Authors Posts by Editor



by -
8 295

The ATF has been a train wreck for many years. From the Fast and Furious gun running scandal to contradictory confusing regulations, this federal agency has been a thorn in the side of gun owners and the American people for decades.

Finally, Congressman Sensenbrenner has put forth a bill to eliminate the ATF and wrap their duties into existing agencies:

The ATF Elimination Act would transfer law enforcement powers over firearms, explosives and arson to the FBI, while enforcement over alcohol and tobacco would go to the Drug Enforcement Agency. Sensenbrenner noted in a statement Thursday that elimination of the ATF would be a beneficial to cutting government spending.

“Common sense budgeting solutions are necessary, and the ATF Elimination Act is one measure we can take to reduce spending, redundancy, and practice responsible governance,” said Sensenbrenner. “The ATF is a scandal-ridden, largely duplicative agency that has been branded by failure and lacks a clear mission. It is plagued by backlogs, funding gaps, hiring challenges, and a lack of leadership.”

Sensenbrenner noted that cutting the ATF would help “begin draining the swamp” and would be in the “best interest” of taxpayers.

The ATF’s functions related to guns and explosives would be transferred to the FBI, while the ATF’s duties related to tobacco and alcohol would go to the DEA. Not only would this reduce government waste and duplicity, it would also eliminate a highly politicized government bureaucracy that is outright hostile to gun owners. The ATF was apparently fine with the Obama administration misusing statistics about their failed Fast and Furious gun running scheme to advance gun control. In fact, some more cynical observers, have suggested that the primary purpose of Fast and Furious was to advance gun control.

The ATF has a long history of making political decisions for the enforcement and interpretation of laws pertaining to gun dealers and manufacturers. It’s hard to imagine the FBI doing a worse job than the ATF is already doing when it comes to the rule of law. The bottom line is that this bill is a good thing for gun owners and dealers.


by -
7 313

Donald J. Trump’s pick for U.S. Secretary of Defense, General “Mad Dog” Mattis, doesn’t think too highly of the M16.

Senator Joni Ernst, quoted Mattis, who had previously pointed out that the 5.56 round is so small that it’s illegal to hunt deer with in many states. She asked General Mattis what he thought about the M16 and he basically agreed that it needs to be replaced by something more lethal.

From the Daily Caller:

“Do you agree that we cannot grow a more lethal force while using outdated small arms and ammunition?” asked Earnst.

“I do agree with that approach, ma’am. I have been away for several years, and as you know, the Army, the special forces, the marines have all been working on creating a more lethal round for the M-16, M-4.”

Mattis noted he would have to review the military’s ongoing attempts to create a more lethal round, but he did “100 percent agree” with Ernst’s approach.
With advancements in body armor, the need to beef up the standard issue rifle is probably greater than ever. It’s entirely possible that the Military keeps the M16/M4 platform with a larger caliber or simply moves to a different bullet design. Whatever the final transition is, one thing is for sure, the final transition will be slow.
Even when a new standard is adopted by top brass in the U.S., such changes will need to bleed over to NATO. Odds are that U.S. forces serving alongside NATO allies will use the same ammunition as their allies. We might enter a territory where troops in different theaters are using different calibers. As it is, various special forces units are using different bullets. Designated marksmen are even using 50 year-old M14’s chambered for the .308 in the Middle East.
The never ending debate about the lethality of the 5.56 looks like it’s going to heat up when Mr. “Mad Dog” Mattis goes to Washington. Stay tuned folks.

by -
1 189

Pew just released the results from a new survey that absolutely refutes common leftist narratives about guns and Black Lives Matter. Consider it the final nail in Black Lives Matter coffin. The survey provided even more critical evidence of the Ferguson effect. In addition, it further exposed the reality that police are more likely to be pro-gun; hmm I wonder why?

The survey found that police were more likely to oppose laws like the so-called assault weapons ban than the public was. Could it be that law-enforcement professionals actually understand these laws and realize how worthless they are? A stunning 67% of cops oppose such nonsensical laws.

The pew police survey totally contradicts the irrational denial of the Ferguson Effect by Barack Obama and many other Democrat leaders. Obviously, whipping the public up into a furor by claiming that racist cops are hunting and murdering people just because they are black, has consequences. Obviously, police would find it harder to do their jobs after progressives spent months demonizing them as racist.

Lest there be any doubt that the ridiculously overheated rhetoric coming from progressive media outlets made life harder cops, read this chart from Pew:





















As Pew points out, this survey started before the shooting of police in Dallas. Imagine what these numbers looked like that day after the Dallas shooting.

