San Antonio Publication Apologizes for ‘Offensive’ Email ‘Invoking Patriotism’ and Founding Fathers
“Earlier today, our advertising department sent an offensive sponsored email invoking patriotism and the spirit of ‘our founding fathers’ by promoting the sale of U.S. flag emblazoned pistols.”
San Antonio, TX, is literally known as Military City USA. The city trademarked the term in 2017.
“San Antonio is home to one of the largest concentrations of military bases in the United States,” states the city’s tourism page. “San Antonio is also home to the Department of Defense’s largest medical center at Joint Base San Antonio Fort Sam Houston. We are very proud to welcome the families of the 39,000 students who graduate from military training here each year, because for us, training, equipping and caring for America’s service members is a way of life. We are Military City, USA ®. And, we could not be more proud.”
The background is important to know before you read the post. I’m glad my friend reminded me of San Antonio’s nickname and forwarded me these emails.
The San Antonio Current, a publication you find in restaurants and bars, apologized for an offensive “sponsored email invoking patriotism and the spirit of ‘our founding fathers’ by promoting the sale of U.S. flag emblazoned pistols.”
Here are screenshots of the offensive sponsored email.
The email went out with the subject line “For Those Who Love America.”
The link sends you to Heirloom Arms.
The page shows you the “Those Who Founded America Pistol.”
It states: “The 1911 pistol is an American icon for it was designed over 100 years ago and is still one of the most reliable firearms in history. Designed and created by John Browning, the 1911 pistol has been carried into combat by many brave Americans over the years. We could think of no better American made icon to etch our Founding Father’s legacy.”
The gun celebrates our Founding Fathers:
Our nation’s 250th Anniversary will be here within the next 3 years and Heirloom Arms is producing limited editions for what has made America great. There would be no anniversary to celebrate if it was not for the brave souls who have come to be known as our Founding Fathers. These men faced hardships and risked their lives for the sake of a better tomorrow. Our country will forever be indebted to these men for they laid the foundation to our nation.
As our nation faces troubles today, we must fight to defend our founding fathers principles and values. One of the principles our Founding Fathers held dear was the ability for us to defend ourselves against enemies foreign and domestic. The 2nd Amendment gives us the right to bear arms and we celebrate this right by etching their legacy into steel.
I emailed the publisher with a few questions. I want to know how many people found it offensive. I also want to know what part the publication finds tone deaf since our troops constantly defend our freedoms.
If the publisher responds I will update the email.
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
“….insulting to some of our staff and leadership.”
Politely ask them to leave the publication. I’ll bet it uplifted way more hearts than insulted.
Eedjits.
Why ‘politely’?
It never hurts to be polite up front. Doesn’t cost anything and you can always escalate to be impolite and/or insisting later. Personally I prefer to be polite and allow the tone/style of communication the other party adopts in response to influence my next steps.
Sometimes a less polite approach also works. If the fired party gets stupid, let the police deal wtih them.
“Staff and leadership”? Names, please.
I would like to see the names that were offended. and then I would like to see a response from the city if they no longer support the military—or if this publication no longer sells to the military—the San Antonio area benefits greatly from all the military that live and work there as well as all the businesses that thrive there also because of the military.
Obviously, The San Antonio Current would rather not be associated with “Those Who Love America.”
If you haven’t been to San Antonio lately
It’s “to those who Love Mexico “
Viva La Mexico
Clearly they are Those Who Are No Longer Our Countrymen.
What’s the MSRP on those? ‘Cause I want one! (But I probably can’t afford it.)
Absolutely beautiful craftsmanship (from the small pictures here) on an iconic firearm. Is the firearm, itself, built by Heritage? Is it .45ACP?
Also, am curious to find out if you ever hear back from the “journalists” at the Organic Patchouli Co-Op Paper.
It is absolutely gorgeous. I clicked the link Mary provided ( https://heirloomarms.com/product/foundingfathers/ ), and there is no price listed, but they are being hand-crafted to order, so between that fact and there being no price listed, I’m guessing it’s not cheap.
I did find this link but have no idea if it’s on point or not: https://truegunvalue.com/pistol/heirloom/price-historical-value
I want one so bad!!!
So do I!!!
