Leaderboard

  The problem I have with this mentality is that you don't speak for me.  My wife and I actually enjoy sitting in Starbucks drinking their coffee.  We like their coffee and we like the atmosphere of their cafes.  We like to sit there, watch people, surf the internet, and we prefer to do it armed -- much the same as we prefer to do anything else armed.  The deal is, we conceal.  Usually in a pants pocket, or under a jacket, but it's hidden and no one has ever been the wiser.   Now, because of selfish people who don't understand or refuse to understand that open carry scares people, I have to decide if I am going to continue going to Starbucks, stop going to Starbucks, or just go there and conceal even more discretely and ignore their request.   Previously, I didn't have to make that choice!  Now, selfish assholes are making Starbucks make the choice for me.   So... Thanks???

My experience at Walmart last night was completely different.  They totally ignored me as they should because I had it concealed.

An Alabama pastor said to his congregation, "Someone in this congregation has spread a rumor that I belong to the Ku Klux Klan. This is a horrible lie and one which a Christian community cannot tolerate. I am embarrassed and do not intend to accept this. Now, I want the party who said this to stand and ask forgiveness from God and this Christian family." No one moved. The preacher continued, "Do you have the nerve to face me and admit this is a falsehood? Remember, you will be forgiven and in your heart you will feel glory. Now stand and confess your transgression." Again, all was quiet. Then, slowly, a drop-dead gorgeous blonde with a body that would stop a runaway train rose from the third pew. Her head was bowed and her voice quivered as she spoke, "Reverend there has been a terrible misunderstanding. I never said you were a member of the Ku Klux Klan. I simply told a couple of my friends that you were a wizard under the sheets." The preacher fell to his knees, his wife fainted, and the congregation roared.

That evening, I OCed because dress did not accommodate CC very easily, and that particular parking lot is known to be dangerous. Situational OC, not compulsive or invitation to incitement

You should call Nashville. Knox co sheriff, and Knox city PD, and post the answers you get. Then we'll all get a laugh because none of them will be correct.

  Maybe he threw some curve balls to those that aren't capable of reading between the lines. I don't make statements with guns, and will carry in there until they post. 

  Then, why didn't he just write a one line statement? There won't be any signs. I just can't see why people are having such a hard time seeing this for what it is. Hell, TMF deserves a Pulitzer for the way he explained it.   If I had a bunch of AR toting assholes come into my business and cost me money, I would throw them out, and not be near as nice. 

     I read Schultz's letter.  It was well written; it carried compassion toward our cause, and it continued to display a (somewhat undeserved - from some of the photos I've seen) respect to law abiding, common-sense-wearing responsible gun owners.        I am not sure that I would afford such a brazen, disrespectful, ... and socially clueless "group" of people the same respect in my place of business.   I know this has been posted, but here it is again.  If you haven't read it, it may be worth a read. http://practicaltacticalpodcast.com/starbucks/       I care about each of you, and there are benefits to our differences of opinion.  Even so, please, please be aware of Newton's Third law of social interaction.  If someone is not fighting with you, don't shove them.        If, of course, anyone happens to just love going around looking for a fight, I would ask them to please find something less important to obsess about. - but they would probably fight me on that.   :cool:          Open carry may have its place, but:  baiting, shock-and-awe, or "see what I can do"... none of those will do anything but align those who are neutral and those who are already against us - into a force which we will not be able to defeat... and if you think, "fine, let's go to war, then."  Such a high, high cost we would enslave our children to.. (beyond comprehension - we've not had a war on our soil since the civil war) .. a cost which can be averted with our own self-enforcement of responsibility - long with socially aware, emotionally mature activism.     ---  Take the logic and hard line talk to your representatives and win the arguments in the legislative arenas.   Take respect, awareness, kindness, and common sense with you everywhere else.  Those four tenets should be constant companions to every firearm we own. ---

