Gun Control sissies pressuring Starbucks to ban gun owners.

I guess the Brady Bunch, aka the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, formerly Handgun Control, Inc., has given up on trying to get any gun control laws passed and have settled for harassing local businesses instead.

A national gun control organization wants Starbucks to take a stance on its gun policy.

Paul Helmke, president of Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, told KIRO Radio's Dave Ross on Wednesday there has been a recent surge in customers carrying unconcealed weapons into California stores.

Helmke explained that people in large groups are banning together and carrying their guns unconcealed into businesses to flaunt their Second Amendment rights.

The U.S. Supreme Court decided in June 2008 that bans on handguns is unconstitutional and the Second Amendment guarantees the right to own a gun for self-defense.

"Really, what's happened since that Supreme Court decision is the gun lobby is pushing more of this 'let's take more guns more places with more people,' instead of trying to figure out how do we make sure there's background checks on all sales," said Helmke.

Helmke said they asked area businesses to decide whether to allow gun carrying customers into their stores or refuse them business. The policies are similar to those not allowing topless or shoeless customers through the door.

"When Starbucks was asked about it, they said they don't have a policy on it and they follow state law," said Helmke. He added, "That bothers people that go to these restaurants and it concerns us because we believe that it actually raises the chances there's going to be some gun violence, or a mistake or a confrontation."

California Pizza Kitchen and Peet's Coffee have both decided they won't allow people to openly carry guns in their businesses.

"We're concerned that Starbucks isn't listening to its customers who would like to get a coffee without somebody carrying a gun," said Helmke.

He admitted they haven't been able to measure an increase in gun violence since a recent push to 'pack heat' in public, but cited past studies that show the more guns in a home, community, etc. increases the chances for gun violence.

"More guns usually leads to more gun violence," said Helmke.

So here we go again. Ignoring years of actual data, Helmke the talking head just makes crap up in an effort to gull people into doing what he and his ever-shrinking band of elitists want them to do. "More guns usually leads to more gun violence," he says. Really? I keep waiting for someone in the media to ask him to prove that, because gun ownership is at an all-time high right now (Thanks, Obama!) and more states allow concealed carry of firearms than at any time in the past 50 years, and the nation's violent crime rate is dropping and has been for years. Clearly there are more guns out there, but violent crime is down, not up as Helmke and other prevaricators (that means "liars" for those Helmke supporters who might read this) suggest.

Right now, I applaud Starbucks for not caving into Helmke, unlike California Pizza Kitchen and Peet's Coffee. It's great that Starbucks recognizes state law and doesn't have a problem with it, and it's telling that Helmke and his group express disdain for this and other businesses who merely follow the law. In Helmke's worldview, it appears that the only good laws are those which totally step on honest people and deprive them of the right to make their own choices about self-defense. And that's all that gun control laws do; criminals couldn't care less about laws--or store policies--when it comes to their weapons.

It's a fact of life that bad people will always have weapons regardless of laws or store policies to the contrary. It follows that they will always have an advantage in areas that mandate that the good people cannot be armed. Places that demand that their customers render themselves defenseless will always be looked upon favorably by those with evil intent, and that's why we see so many mass shootings in places like schools and damned few in gun shops or police stations. If there's any such thing as karma in the world, one of these days Paul Helmke will find himself cowering before an armed bad guy with the police nowhere in sight. And if he's really lucky, there might be a law-abiding armed citizen nearby who saves his worthless fat ass and teaches him the wisdom of taking responsibility for his own safety and not working full-time to deny others that option.

As for me, I value my life so I shall go armed.

For more on this story, click here.

Starbucks to pay $100 Million in back tips...it might be YOUR fault.

So Starbucks has to pay current and former counter help $100 million dollars as a result of this silly lawsuit.

SAN DIEGO (AP) -- A Superior Court judge on Thursday ordered Starbucks Corp. to pay its California baristas more than $100 million in back tips and interest that the coffee chain paid to shift supervisors.

San Diego Superior Court Judge Patricia Cowett also issued an injunction that prevents Starbucks' shift supervisors from sharing in future tips, saying state law prohibits managers and supervisors from sharing in employee gratuities.

Starbucks spokeswoman Valerie O'Neil said the company planned an immediate appeal of the ruling, calling it "fundamentally unfair and beyond all common sense and reason."

The lawsuit was filed in October 2004 by Jou Chou, a former Starbucks barista in La Jolla, who complained shift supervisors were sharing in employee tips.

The lawsuit gained ground in 2006 when it was granted class-action status, allowing the suit to go forward for as many as 100,000 former and current baristas in the coffee chain's California stores.

It was not immediately clear how many current and former employees are affected by the ruling.

