Magpul Misogyny. Or Not.

Since the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence (CSGV) labeled me a misogynist (and an insurrectionist) I’ve been extremely careful not to express anything but respect and admiration for strong, intelligent, sensitive, capable, caring, sensual women. Wait. Did I take that too far? Is calling a women sensual sexist? I’m so confused! Anyway, as for women who don’t answer to that description I think I’ll find one I hate and buy her a house. Hey, it’s my comfort zone. Meanwhile, isn’t this horrible? Bad Magpul! Bad! Oh wait. Is that a woman taking the pictures? That makes it OK, right? I’m so confused!


  1. avatar Anonymous says:

    To the anti-gun crowd, all gun owners are insurrectionist, misogynist , racist, people. They continually push for this image for us, despite how untrue it is, for the sake of pulling low-information voters their way.

    1. avatar doesky2 says:

      Embrace the label….the left has so overused the accusations to the point that they are meaningless.

      Let the fapping begin….

      All 12 laid out…My pick is obvious

      1. avatar Cliff H says:

        Very interesting. While they are all obviously quite beautiful, none are exactly my “type”, except that photographer, she’s a fox!

        1. avatar Bob Wall says:

          Smokin’, in a natural beauty kind of way. And the fact that she’s the woman in control of the situation makes her even hotter.

        2. avatar William Burke says:

          I’m puzzled; why does a woman have to be “your type” to og… observe and appreciate?

          “Appreciate” does not necessarily imply “ooh la la!”

        3. avatar joe says:

          yup the photographer should be in every picture. i’d buy that calendar

    2. avatar Hannibal says:

      Yeah, but many gun folks doesn’t exactly clamor to shut down the racist/bigoted/sexist stuff on forums/blogs/here. It’s sorta similar to the videogame industry, booth babes and all. I’d like to think it’s an immaturity thing rather than something tied to guns…

  2. avatar int19h says:

    The sexist part here is not “calling women sexual”. It’s using women as sexual objects, in a way that is completely irrelevant to the product actually being marketed, to draw the attention of male audience and sell the product.

    1. avatar Samuel Leoon Suggs says:

      I think if you remove the women part from that sentence you just covered what all advertising is and always has been, since the Greeks put Tits on an amphora

      1. avatar int19h says:

        If you remove women from the equation, than what, exactly, is used as sexual objects in advertising?

        Besides, the whole point is that people are being used in that way, as some kind of inanimate piece of scenery.

        1. avatar Alaskan Patriot says:

          Sex sells, son. Just the way it is. They know their consumer base is overwhelmingly male, and overwhelmingly, males like to look at women who look like that. So your options are down to
          1) Giving me shit for looking at a woman I’m attracted to and at a product I want, which is hard cuz it’s more or less hard-wired into my DNA, or
          2) Giving the marketing department at Magul shit for doing what they know works to try and sustain a business, which is hard because they’re just giving consumers what they want. I mean, face it. Most of us WANT to look at beautiful, scantily-clad women posing with beautiful rifles. So sue us. Or,
          3) Giving the women who pose for these photo shoots shit for the career path they’ve chosen, which just doesn’t make sense.

          Sounds like you really don’t have much recourse after you finish complaining about the contents of the video. You can’t get mad at men for looking at beautiful women, you can’t get mad at a marketing department for using what they know about their consumer base to their advantage (as long as it’s legal) and you can’t get mad at beautiful women who know they’re beautiful using that beauty to pursue a (legal) career they presumably enjoy.

          Guess I’m failing to see where the issue is. But that’s just me.

        2. avatar Samuel Leoon Suggs says:

          I meant that if you subtracted the women and put something else in like a work of abstract art you would be descibing all advertising that isn’t pure logical appeal.

        3. avatar Defens says:

          Except that no women were conscripted for those photos. In fact, they were probably paid very well.

        4. avatar Hasdrubal says:

          Does anyone else notice that women are displayed to sell products not just to men, but also displayed to sell products to other women? Far more, I think, than men are used to sell to women.

        5. avatar int19h says:

          >> I meant that if you subtracted the women and put something else in like a work of abstract art you would be descibing all advertising that isn’t pure logical appeal.

          Oh, sure. But it’s not about emotions vs logic. It’s about human dignity. Abstract art does not have dignity; a human being does.

          And yes, of course, these are free women who are perfectly within their right to sell their dignity like that if they so choose. But just because it is lawful (and should remain lawful), doesn’t mean that it has to be socially accepted.

