Brady Bunch Takes Aim at Starbucks

Discussion in 'The Constitutional & RKBA Forum' started by Terry_P, Feb 6, 2010.

  1. Terry_P

    Terry_P New Member

    Mar 23, 2008

    The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence has declared war on a Northwest institution, and in the process perhaps the public will discover the extremes gun prohibitionists will go in an effort to push their radical agenda.

    The Brady Bunch has Starbucks squarely in its crosshairs, hoping to browbeat the coffee giant into refusing service to an evidently growing clientele of law-abiding firearms owners. In an e-mail message sent out this week, Brady Campaign President Paul Helmke laments that, “Starbucks is refusing to prohibit open carrying in its stores, despite protests from loyal customers."

    Over the past few months, more and more gun owners have been gathering at restaurants and coffee shops like Starbucks with guns strapped to their hips--Paul Helmke

    This was after Helmke acknowledged that his campaign of social bigotry against legally-armed citizens was launched because, “Over the past few months, more and more gun owners have been gathering at restaurants and coffee shops like Starbucks with guns strapped to their hips, intimidating fellow patrons.”
    So, let me see if I have this straight. Because Starbucks is attracting increasing numbers of gun owners – presumably becoming the kind of loyal customers about whom Helmke writes – he wants the coffee chain to ban these people, in deference to his own ilk of hoplophobes.
    In reaction, even more gun owners are declaring a sudden thirst for Starbucks blend and heading to their local coffee stand.
    Is this not the same kind of nonsense I wrote about here last Friday, in reporting the angst demonstrated by Washington CeaseFire’s Ralph Fascitelli over the perfectly legal appearance at a public hearing in Olympia by several open carry activists?
    The Brady camp has teamed up with CREDO Action, a self-proclaimed progressive activist organization that uses mobile phones to affect social change.
    Helmke’s e-mail diatribe further complains that, “The practice of packing heat in places like Starbucks is intimidating and could be potentially dangerous to our families and communities -- and it must be stopped.
    “It’s everyone's right to sit in a restaurant or coffee shop with their families without intimidation or fear of guns,” he says, “either concealed or openly carried.”
    Intimidating to whom? This may come as a culture shock to Helmke, but it is equally everyone’s right – if they choose to exercise it – to sit in a restaurant with family or friends and not be concerned (because they are prepared) about criminal attack, or an incident on the scale of the Luby’s Massacre in October 1991, in which 23 restaurant patrons, disarmed at the time by Texas statute, were murdered. It might just be that Americans took a lesson from another incident two months later at a Shoney’s restaurant in Anniston, Alabama, in which a legally-armed citizen prevented a massacre by shooting two robbers who were herding people into a food locker.
    I wrote about this incident with Alan Gottlieb in America Fights Back: Armed Self-Defense in a Violent Age.

    Thomas Terry, the hero of Anniston, was discreetly but legally carrying a .45 caliber handgun when the robbers took over the restaurant. Facing two armed thugs, Terry shot one dead and severely wounded the other. None of the other patrons was harmed, other than Terry, who sustained a grazing wound to the hip.—Timothy Wheeler, MD

    Helmke also argues that “Under the law, Starbucks has the right to adopt a gun-free policy, with an exception for uniformed police officers.”
    Guess what, Paul. Starbucks also has the right as a business to allow patronage by anyone it damn well pleases, including legally-armed citizens. Their money is just as good as yours, and so far, there has not been a single reported incident involving any of these gun owners, including the robbery of a Starbucks while an armed citizen happens to be standing at the counter.
    Social bigotry against gun owners is just as insidious as bigotry against any other group. What would the public reaction be if someone demanded that a private business refuse service to, say African-Americans, Hispanics, Asians, Jews, Arabs, Native Americans, Samoans, disabled people, overweight people, gays or women? Got a tattoo? Stay out!
    Helmke rants about intimidation, yet he has no reservations about trying to intimidate a business over some of the people it serves. His kind of demagoguery has one significant trait: Hypocrisy.
    If Helmke and other gun prohibitionists don’t want to be around other citizens because they are legally armed, that is a problem, but it is their problem. Perhaps they should start drinking tea.
  2. pinecone70

    pinecone70 Active Member

    Jul 30, 2008
    Minnesota Gal!
    Helmke should have his first amendment rights removed, see how he feels about that....