In the beginning, racist black nationalist groups such as the New Black Panthers joined with the American Communist Party with the intent of creating racial animosity and chaos after the death of Trayvon Martin. That’s how the Black Lives Matter movement started. Later on, gullible progressives served as useful idiots, normalizing and spreading the extreme rhetoric of  black nationalists and communist agitators.

In the end, statistics show the Black Lives Matter movement to be extremely successful in it’s original goal of increasing racial hostility and sowing the seeds of chaos. Black Lives Matter caused the crime rate to surge and did nothing to prevent violent encounters with police and black men.

The useful progressive idiots, who helped make it all happen, can’t wrap their minds around the fact that they actually made race relations and crime worse. Expect them to continue to deny reality moving forward.

by -
0 124

Barack Obama did a real number on the United States Military. We now have the Navy begging for money to fight climate change with absurdly priced pie-in-the-sky moonshot projects. The transformation of our military from warrior to social justice warrior gets even crazier: the Department of Defense is now trying to develop green bullets that grow plants.

It’s probably one of the most irrational ideas in the history of bullet design, but it will make progressives feel warm fuzzy, and that’s the point.

See the stupidity for yourself, from the Blaze:

The problem they’re looking to overcome is how regular bullets can become pollutants. Casings and sabot petals can be come lodged in the ground, or left behind causing the chemicals to damage the soil and nearby water sources.

So this is their absurd solution:

The US Army Corps of Engineers’ Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory (CRREL) has demonstrated bioengineered seeds that can be embedded into the biodegradable composites and that will not germinate until they have been in the ground for several months. This SBIR effort will make use of seeds to grow environmentally friendly plants that remove soil contaminants and consume the biodegradable components developed under this project. Animals should be able to consume the plants without any ill effects.

The rounds are not for combat, they are just for training. So soldiers will be shooting bullets made of bio-engineered composites with a plant seed in it. If the army is worried about too much lead in the ground near shooting ranges, they should probably just use bullets that don’t contain lead or redesign ranges to prevent lead from seeping into ground water.  They can also just spread the seeds of whatever plants they want to grow around the shooting range. There is no freaking reason whatsoever to be embedding plant seeds into bullets.

In terms of ballistics, the composite bullets will not have the same trajectory as the regular lead-copper jacketed bullets used in combat. That’s why it’s critical to practice with what you will actually shoot in combat. The whole thing is an insane and epic waste of money. The danger of bullets left in the ground is really not a great danger. Leftist have been hyping lead bullets as “pollution” to place restrictions on hunting. Just like they are doing with climate change, the Military is going right along with leftist retardation because it boost their bottom line.


by -
1 412

It’s almost here! The 2017 SHOT (Shooting, Hunting, and Outdoor Trade) Show starts on Jan. 17th in Las Vegas, all the biggest names in shooting sports will be there. The rumor mill is swarming about 2017’s most exciting soon-to-be-released products. This gun show is of critical importance to the industry, it’s the place to unveil new products.

It’s not just guns, however, that will be on display at the SHOT show. Gear from holsters to laser sights will also be on display. In a sign of the times, this segment of the industry is expected to break records in terms of total vendors available.

There will be a record breaking number of body armor exhibitors at the 2017 show according to

The body armor companies already schedule to be at the SHOT show 2017 are: U.S. Armor Corporation, Survival Armor, Inc., SBI Body Armor, Second Chance Body Armor, Safariland, PRO-Systems USA, Propper International, Point Blank Enterprises, Phalanx Defense Systems, Miguel Caballero, KDH Defense Systems, GH Armor Systems, BulletSafe, ArmorSource LLC, Armor Express, AR500 Armor, Angel Armor, and American Body Armor (ABA).

It seems like everyday there’s a new manufacturer on the block.  It’s an exciting time for body armor, this stuff keeps getting lighter and tougher.

It’s not just cops who are buying and wearing this stuff. Actually, here’s an article about the decline of body armor use among law-enforcement in some jurisdictions. The surge in armor manufacturers can only be attributed to the civilian market.

If your new to body armor, this video series from Ar500 will take you through the basics. Here’s episode 1:

Check out the SHOT show website after January 17th to see a sampling of the new products that will be unveiled there. Or better yet, fly to Las Vegas and see it yourself!

by -
10 589

The media is seeing how far it can go to generate a buzz for more gun control. Of course, partisan politicians are trying to exploit the recent tragedy in Ft. Lauderdale.  A ban on guns in checked luggage is a pretty logical place for leftists to start. They can scream about how supporters of the Second Amendment won’t keep guns out of our airports and are therefore killing our children.