        6. avatar Steve says:

          “Does anyone else notice that women are displayed to sell products not just to men, but also displayed to sell products to other women? Far more, I think, than men are used to sell to women.”

          That’s because the female body is beautiful, while the male body is utilitarian. When it comes to marketing, form > function most of the time.

        7. avatar Hasdrubal says:

          Yes, I agree completely as to why, I just find it funny that women who aren’t rabid feminists are just as capable as men of appreciating not only the female form, but also its ability to move product. Men are men and women are women. And while both can be very capable at any number of technical tasks, women have an undeniable advantage overall in just plain looking nice.

          Feinstein doesn’t count as a woman for this purpose… or any other that I can think of.

        8. avatar William Burke says:

          “Men are men and women are women”

          NONONO. That’s where your mistake begins… “Except when they aren’t,” should ALWAYS follow a notion like that one…

    2. avatar Cliff H says:

      I did not come up with this comment, but I wish I had:

      “Prostitution is NOT the oldest profession, Advertising is the oldest profession.”

      And since that time sex has worked as an advertising come-on (no pun). People are sexual animals and men especially are attracted to sexy women (I can’t speak for the reverse, but look at the perfume ads).

      I saw a woman, who appeared to be happy and professional, taking pictures. I saw lots of women under no apparent duress posing for those pictures. I saw lots of men nearby, handling the props and scenery and NOT raping any of those models.

      It is my considered opinion that women who drone on about misogynist men are either not really women or can’t figure out how to get decent men to pay attention to them. Either way, they are Darwinian dead ends, evolutionarily speaking. As they say, “A drop of chlorine in the gene pool.”

      1. avatar int19h says:

        There’s nothing wrong with men being sexually attracted to women, of course, or with women using it to their advantage.

        It’s an issue when other men use women as, essentially, expensive eye-catchy furniture to promote their stuff to other men.

        It would be a totally different story if, say, an actual female gun owner who also happens to be pretty made a video of herself showing off her gun skills or doing gun reviews. There are plenty examples of that on YouTube, too, and no-one is complaining about them. But as far as this video goes… how many of the women filmed in it even know how to shoot? How many would have actually shoot the gun they are holding if they could, out of their own desire, not because they were paid to do so?

        Bringing up prostitution is very apropos, actually. It’s one thing when women sells her own body. It’s another thing when a pimp does so.

        1. avatar Ralph says:

          Magpul is a pimp? I thought it was a wh0re.

        2. avatar Alaskan Patriot says:

          The women in that video aren’t participating against their will. This video is the end product of two different professions and professional groups coming together to develop it. You’re confusing two different ideas in your arguments. In one, the women are just there, and the marketing department makes money off of them. Not true. In the one that IS true, the women and the marketing department are working together; the women make the money off themselves, and the marketing department presumably will make money as a result of the video. One is wrong, one is not. Fortunately, the one that is *not* wrong is the one we’re looking at.

        3. avatar William Burke says:

          Actually, the women make the money off the men who make the money off… well, you know.

        4. avatar dsreno says:

          Models make their money by selling their image. It is the business they choose to do. As long as people consume those photographs, it is good business. It is anti-feminist, and probably anti-human-rights, to suggest that these women shouldn’t be able to legally make a living in the modeling business.

          If I could make a bunch of money by standing in front of a camera, I would gladly do it. Unfortunately, I was not dealt model-like features, so I had to find other talents to exploit.

        5. avatar int19h says:

          I did not say a single word about what the women in question (or Magpul, for that matter), should be _legally_ able to do. There’s no legal issue here at all – it’s all a matter of how you, as a person, react to this. Me, I find that I don’t enjoy watching people who sell their dignity to become a sexual attraction poster for the sake of money. Just as I don’t approve of prostitution, even though I believe it should be legal.

        6. avatar William Burke says:

          “Sell their dignity”? You mean it’s gone forever after the photo shoot?

        7. avatar Jake L. says:

          Are you saying that women don’t know how to shoot guns? Sounds pretty sexist to me . . . .

        8. avatar Cliff H says:

          “It’s an issue when other men use women as, essentially, expensive eye-catchy furniture to promote their stuff to other men.”

          int, I’m really hoping you’re a female. These sorts of puerile PC feminist arguments coming from a man would be pathetic. Every man knows that when a beautiful woman is in view, that’s where other men look. Hell, wives and girlfriends know it too and try as they might can do nothing to stop it. And tell me this, if all the women did not know this fact, who is buying all those cosmetics, shampoos, perfumes, hair colors, and sexy dresses and bikinis? Explain Victoria’s Secret. You think the ladies are doing all that to impress each other?

