Saying you respect the Second Amendment while acting to violate the Second Amendment is a LIE!

March 25, 2014Comments Off

I respect both the Second Amendment and the First Amendment.
~Rhode Island Senator Joshua Miller, D-Cranston

Saying you respect the Second Amendment while acting to violate the Second Amendment is a LIE!  We must not let these liars get away with their lies.

“Last Tuesday a vast group of Rhode Islanders gathered peacefully in the State House rotunda to voice their concerns about gun violence in our state and in our country.”

“They also gathered to support sensible gun legislation that would ban the sale of assault weapons, ban the sale of high capacity magazines, ban weapons on school grounds and deny firearm access to individuals who have been convicted of domestic violence misdemeanors.”

“The second amendment shall not be infringed, you people need to understand that,” Bidondi told Miller.
“Go f@ck yourself,” Miller responded as he smiled, before one of his staffers repeated the insult.


134 total views, no views today

FNH FNX 45 Ted Blocker Duty Holster

July 1, 2013Comments Off

Ted Blocker makes a great Duty Holster for the FNH FNX-45.

9438 SW Tigard St.
Tigard, OR 97223

(503) 670-7972 phone
(503) 670-9692 fax

Call us toll free 1-800-650-9742

Contact us via email:



FNX-45 Ted Blocker Duty Holster

FNX-45 Ted Blocker Duty Holster



1,467 total views, 2 views today

The Math Doesn’t Add Up for Gun Control Advocates

April 23, 2013Comments Off

President Obama wants us to believe that 90 percent of Americans support background checks -– a dubious claim to be sure. But even if true, since when do liberties guaranteed by our Bill of Rights become subject to a popular vote?

Polls that throw around the 90 percent figure are suspect for many reasons. For starters, they claim that roughly 80 percent of Gun Owners of America and National Rifle Association members support background checks. But after polling our members, we found that fewer than 5 percent support such restrictions — thus obliterating the credibility of these polls which purport to speak for our supporters.

Not only did a Quinnipiac poll say that, by a margin of 48 to 38 percent, Americans think background checks will lead to confiscation, a recent CBS News poll found that only 47 percent of Americans want stricter gun control. So if that’s true, how is it that twice that number supposedly want background checks expanded? The numbers just don’t add up.

The fact is, background checks are dangerous because:

  • They force law-abiding citizens to prove their innocence to the government before exercising a constitutionally protected right -– something that we wouldn’t tolerate with the First Amendment;
  • They require the names of gun owners to be sent to the FBI, thus creating the framework for a national registration system -– a cause for concern when politicians like Democratic Governor Andrew Cuomo of New York and others have called for gun confiscation; and
  • They use a database through which government bureaucrats unduly denied more than 150,000 military veterans their constitutional rights, without any due process whatsoever, based on things such as PTSD.

Proponents claim that background checks prevent thousands of people from buying guns every year. It’s a lie. In 2010, only 13 people were incarcerated for illegally trying to purchase a gun -– meaning that the thousands of people with initial denials weren’t ultimately stopped from buying a gun on the street. It’s also a lie that 40 percent of gun purchases are done through private sales; The Washington Post gave Obama “Three Pinocchios” for this claim.

Finally, under Operation Fast & Furious, the Obama administration knowingly approved the sales of thousands of firearms to criminals. It is the height of hypocrisy for Obama to then tell Americans they will be safer with expanded background checks when the chief gun runner in America -– Obama himself -– was ultimately responsible for the program that directly led to hundreds of Mexican deaths.

597 total views, no views today

In Which We Dissect Stupid Liberal Gun Control Arguments

April 22, 2013Comments Off

March 16, 2013
Patrick Richardson
With the current, and often whacky, push for gun control it’s perhaps worth taking a close look at the the Second (and arguably more important) Amendment.

Many Americans, growing up in liberal families in large cities, like much of the country, haven’t really been exposed to firearms. Guns tend to scare them. Moreover they’ve been taught that the police will protect them — a fallacy, ask any cop if he can protect you. He’ll tell you he mostly can just clean up the blood — but I digress.

