Starbucks and the Second Amendment crowd

by Susan Marie Kovalinsky | March 4, 2010 at 05:10 pm

852 views | 14 Recommendations | 30 comments

Starbucks (SBUX) has unwittingly become caught up in the culture wars, and the second amendment issue of the right to bear firearms.

The coffee franchise has been targeted by certain advocacy groups, most likely because SBUX is notorious for being a bastallion of liberal elitism, although this is largely a stereotype and hence a gross exaggeration.

Insisting they have the right to openly carry their guns into private establishments these second amendment rebels have dragged Starbuck's where it never wanted to venture.

Private establishments have the right to ban firearms from being brought into their stores; thus far Starbucks has not, and wants to remain neutral. (See statement below).

And Starbucks just wants to sell them coffee. So it has asked both sides to please back off and leave it alone. It will continue to allow customers to carry guns where it's legal. "Were we to adopt a policy different from local laws allowing open carry, we would be forced to require our partners to ask law abiding customers to leave our stores, putting our partners in an unfair and potentially unsafe position," the company said in a statement. In the meantime, the company would appreciate it if both sides would "refrain from putting Starbucks or our partners into the middle of this divisive issue."

3 See all footage | View Slideshow

Share: email story | add to any | | facebook | stumbleupon

recommend Sign In or Join to post comments

Hugh Askew

at 02:22 on March 5th, 2010

"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."

T. Jefferson.

YankeeJim

at 05:42 on March 5th, 2010

We have matured beyond that. The scale of arms necessary to avert tyranny in government would be cataclysmic.

Hugh Askew

at 13:49 on March 5th, 2010

You may have matured beyond that. The gummit has not shown itself to be beyond tyranny.

If you feel that we should not be allowed to bear arms, and for citizens to keep them on hand, then you need to get a constitutional amendment passed to take away that right.

Susan Marie Kovalinsky

at 06:38 on March 5th, 2010

Right. The Jeffersonian Republic was a quiet nation of gentleman farmers. It knew nothing of superhighways, fast food franchises, mega-malls, subdivisions, and wars in Iraq and Afghanistan due to globalization and enormous pharmaceutical conglamerates. To pretend we are in the Jeffersonian America is to pretend we are on the moon. To resist government, citizens would need the right to surface-to -surface missiles, surface- to -air missiles, mega-tanks, sound tanks, tear gas forces: The second amendment belongs to the old, better America. Jefferson would puke if he could see the vast suburban high-tech corporate global mega-structure. This is NOT his America, and he would want NO part in the MTV and the FOX News and the MSNBC. How do you answer, HA? Surely you see the facts?

Karl Gotthardt - albertacowpoke

at 06:56 on March 5th, 2010

I always thought that laws had to do with intent and the intent here was for the population (like the minutemen) to have weapons available if needed to defend themselves not to go to a bar or Starbucks like in the Wild West. Sometimes I feel like I am in a wild west movie starring John Wayne.

Farmers have use for a weapon, but even there no high powered automatic weapons are needed. They need something for pest control.

In Canada people need a firearms safety course, even at that when I see the way some hunters handle guns it makes me nervous.

Rory Cripps

at 07:12 on March 5th, 2010

ACP: Yeah! The last place I'd want to be is in the woods during hunting season. Some of those idiots shoot at the first thing that moves in the bushes. And a lot of them are intoxicated too!

I think that concealed carry laws have worked out well here in the U.S. CWP holders are among the most law abiding citizens. If they weren't they would be denied a permit. I don't know what the purpose of open-carry laws is. However an open-carry law does have the effect of enabling people to carry larger weapons than they'd be able to conceal properly especially in warmer climates such as Florida. It's kinda difficult to conceal a Beretta 92 or a P226 when one is wearing shorts and a T shirt.

Susan Marie Kovalinsky

at 07:14 on March 5th, 2010

Yes, Rory---Carrying weapons openly may serve a certain purpose: A deterrent against being mugged, for example. But NOT the Jeffersonian ideal of a citizenry armed against its government ; )

Rory Cripps

at 07:52 on March 5th, 2010

Yes ma'am.

