"This is why we cant have nice things."- Starbucks

[HoughMade]

...and as an aside, flash suppressor, muzzle brake or not....there's no way I'm resting my AR muzzle down on concrete pavers. Sure, back in the Army, my M16 flash supressor spent time muzzle down in the back of a deuce-and-a-half....but I didn't pay for it, we were told to do that and steel sheet isn't concrete.

 

[DoggyDaddy]

You're right. Wrong picture to use. If only there were some more accurate pictures to prove their point.....

A muzzle loader?? Really???

 

[HoughMade]

A muzzle loader?? Really???

Clearly, he was just an average guy who carries. ​He wasn't trying to make a political statement down at Starbucks. No demonstration there.

 

[giovani]

A guy wanting to make a statement, but to fearful to use a firearm that might get him into real trouble.

 

[HoughMade]

A guy wanting to make a statement, but to fearful to use a firearm that might get him into real trouble.

As opposed to the guy in the background treating his AR like a walking stick.

 

[giovani]

I always prop mine muzzle down on the bricks while enjoying my latte.

as soon as i typed that I felt gay.

No wonder I don't go to starbucks

 

[daddyusmaximus]

I must live under a rock... Didn't even know there was a Starbucks thing going on. Then again, I don't drink coffee, never been to a Starbucks. I'll agree that there ain't really a good reason to walk around with a rifle slung over your shoulder. It just doesn't look right.


Now ask yourself why it don't look right... Because nobody ever does these days. 100 years ago it would have been no big deal. I gotta say that street violence is at least as bad now as it was back then, but I say it's way worse. I don't open carry much, but I do every now and then. Maybe if all gun owners walked around openly armed... well let's just say that if they did, it wouldn't freak me out.

Yeah there are those idiots who go out of their way to prove a point, like their special.

They're not, anybody can carry a weapon. (well, if you go by that whole bill of rights thing)

 

[Rick60]

I agree... We brought this on ourselves. Respect Starbucks as a company following the law.

 

[HeadlessRoland]

After seeing pictures floating around of customers carrying AR15s into the Starbucks coffee shops, I'm thankful Starbucks didn't adopt a strict "no weapons" policy. While I firmly believe in being able to open carry, carrying an AR15 into a coffee shop(any store actually) to make a political point seems a touch excessive. Liberals may have started this whole fracas but gun owners sure can be our own worst enemy at times.

Well, it doesn't seem like Starbucks is 'anti-gun' now. Could be worse. They didn't adopt some movie-theater like policy, which is good.


Well, the folks who went there with their AR's and shotguns. They're what I call 'freedom trolls'. I think they have good intentions but they give most folk a bad name. It's like purposely open carrying somewhere to get a rise out of someone, so when the cops come you can film it and be a dick to them and 'school them'. I support their right to do it, but it's not-necessary, and gives regular level-headed and well adjusted folk who carry a bad name.

So long as it's slung and legal according to State law, I have no problem with someone carrying a long gun. If they're triggerfingering it, as Kirk might say, then they risk being labelled an active shooter WHEN the MWAG call comes in. Long gun slung and not being actively handled signals something much different than actively handling a long gun. Failure to observe the four rules is a different animal entirely than simply open carrying. I don't OC but I will never bash anyone who does so long as they're observing the four rules.

Perception is not a reason NOT to open carry; to the contrary, it is something that can only be countered through repeated encounters. Whether we wish to admit this or not, unless and until the masses see responsible people open carrying on a daily basis, the irrational hoplophobia will continue in force. No one has a right not to be offended or not to be made uncomfortable, within the law. Do some OCers do it for attention? Probably. Do the vast majority? I very sincerely doubt it. To cave into the objections of the irrational hoplophobes and accede to their demands - even when those demands can never be satisfied - is to walk down the path of silent consenting obedience.

Does anyone on this board truly believe that if we simply CCed that this issue never would have come up? You think MDA and the rest of the paranoiac sheep would have brayed themselves into silence simply if they didn't see weapons? What they want is a total ban and absence of them. Whether our tools for defense are visible or not, nothing short of that goal would placate and satisfy them. I find it very poor practice to blame fellow carriers for the end result turning out as it has. I charge the CEO with a lack of courage in the face of a miserably mis-informed public and I charge the public with a total lack of understanding of the nature of an armed society and self-defense. But I will never blame the paranoia of the masses on anyone who responsibly carries.

 

[BE Mike]

So long as it's slung and legal according to State law, I have no problem with someone carrying a long gun. If they're triggerfingering it, as Kirk might say, then they risk being labelled an active shooter WHEN the MWAG call comes in. Long gun slung and not being actively handled signals something much different than actively handling a long gun. Failure to observe the four rules is a different animal entirely than simply open carrying. I don't OC but I will never bash anyone who does so long as they're observing the four rules.

