The Real Gun Guys Music Challenge

How many musical groups/artists/songs can you name that have something to do with guns? Here, I'll start it off with a few obvious ones:

1) Shiny Toy Guns (Carah Faye Charnow has an amazing voice)
2) Guns & Roses
3) Velvet Revolver
4) Warren Zevon - Roland The Headless Thompson Gunner
5) Marty Robbins - Big Iron

There are lots more I'm sure, but this is all I can think of off the top of my head.

How many can you come up with?

I thought this was funny

From "American Dad". They probably intended it as a slam, but they got it right...

Idiots with Guns

With apologies to Xavier.

How these two managed to pull the trigger I have no clue. Also, you'd think there'd be plenty of gun related artwork available from multiple sources already. *sigh*

----------

Two accidentally shoot selves making tattoo


CHAPARRAL, N.M. (AP) - Two southern New Mexico men are recovering after accidentally shooting themselves while trying to trace a loaded .357-caliber Magnum as a pattern for a tattoo.

The Otero County Sheriff's Department identified the men as Robert Glasser and Joey Acosta. Both are 22.

The sheriff's department says deputies responded to the shooting in Chaparral on Thursday evening, but Glasser and Acosta were already on their way to a hospital in nearby El Paso, Texas.

Authorities say Glasser was struck in the hand when the gun accidentally went off. Acosta was hit in the left arm.

The injuries were non-life threatening.

The Horror!

Follow this link to watch a video of over 2,000 guns, seized by the authorities, taken to a steel mill and melted down. I have to wonder, is this the best thing that could have been done with these weapons? This makes about as much sense to me as melting down a hammer because I smashed my thumb with it.

*shakes head*

The sensitive might want to avert their eyes...

http://video.knbc.com/player/?id=176839

The Top Ten Manliest Firearms

I just found a link to a list of the Top Ten Manliest Firearms. Though it looks like I'm lacking in the manly firearm department (I have 3 out of the 10), it's still a good list. Here's what the author says about Ronnie Barrett:

"After securing military contracts for anti-materiel sniping (Generators, vehicles, radars, etc), and facing the wrath of Sarah Brady and her Gun-Grabbing Sideshow (which wrath he snickered at, it having all the intimidation of an angry kitten and Ronnie, as we noted, being a Viking), he gave the ultimate middle finger gesture and redesigned the weapon into 25 mm, or TWICE as big. This is a man so cool even his sperm smoke unfiltered Camels."

LMAO! Good stuff! Go here to check out the complete list!

Gun Love!

Oh my, where to begin?

Tex Slim (not his real name I'm sure), a free-lance journalist from Lubbock, TX opened forth his mouth and did spew out this bit of tripe. Go ahead and read it (and comment) if you want to, but I'll hit the highpoints here and give my thoughts. Gotta love the anti's though, they're nothing if not predictable.

The first thing this idiot did is smear one of my favorite music groups, big time gun guys (so I've been told) ZZ Top. Don't mess with the Top! The spew is entitled "ZZ Top's GUN LOVE all the rage on college campuses." Click here for the lyrics to "Gun Love", and here to watch a video of a guy loading and shooting a BP revolver with the song playing.

Hold your nose, we're diving in!

"Just when everybody thought college campuses were a peace loving bunch a new idea has surfaced that could bring back the "ugly" american past known as "gunslinger era".This is "Guns On Campus" week and of course Texas Tech students(fringe group,hopefully)will be wearing empty holsters protesting rules and maybe even state law that prohibits concealed weapons on any school campus.This "empty holster" protest will last from Oct 22-Oct 26 and is thought to have 110 college campuses effected. (Shouldn't that be 'affected'? -Yuri)"

First this guy seems to have deluded himself into thinking that college campuses are some magical bastion of peace and tranquility, a Utopian island amid the wild and uncivilized outside world. Last time I checked, schools were still a part of the community and all of the same problems that exist outside don't magically stop at the property line. Every crime that occurs off campus, robbery, rape and murder, to name just a few, occur on campus as well. What makes this guy think that the students are any safer on campus than off? I got it, he "feels" that it is so, and therefore it is...at least in the fantasy world he has made for himself in his own head.

