RE: Starbucks: A twist on adding a shot

RE: Starbucks: A twist on adding a shot (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

SL4V3M4YB3 -> RE: Starbucks: A twist on adding a shot (3/5/2010 3:33:28 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic I don't think we need to be trying to structure our society around the comfort level of people who are afraid an unloaded gun is suddenly going to go off and kill everyone in the room. Why, there is a gun three feet away fro where I'm typing, and I'm still alive! Your laws are great for criminals, now they don't actually have to incriminate themselves on CCTV by pointing the gun at the person behind the counter. All they have to do is glance down at their weapon and if some counter clerk is seen giving away money well that has nothing to do with the lucky man receiving it.

eyesopened -> RE: Starbucks: A twist on adding a shot (3/5/2010 4:57:11 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: eyesopened What I found interesting in the article is the concept that open-carry is potentially more harmful than concealed carry. I fail to see that logic. I'd much rather be able to see who has a gun and who is reaching for that gun. So would every criminal... It makes everything so much simpler and safer for them. [:D] K. Criminals already have this privilege. I think I know what you are trying to say but really, police openly carry guns and the criminals can see when they are reaching for them. The criminal conceals his/her gun and the police have to guess if the person is reaching for a gun or reaching for identification. It would be much safer for everyone, including the police if all guns were openly carried.

eyesopened -> RE: Starbucks: A twist on adding a shot (3/5/2010 8:03:42 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx quote: Even chimps need another chimp to whisk up a hand shandy over instead of being able to close their eyes and use their imagination, after all. A trip to the zoo might go a long way towards disabusing you of this ignorance. Imagination? I thought all that was required was a dick and an opposable thumb. That is...... until I saw THIS. Maybe animals have an immagination. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xwfNdxK9tDc&feature=player_embedded#

Musicmystery -> RE: Starbucks: A twist on adding a shot (3/5/2010 8:06:59 AM)
quote: Starbucks wants no part of it. It seems like a smart corporate decision to me. Should they take a stand? As a purely business decision, I agree.

thompsonx -> RE: Starbucks: A twist on adding a shot (3/5/2010 10:52:15 AM)
quote: All they have to do is glance down at their weapon and if some counter clerk is seen giving away money well that has nothing to do with the lucky man receiving it. Perhaps when the individual looks down at his weapon the couter clerk might utilize the same sort of quiet intimidation by looking down at the weapon they have at thier disposal. At the same time the clerk might also point out that there are numerous cameras recording this and if the potential robber thinks the couple of hundred in the till is worth the game then all he has to do it say so.

StrangerThan -> RE: Starbucks: A twist on adding a shot (3/5/2010 11:02:45 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DarkSteven Rich, they're trying NOT to take a stand but they're being forced to. Either they allow them or they don't, and either way is taking a side. The pro-gun folks are walking in conspicuously armed. Starbucks is hoping that they'll do this for a week or so (and buy a latte while they're there), and then simply quit doing that, point made. If the antigun folks don't stage a boycott, Starbucks won't get hurt too badly (although I imagine a lot of people would leave after feeling uncomfortable around conspicuous gun carrying). If Starbucks were to ban guns, they'd get sued. And it's about damned time companies are forced to take a stand. Too often policy is driven by activists who spend their fucking lives hating something someone else does. Most of us don't give a damn about carrying a gun to pick up a latte or not so we don't say anything. It's how shit keeps getting regulated down to the point where you can barely breathe without offending someone. So I think it's a good thing. If the trend continues, policy might actually be driven by what's best for the majority rather than what some sniveling little bastard can't stand.

Musicmystery -> RE: Starbucks: A twist on adding a shot (3/5/2010 1:05:51 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DarkSteven If Starbucks were to ban guns, they'd get sued. I don't think so. It's private property.

Moonhead -> RE: Starbucks: A twist on adding a shot (3/5/2010 1:24:51 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: eyesopened quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx quote: Even chimps need another chimp to whisk up a hand shandy over instead of being able to close their eyes and use their imagination, after all. A trip to the zoo might go a long way towards disabusing you of this ignorance. Imagination? I thought all that was required was a dick and an opposable thumb. That is...... until I saw THIS. Maybe animals have an immagination. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xwfNdxK9tDc&feature=player_embedded# My understanding was that chimps need another chimp present to beat off over. Obviously I was misinformed. (Bloody Colin Wilson: he's full of shit about Jack the ripper as well...)

thompsonx -> RE: Starbucks: A twist on adding a shot (3/5/2010 4:54:01 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery quote: ORIGINAL: DarkSteven If Starbucks were to ban guns, they'd get sued. I don't think so. It's private property. Tim: I think this is a little different. They are a public business open to the public so the private property thing might be a little shakey. I am sure that the NRA would supply a lawyer free of charge just for the opportunity to litigate such an action.