Let us begin our little journey into the frightening world of firearms by first dissecting the Second Amendment as there seems to be a great deal of confusion about what it actually says, despite being one sentence long.

The Second Amendment reads: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.”

Now, it’s that second and subordinate clause which really seems to confuse people, because it sets off the first clause, “A well regulated Militia.”

The argument goes that the militia is the National Guard and and Reserves and not the people. The problem is the U.S. Code states specifically that all able-bodied males between 17 and 45 are part of the unorganized militia. So everyone, except women, is a member.

But that argument is known as the Collective Right argument — in short that only as a collective do we have the right to keep and bear arms so it only applies to the military and police.

The counter view, the Individual Right argument, says everyone has a right to keep and bear arms for their own defense, defense of the nation and for recreation — i.e. hunting, sport shooting, etc.

That argument is actually the one backed up by the text of the amendment itself and in two separate decisions by the Supreme Court, Heller and McDonald. I won’t go into those here, because taking those decisions apart, and the implications of them is graduate thesis work, and this is a basic class. Suffice to say the Supreme Court has come down in two separate cases and said that yes, the individual people do have the right to own firearms.

Basically, what the amendment actually says is pretty simple, it’s just couched in 235 year-old English. To paraphrase: “Because a well regulated Militia is necessary for the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

What really scares Statists about armed citizenry is that they might take it into their heads not to do what the State tells them to dothis would be why dictatorial regimes all over the world immediately start confiscating guns upon coming to power. An armed citizenry is a threat to the government, and rightly so.

Even a cursory reading of the writings of the framers would note those brilliant men considered the Second Amendment as a final check on the government which they had just created.

Keep in mind as well that those men had not so many years before led an armed rebellion against what was at the time the most powerful nation on Earth.

No less a luminary than Thomas Jefferson himself understood how important it was for the people to be armed and that armed men are fee men.

Indeed in a letter to William Smith in 1787 ‘ol TJ himself said: “The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. It is its natural manure.”

And he was talking about the recently concluded Whiskey Rebellion.

Another argument for gun control, (which I’ve always considered to be the ability to hit what you aim at, but I again digress), is that guns are dangerous and they don’t save people they only kill them.

Well the utter silliness of this argument ought to be obvious even to a liberal, but it obviously is not since they keep making it.

I personally own several firearms, from my daddy and grand-daddy’s shotguns to a deer rifle I bought myself, I’ve owned and sold many others over the years — I’m a gun-nut and if I weren’t so broke I’d probably spend a lot of money on them.

None of my guns have ever killed anyone. Come to that, they’ve never killed a deer. And of course the reality is, they are incapable of killing anyone — firearms are inanimate objects. I have taken my share of pheasant and dove over the years, but my firearms have not, they are simply the tool I use to bring home some tasty treats.

Guns are not, in and of themselves dangerous. People are dangerous. But a dangerous man remains a dangerous man whether he’s carrying a pistol or a toothpick.

As to whether they save people or not, check out the National Rifle Association’s Web site, they have hundreds of defensive gun uses listed there. Sometimes the criminal is dead, sometimes he’s wounded, and often enough he took to his heels the minute he saw the armed citizen confronting him. John Lott in his blockbuster work “More Guns, Less Crime,” estimates there are over 1 million defensive firearms uses a year in the United States, most of them without a shot ever being fired.

Moreover, states which have enacted “Shall Issue” concealed carry laws have seen a huge drop in violent crime. Exactly the opposite of what gun control nuts like Handgun Control, Inc. said would happen. Why? Well mostly because criminals are basically cowards, they’re not going to try to mug someone who might be armed, and if they don’t know if you’re armed or not, they’re less likely to attack you. They also know that police response times are often a half hour or more in big cities, so if you’re not armed, you’re defenseless.

‘Tis true there are less deadly ways to stop someone, a ball bat comes to mind. Well arguably less deadly, you belt someone in the head or ribs with a baseball bat and you stand a really good chance of killing them just as dead as a bullet. However, you expose yourself to far more risk that way, and there’s a good chance the criminal, who’s probably more acquainted with physical violence than you, will leave you the one dead, not the critter.

A firearm, and the willingness to use it are among the most important tools you have to keep your family safe — especially in our crime-ridden big cities. By-the-by, it’s notable that the cities with the most restrictive gun laws, Washington DC, Detroit, Chicago, Los Angeles, have the highest murder rates. You’re actually safer patrolling in the Sunni Triangle in Iraq than you are walking down the street in those big cities.

Then of course you get the argument, “well if we outlaw guns then criminals can’t get them!”

This is really about the dumbest argument of the bunch. Criminals by definition do not obey the law, or at least, only obey those laws which suit them. Restrictive gun laws really only affect those already predisposed to obey them — the law-abiding. Of course after every school shooting, which are tragedies do not misunderstand, there is this push for more laws.

After Columbine there was the predictable outcry of “we must DO something!” So politicians, to advance their own agenda  and in order to be seen to Do Something, tried to pass more laws.

Let’s leave aside for the moment the free-fire zones our schools have become because of “Gun Free School Zones,” or the complete incompetence of the Littleton, Colo., police. No, let us focus on the fact that Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris had already broken more than 20 gun laws. So please tell me what one more would have done?

Moreover, at Columbine, at Virginia Tech, at Fort Hood — or at Sandy Hook for that matter — one armed individual could have stopped the rampage before it fairly got started, and saved any number of lives. Indeed, when the police finally arrived at Fort Hood, it was one armed cop who DID stop it before it went further. The problem was the number of unarmed victims Maj. Nidal Hasan had gunned down before he was stopped.

The final argument I wish to address is perhaps the most pernicious of the bunch. It goes something like this: “Only God should have the power to decide who lives and dies, not some person with a gun.”

This is a fine moral statement. Under most circumstances I tend to agree. The power to end a life is an awesome responsibility. One should never pick up a firearm lightly, not even to shoot at cans. One holds destruction in one’s hands and that is a frightening thing.

However, the question is not as simple as that statement sounds.

Is it moral to allow your loved ones to be harmed if you have the power to prevent it? Is it moral to stand by and allow someone else to be harmed? Is it moral to allow yourself to be harmed if you have the power to prevent it?

And how many others would that person harm, because you didn’t stop him when you had the chance? Are you not responsible for those deaths or injuries because of what you were unable or unwilling to do?

Is it not moral cowardice to be unwilling to take a life in order to save others?

In the end, what the left never seems to understand, it that a firearm is a tool. It has no life of its own. It requires a human being to function. It is the use the tool is put to which is good or evil.

And that is up to the person holding it.

673 total views, no views today

New York Business Man Faces Three Years In Jail For Confronting Intruder

April 22, 2013Comments Off

A Manhattan millionaire faces three years in jail for drawing an unlicensed gun on a burglar inside his home.

George Bardwil, who owns linen company Bardwil Home, was in his E Street apartment when an intruder came into his home in January, The Daily Mail reports.

Mr. Bardwil, 60, threatened the intruder with a loaded .40 cal Sig Sauer. The man fled and Mr. Bardwil called the police.

After showing the cops footage from his home surveillance cameras, they arrested him under suspicions of owning an illegal firearm.

585 total views, no views today

Time to Get Off the Sidelines – No Fooling

April 3, 2013Comments Off

Time to Get Off the Sidelines – No Fooling

Editor’s Note: Publisher Jim Shepherd first broke the news about his campaign to get individuals involved in protecting their Second Amendment rights in last Wednesday’s Outdoor Wire. The reception has been terrific to this point, but we encouraged Jim to freshen his story -and invite each of you to join him -and the rest of us – for MyTime2Stand.


Maybe it’s just me, but the government’s new “if you see something, say something” campaign makes me nervous. It’s not like a “Turn In A Poacher” (TIP) program or Crimestoppers; they have specific goals in mind. Sure, this campaign began to make us aware of potentially “suspicious behavior” by air other travelers. Speaking up might avoid another terrorist attack.

Now, it’s primary goal seems to be encouraging my neighbors to call a toll-free (and anonymous) number to report “my neighbor’s behaving very strangely” as I walk briskly around my neighborhood in the evening.

They called it strange. I call it exercise .

Honestly, I’ve had it with all the nanny-statism and the government sticking its nose into more and more of what I consider my private life. So, I’m going to do my best to do something about it.

