“Evan Hafer, the founder of Black Rifle Coffee Company, is an avid hunter, fisherman, gun enthusiast and coffee aficionado,” the BRCC’s website informs. “He spent his military career serving in the U.S. Army as an infantryman and Special Forces soldier. He deployed throughout the globe conducting numerous operations and training. Throughout his personal and professional life, Evan has not only been deploying in service to out country he has owned a coffee roaster and roasted coffee for himself and for multiple small, high-end restaurants.” I thank Mr. Hafer for his service and share his passion for coffee. But I am appalled at his company’s video above . . .

The BRCC’s attempt at humor is deeply offensive. It’s openly, unconscionably and violently anti-gay. The pseudo-water boarding torture sequence is shocking, well beyond the pale. The video’s tag line “Black Rifle Coffee. It’s not for BLEEPing pussies” adds insult to injury.

“An armed society is a polite society.” That’s the gun rights advocates’ way of reassuring wary Americans that gun owners are no threat to the values of tolerance, cooperation, education, self-improvement and equal opportunity that form the foundation of this country we love. And it’s true. Except when it isn’t.

When it isn’t true – when gun-owning Americans display intolerance or hatred towards their fellow Americans or, God forbid, act out their animus – our gun rights are a blessing, not just a boon. Civilian homosexuals have just as much a right to defend themselves by force of arms as straight Special Forces veterans. A right the LGBT community is well-advised to exercise.

Don’t get me wrong. I’m not suggesting that Mr. Hafer and his well-armed friends are a physical danger to homosexuals. But culturally – which is where the battle for gun rights is won or lost – with “marketing material” like this, BRCC are a threat to us all. They should delete this video, publicly apologize for its creation and send a large donation to Pink Pistols.

355 Responses to Gay-Bashing Black Rifle Coffee Company Video Dishonors Us All

    • anti gay…. who cares. the Violent part is the issue.

      at first i thought it was going to be a spoof of snickers and they would offer him their coffee, because he bought wimpy weak tasting coffee. would have been a good one. as snickers has had burley men become weak, gay or even girls from Hunger.

      the hauling him off to be water boarded is the issue.

      besides i know for certain Gay places of business have been denying business to straight for years in NYC NJ area. as long as they can do it, why not everyone else.

      • You a correct. And TV can even sensationalize it, the most recent Modern Family had gay only bowling and even took away the trophy for being straight.

        So gay only clubs are okay but straight only is a hate crime?

        Furthermore the video said the coffee is not for puss es, said nothing about gays. It is almost like your equating being gay to being a sissy which can be pretty offensive.

        • Splitting hairs. The best refuge of someone who’s argument is so porous that it becomes transparent. You know full well it’s not the kind of shit we need to be pushing into the public view. Gun owners are already mostly a bunch of dicks and people know it. Why rub it in their face.

    • This video proves there are too many overly sensitive people, trying their hardest to pretend to be offended. This video is making fun of hipsters and how American men are becoming more and more demasculaided over time. Not their fault if viewers are so sensitive that they jump to the conclusion they (BRCC) are anti-gay. They have come out and said they support LGBT rights and this was only ment to make fun of hipster. Sorry not sorry.

      • Spot on, while I didn’t find the video funny I did like their end slogan. Boys these days are busy playing video games, don’t want to hunt, won’t put a worm on their hook, can’t change a bicycle tire … let alone a car tire.

        I also think a lot of people confuse gay rights with gay entitlements. I have a cousin who is gay and we can hang out, enjoy a holiday, I just don’t want to hear about his gay escapades. That statement will be twisted by these hipsters as me being homophobic which is far from the truth. I just don’t want to hear about it. My straight cousins and I don’t talk about our sex life so why would I treat my gay cousin any different? It’s not homophobic, it’s tact.

        With all the gay articles and gay advertising I do think the staff around here may be those hipsters thinking it is cool to get on the rainbow bandwagon as a way to show gun owners are not intolerant. .. to me it screams “… I am not racist, I have a black friends.”

        Anyone here that is gay or straight. .. if you like to shoot and want a shooting buddy (I like to shoot every weekend) then I am your guy. We can discuss piston vs di, ar vs ak, 1911 vs Glock, or anything similar in between gun fire but sexual orrientation is best left a mystery because I definitely don’t want to be talking about my sex life.

      • I’m with you. Comedic quality and marketing effectiveness aside, neither of which arouses anyone’s ire, this commercial irks people purely because it pushes them to be honest or to be politically correct. Pure cognitive dissonance.

        In honesty, people would necessarily have to accept that charging this ad with “dishonoring us all” (who? coffee drinkers?) is itself dishonorable. Firearms ownership is about individuality, personal freedom and responsibility. Since when does that mandate being some namby pamby, don’t color outside the lines, type? How dare TTAG suggest that there exists some universal standard of taste we must all adhere to. You’re kicked out of the IndividualityClub the instant you act….individually? Talk about an infringed right! Nobody wants to concede that.

        Neither does anyone want to admit that they’re part of the hypersensitive politically correct crowd, either. For one, it plays into the grievance group paradigm and erodes individuality. Moreover, it helps drive the perpetual emotion machine that is the primary equipment of the factphobic, professional liberal worrywarts. Good grief.

        Gay bashing? Please. This is an imaginary depiction of roughhousing among old friends; exaggerated even by fictional standards and taking a form relevant to these characters.

        Nobody but those willfully overflowing with faux indignation would take this as a call to arms to harm guys who start their day with a cup of fancy coffee and a fresh slice of lemon loaf, whether intimate partners or not.

        I’m outraged by the outrage.

      • So you are saying that when they chose effeminate guy whom they filmed deepthroating a banana, it was all about making fun of hipsters and has nothing to do with gays?

        Sure, sure.

      • “… overly sensitive people …” brings to mind the “righteous indignation” of the uninvolved and uneducated gun-grabbers who try to be experts on subjects to which they apply the “emotional logic” of panic-stricken responses to everything they refuse to understand.

    • I will defend to the death BRCC’s right to say whatever they want to say about gays or any other topic that strikes their fancy. But I reserve MY right to say it’s wrong to demean homosexuals. Or anyone else, based on their color, creed or sexual orientation. And when it’s done from folks in the firearms community, it hurts us all.

      • RF is right, being intolerant of others, especially in such an in your face way hurts the 2A cause. Yes the 1A gives them the right but it doesn’t prevent them from being wrong

        • People have a right to tolerance, which means they should have legal recourse if another person harms their person or property, a right to free speech, a right to vote (if they are citizens), the right to bear arms in their own defense, etc. This video shows no evidence of intolerance.

          Bigotry, poor taste, lack of respect for their fellow human beings, and an early adolescent sense of humor? Check, check, check, and check.

      • “But culturally – which is where the battle for gun rights is won or lost …”

        Culturally is where the 1st is won or lost too….. so Its a wash…It’s better to Just leave both alone…

      • They have the right to make and post the video. The question is should they? Robert also has the right to suggest they shouldn’t post this type information. I would agree with Mr. Farago.

      • lol gays get made fun of in almost ever network show. they are the token character that somehow we must accept. but if a conservative non liberal does it… we are evil.

        but i do agree once they got to the point of dragging him off it went offensive.

        should have had them given him their coffee and some 6’6″ lumberjack type appear and thank them for a richer Stronger Manly Coffee.

        • Made fun of, sure. Often in on the joke and laughing along, sure.

          Waterboarded while screaming, “I’ll suck your dicks!” Not so much.

      • So it’s ok for Black comedians to tell jokes about White people. It’s even ok for White comedians to make jokes about Asians. But if ANYONE cracks a joke about homosexuals all of a sudden its off base and we’re all bigots for laughing.

        Lighten up, Francis.

    • “The Black Rifle Coffee Company should delete this video, publicly apologize for its creation and send a large donation to Pink Pistols.”

      You should carefully note that RF has offered his opinion and followed it by a suggestion to BRCC after clearly explaining his concerns and objections. Pretty sure the First Amendment is covered here and remains in good standing.

      • And you should sell all your guns and make a sizable donation to Mom’s Demand Action.

        cause god forbid anyone should get sand in their vagina…..

        • So gays and lesbians that support guns rights and publicly denounce “Moms demand action” should do what exactly?

        • I agree with RF. I won’t do anything to ban, stop, or regulate whatever childish snarky tone BRCC chooses to display in their ads. However, I reserve the right to point out that I find it counter productive and that it in no way represents my view of the target group. Debate and descent is one thing. Holding a group of people up for mockery because of their mannerisms is another.

        • queer str8 purple or with wings… dont care.

          if your hear in this nation Legally or a Legal Citizen (non criminal or nut) you should defend yourself as you see fit.

          if Queers want to stand up for the 2nd amendment i will march with them any day any time.

          but this Commercial had a chance to be funny and went to the Darkside of an SNL skit.

          FYI MDA is a terrorist group. just sayin.

        • I love that DMJ747 has no clue what the 1st Amendment means, gets it ass-backwards, and then complains about other people having sand in their vaginas.

          It’s like they say, arguing with idiots on the internet is like playing chess with a pigeon. Even if you win he’ll crap all over the board and knock it over.

    • no, your wrong.

      2nd meet 1st

      seriously Robert pick your battles….

      2nd meet 1st? So it’s your 1st amendment right to water board people that don’t agree with your religion? Not sure what you mean by this. You seriously approve of this message? To you it may be funny – but to others it is very offensive. BRCC has the right to make this message – but a great many people also have the right to not drink their coffee or also have the right to think of people with “black rifles” as violent people who are intolerant of people different from them. Understand now? If you hate gays – sure this message is for you. If you support gun rights it most definitely is not. Robert could have looked over this but he didn’t, because this site is about “the truth about guns” and gun rights. BRCC should have picked their battles – or maybe they should leave gun owners out of it and call themselves the ANCC (Anti-gay coffee company).

      • One the bright side of this, minimal as it is, not a single one of these overbearing and over-caffienated individuals even briefly considered shooting the guy/

      • YES! Clearly, the issue here is about waterboarding! You’ve hit the nail on the head you brilliant, insightful bastard. Everyone else completely missed the point.

        • YES! Clearly, the issue here is about waterboarding!

          No. The issue is not about waterboarding.

      • Which Amendment is the “right not to be offended” Amendment again? I have to laugh at those who worry over any little thing that someone might find offensive when it revolves around firearms. Let me clue you in … people who are against or on the fence about the 2A are not going to be swayed by some attempt at comedy.

