You're Not Actually Angry with Mylan for Raising the Price of the EpiPen

What am I talking about? Of course you're mad at Mylan! You’re so pissed you can’t see straight! How dare they charge over $600 for a two-dose EpiPen kit? They have obviously succumbed to Corporate Greed over the needs of every poor child in America with severe allergies! They don’t care if people die, as long as they get paid!

Well, all of that may or may not be true. But what you’re missing is, it’s not really the point. People get mad at Big Pharma and then say “See! Look at how the ‘free market’ serves corporations over the little guy! Let's force them to lower prices! We need more regulation and we need it now!” This is a big fallacy. The point is, in a system that was actually run by the free market, we wouldn’t have to regulate Mylan. In such a system, Mylan, or any company that chose to sell their products at too high a price would quickly become irrelevant.

In case you’re still angry at the market, wake up. Mylan is not competing in a free market and never has. It cost them billions of dollars to jump through the FDA’s regulatory hoops, and they’re overjoyed if it costs the next company behind them even more.

This isn’t just hypothetical. There are plenty of other companies willing to package epinephrine, if they could just get permission to do so. But they can’t. Mylan has a government-protected monopoly, and thus has the ability to raise prices and charge huge margins. Some would say they're acting irresponsibly, some would say they have the fiduciary duty to their shareholders to charge as much as they can to cover the real costs they incurred to get where they are.

But why did it cost them so much? Epinephrine is a well-understood and safe drug that costs pennies a dose. Mylan’s innovation was its EpiPen delivery system, not the drug it contains. OK, so how about a different injection device? Heck, a simple syringe with the dose pre-measured? Nope. Both recently rejected by the FDA.

What does regulation like this actually accomplish? Whom does it serve? For one answer, look at who funds the lobbyists to keep it in place. It might surprise you to know that those pushing for it the hardest are also those complaining about it the loudest. That’s right, Big Pharma.

“More regulation” isn’t a gun you can point at corporate greed and shoot morality bullets. It is the power of the state leveled at everyone, even those—no, especially those—who aren't yet in the market. Big businesses, already receiving revenue and using economies of scale, can usually throw enough resources at the problem to be compliant. Small businesses cannot, and thus they never get to compete. If they did, I promise you wouldn’t care if Mylan raised its prices ten- or even a hundredfold, because there would be plenty of cheaper alternatives, and Mylan would have priced themselves right out of the market.

That’s right, the market. It’s a word that means you and me—anyone who wants to buy. And when we have the liberty to do so—in other words, when there’s a free market—no one can price-gouge without someone else quickly stepping in to serve those in need. As is so often true in economics, what is seen—in this case, the good of regulation—must be balanced against what is unseen. Here, that is the good of competition forcing prices down, which, since it is prevented from coming into existence, remains merely hypothetical.

You aren't angry at Mylan for raising prices. You're angry at the FDA and those who make it impossible for Mylan’s competitors to serve you. You're angry at politicians who take campaign contributions to increase the regulatory burden, and you're angry at bureaucrats who leave government jobs after 10 years to accept a $500,000 salary from the companies they used to regulate. You're angry at the whole system that allows such corruption to flourish. Be angry at Mylan, if you must, not for raising prices, but yes, for funding policies and politicians that close the doors to innovation.

But mostly, be angry at yourself. When the price of live-saving technology goes up, it’s your tax dollars at work.

Nice Isn't the End of Evil

I generally refrain from writing a post after a terrorist attack. Political posts generally try to cash in on the suffering of others to make policy gains. And non-political posts, while they don't do any harm, let's face it, other than letting your followers know what a good person you are, they don't really help anyone.

The pattern is now the story
But last night's attack in Nice was different. First of all, the tone of the media coverage has shifted. For example, in most of the stories I read, there was a timeline of other recent terrorist attacks, with a count of the wounded and slain. In other words, the pattern of jihadist violence has finally become a key part of the story. Not even the mainstream media is now willing to deny that all these myriad events are connected.

The weapon is one we have to trust
Secondly, the attack wasn't made with a gun, or bomb, or even a knife, that could then be blamed for the evil committed. It was done with a truck. Trucks bring food to our supermarkets, gas to our gas stations, and just about everything else to where we need it. In spite of a little more pollution than we would like, we can all agree that trucks are Good Things. So good, in fact, that we can't do without them. In other words, no one can deny we have to trust trucks, to a degree far beyond our dependence on guns (which are obviously necessary for law enforcement, whether or not you agree with individual gun rights).

