If you are anti-guns, or afraid of guns, or just don't like them and don't want them in your house, then this blog is for you.
(It might just change your mind)

Monday, February 25, 2013

Democrats admit: “background checks” are a smokescreen for national gun registration.

The charade is over: Democrats tip hand that “background checks” are a smokescreen for national gun registration.

A bipartisan group of senators is on the verge of a deal that would expand background checks to all private firearms sales with limited exemptions, but significant disagreements remain on the issue of keeping records of private gun sales, according to aides familiar with the talks. 
…Democrats say that keeping records of private sales is necessary to enforce any new law and because current federal law requires licensed firearm dealers to keep records. Records of private sales also would help law enforcement trace back the history of a gun used in a crime, according to Democratic aides. Republicans, however, believe that records of private sales could put an undue burden on gun owners or could be perceived by gun rights advocates as a precursor to a national gun registry.

Keeping records is registration, and if you can show me an example of a nation where registration didn’t lead to confiscation and the disarmament of the citizenry I’d love to see it. This is the necessary precursor for a police state, and the conditions that led to the deaths of 262 million from their own governments in the 20th Century alone.

Any politician that supports this law is placing a death sentence on the liberty of your children, and should be treated as an outlaw.

Update: I’d almost forgotten that the NRA obtained an Obama Administration DOJ memo calling for registration/confiscation:

The memo, under the name of one of the Justice Department’s leading crime researchers, critiques the effectiveness of gun control proposals, including some of President Barack Obama’s. A Justice Department official called the memo an unfinished review of gun violence research and said it does not represent administration policy. 
The memo says requiring background checks for more gun purchases could help, but also could lead to more illicit weapons sales. It says banning assault weapons and high capacity ammunition magazines produced in the future but exempting those already owned by the public, as Obama has proposed, would have limited impact because people now own so many of those items. 
It also says that even total elimination of assault weapons would have little overall effect on gun killings because assault weapons account for a limited proportion of those crimes. 
The nine-page document says the success of universal background checks would depend in part on “requiring gun registration,” and says gun buybacks would not be effective “unless massive and coupled with a ban.”


Disarming American Women

The Left’s weapon of choice against rapists: pens, urine, vomit, tears. (but not guns)
By Michelle Malkin 

If radical gun-grabbers have their way, your daughters, mothers, and grandmothers will have nothing but whistles, pens, and bodily fluids with which to defend themselves against violent attackers and sexual predators. Women of all ages, races, and political backgrounds should be up in arms over the coordinated attack on their right to bear arms. 
In Colorado this week, male Democratic legislators assailed concealed-carry supporters and disparaged female students who refuse to depend on the government for protection. The Democrat-controlled House passed a statewide ban on concealed-carry weapons on college campuses, along with several other extreme gun-control measures that will undermine citizen safety and drive dozens of businesses out of the state. 
Representative Joe Salazar asserted condescendingly that young women can’t be trusted to assess threatening situations at their colleges or universities: “It’s why we have call boxes, it’s why we have safe zones, it’s why we have the whistles,” Salazar said during floor debate. “Because you just don’t know who you’re gonna be shooting at. And you don’t know if you feel like you’re gonna be raped, or if you feel like someone’s been following you around, or if you feel like you’re in trouble when you may actually not be.” 
Senator Jessie Ulibarri, another elitist Colorado Democrat, argued that instead of firing back at a crazed gunman, innocent victims would be better off using “ballpoint pens” to stab at the gunman when he stops to reload. 
Representative Paul Rosenthal, another Colorado Democrat, told women to rely on the “buddy system” instead. And on Tuesday, after personally lobbying Colorado Democrats to restrict self-defense options, Vice President Joe Biden blithely dismissed a woman’s concerns about family security. He advised her, “You don’t need an AR-15” — even though it is the long arm of choice of 3 million law-abiding citizens, half of whom are veterans, law-enforcement officers, or both. 
The presumptuous paternalism of gun-grabbing male Democrats is not confined to the political arena. On college campuses across the country, the literal disarming of women is standard operating procedure. At the University of Colorado at Colorado Springs, officials advise women on the most effective strategy: “Passive resistance may be your best defense.” The school’s recommendation to young women: “Tell your attacker that you have a disease or are menstruating.” 
If that fails, it’s time to deploy other assault bodily fluids! No joke. UCCS seriously advises potential victims: “Vomiting or urinating may also convince the attacker to leave you alone.”
In a quick survey of campus tips for women, Twitchy.com editor Jenn Taylor notes that at the State University of New York at Plattsburgh, officials give women the same advice: “Passive resistance (vomiting, urinating, telling the attacker you’re diseased or menstruating) may be your best defense.” The University of Wisconsin Oshkosh tells girls to “cry or create a scene of emotional or mental instability.” Instead of a Glock, the school would prefer that students take a page from Glee. Yes, ladies, when you fear for your lives, it’s time to engage in theatrics by faking a “faint” or “seizure.” And at Oregon State, female students are advised to tell sexual predators they are “sick or pregnant,” because guns and knives are banned on campus. 
As I’ve noted before, colleges and universities have become coddle industries. Big Nanny administrators oversee speech codes, segregated dorms, politically correct academic departments, and designated “safe spaces” to selectively protect students from speech the Left deems “hateful.” Instead of teaching students to defend their beliefs, American educators shield them from vigorous intellectual debate. As goes the erosion of intellectual self-defense, so goes the erosion of physical self-defense. Instead of encouraging autonomy, our higher institutions of learning stoke passivity and conflict-avoidance. 
Where are the War on Women warriors of the Left when you need them? Paging Ashley Judd, Eva Longoria, Sandra Fluke, and every indignant feminist who (rightly) took Todd “legitimate rape” Akin to task — as I did — last fall. The sexist stance of gun-grabbers goes far beyond Akin-esque junk science about magical wombs that can prevent pregnancy. The idea that women can’t be trusted to know when they are at risk takes direct aim at their very sovereignty and security. 

It’s anti-self-determination. It’s anti-freedom. It’s anti-choice.


Sunday, February 24, 2013

Pic of the day: Who is your first responder?

Picture of the day: Teach your daughters to shoot, because a restraining order is just a piece of paper.

Citizen, Templar & EFI have now joined Olympic, LaRue, and York in boycotting sales to NYC

More gun companies not selling to law enforcement in anti-2nd Amendment states

When this first cropped up in the news, I thought it was just some sort of outlier. Here in the Empire State, where one of the nastiest gun grabbing laws in recent memory was passed last month, USA Today reported that some gun companies were refusing to do business with law enforcement agencies, claiming that they supported the citizens more than the government.
Some gun manufacturers say they will no longer sell their firearms to New York law enforcement agencies after the state passed a broad assault-weapons ban last month.
At least five companies have said they won’t sell to New York police since Gov. Andrew Cuomo signed the Safe Ammunition and Firearms Enforcement Act in January. The bill, known as the NY SAFE Act, included a ban on any semi-automatic rifles or shotguns with “military-style” features, such as a pistol grip or a folding stock.
The companies included Olympic Arms, LaRue Tactical, York Arms, Templar Custom and EFI. I had immediate mixed emotions about the story. On the one hand, I was pleased to see the industry putting principle ahead of profit in standing up to such an odious law. But at the same time, I was sympathetic to our first responders, not wanting to see them in a situation where they might have less access to the tools for their job when it wasn’t the cops who crafted these laws, but the politicians. But, as I said, it seemed like an isolated thing, and they would surely find other resources for tactical weapons, so I didn’t pay it much mind.

Now, as reported at The Blaze, this seems to be turning into more of a trend, involving dozens of gun companies shutting off their business in multiple states.

The list of companies that have stopped selling firearms and ammunition to law enforcement agencies in states that are restricting the Second Amendment has more than doubled since Wednesday and is more than five times larger than just one week ago. There are 42 companies on our list, with more being added as we receive notification…

It’s worth a trip to their article, particularly since they include corporate statements released by a number of these companies explaining their actions. Here’s one sample from Citizen Arms:

”Due to legal, ethical and moral concerns, Citizen Arms offers only those custom firearms that are legal for all lawful citizens of a given state to possess, regardless of law enforcement status. LE personnel living in states where citizens must have restrictive features will only receive like product support from Citizen Arms. We’re very appreciative of the sacrifices made by the law enforcement community but we’re even more appreciative of the right guaranteed to all law-abiding US citizens by the Second Amendment to the US Constitution: A well regulated militia, necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”.

Powerful stuff. We’ll have to drag some lawyers in here to figure out the details, but I don’t think there’s anything illegal about the companies refusing to sell to these law enforcement agencies. And it still seems likely that all of the agencies will still find somebody to sell to them. In the end this looks mostly like a morality statement – and a fine one at that – which won’t actually change anything directly.

But if enough voters catch wind of it and recognize the serious nature of this debate, perhaps they’ll stop electing the sort of people who enact laws like this and the companies can return to business as normal.


The Current Gun Control Debate isn't a "Debate" at All.

Weighing the Gun Control Argument
By William Sullivan

It is a bit misleading to call our current national discussion about gun control a "debate."  Simply put, politicians and the media directing the discussion aren't interested in evidence or conclusions contrary to those that they have a vested interest in disseminating.  They are interested merely in silencing any opposition, and they rely on their devoted acolytes to continue empowering them to do so.

It's about belief for these acolytes, not proof.  Because they believe in the moral imperative, whether or not facts support their beliefs is unimportant.  They just blindly accept that what they've been told is true, and they look upon those who believe otherwise as dangerous heretics.

Yet in a somewhat intellectually quixotic self-perception, these gun-control zealots declare themselves the rational thinkers on the subject and believe their conclusions infallible, despite the fact that the hypotheses to which they are so devoted are rarely measured in the crucible of evidence.

Consider the most basic of their arguments -- that access to guns needs to be restricted by the government, because access to guns is the most convincing variable that determines murder rates in our society.  Let's just briefly weigh that assertion in the balance, and see how well it holds up to scrutiny.

In 1960, data suggests that there were roughly 77.5 million guns owned by a population of just over 179 million, meaning that there was somewhere in the neighborhood of 4.3 guns per 10 Americans.  In that year, the murder rate in America was roughly 5.1 per 100,000 Americans.

Fast-forward to 2009.  According to a Congressional Research Service report by William J. Krouse, 310 million guns were owned by Americans in that year by a population estimated to be 307 million, meaning there were probably more guns in America than there were Americans.

Now pause a moment, and remember that gun-control advocates contend that there exists a positive correlation between the number of readily accessible guns and the number of murders.  If true, we might expect such a surge in gun ownership (and guns that are owned are as readily accessible as guns get) to yield a much higher murder rate.  But in fact, the murder rate was lower in 2009 than in 1960 -- at 5.0 per 100,000 Americans.  

Such inconsistency and an obviously flawed hypothesis might send a reasonable person back to the drawing board.  But gun control zealots just double down and get more specific.  Currently, the fashionable tactic is to appear a bit centrist by suggesting that it's not all guns or the Second Amendment that they oppose, but rather just those scary looking semi-automatic guns people call "assault weapons" and high-capacity magazines.  No one needs that kind of gun, and no one needs to fire that many bullets, they argue.

In terms of the practical purpose of the Second Amendment -- that is, the preservation of individual liberty -- it should be obvious, as I have argued before, why such weapons and such payloads are essential, and explicit in the verbiage of the Second Amendment is unquestionable proof that the federal government has no legal right to infringe upon a law-abiding American's right to own them.  But since it is a common objection among the left that supporters of gun rights cling to their archaic Constitution (or that "little book," as Piers Morgan calls it), rather than just accepting the idea that a new assault weapons ban would curtail violence, let's examine a bit of data surrounding their claim.

That data can tell a pretty simple story to those willing to hear it.  The 1994 Federal Assault Weapons Ban expired in 2004, and in that year, the murder rate was 5.5 per 100,000 Americans.  In 2011, that murder rate had declined to 4.7 per 100,000 Americans, which, incidentally, is the lowest murder rate in nearly four decades.  If the laws banning "assault weapons" were so incredibly effective, why have murder rates significantly fallen since it expired?  Not only did the federal government lift laws restricting "assault weapons," but since then, many states expanded "concealed carry" rights, meaning that guns were all the more prevalent in public life during these years, with both criminals and the law-abiding being totally aware of that fact -- and the result was a lower murder rate.

This is not to say the data shows a constant trend opposite of the one that gun control advocates suggest.  Murder rates have vacillated in big swings throughout the years, sometimes rising, sometimes falling, despite the fact that gun ownership has steadily increased.  Therefore, we must accept that more guns don't always result in less murder, either, in terms of the data.  The point, however, is that the primary hypotheses that are the foundation of current gun control arguments are fatally flawed.  Neither the presence of guns (whether semi-automatic or outfitted with a large payload) nor the laws restricting them (which lawless murderers invariably ignore) are the most convincing variable that determines rates of murder in this country.  

It would certainly be valuable to have a discussion about how we can best reduce incidents of murder in America.  But it should be a discussion based upon reason, not emotional agendas to rob Americans of their fundamental liberties based upon specious and unsubstantiated arguments.  There are far more convincing variables to explain high rates of murder, whether we're talking about large quantities of unheralded murders or isolated and sensationalized killing sprees.  And regarding the latter, considering that it has recently surfaced that Adam Lanza's likely motivation for the massacre in Newtown was to surpass Oslo spree-killer Anders Breivik in notoriety, it might make sense that we examine the practical impact of the self-centered nature of our culture that values celebrity above all things.  And maybe it is a good idea to address the media's sensationalism of the actions of demented spree-killers like Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, Seung-Hui Cho, Jared Loughner, Anders Breivik, and Aurora shooter James Holmes, all of whom were granted larger-than-life notoriety by the media for their actions.

But at these suggestions, gun control advocates generally return full circle to that flawed argument with which we began -- that fewer guns and more gun control are the answer to curtail murder in America.  It's as if the above-mentioned data roundly disproving the claim never existed, and they go on arguing their hypothesis in other ways, like comparing this place that has gun control to that place that doesn't.

For example, gun-control advocates are very quick to point out that England has a lower murder rate than America and extremely restrictive gun control laws.  Notably absent from these keen observations, however, is the multitude of comparisons where the opposite is true, such as a comparison between America and, say, Russia, which has extremely strict gun control laws and few guns, but a murder rate that eclipses our own.

Of course, they generally neglect to use domestic examples, too, and with good reason -- the opposite of their contention is almost invariably true in domestic comparisons.  Urban areas, for example, typically have stricter gun control laws and lower rates of gun ownership than rural areas, yet they have much higher murder rates.  And then there is the glaring example of Obama's hometown, Chicago, which proudly touts its extremely progressive gun control laws while owning the highest murder rate in the nation.  But that doesn't stop the devout masses from cheering in passionate agreement when the president suggests, with a repetitive cadence that would make Goebbels proud, that Chicago-style gun regulation be applied federally.
The implication of such ignorance is too grave to find any humor in that sad irony.

The hypothesis we should be discussing is that cultural factors are much more convincing variables correlating to murder rates.  Take the consideration that widespread poverty and unemployment could have potentially contributed to the spike in murder rates in the late seventies, or that the proliferation of a culture of gang violence likely contributed to the sustained high murder rates in the early nineties, or the possibility that our current culture of celebrity and sensationalized violence is perhaps now leading to isolated spree-killing endeavors, if one is to take Adam Lanza's supposed motive into consideration.

If there is to be any progress in the gun control "debate," America must forego the commonly held fallacy that gun regulations upon the law-abiding will regulate the lawless.  Until then, we may be doomed to have reasonable arguments against gun control fall on deaf ears.


SCOTUS Ruling is a BIG WIN for CCW in Illinois!

SAF win confirmed: Illinois has just months to create concealed carry laws, or defaults to constitutional carry

The Second Amendment Foundation today won a significant victory for concealed carry when the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals let stand a December ruling by a three-judge panel of the court that forces Illinois to adopt a concealed carry law, thus affirming that the right to bear arms exists outside the home.

The ruling came in Moore v. Madigan, a case filed by SAF. The December opinion that now stands was written by Judge Richard Posner, who gave the Illinois legislature 180 days to “craft a new gun law that will impose reasonable limitations, consistent with the public safety and the Second Amendment…on the carrying of guns in public.” That clock is ticking, noted SAF Executive Vice President Alan Gottlieb.

“Illinois lawmakers need to create some kind of licensing system or face the prospect of not having any regulations at all when Judge Posner’s deadline arrives,” Gottlieb said. “They need to act. They can no longer run and hide from this mandate.”
“We were delighted with Judge Posner’s ruling in December,” he continued, “and today’s decision by the entire circuit to allow his ruling to stand is a major victory, and not just for gun owners in Illinois. Judge Posner’s ruling affirmed that the right to keep and bear arms, itself, extends beyond the boundary of one’s front door.”
In December, Judge Posner wrote, “The right to ‘bear’ as distinct from the right to ‘keep’ arms is unlikely to refer to the home. To speak of ‘bearing’ arms within one’s home would at all times have been an awkward usage. A right to bear arms thus implies a right to carry a loaded gun outside the home.”
Judge Posner subsequently added, “To confine the right to be armed to the home is to divorce the Second Amendment from the right of self-defense described in Heller and McDonald.”

While Democrats have a 40-19 advantage in the Illinois Senate and a 71-47 advantage in the legislature, the Republicans have a distinct advantage: time. They can filibuster, delay, amend and otherwise obstruct the sort of draconian “may-issue” legislation the Democrats would prefer in favor of the more commonly accepted “shall-issue”permitting that is prevalent in the rest of the nation.

If Democrats refuse to work with Republicans on “shall issue” permitting, then clever Republicans—if they exist in Illinois—can threaten to use parliamentary procedures to run out the clock, which expires in June. If that occurs, residents will have constitutional carry: any gun, almost anywhere, at any time.

There is no way Illinois Democrats would let that happen, so it will be interesting to see how the minority Republicans choose to play the strong hand that they’ve been dealt.


Friday, February 22, 2013

NEMO Arms, Inc. joins Gun Manufacturer boycott against NYC

NEMO arms Inc. has joined the NYC LEO boycott, along with York Arms, Olympics arms, and others.

Don't Tread On Me

Don’t Tread On Me

Need? We need not justify.
By Frank Sharpe

When asked what I do for a living I reply: I teach people how to shoot people. I teach people how to shoot people because some people need to be shot – and they need to be shot NOW.

I have found that in the long run sugarcoating reality rarely produces good results. Yes, it might make some people “feel” better, but feelings and reality are often polar opposites. Pretending something is what it is not only postpones judgment day, and the longer it’s ignored, the higher the price.

26 years ago I began my involvement with “gun rights”. I had a good grasp on what Article II of the Bill of Rights was about then, and my thoughts haven’t changed since. Article II is about the individual’s ability to shoot tyrants – plain and simple. It has nothing to do with hunting, collecting or competition. And tyranny, as I define it, may appear in the form of a rapist in the alley, a mob during civil unrest, an invading military, or one’s own government.

I personally own no “sporting arms.” I own and train with auto-loading, magazine fed weapons; rifles and pistols which are designed to get hot and function during conflict. Most are black and “scary looking”, and that suits me just fine – I’m not in the rainbows and unicorns business, I’m in the force business. What I, and thousands of other instructors around the country do, is provide the necessary skills that Americans need to deploy firearms in tyranny’s direction. We don’t teach people how to play games or take quail; we teach people how to effectively launch bullets into the bodies of tyrants.

And to such tyrants, my advice is this:

If you don’t want to find yourself on the business end of my rifle, then behave yourself.

As long as there is a free exchange of goods and services, a system of justice, a redress of grievances and I’m free to walk unmolested, there will be no problem. If not, expect trouble.

Joe Biden and Diane Feinstein may pretend that they don’t understand such things, but they do. They understand perfectly what AR-15′s are for, and that’s exactly why their bodyguards have them. You see, like most criminals, they aren’t interested in a fight. They came about their power the old fashioned way, they lied, cheated and stole their way to the point where they are protected by men with guns at taxpayer expense.

The notion of armed peasants in “their kingdom” scares the living hell out of them. It interferes with their plan. They know they are up to no good, and they know that someday the population will be on to them – If not them specifically, then some future generation of socialist/fascist tyrants who worship them as gods. They also understand that a willing population armed with semi-automatic battle rifles can only be pushed so far. That they work so hard to disarm us should be a clue to anyone paying attention.

I understand and accept the responsibility of liberty. To be free, one must be willing to fight for it…not just on civic level (letter writing, voting, jury duty, etc…), but all the way up to the use of physical force. In my opinion, it is the right, responsibility and duty of every able free person, to own, train with, and be willing to use, arms. Real arms – not your great uncle’s duck gun – but weapons of war.

It is far past time for us to take control of the debate. We need to stop making excuses for why we own guns, and we need to stop apologizing for our personal liberty.

We are not subjects.
We are not serfs.
We are not slaves.

Some will never understand that, and so be it. However, there are millions who have never considered such things, and they never will if we continue to pretend that our guns have any other use than to force the expiration of tyranny.

We are free people, armed to the teeth – And we should not be interested in living any other way!

Have no shame about it.

Frank Sharpe
Fortress Defense Consultants


Wednesday, February 20, 2013

Texas Proposal Would Make Local Police Enforcement Of Federal Gun Laws A Crime

Police officers could be charged with a crime for enforcing new federal gun control laws in Texas under a proposal by a lawmaker who acknowledges the measure likely would end up in the U.S. Supreme Court.

Rep. Steve Toth, a newly elected Republican from the Woodlands, said his proposal would prevent officers from carrying out any future federal orders to confiscate assault rifles and ammunition magazines.


IDIOCRACY: VP Joe Biden and his "Shotgun Jill" moment (ie: advice that will get you arrested or dead)

"I said, 'Jill, if there's ever a problem, just walk out on the balcony ... take that double-barrel shotgun and fire two blasts outside the house. You don't need an AR-15. It's harder to aim, it's harder to use and in fact, you don't need 30 rounds to protect yourself." 
-Joe Biden 

By Jon Summers

 To me this shows how little Biden knows about handling a firearm and Laws in one sentence.  Lets break it down *logically* a section at a time:

  1. If someone is trying to break into your home the LAST thing you want to do is walk out on the balcony, or do anything to give away your position. Much less back yourself into a dead end with no cover. 
  2. Gun safety rules say to never shoot unless you are sure of your target ... so just "firing two blasts" into the air or anywhere else is patently unsafe, period. 
  3. It is illegal in most states to fire a "warning shot" or just to shoot into the air because it is, you guessed it, unsafe. 
  4.  It is harder to aim? Lets see, you are a 5' 2" woman shooting a double barrel shotgun that kicks like a mule, only has two shots, really does not have a precision sight system at all, generally has a long 28" barrel (sometimes 30+ inches) and weighs 9 to 12lbs VS An AR-15 that was *designed* to not have much recoil, has 20 to 30 rounds, has a precision sight system, normally has a 18" barrel, and weighs around 8lbs. 
  5. You don't need X number of rounds to defend yourself? If you go and look at ANY study done on police shootings alone, you will see that it normally takes 17+ rounds to get ONE hit on a target. This is NOT like the movies folks! One shot is not an automatic hit! People dodge and move and stress makes it harder to aim. 
  6.  Corollary to 5 that is another movie myth: You don't have to aim with a shotgun. Totally not true. Contrary to movie/popular belief a load of 00 Buck only has 8 pellets and at "normal house ranges" will only have a 2" pattern so you STILL HAVE TO AIM! 
  7. Again, safety. Contrary to popular belief a shotgun 00 Buck load will go through more drywall than a .223 bullet will. the .223 bullet is so small and light that it literally will disintegrate or lose much of its power after hitting two sheets of drywall....look it up... Shotgun 00 Buck penetrates MUCH more... as in 8 sheets of drywall more... 

So lets see, on all levels this statement by Biden is full of fallacies, things that will get you hurt, or arrested and tossed in jail.... 

 How can you legislate something that you *very obviously* have no idea what you are talking about on the subject?

DHS is aiming to kill YOU.

We've already heard from multiple sources that DHS has recently purchased enough ammo to supply a 24 year war, and concerns have been raised over why such a huge amount of ammo is necessary.  Now we have new information on who their targets might be.  As feared, it is us.

Human rights activits get mad when civilians shoot at nondescript silhouettes with a shadow and center mass rings, saying they are too realistic.  I wonder what they'd say to this.

The target practice that DHS will be drilling includes realistic full color targets of normal US citizens including elderly, children, and pregnant mothers bearing the reminder "NO HESITATION" and calling them "the threat".

A provider of “realistic” shooting targets to the Department of Homeland Security and other federal agencies has created a line of “non-traditional threat” targets that include pregnant women, mothers in playgrounds and elderly American gun owners.


Gun Control and the Changing American Character

February 19, 2013

A staple of American self-esteem is that we Yanks are brave, free, independent, self-reliant, ruggedly individual, and disinclined to accept abuse from anyone. This was largely true in, say, 1930. People lived, a great many of them, on farms where they planted their own crops, built their own barns, repaired their own trucks, and protected their own property. They were literate but not educated, knew little of the world beyond the local, but in their homes and fields they were supreme.

If they wanted to swim buck nekkid in the creek, they swam buck nekkid. If whistle pigs were eating the corn, the family teenager would get his rifle and solve the problem. Government left them alone.

Even in the early Sixties, in rural King George County, Virginia, where I grew up, it was still mostly true. The country people built their own boats to crab in the Potomac, converted junked car engines to marine, made their own crab pots, planted corn and such, and hunted deer. There was very little contact with the government. One state trooper was the law, and he had precious little to do.

I say the following not as an old codger painting his youth in roseate hues that never were, but as serious sociology: We kids could get up on a summer morning, grab the .22 or .410, put it over our shoulder and go into the country store for ammunition, and no one looked twice. We could go by night to the dump to snap-shoot rats, and no one cared. We could get our fishing poles—I preferred a spinning reel and bait-casting tackle—and fish anywhere we pleased on Machodoc Creek or the Potomac. We could drive unwisely but joyously on winding wooded roads late at night and nobody cared.

Call it “freedom.” We were free, and so were the country folk on their farms and with their crabbing rigs. Because we were free, we felt free.  It was a distinct psychology, though we didn’t know it.
Things then changed. The country increasingly urbanized. So much for rugged.

It became ever more a nation of employees. As Walmart and shopping centers and factories moved in, the farmers sold their land to real-estate developers at what they thought mind-boggling prices, and went to work as security guards and truck drivers. Employees are not free. They fear the boss, fear dismissal, and become prisoners of the retirement system.  So much for Marlboro Man.

Self-reliance went. Few any longer can fix a car or the plumbing, grow food, hunt, bait a hook or install a new roof. Or defend themselves. To overstate barely, everyone depends on someone else, often the government, for everything. Thus we becamethe Hive.

Government came like a dust storm of fine choking powder, making its way into everything. You could no longer build a shed without a half-dozen permits and inspections. You couldn’t swim without a lifeguard, couldn’t use your canoe without Coast-Guard approved flotation devices and a card saying that you had taken an approved course in how to canoe. Cops proliferated with speed traps. The government began spying on email, requiring licenses and permits for everything, and deciding what could and could not be taught to one’s children, who one had to associate with, and what one could think about what or, more usually, whom.

With this came feminization. The schools began to value feelings over learning anything. Dodge ball and freeze tag became violence and heartless competition, giving way to cooperative group activities led by a caring adult. The preference for security over freedom set in like a hard frost. We became afraid of second-hand smoke and swimming pools with a deep end. As [the administration] got in touch with their inner totalitarian, we began to outlaw large soft drinks and any word or expression that might offend anyone.

Thus much of the country morphed into helpless flowers, narcissistic, easily frightened, profoundly ignorant video-game twiddlers and Facebook Argonauts. As every known poll shows, even what purport to be college graduates do not know  who fought in World War One, or that there was a Mexican-American war, or where Indochina is.

Serving as little more than cubicle fodder, they could not survive a serious crisis like the first Depression. And they look to the collective, the hive, for protection. The notion of individual self-defense, whether with a fist or a Sig 9, is, you know, like scary, or, well, just wrong or macho or something. I mean, if you find an intruder in your house at night, shouldn’t you, like, call a caring adult?

The echoes of the former America linger in commercials in commercials for pickup trucks with throaty bass voices and footage of Toyotas powering through rough unsettled country that almost no one ever even sees these days.  Mostly it’s just marketing to suburban blossoms. The number of vehicles with four-wheel drive that have actually been off a paved road is not high.

Many who grew up in the former America, and a good many today in the South and west, substantially adhere to the old values. They won’t last. We live in the day of the Hive, and in the long run there is no point fighting it.

But for these relics, who like to wind the Harley to a hundred-and-climbing on the big empty roads out west, who throw the deer rifle in the gun rack on the first day of the season, who set out into the High Desert for sheer love of sun and barren rock and sprawling isolation—the terror of guns, of everything, makes no sense.

They—we—grew up with guns. Since nobody ever shot anybody accidentally or otherwise, we accepted as obvious: that people, not guns, committed murder. Did shotguns leap into the air of their own volition, point themselves, and open fire? Or did someone pull the trigger? If a murderer shot his victim, did you put the gun in jail, or the murderer? If remote urban barbarians below the level of civilization shot people, what did that have to do with us?

A different America, a different culture. We really were free. You could come out of the house on a summer morning and let the dogs run loose in the fields, nobody ever having heard of a dog license. You could change the oil in your car or rewire your basement without the county meddling. You could shoot varmints eating your garden and no one cared. The government left you alone. This is not an unimportant part of the dispute over guns—wanting to be left alone. Nobody in America, ever again, is going to be left alone. Not ever.


Sheriff Warns Of “Second American Revolution” If Gun Grabbers Get Their Way

By Steve Watson

A Milwaukee County Sheriff has warned that a second American Revolution may be sparked if unconstitutional gun laws are enforced by police and sheriff’s department officials.

Sheriff David Clarke recently urged the citizens he serves to consider learning firearm safety because of “a duty to protect yourself and your family.”

In a message posted on the Sheriff’s website, Clarke wrote “I need you in the game, but are you ready? With officers laid-off and furloughed, simply calling 9-1-1 and waiting is no longer your best option. You can beg for mercy from a violent criminal, hide under the bed, or you can fight back; but are you prepared?”
“Consider taking a certified safety course in handling a firearm so you can defend yourself until we get there. You have a duty to protect yourself and your family. We’re partners now. Can I count on you?” the message urged.

Speaking on the Alex Jones Show yesterday, the Sheriff hit home his opinions on the gun control proposals that are being pushed via presidential executive orders.

“First of all, to me that would be an act of tyranny. So the people in Milwaukee County do not have to worry about me enforcing some sort of order that goes out and collects everybody’s handgun, or rifles, or any kind of firearm and makes them turn them in.” Clarke said.

“The reason is I don’t want to get shot, because I believe that if somebody tried to enforce something of that magnitude, you would see the second coming of an American Revolution, the likes of which would make the first revolution pale by comparison.” the Sheriff urged.

Like Alex Jones, Sheriff Clarke also recently appeared on CNN’s Piers Morgan Tonight, in an interview that was clearly set up by Morgan in a failed attempt to demonize lawful gun owners and push the idea of strict gun control. During the broadcast Morgan said that Clarke’s plea regarding citizens arming themselves would “turn Milwaukee into the Wild Wild West”.

“This has nothing to do with violence reduction because the type of violence that we’re talking about, that I see on the streets in the Milwaukee area on a daily basis is not even committed using the weapons that the left is trying to ban.” Clarke told Jones’ listeners.

“They are not using assault rifles, they are not using high capacity magazines, they are not buying their ammo over the internet. The criminals couldn’t care less about a background check, so that tells me that this is ingenuous.” he added.

“If they were serious about violence reduction, they would get behind me… and join me arm in arm in calling for longer periods of incarceration for repeat career criminals who have demonstrated over and over again that they are going to get a hand gun, that they are going to get a firearm and perpetrate violence.” Clarke noted.

The Sheriff added that a recent a Sikh temple shooting in his County a few months ago was perpetrated by an individual who passed a firearms background check.

“My understanding is the creep in Aurora Colorado who shot up the theatre, also passed a background check.” Clarke said. “This isn’t about background checks, of which the overwhelming majority of gun transfers go on anyway.”

“This is about attacking the Second Amendment, it’s about going after the wrong crowd.” The Sheriff posited.

Asked why he believed such strict measures were being pushed by the Obama administration at this time, the Sheriff pointed toward a general push for increased governmental control over society.

“Government control cannot go on as long as people have some sort of ability to say ‘hey wait just a doggone minute’.” The Sheriff told listeners. “That’s what the government fears, they don’t really fear the criminals, they support the criminals. What they fear is a law abiding person.” he added.

“Read the Declaration of Independence, it’s right there where a law abiding people say ‘enough is enough, you are exerting too much influence in our lives, this is tyrannical and we’re going to stop it,’ that’s what they are worried about.” he concluded.


Comcast Bans Gun Advertisements

Comcast To Firearms Shops: Your Money’s No Good Here
By Christy Strawser

Williams Gun Sight and Outfitters in Davison, Mich., said they learned their money’s no good with Comcast when the cable giant rejected their advertising because they no longer accept ads promoting firearms or fireworks.