Kirata -> RE: Starbucks: A twist on adding a shot (3/5/2010 7:07:06 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx I think this is a little different. They are a public business open to the public so the private property thing might be a little shakey. I am sure that the NRA would supply a lawyer free of charge just for the opportunity to litigate such an action. I would guess it depends on the laws of the state. In Ohio, concealed carry is legal but any business has the right to post an enforceable notice on their door declining to allow firearms on the premises. K.

kittinSol -> RE: Starbucks: A twist on adding a shot (3/5/2010 7:08:53 PM)
Fast reply - who is stupid enough to go into a Starbucks in the first place? The Golden Arches' frozen crap is far superior. Plus, it's got Paul Newman's face printed on the cup. Get a grip, people.

Musicmystery -> RE: Starbucks: A twist on adding a shot (3/5/2010 8:36:47 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx I think this is a little different. They are a public business open to the public so the private property thing might be a little shakey. I am sure that the NRA would supply a lawyer free of charge just for the opportunity to litigate such an action. I would guess it depends on the laws of the state. In Ohio, concealed carry is legal but any business has the right to post an enforceable notice on their door declining to allow firearms on the premises. K. In NY, I hosted an alternative event one weekend at a local establishment. Some right wing Christians were talking about disrupting it (in advance--I caught wind of it). I called the State Police about it, and they said the owners had every right to refuse to admit anyone they wished. Other than breaking discrimination laws, I suppose, but there are no laws against discrimination based on firearm preference.

thompsonx -> RE: Starbucks: A twist on adding a shot (3/6/2010 4:13:48 AM)
My thoughts were more along the line that if "open carry" is not against the law then it would most likely not be "just cause" for refusing admissison to a public retail outlet. In the case of your "event" that I think more likely you would have a clear right to exclude since you are not open to the general public but are instead open to a specific group of the public. Especially a group whose express intent is to be disruptive.

thatsub -> RE: Starbucks: A twist on adding a shot (5/8/2010 8:54:52 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx My thoughts were more along the line that if "open carry" is not against the law then it would most likely not be "just cause" for refusing admissison to a public retail outlet. ... Being open to public is not the same as being public. Starbucks is a private property and they can put a sign "no guns allowed", which would mean that they can kick you out for carrying a weapon and you also will be trespassing if you carry.

belladevine -> RE: Starbucks: A twist on adding a shot (5/8/2010 9:10:13 PM)
If the criminals are allowed to walk around with guns then law abiding citizens should also be allowed to carry guns. I suspect that there will not be very many criminals going to rob the Starbucks if it is known that there gun toting Americans there that are fed up with the criminal bull shit.

auditguy -> RE: Starbucks: A twist on adding a shot (5/8/2010 9:38:41 PM)
Ohh man, got a little excited there. I thought this thread was about Starbucks adding Irish coffee to their menu, which would have been the definition of awesomeness. I finally wouldn't feel bad about paying five bucks for their coffee three times a day.

rulemylife -> RE: Starbucks: A twist on adding a shot (5/9/2010 6:47:11 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: belladevine If the criminals are allowed to walk around with guns then law abiding citizens should also be allowed to carry guns. I suspect that there will not be very many criminals going to rob the Starbucks if it is known that there gun toting Americans there that are fed up with the criminal bull shit. Well, I might be wrong, but I'm pretty sure criminals are not allowed to walk around with guns.

TheHeretic -> RE: Starbucks: A twist on adding a shot (5/9/2010 8:44:11 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: rulemylife Well, I might be wrong, but I'm pretty sure criminals are not allowed to walk around with guns. Nope. You are absolutely right. Criminals are not allowed to walk around with guns. The problem is, because they are criminals, they pretty much don't give a shit what they are, and aren't "allowed" to do.

truckinslave -> RE: Starbucks: A twist on adding a shot (5/9/2010 6:14:45 PM)
quote: In Ohio, concealed carry is legal but any business has the right to post an enforceable notice on their door declining to allow firearms on the premises. Ditto West Virginia. A small vestige of property rights.

Vendaval -> RE: Starbucks: A twist on adding a shot (5/10/2010 3:32:06 PM)
Hi there Heretic, I think the open carry people need to leave Starbucks out of this debate entirely. It is not the right venue. There are plenty of civic areas to hold a vigil, march, protest, etc. The only persons who should have open firearms in this situation are police officers on duty. How can a counter person or barista be expected to know the intentions of the person with a handgun out in the open? How about the other customers and their right to enjoy the coffee/drinks/conversation in peace? Anyone run into this situation personally yet? Vendaval

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3] 4 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.1865234