You might want to avoid Starbucks today
Gun activists plan on meeting and even rallying outside the coffee chain. Many are joining a Facebook group.
Here in Connecticut, a group from Connecticut Citizens Defense Leagues plans on meeting at the Starbucks in Newtown, not far from the tragic shooting in December.
Starbucks has an open policy regarding weapons at its establishments.
The group from CCDL said they are supporting Starbucks and their open policy and will likely have some coffee and tea and some will bring their weapons.
Matt Bottali from Ridgefield, CT said in a statement:
“I will be joining some Newtown residents and friends from CCDL who are in support of Starbucks neutral position on firearms in their stores. We appreciate Starbucks respecting our second amendment rights, and we wish to show our support for Starbucks in return.
We are just normal, every day folks out to get a cup of coffee or tea. No more, no less.”
In response several organization have come forward asking the group find another location. “That they’ve decided to come to Newtown where were are still grieving in my mind shows incredibly poor taste,” said Monte Frank with Newtown Action Alliance.
Read more: http://foxct.com/2013/08/08/controversy-over-gun-appreciation-day-at-starbucks/#ixzz2bTgcvme9
= new reply since forum marked as read
:lmao: But what a visual! 
They must do it really fast when hopped up on burned espresso! 
Are your feelings really THAT hurt?
My husband's from Italy. It's his jab because until you come to our house and have an espresso - you WILL think their burned out espresso not done in a pot on the stove is the greatest thing ever.
I'm telling you - that's the SHITTIEST espresso I've ever tasted in my life. The only way I would ever drink that is if my husband put some of his home made grappa in it.
It's a matter of personal taste. Let me guess? I'm bad and a snob for preferring homemade wine too? Oh wait! And using Maybelline Mascara instead of Lancome mascara?
This was the silliest faux outrage I've read at DU ever.
I don't know why people want to carry there, but I know there are people who are pushing for it.
There's the separate issue of people who transport guns in checked baggage, which happens more often than a lot of people think.
*shudder*
Nope...
Glad you're here! I appreciate your priorities! Sounds like your wife is worth a lot more to you than a mere $10.
...you were above such childishness. 
I guess we all do now and then.
I see... the "protesters" are wholly predicating their actions on that of another failed action. Sounds like a bunch of bright guys...
Link to FB group: https://www.facebook.com/events/493847094019023/
Barack Hussein Obama is going to take away our guns: 0 Agree 0 Disagree (He'd better damn well hurry, hadn't he?)
Barack Hussein Obama is going to take away our guns: 0 Agree 0 Disagree (He'd better damn well hurry, hadn't he?)
I guess the fact my avatar is Trayvon in a hoodie kinda clues them in. 
a military base is a commune. No one has guns and they can't even shoot. 
I love how people who swear up and down they have nothing to do with the NRA relentlessly defend even the most idiotic NRA talking points.
What do they do all day? They don't train with weapons and then are sent off to Iraq and Afghanistan having never learned to shoot? Wow. I'm starting to understand why these wars are such complete unmitigated disasters. All that money spent on the military and they don't even teach soldiers how to shoot. 
So much for having the biggest military on earth.
they are given training before deployment. Four- five years back, it was a month in the home state, about a year at a base for training then another month in Kuwait, training along side a unit that was returning home to get the most up to date information on what the situation was like.
Even so, I voiced my opinion that the state of affairs was disgusting. (Well I guess I did use some other adjectives as well. There is a reason I never made it higher up the rank table) My opinion was that we were lucky to have the luxury of so much time to train these soldiers in things they should already know but, in a 'real' war situation they would have to deploy as is. I believe I did use the term cannon fodder...
I am told, by friends who still serve, the situation has improved but many soldiers still need training on basic skills before deployments. It is an outrage that we spend so much money on the military to buy sexy toys for the generals and admirals to put on recruiting posters but when it comes time to train the troops in occupational and war fighting skills we are often told there isn't any money in the budget for that 
That's the way to make a point.
Bye 
A: Stop moving the goal posts.
they know their wont be many guns there to stop them
You said nothing about "public places"... and,
B: Familiarize yourself with the relatively simple differentiation between "there", "their", and "they're".
You made a patently false assertion, then when called on it, went and found some stats that actually directly contradict said assertion. Therefore your only recourse for saving face was to attempt to retroactively add qualifiers to your original position. This kind of tactic, aside from being a logical fallacy is somethng we like to call "intellectual dishonesty."
As to the "their/there/they're" bit, the fact that you can't see your error tells me that it is more than just a typo or auto-correct issue.
Keep looking, junior. It's their somewhere!!
I'm going prescribe courses in statistics and sociology.
...and I, as someone who detests the NRA types, thinks that in terms of social science, their sample size is much to small to be useful.
Caller - I think you need to give up the schtick.
It's a Washington Post article about the MAIG Study.
And yes, it's all of the above. It's not a peer-reviewed social science study - it's a political survey.
