RECOIL Magazine Takes Blowback for Chris Cheng Cover Art

349
Previous Post
Next Post

A few days ago RECOIL Magazine posted three versions of a cover design for their next issue on their Instagram page. The idea was to let readers choose their favorite. All three were basically the same layout with varying color schemes. The featured image showed Top Shot champion and prominent Second Amendment advocate Chris Cheng holding a rifle and wearing a rainbow design American flag on his shirt.

Cheng, if you’re unaware, is openly gay. In fact, he announced that to the gun world in the pages of RECOIL back in 2013.

June, in case you hadn’t noticed, is also Pride Month. A friend at RECOIL tells us that the Cheng cover had been in the works for months and it was only a coincidence of the magazine’s editorial calendar that it was scheduled to run in June.

The problem is that publishing it in June makes RECOIL’s cover blend in and appear to be part of all of the other conspicuous corporate LGBTQ pandering that’s everywhere you look this month.

The real story here, though, is the reaction the cover provoked on Instagram. Commenters were, to say the least, decidedly negative, if not outright hostile to the rainbow flag image and the implied LGBTQ promotion.

As of this morning, there are over 4,000 comments under RECOIL’s Instagram post and until the magazine posted the following message two days ago, the large majority of the reactions were negative.

We couldn’t have written that last paragraph better ourselves. If you’ve read TTAG for any amount of time, you know that we, like RECOIL, believe that guns are for everyone. Broadening the base of gun owners in this country is not only good for promoting a healthy civil society, it also makes defending and extending gun rights and defeating efforts to disarm Americans far easier for all of us.

We’re Second Amendment absolutists and have always supported lawful gun ownership for everyone, whatever their personal proclivities may be. Gun control in this country is rooted in racism and discrimination. Promoting gun ownership to minorities of all kinds not only furthers the cause of gun rights, it also ensures people who count themselves among those groups can defend themselves and their families from those who would prey upon them.

More minorities and other “identity groups” are coming to that realization. That’s why we now have organizations like the National African American Gun Association, Pink Pistols, the Asian American Gun Owners of California, Armed Equality and many more.

The Pink Pistols’ motto is Armed Gays Don’t Get Bashed and after the Pulse Nightclub shooting, this meme became popular . . .

As we can attest, blog comment sections — and social media in particular — can, at times, devolve into venomous pits of electronic slime where the angry, the aggrieved, the unstable, and your basic basement-dwellers feel free to spew freely. They may be a minority of the general population, but they seem to be overrepresented in the online world, so take the blowback RECOIL got for what it’s worth.

By most official estimates, America has about 100 million gun owners. The real number is probably higher by a good fifty percent or more. Still, that doesn’t mean those of us who care about the right to keep and bear arms can afford to alienate or exclude anyone from exercising their Second Amendment rights and you won’t see any of that here. You certainly don’t have to agree with that stance, but if it upsets you, then neither TTAG — or RECOIL — is the place for you.

 

 

 

Previous Post
Next Post

349 COMMENTS

    • Thank you for this post, Dan. I 100% agree. The 2A is for everyone and I’ve never seen a community that is so welcoming to people of different stripes and beliefs as long as they agree that the 2A needs to be defended. I’ve been to all sorts of conferences for all sorts of different industries and obviously, like everyone else, have attended social gatherings centered around different themes or causes or religions or other “identity groups.” As mentioned, I have NEVER been exposed to a community or group that is so supportive and welcoming to anyone as long as they share the same interest in defending and exercising the Second Amendment. I believe the comments on RECOIL’s post, while numerous, represent a minuscule fraction of the 2A community although, obviously, the corporate media and lefty politicians would have you believe otherwise. I also can see from many of the comments that people are just sick of having beliefs and forced compliance pushed on them and they’re lashing out at that, not at the message itself or at Chris, etc. I think that’s a cynical and incorrect interpretation of RECOIL’s intention, but I understand the impulse.

      All that said, the RECOIL cover is absolutely, unquestionably very good, smart, effective politics. The more we can publicly show that the gun community believes, as it does, that the 2A is for everyone the less the antis will be able to effectively castigate this community as nothing but old fat white bigoted rednecks. This message, which the antis have done a good job spreading, hurts the Second Amendment. It limits how many people are willing to publicly come out in support of the 2A if the pro-2A group is slandered in this way. The cover of RECOIL, which is visible in stores and airports around the country, with Chris and a rainbow flag, etc., is good politics. It’s good for the cause. It’s…dare I say it…fabulous 🙂

      • Absolutely! Just imagine how many gay gun owners are out there feeling like they have no place in the 2A community because unfortunately in 2021 there are still a lot of people shouting “sin” and “perverted lifestyle choice” and other bullshit which just alienates the people that would step up and HELP save the 2A. If anything, the anti-gay people need to be called out for holding the overall 2A rights movement back. Recoil Magazine is breaking through the homophobia and it’s too bad that some people are still more anti-gay than pro-2A. It all needs called out.

        • Except there isn’t any homophobia left in the U.S. No one is scared of the gays, or cares at all what anyone’s private life consists of. Just about EVERYONE is sick of identity politics being shoved down their throat and watching minorities get hijacked by politics in order to monetize their overblown victimhood.

        • Kubla,

          Without getting into the obvious issue of whether the commenters on this thread are a fair sample of the U.S. population in general, a simple scan of the comments here would pretty much put the lie to your first sentence. Yes, many are objecting to what they perceive as “imposing” the “gay agenda” on us, PLENTY of the comments flat out disparage gays for their actual sexual practices. So, guessing you might want to rethink that assertion/belief.

          And to the extent they “proselytize” for the “gay agenda”, that is THEIR right, under the 1A, just as RKBA is OUR right. I am perfectly capable of tuning out, and protecting my children from, such nonsense. The intellectual inconsistency of asserting, with respect to the AR-15, “it’s my RIGHT to own one”, then turning around and saying “I don’t care what kind of sex they are having in PRIVATE, but they can’t aggressively campaign for it” (which the 1A expressly protects), is STUNNINGLY hypocritical.

          I hear their noise, and I ignore it. Saves incalculable tsuris and brain sweat, compared to even letting it into your consciousness.

      • “The cover of RECOIL, which is visible in stores and airports around the country, with Chris and a rainbow flag, etc., is good politics. It’s good for the cause.”

        Except that it will be lost in a sea of goofy rainbows during this month. It might have actually been brave for them to do this at another time. Having it during June makes them followers, not leaders.

    • Agree. Modern people in the 2A understand the current reality and that while this looks very similar to the virtue signaling from the corporate left, this is needed because society is in a transition where gay people like Chris and scores of others are part of the 2A community and not owned by the left or associated with gun control and other left-wing causes. It has to be shown that gay does NOT = left wing. Perhaps a in a few years what Recoil Magazine did won’t even be needed. Most importantly, LGBT’s are individuals who share the same American freedom values and during these times, we need all of the America First, pro-Constitution people we can get.

    • I’m personally impressed with the dust up in here on this one. Hasn’t been a good dust up like this here for awhile.

      • Let’s start with Drag Queen story time for impressionable children.

        Then we’ll move on to the trans industry that advcates mutilating the genitalia of pre-pubescent children.

        Then we’ll finish off with “Bake that cake, bigot or we’ll bankrupt you!”

    • Plus 1. If homosexuals and others want to arm up for defense great! Maybe one day they’ll understand that self-defense is a God-given right and that may lead them to investigate God’s teachings in the Bible. But I draw the line at promoting homosexual behavior and all the other deviant behaviors that the lgbtqxyz123 people are trying to promote. Homosexuality is bad for the individuals practicing it, it’s bad for families, it’s bad for communities, and it’s bad for America. And, it’s bad for the gun community to promote these lifestyles.

      • “ Homosexuality is bad for the individuals practicing it, it’s bad for families, it’s bad for communities, and it’s bad for America.” So……It’s totally cool for the “community” to be a wife beating child punching alcoholic as long as”God” approves of your sexual orientation? Some of the most “deviant” dangers to the “community” I’ve ever met in my life were/are Bible reading church going hypocrites that use it as a crutch to help themselves mentally condone or feel they’ve been forgiven by God for their overly deviant behavior.

      • I seem to remember something about, “Hate the sin; love the sinner”. If you claim to be free of sin, I think Jesus had a challenge for you – cast the first stone. I’m not, and I never claimed to be. I’ve made enough mistakes in my life that I try not to judge others, EXCEPT when they are trying to control or infringe my liberty. Pro 2A gays are natural political allies – they’ve experienced more prejudice historically than we have (but that gap is, unfortunately, closing quickly!), so they should have a good grounding in how important it is to recognize and protect our rights.

        • “Hate the sin; love the sinner”

          Excellent advice from a man who worshiped 33 major gods and goddesses, as well as hundreds of lesser deities.

        • Gee, Minor IQ, once again, with respect to my spiritual beliefs, you prove that your knowledge of that is as accurate and “in depth” as your knowledge of guns, history and the Constitution. Thanks for playing, I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul (such as it is).

    • Punishing, shaming, or otherwise canceling people for a victimless “sin” is certainly not defending liberty. Whatever consenting adults want to do with each other in their private lives is none of our business. You can disagree with their message, but if you want to silence or criminalize them, you’re no better than the marxist trash that has been largely successful in owning the loyalty of the people you are shunning.

      The leftist oligarchs are actively stripping liberty from our country and if people like you keep pushing “sinners” away from our group, they’ll be welcomed by the commies. they will collectively use the system built by liberty to destroy us and everything we hold dear.

      • The most direct causal link to children growing up to become violent adults is the lack of fathers. In other words, broken or non-existent families. We see this played out in the news nearly every night.

        We are already seeing the statistical results of “redefining” marriage making it entirely meaningless. Massive violence and lawlessness that is certain to follow.

        If you think that is a good thing…

        • Gays won’t be fathering children, to leave or not. They’re not a threat to anything, why the bigotry?

        • The children of gay parents looting and burning cities is deplorable.

          We must stop the carnage.

        • Fatherlessness is far more driven by the welfare state and easy divorce laws and misandrist divorce laws than anything else. Gays really don’t have much at all to do with it.

          You either believe in liberty or you don’t. If you do then you have to let other people do what they want as long as they aren’t harming anyone else or anyone else’s property.

          “Republic. I like the sound of the word. It means people can live free, talk free, go or come, buy or sell, be drunk or sober, however they choose. Some words give you a feeling.” John Wayne

        • “I believe in white supremacy until the blacks are educated to a point of responsibility,” Wayne stated. The actor also spoke on Indians, who were often a part of his Western movies, “I don’t feel we did wrong in taking this great country away from them…There were great numbers of people who needed new land and the Indians were selfishly trying to keep it for themselves.”
          John Wayne

      • defender of liberty- VERY WELL SAID

        The bitter irony being dismally displayed here is the disturbing inability of so may to comprehend how impugning the wearer of a “rainbow” shirt is no different than assailing someone for wearing a “Jesus” shirt.

        • That’s where you are incorrect Peter Gunn. Jesus did not condone homosexuality. Therefore, your equality comparison between a “rainbow” shirt and a “Jesus” shirt is lacking in reasoning. As God, Jesus created the rainbow and the use of it by the homosexual community is a perversion of it’s meaning.

        • Peter, Texican made your point for you by not getting the point. Either Texican has an inability to see anything beyond his nose or is a closet case as they normally identify themselves by saying such off the wall statements.

        • Discerning that God created the homosexual community really makes their brains implode.

          Wait for it… in 3, 2, 1…

        • Texican,

          Nor did Jesus condemn homosexuality. Go back and check the only Gospels that (allegedly) contain the actual words of Jesus – Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. I’ve read them many times, and I never saw that. Jesus refused to condemn thieves, prostitutes, etc. (he didn’t have much truck with usurers or tax collectors, but that just proves he was the first libertarian). I imagine, if Jesus thought homosexuality was a sin, he thought that “hate the sin; love the sinner” was higher law. As do I.

        • “Jesus did not condone homosexuality.”

          I would be interested in knowing exactly what Jesus said about homosexuality.

        • I don’t know about homosexuality, but Jesus had plenty to say about adultery. Adultery is condoned because everyone commits it, at least with their eyes.

        • Again, Peter Gunn, God made humans. He didnt make the homosexual community. That’s their own doing. God gave directions to live a happy and fulfilled life and homsexuality isnt on His list.

        • “God made humans“

          That is quite a statement!

          Now that you’ve made the claim, the burden of proof is upon you. An extraordinary claim like that will require extraordinary evidence… What do you have?

        • For extraordinary evidence, I’ll simply advert you to everything science can’t adequately explain, which is a vast territory, despite everything we think we know.

          And then I’d remind you that everything we *do* know could also be evidence of God at work; the claim that there can be no God rests primarily on the assumption that scientific knowledge and the divine are mutually exclusive.

          Without that false premise, can you prove YOUR extraordinary claim, Miner?

        • NO, of course not.

          And I don’t care to either.

          I will only offer snark condescending comments.

          Plus, I will immediately abandon any follow up reply if I am getting my ass handed to me. Which is, admittedly, quite often….OK OK, almost always.

      • defender of liberty said:
        “Punishing, shaming, or otherwise canceling people for a victimless “sin” is certainly not defending liberty. Whatever consenting adults want to do with each other in their private lives is none of our business. ..”

        OK, so you agree that what consenting adults do, and no matter what it is, it’s none of our business. I know of people that died or were gravely injured while doing what consenting adults sometimes do.

        Well, I’m certainly glad you’re ok with that. At least, the dead person had the liberty and good sense to die….

        After all, sinners are people too.

        • And people have the right to choose a lifestyle of which you disapprove – up to and including suicide. “Laws” against suicide are the ultimate example of government stupidity. Who the hell ya gonna punish??????? And if I’m determined to kill myself, already, what PENALTY would dissuade me??

          There are many personal behaviors I “disapprove of” – for me. I have my reasons. I don’t much care what other ADULTS do in private, even if risky or dangerous, and I ignore such behavior in public, unless it threatens ME or my liberty. More people should try that, in my opinion, but if it “works” for you to stress out about what other people believe, or are doing, in private, then you do you. I find that living and managing my life for myself keeps my pretty busy.

        • It is simply human nature to want to control other people, but it is simple human weakness to fail to grasp that controlling oneself is the exigent imperative.

          Religion ups the ante by not only nurturing a coercive obligation to control others- some threaten eternal damnation for failing to capitulate.

          And this is but one of the multitude of religious dogma that suggest an extant human generation of religion. It is just so… us– looking in a mirror.

          And it appears that too many find a dearth of drama in minding one’s own business.

      • I know right. These snowflakes offended at gay people and rainbows act just like the woke left when they see a MAGA hat. “So scary! Oh, please, you’re offending my sensibilities. I’m such a victim! Poor me. I liked free speech 5 minutes ago when I agreed with it.”

    • Why is it that people who ardently defend ONE right, can ignore that and denounce the right of another person to live a lifestyle they disapprove of?? Seems hypcritical AF to me to claim that the Left can’t infringe your 2A rights, but you are free to denounce gays.

      Well, Jeff, it turns out that you DO have the right to speak out against a lifestyle of which you disapprove, and even to shun the practitioners thereof. I think you’ll miss out on getting your message across, because your prejudice will outweigh your message. Just as the gun control nuts have every right to speak out against “gun violence” pursuant to THEIR ignorant prejudices. Everyone has the right to say whatever they want, and Shannon Watts’ right to lie and speak absolute drivel is no less than yours to oppose “alternative” lifestyles. One of my regular shooting buddies is gay, and he usually outshoots me. I shoot with him because he’s a nice guy, shoots well, respects freedom and the 2A, and he’s funny as hell at our “after shooting” after action analysis of our shooting usually conducted over beers (notice I specified “after shooting”). Where he parks his genitalia would only be of interest to me if I were interested in him “in that way”, and I’m not. No one’s suggesting you switch teams and start batting for the other side, but, unless you expect to be raped by a gay motorcycle gang, what the hell difference does it make (paraphrasing Felonia Milhouse vonPantsuit)?

      How about we respect ALL people’s rights, whether we agree with how they exercise them, or not. Heck, even Minor IQ has every right to have, and spout, his ahistorical drivel. My solution could be to simply ignore him – but he’s too much fun to b****slap. If you don’t want to “associate” with gays, that’s up to you. Me, if I share common views about personal freedom and individual liberty, and I think they are ideological allies on THOSE issues, their color, religion, sexual preferences, etc. are literally the LAST thing I care about. Hell, I’ll even make common cause on the 2A with a Dimocrat, if there are any Dimocrats out there that aren’t authoritarian, pro-government fascists (those people used to exist; haven’t come across any, lately).

