Starbucks decides Guns and Caffeine...not a good mix

[PredFan]

Let me help you low-information lefties:

Infringe: verb (used without object)
2. to encroach or trespass (usually followed by on or upon ): Don't infringe on his privacy.

Starbucks is encroaching on my right to bear arms. Of course they CAN, it's their right, but that doesn't change the FACT that they are infringing on my ability to carry.

It's separate from the 2nd Amendment because the 2nd only applies to government.

You're infringing on their right to run their business as they see fit. I'm sure the vast majority of businesses don't want people openly carrying guns around their workplaces. Simple matter of safety and liability.

Agreed, but my point still stands.

 

[martybegan]

Let me help you low-information lefties:

Infringe: verb (used without object)
2. to encroach or trespass (usually followed by on or upon ): Don't infringe on his privacy.

Starbucks is encroaching on my right to bear arms. Of course they CAN, it's their right, but that doesn't change the FACT that they are infringing on my ability to carry.

It's separate from the 2nd Amendment because the 2nd only applies to government.

You're infringing on their right to run their business as they see fit. I'm sure the vast majority of businesses don't want people openly carrying guns around their workplaces. Simple matter of safety and liability.

Similar to forcing a bakery to cater to a gay wedding when they are devout christians?

 

[Borillar]

You are just ignoring it. A gun is a tool, like a fire extinguisher, one you probably will never have to use, but will be there if you need it. One doesnt have to be afraid of fire to have a fire extinguisher, its simply precautionary.

Fire extinguishers can also be dangerous in the wrong hands if used incorrectly, ask a person who uses a water extinguisher on a chemical fire about that.

Owning a firearm is not about overriding fear, its about sensible precautions in a dangerous world.

Well, if it makes you feel any better, Starbucks probably doesn't want workers bringing in their front loaders and jack hammers into their stores either. Just common sense. It's a freaking coffee shop, not the OK corral.

If starbucks wants people in its store to be disarmed, they then become responsible for thier safety. If they do not provide it, they should become liable when an incident happens, and someone who wanted to Conceal carry was not "allowed" to.

I'm sure Starbucks is concerned about the safety and liability of its patrons and workers when they want to exclude dangerous weapons from their premises. Someone getting accidentally shot in their store would likely result in a huge lawsuit.

 

[SFC Ollie]

What kind of freak needs to take a gun with him into a Starbucks or any other coffee shop? What a loser that person would be. Many of these gun nuts appear to think about their weapons the way normal people think about their pets, and doing so definitely indicates some kind of mental illness.

A CCW who wants to keep his firearm on him for his protection, and if needed the protection of others.

Why does a cop need to keep his firearm on him? He can leave it in his patrol car as well.

Your mental illness is a fear of your fellow law abiding citizens carrying firearms.

You gun toting idiots live your life in fear; that's why you need a gun. I have no fear of living my life without carrying a gun around. People who need guns are the ones living in fear. You are projecting onto me how you feel when you assess my dislike of guns as fear. What I don't like is the idea of living in a violent society where people are shooting at each other like the old west, where people think vigilantism is the answer to dealing with crime or perceived crime, where people who have a screw loose are toting guns and ready to shoot and ask questions later, not at me, but just in general at anyone they think needs to be shot at. I am against all this idocy and infavor of a sane, civilized society. That does not equate to fear. The pro-gun people are the ones living their lives in fear.

Tell it to the 13 people who were shot in a Chicago park yesterday........

 

[Pogo]

Let me help you low-information lefties:

Infringe: verb (used without object)
2. to encroach or trespass (usually followed by on or upon ): Don't infringe on his privacy.

Starbucks is encroaching on my right to bear arms. Of course they CAN, it's their right, but that doesn't change the FACT that they are infringing on my ability to carry.

It's separate from the 2nd Amendment because the 2nd only applies to government.

You're infringing on their right to run their business as they see fit. I'm sure the vast majority of businesses don't want people openly carrying guns around their workplaces. Simple matter of safety and liability.

Agreed, but my point still stands.

Actually your point melts into butter, because you just morphed "right" to "ability". That's not the same thing.

Do you actually enjoy looking like this?

 

[Borillar]

Let me help you low-information lefties:

Infringe: verb (used without object)
2. to encroach or trespass (usually followed by on or upon ): Don't infringe on his privacy.

Starbucks is encroaching on my right to bear arms. Of course they CAN, it's their right, but that doesn't change the FACT that they are infringing on my ability to carry.

It's separate from the 2nd Amendment because the 2nd only applies to government.