The sample size is too small to make a claim of statistical significance, that's it.
haven't been to one in a long time, and clearly, no need to start today!
Glad someone got it 
Of course, the right to life is pretty important as well. Without life, there is no need for rights, but they don't seem to consider that. The gun crazies value their guns above all else. 
in Congress and keeping the White House.
Sad that some place such low value on human life.
So this fits right along into my plan anyway. 
I say 'penis' and 'vagina' a lot, and it's more professional if I don't giggle afterward... 
Vagina vagina vagina!
I say them alot too and I don't know why!
"Penis" is the equivalent in gun threads to Hitler under Godwin's Law.
Reducing the argument to absurdity.
Penis ~ penis ~ penis ~ 
...TIMES infinity!
Bigger is better ... [URL=
.html][IMG]
[/IMG][/URL]
Care to explain your word choice.
When you've only just signed up to the site. 
If the military truly has no guns on it's training bases, that certainly explains the clusterfuck in Iraq and Afghanistan.
So just how is it possible for a mass shooting to occur where there are no guns? That would seem an impossibility. I know I'm ignorant and all, but doesn't one need a gun to shoot? Isn't that how it works?
Nothing safer than a herd Yosemite Sams hopped up on caffeine and righteous rage...
I confess that I haven't been following this and my first reaction is "what do other retails have by way of policy, why is Starbucks singled out?"
It seems to me that they just want to remain as so many other retailers are allowed to be: neutral in this emotional debate.
ACE Hardware, Peet's coffee, and Bed Bath and Beyond haven't taken a stand, either, AFAIK.
I see that there's some history but I don't have time to research it but I did find their statement regarding this matter, I hope it's their most current:
Starbucks Position on Open Carry Gun Laws
(updated March 16, 2010)
We recognize that there is significant and genuine passion surrounding the issue of open carry weapons laws. Advocacy groups from both sides of this issue have chosen to use Starbucks as a way to draw attention to their positions.
While we deeply respect the views of all our customers, Starbucks long-standing approach to this issue remains unchanged. We comply with local laws and statutes in all the communities we serve. That means we abide by the laws that permit open carry in 43 U.S. states. Where these laws don’t exist, openly carrying weapons in our stores is prohibited. The political, policy and legal debates around these issues belong in the legislatures and courts, not in our stores.
At the same time, we have a security protocol for any threatening situation that might occur in our stores. Partners are trained to call law enforcement as situations arise. We will continuously review our procedures to ensure the highest safety guidelines are in place and we will continue to work closely with law enforcement.
We have examined this issue through the lens of partner (employee) and customer safety. 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.
As the public debate continues, we are asking all interested parties to refrain from putting Starbucks or our partners into the middle of this divisive issue. As a company, we are extremely sensitive to the issue of gun violence in our society. Our Starbucks family knows all too well the dangers that exist when guns are used irresponsibly and illegally. Without minimizing this unfortunate reality, we believe that supporting local laws is the right way for us to ensure a safe environment for both partners and customers.
http://news.starbucks.com/article_display.cfm?article_id=332
idjits!
So, does that person who had the gun have a small penis?
Mike Majewski, of Woodbridge, Conn., holds the door for customers while carrying a pistol into Starbucks in Newtown, Conn. on Friday, Aug. 9, 2013. Many Second Amendment supporters carried their firearms into Starbucks on Starbucks Appreciation Day to exercise their right to bear arms and thank the company for allowing firearms in their stores, as allowed by state law. However, the Newtown Action Alliance urged gun owners to hold off, saying it is insensitive to the community that is still recovering from the mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School, just over a mile down the street.
NEWTOWN -- Supporters of the Second Amendment and gun rights Â-- some carrying pistols on their belts, some wearing camouflage -- made a point of stopping in the local Starbucks Friday to participate in the chain's nationwide "Appreciation Day.''
"If not here, where?" said one, Mike Love. "What place is safe?''
But because of the controversy, the store, normally open on Fridays until 9:30 p.m., decided to close early. By 4:30 p.m., its doors were locked.
Many of those stopping earlier at Starbucks for lunch wore T-shirts bearing the name and logo of the Connecticut Citizen's Defense League.
As many as two dozen gun supporters stopped in the Starbucks on Church Hill Road by mid-day Friday.
http://www.newstimes.com/news/article/Newtown-Starbucks-locks-doors-early-4720320.php
What the fuck is wrong with these fucking cowardly mental cases?
...to highlight their deprived position.
Seriously, fuck these wing-nuts.
What's the problem? As in why should this bother you? 
I give up. This is all too bizarre for me.
with one thread.
Well done, I say! Well done!
Anyway, The only Starbucks I even ever go to, and that's only in a pinch
(I make my own Italian Espresso, too, so there and lah-dee-dah! ....but that's mostly because I'm not going to pay 5 bucks a day for my caffeine fix)
....is the size of a broom closet.
So I sure as shit don't want to be crammed in there with these dudes:
