Don’t give up if a replacement firing pin is unavailable from your catalog suppliers. Instead, use these tips to solve the problem.

Here are all the items tested in Gun Tests magazine from 2011 back through 1999.

The group Media Matters for America hates NRA. Few organizations have more strongly proclaimed their disdain for our right to keep and bear arms and self-protection, says the NRA-ILA.

Lethal Force Institute’s Massad Ayoob gives a lesson on what to do if you are stopped with firearms in your vehicle. These essential tips will teach you how to safely interact with police when carrying a firearm while driving. (3:47).

Gun Reports - News

Senator Dick Lugar of Indiana never met a gun control bill he didn’t like, and his F-rating is well-deserved, Gun Owners of America says.

Anti-gun Republicans Lugar
and Bloomberg Raise Funds in NYC

(GunReports.com) -- It’s no surprise that the country’s most anti-gun Republican mayor, Michael Bloomberg, invited the U.S. Senate’s most anti-gun Republican member up to his New York City residence for cocktails and a fund raiser this week, according to the Gun Owners of America.

Senator Dick Lugar of Indiana never met a gun control bill he didn’t like, and his F-rating from GOA is well-deserved, the group says.

Bloomberg, of course, founded the group Mayors Against Illegal Guns. Bloomberg, conveniently, thinks virtually all guns should be illegal. So MAIG is simply yet another gun prohibition organization.

While Bloomberg and Lugar may get along fine, his Republican primary opponent, Richard Moudock, is reaching out to gun owners throughout the state.

The Indiana Republican primary for senate is one of the most important races in the country for gun owners, and we don’t have to wait around for November to hand the anti-gunners a massive defeat.

The May 8th primary features two candidates who are diametrically opposed on the Second Amendment:

• Dick Lugar does not agree that the Second Amendment protects an individual right.
• Richard Mourdock believes the message of the Second Amendment is clear: “shall not be infringed” is a restriction on federal power to regulate gun ownership.
• Dick Lugar doesn’t trust the people with firearms, so he supports banning semi-automatic rifles that he erroneously calls “assault weapons.”
• Richard Mourdock understands that gun bans don’t stop criminals, but only hamper the ability of law-abiding citizens to defend themselves.
• Dick Lugar believes you should submit to a waiting period before you purchase a handgun, hence “enjoying” a little time to “cool off.”
• Richard Mourdock believes that it’s the Congress that should “cool off” and stop passing bill after bill that ignores the Constitution.
• Perhaps worst of all, Dick Luger supports UN efforts to pass the small arms treaty, a treaty that could impact every gun owner in America. Dick Lugar was the ONLY Republican Senator NOT to come out in opposition to the treaty.
• Richard Mourdock will never vote to hand over any authority to the UN.

This Senate election is particularly important in the event that Barack Obama manages to win another term. If Obama is reelected, Dick Lugar means one more vote for anti-gun Supreme Court justices, the small arms treaty and other anti-gun legislation.

Tweet

Reader Comments

Naturally they're raising money in New York. Those damned fools give Bloomers money to take their gun rights away, at the same time they pay protection to the gangsters, cops and neighborhood thugs. But I can think of a hundred smaller cities where I doubt they're raise enough to get themselves a bus ticket out of town too.

Comment by: david b | December 8, 2011

This bit of news should come as a reminder that the enemies of freedom are not found only among Democrats. We have a tendency to think of Republicans as protectors of the Second Amendment, when in reality there are plenty of socialists to be found among their ranks, who have little if any concern for basic American freedoms and rights.

Comment by: canovack | December 9, 2011

I know I may be in for a lot of flak over the statement I'm about to make here, but I actually believe you'll find more enemies of freedom and The Constitution on Wall St. than you'll find in any union hall.

