Wouldn't it be foolish if this guy and a bunch of his coworkers decided to bring their tools along on a coffee break? And wouldn't it be worse if they were asked to leave the tools in the truck and instead of complying, demanded their rights to keep them?
You're beating a dead horse here. Starbucks has already said guns are OK in their stores.
ReplyDeleteWe win, you lose.
"Wouldn't it be foolish if this guy and a bunch of his coworkers decided to bring their tools along on a coffee break?"
ReplyDeleteYes.
"And wouldn't it be worse if they were asked to leave the tools in the truck and instead of complying, demanded their rights to keep them?"
Yes.
Remind me again how a discussion about carrying firearms turned into one about chainsaws--this from a guy who claims not to like analogies comparing guns to other tools.
ReplyDeleteOn second thought--never mind--the explanation is unlikely to interest me.
Kaveman's point is the show-stopper here. Starbucks corporate management--the only folks who could make such a request with any reason to expect anyone to comply with it--has wisely chosen to stay out of the Brady Bunch's little crusade. In other words, the request hasn't been made by anyone who matters.
Oh, I just remembered--there is a nexus between chainsaws and firearms, after all (my apologies, Mikeb). Probably very handy for zombie outbreaks.
If you're enjoying a latte, and the dead rise up and want to eat your brain, wouldn't you feel foolish for having run that guy off?
mikeb30200:
ReplyDeleteThat guy and HIS chain saw wouldn't bother me. It's electric, and has a very short cord. Now, there is an analogy that comes to mind about gun owners, but I'm far too circumspect to bring it up.
Yeah, Starbucks caved to the NRA and it's members. I've been told by Weer'd Beard that the NRA had nothing to do with the Starbucks thing. This:
"Members, gun owners, and all freedom-loving citizens should contact Starbucks to thank them for complying with state law, and respectfully encourage the company to stay above the fray into which anti-gun activists are trying to drag them. Click here to do so."
from here:
http://www.nraila.org/legislation/read.aspx?id=5399
makes that claim "suspect".
Not that the NRA is on record for making things difficult for those with whom they have philosophical differences.
No big point here, but...
ReplyDeleteIf there had been chainsawing noise just outside the shop all day, and then it stopped and the guys with saws came in and ordered coffee, I suspect that the employees and other patrons might think "thank heaven!"
On the other hand, if some guy with a chainsaw walked in wearing a hockey mask and fired up the saw, that might get a different reaction.
Democommie says:
ReplyDeleteYeah, Starbucks caved to the NRA and it's members.
Starbucks "caved" to nothing but the common sense of staying out of someone else's culture war.
Democommie also says:
Not that the NRA is on record for making things difficult for those with whom they have philosophical differences.
Or that the Brady Campaign has earned a reputation for trying--and failing--to make things difficult for those with whom they disagree.
Thanks for the laugh, FishyJay. I should have found an image of Freddie with a chainsaw.
ReplyDeletedemocommie: I've been told by Weer'd Beard that the NRA had nothing to do with the Starbucks thing. This makes that claim "suspect".
ReplyDeleteIf you look closer at the timeline you will see that any NRA involvement was mainly REACTIVE to attempted Brady pressure on Starbucks.
Wait a minute Demo. Jade Gold told us that the NRA is small and insignificant. So how could they have had any impact?
ReplyDeleteThat's hysterical to me. Are you really as frightened of chainsaws as you are of guns? Are chainsaws bad news for women? Are the "famous 10%" of chainsaw owners endangering us all? Should you lose the right to own a chainsaw for life if you have an accident with one? Should we close the chainsaw loophole?
ReplyDeleteI could care less if he brings his chainsaw in, or any other tool for that matter. And I'm guessing if the manager suddenly pranced to the door as he entered and said, "Oh my gosh, sir. You have just made me moisten my knickers by the sight of that powerful tool. You cannot bring it in. There are children here!"
And the guy said, "you are an odd and fearful little man. Why do you care? This is a $500 chainsaw and I'm not going to leave it in the car." -- not only would everyone in the store understand that, but most would be disgusted if the manager didn't change his fearful mind and let the man in.
If the man came in with a hockey mask and a chainsaw I still wouldn't care, because at his first endangering move I'd draw my .357 and give him 2 to the body and 1 to the head. Problem solved.
I would actually be more concerned if I saw some of your rabidly anti-gun types show up. Because at the sight of a legally carried firearm/gardening tool they would defecate in their underwear, and the stench would ruin the taste of my $4 coffee. ;-)
Stephen, I would think a professional writer like yourself could make his point without resorting to the "wetting the pants" theme so often. I put that in the same category as the "small dick" remarks. Both are designed to humiliate and denigrate and add nothing to the discussion, not even humor or color.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteRuffRidr said, "If you treated the remarks the same, then you wouldn't have said anything to Stephen at all."
ReplyDeleteWrong. I've made my opinion clear in the past about the small dick remarks. The way I practice my commenting policy is to give the greatest possible flexibility. That means not remarking on things I dislike every single time they come up. Plus, the pro-gun guys have frequently called people out for these "insults."
On the other hand, the references to wetting the pants, as far as I know have never been commented on. I've never read anyone pointing out what I did about them being basically the same thing in reverse.
So, about this I'm not admonishing anyone. Mainly I practice what I preach both about not resorting to those tactics myself and not breaking other people's balls too much for doing so if they like.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteRuffRidr, You made me realize something. My application of the commenting policy is slanted in favor of the gun control folks. Here's why. When a guy like Mike W. comes here and does name calling and insulting to me, the host of this fair gathering, he begins to get deleted. And that was only after many many incidents and several requests and warnings on my part.
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand, when one commenter does name calling and insulting to another commenter that gets a wider tolerance. Does that make me really unfair and wrong? I don't think so. It's natural isn't it?
By the way, I don't think I ever deleted one of your comments, so what's your point? Are you engaged on a lengthy attempt to judge how I run my blog? Does this have anything to do with the discussion?
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteRuffRidr: "I try hard not to make inflammatory statements towards you or other bloggers on here."
ReplyDeleteYes you do and I appreciate it.