Those of us who regularly carry firearms for self-defense are generally well aware of the need to avoid confrontations. Whether using inappropriately provocative speech, or being foolish enough to become involved in something as dangerous as a road rage incident, we know only too well that any misstep by us will more than likely be exploited by some future prosecutor.

But in the quest to stay out of trouble, there is more to consider than our own behavior. The kinds of places we choose to frequent, and more importantly, the kind of people we hang out with, can have a dramatic impact on our lives.

Every one of us could probably name some neighborhood, perhaps even some specific bar or “club” near where we live that has a reputation for trouble, including violence. Younger people in their twenties and thirties, both men and women, are especially prone to frequenting the kinds of places where altercations often occur. If you are in this group, you may want to rethink the potential risks, and ask yourself if you would feel safe leaving your gun at home.

It’s a good self-test. Because if you wouldn’t be comfortable going somewhere without a gun, then you probably shouldn’t be going there at all. As I tell my carry permit students, “Never go anywhere with your gun that you wouldn’t go without it.” Now, obviously I’m not talking about situations beyond our control, such as where we live – a common reason that many people get a permit to carry a firearm in the first place is that they live in high-risk areas.

The same goes for employment that require us to be in places we wouldn’t normally go on our own time. More than a few of my students are real estate agents, insurance adjusters, and others whose jobs involve visiting customers and businesses that are in “high-risk” neighborhoods. Should an incident occur in the course of doing our job, it is far more defensible in court. We had to go there.

But we should scrupulously avoid voluntarily choosing to go into any situation that those “reasonable” people on a jury might consider to be “dangerous.” Even worse, if it appears to them that we might have been “looking for trouble,” then we are seriously endangering any potential claim of being an “innocent victim” should we become involved in an armed self-defense confrontation.

Avoiding places where there is a potential for violence is a good rule. But those of us who carry firearms must also reevaluate our activities when it comes to our friends. Every one of us knows “that guy” in our circle of associates who is simply reckless, clumsy, or both. We may like him (or her). We may even enjoy their oddball antics. But we’d never let them drive our car, ride our motorcycle, or let them anywhere near our firearms. Heck, we probably wouldn’t trust them to handle anything more complicated than a hammer. Maybe not even that.

But the real problem is “that friend” who has a temper. He is a magnet for trouble. He is easily provoked, and often does his own share of provoking himself. He is the exact opposite of the phrase “easy going” and seems more than willing to engage others in confrontations. So, what to do?

First, it is a good idea never to be a passenger in someone else’s vehicle when we are armed, for the simple reason that once you are not the driver, you are “captive” in the car, and vulnerable to being dragged into something you yourself would never get involved in on your own. It also allows you to leave if things start getting uncomfortable at your destination.Take your own car.

As mentioned, most permit holders know to avoid “road rage” like it was radioactive.But what happens when you’re sitting in the passenger seat, and that “hot head” buddy discussed above leans on his horn (or even worse, gives “the finger”) to a car-load of gang-bangers? You could easily become involved in something not your fault. Or is it? If you knew this guy (or gal) was “like that” why would you choose to put yourself in such a situation? Once again, imagine a jury asking themselves the same question.

Sure, it’s unfair that we who carry have to be doubly careful about everything we do, but neither life, nor the American criminal legal system, is fair. And if we have the ability to make good decisions well in advance to avoid a potentially violent encounter, it is simply good sense to do so.

If Obama were a white Republican, there would already be talk of impeachment, and the press would be cheer-leading it. Instead we have some of the most serious abuses of power in the history of the presidency, and the liberal media does everything in their power to ignore the problem, minimize the problem, then, when they can no longer do either, they simply spin the issue to hide the glaring reality of Obama’s responsibility. “It was low-level underlings who did it!”

But the real question is: What will it take for a majority of Americans to see that the Obama Administration is the most corrupt in modern history? More importantly, will they actually get mad enough to DO anything about it?

Pew Research Center found a similar decline by looking at the rate of gun homicides, which compares the number of killings to the size of the country’s population. It found that the number of gun homicides fell from 7.1 per 100,000 people to 3.6 per 100,000 in 2010, a drop of 49 PERCENT! Folks, that’s HUGE.

