This young lady is named Rochelle Hathaway. She was interviewed for a Glamour magazine article which asked women attendees of last week’s SHOT Show in Las Vegas why they owned firearms. This airline attendant was at the show as part of team Taran Tactical. Her answers resulted in an Internet firestorm and Taran Butler cut ties with her.
Unfortunately, in this photo used in the article, she was wearing a badge holders generously given away as swag by Geissele Automatics. Due to this coincidence, the backlash against her also hit Geissele. Earlier today, they had to release this statement:
Many of you have seen this photo and the story of this person over the last few days. Unfortunately in the photo she is wearing a Geissele Badge Holder. We want to make it clear to the community that Geissele has no personal or professional connection to this person what so ever. Every year at SHOT Show we give away over 10,000 badge holders to those in attendance who request one from our booth staff. We do not know this person and we certainly do not support her anti-freedom comments. Geissele is extremely pro 2nd amendment and is in no way supportive of any discussion involving the limitation or restriction of Our rights and Our freedoms.
Considering how dedicated Bill Geissele supports the Second Amendment the outrage is ridiculous. It just goes to show you how an innocent gesture can get a company swept up in an internet mob. Hopefully, the torches and pitch forks will be put away.
Tags: Geissele Automatics
So what am I missing? Did she say something wrong? I’m confused.
She said something to the effect that people shouldn’t be able to own semi-automatics, that gun bans stop crime and the founding fathers wouldn’t have written the 2a if they had known about AK47s.
She said in response to questions:
What do you say to people who question the value of a private citizen owning a gun?
I think that if there were less guns, there would be less shootings, period. If the government came in and decided to take the guns away, I wouldn’t be mad about it. I think it’s important to be able to feel safe in your home, but you don’t need more than three guns. You don’t need to own a semiautomatic weapon or a silencer.
When mass shootings or school shootings happen—like the one this week—does it ever make you rethink your position?
Going to the Second Amendment, I don’t think they had AK-47s and everything else in mind [when they imagined] the right to bear arms and protecting yourself. At SHOT show, you can kind of see how much it’s evolved into thousands and thousands of people dumping millions and millions of dollars into the industry…. I guess I’d say it’s almost unfortunate people think that they need so much.
I agree with the last sentence, no doubt.
I always find it quite shortsighted when a position in the vein of “our Founding Fathers probably didn’t have these types of firearms in mind when the 2nd Amendment was penned” is brought up. Contextually, the firearms available in the 18th century, be it for military use or civilian application, were essentially the same type of weapon – a single shot, muzzleloading firearm with a flintlock ignition. In short, as it applies to individual weapons, the civilian population and the military were equally armed. By contrast, today the government – be it military or law enforcement – possess individual weapons that are otherwise unavailable to the average citizen, and those that do exist are in limited numbers and require extensive licensing.
Don’t get me wrong, I support the possession of select-fire weapons by law enforcement agencies; the point is, the Founding Fathers likely never intended for the government to have access to more deadly weapons than it’s citizens. But they do… So the argument of “our Founding Fathers didn’t intend for people to bear THESE types of arms” is an empty one. By way of comparison, the government is MUCH better armed than its citizens today than when they 2nd Amendment was conceived and written.
Again, no anti-government slant here; its just curious how shortsighted most folks are today in terms of historical context.
Great points.
She basically said she’s ok if the government takes our guns, that the world would be safer without them. No one needs them etc.
For whatever reason, when they posted the picture they completely cut off all of the relevant portions
Here’s the rest of the interview
What do you say to people who question the value of a private citizen owning a gun?
I think that if there were less guns, there would be less shootings, period. If the government came in and decided to take the guns away, I wouldn’t be mad about it. I think it’s important to be able to feel safe in your home, but you don’t need more than three guns. You don’t need to own a semiautomatic weapon or a silencer.
When mass shootings or school shootings happen—like the one this week—does it ever make you rethink your position?
Going to the Second Amendment, I don’t think they had AK-47s and everything else in mind [when they imagined] the right to bear arms and protecting yourself. At SHOT show, you can kind of see how much it’s evolved into thousands and thousands of people dumping millions and millions of dollars into the industry…. I guess I’d say it’s almost unfortunate people think that they need so much.