And then he brings up another anti talking point, that concealed carry will lead to wild west shootouts. I have news for him, concealed carry is the law in the majority of states now and the data is in, the nightmare scenario of blood running in the streets has never happened. Why should students who have their CCW permit have to sacrifice their own security for the unfounded "feelings" of hoplophobes? Shouldn't laws be based in facts and logic and not feelings and emotion? That is what this protest is all about. For taking part in this protest he libels decent, law-abiding young people as "gun nuts" (in the next paragraph) a "fringe group" and rounds it up by likening the protest to a disease that "effects" other schools.

"I,being a former Tech student and staff,have never been comfortable with the "Andy Taylor/Barney Fife" types calling themselves campus cops with that "heater" on their hip.I remember a plump elderly fella at Tech med school named "Todd" who proudly carried his "heater" on hip and when I ask him about safety being on he replied,"They don't give me NO BULLETS".I guess he was gonna use his "heater" to pistol whip criminals since he had no ammo.Some years ago Tech med school had a Levelland boxer(Robin Blake) on campus cop roster and we all know about boxers and guns(deadly mix).

My best advice to those characters carrying empty holsters is put a LARGE water pistol in that holster(NO ALCOHOL-PROHIBITED ON CAMPUS) and "Wash away those criminals".For the more adventuresome protesters I could recommend the local US military induction center since personel are in demand for this thing called "IRAQ WAR"."

Way to smear people with broad brush generalizations there "Tex". I've seen my share of overweight security personnel and "mall ninjas" but now you're just trying to be mean. And what's the deal with boxers and guns anyway? Apparently we don't all know about them, so clue us in here. I could generalize about hopolophobic, free-lance journalists from Lubbock, TX as bed wetting pussies but that wouldn't be right, even if it may be correct.

Listen closely dip-shit, it's not about shooting guns and killing people that these students are protesting for, it's about being able to protect themselves if the need arises. Saying that they should join the army if they want to carry guns is disingenuous. Oh, and you misspelled 'personnel'.

"Some Texas colleges such as UT and Texas A&M will probably be involved since guns were allowed on campus in the 60's when Charles Whitman shot up UT campus and fellow students were seen "firing back" at Whitman with their "hunting" rifles.More than likely some "gung-ho" military cadets and instructors at A&M will wear service revolver holsters empty as a show of support for "Guns On Campus" movement.

TEXAS IS "GUN COUNTRY"!!

The learning impaired community(college students,faculty&staff) want to carry concealed handguns on campus??

SAVE US FROM THE GUN-NUTS ON COLLEGE CAMPUS!!!"

"Tex" continues his streak by associating the protesters with the likes of Charles Whitman and then basically calls them "retarded." Again, I could make disparaging comments about the size of his genitals and the like, but that wouldn't be right...

Texas is "Gun Country"? Cool! :-)

Um, exactly who are you praying to there at the end "Tex", Sarah Brady...Nancy Pelosi perhaps...or Hillary Clinton? Who cares...

This little screed demonstrates the difference between the pro-rights and the anti-rights sides. They are losing and they know it, and when faced with a lack of facts and logic on their side, they resort to grade school insults and name calling.

Goodbye Tex, don't let the door hit you on the way out.

Great! Even More to Worry About!

Doc, what’s up with snooping?

Pediatrician paranoia runs deep

By Michael Graham
Thursday, October 4, 2007

They’re watching you right now.

They counted every beer you drank during last night’s Red Sox [team stats] game.

They see you sneaking out to the garage for a smoke.

They know if you’ve got a gun, and where you keep it.

They’re your kids, and they’re the National Security Agency of the Nanny State.

I found this out after my 13-year-old daughter’s annual checkup. Her pediatrician grilled her about alcohol and drug abuse.

Not my daughter’s boozing. Mine.

“The doctor wanted to know how much you and mom drink, and if I think it’s too much,” my daughter told us afterward, rolling her eyes in that exasperated 13-year-old way. “She asked if you two did drugs, or if there are drugs in the house.”

