Actually I’ve seen the reverse. While I suspect the demand is still there, the prices I’ve seen online for the popular calibers, e.g. 9mm, 5.56mm, 12g, has decreased and they’re more available than a year ago.

Now what I do see is a shortage in the supply of reloading gear, powder, primers, brass and bullets.

‘Overwhelming demand’: US gun sales continue to soar

The COVID-19 pandemic, coupled with record sales of firearms, has fueled a shortage of ammunition in the United States that’s impacting law enforcement agencies, people seeking personal protection, recreational shooters and hunters — and could deny new gun owners the practice they need to handle their weapons safely.

Manufacturers say they’re producing as much ammunition as they can, but many gun store shelves are empty and prices keep rising. Ammunition imports are way up, but at least one U.S. manufacturer is exporting ammo. All while the pandemic, social unrest and a rise in violent crime have prompted millions to buy guns for protection or to take up shooting for sport.

“We have had a number of firearms instructors cancel their registration to our courses because their agency was short on ammo or they were unable to find ammo to purchase,” said Jason Wuestenberg, executive director of the National Law Enforcement Firearms Instructors Association. Continue reading “”

1, Interesting to see they didn’t mention that the controversy comes from Chipman’s involvement at the Branch Davidian siege

2, “If confirmed, David Chipman would be the most qualified director the ATF has ever seen, an agency that’s purpose is to enforce existing gun laws.”–Shannon Watts.
She’s more on the nose than she realizes. This is an admission that the ATF exists for no other purpose than to stomp over peoples civil liberties. If that’s the metric by which she’s using to infer his qualifications, he’s definitely a good choice.

NRA and Republicans out to hobble Biden’s choice for top gun law role

David Chipman’s nomination to lead the ATF could be in trouble – which would be a serious blow to gun control advocates

The nomination of David Chipman to lead the principal agency that enforces federal gun laws is stalling as Republicans and the National Rifle Association (NRA) seek a major symbolic victory on the ever contentious issue of gun rights.

This week Merrick Garland, the attorney general, urged the US Senate to confirm Joe Biden’s pick to head the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) where he will play a crucial role in the struggle against gun violence.

The intervention was the latest warning sign that the nomination of Chipman might be in trouble – which would be a serious blow to gun control advocates

Continue reading “”

For those intending to watch ABC News’ “One Nation Under Fire,” they would do well to remember that what is being presented is propaganda, not reality. It will be another part of the effort to separate gun owners from their firearms, turn local police departments into mere appendages of a national police force, and prepare the nation for the imposition of the left-wing Marxist agenda.

ABC News’ “One Nation Under Fire” Will Promote the Lie About Gun Violence in the U.S.

ABC News is launching another attack on gun rights, starting Sunday. Its project, called “One Nation Under Fire”, will join with ABC affiliates across the country as well as with Good Morning America and GMA3Variety, which made the announcement, breathlessly rejoiced that “various ABC-owned stations may also contribute their own reports on findings in their area of coverage.”

So, what will ABC News be using as its source to back up the attack? False data from the Gun Violence Archive, long considered to be biased in favor of more gun regulations and controls.

Said Pierre Thomas, ABC News’ chief justice correspondent, “We hope this is going to give us a better sense of who, what, where and why and that people will walk away from this with a much better sense of what’s happening.” That would include, of course, according to Variety, “solutions that might help reduce gun violence.”

Those watching to the end will no doubt have their opinions formed in the cauldron of canards, misinformation, and distortions served up by Gun Violence Archive.

Continue reading “”

A ‘study’ using interviews of sixteen seasoned citizens and thirteen medicos and the researchers use it as a venue to merely regurgitate their previous anti-gun views.

And just to point out:
Read These Taxpayer Funded Antigun Research Projects
The Centers for Disease Control recently announced the projects funded by more than $7.8 million dollars to “Prevent Firearm-Related Violence and Injuries.”
Let’s take a look at some of the projects receiving CDC funding:
Dr. Ali Rowhani-Rahbar of the University of Washington will receive $1.5 million over three years for a project that “will identify the context, antecedents, and consequences of handgun carrying among adolescents who reside in rural communities in order to inform culturally appropriate and community-specific interventions.” “This project is intended to inform the development, adoption, and refinement of non-punitive prevention approaches to address factors that influence handgun carrying and reduce the burden of firearm-related injury among youth in rural communities.”

This project would seemingly build on Rowhani-Rahbar’s previous work on the topic through an NIH grant, and he has published dozens of articles and studies on firearms and firearms-related policies. He is the Co-Director of the Firearm Injury and Policy Research Program at Harborview Injury Prevention & Research Center at the University of Washington.

Gun for young people are baaaaaad.
Guns for old people are baaaaaaad.
Guns are baaaaaaad!

Should There Be ‘Gun Retirement’ for the Elderly?