The link is embedded in the story. Good God.
Good God? Yes. Yes he is.
Her answers (cut off by the photo on SSD) were as follows:
“What do you say to people who question the value of a private citizen owning a gun?”
~I think that if there were less guns, there would be less shootings, period. If the government came in and decided to take the guns away, I wouldn’t be mad about it. I think it’s important to be able to feel safe in your home, but you don’t need more than three guns. You don’t need to own a semiautomatic weapon or a silencer.
“When mass shootings or school shootings happen—like the one this week—does it ever make you rethink your position?”
~Going to the Second Amendment, I don’t think they had AK-47s and everything else in mind [when they imagined] the right to bear arms and protecting yourself. At SHOT show, you can kind of see how much it’s evolved into thousands and thousands of people dumping millions and millions of dollars into the industry…. I guess I’d say it’s almost unfortunate people think that they need so much.
The link is in the story.
I’m pretty sure they can’t read or they’re too lazy!
Reading comprehension is in abundantly short supply, this much we know.
You can probably find it with little effort, if you’re so inclined. So far to this point I haven’t been, so I don’t know exactly what she said. Supposedly some fairly ignorant and anti-2A stuff.
I don’t remember exact comments but it wasn’t pro 2A. Something like she wouldn’t be mad if the government started confiscating firearms.
Click the Glamour link and scroll down.
I mean…she didn’t say anything wrong if you ask Diane Feinstein…
She basically said if the government took guns away, she’d be ok with that. Also she said you don’t need more than 3 guns and you don’t need semi autos or silencers.
She was for restrictions on 2A. Wouldn’t be mad if the gov came in and took private owners guns. She said you don’t need more than 3 guns and don’t need semi auto or silencers.
Clicked on link and only seen 1 comment. Posted comment and every comment appeared. Wouldn’t have posted had I just refreshed. Lol
From the interview:
What do you say to people who question the value of a private citizen owning a gun?
I think that if there were less guns, there would be less shootings, period. If the government came in and decided to take the guns away, I wouldn’t be mad about it. I think it’s important to be able to feel safe in your home, but you don’t need more than three guns. You don’t need to own a semiautomatic weapon or a silencer.
When mass shootings or school shootings happen—like the one this week—does it ever make you rethink your position?
Going to the Second Amendment, I don’t think they had AK-47s and everything else in mind [when they imagined] the right to bear arms and protecting yourself. At SHOT show, you can kind of see how much it’s evolved into thousands and thousands of people dumping millions and millions of dollars into the industry…. I guess I’d say it’s almost unfortunate people think that they need so much.
.. lot feelings hurt… everybody offended…much crying….very snowflakey…
Anti-2A folks are only going to quote one person in that article. And her words confirm their position.
Complete article: https://www.glamour.com/gallery/we-asked-real-women-at-the-worlds-biggest-gun-show-why-do-you-own-a-gun
The food vendor, Uber driver, and 3 girls all wearing the same shirt don’t really add up to a diverse cross-section of attendees. But our community expectations were only disappointed by one of them.
It’s kind of a shame how the Internet just railroaded this girl she was young and maybe not as well informed her she should’ve been and made some comments that in all likelihood a lot of People who didn’t pay attention to high school government class would’ve made and now she’s essentially getting banished from the shooting community which I think is a sad terrible thing to see this community who claims to be so close knit do
Young? She could be a company commander in Afghanistan at 28. She’s old enough to be not be an imbecile.
She was never part of the “community.” She’s just another”model” but one who opened her mouth and confirmed her sub-par IQ.
Eaxactamundo.
If you want to broaden the shooting community, this should really help…
Play stupid games, win stupid prizes. When was the last time you saw Shell’s or Chevron’s NASCAR driver brag about owning a hybrid or tesla in an interview because of how much they save on gas money? When youre representing your company, it’s probably best to know how to keep from giving them a black eye with your personal opinions.
As a former PIO let me add this.
THE MEDIA IS NOT YOUR FRIEND.
This sentiment exactly.
The magic words “Let me introduce you to our media liaison; they will be happy to answer any questions you may have” could have helped to avoid this situation entirely.
In the future, It might be useful to conduct formal team-wide/company-wide awareness training on information sharing using the FEMA/NIMS/ICS curriculum, and then threaten mandatory re-training enrollment should issues like this come up…
She said
“What do you say to people who question the value of a private citizen owning a gun?
I think that if there were less guns, there would be less shootings, period. If the government came in and decided to take the guns away, I wouldn’t be mad about it. I think it’s important to be able to feel safe in your home, but you don’t need more than three guns. You don’t need to own a semiautomatic weapon or a silencer.
When mass shootings or school shootings happen—like the one this week—does it ever make you rethink your position?
Going to the Second Amendment, I don’t think they had AK-47s and everything else in mind [when they imagined] the right to bear arms and protecting yourself. At SHOT show, you can kind of see how much it’s evolved into thousands and thousands of people dumping millions and millions of dollars into the industry…. I guess I’d say it’s almost unfortunate people think that they need so much.”
Yea…the rest of the article she says things like people dont need more than one gun and definitely not suppressors.
Firestorm over that?! I disagree with her, but value a diversity of opinions. Since I disagree with her, I appreciate that I have many opportunities to argue a counterpoint, but she is just as entitled to her opinion as I am to mine. Much ado about nothing.
Anti-gunners don’t care diversity of opinions. They will hone in on her words and use them to bolster their cause. She has propaganda value.
Absolutely correct, she’s going to be quoted and requoted to show gun owners don’t speak with a united voice. We all hang together or all hang seperately as Ben Franklin said
Funny that you’re railing on the anti-2nd Amendment jackwagons for not wanting a diversity of opinions…as you whine about this girl having an opinion that diverges from the Official Pro-Gun Line. Moral Equivalency can be a hell of a drug.
Despite using a screen name evoking something pithy about Che Guevara, whose very image is used as propaganda, the actual concept of what propaganda is seems to be lost on you.
See below comment in reply to another one of your rants.
+ The article was about Geissele being affected as collateral damage, but folks want to talk about the lady.
That came from SSD himself
Oh the irony in this comment.
Feel feee to be clueless while the IO campaign swirls around you. I suppose you also think she should still be on Team Taran, because it’s important that her anti-2A opinions are shared. You probably also think that Geissele Automatics should celebrate the diversity of her opinion while bystanders associate her thoughts with them because she’s wearing a badge holder with their logo.
A whole lot of assumptions here, none accurate. I absolutely don’t think that she should be on Team Taran if she doesn’t share their values obviously, and also that Geissele Automatics did well by responding to the undeserved shitstorm.
I also think that she can express her opinions, but no one shouldn’t be surprised if she loses her job when basically saying publicly that she doesn’t believe in her employer’s values.
That said, pro-2A tend to be extremely opposed to any opinion diverging from theirs, and hearing it from them towards anti-2a is just top tier irony.
Big difference between “opinion” and being factually accurate.
Once again she just provided ample propaganda for the Anti-2A crazies. West is so difficult to understand??
It was mostly opinions though, she didnt state any fact. This could be summarized as “I think this but I don’t have facts”. It’s basically worthless for information/education but it does show her view, which is against her employer.
“diversity of opinions” and you’ll ride that straight into the ground while our enemies tighten the noose.
“We Asked Real Women at the World’s Biggest Gun Show: Why Do You Own a Gun?”
REAL women, and yet 5 of the 12 were basically hired “gun bunnies” – one of whom is not even old enough to own a handgun in many states, and they were all asked a loaded question about mass shootings.
What did you expect from “Glamour” magazine, fair and balanced reporting?
I don’t know one woman in shooting who even remotely feels like that- and I know many.
She owns her statements, and whoever took her to SHOT should be fitted for a new pair of clown shoes.
See where it says “Glamour magazine” up in all of those words around the photo? That’s a link to the story where she’s interviewed.