      • These snowflakes offended at gay people and rainbows act just like the woke left when they see a MAGA hat. “So scary! Oh, please, you’re offending my sensibilities. I’m such a victim! Poor me. I liked free speech 5 minutes ago when I agreed with it.”

    • Not exactly.
      If one is a proponent of ‘the more gun owners, the better’ and ‘everybody has a right to own a gun,’ then one also includes the American Communist Party, Antifa, BurnLootMurder, inner-city Yutes of Color, and every metrosexual transpedophile deviant in the DSP, which used to be known as the DNC, including the Congressional Wing of Hamas, in that all-inclusive sphere. Bear in mind that such egalitarianism benefits the likes of enuf, and Minor69er; Is that what you really want?
      Personally, if and when The Apocalypse comes for the United States, I would prefer to engage an enemy force not nearly so well armed as I.

      • “Personally, if and when The Apocalypse comes for the United States, I would prefer to engage an enemy force not nearly so well armed as I.”

        Well, based on video seen here in TTAG, Antifa doesn’t exactly appear to have advanced marksmanship skills.

        Hit the range, POTG. One day, your life might depend on it…

      • Yeah, I do support all of those people’s right to arm themselves, as well the same for right for everyone who oppose the people and factions you list. If everyone is armed and everyone knows it then it will go a long way to making protests actually peaceful and cutting back on the arson, looting, and vandalism.

      • “Personally, if and when The Apocalypse comes for the United States, I would prefer to engage an enemy force not nearly so well armed as I.”.

        John in AK, I could envision Pelosi, Schumer, Biden, et al. Using that exact same reasoning as their excuse for gun control. Just not in a public forum.

      • So, JohninAK, you don’t want your 2A rights infringed, but it’s OK to infringe the 2A rights of people you disagree with politically????? Whatever. OF COURSE the people you listed have the same 2A rights, and INHERENT human rights, I do. Just as I have the right to shoot their @$$es if they abuse them.

        We preach, “it ain’t the gun, it’s the creep wielding it”. If we can’t be intellectually consistent, how can we expect to persuade the anti-gun nuts?

      • Think everyone is missing your point.

        There is a difference between celebrating all people who bear arms, and not standing in the way of them exercising their rights.

        When the black panthers march down the street with guns I don’t scream hurray more gun owners!

        I also don’t advocate for them to be disarmed.

        It is possible for both to be true, higher amounts of gun ownership amongst non traditional gun owners stalling gun control efforts. And those same people being your better armed than before adversaries in a collapse scenario.

        Which is most likely to occur? Are they both likely to occur? I don’t know. It’s a judgement call.

    • Indeed! They aren’t afraid to bust the stereotype that gays are left wing anti-gun commies and to show that the 2A belongs to everyone.

  1. Cheng, unlike every corporate panderer and fair-weather activists angrily shaking their fist at the most tolerant nation, would probably enjoy the attention he’d get if that magazine cover showed up on newstands in Arab nations.

  2. Every human being possesses human rights for the simple reason that they are a human being. This includes the right to life and the right to defend that life.

    However, that does not make it okay to promote ideologies which destroy the most foundational social structures of society or to deny basic scientific facts.

    Equating the two is pure sophistry, not actual logic.

    • Well stated. In normal markets, a producer of goods or services attempts to meet the demands of its customers in order to successfully engage in commerce and make a profit. If customers do not want a particular product, the producer evaluates and adjusts accordingly. Unfortunately, in the case of LGBT/Pride, those who do not hold to the gay agends are told by the producer there is something wrong with them, and publicly shamed so as to coerce to purchase the product or service.

      Every person is made in the image of God, and therefore has precious value. In this regard, hate truly has no place and we should always affirm every person’s worth. But certain behaviors are against biology, Nature, and Scripture, and it is the height of arrogance that those who adhere to them demand that everyone else not only tolerate, but celebrate them.

      RECOIL and Chris Cheng most certainly have the right to present themselves as they wish. I agree with and support this fundamental principle of American liberty. They are the producers of this magazine and demand that consumers accept what they present to us. It appears that Dan is as well. But I, as a consumer, must remind them that I also have the right to express myself as much as they do, and my financial decisions are part of my expression, including the decision to not purchase their product.

      • You certainly do have the right to not to purchase their product because of a shirt worn by one person on the cover of a magazine. And everyone else has the right to point out how petty and silly that decision is.

        • “And everyone else has the right to point out how petty and silly that decision is.”

          An economic decision to not buy a product is not petty, or silly. Else, one would have to buy one of everything that fits whatever need one intends to fill through product purchase.

          Asked my neighbor if I could borrow his lawn mower. Neighbor responded, “No”. Asked “why?”, my neighbor said, “My wife is at the grocery store.” Stunned, I asked, “What does that have to do with borrowing your lawn mower?”. Neighbor replied, “Nothing, but when I don’t want to lend my lawn mower, one excuse is as good as the next.”

      • Haz,

        In what way, exactly, does recoil “demand” anything???? Are they trying to force you to buy their magazine??

        If the sight of a gay man who is also a 2A supporter (and a conspicuously better shooter than I am – and I’m guessing than you, too), on the cover of their magazine offends you? Don’t buy the damn magazine. It’s that simple.

        Now, if Recoil tries to force you to buy the magazine? I’d be more than willing to support you in resisting. As far as I can see, you already have the two things which are both necessary, and sufficient, to deal with your offense at their cover: don’t buy their magazine, and oppose them if they try to force you. Problem solved, AFAIAC.

    • EWTHeckman,

      I will expand upon your sentiment ever-so-slightly.

      Note the following simple and indisputable facts:
      1) Nasty/evil people are in the world.
      2) Said nasty/evil people often coalesce into gangs and even governments.
      3) Said nasty/evil people aspire and endeavor to apply their nasty/evil agenda on their community and the world.
      4) Said nasty/evil people WILL make our lives a living Hell if “good” people lack the resources, unity, strength, and resolve to stop them.

      Thus the natural question is, “What gives us the best odds that ‘good’ people will have adequate resources, unity, strength, and resolve to stop nasty/evil people?” And the simple answer is: strong nuclear families who produce children in a physically, emotionally, and spiritually healthy environment.

      Those are the facts. And, like it or not, the LGBTQ agenda weakens our odds. Thus we should not promote much less celebrate LGBTQ agenda any more than we should promote/celebrate people being narcotics addicts.

      • Because “those people” are somehow opposed to nuclear families? Makes one wonder why there was such a fight to get their marriages recognized….

        • Serpent_Vision,

          It does not matter whether “those people” hold a mindset which opposes nuclear families. The fact of the matter is that they choose to NOT be part of nuclear families. And that weakens our society.

      • The political agenda that has captured most LGBT folks does weaken our odds of cultural survival. It’s expressly meant to.

        The people themselves are fine — or they can be, if weaned from that crippling, poisonous postmodern Marxist ideology.

        • The communism/socialism in the gay community is what makes them a Target. And that is something that many people don’t want to talk about. They would rather make this into some kind of religious issue.

      • Again, welfare and divorce laws that make it easy to get a divorce and force onerous support of the female and children by a financially castrated ex husband are the real basis of the destruction of the nuclear family. Gays are about 10% of the population and they were never going to be part of your traditional nuclear family anyways. They aren’t responsible for it’s destruction, the government is.

        • The Crimson Pirate,

          And you are highlighting yet another serious problem which undermines healthy nuclear families–and therefore reduces the resources, strength, resolve, and unity of “good” people to oppose nasty/evil people.

          Please note an important distinction. It is one thing to argue that consenting adults have a right to engage in sexual activity with other adults of the same sex–recognizing that such activity does not produce strong healthy nuclear families. It is another thing all-together to promote and celebrate homosexual relationships which do not produce strong, healthy nuclear families.

          As I said earlier: while adults have a right to shoot-up heroin and be in a stupor all day/every day, that is not something that we should be promoting nor celebrating because that weakens nuclear families and society. Similarly, while adults have a right to engage in homosexual behavior, that is not something that we should be promoting nor celebrating because it fails entirely to produce strong nuclear families and it thus weakens society.

        • “It is another thing all-together to promote and celebrate homosexual relationships“

          Promote and celebrate? That sounds like an exercise of their first amendment right to freedom of speech and freedom of the press, what have you got against that you Commie?

          Scratch a conservative, find an authoritarian theocrat.

        • Well Miner49er,

          Is it also good for society to promote and celebrate being stoned all day/every day on heroin? Would that be a wonderful way to exercise our First Amendment rights? Should we encourage that? No. Should such speech be illegal? No.

          By the way, I like how you clearly think it is okay for YOU to condemn MY speech for being destructive to society but it is wrong if I condemn speech for being destructive to society. In other words, it is okay-right-and-good for you to suppress other people’s speech while it is somehow wrong-and-bad when someone else suppresses other people’s speech.

        • Oh,

          And scratch a leftist (like me) and find an evil Marxist with severe personality disorders.

          Proud of me.

        • DAMMIT, Minor IQ, I HATE it when I agree with you – I immediately wonder where and how I’m wrong. But I guess even a blind squirrel finds a nut sometimes (the other example used doesn’t work for you – I’ve NEVER seen you be right twice a day). But when you are right, you deserve to have recognition for that, and your point is (IMHO) exactly right – as I’ve stated up and down this thread (and others). Now, restore my faith in the state of the world, and say something stupid.

        • Uncommon Sense,

          The problem is not the gays, or the blacks, or the Muslims, or the racists, or the Democrats, or the fundamentalists, or the ateists, or the deplorables, or the people with TDS. The problem is government. Government powerful enough to pass laws and impose restrictions on groups of people,and government that can be captured such that groups can direct the laws and restrictions in favor of the things and groups they want and against the things and groups they oppose. Government is what is destroying the traditional Indo-European nuclear family.

          In the absence of government gay people would have no effect on it at all. We need to get more other groups on our side wherever and whenever we can to oppose government and roll back it’s power and reach.

          I don’t think promoting gay lifestyles is very effective. My experience with gay people is that they react to members of the same sex the way I react to females. I do not choose to be attracted to females, I just am. Dangerous curves stirs up a physiologic response that I do not initiate or control. I cannot stop being interested in females. I do not get the same physiologic reaction to broad shoulders and large muscles. My observation of gay people is that for the most part they are the same. They react physiologically to who they react to. It isn’t a choice. They were not made gay by the promotion of that lifestyle anymore than I was made straight by the promotion of a more traditional lifestyle.

          Now, I do think there is a coterie of young females who are prone to be mislead. When I was young and in college it seemed like every girl was either a lesbian, bi, or bi curios. Now the vast majority of those girls are all married to men and have kids. A generation later girls that age were cutting themselves, then those girls grew out of that too. Now they are all trans. If we could keep government out of it then in 10 or so years they will all be normal straight women. But government mandating that insurance cover hormones and trans surgery, and that underage people be able to get hormones and surgery without parental consent, and this crap being taught in government schools is what is causing people to do irreparable harm to themselves before they can come to their senses.

          Once gain government is the both the root and exacerbation of all problems.

      • Might I remind you that it’s you heterosexual persons, with your proclivity for making babies, who are ADDING to the homosexual community? After all, it’s not like we’re going to be making a whole lot more people ourselves, not in comparison to you fine folk.

        Maybe if you’re so worried about how many queers are in the world, you might want to take an oath of celibacy, in case one of your kids might turn out gay. I don’t know of a single gay person anywhere who asked to be that way. While it can be nice if you happen to find supportive persons, in general, it’s a right royal pain.

        How do we know that having gay people be born isn’t a sign that we’re overcrowding, breeding too many of us, and the Creator is telling us “whoa, there, humans, you need to get a handle on your population before you start going nuclear!”? You don’t know that. It might be pheromones. It might be God telling someone that their genes aren’t what the world needs right now…but instead of killing them, just rigs it so the only people they’ll ever love is someone they can’t breed with.

        God moves in mysterious ways. Go back and re-read Job. Then say you know better about why such things exist.

        • Syzygy,

          It is entirely inconsistent with the whole of the Bible to suggest/claim that God ordains people to have same-sex sexual urges. Such a claim is nothing more than offloading responsibility for our actions onto God.

          Please note that super intense feelings do not justify acting on those feelings. If an adult claims to have super intense urges (feelings) to have sex with 12 year-old children, does that mean God designed that person that way and it is somehow natural and okay? Of course not.

          I honestly and truly feel for anyone who struggles with intense feelings/urges to do things that weaken society, whether that is urges for same-sex sexual activity or urges to be strung-out on heroin all day long.

  3. “A friend at RECOIL tells us that the Cheng cover had been in the works for months and it was only a coincidence of the magazine’s editorial calendar that it was scheduled to run in June.”

    Yeah right. I’m sure everyone involved was completely unaware of what they were doing until they started reading the comments. Is RECOIL Magazine really that amateurish?

    “Promoting gun ownership to minorities of all kinds is not only pro-gun rights, it also ensures people who count themselves among those groups can defend themselves and their families from those who would prey upon them.”

    Okay sure. Let’s just pretend that we aren’t going along with the mob. Why not have someone on the cover with a BLM shirt? I mean, you’re not a racist are you? How about someone holding a trans flag? Don’t you want to be inclusive? You’re really missing the forest for the trees here.

    On a side note, look at all that corporate support and sponsorship. No wonder they feel oppressed. /sarcasm

    P.S. Who gives a flying f_ about his sexual orientation and who he’s married to? Answer: activists and virtue signalers.

    • The fact they haven’t had someone on the cover wearing a BLM shirt proves they aren’t going along with the mob.

      This isn’t the time for gun owners to participate in cancel culture or shit on each other.

      • “This isn’t the time for gun owners to participate in cancel culture or shit on each other.”

        Except I did nothing of the sort.

  4. Actually, it is a good thing to have Chris Cheng on the cover of Recoil at this time. The LGTBQ^$$(^R#@… movement is not owned by the anti-gun industry. This message needs to get out of the closet.

    • “The LGTBQ^$$(^R#@… movement is not owned by the anti-gun industry.”

      Yes, they are, as seen in an article in TTAG when a ‘Gay Pride’ parade un-invited the ‘Pink Pistols’, a gay gun rights organization from participating in a ‘Gay Pride’ parade…

      • Geoff,

        I usually agree with you . . . but not this time. Forget ideology, for a moment. Let’s talk tactics. Is ostracizing an “out” gay 2a proponent, who happens to be a hell of a good shooter, more likely, or less likely, to get members of the LGBTQ community to re-evaluate their support for gun control?? I shoot regularly with a group of guys, one of whom happens to be gay. Great guy, good shot, funny as hell, believes in individual liberty and the 2A. So, I should shun him because he’s gay and because “most” gays support gun control?? (Or maybe just because he’s gay??) I’m gonna have to take a hard pass on that, Geoff. Where he parks his genitalia is as irrelevant to me as what color he is or what religion he is.

        • “Where he parks his genitalia is as irrelevant to me as what color he is or what religion he is.“

          Bravo!

        • LampOfDiogenes,

          Okay, let’s go to the other end of the spectrum. How about a heterosexual male womanizer whose urgent goal is to seduce (not rape) and impregnate as many women as possible and leave them high-and-dry? Nothing wrong with that since all of his woman conquests were willing participants, right?

          Wrong! Aside from the likelihood of spreading sexually transmitted diseases with their ill-effects on society, creating hundreds of fatherless children is really bad for those children and weakens society. Thus, we should not promote and celebrate such a “lifestyle”. Do we tolerate it? Probably. Do we promote and celebrate it? No.

          The same goes for LGBTQ people.

        • uncommon,

          OF COURSE the hypothetical womanizer is responsible for the consequences of his actions. Now, if he tells lies, or “lines” to get in an ADULT woman’s pants, and she buys his lines??? How is that his “fault”??? I may deplore his behavior, but he has NO legal liability for bad behavior (excluding, of course, forcible rape, roofies, pedophilia, etc.).

          Now, if he convinces a woman, through lies, to, for example, move across the country, away from her family, based on those lies, she may very well have compensable claims for damages for her losses due to her lies. But, query, if you are stupid enough to fall for a liar, is that the liar’s fault, or yours.

          Now, OF COURSE, the Lothario is responsible for his by-blow, under the laws of EVERY SINGLE STATE in the country. He can be forced to pay child support until the child is an adult (but, again, query what responsiblity the naive “victim” bears?).