And it will go “bang” if you need it to. As the late Jeff Cooper pointed out… anyone needing to be shot should be shot with a Colt Gov’t 45. (Pause… hand over heart remembering John Moses Browning).
“If you have to ask, you can’t afford it.”
I would have clicked the link, but it’s the sort of site that is blocked where I am at the moment.
Don’t! 😛 You’ll just want it even more when you can see it close up and from all angles. Sigh.
There’s no price listed, but I notice that they want a $1000 deposit. I don’t even want to guess what the final price might be.
Well I don’t like safe queens. Is Kahr still manufacturing for Auto Ordinance? In the 80s and 902 you surely would not have wanted one of these. They were very low quality. Kahr took over manufacturing the brand and I heard very good things about those.
the apology letter is more offensive.
Absolute truth.
What is WRONG with people?
We know what’s wrong with them: willful ignorance, corruption and narcissistic arrogance.
It wasn’t principles but a good intuition for structural stability that the founding fathers had.
Today feelings trump structural stability, which shows why women didn’t have the vote back then. Another intuition about structural stability that they had.
So, you’re saying that women shouldn’t be allowed to vote?
I don’t think that’s his point. His point is that the ability to have emotional ignoramuses as a voting bloc is terminal to a democracy or a Republic. The gender of the emotional ignoramuses is irrelevant.
Not so. If gender was irrelevant, he would not have said that “women” didn’t have the vote back then. He’s clearly saying that women vote according to their “feelings” and that’s why they didn’t have the vote back then, and strongly insinuating that they shouldn’t have the vote now either, because they vote according to their feelings.
He says that all time. Apparently, in his little world of wonder boys are Republicans and girls are Democrats. Or something.
In fairness in the 2020 Presidential vote the M/F choice of candidate does seem to illustrate the or at least a difference in how men and women view politics and the role of govt in broad terms.
Men broke around 52% Trump to 48% Biden
Women broke around 57% Biden to 42% Trump
Obviously that’s not all women voting d/prog just as not all men vote GoP but there is definitely a difference reflected in the numbers.
What does that show, though, in relation to this discussion about women having the right to vote? I mean more women voted for Reagan in ’80 than for Carter. Do we get to keep the right to vote now? Or are you suggesting that all women lose the right to vote, including the 42% of us who voted for Trump? You’re seriously going there?
I didn’t state any of those things. Why would you immediately jump to impugn my motives and aggressively seek to put words into my mouth which have a such a negative connotation totally divorced from anything I actually stated. Your action is unfair and uncalled for.
I believe the discussion was about the assertion that:
‘ today feelings (emotion) trump structural stability which shows why women didn’t have the vote back then’
My interpretation of the statement was the implication that the founders didn’t grant women the right to vote b/c they tended to be emotional v logical in thought/action.
Personally that assertion doesn’t seem accurate to me b/c women didn’t have the vote anywhere at the time and the decision of the founders in this regard wasn’t based on whether women were able to put aside emotional impulses and think/act logically.
In this instance your reaction to my statement of facts re the 2020 election in which I specifically stated that any inference was not universally applicable seems to have been made in anger; an emotional v logical response.
FWIW I don’t think the 19th amendment should be repealed. I have stated this directly to you on more than one occasion. However, I have observed a tendency on your part to make what I would call angry/emotional replies whenever you believe someone is even implying that women shouldn’t be able to vote. In fact you have previously admitted as much.
“Admitted” it?!? Like that’s a failing? What’s wrong with my getting angry over talk about denying me of my Constitutional rights: whether it’s my 1st, 2nd, 4th, or 19th Amendment right?
‘Admitted’ to an overly emotional, hair trigger response without taking time to think it through. I didn’t make an argument in favor of repealing the 19th amendment. Your angry response to me is misplaced.
Keep in mind that my comment on this was in response to your own response to fine report where you stated; ‘Apparently in his little world of wonder boys are republicans and girls are democrats. Or something’.
This seemed to me to be a.sarcastic statement that you used to dismiss the idea of any alignment or link between sex of the voter and choice of the voter.
I responded to this by providing the 2020 exit poll breakdown by sex which indicates, IMO, that there is more than a grain of truth to the argument that men and women have different voting patterns.