The change in policy happened February 8 after a deal that gave Comcast controlling interest in NBC Universal, which previously had a policy of not accepting firearms ads.

But Comcast is the monopoly cable provider in two-thirds of the markets in the country, said John Kupiec, president of the advertising agency Canadian American Corp., so their policy now affects every cable channel and major network. And it affects major advertisers including Cabela’s and Walmart.

“The next step is we want to get the lawmakers on Capitol Hill to review the monopolistic rights this company (Comcast) currently enjoys as the largest cable provider in the United States,” Kupiec said, adding as a last resort, his firm will consider legal action.

Kupiec first discovered the firearms ad ban when he tried to place an ad for Williams Gun Sight, and was told by Comcast they’ll no longer air them.

“Comcast Spotlight has decided it will not accept new advertising for firearms or weapons moving forward,” the company said in a press statement. “This policy aligns us with the guidelines in place at many media organizations.”

Williams Gun Sight staffers think it’s a hypocritical, anti-constitutional stance.

“We’re a perfectly legal company selling a perfectly legal product and they have chosen us out of all the industries out there to make a stand on what’s right or wrong,” said Williams’ chief operating officer Dan Compeau, adding they’re one of the largest firearms retailers in Michigan.

Compeau added his company spent a “good portion of their advertising” on Comcast. “We were totally caught off guard by it,” he added. “All these TV stations are taking millions, if not billions, from alcohol companies — and alcohol deaths, alcohol sickness … way outpaces anything a gun can do. They’re two-faced.

“We follow all the rules and regulations, they’ve picked us to be holier than thou about … There are a lot of other issues out there that they ignore. I’m sure they air many other shows where people get shot, killed, blown up.”

Compeau put out word on his company’s Facebook page about the Comcast ad ban and said thousands of people responded. The post got 971 shares and 422 comments, including this from customer Philip Novack: “Just called Comcast and cancelled. I am tired of my $$ going to support anti 2nd amendment corporations. I can’t believe the way they talk out both sides by showing gun violence every single night but won’t accept $$ from a legitimate, legal, honest business like Williams! ENOUGH! Time to take a stand!”

Kupiec said he’s been in the advertising business since 1980 and this is the first major ban of its kind he’s experienced. “If you’re a gun range, if you sell firearms, ammunition, whatever, they will not accept your advertising,” he said. “That applies to The Outdoor Channel, NBC Sports … If I wanted to buy The Discovery Channel, Comcast will not allow those advertisements on the air.”

He added he thinks it’s a violation of his constitutional rights. “I’m an avid hunter and I believe this is a direct threat on the Second Amendment, a direct assault on legal businesses in the United States, and I think it’s antitrust.”


Tuesday, February 19, 2013

Breaking News: Colorado house passes four new strict gun control laws.

I guess I'm not going to go to vacation in Colorado anymore.  They just banned campus carry, and standard capacity magazines, as well as requiring universal background checks.

The Democrat-controlled (37-28) Colorado House of Representatives had four gun control bills on its docket for final passage today. 
  • HB 1229 requires universal background checks. 
  • HB1226 revokes campus carry. 
  • HB 1228 passes the cost of running CBI background checks on to prospective gun buyers 
  • HB1224 would limit magazine capacity to 15 rounds. 
Given the heavy Dem majority, no one expected any of the four civilian disarmament bills to be defeated and no one’s expectations were dashed.
All four bills will now move onto the Democrat-controlled Senate where they’re expected to pass.


Guns for Girls - Women are the fastest growing demographic of gun owners.

Gun ownership on the rise among women 
By Stephanie Gosk

A Gallup poll reported that in 2005, 13 percent of all women owned a gun. That number jumped to 23 percent in 2011. Many women say they are buying guns to protect themselves. NBC’s Stephanie Gosk reports.


  • [it is a] growing trend in this country as more and more women are turning to guns to protect themselves. 
  •  A lot of women who believe they need guns for self defense are concernted that help wont get there in time. 
  • Passion Quigley, author of many women's firearms books including "Armed & Female" has noticed big changes in women's attitudes towards guns. Today the number of women buying them is on the rise. 
  • A Gallup poll showed the number of women that owned guns as 13% in 2005. That number jumped to 23% in 2011. 
  • "there aren't many men I know that aren't bigger and stronger than I am. So even in the best [assault] scenario, I'm already at a loss" - Stacy Adams 
  • "We hear that all the time that Women should not have a gun, they don't know how to use it, they are just going to hurt somebody - it's not tru at all" "I know that I'm going to be safe and competent and careful with my firearm. The criminal is not going to do that. So can we please punish the criminals and not the safe law abiding citizen?" 


Democrats say "Women aren't smart enough to identify threats, and shouldn't have guns!"

Yet another example of Democratic politicians claiming to fight for Women's rights when they are, in fact, working against us.
Democrat: Even if you feel like you might get raped, you may not, so no guns for you
Downplaying the threat of rape? Check. Questioning the ability of grown, sentient women to perceive that threat? Check. A man in a position of power presuming to know what’s best for women he knows nothing about? Check. Limiting women’s choices by law in potentially life-threatening situations? Check. Six months ago, this was known as frightful patriarchy. Now, it’s just another member of the [misnamed] "Party of Women doing his part for the good work of gun control." 
In arguing for the disarmament of college students in Colorado this week, state Rep. Joe Salazar suggested a novel method of self-defense for women on campus— just chill, ladies.
"And you don’t know if you feel like you’re gonna be raped, or if you feel like someone’s been following you around or if you feel like you’re in trouble when you may actually not be, that you pop out that gun and you [shoot]around at somebody.” - Rep. Joe Salazar(D)
Well, after all, you might not get raped. In Salazar’s world, not only are women incapable of defending themselves against a physical threat, but they are incapable of even identifying a physical threat, and should therefore be deprived of the ability to try. Empowerment! I guess if you are raped, there’s this…safe zone. Look, colleges are welcome to establish safe zones (though criminals are notoriously unobservant of such signage), call boxes, lighted paths, and whistles to help prevent campus attacks. I have benefited from at least a few of these tools, and begrudge no one their use. But I would also like women who choose to arm themselves, in the event that safe zones, call boxes, lights, and whistles don’t work, to retain the right to their chosen tool of prevention.


Push to keep feds out of state gun markets gains momentum

By Joseph Weber

States across the country are trying to protect gun ownership from the long arm of Washington by proposing bills declaring that firearms made and kept within their borders are not subject to federal restrictions.

Nine states have proposed such legislation since President Obama and fellow Democrats in the Senate began trying to tighten federal gun laws in the wake of several mass shootings that occurred within months of each other.

“There’s a lot of momentum,” Montana activist Gary Marbut told FoxNews.com on Monday.

Marbut was behind the original Firearms Freedom Act, which says the Commerce Clause allowing Congress to regulate inter-state commerce does not apply to the in-state manufacturing, selling and ownership of firearms. Montana passed the bill in 2009.

Since then, a host of other states have tried to pass copycat legislation. Alabama, Georgia, Indiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania and Washington have proposed such legislation since January -- following the Dec. 14, 2012, shooting in which 20 first-graders and six adults were killed inside a Newtown, Conn., elementary school.

However, Montana's legislation is hardly settled law. Shortly after the law passed in his state, the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives wrote Marbut to say federal law still supersedes.
Marbut acknowledges he wrote the legislation to set up a legal challenge and “roll back a half a century of bad precedent.”

The bill is scheduled to finally get its day in court when the Ninth Circuit begins oral arguments March 4. Marbut expects to lose in the liberal-leaning court, which includes San Francisco, Seattle and Portland, Ore. But he thinks such a decision will put him in a better position to appeal to the country’s highest court.

“The mood of the country is right for the Supreme Court to consider what I think is a great mistake,” said Marbut.

Marbut, a shooting-range supplier, says existing big-name gun manufacturers are “not players” in the case because they have a nationwide market regulated by federal law. However, small upstart companies including gunsmiths and mom-and-pop operations would likely be able to make and sell guns within states, if the courts rule in his favor.

“Making firearms is not rocket science,” Marbut said.

The proposals have gotten plenty of pushback. State Democratic Rep. Robyn Driscoll criticized the Montana legislature for passing the law at the time, telling The Wall Street Journal a couple years ago that  lawmakers wouldn’t support funding for education or women’s clinics but passed “this blatantly unconstitutional bill to pay for a Supreme Court fight.”