          Don’t misunderstand my point. I do not countenance, and would be willing to punish, non-consensual sex, and I personally DEPLORE the actions of Lotharios – but I don’t believe my deploring the behavior entitles me to punish the “bad” person, and, once again, what responsibility does the “naive” person have???

          I thought we were all about personal responsibility on this board? Did I miss something???

  5. Looks like a good cover with a good fellow to me. He should be able to pick his own clothes though, I think he is probably old enough now;-)

  6. I don’t care if this guy is Gay or whatever. I don’t care about “Pride Day, Month, Year, etc” nor do I give a rip for Earth Day or any other made up leftist holidays.

    What I object to and I think is the root cause of anger and frustration with all media, is that ALL of their notions and ideas and beliefs MUST be Force Feed to the “Great Unwashed Masses” as they are too stupid to come to their own conclusions, etc. Having Recoil appear to promote, accept or advance non-gun propaganda in their publication is what upsets me. Just like when I see the same shit on a breakfast cereal or a kids cartoon or in school assignments.

    You believe in equality for Trans People or Gay fine, You tell me that I must agree, Not Fine. Further if I do agree, you tell me that if I am not sexually attracted to these people and would consider dating them, etc. then I am a HATER, not fine. This is how the tyranny of the Left and Marxist works, submit to your masters will, or be destroyed.

    Now I’m sure someone in the Recoil staff in California didn’t think twice about the shirt, no big deal. Unfortunately for them, if you are allergic to peanuts and a bunch of thugs tried to kill you by force feeding them to you, don’t be surprised at a backlash if you politely, with no malice offer to share your bowl of peanuts with them later. Its akin to a type of group trauma and therefore Recoil received a different reaction than they were expecting. The best part is that liberals who would normally march to Recoil’s defense will not, because it promotes “Guns” and no one praises the Devil when he does the right thing, LOL.

    • “The best part is that liberals who would normally march to Recoil’s defense will not, because it promotes “Guns” and no one praises the Devil when he does the right thing, LOL.”

      That’s because they don’t actually believe any of the nonsense they push. It’s only a means to gain political power by pretending to support supposedly oppressed groups. Did the Left honor Clarence Thomas during Black History Month? Do they appreciate an intelligent, outspoken black woman like Candace Owens? Did they brag about Rich Grenell being the first openly gay person to hold a Cabinet level position? Were they happy that we just had a First Lady that was an immigrant? No, the Left was openly hostile to all of those people because they were politically opposed to them which is the entire point of this virtue signalling game.

    • Recoil wasn’t accepting or promoting “non-gun propaganda” just because they let Cheng choose what shirt he wanted to wear on their magazine cover. They simply allowed him to pick his own wardrobe. Please tell me how this hurts you or anyone else.

    • “You tell me that I must agree, Not Fine. Further if I do agree, you tell me that if I am not sexually attracted to these people and would consider dating them, etc. then I am a HATER“

      WTF?

    • These snowflakes offended at gay people and rainbows act just like the woke left when they see a MAGA hat. “So scary! Oh, please, you’re offending my sensibilities. I’m such a victim! Poor me. I liked free speech 5 minutes ago when I agreed with it.”

  7. You’re engaging in the same intersectionalist ideology rooted in Marxist critical theory. You may not realize and think you’re on the side of “liberty”, but you’re giving the insane ideologues exactly what they want. And they’ll use your own capitulation to tear us all apart by claiming “white supremacy” and “cultural constructs”.

    • So, if Cheng were a devout Christian, and wanted to wear a “Jesus Saves” T-shirt on the cover, it would offend you just as much? Do you wear a wedding ring? Isn’t that a form of “making your private life public”? People brag about being Dimocrats, and it doesn’t bother me – actually, I like it when rubes self-identify. Let’s me know who to keep an eye on.

    • These snowflakes offended at gay people and rainbows act just like the woke left when they see a MAGA hat. “So scary! Oh, please, you’re offending my sensibilities. I’m such a victim! Poor me. I liked free speech 5 minutes ago when I agreed with it.”

  8. Not sure what all the fuss is about. He’s gay and it’s June. Big deal. People just need to chill out and stop trying to read too much into everything.

  9. Response to Squiggy81:

    Go back to the home page. Notice the article titled “USA TODAY Teams Up With Bloomberg’s Anti-Gun Agitprop Arm For An Investigative Series”. It’s about those groups promoting a destructive idea. But somehow we’re supposed to be okay with a different destructive idea being promoted via similar propaganda?

    No.

    • Be specific. What exactly is this destructive idea? Does the fact that gay people exist and always have and always will destroy your peace of mind? Or are you referring more to their politics?

      • The lgbtq XYZ crowd promotes tranny storytime where tranny”s expose their genitalia to children. Is it the same people who demand that a man be able to use the woman’s bathroom, simply because he says he’s a woman. These are also the same people that are trying to destroy girls Sports. By allowing a male to claim to be a female and play on a female team. So yes the gay agenda is a destructive one.

        BTW
        Gays support the welfare industrial complex. And they openly promoted replacing the father and his gun’s with a welfare check and the guns of a big city police department.

        Having said all that they have every right to the Second Amendment civil rights as everyone else. The problem is most gay people work to prevent other people from keeping their civil rights.

  10. Oh a paper magazine…how quaint! Don’t care. 700 Club(today)featured a so-called “black militia”. And disparedged “3%’ers & white folks militia. You wanna cut your own throat(like country ‘music’ did)go ahead. Gun ownership is for everyone but I don’t support your causes…

  11. I am not a medical professional, however from what I know, there are a lot of mental health issues associated with the gay and trans sexual communities, Ii appears obvious there would be mental issues with someone who thinks they are a different sex from that they were born. I cannot support people with mental health problems having access to firearms. This is not a racist comment, it’s based on fact.

    • A lot of the mental issues are caused by having to deal with prejudiced and intolerant assholes on a daily basis.

      • And there you exposed the very point many of us are trying to make, Cato. If I agree with you, then…well…I already agree with you. If I disagree with you but allow you to live as you please, then that is tolerance by its actual definition. Allowing RECOIL and Cheng to do what they want with their lives, but disagreeing with their decisions and choosing different ones for ourselves is tolerance.

        By the definition you used in your comment above and how you choose to denigrate those who hold a different view than yours, you are the epitome of intolerance. So…about your “asshole” reference…

        ****
        Really, though, to anyone here reading this…it’s a Friday and I visited TTAG today in the hopes of reading about guns. Tired of having the LGBT agenda thrown in my face everywhere I go now.

        • So nice of you to ‘allow’ Recoil to choose its cover.

          You are correct about one thing, I am intolerant of intolerant assholes.

        • “You are correct about one thing, I am intolerant of intolerant assholes.”

          You don’t deal with an intolerant asshole by being a bigger intolerant asshole…

      • These snowflakes offended at gay people and rainbows act just like the woke left when they see a MAGA hat. “So scary! Oh, please, you’re offending my sensibilities. I’m such a victim! Poor me. I liked free speech 5 minutes ago when I agreed with it.”

    • “I cannot support people with mental health problems having access to firearms.”

      Have you thought about how many mental health problems are out there and what their actual effects are?

      Chronic depression, for instance, is a mental health problem that affects approximately 1 in 3 people worldwide. It is THE determining factor in suicide, which accounts for over 40% of “gun deaths” in the US, and has been implicated as a factor in mass shootings.

      Have you or a family member ever suffered from depression? (No, this is not a loaded question, why do you ask?)

    • And we ALREADY have a process in place to deal with that. If someone is adjudicated to have mental issues making them an iminent danger to themselves or others, and are so adjudicated, the become a “prohibited person”, and are not allowed to buy guns. So, your point would be, apparently, that because you (self-admittedly a layperson) “know” that there “are a lot of mental health issues” associated with the gay and trans communities (and in that, you are correct) which would meet this requirement, this entitles you to infringe their 2A rights without due process??

      Yeah, sod off, swampy.

  12. I don’t care what he does in his personal life. I do consider any desecration of The American Flag disrespectful, especially for political purposes. This includes The American Flag turned into thin blue line flags, homosexual flags, or wearing the flag as clothing.

    • Per the Flag Code, wearing the Stars and Stripes is acceptable if from the waist up. It must not, however, ever be in a position where it may be sat or stepped upon. This includes pants, socks, shoes, etc. Shirts, hats, scarves, etc. are okay.

        • Well, now you’ve done it. Now Ron is going to have to submit a picture showing both his tramp stamp and any associated muffin top for you to judge, and then a bunch of people are going to start calling us gay. Thanks a lot Haz 😉 😉

      • “Per the Flag Code, wearing the Stars and Stripes is acceptable if from the waist up.”
        Bullshit, Complete and Utter Bullshit.

        A)The flag should never be used as wearing apparel, bedding, or drapery.
        I would consider a shirt “wearing apparel”.
        B)The flag of the United States shall be thirteen horizontal stripes, alternate red and white; and the union of the flag shall be forty-eight stars, white in a blue field.
        No where does it state that you can change the colors of our flag to a rainbow?
        C)The flag should never be used for advertising purposes in any manner whatsoever.
        I would consider “gay pride” or whatever advertising.
        I have no problems with his lifestyle choices, that’s his business.
        When he desecrates and disrespects the flag of our country then I have a serious issue.
        If you want to rainbow your corporate logo, that’s fine with me.
        When you desecrate the US flag then you are committing a crime.

        • The Flag Code in its strictest sense pertains to Federal agencies, and is civilians are not required to adhere to it (4 U.S.C. § 5). It is codified as guidance, not law with criminal penalties:

          https://uscode.house.gov/statviewer.htm?volume=112&page=1494

          Summary of Flag Code:
          https://us-flag.net/code/

          https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?path=/[email protected]/chapter1&edition=prelim

          ****
          Therefore, as a civilian, we are encouraged to treat the Flag with respect and never allow it (or its representation such as on apparel) to be sat or stepped upon.

        • OK scratch the last sentence, it’s not criminal.
          The rest stands especially, A)The flag should never be used as wearing apparel, bedding, or drapery.
          Wearing a USA flag with rainbow colors as a shirt is wearing it as apparel.
          The whole “What cover should we go with it?” BS of RECOIL was a complete publicity stunt but I think it’s in very bad taste just to sell magazines.
          It’s a publicity stunt that carried over to TTAG regardless of what Dan writes and you nailed him on it.

          On another note I always thought “Top Shot” was hokey and stopped watching after the second show when they were shooting from a zipline.
          I have never even heard of Chris Cheng and don’t care about his sexuality.
          I have had words with Caleb Giddings long before he got into it with Paul Harrell. He is proof that any idiot can have a Wikipedia page.

        • I appreciate your retraction and correction. It takes a mature person to do that.

          Agreed about the Stars & Stripes being changed to rainbow and used as a publicity stunt.

        • One could argue that a rainbow flag, per definition, is not the Flag of the United States of America, and therefore does not fall under any Flag Code.

        • You could argue that but it’s pretty clear it’s the US FLAG.
          You could also argue that it isn’t really made of an actual Flag so
          the Flag code doesn’t apply.
          Regardless RECOIL used the Flag as promo stunt and I find that offensive.

          This whole comment section has been one huge argument.
          There was/is very little actual discussion.
          For me part of that was typing posts that weren’t offensive that disappeared
          when I went to post.
          That’s a pretty bad feeling after you took time to voice your opinion.

        • Rob,

          Disappearing messages have happened to all of us here on TTAG at one time or another. Last week, Geoff PR and I both responded to the resident troll’s comment on that particular article, and the admin(s) apparently didn’t like the troll’s offensive wording. His comment was zapped, but that meant everything in the related thread below it was gone, too, including mine and Geoff’s.

          It happens.

    • These snowflakes offended at gay people and rainbows act just like the woke left when they see a MAGA hat. “So scary! Oh, please, you’re offending my sensibilities. I’m such a victim! Poor me. I liked free speech 5 minutes ago when I agreed with it.”

      • The United States Constitution has no mention of a national flag or a national anthem, but it does include the first amendment which guarantees freedom of speech and freedom of the press, including any image the people may desire to produce.

        It is up to us to choose our allegiance object, I choose the constitution rather than some created flag or pro-slavery song.

  13. To each his own….I’m not a fan of Chris Cheng & I don’t care that he owns guns, so do pedophiles & felons. I’m definitely not a fan of the gay & fag community, try to shove it down my throat & you get resistance keep it to yourself & I don’t care what you suck!
    You don’t see the straight working familys prancing around with a flag shoving it down your throat, just the mentally ill!

  14. So, the Second Amendment applies to everyone except those groups of people who’s morals we don’t like, and who we despise when they show their colors? Everyone has a natural, human and civil right to (pick whichever one), unless they belong to some group that infuriates me? Everyone has a natural, human and civil right to (pick whichever one), unless they represent politics and life styles we abhor? The Second Amendment really does have exceptions? Ones we like?

    You gonna throw someone out of your foxhole because they are avowed XYZ? Comes the revolution, you will cheer for every outgoing bullet, regardless.

    • Sam,

      We DO seem to have a awful lot of “fair weather” rights advocates around here, don’t we??? Not sure how they do the mental contortions to get from “they can’t infringe on my inherent right to self-defense” to “but if I don’t agree with their ideology/lifestyle, I can infringe on THEIR 1A right to express it”. Seems pretty intellectually dishonest, but I guess I just don’t appreciate the ‘nuance’ of their argument.

      • “We DO seem to have a awful lot of “fair weather” rights advocates around here, don’t we???”

        T’is a puzzlement.

        Always interesting that whatever exception to an enumerated right is used by staunch defenders of whatever right is discussed, the justification always comes down to an opinion of what is a permissible infringement: “Common Sense”.

        • Which is why I ultimately evolved into a Heinleinian/Jefferrsonian libertarian. “Exceptions” to rights ALWAYS come down to someone’s opinion about what is permissible. Which is basically why there shouldn’t be any – exceptions, that is.

          Two categories: rights, and malum in se laws (I don’t believe in malum prohibitum laws). The basic idea is, separately list the rights you think you are entitled to, and, WITHOUT cross-referencing the lists, make a list of behaviors that should be malum in se (admittedly, both of those steps involve a certain amount of opinion). If you want to do something covered by list #1, so long as it doesn’t violate any part of list #2, it is permitted. That’s what REAL “rights” are.

  15. I think you hit the nail on the head here.
    I love Chris Chang. He is a great shooter, and promoter of shooting.
    Being a member of the LGBTQX community puts him in a unique position in regards to helping bring more members into the armed liberty fold.
    I have nothing against the cover actually.
    I do think the fact they ran it in June just lumps it in with the rest of the pride month corporate pandering. If recoil hasn’t done so, they should dedicate a page or two each month to cover the Pink Pistols, or other minority shooting organizations. What classes are they having, what political gains have they made, how can you donate your time and expertise to make sure every member of the LGBTQX or minority group is armed and free. That isn’t pandering, that is helping.

    • Daniel,

      Well-stated, and I couldn’t agree with you more! I applaud the fact that Blacks have increased their participation in gun ownership – maybe it will help divorce them from the Dimocrat plantation. If our community were REALLY as welcoming to people who share our view of guns and the 2A, we would ALL be trying to recruit as many gays, Blacks, and most important, authoritarians (read “Leftists/Dimocrats”) as possible.

  16. Thank you TTAG and Recoil magazine. There’s a fine line between the slews of corporations rainbowing up during Pride Month and what Recoil Magazine did by showing the left doesn’t own gay people and the 2A is available to everyone. Far, far too often gay people are associated with left-wing causes and gun control. It’s completely appropriate to highlight that stereotype doesn’t always apply. Finally, the author of this article correctly stated that if all of this bothers you then neither Recoil or TTAG is the place for you. Brownell’s liked IV8888’s instagram post in favor of Recoil Magazine as did scores of other 2A companies. Firearms Policy Coalition sells Pride gear on their store. Modern people in the 2A understand all of this and won’t be held back by the people still grossed out by gay people or by closet cases.

  17. I definitely want that colorful dude on my side in a shootout…just please spare me the details about what goes on behind closed doors.

    • Exactly. Deborah, as I’m confident he has no interest in what happens behind yours… 😉

    • Hell yeah, I seen that boy shoot. I’ll bake the damn cake already any flavor he wants, just want him on the same side when bullets fly.

