Authors Posts by Editor



by -
10 1224

I suppose the only question we should be asking criminals aboutCoffee drive thru sign with reflect from glass window getting guns is “Do you want fries with that?”

As gun-grabbing liberals keep trying to find ways (sometimes silly) to pass more and more gun legislation, these 10 “drive-thru” criminals from a recent KHOU-TV news report gave their opinion…

They could care less.

They’ll just take the guns, according to the report on Guns N’ Freedom:

It was all caught on surveillance video.  A group of at least 10 masked thieves used a pick-up truck to break into a gun shop in Houston.

Footage shows the Ford F-150 being used to simply rip the doors off the building, allowing the thieves to grab upwards of 50 firearms.

Just in case you thought crooks just got all their guns from that make-believe “gun show loophole” this video should provide some clarity as to how little these low-lifes care about gun laws.

Disarming the law-abiding public just makes it easier for the criminals to arm themselves and do their thing.  They (the criminals) don’t give a hoot about Obama, Hillary, and their gang of gun legislation obsessed politicians.

Insanity has been quoted as “doing the same thing over and over again … but expecting different results.”

So when are Obama and the bunch going to stop being insane?

by -
20 768

As an adult, you know that, even when you do the right thing, that doesn’t mean that you’ll have immediate victory. There is an unfortunate story in an anti-gun stronghold which confirms this fact of life.

You see, the Michigan Supreme Court recently upheld a University of Michigan rule which banned guns on its campuses. The Associated Press notes,

In a 2-1 decision, the court said a 2001 ban doesn’t violate the U.S. Constitution. The court also said the university isn’t covered by a state law that prevents local governments from putting limits on guns.

The university is a “state-level, not a lower level or inferior level, governmental entity. More specifically, it is a constitutional corporation of independent authority,” judges Mark Cavanagh and Deborah Servitto said.

All University of Michigan properties are gun-free for students, non-police staff and the general public, unless a waiver for “extraordinary circumstances” is granted by the public safety department.

Judge David Sawyer wrote a dissenting opinion, saying the university is exceeding its authority by adopting its own restrictions. The appeals court decision was dated Tuesday [June 6, 2017] but released Wednesday [June 7, 2017].

With all due respect to the majority justices in this case, this is the kind of ridiculous thinking that only can come from a state which starts from an anti-gun viewpoint. In the first place, any limitation that doesn’t involve a conflict with another right has no reasonable limitation.

Clearly (and you don’t have to be a Constitutional scholar or a genius), this ban on guns on college campuses only violates the Second Amendment rights of college students (and any visitors) in the State of Michigan. It makes those college students even less safe.

And this gun ban comes from the people crying for safe spaces who say that they are concerned about rapes on campus. But, if they really wanted to keep college students safe, then Constitutional carry would be the rule.

It’s ridiculous, and those majority justices need to be sent back to a real law school to learn their jobs.

by -
9 573

Internet trolls are some of the most annoying and, frankly, pathetic people in the world. They seem to exist purely for the purpose of making obnoxious comments on articles and blog posts. It’s like they get their jollies from simply being jerks.

Trolls about a certain subject seem to be, in many ways, absolutely the same, though. Take anti-gun trolls. They seem to be reading from a playbook (which could be the case). Lee Williams shares the commonalities that he has seen in anti-gun trolls over the years:

They’re incapable of presenting and supporting a logical argument: The trolls’ basic mantra is — and I’ve cleaned this up a lot — Guns are bad. Therefore, gun owners are bad. I have yet to encounter a single one who’s capable of supporting this “argument,” or even parroting a simple anti-gun talking point — the kind Demanding Moms and Brady are always proselytizing. All they’d need to do is visit one of their websites and write down a few catch phrases but, alas, this would require research and reading, which I’ve found are not their strengths.

They’re penis-obsessed: If I had a dollar for every time penis or one of its synonyms were used in a troll’s post I’d be able to afford a Krebs Custom KV-13 Mod 2.  Call them out on their foolishness and they’ll respond with a rant that’s guaranteed to include several variations of terms for the male member. They’re obsessed with the word, as well as with conflating it with firearms.