So, to summarize, we have more people, with more guns, and (thanks to the growth of “Concealed Carry” laws) more people CARRYING guns, and yet we have a BIG DROP in the “gun homicide” rate. Bad news for the anti-gun mob who continually claim that “more guns will surely mean more violence.”

But don’t hold your breath waiting for mainstream media to highlight any of these facts, or for Piers Morgan, Chuck Schumer, and the rest of the gun-phobic liberal loons to “see the light” – in the Church of Gun Control, no mere facts will deter them from their holy war…

Never in American history have our rights been more at risk than they are today. As a result, gun stores have fewer and fewer guns on their shelves, and ammunition is flying out the doors as fast as the pallets are unloaded. Even 22 rimfire ammo is scarce, along with soaring prices everywhere you look.

However, a silver lining in this is that these shortages have finally begun to wake up those gun owners who have previously been AWOL in the gun control debates (astonishingly, some didn’t even vote in 2012!). So it’s a good thing, because it is long past the time for ALL gun owners to join forces, particularly for the 2014 election. For as bad as things are right now, they could soon get a whole lot worse.

Because if Democrats retain the Senate, and God forbid, take even a one vote majority in the House of Representatives in 2014, it is no exaggeration to say that you can kiss your gun rights goodbye. Barak Obama no longer has to run for reelection, and if he is allowed to have Democrat majorities in both houses of Congress, he will be in a perfect position to ram through a whole series of Federal measures that will make “Chicago-style” gun control the law of the land. And have no doubts that he will.

Just look at what the President is proposing today, while he still must deal with a Republican controlled House. Right off of the Whitehouse website:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/issues/preventing-gun-violence#what-we-can-do

  Require background checks for all gun sales

  Strengthen the background check system for gun sales

  Pass a new, stronger ban on assault weapons

  Limit ammunition magazines to 10 rounds

  Finish the job of getting armor-piercing bullets off the streets

  Give law enforcement additional tools to prevent and prosecute gun crime

Note how open-ended the language is, such as “Require background checks for all gun sales.” We all know that this creates a requirement that even private parties be subjected to a background check, with attendant “fees” and paperwork. But the real problem with the whole “expanded” background check is what they will do with the data they collect on every buyer and seller. It would, without any doubt, ultimately be used to establish de facto gun registration, which is one of their admitted long term goals.

Then there is the “a new, stronger ban on assault weapons.” Which means what, exactly? Well, it doesn’t take a crystal ball to see that this would translate to “adding more and more guns to the (ever-expanding) official list of prohibited weapons.” Today, your Ruger Mini-14, tomorrow, your Benelli Black Eagle (because it could be equipped with “tactical” accessories like pistol grip or folding stocks and extended magazine tubes).

But perhaps the most disturbing of all the President’s recommendations is also the most ambiguous:

“Give law enforcement additional tools to prevent and prosecute gun crime.”

While we all want to see people who commit crimes with guns prosecuted, just what will fall under the heading of “gun crimes” – violating some new “improper storage” law? Attaching a laser to your “approved” handgun, making it suddenly “illegally modified” according to (as yet undefined) new Federal rules?  No one knows. Yet.

And what kinds of new “tools” would Obama and Democrats like to employ to “prevent” gun crimes? They’ve already expressed the desire to do things like fingerprint lawful gun owners, even those just buying ammunition. And Colorado and Connecticut have just passed some of the more onerous laws in recent memory. Confiscation is already occurring in California and New York. What next? Drones?

Obama is criss-crossing the country as we speak, raising money for 2014. Now imagine what Obama and the Pelosi/Feinstein/Schumer cabal will propose, if they become the majority. It should send chills down the spine of any gun owner.

I’ll admit that Republicans have been less than impressive in the gun control debate, and they have not defended our rights as aggressively as we’d like. But the alternative is worse, much worse. Today’s Democrats are downright hostile to gun owners. And unless we defeat them, decisively, in 2014, we will all regret it for decades to come, if not forever.

In 2012, President Obama won with fewer votes than he did in 2008. Which means that too many of those on “our side” didn’t vote. Put more bluntly, Obama didn’t beat us as much as we let him win. We simply cannot afford to have that happen in the mid-term elections.