If I am not mistaken, was there not “repeater rifles” prior to Second Amendment? Can’t think of the name right now so perhaps this gal should be told that our Forefathers most likely knew about or heard of these guns.
They did not exclude weapon types
The puckle gun was a big one, and the giaridoni air rifle, (which was a favorite of Thomas Jefferson to the point where he sent it on the Lewis and Clark expedition,) although it had durability issues, in many ways showed the potential of what a modern semi auto could do.
More to the point, this
And here I was believing one could only lose IQ points reading most of the comments.
This is great stuff.
The internet wasn’t invented when the Founding Fathers wrote the 1st Amendment either….better repeal that too! /sarc/
Fortunately for us, the Founding Fathers did not ask an airline attendant to write the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
The Founding Fathers would have asked “What is an airline attendant?”
Taran Tac?? Where’s John Wick??
I found it interesting that Taran Tactical tried to walk it back by calling her a “model” when in reality she was one of their sponsored shooters. Perhaps in the future they will vet better and god forbid prioritize actual shooting skills over bra size.
(Didn’t mean to post early)
Was a time when Benjamin Franklin was raising the possibility of fielding a unit of longbowmen, halberds were still being issues, and Peter Francisco was still carving up Hessians with a longsword. The phrasing of arms was quite deliberate, in that they were trying to encompass the overarching theme of fighting back against a tyrannical government while still acknowledging that technology could also evolve, like every other right listed on the bill of rights.
“Hopefully, the torches and pitch forks will be put away.”
Seems like you invited more to be brought out by rehashing this on your sight. I, for one, don’t know who she is, nor would I have ever heard of this situation, if not from you posting about it.
*grabs torch*
The article was about Geissele being affected as collateral damage, but folks want to talk about the lady.
Kind of happy we are not seeing a repeat of what happened in the NFL.
Colin Noir’s article pretty much sums up how I feel on this situation.
Oh no! Someone gives an opinion that goes against my perception of things, so let’s muzzle her! Yeah! Freedom!
You are an idiot.
Take off the tinfoil while you’re at it!
Jack is right on this one. Read through all the wailing and gnashing of teeth in this comments section. You’d think this semi-retarded model was just sworn in to the Supreme Court.
There is big difference between being IGNORANT and not knowing the facts or laws and SURPRESSING Free Speech. Now you are sounding like CNN, MSNBC, ect…. take your pick!
Thanks, I’ll take the insult as a compliment, it’s so eloquently said.
Where’s the tinfoiling in my comment?
I know I’m preaching to the choir here….
Sadly this woman from CA and HI has swallowed the liberal banner regarding 2A hook, line and sinker without any understanding of history.
While I fully respect her right to offer her opinions, sadly she is grossly misinformed.
1. The Founders knew exactly what they were doing when they penned 2A. 2A has nothing to do with a particular weapon, but, rather, the ability of citizens to resist a government run amok. The very first battle of the Revolution was over who would control a stash of gun powder!
2. Sadly, this flight attendant has no knowledge, let alone understanding of the ultimate sacrifice of 5 men and 20 women working the 4 flights on 9/11.
I happened to be in command of one of the last commercial airline flights to land in the US that fateful morning. And I was one of the first to join the bandwagon asking Congress and President Bush to arm pilots so a similar event could never happen again.
Time has a way of making recent tragedies seem eons ago. And as such, young people who fail to educate themselves (because many liberal educational jurisdictions will not; and some go so far as to re-write history to their liberal thinking) will espouse the belief similar to this woman.
Amen Brother!
Eye roll at this whole situation. Who was hating on Geissele? Neckbearded /k/ommandos? I would bet the people REEEing loudest at Geissele don’t buy his products anyway.
And Glamour was on a fishing expedition to make their point. Someone made a good NASCAR comparison earlier – they may as well have asked NASCAR fans why they drive horrible gas guzzlers, when confronted with the facts about global warming and the alarming number of people dying in car accidents? Oh and they were sure to get a foreigner in there to drop the line about “jeez you Americans just buy guns at the gas station, WE wait 3 months and license them all like civilized people.”
