Authors Posts by Editor



by -
0 38

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) is a controversial organization. People generally either love them or they hate them, and, certainly, many politically conservative people have a rabid dislike for the ACLU.

The ACLU’s latest decision won’t win them any friends on the right.

After the recent protests and violence in Charlottesville, Virginia, the ACLU has announced that they will not defend organizations that seek to exercise both their First Amendment and their Second Amendment rights at the same time. AWR Hawkins writes,

ACLU executive director Anthony Romero said, “If a protest group insists, ‘No, we want to be able to carry loaded firearms,’ well, we don’t have to represent them. They can find someone else.”

According to the Wall Street Journal, the policy shift that Romero highlighted is focused on “hate groups,” which are listed as “white nationalists” and “neo-Nazis.” Romero did not say whether ACLU protection would also be denied to Black Panther protesters who are armed or to communist party members who could rally for the left while armed.

It appears that the ACLU has never heard that, without the Second Amendment, the First Amendment won’t exist.

Look, we can have a discussion about whether the “Unite the Right” protesters were morally good in their positions (frankly, none of the right-leaning people that I know would support the “white power” rhetoric that the “Unite the Right” groups are accused of), but what can’t be argued is whether they have a right to say something that we disagree with or whether we have a right to defend ourselves if attacked, even if that means using firearms if their lives are in danger.

I can’t tell you who started the violence (both white supremacists and antifa protesters have a history of violence), but is anyone seriously going to tell me that anyone having guns made the situation worse? The death that has been in the news most from that weekend involved a car ramming a crowd of people. It wasn’t gun related.

So, again, we have a situation where people react to the idea of the firearm instead of the reality of what caused injury that weekend and what firearms can do to decrease violence, and the only logical conclusion that anyone can come to is that the ACLU got this decision wrong.

by -
0 45

There is an old saying that even a watched clock is right twice a day. In this same way, anti-gunner media can actually tell the truth about guns sometimes. This happens to be one of those rare cases.

Mother Jones magazine is about as politically liberal on every position that you can imagine. Whether it is environmentalism, race relations, or economics, Mother Jones is going to take the stereotypical position, and gun control is no exception.

But, if they make any attempt at being honest, even anti-gunners can’t completely hide the truth. A Redit user going by JCvynn reviewed the data from Mother Jones about mass shootings (which is available here) and came to this shocking conclusion:

More mass shootings occurred during the Obama administration than during the Bush, Jr., GHW Bush, Reagan, and Trump administrations combined. Additionally, the number of mass shootings which occurred during Bill Clinton’s administration was more than any of the Republican administrations, too. (hat tip to here for the source)

So, to be clear, mass shootings as compiled by an anti-gun magazine, show that mass shootings are higher during administrations that tend to be anti-gun based on political position.

Now, this isn’t a surprise to you or me. After all, we read sites like this and keep up with the way the world really works, not how the anti-gun mass media would like everyone to believe that the world really works. So, we know that carrying firearms, that hand gun usage, saves lives.

The truth may hurt them (albeit only emotionally), but don’t let anyone tell you otherwise. If we want real security and safety in America, what we need is a population who understands, respects, owns, and trains with their firearms, not a bunch of people who are too afraid of a tool to see it’s implications for good.

Gun control simply doesn’t save lives. Gun control kills.

by -
0 44

Here is a controversial topic for you: guns on campus at schools. Anti-gunners will tell you that no one should have guns on campus because we need to protect the children. We would argue that, if someone other than the shooter at Sandy Hook had been armed with a firearm, then the number of people murdered would have been dramatically less. We think that carrying guns on campus is the sensible, common-sense approach.

It finally appears that someone in the education system is paying attention.

Mad River Local Schools, a school district in Riverside, Ohio, has trained thirty-two teachers and staff to have quick access to firearms on campus to be able to deal with an active shooter situation should someone be stupid enough to try it on their campuses. Will Garbe of Dayton Daily News writes,

Intruders beware: Thirty-two teachers and staff in Mad River Local Schools are now armed and ready to kill.

When school gets back in session Monday, each building will have a number of the trained staff members who are able to access hidden gun safes, the combinations of which are known exclusively to the individual staff member and the superintendent.

The district, which serves Riverside, is the first in Montgomery County to assemble an “armed and trained response team,” said Superintendent Chad Wyen. But he said the district is part of an emerging trend.

