quote:

Originally posted by sigfreund:
I’m not going to try to parse out all the reasons why we should or shouldn’t believe the Black Rifle Coffee Company is a true supporter of gun rights issues (and which involve far more than the Second Amendment), but I am curious why so many gun owners believe that they should line up in support of Mr. Rittenhouse and what he did that night.

In the first place it seems to have been clearly established that he was breaking at least one law by being in possession of a firearm that night. Yes, I know that that was not always the case in this country, but despite what the anarchists on both the left and right believe, such laws very often exist for good reason. The good reason in this case was that children generally lack the maturity, judgment, and knowledge to handle and use firearms safely and responsibly without being supervised—and much less do they possess all those things to permit them to defend themselves except in very limited situations such as home invasions. Being a child, he himself probably assumed that he had all those things because most young people his age assume they have everything figured out, but anyone else who was associated with him should have known better.

We know that during the last shooting incident the boy was probably justifiably acting in self-defense; the shooting before may have been an accident caused by the man who was shot when he grabbed the rifle. But what about the first? That man was chasing the child, but did that justify a deadly force response? As far as I can determine, we don’t know the last moments of what led to that shooting. What if the boy fired after the man had stopped the chase and even started to retreat? Should we, as many do, assume that it was a righteous self-defense shoot?

We also don’t know what led to the boy’s being chased in the first place, at least not from what I can determine. Did he provoke it by threatening someone himself? And returning to judgment and maturity, he was evidently walking around through the demonstrators with the weapon rather than staying and defending the establishment, which was supposedly the reason he was there in the first place. And yes, he had the right to do that, but no one is required to support the actions of someone who makes bad decisions, no matter how much of a right it may be to make them. People have the right to do countless dangerous things that often lead to their deaths, and more often than not their poor decisions are rightfully criticized here.

My point is that I see no reason why Rittenhouse should be the (literal) poster child of gun ownership rights at this point, and I understand why people and companies would be agnostic in their support of him and his actions.

quote:

Originally posted by bjor13:

quote:

Originally posted by sigfreund:
I’m not going to try to parse out all the reasons why we should or shouldn’t believe the Black Rifle Coffee Company is a true supporter of gun rights issues (and which involve far more than the Second Amendment), but I am curious why so many gun owners believe that they should line up in support of Mr. Rittenhouse and what he did that night.

In the first place it seems to have been clearly established that he was breaking at least one law by being in possession of a firearm that night. Yes, I know that that was not always the case in this country, but despite what the anarchists on both the left and right believe, such laws very often exist for good reason. The good reason in this case was that children generally lack the maturity, judgment, and knowledge to handle and use firearms safely and responsibly without being supervised—and much less do they possess all those things to permit them to defend themselves except in very limited situations such as home invasions. Being a child, he himself probably assumed that he had all those things because most young people his age assume they have everything figured out, but anyone else who was associated with him should have known better.

We know that during the last shooting incident the boy was probably justifiably acting in self-defense; the shooting before may have been an accident caused by the man who was shot when he grabbed the rifle. But what about the first? That man was chasing the child, but did that justify a deadly force response? As far as I can determine, we don’t know the last moments of what led to that shooting. What if the boy fired after the man had stopped the chase and even started to retreat? Should we, as many do, assume that it was a righteous self-defense shoot?

We also don’t know what led to the boy’s being chased in the first place, at least not from what I can determine. Did he provoke it by threatening someone himself? And returning to judgment and maturity, he was evidently walking around through the demonstrators with the weapon rather than staying and defending the establishment, which was supposedly the reason he was there in the first place. And yes, he had the right to do that, but no one is required to support the actions of someone who makes bad decisions, no matter how much of a right it may be to make them. People have the right to do countless dangerous things that often lead to their deaths, and more often than not their poor decisions are rightfully criticized here.

My point is that I see no reason why Rittenhouse should be the (literal) poster child of gun ownership rights at this point, and I understand why people and companies would be agnostic in their support of him and his actions.

"That man was chasing the child"

quote:

I understand why people and companies would be agnostic in their support of him and his actions.

quote:

Originally posted by smschulz:

quote:

Originally posted by ensigmatic:

quote:

Originally posted by Beancooker:
Don’t freeze your beans.

That runs counter to all other advice I've read anywhere, as well as my own experience.

Nope freezing does no good.

quote:

Originally posted by lastmanstanding:
I would encourage all of you disgruntled BRC coffee drinkers to switch to Peets or Caribou brand coffee as we carry both brands in our distribution business and is my wife’s income. I’m retired. Besides I’m a damn nice guy and my wife is a fine woman. We welcome the support!

quote:

Originally posted by Ripley:
Hafer was just on the Limbaugh replacement show, Buck Sexton and Clay Travis, apparently BRC is an advertiser.

As a non-coffee drinker, I was only listening so closely but Hafer claims that he discussed his distaste for anti-Semitism in an interview with the NY Times and the NY Times conflated Hafer's comments to cover a much broader range of conservative values aspersions.

So he said/they said and the running dog media's history of slamming the right is a given but Buck and Clay's sycophancy with Hafer was pretty heavy handed as well. No dog in this fight here but this is BRC's latest response.

quote:

Originally posted by nhracecraft:

Since when is Anti-Semitism considered a Conservative Values Aspersion....NEVER!

quote:

Originally posted by Ripley:

quote:

Originally posted by nhracecraft:

Since when is Anti-Semitism considered a Conservative Values Aspersion....NEVER!

To be clear, it was my take that Hafer claims the NY Times took that ball and ran with it. No real pushback from Sexton and Travis who, after the break, continued to tout BRC despite Hafer being gone by then.

quote:

Originally posted by ensigmatic:
I guess this is something else about which we will have to agree to disagree

quote:

Hafer said he learned from a friend at the Pentagon that an image of St. Michael trampling on Satan had been embraced by white supremacists because it was reminiscent of the murder of George Floyd. Now any plans for the coffee bag had been scrapped. “This won’t see the light of day,” Hafer said.

quote:

Originally posted by parabellum:
Pardon me? Just who is "cancelling" them? Given their pandering to a terrorst group and the outright insulting of their customer base, I'd say that any customers of these ASSHOLES are entirely justified in taking their business elsewhere. This isn't leftists pissing about a 12 year old facebook post in which someone says they don't like Castro's beard, and then destroying that person's life. Not even close.

What about people like me, who've never done any business with these ASSHOLES? If I continue to not buy their products, am I, too, guilty of being part of "cancel culture"?

You're an American? A gun owner? If you want to make excuses for these ASSHOLES who support groups that are attempting to destroy this country, and if you want to give your money to someone who is telling you "Thanks for supporting my business, but fuck off" well, that's your business, but you can bet your bottom dollar that you are not representative of the attitude towards these ASSHOLES.

And, oh, if it's all a big misunderstanding I'm certain we'll get a statement of clarification from these ASSHOLES, and then all will be right with the world. Yeah, don't hold your breath.

Imagine naming your company "black rifle" something or other, and then becoming indignant when gun owners glom onto your brand. How phony can you get?

quote:

If you're not for us, you're against us.