  3. wpage

    wpage Active Member

    Aug 25, 2009
    Starbucks=overprice joe...
    Boycott em
  4. pinecone70

    pinecone70 Active Member

    Jul 30, 2008
    Minnesota Gal!
    Heck, I'm more likely to go to Starbucks now.
  5. hogger129

    hogger129 Well-Known Member

    Nov 29, 2009
    What they don't realize is that there are also loyal clientele that are firearms owners. That's the thing about the anti-gun/leftists. They only see things their way and lack the mental capacity to look at it from anyone else's point of view.

    And why would Starbucks want to refuse service to anyone, let alone firearms owners? It would be a very stupid business move because refusing service to a large group of people would cut into your profits.
    Last edited: Feb 6, 2010
  6. pinecone70

    pinecone70 Active Member

    Jul 30, 2008
    Minnesota Gal!
    “It’s everyone's right to sit in a restaurant or coffee shop with their families without intimidation or fear of guns,” he says, “either concealed or openly carried.”

    How on earth would anybody KNOW? I carry my firearm practically everywhere and no one knows I have it. Starbucks exercises the right to allow firearms too. Why try to bully them over a couple of liberal customer complaints?? This is ridiculous.
  7. wpage

    wpage Active Member

    Aug 25, 2009
    It is ridiculous. How would anyone know who carries...
    The Brady bunch needs to get over themselves.
  8. I really wish Sarah and her zombie/lemming followers would grow a brainstem and shut their festering cakeholes. Has the Brady Bunch EVER done anything USEFUL?:rolleyes::rolleyes:
  9. Trouble 45-70

    Trouble 45-70 New Member

    Wont go to Starbucks. Don't like their coffee. Now Community Coffee, that's another matter.

    Have a permit but so far haven't exercised the right. Very peaceable around here but I have seen that change abruptly where I used to live.

    The Brady bunch are afraid they may get shot in a crossfire. Kind of like Luby's. Oh that's right. There was no crossfire. Only victims. Too bad the Brady bunch don't have identifiers so those who carry would know not to come to their rescue if they were seen being slaughtered robbed etc. It would be a real shame to get shot protecting one of them.
    Last edited: Feb 6, 2010
  10. petesusn

    petesusn Member

    Oh yea...
  11. Bobitis

    Bobitis Guest

    The man is a dolt. He's as bad as the last mayor and the current one.

    Washington is an open carry state.
    The police know it, and the court system has upheld it.

    Starbucks chooses to allow it.

    End of story.
  12. jack404

    jack404 Former Guest

    Jan 11, 2010
    So a private company sides with the constitution
    goes against a politician of dubious nature and foundational issues and is declared war on with public funds and air time?

    to try to disuade them the company) from allowing the companies customers thier constitutional rights?

    now when the communist party in 1947 tryed a similar thiung did not those people get locked up for attempting to deny US citizens thier constitutional rights and Conspiring to deny Constitutional rights ??

    whats the difference ?

    plus they are using taxpayers money to do so . ( they get paid by tax payers and so are on the taxpayers dime when they do this)

    i'd call for a revocation od status, misappropration of funds and criminal charges of deny and conspiracy to deny people thier rights under the law and see how far it goes

    this may be a good thing if it shows these type of anti gun nutters they had better watch out ..
    Last edited: Feb 21, 2010
  13. walien

    walien Former Guest

    May 5, 2009
    Naw, the price of a Starbucks drip coffee is actually less than the price of a Dunkin' Donuts coffee. Just because they do sell $4 coffees, that doesn't mean that it is all they sell. I can get a decent sized healthy breakfast there for reasonably cheap on the go. A lot better and better tasting than McSodium.

    I'm sort of lost on that article. Starbucks is green, not blue or red. I'm in their stores a few times a week. There's nothing posted anywhere about not allowing guns in the door. I don't think they want to piss off half of the buying public.
  14. papawed

    papawed New Member

    Feb 11, 2010
    I had switched from Starbucks to Dunkin Doughnuts. I may go back, and carry "less concealed" occaisionally.

    Way to go Starbucks!
  15. dge479

    dge479 New Member

    Oct 6, 2004
    Haskell NJ
    I hate coffee, but may go to Starbucks nw for hot chocolate, as long as they dont bow down to these creeps
Similar Threads
Forum Title Date
The Constitutional & RKBA Forum Chicago Politics and the Brady Bunch are going after my Family Apr 30, 2013
The Constitutional & RKBA Forum LATEST BS from the BRADY BUNCH Dec 30, 2004
The Constitutional & RKBA Forum Brady Bunch at it AGAIN! Jan 20, 2004
The Constitutional & RKBA Forum Brady Campaign at it again!!! Apr 16, 2011
The Constitutional & RKBA Forum BradyCampaign Magazine Ban Commercial Apr 12, 2011