Perception is not a reason NOT to open carry; to the contrary, it is something that can only be countered through repeated encounters. Whether we wish to admit this or not, unless and until the masses see responsible people open carrying on a daily basis, the irrational hoplophobia will continue in force. No one has a right not to be offended or not to be made uncomfortable, within the law. Do some OCers do it for attention? Probably. Do the vast majority? I very sincerely doubt it. To cave into the objections of the irrational hoplophobes and accede to their demands - even when those demands can never be satisfied - is to walk down the path of silent consenting obedience.

Does anyone on this board truly believe that if we simply CCed that this issue never would have come up? You think MDA and the rest of the paranoiac sheep would have brayed themselves into silence simply if they didn't see weapons? What they want is a total ban and absence of them. Whether our tools for defense are visible or not, nothing short of that goal would placate and satisfy them. I find it very poor practice to blame fellow carriers for the end result turning out as it has. I charge the CEO with a lack of courage in the face of a miserably mis-informed public and I charge the public with a total lack of understanding of the nature of an armed society and self-defense. But I will never blame the paranoia of the masses on anyone who responsibly carries.

This is all about public relations. We aren't likely to win over the antis any time soon, but if we give logical arguments and conduct ourselves as responsible and reasonable adults, we may win over some converts who are neutral or pro 2A leaning. In your face activism isn't the answer, IMHO. We gun owners are always being scrutinized. The press will always try to portray us in a bad light. If they can take an instance and portray gun owners as wild eyed fanatics they will. We don't need to give them any ammo. We make many more strides in good public relations when we show guns being used in the manner which they are commonly used. Demonstrating the proper safe handling while engaged in activities like target shooting and hunting help people understand that that is what they are used for 99% of the time. Unnecessarily displaying firearms at inappropriate places hurts our cause. When I am a guest in someone's home, I conduct myself to please the homeowner. If I don't want to abide by their rules, I simply don't go. Starbucks didn't want this. Gun owners forced them into it. These demonstrators need to ask themselves, if a good portion of gun owners are upset by the few who went out of their way to demonstrate in this manner, then maybe they aren't even winning over their own kind.

 

[beararms1776]

I agree with a few others about this action. Stopping in for the daily or weekly cup of coffee while cc'ing or oc'ing your hg is one thing, stopping in and sitting around with rifles and ar's is another. Starbucks has a neutral stance on the issue so I don't understand the point for carrying the rifles and ar's.

 

[HeadlessRoland]

This is all about public relations. We aren't likely to win over the antis any time soon, but if we give logical arguments and conduct ourselves as responsible and reasonable adults, we may win over some converts who are neutral or pro 2A leaning. In your face activism isn't the answer, IMHO. We gun owners are always being scrutinized. The press will always try to portray us in a bad light. If they can take an instance and portray gun owners as wild eyed fanatics they will. We don't need to give them any ammo. We make many more strides in good public relations when we show guns being used in the manner which they are commonly used. Demonstrating the proper safe handling while engaged in activities like target shooting and hunting help people understand that that is what they are used for 99% of the time. Unnecessarily displaying firearms at inappropriate places hurts our cause. When I am a guest in someone's home, I conduct myself to please the homeowner. If I don't want to abide by their rules, I simply don't go. Starbucks didn't want this. Gun owners forced them into it. These demonstrators need to ask themselves, if a good portion of gun owners are upset by the few who went out of their way to demonstrate in this manner, then maybe they aren't even winning over their own kind.

Who decides what is unnecessary? Should I tell you whether your carry of a pistol is unnecessary? Should you tell me that carrying a rifle is unnecessary?

I'll tell you this: if those who crave control had their way, none of us would be carrying anything. As for your point that we abide property owners' rules, I have found that we do. Starbucks has made it very clear now that we are not welcome, and I will happily honor their request. I simply find it a point worth noting that Starbucks had no problem taking firearms owners' money, but now we are - as a group - not welcome.

Dollars and sense. But I don't buy the notion that anyone has the right to tell anyone who is legally and responsibly carrying that they should carry something else or not carry at all. It will be a cold day before I let the paranoid sensibilities of others determine what I will or will not responsibly carry. Starbucks doesn't want us? Fine. Neither do we need Starbucks. Sadly, it seems as though more than a few gun owners are willing to put up with this slap to the face and proceed to do business where they are not welcome.

 

[JetGirl]

as soon as i typed that I felt gay.

No wonder I don't go to starbucks

[video=youtube;YDnPkYoc9wg]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YDnPkYoc9wg[/video]

Who decides what is unnecessary? Should I tell you whether your carry of a pistol is unnecessary? Should you tell me that carrying a rifle is unnecessary?

HeadlessRoland knows what's UP.

 

[Expat]

Apparently carrying rifles on private property where they are not welcome has become "unnecessary"...