There will be a next time and we know that now
So, as a society, we've come to the point where we are finally admitting, in a tacit way, that these attacks are not isolated. We're facing the even more painful fact that nothing we've yet tried will really work to defend us from something like what happened in Nice last night. And we're all realizing what eight long years of domestic peace under George W. Bush caused us to forget: these attacks won't stop on their own. They keep coming and there's no end in sight.

My problems with post-attack calls for gun legislation
Twelve to twenty-four hours after a shooting attack is when you would normally hear calls for new gun legislation. I have three main problems with such calls: First, gun laws will almost always take guns out of the hands of law-abiding citizens and do nothing to prevent criminals from getting them. This makes the problem worse, not better. Second, there is never much chance of the initiatives being discussed to see the light of day, much less be enacted into law. They are floated out of a purely political desire to excite the anti-gun base.

The gun laws aren't even designed to work
Finally, and here is the real problem, gun laws put forward after major shooting events wouldn't have prevented those shootings if they had previously been law. Those laws are just proposed to advance an anti-gun agenda in general, and after a shooting event is the best time to try them out. They wouldn't fix the problem. It is political opportunism at its most parasitic.

Now we face a difficult question
We have a clearer road forward after this attack in one respect at least: no one is going to seriously call for a truck ban (though I expect some may do so in jest). So now Left and Right should be in agreement that the weapon wasn't the problem. We can't blame the weapon, and we have a rising belief that the incidents aren't isolated. This is real progress. We may not yet have the answers we need, but we are finally going to be asking the right question. And that is: How in the heck do we keep this from ever happening again?

Border security and immigration
It's a sign of the effectiveness of Trump's message that his name has become synonymous with tighter border security. However, the concept (obviously) predates him. As I have said many times, I am no Trump fan, and while I support tighter border enforcement, I don't even support all of his ideas on that subject. On one point, however, I think Trump fans and Trump detractors, and even many on the Left, would agree: the border is our first line of defense in stopping would-be terrorists from reaching their soft targets (shopping malls, parks, power stations, etc). Tightening security there would be a step in the right direction, even if we don't build the wall Trump wants, or leave the borders porous and have a de facto amnesty for illegals as is our current policy. But even more important is the scrutiny given those who enter the country legally.

Certain aspects of Islam are not merely religious beliefs
One of Trump's terrible ideas is to deny U.S. entry to all Muslims. But did you know that a sizeable percentage (some polls put it as high as half) of American Muslims would support the installation of Sharia Law as a replacement to the Constitution? This preference for Sharia is not just a religious belief, but is obviously political as well. I don't think it's unreasonable or bigoted at all to deny visas to those who hold such beliefs, let alone to those who would support the use of violence to advance that goal (those we call Islamists).

Bush Doctrine?
Long term, we might have to be prepared to fight again. Heaven forbid, but we may have to save blood at home by spilling it abroad. The war in Iraq might have turned George W. Bush's name into a dirty word, but let's face it, if you have an enemy whose soldiers you can't identify once they leave home, but you know where they are being indoctrinated, recruited, and trained, isn't it a good idea to go fight them there? No, we don't at present have any intelligence connecting Mohamed Lahouaiej Bouhlel (the truck driver in Nice) to ISIS. Not so with earlier attacks in Brussels, Paris, and elsewhere.

All the facts aren't in
It's important to say that at the time of this writing, it is not yet generally known what motivated Bouhlel to such an unspeakable act. His neighbors claim he was depressed and going through a divorce. His wife's cousin says he took drugs and never went to mosque. So, obviously, it is an assumption at this point to call what he did an act of jihadi violence. It would be very surprising to me, however, if Bouhlel's willingness to kill dozens of innocent people, including women and children, was unconnected to a radical Islamist world view. The place and time of his chosen attack seem to support this assumption. Certainly ISIS itself has taken his motivations as a given and are celebrating his evil actions.

Appeasement is worse than doing nothing
It's time to stop apologizing to Islamists (those who support the violent installation of Sharia law) for the foreign policy of previous administrations, time to stop negotiating with state sponsors of terror like Iran, Syria, and the Palestinian Authority, time to stop giving those who would install Sharia in the West a pass as merely having a difference of opinion.

Western Civilization is a threat to Islamism
This is an existential struggle. It begins when we, Western Civilization, all of us, Christians, Muslims, Jews, Atheists, and others, deny the lie of multiculturalism and finally admit, that, yes, we've got a pretty good thing going here. Western Civilization, and its three main pillars, capitalism, representative democracy, and religious freedom, are better than their alternatives around the world, especially the many countries now under Sharia law. We must learn and advocate the ideas that made our society (and our country) great. Otherwise, we can't battle the ideas that radicalize too many vulnerable people, especially young Muslims, and turn them into terrorists. We can no longer afford to believe all philosophies are created equal. Certainly Islamists are not making that mistake.