They’re anonymous: Trolls never post anything under their own name. They go to great lengths to conceal their identity — fake Facebook accounts and email addresses. We discovered one troll who was using a proxy server in India to post anonymously on our website. Perhaps the trolls have formed their own NSA.

They’re profane: I don’t ban anyone for using bad language. Some sites do, but for me it would be a bit hypocritical. However, the antis who have visited our site use language that almost makes me blush — especially when someone calls them out on their BS.

They’re lone wolves sheeple:  Most trolls operate by themselves. I’ve yet to encounter one who shares their bitch-and-run posts. I’m guessing most suffer from a distinct lack of social media friends or followers.

They’re anti-American: Nothing is sacred to trolls. They bash God, guns, America and our military all with equal glee. They don’t seem to understand that their right to post their foolishness was paid for with the blood of American soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines who, of course, didn’t use penis references to vanquish our foes.

Whether you love them or hate them, it’s true that anti-gun “crusaders” appear to be reading off of the same script about how to be general pains to people who just want to live their own lives and enjoy their guns. It’s utterly silly.

Williams lists six common characteristics of anti-gun trolls. Have you noticed others? Tell us below.

by -
6 432

Some things are so common that they are, well, common sense. When you come across something like that, you wonder why someone would bother to take the time and pay the money to confirm that information. Of course, that is after shaking your head in wonder at the fact that they did take that time and pay that money.

One example of something like this is a recent study that showed that rural residents are more likely to own guns. As if anyone had previously thought otherwise. Wayne Baker gives us a bit more information:

A recent Pew Research Study indicates that rural residents […] are disproportionately more likely than other Americans to have a gun at home for protection.

The study also revealed that rural Americans are more than twice as likely to have a gun in the home than those living in large cities.

When I see reports like this, I am dumbfounded. Does anyone really think that residents of urban areas are more likely to have guns?

The flip side of the above comment by Baker is the issue that people should be thinking about. That flip side is that urban residents are disproportionately more likely than other Americans to have to put up with foolish gun control laws so that they have less realistic options to defend themselves and their families.

Maybe people should also consider why rural residents are more likely to own guns. One reason that could be pointed out is that rural residents may have more convenient opportunities to hunt and that hunting rifle or shotgun can also be used for self-defense. That is probably true.

But there’s also the possibility that rural residents are under less of an illusion about how quickly law enforcement can actually get to them to protect them. It’s like the old saying which, unfortunately, sometimes has some truth to it: When you’re in danger, the police are only hours away.

Now, my intent is not to be cruel to law enforcement, but we would be wise to be realistic. Law enforcement cannot predict and prevent most crimes. They can only come when they know about it, clean up the mess, and, hopefully, punish the perpetrator. But if you want to prevent a murder, you have to be ready to defend yourself. Maybe rural residents are more likely than urban residents to realize that a gun is an effective way to defend themselves.

Whatever the reasons, urban residents, wherever legally possible, would be wise to think like rural folks and buy a gun for personal protection.

by -
0 534

Leave it to gun manufacturers to give us practical information in a fun way. What kind of practical information? The kind of practical information that can save a life by preventing gun accidents.

Glock recently posted a short video that is a parody of the intro to the old Brady Bunch television show. In the video, they give us four great rules to remember when it comes to firearms. These four rules are:

  1. Handle all firearms as if they are loaded at all times.
  2. Always keep the muzzle pointed in a safe direction.
  3. Always be certain of your target and what is behind it.
  4. Always keep your fingers off the trigger and outside of the trigger guard until your sights are aligned and you are ready to fire.

Now, let’s break this down for those new to the gun scene.

The first rule is important because a gun owner needs to be in the habit of thinking of his or her gun as dangerous because, if it is loaded, it is dangerous. Mistakes happen when people assume that they will remember when they have the weapon loaded or not. It’s simply better to be in the habit of always treating the gun like it is loaded so that you never make the mistake of treating it as unloaded when, in actuality, it is loaded.

The second rule is based on the same thinking. Put another way, never point the gun at anyone or anything that you are not willing to destroy in that moment. Why? Again, you need to be in the habit of thinking that the weapon could be loaded and treating the weapon as loaded so that you don’t accidentally put a round into someone. That’s the kind of accident that can be fatal.