        • There’s no “right to not be offended”, but it doesn’t mean that you should be an asshole, or that people can’t speak out loudly while pointing a finger at you when they think you’re behaving as one.

      • religion has nothing to do with it.

        Queer rights my ass. there should never be any carve outs for a chosen Behavior.

        if your white n Queer, you have the same rights as white person nothing more.

        if your black or minority you ofcourse have many more rights in this current administration. if your illegal you have even more rights. all these Extra rights sre illegal and the law should be blind. but there must and should never be any extra right for a behavior.

        Civil unions should have full rights as marriage and that applies for everyone.

        so sorry but any argument in favor of any specisl right for group is illegal/criminal. YOUR NOT SPECIAL BECAUSE OF WHO YOU LOVE! Your special if you do great things.

        • I’m fairly certain that being gay is not a choice people make. At the risk of offending somebody here, I am going to say that it is probably some sort of genetic condition.

    • Did I misread the article? I didn’t see RF say they shouldn’t be allowed to say stupid shit. I read it as RF using his 1st to say those jackasses said stupid shit.

      Part of the freedom of speech is the freedom to disagree, publicly, with what others have to say.

      • It is fully within their right to say stupid shit.

        With that right comes the responsibility of accepting the repercussions of the stupid shit they say.

        I’m stunned they were that tone-deaf to release that video.

        They were obviously are clueless to the response it rightly will get.

        It may well (justifiably) kill that company.

    • Private company if you don’t like it don’t buy his coffee. The entire thing is a marketing project how come only the left gets to miss characterize let them have a little fun

      • ^This. Don’t like the marketing, which is part of the offering, don’t buy the product. Is it insensitive in today’s feminized society of feelings over rights? Yes, I expect most would think it is.

        I don’t think the target for this product is the diverse, urban, and sophisticated marketing segment. I suspect they are after the guys that think FDE stands for operator which will get this and find it amusing. In my case, guilty as charged.

    • What does this even have to do with the second amendment? This is a coffee company…yes, they have black rifle in their name..so what.

    • The first has to do with the govt restricting speech, etc, not a private website. Try learning the constitution before using it in an argument, that might prevent you from failing so miserably next time…

    • The ability to call someone out on their opinions is just as valid as station an unpopular opinion. Nobody is saying they shouldn’t have the right to make fools of themselves.

    • Seriously? Did you not read RF’s article? Since when did hatred and intolerance become ok with supporters of the 2nd? We have a public relations battle going on, and for you to applaud a moronic video is itself moronic. Opinions are one thing…posting a hateful video and tying it to the 2nd amendment hurts all of us, but it seems your narrow mind prevents you from understanding that. TTAG website is terrific because the stereotypes about gun advocates are disputed in an intelligent and thoughtful way….save for the numbskulls who think hatred is a great thing.

      • “Since when did hatred and intolerance become ok with supporters of the 2nd?”

        Um, 99.99999% of supporters of the 2nd are RepubliCONs, which are devoutly full of hatred and intolerance. I happen to support the 2nd, but be a diehard liberal, except for gun control. I don’t hate anyone for their beliefs, nor do I try to push my beliefs on others.

        • Armed liberals FTW! The 2nd Amendment is a human right issue, not a political party bullet point.

        • You are WAY off base. I’m glad you fancy yourself some type of barrier breaking unicorn, but let me set the record straight here.

          (1) Supporters of the 2nd Amendment are no where near 99.999% Republicans.
          You are ignoring a large and rapidly increasing population of Libertarians. You are also completely ignoring moderate and so-called “blue-dog” democrats who are often farmers or union tradesmen or craftsmen who have traditionally voted Democrat, and many ethnic immigrants who are very fond of their new found rights.

          (2) Your offensive generalization that Republicans are hateful, bigots, xenophobes, etc are hypocritical bullshit. Way to stereotype and generalize. As opposed to most liberals, many, if not most conservatives are very logic driven in the reasoning for the policies they support.

        • Conservatives aren’t logic driven, conservatives tow a line right from the feels with starry-eyed dreams of the facade a terrorist like Ronald Reagan offered. The difference between a conservative and a liberal (in mannerisms) tends to be that if the conservative is a worldly person, they will happily leave their political fallacies out of any friendships they have, with all manner of people. The liberal is the opposite, a sheltered upper-middle class university student who is ignorant of the world, fancies themselves worldly cause they go to college, and has a visceral hatred of anyone who disagrees with their fallacious nonsense. I think the word you are looking for is ‘tolerant’, and conservatives by and large seem to be more tolerant of dissenting opinions in America anyway.

  1. “God forbid…” — The fact of the matter is God hates sexual perversion. Leviticus 20:13 is still in effect. “If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UM-GinKu1bw

    • “….scripture….”

      Fortunately, we all don’t have to believe in a God of double standards. 🙂

    • It really is of little use to quote the Bible to resolve this issue since it is the go-to source for only approximately 20% of humanity. Statistics vary, but there are roughly as many Muslims in the world as Christians and Jews combined. Should we take a census and use either the Bible or the Koran as a guide on this matter based on who has the most votes? You would still lose because that still leaves more than 50% of humanity who do not adhere to either belief system.

      • According to the Pew Research Center Jews, Muslims and Christians comprise about 55% of the world population. All three use a version of the Old testament. Agree or disagree with it, but a government based on Torah, Quran and Old testament commonalities would have majority support. In theory.

    • And Dr. Seuss said one fish, two fish red fish blue fish. Whats your point about whats in the bible and what two consenting individuals wish to do with each other. It just a story someone created but insteaf of being to entertain or teach its used to control peoples lives and thinking.

    • Hope you don’t eat lobster or pork…wouldn’t want to pick and choose which parts of the Bible you follow and be a hateful hypocrite.

      • Enough with the dietary crap already. I can show you passages in the New Testament that say we don’t have to worry about that stuff any more. You will not find passages in the New Testament that approve or even condone homosexual conduct. You will find passages in the New testament that condemn homosexual conduct in no uncertain terms. I’m not trying to convince you whether the Bible is true or not. But if you don’t know what it says, please refrain from using it in your arguments. And lest you get me wrong, without seeing the vid I’m guessing I agree with RF in general on this one (altho since I had nothing to do with it, it doesn’t dishonor me personally IMO).

        • OK, now I have to apologize, I see that you are responding to someone who is specifically quoting Leviticus. Can’t say your response is entirely invalid, quoting from the same book. Nevertheless, for those who also believe the New Testament my point stands.

    • No Red Lobster for you since the eating of shellfish is also an abomination:

      Levitus:11:10-12

      10 And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you:
      11 They shall be even an abomination unto you; ye shall not eat of their flesh, but ye shall have their carcases in abomination.
      12 Whatsoever hath no fins nor scales in the waters, that shall be an abomination unto you.

      It’s your religion, not mine.

      • See my reply above. Your Biblical argument is faulty, as it is based on an at best incomplete knowledge of what the Bible actually says.

        • The entire Bible is a fallacy, they’re mythical stories. So claiming which portions apply to which situations is only someone’s interpretation and nothing more. It’s a child’s argument since logic and reason is not used to come to a definitive conclusion.

        • Did you read my whole statement? I didn’t advocate for the truth or the falsity of the Bible, not doing that here. I’m just saying if you don’t know what it says, don’t try to use it in your own arguments. Just say what you said, you don’t believe it and it’s a fallacy and all that. But again, if someone quotes Leviticus at you, can’t really blame you for quoting it back at him. Hence the apology.

        • no, it’s based on the fact that the jumbled collection of dull or stolen fables, bizarre myths, and terrible ‘moral’ lessons that is the Bible are contradictory in nature and no amount of lawyering it in its defence will change that.

    • There are plenty disgusting, immoral, perverse activities that I believe should not be criminalized. We should be very reluctant to enable our government to forcefully stopping people from doing what they want to do. Strict scrutiny should be applied, especially when considering enforcing victimless crime or malum prohibitum laws. It’s most important that the moral lifestyles we want to live our legal, and that means tolerating some unseemly lifestyles so that people are free.

      I’ve been to seedy gay club bathrooms where there was a line out the door and men were going in two to a stall (I was the only one there just to take a piss), and while I find such activity highly distasteful and reprehensible the last thing I want is the police raiding the place Stonewall Inn style. Those men all consented to debase one another, and they’re no threat to public safety. Everyone is there voluntarily. The government should have only the most minimal interference in such “gay rights” issues such as the right of individuals to create contracts, including marriage contracts. Nor should it seek to enforce anti-sodomy laws. Enforcing taxes upon the people in order to commit violence against two adults engaged in consensual sexual activity is more morally outrageous than any consensual sexual act I can think of.

      Those who say the government has no right to to tell us what guns we may own and how we may use them but support the government enforcing upon us how we may use our own bodies, our own genitals, are reprehensible hypocrites. I’ll respect your freedom only if you respect mine.

        • Government recognition or non-recognition of marriage is just as much an intrusion upon people’s private lives as all those other examples. If government does not recognize gay marriages, it shouldn’t recognize any marriages (and rescind all the body of state privileges associated with being married). Or it can call it something else entirely, like “civil union” (again, for everyone!), and leave the definition of “marriage” to the people.

          Anything less than that is “separate but equal”, and we’ve seen how it works.

        • Except in a theocracy, marriage is not the property of any religion. God did away with theocracies the moment Jesus said “It is finished!” and the Old Covenant came to an abrupt end.

          Government gets to define its institutions as it pleases — that authority is given to it from God. It could decide that marriage is a commitment between consenting adults regardless not just of sex/gender but of number, and that’s not at all relevant to Christians, unless it demands that Christians also adopt that definition of holy matrimony. Until then, the government definition of a totally secular institution is not the concern of any religion, save that believers in various religions are free to try to convince others that their personal decisions are wrong.

          As a Christian, I have to support separation of church and state, because within that is a principle of the Gospel: we do not coerce, but invite. Our power is not that of manipulating government to make others behave as we think they ought, but of sharing the Word. The moment some Christians start establishing any degree of theocracy, it is the duty of freedom-loving Christians to ready their rifles.

        • God did away with theocracies the moment Jesus said “It is finished!”

          I would argue there wasn’t a theocracy in the OT after the institution of kings at least. God was very adamant about kings and priests (Levites) being separate, and the kings had no rule over the Levites/priests.