Criminals Are Exempt from Gun Registration

Due to the 1968 Supreme Court case Haynes v. US, criminals are exempted from any gun registration plans of the government. This proves again that all gun control laws only affect good people who in this case must register their guns, and gun registration means confiscation. Why else must the government know about the guns in the hands of good people unless they plan to take them?

We don't even have to use other countries for examples of registration turning into confiscation -- we only have to look to our own United States and those states and areas that have tried registration under the guise that it was needed to curb violence, but then turned around and started confiscating those same guns with SWAT teams going door to door.

No leap of logic is needed to understand that registration means confiscation, and the ones in charge of registration are not gun advocates or those groups that teach gun safety but rather it is the enemy -- the gun banners who will determine what you can and can't own.

Universal Background Check = Gun Registration

Right now we face the threat of a national gun registry. Gun banners want to be the ones who control what you can and can't own, and they want to grow that list of banned items down the road. The easiest way to ban guns in the future is to get you to register everything you currently own.

Because calls to senators are getting a 100-to-1 and some even a 1000-to-1 call ratio in support of the 2nd Amendment, gun banners have innocuously named their gun registry instead as "Universal Background Check" in order to bolster support from the uninformed.

This is a horrible bill that we must stop and we must continue to call our state reps and flood their emails and phone lines. "Universal Background Check" gives gun banners the control and the ability to decide at any time, what guns they will allow you to have and what guns they will come and confiscate from you, and because of the law, they will know what you have, even if you inherited it from your grandpa.

They like to talk about "need" as if you have to prove to them, why you "need" certain guns. If they don't agree, they will come and take it. But keep in mind that gun banners really hate every gun for different reasons, and they have plenty of reasons as to why every gun sooner or later should be confiscated.

In their mind, some guns are too scary looking, some look like machine guns (though they are not), others are too small and concealable, other guns are too big and could be used by snipers, and some guns are too cheap. If one type of gun is used in a crime, then surely it must have been manufactured for criminals, and all the millions of good people who have a similar gun would have to turn theirs in to be destroyed.

In the view of gun banners, our problems in society don't come from bad people, but instead they blame everything on normal guns in the hands of good people.

No gun control efforts have ever affected criminals. Besides the obvious reasons that criminals do what they want despite the laws, there's even the Supreme Court case mentioned above that says that criminals are exempt from gun registration. That means we have to stop the UBC today.

If you want more details on the UBC (Universal Background Check), I wrote about it a few weeks ago. Read about the UBC here.

The Internet = The New Media

Because the media isn't reporting on the UBC accurately, people have taken it upon themselves to spread the news. Here's one short example.

The Media Mocks You

Do you believe in gun safety? The media (TV, movies, the news, and those in Hollywood) are all quick to mock the NRA, the one group that teaches gun safety, when the media themselves glorify the bad use of guns.

When it comes to guns and gun safety, the media rarely portray gun owners in a positive light, and they certainly don't share all the good gun facts nor do they help teach any safety. Instead, they are annoyed and mock to no end those that do believe in gun safety. By mocking and pointing their fingers in dismay at gun owners, they attempt to seem superior and gain more support from those who don't want to be mocked.

Jim Carrey recently mocked gun owners with a high-end looking video that portrayed the NRA and people who support the 2nd Amendment as uneducated back-woods hicks. It's ironic that he'd mock the one group that teaches gun safety and has reduced gun crime and gun accidents, when he himself gets paid a lot to glorify the bad handling of guns.

Even during a speech by the head of the NRA, the national news agencies and media outlets in attendance were mocking him over twitter before he even began to speak. A fair approach to journalism?

Take note: Mockery is the new gun banner's tool to build public approval for their side.

What Can You Do?

(1) Send 22 Emails With 2 Clicks. 
Use these two links to instantly email all your representatives, and use them both weekly.

• Rugar Email Site
• Smith & Wesson Email Site

(2) Call Your State Reps Weekly

Keep it up. The calls and emails are working, but the gun banners are expecting us to get tired out. Be nice, but to the point.

• Do not support any new gun legislation.
• Do not support the bogus "Universal Background Checks."
• I will work to send you home or I will work to support you, depending on how you vote on this one thing.

Find your reps here: http://whoismyrepresentative.com/ and save their phone numbers in your phone as Congress 1, 2, and 3 with their names so that they are easy to call.

