Editor Jerry Tsai put a round in the chamber that, alone, was enough to blow up his magazine. But, when faced with the outcry about his perceived anti-Second Amendment statement, his response was to fire another round that blew up in a firestorm of social media protest.
The maelstrom revolves around the following passage that ran in the latest issue of Recoil magazine:
"...the MP71A is unavailable to civilians and for good measure. We all know that's technology no civvies should ever get to lay their hands on. This is a purpose-built weapon with no sporting applications to speak of."
Customers have used various manufacturer's Facebook pages as outlets for derision focused on the magazine and it's editor, asking for companies to pull advertising.
"Our email boxes and Facebook have been jammed with outrage," says Paul Buffoni, who runs Bravo Company Manufacturing. Buffoni has placed advertising in Recoil's first four issues but says further support for the firearms lifestyle publication is unlikely. He tells us BCM is drafting a statement to his customers to explain their stance.
Gary Hughes from Silencero says, "We were furious when we read Jerry's statements." The silencer company have decided to discontinue their advertising with them.
Other companies have pledged to walk away from advertising and distribution agreements and to withhold editorial cooperation until Recoil and parent company Source Interlink Media addresses their concerns.
The list of prior supporters that have turned their back on the publication includes also includes Magpul (whose statement is quoted in full below), Haley Strategic Partners, Imminent Threat Solutions, Panteao Productions. UPDATE: A spokesperson from Surefire tells me they will not be advertising in Recoil. They had ads in prior editions, but none in the current publication and have no plans for future insertions.
Bryan Black, with ITS, says between advertising and distribution commitments, his position is costing his company thousands of dollars.
Individuals have turned to hashtaggery and Facebook pages such as "DumpRecoilMagazine" to express their feelings on the subject.
For his part, Tsai posted an apology this morning, though to understand the depth of the public reaction, we'll show the whole shebang starting with what was printed, followed by Seth Young's Facebook comment and then Tsai's response(s) that really set off the powder keg:
"...the MP71A is unavailable to civilians and for good measure. We all know that's technology no civvies should ever get to lay their hands on. This is a purpose-built weapon with no sporting applications to speak of."
Then, in response to a Seth Young's Facebook comment on the matter b
"Like we mentioned before, the MP7A1 is unavailable to civilians and for good reason. We all know that's technology no civies should ever get to lay their hands on. This is a purpose-built weapon with no sporting applications to speak of. It is made to put down scumbags, and that's it. Mike Cabrera of Heckler & Koch Law Enforcement Sales and veteran law enforcement officer with SWAT unit experience points out that this is a gun that you do not want in the wrong, slimy hands. It comes with semi-automatic and full-auto firing modes only. Its overall size places it between a handgun and submachine gun. Its assault rifle capabilities and small size make this a serious weapon that should not be taken lightly."
Here's Tsai's followup attempt to clarify his position.
"As readers of RECOIL, we all agree that we love bad-ass hardware, there's no question about that. I believe that in a perfect world, all of us should have access to every kind of gadget that we desire. Believe me, being a civvie myself, I'd love to be able to get my hands on an MP7A1 of my own regardless of its stated purpose, but unfortunately the reality is that it isn't available to us. As a fellow enthusiast, I know how frustrating it is to want something only to be denied it. Its manufacturer has not made the gun available to the general public and when we asked if it would ever come to the commercial market, they replied that it is strictly a military and law enforcement weapon, adding that there are no sporting applications for it. Is it wrong that HK decided against selling a full-auto pocket sized machine gun that can penetrate armor from hundreds of yards away? It's their decision to make and their decision they have to live with not mine nor anybody else's. I accepted their answer for what it was out of respect for those serving in uniform. I believe that we as gun enthusiasts should respect our brothers in law enforcement, agency work and the military and also keep them out of harms way. Like HK, I wouldn't want to see one of these slip into the wrong hands either. Whether or not you agree with this is fine. I am compelled to explain a point that I was trying to make that may have not been clear."
Finally, here's Tsai's apology for his comments, posted this morning.
I'd like to address the comments regarding what I wrote in the MP7A1 article in RECOIL issue 4. First and foremost, I'd like to apologize for any offense that I have caused with the article. With the benefit of hindsight, I now understand the outrage, and I am greatly saddened that it was initiated by my words. Especially since, I am an unwavering supporter of 2nd Amendment Rights. I've chosen to spend a significant part of both my personnel and professional life immersed in this enthusiasm, so to have my support of individuals' rights called into doubt is extremely unfortunate. With that said, I retract what I wrote in the offending paragraph within this article. It should have had been presented with more clarity. In the article, I stated some information that was passed on to me about why the gun is not available for civilian purchase. By no means did I intend to imply that civilians are not responsible, nor do we lack the judgment to own such weapons, if I believed anything approaching this, clearly I would lead a much different life. I also mentioned in the article that the gun had no sporting purpose. This again, was information passed on to me and reported in the article without the necessary additional context. I believe everything published in RECOIL up to this point (other than this story), demonstrates we clearly understand and completely agree that guns do not need to have a sporting purpose in order for them to be rightfully available to civilians. In retrospect, I should have presented this information in a clearer manner. Although I can understand the manufacturer's stance on the subject, it doesn't mean that I agree with it. Again, I acknowledge the mistakes I made and for them I am truly sorry. Sincerely, Jerry Tsai Editor RECOIL
Here is Magpul's statement:
"Recently, the editor of RECOIL magazine wrote comments regarding who should and should not have access to certain firearms, as well as comments meant to clarify his initial statements. We at Magpul were severely disappointed in the apparent position of the author and by the comments themselves. We have been asked to provide a response to these comments and a statement regarding our intent to continue or discontinue advertising in RECOIL. At Magpul we consider ourselves proponents of a culture of personal responsibility, where individual liberties are the true roots of our passion. Firearms are tools that can be an expression of those liberties, and more importantly, the guardians of them. When we were presented with the opportunity to support a new publication, called "RECOIL", that had a different look and feel, we were on board. We had hopes that the broad appeal and fresh look of a publication of this type could be a big help in getting more people involved and interested in firearms and firearm freedoms issues. We welcome all who enjoy or appreciate firearms for any lawful purpose, as greater numbers strengthen our cause. We also want to partner with those who share our appreciation of the true struggle we are in regarding our Second Amendment freedoms. Due to concerns about content and true motivation, we allowed our support for RECOIL to expire, with the current issue being our last, until we could determine if we were truly speaking the same language. The recent comments and subsequent clarification made by the editor of RECOIL are completely counter to our position here at Magpul. These statements proved that there is an apparent gap between our values and those of RECOIL. As such, we have chosen not to continue or renew any advertising support for RECOIL magazine unless and until we are convinced at some future point that this publication truly shares our values and has the best interests of Magpul and our customers in mind. We sincerely hope that the outpouring of Second Amendment support as a result of these comments can continue with as much strength towards educating existing and potential new shooters about the importance of firearms rights and in contacting elected officials to preserve those rights. We look forward to future efforts to reach a broader audience through individual effort, and perhaps through an appropriately focused publication, to continue growth in the number of Americans who enjoy celebrating our Second Amendment heritage."