“It’s way more prevalent than people realize,” Wyen said of the district’s decision to arm employees. “Sixty-three out of 88 counties in Ohio have a district with a response team.”

Now, granted, it’s probably not too big of a surprise that the state which seems to be leading the charge in this is in the midwest as opposed to more anti-gun regions, but it’s still refreshing to see these school districts take the sensible, the real “common sense” approach to guns on campus: arm staff to take out an active shooter who comes on campus. Because that is the only want to protect people from a shooter.

by -
0 51

Anti-gunners desperately want you to believe that they will be able to magically make the world a better place by passing anti-gun laws. Why do they think that? It would seem that they believe that passing a law makes it possible to enforce a law, and that is just not the case.

Here is a real-world example:

Australia has been working to ban guns for over twenty years now (the big push started in 1996). Anti-gunners will, of course, point to the (very contested) data which suggests that gun homicides and suicides have dropped in that time. Of course, they won’t likely mention the data reflecting the flip side of this ban. The Federalist notes that:

Manslaughter, sexual assault, kidnapping, armed robbery, and unarmed robbery all saw peaks in the years following the ban, and most remain near or above pre-ban rates. The effects of the 1996 ban on violent crime are, frankly, unimpressive at best.

That’s right, anti-gunners, if you were able to push through your ideas, how many lives would be irreparably damaged by people’s ability to defend themselves?

Which brings us to the next question: Australia currently has an amnesty program going on in which people can turn in their guns without being charged for gun possession. During this amnesty program, 6,000 guns have been turned in.  Out of 24.13 million people, 6,000 guns have been turned in. Which makes you wonder how many other people have no intention of turning in their firearms to the government.

Maybe you can argue that almost all of the guns have been turned in already. To which I would ask, “Do you mean like they’ve already been turned in in Detroit or Baltimore or Chicago?” It seems likely that these Aussies have no intention of allowing themselves to become defenseless, and, while illegal, they’re smart to not cooperate with a law that makes them a target.

Frankly, I don’t think that there is any question that the same “problem” would happen in the U.S. if gun confiscation laws are passed: People won’t turn in their weapons because they value their lives more than the government’s intimidation. And this just goes to show, very plainly, how gun confiscation can’t work.

by -
0 65

You may have heard of the drop test issue with the Sig Sauer P320. If you haven’t here is the low down: it seems the this pistol is a little too ready to fire to the point that relatively minor accidental hits (or drops) could cause it to discharge.

Obviously, this is a safety hazard.

But, really, how bad is the issue? Well, apparently, one writer named Patrick R decided to test the issue. To see if this pistol is really so vulnerable to discharging with just a minor hit, he decided to try using a one-inch gun mallet to simulate something dropping onto the weapon (or to simulate the jarring to the pistol if it were to be dropped). The results were not favorable to Sig Sauer. As he put it,

[I don’t] feel comfortable carrying a pistol that is capable of failing in such a manner. Heck, even a moderately weighty object falls off a shelf and impacts the back of your gun while it is in the holster and you might have a new hole in you.

He also wrote,

I find it rather hard to believe that Sig didn’t know that there was an issue and had parts and a trigger ready to go that remedies the issue.

When you put it that way, it does seem rather suspicious.

The good news for those who have already purchased one of these pistols is that Sig Sauer has offered to upgrade these pistols. Patrick R notes that “Sig Sauer is not issuing a recall of any kind, just that they are offering a program to upgrade the existing pistols with parts that Sig may have already developed.” You can find out how to take advantage of this upgrade at Sig Sauer’s website here.

If you have a P320, you may want to go ahead and get this upgrade for safety reasons. If you don’t have a P320, you may want to make sure that this has been done before you buy the pistol or that you have the upgrade done as soon as you do buy the pistol.

by -
0 313

I’ll be the first person to admit that I’m not really a country music fan. Now, before you start a flame war in the comments, understand, I don’t have a moral issue with country music, it’s just a personal preference (trust me, you’ll probably dislike some of my musical choices, too. We can still be friends.).