If you own a gun, if you are even thinking of owning a gun, or if you simply believe that everyone has a right to protect themselves and their families, then you must do everything you can to unseat every Democrat in every House or Senate race.

2014 starts now.

We’ve all heard the urban myths spouted by legal “wannabes” in gun stores and on the Internet, usually pontificating with absolute certainty something like, “As long as you do (X) they can’t prosecute you.” Uuuh, not so fast. Unfortunately, the harsh reality is that self-defense is one of the most complex, uncertain, and difficult cases to win. And the outcome is always unpredictable. As noted criminal prosecutor Peter Hobart explains:

“There is no simple formula for the legal application of force in self-defense under American law. Case law varies widely among jurisdictions, and is constantly modifying and reinterpreting the rules of law.”

So, absent a “bench trial” (i.e. before a judge rather than a jury) your fate will be in the hands of ordinary people, most of whom do not own guns. They often lack even a basic understanding of firearms and get most of their beliefs about guns from television. As a result, in a case hinging on the use of firearms, they can be easily manipulated by a skilled prosecutor.

One thing that can have serious ramifications is the kind of firearm we choose for self-defense. Now, I agree that it shouldn’t matter what kind of gun you used to defend yourself from a violent attack, but the cold hard fact is that it does.

From firearms experts like Massad Ayoob and Gary Kleck to the Journal of Applied Social Psychology, the influence that the type of weapon used has on the outcome of criminal prosecutions has been well documented.

In “Will it Hurt Me in Court?” author and researcher Glenn Meyer explores this phenomenon in great detail. His findings show that the defendant’s firearm can sway the jury against him or her:

“Clearly, some [jurors] believe the decision to use a certain weapon type may be an indicator that a user’s mindset is more aggressive than simple self-defense.”

So, what to do?

Well, keep it simple. Research shows that your carry gun should be any standard, off-the-shelf, unmodified pistol or revolver in a typical self-defense caliber (.38 Special, 9MM, 40 S&W, .45Auto, etc.). And stick with the vanilla models; no “Super Combat Tactical Ranger” versions or “tricked out” custom guns. Likewise, you do not want a prosecutor holding up a .44 Magnum or Desert Eagle 50 caliber “hand-cannon” in front of a jury.

In home defense situations, handguns are surprisingly less threatening to juries than shotguns or rifles. But if you do opt for a home scattergun, a “plain-jane” model with a wood stock and fore-grip is far less problematic than one with a black pistol grip stock and fore-grip. And be advised, the more “accessories” on your gun, the worse the reaction of the jury.

Also, no buckshot or slugs – they can blow right through walls and hit neighbors, potentially exposing you to a negligence lawsuit for any death or injury to innocent bystanders. Besides, even target or birdshot loads (which will NOT penetrate most walls) are still like a single blob of lead at typical home defense distances.

Rifles have the highest “negatives” with juries, with “military style” guns at the top of the list. So for home defense, don’t even think about using an AR-15 (or, God forbid, anything with the letters “AK”). These are virtually “radioactive” to juries.

I’m not saying don’t own any of these guns; I have quite a few sexy pistols and military style carbines myself. But I never use my Sig “Nightmare” for daily carry, and except for the “Zombie Apocalypse” (or the real world equivalent), I will not be grabbing my FN-LAR battle rifle.

And remember to load ONLY name-brand, factory ammunition labeled “self-defense” or “personal protection.” NO “extreme” or hand-loaded ammo. Ever. Imagine your jury hearing that you had “Demon Devastators” in your gun, rather than standard ammo.

Naturally, there will be those who proclaim that they “aren’t going to worry about what gun I pick up to defend my family” usually followed by the now macho cliche, “I’d rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6.” But this simply underscores my point – don’t wait to be in the middle of an altercation to decide what gun you’re going to use. Make that choice now, before the “moment of truth” arrives, and you’re far more likely to make a better decision.