“What!” I yelped. “Who told her about my stasher, I mean, ‘It’s an outrage!’ ”

I turned to my wife. “You took her to the doctor. Why didn’t you say something?”

She couldn’t, she told me, because she knew nothing about it. All these questions were asked in private, without my wife’s knowledge or consent.

“The doctor wanted to know how we get along,” my daughter continued. Then she paused. “And if, well, Daddy, if you made me feel uncomfortable.”

Great. I send my daughter to the pediatrician to find out if she’s fit to play lacrosse, and the doctor spends her time trying to find out if her mom and I are drunk, drug-addicted sex criminals.

We’re not alone, either. Thanks to guidelines issued by the American Academy of Pediatrics and supported by the commonwealth, doctors across Massachusetts are interrogating our kids about mom and dad’s “bad” behavior.

We used to be proud parents. Now, thanks to the AAP, we’re “persons of interest.”

The paranoia over parents is so strong that the AAP encourages doctors to ignore “legal barriers and deference to parental involvement” and shake the children down for all the inside information they can get.

And that information doesn’t stay with the doctor, either.

Debbie is a mom from Uxbridge who was in the examination room when the pediatrician asked her 5-year-old, “Does Daddy own a gun?”

When the little girl said yes, the doctor began grilling her and her mom about the number and type of guns, how they are stored, etc.

If the incident had ended there, it would have merely been annoying.

But when a friend in law enforcement let Debbie know that her doctor had filed a report with the police about her family’s (entirely legal) gun ownership, she got mad.

She also got a new doctor.

In fact, the problem of anti-gun advocacy in the examining room has become so widespread that some states are considering legislation to stop it.

Last year, my 7-year-old was asked about my guns during his physical examination. He promptly announced to the doctor that his father is the proud owner of a laser sighted plasma rifle perfect for destroying Throggs.

At least as of this writing, no police report has been filed.

“I still like my previous pediatrician,” Debbie told me. “She seemed embarrassed to ask the gun questions and apologized afterward. But she didn’t seem to have a choice.”

Of course doctors have a choice.

They could choose, for example, to ask me about my drunken revels, and not my children.

They could choose not to put my children in this terrible position.

They could choose, even here in Massachusetts, to leave their politics out of the office.

But the doctors aren’t asking us parents.

They’re asking our kids.

Worst of all, they’re asking all kids about sexual abuse without any provocation or probable cause.

The American Academy of Pediatrics has declared all parents guilty until proven innocent.

And then they wonder why we drink.

Michael Graham hosts a talk show on WTKK 96.9 FM.

Why Did it Have to be...Guns?

Why Did it Have to be ... Guns?
by L. Neil Smith
lneil@lneilsmith.org

Over the past 30 years, I've been paid to write almost two million words, every one of which, sooner or later, came back to the issue of guns and gun-ownership. Naturally, I've thought about the issue a lot, and it has always determined the way I vote.

People accuse me of being a single-issue writer, a single- issue thinker, and a single- issue voter, but it isn't true. What I've chosen, in a world where there's never enough time and energy, is to focus on the one political issue which most clearly and unmistakably demonstrates what any politician—or political philosophy—is made of, right down to the creamy liquid center.

Make no mistake: all politicians—even those ostensibly on the side of guns and gun ownership—hate the issue and anyone, like me, who insists on bringing it up. They hate it because it's an X-ray machine. It's a Vulcan mind-meld. It's the ultimate test to which any politician—or political philosophy—can be put.

If a politician isn't perfectly comfortable with the idea of his average constituent, any man, woman, or responsible child, walking into a hardware store and paying cash—for any rifle, shotgun, handgun, machinegun, anything—without producing ID or signing one scrap of paper, he isn't your friend no matter what he tells you.

If he isn't genuinely enthusiastic about his average constituent stuffing that weapon into a purse or pocket or tucking it under a coat and walking home without asking anybody's permission, he's a four-flusher, no matter what he claims.

What his attitude—toward your ownership and use of weapons—conveys is his real attitude about you. And if he doesn't trust you, then why in the name of John Moses Browning should you trust him?

If he doesn't want you to have the means of defending your life, do you want him in a position to control it?