The N.Y. Times fired off an article with this line:

Gun-control supporters said the shooting raised questions about the efforts in some states, including Florida, to allow gun owners to carry firearms inside passenger terminals in airports, but it was unclear if the shooting would lead to calls for the T.S.A. to tighten firearm regulations.

Obviously, the N.Y. Times and various gun control groups will try to turn this killing into a political football, as shown above, they already have. However, it’s doubtful that the left will be able to take banning checked guns very far.

Here’s why leftist might not gain much traction with a luggage gun ban, look at this line from the exact same N.Y. Times article:

“Since there are so many states that allow the concealed and open carry of firearms in the nonsecure side of airport terminals, the carriage of firearms in checked baggage poses the same level of risk as any public building in which carrying firearms is allowed.”

Any idiot can see that if the baggage terminal of an airport doesn’t require screening, a luggage ban is moot. The shooter doesn’t need to check his bag, he can just put the gun in his waistband and walk into an airport. While liberals were pretty successful in fooling the public into thinking that so-called “assault weapons” were the same as machine guns, they just can’t fool anyone here. Requiring a full search to enter baggage claim is pretty impractical and will probably prove to be unpopular.

The “gun-free” zone zealots might try to ban guns in all airports, but a luggage specific ban by the TSA is pretty unlikely.

by -
39 770

Hillary Clinton is being encouraged to challenge Bill de Blasio to become mayor of New York City. Many of Hillary’s biggest donors and fans call NYC home. All those huge financial-sector corporations who deposited millions into Hillary’s bank account in exchange for speeches, might finally get their money’s worth.

From the perspective of a gun-owner, it might seem that there’s not much more Hillary can do. New York City has already disarmed most law-abiding citizens and already has gun laws that are more restrictive than the many of the European countries that progressives claim they want to emulate. New restrictions on guns will probably be smacked down by a Trump SCOTUS.

A Mayor Clinton probably couldn’t pass actual bans (NYC already banned most popular guns), but she could threaten the entire firearms industry by making it possible to sue gun manufacturers anytime a criminal misuses a gun. Remember that law about manufacturer liability that Hillary was fighting Bernie Sanders about?

Democrats have been plotting a work around to federal law, such as suing the manufacturers of semi-auto rifles on the basis that their products are simply too dangerous to be sold to the public. Hillary could encourage such behavior, the City of New York could try to sue Bushmaster. She also could require gun owners in NYC to buy liability insurance. So yes, believe it or not, gun control can get worse in NYC.

Hillary for NYC Mayor is apparently a real thing, read about it here.


by -
14 817

Tucker Carlson asked a gun grabber a simple question about so-called “assault weapons.” A simple question that gun control advocates can never answer. The result is a lot of deflection, but no straight-forward answer. After all, answering this question honestly pretty much destroys this guys narrative.

Watch he squirm below:


The reality is that the vast majority of homicides are not committed with so-called “assault weapons.” Even blunt objects like bats and hammers kill more people each year. Chicago banned ALL HANDGUNS, not just so-called “assault weapons”, and they still have record high crime. The federal government banned so-called “assault weapons” from 1994-2004 and crime is lower today (in most places) than it was during the ban.

A ban on so-called “assault weapons” can’t lower the crime rate by any measurable degree, the reason is simple: very few crimes are being committed with such weapons in the first place. That’s “common sense” liberal gun control in a nutshell. The key to lower crime is to ban guns that law abiding citizens aren’t using to commit crimes, while completely ignoring the enforcement of existing laws designed to take guns that actually are used in crimes from the criminals who possess them.

Should we stop and frisk suspected gang members acting suspiciously on the street corner and confiscate their illegal guns? NO THAT’S RACIST! How about following up on an insane person, like the Sandy Hook shooter, who is on record trying to buy a gun illegally, should we do anything about crazy people failing NICS checks? NO, WE DON’T HAVE THE RESOURCES FOR THAT, INSTEAD LETS GO AFTER 80 MILLION LAW ABIDING CITIZENS. The struggle continues…


by -
22 609

The new year in California isn’t off to a happy start for golden state gun owners. A court battle is brewing over California’s pending ammunition-control laws.  The legalities are still being sorted out, but according to California’s prop 63 (which passed last November) anyone who wants to buy ammo will need a permit. This language contradicts another state ammo-control law that recently passed, the whole hot mess will almost certainly be decided by the courts. The new laws are set to take effect in phases from now until 2019.