The third rule builds off of the second rule and has to do with awareness and that willingness to destroy. You need to be aware of what you could potentially destroy when you point that weapon and pull that trigger. If you don’t know that, you don’t know whose life you may unintentionally take. It’s a horrible enough thing to have to take a life in self-defense, but to do it through a careless accident can only be worse.

And the fourth rule is about making sure that, when you actually fire your weapon, that it happens only when you know exactly what you are doing and to what or whom. If your finger stays completely away from that trigger, you aren’t going to accidentally pull it because you were startled. You aren’t going to make some other kind of mistake. You are only going to pull that trigger when you have made that conscious decision because only then will your finger be on the trigger.

Now, for a fun review, watch the video below.


by -
2 305

Well, here’s something that you don’t see everyday: Anti-gunners acting in ways that defy any kind of logic or rational thinking.

Of course, I’m being sarcastic here. Any regular reader of this site knows that anti-gunners act in ways that make absolutely no sense. It’s utterly ridiculous, and this instance is no different:

People wanting to end gun violence want everyone to wear orange to end gun violence.

No, you didn’t misread that. They want you to wear orange because they believe that somehow, magically, wearing the color orange, instead of making people like prisoners in inmate jumpsuits, it will cause gun violence to go down. Dominique Hobdy tells us all the details:

The Wear Orange campaign kicked off in 2015, two years after the shooting and death of 15-year-old high school honor student and drum majorette Hadiya Pendleton on Jan. 29, 2013, in Chicago, Illinois.

Pendleton’s death was the catalyst for change, as her friends decided to band together and bring awareness to the issue and celebrate her life by wearing orange. Two years later the campaign is quickly gaining steam with the support of celebrities and giants in the fashion industry such as Donna Karan, Tom Ford and Zac Posen.

Now, I don’t want to mock the pain people who have lost someone to gun violence have felt and, very often still, feel, but are you seriously going to tell me that, by wearing orange, I’m going to make any difference at all as to whether another person dies because someone uses a gun with intent to injure or kill? How many times do we have to say it: the gun was only a tool, and the person who killed another person would have done it another way.

All wearing orange does is make these people easy targets for criminals without morality who decide they want some target practice on live targets.

If people really want to stop the madness of gun violence, the solution is not ridiculous protests. The solution is to become trained and knowledge about firearm usage and to start carrying to prevent amoral people from committing violence.

by -
6 543

You’re probably already aware of the rampant bias of people who advocate gun control, but you may not be aware of how that bias filters through to their research. Why don’t you know about this? Because, the fact of the matter is, if voters knew how they cherry-pick their numbers and come up with their ridiculous conclusions supporting their politically-motivated positions, then voters (even those that support gun control) would be much less likely to feel justified in their nonsensical anti-gun positions.

If you’re familiar with the research process, responsible (i.e. honest) research attempts to gain perspective and focus on the data that impacts the issue which they are studying. These honest researchers don’t try to make the evidence fit their positions; they allow their positions to be dictated by the evidence.

Unfortunately, many times researchers allowed themselves to be swayed by the money (Tom Vaughan, M.D. says their goal is “career advancement and research funding from wealthy liberals like Michael Bloomberg”). Vaughan describes a recent article referencing “research” from pro-gun control researchers this way:

In it, breathless researchers from Boston University trumpet their newly launched State Firearm Law Database.  The article is sure to appeal to the logic challenged, especially those who already suffer from full-blown hoplophobia.   Michael Siegel and Molly Pahn propose to examine “gun violence”—a nonsensical term beloved by the civilian disarmament crowd, as I’ve previously explained—and how it may seem to be affected by different regulatory schemes in various states. […]

The data they supply thus far is simply a state-by-state catalog of gun control legislation.  They misleadingly describe these as “gun safety laws”, but they are actually all restrictions on Americans’ Constitutionally enshrined right to keep and bear arms.  For example, their database would characterize the passage of so-called Constitutional Carry laws as a reduction in “policies to reduce gun violence”, while I would describe such laws as enhancing personal and public safety.

