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

Eric Holder suggested that the probe is a "political" effort to embarrass the administration.

Holder: No Coverup by DOJ
on 'Fast and Furious'

(GunReports.com) -- Attorney General Eric Holder vigorously denied a "coverup" by the Justice Department over "Operation Fast and Furious," telling a House panel investigating the botched gun-running program on Feb. 2 that he has nothing to hide and suggesting the probe is a "political" effort to embarrass the administration.

"There's no attempt at any kind of coverup," Holder told lawmakers who form the House Oversight and Government Relations Committee led by Chairman Darrell Issa, R-Calif.

"We're not going to be hiding behind any kind of privileges or anything," he said.

The hearing came after Issa and Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, his Senate partner in the probe, asserted that top Justice officials are covering up events surrounding the flawed gun-smuggling probe.

Read more here.

Tweet

Reader Comments

Yeah, and if you believe anything that Holder and his cronies tell us, I have a really nice bridge in New York that I can sell to you.

Comment by: canovack | February 9, 2012

Yeah, right, Eric!

Comment by: PVB | February 9, 2012

Well, technically, there is a difference between 'cover-up' and 'stonewall'.

And notice, his statement that he "told" everybody this stuff had to stop is also something he can't prove. Certain suck-ups will verify it, no matter how many DOJ and ATF folks say they never heard it. But there is no mention of any staff memo to put that statement into writing. Maybe what he meant was 'this business of getting caught red-handed has to stop'!

Comment by: david b | February 9, 2012

Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't the Holder in this article, who is "not going to be hiding behind any kind of privileges or anything," the same Holder who refused to provide the House Committee with more documents because of "executive privilege?"

Comment by: Visigoth52 | February 10, 2012

Visisgoth - you need to drink more Kool-Aid!

Comment by: PVB | February 10, 2012

No, Visigoth52, you're correct. Same Holder. Kind of makes me wonder what he's holding right now....

Comment by: david b | February 10, 2012

Now, now, Eric ... part of being in a position of responsibilty is being able to man-up and admit your guilt.

Comment by: Nanjing03 | February 10, 2012

Speaking purely metaphorically, david, I'm hoping he's holding aces and eights.

Comment by: Visigoth52 | February 10, 2012

Metaphorically, of course! I'd like to see that smug SOB ridden out of town on a rail. Instead, I fear all we'll get is his rail riding us, if you catch my metaphor...

Comment by: PVB | February 10, 2012

Yeah Holder, you arrogant SOB. And I am a midwife.

Comment by: Cecil B | February 10, 2012

I'm pretty much convinced at this point that DOJ is engaged not just in stonewalling, but in intentional delay tactics as well. They're probably trying to figure out how to eliminate EVERY trace of the program from every server and computer at the BATFE, DOJ, White House and any other place any mention of F&F may have gone - perhaps to State, perhaps 'bragging letters' to the Brady folks, etc. Or maybe they're just hoping to keep it under the rug until after the elections....

I've seen corporate paper shredding operations, and believe me, DOJ could have shredded the Library of Congress in this much time, so I'm sure they're buying time for something else. You can now have a truck pull up to the dock, and it'll shred an entire 60-gallon trash can of paper in seconds. When the 'tank' is full, it drives off to a landfill somewhere, or to a recycling plant. Not even the CIA or KGB could recover evidence after the paper's been bleached and boiled down into mash and pressed back into shopping bags or something. And if you need say, 5 (or 50) truck loads to disappear, the company does have multiple trucks.

It's like the paper version of burning Koresh's compound to the ground with everyone in it, keeping the fire trucks 5 miles away, and then rolling in with dozers to bury the evidence before anyone from news media or genuine law enforcement can get near it.

Comment by: david b | February 11, 2012

They have enough evidence to take holder to court but obama would have him free from any kind of action by law enforcement in a heart beat. Why? Because the one is just as guilty as the other, after all, brothers have to take care of each other. Hey Bro, thats what the race card is all about.

Comment by: Vernon R | February 11, 2012

Unfortunately guys, we are all pissing down our own legs. Nothing is going to happen to Holder, just like nothing happened to Cheney when he outed a CIA agent. They are all assholes and hopefully all will rot in hell. I just hope I am in charge of the work assignments.

Comment by: Cecil B | February 11, 2012

OR nothing happened to Cheney when he shot somebody after drinking....

Comment by: PVB | February 12, 2012

AND, Bush didn't do any time for 18 months or so of being AWOL. In fact, some dummies made a deserter into a POTUS. I'm still in awe of that twist of events. I always thought deserters were supposed to be shot.

Comment by: david b | February 12, 2012

Same dummies that voted a Chicago politician and community organizer into the office. Don't forget the philandering, silver tongued devil Ms. Flowers warned us about....

Comment by: PVB | February 12, 2012

I don't think that any of us will be satisfied with any president all of the time. It seems to be the nature of the beast that presidents are targets for criticism, regardless of who they are and/or what they have done. My life began during the administration of Franklin D. Roosevelt, and it seems that every president since that time, including FDR has pissed off somebody someplace at some time. It does seem to me, though, that our most recent occupants of the Oval Office have been the most criticized, although FDR has rightfully taken his share of the flack. Perhaps it's an age thing with me, but when I think back over all of the presidents who held office during my life, the ones that I liked best were those of my relatively apolitical youth.....Harry Truman and Dwight Eisenhower.

Comment by: canovack | February 12, 2012

Criticism of a President is both right and proper. No President makes all of the people happy all of the time. The goal seems to be irritating the fewest so he can get reelected. People loved Reagan (and HST, DDE and others) because even if you disagreed with them they were rational disagreements. Polarizing Presidents such as Nixon and Obama want to do precisely what they want and if you disagree you are an enemy or a racist or something else pejorative. It's not only sad, but it is becoming so divisive as to Balkanize this great nation.

Comment by: Visigoth52 | February 12, 2012

I agree that presidential criticism is a necessary part of the conduct of our nation's business. I also agree that many of our latter day presidents have overstepped their prerogatives, attempting to usurp power and privilege that rightfully did not belong to them, or simply by doing asinine things that presidents should never do. That said, while we may light up the White House switchboard with phone calls and emails, our criticisms are likely to fall on deaf ears. That leaves us with the only avenue for redress being the Congress, and if we are seriously going to make ourselves heard there, we will need to do something pretty radical.....like ABI (Anybody But Incumbents) as we approach the November election.

Comment by: canovack | February 12, 2012

They DON'T get MY vote in November. And you must remember Colonel, Ike and Truman had moral fiber.

Comment by: Cecil B | February 12, 2012

As for Reagan, he caught his share of flack too, as I recall. The media hated him and blasted him every chance they got, and the democrats were unable to come up with any credible candidates.

Anybody But Incumbents...

Comment by: PVB | February 12, 2012

I wrote myself in both times rather than vote for Reagan. I know that SOB is in hell with Stalin. At least I hope so.

Comment by: Cecil B | February 12, 2012