It looks like Shannon Watts has hired some serious personal security to protect her as she agitates and advocates for new laws to keep the unwashed masses from enjoying that same level of protection. Anyway, Dana Loesch was at the Michael Bloomberg-funded Everytown for Gun Control rally in Indianapolis today (total attendance: less than 50), attempting to question Shannon Watts about an earlier allegation Watts had made. Dana seems to have gotten a little bit up in Shannon’s grill, and her hired goons shoved her out of the way. More bullying from the gun control advocates? You decide.

Recommended For You

98 Responses to BREAKING: Video of Shannon Watts’ Hired Security Guards Allegedly Shoving Dana Loesch

    • I didn’t either… Must’ve been the part at the very beginning when the camera was moving around and someone said “you’re getting physical.”

      • I expect that came from the “guard” as he brushed Dana L. back. BTW, for someone who wants to “start a conversation”, Shannon is pretty tight-lipped, no?

    • Me neither. Besides that, I find it funny that she has a “security detail”, and that they were dressed up like wannabe Secret Service agents. I’ll venture a guess that they were carrying, may even be off-duty LE. Typical gun-grabbing hypocrite, just like her boss.

      • Having a security detail is, for someone in her position, nothing more than a rational decision against a possible threat. I’m fairly certain there are folks out there who would like nothing more than to physically assault her. I’m pretty sure WLP travels with some sort of security, as well.

        Tell me this: If you (not just you, MattG, but anyone reading) were there protesting whatever it was she has to say, and you saw someone advancing on her, at speed, with the obvious intention of taking her down (as in, assaulting her), would you (assuming you were in a position to do so) intercede? Or if not intercede ahead of time, would you help pull them off her after they took the first swing? Or would you stand back and watch? That’s what her security is there to do. Keep her from getting physically assaulted by someone who doesn’t know how to behave in civilized society.

        • Except that there are not now and nor has there ever been any actual, credible threats to Ms. Watts. There are on the other hand, and have been, credible threats against WLP. Her goons damn-well knew that, too, when Dana Loesch tried to question her.

          This wasn’t about security at all but protecting her from not only having to defend her unsupported and unsupportable views to the rabble, but also from what she fears: people that she erroneously deems lesser than her.

          We are, in point of fact, in all ways and on all levels her intellectual superiors. She doesn’t like that and doesn’t want to be exposed to it. That’s all.

        • I think you know what she stands for in regards to us “common folk” being able to defend ourselves with the most effective tools, and I was just pointing out the hypocrisy. In other words, I’ve got no problem with her having security (armed or otherwise) but she’s got a big problem with the guns that sit in my safe and that I carry.

        • Oh, I’d let the assailant get one punch in on Shannon. “(To make a stronger court case” you know.)

          Afterwards I’d ask Shannon how it felt not having any protection, about five seconds before I tendered my resignation.

          Hey, a guy can dream…

        • There is nothing wrong with having a security detail. However, it seems that just wearing a t-shirt with “Gun Free Zone” doesn’t seem that does the trick of defending her. The issue is her hypocrisy, not her security detail. How many of us can afford a security detail? Since she denies the natural and constitutional right to protect oneself, why doesn’t her ilk donate money to provide security details to women that are protected by a court order?

        • I agree that having a security detail is a rational precaution for someone on her position. The thing is that her entire shtick revolves around denying others the right to make similarly rational decisions concerning their own self-protection.

        • Just read a crawl this morning that a female anti-firearms demonstrator was killed in Chicago. Still waiting more confirmation. Sad as this is in actuality, I have to be cynical and sarcastic about their anti-firearms rhetoric and ask, ‘Why didn’t she call a cop?’
          To answer your question, Matt: Yes, I’d have intervened were I able, though I’m not certain I’d have acted immediately because I have some real serious problems regarding these people who love to dance on the graves of murder victims.

        • It would also be a rational decision for anyone, anywhere, to have a desire to be armed, since most of us lack the wherewithal to hire private security contractors.
          Since we are also asking hypotheticals, if you saw a purple unicorn and it was yellow unicorn day, would you tell the purple unicorn to go home, or spray paint him into conformity?

        • “…Tell me this: If you …saw someone advancing on her, at speed, with the obvious intention of taking her down, would you (assuming you were in a position to do so) intercede?”

          I am not ashamed to admit I have a bit of the monster in me…. I would not intercede on her behalf.

          If there was a chance of others getting hurt I would be more willing to intercede if I could. But for her, and people like her that think themselves better than me and everyone else… no. She thinks she should have some sort of say over me and my life for whatever reason, because of that I see no need to intercede because she should have known better if she thinks herself better.

          I do still have, however, enough humanity to at least attempt to shout some sort of “look out!” in her general direction just before the bad guy got to her.

      • In part probably because of they were on the move because Watts was trying to get away and in part because of the thugs (security) she hired to protect her from camera operators.

  1. (total attendance: less than 50)

    Yeah, that sounds like a grassroots movement to me, lol. How many of the 50 do you think were paid Everytown reps?

    • How many were holding cameras? Was it me or where there 3-4 individuals with video cameras taping the interaction.

  2. I don’t see anything. Without a better view, I’m not prepared to make a comment either way. I saw Dana Loesch’s tweet, but I don’t have any more personal knowledge of her than I do of Shannon Watts, so any belief in her story would be based on ideology, not fact, and I don’t do business that way.

  3. I didn’t see any kind of pushing, but seeing that she has a guard detail now, it begs the question, are the guards armed?

    My guess, yes, but she wouldn’t admit it.