The thing about Starbuck's letter, and their public posting of it, is that it is literally a shot across gun owners' bows.    They're giving us another chance - when they were likely advised to just post - because they just want to sell you a cup of coffee and a scone.  With their letter, they're broadcasting that they're willing to post - but would rather not force the issue.  Erik is right.  All open carriers are not the problem.  But a few of them are in a major way.   And there's the rub.  There's no winning hearts and minds here.  A gun is a tool used to do one thing - kill.  Maybe it's to protect your family.  Great.  Maybe it's to provide food for you table.  Awesome.  Maybe it's to keep the government off of your front porch.  Okay.  But, when a non-gun person looks at a person they don't know carrying a gun openly, they see a person who wants to kill somebody and today might be the day.  You might have some conversations with folks.  But regardless of whether or not the conversations end well, they all started out of fear - the fear that you might do something crazy with that gun.  You're not going to win.  Ever.   Our "rights" as gun owners have expanded more in the last 20 years than they have in the last century and a half.  You have more ability to carry today than any of us have had in our lifetimes.  And, those abilities are still expanding.  Ask anyone in Illinois 10 years ago if they'd ever be able to carry a gun to protect their families.  Despite that, however, individual people can screw that up.   The thing about strapping on a weapon, is that the moment you choose to do so, you either become an asset to society or a liability.  And, your actions speak for all of us collectively.  You do something stupid with that gun - and you paint us all in a poor light.  There's no place in civil society for a person to walk into Starbucks with a shotgun.  Your individual actions have just made it harder for all of us.  That's why so many of us get upset about this.  It's not about ceding our rights.  It's about selfish people doing stupid things that cost us all.

Doesn't sound like they're caving to anyone. Sounds to me like they're tired of being used as a pawn in the attention whore game of idiots strapping a long gun on and getting coffee. They aren't for or against, but the Kwik's of our crowd have pushed them over the edge where it is no longer about guns or gun rights. Sounds to me like they don't want to be pawns in the game.

My wife went grocery shopping at WalMart yesterday.  She open carries fairly often, but this was the first time she went to this particular store.  Shortly after she entered, she noticed an employee with a camera and clipboard following her from a distance.  He kept his distance, but didn't lose sight of her.  When she was heading toward the checkout, the store manager and a security guard stopped her.  From a safe distance, the manager asked if she had an HCP.  She said yes.  He said, "Thank you, and have a nice day."  They left, she checked out, and went about her business.   I can't imagine what they would have done if she had said no about the HCP, but at least the employee didn't freak out.

I just wrote my Corker and Alexander and told them that if they don't vote in line with the GOP on de-funding the Affordable Care Act and stand behind them and voting with them on the budget discussions that I will make it my point to do my best to be sure neither one of them get re-elected starting with my vote. I think it's time any of ya'll that have not wrote yet, it's time. Also if any of you folks know folks outside Tennessee contact them and ask them to write their elected officials and tell them the same thing. I think the American people are finally beginning to get their point across and they seem to now be listening so it's time to begin hammering our points home.............jmho

Well I love the constitution as much as anyone but I have to agree here. If you let this young man start handing out things (anything, even the constitution or bible) willy nilly anywhere he wants then you kind of start something you don't want. Then all the crazies gathering signatures or harassing people over THEIR beliefs can start doing so anywhere anytime. There is a procedure for getting permission for these activities, if the guy didn't take the time to research that then what can I say? We wouldn't be getting upset were it the communist manifesto being handed out, both are political documents, just you and I and probably everyone here agree with one, some though agree with the other. I'll pick something else to be outraged over for tonight.

Looks like it's pretty simple to me.    If Starbucks' stance offends you, go somewhere else to buy your coffee. If you think they have been more than reasonable about it, and you like their product, then keep on keepin' on.   'Murrica!  :usa:

[quote name="Erik88" post="1035777" timestamp="1379608306"] The same could be said as to why he didn't write a one line statement saying "no open carry allowed". If this was ONLY about OC and nothing else they would have stated that.[/quote] You're reading way too much into this. He doesn't care about guns or gun politics, only selling as many people coffee a possible. Saying "no open carry" doesn't appease the libs, saying "guns are banned" offend us, so he said something in between. In all honesty the guy probably doesn't give two ####s about concealed vs OC, he just doesn't want people feeling uncomfortable in his stores. My invisible gun has never mad anyone uncomfortable, of that I'm certain.

Sounds to me like one guy chased the other so he defended himself. So this may not be a case of the perfect storm of hot heads. This is the reason I don't believe in pulling over for an aggressive driver. The way people get I'm more concerned with them trying to manifest their rage into violence than in worried they might be pissed at for not going fast enough. I'm not going to stop and give them a chance to box me in or get a better shot at me.

Is there some reason why it was important/necessary to point out that they commentator is gay - I don't see how is that relevant to anything.  :shrug:

I normally stay out of these posts, enjoy sitting back and laughing at all the nonsense I read. But...for all the people who talk about boycotting Starbucks since they are infringing on your rights (even though it is a clear REQUEST to leave them out of the politics involved and a REQUEST to not open carry in a method that could invoke fear), are you also going to quit your jobs tomorrow? Most companies have a policy that prohibits weapons on the premises. The actual building may not be posted but when you accepted the position you acknowledged you would follow the company policy. Therefore they are now infringing on your constitutional right and you should gibe up your job and boycott said company. Obviously this is a ridiculous thought and no one is going to quit their job. So how is the request by Starbucks to leave them out of the gun discussion, and for the nutjobs who carry long arms into their establishment to cease any less ridiculous? As for the posts about how open carry can incite fear...I agree it can. I also agree that open carry is a decision for each person to make and I respect it. I have a neighbor who open carries a Sig 226 everywhere. When I first moved into the area, the way he acted while OCing did cause me some unrest even though I knew I could defend myself if he ended up being a strange character. If I had seen someone carrying a shotgun or AR around the neighborhood I would have been even more concerned.

"Upgrade the US to the same standard of care as the rest of the world"... Is that why so many people from so many countries flock to the US to get the treatment they can't get in their own countries? I don't need to be like the rest of the world. I'm happy being an American!

That's no prank, that's a dream come true lol

  Don't go injecting logic when we're fixin' to do something stupid. I'm pissed  :rofl:

  You done it now. We need to have a protest. I'm gonna borrow a belt fed from DLM.

Well... the term guntard has become mighty useful here lately. On a gun forum at that. 

My son and I like to see if we can make the other the leave the room.  I won the other night.  He was like, damn dad, I can taste that...  I laughed and laughed as he left the room.

Note that Knoxville city parks do not have to be posted for the no carry     Maybe, probably. The ordinance also carries possibility of 30 days jail time, guess it would depend on how much they chose to grind axe.   Note that Knoxville City parks do not have to be posted, as they legally fall back on pre 1986 local ordinance rather than use the state statute.   I'm told that several of the outlying  greenways go back and forth from city/county/city or county/city/county, depending on which way you're going.   My advice -- don't open carry. :)     - OS

Ha!  oh boy,   "It's no big deal!"  (Carl takes a bite out of the baby ruth)

I realize that in your own mind, you think you are helping the cause of gun owners. With the attitude you've displayed in this thread, coupled with you wearing a firearm for everyone to see, is not.   I don't care how many people you pizz off, or convert to gun owners, or whatever. The part that bothers me is that you are casting a negative image over ALL gun owners, which I am one.   When I was a kid at 4-H camp, someone took a dump in the pool. Not only did he get thrown out of the pool, everyone there got thrown out of the pool. You, sir, are pooping in the pool.

I'm coming up with a million unsavory names for what he could call his beer once he bottles and sells it..

Well that sure gives a new meaning to the old hunting sayin' "If it's brown it's down".

in today "pc" world it is best to conceal your gun.  no reason to give the anti-gun nuts any ammo to keep pushing gun control.  out sight equals out of mind. 

  I'm am literally laughing at this item in bold.  I mean, seriously.  Not only have they made it clear, but we have several pages of thread along with several companion articles that negate your item in bold.  They are undecided about it because they don't want to be in a position to make a decision.... BECAUSE THEY MAKE FRIGGIN COFFEE!!!  They just want to sell coffee in a non-politicized environment.  That means they have no problem with you or anyone else carrying a firearm (pistol, obviously).  They just don't want to be involved with activism in any way; for or aginst.  They've taken this same attitude towards the anti-gun nuts as well.  Instead of some gun owners interpreting that for what it is and being the more mature folks, thus making the antis look crazier, we had to one-up their crazy by carrying AKs into Starbucks on some kinda made up Starbucks holiday to celebrate a cause they have expressed (for years) they want nothing to do with.... BECAUSE THEY MAKE FRIGGIN COFFEE!!!