(3) Send Personal Emails Too

Even with the automated email links above, send some custom written emails. I think it's important to send something that is personally written so that it gets read. Remind them that you are strongly motivated, and vote specifically on this one issue of gun rights.

(4) Join the NRA

There is no group better when it comes to access and influence with Congress and gun rights, and numbers of NRA members matter. The media has been trying to demonize and mock the NRA, but membership is growing leaps and bounds.

Be a year member for only about $25 using a discount with this link.

(5) Spread the Word

Spread the word by passing this around to all your friends and encourage them to all do the same thing. We have the facts and the majority of people in our favor. We just need to speak up.

(6) Take Someone Shooting

It’s amazing how taking someone shooting inoculates them against the lies of gun-banners. The more people get into shooting and study self-defense, the more they realize how much they want to prepare to defend themselves, and how much the government gets in their way of doing so.

(7) Read and educate yourself on the subject.

The sources I used above are listed below. Check them out as well as more of my articles right here.

• Free E-Book of Gun Facts
- http://www.gunfacts.info/pdfs/gun-facts/6.1/gun_facts_6_1_screen.pdf

• Obama’s false numbers that 40% of guns are sold privately and the background check system stopped more than 1.5 million people from getting guns.

- http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/338735/40-percent-myth-john-lott

- http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/jan/30/the-gun-show-loophole-myth/

• Gun banners insist on total registration, and anything else is "toothless."
- http://www.politico.com/story/2013/02/obamas-senate-gun-outreach-falling-short-88055.html?hp=t2_3

• Medved: Two Rallies, Two World Views
- http://www.michaelmedved.com/column/two-rallies-two-world-views/

What Pistol Should I Buy

I got another call today from someone asking what they should buy and I thought it would make a good article for my friends.

For the past few weeks I’ve been getting all sorts of calls from people asking me which gun they should buy. Some have been wanting one for a while and are motivated by the proposed bans, others have been indifferent on gun politics in the past but all the talk on TV is making them more interested, and others are rethinking their current plan for self and home defense because it seems their plan in the past was to just “not get attacked,” and if they do, then “call the police.” Of course both avoiding attacks and calling the police are needed as a part of any self-defense plan, but what they are realizing is that they need to defend themselves if and when something happens in while they wait for the police to arrive.

Before You Go Gun Shopping

Here are a few things to remember before you go gun shopping.

1) Hold or Shoot It First.
You can ask 10 people what gun to buy and get 10 different suggestions depending on what each person owns, and in the case of a gun store, what gun is actually in stock. Instead of taking that approach, I will instead give you some recommendations on gun types to look at, and will urge you to actually get your hands on one and hold it to see how it feels in your hands.

If you can shoot one before you buy, it will even be better. Some stores that have a range will let you shoot used versions, and friends of yours I’m sure will be glad to take you and let you shoot theirs.

2) This Won't Be Your Last Gun.
When people ask, “should I buy this one or that one,” my answer is usually “yes,” one now and one later. This may be your first gun, but this probably won’t be your last. Once you start shooting, you will want others for very specific purposes. That takes some pressure off trying to get the perfect gun I think.

For many people, a first gun is usually a pistol that will be used in home defense and also possibly concealed carry. I’m using this assumption for my recommendation below.

3) Bigger Guns = Easier to Shoot.
Remember that the bigger the gun, the easier it is to shoot, and vise versa. Many people are drawn to the itty-bitty small guns at a store, and feel that because they are newer shooters, a smaller gun is just fine for them. In actuality, the smaller and lighter a gun, the harder the recoil, the harder it is to hold correctly, and the harder it is to aim due to its shorter sight radius. This is yet another reason why you should shoot something before you buy it. You may find that the gun you like in a store isn’t the gun you like to shoot and therefore carry.

A larger gun is usually better for home defense because it’s so much easier to hold and control, but because of the larger size, it is harder and heavier when it comes to concealment. Therefore I think the perfect medium for someone looking for only buying one gun is to get a medium sized (sometimes called compact) version that you can use in home defense and for carry.

4) Best Gun is One You Have With You.
The best gun is the one you have on you when you need it. You don’t wear your seatbelt only on the days you plan on getting in a wreck, and you don’t keep fire extinguishers around the house because you expect a fire. Rather, both are examples of being prepared when you need it. Having any gun on you when you need it is better than having the theoretical “ideal” gun back at home where it can’t help you.

The best gun is therefore one that you’re likely to keep with you, one that you like to shoot, feels comfortable in your hands, and one that you can shoot well. Keep this in mind when you shop for a pistol. That is why you must not simply take someone’s opinion but rather hold and feel how different guns feel in your hand and if possible, shoot many different kinds first.