  18. A) Their ideology disconnects the definition of marriage from its observable purpose (discoverable via the scientific method) of procreating and raising children to adulthood in stable protective environments. That is affecting all of society, both in increased divorce rates and people no longer getting married. That is already statistically obvious.

    B) Children are still being born, then pushed into single sex households by various means. (Surrogate motherhood, adoption, etc.)

    • Gays are not responsible for divorce rates or children born out of wedlock. Government is responsible for both via easy divorce laws, welfare, and divorce laws that penalize the ex husbands. Gay people were not even out of the closet when all of that was being changed from what it was before.

      • Bullshit. Pure bullshit.

        Gays demanded that government change the definition of marriage, so government did. We are seeing the result.

        Period.

        • The destruction of the nuclear family began in the 60’s with the changes in divorce laws and the expansion of the welfare state. I don’t remember gays being able to be out publicly much before the 80’s. That’s a 20 year difference.

        • Gay marriage didn’t become a thing until this century, so it’s actually more like a 40+ year difference. By then the nuclear family had mostly already been destroyed among those for whom that destruction was possible.

        • Your problem there, EWT, would be that LBJs “Great Society” programs had begun the destruction of the nuclear family, and Carter and Clinton and the Lyin’ Hawaiian had accelerated it, long before gay marriage was even a thing.

          While I agree that much of the ideology of BLM, Antifa and the more radical gay/trans groups is overtly against “traditional marriage”, the rot had been firmly entrenched LONG before those groups were on the scene. The Crimson Pirate already told you this, but you seem to have missed the point.

      • “Government is responsible for both via easy divorce laws, welfare, and divorce laws that penalize the ex husbands.”

        You forgot the part about the destruction of the middle class and job opportunities and wages that historically allowed you to earn more than your parents, but now are a distant memory. You also left off the government’s priority of investing in girls and getting them into the workplace, while all but ignoring boys, which has led to fewer men being men.

        Then there’s the whole sexual revolution thing that says it’s okay to cheat and sleep with as many people as possible. I recently read an article that said Americans had more sexual partners than any other country. That’s the direction we’re going in.

        Our government was also flying the BLM flag. The same BLM that wants to destroy the nuclear family. The same BLM that those rainbow corporations above are sponsoring and showering with money.

        • “Then there’s the whole sexual revolution thing that says it’s okay to cheat and sleep with as many people as possible.“

          So what you’re saying is that triple adulterer Donald Trump, who cheated on all three of his wives, is a part of the destruction of the American nuclear family?

          Turn in your MAGA hat immediately, communist!

        • At least the Donald has actually seen female genitalia.
          Biden has forgot what his penis is used for.
          Only a troll such as yourself comes back to a comment section two days after everyone has expressed their opinions.
          Since nobody cares about yours, that’s your MO.
          Trolling, even after the fact.

        • Weak ass response, can’t you do better?

          And regarding Typhoid Trump as compared to our current president, Joe Biden, here’s one example of how President Biden is supporting America and our troops:

          “The Biden administration on Friday announced plans to return to the Pentagon roughly $2 billion in unspent military construction funds seized by the Trump administration for a wall on the U.S. – Mexico border — after conducting a full review of the former president’s controversial signature immigration project.

          The money will be used on 66 delayed projects on installations in 11 states and 16 countries, including schools for military families, hangars, housing and training facilities, according to the administration.”

          Trump robbed our serving soldiers and their families of good schools and housing, as well as military facilities to do their job, all to support his failed campaign promise of making Mexico pay for the wall.

          Geez, he sure did con a bunch of rubes, how embarrassing for y’all. All we heard was “support the troops!” and “Mexico will pay for the wall!”, what a load of bullshit…

          https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/biden-administration-return-billion-trump-border-wall-funds/story?id=78225965&cid=clicksource_4380645_5_film_strip_icymi_hed

        • “So what you’re saying is that triple adulterer Donald Trump, who cheated on all three of his wives, is a part of the destruction of the American nuclear family?”

          LOL! The topic was the divorce rate has increased due to meddling by the government and the push from the sexual revolution to sleep around, and your response was, “Oh yeah, well Trump got divorced and slept around so it’s Orange Man’s fault!!” Wow.

        • “government’s priority of investing in girls and getting them into the workplace, while all but ignoring boys, which has led to fewer men being men“

          So you’re saying the girls getting jobs prevents men from being men?

          I’d say any man who thought that a girl getting a job prevented him from being a man had no hope of being a man in the first place.

          Geez what a bunch of masculine snowflakes y’all must be, lame.

        • “your response was, “Oh yeah, well Trump got divorced and slept around so it’s Orange Man’s fault!!” Wow.”

          Wrong, Donald Trump did not bother with the divorce part before he started sleeping around. That’s adultery, and the Lord’s law in your Bible requires that adulterers be put to death.

          When can I expect you to carry out the Lord’s judgment upon Donald Trump?

          Or is adultery OK as long as it’s Donald Trump, the chosen one?

      • Gay people are responsible for destroying the Boy Scouts of America. By demanding that the scouts allow openly gay people to serve as scoutmasters. And it doesn’t matter what non parents have to say. The parents of boys want their children to be safe. Not part of some type of social experiment. The Boy Scouts were destroyed by people who didn’t care about the scouts. They just wanted to add the scouts to their social agenda.

        And since the Boy Scouts were known for teaching boys about the Second amendment, Marksman ship, gun handling skills and safety. The question I would like to ask is, Was the destruction of the Boy Scouts part of the gay agenda to destroy the Second amendment?

        Am I crazy? I’m sure there will be people who think I am. But the fact remains that one of the areas where children were taught about the Second amendment was destroyed by people who hated the Boy Scouts.

        And the left has always historically hated the Boy Scouts.

    • According to your logic opposite sex infertile couples should not be allowed to marry as they can’t procreate. And can you tell us what is the appropriate age in which opposite sex couples should be forced to divorce when they reach the age where procreation is no longer possible? Please educate us since you apparently have the authority to decide the marriage rules for everyone else.

  19. Dan
    I’ve been an off and on reader of this site for some time, mainly to keep up on firearm-related news. The news is good. I wish you would stick to “news” and do less opinion. But, as I have learned over the time spent here you are very opinionated. And since it’s your site, you can do whatever you like and I strongly support that. Same for Recoil, although I have never read it.
    And while I agree with your remarks that as gun owners we should welcome all LAWFUL gun owners, I think you missed the point on this one. It seems to me that the commenters on the Recoil site were practicing their God-given right to express themselves in response to Recoil’s request to share their opinion. And I further understand your right to disagree with their position. However, I strongly disagree with your proposed resolution of that disagreement. They have no place at Recoil nor at TTAG? You sound just like the Lefties that want to curb speech and ban guns. You are doing Ol Karl’s work, “Accuse others of what you do.”
    So, I am going to accept your invitation and remove myself from this site, this time for good.
    Good luck and best wishes.

    • Yes, denial of platform, whether by social ostracism or by state power, is indirect infringement of free speech. And just because one is constitutionally allowed and one isn’t, doesn’t make either of them right.

    • Not so fast billy boy…Like you said, “LAWFUL gun owners.” Can you cite what law prevents anyone who has demonstrated exceptional skill in a discipline that would prevent such an individual from receiving their just reward including a cover photo?

      Recently I viewed a documentary on the history of West Point. The first Black there was a descendant of slaves. For 4 years not one of his code of silence fellow cadets said one word to him because of what billy boy? I’ll help you out…His skin was Black. Needless to say he persevered through the muck and went on to have a distinguished military career.

      Taking your football home and no longer speaking via this forum because you are blind to content of character, skills, etc. only demonstrates how you too have something in common with those zipped lipped cadets. I suggest you cease acting like someone is forcing you to go out on a date with him.

      • I’m straight and married to a woman, but I would totally go out on a date with him. As long as it’s to the range. I’ll even buy the ammo.

      • Good on you, Debbie! What left me gobsmacked about this thread is that many people commenting on this site often mention what a “welcoming” community the POTG are . . . but apparently ONLY if you’re not Black, gay, lesbian, Asian or [name your own ‘minority’ group]. I’d HAPPILY, like The Truth About Top Shots Fans said, go on a ‘date’ with Cheng to the range, and buy the ammunition!! If I could, I’d invite Colion Noir along, too.

        • “…many people commenting on this site often mention what a “welcoming” community the POTG are…”

          Keep a coupla things in mind:
          – you are looking at social media, with all its glory
          – TTAG commenters may sometimes be part of, but do not comprise, the entire POTG “community”.

    • I didn’t say or imply those who disagree have no place here. Read it again. We’re open to everyone.

      And I never suggested that the RECOIL commenters did anything wrong. They expressed an opinion, one I disagree with.

      I simply said that if what RECOIL does or what we write upsets you that much, you’re probably in the wrong place. We don’t cancel, deplatform, or exclude anyone.

      • “…if it upsets you, then neither TTAG — or RECOIL — is the place for you.”

        I’m not sure how else that direct language you chose can be construed.

        • That’s not an ultimatum. It suggests that if what you disagree with what we publish here that much, you should probably find other outlets.

          We haven’t changed our stance on this issue in the 11 years we’ve been on the web and we’re not going to.

        • It can be construed as everyone is free to express their opinions here within legal limits and we look forward to that, but if someone is not comfortable with opinions that don’t align with their own then such people may find other places less uncomfortable. You are free to stay or go by your own choice. Dan won’t kick you off. I hope you stay. I really like your posts.

        • I’m not going anywhere. But I *do* heartily disagree on this issue and will not be goaded or shamed into accepting an ideology that goes against both natural biology (that’s been in place since the beginning of Time) and my genuinely held religious beliefs. And I’m not at all the only one who does.

        • “…ideology that goes against both natural biology (that’s been in place since the beginning of Time)…”

          Homosexuality is not an ideology, it’s natural biology- scientifically verified in several animal species (and has been in place since the beginning of time).

          It’s exactly how the Creator made it.

        • @Peter,

          It is, by its very definition, self-extincting. Therefore not passed along to successive generations via DNA as with all natural biological traits. Those who wish to engage in same sex behaviors may certainly do so in exercising their liberty of personal expression, but it is arrogant to attempt to shame others into celebrating their decision.

        • “I’m not sure how else that direct language you chose can be construed.”

          Easy. The statement means that TTAG and Recoil are not places you will find comfortable, confirming, endorsing. The statement is not one of banishment/intolerance/cancel. The statement is a caution that a person who is adamantly opposed to counting every 2A defender as a compatriot will not have an easy time of it in the comment sections of TTAG and Recoil.

        • Peter-

          “It’s exactly how the Creator made it.”

          Sorry, but God designed the rectum as an exit, not an entrance.

        • There cannot be anything other than what the Creator made. Everything is as precisely as designed. How could something be used other than how it’s designed- unless the design allowed it? Wouldn’t that be… by design?

          One could claim that doubting the design would be… blasphemous?

        • Using your logic, Peter, all the world’s evil and ills are from God as well.

          Methinks not.

      • Dan, Thank you for your thoughtful and respectful disagreement. I lol forward to productive discourse with you and TTAG for many decades to come.

    • The last paragraph of this article spells it out perfectly – if you want to alienate people you don’t like the TTAG or Recoil isn’t the place for you. As in, if you have a problem with gay people then move on. It’s YOUR problem. As many conservatives correctly and freely say, “I have free speech and don’t care if you’re offended.”

  20. Perhaps you didn’t realize which group has had fatherlessness as a significant problem for decades already, with at least 74% fatherlessness the last time I saw the statistics: inner city blacks.

    • EWT,

      I’m assuming you meant that to be in the thread above where The Crimson Pirate and I were attempting to explain to you that destruction of the nuclear family was WAAAYYY along the road to success long before the ideologies/lifestyles you are blaming for it were a “thing” – and here you are proving my point. Yes, those are the statistics (or at least some of them . . . check out the rate of wedded, nuclear family childbirth among Blacks back in the 50s, when Jim Crow was still active, compared to those of whites during the same era. Nearly the same.) Something happened in that era between the 50s and it seemed to really show up starting in the late 60s and early 70s. Funny, don’t seem to remember a lot of demonstrations in support of gay marriage back then. Maybe I missed them????

      • I already addressed this.

        They suffered due to socialist policies directed towards them. The redefinition of marriage is spreading this problem to EVERYONE.

        Again, I’m amazed at your ‘Yes, that’s bad. What’s wrong with making things worse?’ “logic”.

        • No, EWT, what’s BAD is trying to impose YOUR preferences on others. Of course, we NEVER should “subsidize” anything – beliefs, behaviors, prejudices, or “good” intentions. Neither should we impose our views of what is “right” on anyone else. The old saying was, “Everyone has the right to go to hell their own way.” If Chris Cheng is going to end up in hell because he’s gay??? That’s between him and God. I don’t have an opinion on the matter, and I sure as hell shouldn’t have a vote. If a bunch of Leftist/socialist idiots want to set up a system where they subsidize “bad” behavior, fine with me. Just don’t ask me to pay for it.

          But if you’re trying to argue that, on the one hand, WE (the POTG) are entitled to have our 2A rights be absolute (or at least nearly so), but gays, for example, can have their 1A rights infringed for “the good of society”???? Not sure how you make that leap, why you think YOU get to decide what is “for the good of society”, but if that works for you, go with it. Just don’t ask/expect me to respect it, support it, or subsidize it.

          Cheng is a great shooter (much better than I am), and seems to believe in the 2A and individual liberty. I could give less than a s*** what he does in his bedroom.

          I was married to one woman for 32 years; we had 4 kids. I never once cheated, and I don’t believe she did. So we fit your “ideal” of marriage. There was NEVER a point, in any part of that, where what two guys did in private, or the ridiculous marriage practices of the Hollywood crowd, had the SLIGHTEST impact on my marriage. That is a red herring. Yes, socialist PRACTICES denigrate society in general. So, stop authoritarianism and subsidies. Problem solved. How people spend their private time isn’t, and shouldn’t be, an issue. As for their ADVOCACY of those things? Hmmm, seems to me their was another amendment, came just before the 2A, that said they have the right to do that. And idiots have the right to vote for the policies they advocate, and even SUBSIDIZE them – with their own money.

          Seems like your POLITICAL issue is with the socialism inherent in most Leftist policies – and there we are in agreement. Seems like your position on the whole “redefinition of marriage” issue is coming from a different place. Even IF I agreed with you that “the gay lifestyle” (what does that even mean?) is “detrimental to society” (your opinion), why would that give me the right to infringe THEIR rights to practice/advocate for same?? You don’t like gay people, I get it. And that’s your right. I would never force you to associate with one. If two guys want to “get married”, what is that to me??? People insult me all the time, but insults, like alcohol, only affect you if you accept them. I choose not to let anyone else’s private behavior affect me. As for their public behavior, “your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins”. As long as they don’t infringe on MY rights, I don’t give a rip what other people do, in public or in private.

  21. The Left sets the ground rules for the game and everyone plays along. If it was such a great idea, the why didn’t they run this cover a month or two ago? Why not next month? This wasn’t a coincidence, and they can’t even admit it. They’re playing the game, and apparently so are most people here.

    • Here’s a thought for you, Dude – I don’t pay any attention to when “Pride month” is, unless it shows up in the context of something I actually give a s*** about . . . like 2A. FWIW, it may very well be that Recoil timed the cover for “Pride month”, and are just being coy. I don’t know. I agree that, IF that is what the timing is about, their protests about production schedules, etc. are disengenuous and craven. But have been involved with magazines many times, in a professional capacity, and I can confirm that production schedules are a REAL thing, and are not determined by editorial policy. They’re determined by reality. Now, you can sometimes “hold” an article, or even a whole issue, and release it deliberately for “timing” – but there is a very real risk of having intervening events screw up your plan – Cheng might have “come out” as a conversion therapy advocate the month before, or died in a flaming car crash. For all practical purposes, you pretty much can’t accelerate production schedules. Not saying that exonerates Recoil if they ARE being coy, just saying that their explanation isn’t as far-fetched as you seem to think it is. The editors of Recoil MAY, like me, be relatively unaware of/indifferent to “Pride month”, and it was a coincidence. Look at it this way – their core audience (at least based on the reactions I am seeing from TTAG commenters on this thread) may have found that cover more offputting than not. While I know there ARE ‘gay gun groups’ (Pink Pistols, obviously, but there are others), they do NOT constitute a major part of the market for gun content, just like gays do not constitute a major part of the US population. If it WAS a deliberate editorial decision, and they are being dishonest about it, it was, at best, a questionable editorial decision. Funny thing? I’ve never read Recoil. I plan to remedy that, immediately. I want to see what they are all about. If they’re good, they will have GAINED a regular reader. If their content isn’t good, nothing about their decision to put Cheng on their June cover is going to motivate me to support them. They either deliver a quality product, or they don’t. Cheng on the cover has no impact on that, either way – just like him being gay has no impact, either way, on my respect for him as a shooter. Jerry Miculek is straight . . . but if he didn’t shoot like the Terminator on steroids, I’d pay zero attention to him.