Now, make no mistake, I am not saying that having a “scary” gun is going to necessarily result in you being convicted, anymore than I can guarantee you that using a “jury-friendly” firearm will result in you being acquitted. You could do everything wrong, and still, theoretically at least, win a self-defense case. And you can do everything “right” and yet lose. Both have happened.

But why not do everything we can to at least tilt the odds in our favor?

Recent examples include:

Two 10 year-old girls running a lemonade stand suddenly find themselves confronted by armed police officers, telling them that they will have to “close it down” because it “violates health ordinances” – are you kidding me? A lemonade stand?

A 6 year old chases his friend around the playground, pointing his finger at him and yelling, “Bang! Bang!” And the school administrators suspend the child and convene a hearing to determine “what to do” about his “disturbing behavior.”

A young girl brings a “Hello, Kitty” bubble maker to school and is suspended and “investigated” because the toy (which is pink and white) vaguely resembled a gun.

And in what is probably the most absurd case of all, a 6-year old is suspended after (are you ready) chewing his Pop-Tart into a shape that sort of looked like a gun!

Then there is the school that proclaimed that home-made cupcakes will be allowed ONLY if they are for the child’s own use. They can no longer be brought to school to be shared with classmates – if treats are intended for distribution to other students, only “store-bought” bakery goods will henceforth be permitted.

Along similar lines, yet another school has forbidden students from distributing invitations to their birthday party. Why? Because, since typically only the friends of the student are invited, that might lead to (horrors!) “hurt feelings” among those who were not invited. Liberalism gone wild.

Finally, school administrators at one school have declared that hugging any child other than your own will now be prohibited, even for teachers and teachers’ assistants. A child falls and hurts herself? Too bad. Don’t you dare offer her even the slightest reassuring touch on the shoulder – you could be looking at accusations of “inappropriate touching” or worse, “child molestation.”

Absurd? Of course. Outrageous? Without a doubt.

But the more disturbing question in every one of these cases is this: Where are the parents? Why are they not storming the school with (metaphorically) torches and pitchforks? After all, the parents clearly have the higher moral authority here – these are their kids. They also far outnumber the school personnel, and they pay the salaries of these snotty little bureaucrats. However you look at it, the parents have the right to demand accountability from “public servants” who have run amok.

Instead, most parents sit back and do nothing. Why? Some may be fearful of being targeted by authorities themselves. Others simply don’t want to “make waves” or stand out from the flock of sheep.  But tolerating tyranny only promotes more tyranny. You either fight it, or you are encouraging it.

And, no, I don’t care if it was your child who was the target or not. My children are grown, but if any child in my kid’s school had been the victim of this kind of quasi-fascist garbage, I would have stormed into the principal’s office, finger in his (or her) face, warning them in the strongest terms that such nonsense will result in their sitting in a courtroom. I’ve done it.

So I ask again, when such obnoxious incidents occur, where are the parents?

After all, anyone with an ounce of common sense understands that forcing a business to pay more for labor than the labor is worth is going to end up hurting the very people it is supposed to be helping – poor, low skilled workers. Because the only reason that anyone is working for minimum wage is that they don’t have the skills or talents that are worth any more to a business. If you have so few skills that you are only worth $5 an hour to an enterprise, then if Monday morning that business is required to pay you $7 an hour, or $10 an hour (as Dayton and the Democrats are proposing), then they have no choice but to let you go.

Which is what invariably happens every single time the minimum wage is increased. And the higher the increase, the more people who are put out of work. Liberals seem to forget that no business can be forced to keep anyone on the payroll (although I’m sure there are liberals who wish it were possible to do just that). Heck, in the most basic example, if the minimum wage were applied to the kid you hire to mow your lawn, as the cost rises you will eventually get to the point where you tell him “no thanks” and just do it yourself.

The easiest way to understand this is to imagine raising the minimum wage to say, $25 an hour. What do you think will happen? Of course, massive layoffs would ensue. The only difference between an increase of such a magnitude and “minor increases” in the minimum wage is the speed with which layoffs will occur. And when the effect is gradual, no one notices right away.

Remember when someone pumped your gas and cleaned your windows? Why do you think those jobs no longer exist? Simple – increases in the minimum wage made them too expensive for the low-skilled service they provided. However, the mechanic, whose skills are much higher, still has his job – because he contributes more to the profitability of the business, and receives substantially higher pay as a result.