MONDAY, May 17, 2021 (HealthDay News) — Just as some elderly drivers need to give up their car keys, older gun owners may eventually face “firearm retirement.” And a preliminary study suggests they are open to the idea.

In focus-group interviews with older gun owners, researchers found that many had considered putting limits on their firearm access — though they usually hadn’t yet laid out plans for when and how.

It’s an important issue, given that 40% of older Americans live in a home with a gun, said lead researcher Laura Prater of Harborview Injury Prevention and Research Center at the University of Washington in Seattle.

The concern, she said, is that a significant number of those seniors have or will develop dementia or major depression. If they have easy access to a firearm, they could harm themselves, accidentally or intentionally.

No one wants to wrest firearms from the hands of older adults who can use them safely, Prater said.

The point, she stressed, is that gun owners, family members and health care providers should talk about the future — including what should happen with household firearms once a person’s health makes access a hazard.

“We should be treating this like a normal conversation,” Prater said, “just like you plan for other things, like driving, retirement or finances.”

A big takeaway from the interviews was that gun owners accepted the concept of firearm “retirement.”

“Older adults want to be responsible gun owners,” Prater said.

“What they weren’t open to,” she added, “was someone else making the decision for them.”

That means planning is key — before, say, early-stage dementia advances. One place to start, Prater said, is with a “firearm inventory,” where the older adult and family members account for all firearms in the home.

Many owners, Prater noted, have multiple firearms, and family members or other caregivers are not always aware of them.

Some older adults might want a “transition period,” she said, starting with disposing of firearms that are not being used. (Local laws vary on how to do that, Prater noted.)

The current findings are based on interviews with 16 older gun owners, as well as 13 geriatrics specialists.

Continue reading “”

Analysis: Dogs Can’t Smell Serial Numbers and the Dangers of Mindlessly Repeating Police Narratives

Dogs, no matter how well trained, can not tell if a gun has a serial number engraved into it or not.

That is not the impression you would get if you listened to KSBY’s report on Santa Barbara, California’s new police dogs, though. The NBC affiliate chose to frame their story on the dogs through the lens of their ability to detect so-called ghost guns.

“The [ghost] gun might look similar to any regular weapon; however, it’s missing one major piece: registration to make it legally owned,” KSBY reporter Melissa Newman said. “Today, I got a first-hand look at the only K9 in the county trained to detect them.”

The K9 is actually trained to sniff plastic, steel, and gun powder. That’s it. He can’t smell whether a gun has a serial number engraved in it. He doesn’t know if the owner has a registration paper from the state government for it. That is exactly what Santa Barbara County Sheriff’s Deputy Shane Moore tells the station eventually.

“Zeke is trained to alert on what we call polymer 80’s, and it’s like the grip part of the handgun. He’s also trained to alert on the steel, the slides, and the ammunition we use for firearms,” Deputy Moore told the news station.

Moore is oddly trying to conflate a company that sells unfinished gun parts, Polymer 80, with the gun parts themselves. So, let’s be clear. The grip on a gun made with Polymer 80 parts is made out of, you guessed it, polymer, just like a Glock or Smith & Wesson pistol sold at the store. There’s no real difference in materials for parts used in homemade guns or retail firearms.

KSBY eventually acknowledges this obvious fact, but they commit to this bizarre framing anyway.

The whole piece reads like a police department wanted to brag about how they’re doing something to combat the specter of “ghost guns,” and nobody at KSBY thought twice about how ridiculous the narrative was. Police departments often want to show people they are actively fighting criminals, and local news often wants to play up threats to juice ratings. Those incentives align in all sorts of bad ways, but occasionally they combine to make everyone involved with the story look utterly ridiculous.

I believe most police are trying to do the right thing most of the time. But that doesn’t mean you have to take everything they say or do at face value. You absolutely shouldn’t do that with police spokesmen or any other kind of government official if you’re a journalist.

There’s a major difference between respecting law enforcement and mindlessly repeating anything they have to tell you. This principle extends well beyond firearms, but it’s certainly true here. Some police, especially those in public relations, like to frame rights primarily as impediments to easier police work. And while life would be easier on law enforcement if we allowed them to search anyone for any reason they saw fit, or let them arrest anyone for merely owning a gun, it would make life quite a lot worse for everyone else.

So, the next time a police officer tries to tell you a story about how their new K9s are trained to smell the difference between a serialized gun and an unserialized one, maybe take that with a grain of salt.

This redefinition follows a new trend. When the Left doesn’t like something and can’t bring it down with sound arguments, they change the meaning of the word.


The Merriam-Webster dictionary changed its definition of “anti-vaxxer” to mean anyone who opposes laws that mandate vaccination.

Not joking:


T. Patrick Hill Ph.D. is an associate professor at Rutgers University where he teaches ethics and law in the Edward J. Bloustein School of Planning and Public Policy.

