by -
9 293

Background checks are a contentious issue. Anti-gunners want do a background check on everyone (and fail the check to keep guns out of law-abiding citizens’ hands). Many “moderate” gun owners still support background checks to prevent people with mental health issues or past history of real violence from being able to obtain a gun.

The problem, however, is that, even if background checks were able to keep guns out of the hands of mentally unstable or habitually violent people (which doesn’t appear to be the case), these background checks get abused and the information gets twisted and distorted for other purposes. Bruce Krafft gives a perfect example of how this, too often, works:

New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman’s office conducted an eight-month gun show investigation, uncovering “serious violations,” leading to ten arrests. This inevitably led the AG’s office to call for “a stronger law to hold show operators liable and increase penalties.”

That may sound reasonable, unless you dig into the meat of the story and discover that those “unlawful sellers” were actually show attendees, not dealers, and that the gun show operators had meticulously followed New York’s UBC law. They had signs posted at all entrances, at all ticket sale locations and at least four places within the show to make sure that everyone knew the law.

This is what I mean by [anti-gunners will] never [be] satisfied; even though show operators complied with every jot and tittle of the law, the AG’s office wanted to be able to criminally prosecute show operators for the unlawful conduct of their attendees. Think about that for a minute; this would be like criminally charging the Lipizzan Horse Show because a couple of their customers were caught violating the state’s Clean Indoor Air Act by sneaking a cigarette in the restrooms during a performance.

One of the major problems with universal background checks is that the data collected isn’t filtered for accuracy, isn’t taken into contextual consideration, isn’t vetted in any way. It’s taken at face value for the purpose of denying the Constitutional rights of people and, specifically, for abusing gun owners.

This is one of the many reasons that we must remain diligent about insisting on our full 2nd Amendment rights.

by -
2 165

Many people believe that statistics are the end-all-be-all way to settle an argument, that statistics are the “facts” that they can use to prove beyond the shadow of a doubt that their point of view is the right point of view.

These people, obviously, have never heard the old joke about torturing the statistics until they give you the answer that you want. Unfortunately, in much of what passes for research in many areas, torturing statistics isn’t even worth the trouble. Sometimes these “researchers’ simply take the numbers out of context or conveniently ignore the data that doesn’t support the conclusion that they want. John Lott gives us a perfect example of this misuse of statistics in an piece for He writes,

The Violence Policy Center (VPC), the source of these claims, asserts that in the 10 years from May 2007 to April 2017, U.S. concealed handgun permit holders were responsible for 969 nonself-defense gun deaths (with any type of weapon, not just handguns).

Of these deaths, 314 were suicides and 17 were the result of accidental shootings. In all, 324 permit holders purportedly killed people.

Looking at the VPC numbers for 2016, they claim that 26 permit holders supposedly committed 29 homicides. With over 15 million permit holders nationwide last year, those deaths amount to 0.2 homicides per 100,000 permit holders.

However, there is an arrest and investigation virtually anytime a permit holder uses a handgun in a public place. Almost all of the 2016 cases are listed as pending, and most of the defendants will be acquitted on account of self-defense.

The tally of 969 deaths is the result of triple and even quadruple counting. […] The main problem [in the reporting in Michigan, for example] is that pending cases are counted in the same way as convictions. The Michigan State Police report the number of pending cases and convictions each year.

But since most cases never result in a conviction and many cases can be listed as pending for two or three calendar years, this results in massive over counting.

Lott continues,

Concealed handgun permit holders are also much more law-abiding than the rest of the population.

In fact, they are convicted at an even lower rate than police officers. According to a study in Police Quarterly, police committed an average of 703 crimes (113 firearms violations) annually from 2005-2007.

Take a minute to read those statistics again. You’ll begin to realize how easy it is for someone with bias to take raw data and misuse it, either intentionally or simply due to laziness about being accurate, to come to conclusions which simply aren’t true. If concealed carry permit holders are convicted at a lower rate than police officers, then that is just statistical proof that legal gun owners are the people that should have the guns.

And that is a conclusion based on statistics that you can depend on.

by -
1 137

Sometimes it seems that anti-gun politicians and district attorneys who act as their lap dogs have it in for law abiding citizens who carry their own firearms. And the reason that it seems that way is because it’s true.