While such a database, constructed impartially, could be very useful, the authors reveal their strong anti-Second Amendment bias.  They have salted the article with a few facts, but they have also included several misleading statements as well as blatant lies, presumably to broaden its appeal.

For example, while they are correct in pointing out that there has been a recent (though fortunately mild) uptick in violent crime in the US over past two years, they ignore the preceding decades-long decrease in homicide and other violent crime since their peaks in the 1990’s.  But this selective reporting implies a sudden crisis, and therefore the urgent need for government intervention.  While this intentional omission is unprofessional, there is much worse in the article.  Two blatant lies are used in a ham-fisted attempt to discredit pro-gun legislation.

The first is a gross mischaracterization of what are generally termed “Stand Your Ground” laws.  Vilifying these has become a cause célèbre with the anti-gun crowd.  Siegel claims these laws “allow people to shoot other people as a first resort in public.”  This is of course an outrageous statement, and a lie of the sort that should discredit any university professor.

In reality, these laws are narrowly crafted, and their effect is to protect law abiding citizens from overzealous prosecutors who could otherwise charge them for “failure to retreat” when they are forced to use their firearms in legitimate self defense.  In 2004 then-Illinois Senator Barack Obama voted in favor of legislation strengthening Illinois’ long-standing Stand Your Ground statute.

The second outright lie in the article regards the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act and the protection it affords firearms manufacturers when their legally manufactured products are used in the commission of crimes.  After initially admitting that the law simply does exactly that, they falsely claim “no other consumer product manufacturer enjoys such broad immunity.”  As if Lexus could be held liable if one of their cars was deliberately driven into a crowd of people, or Stanley could be successfully sued when one of their hammers is used to bludgeon someone to death.

Now, if this kind of changing of context and outright law surprises you, well, you obviously haven’t been watching the mainstream media for news (probably a good thing).

The fact of the matter is that statistics show that where gun ownership is up, then overall violence, murder rates, and crime rates go down. So, what we need to do is to keep taking misinformation and putting it back into context so people can hear the truth.

by -
11 592

There is a thought that you won’t tend to hear mentioned in conversation or in the mainstream media because it makes people uncomfortable to think that someone, especially someone in power, may think this way. That thought is that politicians actually want more violent crime to occur.

If it sounds crazy to you, it’s because you aren’t someone who ever really wants to see someone else injured or killed, because you’re sane and well-adjusted to our society. But, if you understand the logic, you can’t help but think that it may be true. John Farnam lays out the logic for us:

Liberals covet ever-higher rates of violent crime for two reasons:

(1) Violent criminals represent a small minority whose political support, and votes, liberals openly solicit, and whose size and influence liberals thus constantly strive to increase. This is the reason liberals predictably make excuses for the behavior of violent criminals, insisting they are “justified” in committing crimes, and invent cynical terms, like “grievance-based crime” in order to rationalize evil behavior.

(2) Through violent crime, violent criminals intimidate and terrorize the rest of the population, generating demands for “increased protection,” which liberals are only too happy to provide, in the form of suffocating new restrictions on all of us who don’t commit crimes, and economic punishment of certain minorities who see through liberals’ cozenage and thus refuse to support them. Violent criminals hence do liberals’ “dirty work” for them.

The elimination of the private ownership of guns is thus the liberal “Holy Grail”.

See the logic? Now, maybe it’s true that most politically liberal politicians actually want to help people and their purpose isn’t to oppress people. Maybe that’s true. BUT, even if it is true, these politicians are the beneficiaries of the increase in violent crime that their crazy thinking causes.

And you know who loses? People like you and me who hope to God to never use our weapon against anyone else but know that the government can’t actually prevent violence, only clean up the mess afterwards.

by -
9 512

There are many factors to consider when buying a gun. Which factors are most important are going to depend on you (your body size, hand size, hand strength, etc.), your intended uses for the gun, and other restrictions that you may have (budget, legal restrictions where you live, etc.). But, even after all of those factors, choice of weapon comes down to a matter of personal preference.

