The election comes to Arizona

Have you all noticed that the political ads started in earnest over the last few days? It seems that the parties have discovered Arizona as next week's primary fast approaches.

With all the hype and bluster surrounding the Republican nominees growing almost daily, and the Hilary vs Sanders race looking more and more like Titanic vs the iceberg, what does that mean for gun owners and those who enjoy the shooting sports?

I think it's a given that if Sanders/Clinton get into office there will be an assault on the shooting fraternity, but what form will it take? The more I think about it, the more I think that unless there is a landslide in congress and the senate, not to mention a HUGE vote for the Dems, they will not attempt an outright ban on firearms, and probably not even on "assault" guns.

I think it's way more likely that they will attempt a death of 1000 cuts approach. Bans on hi cap magazines, ammunition limits, bullet buttons etc etc is the way I think the attack would be made, as they know that anything more would be unlikely to go anywhere.

Universal background checks I think would also be likely to make another appearance. Is it wise to try and fight ALL these challenges? We were asked about universal background checks last year, and what was our opinion, and as you can probably imagine, got a few interesting comments when we said that we didn;t really have a problem with it. When you bare in mind that if you buy a new gun, it's accepted that you will do a background check, does it make sense that it would be any different for a used firearm?

I certainly wouldn't sell a firearm to someone I didn't know via backpage, I would go through a store like Caswells or another FFL, and sell it by consignment, why? Because I want to know that the person I have sold it to is not prohibited from owning that firearm. To me, it's all about responsible gun ownership. Can we win every battle, or should our eye be on the big picture, and the wider and far more important issue of defending the 2nd amendment?

What do YOU think, how should we go about defending our rights?

Do you carry at work?

There have been some great news stories this week, and not all surrounding the bun fight that is the republican nominations!

Unusually, the story doesn't revolve around attacks on the 2nd amendment, but more has more to do with when it's acceptable to carry a firearm at work.

Following an armed robbery attempt in Minnesota, that was foiled by citizens legally carrying concealed firearms. This lead to a guy who owns an insurance brokers deciding that all his employees should be compelled to carry a concealed firearm, obviously having completed the training I harp on so much about!

In his case, having polled his employees, all of them agreed, and thus everyone is now carrying at that particular workplace. The owner stated that the move wasn't to protect goods or money, but so people could protect themselves and each other in a life threatening situation.

How would you feel about being compelled to carry a firearm at work? The interesting dichotomy here is that we have a complete reversal of the attacks on the 2nd amendment. When these attacks are made, the obvious and of course completely correct counter is that peoples rights are being infringed if they are prevented from carrying a firearm. Could it be argued that the people who don't want to carry a firearm, would be having their rights infringed in that situation?




Personally, I am far happier carrying at all times, but some are not. Should they be compelled to train, and carry concealed in a work environment, so they are able to defend themselves, and their colleagues? What do YOU think?

On a slightly different note, you may have seen stories this week about a lady in Florida called Jamie Gilt. She recently made statements on Facebook about her 4 year old son being proficient at shooting, and making many statements about right to carry responsibly.

She then managed to get shot in the back, by her 4 year old, whilst driving, with a .45 that she obviously left within his reach as she drove!!

As I said in my piece last week, PLEASE don't give the anti gun/2nd amendment people ammunition to shoot at us with (if you'll pardon the pun). This really is an open goal that CNN have gone to town with.

Train train train, and practice safe gun handling ALWAYS, and follow the rules, be safe!!

Can gun owners be their own worst enemy?

We here all the time about assaults on the 2nd amendment, attempts to change the law, and make firearms more difficult own. This normally follows some kind of appalling attack by someone who would have had the weapons they had, no matter what laws were passed. But sometimes, the stories are a little different, are usually the most tragic, and usually the most easily avoided.

The absolutely tragic story from Missouri a short while ago is a case in point. It's one of those tragedies that those that seek to make gun ownership more difficult shamelessly exploit to highlight how "dangerous guns are in the home", you've all heard the arguments. When a 5 year old finds a loaded gun, and accidentally shoots his baby brother in the head, with a gun left lying around, you have to ask some searching questions.

The most basic education, for the parent and/or children would have avoiding this tragic incident. If

the gun was secured, if the child had been educated in gun safety, if if if, so many things could and should have prevented this. But would have banning the gun have had any better effect than training the child or parents?

When there is an accident with children and bleach, cars, electrical outlets, water, swimming pools and many others, are there calls to ban swimming pools and electrical outlets? Are pressure groups formed, trying to show that swimming pools are inherently dangerous, and should be subject to onerous controls, or banned altogether? Of course not, but that is what the gun control lobby would have the government do.

And that's the point here. Tragedies such as the one detailed above are so so easily avoided, with simple no/low cost approaches and strategies, even some basic training! Whilst training is not compulsory, wouldn't it be a a good idea to have training in the safe use, storage and handling of a firearm? Gun owners would not only be protecting themselves, their families and friends, but also their rights.

The more stories like this that appear, the higher the anti gun fire is stoked, and the harder it is to

resist New York like regulation of your firearms. To a great extent, I think it's fair to say that the future of gun rights, and the 2nd amendment lies with firearm owners.

Just contrast the story detailed above with the one I detail in this link. Can there be ANY reason not to train, and make sure the way you handle your firearms is safe, and the and the same for other family members?


Original story from CNN