Instead of taking that at face value you instead choose to impugn my motives and accuse me of things I didn’t say or do. Getting angry at someone who made an argument in favor of revoking constitutional rights is justified, but I didn’t do that.
I also have an “overly emotional, hair trigger response” when people propose depriving me of my 1st and 2nd Amendment rights, but no one here in our comment section proposes that, so you haven’t been treated to my response to that.
Though, actually you have, because you’ve read enough of my posts over the years railing against those seeking to infringe on our rights to free speech, association, religion, and bear arms. I feel the exact same way about talk about infringing my Constitutional right to vote. So weird that you’ve never complained about my attitude toward those seeking to deprive me of my right to free speech or to bear arms; it’s only inappropriate when it’s about my right to VOTE? Yeah, whatever.
People in general tend to have emotional and irrational responses. That’s one reason the Founders created a Republic instead of a Democracy. It has worked pretty well, but is currently suffering.
On the average, men and women differ in how they think. One hopes that those toward the centers of the bell curves will prevail.
Fuzzy,
I am pointing out that your angry response to me in this instance is uncalled for. I didn’t propose taking any rights away from you, much less the repeal of the 19th amendment.
All I did was provide facts re the voting patterns isn’t sex in 2020 to refute your implication within your statement ‘..boys are Republicans…. girls are democrats..’ that no discernable difference exists.
That’s all. Just stated facts. You chose to jump to unsupported conclusions re my statement. You chose to impugn my motives. You chose to allow yourself to be ruled by emotion and make an impulsive decision to attack me based upon you compounded errors.
You didn’t seek clarification from me to determine if perhaps your interpretation was in error such as ‘hey did you mean to say ‘X’ b/c that’s what I’m getting from it?’ Instead you leaped directly into attack mode without any confirmation of the legitimacy of the target.
Now you seek to justify yourself by claiming that you are, in essence, so passionately invested in the defense of liberties in general as to prevent you from doing otherwise than launching immediate and unthinking responses. Of course, that justification even if we stipulate to its validity, isn’t applicable to me in this instance b/c I didn’t make any statement about reining in any of your liberties.
The ironic thing is that your irrational behavior, which you admit to by claims of justification for your impulsive and emotional responses, actually work to lend support to the original implication/contention made by rhhardin; that women were denied the franchise by the founders due to their unstable (emotional/impulsive) nature. A statement to which I disagreed then and still do FWIW.
You ain’t perfect. Get off your high horse. However rare your errors may be, this is certainly one of them.
Here’s the conversation, Chief:
You entered a conversation specifically about denying women their Constitutional right to vote and then get all butthurt that I responded indignantly.
Let’s try this with another topic:
Person 1: So you’re saying Americans shouldn’t have the right to bear arms?
Person 2: He says that all the time, he claims that more Republicans than Democrats have guns, so we have to even the score by ensuring no one is allowed to own a gun.
Person 3: Well, actually, more Republicans than Democrats DO have guns. [insert stat and blah blah] Not saying we have to arm up Democrats or take guns from Republicans, but he does make a good point.
Uh-huh. So you weighed in just to hear yourself confirm the right-grabber’s presumed (by me) argument, but you didn’t mean to comment on the actual point (grabbing Constitutional rights) he was making. This makes sense how?
Clearly you feel stung by my (relatively tame) response, and I hate that I hurt you, but if you’re going to share your thoughts on issues related to infringing my Constitutional rights, that’s what is going to happen. Every. Single. Time. No, I’m not perfect, and one of my flaws is that I get extremely indignant, angry, and ticked all the way off when someone starts talking about taking away my Constitutional rights. And that is not changing. It’s not even one of the “flaws” I’m working on.
Fuzzy,
My post about the 2020 numbers was in response to your post which implied no correlation between sex and voting patterns.
No hidden meanings in there to be mined for. Yet you continue to operate on the (mistaken) presumption that my post presenting facts about the voting patterns by sex was somehow endorsing any particular viewpoint.
Assume there’s a thread of ten posts/replies and I c!we late to the party. Am I then responding to every post in the thread? No. If there’s a general disagreement and sides being drawn up and I state an objective fact relevant to the discussion have I then joined a side? No.
Does my comment to you automatically link or associate me with every other post in the thread? No.