For more than 40 years, I’ve tried to adhere to a few basic rules: be fair and balanced by presenting both sides of an issue; not to report as fact something not independently verified, and whenever possible, to be a dispassionate observer, sticking to the facts. Those values are also part of the Journalist’s Creed.

Over the years, I’ve observed our nation changing. The majority is now expected to give way to “squeaky wheels” who believe they know best what’s best for “the rest of us”. Today, they’re working to cram their values (or lack thereof) down our collective throats.

Enough already. For the time-being there’s no room for dispassionate observation. I believe it’s time for all of us to stand.

Gun owners seem to have adopted a “last man standing” mentality. You know, we’ll be the “last man standing” when “they” come for “us”. That’s upside-down thinking – just what the few want the many to do – sit still and do nothing until we’re whittled down to a manageable size.

Instead of promising to be the last one standing, how about we all stand up? That would be hard to ignore.

So, I’m announcing “MyTime2Stand”. It looks funny without a ubiquitous “.com” at the end. Yes, it’s going to be a website, but it’s not just a catchy web address.

It’s a pledge I’m making – to stop watching and do something. And I’d invite you to consider joining me. I know we won’t always agree on everything, but we can agree on one thing: waiting for someone else to do something doesn’t cut it any more.

One person really can make the difference, and it takes more than my bylined column to prove I really believe that.

So…my second-hand Jeep and I are hitting the road. I’ll be reporting from some of the summer’s large outdoor and shooting events: the NRA Annual Meeting in Houston, the Bianchi Cup in Missouri; the FLW Cup in Louisiana and others. But I’m going back to my small-town roots to encourage people to go to their city halls, county courthouses and state capitols and let officials see first-hand that they’re being watched. To put more “me” into “we, the people”.

One area where I’m standing firm is the Second Amendment. The “rights” enumerated there weren’t granted by the founding fathers, they were “recognized” by them. Educating today’s politicians about that critical distinction is more than our right- it’s our obligation.

Mayor Bloomberg may have more money than all of us, but he has the same number of votes- one. And his should only count in New York.

That message gets lost when delivered via the organizations that represent our interests in Washington. Outside the Beltway, their message is institutional. In our smaller world, people make the difference.

One of my goals is to bring access to the informational resources of our national organizations into the hands of average people across the country. Having effective, focused messages make it far easier to deliver impactful messages to local officials.

Before last Wednesday, MyTime2Stand had only been shared with a few trusted friends. I wanted to share the idea with readers before taking it the industry to solicit support. I wanted to know I had your buy-in on the idea first.

The Outdoor Wire’s readers did more than buy-in, they wrote, called and let me know they were not only willing to get involved, they’d only been waiting for someone to give them the opportunity to get going.

And several manufacturers have promised their support as well. That will some financial concerns off my mind-and make it easier to concentrate on spreading the word.

We’re finishing a basic website ( where you’ll be able to go and see how we’re progressing – and who’s helping make this road trip possible.

There will also be a place for you to sign on to get our updates. In the not-too-distant future, we’ll offer you industry information to help you reach out to your elected officials -and your friends and neighbors.

Later, you’ll be able to check out stories, photographs and videos from along the way. I’m going to be providing video, audio and written updates to several media outlets along the way as well.

In the meantime, if you’re willing to get involved or just want us to keep you in the loop, you can drop me an email at, and I’ll be tweeting updates, too (@jimshepherd).

As always, we’ll keep you posted.

–Jim Shepherd

541 total views, no views today

The United States has 90 guns for every 100 citizens

March 17, 2013Comments Off

U.S. most armed country with 90 guns per 100 people

By Laura MacInnis

GENEVA | Tue Aug 28, 2007

(Reuters) – The United States has 90 guns for every 100 citizens, making it the most heavily armed society in the world, a report released on Tuesday said.

U.S. citizens own 270 million of the world’s 875 million known firearms, according to the Small Arms Survey 2007 by the Geneva-based Graduate Institute of International Studies.

About 4.5 million of the 8 million new guns manufactured worldwide each year are purchased in the United States, it said.

“There is roughly one firearm for every seven people worldwide. Without the United States, though, this drops to about one firearm per 10 people,” it said.

India had the world’s second-largest civilian gun arsenal, with an estimated 46 million firearms outside law enforcement and the military, though this represented just four guns per 100 people there. China, ranked third with 40 million privately held guns, had 3 firearms per 100 people.

Germany, France, Pakistan, Mexico, Brazil and Russia were next in the ranking of country’s overall civilian gun arsenals.

On a per-capita basis, Yemen had the second most heavily armed citizenry behind the United States, with 61 guns per 100 people, followed by Finland with 56, Switzerland with 46, Iraq with 39 and Serbia with 38.

France, Canada, Sweden, Austria and Germany were next, each with about 30 guns per 100 people, while many poorer countries often associated with violence ranked much lower. Nigeria, for instance, had just one gun per 100 people.

“Firearms are very unevenly distributed around the world. The image we have of certain regions such as Africa or Latin America being awash with weapons — these images are certainly misleading,” Small Arms Survey director Keith Krause said.

“Weapons ownership may be correlated with rising levels of wealth, and that means we need to think about future demand in parts of the world where economic growth is giving people larger disposable income,” he told a Geneva news conference.

The report, which relied on government data, surveys and media reports to estimate the size of world arsenals, estimated there were 650 million civilian firearms worldwide, and 225 million held by law enforcement and military forces.

Five years ago, the Small Arms Survey had estimated there were a total of just 640 million firearms globally.

“Civilian holdings of weapons worldwide are much larger than we previously believed,” Krause said, attributing the increase largely to better research and more data on weapon distribution networks.

Only about 12 percent of civilian weapons are thought to be registered with authorities.



596 total views, no views today

LAPD attack innocent women

March 12, 2013Comments Off

TORRANCE, CA — Two women were performing their morning newspaper delivery route in the early hours of February 7th, 2013. They were driving in a blue Toyota Tacoma.

LAPD was looking for a fugitive driving a black Nissan Titan. Eight officers decided that the newspaper deliverers’ truck was a close enough match, and opened fire at the truck – in the rear. A total of 102 ROUNDS HIT THE TRUCK, not counting the other strays shot in the middle of a residential neighborhood. The women were both shot during the barrage of terror, but miraculously did not die.

After the event, police tried to smooth things over by replacing the bullet-riddled truck with a new one. However, there are strings attached, and the women must file a government 1099 form and pay taxes on the “gift.” Evidently they are not allowed to sell the truck either.

“You tried to murder the woman, now you’re telling her she can’t have a four-wheel drive, you’re telling her she can’t sell it and you’ve got to be taxed on it?” Jonas said. “How would anyone react to that?”

The women will likely sue instead.

NOTE: All eight officers who attacked the innocent women are still employed by the LAPD. No charges have been filed against them either. What does it take to fire a bad cop? What other professions tolerate unprovoked attacks on innocent people?

467 total views, no views today

ArmaLite Promotes the Police Loophole

March 5, 2013Comments Off

Armalite, like many gun manufacturers, has been deluged with gun owner requests that they quit selling guns to government agencies in states like New York which deny their civilian residents the right to own America’s favorite rifle and most other modern self-defense firearms.

One person sending a request received this charming reply from a sales rep at Armalite:

Dear concerned gun owner,

First of all I would like to say thank you for filling my email with all this spam email.

Second, I am not sure where you got this blanket email from to send out as spam, but please stop it.

Third, The manufacture is not the one you need to convince.

You need to convince the law enforcement agencies and the common people about their mistake in electing these officials and have them removed. Again NOT the manufacture.

AR Stands for ArmaLite…


Pat Raley
Master Armorer / Sales Rep.
ArmaLite, Inc.
P.O. Box 299
Geneseo, IL. 61254

That post quickly made the rounds in social media and on gun forums.

Sensing the coming fecal storm, Armalite’s top dog posted the following at Facebook.

It didn’t go so well, so they killed their Facebook page before a tsunami buried them.

Thanks for posting this email. I just received a concerned telephone call about it, an email from the staffer who stimulated the mail.

I think a bit of clarification is in order.