Apparently, enough people that they felt compelled to release a statement. That’s those words down toward the bottom, after the screenshot of the Glamour article with the picture of the woman.
Read it all. And the full Glamour article you hotlinked. Mainly poking fun at people erroneously associating Geissele with Ms. HatezGunz.
Once again, Geissele felt compelled to issue a statement clarifying that they have no connection to Ms Hathaway. The Glamour article does not poke fun at people erroneously associating Geissele Automatics with Ms Hathaway.
I was poking fun at them. And will push for unclear grammar.
I wonder if anyone actually read the article? I just read the link; basically 11 out of 12 were all very pro 2A. The reporter asked the exact same three questions. If the reporter was trying to lead people to specific anti-2A answers, they failed miserably. So as usual it’s one dunderhead from CA and HI that ruins it for everyone.
Apparently a difference in opinion is no longer allowed in the 21st century
In the 21st Century, whether it is liberals bashing on others for not being “progressive enough” (whatever that is), or self-proclaimed patriots with a hard-on for “freedom” bashing on people – not bashing their opinion, but rather bashing the person for daring having a different opinion.
Hell yeah! The future is bright!
Read SSD’s comments. It’s about Geissele issuing a statement and Taran Tac. If you can’t see the Irony of a TT Team Shooter that has anti-2A beliefs than nothing will ever make sense to you.
Nope, she deserved what she got especially when she has publicly voiced her opinion about her views in light of her background and position in Taran Tac. Some of the criticisms and attacks she’s got however is a little over the top, methinks.
Definitely agree
Gun grabbers, pinkos and other degenerates should leave this mortal coil. Thanks.
I successfully followed the link and read her comments. Seems like a nice gal who doesn’t see why people NEED access to the kind of weaponry so widely available today. I think her comment about the founding fathers is pretty reasonable. There’s no conspiracy here, people.
Looks like Taran Tac has dropped her, though it seems clear she was speaking for herself and not the company. So be it. You can’t sell Kool-Aid and then tell the kids it’s bad for their teeth.
Says the man who wants a full-confiscation AWB to include turning possession into a felony. Just go ahead and state your end goal, for those that don’t remember your past comments.
Had to go back and look. No felony. What I said was:
“How about everybody gets a year to turn in their ARs. After that, a grace period of, I don’t know, say 90 days? After that if you’re caught with one, your weapon gets confiscated and you get a ticket with a court date or the option of paying a hefty fine online. Something like that.
No criminals. No jail time”
You really think “hefty fine” and court appearances don’t equate to a felony? Speeding can even turn into a felony. There’s no way being non-compliant with your proposed federal AWB confiscation legislation wouldn’t result in that.
Sure it wouldn’t. Felony is defined by law. Just write the law so it’s not a felony.
Name a state with an AWB written like yours, where violation either isn’t a felony or can’t result in jail time.
I can’t. Doubt if there is one. Once I am king, I’ll change all that so don’t worry.
When you’re riding for the brand, you don’t have personal opinions.
True.
It’s not a question of NECESSITY. You don’t NEED a lot of shit. That argument is invalid by default.
We’ve already discussed the multiple types of weapons (ARMS) that were available when the constitution was signed – they didn’t say “Right to Bear a Musket”.
It’s her opinion…ya ya… the company could have easily said, “She is entitled to her opinion” and addressed her ACTIONS of speaking with the press without company permission blah blah blah
I don’t agree with her position, and I’m not 100% on board with the pitchforks and hellfire.
YMMV
Her comment about the founding fathers was not reasonable or unreasonable, it was just plain wrong. Anyone with even a scintilla of knowledge about the Bill of Rights and its authors knows this.
The idea that “gun control” prevents crime is on the level of “spoon control” preventing obesity.
This is solely my opinion. So what did I learn, booth personnel must be organic to the company and vetted way before there is an possible interview. Unfortunately the press is seeking the gotcha moment that will sell advertising space. Leadership must take an active role in what happens at the booth, or be prepared to mopp up a shit storm afterwards. This is unfortunate, it could very well happen to any of us.
