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

'Old Gray Lady' tries to slip on new clothes

(GunReports.com) -- Larry Keane, general counsel for the National Shooting Sports Foundation, recently wrote a scathing blog entry about the Old really Gray Lady, aka The New York Times:

Yesterday, Andrew Rosenthal of The New York Times blasted the National Rifle Association while seemingly attempting to reinvent the paper’s position on gun control.

In his post, Mr. Rosenthal declared:

“I want to be clear: The New York Times editorial board does not oppose gun ownership. We believe the Second Amendment confers a communal right on Americans to own guns – not an individual one. But that’s actually a smaller point than you might think. All we really want are sensible restrictions based on public safety and common sense.”

Mr. Rosenthal, I want to be clear, too: The New York Times editorial board has a long history of attacking the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding Americans. Given this, it’s no surprise that the Times would disagree with the Supreme Court, which reaffirmed in two cases (Heller and McDonald) that the Second Amendment is an individual right and not a collective right of the state. This understanding has been widely accepted in legal and academic circles as the government does not have rights, only powers.

The article also disingenuously summarizes the anti-gun position of the Times. Here are just a few of the gun-control measures supported by the paper over the years:

• Licensing of firearms owners, which is de facto registration.
• Registering of all firearms, which is a necessary prerequisite to future confiscation.
• Allowing local governments to require personal and invasive information (including medical) before purchasing a firearm.
• Publicizing law enforcement-sensitive firearms trace data.
• Waiting periods to purchase, even if the owner passes a mandatory background check and already owns firearms.
• Banning all semi-automatic firearms, which are the overwhelming choice for sporting and self-defense purposes.
• Opposing licensed concealed carry.
• Opposing stand-your-ground laws – laws designed to ensure that law-abiding citizens do not need to turn their back on a threat before defending themselves.
• Mandating reporting of lost/stolen firearms, making criminals out of victims.
• Opposing private firearm transactions, including bequests and inheritances.
• Ending gun shows, even though retailers must comply with the same laws governing an in-store sale.
• Allowing licensed firearm manufactures, distributors and retailers to be held liable for the actions of criminals who misuse illegally obtained firearms.
• Treating firearms and firearms ownership as a public-health issue, like a disease.
• Advocating public funding of biased anti-gun research.
• Restricting firearm purchases to one gun a month, even for collectors.
• Advocating firearms microstamping, a flawed concept that would significantly raise the price of firearms while doing nothing to reduce crime.

And, of course, the list goes on. In fact, it’s hard to think of any gun-control measure the Times hasn’t supported.

So, while Mr. Rosenthal is free to believe whatever he wants, he, like the New York Times, should hardly be considered an unbiased source when it comes to firearms. They’ve made their position on the matter very clear.

Tweet

Reader Comments

I would suggest some fair and common sense regulations on the First Amendment Rights specifically aimed at the new york times. 1.) freedom of the press must be accompanied by verifiable truth. Any data in the NYT which is not fact will invalidate the first amendment protections and open the paper to both criminal and financial prosecution.

2. Any misinformation contained in the NYT will result in prosecution of all reporters and management staff who are in any way responsible for such misinformation, with civil liability of 50,000 dollars per misrepresentation.

3.) First amendment protections are null and void for both the NYT and the Washington Post

Just Common Sense right

Comment by: Michaelgb | November 15, 2011

here is a novel idea for the liberal media. let's propose the government put in place laws that require any "news, statements, editorials, or other conveyance of information or opinions" to 3 or more people must be approved by the enities being referenced. i think all America would be able to hear the screaming of censorship with out any electronic enhancement.

Comment by: thehasbeen | November 17, 2011

New York? I've heard of it. I think it's somewhere East of the Rockies.

Comment by: Mister E | November 17, 2011

Mr Rosenthal packs a G 17, and somehow got permits in NY and NJ...Hypocrite and typical phoney

Comment by: vonmazur | November 17, 2011

Hey, here's an idea - let's re-interpret the First Amendment! From now on, freedom of speech does NOT APPLY to any comments or opinions that express any desire to eliminate, change, mitigate, water down or alter in any way, any provision of The Constitution of the United States of America, or any of the Bill of Rights amendments.

If we can 're-interpret' the Second Amendment, why not the First? If we can 'limit' the Second, why not the First? If we can register our protected firearms, why not license or register public expression of a person's positions and opinions? Do you think the gun control folks (GCFs?) would like THAT?

Comment by: david b | November 18, 2011

The first way to attack God given rights is, of course, to deny the existence of God himself. Now the rights are "granted" by the Constitution (government) and may be interpreted,limited and/or denied by that self same government.

As for the Rockies, thank God for them. They restrict the free flow of stupid from Kalivornia and New Yuck City and State.

Comment by: NM Patriot | November 26, 2011