"I feel vindicated," Chou said in a written statement released by attorneys. "Tips really help those receiving the lowest wages. I think Starbucks should pay shift supervisors higher wages instead of taking money from the tip pool."

First of all, I'll tell you all right now that I have never contributed to this mess, despite being a semi-regular patron of Starbucks coffee. That's because I don't tip people who do nothing more than stand behind a counter, fill a cup with coffee, then hand it to me. Screw that. Tips are for people who actually do something that a trained orangutan could not do, such as take my order correctly at a full-service restaurant and otherwise provide service while I'm dining. If slackers like Jou Chou want to earn tips, maybe they should get jobs that actually involve work.

What we have here is just another example of the second-handers and non-producers in this country ganging up to attack the people that actually provide the service--the franchise owners and corporate managers without whom there wouldn't be any coffee for the cud-chewing counter monkeys to hand across the counter.

And while this may look like a victory for the poor, oppressed baristas, most of whom have never worked up a sweat during the course of their employment with Starbucks, the only real winners will be the trial lawyer extortionists from the firm that brought this class-action suit. They'll get millions deposited into their corporate coffers while each identified current or former barista will get about seven dollars.

But this sort of thing is the reason that California's economy is in the toilet. They have a surplus of people who don't want to work for what they get and a court system that punishes the producers that actually turn the wheels of the economic engine of that state. This is why businesses and successful people flee the state in droves every year, leaving that socialist paradise to the slacker beach brats and the illegal aliens.

Again, this isn't my fault because I don't I tip unless I actually get a service, but if you've ever put money in a counter "tip" jar just because it's there, you're partly to blame for encouraging the counter monkeys to believe that they've actually got something coming.

And just FYI, when I DO get an actual service rendered--and when the service is actually good--then I tip well. Just so I don't get barraged with comments calling me "cheap".

Unionizing Starbucks? Get a life.

So here we go again, with another episode of "As the Attention Whore Turns". This one comes from the Washington Post and it's about a wanna-be Socialist law student named Daniel Gross who is so invested in showing everyone how smart and important that he is (one might call him a typical law student in that regard)that he's waging a jihad against Starbucks, claiming that the coffee shops are too repressive for the workers. He brags of organizing pickets against the chain because they fired or threatened to fire his co-workers for whatever reason. Not surprisingly, they fired him too.

Now anyone else who doesn't truly believe that the world owes him a living would get up and move on, hopefully learning from his mistakes as he gets another job or goes back to the parents that are undoubtedly paying his tuition and begs for a raise in his allowance. But law schools are chock full of self-aggrandizing spoiled kids who really think that they matter and that they can change the world. And Danny here is no exception. Rather than accept the consequences of his actions, he starts a campaign to unionize Starbucks--a place where he doesn't even work or have a stake any more--complaining that they have "too many rules" that cover how employees have to perform their jobs. And instead of teaming up with a real union, he runs off and finds some remnants of the International Workers of the World (IWW)--a purely Socialist organization that realistically ceased to be taken seriously in the 1920's.

I'm laughing at the little goober for a number of reasons.

I remember when I was a mere law student. I thought that I was an awesome power too. But really all I managed to do was annoy a couple of landlords, UPS and a car rental company. And I learned that judges and court staff aren't impressed by law students on crusades--even third-year law students. I also got fired from a job for trying to unionize a factory once. But at least it wasn't some coffee shop built around serving coffee with part-time labor. It was a real factory where people did real work and had a chance of riding it our for thirty years to a pension. I learned real quick how the union organizers are your best friends until the actual vote goes south, at which time they drop you like a hot rock, wish you good luck in your next job, and stop taking your phone calls. (I haven't forgotten, United Auto Workers!) But looking back, I can say with pride that I learned quite a bit about business and unions, and I moved on and upwards to better jobs as a result of my firing. Maybe someday Danny will look back on this too, and kick himself in the ass sfor looking like such a public bozo in the Post. IWW? Come on, kid. But in the meantime, I'll pass on a bit of sage advice to him and anyone else who thinks that just because you fill out a job application for a menial part-time spot in a national chain, that somehow the Corporate Board of Directors owes you somethingmore than $9.00 and hour:

1. If you don't like the rules that your employer sets down, quit and go start your own place just like they once did. Open your own coffee shop. Then you can be the boss and make the rules.

2. Remember that Starbucks did not approach you and beg you to work in their store. You asked them for a job, and they gave you one. Be grateful for what you get and if you don't like it, see #1.

3. The world's not impressed with smarmy brat kids who agitate against their employers. You may not believe this now, but wait until you start applying for real jobs and prospective employers start to Google your name. You'll see.

Danny says that he's fighting to get his Starbucks job back. Well keep trying, son. Because with this stunt on your resume, you'll be lucky to get anything much more impressive for a while.