The root of the matter is a HUGE series of inquiries by both email and telephone asking ArmaLite to cut off sales to New York and other states which deny its citizens the right to own our rifles, as several other firms have done. Some of the contacts have been duplicates of others and some were so redundant that they appeared to be spam. Many of them have been rude and I’m afraid one of my staffers thought that he was responding to a spammer and was more terse than he should have been. Once he realized what happened he came to me and apologized.

My purpose here is to pass on his apology from the corporate level and to answer the initial question: What is ArmaLite going to do?

ArmaLite is continuing a policy put into place when California first banned our rifles. That policy remains:

1. We will not sell to those states which deny it’s honorable citizens the right to own ArmaLite’s.

2. We do not halt sales to individual officers even in problematic states. I am a former Police Officer myself, and the staffer who stimulated the recent anger is a currently serving one. We are well familiar with the fact that most rifles serving Police Officers are purchased by the officers themselves, and that they shouldn’t be punished for the actions of their political elite.

We consider sales to those sate subdivisions which are not engaged or potentially engaged with disarming its citizens. DNR and Forestry Departments, for instance, sometimes serve in remote areas that conceal drug farms and their officers deserve good hardware.

3. We will not sell to those lower political subdivisions that deny their honorable citizens the right to own ArmaLite’s. Chicago, for instance, prohibits its citizens from owning ArmaLite’s within the city limits so we make no effort to sell into that city. We have many friends on the Chicago Police Department and have continued to sell to them individually.

Our observation is that most County Sheriffs disagree with banning sales of our rifles and many publicly refuse to enforce such laws. We sell to those departments and to their Deputies, but will not sell to those County departments headed by Sheriffs who would deny their citizens the same rights.

In short, Americans need not worry that ArmaLite is selling to those who betray them.

As you can see by reading posts on the topic, some readers have been harsh with their criticism of ArmaLite. It was in response to this atmosphere that my staffer reacted harshly. He’s come to me and apologized and I personally am passing my own apology along with his.

But don’t be mistaken, ArmaLite is strongly involved with both personal, corporate, and political efforts at the State, National, and International level to protect our civil rights. And we’ll continue to support your shooting needs as the situation moves forward.

Mark Westrom
ArmaLite Inc.


Respectfully, Mark, as a company here in Illinois where Guns Save Life is based, we’re finding ourselves insulted.  You wrote:

DNR and Forestry Departments, for instance, sometimes serve in remote areas that conceal drug farms and their officers deserve good hardware.

So an average Joe’s life in New York or California or these other states that ban America’s favorite rifle are somehow worth less than a cop’s life?  That smacks of elitism.  Just as gun control is elitism.

You’re willing to sell to law enforcement in states where civilians aren’t allowed to have the same sorts of semi-automatic rifles as the police.  You’re contributing to a police state in those locales.

You claim you’re not making government sales, but are making an exception for individual officers making purchases.  Nice try.

Put simply, Mark:  Not good enough.

You can make up your mind, but it would seem the folks at Armalite don’t care about civilian sales.

Perhaps right now they are so busy with sales they don’t even see the light at the end of the tunnel as they are buried under so many orders.

Perhaps it’s time to cancel those orders and help these folks get caught up.

Not a good move, Mr. Westrom.  Not a good move at all.


624 total views, no views today

Gun Talk Delivers 16,000-plus NRA Lifetime Memberships

March 4, 2013Comments Off

Mandeville, LA – In less than two months, radio and TV host Tom Gresham delivered 16,630 new Lifetime Members to the National Rifle Association, amounting to more than $4.9 million dollars in membership dues. Gresham announced a special $300 Lifetime Membership deal with the NRA on Thursday, January 10th, via Twitter at, complete with a special direct phone number. The deal ended last Thursday.

“It’s incredible that we were able to send the NRA almost five million dollars in only seven weeks,” said show host Tom Gresham. “America’s gun owners obviously want to be part of the fight to not only protect, but to regain gun rights, and they are saying so with their hard-earned dollars. At a time when money is short and people are concerned about the economy, this massive response shows just how important Second Amendment rights are to the public.”

