Wonkette provides the whole story behind this encounter that got a lot of mileage out of the lying gun nuts like Nick Leghorn.
In Indianapolis Watts had a run-in with howling rage harpy Dana Loesch, of whom she has run afoul for a variety of reasons, including apparently calling Loesch a “paid shill” of Magpul Industries, the gun manufacturer that fled Colorado last year after that state imposed some new gun-control laws. Loesch claims she has never been employed by Magpul and has been after Watts for months demanding an apology for this vicious lie. What yr Wonkette finds entertaining about this little argument is that last summer we wrote about a rally Magpul participated in just before Colorado’s new laws went into effect, at which the company handed out hundreds of its 30-round magazines that were about to become illegal.
Magpul flew these magazines to the rally by helicopter, along with a noted anti-gun-control advocate by the name of…Dana Loesch! Dana even took two of Magpul’s magazines home with her and named them “Piers” and “Morgan.” Most parents would just get their kids a couple of goldfish.
Anyway, we suppose any appearance fee paid to Dana came from the rally’s organizers and not from Magpul. Or maybe Dana didn’t get an appearance fee at all so she could remain a pure and uncorrupted spokeswoman for her civil right to stroke a gun anywhere and anytime she wants. Yr Wonkette is of the opinion that flying into a gun rally with several crates of Magpul products, speaking at that rally and then taking two of the products home and bragging about them meets the definition of the word “shilling.” And also that Dana Loesch is dumber than a bag of gun hammers.
So you hang in there, Shannon Watts and Moms Demand Action. If you’ve got the gun nuts frothing at the mouth this hard, you must be doing something right.
Wow! Now that's some gymnastics to try and justify an off the cuff slander. I'm sure when she called Dana a "Paid shill" Watts was thinking of exactly this one connection.
ReplyDeleteAlso gotta love that characterization--"howling rage harpy." Got a feeling that if I or anyone else used that about Senator Waters in this video ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ceJY-H581Lk ) you'd lose your voice screaming sexism.
I might have called Waters a stupid cow, but the last time I used that expression it was you guys who lost your voices screaming sexism at me.
DeleteWasn't here when that incident with Waters happened. When I do remember you calling someone a stupid cow it was a woman open carrying, and yeah, a lot of us noted the sexism since a statement like that from our side would have been a sign that we were the worst people in the world.
DeleteWe're just asking that your side live by your own political correctness rules.
Reread my comment. It wasn't an incident with Waters. It was the one you mentioned.
DeleteSo Loesch is a shill, but Watts is pure at heart? Well, one defends our rights, while the other wants to violate them. That makes the determination for me.
ReplyDeleteNo one is violating your rights, Greg Camp. That is where you have this all wrong.
ReplyDeleteWanna bet? Shall not be infringed does mean something japete. While you may not consider the permitting system a infringement on those rights, most do. And Shannon Watts and company wants to infringe even more. So explain to Greg and the rest of us how no one is violating, or attempting to further violate his rights, or the rest of us for that matter.
DeleteI have the right to own and carry firearms--firearms of whatever magazine capacity and whatever design I want. You would deny me those rights. The fact that we have made you fail in your goals only shows how ineffectual you are. It does not demonstrate that your goals are pure at heart.
DeleteAnonymous and Greg, reasonable restrictions on the 2A are acceptable, even according to Justice Scalia. So, what the fuck are you talking about with that shall-not-be-infringed nonsense? The only question is where do we draw the line. Shannon Watts and many others think the bar needs to be raised a good bit.
DeleteGreg, I've told you many times that proper gun control, that which is mandated by the law, is not a violation of your rights. So you can stop repeating that tired crap - please.
Do we have to go through that list again of all the violations that you claim are not violations? It's curious how people on the left see a requirement that you have proper ID to vote is a violation, but don't see background checks, licensing, may-issue ownership, much less carry, policies, medical and psychological exams, and so forth as violations.
DeleteThe Constitution does not enumerate things like magazine capacity, so it is up to lawmakers to set such limits, or no limits. It's not an infringement on your rights, it's the way our process works.
DeleteIt is pretty rare to see those doing the violating admitting it is a violation. You don't see them saying, "oh, yes, we are going to violate your constitutional rights." Invariably, they justified what they are doing. As Greg pointed out, the Republicans pushing voter ID laws don’t see it as a burden on the right to vote, do they?
DeleteYeah, Greg is quick to bring up the voting comparison. That's because his asinine idea about violations is that any and all restrictions on gun rights count, and he realized how ridiculous that position is. Do you agree with that TS, Simon? Are there any restrictions that you deem reasonable?
DeleteI've talked about reasonable ways to increase background checks many times.
Delete"The gun nuts were also very contemptuous of Moms Demand Action founder Shannon Watts, who apparently had an armed security detail with her, which apparently makes her a hypocrite. Yr Wonkette thinks that if we were going to advocate for gun control in the middle of 70,000 armed, easily angered jerks, and if we had been the target of the kind of invective that has been hurled at Watts since she founded her group, we would want armed security as well. That doesn’t make Shannon Watts a hypocrite. It makes her smart."
ReplyDeleteI especially like this part. Of course, I could always emulate Laci and make mention of the fact that there is no way a security detail of what, half a dozen guys, could put up a credible defense against a group of as the article claims, 70,000 armed, easily angered jerks.
I suppose one way of measuring Ms. Watts's potential danger would be to look for the spike in gun crimes taking place in the city during the convention. After all, all after that security team scares them off, what will they do?
I think the idea is that ONE of the 70,000 easily angered jerks might take a shot at Shannon Watts and that's what the armed guards are on the look out for. Do you think it's hypocritical or just prudent?
DeleteHave there been any gun control advocates that have been assaulted by a gun rights advocate? Is it normal for gun control advocates to have a security detail? (trying to visualize Baldr with a security detail) The worst I've seen so far was this trick pulled on Ms. Watts,
Delete" After posing for a picture Mr. Kauranen made sure to thank her for all the publicity she has given Slide Fire and the firearm industry. Ms. Watts had a considerable change in demeanor and stated that she is “out to shame us.” Mr. Kauranen replied by telling her that “whatever she’s doing, keep it up because it has been doing great.”
http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2014/04/robert-farago/breaking-slidefire-photo-bombs-shannon-watts/
And of course, there have been instances where crime has declined during the conventions.
"It also was very safe. Captain Jeff Estes, commander of CMPD's Central Division, said crime for the week was 45 percent lower than the same week a year ago. Overall this year, crime in the Central Division, which includes center city, is down 19 percent from the first 41/2 months of 2009, police say."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x319188
It will be interesting to see if something similar happens this year.