If he makes excuses about obeying a law he's sworn to uphold and defend—the highest law of the land, the Bill of Rights—do you want to entrust him with anything?

If he ignores you, sneers at you, complains about you, or defames you, if he calls you names only he thinks are evil—like "Constitutionalist"—when you insist that he account for himself, hasn't he betrayed his oath, isn't he unfit to hold office, and doesn't he really belong in jail?

Sure, these are all leading questions. They're the questions that led me to the issue of guns and gun ownership as the clearest and most unmistakable demonstration of what any given politician—or political philosophy—is really made of.

He may lecture you about the dangerous weirdos out there who shouldn't have a gun—but what does that have to do with you? Why in the name of John Moses Browning should you be made to suffer for the misdeeds of others? Didn't you lay aside the infantile notion of group punishment when you left public school—or the military? Isn't it an essentially European notion, anyway—Prussian, maybe—and certainly not what America was supposed to be all about?

And if there are dangerous weirdos out there, does it make sense to deprive you of the means of protecting yourself from them? Forget about those other people, those dangerous weirdos, this is about you, and it has been, all along.

Try it yourself: if a politician won't trust you, why should you trust him? If he's a man—and you're not—what does his lack of trust tell you about his real attitude toward women? If "he" happens to be a woman, what makes her so perverse that she's eager to render her fellow women helpless on the mean and seedy streets her policies helped create? Should you believe her when she says she wants to help you by imposing some infantile group health care program on you at the point of the kind of gun she doesn't want you to have?

On the other hand—or the other party—should you believe anything politicians say who claim they stand for freedom, but drag their feet and make excuses about repealing limits on your right to own and carry weapons? What does this tell you about their real motives for ignoring voters and ramming through one infantile group trade agreement after another with other countries?

Makes voting simpler, doesn't it? You don't have to study every issue—health care, international trade—all you have to do is use this X-ray machine, this Vulcan mind-meld, to get beyond their empty words and find out how politicians really feel. About you. And that, of course, is why they hate it.

And that's why I'm accused of being a single-issue writer, thinker, and voter.

But it isn't true, is it?

Well DUH!

U.S. Most Heavily Armed Country
Tuesday, August 28, 2007 2:27 PM

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

The Poop...

A more accurately titled "blog" I couldn't make up myself. This has so much wrong with it I've decided to just post it and let you the reader do your own fisking as you read along. It might help, I suppose, to understand this nonsense once you realize what part of the country this comes from.

Don't forget to follow the link and read the comments!

Enjoy!

-Yuri

A farewell to arms: My boy is obsessed with guns

I just got shot with a baby bottle. Can anyone relate?

My 3-year-old is a sweet, cuddly boy -- who really, really, REALLY wants a gun for the holidays.

He's like Ralphie in "A Christmas Story," who tries to convince his parents and Santa that he should get that Red Ryder BB gun.

www.Galenfrysinger.ws

NRA Hall of Fame inductee Ralphie Parker takes aim.

The weird thing is I have no idea where he got the idea. He doesn't watch violent TV. He watches documentaries about the first moon landing and Leap Frog alphabet videos. He has a few books about pirates, but they use swords and cannons.

About a year ago, he started aiming crayons at me instead of at paper. He made "shooters" out of Mega Blocks. I've also been shot with the hose from his little fire truck and with countless kitchen utensils.

Desperate, I turned to a book recommended by our preschool teacher, "Playful Parenting" by Lawrence Cohen. In summary, Cohen says you don't have to buy toy guns, and shouldn't, but you can't change a kid's desire to play with them. So don't bother stopping boys from pretending. And if you get shot, play the "Love Gun" game.

So I told my son, as he aimed a wooden spoon at me one day, "That's a love gun and if you shoot me, it will just make me love you more!" Then I chased him around like I was love-struck Pepe Le Pew.

We both thought I was crazy.

www.Aha.ru

What he needed, I decided, was a toy he ABSOLUTELY could not turn into a weapon. A baby doll.

He'd shown no previous interest, but I wasn't worried because we know other boys who love their dolls (see Poop contributor Tanya Schevitz's earlier post).