What began with a tweet, the deal was announced on Tom Gresham’s Gun Talk Radio show each week, (, and went out to the 55,000-plus subscribers of the Truth Squad newsletter, ( ), and to the Gun Talk Media Facebook page ( Word of the deal continued to spread through email, Twitter and Facebook and in gun shops, shooting clubs, and Internet forums all across the U.S..

In its 18th year of national syndication, Tom Gresham’s Gun Talk Radio airs live on Sundays from 2PM-5PM Eastern, and runs on more than 137 stations, plus on XM (Ch. 165) Satellite Radio. All Gun Talk shows can be downloaded as podcasts at and Apple iTunes, or through one of the available Apps: the Gun Talk iPhone App, the Blackberry Podcast App, and the Gun Talk App for Android on Amazon. The Gun Talk Minute on XM also airs on XM 165, 166, 168 and Fox Sports every day throughout the week. More information is available at

(“Gun Talk” is a registered trademark.)

528 total views, no views today


March 4, 2013Comments Off


Thomas Paine
Fairfield County Resident, Concerned Parent & Gun Owner
Posted on February 24, 2013

Now I am fairly certain elected officials promulgating even stricter gun control restrictions did not expect the backlash that is growing across the country.

No, I am not talking about the hundreds of sheriffs departments and state sheriffs associations who have vowed to uphold and defend the Constitution against Obama’s unlawful gun control measures.

No, I am not talking about the growing number of state legislatures who are taking measures to protect their states and their citizens from encroaching gun control laws

No, I am talking about a growing number of firearm firms in the US are vowing to reverse-boycott local and state governments that enact any new infringements on the Second Amendment. Vowing to close what they’re calling “the police loophole,” at least 50 US companies, ranging from gun machinists to gun shops, are now saying publicly they’ll refuse to sell weapons and gear to police in places where governments have banned the use of the same gear by civilians.

So in an unexpected development, companies are threatening to stop all sales to state and local law enforcement agencies any items that cannot be sold to civilians in those states. These include semi-automatic weapons intentionally misnamed “assault weapons”, standard capacity magazines for pistols and rifles above 10-rounds as well as various other parts and accessories. The current list of manufacturers can be found here:

While this might inconvenience some law enforcement agencies, the biggest sting will be felt in states where such manufacturers no longer feel welcome and decide to take their operations and their jobs with them to friendlier locales. There are all manner of companies being discussed in that context in Colorado, New York, Maryland, California and even here in Connecticut. I might write about that at some future date.

Chalk this up as one of those “unintended consequences” of legislative over-reach. Stay tuned.

779 total views, no views today

Levi Strauss Letter Confirming Anti-Gun Stand

February 25, 2013Comments Off

From: Levi-MBXLevis <>
Subject: RE: Your Comment/Question
To: *****
Date: Friday, February 12, 2010, 7:02 AM

Hi ****,

Cassandra here from Levi’s(R). Thanks for checking in with us.

For several years, Levi Strauss & Co. has focused on empowering youth to make social change on issues they care about. A leading concern among youth is the increase in gun violence.

We hope to take a leadership position on this issue by supporting PAX, a non-profit anti-violence organization, dedicated to the vision of a society free of gun violence. Levi Strauss & Co. supports PAX’s goal to bring all Americans together to support common sense solutions to the gun violence epidemic.

If you’d like more information about the PAX organization, please visit their web site at

If there’s anything else we can help you with, just email us back or give us a call at 1-800-USA-LEVI. We’re available Monday – Friday, 6:00am – 4:30pm Pacific Time.

Thanks again,

Levi Strauss & Co.
Consumer Relations

530 total views, 1 views today

Reply to Dianne Feinstein

February 16, 2013Comments Off

Dear Senator Feinstein,

Thank you for your reply, I respect people who are able to exercise critical thinking on such important constitutional issues, I appreciate action based on clarity, accuracy, consistency, relevance, sound evidence, and good reasons.  As was unequivocally proven by the complete failure of your first so called “assault weapons” ban, law abiding Americans are not more safe when their inalienable right to keep and bear arms is infringed.  Furthermore, we all now know “assault weapons” bans DO NOT keep “assault weapons” out of the hands of criminals, period.  Weapons bans do not keep criminals from getting and using weapons in the commission of their crimes.  Criminals by their very definition do not obey laws.

