Why, People who make gun and explosives should have boycotted movies that criminalize guns and explosions for their socialist agenda but use them anyway instead of celebrities. But why not make targets out of them and then revolt against their crap that make them famous and become a freedom fighter, plus exploding mansions and YouTube pansies that hate our gun rights. The answer yes.
Colion Noir said it best: "How can you watch a group of men shoot 12 people with AK-47s in a gun control utopia and still want to relegate my self-defense to a 7-round pistol? Think about that while you run around using the First Amendment to insidiously attack our Second."
The applicability of this statement is twofold. It is Liam Neesons First Amendment right in this nation to speak his mind, even if his opinion is attacking one of our bedrock rights as Americans, even if it demonstrates a remarkable shortsightedness, bias and historical ignorance. Similarly, these companies have the full right to choose who they do business with and if they decide vocally anti-gun celebrities are not the person they want representing their product, that is their right of commerce AND they can call them out on it, again using their First Amendment.
Gunmakers should boycott celebrities for these remarks because it is within their rights do so. If people are allowed freedom of speech in this country then others should be fully allowed to protest what they say. Freedom also brings responsibility. This is more apparent than ever in a state of social media frenzy that we have in the last five years.
Too many celebrities that make their living off guns and violence are peaking out against legal gun ownership. Many of them also own guns or have armed security. If they really felt so strongly about the matter, they would give up their guns, security and wealth gained from violent movies. Gun manufacturers should point out their double standard.
Why on earth should gun makers boycott them? Normal people make negative comments about guns, and they don't get boycotted. How would a gun maker even got about "boycotting" a celebrity? The company would become the laughingstock of all kinds of press. Is throwing a big temper tantrum going to change anyone's opinion? Celebrities can love animals without being a vegetarian. They can be a vegetarian without meat companies boycotting them. So, celebrities can make negative comments about guns all they want to.
I don't think you've thought this one through, question-writer. How exactly is a company going to "boycott" someone who doesn't do any business with them? Basically you're asking if a company with obligations to its shareholders and/or investors should stage a public temper tantrum that could negatively affect its bottom line. Won't happen.
Publicity, Publicity, Publicity... The old saying is any publicity is good publicity. If celebrity is making negative comments about guns, I doubt it is about a specific manufacturer and if it is, even the mention of the name of a gun maker by someonewho's in the lime-lite would be a bump in sales for them.
Whether the comments are positive or negative doesn't really matter when it is a celebrity making them. With today's instant world millions and millions of people will see that comment almost immediately and it will have an impact.