5) Caliber Isn’t as Important as Many Think.
Ten years ago you might have made an argument of the stopping power of a .45 ACP over a 9mm or .380, but with today’s ammo the caliber isn’t as important.

In fact studies have shown that what stops an attacker is 2.5 rounds to center mass – regardless of the round. For that reason as well as lower price, lower recoil, and the higher amount of rounds that you can fit in a standard magazine, I am going to recommend a 9mm. Of course for carry, you will want self defense rounds in it and not the full metal jacket cartridges used for practice.

6) Get a Good Holster.
The right holster and carry system is imperative for both safety and for quick retrieval. If you are wearing your gun on your belt inside or outside your pants, you will need the proper holster and gun belt. If you are a woman and carrying the gun in a purse, you will still need a holster specifically for the purse, and I would recommend even a gun-purse as well (a purse specifically for carrying a gun). You don’t want gum and lipstick getting into the trigger and you don’t want to have to dig for it when you need it.

As far as belt holsters go, try Cross Breed Holsters or Alien Gear Holsters because they not only spread out the weight of the gun on your belt, but they hold them in tight, and also allow one-handed holstering, and tuck-able shirts too.

Also a gun belt should be used, which is stiffer and made to spread out the weight of the gun across the entire belt, rather than a normal belt that will sag to the side or pull down your pants. Cross Breed sells great gun belts.

7) Think Safe at Home.
Especially if you have children or others in your home, have a system of safety at home and a place to put your gun when it’s not on you or when you’re asleep. Many people are getting a small gun safe like this one that opens quickly when you need it.

8) Get Training.
You want to know your gun as well as you know your car’s controls. When you drive a car, you don’t have to look down at the gearshift or pedals, and if something bad happens, you react instinctively without thinking about each hand and each control. Similarly, you should feel the same about your gun and that means you need training.

The saying goes, “When the time comes, you won’t rise to the occasion, but rather fall to the lowest level of training.”

For many across the country, carrying concealed is becoming a growing option and some states only make that option available if you jump through a few government hoops first. One hoop is a concealed carry class that some feel is training. It is not. It is simply a worthless government requirement where they remind you to only use a gun to protect life, not stuff.

You should already know that, and you should also get lots of training. The government should not mandate training in order for you to practice your constitutional right to defend yourself, nevertheless, you should get training on your own.

Spending time with an NRA shooting instructor will help you with your grip, stance, holstering, drawing from concealment, and overall technique. Training can also cover mindset, positioning and scenarios as well, and the more you learn, the more you'll want to learn.

Some classes can be expensive, so at the very least or as you save and prepare for a class, I’d recommend this set of DVDs from Magpul as well as all these DVDs from GunTalk.

Types of Pistols to Look At

I recommend to my friends, as a standard go-to gun for both home protection and concealed carry, a striker-fired 9mm semi-auto pistol. That would be like a Glock, Springfield XDm, or Smith and Wesson M&P. There are others and all good brands will offer good guns, but I'd start with these three.

Pistols of the past have traditionally used a hammer to fire the round, which meant that the hand and grip was lower due to the mechanics. A lower grip makes for a higher fulcrum of recoil, meaning it’s harder to control.

The new line of striker-fired semi-auto pistols allows your hand to hold the gun higher for more control, plus they have plenty of internal safeties that make the gun easier to use when you need it. And because many of these use “double-stack” magazines, they also allow you to carry more rounds in your firearm, which is crucial when you need your gun for self defense.

Women Who Will Carry In a Purse

Women who are carrying in a custom gun purse (of course with purse holster as well) may also look at a hammerless snub-nosed revolver because it will allow you to fire and keep firing from within the purse where a semi-auto will jam in that situation.

There is a particular technique to shooting from a purse, so ask about that when you train. But even still, remember that a revolver will hold fewer rounds and will be harder to shoot than a striker-fired semi-auto. Nevertheless, if the purpose is for a purse, the revolver is still the best. Keep the round smaller, like a 38 Special over a .357 magnum to keep it easier to shoot, because a revolver will twist and torque your wrist more.

Customize the Grips

With the newer striker-fired pistols, you can usually change the back-strap to a smaller grip, and most people prefer the smallest option because it gives them more control. Also, if you go with Glock, I’d recommend also getting a Hogue brand rubber over-grip as well.

One of My Favorites

The Springfield XDm 3.8 in 9mm is great, and I really like the compact version because it is exactly the same size as the full-sized version but with a shorter grip. In this way it’ll hold both compact and full size magazines, making it a full-sized gun when you need it at home and a compact gun for carry.

