Anti-Gun Boycott of Starbucks planned for Valentine's Day...

[DVC]

Observations:

Starbucks did not and still does not wish to be the center of controversy. That they chose to stand their ground (literally and figuratively) and follow the state law wherein OC and/or CC was legal is very much to their credit. Personally, I would leave the borrowed themed (Love Coffee & Guns) T-shirts at home, conduct myself as just an everyday customer(s), and cement the relationship that we are the good guys and don't desire to embarrass Starbucks - let the antis do that and look like the spoiled child that can't have its way.

I'm going to disagree with you.

If we make an open and obvious show of support, Starbucks will know that we've got their back, just like they have ours. And, when the word circulates, even the branches which we missed will know that they have friends who appreciate their policy.

After all, even when you KNOW that there's a rabbit in that hat, the thrill is when the magician pulls it out.

 

[Grapeshot]

.......--Note full post quoted here--

Observations:

Starbucks did not and still does not wish to be the center of controversy. That they chose to stand their ground (literally and figuratively) and follow the state law wherein OC and/or CC was legal is very much to their credit. Personally, I would leave the borrowed themed (Love Coffee & Guns) T-shirts at home, conduct myself as just an everyday customer(s), and cement the relationship that we are the good guys and don't desire to embarrass Starbucks - let the antis do that and look like the spoiled child that can't have its way.

Show your support, especially on the days of the planned protest, but do so with dignity and aplomb whether alone or with a group - that way Starbucks will confirm the wisdom of their original and on-going stance.

We each must choose where and indeed how we fight our battles. That the antis select to be in-your face aggressive and emotionally bent should not in any way dictate our response. We are responsible, law abiding, cordial and friendly people that also take self-defense for what it is.......an intelligent, personal choice.

I'm going to disagree with you.

If we make an open and obvious show of support, Starbucks will know that we've got their back, just like they have ours. And, when the word circulates, even the branches which we missed will know that they have friends who appreciate their policy.

After all, even when you KNOW that there's a rabbit in that hat, the thrill is when the magician pulls it out.

Deleting/shortening my post compromised the intended message somewhat. No intention to not show support or from where support comes = those that support the right to defend themselves. Simply recommending that such support be done with a certain air of class and style in keeping with "just normal folks going about our everyday business while carrying normal handguns properly holstered" - in other words responsibly. Believe me they will notice.

Starbucks doesn't want us to have their backs, nor are they volunteering to cover ours. They want this to be a non-issue, a live and let live situation wherein they have stated they would honor the state laws of each state.

The antis make waves, threaten, try to intimidate and get in people's faces - they deal in negative attitudes and methods - they are abrasive.

We OTOH act responsibly, smile a lot, tip well and promote cordiality. I'm the guy next door that cares that your child is doing well in kindergarten and scratchs your dogs head.........oh and I endorse the choice to responsibly defend myself and my loved ones.

BTW - if you want to wear a particulat T-shirt, by all means do so. It is not for me to say otherwise - all I ask is that you consider all points.

As I said, Starbucks will notice the difference in methodology and it is up to each and everyone of us to make that difference obvious in a positive and responsible way.

 

[William Fisher]

Starbucks will notice[/U] the difference in methodology and it is up to each and everyone of us to make that difference obvious in a positive and responsible way.

I downsized your post to deal with this part (Hope that's alright); This is exactly the way to behave. I see the T-Shirt thing as an in your face, look at me approach. Let the ANTIs go the 5th grade in your face, Notice me ones. Go get some coffee, a pastry, put your two dollar bill in the tip jar and say "Have a good dy folks" and then be on your way. I'll be going to five different starbucks that day. HOPE MY BLADDER HOLDS UP!

 

[DVC]

Deleting/shortening my post compromised the intended message somewhat.

No compromise was intended. I saw your point and figured that everyone else does, too.

My disagreement is with your idea that we not make our support more obvious.

When the hoplophobes get together after all of this, I want them griping to each other about all of the people they saw who were openly supporting civil rights at every Starbucks they checked out. I want them to feel outnumbered, weak and ludicrous, and for the Starbucks people to realize who their real friends are.

Once again, the battle for civil rights is at the lunch counters -- but this time, the people behind the counters are in favor. We need to let them never doubt that this is appreciated.

 

[HighFlyingA380]

While I understand what your saying about being 'in your face' with shirts, but I have to respectfully disagree. I feel that wearing a t-shirt and sitting down at a table with a few others is not too 'in your face.' Now, I we were wearing the shirts, standing on the curb with large poster shouting at cars and pedestrians, yes, that's over the top and unacceptable, IMO. As most of us have experienced, the majority of people won't even notice that we are carrying. I feel this is the one day that we do need to be a bit more visible. If the general public only notices the antis shouting, they may assume there is no opposition. Now, would I wear a "guns and coffee" shirt (if I had one) every time a went to Starbucks? No. But since we are taking a stance on the issue on that day, then I feel it's appropriate. Just my thoughts on the matter.