Take, for example, the case of Arizona resident Steven Jones. Dean Weingarten writes,

Jones and two of his friends were attacked after midnight on Friday, October 9, 2015. Jones was sucker punched and chased toward his car. He retrieved a pistol and went back to aid his friends who were on the ground.

From that point, unfortunately, shots were fired, and one of the attackers was killed.

Now, if this wasn’t a horrible enough experience for Jones to go through (if you’ve ever been in combat, you know how traumatizing it can be to actually shoot someone, even if justified as self-defense), but Jones was smeared by those wanting to use this tragedy as a political maneuver for more gun control. Weingarten continues,

There is a clear political component of the prosecution and trial. The shooting was originally billed as another mass school shooting, with the “victims” lionized. The facts disclosed later, which bolstered the self defense claim of Jones, did not receive near the publicity. If Jones were found to be justified, it removes a reason to oppose Campus Carry.

So, Jones has a traumatic situation that he will have to work through and live with for the rest of his life, and, then, he gets smeared by the prosecutor who want to use Jones as a tool to try to yank guns off of college campuses.

While declaring this trial a mistrial is a good thing and, based on the information which we have, it looks to be the right thing, Jones will unfortunately have to go back to court for another trial in August.

.Just remember, folks, even though you’re the responsible one and you want peace, because you carry, you need to be aware of the potential fallout from using your weapon. Use it wisely.

by -
0 132

If you believe the mainstream mass media in America, you would believe that nobody ever needs a gun, and that, certainly, no one in a one of the liberal utopias which have strict gun control laws would want to endanger their own life by having their own gun for any reason.

If you believe that, though, you would be wrong.

The news media has a history of distorting the facts for their anti-gun agenda. For example, the New York Post ran an article on May 14, 2017 with the headline “People have stopped buying guns since Trump took office.” But, if you dig into the article, it actually states,

“In the five full months since Donald Trump was elected president, the FBI has undertaken 1.6 million fewer firearm background checks compared with the same period a year earlier, government statistics show, reflecting slower sales.” (hat tip to here for the source)

Now, to give even more perspective, these “slower sales” still equal 7 million firearms sold in a five month period. Seven million guns sold isn’t exactly a situation where people aren’t buying guns.

And to revisit our original point, people want to (legally) own firearms in politically liberal areas, too. For example, when you think areas buried under gun control laws, you probably think of California, New York City, Detroit or Chicago. However, a May 15. 2017 Associated Press article on says that “the number of firearm owner identification applications in Chicago doubled” in two years, and “[i]t’s on pace to surpass that this year [2017].” The article goes on to quote Richard Pearson, executive director of the Illinois State Rifle Association:

“People are worried about protecting themselves in the Chicago area […]. People started seeing the value of a concealed carry license.”

So, next time that you read a news article saying the people don’t want guns or that people are happy and feel safe in areas with gun control, remember this post. The fact of the matter is that much of the media isn’t telling the truth about guns, but people, even in politically liberal areas, are starting to wake up to their need to be able to defend themselves.

by -
12 507

There have been some unique changes to our world since President Trump was elected…

One of those is the rise of left-wing “resistance” movements.

The truth is, I’m pretty puzzled by the whole thing, but it’s very, very troubling because I sincerely believe they’re more dangerous than ISIS.

What Is Antifa?

I’m not going to even pretend to be an expert here, but “Antifa” is the name of left-leaning groups of people that claim they are “Anti-Fascist” – that’s where the name comes from.

Clever huh?

After doing some research, it appears this was an actual historical movement from around WWII times in Germany/Italy, mostly made up of communists who opposed the fascist regimes of Mussolini and Hitler.

Today though?

Everyone and everything these extreme progressives don’t like is now a “Nazi” or a “fascist.”

The term “alt-right” is now being applied to anyone to the right of Karl Marx (despite the fact that nobody really knows for sure what “alt-right” means).

To these militants on the left, Donald Trump, every single person who voted for him, anyone who opposes any component or increment of left-wing politics, and anyone who disagrees with a liberal on social media is an alt-right bigoted homophobic transphobic Nazi racist fascist KKK member.