Having said that, I’m going to be checking out a country artist that I hadn’t heard of before I came across this song. Dustin Collins recorded a song which perfectly nails the feelings that gun owners have towards anti-gun whiners like Mom Demand Action. The song is called “Cold Dead Hands,” and you’ll find yourself wanting to sing along. Don’t believe me? Read the first verse:

There’s a rifle in my closet, Made in 1893

Carved right on the barrel it says Winchester Company

It’s been passed through generations, I’ve been taught to use it well

It’s put food there on the table, And it ain’t never been for sale

There’s people on my TV, telling me what’s right and wrong

Not one damn gun of mine, has ever pulled the trigger on its own

Those six lines give you the idea of the entire song, and I’m willing to bet that every anti-gunner who comes across it will want to run for their safe spaces to keep from hearing something as offensive as common sense. Because Collins is right: no gun ever pulls a trigger on its own. And, then, he gives us the chorus:

From my Cold Dead Hands

It’s about you and me, ain’t no redneck thing, why don’t you understand

You can bitch and moan, all you want

You’ll get my gun from my Cold Dead Hands

Collins, who is from Kentucky told AWR Hawkins that:

Without the Second Amendment there is no First Amendment. There’s nothing that stops anybody from coming and taking what you worked hard for. To me it’s just a very simple fact of life; it’s freedom, that’s what owning a gun is. It’s the very foundation of freedom.”

Watch the video for Collins song below:

Collins gets it, and, if there is any justice in this world, he’ll be a country music superstar this year.

Share this with your friends, both gun-friendly, and, maybe especially, your anti-gunner friends.

by -
1 219

When politicians and special interest groups parade that we need to do something “for the children,” we know that they are trying to get us emotionally involved and not thinking. The first thing that we need to do when we hear that we need to do something for the children, is step back and look at the bigger perspective because there is a good chance that perspective will gives us a different opinion of the situation.

A perfect example is, of course, gun control. the Florida chapter of Moms Demand Action recently posted a news story from the Miami Herald on Facebook with the headline “Floridians oblivious to an epidemic of accidental child shootings.” (Has anyone else noticed that posting on Facebook seems to be Moms Demand Action’s favorite type of “activism?”) The fake news… er… news story, of course, took an anti-gunner position.

So, what kind of horrific numbers are we looking at in this epidemic? Miguel at gives us some perspective:

So for ages ranging from zero to 14 (“Do it for the Children!”) we have 49 deaths by accidental firearms and 647 by drowning.  Thirteen time more by water than by bullets.  And that is for a total of just under 11 million pools in the USA, bit somehow thee same idiots expect zero accidents in a country with 350 million firearms which they know is impossible but have no issue peddling the idea they can make it happen if you only vote for them and give them money. […]

Now, if we follow the instruction book of the Opposition, we should start an immediate campaign against this  malady by denouncing   “rogue” pool builders, having demonstrations in front of pool supply stores like Pinch a Penny and we should even go ahead and ban water. […]

Yes, it sounds that stupid applied to anything, but Gun Control groups are not after Gun Safety and will stand in the way of teaching safetyeven if it kills your kid.

The fact of the matter is that life is inherently unsafe. It’s even more unsafe when you aren’t educated about how to use dangerous things safely. Despite what anti-gunners want you to believe, a perfectly “safe” life is impossible, no matter how many laws are passed, no matter how much money is thrown at the issue. Your best chance of safety in life is not to try to completely eliminate danger but to learn how to minimize risk and how to safely use dangerous things.

That’s what adults do, so teach your kids to be adults, not to cry out for a nonexistent “safe” life.

by -
0 205

We all want better accuracy, don’t we? You want to know that you hit what you’re aiming at, and you want to know that you didn’t accidentally damage property or, God forbid, injure someone unintentionally.

So, besides time at the firing range with live rounds and dry fire practice techniques, how can you improve your accuracy in the moment? Lee Flynn, an active duty officer in the military has three suggestions, with our comments.