 

[nascarfantoo]

Despite being quasi-Wookie, words of wisdom from one of the more thoughtful gun bloggers:

What Can Starbucks Teach Us as a Community? | Shall Not Be Questioned

I agree that this is a good article. I personally support Starbucks because I like their product. Call me stupid, but it is what I like. No different than whether you prefer a 1911 versus a Glock or AR. I also often CC while there, but I am not there to make a statement. I am there to enjoy what I enjoy. There like anywhere else there will be other people that I must coexist and interact with. So I don't try to alienate them, rather let them know that I am a common sense, level headed, God fearing person that may or may not have slightly different believes than others. If they chose to discuss why I prefer to carry or own guns, then I will. But I don't intend to walk into an establishment wearing a sandwich board just to say "Hey, I have the right!"

 

[cobber]

Now ask yourself why it don't look right... Because nobody ever does these days. 100 years ago it would have been no big deal. I gotta say that street violence is at least as bad now as it was back then, but I say it's way worse. I don't open carry much, but I do every now and then. Maybe if all gun owners walked around openly armed... well let's just say that if they did, it wouldn't freak me out.

It would look right in Syria, or Israel. Or Chicago.

Gun owners like to argue that violent crime, including gun crime, is down since Clinton was in office. And that 'mass shootings' are very rare.

Yet there are many posts here about the necessity of protecting oneself against robbery, home invasion, etc.

I am not arguing against carry at all, only saying that gun owners (myself included) often find ourselves on two sides of the issue: the necessity is way down, but be sure you're armed just in case.

I have to agree about the long gun issue. If these guys had just been twerking their holstered OC handguns, doubtful "the letter" would have come.

 

[wildhair]

I agree with Starbuck's policy, but this is going explode because the Lib's are great at this and they have the mass media and most all of the politicians on their side. If the pictures in article start showing up on tv and it starts effecting Starbuck's sales in a negative way then we know what will happen. Might even see a new Starbuck LAW.

 

[BE Mike]

Who decides what is unnecessary? Should I tell you whether your carry of a pistol is unnecessary? Should you tell me that carrying a rifle is unnecessary?

I'll tell you this: if those who crave control had their way, none of us would be carrying anything. As for your point that we abide property owners' rules, I have found that we do. Starbucks has made it very clear now that we are not welcome, and I will happily honor their request. I simply find it a point worth noting that Starbucks had no problem taking firearms owners' money, but now we are - as a group - not welcome.

Dollars and sense. But I don't buy the notion that anyone has the right to tell anyone who is legally and responsibly carrying that they should carry something else or not carry at all. It will be a cold day before I let the paranoid sensibilities of others determine what I will or will not responsibly carry. Starbucks doesn't want us? Fine. Neither do we need Starbucks. Sadly, it seems as though more than a few gun owners are willing to put up with this slap to the face and proceed to do business where they are not welcome.

You have the right not to care about what others think and do what is technically legal. I just don't think it is prudent to alienate people where we have the opportunity to sway them to our way of thinking. As I said, we will not convince the entrenched antis, but if we appear to be fanatics, we aren't likely to get those people, who are not committed, to come to our side.

 

[giovani]

Thanks for that Jet Girl ,at least I know one other person thinks the same way I do.

 

[HeadlessRoland]

You have the right not to care about what others think and do what is technically legal. I just don't think it is prudent to alienate people where we have the opportunity to sway them to our way of thinking. As I said, we will not convince the entrenched antis, but if we appear to be fanatics, we aren't likely to get those people, who are not committed, to come to our side.

I get your point, I do. I simply disagree with how likely concealed carry is to get the anti- or neutral (I don't even know what neutral means with regard to armed self-defense) crowd to suddenly become pro-gun. I also disagree with the notion that carrying, even open carrying, equates one to be a 'fanatic'. Some of the most calm, rational, level-headed, and reasonable people I've ever met in my life carry. Some OC, some CC. I think if the mere presence of a weapon is enough to mentally persuade someone who was formerly neutral into loathing or fearing firearms, then foremost, that person probably wasn't terribly 'neutral' in the first place. Secondly, irrational fear of weapons, hoplophobia, can only be countered through repeated encounters with them, with the understanding that the presence of the weapon itself is not what is dangerous, but rather, how and when and for what purpose its owner intends its usage. I have found that unfamiliarity is the driving force behind at least some of that fear.

I agree that bringing people along to Appleseeds or to the range is the most effective method for attracting converts because it increases familiarity and dexterity and comfort with weapons, but I would also posit that simply being exposed to normal people doing normal everyday things while armed does much the same, if to a much lesser degree. Seeing that someone can walk around armed drinking coffee or buying groceries - especially with family - without magically turning into a deranged killer, does a lot to assure a lack of ill intent. But I'm sure we'll probably continue to disagree about the utility of open carry in public places as an effective method to persuade the 'neutrals'.