        • My marriage is not religious nor will produce children. How is that any different from a gay marriage? F*ck off and worry about your own sh!tty marriages, with all the high divorce rates.

        • @int19h
          Marriage, like the right of self-defense, existed long before the state was establish. As such it is in the realm of people to decide what the marriage is. That should be done at the state level by allowing people to express through referendum on ballot initiatives. Not by Congress or courts.
          Once the marriage stops being between a man and a woman (that otherwise are not related) is is open to anything else. Including between relatives. After all, why not? Aren’t people free, free to pursue their love?
          Why incest (between consenting adults) is immoral?
          The response to those questions should show you why people think that redefinition of marriage is wrong.

        • By your logic, since religion predates government, people have a right to regulate religion on state level, too. Say, mandate that everyone belongs to a particular denomination.

          No. Marriage is essentially a private contract between two people. As such, it’s no-one else’s business, and most certainly not the govt. No-one has legitimate authority to legislate morality for other people. The only thing that law should be concerned with is immediate and measurable harm, or the lack of consent.

          Thus, the only aspects of marriage that can be subject to a public discussion of legalities are the ones that involve preferential treatment by the state on account of marital status (tax breaks, adoption rights, inheritance, visitation rights etc). Insofar as the Constitution requires the state to treat all citizens equally, it should either treat all marriages as valid, or rewrite the laws to drop references to marriage entirely and use some other term (e.g. “civil union”) for a legally recognized relationship that any two citizens can freely register before the state, or drop the preferential treatment altogether and replace it entirely with contract law where all parties are equal. As a civil libertarian, I would prefer the latter option, since it results in the best overall equality, and makes the question of what other kinds of marriages should be legally recognized completely moot.

          As far as “if we let gays marry, then anything else goes”. First of all, it is a non sequitur. We let women vote a while ago, and the same argument was advanced back then, but I don’t see toddlers or dogs with voting rights today. But even if it were true, so what? People are indeed free to pursue their love, and it’s none of my or your or anyone else’s concern as to how they do it, so long as there’s consent and no harm. Even incest is only problematic when it results in offspring (and at that point, there’s both a consent issue and a harm issue, in form of genetic diseases inflicted on children that didn’t ask for them – so on that we can legislate and regulate).

        • Once the marriage stops being between a man and a woman (that otherwise are not related) is is open to anything else. Including between relatives. After all, why not? Aren’t people free, free to pursue their love?
          Why incest (between consenting adults) is immoral?
          The response to those questions should show you why people think that redefinition of marriage is wrong.

          In what way are two non-related same-sex consenting adults at all the same as close relatives? And of course, how close is too close? 1st cousins are a-ok in many Southern states, after all.

          And the who “redefinition of marriage” argument is just doublespeak. Marriage has been between a man and many women, a man and women who have had zero choice in the matter, a man and a close relative even, all throughout history. In the good ol’ bible even! But when two consenting, informed, uncoerced people of the same sex want to have equality, that’s where you draw the line? In a free society? No, same sex marriage is nothing like your incestual marriage. There are no “grooming” of the children within family contact. Nobody is being transferred like a piece of property. Consenting. Adults. Keep your religion and leave the rest of us alone.

          And if marriage was determined at the state level, myself and Former Water Walker would likely be in illegal marriages, being interracial. Yet that was also struck down by the SC.

        • Great comment, Roymond. However way the government chooses to legally define marriage, it does not change what we know to be marriage. Governments do not have the authority or ability to define our marriages. That authority is between the partners in the marriage and/or the religious institution they recognize as having authority over themselves. Those who want the government to enforce law based on religion (theocracy) and not only reason are violating the moral principle that “we do not coerce, but invite”. I believe that’s is an essential principle of all moral people, not just Christians, although it is a tenet of Christianity. Of course we want people to share our moral values, but it is immoral to coerce or force people to live as if they do. We take the moral path of inviting them to do so, and hoping for them to join us of their own free will. It’s simply the right thing to do, but I’d also argue that you catch more flies with honey than vinegar.

          int19h, I liked your comments as well.

    • I hope you don’t eat shellfish — that’s also an abomination.

      And if you have kids, and they call you nasty names, be sure to get the community together to stone them.

      You can’t pick and choose: if you’re going to rely on the Law, you have to take all of it. So throw out your clothes made of two kinds of material, and boycott sports on the sabbath — especially ones where they have to touch pigskin.

  2. Yeah, that was not necessary and only helps the anti-gun side enforce stereotypes of gun owners. They could have done the same commercial without the gay bashing. Not cool. Never heard of the company before, not willing to support them now that I know.

    • Dude it’s satire a form of constitutionally protected speech.

      all of this is from the Article 15 guys, which if you knew anything about at all you see it for what it is.

      and there all former Rangers so they can do whatever comedy they want.

      learn: https://www.youtube.com/user/MBest11x

      • So, what you are saying is they can say whatever they want just because they are ex-Rangers and nobody can question it?

        First of all, the constitutional right is to prevent government from stopping ones speech, it has nothing to do with me nor does it stop me from having an opinion about what was said. The whole point is they can say what they want and I can say what I want about their speech.

        Just because they were Rangers does not give them any extra special 1st Amendment powers. They have a right to say whatever they want and others have a right to be critical of whatever they say.

        Just because something is labeled “satire” does not automatically mean it is funny or not offensive.

        I do not see how the video puts gun owners in any better light. I do see it as making gun owners look bad. It has nothing to do with their right to say what they said, it is a question of poor judgment in what and how they said it.

      • Just because something is constitutionally protected doesn’t make it a good idea.

        All it means for this to be constitutionally protected is that the gov’t can’t regulate it and these guys can’t get thrown in jail.

        Good job RF for pointing this out and commenting on it.

      • I’ve seen some of their stuff. It panders to the potty humor crowd. It’s the interwebz, giving voice to all. And not every voice needs to be heard. But, in a free society that’s what you get.

        Chaotic, but I prefer it to the alternative. After all, it’s not like these guys were a real coffee company doing real adds.

      • I don’t care whether or not someone served. I don’t treat them any differently either way. The fact is, these men are anti-american and wrong. And I don’t want them speaking for me or my rights.

      • >> and there all former Rangers so they can do whatever comedy they want.

        So what you’re saying is that these guys are also tarnishing the public perception of the Rangers?

      • If those are former Rangers, they just dishonored themselves. They’re supposed to have learned the duty to protect freedom, not mock it.

      • DMJ747 did not sleep at a Holiday Inn Express last night.

        ‘Dude,’ that speech is protected from whom? Since you apparently never bothered to read it (or just can’t understand it), the 1st Amendment starts with: “Congress shall make no law…” and never says anything about what some guy on the internet thinks. The 1st Amendment only applies if the government is abridging speech. If you could just learn that you’d stop making such an enormous fool of yourself.

  3. “Black Rifle Coffee. It’s not for BLEEPing pussies”

    It won’t be for long bearded white males either after the “pussies” and “fags” hit the ballot box.

    Side note-ive noticed female shooters tend to be better then males at the equivalent skill level. Capital idea pissing off THOSE shooters/voters!(#sarcasm).

  4. How does a coffee company I never heard of speak for the whole firearms community? Funny how that works but back to the actual content…. I didn’t find it very funny and it certainly didn’t get me to want to buy their coffee.

    • It plays into the stereotypes the anti’s love to paint us with. They’ll parade this all around the media (which is overwhelmingly anti-gun) and people will believe that this represents all gun owners.

      I really like your avatar BTW.

      • It gives me a nagging headache that a seemingly large percentage of 2A advocates repeatedly fail to grasp this simple concept.

      • Nothing says “freedom” like holding yourself to the enemy’s standards and punishing others for failing to do so. Why cede moral legitmacy to them?

    • I believe that RF’s concern is that if/when this video gets into the hands of the anti-2A crowd they will attempt to capitalize with it by pretending that it speaks for the entire pro-gun community. In the media, and in marketing, it is the perception of truth that is more important than the truth itself. See Propaganda 101.

      • I would counter that the “protesters” in Baltimore speak for all liberals then. At the end of the day, rights are not subject to regulation, legislation, registration, or the democratic process. Several of my ancestors allowed “democracy” to strip them of their rights. That’s why my family tree looks like someone took a chainsaw to it. They can be offended all they want. It changes nothing. At the end of the day, they can argue all they want, but they will either need to sack up and stack up or sit down and shut up. Let’s be honest, if push comes to shove, we are far better at enforcing our will through violence than they will ever be. That’s the reason why we do not do so.

        • Exercise of rights is subject to other people’s exercise of their rights. It’s free speech to make this disgusting video, yes. It’s also free speech to point out that it’s disgusting and offensive. And it’s freedom of association to boycott and ostracize the company and the people behind this.

    • You know I’ve always heard that but I’ve never see on actual explanation of just how the hell that’s supposed to work. It makes just no logical sense to me that someone would hate some certain thing, group, or activity yet secretly be all about doing the things they hate.

      I can’t stand mayo, Canadians, or ‘progressives’. I don’t like these things because I either find them repellent in some fashion or due to some bad experiences I’ve had with then. Not because I secretly want to immigrate to Toronto, covered all my food in mayo, and work for Salon.com writing brain dead far left tripe.

      • I f$&@ing hate mayo. I’ve literally told restaraunts that I’m allergic to that soggy white sh!t because everyone wants to shellac a perfectly good burger with that crap. And I don’t spend Friday nights locked in my closet with it. I just hate mayonnaise.

        • My grandfather used a spoon to put mayo on a sandwich. He’d lick the spoon clean when he was done <>

      • I have seen it in politicians: Larry Craig is one example I can think of. He actively sponsored anti-gay legislation, then got caught soliciting for acts of “lewd behavior” or some other euphemism.

        It has to do with repression and denial more than Canada or mayonnaise. Lol

      • I expect the explanation would be that they feel guilty about being homosexual and are over-compensating. Kinda sorta like all those terminally white-guilty liberals who are in reality screaming racists.

      • I have a relative that came out as Gay after high school and before going to college. In his early years in high school he was very homophobic and very outspoken against gays. However, at some point, he found out he was one and he says now that is probably the reason he was so much against the concept when he was younger. He was trying to deny his own feelings in an attempt to force them to go away and to show he was certainly not gay himself. He is now a Psychologist and helps others to work out their issues. Great guy, very intelligent and I enjoy having a drink with him and discussing all kinds of issues when comes to town. I really could care less that he is gay or what he does with someone else in the privacy of his bedroom or anywhere else. What really counts is that he is a loving, caring and law abiding person. BTW quoting the Old Testament to justify discrimination against gays is pretty much like using the Koran to do the same. I doubt very much that Jesus would discriminate against someone for their sexual orientation.