They rose to prominence in our popular culture after one of them got famous for punching white nationalist Richard Spencer. “Nazi Punching” they called it. And they were praised everywhere. Here’s the problem …

Why Are They Dangerous?

In short, because in their mind they believe their violence is justified.

And you’re a target.

No matter how deeply you believe you are not a Nazi, this does not matter to an antifa thug, an anarcho-communist, or a liberal political activist.

He or she believes you are a Nazi, that you are “alt-right,” that your disagreement makes you a racist. In his or her mind, you have already been dehumanized, and thus you have no rights.

Marginalizing conservatives and conservative political positions as wrongthink has long been a tool of the Left… but now it carries with it potential physical attack.

Check Out Some Of Their Lovely Memes…

I think if you’re reading this blog, you can appreciate the DTOM (Don’t Tread On Me) flag and where it comes from in our American history.

Here’s what Antifa thinks:


And there’s more…


Why Are They More Dangerous Than ISIS?

Because they’re actually a threat, and the mainstream media largely embraces them and — let’s face it — takes their side when reporting news stories involving them.

Plus, there’s a LOT of people in America that openly support them…

And let’s face it, they’re comfortable with violence and they’re practicing. This is a video from Antifa in Arizona that created the John Brown Gun Club:

And the movement is getting more violent around the world.

Antifa is even in Paris, where on May 1st – a communist holiday — they hit french police with molotov cocktails. Here’s a video:


Take a look at this picture:


Keep Your Head Up

These people are willing to do violence.

They’ve started training.

They definitely have access to guns…

They’re more than willing to use violence with their hands or any weapon against people they claim are “Nazis”.

And the main stream media is giving them a free pass. So don’t ignore them.

Keep preparing. Carry your gun. Get in shape and keep training. Things will probably get worse before they get better…

by -
13 636

If you publicly express the idea that you have a right to own a gun or think people should have to show I.D. before they vote, you might deserve the violence progressive activists seek to inflict upon you. It’s hard too see a recent op-ed published by the N.Y. Times as anything other than glaring support of violent anti-free speech “protests” that have been silencing skeptics of the progressive faith. While it’s not exactly shocking that the Times would publish such an article, it does reflect how rapidly the left is moving towards acceptance of violent authoritarianism.

In an article entitled “What Snowflakes Get Right About Free Speech” an essentially fascist professor, Ulrich Baer, of New York University argues that students are right to shut down speech.

Free-speech protections — not only but especially in universities, which aim to educate students in how to belong to various communities — should not mean that someone’s humanity, or their right to participate in political speech as political agents, can be freely attacked, demeaned or questioned.

Ulrich then claims that Ben Carson saying that that transgender people are men and women in disguise, invalidates their humanity. It gets even crazier, he then claims that Trump calling the media “enemies of the American people” delegitimizes whole groups of people thus constituting hate speech. Literally, the next paragraph, Ulrich hypocritically infers that the historical model of free speech that most Americans support is a “clear and present danger to our democracy.” It’s OK for Ulrich to call you a threat to the republic, but don’t you dare do the same to him!

Ulrich isn’t so much a hypocrite as he is an authoritarian, he simply thinks that might makes right. His tribe is superior to yours and will silence speech that threatens their quest for power and domination over you. True progressivism is simply about power.


by -
14 773

Leftists on the progressive protest circuit have taken an irrational protest to a new level. They staged a die-in to protest Donald Trump’s speech to the NRA. Their fake deaths were a perfect symbol of the fake struggle between courageous politicians and a supposedly evil gun lobby.

Organizations like  Handgun Control inc. used to be interested in public safety, not just politics. Their logic was simple, by making virtually all modern firearms illegal, heat of the moment homicides and suicides would be less common. These anti-gun citizens, were willing to deny normal law abiding citizens the right of gun ownership for an anticipated reduction in crimes of passion and suicide. Their platform was gun registration followed presumably by confiscation.

The Hand Gun Control Inc. platform was extremely unpopular with the American public and politically untenable. Eventually, Hand Gun Control Inc. changed it’s name to The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, they began pushing politically expedient lies. Instead of trying to “solve gun violence” with gun control they now stand on the graves of dead children after mass shootings, pretending that some ludicrous new do-nothing law would have prevented the tragedy. Utterly nonsensical laws have replaced the old registration/confiscation platform of the past.