Susan Marie Kovalinsky

at 07:10 on March 5th, 2010

Yes, Karl: Thanks, because your description of a wild west movie is apt. I wish we were living back in the Jeffersonian republic; but alas, we are not, and the second amendment intent really does not exist anymore, sadly. : (

Hugh Askew

at 09:15 on March 5th, 2010

"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."

T. Jefferson.

No, sorry to all. Clearly, Jefferson's remark was intended for such a time as this.

Here, another from the patriot, Samuel Adams:

"That the said Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms..."

We must remember, that Jefferson was a revolutionary, and his ideas were indeed revolutionary.
When we choose comfort over liberty, we will lose our liberties, our freedom, and eventually, the comforts themselves.

Rory Cripps

at 09:13 on March 5th, 2010

Hugh: Don't worry about it! They're not going to take the guns away. There are just too many guns out there. It would be impossible because there's not enough law enforcement personnel out there to accomplish such a thing. Unless of course the government hired temporary workers.

Hugh Askew

at 09:16 on March 5th, 2010

I'm not worried. I don't own any guns, don't even like them. I do like Jefferson's ideas on liberty - and the need for revolution from time to time : )

Karl Gotthardt - albertacowpoke

at 09:22 on March 5th, 2010

Tyranny can only happen till the next election, NO? When they cancel elections, I'll roll out the tanks, artillery, machine guns and razor wire. I was going to say mines, but we signed the mine treaty.

Hugh Askew

at 09:26 on March 5th, 2010

With the snow melting, you'll need that tank to get to the horse barn, won't you? ; )

Susan Marie Kovalinsky

at 11:38 on March 5th, 2010

I absolutely see the need for revolution. I just do not think it is based on the second amendment, nor do I think toting guns to Starbuck's does anything for anyone.

Hugh Askew

at 13:12 on March 5th, 2010

Tom Jefferson - and other American patriots - saw ( 200+ years ago) that guns could/would be needed for a future revolution.

They gave us the means to that revolution by way of the Second Amendment. Read Sam Adams' words above. They do not allow much room for argument on the subject.

As to packing heat in public, not so much.

timesmovedon (not verified)

at 13:38 on March 5th, 2010

People used to believe the world was flat. most realize now that it isn't. Some won't admit that a once dearly held belief is no longer tenable given current realities. The relevancy of Adam's words are interesting in a historical context, they are no longer germane other than as an allegorical message

Hugh Askew

at 14:06 on March 5th, 2010

One of the reasons for a Constitution, is to keep people with trendy &/or bubbleheaded ideas from taking over the intended ideal.

There is a mechanism to change the Constitution. If you think it needs to be changed, then get a Constitutional Amendment passed.

I doubt the founders of this nation would agree much with the small mindedness of folks that think the patriot's words were intended as an "allegorical message".

You can argue Samuel Adams' position on rebellion if you like, and the flat earth argument should please your fellow liberals, but the rest of us will understand the bankruptcy of your thinking.

theyaredead (not verified)

at 15:24 on March 5th, 2010

The founders don't think. They are dead. We need to use the past as a guide for the future, but it doesn't control it. Try rational thinking

Hugh Askew

at 19:12 on March 5th, 2010

Rational thinking? That is what the founders of this country presumed when they crafted the constitution. I think the intent was for us to abide by it. Those that know better think otherwise, it seems.

It was against the lack of rational thinking that those that wrote the Constitution had in mind when they added the 2nd Amendment. They intended that we would be able to rise up against those that sneer at the words that were intended to serve as rules for good governance.

Susan Marie Kovalinsky

at 13:55 on March 5th, 2010

Do you actually believe there could be a revolution using guns? And that the National Guard would not come out with tanks? And European allies would not become involved, protecting vast global interests? I do not understand how this "revolution" could be enacted so simply, in the times we are in. America is a vast global mega force, full of weird global corporate interests. How could a group of country men take it over as though we are back in the days of Samuel Adams and Jefferson? Please explain in detail how such a revolution would come to pass???

Rory Cripps

at 16:56 on March 5th, 2010

Susan: Here's one of the problems: There are a tremendous amount of guns out there in the hands of ordinary Americans. Millions upon millions!. And there are communities all over the U.S. where it is not uncommon for most of the residents to own guns. I'm not talking about just hunting guns and handguns. I'm talking about very sophisticated military small-arms weapons. More sophisticated than even the Taliban and Al Qaeda have in many cases.