  4. Right at the first, I expect she was “brushed aside” by one of the guys. But seriously, how many jeans-and-jersey wearing “moms’ go around with a “security detail”, armed or otherwise. Shannon is phony on a professional-wrestling scale…

  5. I didn’t really see it, either, but it wouldn’t surprise me if it happened out-of-frame. It’s only ever been the obstructionist civilian disarmament industrial complex that bullies people. She surrounds herself with armed security, when there is not and never will be any credible threat against her life nor liberty (except from herself of course) in the people that she demonizes (these people being the law-abiding citizenry), and then preaches the same asinine and demonstrably bass-ackwards world-view that would disarm her hired goons.

    Yes, it is actually exactly the same circular logic it sounds like. Go figure. This is the only thing that ever goes on inside the twisted mind of a gun-grabber: paradoxical ideas the run only contrary to each other — and to reality.

  6. $50,000,000 spent on the “grassroots” effort of “Everytown Mayors demanding action from Moms” and only 50 people show up for their inaugural protest?

    Either someone just wasted 50 million bucks or it is not the passionate grassroots effort they claim. My bet it is both.

  7. What kind of person accepts a job to provide security for Shannon Watts — who is actively working to criminalize good responsible people who wish to be armed for self-defense?

    If I were a security contractor, I would refuse the job.

    • One who has the same attitude as most NYC or Chicago cops, that only certain people should be allowed to carry guns, and that the unwashed masses are not among them.

      • This goes way beyond “political views”. Political views would be along the lines of how large our defense budget should be, or how much tax money to collect to expand our highway system. Instead, Mrs. Watts is trying to turn good responsible people into criminals via legislative fiat. That is a direct attack on every person in our nation and it is wrong. As such, anyone who works as a security detail for Mrs. Watts is reprehensible and a collaborator.

  8. 50? Even if you included Dana, the cameraman, the security, and all the confused and uninvolved people in the background it was maybe three dozen.

    And what about that one creeper guy who kept trying to get close to the Demanding Mothers?

  9. actually, the money shot would have been to see what they did if I rolled up and said “HEY – I’M DIRK DIGGLER! WANNA GET A DRINK?” I have $20 that I would have been tackled to the ground and had a few Glock 22’s pointed at me. 🙂

  10. I think she needs more security. Much more. Preferably of the expensive kind. So Sugardaddy Mike can foot the bill…..

  11. I suppose Shannon (Bill of Rights denier) words and ideas are so weak, she cannot stand her ground with Dana.

  12. You know, that clip should be plastered all over the Internet. A VERY public shaming. Even all the Mighty Midget’s millions couldn’t buy her reputation back after that happened.

  13. I can understand why she thinks she needed to be gunned up by proxy given her erroneous view of 2A champions as killers. The real reason might be to infer that she has something to fear however. Its a subtle way of making a dastardly accusation.

  14. But seriously….. Can’t we see the contrived hysterics of this professional phony and her postmenopausal empty nest groupies for what it is? Pathetic, desperate temper tantrums?

  15. I’d hazard a guess that those guards were armed as well. The gun control / tyranny movement is perfectly comfortable with their hypocrisy. Well, unless Dana is up in her face. Then they are slightly less comfortable. Once Shannon gets into Bloomberg’s private jet I’m sure she’ll feel right as rain. Maybe a little manicure / pedicure and spa time. Don’t forget a little massage. Ah. A freshly invigorated Shannon can get back to “saving the children” and banning firearms from the unwashed masses whilst being surrounded by paid thugs who will manage her personal safety.

  16. So they all have armed guards. Isn’t that nice, How about us poor folk?

    The irony is so insulting that I won’t even – COMMENT MODERATED.

  17. Who will volunteer to slap a “I’m a Slut for Bloomberg!” sticker on Shannon’s back? When the press is around, of course…..

  18. It’s a non-story in the scheme of things here. As Matt noted, WLP almost certainly has some sort of security as well. The difference here is that WLP doesn’t claim you don’t deserve the option of providing for your own security. Such a small detail, yet so very important.

    Tom

  19. Here in Oregon our Diane Feinstein want-to-be state Senator Burdick has not one, but FIVE body guards. If you want to feel ice cold steel from a pro-gun-control state senator not wanting to talk about gun-control, check this out:

  20. http://www.organicconsumers.org/gefood/monsantovsOregon.cfm
    Monsanto spokeswoman Shannon Troughton said her company would be supporting
    the anti-labeling campaign both through the coalition and through CropLife
    International, an industry alliance that includes the worlds’ biggest
    biotech companies.

    “The general feeling is that the measure, if passed, would create a new set
    of bureaucratic rules and regulations and provide meaningless information at
    a considerable cost to consumers,” she said.

  21. OK. My last link didn’t go to the correct part of the town hall. Here’s my second attempt:

    Here in Oregon our Diane Feinstein want-to-be state Senator Burdick has not one, but FIVE body guards. If you want to feel ice cold steel from a pro-gun-control state senator not wanting to talk about gun-control, check this out:

    • When you go to share a video, mirgc, select the video that you wish to share, click on “Share”, and uncheck the “Share with playlist starting from” click-box. I assume this is why you haven’t been successful at sharing just one of the videos.

  22. In every article leading up to the NRA AM Shannon promised “over 100 moms and 20 supporters” will be there to stand up to the NRA and the gun bullies.

    I counted 7 of them.

    They got maybe 27 people, at most.

  23. Ugh. Conservatives who do this kind of thing need to pick up their game. There should ALWAYS be 2 cameras. One is filming as this one was…one is standing 30 yards away documenting what happened. This solves all of these issues. They cannot be accused of wrongdoing and liberal thugs can’t get away with any strong arming. Stupid to do it any other way.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *