by -
0 39

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 46

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 -
0 418

Gun control advocates are desperate to find some way to keep us all safe by saying guns are the problem. They lobby for laws to keep guns out of our hands, and, when those fail, they try to keep us all safe from guns by creating “smartguns” which have computerized lockouts.

Now, we can argue about whether smartguns are a good idea, whether it’s to protect young children from accidental discharges (a good thing) or as some kind of supposed deterrent to keep criminals from stealing guns to use in other illegal activities. The problem with either of these lines of thought is the idea that smartguns can actually protect people by preventing a discharge.

But that is not the case. An ammoland article notes,

According to an article in Wired magazine, the $1,800 .22 LR pistol that made such a splash with gun controllers upon its debut is easily hacked. It can be activated (or deactivated) at distance from authorized users. Its locking mechanism can be defeated by holding magnets, that anyone can buy online, against the slide. And the equipment to do these things is readily available and costs less than a trip to the movies.

The hacker profiled in the article – who goes by the pseudonym Plore – told Wired, “I was confident I’d be able to break it … I didn’t think it would be so easy.”

Look, the fact of the matter is (and any hacker worth their salt will tell you), any security can be hacked, and it’s usually a lot simpler than people think. In many cases, it’s simply knowing how to trick people into giving the hacker the information that they want. In this case, it’s simply using two magnets to make the gun fire, making the “smart technology” meaningless. Here is a video about the Wired magazine story:

It simply comes down to this: gun safety still comes down to knowledge about safe usage of firearms and this only comes through knowledge, training, and firearm usage, and nothing else will work.

by -
13 507

The mainstream media is overwhelming anti-2nd Amendment. These people (who overwhelmingly live in urban areas and have likely never actually handled a firearm) keep trying to shove their anti-gun rhetoric down our collective throats even though it’s based on nothing but nonsense.

A perfect example is the recent coverage of Chicago. Of course, shooting deaths in Chicago are still ridiculously high even though they have some of the most restrictive gun control laws in the nation. The mainstream media, in this case, Aidan Quigley writing for Newsweek, goes out of the way to snub President Trump about their gun problems. Quigley quoted Chicago mayor (and former Obama White House Chief of Staff) Rahm Emanuel’s spokesman, Adam Collins, who said,

“Anytime the president wants to drop his political rhetoric and actually partner with our police officers to build on the 14 percent reduction in shootings they’ve achieved this year, we’ll be ready.”

Collins couldn’t be saying that Trump hasn’t been helpful with the Chicago gun problem, could he? Of course, when last year saw the most gun homicides in 19 years (according to CNN), it’s not hard to bring the number down some, is it?

And, yet, even with this decrease, the Chicago Tribune noted that, in the first half of 2017, over 90% of homicides in Chicago were gun related while in New York City, that number was 49%.

Could the reality simply be that all those years of corrupt politicians in Chicago, who (coincidentally?) have been anti-gunners, are really the source of the problem. Maybe it’s people like Rahm Emanuel who arrogantly think that they are the only ones who should be able to protect themselves with guns. Certainly, Chicago Guns Matter founder Rhonda Ezell thinks this is the case. She said,

The mayor walks around every day with armed security paid for by the taxpayers of Chicago, yet he doesn’t want you to go to a gun range and be efficient with the firearm you choose to have in your home for the safety of you or your loved ones.”

 She nailed that one on the head.

by -
17 591

How many times will anti-gun organizations lie about guns and gun control before the mainstream media and and other anti-gunners begin to see the truth. It’s almost as if the truth isn’t what is important to them (there’s something to thing about…).

Here is another example to elevate your blood pressure. Everytown for Gun Safety is another inappropriately named anti-gun organization (because we know that gun-free zones are the places where the worst shootings occur. Chicago, anyone?). Being funded by anti-gun former New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg should be enough evidence for anyone. But let’s look deeper, shall we?

One Facebook post from Everytown said, “‘Concealed carry reciprocity’ would force states with strong gun laws to let people from states with weak gun laws carry hidden, loaded handguns in public without meeting the strong states’ standards.” The post then shows a picture of Maryland with the caption “Stops convicted stalkers from carrying loaded, hidden handguns in public” along with a picture of neighboring West Virginia with the caption “Does not.”

A writer going by “J. KB” has a very nice succinct analysis of Everytown’s deceptive post:

First of all, Maryland’s permits are may issue and has a “good and substantial reason” to carry a gun and honors no out of state permits.  West Virginia has constitutional carry, but still has to abide by federal law.  So any person convicted of domestic violence or under a restraining order is a prohibited person and can’t poses a gun, let alone carry one in public.  You wound’t know that from Everytown’s post.

Everytown’s silly post about Maryland and West Virginia is only the beginning. They’ve also posted deceptive (and inaccurate) comparisons of Georgia and South Carolina, Ohio and Pennsylvania, and Minnesota and Iowa. All of these posts either lied or deliberately left out information which slanted the comparison towards anti-gunners in the choice of language.

But honesty, like anti-gun organizations everywhere, is not what Everytown wants. What they want is you defenseless because they either want government to control you or because they don’t have the courage to face the reality that the world is a dangerous place and it takes good people willing to do the ugly thing sometimes to prevent bad people from doing even more horrible things. And that is one of the fundamental reasons why we carry.


0 39
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) is a controversial organization. People generally either love them or they hate them, and, certainly, many politically conservative...