First, I read him the book "William's Doll" to prep him. Then I gave him a doll, stroller and aforementioned bottle.

He spent about 15 minutes dressing the doll in his old baby clothes, racing the doll in the stroller through the house and racing stuffed animals in the stroller.

Then he picked up the pink bottle, the kind where the "milk" magically disappears when tipped, and said "I shoot you."

Nature? Nurture? I give up.

Is he too young for "Grand Theft Auto"?

We're from the government...and we're here to help!

The Gang Trailer

Here is the Trailer for the JPFO Documentary The Gang. If you are a gun owner or value your Second Amendment rights then you must see this movie.

Will Pepper Spray Save Your Life?

More words of wisdom from Katey...

Anti's With Guns

I present to you without further delay, Diane "Trigger Finger" Feinstein and Chuck "No Eyes" Schumer! Chuck sure seems to be having a great time, doesn't he?

Undercover Operations May "Sting" Bloomberg

Friday, May 11, 2007

In an effort to end the illegal, covert "Simulated Straw Purchase" stings that anti-gun New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg (R) has been misguidedly promoting of late, Virginia Attorney General Robert McDonnell (R) recently sent a letter to Bloomberg reminding him that Virginia’s House Bill 2653 - which prohibits gun dealer entrapment schemes such as those orchestrated by the Mayor - will go into effect this summer.

With the new law going into effect in July, Bloomberg and his agents could face legal action and be charged with a felony if they do not cease their dubious "sting" operations.

"While I understand that you are attempting to take steps that you believe may enhance the public safety of the citizens of New York City, such laws are Virginia's duty to enforce," said McDonnell in his letter to the Mayor. "This new law strikes the proper balance between ensuring effective law enforcement and protecting the rights of law-abiding firearms dealers and those of Virginia citizens under the Second Amendment."

In a May 10, Washington Times article, Tucker Martin, a spokesman for Mr. McDonnell’s office, said, "Law-abiding Virginia gun dealers certainly do not deserve to be targeted by private agents intentionally misleading them as to their intentions and motives. This is a courtesy to the mayor. Prior actions of his are now felony offenses in the commonwealth, and he knows this."

Virginia’s state House and Senate overwhelmingly approved the measure, which was signed into law by Virginia Governor Tim Kaine (D) on March 23, 2007.

Quote of the day...

Proof that common sense has been around a long time, even if it does seem to be going extinct:

"...quemadmodum gladius neminem occidit, occidentis telum est." [...a sword never kills anybody; it's a tool in the killer's hand.] -- (Lucius Annaeus) Seneca "the Younger" (ca. 4 BC-65 AD

Or in another words... "Guns don't kill people, People kill people!" -Unknown

Worry About the Right Things

Yet another thought provoking article by John Stossel about truth and perceptions. Of interest to gun owners is the following quote:

"Here's another example. What do you think is more dangerous, a house with a pool or a house with a gun? When, for "20/20," I asked some kids, all said the house with the gun is more dangerous. I'm sure their parents would agree. Yet a child is 100 times more likely to die in a swimming pool than in a gun accident.

Parents don't know that partly because the media hate guns and gun accidents make bigger headlines. Ask yourself which incident would be more likely to be covered on TV."

...clicky...

Guns Secure & Save Lives

Meet Darren Seiber. He's the author of the East Tennessean viewpoint article of 3/26/2007 entitled "Guns do not save or secure lives."

"Guns do not save or secure lives
Darren Seiber

It is often said that everything's bigger in Texas - and without the assistance of Academy Award worthy films such as "Debbie Does Dallas" - some may believe this saying to be nothing more than a myth. But for the Texans who don't quite measure up there is always another way to compensate: own a gun. Because we all know how Texans love their guns, right?"

If you couldn't be bothered to read the whole bucket of tripe, this first paragraph pretty much sums up the whole article. Throw in three or four bogus statistics from the IANSA (no I won't link to them) and toss in a blender. Voila!

I commented on the article, but I seriously don't expect it to be posted. Below is my comment back to Mr. Seiber:

"What a self serving, smug little essay. Too bad your arguments are both disingenuous and puerile. First you start off with the tired old, "He must be compensating for something" gag. Grow up. If you want to be taken seriously as a writer, leave the childish insults at the door.