      Your suspicion about Recoil’s editorial/marketing motives is fair – ASSUMING that they are guilty is not.

      • Very true. One should never assume. Still not buying it though. 😉

        They may not have planned it out from the very beginning, but when it came down to firming up the release, I’m willing to bet that at least some people knew what they were doing.

        • Very possible, but that still leaves the question of “why”? JUST to appeal to the woke crowd?? Not very smart; few of them were (as a GENERALIZATION) supporters of the 2A anyway, and few are likely to subscrive. If the entire LGBTQ community absolutely lauded their decision – how many would subscribe?? If the entire LGBTQ community instead boycotted them for NOT having Cheng on the cover, or not letting him wear the rainbow flag, how many subscriptions would they have lost??

          Not saying it isn’t the kind of dumbass decision “marketing” idiots make all the time, just asking what’s the business upside???

        • The golden rule of marketing is to get attention. Most people here seem to think it was a great idea. And as I mentioned, everyone’s into playing the I’m just as woke as you identity politics game.

  22. ‘They have no place at Recoil nor at TTAG? You sound just like the Lefties that want to curb speech and ban guns.”

    The dumbest thing I’ve read today. You whine about others curbing speech as you say someone has no place at TTAG.

    • I see your frothing at the mouth urgency to type that response doesn’t bolster your reading comprehension skills.

        • The writer believes his opinions are not welcome and that he is being told not to comment. He acts as if someone wants to curtail his free speech rights (as cancel culture does) when that is untrue.

          It sounds exactly like the type of whining defense Rashida Talib and Ilan Omar give when someone disagrees with them. Protecting someone’s free speech rights does not take away someone else’s free speech right to respond to the dumbass things they say.

          Got it, Forrest?

        • Well, he was told to leave if certain circumstances applied. Obviously you interpreted that completely differently, and I don’t know how you managed to do that.

        • Reread what I wrote above, I can use shorter words if it helps. His feelings were hurt when he believed his free speech rights were being canceled. They weren’t. He was NEVER told he could not comment, only that he might be happier somewhere else.

        • Cato,

          In fairness, that is what the author of the post SAYS he meant by those words (and I believe him), but that is NOT what the words say. When an author/editor/moderator on a site says “this isn’t the place for you”, he has the power to enforce that. Makes it more than just a comment.

        • Lamp

          Not sure I understand your point. I admit I may not have been clear but I’ll try again and start at the beginning.

          I think Mr. Zimmerman was saying some of the reaction to Chris Chang went far beyond a disagreement on lifestyle and Recoil’s decision on putting him on it’s cover. I think Zimmerman rightly didn’t back down from the decision and stated that those who crossed the line of civil discussion could go elsewhere. He blocked no one that I know of and didn’t threaten to either. Reading that into his statement is wrong IMO and kind of defamatory in that he was accused of making a threat he did not make.

          My problem with Mr Jordan’s post was his whining about the ‘threat’ of being cancelled (he wasn’t) as Mr Zimmerman was calling out those that would cancel Cheng and Recoil.

        • Thanks for the clarification. And I agree – Dan didn’t overtly threaten anyone (although I will say, his actual WORDS, coming from an author/editor/moderator with the power to actually do it, could most easily be read that way). Dan has said that was NOT his intent, and I believe him – his actual, subsequent behavior seems to confirm that. I agree, Dan didn’t OVERTLY threaten anyone, I was simply pointing out that his ACTUAL WORDS, in context, could certainly support that conclusion.

          But I “get”, and agree with, your point. I’ve already told Dan I thought his LANGUAGE was inartful, even while accepting his statement about what he meant. And his, and your, interpretation of his words is consistent with his past and present actions. But, since I abhor “deridism”, I read the author’s ACTUAL WORDS. If that’s not what he meant, whose fault is that?

      • Hey Chose…

        Just wondering, is your username a reference to Phil 2:8? Or perhaps Nathan Hale? Or…?

  23. Never have really cared about people being gay, lesbian, or even transgender even before this modern weird-o ‘activism’ was in vogue. Hell, I’m bi and I’ve dated trans people so it would be kind of weirdly hypocritical if I did have some issue against it.

    No, historically my issue with the movement were that it was always a little cringy. But hey, that’ just my own taste… or at last was. In the past few years the movement is started to go full speed potato into weird racial marsixim with the addition of black and brown stripes to the top of the traditional ‘LGBT’ flag. I guess because race is now a part of pride. And hell, just this year I’ve seen a new version of the pride flag that turns the black and grown stripes into arrows, adds two stripes from the transgender pride flag under the black and brown stripes, and crowds the rest of the colors of the flag. It’s pretty cringe all around.

  24. Everyone SHOULD be an American first.. Then go be an L or a B, a G a T or a damn XYZ for all I care, but don’t let it co-opt the basic issue… If you want to be “inclusive” and non-offensive by pandering to a few minority groups at the expense of being offensive to your majority base that is your business but don’t tell me I must accept your decision… If people can’t just be people instead of requiring SPECIAL attention to feel “included” or to be coerced, then I don’t need THEM, if the message of the 2nd Amendment is not enough and the flag must be altered with “rainbow” colors to convince a group of AMERICANS that they are welcome? Maybe THEY need to get over themselves, quit making a spectacle of themselves (when exactly is WHITE Pride or WHITE History month?), stop DEMANDING special treatment for a lifestyle choice, quit trying to redefine biology, live however you want, but don’t expect the world to change for YOU, you are really no more special than anyone else… Join in if you want but leave the bullshit outside, anyway I guess that’s just my “Privileged, white, toxic masculinity, straight American maleness” talking, too bad no one is listening…

  25. Yes, the bill of rights is for all citizens. More gun owners should yield more freedom for everyone. But is TTAG and Recoil really oblivious to the radical agenda that’s being shoved down our throats? I’m honestly surprised that the pushback to the photo was a surprise to anyone.

    And why is it important that I know he’s gay? How oppressed are you if you have to constantly remind everyone of your oppressed status?

    It’s like Meghan Markle. I honestly didn’t know that she was black until she started talking about how oppressed she was. Oppressed?!? She’s rich, beautiful, and famous. Good grief.

    “Don’t tread on me” is about a lot more than guns.

      • No, the radial agenda that I’m speaking of wants to mutilate children surgically or chemically before they’re old enough know what sex is. There is no 12 year old child on the planet that can possible know with certainty that they are gay, or trans, or whatever.

        Or the movement that wants us all to believe that there are 37 genders.

        Or that won’t recognize that virtually all trans people need psychological help, not surgery.

        • So, Snake Eyes, you believe that children who don’t have the right to buy beer, vote, drive, or do thousands of other things (many of which are Constitutional rights) because they “don’t have adult judgement” can make LIFELONG, body-altering decisions? Or that their parents can make such an ELECTIVE decision for them?? Some intellectual consistency, please. Unless you are prepared to allow [insert minimum age, if any, at which you would permit this] kids to drink, drive, vote, enter into “consensual” sexual, contractual or financial arrangements which would be binding on them for the rest of their lives? STFU; you’rer talking through your @$$.

        • No. I’m just a parent. So you have? Tell us you’re expert opinion on how competent 12 year olds are to make major medical decisions for themselves?

        • “No, the radial agenda that I’m speaking of wants to mutilate children surgically“

          Are you talking about the ritual genital mutilation of circumcision by Jews and Christians?

          Or the ritual genital mutilation of clitoral excision by the Muslims?

          Damn, what a bunch of sick puppies.

      • They already HAVE equal rights, Serpent. The same as all of us.

        There are no laws that say they’re not allowed to be who they are or live however they need to. There’s no system of unwritten rules that denies them access to the legal system or economic opportunities. In fact, their legal status as a “protected class” gives them more legal advantages than the average citizen.

        Are there individuals who will discriminate against them and groups that shun them? Yes…and that number is small and shrinking.

        What these leftist “queer” radicals are pursuing is not justice and certainly not equal rights. Instead, their aim is the arrogation of supra-legal status to themselves. Exemption from all the mores that limit the pedestrian bourgeois. Special laws by, for, and about them, which no one else can benefit from.

        “Some pigs are more equal than others,” the quotation goes, and they intend to be the some.

        • “There are no laws that say they’re not allowed to be who they are or live however they need to.“

          You may want to acquaint yourself with a piece of legislation known as the defense of marriage act.

  26. The right to self-preservation and self-determination is anchored by the innate liberty of being armed. This extends to all humans, from all walks of life…regardless of “race,” creed, culture, religion or lifestyle.

    Don’t approve of someone else’s lifestyle? Nobody gives a shit. As long as they’re not victimizing or infringing on another person’s rights, you don’t have a foot to stand on.

    Until someone violates the rights or property of another, we have zero room to judge them. Rainbow stuff isn’t my cup of tea at all, but that’s what individuality is, allowing people to be themselves without fear of persecution.

    This article hits the nail on the head. Kudos indeed Jeremy, TTAG and RECOIL.

  27. As corporations extoll the need for the inclusion of ALL, it seems that WHITE people have a problem and I must assume that this would also be inclusive of ALL white people regardless of sexual orientation or pronoun choices… OBTW Dr. Donald Moss IS white, (so his findings must refer to himself as well, which makes his observations questionable..)

    Expert Psychoanalyst Compares ‘Whiteness’ to a ‘Parasitic-Like Condition’
    Keely Sharp June 10, 2021
    Psychoanalyst Dr. Donald Moss published a paper recently comparing “whiteness” to “a malignant, parasitic-like condition,” that “renders its hosts’ appetites voracious, insatiable, and perverse.”
    Moss, a professor at the New York Psychoanalytic Institute and the San Francisco Center for Psychoanalysis, published his paper in the Journal of the American Psychoanalytic Association in May.
    He wrote, “Whiteness is a condition one first acquires and then one has — a malignant, parasitic-like condition to which ‘white’ people have a particular susceptibility. The condition is foundational, generating characteristic ways of being in one’s body, in one’s mind, and in one’s world.”
    He continued, “Parasitic Whiteness renders its hosts’ appetites voracious, insatiable, and perverse. These deformed appetites particularly target nonwhite peoples.”
    Moss declared that whiteness “easily infiltrates even groups founded on the protection of individuals, on democratic principles.”

    • That’s called “Deflection Syndrome” much like “Guilt Transference”. When a person or group accuses others of a behavior or deed that they are guilty of. As an example having a significant other, wife, husband or partner accuse you of cheating. When it was actually them who was doing it. We see it in the Media, Politics and on the Interweb used as a Tool of Warfare. Especially when they have No Facts to back up their Ideology and have to resort to name calling or revisionist science and history.

  28. I completely agree with Bill Johnson, but since I’m rankled about your little ultimatum, here’s what you sound like.

    SUCK THE DICK BIGOT.

    If you’re unfamiliar with that actual argument, you should look into it.

      • “You certainly don’t have to agree with that stance, but if it upsets you, then neither TTAG — or RECOIL — is the place for you.”

        It’s pretty easy to take that as “change your mind or leave.” Which is exactly how I’m taking it. I’ll be doing neither, because this is far and away my favorite website on the entire internet, and I think you and your staff do a wonderful job. I find your position on this topic reasonable, but only in a bubble while completely ignoring quite a bit about the current state of the world, and therefore I reject it. I’m still staying around. Have a nice day Mr. Zimmerman.

        • If you understand what I wrote as “change your mind or leave,” you misread it.

          I fully understand that many readers won’t agree with us on this. But if you disagree to the point that it upsets you to see that kind of content here, you should find other content providers.

          I appreciate the kind words about the blog and am glad you plan on remaining a reader.

        • Alright Mr. Zimmerman, I accept your explanation and I will accept that I misread your original words, and appliedthe wrong intentions to them. You have earned my trust many times in the past, and I will give it here. Thank you for your clarification.

        • Dan,

          In fairness, you may have MEANT that sentence to be read that way . . . but that’s not what it says. ” . . . if it upsets you, then neither TTAG — or RECOIL — is the place for you . . .” sounds a WHOLE LOT like “agree or leave”. I’m not a fan of post-modernism or “deconstructing” literary efforts – I can’t read your mind, so I read the words, instead. Those WERE the words you used. Now that you TELL me how you intended them, I can understand what you are saying . . . but if that was your intention, your language was inartful.

        • It’s pretty easy to take that as “change your mind or leave.”

          No it is not, you were being a drama queen in order to claim victim status.

          No one is compelling you to buy or read either publication.

          In fact, you are attempting to compel the publications to follow a certain editorial policy that you approve of, rather than exercising the journalistic freedom guaranteed in the first amendment.

          Frigging Commie…

    • TTAG occasionally takes a stance or has writers that take a stance which I’ll sometimes find foolish or even enraging and detrimental to its own cause.

      But it’s not enough to stop me from reading because it’s typically a personal opinion and not actively supporting an opposing position/party.

      The only thing TTAG could do to really turn me off is if they just suddenly flipped to being anti gun or solid leftist. Highly doubt that would happen here. Though it has happened to other websites.

  29. I for one could care less a person’s sexual choices. I’ve had gay and lesbians friends for longer than many posting here have been alive. What matters is character. I’d rather have a LGBT friend that is nonjudgmental over someone who agrees with me all the time, but is an asshat, thug or criminal regardless of sexual orientation. I believe the idea of celebrating Gay month, Black month, Women’s month, this month, that month was in the beginning a good idea. Unfortunately it has been hijacked by radicals on both sides as a way to drive a wedge between people who would normally not care one way or another. The idea that We allow a minority of Interweb Trolls to stir the pot with their Holier Than Thou Hatred is not only foolish, but childish and honestly only shows how much society has become a Cesspool of bickering bloviators and mindless followers seeking approval while hiding behind a computer screen. The worst part of which is it’s all being manipulated by the Media and Internet Elites as a way to deflect Societies Attention away from the things they are doing to Wrest Our Freedoms away and attain their 1984 Tyrannical Control over Our Nation and the World. Keep the “Children” bickering amongst themselves until its to late for them to realize the things that Truly Mattered have been taken away, Like Freedom, Liberty and the Right to Chose Ones Own Destiny. The things Our Founder’s fought and died for. Then passed on with the Charge that “We the People” Protect, Defend and Pass On with the same Charge to Our Descendants. Keep Your Powder Dry.

  30. I don’t know if this has been said or not, but the rainbow flag now stands for chopping boys penises off and girls breasts and giving hormones and puberty blockers before they are adults without parental consent. Boys in girls lockers. Boys in girls sports. Men in women’s sports. And the forced doctrine that there is no such thing as a man or a woman (which there obviously is) So if that’s what you are on board with flying, at least admit it. This is not about gay people being accepted in society anymore (we can have that debate). The rainbow flag stands for many sick evil things. Of course, I’m sure it stands for gay rights for Chen, but it’s ignoring the widespread cultural implications of that nefarious T in the LGBTQIAWTF.

    NO ONE is saying Chen can’t have a gun because he’s gay.
    NO ONE is saying that Chen doesn’t get to participate in the 2A because of his life choices.

    The rainbow was stolen from its rightful symbolism of the promises of God and now stands for many terrible things.

    • T-Mass,

      Unfortunately, a “symbol”, be it a flag or a crucifix, symbolizes what values the viewer of the symbol chooses to attribute to it. When I see the flag, it reminds me of my freedoms and the brilliant political philosophy of Thomas Jefferson. When a radical Leftist sees the flag, it symbolized to them imperialism, war, oppression, etc. Same symbol (the FLAG doesn’t change); totally different meanings. My family is from the South. Slavery has been gone, at least in the U.S. for over 150 years. I don’t know a single Southerner who longs for the reinstution of slavery (and most of my relatives are poor dirt farmers). The South had MAJOR economic disputes, many very well-founded in actual conduct by the North, that had nothing to do with slavery. When Southerners see the Confederate flag, I would imagine they see it as a symbol of their attempt at independence and freedom, and the economic injustices they most definitely suffered at the hands of the North. But I can equally see that a Black seeing a Confederate flag views it entirely differently, and I probably would too, if I had that background.