Again, before you buy anything, at least hold if not try them first if possible, and get with a trainer to make sure your technique is safe and the most effective possible.

Disclaimer: This is for entertainment purposes only. I'm not an expert and you really should seek the opinion of an expert. I offer this information freely in hopes of putting you on a bigger path of education and I can’t and don’t take responsibility for how you may use or interpret this information. I offer it in hopes that you will be more prepared and perhaps be able to save your life or a loved one’s. Nevertheless, no one but you can be responsible for how you handle or store a gun. You must always follow all the rules of gun safety at all times, store and clean your gun safely, and get training from a NRA firearms instructor.

Magazine Capacity Myths Debunked

Gun banners say that normal capacity magazines hold too many rounds, and they should be limited. If the normal number for each gun's magazine is wrong, then what's the right number? 29? 28? 15? 10? 5? .....ONE?

The theory according to gun banners, is that reload time during a rampage murder would give un-armed and helpless victims caught in that "gun-free zone" murder spree, a final chance to fight back with their hands and words.

So instead of allowing victims to have the tools to defend themselves, the gun banners instead want to restrict those people even more, in hopes that those restrictions eventually filter down to criminals – criminals who are cowards and particularly prey on the helpless. Remember that rampage murders never attack places or people who are prepared with an armed resistance.

Gun Banners Say the Number Should Be....

Feinstein has picked the low number of 10 to be the number of rounds that's okay, making 11 horribly wrong. New York says 10 and even 8 rounds is too much and it must be 7, California not wanting to be out-done want's to lead the country in gun bans and is looking for an even lower number, but they'll have to outdo New Jersey who says it should be 3. Connecticut though, is saying what the gun banners want to say, that the number should be as close to zero as they can get – they want it to be ONE!

Remember that gun banners don't want you to have any guns and the real number of rounds that they want to restrict you to is actually ZERO! They like registration, they like confiscation, and they like the number zero when it comes to guns and bullets.

They see no need for guns in today's modern age, and want a completely gun free America. One of the gun banner organizers admitted that if given a magic want, not even the police would have guns. Every ban, every restriction is another step closer to their goal of zero.

Magazine Capacity Myth Debunked

No gun ban stops crime and this one is no different. Bans on normal capacity magazines only affect law abiding citizens and not criminals. Why?

Rampage murders tend to be prepared to kill as many people as possible before being stopped with violent force. Because of that, they pick "gun-free zones" for their murder spree, and come prepared with tons of magazines and guns for quick transitions. Bans on capacity does nothing to affect the rampage murder or criminal.

On the other hand, law-abiding citizens who carry concealed weapons don't carry bags full of loaded magazines with them. Therefore, restrictions in capacity only hurts the law-abiding citizen who is left to defend with only rounds allowed in their gun that they're carrying.

Here Sheriff Ken Campbell demonstrates that both experienced and inexperienced shooters can still fire the same number of rounds in a certain amount of time using various sized magazines by simply reloading over and over. They show that there is no time for victims to fight back during a reload, and that banning normal capacity magazines:

(1) does not pass the common sense test,
(2) it does not give un-armed victims a realistic chance to tackle a murderer,
(3) but it does make it harder for civilians to defend themselves against a violent attack.

And here is a great article by Miller for the Washington Times titled, "The High-Capacity Magazine Myth."

What Can You Do?

(1) Send 22 Emails With 2 Clicks

Both Ruger and Smith & Wesson have set up a website where you can send 11 pre-written letters by emails at once to your local and state representatives. Use both sites each week to send letters each week.

• Rugar Email Site
• Smith & Wesson Email Site

(2) Call Your State Reps Weekly

It'll take less than 1 minute per call and the message should be short and clear:

• "Universal Background Checks are a fancy gun-ban term for total registration and then confiscation."
• "All gun bans and restrictions have proven to fail to stop crime."
• "We are watching you very closely on this issue and will send you home if you support any part of these proposed anti-gun bills."

Find your reps here: http://whoismyrepresentative.com/ and save their phone numbers in your phone as Congress 1, 2, and 3 with their names so that they are easy to call. Be friendly and to the point.

(3) Send Personal Emails Too

Even with the automated email links above, I've been sending certain representatives custom written emails. I think it's important to send something that is personally written so that it gets read. You can address certain things they've said both good and bad, and of course remind them that you are strongly motivated, and vote specifically on this one issue of gun rights.

(4) Join the NRA

There is no group better when it comes to access and influence with Congress and gun rights, and numbers of NRA members matter. The media has been trying to demonize and mock the NRA, but membership is growing leaps and bounds.