          Miley Cyrus has no real, special talent. Why else do you think she is trying to extend a silly career by running around in public twerking and practically naked? Because males will still pay to look at her, even if they mute the music in the meantime.

          And the one group that spends the most time and effort making a woman into “eye-catchy furniture to promote their stuff to men” is women who are looking for a man. I don’t know about most of the other men reading/posting here, but I would not have looked twice at my ex-wife if she had not been both incredibly beautiful and sexually attractive to me. That’s kind of what the whole male/female partner thing is all about.

          And why is it that the more feminist a woman is the less likely she is to be feminine? There is a paradox for the ages. Or not.

          This does not in any way excuse actual misogynists who use, abuse, demean, humiliate or otherwise consider any or all women to be second class citizens. The natural and physical fact that the main physiological role of a woman is to bear children and of a man to provide for and protect those children does not make women second class citizens, it makes them THE most important link in the continuation of the human race.

          “Whenever women have insisted on absolute equality with men, they have invariably wound up with the dirty end of the stick. What they are and what they can do makes them superior to men, and their proper tactic is to demand special privileges, all the traffic will bear. They should never settle for mere equality. For women, “equality” is a disaster.” – Robert A. Heinlein

        9. avatar Rich Grise says:

          “Explain Victoria’s Secret. You think the ladies are doing all that to impress each other?”

          Strangely enough, I think so. Take for example, the obsession with wearing superlatively uncomfortable, even painful, shoes. Has any man ever rejected a woman because her feet are too big? And makeup – when the lights are out, everybody looks the same.

        10. avatar William Burke says:

          So, the implication would be that “equality” with men involves necessarily a surrender of advantage?

          Why YES! Yes, it does…

        11. avatar Bob Wall says:

          @Rich Grise – I do wonder about Vic’s Secrets… Once a woman is down to her skivvies, the rest is academic.

    3. avatar William Burke says:

      Which is how I can enjoy the product without buying it. The .jpg is free; love live the .jpg!

    4. avatar Mina says:

      women, when they are young and sexy, are pretty to look at – like flowers!

      They make everything around them seem better and more fun.

      LOVE the video!! Shared to my Facebook 😀

      What I’d give to be under 25 and have legs as long as Florida …

      1. avatar Hannibal says:

        Yeah, like flowers… inanimate objects you can buy and do whatever you want with because they don’t talk back.

        Great analogy.

        1. avatar Mina says:

          yeah, and those ladies sure do look extremely concerned about “being used” as they pose, look pretty get paid $1,000s for it. I am sure they don’t diet and take care of themselves to look good for men, either. ha!

    5. avatar Hannibal says:


      Plenty of people are saying “yeah, and it works!” Okay, maybe, and it’s still sexist. Don’t bitch about being called out on it by people, and expect that the gun culture will face the same claims of immaturity, insecurity and overcompensation as video gamers and motorcycle riders that act the same way and lose twenty IQ points when they see someone in a bikini. I don’t need a distractingly underdressed woman selling me a drill bit set, so I also don’t need one selling a gun. There are places on the internet (or hell, ‘real life’) to see them if I’m in the mood for that…

      1. avatar William Burke says:

        How did this become about what you need, or don’t need? Let’s make a deal: you can have the drill bit set, I get the under-dressed woman.

        Fair enough, Hannibal?

      2. avatar Carry.45 says:

        You know how in some movies the plot involves an evil spreading throughout a land and the main character(s) need to find the origin? Looks like you and int are what are responsible for the pussification of our land. A man who would sacrifice looking at beautiful women to seem a little more PC deserves neither women nor a penis.

  3. avatar dwb says:

    dont be confused, it’s called the Dems War on Women strategy.

    everyone who does not agree with us is a misogynistic racist insurrectionist.

    1. avatar William Burke says:

      By definition, isn’t that War on Men? Can someone ask them about that?

      1. avatar Jus Bill says:

        You will never get a straight answer. Over the course of three hours and 90,000 words.

    2. avatar Rich Grise says:

      The war on women is the embodiment of the “women are property” imprint. What exploits them is using their “plight” to push a statist political agenda.

      1. avatar Mina says:

        Thank you, and exactly.

        Side note: I feel that I am, in many ways, the property of my husband.

        Strange how the Feminists want me to be empowered to be divorced and live life “my way” yet hate with vitriol my choice to be empowered by being the property of the only man who matters in my world.