There are many reasons that Americans own guns, hunting, target shooting, protection and just because they have a right to under The Bill of Rights. Rights I might add, that pre-existed the United States.

Do you have a degree in Philosophy Darren? Why your insistence that gun rights supporters have one? The facts are, it doesn't take a mental giant to understand that criminals are responsible for their crimes, not the tool they used. With your reasoning we should also ban pagers, cell phones and cars, since they are all used by criminals. While we're at it, let's ban swimming pools too since the risk of drowning in a pool is nearly 100 times higher than from a firearm-related accident for everyone, and nearly 500 times for ages 0-5.

Did you know that guns prevent an estimated 2.5 million crimes a year, or 6,849 every day. Often the gun is never fired and no blood (including the criminal’s) is shed. This includes 550 rapes, 1,100 murders, and 5,200 other violent crimes are prevented just by showing a gun. In less than 0.9% of the time is the gun ever actually fired....and since you bring up Canada, "Statistics Canada, Oct. 1, 2003" States that the firearm homicide rate in Canada is virtually unchanged from before and after gun registration.

Saying "We are wrong because guns are wrong" is like saying "I am right because I'm right." Saying so doesn't make it so Darren. The “Kellerman study” you site used three non-random counties, a limited (266) case file, began with only cases where a death was involved, and had many other statistical weaknesses. This “study” also notes that the majority (54%) of the homicides were committed without firearms, and concluded that “household use of illicit drugs and prior domestic violence increase the risk of homicide.”

The British Home Office – not a “pro-gun” organization by any means, says that you are far more likely to survive a violent assault if you defend yourself with a gun. In episodes where a robbery victim was injured, the injury/defense rates were:

Resisting with a gun 6%
Did nothing at all 25%
Resisted with a knife 40%
Non-violent resistance 45%

Also, the National Crime Victimization Survey states that when using guns in self-defense:

• 83% of robbery victims were not injured
• 88% of assault victims were not hurt
• 76% of all self-defense use of guns never involve firing a single shot

Any questions?

Based on your reasoning that the Second Amendment is no longer appropriate, I could also say that about the First Amendment. Which parts of The Bill of Rights should we keep? Using your very arguments I could also make a case (a weak one at that) that you should only be allowed to use quill pens and hand operated presses. And the internet? Fugetaboutit!

Your argument that gun owners are more likely to kill someone over an disagreement or a crying child is idiotic. Likewise, all men are not potential rapists, and all women are not potential prostitutes just because they have the required equipment. It's called "Transference" Darren, look it up. Anti-gun advocates have been crying this same old song and dance for years. Every time a state enacts a law allowing law abiding people to carry a concealed handgun, they scream that there will be blood running in the streets, that people will have shoot-outs over a stolen parking space and that fender benders will result in massacres. In fact Multiple victim public shootings drop in states that pass shall-issue CCW legislation. The anti's even admit that they were wrong, but they keep repeating it anyway. Saying something is so multiple times doesn't make it true. As a reference the Earth still isn't flat and still revolves around the Sun.

Your article is based on false assumptions derived from flawed statistics from people with an agenda . I'm sure I won't change your mind, but I would encourage you to discard the rhetoric and look at all the facts before coming to any conclusions. I would also encourage anyone reading this to do the same."

Any questions?

Give Them Back!

Where everyone's a straight shooter!

The nerve of some people! I've been aware of a site for a while called "The Gun Guys" (no, I won't link to it, I won't give them anymore traffic) in which the anti's and Brady forces spread disinformation and outright lies about guns, people who own guns and the 2+ Million people every year who defend their lives with a gun, most without firing a shot. These lies have got to stop going unchallenged!

This blog will be dedicated to displaying the positive uses of guns, from target shooting to civilian self defense and everything in between. We will use logic and sound reason to counter the emotional, but logically lacking arguments from those who would have you stripped of your second amendment rights and helpless; dependant on someone else to protect you when you used to be able to protect yourself.

This I promise you, everyone here is a straight shooter, unlike at the gun guys site.