Brady Campaign Demands That Starbucks Become a Gun-Free Zone

Monday, March 1, 2010
Posted in category guns

Those amazingly simpleminded saps are jumping all over Starbucks with their childish campaign, “espresso shots, not gunshots.” Whereas many large chain stores are commencing gun bans in their places of business, Starbucks has not jumped on the bandwagon with the rest of the fools.

But Starbucks, the largest chain targeted, has refused to take the bait, saying in a statement this month that it follows state and local laws and has its own safety measures in its stores.

Hooray for Starbucks! They know who and what is good for business, and it surely isn’t the small bands of crybaby protesters who occasionally gather at a Starbucks to discuss the glories of wealth redistribution and the greatness of government. Then there’s this loon:

Ralph Fascitelli of Washington Ceasefire, an advocacy group that seeks to reduce gun violence, said allowing guns in coffeehouses robs residents of “societal sanctuaries.”

“People go to Starbucks for an escape, just so they can get peace,” Fascitelli said. “But people walk in with open-carry guns and it destroys the tranquility.”

Societal sanctuaries? Tranquility? And a sidearm on some peaceful person’s hip destroys his day, his world?

Be Sociable, Share!
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

7 Responses to Brady Campaign Demands That Starbucks Become a Gun-Free Zone

  1. Robin says:

    March 2nd, 2010 at 8:41 am

    Ralph FASCItelli. How appropriate. People of his stripe seem to be addicted to some emotional rush they must feel when compelling others to submit to their whims. As with all addictions, the appetite is never satisfied, so the power junkie continually invents new pretexts to impose his will, to get the next “fix.”

  2. Michael the Artist says:

    March 2nd, 2010 at 10:47 pm

    Ol’ Ralph has it ass-backwards. The peace and tranquility are interrupted when the armed robber enters the joint. And armed robbers tend to avoid places where the open-carry guns go to hang.

  3. Michael says:

    March 4th, 2010 at 1:52 pm

    I wonder if Ralph Fascitelli would consider organizing a petition drive urging Starbucks to ban uniformed police officers from their establishments? Probably not.

    The fact is this: Lawful, peaceable citizens who chose to carry ensure peace for themselves and their communities. Ralph Fascitelli and the rest of his anti-civil rights ilk have it totally backwards. Fortunately their lies are becoming increasingly transparent.

  4. Richard Laplante says:

    March 7th, 2010 at 9:38 am

    As usual, I have to disagree with my friends who carry openly.

    There are advantages to carrying your pistol concealed (without getting into the ‘law’ of concealed carry). For one thing, those who are frightened of the sight of a firearm are not aware of it and you may interact with them, if that is mutually agreeable.

    Secondly, displaying your weapon in a public place, by surprise (so to speak, because people may be unaccustomed to seeing that) is a statement, whether you admit it or not, that while lawful and proper, intimidates people.

    If you don’t mind inspiring fear in people (rightly or wrongly – remembering that you won’t have an opportunity to explain to some – or to ease their fear), then the perception of you (gun-carrier) as a threat to peaceful persons has at least some basis in fact.

    I have done it in many public places, thinking that it would serve to ‘educate’ people about the rights and responsibilities of self-defense and resistance to tyranny. I think the majority of people with whom I had conversations in those instances were positively affected, but I don’t know what the people who were obviously too scared to talk to me took away from it – and I never will. They probably joined HCI or some other brain-dead political organization to restrict gun rights BECAUSE of it.

    That’s what is wrong with (in re: the word ‘educate’ as used above) with that superior attitude that seems to accompany many pistol-toting political activists. The essential difference between you and the rest of the ‘activists’ is that you brandish the instrument of deadly force.

    That make you (appear to be) the one making a threat. Not cool, not polite, and gratuitously aggressive.

    Don’t fire this way, I am standing behind you.

  5. Karen De Coster says:

    March 7th, 2010 at 1:18 pm

    RL – I agree on the downsides on open carry. It’s also a tactical disadvantage. But I have empathy for folks who are sick and tired of this country’s heritage (the gun culture was a part of colonial heritage; see Clayon E. Cramer) being condemned and then denied. I think folks have just been pushed overboard, and they are pushing back. I kind of like the push back, whether or not it is to our benefit.

  6. Michael says:

    March 9th, 2010 at 1:34 pm

    @Richard Laplante:

    How about wearing a hot pink T-shirt that says, “I’m Packing Heat” while carrying concealed?

    ;)

  7. JAlanKatz says:

    March 10th, 2010 at 10:07 pm

    I’m not sure where I stand on concealed and open carry. I will say, though, that there was something in the comments made by many open-carry activists that bothered me. Almost all of their comments that made it into the papers mentioned the fact that it was entirely legal – when the gun is not loaded. So they are publicly stating that they are interested in following the law, and that the law requires their gun to be unloaded. How exactly is this helpful for personal defense?
    Another thing – while I obviously object to it being made the law, the fact is that concealed carry may have some advantages. In Texas, lawmakers were moved to permit carry in the first place because of the Luby’s massacre – and many pointed out, probably correctly, that anyone carrying openly in that situation would simply have been the first victim. The advantage of concealed carry is that they don’t know who is carrying and who is not.

Leave a Reply