the hypocrisy. Please for the sake of the debate , in this thread at least, stop using the word queer.

Now, back to Sky. Can you REALLY not see Sky that telling others that you have rights that they can't take away simply because they don't like the activity rings hollow when you try to take away the rights of others?

I'm not biting. I have no intention of discussing marriage equality or any other civil rights issue about gays in this thread. I regret coming out on this forum. I wonder how a black person would feel posting on this forum and trying to discuss racism.

[cadet]

(Back on topic)


How would you feel going in for your latte and finding all the other patrons armed to the teeth?

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/2012/0216/How-Starbucks-became-the-darling-of-American-gun-owners

If you don't want to go to Starbucks where they have guns, don't go to Starbucks... wow, that was simple

They can do what they want, and if you don't like it, oh well.

and personally, I would feel very safe, knowing that if anyone walks in there with the idea to threaten with a gun, they'll be down and out before they can say "gimme the money."

Which reminds me... http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1314&dat=19960608&id=Jl5WAAAAIBAJ&sjid=X_EDAAAAIBAJ&pg=6313,5657694

[Wind Song]

(Back on topic)



If you don't want to go to Starbucks where they have guns, don't go to Starbucks... wow, that was simple

They can do what they want, and if you don't like it, oh well.

and personally, I would feel very safe, knowing that if anyone walks in there with the idea to threaten with a gun, they'll be down and out before they can say "gimme the money."

Which reminds me... http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1314&dat=19960608&id=Jl5WAAAAIBAJ&sjid=X_EDAAAAIBAJ&pg=6313,5657694


There are two groups protesting at Starbucks. The open carry movement and the victims of gun violence group. Sounds like you think the gun folks have a right to protest but the anti-gun violence folks don't.

[jimnyc]

If you don't want to go to Starbucks where they have guns, don't go to Starbucks... wow, that was simple

Yep, she can go to McDonalds, and even save much money in the process, or D&D or one of a billion other places to get her coffee. But it's more fun to condemn stores that honor the 2nd amendment and want their stance changed.

[jimnyc]

There are two groups protesting at Starbucks. The open carry movement and the victims of gun violence group. Sounds like you think the gun folks have a right to protest but the anti-gun violence folks don't.

THIS is where you get scoffed at - WHERE did he say or imply that he those against gun violence shouldn't be allowed there? WHERE?

[Wind Song]

There is a boycott and a buycott going on at Starbucks. Apparently, Jim thinks only the open carry folks should be allowed to protest in Starbucks.

[cadet]

There are two groups protesting at Starbucks. The open carry movement and the victims of gun violence group. Sounds like you think the gun folks have a right to protest but the anti-gun violence folks don't.

No, everybody's got the right to protest. But if you don't like it, tough luck. Starbucks is in charge of the decision. find a new hangout. maybe they'll go out of business cause of you. (not likely, but you can try and start a big movement or something with a bunch of morons sitting on their asses. *Occupy Starbucks*)

[Wind Song]

THIS is where you get scoffed at - WHERE did he say or imply that he those against gun violence shouldn't be allowed there? WHERE?

Read his post.

[jimnyc]

There is a boycott and a buycott going on at Starbucks. Apparently, Jim thinks only the open carry folks should be allowed to protest in Starbucks.

I'll give you $500 cash if you can show me WHERE I ever stated or implied such. The offer is public right her for everyone to see. Even if someone else can point out what you say is true, I'll still give you the money. Now, please, for the love of all that is good, PLEASE STOP JUST FUCKING MAKING SHIT UP!!

[Wind Song]

No, everybody's got the right to protest. But if you don't like it, tough luck. Starbucks is in charge of the decision. find a new hangout. maybe they'll go out of business cause of you. (not likely, but you can try and start a big movement or something with a bunch of morons sitting on their asses. *Occupy Starbucks*)


Customers have every right to let Starbucks know whether they approve and agree with their gun policy or not.

[jimnyc]

Read his post.

I did, it states no such thing. You made the charge, can you please show me where he stated such?

[cadet]

Read his post.

I never said that. I said that if you don't like it, don't go there. Kinda like church and atheists. if you don't like it, don't go there. THERE ARE PLENTY OF COFFEE SHOPS FOR THEM TO GO TO! AND STARBUCKS ISN'T EVEN THAT GREAT!!!!!!

[Wind Song]

THIS is where you get scoffed at - WHERE did he say or imply that he those against gun violence shouldn't be allowed there? WHERE?


"She can go to McDonalds". jimnyc

"If you don't want to go to Starbucks where they have guns, don't go to Starbucks"... cadet

Implication, you should stay away from Starbucks instead of protesting their policy.

[jimnyc]

"She can go to McDonalds". jimnyc

What does me saying you can go to McD's to get your coffee if you don;t like Starbucks = you cannot protest gun violence there? Furthermore, your statement was to Cadet, not me. But now you've made the accusation against both of us, and you simply made it up, again.

[Wind Song]

What does me saying you can go to McD's to get your coffee if you don;t like Starbucks = you cannot protest gun violence there? Furthermore, your statement was to Cadet, not me. But now you've made the accusation against both of us, and you simply made it up, again.

I have every right to walk into Starbucks and tell them I think their pro-NRA gun stance sucks.

[jimnyc]

"She can go to McDonalds". jimnyc

"If you don't want to go to Starbucks where they have guns, don't go to Starbucks"... cadet

Implication, you should stay away from Starbucks instead of protesting their policy.

Umm, no. You said you didn't feel comfortable going into Starbuck with people in there armed to the teeth. We said you could take your business elsewhere if you don't want to be with them. NO ONE ever stated those against gun violence had no right to protest - NO ONE.

[jimnyc]

I have every right to walk into Starbucks and tell them I think their pro-NRA gun stance sucks.

And who said you couldn't?

[ConHog]

I'm not biting. I have no intention of discussing marriage equality or any other civil rights issue about gays in this thread. I regret coming out on this forum. I wonder how a black person would feel posting on this forum and trying to discuss racism.

It's not about marriage equality fool, it's about equality of RIGHTS. Damn you are stupid.

PS Darin is black I believe and I couldn't care less. I've seen him post in racism threads without crying about being bullied.

[cadet]

I have every right to walk into Starbucks and tell them I think their pro-NRA gun stance sucks.

That you do. but they probably won't listen. good luck.

[Wind Song]

It's not about marriage equality fool, it's about equality of RIGHTS. Damn you are stupid.

PS Darin is black I believe and I couldn't care less. I've seen him post in racism threads without crying about being bullied.


I'm real bored with your name calling. Go try that on the "boys".