Montana passed the law at a time when gun control still was not widely discussed on Capitol Hill. Now, Obama and Senate Democrats have proposed legislation that essentially calls for a universal background check for potential gun buyers and re-instituting a ban on assault weapons and high-capacity magazines.

While the National Rifle Association and other gun-rights advocacy groups have mounted their opposition based largely on the Second Amendment right to bear arms, Marbut is focused on the 10th Amendment that focuses more on the limits of federal power.  

Eight states including Montana, Arizona, Alaska and Tennessee have passed similar legislation, while 17 have had bills proposed but not passed in prior sessions.


Minnesota & Missouri: You have 6 months to comply - Turn in your guns now!

Breaking News: MN Democrats Introduce Law to Confiscate Guns…
Give Gun Owners 6 Months to Turn in Weapons
by Jim Hoft

Missouri Democrats introduced an anti-gun bill which would turn law-abiding firearm owners into criminals this week. Gun owners will have 90 days to turn in their guns if the legislation is passed.
Dana Loesch has more details.

Here is the language:
4. Any person who, prior to the effective date of this law, was legally in possession of an assault weapon or large capacity magazine shall have ninety days from such effective date to do any of the following without being subject to prosecution: 
(1) Remove the assault weapon or large capacity magazine from the state of Missouri; 
(2) Render the assault weapon permanently inoperable; or 
(3) Surrender the assault weapon or large capacity magazine to the appropriate law enforcement agency for destruction, subject to specific agency regulations. 
5. Unlawful manufacture, import, possession, purchase, sale, or transfer of an assault weapon or a large capacity magazine is a class C felony.

Then there’s this…
Minnesota Democrats are pushing similar legislation using nearly identical language as the Missouri bill.

MN H.F. No. 241, as introduced – 88th Legislative Session (2013-2014) Posted on Jan 31, 2013 
Any person who, on February 1, 2013, legally owns or is in possession of an assault weapon has until September 1, 2013, to do any of the following without being subject to
prosecution under Minnesota Statutes, section 624.7133: 
(1) remove the weapon from the state; 
(2) surrender the weapon to a law enforcement agency for destruction 
(3) render the weapon permanently inoperable; or 
(4) if eligible, register the weapon as provided in Minnesota Statutes, section 624.7133, subdivision 5. 
EFFECTIVE DATE.This section is effective the day following final enactment.



By Jason Howerton

With each proposed anti-gun bill put forth by Democrats across the U.S., the demands appear to be getting more and more restrictive on gun owners. While the Obama administration pushes for a ban on so-called “assault weapons” and universal background checks, Democrats in both California and Missouri have proposed legislation that would result in possible confiscation of semi-automatic rifles.

Now, Democratic lawmakers in Olympia, Wash. last week introduced legislation that would allow county sheriffs to inspect the homes of semi-automatic rifle owners once a year. Seattle Times columnist Danny Westneat describes the move as “Orwellian.”

The proposed bill, Senate Bill 5737, would ban the sale of semi-automatic weapons that use detachable magazines and magazines that contain more than 10 rounds. It would also subject law-abiding gun owners to random searches by a county sheriff.

“In order to continue to possess an assault weapon that was legally possessed on the effective date of this section, the person possessing shall … safely and securely store the assault weapon. The sheriff of the county may, no more than once per year, conduct an inspection to ensure compliance with this subsection,” the bill states.

“They always say, we’ll never go house to house to take your guns away. But then you see this, and you have to wonder,” Seattle trial lawyer Lance Palmer told the Seattle Times.
“I’m a liberal Democrat — I’ve voted for only one Republican in my life,” Palmer added. “But now I understand why my right-wing opponents worry about having to fight a government takeover.”
He also said it’s this type of radical bill that “drives people into the arms of the NRA.”

One of the bill’s sponsors, State Sen. Adam Kline (D-Seattle), told the Seattle Times that he didn’t properly vet the bill prior to jumping on board. He claims he didn’t realize the bill authorized police searches.

“I made a mistake,” he said. “I frankly should have vetted this more closely.”

The legislation’s main sponsor, Sen. Ed Murray (D-Seattle) also blasted the search provision written in his bill, saying it is likely unconstitutional.

“I have to admit that shouldn’t be in there,” he said.

Murray also explained that an assault weapons ban isn’t likely to pass anyhow and the bill was intended to be a blueprint for gun legislation in the future. With the search provision included, the bill has very little chance of passing.

It wasn’t immediately clear which lawmaker wrote the search provision into the bill.

To read the entire bill, click here.


A Tale of Two Cities: Armed Criminals Break in

By Jonathon M. Seidl 
A father protecting his home and his 2-year-old son opened fire on a trio of suspected armed robbers in Virginia on Sunday killing two of them. The third man escaped and is still at large. 
The local sheriff’s department in Prince Edward, VA, says it all unfolded around 4:30am when the three men busted down the door of the man’s home. The homeowner told authorities the men were armed and he exchanged fire with them, killing two of the suspects and sending a third running. A K-9 unit tracked that suspect, but his trail went cold and deputies believe he was picked up by a vehicle. 
The story is in stark contrast to another that gained attention last week in Miami, FL. There, two men broke into a family home in an apparent attempted robbery and held a man’s wife at gunpoint. When they tried to enter the room of the couple’s 11-year-old daughter, he jumped up and fought back. That’s when he was shot and died.

WHY?  Because the Virginina homeowner had a gun and could defend himself, whereas the Florida man did not!


The Most Serious Threat to Our Right to Keep and Bear Arms

This is from The Montana SSA, but is something that every state needs.  please encourage your local senators to sponsor a bill similar to Montana's HB 468.

By Gary Marbut, President of the Montana Shooting Sports Association

I want to inform you about what I think is the most serious threat to our right to Keep and Bear Arms in the U.S. today, much more serious and real than anything Obama or Senator Dianne Feinstein can hope to get through Congress... 
Without ammunition, ammunition components, and especially smokeless powder, our firearms are just awkward and expensive clubs – of no real use. 
You may not know that there are only two facilities in the U.S. today that manufacture smokeless powder. All the rest is imported, from Canada, from Australia, from Scandinavia, from Israel, and elsewhere. 
The sole two facilities in the U.S. are the General Dynamics plant in St. Marks, Florida, and the Alliant/ATK plant in Connecticut. Both General Dynamics and Alliant/ATK are giant government contractors. They make aircraft carriers, space vehicles and other very high-dollar stuff for the U.S. government. 
If Obama were to lean on the Secretary of Defense to float the concern to General Dynamics and Alliant that their next aircraft carrier, submarine or space vehicle contract might be disapproved as long as they are supplying smokeless powder for civilian consumption and use, those sources would dry up overnight. 
Tomorrow, the Secretary of State could sign a letter declaring a moratorium on the import of smokeless powder while the federal government studies the possible connections to “terrorism” or such. That supply would end immediately. 
These two strokes could be accomplished without any bill ever being introduced in or passed by Congress, and without even an Executive Order – just simple administrative action. 
Some people thought I was prescient when I wrote the Nation's first shooting range protection act for Montana in 1990 (passed in 1991), and when I wrote the Firearms Freedom Act for Montana in 2004 (passed in 2009). 
I'm warning you now that our RKBA could be sunk administratively if we don't do something about it, now. I'm sounding the alarm!

That's why I've written HB 468, which will be up for public hearing before the Montana House Taxation Committee this coming Thursday. HB 468 is designed to encourage the production of smokeless powder, small arms primers, and cartridge brass in Montana. 
Why is this encouragement needed? There are serious scale issues with the production of powder (and primers and brass, but especially powder). That's why there are only two powder manufacturers in the U.S. today. All of the small countries of Eastern Europe manufacture their own smokeless powder, but that manufacture is heavily subsidized by the state as a matter of state security, subsidized to overcome the scale issues. 
HB 468 is an attempt to mimic those subsidies. It includes liability protection for manufacturers, access to all existing economic development programs in Montana, and a 20-year tax amnesty for any such business that starts in Montana (not including local share of property tax – politically undoable). It is because of the tax amnesty that HB 468 will come before the House Taxation Committee. 
We will speak of HB 468 primarily as a jobs bill – that it will hopefully create jobs in Montana, jobs we don't have now and we hope HB 468 will stimulate. 
HB 468 costs Montana nothing in terms of lost revenue, because there are no such businesses in Montana today (and I specifically did not include bullet or finished ammo manufacturers so I could pitch this to the Legislature as revenue-neutral). 
My dream is to create a model (like our Shooting Range Protection Act and Montana Firearms Freedom Act did) that other states can clone to generate regional manufacture of powder, primers and brass across the U.S. 
Does HB 468 actually sweeten the opportunity enough to stimulate the desired businesses here and overcome the scale issues? Honestly, I don't know for sure. It's my best first shot. 
I only know that we'd danged well better do something to interdict this catastrophic threat to our RKBA. If I can foresee this threat, the would-be tyrants can foresee it too and act on it.
I really hope those of you who share my concern will make the effort to show up in Helena on Thursday to speak for HB 468 before the House Taxation Committee. It will meet at 9 AM. If you simply cannot be there, send messages to committee members. 
The important points to hit, in testimony or messages, are: 1) the jobs HB 468 will hopefully create, 2) it costs the state nothing because the tax benefit will apply to no existing businesses, 3) independence for Montana and assist for the finished ammo manufacturers now existing in Montana, 4) the liability protection only extends that protection already in place in Montana law for finished ammunition manufacturers, and 5) the import to our RKBA (I recommend you not hit the RKBA as hard as I have stressed it to you here). 
Thanks loads for reading this through. I really believe HB 468 is IMPORTANT to our RKBA.


High school rifle programs foster maturity, teach discipline, responsibility

By Bob Cohn

Brendan Boyle was hanging out with friends, wearing his Woodland Hills High School rifle team sweatshirt, when a passer-by took note, stopped and shared a few thoughts.

It was shortly after the Sandy Hook school shooting in December, and Boyle, a senior and the team captain, cannot recall the exact words. But the gist of the man's unsolicited comments was “It's not safe. Guns shouldn't be in schools,” Boyle said. He added that the man “apologized” but emphasized that he “really wanted to voice his displeasure.”

Boyle recounted the episode after competing in the Western Pennsylvania Interscholastic Athletic League rifle championships last week in North Strabane. Inside a low-ceilinged, bare-bones shooting range, high school boys and girls lying prone on mats fired .22-caliber bullets at paper targets 50 feet away. It was a rigidly supervised and tightly controlled environment. Safety measures were stated and repeated. Tension and the smell of gunpowder hung in the air, a world unto itself.

Meanwhile, on the outside, in what might be considered the real world, the national conversation about gun control and gun violence, gun purchases and gun ownership and all other matters gun related continued to boil, unabated.

Those involved in the sporting aspect of the gun debate (the one that involves shooting paper) are not deaf to the chatter. They are acutely aware of a hot-button topic about which opinions are plentiful and freely stated, sometimes by passing strangers. They are expressed calmly or with great fervor, in black and white or shades of gray. Those involved are acutely aware, too, of their place in such a landscape.

“I grew up with it,” said Jon Hammond, coach of the NCAA top-ranked West Virginia University rifle team, who spent his childhood in Scotland and recalls the 1996 Dunblane massacre in which 16 schoolchildren and a teacher were killed. “For a little while maybe, I think it hurt the sport back home, the way it was viewed.

“But our sport lacks exposure, and so a lot of time people don't necessarily have the knowledge and understanding of what the sport is about, the benefits and the life skills it can teach.”

In other words, “frustration begins where knowledge ends,” said Woodland Hills coach Matt Rodriguez, echoing a popular refrain in the sport.

John Husk, the Trinity High School coach for 25 years and architect of the most successful WPIAL rifle program during that time, is well-armed for the discussion. Husk, who teaches classes in manufacturing and television production and operates a winery, was happy to touch on a number of subjects.

On the matter of security, Husk said guns and ammunition are stored in locked, “bank-quality” vaults, or in safes, and access is rigidly controlled. Safety? “No one's had a concussion; no one's broken a leg,” he said. Knowledge? “My kids have a big respect for firearms because they've been exposed to it.”

His fellow coaches — all certified instructors, nearly all of them lifelong devotees of the sport — gladly chimed in.

“People say they're anti-gun, but they're really anti-violence,” said Hempfield's Tom Miller, coach of the 2013 championship team. “A gun is no more than a tool.”

“It's a physically demanding, mentally demanding sport,” Mt. Lebanon coach Dave Williard said. “One thing about the sport: You can do it as long as you can walk.”

Participating in rifle “has made me more mature,” said Boyle. “It's not like, ‘I'm shooting a gun.' It's having the right mental game, and you can't do that if you're not mature.”

Boyle said he gave a calm, measured — some might say mature — response to the man who approached him, explaining the competitive buzz he gets from the sport, the stringent safety measures and the skill level involved, the team's classroom success, the camaraderie, the discipline and how each participant is “incredibly responsible,” he said.

Boyle, 17, also plays the mellophone, a brass instrument similar to a French horn, in the marching band and is interested in musical theater. He said he has been accepted by three colleges so far. He expresses no firm opinion on the gun issue, mainly because “there's no need to,” he said. “As long as these rifles are in a controlled environment, there's nothing to worry about.”

"It's an organized sport,” she said, “just like any other sporting activity.”


After the 'toughest' gun law, gun crime rose

After the 'toughest' gun law, gun crime rose
by Jeff Jacoby

In 1998, Massachusetts passed what was hailed as the toughest gun-control legislation in the country. Among other stringencies, it banned semiautomatic "assault" weapons, imposed strict new licensing rules, prohibited anyone convicted of a violent crime or drug trafficking from ever carrying or owning a gun, and enacted severe penalties for storing guns unlocked.

But the law that was so tough on law-abiding gun owners had quite a different impact on criminals.

Since 1998, gun crime in Massachusetts has gotten worse, not better. Instead of "lead[ing] the way in cracking down on gun violence," the state has seen gun violence shoot up. In 2011, Massachusetts recorded 122 murders committed with firearms, the Boston Globe reported this month – "a striking increase from the 65 in 1998." Other crimes rose too. Between 1998 and 2011, robbery with firearms climbed 20.7 percent. Aggravated assaults jumped 26.7 percent.

Don't hold your breath waiting for gun-control activists to admit they were wrong. The treatment they prescribed may have yielded the opposite of the results they promised, but they're quite sure the prescription wasn't to blame. Crime didn't rise in Massachusetts because the state made it harder for honest citizens to lawfully carry a gun; it rose because other states didn't do the same thing.

"Massachusetts probably has the toughest laws on the books, but what happens is people go across borders and buy guns and bring them into our state," rationalizes Boston Mayor Tom Menino. "Guns have no borders."

This has become a popular argument in gun-control circles. It may even be convincing to someone emotionally committed to the belief that ever-stricter gun control is a plausible path to safety. But it doesn't hold water.

For starters, why didn't the gun-control lobby warn legislators in 1998 that adopting the toughest gun law in America would do Massachusetts no good unless every surrounding state did the same thing? Far from explaining why the new law would do nothing to curb violent crime, they were positive it would make Massachusetts even safer. It was gun-rights advocates, such as state Senator Richard Moore, who correctly predicted the future. "Much of what has been said in support of this bill will not come to pass," said Moore during the 1998 debate. "The amount of crime we have now will at least continue."

But crime in Massachusetts didn't just continue, it began climbing. As in the rest of the country, violent crime had been declining in Massachusetts since the early 1990s. Beginning in 1998, that decline reversed – unlike in the rest of the country. For example, the state's murder rate (murders per 100,000 inhabitants) bottomed out at 1.9 in 1997 and had risen to 2.8 by 2011. The national murder rate, on the other hand, kept falling; it reached a new low of 4.7 in 2011. Guns-across-borders might have explained homicide levels in Massachusetts continuing unchanged. But how can other states' policies be responsible for an increase in Massachusetts homicides?

Relative to the rest of the country, or to just the states on its borders, Massachusetts since 1998 has become a more dangerous state. Economist John Lott, using FBI crime data since 1980, shows how dramatic the contrast has been. In 1998, Massachusetts' murder rate equaled about 70 percent of the rate for Vermont, New Hampshire, Maine, Connecticut, Rhode Island, and New York. Now it equals 125 percent of that rate. Clearly something bad happened to Massachusetts 15 years ago. Blaming the neighbors may be ideologically comforting. But those aren't the states whose crime rates are up.