        • Although I don’t think Jesus would discriminate anyone for being gay, I doubt he would institutionalize or advocate for it either.

      • There are two large buckets there, basically.

        One is the deeply religious people who happen to be gay. They may well deny it at first outright, and eventually settle on some kind of “love the sinner, hate the sin” approach towards their own nature, and assume that they can “pray the gay away”, or at least defeat it through sheer force of will by behaving as if they weren’t gay (so they marry etc). For them, preaching the anti-gay story is basically about reinforcing their own resolve.

        The other bucket contains those that don’t hate their nature, but are in an environment so toxic that they have to conceal it, or else (sometimes it’s an environment they create themselves, like e.g. pretty much any right-wing politician trying to pander to the social conservative base for the sake of getting votes). What those guys do is make themselves look so obviously and blatantly anti-gay that no-one would even think of them as gay themselves, and go around digging for any dirt with respect to that.

        As to how common this is – obviously it’s not true that every homophobe, or even the majority, are homosexual (latent or not). But the outings happen frequently enough that it’s definitely a thing, not just a one-off.

      • The idea is that the louder and more boisterous you are in your admonition of whatever the topic is, the more separation it creates in the mind of the viewing/listening audience so that the gulf or rift between two views is increased and the perceived connections decreased.

        Kinda like when a politician goes Way overboard to separate himself from something that could damage their career….

      • Ehh. I know it’ll make me sound unscientific but that sounds like completely bullsh*t. For one thing that’s a damn small sample size. Secondly human psychology is a messy thing at the best of times. Trying to add on hundreds of years of societal programing mashed together with religious philosophies pretty much designed to reinforce negative behavior and you’ll get any number of weird reactions. And third: in case anyone wasn’t paying attention this kind of hacked together study is the exact same kind of tripe we see from anti-gun groups trying to use the illusion of being scientific to push their message. There’s a real good reason why it’s so well know that you can make a study say anything. It’s because it’s true.

        • I’ve looked over the study and the results are compelling. The P-values used were pretty low even through the sample size was small. Their conclusion that homophobia is associated with homosexual arousal is most likely correct.

          The man can deny, but the penis cannot lie.

  5. American gun owners are, Americans, good, bad and mediocre. Some are great people, some are ignorant jerks, back before the series of boating accidents, when I was a gun owner you could have found several people who thought I was a jerk a others thought I’m okay.

  6. Looks to me more like this was an intentional attempt at raunchy humor that was supposed to be offensive. I’d have preferred they hadn’t gone that far. And I would encourage them to not go that route again. Maybe even put a little disclaimer on the image about it being intentional bad humor.

    But at the same time I refuse to get all righteously bhutt hurt over this either. Freedom of speech is freedom to be kind of a dick. Something that the SJW crowd doesn’t seem to get.

      • Yeah you don’t have to be a dick. But I’ll stand up for their right to be a dick until I don’t have another breath to draw.

        • “The right to be a dick” only means that the government cannot restrict their speech directly or indirectly. It is perfectly valid to stand for that while also pointing out that it’s extremely offensive for them to be saying things like these, and if they don’t heed that call, punish them for it without getting the government in the picture (e.g. via social ostracism).

      • Have to? No
        Enjoy offending the thin skinned? Yes
        Have an inalienable right to do so? Also yes.

        At the end of the day, none of my rights are up for discussion or negotiation. As the old saying goes…

        I am prepared to die to defend my rights. Are [they] prepared to die to take them from me?

    • “not for bleeping pussies” so obviously TTAG is not the target market.

      You are seriously offended over a hilarious commercial/viral video. That’s something I’d expect from some flower picking left wing tumblr pansy that thinks he’s a cat-kin.

      ITS FUNNY. It doesn’t target anyone or advocate the assault murder or discrimination against anyone. The fact that you see it any other way shows you are no better than the tumblrinas who are offended by anything and everything.

      You find it offensive? We find it funny. That’s why we are happier than you.

      That being said I hope your transgender surgery goes well and your complete transition into an incredibly effeminate man-girl-thing.

  7. I thought it was about waterboarding effeminate hipsters. It seemed like the artisan coffee made him that way. Either way, I guess teh gayz won the culture war now so you must kowtow to them.

    • It’s pretty sad when the macho crowd seriously believes that approving of waterboarding is a meaningful symbol of their “machismo”.

  8. All this does is alienate Gay people and create new anti-gun voters. I second RF’s suggestion. At the very least it’s good to offer a counter-point to the hateful BS before Bloomberg and Co. can use this to vilify gun owners.

    • It doesn’t seem that gays are so concern when they shoot down businesses that don’t want to cater to them.

      • I’m not sure I see your point. Why should people support businesses that don’t support them? Would you go to a coffee shop owned by Bloomberg?

        • My point is that they won’t give a damn about the perception. They will use the power of state to close down businesses that don’t bake them a cake.
          similarly we we should give a damn about perception?
          Certainly the video above may not speak for me or you or whoever, but is their free expression. And as such, why do I care?
          I think that we are overly concerned about how antis are perceiving us. And that is wrong. When you speak the truth, is shouldn’t matter. Otherwise we reinforce the thought that out constitutional protected rights are subject to public opinion.

        • The exercise of your constitutionally protected rights is subject to public opinion. Said public opinion cannot translate to legislative measures to suppress your rights, but it can make your life more complicated in many other ways without involving the govt.

        • @anoninWA
          RF isn’t talking about getting the government to shut them down so I don’t see how shaming these people constitutes violating their rights.
          They have a right to free expression, not to immunity from scorn for a hateful and moronic video.

        • There is a difference between not drinking Starbucks Coffee because you don’t agree with their anti gun stance and a gay couple suing using a partisan judge to shut down someone’s business because they do not agree with them.

  9. Well that’s one way to get to a million comments quickly. Good job ttag at “comment bait”

  10. So if SNL does a humorous skit, it is OK. But if we do it, then we are evil haters doing a disservice and dishonoring ourselves. Boy are gun owners screwed up.

    p.s. Actually that was much funnier than most SNL skits !

    • “…if we do it, then we are evil haters doing a disservice and dishonoring ourselves. …”

      I’m not entirely sure you got RF’s point – BRCC is NOT we, but the anti-2A crowd will make every effort to pretend that they are. That is precisely the problem with this video. BRCC has every right to their opinions and to make stupid and offensive videos about their opinions, but they are tarring us all with that brush in the eyes of the media and we have a right to object to that and let them know we object.

      • I don’t think you are capable of understanding my observation. Funny is funny. Period. I guess you get your panties all in a bunch watching the Simpsons…Oh was that hate speech? Calling BS on this entire manufactured PC crap.

        • Funny is funny. Period.

          Unless it isn’t funny. SNL makes fun of everybody.

          BRCC seems to only target gays – future anti-gun article.

    • I did not think it was at all funny. But then I usually do not think that gay bashing or waterboarding someone for making a comment is funny. The whole video was in poor taste IMO. And yes, they have a right to air it but it does tend to put the wrong slant on gun owners and that is just fodder for the other side to use against all of us.

  11. Jokes about waterboarding simply aren’t funny. We EXECUTED Japanese soldiers for waterboarding after WWII. EXECUTED. Why aren’t Americans being executed or investigated for it? Because we won. That’s really not a message that we want to send worldwide- torture is only wrong if you DON’T win the war.

    The gay thing was disgusting as well. I was smiling until he mentioned the gay thing. If they stuck with him as an effeminate hipster, the video would have been FINE. But the mention of sucking dicks AND having a vagina makes it both anti-gay AND anti-woman. Notice how RF has stopped posting models all the time? Because HEARTS and MINDS requires reaching outside of the demographic gunowners are characterized as- white men with bad taste.

    This video goes right back to that stereotype. MDA has focused on VERY few issues- child safety, domestic abusers, terrorists, and criminals. They are trying to change the image of gun control being a bunch of emotional women wringing their hands into a professional organization where people cite statistics, and there’s some men as well.

    Bloomberg has enough money to finance pretty much ANY group to speak for him- black people, asian people, hispanic people, white men, and yes, even “gun-owners”. Bloomberg has 30 pieces of silver for anyone who is willing to step up to make his astroturf look natural. Without that money advantage, WE have to do this grassroots. Or watch as Hillary (if elected) is able to whip up support enough to actually get the restrictions we barely made it through 8 years without.

    Ignore the imagery at OUR own peril.

  12. Does it not occur to anyone that’s getting all worked up over this that these guys are all being obvious caricature of bad stereotypes?

    • Yep. I thought the video was kind of funny. I just don’t enjoy being PC all that much.

      Was it Carlos Mencia that said that gay people are too sensitive? If you can take a d!ck, you can take a joke. Offensive, but funny.

      Also, gay people make jokes about straight people. Black people make jokes about white people, etc. I don’t lose a whole lot of sleep over it. Bill Maher makes all sorts of jokes about conservatives because he’s a lefty A-hole. While I dislike him and his philosophy, some of his jokes are pretty funny.

      Bill Maher said the right thinks of government the same way as Snookie’s vagina: it’s too big, it services too many people, and nothing that’s any good will ever come out of it. While Snookie’s cadre of ex’s might agree, I bet her husband and children wouldn’t.

      • I may intuitively be with RF on this, but I like the way you’re thinking here, Accur81. Still haven’t watched the vid, either way it just doesn’t sound like, well, my cuppa…

      • Something something broken clock is right twice a day. >,,>

        You’re absolutely right in what your saying. Every social and racial group has bad jokes they tell about others. It’s just human natural. I don’t like that people make these kinds of jokes. It’s really crass and stupid and not even all that well made. I just don’t think it ‘dishonors’ anyone. Hell, it’s making as much of joke about gun owners as it is about gay people. Hell, perhaps it’s actually making gun owners work worse than the gay guy. Which is why I really hate this video. It’s stupid and crass. But that’s it.

  13. this Robert F has obviously never served his country in any important role or else he would understand the humor of the Infantryman, the first amendment is a thing and WE infantry have our own code for jokes, if you don’t like it then go be a pinko commie somewhere else. really disappointed in you Robert, stick to firearms reviews and law updates. you want to be a herald of the homos do it on another forum, try 4chan

    • I love it. “I served in the military, so I have different standards for decorum and tact than normal people.”

