The team over at Ammo.net has come up with a great infographic showing the rise in gun and ammo sales for the past few years. It is part of a report called “The Greatest Gun Salesman In America: President Barack Obama.” With this sort of success, you’d think Obama would be touting his contribution to the growth of a $4 billion industry but, of course, he hasn’t.
![The Greatest Gun Salesman In America: President Barack Obama [INFOGRAPHIC]](http://cdn1.ammo.net/media/images/infographics/Greatest-Gun-Salesman-In-America-President-Obama.jpg)
Via: Ammo.net
The Mossberg MVP rifle caught my eye at the 2011 NRA Annual Meeting. Like the Ruger Gunsite Scout, it is a bolt-action rifle that uses detachable magazines. Unlike the Ruger, the MVP takes off-the-shelf AR-15 magazines. Later this year, Mossberg is supposed to release a shorter barreled Scout version of the MVP. Not that I need another rifle in .223 or even another varmint rifle but this one intrigues me.
This video review is from the Kentucky Gun Company. I don’t know these folks but they seem to do a good job reviewing the rifle. I just wish they didn’t have their store logo cluttering up the screen so much.
One thing that caught my eye was the difference in the grouping of the Prvi Partisan ammo versus the Remington UMC. I think I’ll be buying some of the Prvi Partisan to test out.
Since most of us couldn’t get out to Las Vegas to attend the 2012 SHOT Show, here is what we missed….in 90 seconds. I think these time lapse videos are really cool.
In the FY 2013 Federal Budget, the Obama Administration proposes to cut $13 million from the Federal Flight Deck Officer program. This is the program which trains those airline pilots that volunteer and qualify to be armed in the cockpit. The current funding for FY 2012 is $25 million.
The justification for this cut is that improvements in TSA procedures have “enhanced” airline security to the point where the FFDO program is barely needed.
Justification
The Administration proposes to reduce funding for the FFDO program (i.e., deputized, armed pilots) in 2013. As the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) focuses its aviation security activities on programs that mitigate the highest amount of risk at the lowest cost, the Budget has prioritized funding in the same manner. The voluntary FFDO program was created as a “last defense” layer of security at a time when comprehensive aviation screening and other physical security measures were not fully developed or deployed on a system-wide basis. Since 2001, however, there have been a number of enhancements to aviation security. TSA now conducts 100 percent screening of all passengers and their carryon items, has overseen installation of reinforced and locking cockpit doors on aircraft that operate in U.S. airspace, and has increased passenger and flight crew awareness to address security risks. Combined, these improvements have greatly lowered the chances of unauthorized cockpit access and represent a comprehensive and redundant risk-mitigation strategy that begins well before passengers board the aircraft.
Are we talking about the same TSA? The one that engages in security kabuki theater while a number of its agents have been found to have been stealing from checked luggage including firearms. If they are corrupt enough to steal, they are corrupt enough to be able to be bribed by terrorists.
If TSA has really made flying so safe, then why not go the whole distance and discontinue the FFDO program entirely? Either the program is needed or it isn’t. I, for one, think having armed flight crew is an excellent idea and more cost effective than many of the procedures currently used by TSA.
When the North Carolina General Assembly passed the omnibus HB 650 which contained many changes in the state’s gun laws, they included a provision that would allow concealed carry in state, municipal, and county parks. However, thanks to an amendment by former Rep. David Guice (R-Transylvania) they allowed cities and counties to continue to ban concealed carry at recreational facilities if they so chose. Guice justified the exemption for recreational facilities by saying “I’ve seen firsthand the violence on the Little League field.”
From Section 21.b.:
A unit of local government may adopt an ordinance to prohibit, by posting, the carrying of a concealed handgun on municipal and county recreational facilities that are specifically identified by the unit of local government. If a unit of local government adopts such an ordinance with regard to recreational facilities, then the concealed handgun permittee may, nevertheless, secure the handgun in a locked vehicle within the trunk, glove box, or other enclosed compartment or area within or on the motor vehicle. For purposes of this section, the term “recreational facilities” includes only the following: a playground, an athletic field, a swimming pool, and an athletic facility.“
As can be seen above, the law was very specific as to what constituted a “recreational facility”. Moreover, the prohibition applies only to that facility and not to the park within it resides.