  1. Shooting Position. Flynn groups a few things into this category depending on the type of weapon which you are shooting, but, essentially, it comes down to this: you need to practice holding your weapon, looking down the sites for aiming and firing in the same way every time, and this needs to be as efficient and effective a way as possible. Why? First, because how you hold the weapon in relation to your body, the angle of your head while aiming and firing, and other similar factors affects how accurate your shots are. Secondly, because what you practice is what you will do in the heat of the moment when adrenaline is running through your system.
  2. Breathing. You’ll want to learn to shoot between breaths or, if necessary, learn to hold your breath momentarily when taking a shot. Why? Flynn gives this explanation: “While you are breathing and your arms are in your shooting position, they will naturally move up and down slightly. This causes your weapon to move up and down slightly, which throws off your aiming ability.” You fix this problem by firing when your chest isn’t moving for breathing.
  3. Trigger Squeeze. You want a smooth, steady pull and release of your trigger so that your rapid trigger pull isn’t moving the weapon off target while taking a shot. Flynn notes that you should “[p]ractice on your unloaded weapon.”

There you have it, three simple ideas to work with to make you a more accurate shot. These methods only take a little time and focus for you to get in the habit of using, and, once you are using them regularly, you’ll find your accuracy improving.

by -
0 147

Picking your child’s first firearm can be an important choice. They’ll likely remember this gift for the rest of their lives (and, hopefully, be able to keep using it and/or pass it on to their children), and their experiences with this weapon can shape their approach and feelings about firearms in general later in life.

So, when you’re choosing your child’s first firearm, there are few things to consider:

  1. Can you pick a weapon that helps to instill the habit of gun safety? Zach Dunn says that he likes to recommend a bolt-action .22 for a child’s first firearm. Why? Dunn writes, “I like the single shot .22 for first-timers because the process of loading a single shot is a great way to instill firearms safety in your child. And your child is going to have to learn to make every shot count. Single shot rifles also are a great way to conserve ammunition in an ever-changing world.”
  2. Quality of build. If you buy your child a firearm with solid construction which can last the test of time (if cared for), they can pass the weapon on to their kids, a family memento passed on for multiple generations. Why not pass on a family memento that has practical uses and not just sentimental purposes?
  3. Heft. This choice will likely only apply to shotguns as most parents aren’t likely to buy a rifle firing larger than .22 rounds for a child’s first firearm, but, if you’re buying a shotgun for your child (or, if you’re buying your child’s first shotgun), the heft of the gun can help to lessen the kick, making handling the weapon easier for the child. Dunn says that he likes pump-action shotguns for this purpose.

Of course, you’ll also need to factor in what you can buy with your available budget. Some excellent firearms choices are not cheap, but, once you know what you can spend, use the above three suggestions to help narrow down the choices to purchase a great choice for your child’s first firearm.

by -
0 247
Image from

Inflation seems to hit everything in our economy. The price of everything is going up, and this effects even the basic things of life. As in, not just food and utilities, but the price of guns.

Many manufacturers look to use alternate materials (polymers) in an attempt to lower the manufacturing costs and, therefore, the price of the weapons which they are building. Occasionally, though, something surprises you, such as when a manufacturer can create and an all-metal compact 9mm with a street price of around $360.

Turkish manufacturer Canik has made this gun, and it is distributed in the U.S. by TriStar as the TriStar C100. Eve Flanigan writes,

The TriStar C100 has an all-aluminum frame and weighs 37.3 ounces unloaded. Its barrel is 3.7 inches. It’s not light, and it’s not tiny. However, it is compact enough for carry, and the weight helps make it a low-recoil shooter. It’s shipped with two metal 15-round mags, the followers of which are the only plastic components I can find on the gun.

Some will call this pistol a CZ clone, and, in fact, Mike Searson writes that he was “convinced that we had a genuine CZ in hand when we took it out of the box.” Searson, like Flanigan, likes the C100, but Searson also adds this caution about this pistol:

Despite the serrations on the slide, if you are not familiar with the CZ-75 design, it can take some getting used to. We are a fan, but as we do not shoot pistols with slides inside the rail very often, it always takes us a bit of time to regain the muscle memory on manipulation.

So, essentially, you’ll have to adjust to the feel of this gun, but this will be true of any style of weapon that you begin to use when you’ve been primarily shooting with another design. Having said that, though, Fred Mastison was pleasantly surprised at the feel of the gun. He writes,

Handling the C100 was a very pleasant event. In fact, I will confess that I did not expect the gun to be as nice as it proved to be.

All-in-all, though, the C100 received praises for it’s accuracy, design, and price point, so, if you’re considering a compact pistol (and aren’t buying based on conductibility), then this weapon is worth taking a look at.


0 38
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) is a controversial organization. People generally either love them or they hate them, and, certainly, many politically conservative...