Taran Tactical Sponsored Shooter: Government Should Take Away Our Guns to Make Us Safer

Former Taran Tactical model Rochelle (courtesy glamour.com)

Taran Butler is one of the world’s best 3-gun shooters . He’s turned his experience and expertise into a profitable company, training for individuals and movie stars like Keanu Reeves as well as marketing competition focused gear and Taran Butler licensed firearms. While he’s made his fortune thanks to the support of Second Amendment-loving gun owners, one of his sponsored shooters — Rochelle Hathaway — believes no one should be allowed to own more than three firearms and the government should take away our guns for our own good . . .

From Glamour magazine’s article where they asked a number of women at SHOT Show about their opinions on guns:

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.

According to sources, the interview took place in a nearby hotel room, not on the SHOT Show floor (Glamour didn’t have media credentials.) It’s not clear whether the opinions of the 28-year-old flight attendant and Instagram personality reflect the official position of Taran Tactical, but she was wearing her Taran Tactical uniform during the interview.

The article already appears to be making the rounds among anti-gun activists, many of which are trying to make it look like Taran Butler supports his employee’s anti-2A opinions.

For its part, Taran Tactical has disavowed Ms. Hathaway’s comments. Here’s their statement [via Facebook]:

We were surprised to see an article recently published in a beauty magazine quoting a promotional model and friend of our company, Rochelle Hathaway, who made certain impromptu statements to a reporter during Shot Show.

We were unaware of the interview and we did not condone the interview or the statements made by Rochelle. Rochelle has never been authorized to speak on behalf of our company or its founder, Taran Butler. As of today, we have cut all professional ties with Rochelle.

While we respect everyone’s right to free speech, Rochelle’s statements were inappropriate and do not represent our company’s vision and beliefs. We have and will always support Second Amendment rights, and we will continue to educate and promote the safe, legal ownership and handling of firearms.

Note for those in the comments:

  • As stated clearly in the title, this is a sponsored shooter and not Taran himself.
  • The individual was identified as a sponsored shooter and is featured in multiple YouTube videos on the Taran Tactical YouTube channel. She was not a “booth babe” hired specifically for SHOT Show.


    1. avatar LKB says:

      From Taran Tactical’s FB page:

      “We were surprised to see an article recently published in a beauty magazine quoting a promotional model and friend of our company, Rochelle Hathaway, who made certain impromptu statements to a reporter during Shot Show.

      We were unaware of the interview and we did not condone the interview or the statements made by Rochelle. Rochelle has never been authorized to speak on behalf of our company or its founder, Taran Butler. As of today, we have cut all professional ties with Rochelle.

      While we respect everyone’s right to free speech, Rochelle’s statements were inappropriate and do not represent our company’s vision and beliefs. We have and will always support Second Amendment rights, and we will continue to educate and promote the safe, legal ownership and handling of firearms.”

      1. avatar Maxwell says:

        Too bad the anti gun people are loving this.

        Need to stop having girls with a cute ass come in and speak for you.
        Maybe if you stopped trying to be a sugar daddy and started becoming more 2A you would go farther.

        You earned this, you own it.

        1. avatar wyantry says:

          From one who worked in the trade, and helped set up SHOT shows: This is a comment from another air-head BOOTHBABE.

          Eyecandy w/o a clue.

      2. avatar Used to be a gun owner says:

        She was an empty fluff bag who made her way in the world based on her looks. Corporate flight attendant, not a professional airline flight attendant apparently. Eye candy at work, eye candy on instagram, and eye candy for TT. Now she has had to drop off social media and lost the TT gig that gave her additional exposure. All she has left is work…which I am guessing is not going to give her the attention she craves.

        Countdown to Gloria Allred and being the darling of the pro-tyranny crowd.

        Thanks for the help of getting her more famous on the left side.
        You guys need to shoot yourselves in the foot

        1. avatar bobo says:

          yep to all of the above you said (used to be)

          and with this out now…she showed that she can not be trusted to “toe the company line” that she was hired for and stabs her boss right in the back!

          If she dose not get sued over this I would be surprised???

        2. avatar Frank Bullitt says:

          I called her out for her gun bunny ways more than a year ago when I discovered her having no real interest in shooting except when paid to hit the range as part of a promotion/ as a model/ gun bunny. She should never had been sponsored to begin with as she had no extensive shooting history and was for some reason given a ton of training by Taran Butler/ Taran Tactical. The thirsty white knights came to her defense. She’s might not be the only one in Taran’s harem of gun bunnies playing pretend. Amy Jane used to work for him and was even sponsored despite her past as a embellishing boot camp flunky/ stolen valor.

          Taran’s a poser in the firearms culture.

      3. avatar Enrico Longobardi says:

        Don’t sponsor anymore. She sounds like an idiot with an agenda

      4. I like the way Trump last night at the ‘State of the Union’ again applauded the Capital Police, but kept silent on the true (((unpaid))), not their job true heroes in the Sutherland Springs Church Shooting. That was his time to really defend U.S. and he didn’t. He’s just another PUPPET traitor. Don’t lie to yourself to think different. Look up FEDERAL PROGRAM 1033 he’s is boosting up. The Police State

        P.S. Don’t forget (((LOCK HER UP!!!))) …another of his lies. The Laws are only for US.

        “The Quest for truth begins here.”
        “Listen to everyone, read everything, believe nothing unless
        you can prove it in your own research.”
        – Milton William Cooper Killed Nov. 6, 2001 RIP Sir
        Wake up Sheeple! I did.

    2. avatar BLoving says:

      Hmm. We’ve discussed “booth babes” before… some are true Gun Bunnies and belong in the ranks of the POTG, some are just hired faces told to wear a uniform and smile at SHOT show attendees. This one seems to be the later. Can’t expect a company to vet the politics of someone they likely just met the day before the show started – so I’m inclined to give them the benefit of the doubt here.
      It ain’t like she can’t be easily replaced with another cute face, hopefully one that is smart enough to keep her piehole shut if she wants to keep getting paid.

      1. avatar Jonathan-Houston says:

        She’s described in the article as a Taran sponsored shooter. A quick google search shows she has been involved with these people for several years.

        That sounds like a lot more than just someone the rent-a-babe agency sent over for just this show.

        Cutting ties and disavowing her comments was the prudent business decision.

        Pretending she’s nothing more than some guy in accounting’s plus-one for SHOT show and hoping this goes away, would only have added more fuel to the fire.

        1. avatar Unrepentent Libertarian says:

          She has the 1st amendment right to say her stupid statements. However doing the interview while dressed in company attire and giving the impression that she is speaking as a company spokesperson was wrong for her to do. Do these interviews on your own time and in your civilian clothes!
          Just another “anything for me, but not for thee” types.

    3. avatar Kyle says:

      Yup, just a pretty fudd. Too bad, they actually hurt the shooting community. They stereotype female shooters needlessly.

      1. avatar Garrison Hall says:

        This is what “journalists” do. Some people will do anything for their 15min of fame. If you search hard enough you can always find an unlikely, naive, or otherwise marginal person to shill for the other side. Just look at the women who “suddenly” turn out to accuse famous people and politicians of sexual indiscretions . . . that they may have thought were cool forty years ago.

      2. avatar Ed says:

        Why does everyone keep refering to her as a “babe” or “pretty”? Shes pretty god damn fugly if you ask me….man, some of you guys have some pretty low stanadards.

      3. I like the way Trump last night at the ‘State of the Union’ again applauded the Capital Police, but kept silent on the true (((unpaid))), not their job true heroes in the Sutherland Springs Church Shooting. That was his time to really defend U.S. and he didn’t. He’s just another PUPPET traitor. Don’t lie to yourself to think different. Look up FEDERAL PROGRAM 1033 he’s is boosting up. The Police State
        P.S. Don’t forget (((LOCK HER UP!!!))) …another of his lies. The Laws are only for US.
        “The Quest for truth begins here.”
        “Listen to everyone, read everything, believe nothing unless
        you can prove it in your own research.”
        – Milton William Cooper Killed Nov. 6, 2001 RIP Sir
        Wake up Sheeple! I did.

    4. avatar Owen says:

      Interesting, she was the only one anti out of the 12 women they interviewed. That by itself is a very positive sign in my book.

      1. avatar bobo says:

        I am REALLY surprised that 11 PRO leaning interviews even made the story and not the other way around like usual!!!

        1. avatar MarkPA says:

          Agreed. Imagine all the female readers of Glamour who will be startled by reading the opinions of the other 11 women quoted.

          The MSM will – eventually – begin eating itself on the 2A issue. Always looking to sell more “newspapers” the MSM will increasingly be seduced into interviewing female gun owners expressing pro-rights opinions. As competition for ratings among MSM publishers becomes increasingly intense, editors will be unable to resist the temptation to break-ranks with the Progressive agenda. The study of monopoly – or more properly oligopoly – emphasizes that there will always be a first “cheater” who will break ranks with the cartel.

          We should expect articles with 11 gun-control opinions plus just 1 token gun-rights opinion. This Glamour article is amazing with 11 pro-rights but just 1 gun-control opinion.

          Women and minorities are the key. (Add in any other protected classes like invalids, LGBTs, immigrants, etc.) Once the most vulnerable – and PC-protected – classes realize that guns in their hands are equalizers, Progressive solidarity will begin to suffer fissures.

          It’s important to emphasize to these populations the “free rider” phenomena. I.e., every woman appears to be easy-pickings for a criminal attack. If just 1 in 100 women carries a concealed weapon, there is very little change. Once 33 in 100 carries, the risk of encountering an armed victim becomes worthy of consideration. Should 67 in 100 carry, the probability that a victim might be armed is too great to take. For each individual woman, it is NOT necessary that SHE PERSONALLY arm herself; rather, it is enough that she “free-rides” on her more intrepid sisters.

    5. avatar Topher in Texas says:

      Reading all these responses it’s pretty sad how the mob mentality has taken over the shooting community over the years.

      Can’t even wait for a response from Taran and/or his company before people are calling for boycotts and running them through the mud.

      It’s unfortunate when the POTG act the same way as the anti’s.

      1. avatar Kyle says:

        This is true. She should have been given a chance to give her side of the story. She could have been asked crazy leading questions, exhausted from lack of sleep, you name it.

        She should have been given an opportunity to clarify her remarks.

        Though, we don’t know that she wasn’t given that opportunity by Taran and failed.

        1. avatar Steve B. says:

          I don’t know about that… When you literally say…

          “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.”

          That doesn’t sound like a coaxed response… :\

      2. I like the way Trump last night at the ‘State of the Union’ again applauded the Capital Police, but kept silent on the true (((unpaid))), not their job true heroes in the Sutherland Springs Church Shooting. That was his time to really defend U.S. and he didn’t. He’s just another PUPPET traitor. Don’t lie to yourself to think different. Look up FEDERAL PROGRAM 1033 he’s is boosting up. The Police State
        P.S. Don’t forget (((LOCK HER UP!!!))) …another of his lies. The Laws are only for US.
        “The Quest for truth begins here.”
        “Listen to everyone, read everything, believe nothing unless
        you can prove it in your own research.”
        – Milton William Cooper Killed Nov. 6, 2001 RIP Sir
        Wake up Sheeple! I did.

        1. avatar Lucas D. says:

          I bet if you copy/pasted this exact same rant a fourth time, people wouldn’t think you were so nuts.

        2. LUCAS D. – If you got Ghost/Shadow Banned Censored as much as I do you would do it too. If you know what that even is (((?))) Please read and PASS IT ON >>> if you really care about about your children’s future. FYI Lucas, I repeat my comments because I have learn that some do fall thru the cracks and get seen.
          Facebook Inc. Used Internet Ghost Banning Censorship to Purposely Deceive Millions of Americans During the 2016 United States Presidential Elections. | Mark Zuckerberg’s $328 Billion Corporation Facebook Inc., with 1.11 billion monthly active users globally, was manipulating and governing millions of Americans voter’s voices, thoughts and opinions from their fellow compatriots on the Official Presidential Candidate Facebook Pages of Hillary Clinton, Donald Trump and Gary Johnson right down until the final day; Tuesday, November 8, 2016 (Election Day) | I have irrefutable documentation of this betrayal. They have a named for it and it’s called TREASON!!! “…and they were not alone in this conspiracy.” … yes conspiracy.
          “If there are any true reporters still left out there whom would like this story of the decade, email or call me and I’ll give you all 800+ Screenshots of Facebook’s treason.”
          **ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, Fox News, Reuters, Associated Press and the Local News would not touch this Story/Fact.
          [email protected] (813) 731-6855

    6. avatar T says:

      THats a dude?

      1. avatar Sir Tri says:

        Yes. And less cars equals less automobile accidents and no one should have more than one. what an effing naive and stupid thing to say. Besides the obvious blacklisting, she should be sued for breach of contract, misrepresentation, and defamation of corporate vision.

        1. avatar Scoutino says:

          You don’t need automatic transmission and muffler!

    7. avatar Chris T from KY says:

      FUDD and very stupid. This one will be unemployed very soon.

  1. avatar Gman says:

    100+ million gun owners be damned for the horrific acts of a few. Never a more collectivist attitude has ever been so eloquently spoken.

  2. avatar James Earl Hoffer says:

    This guy is clearly an assshole. Trying to take away all the guns in the United States of America is absolutely impossible to do. There’s just physically too many guns there’s like three guns for every person in the United States so trying to actually get police forces to confiscate that many privately owned Firearms is physically impossible. That would cause the next civil war. That would clearly be identified as tyranny and an act of Terror on the people of the United States by its own government. This was one of the biggest fears that the founders of this country had, was the simple fact the greatest fear that we had after beating the most powerful army in the world the British Empire, was ourselves they realize this that’s why they wrote the Constitution. This guy is a mental midget and has no working knowledge of the Constitution and why it was created. I think it’s pretty safe to say that he’s a progressive globalist and as long as he gets to keep doing what he wants to do he’s willing to give up everybody else’s rights. Real stand-up kind of guy. I wouldn’t buy something from this fella or his company if my life depended on it. And I suggest everyone else do the same.

    1. avatar Omer says:

      This article wasn’t interviewing Taran, but a model/stewardess hired by Taran

      1. avatar Jross says:

        And this is EXACTLY the problem. People aren’t going to read it as the opinion of someone hired by the company for the day. They’ll read it as either the guy himself and/or the company. The publication will be more than happy to let them read it that way as well.

        1. avatar 16V says:

          According to the headline she is a ‘sponsored shooter’, the article indicates she’s a booth babe.


        2. avatar 16V says:

          FLAME DELETED?

          Bertel was rather boring with his pro-Chinese propaganda, but at least knew boothbunnies, and we could have a chuckle about it…

      2. avatar Jonathan-Houston says:

        The article referred to her as a sponsored shooter. If that’s inaccurate, then the problem is in the reporting, not the reading, of the article.

        1. avatar Omer says:

          I was wrong. I thought she was a booth bunny.

  3. avatar Omer says:

    This is a woman who is paid for being pretty, when one purchases the services of what is essentially a porn magazine cover one doesn’t usually ask about their political thoughts, nor does one usually care. She’s a model used to drive traffic for a service/product. If these businesses want to interview their potential models to verify they have freedom-loving values and integrity, then those women who do have those attributes will be sought after. Or if they don’t, maybe they’ll keep their opinions to themselves so as not to risk their short lived paychecks

    1. avatar Kenneth says:

      While that is all true, here is the upshot. I will NOT support any company that hires and supports people that oppose me. Thus I will never buy anything from Taran ever again.
      I urge all other POTG to join me in this endless boycott until such a time as they make their position clear by firing said employee, and instituting policies that all employees must keep their opinions to themselves while in public, in their company uniform, and on the company dime.
      This model/eye candy has every right to her opinions, no matter how stupid they might be, but I also have the right to not allow a single nickel of my money to go to support her. EVER.
      If Taran wants gun owner’s business they can nip this in the bud very easily. If they choose not to do so, then they are traitors to those who support them, and deserve a traitor’s fate. If this bankrupts them, good riddance.

      1. avatar TrueBornSonofLiberty says:

        Rochelle Hathaway has already been fired and her comments disavowed by Taran. He made a statement 10 minutes ago on Facebook. He had no idea she gave the interview, either.

        1. avatar Kenneth says:

          Good for Taran Tactical. However, the next time I’m in the market for their products I will crosscheck to be sure that they haven’t rehired her after the heat dies down. I’ve been fooled by that routine before, but never again.
          “Fool me once, shame on you, Fool me twice, shame on ME!” -somebody or other….

      2. avatar Jonathan-Houston says:

        Hired and supported? She’s been swiftly fired and disclaimed.

      3. avatar Omer says:

        I was wrong. I thought she was a booth bunny. That being said, I appreciate your concern for your rights as well as all of ours. I myself don’t buy PizzaHut or shop at Walgreens,but I’m sure that there are people who are Anti-Gun that are employed by many establishments that you do business with; you just don’t know it.

        1. avatar Koolhed says:

          Boycott Pizza Hut? If you’re referring to that Facebook slander piece still going around about how a Pizza Hut employee disrespected a veteran that wanted a discount, it’s been shown to be 100% BOGUS.

          Or is there some other reason you’re boycotting Pizza Hut?

        2. avatar Some Random Guy says:

          I would boycott pizza hut because they use wood pulp in their food. But that’s just me.


        3. avatar Lucas D. says:

          Read the article, and I have to call shenanigans on its author. Cellulose is not “wood pulp,” but an organic polymer found in all sorts of plants, and is one of the compounds that provide fruits and vegetables with natural dietary fiber. Unless it’s normal for you to spend an hour at a time moaning on the toilet, chances are you ingest cellulose with regularity, no pun intended.

          It is commonly extracted from wood pulp, but that’s because the stuff is a very cheap and plentiful source of cellulose that would otherwise go to waste. To say they’re the same thing is silly at best and deceitful at worst.

        4. avatar FedUp says:

          Boycott Pizza Hut and Domino’s because they’d rather see their employees dead than have them defend themselves from violent attacks?

        5. avatar NateInPA says:

          That article is bullsnot.

          an insoluble substance that is the main constituent of plant cell walls and of vegetable fibers such as cotton. It is a polysaccharide consisting of chains of glucose monomers.

          Cellulose is in nearly every plant and vegetable we consume.

          More fake news for people not bright enough to think on their own.

        6. avatar Lucas D. says:

          “Boycott Pizza Hut and Domino’s because they’d rather see their employees dead than have them defend themselves from violent attacks?”

          Now we’re talkin’.

    2. avatar anonymoose says:

      She’s not even that good looking. She probably got hired to be a booth-skank because she’s somebody’s sister or cousin, or maybe they brought her in to look more “realistic” next to the botox and silicone that other companies brought in.

    3. avatar Fred says:

      If she were hired as a “porn magazine cover”, she wouldn’t have the shirt.

      If she spent more time on her knees, with a dick in her mouth, she’d spend less time on tautologies.

  4. avatar Sam I Am says:

    I’m certain these are some of the same people recorded (video) talking about hearing/seeing the state-of-the-union address one day before the address actually happened.

  5. avatar Clau-in-UT says:

    Hope he kicks her to the curb quickly, and comes out with an official statement distancing himself from what this moron said.

  6. avatar Jross says:

    Who is their #1 competition so I can support them in some fashion?

    1. avatar ACP_arms says:

      Taran Tactical sponsored shooter, it’s not Taran Tactical that’s the one saying it.

  7. avatar Hank says:

    Hopefully he fires her. Meanwhile, at least the communists are finally being open and honest about what they want. They want: “The government to ‘come in’ and take everyone’s guns.” One day in the future, it could be a decade from now, maybe longer, but one day they WILL try this. They will TRY. And fail. Horrendously.

    1. avatar Joe R. says:

      But at least some of the commie MFs will die badly and people can go after their kids.

      Kill a commie for mommy.

  8. avatar Joe R. says:

    “3-Gun” must mean how many they think they can fit in their a _ _. Taran teach that or something?

  9. avatar Joe R. says:

    Looks like Taran will sphincter his own career over sexual harassment in 3…2….1.

  10. avatar Curtis in IL says:

    Geez, people. Take a breath. This is not about Taran Butler.

    The woman in question is a 28-yr-old flight attendant/booth babe. She was hired, probably through a modeling agency, to work SHOT Show for Taran Tactical. Butler’s only sin here is hiring bubble-headed booth babes.

    She missed the part in her “booth babe” contract that says, “Keep your mouth shut, look pretty and do your best to be a magnet for testosterone.”

    1. avatar Binder says:

      No, TAG said she is a sponsored shooter.
      But not really.
      “I’ve done sporadic competitive shooting. I have a lot more fun with it—I’m in it more for fun than competing.”

      Funny part is she thinks people should not own semi auto, but I have a feeling she is not shooting a wheel gun at matches.

      1. avatar anonymoose says:

        I think she’s just a liar and a moron.

      2. avatar Binder says:

        Oh, I don’t think she was stretching the truth, just giving an option, unlike TAG

  11. avatar Shawn says:

    Of the women interviewed for the article, this is the one who is most anti gun. Nearly all other responses were favorable to gun rights

  12. avatar Flange says:

    Well, Taran is now on the list along with Troy, Springfield, and Rock River.

    That’s Ok though, maybe the a new Weatherby rifles is worth checking out again, and everybody can use some more Magpul stuff.

    1. avatar ACP_arms says:

      Read it again, it’s not Taran saying it!

      1. avatar Flange says:

        Oh, I read it, and I’m glad that Taran let this woman go. Still a really bad black eye for the company. Makes me wonder about his vetting process.

        1. avatar Curtis in IL says:

          The vetting process apparently involves modeling size 2 yoga pants.

          I honestly don’t have a problem with such a vetting process. But apparently Mr. Butler failed to explain that she shouldn’t be opining on gun policy while wearing a Taran Tactical size 2 skin-tight spandex shirt.

  13. avatar AFGus says:

    If Butler is smart, he’ll put out a statement saying that this Witch does not speak for him, then make sure she’s never hired again.

  14. avatar Curtis in IL says:

    There’s nothing in the Glamour article that refers to her as a “sponsored shooter.” Not sure where Nick got that idea.

    She says she has “done sporadic competitive shooting.” For fun. So she probably got the booth babe job because of her familiarity with guns, not because of her finely tuned positions on gun rights.

  15. avatar TrueBornSonofLiberty says:

    There’s a big difference between being a pretty face, hired for 4 days to attract customers during Shot Show, and a “sponsored shooter”, which implies she’s a competitive shooter that is paid By Taran Tactical to compete. If she’s just a useless hatchet wound, no big deal. If she’s on his team, that’s a problem. He needs to make a statement detailing the relationship and his disavowal of the comments, ASAP. Or he’s finished.

  16. avatar neiowa says:

    This is a piss poor piece not up to the usual TTAG standards. How about edit so it is clear WHO the bimbo yapping was. Not this Taran guy. The comments above illustrate than some of the less literate are way confused.

    This was a rental booth babe yapping to a chick “beauty” magazine.

    1. avatar ACP_arms says:

      I don’t think a edit is needed, it’s quite clear who is saying what.

  17. avatar Oh noes says:

    “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.”

    Infuriating! Does this moron Know what shes Implying?
    She’s too stupid to get a real job, hey C**T looks fade, stupid is forever.

    1. avatar Kenneth says:

      There’s not a pill you can take…. or a class you can go to… Stupid is foevahh.

      1. avatar anonymoose says:

        There is a pill I recommend to certain people with serious issues. It’s called “.50 caliber aspirin.” Apply directly to the forehead to make all pain go away.

  18. avatar Stinkeye says:

    “Sponsored shooter”? Do you have more information than what’s found in that Glamour article, Nick, or is this what the president would call “fake news”?

    1. avatar Binder says:

      No TAG just want’s Taran Tactical to file a liable lawsuit. But I don’t think it is going to be against Glamour.

    2. avatar Astigmatizm says:

      Her bucket list says “drive a Harley”. Anyone who says they “drive a Harley” is not likely a competitive shooter. She’s got nothing on Ms. Austin as far as looks go. If you look at her web page “tanned and traveled”, she’s all about herself.
      Just another Snowflake.

  19. avatar HES says:

    She is not “Just” a booth babe. Check out this video. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9kKrt631-ik . She’s in it front and center. It looks like all the other videos of her with Taran have been deleted.

    1. avatar Binder says:

      Look at her shoot, can you say BEGINNER. I think at times that you position on gun rights has nothing to do with your intelligence.

    2. avatar Curtis in IL says:

      Booth babe, range babe … package deal, whatever.

    3. avatar Curtis in IL says:

      Taran Tactical’s YooToob channel is filled with fit, firm young women in tight tank tops shooting guns. It’s as though Mr. Butler took the whole “booth babe” concept out to the range and he’s milking it for all it’s worth.

      Is this a great country, or what?

  20. avatar Solaran says:

    TT has already cut ties with this individual and issued a statement on their Facebook page.

  21. avatar former water walker says:

    Yeah identify her fudd azz. Don’t rag on Taran until you KNOW what’s going on…

    1. avatar TrueBornSonofLiberty says:

      Rochelle Hathaway. Already fired and disavowed.

  22. avatar Wanderingwanderer says:

    Gun control disarms people and puts them at the mercy of those who disregard gun control laws

  23. avatar EGB says:


    There are other recent items quoting well-known 2A figures on gun control stances. Brian Zins, 12 time NRA Champion, had a quote last year in a local NC feature: http://www.pointblankrange.com/2017/12/champion-marksman-specializes-teaching-gun-safety/

    “Still, he thinks a few additional restrictions should be in place, such as making bump stocks illegal for civilians to purchase. The attachment enables a semiautomatic rifle to fire faster and is known for being used in the Las Vegas shooting in October.

    Zins believes all person-to-person gun sales should be required to have a legal transfer through a gun shop, which will perform a background check on the buyer. He also thinks every state should require shops to check mental health databases during background checks, like they do in North Carolina.

    People should be educated and have a healthy respect and fear of the gun, especially if they are going to own one, according to Zins. He thinks all states should require a class before issuing a concealed carry permit, but many do not.

    “We spend more time teaching 16-year-olds how to drive than we teach people to conceal carry,” he said.”

    Knowing Gunny Zins, it’s hard to believe he’d agree with the above statements…

    1. avatar Garrison Hall says:

      Gunny Zins has the political sensibilities of a duck.

      1. avatar Binder says:

        OK, how about this for a anti gun stance. Bump stocks are machine guns, plain and simple, and stupid ones at that. However I think that everyone should be able to own machine gun, but should be trained first, we will get back to the training in a bit.

        Convicts can have their gun rights restricted, however they must be out on parole. The parole may not be supervised. For example you can be convicted for 15 years but just have to serve for 5. if you get out after 4, you gun rights will be restored automatically after another 11. The argument that someone is too dangerous to own a gun should not be free is flat out B.S. Then you have people in jail for the sole reason of being “dangerous” and that is NOT a power I want to give the goverment.

        Now for training, yes gun ownership is a right, but it is also a responsibility. Training should start in middle school and continue to high school. Modern Individual rights were first wrestled from the English Crown by the points of the the arrows of the peasants. While some argument can be made that the Magna Carta protected the Barrens more than the peasants. It is still the long bow that made possible the decline feudalism. However, a longbow is just a stick without a LOT of training. All the antis talk of how the average Joe could never stand up to the goverment is true to a point due to the lack of training. If you believe in the Second Amendment you should be far more worried about kids not being trained in marksmanship than you keeping your bump stocks.

        And now we get to training. Yes access to machine guns should be limited utill you are properly trained. Anyone who carries a gun should be trained. How you managed to get to your 18th birthday without being trained should be the question.

        1. avatar Ben says:

          There should be no training requirements to own a gun, its not within the governments authority to “restrict” ownership based on arbitrary “training” requirements. The constitution considers the 2nd and the 1st “god given rights”. But that’s an argument we could go around on for days. I do agree training should happen and it should be mandatory in school, just like any other life skill the school is supposed to teach. You could train kids with basic marksmanship using airguns and 22lr’s and the country would be a better and safer place for it.

          Machine guns should be 100% legal, not just “legal for the rich” like they are now thanks to the 1986 law. Bump stocks are no more a MG then your finger or a rubberband is a MG. MGs are not defined by rate of fire otherwise I could go buy a world war two grease gun or a WWII german MP40 since both have cyclic rates slow enough many people can pull the trigger faster (especially the grease gun). MGs are no more dangerous (and often less dangerous) then a semi auto weapon. Why? Because most people put most of the rounds into the sky when they use a MG because of the recoil. A good example is the hollywood shootout. Even though they fired near 1000 rounds I believe, all at full auto, they didn’t kill anyone thanks to the fact that they sucked at using guns and aiming. Had they used semi-auto they might have actually scored some hits. The vegas shooter hit so many people not because of a bumpstock but because he was firing into a dense crowd and he was using optics. I’ve said repeatedly that if they truely wanted to regulate based on that scenario the only logical conclusion is to regulate optics. Without magnified optics he wouldn’t have hit nearly as many people (but of course banning scopes is moronic and impossible).

          We can’t and shouldn’t attempt to legislate based in individual crimes. The number of crimes involving bumpstocks are basically zero, and the number of crimes involving rifles is basically zero+1. Even spending the tiniest amount of time trying to regulate them clearly shows the politicians true colors. It shows that he/she isn’t at all concerned about the effects it has on crime and instead they are only interested in continuing the process of chipping away at gun rights in whatever manner they can.

        2. avatar binder says:

          Why do people think that lack of training is somehow a virtue with the second amendment. Never mind that the chances of you effectively using any of your other rights without training are fairly hopeless. And the second amendment is one right where lack of training is likely to get other people killed. But like I said, you should not be able to get out of high school with the training needed.
          And this BS that auto guns are not any more dangers is true except for one issue, mowing down crowds. Vegas the guy scored hits on 422 individuals. The bump fire stock was very effective, the only thing that was not was a 556 round at 500 meters. At that range you getting close to a 22 lr in velocity. Now imagine if he had a belt fed 308. I bet he could have gotten the kills up to 200-500 easy. Belt fed light machine guns from a elevated fortified positing are a real bitch to protect crowds against.
          You are never going to be able to get you machine gun, you know why. Someone is going to use one to mow down a bunch of people and they are going to just pass another law and then say goodbye. With luck, they will not grab a bunch of other guns. Last time they got SBRs SBSs and silencers too and almost managed to get handguns.

        3. avatar Alan says:

          Other things aside, Bump Stocks Are Not Machine Guns, no matter who might say that they are. Anyone who doesn’t know the difference between a semiautomatic rifle equipped with a Bump Stock, and a Machine gun should do just a bit of research before speaking publically on the subject.

        4. avatar binder says:

          Exactly. Here are the arguments that it is:
          1: Take a but stock pad some zip ties and an appropriate spring and now it is a machine gun according to the AFT. That’s the original configuration that did not get past the ATF. Easily convertible is the reason you can no longer get open bolt guns

          2 The fact that you can replace you trigger finger with a zip tie kind of kills the argument that you are pulling the trigger. (this is the real reason I view it is one). Even Slide Fire never mentions pulling the trigger in it’s published manual of arms.

          3: Removing a spring from what was at first classified as a machine gun that then results in an even more effective device does not unmake it from being a machine gun.

          4. When people start using the argument “simulated” automatic fire, you are already at losing the end of the argument. Just like a Sig Brace is not really a stock, have you seen the new ones with the much better length of pull?

          But the best reason is this. They already have a “bump sled”. Set up with a belt fed AR10 and he would have scored 300 kills and then all shit would have rained down. As it is the ONLY reason we are not swimming in it was the range to the target greatly reduced the effectiveness of the rounds.

        5. avatar MarkPA says:

          Binder, you are on the right track with respect to training. But what position – exactly -should we, the PotG, promote?

          I assume that we are ALL Constitutionalists here. Agreed? Very well, then, Article 1 Section 8 empowers the Congress to “prescribe the discipline for the militia” and contemplates that the several States are to “train according to the discipline prescribed by Congress.” There it is, in ink on parchment. Don’t like it? Too bad; it’s the supreme law of the land. Congress has no power to prescribe, e.g., training in arithmetic, unless it is loading a rifle “by the numbers”.

          Who comprise the members of the militia? Provided that the definition encompasses “the whole body of the People”, that definition has long been a legislative prerogative. Women were traditionally exempted; but, a State’s legislators or Congress might conclude differently today. Ferrymen were sometimes exempted, but that could change. Age limits varied somewhat from time to time. I see no impediment to Congress prescribing Eddie Eagle “discipline” for young children. And so forth.

          Once a vigorous plan for training the “militia” according to the “discipline prescribed by Congress” has been in-place for a decade or more, we will begin to approach (albeit never reach) 100% training to arms. Whereupon, the argument for training as a prerequisite to keeping or bearing arms will recede into the background.

          Do we have any laws making it a prerequisite to complete formal training in the use of cutlery? Why not? Because our mothers and kindergarten teachers taught us all to ‘not run with scissors’! It’s part of the body of knowledge presumed to be universal.

          Imagining that day has come, we might suppose that gun-controllers might still advocate for a law requiring anyone to have the prescribed course of training to lawfully keep/bear arms. OK, but so what? Whom would the affected people be? Perhaps some members of a religious sect whose children escaped public school “militia” training? How hard would the gun-controllers work to push through such a law? Would the “infringement” be sufferable – considering the benefit of near-universal training to arms?

          Congress could – of course – impose unnecessarily rigorous training. E.g., basic training for SEALs or Green Berets. But would they do so? Such a possibility would be politically objectionable. It’s far more realistic to expect a curriculum on the order of Cub-Scout/Boy-Scout/Eagle-Scout training as the most that the whole of the People would tolerate.

          Most importantly, if we PotG simply advance such a proposal for Congressionally-prescribed militia training (having no hope of achieving that result), we put the Antis on the defense. IF they are SINCERE about gun-safety and ensuring that Americans who might come into contact with guns are trained, why would they OPPOSE such a common-sense and Constitutional solution? Since it’s for the children then it’s certainly worth serious consideration.

        6. avatar binder says:

          I would love to see us on the Swiss model, but just basic marksmanship would be nice. Get people to muster 2 times a year, but make it as much as a community event as actual military training. Have contests and celibate the second amendment. I’m sure you can find lots of people willing to help and instruct.

          And as a side note, we already have laws requiring the education of children (even though most people would still get their kids in school without the law.)

        7. avatar Dev says:

          Training requires licensing. Licensing is government registration. Ever drive a car legally?

  24. avatar Gov. William J Le Petomane says:

    It’s a good thing our founding fathers had the foresight to write the Bill of Needs so that we’d know that nobody NEEDS to hunt deer, ducks, squirrels and coyotes.

    1. avatar MarkPA says:

      A “Bill of Needs” you say? Why, yes-sir, they did! They did so in a couple of places. “. . . for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; . . . ” and, “. . . necessary for the preservation of a free state, . . . ” “Needful” and “necessary” are forms of the word “need”.

      While it’s true that the first 10 Amendments to the Constitution are casually referred to as the “Bill of Rights”, the import of that term is subject to interpretation in the context of each Constitutional provision – as well as the numerous provisions collectively. Is the People’s practice of “keeping” and “bearing” arms a mere “right”? Is the “[e]rection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, doc-Yards and other . . . “Buildings” a mere “power” of Congress?

      Arguably, we PotG error in our modest claim that we the People have a mere “right” to arms and the protection of Forts, etc. The founding generation ratified a Constitution, as amended, that determined that AT LEAST these FEW things were “NEEDs”. It is the DUTY of government to erect “Forts” etc. for the protection of the People. It is “necessary” that “the People” “keep and bear arms” to secure a “free state”.

      In our constitutional republic form-of-government IS there ANYwhere that the collective interest arguably trumps the individual interest? (E.g., that conscription for military service trumps the prohibition against involuntary servitude.) This IS, after all, the Progressive mantra; the collective interest is supreme in some cases. If we are to admit that such is the case, it is to be found where the Constitution declared the “necessity” of a particular provision; to-wit, “Forts” or “a well regulated militia”, which is to say the body of the People who are to keep and bear their own arms.

      Let’s not be timid about arms being merely among freedom of speech or freedom from cruel and unusual punishment. Let us be BOLD and POINT OUT that “the People” must “keep and bear arms” as a Constitutionally-enumerated NEED on a par with “Forts”, etc.!

  25. avatar Tom in Oregon says:

    “As of today, we have cut all professional ties with Rochelle.”

    Good. Hope he vets future shooters.

  26. avatar Eric Lawrence says:

    There is a YouTube video, made in 2015, now “unavailable” called “Rochelle Hathaway’s Insane Splits”, that apparently showed her shooting with Team Taran Butler. She is apparently not just a booth babe hired only to showcase the product and has a deeper history than expected.


    In fact there are many, now unavailable, videos of her training and shooting with Team Taran. My guess is that Nick was right when describing her as a sponsored shooter.

    1. avatar MeRp says:

      https://youtu.be/0eo7CpoKZK4 Also has them both shooting, and is still available.

      She’s a shooter.

      Taran Tactical made a public statment saying they’ve severed all ties, etc:


  27. avatar Jason says:

    I saw Taran walking around SHOT. If you can call it walking. It was more like parading around SHOT. He was Flanked by FIVE Female Spokesmodels on each side. One of whom was Rochelle. All the women, and Taran were wearing the exact same outfit; the same outfit Rochelle is pictured above wearing. Back in the 90s I used to have bike shorts that had that pattern on them. Anyway, he and his entourage just looked like a bunch of Clowns. Probably a good thing only the girl’s boobs were hanging out, I don’t think I could bear to see Taran’s.

    1. avatar Gunr says:

      I don’t know who this Taran Dude/broad?? is. I really thought this was a babe. If it’s not, he’s sure trying to look like one.

  28. avatar raptor jesus says:

    “You don’t need to own a semiautomatic”

    – Video of her shooting a semiautomatic –

    . . . . .

    1. avatar Stereodude says:

      Maybe she didn’t own it. 😛

  29. avatar AngryAZ says:

    Yaaaa she wasn’t tired for her thinking skills or opinions…. And soon enough she isn’t going to young and hot enough for people to fake like they care about her as a meatbag

  30. avatar Green Mtn. Boy says:

    She is free to give anyone she wishes her guns or anything else however she speaks for herself.

  31. avatar Mack Bolan says:

    Apparently she is low enough IQ to not understand how her bread gets buttered. Lets hope she doesn’t vote.

  32. avatar Shire-man says:

    Too bad people paid to be pretty aren’t smart enough to realize their careers are best served by keeping their mouths shut.

  33. avatar JS says:

    Im sure there are many people who still believe blacks should not be free, or women should not be able to vote or you should be told what religion to worship. All this shows is, just like the others, how ignorant she truly is.

  34. avatar Joe R. says:

    She’ll never be safe until the government takes away her birthday.

  35. avatar Swarf says:

    Straight from the horse’s mouth.

  36. avatar IAmNotTheHulk says:

    Wow! Shes adept at talking her way out of a job.

  37. avatar Koolhed says:

    I wouldn’t blame Taran. He’s been nothing but a hard-core proponent of all aspects of the Second Amendment.

  38. avatar TheUnspoken says:

    Working herself out of a job, both short term and long, maybe hoping to make the jump to Glamour model?

