I fell for nothing. BRCC could have easily said that while they don't sponsor Kyle, they believe in the 2nd Amendment and one's right to self-defense. Yet they didn't. Words have meaning.
You can believe in the 2A and not inject your company into an extremely controversial subject and PR battle. These positions are not mutually exclusive.
Kyle is innocent until proven guilty, and the evidence shown thus far indicates self-defense. Are those things controversial? Why could another company state that and not BRCC? It reeks of political correctness and caving to the mob.
You're right, they DO have meaning. Here's a similar statement about the non-sponsorship of Kyle, with a VERY important difference:
"We don’t sponsor or have a relationship with Kyle either.
But if he wants a free bag of coffee or T-shirt...he can have one.
He is one of the few folks who actually stood up to domestic terrorism and we hope to see the courts find him innocent."
https://twitter.com/smcroasters/status/1330460969752027137
You fell for their much smaller competitor's PR stunt lol
I fell for nothing. BRCC could have easily said that while they don't sponsor Kyle, they believe in the 2nd Amendment and one's right to self-defense. Yet they didn't. Words have meaning.
You can believe in the 2A and not inject your company into an extremely controversial subject and PR battle. These positions are not mutually exclusive.
Kyle is innocent until proven guilty, and the evidence shown thus far indicates self-defense. Are those things controversial? Why could another company state that and not BRCC? It reeks of political correctness and caving to the mob.