      • I love it. “I served in the military, so I have different standards for decorum and tact than normal people.”

        And… if you don’t like it – you’re a “communist/communist supporter.” I would have never thought that finding some jokes offensive was a dot directly connected to “communism.” I just wouldn’t have connected those dots.

    • You are obviously either new here or a troll or both. This is Robert F’s (RF/Robert Farago) blog. It is HIS forum. If you disagree so strongly it is YOU that needs to go somewhere else, this is his home.

      And as an honorably discharged Army medic who has had significant interaction with many Infantrymen, I would have to say that they do not all hold to your standards of conduct, of humor, or of service. In fact, I would state that RF has done more service to this country with TTAG, regardless of never having served in the military, than a large percentage of those who have served. JMHO.

      • +1000 The video is another example of the kind of “Bevis and Butthead” logic that immortalized ‘ole Flacoo and his buddy as “Chipotle Ninjas”. I always wonder about guys who do this kind of stuff. I tend to think that, underneath all this bluster, there’s a scared little kid with night-sweat quality insecurities. You can also make an argument that there’s a kind of nihilism about this video—that having an affluent entrepreneur play at being the rude-boy will earn him a credibility that that he doesn’t now have. People who are this desperate for street-cred are bottom-feeders, pure and simple. Typical for a guy like this, Hafer picked gays for his target because he figured they’d be easy. Jews, not so much . . .

    • So the infantry code includes thinking torture is funny and getting a kick out of insulting the very thing they’re supposed to defend.

      I’d expect such behavior and attitude from Roman legionnaires, to whom might made right, but not from people who supposedly served to protect this country.

  14. Wholly inappropriate, ignorant, insensitive, and ultimately humorous. I think it speaks more to military culture then the gun community at large. If this was an episode of Family Guy, we probably wouldn’t be discussing it.

  15. This is my last comment before I unsubscribe. Sad to see the anti-freedom nazi’s have gotten to TTAG.

      • This is my last comment before I unsubscribe. Sad to see the anti-freedom nazi’s have gotten to TTAG.

        What is anti-freedom about complaining about an offensive advertisement? What freedom are you looking for? The freedom to be quiet and not complain?

        In my experience, TTAG is pro-freedom. Don’t confuse that with pro-conservative. We all have “opinions.” Some of them are not positive, in some areas. However, this article highlights (complains) that the portrayed message doesn’t help the “pro-gun” cause. That’s it. It doesn’t say you are not entitled to your opinion or even attempts to describe what your opinion “should be.”

  16. Lighten up, Francis. There is and always has been a delightfully politically incorrect military sense of humor in the world.

  17. Not only is this irrelevant to discussion of the 2A in any but the most tangential sense, but it also does an excellent article pointing out exactly which evidence an anti-gunner could use to paint those in the pro-2A camp in a negative light. So, two thumbs up.

    On a more positive note, I’ve been enjoying the sub-$500 1000m rifle posts.

  18. I see a lot of 1A v. 2A comments here.

    Tes, 1A acknowledges their rights, however it does not obviate the fact that a thing being legal does not make that thing wise.

  19. “If you can’t say something nice don’t say anything at all,” and “love thy neighbor as thyself.”

  20. They’ve got a right to say what they want. R has a right to say what he wants.

    However, I still think it’s a bad idea to complain about this. We have no chance to get uniformity on this RF. And I, for one, am tired of people being called on to apologize for everything. Is it dumb? Infantile? Offensive? Sure, but who gives a shit? People are always gonna judge. And you’ll never get everyone in the firearms community to sign on to diversity and sensitivity training.

    Calling on these guys to apologize is like asking a mountain to bend at the breeze.

    • But, in matters of taste, criticism is often the most effective, if not the only, curative. Somebody has to tell the Emperor that he isn’t wearing clothes. Criticism does just that.

  21. I am wondering whether in the next 40 years or so, an arms company might put out a video bashing bestiality (woman in UK wanted to marry her animal a few weeks ago) and animal rights advocates and bestiality sympathizers might take exception to that stand?

    I guess some may have led somewhat sheltered lives, but attend a Mardi Gras and go off the tourist tracks to side streets and you can view acts of sodomy in our face in numerous areas. Even with LA State troupers this past season, it did not stop the debauchery.

  22. Just because someone drinks coffee and says or does something disagreeable it has no effect on my honor. Oh wait you mean I have been dishonored because they also own guns. Nope still doesn’t work.

  23. I’ll put it to the South Park test. That is, would South Park air something this offensive.

    Yes.

    There’s a rule in comedy that once something isn’t allowed to be funny anymore, then nothing will be allowed to be funny. This was offensive, but I can see they were just trying to be funny. Honestly, if you had this scene in a 1970’s raunch comedy no one would have batted an eye.

    But I do see Robert’s point. The anti’s will use this to make all of us look bad. And thus the world of freedom turns.

    • I’ll put it to the South Park test. That is, would South Park air something this offensive. Yes.

      South Park has aired many, many episodes worse than this.

    • I’m pretty sure there’s only one rule of comedy – if you tell a joke and most people don’t laugh, it wasn’t funny, no matter how much you chuckled when you thought it up.

  24. I’m running low on shits to give today, so I think I’m not gonna give one about this foolishness.

  25. I’m tired of the concept that someones sense of humor, if it offends anyone, is wrong. I thought the vid was funny, I think lots of jokes that are “offensive” are funny. We could all do with a little more lightening up. Humor is good.
    Homo jokes are funny, maybe not to every homo, but I’d bet they (the homosexuals) have a few funny jokes about straight folks. Bottom line, we don’t need PC morality police making sure we don’t hear or see something offensive. If its funny, laugh. If not, don’t.

    Now, “tactical” coffee? I’ll guess its over priced and no better tasting than any other quality brand…

    lets get back to good Gun reports.

  26. Yeah. This is in REALLY bad taste. Furthermore, the way to win the “war” in regards to right and the 2A is NOT through alienating people. We with through hearts and minds.

    This video is doing the EXACT opposite. Plus it isnt even funny.

    • I doubt that we win the war by winning the mind and hearths. We will win by people realizing themselves that self reliance is important and the police is not there when you need them. As simple as that. This is a not a cultural war about liking guns or not. This is a war about understanding that the state can not protect you and you are your first responder. People that think will get it regardless of any stupid or not stupid videos. People that don’t get it will not be influenced by any good PR.

    • The only thing that would have made this thing even remotely funny is if the gay guy had dropped his coffee and drawn a 1911 to back those assholes down.

  27. I don’t know wht all the fuss is about. The message I got from the video is to not buy $h1ty pretentious coffee – a rule I try to live by (and I don’t buy Starbuck’s).

  28. I disagree with the conclusion of this article. This reminds me of the rocket scientist guy with the “insensitive” shirt, who was made to cry publicly asking for forgiveness that his shirt (with scantily clad women drawings) was offending the opposite sex.
    I remember from the years living under communism where you where forced to apologize in front of your colleagues if you said something bad about state or other subjects that the state did not approve of.
    Public repentance.
    Really? Is this what a free society is about?
    If you don’t like it, don’t watch it.

    For those that don’t know the incident: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/space-scientist-apologizes-sexist-shirt-article-1.2011957

    • I bought one of those shirts specifically because of the abuse he had to tolerate for wearing it. Sad that he decided to vag about it it an apologize instead of tell others where to stick it… So I don’t support him, I just support the shirt and the people who made it.

      http://www.alohaland.com/whats-new/gunner-girls

      No, I’m not affiliated, nor do I make any money off of this link, sheesh…

  29. If RF wants to critique the edgy commercials of coffee companies that are tangentially related to 2nd-amendment issues that’s just boring filler, but when he decides (in the name of the gun-rights movement) to start demanding apologies and reparations over an ad—well, who the hell does he think he is? I’m deleting TTAG from my bookmarks and will be taking my pageviews elsewhere. If he wants to try to make TTAG the PC Police for everything 2nd amendment related, he can do it without my support.

  30. It doesn’t dishonor ME. I didn’t produce it. And I WASTED 47 seconds of my life. And what is your point? Also what is your point about Yahoo “investigating” the NRA? I’m pretty sure there are happy folk(bears) who don’t lisp or swish and drink coffee and shoot AND could kick these guys azzes…

  31. Some of the comments from people here disgust me. If YOUR religion prohibits YOU from being gay, then YOU shouldnt have homosexual relationships. Arent the POTG supposed to be supportive of individual rights? Every time someone makes a video like this or makes a comment in this same vein it makes every gun owner look bad, even if this thought process is supported by the minority of gun owners.

    • Does the video prevent people from having gay relationships? It just express the views of the producers.
      Do they have the right to disagree with gays? Sure.
      I guess majority of us agree that we don’t care what you do in your bedroom. But It doesn’t mean that I should support you or show enthusiasm about your behavior. It is my right to consider what you do abnormal. It is not right to do you physical harm tough.

      • It’s not about “preventing gays from having relationships”. It’s making all gun owners look like homophobic pieces of sh*t, which is what that video does. Would people still think the video was funny and protecting their right to free speech if they were water boarding a Christian? I dont think so.

  32. Idiots making a stupid video. Didn’t like it, won’t watch it again. Move along now, nothing worth seeing.

  33. Yeah these are idiots. People wonder why the unarmed want us to be too. This is one of those reasons. All the rights in the Constitution are equal. We should be fighting for all rights. Not just the ones we like. Hand in hand this is just rude and ignorant behavior in this day and age.

  34. What if the guy is just meant to be an effeminate metrosexual drinking coffee from a company who acts like dicks while enjoying a healthy food item? Not that it makes the video any more acceptable.

    • Metro-sexual is not synonymous with effeminate. And even if it were, if the character was just intended to be “an effeminate metrosexual” there would not be as part of his dialogue numerous offers to suck their d!cks. That implies other cultural tendencies.

  35. It’s just a video joke in bad taste to me. Nothing to waste time or emotion on. Ignore it and it won’t bother you.

  36. I don’t think the video was targeted at gay people, but rather effeminate hipsters who don’t act manly.

    Their target audience is vets and soldiers, I don’t think that audience is going to see this as offensive.

    Get over it people.

  37. I’ve tried to think of a way in which mixing guns and anger is appropriate and fail, fail, fail. Guns are for self defense, and hate is not a family value.