 

[bomber]

I'm doing an ammo giveaway in support of this event

http://www.gunsforeveryone.com/occupystarbucksarmed-and-win-some-ammo/
..--Moderator warning, language my not be suitable for all readers--

 

[PrayingForWar]

Shhh, don't confuse them with logic. You'll make their heads explode. View attachment 7809

I think it would clean up the genepool if their heads exploded. It would be a mess but I'd be willing too help clean it up.

 

[Jack House]

I think it would clean up the genepool if their heads exploded. It would be a mess but I'd be willing too help clean it up.

You'd be labeled a terrorist and executed for employing a WMD

 

[rodbender]

I'm doing an ammo giveaway in support of this event

http://www.gunsforeveryone.com/occupystarbucksarmed-and-win-some-ammo/

Great idea and thanks, but a few of points.

1. What about the folks that can't open carry? I guess we don't need to go to Starbuck's on Valentine's Day. A lot of us will go just for the cause, don't worry.

2. Is the exessive language in the article really necessary? I think it makes us (you) look a bit redneckish.

3. You didn't mention the part about paying for things at Starbuck's with $2 bills to signify the Second Amendment.

 

[protias]

Great idea and thanks, but a few of points.

1. What about the folks that can't open carry? I guess we don't need to go to Starbuck's on Valentine's Day. A lot of us will go just for the cause, don't worry.

2. Is the exessive language in the article really necessary? I think it makes us (you) look a bit redneckish.

3. You didn't mention the part about paying for things at Starbuck's with $2 bills to signify the Second Amendment.

That why when you stop in, you tell them why you are there.

 

[rodbender]

That why when you stop in, you tell them why you are there.

The point is, listen close, If you can't open carry, you can't win the ammo. Geez.

 

[PistolPackingMomma]

Someone raised that point in the comments section, and the response was to "print really badly so it's obvious"

 

[Grapeshot]

Great idea and thanks, but a few of points.

1. What about the folks that can't open carry? I guess we don't need to go to Starbuck's on Valentine's Day. A lot of us will go just for the cause, don't worry.

2. Is the exessive language in the article really necessary? I think it makes us (you) look a bit redneckish.

3. You didn't mention the part about paying for things at Starbuck's with $2 bills to signify the Second Amendment.

Some here would be proud to be called a redneck - a life style more laid back and down to basics.

Have to admit though that I agree that the verbiage could be less offensive and is perhaps in violation of our rules. While obviously the article from that blog is not directly controlled by OCDO rules, it nevertheless comes under such consideration when posted/linked here. Especially so when the original quoted material has been authored by one of our own - it does then reflect on us all.

Read and considered it when it was first posted and decided that the intent was not to offend, but to inform, and let it stand.

BTW - none of this is meant as a personal rebuke of the OP.

 

[PDinDetroit]

Can you buy coffee for under $2 in a Starbucks? :lol:

Use 2 - $2 Bills, Really Put the Point Across!

 

[Grapeshot]

A useful reminder of our 2nd Amendment rights[SIZE=+1] [/SIZE]​
[SIZE=+1] [/SIZE]	Thomas Jefferson, a Virginian, a patriot, and a most pro self-defense president. ​

 

[bc.cruiser]

There are 5 Starbucks here in Fayetteville, NC. Firearms are not allowed in two of them (on Ft. Bragg and in the Cross Creek mall); one is an unposted stand-alone store; two are in gun-friendly stores (Target and Harris-Teeter). I will be at one of the three where guns are allowed and will be giving $2 tips for each purchase by a customer openly carrying a gun (Yes, this includes our friendly LEOs).

Let's not get carried away with the idea that Starbucks supports us. They don't. They simply go with the laws of the state or community. The CEO has already it plain they do not wish to become part of a political controversy, and also that they expect to be serving alcohol in the Atlanta GA and California markets by the end of this year.

I have e-mailed them to thank them for not bowing down to the anti-gun people.

 

[Superlite27]

Some here would be proud to be called a redneck - a life style more laid back and down to basics.

Those that are proud to do so have ignorantly been bamboozled into thinking it is an acceptable term for their particular "lifestyle". The term "redneck" has nothing to do with lifestyle. It is a term taken from Unionist coal miners in Appalachia that used to wear red bandannas around their necks, and bastardized to refer to uneducated rural people in comparison to those of rural Appalachia who were too poor and uneducated to lift themselves out of poverty and a life of coal mining. Across all racial, gender, and religious lines there have always been terms created and used to refer disparagingly towards the ignorant, poor, uneducated, unwanted, and outcast. The "N"-word is such a word used to disparage uneducated and socially outcast black people. It has become so unacceptable, you can't even use the term to describe it. There are other terms used to refer to other uneducated and outcast individuals who cross our borders from Mexico, are sexually attracted to the same sex, practice a particular religious belief, and many others.

Yet, it seems perfectly acceptable to use the term "redneck" with its obvious insinuation of rural, uneducated bigotry......

...and the ignorant suckers it is used to describe have been hornswaggled into believing it is something to be proud of. Have you heard the idea that in order to lessen the impact of being offended, one should "take ownership" of the term in order to remove the power it holds? This is the malarky that is used to brainwash the ignorant masses into believing that it is something to be proud of. All it does is lessen the workload of those that laugh at you. Why should they go though the effort of painting the label on you with their own brush when they can sucker you into doing it for them?

Now, whether you feel "offended" by the term or not is your own perogative. However, I know EXACTLY what the term is used to refer to, and nobody here can sucker, bamboozle, or brainwash me into believing its something to be proud of. Those that think it is something to be proud of shoehorn perfectly into what it is meant to describe: rural people that are too uneducated to discern when they are being ridiculed.

 

[Grapeshot]

Those that are proud to do so have ignorantly been bamboozled into thinking it is an acceptable term for their particular "lifestyle". The term "redneck" has nothing to do with lifestyle. It is a term taken from Unionist coal miners in Appalachia that used to wear red bandannas around their necks, and bastardized to refer to uneducated rural people in comparison to those of rural Appalachia who were too poor and uneducated to lift themselves out of poverty and a life of coal mining. Across all racial, gender, and religious lines there have always been terms created and used to refer disparagingly towards the ignorant, poor, uneducated, unwanted, and outcast. The "N"-word is such a word used to disparage uneducated and socially outcast black people. It has become so unacceptable, you can't even use the term to describe it. There are other terms used to refer to other uneducated and outcast individuals who cross our borders from Mexico, are sexually attracted to the same sex, practice a particular religious belief, and many others.

Yet, it seems perfectly acceptable to use the term "redneck" with its obvious insinuation of rural, uneducated bigotry......

...and the ignorant suckers it is used to describe have been hornswaggled into believing it is something to be proud of. Have you heard the idea that in order to lessen the impact of being offended, one should "take ownership" of the term in order to remove the power it holds? This is the malarky that is used to brainwash the ignorant masses into believing that it is something to be proud of. All it does is lessen the workload of those that laugh at you. Why should they go though the effort of painting the label on you with their own brush when they can sucker you into doing it for them?

Now, whether you feel "offended" by the term or not is your own perogative. However, I know EXACTLY what the term is used to refer to, and nobody here can sucker, bamboozle, or brainwash me into believing its something to be proud of. Those that think it is something to be proud of shoehorn perfectly into what it is meant to describe: rural people that are too uneducated to discern when they are being ridiculed.

To tell the truth, I am little effected by the labels that others might choose to try to hang about my neck. Don't consider myself ignorant, hornswagged, bamboozled, brainwashed or shoehorned when I elect to use a presently accepted meaning of a word/term rather than how someone else may intend it. I just consider the source.

I was raised in a mid-western state where every farmer, cattleman or horse rancher was literally a red neck and they never related that term to coal miners nor took umbrage.

Many of the rural people I know are quite well educated and virtually all know precisely when others are ridiculing them or indicating their disdain. They see no need to point out what fools the others are making of themselves - they are doing such a good job already.

Broad brush indeed.

 

[Daylen]

Some here would be proud to be called a redneck - a life style more laid back and down to basics.

Have to admit though that I agree that the verbiage could be less offensive and is perhaps in violation of our rules. While obviously the article from that blog is not directly controlled by OCDO rules, it nevertheless comes under such consideration when posted/linked here. Especially so when the original quoted material has been authored by one of our own - it does then reflect on us all.

Read and considered it when it was first posted and decided that the intent was not to offend, but to inform, and let it stand.

BTW - none of this is meant as a personal rebuke of the OP.

I love being from the Redneck Riviera.

 

[Superlite27]

However, I know EXACTLY what the term is used to refer to, and nobody here can sucker, bamboozle, or brainwash me into believing its something to be proud of.

Something I wrote didn't set well after I reread it, and I have spotted the problem.

The phrase "nobody here" seems to insinuate that I'm pointing at an individual (not you, Grapeshot) here.

I misspoke. (mistyped?)

I should have just said "nobody can sucker me". By adding the word "here", which I should have omitted, I seem to be ranting at a particular target rather than at the general "redneck term using" public.

I also seem to come off as VERY OFFENDED. I'm not angry. I'm just generally resentful towards the fact that derogatory terms have become verboten for almost every segment of society while a generally disparaging term used to denigrate individuals of my demographic seems to be not only acceptable, but latched-on to and "owned" by the very people it denigrates.