Mass shootings are a serious problem in our country, a very small and statistically insignificant problem when compared with say the rampant murder rate in “gun free” cities like Chicago Illinois.  There have been 11,392 homicides in “gun free” Chicago since 1994, now that is a serious problem in our country!  What are you doing about that?   There are well over 300,000,000 firearms in this country, those families telling you that they no longer feel safe, because these deadly weapons are so readily available, are influenced by your own misrepresentation of the facts and the blatant anti-gun media bias and are sadly misguided.  Your inability to recognize cause and effect of violent CRIMINAL behavior and actually pursue real remedies is a grave disservice to these scared families.  Your many decades myopic pursuit of civilian disarmament, disguised as crime control is not only unconstitutional it is dangerous.

Although you say you recognize that the Second Amendment provides an individual right to bear arms, it would appear you haven’t actually studied our own  supreme court’s interpretation of the Second Amendment.  First and foremost, the Second Amendment doesn’t provide an individual right to bear arms, it simply places an iron clad restriction on the government from INFRINGING upon Americans preexisting inalienable right to keep and bear arms.

An “assault weapons” ban is unconstitutional.  Indeed, in the first Supreme Court decision, United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939) that specifically addresses the Second Amendment, The United States Government argued that the Second Amendment protects only the ownership of military-type weapons.  The Supreme Court of the United States agreed and stated “when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time“.  Yes, you read that right; United States v. Miller upholds the case of the US Attorney that argued the Second Amendment SPECIFICALLY protects the American civilian’s inalienable right to bear MILITARY STYLE firearms.

Indeed, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Heller, finding that the District of Columbia’s gun laws violated the Second Amendment, which protects a preexisting individual right to keep and bear arms.  The High Court struck down the District of Columbia prohibition on the possession of usable firearms in the home because the law banned “the quintessential self-defense weapon” in the home.  Obviously our own government recognizes the reasons an actual “assault rifle” is “suitable for personal defense“.  As evidenced by their own solicitation for commercial items, our own so called “Department of Home Land Security” wholeheartedly believes a fully automatic actual “assault rifle” is “suitable for personal defense” in the hands of the government.  Yet you contend, a non-select-fire, non-fully-automatic non assault-rifle that looks like the governments actual personal defense assault rifles is magically inappropriate and NOT “suitable for personal defense” in the hands of law abiding civilians.
See: ( Solicitation for commercial items: 5.56x45mm NATO, select-fire firearm suitable for personal defense.
Can you honestly not see the hypocrisy, the utter insanity in this?  I believe your belief that regulation of these weapons is appropriate is not based in fact or logic.

If your crusade against American civilians inalienable right to keep an bear arms didn’t include your hypocritical and utterly illogical exception for police and government, Americans might be able to accept your anti-gun position as at least being honest and sincere.  As it is, most Americans do not.  The January 20 2013 shootout between 11 highly trained certified police officers in Forest Grove Oregon and this highly trained and certified rogue LAPD officers murderous rampage in your own gun restrictive state of California so clearly illustrate, the police hold no monopoly on being better suited to keep and bear arms.  Guns in the hands of of the mentally unstable or simply criminal are a problem.  The police are merely a subset of the rest of America.  There are criminals and mentally unstable people wearing police uniforms, just as there are criminals and mentally unstable people amongst the general civilian population.  Everything in your civilian disarmament proposals infringes on Americans inalienable right to keep and bear arms, yet NOTHING you have proposed does a single thing to address these serious violent criminal problems in our country!  Criminals by their very definition do not obey laws.  Once you actually understand this simple fact perhaps you can redirect your enormous civilian disarmament efforts towards some realistic solutions to these very serious violent criminal problems in our country.

Once again, thank you for your letter.  Although we may disagree, history, the law, the facts and common sense are all on my side.  I hope you keep that in mind as the debate on this issue continues.  Please be mindful of the fact that history is not kind, we all know how it remembers Senator Joseph McCarthy.  I look forward to your logical fact filled reply.

653 total views, no views today