Do you think Hiller Plumbing offers this service? sent barefoot from the hills of Tennessee

  Yeah. The fake ones work too, just not as well

My last post was composed with two thumbs and an iPhone; not the best of platforms.  Allow me to expand on my thoughts a bit more:       Today, the Internet will undoubtedly be aflame with posts by angry gun owners giving Starbucks the what-for over Howard Schultz's request that they be left out of the open-carry vs. concealed carry debate.  In his Open Letter posted to their corporate web site on Tuesday, September 17, 2013 (read it here) Schultz respectfully requested that handgun carriers no longer use Starbucks stores as a soap-box in support of Open Carry.  He stated his case as follows:     " Recently, however, we’ve seen the “open carry” debate become increasingly uncivil and, in some cases, even threatening. Pro-gun activists have used our stores as a political stage for media events misleadingly called “Starbucks Appreciation Days” that disingenuously portray Starbucks as a champion of “open carry.” To be clear: we do not want these events in our stores. Some anti-gun activists have also played a role in ratcheting up the rhetoric and friction, including soliciting and confronting our customers and partners. "     Schultz goes on to state that this is a request and not an outright ban as they want to give responsible gun owners the opportunity to respect their wishes of their own free will, and states that Corporately they believe that their stores are not the proper arena for legislative changes to be championed.     "... We know we cannot satisfy everyone. For those who oppose “open carry,” we believe the legislative and policy-making process is the proper arena for this debate, not our stores."     Sadly I am concerned that the pro Second Amendment community will fail to hear what Shultz and Starbucks are saying, and instead use this as an opportunity to launch vitriolic attacks against Starbucks claiming that some grave injustice has been done.  At times like this, we gun owners tend to be our worst enemies as we lose sight of the end goal and begin to engage in behavior that ultimately will cost us the "Public Relations Battle" as we fight to preserve the rights guaranteed under the Second Amendment.   For a moment, put aside your anger over losing yet another PR battle and think for a moment about how we got here:   Over the past few years it had become assumed by the pro-gun community that because Starbucks would not prohibit legal carry in their stores, Starbucks shared our "Love for Guns and Coffee".  Someone even copied the Starbucks mermaid logo and altered it to state as such, and undoubtedly made a boatload of money off of a satirical play on their trademarked logo.  To be honest I've frequently wondered when Starbucks would start suing for trademark infringement, but that's beside the point.   Starbucks has stated all along that they were neither supporters of nor dissenters of legal carry, but that they preferred the matter be decided by local laws.  If a community allowed legal carry, their stores would oblige.  If a community did not, their stores would not.  Simply, they wanted to be left out of the argument.   However gun owners haven't really allowed them to remain neutral, have they?  Immediately upon previously hearing that Starbucks would not prohibit legally carried firearms in their stores, Open Carry Activists began staging "Guns & Coffee" events and encouraged folks to visit their closest Starbucks franchise while openly and visibly armed.  The cry was "Support Starbucks!", but take your gun with you and make sure people could see it.  That plan has clearly backfired and will continue to backfire for as long as the visible wearing of arms is a polarizing issue.  And in light of recent events such as the Washington Navy Shipyard shooting and the numerous other mass shootings before it, the public opinion is not likely to change anytime soon.   Perhaps Shultz put it best in his Open Letter:     " For those who champion “open carry,” please respect that Starbucks stores are places where everyone should feel relaxed and comfortable. The presence of a weapon in our stores is unsettling and upsetting for many of our customers. "     My opinion on Open Carry is well known here on TGO.  I think it has it's place at times, and I am glad that it is legally allowed, but I do not believe it was made legal for the reasons that some seem to think.  I believe that Open Carry was left as a legal option to protect gun owners from prosecution should their firearms accidentally become visible while being carried in a concealed manner.  As has been pointed out numerous times in the past, there are states that issue concealed carry permits that will absolutely fine you if your cover-garment slips and exposes your firearm.  Tennessee issues a handgun carry permit without the requirement of it being concealed, and conversations with those involved in past legislative efforts suggest that this was done to protect us, not to enable us.   The fact remains that the visible carrying of firearms scares a large percentage of the voting public, or at the very least they find it off-putting.  As I have also said previously, I do not use my handgun as a tool for activism.  It is a tool for protection of myself and my loved ones.  My holster is not a ballot box.   I believe that it is time for responsible gun owners to start thinking about how we will win the hearts and minds of the voting public and stop trying to "scare the sheep".  Scared voters are reflexive, reactive voters.  They do not cast ballots using logic and reasoning.  They cast ballots against us out of emotion, fear, and uncertainty.   If you want to persuade someone, smacking them in the face with the sight of your firearm while they're trying to enjoy their coffee isn't the way to do it.  Scaring a mom of three enjoying a latte with her friends isn't the way to do it.  Frightening a table of college students hovering over their laptops and sipping on macchiatos isn't the way to do it.   Howard Shutlz gets this.  Why do so many of us not?  How many more PR battles do we have to lose before responsible gun owners change their tactics and start winning hearts and minds?

