Coffee, videos, and altogether too much fun


The folks at Black Rifle Coffee produce regular videos showing themselves and their products having a lot of fun.  It’s an amusing way to advertise, and lets the staff (mostly veterans, many with combat experience) let their hair down and entertain their customers.  (Disclaimer:  yes, my wife and I are members of their coffee club, and get a small delivery every month.  However, that’s not why I’m putting up these videos;  they’re just fun stuff, and I enjoy them on their own merits.  I’m not getting any compensation for doing so.)

If you haven’t already seen their videos, prepare to be entertained.  Here are two of them, each followed by a “making of” story of how they went about it.

Looks like a lot of fun was had by all concerned.



  1. BRCC is all of the following:


    100% Owned & operated by low-life POS oath breaking "veterans"

    ^ A little bit of due diligence can verify all of the above ^

  2. @M6a: That's not true. The rumors being spread about BRCC are simply because they've made it clear that they're in the business of selling coffee, and aren't prepared to take sides in political disputes. They're not "low-life POS oath breaking veterans", as you put it, just businessmen trying to make a living. I have no problem with their stance.

    Sadly, some of those on the right-wing fringe are trying to demonize BRCC and any other veteran-owned company if they won't toe their particular line and endorse their particular views. We condemn that when companies do it for left-wing causes; why should we do any differently when they support right-wing causes? That's not the job of any company. It's for individuals to take up the causes they support.

    My first instinct was to delete your comment, but on reflection, I'm going to leave it up, along with this rebuttal. Perhaps BRCC will weigh in as well.


  3. Yeah, well, they'll never make one in a Minuteman capsule; not enough room. Now, mayyyyyyyyyyyyybe, they could do one at the Titan Missile Museum, south of Tucson, but it's too "cluttered". Speaking as one who's served in those launch control centers, 18 Titan IIs, 15 MMs. Yes, I've been a "mole man".

  4. these guys are FRAUDS! Sure they're vets, but when the timecame to stand up for the 2A, and Kyle Rittenhouse, theY turned tail and ran. Not to mention the CEO donated to Obama and was in the CIA. I used to be a coffee club member myself, but I cancelled it as soon as these people showed their true colors.

  5. @Gator McCluskey: Again, I'm sorry, but you're wrong. You're demanding that a business stand up for the cause(s) you espouse, just as liberal, progressive, left-wing pressure groups demanded that Coke and other companies stand up for what they wanted. They were wrong to do that, and you're wrong too.

    You cannot demand that a company take a political stand in support of the positions you favor, then criticize the company because it doesn't. It has to make a living in the broader marketplace, where all shades of opinion will be found. If BRCC chooses to remain neutral, and not take a side about Kyle Rittenhouse or anything else, that's not saying they don't support him as individuals: it's saying that their company doesn't take political positions. What's wrong with that?

  6. I don't know about the anti 2A or CIA claims but I think the issue with BRCC is about how fast they jumped up to distance themselves from Kyle Rittenhouse because he wore one of their shirts. BRCC didn't have to say anything at all, anyone can buy their shirts. But no, they had to disavow the kid as quickly as conservatives and Republicans always do when the Left begins to point and shriek. Many of us on the Right are fed up with this crap, we've seen it for decades and it hasn't accomplished a damn thing other than playing their game and handing the Left easy wins. And, as far as the Left is concerned; BRCC and everyone on this blog is the fringe Right.

  7. "You cannot demand that a company take a political stand in support of the positions you favor, then criticize the company because it doesn't. It has to make a living in the broader marketplace, where all shades of opinion will be found."

    Sure you can.

    People overpay for their oily Columbian not-coffee beans and their CCP-made marketing materials, based upon their perceived 2A-issue support.

    Why is it wrong to point out that their Fuddish 2A support only applies until Mastercard and Visa threaten to list them as subversives?

    The Left does this all the time. There truly are no neutrals in a civil war – as you yourself point out ad nauseum.

  8. What rognuald and hateslawns said.

    "Look, Hans, I don't like dis whole rounding up Jews and shoving dem into boxcars to go who-knows-vere any more dan you. But ve must make our living in da broader marketplace. Ve cannot be seen to take sides, ja?"

    Peter, we live in a country that bears no resemblance to the one you moved to. Our children are being taught that White people are the epitome of evil and that men can have babies. We had an election stolen in broad daylight. We're being prosecuted to the full extent of the law merely for defending ourselves from criminal scum, an act that just 50 years ago would have earned praise instead of condemnation…which you just pointed out in your last post.

    What is your hill to die on? When do we finally say, "F*** you, ENOUGH! Not one more step!" I don't think you know.

    hateslawns is absolutely correct. The time is long past where neutrality is an option–you will either choose a side, or it will be chosen for you by default. If you can take an honest look at what's happening to America–nay, Western Civilization as a whole–and still want to remain 'neutral'…you have chosen poorly.

    Choose this day, whom you will serve. As for me and my house, we will serve truth, logic, righteousness, and freedom.

    We will serve the Lord.

  9. Sadly, it seems some choose to react in knee-jerk fashion to controversial issues, rather than think, analyze, and come to a rational conclusion.

    The BRCC-Kyle Rittenhouse connection does not exist, except that Rittenhouse wore – and was photographed wearing – a BRCC T-shirt. One source then linked him to BRCC, wrongly, suggesting some sort of sponsorship. He was duly corrected about it. For the facts of the matter, see:

    To sum up:

    1. BRCC did not "disavow" Rittenhouse: they corrected the mistaken impression created by one media source that they had some sort of sponsorship relationship with Rittenhouse. They clarified this a little later, to ensure that the matter was laid to rest. I see no problem with this at all.

    2. As for there being "no neutrals in a civil war", that's absolutely correct, and BRCC has made their stance clear on the Second Amendment, veteran's rights, etc. What does that have to do with correcting a mistaken media report that threatened to drag the company into a controversy with which it had no actual connection whatsoever?

    3. What does this have to do with "choosing a hill to die on"? The Rittenhouse affair has become so propagandized and politicized that nobody knows for sure who said, or did, or thought, or intended, what. It's still playing out, and will do so in the courts in due course. To demand that anyone who doesn't know all the facts should take the side you've chosen, when you, too, don't know all the facts, is simply wrong-headed. We don't know enough to judge. When we do – when all the facts are known – will be time enough to make up our minds. It's not as if Rittenhouse is about to be shot for what he did, after all, without benefit of trial or conviction. If I acted as he did, I'd expect to have to jump through legal hoops to prove that what I did was justified and appropriate. That goes with the territory.

    4. Even if Rittenhouse is found not guilty of murder (which is at least possible, based on what we know so far), he's likely to be convicted of a weapons-related offense. If media reports are correct, it appears that he used his government stimulus money to have a friend buy him an AR-15 rifle in another state (not his state of residence). If that's so, it's a "straw purchase", and is illegal under Federal law (even more so because at the time, Rittenhouse was not legally old enough to buy a firearm). Don't expect him to get off scot-free from this.

    There are so many unanswered questions over the Rittenhouse affair that I don't believe it's possible to come to a rational, balanced, fully informed opinion right now. I want the truth to prevail, and justice to be done, across the board, without prejudice, without fear and without favor. Isn't that what we should all want?

    Oh – and I'll continue to buy BRCC coffee, because I don't believe for a moment that they're guilty of the bias with which some have tried to smear them.

    1. Well said. The right has its own SJW types, who denounce anyone who they deem insufficiently zealous in defense of "the cause" as being on the other team.

Leave a comment

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