  38. That video dishonors all coffee drinkers! I suggest that we all give up coffee and take a nice nap.

  39. Robert, no matter how carefully you dance around it, or how thick your thesaurus; “I’m offended” used as an excuse to bully others is still the same old game… Offended, appalled, disgusted, etc… Same old sh!t, different demographic.

  40. So many here are so wrapped up in their desire to be everything that is opposite of “the left” that it include abandoning all reason and supporting hate against their fellow citizens. Citizens whose allegiance we need to preserve our rights. “My rights aren’t subject to vote!” you may cry. Maybe on a philosophical level, but the reality is much less happy. Laws can, will, and have been passed that infringe upon your firearms rights, mainly because the politicians who do so feel emboldened by numbers of people supporting them. The only real way to defeat that is to bring numbers to OUR side. Alienating entire segments of fellow citizens is NOT the way to accomplish that. Not only do you alienate the target of your hate, but other people who see your hate for what it is and associate it with your cause, too.

    Do your homophobic, racist, anti-woman jokes with your buddies in private, sure. Be the bigoted asshole you want to be. Just do the rest of us POTG a huge favor and keep that sh!t off the record.

    Many of my shooting friends are both gay and veterans. This video does a huge disservice to all people of both groups.

    • Do your homophobic, racist, anti-woman jokes with your buddies in private, sure. Be the bigoted asshole you want to be. Just do the rest of us POTG a huge favor and keep that sh!t off the record.

      ^^THIS.

      Appearances people. Maybe you don’t care about your appearance but the rest of us do, and we are affiliated you and I. We share a connection with the “black rifle.” If you continue to embarrass me I will have little choice but to ostracize you (& your product). Stereotyping is a genetic propensity despite what people say. If a small boy gets stung by a wasp – he will avoid anything that looks like a wasp. Invariably, some people who may not pay any attention to the gun debate could fall upon a “black rifles coffee company” ad and apply what they learned in that ad to all who are affiliated with that ad.

  41. Yeah,right RF. like there is no gay bashing or racism here. Preach to your own RF. Clean up your own basement and then move on.

    • Please provide a specific example – any specific example – where the editors/writers of this blog were “gay bashing” or “racist.”

    • Honestly can’t think of any racism or gay bashing at TTAG. If there is it get’s deleted pretty quick.

      • A couple years back, we had a couple regular posters that occasionally demonstrated mild to moderate racism. They usually got reined in pretty quick on those individual comments, and other than that they were good commenters, intelligent and knowledgeable about guns and politics. We just occasionally had to reiterate where the lines of good behavior were. One of them eventually got banned because his signal to noise ratio dropped to near zero, and the other stopped commenting of his own accord.

        (3635240 base 8)

    • I have seen many times on TTAG RF reaching out to Pink Pistols and other references that gays should consider exercising their 2A rights. I cannot recall any racism of any sort, and I suspect Dirk Diggler would speak out if it did occur.

  42. This idiotic mentality is what allowed gun owners to be so marginalized and stereotyped that we lost battle after battle in the 80s and 90s. It isn’t a coincidence that we haven’t lost a battle since we started caring about PR. THIS DOESN’T HELP.

  43. Not the smartest advertising video made. Yes, it’s very offensive to some people and funny to others. However, there’s a couple of things wrong with even thinking about putting out an advertisement like this. One, as was mentioned, the antis will jump all over this and use it to foster the stereotypes against gun owners. Especially with the rioting going on lately this just makes all gun owners look bad. Two, as a company, they want to make money. Surveys and studies have shown that the homosexual demographic spends a ton of money . Instead of alienating a segment with money to burn, they should have found a way to not only include them in their coffee products but in firearm products as well. Bad move all around.

    • Smartest move would have been to knock the coffee from the “effeminate metrosexual’s” hand and instead of waterboarding pour a big mouthful of BRCC’s coffee down his throat, then stand back and watch him metamorphose into a hard-ass he-man like the rest of them. Now THAT might sell some coffee.

  44. The satire is aimed at their customer base and is exactly on point with their customers sense of twisted veteran humor. Vets live in a world where they are trained to be warriors, to be thick skinned and hardened and told to be gentle and sensitive 2 seconds later. Its frustrating and humor like this is cathartic for them. They don’t care if it bristles your peach fuzz. I would say that by writing this and bitching them out you just lost fans for yourself and made more for them.

  45. Evan Hafer, the founder of Black Rifle Coffee Company has every right to express his opinion. However I would never give money to a company that produces a bigoted video even if it was intended to be a joke. Hopefully this hurts his company financially and he learns from his mistake.

  46. It may be stupid, but I don’t see how this dishonors me at all. Last I checked, I lived in America, and my honor can only be tarnished by my actions alone.

  47. I had to watch the video twice after reading most of the comments, and I don’t see it the same way as most of you. It appears to me that the offensively portrayed “stereotypical homosexual guy” is an associate of the rest of the team, hence he feels comfortable walking into the office and expressing himself in the manner he does. No one appeared to have an issue with anything he said other than he was drinking HipsterBucks coffee. So, he’s being waterboarded because he’s drinking the wrong coffee, not because he’s gay.

    Dumb video? Yes. Could they have done the same video without a homosexual character? Yes, and they should have.

  48. Judging by the comments I can tell most of the commentators here never served in the military. I hope nobody here watches “The Damn Few” show on YouTube – you’d all go nuts with the political incorrectness.

    Derek above hit the nail on the head:

    “Derek says:
    May 3, 2015 at 14:02

    The satire is aimed at their customer base and is exactly on point with their customers sense of twisted veteran humor. Vets live in a world where they are trained to be warriors, to be thick skinned and hardened and told to be gentle and sensitive 2 seconds later. Its frustrating and humor like this is cathartic for them. They don’t care if it bristles your peach fuzz. I would say that by writing this and bitching them out you just lost fans for yourself and made more for them.”

  49. R, I applaud your passion, but I disagree that these guys are a threat to “us all”.

    With all the coffee merchandisers out there marketing to every arcane niche interest on the left, I really doubt BRCC is going to be paid much attention, anyway.

    This was pretty obviously satire, if in bad taste. And the average non-starbux flavored coffee buyer is hip enough not to be outraged by the fake bigotry.

    Besides I am pretty sure the POTG of the gay, female, non-white, and not-stoopid variety can take care of themselves, without TTAG white-knighting for them, over a dumb video.

  50. Thank you for taking a principled, moral stand. This is something the other side rarely seems to do and I was really happy to see that the top pro 2A website was taking a very direct stand against intolerance and hate.And waterboarding someone because they are gay is most definitely hate.

  51. First of all, this commercial has nothing to do with guns or 2nd Amendment rights. It’s about coffee. I have met some pretty awesome gays and lesbians over the years but that doesn’t stop me, a veteran (which I’m sure comprises a large part of their customer base and whom this commercial is directed at), from finding this commercial pretty damned funny. I’m siding with Derek and BRCC on this one.

  52. This just makes me want to buy BRCC products even more. God forbid we each have personal opinions on any subject matter. Just because they don’t align doesn’t make wither of us right or wrong, it only establishes that we differ on the sides of different topics. Let’s not over-think a video done in jest..

  53. I’ve never heard of this company but thank you bringing this to my attention. I won’t be buying any of their products any time soon. They are welcome to their opinions but those aren’t mine and I won’t support them.

  54. Alternate title: OMG! Somewhere, a gay is having his feelings hurt! OMG!

    One need not embrace perversion and degeneracy just because the other side might call us names because we don’t.

    HEY EVERYBODY! THEY DON’T LIKE GAYS! LOOK AT THEM! THEY ACTUALLY DON’T LIKE GAYS!

    Who cares? If they were more than .5% of the population, I might be persuaded to care about them. Homosexuality is a mental illness. GTFO.

    • The reason why you should care is very simple: go look at the public polls on gay marriage. Now think about what will happen when you tie this brick to gun rights, and convince all those people who are pro-gay in these polls that it’s a single monolithic issue.

      It’s very much like the segregationists have sank the states’ rights movement for several decades by associating it with their policies that quickly became abhorrent to the majority of the citizens.

      • >public polls on gay marriage

        Same as on everything else: The coasts love it, nobody else does.

        I don’t care that biased polling indicates 51% of Americans approve of becoming New Sodom, but screw me. HEY EVERYBODY! THIS GUY DOESN’T LOVE GAYS! BUT I DO! LOOK AT HOW MUCH I LOVE GAYS!

        • It’s more like 70%. The important part is, they will vote. It’s up to you to frame the discussion such that they vote for gay rights AND gun control as one package, or not.

    • You don’t like it, so you call it a mental illness.

      That’s as immature as calling religion a mental illness, or being a Republican a mental illness. What such comments really do is expose the commenter as too dense to understand that being different is not evil.

      • Translation: HEY EVERYBODY LOOK AT THIS GUY HE DOESN’T LOVE GAYS! BUT I DO! I REALLY LOVE ME SOME GAYS! HEY EVERYBODY! LOOK AT HOW MUCH I LOVE GAYS!

  55. I live in Seattle which has quite a high gay population, and forgive me for being frank here, but I’ve long past stopped giving a shit about what offends the hard-core gay rights supporters. They are some of the most humorless, serious, self-important people you will ever meet – but frankly that goes for most hard-core leftists. Cannot joke about them, it’s simply not allowed.

    I have met more than a few average gay people who don’t even like the hard-core gay rights crowd. Too serious even for them.

  56. I’m gonna say a swing and a miss here. Attitudes change and so do the meaning of words. I know plenty of websites where literally everyone believes in Gay Marriage but the OP (Original Poster) is still a faggot.

    a pussy is just someone you disagree with on the internet. The professionally offended will never be satisfied. look at #shirtgate.

  57. The pc tolerance bs is pushed on us so why can’t someone push back. Takes all kinds to make a world.

  58. This is absolutely hilarious. It’s not an attempt at humor, it IS humor. I don’t give a rats ass if dude’s want to suck off other dudes, or cram pineapple’s into each other, I’m not homophobic about it. More power too them. Taking a coffee advertisement that is pure satire and trying to put a political spin is, quite frankly, dumb. It’s meant to be funny, and if you don’t find it funny, trot off back to ifunny, ebaumbs world, the Onion, or the literally million other websites that are out there to cater to different people’s funny bones. Combat Veterans have a unique and twisted (morbid) sense of humor that most people won’t understand. Yes, Waterboarding is funny. I didn’t see really any anti-gay messages. It was anti-hipster and anti-hipsterBucks.
    Which, lets be honest, is something that we can all rally against.