Unfortunately, certain cities within North Carolina have started to take liberties with this exemption.The latest to do so is the City of Greensboro. The Greensboro City Council will consider an ordinance amending their law on Tuesday. According to the supporting memoranda from city staff, they are construing the exemption to include the entire park in which the recreational facility is located. The ordinance itself is somewhat vague though given how it is presented by city staff I think it may be reasonable to expect they mean the whole park.
Grass Roots North Carolina has issued an alert on the changes in Greensboro.
Like some others, Greensboro is being rather creative in their reading of a clearly laid out law. The ordinance they will be considering Tuesday night takes the following interesting liberties with the new law:
- It bans whole parks which *contain* recreational facilities;
- Tries to say the legislature “changed” the word “parks” to “recreational facilities;” and
- It fails to specifically name the “recreational facilities” where guns are banned.
If we were too polite with the above, let us be clearer. These are the ways they will be BREAKING THE LAW if allowed to go forward with this plan. Now in the creative logic they are applying in reaching these conclusions, they may not even be aware that they will be breaking the law. It is up to you to make them aware of this.
They are asking for people to contact Greensboro City Council to make their displeasure known and the link above has a pre-written message.
I can’t say I’m surprised by the actions of the Greensboro City Council. I grew up in the city and it has changed significantly since I left it after college. Though I still own the house I grew up in, the author Thomas Wolfe was right when he said you can’t go home again.
Andrew Breitbart was interviewed by Ginni Thomas (Mrs. Clarence Thomas) for the Daily Caller regarding Operation Fast and Furious.
Fast and Furious happened, Breitbart explained, “for the purposes of creating a narrative that they could use in America to try and thwart our Second Amendment constitutional rights. I don’t think the most sinister screenwriter could imagine a government that would abide by that, let alone the media to cover that up.”
A teaser for the full interview is below. The article notes the full interview will be available on Monday.
When President Obama told Sarah Brady that he planned to fly under the radar on gun control, he wasn’t kidding. Having looked at the Federal Budget for Fiscal Year 2013 for the last couple of days, I can assure you that the average person would have a hard time finding what is buried in it.
However, the NRA-ILA has people on staff that have the expertise to muddle through the budget. Below is their response posted yesterday:
Barack Obama’s careful effort to hide his anti-Second Amendment agenda is starting to come undone. The latest evidence is found in the budget he sent to Congress this past week.
As we reported last fall, NRA was very successful in having a number of provisions included in the annual spending bills that are important protections for our rights. Obama grudgingly signed the Fiscal Year 2012 spending bills that contained those “riders,” although in his signing statement, he announced his intent to defy some. Now, in Obama’s FY 2013 budget, he proposes eliminating many of them outright.
One of the most egregious is the deletion of a provision first added for FY 2012 that prohibits any future “Fast & Furious” style operations. In an official summary, the administration says the restriction is “not necessary.”
“Not necessary”? Obama may trust Eric Holder and the senior officials at the Department of Justice, but Congress and the American people certainly should not. Holder’s refusal to fully cooperate with congressional investigations is proof enough that this sort of reckless operation should be specifically banned.
Two other provisions first passed for FY 2012 were also put on the chopping block. One prohibits a ban on the importation of shotguns deemed by the BATFE to be non-“sporting.” Congress passed this to block an Obama administration plan to expand the use of the “sporting purposes” test once again, this time to ban the importation of many popular defensive, target shooting and hunting shotguns. Removing this provision is clearly a first step toward implementing a new import ban.
The other new provision for 2012 was a ban on the use of tax dollars to lobby for new gun laws. Obama signaled that he would take this step when he announced at the bill signing for the 2012 legislation that he and his administration would not be bound by that provision. And in his budget, Obama would get rid of that restriction entirely.
Another provision deleted was a prohibition on the use of funds for anti-gun research at the National Institutes of Health and the Centers for Disease Control. These prohibitions have been passed by Congress to stop these groups from funding junk science “studies” in support of new restrictions on gun rights.