  I'm interpreting this as Starbucks' way to communicate to so-called gun advocacy groups to please stop carrying rifles into their stores.  I'm sure they anticipated this going viral throughout the gun community and the Voldemorts would take note.   Let me make a prediction about this though.  I see this as in no way seeking to keep people from carrying.  As I see it, they are not looking to ban people from concealed carrying, or even open carrying.  I see this as them looking to curb activism going on in their stores.  Let's face it, the morons in Texas that are carrying rifles into the stores, or folks flooding Starbucks with 30+ OCers are activists making a political statement.  Starbucks just wants to make overpriced coffee, not be put in the center of a gun debate against their will.   So, my prediction is that, since this is not going to be enforced, we will have groups of OCers in Tennessee hit up Startbucks in protest by sitting in large groups all OCing in order to flaunt it in the face of management who have been instructed not to engage on the issue.  What will eventually happen is management will engage one of these groups at some point and ask them to leave.  Then some self-riteous moron looking for a fight will argue with the management and talk about how it's not legally posted, therefore not a violation of the law (completely disregarding the fact that a business has the right to tell you to leave, posting or not).  This will be followed by management contacting corporate and explaining that "gun advocates" are intentionally sabatoging business and quoting law, which will result in proper posting, thus making it a crime to carry into Starbucks.  I make this prediction based on this actually happening before; multiple times over by none other than Voldemort and his kind.  Yeah, those types are reaaaaal freedom fighters, advancing our cause.  Nothing advances a cause like being mature and saying "nanna nanna boo boo, you can't stop me (*sticks tongue out)."  The reality is, yes they can stop you.  They can stop you with a 35 cent sticker.    Why not just respect the fact that Starbucks doesn't want to be involved in the gun debate?  They are making that clear.  They don't want to support or attack the 2nd Amendment, which is fine because I don't believe it's in their corporate mission statement to do so.  I'm pretty sure their mission statement is to market coffee products at triple the reasonable cost by convincing hipsters and soccer moms that their blends are exotic and unique with fancy French or Italian names.  Seems to be a successful business model.  I don't see how using this "you're with us or against us" philosophy makes any sense.  They make coffee for crying out loud.  Stop expecting them to take a stand.

idiots

He's convinced that over half the country is stupid. He's correct.

It's also wise to hide your religion from people, not speak out about injustices committed by your own government, and say nothing negative about a possible war you feel is wrong....  Wait, maybe I have that wrong :)   If that manager saw 20 or 30 customers a day carrying openly, he'd get sick and tired of asking them if they had an HCP....  it would become obvious after a couple of weeks that only law abiding citizens wear holsters and carry their firearms in plain view and he'd think nothing of it.     There are possible downsides that have to be accounted for when open carrying (weapons retention for example), but worrying about irrational fears of sheeple shouldn't be one of them.