What anyone is willing to pay you is based on two factors, the level of skills or talents that you have to offer, and the number of other people in the job market with the same skills. Obviously, very highly skilled workers (CPAs, heart surgeons, IT professionals, etc.) possess desirable skills AND they are in short supply, therefore they get bigger paychecks – much bigger. But unskilled workers have minimal skills which are of considerably less value to an organization, and there are plenty of them – thus the minimal wages they can command.

Naturally, liberals ignore these realities and instead focus on emotional appeals – “how can anyone earn a living on (X) dollars an hour?” Well, I hate to break the news to them, but it’s not some business’s responsibility to provide you with a certain standard of living. If you aren’t earning enough to live on, it is YOUR responsibility to gain skills, learn a trade, or educate yourself in order to make YOURSELF valuable enough to a potential employer that they are willing to pay you more.

No one owes you a job. And no one owes you any particular wage. No one starts a business for the purpose of hiring anyone. In fact, if a business could be run with zero employees (other than the owner) it would be ideal. The only reason that someone hires you is that they believe that you can contribute to the profitability of the enterprise, either by increasing revenues or reducing costs. The greater your contribution – your productivity – the higher your pay.

So why the obsession with the minimum wage? Two reasons. First, it sounds “nice” – never mind the terrible affect is actually has. People who don’t understand economics fall for it. And liberals support it not because it helps the poor (it does the opposite) but because it makes them feel “compassionate” and “caring” – while, as usual, using other people’s money to do so.

But the second, and more cynical and politically motivated reason, is that many union contracts are tied to the minimum wage – when it goes up, THEIR wages go up. Democrats are simply buying votes from unions. But the result is that raising the minimum wage not only puts the poorest, and lowest skilled workers in the unemployment line, it ends up artificially pushing up ALL labor costs, causing inflation in every area of the economy.

Ironically, who is it that is affected most dramatically by rising prices? The very “poor” that Democrats and liberals pretend they are helping. Yet, every time the issue comes up, legions of sheep go along with the madness.

Pro-gun-rights supporters expend significant energy on opposing more obvious threats like gun bans and magazine restrictions. Meanwhile, the gun control crowd quietly maneuvers to sneak through less controversial, but potentially far more insidious proposals like “universal background checks.”

In Colorado, as in Minnesota and other states, anti-gun activists are using the Aurora movie theater shooting as a stepping stone to new attacks on legitimate gun owners:

http://xfinity.comcast.net/articles/news-general/20130218/US.Gun.Control.Colorado/

Included in many of these proposals are calls for so-called “universal background checks” – a concept that has great appeal to those who want to make gun ownership ever more complex and expensive:

“The [Colorado] state’s Democratic governor, John Hickenlooper, supports the expanded background checks and thinks gun buyers should pay for them.” [emphasis ours]

Ironically, states that want to pass such laws will likely get at least some support from, of all people, gun dealers. Why? Well, under such laws, if Bob wants to sell a gun to his friend Sue, they have to go somewhere to have the check done – most likely a gun store. And since the owner of the gun store is making no money on a private sale, why would they do the check for free?

And even if some program is instituted that would require local police or sheriffs to do the check, there would likely be some sort of “transfer tax” attached – $40? $75? More? Who knows?

Also, since most “universal background check” proposals include vastly expanding the scope of “mental health screening,” those with genuine need for such services will likely be even more reluctant to ask for them. Returning combat veterans, especially those with PTSD, have already expressed fear that they will lose their rights to own guns, should they dare to seek help. And that could have extremely grave consequences for society.

But beyond the obvious cost of implementing these checks, or even the negative effect such laws would have on those needing mental health services, is that they will do NOTHING to stop black market transactions (where most criminals obtain their guns). Nor will they stop the much-lamented “straw purchase” (where a “clean” buyer purchases a gun on behalf of a prohibited person), which is already a felony anyway.

The political strategy behind the anti-gun advocates flooding the legislatures with stacks of proposals is that they get to back legislators into a corner. After all, if they reject EVERY proposal offered, pro-gun-rights lawmakers will be labeled as “stonewalling” or “unwilling to compromise.”

