More on Starbucks "buycott" and "boycott"

The LA Times has an interesting story on the different sides of the Starbucks and guns debate.

Labels: ,


Blogger 1_4_Less_Crime said...

If the anti-gun groups, who are behind the Starbucks 'boycott' (Brady Campaign Against Gun Violence, and the National Gun Victims Action Council) were inciting people to demonstrate against current gun laws, then they may be within their rights.
Or, if the 'boycott' organizers were protesting Starbuck's internal policies such as employee wages, fair-trade sourcing, or availability of bathrooms for customer's use, then they may be within their rights. The current so-called 'boycott' against Starbucks is neither a civil demonstration nor a true boycott. The organizers know the difference between the two, but they have purposefully veiled their intent to change the landscape of gun-carry laws by pressuring a retail corporation to do their heavy lifting for them. The wolf-in-sheep's-clothing is a pseudo-legislative putsch disguised as a retailer-policy 'boycott'. The above-board approach is through the legislative process. Instead, NGVAC has resorted to a sleazy and underhanded attack that resembles guerrilla warfare. They hope to leverage their agenda against the second amendment by sniping at corporate profits in hopes that the retailers will effect policies which create a deterrent against gun-carry that anti-gun groups haven't been able to achieve through legislation. Since the Starbucks policy at issue is simply a literal application of existing laws, the 'boycott' organizers are not within their rights. They should be issued a cease and desist order, followed by lawsuit if they don't back off. By attempting to cause economic harm to a business to further their political agenda, they are acting as corporate terrorists. Starbucks should be applauded for their honesty and forthright refusal to apply a law differently than how it is written. They have stood up to the unspoken duplicity of ' the law says this, but common practice is something different'. I admire Starbucks for their 'say what you do, and do what you say' morality. Starbucks should not be forced to create policy (and instruct their managers) counter to the way the laws are written. What would the motivation be for a retail policy that doesn't explicitly follow the law? Would the intent be to appease a small fraction of the customer base who are fearful of (ignorant about) guns, or mistrusting of other people? Would the intent be an overt genuflection to the local constabulary, thus enabling furtherance of a de-facto police state? What Starbucks is doing is creating a truly 'gun-SAFE' zone. Gun-SAFE because customers who are carrying-concealed don't have to worry that their gun may be accidentally seen as they reach to an upper shelf, leading to a wrongful arrest. Gun-SAFE because customers who are carrying-open can set an example of how a mature society, with a majority of individuals taking personal responsibility for their own safety and security can operate. Gun-SAFE because even those customers who don't gun-carry are protected by the 'herd immunity' of being in a location where the customers who DO gun-carry create a strong deterrent for any criminal to try and pull some stunt. Safe because possession of guns by responsible, lawful citizens, trained in their safe use, and licensed (permitted) to carry them is the absolutely fastest, most effective, and most criminal-feared outcome of an attempted crime. In today's system of revolving-door justice and backward-bending police protocols, criminals figure that they MAY do time, but they won't get seriously hurt or killed, unless the violent criminal act involves a citizen who is 'packing heat'. Then they could get very hurt, or dead. The laws are written to support that HUGE deterrent. Starbucks supports the laws as they are written. I will support Starbucks. Simple. Done.

2/24/2012 12:26 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home