questionsare you going to patronize starbucks today to…


I have no idea what's going on, but this makes me want a peppermint mocha


I have already drank all the coffee I plan on drinking today or else I would. I don't like guns but I like the fact that the guy about to break into my house doesn't know that I'm not sitting in front of the door with a loaded shotgun waiting to blow a huge hole in him as he kicks the door in. IMO, gun control cannot work at all until we find a way to effective guarantee that NO guns exist at all. As long as one person owns a gun, we need guns.


@benyust2: Also, before the civilians give up all their guns, and the government is allowed to keep them, the people need to be able to trust their government 100%. That's part of why the 2nd amendment exists, to prevent the government from being able to prevent an uprising from the people. If the government had all the guns, and we had none, they could do whatever they wanted because we could never fight back.


@benyust2: looks like from the description they were fighting against people bringing guns into Starbucks stores, not people having guns in their homes


I think the boycott and anti-boycott is dumb... Starbucks is a private entity and can choose to serve or not-serve to anyone they want. Either way they choose, someone will get mad; you allow open carrying - the anti-gun activists go crazy, they don't allow guns - the gun activist get angry... It's lose, lose for any business.


I'm in favor of whatever would keep excessive amounts of caffeine away from people carrying loaded weapons.


Guns don't kill people; sugar-filled high calorie frappuccinos kill people.


@w00tgurl: I think the original poster is taking a "slippery slope" viewpoint here. Which, given historical techniques for progressive clampdowns on things over time, isn't necessarily uncalled for.


I bought a cup this morning because the hospital where my nursing classes are carry that coffee and it beats the watered down stuff they sell. But I don't really care about their stance on gun control or anything like that. I buy their coffee to make sure I don't fall asleep, not because of their political beliefs.


@psaux: i had to google/wikipedia it, but here goes... Slippery Slope

"a classic form of argument, arguably an informal fallacy. A slippery slope argument states that a relatively small first step leads to a chain of related events culminating in some significant effect."


I had Starbucks this morning, but there was no political intent behind the trip.


I don't drink coffee, but if I did I think McDonald's coffee at 89 cents a cup would be better than 3-4 bucks for the same thing at Starbucks


I rarely get coffee at Starbucks.

I strongly believe in 2nd Amendment rights, primarily because police are not required to provide protection for individuals (and it is ludicrous to think that they could do so even if they were so required), but also because there is no reason to believe that the government can be trusted.

So, while I support Starbucks' stance on this issue (ie. refusing to give into the fear mongering tactics of (most) anti-gun advocates), I did not use a pair of $2 bills to buy a cup of coffee today.


@w00tgurl: I wasn't referring to debate terms, as I have a huge pet peeve for those people I know who constantly refer back to them in the first place. These also happen to be the same type of people who contribute to Wikipedia a lot, I fear, so I'm not surprised they described it as such. The fact is that it's a lot easier for virtually any kind of change to occur gradually, and that's all I'm referring to.


lol, boycott is a joke, my ultra liberal friends didn't even know or care about it.


There are people bringing $2 bills to Starbucks? Sweet, I haven't seen one of those in a long time. It'd be cool to get as change as show it to the kids.


@mistamoose: they're still being issued from time to time afaik, I've seen some with fairly recent years on them. Any local bank should probably have some


everything about this thread makes me facepalm.


@baqui63: What? Can you please explain what you mean by police are not required to protect you? I thought the only two things they were required to do is "Protect and Serve."



The supreme court decision in Warren V. District of Columbia - The police have a 'general' duty to protect, but that doesn't extend to individuals that are not in their custody.



"To Protect and Serve" is a motto and not legally binding.

@capitalggeek has already mentioned one Supreme Court case.

This article is the top Google result for a search on "police required to protect you" & mentions that case and cites other examples. This is another of the top hits on that search and mentions DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services, another case where the Supreme Court makes it very clear that the police (actually government agencies) have no legal duty to protect us.

That's why I own guns and my daughters and I know how to use them. Hopefully we never need to do so, but we'd be f'ing idiots not to be prepared.