    • So let me ask you something. If the video parodied ISIS-style beheading of a Christian, would you also think that it’s funny and humorous?

      The reason why so many people find this offensive is because the parody is not abstract – being beaten up, sometimes even killed, for being gay is something that actually happens in this country, today.

      • Yes.

        I live in a place where it wasn’t that long ago where gay kids were taken into the woods and suffered fatal “accidents” that were not only overlooked by but occasionally aided by cops. And my best buddy moved to a part of the country where such “accidents” still happen. That’s not a symptom of a free country where people believe that all are created equal.

        • overlooked by [and] occasionally aided by cops

          Corrupt law enforcement? Say it ain’t so.

  59. The irony is that it was done as an advertisement. That’s what makes it offensive. If it had been done by SNL or on South Park, it would have been something to either laugh at or shake your head at, depending on your variety of humor.

    They’d do better to make a video where some obvious weakling doubts that their coffee really has a kick, so they take him out and load a colonial-style musket with their coffee grounds and let him shoot it; when he hits the broad side of a barn, it blows an “exit wound” big enough to drive a humvee through and knocks him back on his ass, unconscious. They revive him, he downs a cup of their coffee, picks up a minigun and proceeds to finish off the barn. That would be funny, and would actually say something about their coffee.

  60. Wow! Lot of posts. Let me see if I can get the counter above 200.

    As long as I do not infringe on the rights of another, I expect to be allowed to live my life any way I choose. If someone has 10 wives, or has a same sex partner, what do I care. As long as the person does not tell me how to live, we are friends. If a person tries to take away my guns, the 2nd amendment, or supports those who do, then we got a problem.

  61. Wow, this had potential to be clever and entertaining but it’s just douche-y and homophobic.

  62. Agree or disagree…. Offensive or not offensive….whatever you believe, it gonna draw a lot of attention. Whether its good or bad attention, it’s still getting the company name out. Although there are many, many better ways to draw attention…

  63. Thank goodness for social justice commandos!

    Nevermind that the video was poking fun at overly-sensitive hipsters, clearly the best way to respond is by being overly-sensitive! While you were saddling up that white pony of self-righteousness, you probably should have paid more attention to their tagline:

    “BRCC…it’s not for ____ing pussies.”

    Clearly this product was not intended for those of you with overly developed sensitivity glands or who are prone to hand-wringing and hysteria.

    Thanks for the heads up on the product though. I will have to toss these guys some business to help offset the amount on nonsense and craw-sand in this blog.

  64. Simple algebra: a(exercising your 1st Amendment rights) X b(not exercising good sense) = c(general asshat-ness)

  65. This is why we can’t have nice things. Sure, you have your freedom of speech. How about you use it intelligently?! These are the kinds of people/actions that really mess it up for all us average joes. Media always goes for shock value. These guys them a good bit of fodder to use against our cause. I hope they think long and hard about their words and actions. Personally, I am sick and tired of intolerance and hate. Can’t you just respect the way someon wants to live their life? It has no consequence on how you choose to live your life. Get over the gay bashing already. Grow up!

  66. People can bash gays all they want. It`s called freedom of opinion. you are ether for freedom, or not. Freedom is about more then agreeing with or allowing an action or view based on whether you agree with the action/view.
    That said, so tired of people defending gays. As a group of people you can not find a more bigoted hateful group out there. The irony is that no one sees it. Express public, or even private disapproval and their true colors come out.
    I will never support gays in anything, but I will not try to disallow them anything ether.No matter how revolting I find their activities. Now, ifonly they would do other people the same courtesy.

    • If you tell people that they’re “revolting”, why would you expect them to treat you with respect?

  67. Well, after reading (or trying to) most all the comments, I finally watched the video, and decided that while it might be as good an excuse to take up drinking alcoholic beverages as any, I’m already Catholic and therefore drink too much.

    Every problem, no matter what KIND of problem, is only as much of a problem as one makes it. For my part, I’ve always tried to live and let live. Trying to impose your own will upon everyone else, as the gun haters do, merely gets me really pissed off.

    As for BRCC? It’s just like Sister Sara said, to paraphrase..everybody’s got a right to be dumb at least once in their life.

    Tom

  68. They’re bashing hipsters, not gays. This might be a generation gap thing, but I never once thought they were talking about homosexuals, just hipsters being feminine pussies.

  69. This video doesn’t really seem all that offensive. It doesn’t have enough intelligence or quality in the ad to make any kind of offensive point. It’s just childish.

  70. LOL @ all the people on this board who are going to buy this guy’s crappy coffee just to stick it to THE GHEYS.

    It’s not like these idiots are being boycotted as with the cake and flower ships who refuse to cater gay weddings. They’re just hateful little a-holes and you people are not endorsing anything except bigotry in the form of bad “humor”.

  71. You are all missing obvious point. If the hipster coffee makes “his” vagina feel good then “he” is in fact a “she” that makes this not a gay bashing video but in fact a female bashing video and a damn funny one at that.

    Comedy is cruel and not PC and if you want it to be then you are part of the problem. After all we have a right to free speech not to be free from being offend.

    • Actually, I took the video as a “metrosexual” bashing video, not a gay bash. The mangina/vagina bit plus the mockery heaped on Charbucks from serious coffee aficionados was a big giveaway.

  72. They should delete this video, publicly apologize for its creation and send a large donation to Pink Pistols. No. This is a free country with freedom of speech, expression, and association. If this private non-government free market company wants to put out an anti-homosexual message, that is their right.
    Just for the record; I am a libertarian and really do not care one way or the other about a person’s sexual orientation.
    If the Benedictine Bakery does not want to make wedding cakes for homosexuals that is fine. If the Pink Pistols want to boycott the Benedectine Bakery and bad mouth it, that is fine. None of this is the government’s dang business.

  73. Its was meant to be offensive, and these guys give ZERO phucks about what you think. stop being such a pussy

  74. So, 2nd Amendment supporters are now required to support anal intercourse between men? Don’t understand why. In any event, homosexuals voted overwhelmingly for Barack Hussein Obama. Why should we support them? Furthermore, homosexuals groups oppose the Second Amendment but claim that homosexuality is mandated by the Constitution. Homosexuals are enemies of the Constitution and the Second Amendment.

    • I like how you HAVE to put Obama’s middle name in there. Shows intent. Also shows you don’t even understand the basic logic that NONE of us get to pick our names.

    • >> So, 2nd Amendment supporters are now required to support anal intercourse between men?

      No, but at the very least, frame such discussion politely. And understand the implications of supporting this (today, this is basically equivalent to being on the anti-civil rights bandwagon back in 1950s – you will lose, and your support will taint you politically for many decades to come).

      >> In any event, homosexuals voted overwhelmingly for Barack Hussein Obama.

      They voted for the only candidate who openly stated that he will respect their rights (and actually did deliver on this promise, unlike most others). If GOP cannot offer a candidate who is hostile to gay rights, why be surprised that gays don’t vote Republican?

      >> Furthermore, homosexuals groups oppose the Second Amendment

      Can you give an example of a “homosexual group” that specifically opposes 2A? Heck, the only homosexual group that I know that has any opinion on it at all is the Pink Pistols, and they’re pro-gun.

      >> claim that homosexuality is mandated by the Constitution.

      If you mean equal treatment of homosexuals by the state, then yeah, it is in fact mandated in the Constitution. Specifically, in the 9th, 10th and 14th amendments.

  75. Do I think it was over the line, even though it was funny? Yes.

    But opinions are like what again?

  76. this is totally absurd. someone needs to have a serious conversation with these guys. i wont be buying, K-cups coming soon or not!

  77. Guess the coffee and the videos aren’t for pussies.

    Seriously. All the ‘offended” people here need to head over to the feminine aisle of their local supermarket and stock up on some lady consumables.

  78. Well, after a busy weekend, I’m a day late (and a dollar short), but once again, we have a bunch of folks posting who’d rather be right than successful in winning the war of public opinion for the 2A. This is not about what people of the gun have the RIGHT to say, or whether what they’re saying is right (or here, whether it’s funny); this is about winning hearts and minds. Just because we view the 2A as a fundamental right (and indeed, even though we’re entirely right) doesn’t mean it can’t be taken from us. Sure, you can yell, “Come and get them!” But wouldn’t you just rather win the war of public opinion and never have to go there in real life?

    Make no mistake; personally, I’m a fan of “offensive” humor, even if it’s directed at me, and I frequently think that the metaphorical Francis, whoever he may be, needs to lighten up. But it’s simply dumb, dumb, dumb to do it if you support a position on a hotly debated political issue, and want to win (or keep winning). It’s entirely possible to have every right to do something and still be nuts to choose to do it, in a particular context.

    I thank Mr. Hafer for his service, too, but he just ain’t helping the cause here, folks. I fear our recent political and Supreme Court successes have made some of us arrogant to the point of stupidity.

    • “Hearts and minds” huh.

      How is that working out for our brothers and sisters in the sandbox?

  79. Y’all are really bent out of shape over this. What I want to know is if their coffee is any good?

  80. I didn’t see anything in the video about bashing gays. Bashing hipsters, absolutely. But gays? Ha! I watched this video many times and didn’t see any gay bashing at all. Seriously, if people can’t take crude humor, get off the internet.

  81. It’s satire. Sounds like some people just need to put their big-girl panties on and laugh at a JOKE!

  82. this type of video is nothing new for the article15 guys but it’s all in good Fun hipster bashing not gay bashing. I do think they should get some of the pink pistol guys involved in the next video to show being gay doesn’t mean you’re a pussy.

  83. Why is it not a surprise that in this highly political correct forum that we are discussing muffling people’s freedom of expression?

  84. What authority legalizes perversion, neither the Bible nor Koran along with Buddhism Condone these practices, we as Christians, Muslims and Buddhist’s have to tolerate it not aggrandize it as being acceptable!

  85. It’s someone’s 1A right to post a video like this. Then it’s someone else’s 1A right to say that it is wrong or right. Then it is someone else’s 1A right to say whether that person is smart or dumb. Then it is the right of the original person to say “stop oppressing my 1A right”.

    It’s a big “rights” cluster cuss. It’s a right within a right within a right…. inception!