    If the government takes all the semi guns and only lets you have three, I guess ye olde 3 gun would be a bolt action rifle, pump shotgun and revolver? No wait, make that a lever gun for the rifle. Actually, maybe that crazy Australian lever shotgun, and a mare’s leg for pistol, only one manual is arms. I mean, that could be kinda fun in a retro way but not as mandated. Assuming they stop at semi guns.

  39. avatar Aaron M. Walker says:

    See…Not one of the regular shooting hotties from TT…Just some noob they were training…Probably not one of the brightest bulbs—cute though…And she most likely got caught in a “Guerrilla Media, political hit piece…She may have even been taken out of context…We don’t know—we weren’t there……Most of the TT girls are fine !”

    1. avatar Aaron M. Walker says:

      I hope this girl sues the CRAP out of Glamour Magazine for destorying her niche side job…I mean we all don’t know what transpired with this individual and this so called Glamour mag. writer…..Like I said, maybe it was a ” FAKE NEWS—ANTI 2ND AMENDMENT HIT PIECE !” This poor NOOB girl 👧 probably got caught up in the mean spirited Lib-TARD PRO-Aggressive politics” without knowing…Taken out of context, just blatant lies…..

    2. avatar Frank Bullitt says:

      She was one of the regulars. Her visit to his private range has been ongoing for years and she certainly has been propped up as a legit shooter when you look at any pages showing her at Taran Tactical, especially on the Youtube channel.

  40. avatar TroutsBane says:

    I think some of these comments hurt the gun community more than what one lady at a show says. Drop the ad hominem attacks and argue on substance.

    1. avatar Lucas D. says:

      Reading the God-damned article before commenting would also do some folks a lot of good, since many commenters seem to be under the impression that either Taran Butler made those statements (which he did not) or that his company somehow endorsed the clueless bint who actually did (they fired her ass right away).

  41. avatar CarlWinslo says:

    I bet Springfield will sponsor her.

  42. avatar Sal Chichon says:

    That woman is a stupid asshole.

  43. avatar Indy Jones says:

    you know what’s funny? that glamour article was a complete disaster for them. 12 women interviewed by a clearly anti 2a reporter, and 11 of the 12 told her to go fk herself. just this one poor, misguided girl took the bait.

  44. avatar ironicatbest says:

    . Let’s say we can only own 3 firearms. A good topic, which 3 would it be? For me that would be.30-06, .22 handgun, and 12 gauge shotgun.

    1. avatar JeffInCa says:

      Yeah… I, uh, only own 3 now… yeah.

      AR15 varmint gun, SR25 heavy hitter, 10mm 1911. Covers it for me. Well… I’d like a 9mm range toy too… Oh and a carry guy… Oh and a shotgun. And a magnum wheelgun.

  45. avatar Troybilt says:

    So many misinform TTAG commenters! Did you even read the story at all? It’s embarrassing.

    (1) Sponsored Shooter not a day hire.

    (2) The company released her of her sponsorship quickly after finding out.

    (3) Oh and my favorite. He is a she.

    I think this was handled as well as it could of been for as little info that is out there.

    1. avatar DaveR says:

      The TTAGtard comments get especially strong when the post is political. Not reading the story correctly is the minimal level of ignorance to be expected here. After this, the usual ad hominem comments seem to turn really ugly when the subject of the piece is a woman. While I don’t believe that most gun owners are ignornant, mysogenist, assh*les, their propensity to comment all over the place sure makes the rest of us look bad

      1. avatar NateInPA says:

        Thank you, I was thinking the same thing.

      2. avatar MarkPA says:


        Whenever in a position to be seen as a representative of a group, one has a duty to “put his best foot forward”. Ad hominem attacks do the opposite.

        Sometimes I wonder if the gun-controllers troll gun-boards posting foul language and graceless attacks in order to generate evidence of how ill-mannered we PotG are accused of being.

        Then, again, I realize that lots of people are ill-mannered and so – in a community comprising 1/3 of the population – such people will also own guns. Well, then, fellas. Keep it up. You are just making it twice as hard for the rest of us to build credibility with non-gun-owning voters. If we fail to overcome the ballast you provide you can be proud of yourselves for your part in sinking the cause.

    2. avatar Ardent says:

      I was waiting for someone to set this out as its own piece. . . the level of reading comprehension (or mis-comprehension) on display here does make us all look bad. That article is too short and too plain to have been so badly misread by so many. While I realize emotional responses don’t tend to play well with higher order cognitive tasks like reading comprehension, something really ought to be done.

      I propose this that TTAG begin an Idiotic Comment of the Day section in which they (we) lambast the dumbest thing said by a commenter the preceding day. It’s social, interactive and fun, with the bonus effect of (hopefully) causing people to actually read the article in question before commenting, and tempering their comments with thought and care before posting.

      When a commenter with a known good track record earns the award, I’m sure most would laugh about their error(s), I know I would. With some of the others, especially those at risk of winning the award on a weekly basis, perhaps it will drive them to silence, which is really a win for everyone.

      1. avatar MarkPA says:

        I second this proposal.

        1. avatar Kenneth says:

          I third it.
          And vote for it. Do the “ayes” have it RF? Its a hell of an idea. Its not like the “____ of the day” isn’t already a thing…

  46. avatar Jake says:

    Glad they gave her the BUM’S RUSH just as fast as Remington gave Leghorn the BUM’S RUSH at Shot Show 2015. It was fun to witness, I must say.

  47. avatar Steve Day says:

    The ignorant little gun-bunny will have to find a new way to whore herself out.

    1. avatar JB says:

      Inappropriate and unnecessary. Let’s try to take the high road with our language skills. You can convey her lack of understanding of her “business” world or your disappointment without the use of this.

  48. avatar Chris Morton says:

    Honey, I know YOU aren’t going to take my guns.

    My question is, “Whom are you going to send, and what are you going to do when they don’t come back…?”

  49. avatar M9er says:

    Taran, don’t sponsor the hypocritical idiot anymore. She doesn’t deserve to go to SHOT or carry a gun. She can go back to a slingshot and/or a pea-shooter.

  50. avatar Libertarian says:

    boycot the sponsors from the hypocrite my 50 cent

  51. avatar Publius says:

    Now we wait for her to #metoo Taran for firing her after she directly tried to harm his business and the entire industry.

  52. avatar little horn says:

    yet another sheltered, self-entitled blonde telling everyone else how to live.

  53. avatar TC says:

    I shouldn’t be surprised that a “Millennial” is so Constitutionally and historically ignorant. She most likely attended a Government indoctrination Center AKA Public Schools where our history and Founding Fathers were trashed. On the subject of the right to keep and bear arms, she really needs to get educated. Here’s a great primer on the subject: http://krisannehall.com/lesson-gun-control-2/

  54. avatar NateInPA says:

    It’s no wonder why more women don’t join our side of the 2A battle.
    If you read down through here at some of the comments, there are a lot of big-headed asses, that if you talked to my wife or daughter that way, you’d be eating your teeth.

    This woman may be an idiot, but to call her everything from “a useless hatchet wound” to a “bimbo” and “a whore” is beyond necessity.

    All you frat boys must be proud of yourselves.

    *slow clap*

  55. avatar Brad Colburn says:

    Your fired!

  56. avatar Gerald says:

    Shades of Zumbo.

  57. avatar Mikial says:

    This is similar to Recoil Magazine’s infamous 2012 MP7A1 article in which the mags editor (Jerry Tsai) stated that no civilian should ever be allowed to own an MP7A1. If you are closely associated with the shooting enthusiast world, you need to put your brain in gear before putting your mouth in motion because the Liberal anti-rights fascists will jump on anything you say that they can use to further their agenda. And if you truly do believe the free people of America should have restrictions placed on the Constitutional Rights, then I for one, would be happy to show you to the door.

  58. avatar Victoryman says:

    Just another airhead looking for her 15 minutes of fame.

  59. avatar Alan says:

    Is one supposed to take this clown seriously?

  60. avatar roscoethehat says:

    Have to say I find it so strange that someone (anyone) who enjoys a right would be silly enough to compare why “anyone needs…” when the “need” has NO PART in the right. One would think an active member of the sport would understand that.

  61. avatar Jim Macklin says:

    Prior to 1836 women had to be accompanied by at least one man since all firearms were big heavy and and slow to operate. Common weapons were sabers. Women lacked the upper body strength necessary to effectively use the sabers, muskets and horse pistols of te day.
    Sam Colt invented a small, reliable and portable revolver and created women’s liberation.
    Unfortunately public schools do no not teach rigorous logic, this this person does not recognize that a woman alone attacked by a gang of rapists and murderers has a great need for an AR and 30 round magazines.
    Ask Sharon Tate, if you can, if she’d like to have had an AR the night she was murdered.

    1. avatar MarkPA says:

      This is our new tag-line:

      “Samuel Colt: Inventor of the great equalizer; founder of women’s liberation.”

      That’s memorable enough, and provocative enough, to register and be repeated.

  62. avatar Ricky Cutie says:

    Young – dumb – full of uh “crap” this is a little girl trying to make everyone happy and in doing so makes them all mad

  63. avatar Anonymous says:

    Just another totalitarian looking forward on forcing her opinion on everyone everywhere.

    Does she need to change? Nope. Everyone else needs to change and the government needs to enact her latest version of social engineering to make it happen.

    Inside every leftist is a totalitarian scratching and clawing to get out.

  64. avatar Erik Weisz says:

    I have 3 Taran Tactical extended mag bases and I like them. Glad to see she’s been fired, so I don’t have to throw them away.

  65. avatar MarkPA says:

    “. . . if there were less guns, there would be less shootings, period.”

    Is the relationship linear? Is the relationship factor 1:1? Suppose we cut the number of guns (or knives) by 50%, would the number of shootings (stabbings) drop by 50%, 5% or 0.05%? By how much would we need to reduce the number of guns (knives) to reduce shootings (stabbings) by – say – 75%?

    “. . . 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.” OK, so if many homes – say 1/3 – had 3 guns would there be any change in the number of unlawful shootings? Do you need a legal semiautomatic if your home invader has an illegal semiautomatic? Why do Americans NOT need a silencer whereas Europeans regard them as necessary for the preservation of normal hearing and noise control?

    “I don’t think they had AK-47s and everything else in mind [when they imagined] the right to bear arms and protecting yourself.” “well regulated . . . necessary for the preservation of a free state . . . ” indicates – very clearly – that the arms contemplated would be those sufficient to achieve the intended ends. “Well regulated” meant at that time “effective” and “fit for purpose”. And, that purpose was opposing regular troops, whether foreign or domestic, as well as pirates, hostile natives, or criminals. Even SCOTUS in Caetano unanimously concluded that the 2A was not limited to muzzle-loaders of the time.

  66. avatar ROBERT MOOREFIELD says:


  67. avatar President Trump says:


    Thank you very much, I’ll be here all these next 3 years!

  68. avatar Marus (Aurelius) Payne says:

    Again the usual fallacy that having fewer “shootings” is what is important, when it’s really neither here nor there. What’s important is fewer homicides, potentially fewer suicides and accidental deaths, all regardless of method, since there is no fundamental difference between death by one method over another.

    The UK and Australia both have demonstrated that sweeping gun control legislation leads to an increase in overall homicides, even reversing a downward trend that existed before the gun control was enacted, while the US continued that same downward trend (even to today) with no sweeping gun control laws. The US has also demonstrated a decrease in accidental deaths from guns while sales have increased in the last several years.

    “Shootings” alone are one term in a massive equation and the full reality is that fewer guns mean fewer normal people able to stop criminals from victimizing them.

  69. avatar Jethro B. says:

    Well golly, Miss Hathaway, I reckon you’s about as dumb as a cee-ment pond!

  70. avatar Oregon Hobo says:

    To everyone slagging on the gun-bimbo’s looks: While one might fairly characterize Ms. Hathaway as an ornament offering high liability and minimal practical value, I propose that her ability to get hired as a corporate flight attendant based in Maui strongly implies that you are wrong about her physical attractiveness.

    Maybe I’m off base but I get the impression that a lot of guys have trouble enjoying a woman without the lady clown paint, yet at the same time can’t even tell whether she’s wearing it or not. Perhaps that’s what’s happening here?

    To everyone calling for a boycott: Mr Butler did the right thing. He disavowed and canned her promptly. No marketroid doublespeak bs. Meanwhile Glamour interviewed 2 other ladies from Taran Tactical (scroll up from the gun-bimbo), who both sound comfortably and authentically based. It’s great that gun owners are so energetic about voting with their wallets but these are not the droids you are looking for.

    Mr. Butler seems to me like a stand-up guy who let a nice-looking bimbo into his circle without much scrutiny, then when she acted out publicly, he cut her out again with no dithering and no [further] drama. In other words he made the most common man-mistake in the universe, then handled it as well as could be expected of anyone.

    There is nothing to indicate that Mr. Butler nor the rest of the people who work for him are anti-gun. Find someone more worthy of your boycotts instead of doing our enemies’ work for them and crushing a genuinely gun-friendly business and all the POTG families who depend on that business, especially after they already cut the b**** loose in a heartbeat.

    Happy trails,


  71. avatar Guy Boroughs says:

    If she wasn’t a booth babe, and was sponsored…. She will soon only be a flight attendant. No one will ever sponsor her again. I fly a lot. I hope I never run into her. Pretty on the outside, Stupid on the inside.
    … man i hope I never have her as an attendant.

Write a Comment

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

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email