Manners
By Mitch Berg
As you know, I am a Second Amendment activist. This blog has always reflected this; indeed, the first post on this blog was a gun rights article. It’s one of my most active topics.
So consider that when I say this: Starbuck’s CEO was right to ask gun owners to please not carry openly in his chain’s stores.
It’s his business – and annual “Starbucks Appreciation Days” aside, the vast majority of his chain’s clientele is going to be people on the political center-to-left – people who, rightly or wrongly, find firearms disconcerting.
Bear in mind he’s not posting his stores to tell concealed carriers to keep their guns out; he’d just appreciate Real Americans not rattling the ninnies among the center-left masses who stop by every day for their Frangelicaccinos.
That’s it.
The Bill of Rights enumerates our rights to speak, publish, assemble, worship and keep and bear arms. That means you have the right to give a pro-Vikings speech in front of a Packers bar, to march your Communist Re-Enactor club through a suburb full of Holodomor survivors, hold a southern Baptist revival meeting outside a mosque, or carry your firearms into a gathering of Vegan Nuns for Cesar Chavez. Not only are none of them good ideas, all of them are just plain bad manners.
Along those lines? There is no genre in libertarian alt-media than the bobbleheads who film themselves walking down the road with an AR-15 slung over their shoulders, almost literally begging for a cop to pull over and ask what he’s doing, allowing the bobblehead the opportunity to lecture the cop on what the law really says. The bobblehead is right – but it’s still stupid.
September 19th, 2013 at 12:35 pm
Agreed. If I’m carrying, the only people who will know are me and whatever yo-yo makes it necessary for me to un-holster.
September 19th, 2013 at 1:38 pm
I also agree. Those who chose to open-carry their firearms into Starbucks very likely pushed Starbucks into doing something they really did not want to do; take a public position on the gun arguement. Their well known “don’t ask – don’t tell” approach to the gun debate was probably as close as the pro-gun movement would ever get to an endorsement from a well known, non-gun, business entity.
I equate these politically motivated open carriers with those who choose to openly breast-feed in public. Did anyone NOT see one of these at the state fair this year?
They too want to seek approval by forced public exposure, but at least public breast-feeders get a shot at shaking a few bucks out of the proprietor who asks the to leave or cover up. While I don’t condone this, it is logical.
The open-carrier makes all gun owners look bad. They are also tacitly sending a “shoot me first” directive to area bad guys. Perhaps that might provide nearby concealed-carriers with a warning shot and opportunity to bring their guns to bear while the open carrier is being disarmed by the bad guy … maybe the only saving grace to the practice.
I believe that absent good reason, a gun should be carried like cash. Hidden away, not discussed in public, and only shown when it’s time to use it.
September 19th, 2013 at 1:38 pm
That and, like bars and restaraunts, a Starbucks is PRIVATE PROPERTY!! Did I make the point loud enough for Tim Pawlenty to hear…you know the “Republican” Governor whose signature enacted the ban of legal activity on PRIVATE PROPERTY??!!
September 20th, 2013 at 5:59 am
OK, I took a shot at Schultz the other day, but you’re right Mitch. It’s purely a respect thing for Starbucks. Although, you have to admit, it was kinda fun to watch the concerned and tolerant lefty crowd wet their pants whenever I walked into one of their stores while I was carrying. Now that fall and winter are upon us, out jackets will cover them, but none the less, I’ll honor his request.
September 20th, 2013 at 9:05 am
“The bobblehead is right – but it’s [he’s] still stupid.”
There is a fair amount of distance between outright bans and taking any firearm I please anywhere I please. Not all rights are absolute. The first amendment, protects free speech. Yet there are still laws against libel, slander and inciting a riot. Mr. Schultz is simply asking gun owners to show that same sense of respect to their fellow citizens who might not like drinking their coffee while wondering whether the fellow sitting by himself with an AR-15 slung over his shoulders is an Adam Lanza or just a second-amendment absolutist. That shouldn’t be too hard. Right?
September 20th, 2013 at 9:39 am
Emery, just when I think you’re making progress toward becoming a rational libertarian, you post something like this . . . and totally redeem yourself! Dog Gone should be wetting herself in pride.
The CEO’s letter says don’t bring your guns to Starbucks. They’re not formally posting the Banned signs, they’re just telling you not to come, ostensibly because it might make other customers uncomfortable.
If I have a right to vote Republican, worship in the Catholic Church and (with a valid permit) carry a pistol in a holster on my hip, my exercise of those rights shouldn’t make people squeamish. To the extent it does, they have a problem, I don’t have a problem. For them to insist that retail stores punish me, highlights their hypocrisy and intolerance.
If Starbucks wants to tell Christians “Don’t bring your Bibles here because it might offend our atheist customers” or tell Republicans “Don’t park in our lot with your bumper stickers because it might offend our Democrat customers” then I suppose that’s his business model and I’ll happily take my business elsewhere.
But let’s not pretend this is anything other than liberal shunning of a politically incorrect exercise of a fundamental Constitutional right.
September 20th, 2013 at 9:58 am
It’s a perception issue Joey D.
Those who love the Second amendment tend to hate the first amendment, particularly when used to voice an opinion on the second amendment. As MBerg wrote: “The bobblehead is right – but it’s [he’s] still stupid.” In other words be a good neighbor.
I believe Joe’s comment above hits the correct tone when he writes: “Those who chose to open-carry their firearms into Starbucks very likely pushed Starbucks into doing something they really did not want to do; take a public position on the gun argument.”
September 20th, 2013 at 11:08 am
Those who love the Second amendment tend to hate the first amendment
Whoa! Them are fighting words, EmeryTheUSAHater. Last time I checked it is the 2nd amendment that protects your silly ass right to be a troll. Or else we would all be living in Soci@list Utopia you long for so much. Come up with any examples of successfull ones yet? Take your time…
September 20th, 2013 at 11:18 am
Those who love the Second amendment tend to hate the first amendment, particularly when used to voice an opinion on the second amendment.
Well, no. In fact, a study by Kates and Harris back in the seventies showed that gun owners were, on average, less supportive of infringements on others’ civil liberties and less tolerant of police brutality than the average American. We believe in meeting bad speech with good speech – and the record (especially this past two years) shows we’re pretty good at it.
But Joe did state it well.
September 20th, 2013 at 12:37 pm
I am a firearms owner and speaking only for myself I tend to support Mr. Schultz’s position. First we are talking about “open” carry which understandably makes a lot of people nervous. I personally don’t believe it’s in the best interests of gun owners to have the “gun nut” image perpetuated by Second amendment absolutists.
September 20th, 2013 at 12:42 pm
Emery,
I think it’s a little like this; as someone who tries to do the “right thing” (hypothetically – IF I owned any firearms and had a carry permit) by keeping my hypothetical firearms out of sight of those who get the vapors at the sight or thought of guns, I’d prefer that gun owners minded their manners and kept their guns concealed – but I don’t like being told to observe those manners.
It’s like if a party host says “don’t fart in my house”. I wasn’t planning on it, and I’m a bit insulted you’d bring it up! And I say that understanding that some people WILL fart at parties, and some people WILL carry openly in places where it gives people the vapors.
September 20th, 2013 at 12:55 pm
It sounds as if there is little measurable separation between the two of us MBerg. It wouldn’t kill you to say so would it?
September 20th, 2013 at 4:41 pm
FACT-CHECK:
“For these reasons, today we are respectfully requesting that customers no longer bring firearms into our stores or outdoor seating areas—even in states where “open carry” is permitted—unless they are authorized law enforcement personnel.”
Prohibition not limited to open carry.
September 20th, 2013 at 4:56 pm
Why the exemption for ‘law enforcement personnel’? There is no reason to believe it is safer for a cop to have a gun than a permit holder.
September 21st, 2013 at 12:00 pm
I guess that the LE exemption is there because that since I cannot carry there and you cannot carry there, LE is our only defensive option.
Hate to have to count on a “barrista” (Latin for stationary waiter) to bail us out with a shot of hot espresso to the villan’s face … although if executed and followed-up properly it’s not a bad idea.