Guns: Sayonara, Starbucks
Like the Founding Fathers intended, American gun owners represent the population at large. In such a giant, varied group, you're always going to have disagreements - is open carry protest counterproductive? Are we giving money and support to the right RKBA organizations? Should we focus on getting the laws changed in gun-unfriendly states like California, or shore up gains in pro-gun places? To an outsider, it must look easy to divide and conquer.
Simple truth, though - there's nothing that unites gunnies better than a good old fashioned boycott:
Who's up for never spending money at Starbucks again, raise your hands? To borrow a phrase from Howard Schultz, "Onward!"
posted by Mulliga @ 9:46 PM
2 comments
2 Comments:
Didn't watch the video, but unless something is different from the written version I've read, it's almost literally the very least they could do under the circumstances--every rifle brought to their stores costs them significant money. They aren't actually banning guns, just saying "we wish you wouldn't, but we'll serve you anyhow".
Open carry should be legal, but businesses shouldn't be required to accept it at the cost of their ordinary customers. I prefer to be ignored when I carry, and I'm fine with businesses that ignore gun rights entirely.
Check the video out. It's different from the written statement, I think, in that it says the "request" is "timely" (presumably because of the Navy Yard shooting, which is awfully insulting in and of itself) and in that Schultz is expressing surprise that people are "actually" allowed to carry guns into Starbucks.
If Starbucks wanted its "request" to only apply to open carry, I would argue that it knew how to say that, but decided not to.
Post a Comment
<< Home