At this point in time, the left doesn’t have any honest organizations actually interested in public safety remaining.

With that in mind, enjoy watching these hysterical nutcases faking their own deaths for a fake cause.

by -
2 603

A new study destroys anti-gun narratives and sheds more light on the reality of murders in America. A mere 1% of counties in America account for 19% of our murder rate. Murder is highly concentrated in a few areas of the country. Most of America has an extremely low murder rate which is skewed by a few insane high crime areas.

The anti-gun lie is that, because America has more guns than most European nations, gun ownership is to blame for our higher crime rates. In fact, research is continually showing that most of America has extremely low rates of crime despite having much higher rates of gun ownership.

Check this out:

This week, a new report from the Crime Prevention Research Center (CPRC) revealed just how concentrated murders are in the U.S. Citing county level data from 2014, researchers determined that a small fraction of all counties are responsible for a majority of the murders in the U.S.

According to the report, just 2 percent of all of the counties in the country account for 51 percent of the nation’s murders. The top 5 percent of counties account for 68 percent of all murders. Further, 69 percent of all counties experienced one murder or less in 2014.

It is correct to expect that counties with large population centers are going to necessarily account for more murders. However, as the report details, the most dangerous counties account for an outsized proportion of murders given their population. The report noted, “The worst 1% of counties have 19% of the population and 37% of the murders. The worst 5% of counties contain 47% of the population and account for 68% of murders.”

CPRC also pointed out that murders are often highly concentrated within a given county. Citing Los Angeles County, which experienced 526 murder in 2014, CPRC showed that there were wide swaths of the county with virtually no murders.

CPRC’s data dovetails with other research on the concentration of criminal violence. In recent years, researchers from Yale University have studied the concentration of violence in certain social networks. In a 2015 piece for the Hartford Courant that succinctly outlines some of this research, Yale Ph.D. candidate Michael Sierra-Arévalo explained that Yale University sociologists determined “70 percent of all shootings in Chicago can be located in a social network composed of less than 6 percent of the city’s population.” Sierra-Arévalo also cited a study from researchers at Harvard and Yale, that examined violence perpetrated with guns in Boston. This research showed that violence is heavily concentrated even within a given city, determining that “between 1980 and 2009, 89 percent of Boston streets never experienced an episode of gun violence,” and that “more than half of all the gun violence during the almost 30-year period occurred in only 5 percent of the city’s streets.”

The bottom line is that the vast majority of murders happen in an extremely small area, amongst a small segment of the population; that is engaged in the gang culture. In places like Chicago the vast majority of murders happen with guns that are illegal to begin with.

Wether it’s the murder rate in Chicago or South America, the cause of high murder rates is crystal clear. Gun control has no correlation with murder rates and the existence of gang culture has everything to do with it.

Europe has a lower murder rates because they have fewer MS13 gangbangers killing each other (duh!). Brazil and Chicago, IL have high murder rates because they have a small percentage of the population in the gang culture, shooting each other.

The ability of law abiding citizens  to possess guns has never been correlated with murder rates. Both Brazil and Chicago have intense gun control laws but high murder rates, meanwhile 69% of American counties had one murder or less despite having some of the highest rates of gun ownership in the world.

by -
4 503

Who says it’s impossible to get a gun license in New York City? All you need is a wad of cash and a bus full of strippers.

Two NYPD Officers were recently busted for taking bribes in exchange for issuing gun licenses. Criminals who paid the bribes got the privilege of a license while law abiding citizens were (and still are) routinely denied their rights. If you didn’t have money, that was O.K., the corrupt officers also accepted stripper parties.

It’s almost like that’s the purpose of gun control in NYC, you have to make sure the little people can’t bear arms, gun licenses are for privileged criminals.

Check out how crazy it got (from Bearing Arms):

According to Kim, the suspects saw license expeditors making huge sums of money, some as much as $10,000.