From the Sacramento Bee

Under legislation signed by Gov. Jerry Brown last summer, Californians buying ammunition would need to pass an in-store background check, which involves vendors running information through a Department of Justice database to see if they are prohibited from owning guns. The buyer would pay a fee of up to $1 with each transaction, an amount that can rise with inflation.

Proposition 63, the ballot initiative voters approved in November, sets out a different system. People interested in buying ammunition would have to purchase a four-year permit from the Department of Justice. The state could charge up to $50 for the ammo license. Retailers would be required to check with the department to ensure customers have a valid permit.

It’s not clear which of the provisions will win out. Typically, ballot measures override legislation, but the Legislature passed a bill prior to the November election that attempted to supersede Proposition 63’s licensing requirements.

They’re running out of ideas for gun-control laws. Why not switch to ammo-control? Did Chris Rock inspire this madness with his comedy routine about a bullet costing $5,000? Does anyone really think that gang-bangers in L.A. won’t be able to shoot each other because of the new ammo-control laws? The price of ammunition will go up, no doubt, but the crime rate isn’t going to be affected.

In the Sacramento Bee article above, the paper points out that anyone can import ammo from out-of-state. This is true, but criminals gangs won’t even need to do that. Any gangster who is 18 years old without a criminal record can get the permit and buy ammo for the entire crew or they can just buy/steal ammo from the same person who sold them their illegal gun. California’s insane gun-control has already failed to prevent criminals from obtaining federally regulated firearms, just imagine how effective state regulated ammo-control is going to be.

Whether or not the permit is required or the background check is required, the result is all the same: law-abiding gun owners are scapegoated and punished for the actions of criminals.

by -
17 462

It’s largely a localized problem, but predators do wreck havoc on the deer population. Coyotes effect deer herds the most by killing fawns, but deep snow can also result in reduced herd numbers. That’s because the coyotes can better ensnare their prey with the snow to bog them down. If the coyotes are killing half or more of the fawns, wildlife biologist recommend that action be taken.

Predation problems are worse in the Southeast, American Hunter explains why:

So why the high predation rate in areas of the Southeast? Habitat might be the answer, as much of the areas being studied have been pine plantations. These areas often have little undergrowth beneath the trees. The pines are also planted in rows, which makes it easy for coyotes to walk the rows looking for fawns. (Anyone who has trapped coyotes will tell you coyotes love to walk on paths.)

What all the deer managers agree on is the coyote is here to stay. Many studies have determined that 75 percent or more of coyotes have to be removed from a population to cause it to decrease; in fact, in a coyote-saturated area, beta males and females actually might not breed unless available habitat with food sources opens to them.

How many deer can coyotes and other predators kill? Here’s some interesting studies on the subject:

Biologists have found that coyotes can be particularly hard on fawns in the Southeast. In South Carolina, for example, a three-year study at the U.S. Forest Service’s Southern Research Station, a 300-square-mile area, found that only 16 of 60 radio-collared fawns lived past nine weeks—just 27 percent of the fawns lived that long. Researchers confirmed that coyotes killed at least 65 percent of those fawns and were probably responsible for 85 percent of the fawns killed. Other studies in the Southeast have found predation rates on fawns to be well over 50 percent.

Most other areas of the country don’t generally seem to be as affected by coyote predation on fawns.

“Results from several Midwestern and Northeastern studies indicate that coyotes are responsible for taking, on average, 10 to 20 percent of fawns,” says Dr. Karl V. Miller, a professor of wildlife ecology and management at the University of Georgia. “This level of fawn predation likely has minimal impact on the overall recruitment rates, particularly in highly productive herds.”

A comprehensive study of available research by Duane Diefenbach, adjunct professor of wildlife ecology and leader of the Pennsylvania Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit based at Penn State, found that in the East “an average of one in two [fawns] survives its first three months of life, which is when most mortality occurs. Predation by coyotes, black bears and bobcats accounts for most mortality.”

On the Macro-level the deer population is abundant (probably over-abundant in the Northeast) and fairly stable. Again, it all depends on where you live. However, localized destruction of herds from predators can escalate quickly, especially in the Southeast. If you didn’t bag your deer in South Carolina this year, it might be because Wiley Coyote got it first. Read the entire article American Hunter article here.



1 272
After walking -- literally -- over 10 miles worth of trade show floors at SHOT Show 2017, I was lucky enough to find some...