        1. avatar William Burke says:

          If you two should break up, who gets you?

        2. avatar Rich Grise says:

          “If you two should break up, who gets you?”

          Hopefully, that’s specified in the partnership agreement.

        3. avatar Rich Grise says:

          I’d argue that he’s as much your property as you are his. A couple is supposed to be, you know, balanced.

          Or, come to think of it, you are free to grant title to yourself to whomever you choose to, so we really have no quarrel here. 🙂

  4. avatar John E> says:

    so I am assuming that we can order the calendar from Magpul? Purely for research of course…

    1. avatar William Burke says:

      In order to discern the day and the calendar date. How does that work again? You have to already know the answer to determine the answer, so clearly a calendar is for something else. So go for it.

      1. avatar Rich Grise says:

        Is that anything like using a dictionary to look up the spelling of a word?

        <explanatory note for those who don’t get the gag>
        If you don’t know how it’s spelled, how in heck are you supposed to look it up?
        </explanatory note for those who don’t get the gag>

  5. avatar AlphaGeek says:

    Frankly, the photographer is just as attractive as most of those models, if not more so. She’s adorable.

    1. avatar Cliff H says:

      But the guy taking the video, he’s a misogynist fer shur. (Thank goodness.)

    2. avatar Denny says:

      Agreed. The blonde female photographer was quite nice too!

      1. avatar AlphaGeek says:

        Glad we agree, but didn’t I just say that?

    3. avatar Accur81 says:

      Word. That blondie photographer, while still out of my league, would have enjoyed a few amateur pick up attempts from your truly if’n yours truly wasn’t already spoken for by Mrs. A81.

    4. avatar Carry.45 says:

      She was the prettiest in the bunch hands down.

      1. avatar Rich Grise says:

        She definitely looks happier than most of the models.

  6. avatar disthunder says:

    Monday’s headline: Insurrectionitist Mysogenist Gun Nut Racist Blogger confused on sexism!

    I’m not a big Rush fan, but I always got a chuckle out of his old tagline of being the mainstream medias’ daily show prep.

  7. avatar dph says:

    Nice trigger discipline. There now, that’s not sexist is it?

    1. avatar William Burke says:

      Is that a serious question?

      1. avatar dph says:

        Sorry, I thought the sarcasm would be evident.

        1. avatar William Burke says:

          So did I.

    2. avatar Steve says:

      Question is, did you use proper trigger discipline while watching the video?

  8. avatar William Burke says:

    “Wait. Did I take that too far? Is calling a women sensual sexist? I’m so confused!”

    1. Maybe.
    2. To certain types, yes.
    3. Welcome to the club.

    You can’t please everyone, by definition. So is there any point in trying? Not to me, there isn’t. To quote Rick Nelson, “…you can’t please everyone, so you’ve got to please yourself.”

    1. avatar Ralph says:

      you’ve got to please yourself.

      I heard that you go blind from that.

      1. avatar Jay1987 says:

        And don’t do it in church either they’ll kick you outta there for that.

    2. avatar Mina says:

      You gotta know that the Libs have really farked things up when a man doesn’t know if it’s ok to look at a beautiful woman and think “Hell, yah”

      Break beyond. Be men. Show them you cannot be trained or broken, make their brains explode.

      1. avatar Jay1987 says:

        Or just make them whine louder… they always whine louder and frankly some ain’t got enough brains to put out a spark how they gonna explode?

      2. avatar Ralph says:

        a man doesn’t know if it’s ok to look at a beautiful woman and think “Hell, yah”

        I look at a beautiful woman and think “how much?”

        1. avatar Jay1987 says:

          Is that how much per hour or how much is the divorce gonna cost???

        2. avatar Steve says:

          Jay1987, it doesn’t really matter in the end…

        3. avatar Jay1987 says:

          On the contrary, my first marriage taught me that the per hour approach wouldve been cheaper and less of a headache. I think in the end you aren’t paying the lady of the evenin for companionship you’re payin em to get in do it to it and leave. No cuddlin no talkin no exchangin phone numbers just hit it and git it.

  9. avatar NYC2AZ says:

    Does that make the anti gun crowd misandrists? Being that they can’t stop talking about penis size and evil OFWGs…

    1. avatar Adub says:

      They do hate men. That’s why the invented divorce and alimony and child support. Now, thanks to socialism and Obama, they don’t even have to marry you or bear your children before they can take your money- they make you pay for the children they had with some other guy they fvcked!