“They allegedly sold their oath to serve and protect, they sold their duty to do their jobs, they just issued gun licenses to whoever the bribing expediters brought them without conducting the necessary background checks, without questioning their need for a gun license and without following up on major red flags,” Kim told CBS New York. “Over 100 gun licenses were issued in this problematic way.”

What makes matters even worse? One of the people who received a license during this scheme was a known domestic abuser. He had four domestic violence complaints, including once incident where he threatened to kill someone.

As usual, law and regulations are abused by the those in power. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. Which is why progressively absolutely want more power.

by -
13 1472

If you don’t know, there are some INSANE laws from 1934 that govern much of what is “legal” in the firearms world.

They’re known as the National Firearms Act (NFA) laws.

And they suck.

It’s the reason you can’t buy silencers & short barreled rifles off the shelf. A short barreled rifle is anything under 16″.

Well, there is one way around the NFA laws on short barreled rifles. If you do it right, you can legally own an AR-15 with a short barrel rifle without paying for a $200 tax stamp and waiting for approval by the ATF. Check it out:

How To Get A “Short Barrel” AR-15 Without Paying An NFA $200 Tax, etc

In short, you need a pistol …

The AR-15 platform can be had in either a “pistol” or “rifle”.

You want to buy the “pistol” type (or build it yourself, if you know how to do it legally).

What’s the ONLY difference between a pistol AR-15 and the rifle version?

Very simply, the pistol AR-15 can NOT have a buttstock of any kind. And it must NEVER have had a buttstock of any kind attached. The actual lower receiver is bought/transferred into your name as a pistol lower, not a rifle lower.

(In other words, if you bought an AR-15 rifle with a buttstock and then took the buttstock off, while it may look EXACTLY like an AR-15 pistol — the ATF still considers it a rifle.)


Image source: AR-15 pistol PDW

Why You Want an AR-15 Pistol

Here’s the reasons you want an AR-15 pistol …

1. It’s legally a pistol. That means with your concealed carry permit, you can legally carry it concealed in public just like you would any other pistol (like a Glock, etc). That’s important because a lot of states say you can’t carry a loaded rifle/shotgun around with you or in your car, etc. They have different rules for pistols.

2. As a pistol, you can have a short barrel (less than 16″) on it without it becoming a “short barrel rifle” which is a NFA weapon. An NFA weapon is illegal to have without paying a Tax Stamp to the ATF and getting their permission to own/build it. Obviously, you’ll want a shorter barrel because it makes it easier to conceal.

By The Way, There Are Now Multiple Pistols – Not Just AR-15’s …

L to R: Sig MPX, HK MP5, KRISS Vector, AR-15, Scorpion EVO, Uzi – all with SB Tactical Braces

You can now buy pistol versions of the following rifles, including (but not limited to):

* AK-47’s
* .308 FAL’s
* CZ Scorpion EVO
* KRISS Vector
* IWI Uzi Pistol
* HK MP5, HK53, MP5K’s, etc
* Sig MPX

The Invention Of The “Stabilizer Brace”

AR-15 pistols used to be considered “range toys”, but sometime in 2013 SB Tactical started selling something called a “stabilizing brace” for AR-15 & AK-47 pistols.

It took the market by storm and was very popular.

It’s important to note that they got approval from the ATF for making these braces way back in 2012. The agency said:

“the submitted brace, when attached to a firearm, does not convert that weapon to be fired from the shoulder and would not alter the classification of a pistol or other firearm. While a firearm so equipped would still be regulated by the Gun Control Act … such a firearm would not be subject to NFA controls.”

Of course, one of the obvious ways to fire a pistol with one of these things attached is by using the brace as a makeshift “stock” on your shoulder …

Something you can already do with the built-in buffer tube of an AR-15 pistol. In fact, in the below pictures from an article by Gabe Suarez on the M4 Pistol concept, you can see the two primary ways of running the M4 Pistol – either the cheek index for CQB or when greater accuracy is needed — obtaining a fourth point of contact by bringing the end of the buffer tube back into the shoulder.

Gabe Suarez demonstrating two ways to fire an AR-15 pistol using either cheek support only or also getting a fourth point of contact on the shoulder. Obviously, shouldering a regular AR-15 pistol does not magically make it a rifle … right?