I guarantee they knew her position before they hired her. Why WOULDN’T they ask?! They’re in the business of GUNS. Now they are backpedaling and fired her to save face with customers. Social media at it’s finest.
I would place an major emphasis on historical education. Like many mentioned before, there seems to be shortcomings in understanding historical context. The first is getting away from the erroneous concept that the 2A was for “defending one’s home”. It’s like defining a baseball bat as tool to play T-Ball. (YES but NO). Most people completely skip over the idea of maintaining control over governmental mechanisms (by force if absolutely necessary).
Mind you, a detail I find ironic, that a large number of people who want a gun ban, are the same people who complain about “police brutality” and “police states” (the thing prevented by 2A)
I would invite anyone to read the federalist paper, the documents that describe and define the very concerns of those who wrote the constitution. There is no way to argue “interpretive differences” they make everything as clear as day…again the problem is people aren’t educated with a full understanding of “recent” history.
This is exactly what I was getting at previously with “Jack” and “Che-boy”
Lighten up Francis. This is America, people have opinions. So what.
So what? Opinions, great.
Opinions which undermine an employer or sponsor? Opinions which cast a pallor on someone kind enough to give out a free badge holder? That’s what we’re discussing here.
Anyone attending Shot Show this year knows that Vegas is much different than it was this time last year. The recent mass shooting is still very fresh in everyone’s minds and policies on firearms changed in all of the hotels, casinos, and off site venues. Companies displaying at the show were well aware of these changes, especially companies that display firearms.
Just stating a fact here, not my opinion on what anyone should have said differently. And I’m not insinuating that the reason for someone answering one way or the other had to do with the mass shooting.
I can however, understand how uninformed Americans take issue with a group of people that are celebrating guns and all things gun a few short miles away from the site of the deadliest mass shooting in US history only a few months later. It’s not MY belief, but I am smart enough to understand the perceptions of the whole situation.
I often answer people differently in different settings because I’m smart enough to try and read my audience. If a stranger in Vegas asked me a similar question, I may answer similarly because I understand the sensitivities of recent events there. It’s similar with President Trump- Personally, I love what he’s doing. But I understand there are many who don’t and until I know who I’m talking to, I do a little vetting thru conversation to feel out the other person.
What IS Trump doing?
Nope. Keep it moving.
Maybe some day it will click that picking up models from outside of the industry is, at best, a crap shoot.
Just saying, if anyone wants to give me a pass for next year, I promise to not say anything stupid.
I totally agree with her. I rarely carry more than three guns at a time. Three is enough, they get heavy after a while.
You need better tools. Kifaru Koala, (sadly, discontinued) HPG Kit Bag or the chest rig of your choice (SOE FTW!) to start with for handguns, with space for extra mags and chewing gum. I really like the Kifaru Gunbearer for quick access to long guns, and it puts the weight on my hips. A decent pack frame can easily carry *several* more.
I suggest a gym membership or some of Jane Fonda’s “Buns of Steel” for you. “3 guns is enough” :eyeroll:
Taran is hanging out with pretty girls who can operate a weapon to some degree. The girls get to hang out with Hollywood personalities. It is a win win deal for all involved.
Am I going to hate on Taran for hanging out with good looking chicks? Nope, not at all. He kicked her to the curb when she sprouted bad talk. I don’t hate on guys when they kick their girlfriend to the curb for stupid things, why would I hate here?
Anyone who has ever spent time on teams or even a sports locker room has heard more ignorant comments.
One last thought. I’d rather hang out with this young kid who obviously has a lot to learn than any of the gazillion anti-gunners out there. I’m sure she’s heard people say “you only need three guns”. I’ve heard people say that. Whatever, she parroted something that made sense to her. Let’s not crucify her for agreeing that fewer guns would reduce gun violence. That is science. She was ambushed and was not walking around looking for an opportunity to make a mess of things. The pro-2A community should direct their frustration at Glamour magazine, take a deep breath, and try to educate people about the proper sporting and defensive uses of firearms rather than always spewing the same hateful rhetoric. I’ve introduced shooting sports to many “liberals” over the years. They are all hunters or sport shooters now. Change your tactics and you might change the world, one person at a time.