  86. What about hating the sin and not the sinner?
    And is there ever a situation where the video is hilarious? Can a cigar just be a cigar without the Inception scenario Gary refers to?
    Since we are on the topic of muffling expression and questioning 1A rights, what about the response? Is there any perspective on the 1A that says this video can still be hilarious? Is the audience at fault for perceiving this video as funny? As long as we are thought policing we should address that.
    Finally, if the Black Rifle Coffee Company is gay is this video still wrong (if you considered it wrong to begin with)?

  87. I saw this as anti hipster and anti Starbucks than anything else…I didn’t see this as anti-gay until you wrote about it. It doesn’t seem anti gay, just anti hipster / Starbucks

  88. Hey one more thing there… Your title, “… video dishonors us all”. All who? You got a mouse in your pocket? Keep the issues separate – don’t use the same logical fallacies and rhetorical devices on us that some of the anti-gun lobbyists do.

  89. Well, having looked at their “policy on internet trolls” video ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lR9iFI7N9gU ), this isn’t a one off instance of bigotry. There is a line in the policy video that says real men are too busy “slaying *bleeps*” to know how to use facebook. That bleep is 2 syllables and rather looks, and sounds like f-a-g-g-o-t-s. So, this could be just part of their brand persona, but if so it is a pretty offensive & dangerous one.

  90. OMG! Black Rifle Coffee Viral Video Makes Gun Owners Look Bad! OMG!

    Incendiary Video of the Day: Watch Robert Get Butthurt

  91. BRCC has generally gone about making “more manly than that other coffee” commercials. I kind of like thier fearless approach. I think this is more about poking fun at the less masculine types, but probably goes to far. in any event, it has been removed from youtube.

  92. I don’t care what you do in your private life. Just keep it private! If you are openly homosexual, zoosexual, bisexual you do not deserve respect and you will never have mine. No! I have not “evolved” my beliefs on sex, race, Communism, religion or anything else.

  93. A wise man once said:

    Lighten up, Francis.

    There are far too many Francis’ in this country today.

    And thinking about it, that movie could be a study for the easily offended not getting their panties in a knot. It’s got something to offend everyone today, but is funny as hell.

  94. And they should apologize. . . Why?

    In other related news a large anti-gun organization released a statement expressing their displeasure over the opinions portrayed in a advertisement video produced by a popular firearms manufacturing company. The president of the anti-gun group stated that “Marketing material like this, are a threat to us all. They should delete this video, publicly apologize for its creation and send a large donation to Moms Demand Action.”

    • >> And they should apologize. . . Why?

      Mainly because it’s actually offensive. All this “pro-gun” and “anti-gun” talk is really just a distraction from that main point.

        • If there are sufficiently many offended, it may become the problem of the company pretty quick, as well.

        • The people who are sufficiently upset about this to the point of boycotting or avoiding purchases, were never going to buy anything from them anyway. There is an easy test for this. If you find that your underwear has crawled into the darkness due to stress caused by a satirical video, you were never the demographic being targeted.

        • Which goes song with what I said elsewhere. There’s a lot of Francis’ that need to lighten up.

          (Think about something… Can you imagine that movie ever being made in today’s PC world? We’d be missing one of the funniest movies of all time. And that’s the fact, Jack!)

        • You are completely correct, int19h. And that is as it should be. And I will defend the right of those who chose to not give them business. The right of association is as precious as that of speech or arms.

  95. There are a few things that bug me in the world. And one is the author of this article. He states that BRCC and some of the guys from Art 15 are anti gay and gay bashing in this and finds it offensive. I as a red blooded America loving HOMOSEXUAL am not offended in the slightest. There were a couple jokes about Dick sucking but in the context of the video it has nothing to do with homosexuality. I hate when people take things out of context then say it’s offensive. This has nothing to do with sexuality and what gives straight people the right to tell me what gay bashing is? Please straight people tell me the Gay male what is gay bashing.

    I fully support Art 15 and BRCC. They are great guys doing what they love.

    I think BRCC should change their slogan to ‘America it’s not for Bleeping Pussies’

    Signed
    Pissed Off Gay EOD Tech.

    • So are you also ok with their video where they say real men are too busy “slaying faggots” to know how to use Facebook?

        • I already did above, but here it is again. It’s bleeped, but I can’t imagine what else he could be saying…

        • Thanks for the link.

          I think you have a nasty case of confirmation bias, as I cannot see how anyone would be able to determine what he is saying there, but hey, do what you do.

          A better question would be to ask you, if that IS what he was saying, who do you think he would have been talking about?

        • Like I said, I cannot think of anything else ending in a “ts” sound that might fit.

          As for the who, it’s whatever his warped definition of “real men” is. As a gay man that can shoot a gun AND repair a carburetor, I wouldn’t be familiar with that, clearly.

        • I don’t think you understood my question.

          If we were to simply agree that this is what he said despite it being beeped out, if he said that real men were too busy “slaying ——-ts” to respond to internet trolls, who do you think he would be referring to with that slur? Gays?

          Do you think he is saying that real men are out killing gays?

          I just want to be sure I understand what you are saying.

        • Well, your question wasn’t clear at all.

          That is generally what that slur means, yes. It is used for other things as well, but its most recent societal origin is as a gay slur. I’m pretty sure he wasn’t referring to bundles of sticks.

          And to a degree, that does seem to be his perception of what a real man should be doing. Perhaps if I hadn’t seen the other video, I wouldn’t think that, but given the combination of evidence that is my perception.

          He is fully within his rights to be a bigot and speak his mind about it, or as many here seem to assert, make bad attempts at humor to try to focus on a particular demographic. But pretty much everything he says just plays into pretty negative stereotypes on all sides.

        • If you honestly believe that he is talking about killing gay people, if he even used the word to begin with…nothing I can say can overcome a victim complex that strong.

          It’s just like when someone says “That’s retarded” or “That’s gay.” It is crude, it is not at all PC, it also has nothing to do with the mentally handicapped or homosexuals. If you find this offensive, then you have a long life of being perpetually offended ahead of you.

  96. The video is no more offensive than the plethora of “white people be like….” Jokes typically made by black comedians. If you are offended, don’t watch. This attempt to shame people into the “progressive” way of thinking is pathetic.

  97. The amount of autism in these comments is baffling. Guys the video is a joke, not a dick don’t take it so hard.

  98. THIS is what you spend your energies on? Whining about someone’s advertising when there are more pressing issues, at hand? SMH. I wish that I lived in your world.

  99. Show me on the doll where the internet hurt you. Can’t believe you wasted internet bandwidth to post the bullshit. Since when did the gun community become so PC and make offenses out of nothing. Gays were never mentioned in this video, if you extrapolated something else from the video, that’s your own damn problem, don’t come here bitching. I’m so tired of people’s perceived offenses. And water-boarding….seriously? I can’t handle the level of retarded logic.

  100. So I take it guns are only for Heterosexual Protestants? No Jews, gays, or Atheists allowed? Then you complain that ‘the media’ are being prejudiced towards gun owners and other Second Amendment supporters? I know some of you don’t want to hear appeals towards slanty-eyed cooly religions like Buddhism, but what goes around comes around.

  101. Dude you shouldn’t get all butt hurt over this. It’s just some off beat humor that most guys through around. Instead of seeing these military American males pretend it’s some liberals joking around.

  102. It’s coffee – lighten up. It’s not like these guys threw a bunch of gays off of a building or something… wait… that’s what Iran does, and our administration can deal with that, so does that mean that John Kerry is actually anti gay? Maybe you should worry more about where violence is actually committed against gays instead of a Youtube video.

  103. I’m enjoying some Black Rifle Coffee right now. Straight, hold the suger.
    Please stay active in supporting the lgbt group. It means so much to every one who is politically correct. For the rest rest us we’d rather piss on your grave.

  104. Grow a thicker skin guys… BRCC is an awesome company. So you don’t like the videos they produce? Don’t press play. Welcome to America where you can say and do what you please. Don’t like them? Don’t buy from them. Thats the beauty of America.

  105. Black Rifle Coffee is a fountain of youth. I can run faster, lift heavier, shoot straighter and eat more bush before 0900 than most people eat all day. I find your commentary non-accepting, insulting and well, feminine. Flame on and keep drinking that Hipster Buck’s!

  106. Interesting that the esteemed writer is so “appalled at [BRCCs] video” when, in his very own bio, he wrote that “I moved down to Atlanta to pick electronic cotton for Massa Turner (CNN)” (http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/about/).

    Now, if I were an overly sensitive person I’d write that it’s appalling for a middle-aged white man to appropriate terminology closely linked to slavery/the African-American plight just to make a funny little tidbit for his bio. I grew up in the South, and this kind of phrase would be considered offensive, if not outright racist.

    Good thing I’m not a crazy PC nut, though, so I don’t care that he used this lingo. What I *am* trying to say, however, is that it’s ludicrous the author is so offended over BRCCs innocuous video when his very own bio has borderline offensive commentary. Maybe he should consider publicly apologizing and making a donation to the NAACP.

    Sincerely,

    Someone deeply annoyed by articles like these who just put in a large BRCC order

  107. Well I guess we know that this coffee isn’t for you. Like the videos says, “It’s not for f*cking pussies.”

  108. Here is short easy thought to all these long diatribes. IF YOU ARE OFFENDED THEN DON’T BUY IT! That is the beauty of the free market. In fact if you idiots watched the very first commercial they tell you that. “Drink our coffee or don’t we don’t care.”

  109. So many these days are easily offended, and then have to tell everybody that they should also be offended. Remember that commercial that had two handsome guys and a short pudgy not-so-handsome guy and it was all about making the best choice and the obvious bad choice was the short pudgy guy. Where was the outrage over this nationally shown commercial. All of us can get offended at something, and yes sometime things can be too much, but that is why there is an off(Go F___ Yourself) button. And this is a video you don’t even have to watch.

  110. If you don’t like BRCC videos then don’t watch them and don’t buy their coffee I am pretty sure they don’t care and I know I don’t care.

  111. You REALLY need a fucking hobby, I mean other than trolling. Black rifle coffee kicks ass, yes it does but that’s where my agreement with you ends Mr Liberal. If it offends you stop watching the video nobody put a request in to ask you to watch the video and give your remarks on it who cares what you think actually

  112. How about everybody just calming down and giving each other a little space, a little room to be inappropriate, to be human. Or live in a fascist left anarchy where everyone gets in trouble for everything outside the party line. Maybe the KGB can be reanimated. You’re all a bunch of fools and cowards.

Leave a Reply

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