      A “Pride” flag means literally nothing to me. I view it as a woke gimmick, and I ignore it. I suspect that different people, even WITHIN the LGBTQ community, have different values they feel it symblizes. I frankly don’t have a f*** to spare to try to read someone else’s mind and figure out what “values” they are attributing to a symbol. When I see a U.S. flag, it symbolizes something to ME. When I see a rainbow flag, it symbolizes “null content”. It’s like a billboard on a freeway – a minor distraction that I neither notice nor read.

      Not sure why everyone is getting so incensed about this since we’re all supposed to be the “individual rights and tolerance” crowd. Don’t like someone else’s symbol, or someone else’s statement about what values THEY attribute to a symbole (that are different than the ones you attribute to it)? Do what I do – ignore it. Now, if that someone is taking ACTION based on those “values”, and that action infringes YOUR rights, or is illegal (malum in se; I don’t believe in malum prohibitum), then you respond to the ACTION. Your symbols, and your values, are between you, your family if you have one, and your deity. I’ve got more important issues – like which socks I’m going to wear today.

    • “The rainbow was stolen from its rightful symbolism of the promises of God“

      Hilarious, where do you get this stuff!?

      Seriously, is there a particular passage in your sacred record of ancient taboos that designates rainbows as the symbol of the promises of God?

  31. Good for recoil, and Cheng.

    I’ve got a problem with identity politics though. In any form. I think it’s one of the greatest cancers in society. Unfortunately though, it’s probably here to stay. To our detriment.

  32. Yes, you are correct about the cause of fatherlessness that led to the current crisis of violence.

    The problem is that we’re adding causes, not removing them.

    If marriage can be literally anything you want it to be, then it literally means nothing. (“When everyone is special, then no one is special.”) That is what the “redefinition” of marriage has accomplished. The result—already being seen in our society—is that when marriage does not mean anything, then people tend to not get married. That leads to instability and children being raised in single parent or, worse, abusive homes.

    You cannot have a stable society when its members are not stable.

    We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge or gallantry would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution is designed only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate for any other.
    — John Adams

    • People tend not to get married or stay married because the forces that drove them to get married and stay married no longer exist. Birth control allows people to have sex without making babies (though apparently public school sex ed is not doing a very good job of teaching this), easy divorce laws make it easy to break up an existing marriage. Misandrist divorce laws financially rape the ex husband for the financial benefit of the ex wife. Welfare ensures that a single woman can have as many kids as she wants without a husband to support her because the government replaces the husband as provider. Public education makes people think they do not have to raise their kids because at 5 years old they ship them off to a government system modeled on the old Prussian military system to make them into good soldiers and factory workers. None of this has anything at all to do with gay people or gay marriage or even gay politics. This is all straight people fucking up our own shit.

      • “Public education makes people think they do not have to raise their kids because at 5 years old they ship them off to a government system…”

        Don’t worry. They’re trying to change that. Democrats want tax payer funded preschool so they can get you back to work on that GDP ASAP (or collecting welfare and getting high), and start the indoctrination process in your child much earlier.

  33. Because “those people” are somehow opposed to nuclear families? Makes one wonder why there was such a fight to get their marriages recognized….

    Which is your view of marriage?

    a) It can be defined as anything we want it to be.

    b) It’s definition is the result of observing human biology and psychology.

      • Really? How are things like inheritance managed without state involvement? Parental responsibility? Medical issues?

        And no, you did not answer the question of where the definition of marriage comes from, unless you’re just choosing b) but trying to not actually admit it.

        • Inheritance? it’s called a Will… You can leave YOUR crap to anyone you you want, the state has no say in the matter.. Parental responsibility is pretty much self explanatory and I don’t know how the state is involved in medical issues… That was pretty much a private matter between you and your Dr. before Obamacare…

        • “You can leave YOUR crap to anyone you you want, the state has no say in the matter..”

          Except when they swoop in to take their cut. 😉

        • MM,

          Those are all areas that are controlled by law.

          For example, there is not always a will. Even when there is, there are sometimes legal issues.

          “Parental responsibility is pretty much self explanatory…”

          Really? Pray tell. How do you have child support payments without law? Who makes medical decisions for children? Who has primary responsibility without legal foundations?

          You say, “self explanatory” without explanation. And I’ve just highlighted areas where explanation is absolutely necessary.

          I don’t know how the state is involved in medical issues…

          Again, who gets to make medical decisions when the patient is unable to without law to specify?

        • Except when they swoop in to take their cut

          You can beat that too… Just sell all your junk to your kids or whomever for a buck… No inheritance, no tax…

        • It is very simple, EWT,

          Marriage is a contract. In our society, the content of that contract has (mostly) been defined by the state – which is objectively stupid. The state is not a PARTY to that contract. Parties can, subject to well-established contract law, agree to whatever they want (again, subject to malum in se laws). If the state wants to establish a “default” contract, saying “if you don’t cover these issues in your contract, this is what WE will deem to be included”, I only find that mildly annoying – so long as you are permitted to contract around the default.

          If I want to contract with someone for a relationship that you don’t “approve of”, what in the blue-hammered h*** gives YOU, or the “State”, to tell me I can’t do that??? That’s as effed up as the “State” threatening to infringe my rights (travel, commerce, etc.) if I refuse to get vaccinated.

          I don’t much care for authoritarians (that’s why I have such fun kicking Minor IQ around). You are coming off VERY MUCH as a big league, full-on, authoritarian. Good luck with that.

        • EWT,

          For someone who is (apparently) all into “laws”, you seem remarkably unknowlegdeable about them. YES, there are “laws” governing inheritance – but you can almost entirely supersede them with a will. Too lazy/stupid to make a will? Why is that MY problem? Parental responsibility?? If that WEREN’T governed by laws, we wouldn’t have things like CPS. My whole ISSUE is that every single aspect of our lives is hemmed in by a fence of “laws” – some of which I agree with (but still don’t want to mandate for everyone), but most of which I have/had no say in. I believe in Jefferson’s version of government, which I paraphrase as, “As long as we all agree, we’re cool. When it doesn’t serve our purposes, we are free to “dissolve it and institue another” more suitable to our purposes. I give government EXACTLY the respect it EARNS. If government does its job, whatever that is, competently, I am inclined to grant it more respect, even if I agree with the motivating policy. If it is an incompent, arrogant, power-grabbing, nanny-state cluster-f*** of an out of control dumpster fire (as ours is, now), I grant it no respect whatsoever.

          That the “laws” you cite (and I cited) were adopted (ALLEGEDLY Constitutionally) by our “democratically-elected” “representatives”? Means exactly diddly-squat. Remember, a “democratic majority” of our Founders elected to maintain slavery. I understand their dilemma; I despise their result. If Madison and (most importantly) Jefferson had held firm to their ideological principles, they would have rejected slavery, and we would have saved ourselves the 3/5 Compromise, the Missouri Compromise, “Bleeding Kansas” and the Civil War. That a “democratic” process adopted a law? That and five bucks will get you a crappy cup of coffee at Starbucks. Earn my respect, and I’m inclined to follow your “laws” even when I disagree with them. Treat me with disdain, ignore the existence of my INHERENT human rights? We’re not going to get along.

          While I have HUGE problems with the Left, I must admit that I have nearly as severe problems with the “social conservatives” or religious conservatives, or whatever. I can guarantee you, having argued with them my whole life, that Leftists TRULY BELIEVE that what they are peddling is “scientific”, “democratic” and “for the good of the society”. I know the Scientific Method (actually KNOW it), the reason our Founders DELIBERATELY chose a republic, and felt everyone had the right to decide what was best for them ON THEIR OWN . . . with MINIMAL “guardrails”.

          We have strayed so far from that, we can’t even see it in the rear view mirror. I “get” why you think some of your things are “for the good of society”, and with some of them I actually agree that I think they are “for the good of society”. The difference is, I don’t think I have the right (and I KNOW I don’t have the desire) to impose MY WILL on others.

          Y’all ought to audition for the role of “God” – the NYT told me he was dead, so they must be looking for a new one.

      • Ding, ding, ding, ding, ding!!!! Ladies and gentlemen, we have a winner!!!

        “Marriage” is a relationship. Government should have f***all to do with human relationships – EXCEPT enforcing malum in se laws.

        • Fascinating. The unwillingness to even think about how law intersects with marriage on display is only matched by the unwillingness of of the gun grabbers to think about the defensive use of firearms and what the 2nd Amendment actually says.

          In the matter of reforming things, as distinct from deforming them, there is one plain and simple principle; a principle which will probably be called a paradox. There exists in such a case a certain institution or law; let us say, for the sake of simplicity, a fence or gate erected across a road. The more modern type of reformer goes gaily up to it and says, “I don’t see the use of this; let us clear it away.” To which the more intelligent type of reformer will do well to answer: “If you don’t see the use of it, I certainly won’t let you clear it away. Go away and think. Then, when you can come back and tell me that you do see the use of it, I may allow you to destroy it.
          — C. K. Chesterton

          Instead, we’re winding up with a large part of society who will be running from the bull because they didn’t want to even think about the consequences of ignoring warnings from the farmer.

        • Yeah, believing that gun grabbers should have NO right to infringe on my INHERENT rights is EXACTLY the same as believing that I should be free to establish my human relationships as I CHOOSE. Way to “get” the point, while totally missing the point.

          If you don’t want the gun grabbers to infringe YOUR rights, why are OK with infringing THEIR rights – to self-expression, freedom to contract, freedom of beliefs, etc. Because you are “smarter” or “more knowledgeable” or “more scientific” than they??? Yeah, i’ve heard the SAME arguments coming out of the mouths of Bloomfield, Watts, et al.

          I didn’t buy it from them, but YOU’RE special?? Gonna have to take a hard pass on that, Chief. Arrogance is apparently NOT the exclusive privilege of the Left. Enjoy your certainty in the infallibility of YOUR individual judgement. I don’t have that much belief in MY judgement; I’d see you in h*** before I’d grant that much certainty to yours. Sorry, not sorry.

  34. Anyone who sent a negative comment in response to this magazine cover is an utter disgrace to the gun community. I cannot fathom being so petty as to be “triggered” by a shirt on a magazine cover simply because it has an American flag with a different color scheme then the traditional red, white, and blue. Recoil wasn’t trying to force any ideology down anyone’s throat, they simply let Cheng pick his own choice of clothing. Why anyone would have a problem with this is beyond me.

    • Well, others can. Read some of these comments. And then if you still can’t fathom why someone would be upset, that’s on you.

  35. I don’t read Recoil magazine so this isn’t really a thing for me. I don’t spend money on magazines of any kind for the only exception of what I get from the 2A orgs I’m a member of. The rest of it can stay on the rack.

    Why would I ever need to care what this persons sexual preferences are? Should he care what mine are? This is crazy. Who cares?

    The only reason to make such a thing of it is to make it political. Guns have NOTHING to do with anything. For this reason, this whole thing is pointless.

  36. LGBTWXYZ123 really sucks.

    Oops, I just accidentally made a funny. I am so ashamed… 🙁

    First of all, I never heard of Recoil magazine.
    Second, I never heard of Chris Cheng.
    Third, Mother Nature has a specific purpose for our body parts (reproduction).
    Fourth, many people are abusing this purpose.
    Fifth, 2nd amendment supporters are good people.
    Sixth, the enemy of my enemy is my friend.

    How is that for a personal opinion…..?

  37. Okay, I don’t know the magazine or show that guy is but hell yes the Second Amendment is for all of the People. The Constitution says so, “the Right of The People”. Doesn’t say The Right of some People who other people approve of”. Nope, there are no qualifiers there.

    So that’s that and all else is your own baggage.

  38. Aside from the fact that, to me at least, homosexuality is simply what a person is in one aspect of their life, and not who a person is as far as their intellect, goodness, or anything else, we have to understand that if we don’t even accept each other as being people, we are never going to have enough allies to win the fight for the 2a. My opinion, I think there are a million reasons to support and praise gun ownership in the gay community. Absolute truth, we don’t don’t survive by shrinking our numbers over petty hatred.

  39. Per their statement, Chris Cheng has been featured in Recoil many times without incident, and that his sexuality has been out in the open for nearly a decade. Maybe then, the backlash isn’t against him or his sexuality? I’d hazard a guess that those who are genuinely frustrated (and not just internet haters) are frustrated because they don’t like virtue signaling, even when it’s done by people of the gun. Tell us what Chris Cheng did to earn a spot on the cover of your magazine BESIDES being gay (that’s why we’re reading after all) – unless of course every other person you’ve featured has been there because of who they choose to boink. Can we just be people again?

  40. So I agree and disagree ,I got kicked off insta for saying the flag doesn’t deserve to be tarnished that way, same with thin blue line flags . We dont give two flying fucks hes gay

  41. “Nor did Jesus condemn homosexuality.”

    He condemned porneia, the entire category of sexual sin as defined in the Old Testament. And He pointed out that the definition of marriage is one man, one woman, for one lifetime. There is no room in what He said which allows for homosexuality.

    • Citation and language, please? Oh, and learn to use the “reply” feature, so your responses show up connected to the thread they relate to.

      • The Reply feature is somewhat broken. I used to be able to click the reply button in the emails to reply to the specific comment, no matter how deep it was. That no longer works.

        And of course, blockquoting doesn’t work well either. Thus, my attempts to do something more useful.

        ———-
        And he said, “What comes out of a person is what defiles him. For from within, out of the heart of man, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, coveting, wickedness, deceit, sensuality, envy, slander, pride, foolishness. All these evil things come from within, and they defile a person.”
        — Mark 7:20–23
        ———-

        The word translated as “sexual immorality” is the Greek word porneiai, which means:

        ———-
        to engage in sexual immorality of any kind, often with the implication of prostitution — ‘to engage in illicit sex, to commit fornication, sexual immorality, fornication, prostitution.’
        — Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament
        ———-

        Revelation 2:12-23 also cite Jesus condemning porneiai.

        Note also this usage of that word:

        ———-
        just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities, which likewise indulged in sexual immorality and pursued unnatural desire, serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire.
        — Jude 7
        ———-

        As for the definition of marriage:

        ———-
        And Jesus said to them, “Because of your hardness of heart he wrote you this commandment. But from the beginning of creation, ‘God made them male and female.’ ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.’ So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.”
        — Mark 10:5–9
        ———-

        Also see Matthew 19:4-6.

        So in short, while Jesus did not single out homosexual behavior specifically, He did condemn it as part of a category. And He reasserted the original definition of marriage in a way that excludes “same sex marriage” and all the other distortions of it that people have been engaging in throughout history.

        • OK, we need to get a few things clear, here. I am INTIMATELY familiar with the Bible, comparative religion, philosophy, etc. Undergraduate minor (enough credits it could have been my major). There are four book in the Bible that supposedly reflect the ACTUAL EVENTS of the life of Jesus, and his words – Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John (you know, the guys that Christians call “the Four Witnesses”. Heard of them, have you???). EVERY other statement of what Jesus supposedly said or did is (i) from some reporter who was not an actual witness, and/or (ii) is filtered through the PERSONAL expriences of the reporter (and there is MUCH political intrigue involved; read the history of the early Church). What John says in Revelations is . . . interesting, but may or may not have anything at all to do with what Jesus actually thought, said, or believed. So, let’s forget your quotes outside of the Four Witnesses – I’m an attorney, and even under the EXCEPTIONS to the hearsay rule, THIRD HAND hearsay is rarely admitted at all, and never given much weight.

          As for the definition of porneiai, yes, Jesus did condemn it. Find me ANYWHERE in that definition that unequivocally includes homosexuality. If it was his intent that “marriage” within the Church was intended to be one man and one woman (which I PERSONALLY agree that it is) he said not ONE WORD condemning other relationships, and remember that this was the same Jesus who befriended thieves and prostitutes, and dared a lynch mob to “throw the first stone” if they believed they were without sin. Saying, “this is the union this CHURCH blesses” does not translate into “and we condemn any others”. Sorry, that s*** would get you a “D” in a high school logic class. What was Jesus’ “Golden Rule”??? If there are “gay’trans activists” out there who are telling you that YOUR marriage is “evil” (and there may be), I would have equal disdain for their views. What Jesus thought was the ideal relationship is pretty clear. And yet, he specifically befriended and protected “these, the least among us” – including thieves, prostitutes (SPECIFICALLY included in your definition), etc. (cf., Mary Magdalene). If you want to argue/discuss religion, I mostly agree with you about Christian doctrine. Those are MY beliefs. The Old Testament God was all about, “if they don’t follow my word, kill them”. Jesus was specifically and overtly NOT about that. You come to Jesus through acceptance and belief, but NO reasoned reading of the Four Witnesses can possibly yield any conclusion other than – “Do unto others as you would have done unto you”, “Love thy neighbor as thyself”, “turn the other cheek”, “Judge not, lest ye be judged”, and “hate the sin, love the sinner”.