Unfortunately, too many elected officials (especially squishy Republicans) cave in to this pressure, desperately hoping that if they just go along with this one little piece of gun control, then somehow they will curry favor with those mythical “moderates” come election time.

They are wrong, of course – there is seldom a positive outcome at the ballot box for those who capitulate on major issues, especially gun rights. Most voters, regardless of party, have a visceral distaste for those who have no principles that they are willing to adamantly defend. Election after election has proved that.

Naturally, the overwhelming majority of anti-gun legislation comes from Democrats. As a result, the only thing that “going along to get along” does is give Democrats cover. Even if they lose, Republicans must stand unanimously against these bills, because even a single Republican vote allows Democrats to claim that the legislation had “bi-partisan” support.

All the “save-the-children” rhetoric aside, “universal background checks” are nothing but a Trojan Horse, designed to open the door to “universal gun registration” which is the ultimate long-term goal of those whose utopian view of America is one where private gun ownership is all but a memory.

Only you and I, and our fellow gun rights supporters, can stop linguini-spined legislators from knuckling under to the “reasonable” proposal to require “universal background checks.”

But as radical and threatening to our gun rights that Obama and the Democrats are, they are not nearly as dangerous as those supposedly on “our side” who either don’t know how to fight, or worse, don’t even get involved. Time and again I cringe when I hear some gun owner fall into the numerous traps set by the anti-gun mafia. Too many gun rights supporters let themselves get dragged into a debate, the terms of which they have allowed to be set by those who are intent on disarming us.

Here in Minnesota, following President Obama’s visit in his “take your guns” tour, hearings have been held on a whole stack of outrageously intrusive gun control bills. Without going into great detail, in addition to the usual bans on “assault weapons” and “high capacity” magazines, the proposed legislation would also impose everything from “mental health screening” for anyone applying for a concealed carry permit, to annual registration of all guns.

Perhaps the most disturbing element in this attack on gun owners is the proposal to mandate allowing government agents to enter your home to inspect the “safety procedures” you have put in place for storing your firearms. It is no longer just those in the conspiracy theory crowd who are beginning to see the genuine possibility of “jack-booted” thugs banging on our doors.

So, what to do? For starters, if you don’t live close enough to show up in person, make sure that you call, email, and then be sure to FAX your representatives. Emails can be deleted – a FAX lands on their desk. Then do it again, weekly at least, for as long as any legislation is pending.

If legislators in your state bring forth any anti-gun-rights legislative initiatives, and you live close enough, you simply have to show up – at committee hearings, at any forums that are held, and most importantly, at your representative’s office. And folks, if you are going to actually testify at a hearing, would you PLEASE dress for the occasion? Looking like a bum in t-shirt and jeans does nothing but give the press the “money shot” photo they want – “See? This is who those gun nuts are.”

But the most important thing is to make sure that your message is simple, unambiguous, and passionate. For example, too many pro-gun-rights supporters make the mistake of getting in a debate about what is or isn’t an “assault weapon” or attempting to justify why they should be “allowed” to own an AR-15. Wrong! As soon as you join the discussion on their terms, you’ve already lost.

Instead, attack their premise: “A mentally deranged lunatic commits an unspeakable act of violence, and instead of doing something that will actually protect people, YOU want to attack the rights of millions of legitimate gun owners WHO HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THE CRIME!” And use colorful imagery to do it: “Believing that mass shootings will be stopped by limiting the number of bullets in a magazine is as stupid as thinking that drunk-driving deaths will be stopped by limiting the number of ounces in a beer bottle!”

Let those on the fence know how a particular law will affect THEM: “Banning a particular type of firearm or magazine will never save a single human life – it will, however, turn millions of legitimate gun owners into criminals overnight!”

You must learn to change the terms of the debate. Go on offense. Those in the anti-gun crowd invariably couch their arguments for attacking your rights in “save the children” language. Challenge the entire premise. Say simply, “Instead of clinging to your silly ‘gun-free-zone’ signs, allow teachers to carry guns to protect them!”