With that in mind, though, Col. Ben Findley gives us a few things to at least think about when selecting your next gun purchase. His criteria for selecting a handgun are:

  1. Accuracy and Reliability- Performs well without reoccurring malfunctions and stoppages and results in consistent, accurate target hits with a 3″ inch hit group or so at 5-15 yards for concealed carry;
  2. Trigger Press maxiumum of about 5.5-6.5 pounds – lessens force applied for less movement & better accuracy- and press that is crisp and identifiable (TRAIN to be Trigger Safe);
  3. Trigger with short travel distance (a short travel distance increases the speed the trigger can be fired) and easily identifiable and short reset point; Trigger with a smooth consistent press for every shot (less need to transition between presses & make adjustments);
  4. Barrel length of 3.0″-4.5″ (primarily for concealed carry); for subcompacts- length of 3.0″-3.2″ or so;
  5. Sights that are basic & simple (easy to use & see–I like Fiber Optic fronts); fast target acquisition; for my purposes– adjustable for windage; Night Sights for low-light situations;
  6. Proper Gun Weight to minimize recoil (I prefer about 25 oz. or less for carry- but there are tradeoffs);
  7. Caliber match to my needs, characteristics & abilities (consider medical & physical limitations); 9mm is my preference for carry;
  8. Capacity -adequate for use & feature tradeoffs- usually prefer at least 8-10 in a 9mm magazine for carry (but can carry a spare mag or 2 sometimes);
  9. Ergonomics – Hand Comfort and Grip Fit, controls easy to work and easily accessible; rounded, low-profile;
  10. Miscellaneous – Overall Finish, fit, & quality appearance & workmanship; mag release location; ambidextrous controls; accessory rail as required; grip angle; bore axis; competitive market price; excellent customer service with friendly & helpful representatives; ease of disassembly-assembly; Hard Case; Extras (third mag, holster, pouch, extended & flush mags); warranty length & extent; etc.

Now, remember, Col. Findley’s criteria may not be right for you. You may prefer a different gun length. You may prefer a heavier pistol to improve accuracy over multiple shots or you may prefer something lighter so it doesn’t “weigh you down” while carrying. Or, you may really want a small weapon to allow it to stay concealed because you have a small frame.

All-in-all, take the advice of other people of what to look for when considering your next gun purchase (and Col. Findley’s list above is a good starting point), but buy the weapon that is right for you.


by -
0 392

Have you ever thought about changing out components on your gun? Maybe you’ve considered it for looks. Maybe you’ve considered it for performance.

When you’ve thought about that, have you considered the difference that changing out your trigger can make to your shooting experience? What do I mean? Tom McHale gives us a little perspective:

It should be obvious that replacing the trigger doesn’t have any physical impact on a rifle’s accuracy. It’s not like it synchronizes barrel harmonics to the tune of “You’re So Vain” or anything. A trigger doesn’t touch the barrel or impact flight path, yet everyone swears it makes a rifle more accurate.

That’s kind of true. But it doesn’t make the rifle more accurate, it makes it easier for you, the shooter, to get the best accuracy that the rifle is capable of. This is an important distinction.

The reason is that pesky physics thing. When a rifle takes several pounds of pressure to break the shot, and the rifle itself only weighs several pounds, it’s gonna want to move, at least a little bit. A good trigger, with a smooth action and reasonably low pull weight, is going to make it easier for you to break the shot without moving the sight alignment of the rifle. When you’re trying to extract every last fraction of an inch of accuracy, a little bit of unwanted movement means a lot on the target.

So, the answer to the question of whether you should consider swapping out your trigger is… maybe. Yes, changing out your trigger for one that fires smoother and has a lower pull weight can improve accuracy because you have to fight less against the trigger when trying to get that bullet to hit the target.

However, on the flip side, having a lighter trigger may make you nervous that you’ll fire one off when you don’t mean to. The answer to that is to get more training on gun safety, but, until you get that training, it may lower your stress response (some) during a violent encounter because an accidental shot isn’t one of the things that you’ll be concerned about.

All-in-all, if you’re taking the proper safety precautions with your gun, then there aren’t a whole lot of good reasons not to have a smoother trigger and a lower pull weight, and there are some good reasons to make those changes. So, you may want to think about this for your next upgrade.


0 133
The phrase ".357" has a certain connotation that goes along with it. Many people thing of it (as in ".357 Magnum") as a tough...