          THAT is the Savior I believe in. You are welcome to craft another to your liking – even a sexual Karen. Finding REAL textual support for your perception of the Prince of Peace will prove to be a little more difficult. Laying your interpretation on terms based on what YOU THINK Jesus “actually meant” by his words?? Feel free, Paul made pretty free with that. And I don’t DISAGREE with much of what Paul said, but . . . Paul (formerly Saul of Tarses), not Jesus.

          This ain’t rocket surgery. It’s called FAITH for a reason. I can believe whatever I choose to, but IF you want to rely on objective (or at least semi-objective) evidence, what some non-witness says, or what someone CLAIMS Jesus “actually meant”? Yeah, sorry, not interested.

        • For Lamp,

          “OK, we need to get a few things clear, here. I am INTIMATELY familiar with the Bible, comparative religion, philosophy, etc. Undergraduate minor (enough credits it could have been my major)”

          Congrats on paying someone to explain it to you, and then award you for doing so. Seriously though, it sounds elitist, I went to college, my papers, therefore I’m right!

          “And yet, he specifically befriended and protected “these, the least among us” – including thieves, prostitutes”

          Are you implying his endorsement of the behaviours?

          “And I don’t DISAGREE with much of what Paul said, but . . . Paul (formerly Saul of Tarses), not Jesus.”

          This flex is pretty cringe, I’m sure history will take note that anon TTAG poster from 2021 doesn’t disagree with much of what Paul, yes THAT Paul , the formerly Saul…wrote.

          With all due respect, for real.

        • OK, Mike, using my college creds does, in retrospect, come off as “flexing”, and somewhat elitist. Acknowledged, and I apologize for that appearance and attitude (even though, like Dan, that is NOT what I meant). I was raised Southern Baptist (you may or may not know what that means/implies), was always fascinated by religion in general, and Christianity in particular, as well as comparative religion and philosophy. OK, I “paid someone else” to teach me – yeah, just like I pay a doctor when I’m ill. I worked my @$$ off in those classes, and if you want to get into the nitty gritty of doctrine, dogma, related history, cross-religion comparisons (and what they likely mean), etc.? As Doc Holliday said in “Tombstone”, “I am your huckleberry.”

          The woman I married was a “cradle Catholic” and her uncle was a monsignor, and she had another aunt who was a nun. I agreed to convert, and went through RCIA (look it up). My understanding and knowledge of the Bible sufficiently impressed the priest and my sponsor that they browbeat me to join and attend “Catholic Bible School” – one Saturday a month, for eight hours a day, for four years. Then I remained an active, practicing Catholic, until my disgust with the Church’s failure/refusal to deal with pedophile priests forced me to quit on moral grounds.

          So, yeah, I pretty much think I can more than hold my own in knowledge of what is ACTUALLY in the Bible, the historical context, apologetics, exigesis, sociological ramifications, etc. with damn near anybody. And I know for DAMN sure there is not a single word in the Bible actually out of Jesus’ mouth that condemns homosexuality.

          SO, my remarks may have sounded elitist and arrogant – I’ve already apologized for that. EWTs remarks, AND YOURS, are equally if not more “elitist” (you sound like sister Bertha Better-than-thou – and if you don’t get that reference, you’ve proved my point) and, I submit, even MORE arrogant. EWT presumes to say what Jesus “meant” by his use of a Greek word that even EWT’s definition didn’t support . . . and I’M the arrogant one??? Nice try. Now, if you are calling me out to prove my actual knowledge understanding of the Bible? Name the time, place and venue. I would bet heavy money I’ve read the Bible more different times, in more different versions (and understand the reasons why that is important) better than you or EWT.

          Just because SOME college degrees are meaningless pieces of paper does NOT mean they all are – I have both life experience, and years of hard work, behind mine. I’m more than happy to put that on the line. I will try to moderate my “elitism”; y’all might want to try to dial back your arrogance, eh???

        • Lamp,

          Lol, you’re making my point!

          You admit that showing off the trophy case to make your point may not be appropriate…then you double down and roll out another!!! See, I really am the experts expert!!!

          You may or may not be. The creds you’re polishing here are more remarkable than say a burger flipper, but how extraordinary in a world of 7 billion?

          You were raised in a religious environment. You associated with religious people. You went to school and have many religious credits on your transcript. You have always been interested and curious in these matters. Great, we are all literally happy for you no joke.

          I don’t think that prior to your post were you exclaimed your credentials that anyone had called them into question.

          And really, telling me you didn’t laugh at those jabs, c’mon man…

        • @Lamp,

          I’m glad you’re back. It’s been a while since I’ve seen you here. I often disagree with you, but at least your arguments are worthy of my/our time. Gets the juices flowing. So, thanks for that.

          I have an honest question for you. Do you believe in the entirety of the Bible? All of it?

  42. “Homosexuality is not an ideology, it’s natural biology- scientifically verified in several animal species (and has been in place since the beginning of time).”

    False.

    First of all, the “gay gene” idea has been disproven.

    Secondly, while some homosexual behavior has been observed among animals, it is not “homosexuality” as is being asserted of humans in that it is not an “orientation”, usually has more to do with dominance or humping anything—even the sofa, and humans are not animals.

    Third, people do change their “orientations”, so it is not a biological thing.

    • Humans are animals and from what I’ve seen of humanity lately they’re better off humping the couch.
      Less humans would be a good thing.

  43. “…LBJs “Great Society” programs had begun the destruction of the nuclear family, and Carter and Clinton and the Lyin’ Hawaiian had accelerated it, long before gay marriage was even a thing.

    They had damaged marriage, but they had not redefined it. Up until that time, people were still mostly getting married with reasonable success. Now that it has been defined into irrelevancy, most people aren’t bothering.

    Of course, I have to marvel at the logic of “marriage was already damaged, therefore there’s nothing wrong with the killing blow.”

    • First, EWT, that is not an accurate representation of either what you said, or of my response – please try to avoid having your prejudice interfere with your ratiocination.

      Second, YOU believe that marriage has a specific definition, and YOU believe that the definition is “rooted in biology”. Biology, for many if not most mammalian species, encompasses breeding (i) in packs, (ii) with multiple partners, (iii) includes the common (near universal) practice of throwing old or infirm members out of the pack, and (iv) replacing the breeding male(s) with young bucks when the breeding male(s) get old. Which parts of that fit into YOUR definition of marriage.

      Don’t compound your prejudice with childish illogic. Marriage means many different things to many different people. Hollywood “heterosexual” marriages typically do not mean what I mean by marriage. Elizabeth Taylor’s extramarital flings and multiple divorces were all over the news, and to the best of my knowledge, she never had a lesbian relationship. Would you consider her marital practices to be part of “marriage”.

      Stop confusing your preferences with natural law. From G.B. Shaw’s “Caesar and Cleopatra”: Brittanus: “Caesar! This is not proper!!” Theodotus: “HOW?? (as in, ‘how dare you’). Caesar: “Forgive him, Theodotus, for he is a barbarian, and believes the customs of his island and people are the laws of nature.”

      Even if he was a socialist, G.B. Shaw had your number.

    • I dunno, EWT, creating a 70% society of unwed mothers is as definitive a FUNCTIONAL redefinition of “marriage” as I can imagine. Does the so-called “gay agenda”, as it is usually articulated, include things that further erode that? Sure – in my opinion. Do ALL gays believe that? No, and that is not MY assertion, that is an incontrovertible FACT from actual, personal knowledge and observation of the beliefs and ACTIONS of actual gay people. Are there some in society who assert and proselytize for those beliefs? Absolutely. Am I prepared to exercise power to control THEIR lives and choices??? No, I am not, and if it came down to cases, I would actively support THEM (even though I disagree with their agenda), and oppose you.

      You ain’t God, you ain’t Jesus, your Biblican exigesis is . . . not persuasive. I am humble enough to ADMIT and accept that I am not perfect, and I am in no position to dictate to others. Read the Four Witnesses again, about Jesus’ views about acceptance, humility, and caring for the weak and fallen. While I fully admit I may be dead wrong, I PERSONALLY find zero support in the ACTUAL WORDS of our Savior for your position – and I find your judgemental, intolerant approach quite at variance from his very SPECIFIC injunctions about humility, caring for the fallen, etc.

      But opinions, as we all know, are like @$$holes – everyone has one, and they all stink. You may be absolutely right about what Jesus “meant” by what he said. I go back to my departed father’s injunction that “If someone says one thing, and does something different, pay attention to what he DOES – words are cheap.” Jesus ACTIONS, IMHO, support my interpretation more than they support yours – but, that too is an OPINION. You are welcome to your own.

      If it isn’t clear, I have NO ISSUE with your beliefs – I have an issue with your apparent belief that your are somehow justified in imposing them on others. Refuse to subsidize??? I am your huckleberry. Try to, AT ANY LEVEL, short of punishing malum in se, enforce your beliefs on others, and Mr. Grenade is no longer your friend. I sure as h*** wouldn’t tolerate it, and I’m not inclined to support you doing it. Again, sorry, not sorry.

  44. I’m okay with it if only to troll the intersectional left.

    That said people who enjoy and value the principles of freedom and liberal (in the classical sense) government are overall good and I’d take a thousand of him over a single straight Michael Bloomberg or Shannon Watts or hell 95% of modern politicians.

  45. Christians that aren’t car enthusiasts don’t decide to become a car enthusiast on the off chance that they see someone displaying the Christian flag on a car magazine. If I was a gay man, I would be disgusted and embarrassed by the amount of pandering going on during Pride month. There are gay people in the 2A community because they like freedom and guns, not because they think there will be more gay people there. We’ll never win by playing the I’m just as woke as you game.

    All you have to do is live by the lessons you learned when you were a kid:
    Treat others how you want to be treated.
    Don’t judge a book by it’s cover.
    And here’s a crazy one, just stick with me on this: Judge people by the content of their character, not [insert tribal identity].

  46. He’s gay, and he’s wearing a rainbow flag shirt. He’s done more for our 2A rights than a lot of you lugs who sit and bitch.

  47. @LampOfDiogenes

    Rights in conflict is the most difficult of propositions to resolve. Just as it is impossible today to not commit a single felony in the average day, so it is that with uncounted (uncountable?) natural, human and civil rights (amendments 9 & 10). Is it possible to always avoid conflicting with someone’s rights, somewhere?

    As society devolves, retrogrades, dissolves, dissipates into anarchy (no one allowed to be held accountable for anything), human rights eventually conflict everywhere, and become the privilege of the most powerful.

    Like Valentine Michael Smith, “I grok people.”

    • Brother, I heard that with my bad ear!

      My ONLY issue (and it’s funny, because I actually agree with much (most?) of the theology and “rules” that EWT is preaching – I try to conduct MY life by them. I am simply humble enough to KNOW (not think, but KNOW) that I am in no position to impose my beliefs on ANYONE. I’ve made more mistakes in my life than I can (or care to) count, so who am I to preach????? I am perfectly capable of not only ignoring, but not letting affect me, anyone else’s bs, whether the “LGBTQ agenda” or EWT’s version of the Bible. If there are (and I know there are) others more susceptible to bs??? “Correctlng” them is not my job or desire. I’d be REALLY happy if everyone else would leave me alone and let me live my life. I try to afford that respect to others EVEN if I completely disagree with them.

      I literally cannot comprehend the incination/desire of so many to control the lives of others. I think Jordan Peterson expressed a truth when he said before you “improve the world”, perhaps you should clean up your room. If you haven’t got YOUR life under control, from whence cometh your conviction that you are the person to control others’???

      Sorry, but EWT triggered me with his absolute CONVICTION that he knew what was “right”, enough to impose it on others. And I MOSTLY agree with the guy.

      • Thought you had presented an interesting and useful proposition for discussing one of the great conundrums. Perfection is a harsh taskmaster. As you noted, so very much crap that people sling at each other is an illustration of the moat and beam admonishment.

        • The older I get, and the more I study it, the more wisdom I find in Jesus’ ACTUAL teachings and actions. The mote and beam is a great example, but I personally can’t find any way to read Jesus’ words (and to reiterate, we’re talking Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John – anything else is third hand hearsay) other than “Do unto others as you would have done to you”, “love your neighbor as yourself”, “judge not, lest ye be judged” and his injunctions on humility, caring for the weak, etc. Maybe it’s this whole “getting old” thing, but I find his teachings more persuasive the older I get.

          Looking over this thread, I am amazed that it devolved into a theological discussion. My original intent was to try to point out that we could not demand that our (2A) rights be respected, and at the same time NOT respect the rights (1A, among others) of others not be respected. Just pushed one of my buttons, unfortunately.

          I MOSTLY find the commenters on TTAG to be thoughtful, knowledgeable and reasonably open-minded. I guess I got blindsided by the really intolerant approach some seemed to have (and the absolute conviction some seemed to have that their prejudices were “the laws of nature”. I’ll try to control that better, in the future. Thanks for paying attention, and discussing it intelligently. Bless you and yours.

  48. The last paragraph of this article spells it out perfectly – if you want to alienate people you don’t like the TTAG or Recoil isn’t the place for you. As in, if you have a problem with gay people then move on. It’s YOUR problem. As many conservatives correctly and freely say, “I have free speech and don’t care if you’re offended.”

  49. Good on RECOIL and Chris Cheng. I’ve said it before and I will say it again, “I don’t care what someone’s sexual preferences are. Instead, I care about their opinions on the great 9mm / .45 ACP debate.”

    My only complaint about the cover is the Colt Anaconda with the rail and red dot… That is the real eyesore and not Chris’ shirt.

    • “That is the real eyesore and not Chris’ shirt.”

      Drew, I literally was taking a drink, and did a “spit take” when I read that! You and possum should get together and form a comedy writing team, “Snark for Smart People!”. And I agree that the Anaconda with a rail is heinous, but I’m an old fart.

  50. For all of you who have no problem with this- what if this was a member of NAMBLA?
    For those who don’t know, it’s the North American Man-Boy Love Association. I think their motto is something like “sex before eight or it’s too late.”
    You say what they do in their private lives is none of your business, and in many cases it is, but where would you draw the line?
    If he were a NAMBLA freak, but promoting guns, would you have no problem with it?
    Depravity is depravity, no matter how you sugarcoat it.

    • People are still comparing gays to child molesters? You must be using a TRS-80 because that’s so 40 plus years ago thinking. As in, at TRS-80 wouldn’t even have the processing power to be online much like your apparent IQ level. See what happens when people listen to CNN and wear 5 masks? Lack of oxygen has consequences.

    • No, I quite SPECIFICALLY stated that what two ADULTS do, in private, consensually, is none of my business. I have a distinctly different belief about non-consensual sex, and that (by definition of the term “consent” excludes minors). And even with NAMBLA, they have the RIGHT to articulate, and even campaign for, their belief – so long as they don’t practice it. I think the difference between advocacy and practice is quite clear, but apparently I am in the minority.

  51. When you deface the American Flag in the name of your ideology or cause, or any reason, you have crapped on every American who gave it all to defend it.

    Recoil permitted it. Does TTAG permit it ?

    • This is correct. I have no problems with Chris Cheng’s lifestyle choices.
      Change the shirt that desecrates The United States Flag.
      This is not a 1st amendment issue, it’s a crime.
      I’m tolerant of his lifestyle choices, that’s his right.
      I’m intolerant of desecration of the Flag of our country.
      That applies to ALL alterations of the Flag including the blue line.
      I have nothing against cops but Disrespect is disrespect.
      Desecration is desecration.

      • And Constitutional rights are constitutional rights. I understand, and agree with, your views about disrespecting the flag – I would never do it, and it annoys me that others do. Two counter points:

        1. Wearing a garment with a flag on it, so long as the flad is not placed so that it is stepped on or sat upon, isn’t even a violation of the Flag Code; and

        2. Wouldn’t matter if it was, since under the 1A, a person has a RIGHT to burn the flag, step on the flag, sit on the flag, spray paint the flag, etc. I find those action reprehensible, disagree with them, and think MOST of that is performative nonsense – but it is CLEARLY within the ambit of ‘free speech’ – and SCOTUS has so ruled, so it is the “law of the land”. Now, if you said, “I find Chris wearing a defaced flag offensive, so I refuse to buy that magazine, and I’ll never support Chris Cheng or Recoil magazine again!”, fine.