Be a year member for only about $25 using a discount with this link.

(5) Spread the Word

Spread the word by passing this around to all your friends and encourage them to all do the same thing. We have the facts and the majority of people in our favor. We just need to speak up.

(6) Take Someone Shooting

It’s amazing how taking someone shooting inoculates them against the lies of gun-banners. The more people get into shooting and study self-defense, the more they realize how much they want to prepare to defend themselves, and how much the government gets in their way of doing so.

(7) Read and educate yourself on the subject.

The sources I used above are listed below. Check them out as well as more of my articles right here.

• Conn Lawmaker Pushes for Limits to ONE Round
- http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/01/11/Conn-Lawmaker-Pushes-Barney-Fife-Law-Limits-Guns-To-One-Round

• Pulitzer Prize winning playwright David Mamet: Why We Have Guns
- http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/01/why_we_have_guns.html

• Free E-Book of Gun Facts
- http://www.gunfacts.info/pdfs/gun-facts/6.1/gun_facts_6_1_screen.pdf

• Medved: Why Obama Hides Good News on Guns
- http://www.michaelmedved.com/column/why-obama-hides-good-news-on-guns/ 

• Miller: Washington Times: The High Capacity Magazine Myth
- http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/jan/27/the-high-capacity-magazine-myth/

I Support the 2nd Amendment, BUT…

Have you heard people say this? “I support the 2^nd Amendment, BUT ______.”

No matter what they say after, it shows that they really don’t support or perhaps understand the 2^nd Amendment.

The 2^nd Amendment is not about having to jump through tons of hoops, only to be restricted to one gun with one bullet. It’s about being able to keep (meaning to own) and bear (meaning to carry) arms without infringement.

All the data shows that the Founders had it right, that when Americans are more free in their gun rights, crime goes down, and when they are restricted, crime goes up. (see Gun Facts eBook, and John Lott’s book.)

But this phrase, “I support the 2nd Amendment, BUT ______” is how the gun banners appeal to the public to sound as if they understand both sides of the issue, it makes them sound centered in their approach, it’s a way to appeal to uneducated gun owners, and a way to divide gun owners into smaller groups that can be more easily conquered (hunters vs. enthusiasts vs. collectors vs. self defense, etc.).

Sadly more gun owners and politicians have been heard saying this phrase recently, perhaps with the worry that if they don’t, they will offend some of their constituents.

The right thing to say is, “I support the 2^nd Amendment, PERIOD!”

Gun Rights ARE Civil Rights

There is a new video commercial you should watch and share to help educate people of that fact, created by the 2^nd Amendment Foundation.

http://youtu.be/UBelF4UddcY

The 2^nd Amendment Foundation differs from the NRA in that the NRA’s main strength is with Congress who creates gun legislation, where the 2^nd Amendment Foundation is made up of lawyers who systematically bring court cases to trial on the issues of gun civil rights, in order to restore lost gun rights from bad legislation, which sometimes takes decades or longer. This is why we must fight now, before bad laws are created.

(A great read on why we have guns in America, Pulitzer Prize winning playwright David Mamet writes this article: Why We Have Guns)

Gun bans never slow crime, new bans won’t either.

Gun banner groups say that the reason past bans have failed is because they didn’t go far enough in stripping Americans of their gun rights, and therefore they want to take new gun bans even further.

These new proposed gun bans are not at all about stopping violence, but instead they are designed to ban and confiscate millions of firearms from law-abiding citizens.

If it were about decreasing violence, and if it were even true that banning inanimate and amoral objects would somehow increase morality and decrease murders, then why not ban those instruments used the most often in murders?

And what are those items used most often? If you were to get your view of the outside world from the media, than you might guess guns. But according to the FBI, people are far more likely to be killed with clubs, hammers and feet, than with guns, particularly the certain rifles and gun parts that banners can most easily demonize in the news.

Obama Has Caused Gun Sales to Soar, & Murders Are Down.

If President Obama really believes that we have a “growing culture of violence” and that guns are to blame, then why didn’t he do anything about guns when he was first elected, when murders were much higher?

In actuality, since he was first elected, gun sales have been through the roof as millions of Americans have taken his threats towards bans seriously. Each new threat has brought more new shooters into the market and has made experienced shooters buy more too. As a result, gun ownership is at an all-time high, and murders and violence keep declining.

In fact, Obama should instead be touting the successful drop in murders and violence since he came into office, but instead he hides good news on guns because it goes against his agenda and narrative that we live in a “growing culture of violence.”