Then follow it up with: “There is no place in America that has more security than our airports. Yet pilots are armed with guns, and Air Marshals are armed with guns. Why? Because when that one terrorist manages to get through, they know that the only effective defense is someone with a gun. So tell me why we don’t have the same policy in our schools. The answer is simple – you care more about your anti-gun agenda than you do about our children.”

And don’t even bring up “my 2nd Amendment rights” – it simply no longer resonates. Focus instead on the natural right of self-defense: “Even if there were no Constitution, I have an inherent right to protect myself and my family, and restricting my ability to legally do so is nothing less than an assault on that right.”

As to the absurd charge that “nobody needs a military-style rifle” once again, do not attempt to justify your desire to own one. “Need is irrelevant, and besides, who the hell are you to decide for anyone else what they need? You could argue that no one ‘needs’ a 650 horsepower Mustang, but as long as they drive it responsibly, I couldn’t care less, and neither should you. As long as gun owners are responsible, it is no one’s business what kind of pistol, rifle, or shotgun they own.”

In other words, show up, stand up, and stay on offense.

It’s clear what will happen when the anti-gun jihadists set their sights on ammunition (which they already have, behind the scenes). But how? Simple. Taxes and regulation are two of the biggest weapons in the war on gun rights. Downright punitive taxes could be levied on ammunition both at the Federal level (similar to the excise taxes on liquor) and the state level. Then imagine if additional “special” taxes were applied to “military ammunition” like 556 or 762×39?

Regulation is the other looming threat. Bloomberg’s 7-round limit for handguns comes to mind. If, for instance, ammunition were arbitrarily declared a Class A explosive, a whole avalanche of restrictions would fall on the transportation, storage, and handling of ammo. Combined with tax increases, the resulting cost could quickly make my example of $89 for a box of 9MM a reality.

The anti-gun lobby have learned that a full frontal attack on gun ownership is likely to produce a backlash, hence the development of tactics to divide gun owners and pit them against each other. The so-called “assault weapons” ban is a perfect example. Note the constant repetition of the false promise that “hunters and sportsmen” will have “nothing to fear” from laws targeting “military style” rifles.

The intent is to lull certain gun owners into a false sense of security, as well as promoting the concept of “feeding the crocodile” – persuading one group of gun owners to throw their fellow gun owners (those who own AR-15s, tactical shotguns, etc.) overboard, in the naïve hope that the “crocodile” will leave THEM alone. They won’t, of course. Oh, sure, it may buy you another day or two, but nothing more. Because once that the crocs smell blood in the water, they will be even more likely to come back – this time for YOU.

Unfortunately, there are far too many gun owners who still fall for this propaganda (“I’m just a deer hunter. They’ll never take MY guns.”). Many of them never call or email their legislators, don’t belong to any national or local gun rights group, and often aren’t even aware of pending anti-gun initiatives. You can imagine my shock when a guy in a gun store overheard several of us discussing the Attorney General’s “Fast and Furious” troubles, and asked us: “Who is Eric Holder?” And this guy owns guns?

A couple of friends of mine recently returned from a hunting trip – of the eight hunters, six of them admitted that THEY DIDN’T EVEN VOTE in the 2012 election! When my friends (who are very politically active) asked them why, the answers ranged from “I don’t pay attention to politics” to “I wasn’t all that impressed with Mitt Romney” – Are they nuts? You “aren’t that impressed” with one candidate, so (by staying home) you give us the most anti-gun President in U.S. history?

Thanks a bunch.

Just last week I overheard a guy at a big-box store complaining about the shortage of guns, angry that he’d have to wait 3 months or more for a handgun. After a couple of minutes of chatting, he revealed that he voted for…Ron Paul. Again, I love Ron Paul. But I’m a gun owner first, and I vote my guns. I will support a pro-gun Democrat over a wishy-washy Republican. I’ve done it. But I will never “sit this one out” or vote for a “lost cause” just to make a statement.

Make no mistake – ammunition is in the cross-hairs. And regardless of your politics, or the kinds of guns you own, or whether you are a lifelong hunter or a concealed carry permit holder, any new taxes or regulations on ammunition, ANY ammunition, will also affect YOU.

And ignorance and apathy are simply unacceptable.