        Just as the 2A states “shall not be infringed”, the 1A states “Congress shall pass NO LAW respecting” and goes on to list free speech, free worship, free assembly, and petition for redress of grievances. HOWEVER offensive you, or I, may find it . . . if Cheng had a flag prominently shown taped to his butt and the bottoms of his shoes, I would NEVER support him, or Recoil magazine again, but, they have an ABSOLUTE right to do that, and the “Flag Code” doesn’t supersede the Constitution.

      • . Wearing a garment with a flag on it, so long as the flad is not placed so that it is stepped on or sat upon, isn’t even a violation of the Flag Code;

        Uhhhmmmm… Maybe not, but presenting it in an altered state (rainbow? coloration) is… (4 U.S. Code § 8. Respect for flag) part (g) The flag should never have placed upon it, nor on any part of it, nor attached to it any mark, insignia, letter, word, figure, design, picture, or drawing of any nature.

    • TTAG permits it. They wont even let me post The United States flag code that shows Chris Chengs shirt is forbidden under two parts of the official Flag code under civilian and military law.
      I find that offensive.

  52. These homosexuals, hide behind the non clinical name “Gay.” As a community and collectively they are working very hard to add members to their clubhouse. The use of drag queen homosexuals, homosexual themed cartoons, and childrens books serve to lure children into the lifetyle. There is strength in numbers and children are looked at by leaders of the homosexual community as seeds for future homosexuals.

    Now that homosexuals have achieved political power, they are authoring laws and regulations that provide them weapons against those who do not agree or condone their lifestyles. They use these powers in punitive ways against those who refuse to accept their lifestyle.

    When you use children in this manner, as sexual objects and for recruiting into the homosexual lifestyle you have crossed the line of human decency, and morality. For these reasons I do not and will not accept homosexuals as safe, innocent, good people. Homosexuality is a deviant lifestyle that brought AIDS to the world.

  53. You’re free not to use either website. They have free speech and you don’t have to be snowflaked by it like the woke left does at MAGA hats.

  54. what a bunch of bullshit arguments. I am long past the day and time when I about who anyone plays (consensual, adult) grab ass with.
    Everyone has their favorite sin they keep and nourish. But the other guy, well, he is a sinner.

    One thing he has proved- he gay and a man.

    big deal. If you put me on the cover I might be wearing a green Irish shirt asking the Queen to bend over. Who cares.
    Just kidding. Prefer my own species.

  55. Most of us learned from good parenting that other peoples’ genitals are none of our business. Seriously. What people have in their pants, what they do with other consenting adults in the privacy of their own home, none of it is anyone else’s business. For my part, I don’t know and I don’t want to know. Not for straights, kinks, trans, bi, non, or any other orientation, fetish or foible. It is literally nobody else’s business. I do my thing, you do yours. Freedom. It should be something we all agree upon.

    Plus the right to defend yourself from unwarranted and entirely unnecessary aggression.

    • We keep being told it is no one else’s business. Yet, on a daily basis, they make it our business by shoving the LGBTQXYZ crap in our face. Personally, I refer to them as BLTs.
      The current thing is the mental trannies wanting to use whatever bathroom they choose, and men running in women’s races simply because on this day they feel like a woman. Are you OK with your young daughter encountering a man in the restroom because he decides he needs to be there?
      If it’s truly not my business, then don’t make it my business.

  56. I’ve no hatred toward Cheng or any other gay person (2A supporter or not). But the reaction to this cover isn’t because of the “gay question”.

    It’s pushback against an effort to remove any kind of moral guidelines. Do you hold biblical values? You’re consumed with hatred!

    Not a fan of public library Drag Queen hour for your preschooler? You bigot!

    Do you believe there are only two genders? You’re anti-science!

    Don’t want your 8 year old publicly shamed for the sin of white skin? You’re racist!

    Go ahead TTAG. Ban me if you feel I’m not the kind of 2A supporter you want haunting your site.

  57. It’s so amusing to see the negative posts about Chris’s 🌈 shirt and comments against gay people. Don’t these naysayers realize that when they comment in the negative it only makes them look insecure in their masculinity or even closet cases? Then they hide behind cherry picked bible verses as if that fool’s anyone anymore. Stupid people have a habit of identifying themselves.

  58. I posted a response to this report about the dangers the homosexual movement presents to our children. TTAG deleted it.

    I used no profanity or slurs. Only the truth.
    So now you know this TTAG takes the lead from Zuckerberg and censors what goes against its agenda.

    • The truth is intolerant morons like you are a threat and should not be allowed to procreate. No one wants to hear your backwards-ass, holier-than-thou, inbred, booger-eating garbage.

      Let’s see if this gets deleted.

      • No one wants to hear your backwards-ass, holier-than-thou, inbred, booger-eating garbage.

        Sorry “Cato” but even “backwards-ass, holier-than-thou, inbred, booger-eating garbage” is protected under the 1st Amendment… An earlier post from you stated “You are correct about one thing, I am intolerant of intolerant assholes.”… Yet now YOU are being an “intolerant asshole”… How DO you tolerate yourself?

        • I tolerate myself pretty well. While it might seem hypocritical to be intolerant of someone’s opinion and be against cancel culture at the same time, I can’t stand bullies who think they are morally superior to others and put people down. Especially if they equate them to pedophiles.

          1st amendment protects people from govt censorship not from TTAG or Recoil magazine.

        • 1st amendment protects people from govt censorship not from TTAG or Recoil magazine

          1st Amendment also allows for the right to freedom of the press guaranteed by the First Amendment which is not very different from the right to freedom of speech. It allows an INDIVIDUAL to express themselves through publication and dissemination (as in posting here…. yours, mine AND his). It is part of the constitutional protection of freedom of expression. That means ANYONE, as editorials and/or comments made on a blog, face book, twitter or any other social media or printed news source… You have the right to rebuttal…

        • It’s not protected speech according to the Constitution.

          Posting on a blog does not make you a member of the press you moron.

      • The truth is intolerant morons like you are a threat

        I’ve only seen one other post by JB in which he took issue with the American Flag being defaced as do I and millions of other Patriots, that is hardly intollerant booger eating garbage, in fact it is law under (4 U.S. Code § 8. Respect for flag) parts (d)The flag should never be used as wearing apparel, bedding, or drapery. It should never be festooned, drawn back, nor up, in folds, (g) The flag should never have placed upon it, nor on any part of it, nor attached to it any mark, insignia, letter, word, figure, design, picture, or drawing of any nature. and (j) No part of the flag should ever be used as a COSTUME or athletic uniform. However, a flag patch may be affixed to the uniform of military personnel, firemen, policemen, and members of patriotic organizations. The flag represents a living country and is itself considered a living thing. Therefore, the lapel flag pin being a replica, should be worn on the left lapel near the heart. If respecting the flag is intolerance then YOU need to change the law…

        • guess you can love the flag and still be an asshole.

          If you are referring to me you have NO idea just how much of an asshole I CAN be…

    • JB,

      If your report is correct (and I assume, for purposes of our discussion, that it is), and my children are (or were – my youngest graduated high school yesterday; if I haven’t gotten them insulated against such nonsense by now, that is on ME, not the “gay agenda”) educated/inoculated to the best of my ability. WHILE they were children, I was responsible for protecting them. If I let them go to a “Drag Queen Story Hour”, whose fault was that, mine or the drag queen’s????

      Again, I thought the group on here was all about personal responsibility – if I’VE dropped the ball on teaching/protecting my children, and I blame the drag queen that I allowed to read my child a story, blaming it on the drag queen, or the “gay agenda” seems suspiciously like deflecting blame for my OWN failings, IMHO.

      • Problem is, some of this same type of crap is being done in schools, either without the parent’s knowledge/approval, or just plain not giving them the choice to remove the child from the activity.
        And, why are libraries or other places ALLOWING drag queens to read to little kids? Do you think for a minute these same places would allow someone to sit there and read to the kids from the Bible? If you answered yes to that, then you are terribly naive.

  59. This is amazing. You people are never going to win many converts into the pro-2A gun community this way.

    Cheng being gay and Recoil magazine helping him make sure the world knows it is NOT about guns one way or the other. It’s not even about love (someone’s absolute commitment to someone else). This is a political statement and nothing else.

    Do I condone the lifestyle?
    NO! absolutely not! I see it as a move towards death for society/civilization.

    The 2nd Amendment applies to every American as a law of the land and to every human on the planet in spirit. It does not say (or even imply) that it only applies to heterosexuals. This entire discussion plays on the idea that the 2nd is a republican thing that hates homosexuals in an attempt to make the right look bad. It uses guns as a backdrop to do it.

    It does not matter to me what side of this you land on. What matters to me is the fact that so many people are being emotionally played and don’t know it.

    This is certainly NOT likely to make me start buying Recoil magazines.

    • Yes, RECOIL and many people here are cheerfully playing the Identity politics game. It’s isn’t complicated. If you want to be taken seriously, then be a serious person. Anyone that wears a shirt that tells the world how they have sex IS NOT a serious person. It’s beyond immature.

  60. I wasn’t referring to you, but now I am. A threatening asshole is still an asshole. And I have a pretty good idea of how much an asshole you are.

    If there was a way to send a private message, I’d send my name and address and we could discuss this in person. I’ve dealt with big mouth bullies in the past and it didn’t end well for them. Not a threat just an invite to a ‘friendly’ discussion.

    • Sounds like a threat from a “big mouth bully to me” I’ve dealt with punks my whole life… So you’re a baddass, not the first won’t be the last… Tough guy is eay to play but life ain’t a video game, careful what you wish for… Just some “friendly” advice..

        • I respond to threats, I don’t make them.

          Your grasp of the English lnguage astounds me… “I’d send my name and address and we could discuss this in person. I’ve dealt with big mouth bullies in the past and it didn’t end well for them” IS conveying a threat (veiled, subtle, implied, but a threat all the same) No need to apologize, my “feelings” don’t get bruised as easily as apparently yours do…

  61. I understand what a friendly discussion is. It didn’t end well for the other guys because they were so embarrassed after I kindly exposed the errors of their ways and dumbass thinking.

    Calm down, take your meds and enjoy the rest of your weekend buddy.

  62. Calm down, take your meds and enjoy the rest of your weekend buddy…

    Nice try but context is everything, there is a BIG difference between friendly and ‘friendly’ discussion but hey CYA right?… The only MEDS I take are labled Harley-Davidson, wind therapy cures anything and I WILL be taking a big dose later this afternoon, thanks for the concern and I WILL enjoy MY weekend…

  63. No CYA, just trying to help you understand English. You seem to want to intentionally misunderstand when someone is trying to help you out.

    Make sure you tighten up those training wheels before your big ride. And for heavens sake, don’t forget your foam helmet.

    • when someone is trying to help you out.

      And just exactly what qualifications do you possess that allow you to determine (1) that I need help and (B) that it is your place to “help me out”?… You really are a special kind of stupid… As for my ride, don’t spend the rest of YOUR weekend worrying about me, all the nuts and bolts have been checked (fluids, tire pressures and lights too) and the State of Florida says I’m old enough to decide whether or not to wear that helmet (I choose not)… This line of bullshit has been fun but now it’s just boring so go ahead, get in your last little snarky comment and move on… I’m finished with you, for now…

      • My first qualification is I have an IQ over 50 unlike you. I was also a special ed teacher in GA years ago and worked with some of the dumbest kids in the state. I have experience with dullards and slow kids like you. My years of expert experience tell me you have serious unresolved anger issues probably stemming from eating too many lead-paint chips.

        My place in helping you out comes from being the nice guy that I am.

        As for being finished with me ‘for now’, I look forward to future encounters.

  64. In the past, Chris had said that he was more accepted in the gun community for being gay than the gay community for being a gun owner. I’m sad to see 2Aers trying to disprove him.

    • Identity politics is a scourge on this country. The quicker people figure that out and end it, the better off we’ll all be. I’m sure Chris was accepted in the gun community because he’s a great guy. Who cares if he’s gay? That’s the point. He wasn’t accepted for being a gun owner because those people are bigots. Intelligent people will be able to figure this out without us playing games with the identity politics brigade.

  65. The whole statement from the cover seems to be “Here’s a gay man who happens to shoot good.”
    Shouldn’t it just be “Here is a champion shooter?”

  66. I hate woke pandering as much as anybody. I fail to see covering a gay 2a activist during pride month as pandering. It is just a good media strategy.

    Further more , the second is for everyone !

  67. @Lamp

    “I guess I got blindsided by the really intolerant approach some seemed to have…”

    I am intolerant of everybody, including me. Saves brain cells figuring out who is intolerable and who is not. Everyone’s sin is worse than mine, so I get to judge (I have executive privilege to exempt myself from scrutiny).

    On a brighter note, it is amazing (actually it is not) how many people think the DOI and BOR are simplistic. Grasping the full extent and impact of DOI/BOR takes the ability to hold opposing arguments in one’s head, simultaneously. If a constitutionally protected natural, human and civil right is absolute, the implications are severe and serious. If protected rights are not absolute, then everything devolves into a war of words over how many angels can dance on the head of a straight pin. Therein lies madness.

  68. I lean libertarian. Who you sleep with is none of my business. It is none of my kids business either. Highlighting and celebrating sexual preference doesn’t make sense to me. The left claims it is an intrinsic property. Why celebrate something that you cannot accomplish through merit? If that is the case then there should be straight pride month, white pride, blue eye pride month etc. No one should disagree because these are qualities that we can’t choose but are a part of our identity, right?

    Be as queer as a three dollar bill everyday and twice on Sundays. Where I draw the line is the BS that embolden leftists to make laws criminalizing speech they don’t like. Words can be hurtful. Words can can cause damage. Welcome to being an adult in a free country. Don’t like it renounce your citizenship and go live somewhere else.

    Also because you are free to do something doesn’t mean I have to like it, support it, endorse it, celebrate it or think it is cool Vis a vis open carry vs concealed carry.

    Disagreeing with or having a moral objection to something doesn’t make you the next Hitler as the internet tends to make things out to be.

    Finally why does my having to a agree with you is the penultimate measure of your happiness. For now; You do you, I’ll do me and we will figure the rest out tomorrow.

  69. I dont give a hoot what your LGBTQ perversions or deviant desires are. I dont care if you form organizations, clubs, and magazines about these perversions. I dont give a damn what you do in your bedroom or any room with anyone or anything else.

    But when you cross the line and willingly and purposefully recruit children to your ranks, and lobby for laws that protect such perversions over the rights of others, and use modern media to infect our children into acceptance of these perversions as normal and healthy, then I will go on the offensive against you and anyone else who sees our children as recruits into their deviant lifestyles. Use of the rainbow as the standard symbol of homosexuals was not accidental. In that the rainbow had been often used in childrens books and fairy tales of lepricons with pots of gold it made no sense that it be adopted by advocates in the LGBTQ club. Or does it ? I submit the rainbow was chosen by homosexuals as their symbol because of its associations with children and because children are attracted to it.

    The person who is the subject of this discussion, Chris Cheng has not to my knowledge been personally involved in advertising his lifestyle or has worn the symbolic homosexual rainbow calling card until the he appeared on the front page of Recoil Magazine. On his Top Shot web page he does not wear rainbow symbols or clothing.

    So why then did he wear a shirt imprinted with a defaced US Flag in the rainbow colors symbolizing the community of homosexuals ? This is the question that needs to be anwered. Was it Chengs Recoil handlers that handed him the shirt? Had Cheng worn a symbol free shirt its doubtful we would be having this discussion.

    Chengs Page:
    http://www.topshotchris.com/blog

  70. The problem here is not that Cheng is “openly gay”. He is an open pedophile and an absolute degenerate. RECOIL magazine could’ve found a gay guy who weren’t that to represent them, but they chose Cheng because he was the top result on google for “guns” and “gay”. That is what the problem here, and now RKBA advocates being homophobic, as Recoil is trying to represent it. And I’m very disappointed that Dan toots their horn. Either he’s not done any research before posting this, or he’s on their side willfully.

  71. So I’m back now after reading the interview in my Recoil magazine, and Chris Cheng is a fucking Leftist jack ass. Fuck Recoil. And frankly Mr. Zimmerman and everyone else on here defending this, you’re either ignorant, or you sure as hell ain’t in my side. You can have that San Franciscan piece of shit, and you can stay the hell away from me.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here