Monday, February 18, 2013

Celebrity pro-gun quotes

"If someone has a gun and is trying to kill you, it would be reasonable to shoot back with your own gun."
- Dalai Lama

“I absolutely don’t believe you can put sanctions or shackles on what is made. Nor do I want to pretend the world is different than what we witnessed that night… America is a country founded on guns. It’s in our DNA. It’s very strange but I feel better having a gun. I really do.”
- Brad Pitt

“If anybody comes into my home and tries to hurt my kids, I’ve no problem shooting them.”
- Angelina Jolie

“Everyone has a right to bear arms. If you take guns away from legal gun owners, then the only people who have guns are the bad guys.”
- Bruce Willis

“Yeah, it’s legal in the United States. It's part of our Constitution. You know, the right to bear arms is because that’s the last form of defense against tyranny. Not to hunt. It’s to protect yourself from the police.”
- Ice-T, rapper and actor.

"Strict gun laws are about as effective as strict drug laws...It pains me to say this, but the NRA seems to be right: The cities and states that have the toughest gun laws have the most murder and mayhem."
- Mike Royko, Pulitzer Prize-winning columnist for Chicago Tribune.

“If some thug breaks into my home I can use my roundhouse kick, but I prefer he look down the barrel of my gun.”
- Chuck Norris

“I don’t get into the gun stuff. Some guys have guns who go hunting. Where do we stop (the gun control) at? I’m not a hunter, but we can’t say people can’t have guns.”
- Charles Barkley

"We're a heart attack away from losing the right to bear arms."
- Jeff Foxworthy

"Somebody goes out and kills somebody with a knife, you going to blame the knife? Somebody goes out and kills somebody by pushing somebody in front of a train, you going to start cutting off the guy's arms? You going to start blaming people's arms now? It's the person who did it who is responsible.''
- James Harrison, NFL All-Pro Linebacker.

"I have a very strict gun control policy: if there's a gun around, I want to be in control of it."
- Clint Eastwood

"A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity."
- Sigmund Freud

“Where I stand at is on the Second Amendment where the right to bear arms is not just for hunting and fishing and things like that. But it’s the right of the American people to have a means of defense against a tyrannical government. So, sometimes you got to have that back-up plan.”
- Big Boi of Outkast.

“A covenant not to defend myself from force, by force, is always void. For no man can transfer, or lay down his right, to save himself from death, wounds, and imprisonment.”
- Thomas Hobbes, political philosopher. 

“As we have seen, the first public expression of disenchantment with nonviolence arose around the question of ‘self-defense.’ In a sense this is a false issue, for the right to defend one’s home and one’s person when attacked has been guaranteed through the ages by common law.”
- Martin Luther King, Jr

“Unfortunately, we always hear bad things about guns. But guns don't kill people —people kill people”
- Karl Malone, NBA

"The world is filled with violence. Because criminals carry guns, we decent law-abiding citizens should also have guns. Otherwise they will win and the decent people will lose."
- James Earl Jones

"Both oligarch and tyrant mistrust the people, and therefore deprive them of arms."
- Aristotle

"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword, because the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops."
- Noah Webster

“When I was a kid it was a controlled atmosphere, we weren’t shooting at humans – we were shooting at cans and bottles mostly. I will most certainly take my kids out for target practice.”
- Johnny Depp

"The biggest hypocrites on gun control are those who live in upscale developments with armed security guards -- and who want to keep other people from having guns to defend themselves. But what about lower-income people living in high-crime, inner city neighborhoods? Should such people be kept unarmed and helpless, so that limousine liberals can 'make a statement' by adding to the thousands of gun laws already on the books?"
- Thomas Sowell

"So, as we set out this year to defeat the divisive forces that would take freedom away, I want to say those fighting words for everyone within the sound of my voice to hear and to heed... from my cold, dead hands!"
- Charlton Heston

Gun Manufacturer Cancels NYPD Orders

York Arms Cancels All Its New York Police Orders

Buxton, ME --(Ammoland.com)- Based on the recent legislation in New York, we are prohibited from selling rifles and receivers to residents of New York.

We have chosen to extend that prohibition to all governmental agencies associated with or located within New York.

As a result we have halted sales of rifles, short barreled rifles, short barreled shotguns, machine guns, and silencers to New York governmental agencies.

For “civilian” customers residing in New York: At your choice, we will:

  • Complete your order and ship to a dealer of your choice outside of NY.
  • Refund your payment in full.
  • Hold your items here for up to 6 months, at no charge – if you are in the process of leaving NY and taking residence in another state.

For LE/Govt customers in New York: Your orders have been cancelled.

AmmoLand supports and recommends York Arms please visit these patriots and support their brand. www.yorkarms.com  . If you think SIG, Smith & Wesson, and Glock should do the same you can email them at with the tool found here: http://tiny.cc/k9resw .


Exposed: Obama's Ploy to Disarm Veterans

Obama's Deputized Doctors to Label Veterans as Mentally Unfit to Own a Gun
By Dick Brauer,Colonel, USAF (Ret.)

Dear Fellow Americans:

Our veterans put it all on the line to protect our Constitution – but if President Obama and his gun-grabbing allies get their way, they will be among the first to see their Constitutional rights limited.

It sounds too insulting and ridiculous to be true. But the danger is very real.

In fact, thanks to executive actions that are already in effect, more than 150,000 veterans have had their names added to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (or NICS, as it's commonly called).

Did these veterans brandish a weapon at someone? Did they commit a gun-related crime? Were they seen in some public forum swearing violent intent?  No!

These are patriots who, for some reason or another, had to have their finances handled by someone else as they sought help after serving our nation. The Veteran's Administration – and the higher-ups who determine Administrative rules – decided that this was enough to strip veterans of their God-given rights to self protection.

Trusted to DEFEND our Country and our Liberty abroad DENIED the Right to DEFEND their Home

Now, the President is ushering in a new era of information sharing between federal agencies and directing Eric Holder to re-evaluate who he determines to be "mentally defective" and what information needs to be shared with NICS to block those people.

This opens the door to – and virtually guarantees – a wider definition of who is unfit to own a gun as declared by Barack Obama and his cronies.

It's a little-known fact that about 30% of returning soldiers are diagnosed with PTSD. These brave men and women, mentally scarred from their service to our country, deserve nothing less than our unwavering support.

Instead, they are now in the crosshairs of the gun control lobby. With the VA's existing massive information sharing with NICS, we already have a precedent for large-scale revocation of veteran's rights. All it takes is for one of Eric Holder's decrees to include PTSD, and suddenly one of the most passionate, patriotic segments of Americans will be labeled a danger to society.

EDITORS NOTE:  Not one single research study exists linking violent behavior with the diagnosis of PTSD. While, anger and agitation are common symptoms of PTSD, these feelings tend to be turned inward.  PTSD, in itself, does not make a person violent towards others. http://www.policesuicidestudy.com/id13.html

Ask yourself: Do you really think that Obama crony-in-chief Eric Holder cares more about protecting the rights of our veterans than he does the Democrats' ideological efforts?

Neither do we.

Since the people in the U.S. government who are supposed to support our brave men and women at arms are clearly apathetic, it's up to the rest of the American people to stand up for them instead.

Our veterans have risked life and limb for existing and future generations of Americans. The last thing they need is an environment of fear and distrust back at home.

If the gun control liberals get their way, how many veterans do you think will avoid treatment for their PTSD instead of potentially having their rights taken away?

And, if we let this pass, how long will it be until that loose definition of "mentally sound as determined by Barack Obama and Eric Holder" increasingly includes more and more patriotic Americans?

If you look at actual gun crime statistics and the proposals by the Administration – not to mention how the NICS system currently blocks out millions of people who show no danger of committing violent crime, it seems like they care less about blocking violent criminals and more about widespread disarmament.

Every time they add some new criteria or decide that they need to "share more information" with NICS, hundreds of thousands more Americans get lumped in. This sneaky tactic has no place when it comes to our Constitutional rights. And, when it means they're effectively shadow-banning (I had never heard this term before- suggest "prohibiting" or "restricting") our veterans from purchasing guns, it's downright shameful.

Dick Brauer, Colonel, USAF (Ret.)
Co-founder, Special Operations Speaks

Misery in Missouri (And Minnesota now too)

Missouri Democrats introduced an anti-gun bill which would turn law-abiding firearm owners into criminals. They will have 90 days to turn in their guns if the legislation is passed.

Here’s part of the Democratic proposal in Missouri:

4. Any person who, prior to the effective date of this law, was legally in possession of an assault weapon or large capacity magazine shall have ninety days from such effective date to do any of the following without being subject to prosecution:

(1) Remove the assault weapon or large capacity magazine from the state of Missouri;

(2) Render the assault weapon permanently inoperable; or

(3) Surrender the assault weapon or large capacity magazine to the appropriate law enforcement agency for destruction, subject to specific agency regulations.