search
top

Shannon Watts to IN Legs: Bullies!

Shannon Watts doesn’t like people exposing her as a former corporate spinmeister. Apparently that’s bullying. The reason we keep beating her in legislatures is because there’s no real depth to Moms Demand Action. That must be why she’s decided to go corporate, but even there, she has no real track record.

What lost Starbucks was the OC nonsense from our side, and in a sense we didn’t really lose Starbucks, since you can still carry a firearm there. Staples has held firm and are obviously tiring of Watt’s antics. Facebook didn’t really give them anything they were asking for, but offered them a way to back down and save face by claiming a victory when none existed. That was such thin gruel that even the Brady Campaign, who pioneered the declaring victory from defeat move, couldn’t join the spin.

12 Responses to “Shannon Watts to IN Legs: Bullies!”

  1. Stephen says:

    In terms of Starbucks …

    I think the way they handled the situation was quite intelligent — though I wish they had stayed firm, of course.

    They did NOT put up signs at their stores and made no change in policy, meaning the only people who even know anything about this are the few thousand people who follow the issue from the anti-gun side and a few million from the pro-gun side. I’ll bet even the average CCW holder who scans the doorway for an anti-gun sign as s/he enters has no knowledge of what transpired on the intertube discussions and was addressed in a few media outlets.

    That’s why I’ve decided to ignore the whole thing. If they don’t care enough to post so that everyone knows, I’m not going to be stopped from getting coffee there just because I follow the issue. I don’t care personally but it makes life easier with the wife if I can get her the brand of coffee she prefers.

    From a strictly corporate view it was nicely played. It got the anti-gunners of their back (which means it also got the MSM to quit reporting about Starbucks and the gun issue) but didn’t realistically affect the pro-gun side as I don’t think the stand was strong enough to get a serious boycott movement going.

  2. Alpha Dog says:

    However this soon to be constant cry of ‘bullying’ whenever a liberal view is contested and presented with the real facts needs to be met at all times. What that board did was awesome, and more people need to do that. If she wants to be anti-gun, she should at least be honest about who she is and where she comes from, not hide behind some made up narrative that plays better to the media and the uninformed.

  3. There are times I wish little Shannon would just quit whining and go back to being the replacement “trophy” wife to her multi-millionaire husband.

  4. William Baker says:

    Calling OC nonsense is caving to the anti-gunners. Why on earth would you want to help them to divide us?

    • Sebastian says:

      I didn’t call OC nonsense. Nonsense was a noun in that case, and was referring specifically to the shit people were doing in Starbucks. If you’re carrying an AR-15 into a coffee shop because “hey, looookatmeeee!” you’re not helping. Period.

      • surlycmd says:

        “If you’re carrying an AR-15 into a coffee shop because “hey, looookatmeeee!” you’re not helping. Period.”

        Your opinion is duly noted. Thank you, have a nice day!

      • JR. says:

        4th sentence you state ‘That OC nonsense”, so you don’t really support the 2nd do you? Open carry is 100% legal in the state of Texas, which is what you are referring to. It’s making a point to show the hypocricy of Texas gun laws. The open carrying of a long gun is 100% legal, but yet carrying a handgun is not. You can carry a pre 1899 black powder pistol or replica that uses cap an ball and not rim fire or center fire ammo because it’s not considered a firearm. Support of the second amendment is about supporting a choice. How many states have legal full open carry? Let that sink in. As I said, if you don’t support it, you don’t fully support the 2nd, you are a 50% butter…. I support the 2nd but…….

        • Sebastian says:

          I support OC being legal and believe you have a right to OC. That doesn’t mean I think it makes for smart activism. I think you have a First Amendment right to speak too, but if you’re advocating for something by screaming on a street corner, you might have a right, but that a different thing from being effective.

          • JR. says:

            I guess that’s why so many Texas politicians are jumping on the OC band wagon now, you know because we are just “screaming on the street corner”. What the two people did at Starbucks was 100% legal. And IMHO if you did support it, you wouldn’t have made a reference to it being nonsense. A point is being made all over the state my 1000’s of people every week, that point being that it’s time the idiocy of Texas gun laws need to be changed. But in your opinion the only way to get OC passed is to sign petitions and stand on the streets begging for our freedoms.

  5. Chris says:

    I believe what Sebastian meant by “OC nonsense” is the same thing I complain about. I fully support the 2nd amendment, BUT, and pay close attention to this, when 2nd amendment activists and gun-control advocates are clashing on a nation-wide scale with a fierceness that makes the federal government take notice, anyone who wants OC (as it should be in this country right now) does not need to be stupid about it. Just because you can doesn’t mean you should. In Texas, OC of long guns is perfectly legal, so am I going to carry two of them on my person just because I can? What kind of message does that send? Yes, criminals will be intimidated by so many armed citizens everywhere they go, but WHILE we are fighting to keep our rights, we should probably try to not intimidate the gun-control advocates as well. They want to fight with words, so fight them with words. Beat them at their own game so you can OC and beat criminals at THEIR own game.

top