Obviously, this does not somehow magically turn an AR-15 pistol into a rifle, just because you “shoulder it”.

The ATF agreed, because in March 2014 they said this in a second letter,

“for the following reasons, we have determined that firing a pistol from the shoulder would not cause the pistol to be reclassified as an SBR: FTB classifies weapons based on their physical design characteristics. While usage/functionality of the weapon does influence the intended design, it is not the sole criterion for determining the classification of a weapon. Generally speaking, we do not classify weapons based on how an individual uses a weapon.”

Things were wonderful in AR-15 pistol land – people finally had a cost effective, good looking, potentially useful accessory to put on their AR-15 pistols to (arguably) make them easier to handle and everything seemed great.

The ATF issued a third letter just before SHOT Show in January 2015 that resulted in panic in the firearms industry. The letter stated:

“the pistol stabilizing brace was neither ‘designed’ nor approved to be used as a shoulder stock, and therefore use as a shoulder stock constitutes a ‘redesign’ of the device because a possessor has changed the very function of the item.”

In other words, by simply shouldering an AR-15 pistol with a stabilizing brace attached, you have magically “redesigned” it into a short-barreled-rifle and you’re now a felon.

Which, of course, makes no sense because if you take it out of your shoulder pocket does it magically “redesign” back into a pistol if you fire it with your arms extended like one?

Fire it with two hands like this, and does it magically redesign itself back into a pistol? But then you shoulder it and it magically redesigns itself into a rifle?

Either way, these letters from the ATF are basically law, so everyone was cautioned to not shoulder any pistol with a brace attached.

Which brings us to modern times …

ATF REVERSES Opinion On Pistols With Braces (AGAIN!), Now Says Pistols Are Still Pistols, Even If You Shoulder Them

Recoil Mag posted a letter from the ATF that has reversed the earlier reversal to the earlier reversal letter … or whatever.

The latest letter from the ATF is here.

And here’s what SBTactical had to say about it.

“… The new clarification of opinion letter states, “an NFA firearm has not necessarily been made when the device is not reconfigured for use as a shoulder stock – even if the attached firearm happens to be fired from the shoulder. To the extent that the January 2015 Open Letter implied or has been construed to hold that incidental, sporadic, or situational “use” of an arm-brace (in its original approved configuration) equipped firearm from a firing position at or near the shoulder was sufficient to constitute “redesign,” such interpretations are incorrect and not consistent with ATF’s interpretation of the statute or the manner in which it has historically been enforced.”

SB Tactical, along with the law offices of Mark Barnes & Associates, have worked tirelessly for more than two years to correct what they believed to be an inaccurate interpretation of “redesign,” related to the Pistol Stabilizing Brace. “It has always been our belief that the addition of our Pistol Stabilizing Brace benefits shooters, both disabled and able-bodied, and that neither strapping it to your arm nor shouldering a brace equipped pistol would constitute ‘redesign’ of a pistol to a NFA firearm”, said Alex Bosco, inventor, founder and CEO of SB Tactical. “We are strongly encouraged by the ATF’s reversal of opinion and commend their willingness to continually review policy, including their own opinions, to ensure public safety and the fulfillment of their mission.”

Both SB Tactical and Mark Barnes & Associates are proud to be at the forefront of protecting and preserving the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding Americans. Mark Barnes echoed Bosco’s praise of the ATF’s new guidance and stated that “it’s clear that the Bureau has no intention or desire to prosecute law abiding citizens using SB Tactical Pistol Stabilizing Braces. Their decision to act should be commended.”

So It Looks Like You Can Shoulder A Stabilizing Brace Now, Just Don’t Modify It!

Of course, the entire internet will be in a roar telling you that if you do ANY modifications to a stabilizing brace then you’ve redesigned it and you’ll go to jail.

That may or may not be true.

The REAL issue here is that these are outdated laws from 1934 that should have neve been passed in the first place and the entire NFA needs to be repealed because it’s just silly.

First silencers need to be legal, and then the NFA needs to get repealed. Until then, enjoy shouldering your pistol braces without fear of an ATF hit squad busting down your door and shooting your dog!


0 1
If you're a hunter (and if you're reading this post), you love your guns. We get it. We love our guns, too. But, if you're...