      1. avatar int19h says:

        >> That’s why they invented divorce and alimony and child support.

        They also banned the ancient and noble Anglo-Saxon practice of wife selling, the bastards!

        1. avatar Ralph says:

          Wife selling? I couldn’t give mine away.

  10. avatar Tom says:

    Insurrectionist is a code word for “round them all up and throw them in camps”. Were it not for the mainstream media giving them free PR, groups like CSGV and Moms Demand Action would be about as politically relevant as the Green Party and Stormfront.

    1. avatar JoshinGA says:

      Even WITH the free PR, they have zero political capital. Hell, they have what, several hundred thousand “members” each, a member being anyone who has ever given them an email addy that one time in college when they were in their “activist” stage, whereas the NRA has what 5 million paying members? Yeah, I think saying that they are more relevant than the Green party is a stretch.

  11. avatar Anonymous says:

    If anything, the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence (CSGV) is are misogynist. They projecting their misogyny towards us gun owners. It is they who want women to not own any guns and thus protect themselves from rapists, burglars, murderers, etc. Guns put women on equal ground against 250lb armed rapists. CSGV hate women and the disabled.

    1. avatar William Burke says:

      That’s called “misandry”, not “misogyny”.

      1. avatar Rich Grise says:

        I happen to love women. Does that make me a “philogynist?”

        1. avatar William Burke says:

          No, I think you hate stamps. The kind you have to lick.

        2. avatar int19h says:

          I believe the correct term would be “gynophile”. But yes.

    2. avatar Mina says:

      You are exactly correct.

      What they do is this: They give hungry women a bowl of sand and a set of a chopsticks. And they work very hard to convince the women that it is rice.

      Meanwhile over here at TTAG, RF is serving real rice and a bonus of something nice and stir-fried served over it.

      Which camp, in this scenario, does the disservice to women?

      1. avatar William Burke says:

        Stir-fried women!

        1. avatar Mina says:

          My analogy was clearly not defined well enough. LOL

        2. avatar Jay1987 says:

          Mmmm stir fried asian reporter Tricia Takanowa…. yum yum can I get extra soy sauce and MSG in mine??

  12. avatar Ralph says:

    Does the Magpul calendar show the date that they’re moving out of Colorado, or will I need a perpetual calendar for that?

    1. avatar Sixpack70 says:

      I think they are waiting to see what happens with the court battle and also once they toss Hudak out onto the streets to see if things will change.

      1. avatar Ralph says:

        I wonder what Magpul’s excuses will be next year and the year after that.

        1. avatar William Burke says:

          “We forgot.”

  13. avatar JW says:

    Where we’re the guns in the video?

    1. avatar Rich Grise says:

      “where we are the guns in the video?”

      What does that even mean?

      1. avatar William Burke says:

        ROFL. Ouch… it HURTS!

      2. avatar Hannibal says:

        I believe he’s making a metaphysical point that we, the gun owners, are represented by the guns in this video being held by the corporate… you know what? Never mind, I have no idea.

        1. avatar Rich Grise says:


          I was trying to make a sarcastic comment about the extraneous apostrophe in the middle of the verb “were.”

          Rich Grise, Self-Appointed Chief
          Internet Apostrophe Police

  14. avatar Buhrine says:

    Magpul is still based in Colorado, I know. But, It’s pretty cool that the cover shot was taken in downtown Dallas. Am I reading to much into that? The whole shoot may have taken place there. That house looks very Preston Hollow.

  15. avatar James says:

    Well if the CSGV wants to call out misogynist, then the call start by calling out Gordon Hintz, D-WI. He is the state representative who issued a direct and real death threat to a female Republican colleague in 2011. “You’re F÷%!^#ing Dead” was his direct quote. To date, he is still a state rep and no, none, nil, nadda, zilch, zero womens groups, domestic violence groups, democrats, or other violence groups have called for his resignation much less even condemn the comment.

  16. avatar Rich Grise says:

    Has anyone ever asked an actual woman how she feels about making a couple thousand for an afternoon’s photo shoot? Like, “Do you feel exploited or used or objectified?”

    I once asked a couple of Hooters waitresses how they felt about working there, did they feel exploited, etc, and not one of them reported any problem with it.

    To me, one thing that really stands out about the shoots like the one for this vid is that none of the models is smiling. They all look either supremely bored or a little bit angry; I find that kind of a turn-off. And I’ve never liked bovine udders on women – anything over a mouthful is excessive.