You keep trying to justify yourself and now seem to invoke guilt by association.
I am simply asking you judge me by what I post and limit the context to the specific person I comment/reply to. This would be a far easier and more fair standard to use v trying to suss out hidden meanings and unstated themes.
What you are doing here is similar to the leftists searching for ‘dog whistles’ that don’t exist in neutral language and plain reading of the statement or text.
It really is a case of ‘fire, aim, ready’.
I absolutely adore you, Chief! I’m not judging you at all! The thread was more sparse when you responded, and the context was such that it was absolutely about denying women their Constitutional right to vote. Color me crazy, but I object to that just as strongly as I object to proposals to limit or abolish any of my other Constitutional rights.
I have explained how I viewed your initial response TO ME in the context of the discussion (i.e. “What does that show, though, in relation to this discussion about women having the right to vote?”) because that is what the discussion was about. You took offense (and not to put too fine a point on it, but are clearly far more emotional about this than I, weird, right?) and here we are. I don’t have to justify myself, as I did nothing wrong. You jumped in to defend an argument about infringing on my right to vote. That’s how I saw (and still see) it. If that’s not what you intended, then fine. That’s good.
I propose a truce.
Texas Hill Country is no place for bedwetters.
There is really no place for bed setters anywhere.
I’m wondering if there is a place for a Nationalist Parry, with no apologies for their stand?
We wouldn’t want the sefl centered to think there is something bigger than themselves.
It’s when I read excrement such as this that I am tempted to think that our country’s goose is cooked and the damage done is irreparable. The vile Dumb-o-crats are toiling mightily, 24/7, to spread their corrosive socioeconomic, moral and cultural rot throughout all facets of American society.
The Chinese communist regime and Iranian regimes are laughing at us, and, why shouldn’t they? The fifth columnist Dumbs have turned self-flagellating subversion into an art form.
The military mission is a fraction of what it once was, and the city government has moved from relatively conservative to far left. Billing themselves as “military city” is a joke.
Depends on what has been militarized.
A look at https://www.sacurrent.com/ is sufficient to explain this.
Remember the Alamo? No! No! No! Putting up a defense and trying stop Mexicans from taking over Texas is racist. If liberals had their way they would tear it down and replace it with a welcome center.
They have
Just go into a Walmart from Dallas on down
All 3rd world
Is that you Jr? Lol
The Texicans and Tejanos who fought for independence didn’t see this coming!
It’s always amused me that TX hails as authentically Texan the (from a PR perspective) leading figures at the Alamo;
1. William Barrett Travis – from Alabama
2. Davy Crockett – from Tennessee
3. Jim Bowie – from Kentucky
Not to mention Sam Houston born in VA, raised in TN with a 3 year time out as a runaway living with the Cherokee.
On the other hand it’s hard to show more love or appreciation for and loyalty to your adopted Nation than to fight to protect it and willing to die in the process.
They all got to Texas as soon as they could
Use to be the rally call here
Wasn’t born here but got here as fast as I could
Now, the state is overrun
All those wide open spaces are gone
In such a short time
Air conditioning and politics
They sure did, most of them escaping drama back home. Sometimes a nagging wife or a jealous husband, sometimes legal issues, bankruptcy or just plain failure. TX was open, wild, full of unrealized promise and the Mexican govt was happy to have the settlers come in.
Posted this on the San Antonio Current a Twitter page:
“ Entered the USAF thru OTS in San Antonio. Graduated from USAF SP Officers Academy. Did medical residency at Wilford Hall. Daughter born there. Isn’t SA “Military City”?You mistake wasn’t in printing that firearms ad; it was in APOLOGIZING for it! Don’t be wusses. 🙄DO BETTER!😉”
I won’t buy such a pistol, because I don’t buy artwork that shoots, nor weapons pretending to be art. And I guarantee that it’s 20X more expensive than a FUNCTIONAL 1911 pistol.
Nor do I read the San Antonio Current, even though I live here in San Antonio, because it’s probably a far-left “woke” rag. Why did Heirloom Arms advertise in such a publication?
It’s “offensive” because some people were offended? Can anybody play this game?
“Offensive to some of our staff and leadership”
Sounds like only the ones at the paper were offended, par for the course of today’s mostly woke journalists.