I was union myself for nearly two decades, and I can tell you with some certainty that they all consider themselves patriots, they all support the Constitution, and most of them own guns. They are your old service buddies, guys. They went home to drive trucks, build cars, butcher hogs and frame houses. Union all. They are NOT your enemies, nor are they dangerous to the nation. They ARE the nation as much as you and I. It's bankers and CEOs who are going to sell us down the river - if they can make a big enough profit doing it.

Comment by: david b | December 9, 2011

David b, I have little quarrel with your position. That said, however, I do have a problem with the public sector unions who seek ever increasing benefits and money. My reasoning is simple..... Public sector employees are being paid with my tax money, ergo the public sector unions are screwing with my tax money. Samuel Gompers and John L. Lewis are either rolling over in their graves, or they are laughing their asses off. The original intent of the labor movement, in this country, was to protect the common laborers from the excesses of corporate greed and mistreatment. Once the public sector employees became unionized, that horse turned a completely different color, because the unions then started messing with public funds. Public funds come from we the people, so we the people are being screwed every time one of the public sector unions flexes its' collective bargaining muscle.

Comment by: canovack | December 10, 2011

Well Colonel, I wasn't trying to put wings and halos on them. But remember that under US law they only get to ask for what they want and the management has to either agree, decline, counter or tough out a possible strike. And under US law strikes are legal. Now, the Air Traffic Controllers found out that you can't really fight the feds when THEY hire scabs to cross your picket lines - but a union does have recourse in the private sector. They don't however have any free-market capability -their very existence and everything they do is constrained by labor law. So if we fuss about them working for their own their benefit within established law, we might as well support 'reasonable restrictions' on gun rights too because then a legal right starts to loose it's meaning.

However, what I was addressing is the thinking I see here so often that unions are somehow anti-gun supporters. Its NOT true. They may not be as PRO gun as you and I (and few are), but as I said, most of the guys I worked with had guns and were pro Second Amendment.

Just because Nancy Pelosi and Hillary Clinton are Democrats and that party historically pandered to unions while the GOP pandered to the CEOs, does not make the unions themselves anti-gun. Logically one cannot just decide that since the modifier "Anti" starts with a letter "A", and A comes before B which comes before C, that C is then in any way equivalent to "Anti".

Comment by: david b | December 12, 2011

As I stated above, david, I have little quarrel with your position, but when public sector unions take my tax money and screw with public sector business/industry, I do get rankled. I am, as you note, well aware that lots of union members are ardent gunners and pro-Second Amendment supporters. I wonder, though, how far up the ladder that pro-Second Amendment support goes..... Do the union bosses embrace the Second Amendment with the same fervor as the rank and file? I ask that because as we are well aware, the rank of file of police officers are pretty pro-Second Amendment, but we see considerable political expressions of anti-Second Amendment sentiments from the chiefs and higher-up police administrators.

Comment by: canovack | December 12, 2011

Hmm. I just lost an entire comment somehow with crooked fingers on the keyboard.....

Anyway, In my experience sir, the management has little or no control over members votes in state or national elections. Regardless of what the management says, the members will usually vote their paycheck on economic or union issues, and or their own way on everything else - like Second Amendment. So a public employees union in NYC or DC or Chicago is likely to generally oppose gun rights on a member to member basis, but the opposite will be true of the machinists in an defense plant, or mid-west auto workers, or meat packers in the Dakotas.

A minor historical note - all the peaceful strikes and protests of the early last century did NOT make unions legal. A few shootouts with the Pinkertons and the police did do that. As soon as Congress realized that citizens were willing to shoot back against the corporate paid goons and the tools of the powerful, it became legal for unions to strike and negotiate. So they were in a sense born out of Second Amendment rights. Unions oppose the tyranny of uncontrolled economic power in the same way that guns control the tyranny of unbridled political power - the ability to stop it in its tracks.

Comment by: david b | December 12, 2011

After all of that discourse.....I think we are in agreement.....aren't we?

Comment by: canovack | December 12, 2011

Yes Colonel, I believe we are. But I was pleased to have a chance to make my case where everyone could see. Thanks.

Comment by: david b | December 13, 2011