    As far as using boobs to sell products, well, as has been mentioned, using sex to sell crap has been done since time immemorial (“Use our product and get hot babes” or “Use our product and be a hot babe”), not to mention that the Constitution does, in fact, guarantee freedom of the press and freedom of expression.

    1. avatar William Burke says:

      In Hooters, you say?

      Now we know what kind of man YOU are!

    2. avatar William Burke says:

      “Superfluous”, not “excessive”. They’re only “excessive” when they’re large enough to do you harm. Such GOOD harm….

      1. avatar Rich Grise says:

        Thanks! 🙂

      2. avatar Cliff H says:

        My daddy always said, “more than a mouthful is superfluous. More than a handful just goes to waste.”

    3. avatar Sixpack70 says:

      I saw a few of them between takes or during makeup smile or laughing. I think you won’t see them doing much smiling while on the set due to trying to get a certain look for the camera. Although, we are only seeing a small snapshot of the shoots.

      1. avatar dsreno says:

        They don’t smile on the camera because they have to be sexy-serious. I think the faces they make are trying to suggest “I might be attracted to your ugly ass, but a lady never tells.” It holds our attention a little longer than a smile does. Maybe on the double-take we will notice the product that they are advertising…

        1. avatar William Burke says:

          “It holds our attention a little longer than a smile does.”

          But not as long as “pouty” does…

    4. avatar Hannibal says:

      So you talked to a couple of women whose jobs depend on the tips of you and other customers in there and they told you it was okay to be there? Huh.

      1. avatar William Burke says:

        Can I borrow some palms, someone? Anyone?

        They’re for my face.

  17. avatar shawn says:

    Just freaking admit it, since you placed that ban on yourself not to put extremely hot women on this site, you came up with this extravagant plan to do such and have a win.

  18. avatar DrVino says:

    Make sure the house is a “fixer-upper” if you really hate her.

  19. avatar Mina says:

    For the Record, this is the PERFECT way to throw the Misogynist label right back at them.

    Good one, RF. Great video.

  20. avatar doesky2 says:

    Let the fapping begin….

    All 12 laid out…My pick is obvious

    1. avatar Rich Grise says:

      Well, I’ll be! One of them is actually smiling! But I guess if I had a hot pink AR, I’d be smiling too. 😉

  21. avatar Charlie Johnson says:

    In my own flawed opinion, the women in these photos are depicted as extremely powerful, even without the added armament. I don’t see how anyone could describe this visual experience as misogynistic. But then, I’m a man, and therefore know nothing of such things, right?

  22. avatar Rich Grise says:

    “Is calling a women sensual sexist?”

    Absolutely, unequivocally, No. Even though we OWGs (I’m actually quite scrawny, hence no ‘F’) can’t, or would rather not, see it, some men can be just as sensual to a woman as some women are to us. And if you’re gay, then just invert the divisor and multiply. 😉

    1. avatar Hannibal says:

      Sensual: 1.
      of or arousing gratification of the senses and physical, esp. sexual, pleasure.

      Basically calling them sensual is saying they give you a hard on, except in a more gentile fashion. Yeah, it’s sexist.

      1. avatar William Burke says:

        Well, Rich…. I guess there’s only one thing left for you to do. Hope you don’t suffer too much, man.

    2. avatar Cliff H says:

      Rich, you seem to be old enough that I shouldn’t have to point this out, but gays cannot multiply.

      1. avatar William Burke says:

        No.. you’re wrong about that; you’re thinking in literal terms. They can and do.

  23. avatar Christian says:

    …on a different note, the music in the background (in case anyone is wondering) is “Rebellion Anthem” by Blue Stahli, from his album Antisleep Vol. 2.

    1. avatar William Burke says:

      Ho. There was music?

  24. avatar Dirk Diggler says:

    well, according to Elie Mystal, gun lovers are racist. . . . but how do you explain two Black models? Oh wait, that’s right, they hate Black people too.

  25. avatar Pete says:

    This is wholly not my thing. But I do give them props for trying to go beyond the typical crap.

  26. avatar TJ says:

    I didn’t see a photoshoot….I saw magpul giving models a lesson in good trigger discipline.

  27. avatar Carl says:

    you don’t want to get involved with these types, don’t try to please them you never will. You are entering a modern subculture where it’s not about I said something that was offensive to you, so I’m sorry. Its you did somethings that I will now label you as a misogynist contributing to systematic patriarchy, tactful logical debate is unnecessary because I think you are ultimately an force of evil against women for which unlimited emotion disregard yelling and censorship is justified.

Write a Comment

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

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