Obama also wants to get rid of the provision that stops the Department of Defense from destroying surplus M1 Garands and M1 carbines—a provision that has been in place for over 30 years. And he wants to drop a provision that stops the destruction of spent military brass. Without these protections, thousands of surplus rifles could be destroyed instead of being sold to law-abiding Americans through the Civilian Marksmanship Program, and millions of recyclable brass cases will be melted down as scrap rather than being made available to reloaders.
There is good news for gun owners, though. No one—not even Obama or his closest allies—believe this budget will be passed, and it may not even be brought up for a vote.
So why oppose these provisions now? Is it an election-year signal to his anti-gun base voters? Or is he finally showing his true beliefs and giving up his pretense of support for the Second Amendment? Whatever the answer may be, gun owners should expect nothing but more anti-gun action on the part of the Obama Administration.
The National Shooting Sports Foundation is back with another one of their video training tips. This one features Gunsite instructor Bob Whaley showing how to clear a double (or more) feed in your AR-15. As Whaley notes, slamming the bottom of your magazine to make sure it is seated can sometimes cause the rounds to “volcano” as he puts it.
The Brady Bunch aka the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence (sic) is confused. They don’t seem to know who leads their organization.
On February 6th, they announced with great fanfare that Dan Gross had been “elected” President of the Brady Campaign.
Washington, D.C. – The Board of Trustees of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence and the Brady Center today announced that Dan Gross, the co-founder and Executive Director of the Center to Prevent Youth Violence (formerly PAX), has been elected the new President of the nation’s largest gun violence prevention organizations….
Dan Gross replaces Paul Helmke, a lawyer and former Mayor of Fort Wayne, Indiana, who stepped down July 10, 2011. Dennis Henigan, Vice President for Law and Policy at Brady, served as acting president in the interim.
They even got USA Today to buy into Gross being elected as opposed to hired and Paul Helmke stepping down as opposed to the reality of not having his contract renewed.
Youth anti-violence advocate Daniel Gross has been elected to head the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence and the Brady Center, the Washington-based organization promoting gun control plans to announce Monday…
Gross is cofounder and executive director of the Center to Prevent Youth Violence and was elected to the Brady post by the organization’s board of trustees. He replaces former Brady president Paul Helmke, former mayor of Fort Wayne, Ind., who announced in June he would step down on July 10. Helmke’s resignation followed a five-year commitment he’d made to serve the organization starting in 2006.
So it was interesting to read the February 16th press release where the Brady Campaign announced their 2011 state-by-state “scorecard” which ranks states on the degree of oppressiveness of their gun control regime. It had this tidbit in it.
“Guns don’t fall from the sky into the hands of criminals,” said Brady Acting President Dennis Henigan. “All too often, crime guns come from gun dealers in the states that stubbornly refuse to enact common sense, lifesaving gun laws. Every day, a river of illegal guns flows out of the states with weak gun laws, victimizing families in states that are doing their best to protect their residents. It is no accident that the states with the weakest gun laws are the exporters of death and injury.”
Has Dan Gross said to himself after being on the job 10 days “Omigod! I can’t take any more of these losers! It is worse than I expected and I wasn’t expecting much.” Or is it that the memo that the Bradys have a new president just not get out to all their PR staffers? Regardless, I’m glad they remain the gang that couldn’t shoot straight.
Gus Cotey, Jr. in an article posted on the JPFO website has classified gun control advocates into seven categories. He goes into detail about the characteristics of each category. The seven varieties are:
As he notes about these classifications:
Despite a massive amount of historical evidence to the contrary, there is a substantial body of Americans, many occupying positions of influence, who contend that the abrogation of the Second Amendment is the quickest path to domestic tranquility. Since this is as absurd as advocating blood-letting as a cure for anemia, it would seem advisable to question the motives and mentalities of the gun control advocates themselves.
In my observation, weapon prohibitionists can be broken down into seven major categories. Even though their motives may vary they all pose a mortal threat to liberty.
I think Cotey’s post is well worth a read since it is essential to know our opposition if we are to preserve our gun rights.
by