You're infringing on their right to run their business as they see fit. I'm sure the vast majority of businesses don't want people openly carrying guns around their workplaces. Simple matter of safety and liability.

Similar to forcing a bakery to cater to a gay wedding when they are devout christians?

Yes, in that a business should have the right to contract with whoever they wish. Don't think there is any safety or liability concerns there though.

 

[martybegan]

Well, if it makes you feel any better, Starbucks probably doesn't want workers bringing in their front loaders and jack hammers into their stores either. Just common sense. It's a freaking coffee shop, not the OK corral.

If starbucks wants people in its store to be disarmed, they then become responsible for thier safety. If they do not provide it, they should become liable when an incident happens, and someone who wanted to Conceal carry was not "allowed" to.

I'm sure Starbucks is concerned about the safety and liability of its patrons and workers when they want to exclude dangerous weapons from their premises. Someone getting accidentally shot in their store would likely result in a huge lawsuit.

So they need to exclude cops as well. What makes a police firearm more resistant from misfiring more than a CCW one?

If they are liable for that, they should be liable if they actively prevent someone from carrying a weapon if the desire to.

 

[SFC Ollie]

You know, In all the years I've been around this world I can't remember anyone who was carrying a weapon , either concealed or open, take it out and play with it or flaunt it....

Other than obvious demonstrations....

And this supposed announcement by Starbucks? Look at the free publicity....Pure genius. Anti gun nuts will go running for a second cup and pro 2nd folks will open carry just to show they can....

Genius I tell you.....

 

[PredFan]

You're infringing on their right to run their business as they see fit. I'm sure the vast majority of businesses don't want people openly carrying guns around their workplaces. Simple matter of safety and liability.

Agreed, but my point still stands.

Actually your point melts into butter, because you just morphed "right" to "ability". That's not the same thing.

Do you actually enjoy looking like this?

Seriously man, give it up. You are completely clueless. What is your problem? Are you unable to comprehend what you read or do you simply not read what you quote?

 

[Borillar]

If starbucks wants people in its store to be disarmed, they then become responsible for thier safety. If they do not provide it, they should become liable when an incident happens, and someone who wanted to Conceal carry was not "allowed" to.

I'm sure Starbucks is concerned about the safety and liability of its patrons and workers when they want to exclude dangerous weapons from their premises. Someone getting accidentally shot in their store would likely result in a huge lawsuit.

So they need to exclude cops as well. What makes a police firearm more resistant from misfiring more than a CCW one?

If they are liable for that, they should be liable if they actively prevent someone from carrying a weapon if the desire to.

It's their business. They can set their policies as they see fit within the bounds of the law.

 

[PredFan]

I'm sure Starbucks is concerned about the safety and liability of its patrons and workers when they want to exclude dangerous weapons from their premises. Someone getting accidentally shot in their store would likely result in a huge lawsuit.

So they need to exclude cops as well. What makes a police firearm more resistant from misfiring more than a CCW one?

If they are liable for that, they should be liable if they actively prevent someone from carrying a weapon if the desire to.

It's their business. They can set their policies as they see fit within the bounds of the law.

Unless they:

Decide not to serve gays
Decide not to pay their employees high salaries
Decide not to ban smoking
Decide not to stop using salt
Decide to serve drinks over 20 oz
Decide to ban unions
Decide not to provide health insurance
Decide not to do a hundred other things that the left wants to force private businesses to do.

Stop pretending to support the rights of private businesses. Nobody believes you.

 

[Borillar]

So they need to exclude cops as well. What makes a police firearm more resistant from misfiring more than a CCW one?

If they are liable for that, they should be liable if they actively prevent someone from carrying a weapon if the desire to.

It's their business. They can set their policies as they see fit within the bounds of the law.

Unless they:

Decide not to serve gays
Decide not to pay their employees high salaries
Decide not to ban smoking
Decide not to stop using salt
Decide to serve drinks over 20 oz
Decide to ban unions
Decide not to provide health insurance
Decide not to do a hundred other things that the left wants to force private businesses to do.

Stop pretending to support the rights of private businesses. Nobody believes you.

I said within the bounds of the law. I doubt Starbucks pays their employees high salaries. Barristas don't have a union that I'm aware of. Businesses set rules for the comfort of the majority - thus non smoking. Many municipalities have no smoking laws that businesses have to follow. Don't know of any businesses where salt is an issue. Lots of businesses don't provide benefits to employees. Got anything else to whine about?

 

[Spoonman]

I'm sure Starbucks is concerned about the safety and liability of its patrons and workers when they want to exclude dangerous weapons from their premises. Someone getting accidentally shot in their store would likely result in a huge lawsuit.