    While the above is correct, determining the difference between a city park and a county park isn't the easiest thing.  Knowing when you're on UT property also isn't the easiest thing. 

Well hello there! Would you be so kind, sir, as to enlighten us with all that wonderful knowledge you learned from the entire bill? Meanwhile, in reality, employers are dropping healthcare they have given their employees for years (as this bill was designed to do so they can move to rescue the crisis with a single payer system), some folks job hours are being cut to 29 hours and employers are specifically citing Obamacare as the reason, etc. But please do retort those Whitehouse talking points and utopian promises in that ACA.

  You may be onto something Lester.  A government shutdown would indeed please both parties.  Partisan Democrats want a shutdown so they can blame Republicans for everything, whereas Tea Party folks want a shutdown in the hopes that Obamacare will be defunded.  Shut it down and everybody wins.

Y'all head on over to the fart thread for a little while and lighten up  :rofl:

Interesting how the BBC reported the information/allegation first......

  I see cops all the time at various places I visit.  I have yet to see one walk in with an AR or shotgun in their hands.  I think there is a world of difference between open carrying a handgun on your waist versus a long gun.

Y'all are going to get my soapbox out before the day's over.    This is one that gets me riled up, and I wish that we could get people to actually put down their phones long enough to care.  Mind you, if I get going on it, I'll probably wind up having to report myself or something :)

I even relearned something I ignore..."Hunt the Wind", thanks for the reminder!   DaveS

It was our representatives that passed ACA, yes Obama drove the final nail in the coffin but he did not pass this alone. Nancy Pelosi was the driving force in getting the ACA passed but we even had representatives vote FOR the ACA and subsequent bills related to it.   Jim Cooper and Steve Cohen both voted for it and they are up for re-election in 2014. Steve Cohen I can see because he is the rep for Memphis. Jim Cooper represents Nashville and I am willing to bet a few of those being laid off voted for him. It does suck that those who voted for him, and got what they wanted, are taking good people with them. But in the next year we need to support their opponents to get them out of office.   For me I don't care who is up for re-election as I am voting for their opponent. I will never vote for another incumbent. And I have said there is nothing wrong or illegal about contacting representatives in other districts or states. Anytime we contact our representatives take a few minutes and contact someone else's. They will not verify if you are in their district and maybe those few extra calls can at least lock up their phone lines or extra emails can slow down the office.   It feels awful and is a scary time when you loose your job. I have been there and had I not been on unemplyment benefits I would have had a very rough time. I hope all those who were fired find work quickly but I suspect that will not be the case.   I honestly believe hard times are coming and most Americans refuse to see it or think we are too big to fail. By hard times I don't mean being on unemployment or unable to buy gifts for Christmas. I mean unable to feed your family or get life saving medication. Or unable to keep your power on or even keep your house. I can honestly see at some point a national emergency coming related to our debt. Imagine if the government all of a sudden decided that it could not longer afford unemployment? That would cause a significant upturn crime as people who would not normally break the law struggle to feed their family. Or even worse if the government decided it could not afford thoes who are on welfare or similar benefits. If both of those things happened, which I believe one will at some point, we will be transformed into a third world nation in a matter of weeks. We are not even close to the end of where we are going but in the end everyone will be hit hard, even those with jobs. We have had our credit rating, as a nation, degraded because the world sees it coming. It may not happen in the next 10 years but it is coming.   Also look at what we, as a nation, are doing globally. We are involving ourselves in countries that we should not be. As a member of the UN perhaps but never on our own as a nation. But because we are doing these things as a nation other nations are begining to warn us about staying out of other nation's affairs. At some point either we back down or those who are warning us need to back up their threats. Either one is not going to be good for the US. And if we find ourselves at war with a major player we are, without a doubt, going to see ourselves in a rough spot at home.   It is almost like what is happening today was planned out as a means to topple our nation from the top.

That's like asking if the child has a right to non-idiot parents. Sure he does, but that's not what he's gonna get. I feel bad for kids whose parents give them dumb names, but setting a precedent where the court makes that choice for you is a subjective slippery slope.