In those communities there are also many combat veterans that have much military experience, most of whom are Republicans and who have an aversion to big-government. Also, most American military personnel and National Guard personnel reside in those communities and their friends and neighbors reside there too. I cannot fathom the possibility that American military personnel and National Guard personnel would turn their guns on their homes, communities, families, friends, and neighbors. They'd more than likely turn their guns on the government that is ordering them to do so.

I don't foresee an armed insurrection on the part of the right wing anytime soon if at all.. The only thing that I can imagine at this point is another terrorist attack of major proportions that would give the Feds an excuse to declare martial law. That may work in densely populated cities such as New York or Chicago but it won't work in the vast majority of American fly-over country. As it stands, there are not enough military personnel and National Guard personnel to cover a fraction of those areas, even if all the military and National Guard personnel were willing to follow the Fed's orders. Troops would have to be imported from places such as China and Europe to quell the unrest.

Again: Think of the Taliban and Al Qaeda. They have nothing comparable to the sophisticated military equipment that NATO forces have. But they have a strong determination, will, and a belief in the righteousness of their cause. And look at all the grief that they're laying down on the world's strongest military power.

If the tanks ever rolled into American communities, they'd be rolling into ghost towns in many cases; for American's would know all about it through the grapevine and be long gone and well-entrenched in the hills of fly-over country . . . .

Hugh Askew

at 18:55 on March 5th, 2010

Not only that, Rory, who do you think has the fertilizer (and the factories to make it) used in improvised explosives? O gosh, it is all those rednecks out in flyover country.

What ever shall we do?

Rory Cripps

at 19:36 on March 5th, 2010

Hugh: I think that the left understands the survivalist nature of the right. And it scares them! This is not to say that there aren't many survival-oriented people on the left. Half of those crazy mountain climbers are leftists.lol!

But many on the right are artisans, mechanics, engineers, farmers, builders, craftsmen, soldiers, policemen, and so on and so forth.They are for the most part people that possess, and are expert in, practical skills.

I thank you for baiting me on this issue . . . but if I so much as get a dish thrown at me over this comment, I will hunt you down, beat you with a corn cob, and stuff corn flakes down your throat . . . .

Hugh Askew

at 08:34 on March 6th, 2010

Beat me with a corn cob? Why you silly boy, i didn't know you cared! I'm a Wheaties fan, btw, so leave off with the corn flakes.

Most folks from the coasts live with understanding that we still marry our cousins, have occasional problems with uprisings on the reservations, and couldn't find our way home on the best day we ever had. While those things are true, I must admit that more than a few of us find comfort in being ignored by the more intellectual types.

In the meantime, we will stockpile entire herds of cattle, hide away fertilizer, and await the day we can show thum thar folks what we think.

Susan Marie Kovalinsky

at 15:49 on March 5th, 2010

OMG! : (

nanute

at 06:32 on March 6th, 2010

How would have thought that all these open carry Starbucks patrons are latte sipping liberals? Seriously though, here everyone is worried about the 2nd Amendment, when in fact the "Patriot Act" has negated the 4th Amendment. Here's a quote from another founding father, Ben Franklin: "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."

Hugh Askew

at 08:47 on March 6th, 2010

Another good reason to have a revolution on a regular basis! That is not sarcasm, btw.

The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground. TJ

packin (not verified)

at 14:03 on March 7th, 2010

RE: Military firing on citizens. Why do you think the 'bar has been lowered' so that known gang-bangers and hoodlums are allowed to join the military? Why do you think Obama is pushing for a program similar to the 'Brownshirts' of pre-WW2 Germany? The average Joe WON'T fire on Mom/Dad/Sis/Brother, but some of the folks that are now in the armed services don't have that 'moral lock' built into the gray matter. Tell me, which businesses during the LA riots were the last to be looted? Why were they still intact after all the others had been destroyed? For extra credit, answer this question: What did law enforcement do that ultimately allowed the mob to finish the destruction of those businesses? I always like seeing people post quotes from our founders, but a quote from one of the most muderous people in all of history is appropriate as well: “Power flows out of the barrel of the gun'” - Mao Tse Tung During WW2, the Japanese were very much aware of the 'problem' of the wide spread civilian ownership of firearms in America: "You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass." - Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto (Japanese Navy)