Rampage Murders Are Obviously Politicized

Even rampage murders are down despite the news. Rampage murders are mass murders committed by a coward who wants to commit suicide and decides to do it while killing a lot of innocent people at the same time. They always happen in "gun-free zones" as a way for the coward to finally become infamous, and finally get the attention he seeks so desperately.

The media and politicians like to blame rampage murders on inanimate objects like guns, but the truth is that rampage murders use bombs, blunt objects, and anything else they can find. There was even a rampage murderer who attacked a school on the same day of the Sandy Hook event, but it got no media coverage because the attacker used a knife to stab a class full of petrified 5 year babies. Where was the outcry towards certain makes and models of knives?

There is a particular mind-set of a rampage murderer and the answer is not creating more useless laws banning objects used by millions of good people for self-defense, but rather to deal with the actual problem of broken families, mental illness, and the fact that the media’s undivided attention on such killers feeds future rampage murders.

But still, despite the media’s incessant attention to make infamous the cowards who commit rampage murders, we still have less violence in or society despite having more guns.

"I Support the 2A, BUT Magazine Bans Save Lives." False!

The gun banners keep saying this, and various proposed bills are trying to limit magazine capacity under the guise that the reload time will give the un-armed and helpless victims in a "gun-free zone" murder spree, a chance to fight back with their hands.

Feinstein is saying that the restriction must be 10 rounds, New York says 10 and even 8 rounds is too much and it must be 7, California not wanting to be out-done is looking for an even lower number but they'll have to try and outdo New Jersey who says it should be 3, and Connecticut who wants it to only be 1 round!

What none of the gun banners are saying is the number they really want, and the number they're trying to get to eventually – which is ZERO! They see no need for guns and want a completely gun free America. But instead they try to divide gun owners in an attempt to conquer some and say, "I support the 2nd Amendment, BUT no one should be able to have more than __ rounds."

Magazine Capacity Myth Debunked

Here in this recent video, Sheriff Ken Campbell demonstrates that both experienced and inexperienced shooters can still fire the same about of rounds, and that banning normal capacity magazines (1) does not pass the common sense test, (2) it does not give un-armed victims a realistic chance to tackle a murderer, (3) but it does make it harder for civilians to defend themselves against a violent attack.

What Can You Do?

(1) Send 22 Emails With 2 Clicks

Both Ruger and Smith & Wesson have set up a website where you can send 11 pre-written letters by emails at once to your local and state representatives. Use both sites each week to send letters each week.

• Rugar Email Site
• Smith & Wesson Email Site

(2) Call Your State Reps Weekly

It'll take less than 1 minute per call and the message should be short and clear:

• "Universal Background Checks are a fancy gun-ban term for total registration and then confiscation."
• "All gun bans and restrictions have proven to fail to stop crime."
• "We are watching you very closely on this issue and will send you home if you support any part of these proposed anti-gun bills."

Find your reps here: http://whoismyrepresentative.com/ and save their phone numbers in your phone as Congress 1, 2, and 3 with their names so that they are easy to call. Be friendly and to the point.

(3) Send Personal Emails Too

Even with the automated email links above, I've been sending certain representatives custom written emails. I think it's important to send something that is personally written so that it gets read. You can address certain things they've said both good and bad, and of course remind them that you are strongly motivated, and vote specifically on this one issue of gun rights.

(4) Join the NRA

There is no group better when it comes to access and influence with Congress and gun rights, and numbers of NRA members matter. The media has been trying to demonize and mock the NRA, but membership is growing leaps and bounds.

Be a year member for only about $25 using a discount with this link.

(5) Spread the Word

Spread the word by passing this around to all your friends and encourage them to all do the same thing. We have the facts and the majority of people in our favor. We just need to speak up.

(6) Take Someone Shooting

It’s amazing how taking someone shooting inoculates them against the lies of gun-banners. The more people get into shooting and study self-defense, the more they realize how much they want to prepare to defend themselves, and how much the government gets in their way of doing so.

(7) Read and educate yourself on the subject.

The sources I used above are listed below. Check them out as well as more of my articles right here.

• Conn Lawmaker Pushes for Limits to ONE Round
- http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/01/11/Conn-Lawmaker-Pushes-Barney-Fife-Law-Limits-Guns-To-One-Round

• Pulitzer Prize winning playwright David Mamet: Why We Have Guns
- http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/01/why_we_have_guns.html

• Free E-Book of Gun Facts
- http://www.gunfacts.info/pdfs/gun-facts/6.1/gun_facts_6_1_screen.pdf

• Medved: Why Obama Hides Good News on Guns
- http://www.michaelmedved.com/column/why-obama-hides-good-news-on-guns/