So they need to exclude cops as well. What makes a police firearm more resistant from misfiring more than a CCW one?

If they are liable for that, they should be liable if they actively prevent someone from carrying a weapon if the desire to.

It's their business. They can set their policies as they see fit within the bounds of the law.

so what you're saying is discrimination is now within the bounds of the law

 

[Borillar]

So they need to exclude cops as well. What makes a police firearm more resistant from misfiring more than a CCW one?

If they are liable for that, they should be liable if they actively prevent someone from carrying a weapon if the desire to.

It's their business. They can set their policies as they see fit within the bounds of the law.

so what you're saying is discrimination is now within the bounds of the law

Sure. Businesses discriminate all the time. No shirt, no shoes, no service. Coat and tie required. No smoking. No loitering. No skateboarding... The list is endless.

 

[PredFan]

It's their business. They can set their policies as they see fit within the bounds of the law.

Unless they:

Decide not to serve gays
Decide not to pay their employees high salaries
Decide not to ban smoking
Decide not to stop using salt
Decide to serve drinks over 20 oz
Decide to ban unions
Decide not to provide health insurance
Decide not to do a hundred other things that the left wants to force private businesses to do.

Stop pretending to support the rights of private businesses. Nobody believes you.

I said within the bounds of the law. I doubt Starbucks pays their employees high salaries. Barristas don't have a union that I'm aware of. Businesses set rules for the comfort of the majority - thus non smoking. Many municipalities have no smoking laws that businesses have to follow. Don't know of any businesses where salt is an issue. Lots of businesses don't provide benefits to employees. Got anything else to whine about?

No dumbass, liberals like you want these things, but you pretend to care about the rights of businesses. Again, no one believes you.

 

[Borillar]

Unless they:

Decide not to serve gays
Decide not to pay their employees high salaries
Decide not to ban smoking
Decide not to stop using salt
Decide to serve drinks over 20 oz
Decide to ban unions
Decide not to provide health insurance
Decide not to do a hundred other things that the left wants to force private businesses to do.

Stop pretending to support the rights of private businesses. Nobody believes you.

I said within the bounds of the law. I doubt Starbucks pays their employees high salaries. Barristas don't have a union that I'm aware of. Businesses set rules for the comfort of the majority - thus non smoking. Many municipalities have no smoking laws that businesses have to follow. Don't know of any businesses where salt is an issue. Lots of businesses don't provide benefits to employees. Got anything else to whine about?

No dumbass, liberals like you want these things, but you pretend to care about the rights of businesses. Again, no one believes you.

Yeah, and you are all about the rights of business to do whatever they want.. until it comes to not wanting to serve gun nuts. You don't have a lot of room to talk about credibility.

 

[PredFan]

I said within the bounds of the law. I doubt Starbucks pays their employees high salaries. Barristas don't have a union that I'm aware of. Businesses set rules for the comfort of the majority - thus non smoking. Many municipalities have no smoking laws that businesses have to follow. Don't know of any businesses where salt is an issue. Lots of businesses don't provide benefits to employees. Got anything else to whine about?

No dumbass, liberals like you want these things, but you pretend to care about the rights of businesses. Again, no one believes you.

Yeah, and you are all about the rights of business to do whatever they want.. until it comes to not wanting to serve gun nuts. You don't have a lot of room to talk about credibility.

Again wrong. I never ever said that Starbucks couldn't do that. I just said that I would no longer patronize them. I even stated in a post to you that they had the right to do that. What is it with you lefties and your lack of reading comprehension???

 

[Spoonman]

It's their business. They can set their policies as they see fit within the bounds of the law.

so what you're saying is discrimination is now within the bounds of the law

Sure. Businesses discriminate all the time. No shirt, no shoes, no service. Coat and tie required. No smoking. No loitering. No skateboarding... The list is endless.

but those are health code violations. in this case carrying a gun is legal. it's very different

 

[Borillar]

so what you're saying is discrimination is now within the bounds of the law

Sure. Businesses discriminate all the time. No shirt, no shoes, no service. Coat and tie required. No smoking. No loitering. No skateboarding... The list is endless.

but those are health code violations. in this case carrying a gun is legal. it's very different

Lead poisoning is bad for you. So is getting shot.

 

[PredFan]

Sure. Businesses discriminate all the time. No shirt, no shoes, no service. Coat and tie required. No smoking. No loitering. No skateboarding... The list is endless.

but those are health code violations. in this case carrying a gun is legal. it's very different

Lead poisoning is bad for you. So is getting shot.

Carrying a gun does not mean you are going to get shot.