⇑⇑⇑THIS is why you must take extreme care in selecting which college, if any, you send your children to. Because these are the idiots who will be filling your children’s minds with crap like this⇓⇓⇓

Gun ownership, yes! As a right, no! | Opinion

So, we have to change the national conversation. A basic reason for the interminable debate over gun violence in America has been the general assumption that there is a right to a gun. However, given the nature and function of rights, is it conceivable that a gun as such, regardless of any consequences, good or bad, of its use, qualifies for that status? That is the question that has been and continues to be unexamined.

As long as it does, the very absurdity of such a notion will continue to offend our common humanity. With each new mass shooting, the shooter often possesses a gun to which, he has an unqualified and inviolable right to have, including the consequences of its use. But if a gun can be used with such devastating consequences, how can its possession qualify for the status of a right? A standard response has been that it is people, not guns, who shoot people. The sophistry here should be obvious.

Put simply, a right is a claim made to something perceived as a benefit to be enjoyed. The strength of the claim is derived from the basis on which the benefit is viewed as a right. That basis will also be a measure of the value, relative or absolute, separable or inseparable, of the benefits to be enjoyed. This also enables us to prioritize among rights, as a civil right like the right to vote, and a human right like the right to liberty, with human rights superseding civil rights.

The right to liberty, as a human right is both absolute and inseparable by virtue of its basis, which is being human. In the absence of being at liberty, one’s identity as a human being is at its core compromised. Liberty, in other words, is integral to human beings, by virtue of birth, and is independent for its origination of any authority such as the United States Constitution, which does not initiate but only confirms it. Despite the substantial difference noted between civil and human rights, it is clear that the function of a right in both instances is the same. It justifies the claim to enjoy the benefits of the objects to which a right is asserted, with the consequence that actions taken under the right are rightful actions. If so, then it is reasonable to ask what actions were taken under the right to a gun might be justified.

The most obvious issue that comes to mind is self-defense. But a Harvard study showed that people used a gun for self-defense in 1% only of 14,000 crimes committed between 2007-2011, suggesting that society has more effective alternative means of self-defense. That aside, gun ownership data are decidedly negative for society. A 2018 survey confirmed that American civilians own 393 million guns, even as other research shows unequivocally that households with guns are less safe, and run a higher risk for accidental deaths, suicides and domestic homicides. Compared with Canada’s gun-related death rates of 0.47 deaths per 100,000 people, the rate of gun-related deaths in the United States is nine times higher at 10.6 deaths per 100,000 people. In comparison with Denmark where the rate is 0.15 deaths per 100,000 people, the rate in the United States is 29 times higher.

Coincidently, during COVID-19, gun sales in the United States have grown exponentially, accompanied, according to research at the University of California-Davis, by an 8% increase in violence across the country. Last year, 41,000 people were killed because of gun violence.

Concede the Second Amendment was intended to confer the right to a gun, then in light of the inevitable loss of life in America from guns claimed as a right, one must also acknowledge an unavoidable trivialization of rights generally in which the rights to life or liberty of thousands have been sacrificed to secure the right to a gun. What absurdity is this not? Whatever the Second Amendment means, it must not be such as to allow a right to a gun to offend humanity by trivializing our rights to it.

Yes, they’re words and the words we use do matter.
The aliens that are here illegally are illegal aliens.
Why use ‘inclusive language?
Propaganda to cloud men’s minds.

Biden administration orders CBP, ICE to stop using the term ‘illegal alien’

​T​he Biden administration has ordered federal immigration enforcement agencies to nix the use of terms like “illegal alien” and “assimilation” when referring to illegal immigrants, in favor of more “inclusive language,” according to a report on Monday. ​

The new directive was included in a memo sent to the heads of Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Customs and Border Protection as part of an effort by the Biden White House to build a more “humane” immigration system, the Washington Post reported, citing copies it obtained.​​

According to the document, “alien” will become “noncitizen or migrant,” “illegal” will be called “undocumented,” and “assimilation” will be referred to as “integration.”​​

“The words we use matter,” Troy Miller, a senior CBP official, said in his memo.

Continue reading “”

Cornell’s article was a republished one on Yahoo.
Of interest is the last informational paragraph which notes:

As a researcher at the John Glenn School of Public Policy at Ohio State, Cornell was the lead investigator on a project that was funded by a grant from the Joyce Foundation to research the history of gun regulation. Part of the research cited in this essay was done under that grant.

The Joyce Foundation is well known as a rabid antigun group. Cornell is known for it too. With such open bias, why should anyone expect any other ‘results’?

Anti-Gunners Attempt To Re-Write 2A History

What did the Founding Fathers think about our right to keep and bear arms? According to historian Saul Cornell, founders like George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, and James Madison would be far more likely to side with Everytown for Gun Safety than the National Rifle Association if they were alive today, because in Cornell’s view, the early republic was chock full of restrictions on gun owners.
In a new piece at The Conversation, Cornell lays out five types of gun laws that he says the Founders wholeheartedly embraces, starting with gun registration laws.
Today American gun rights advocates typically oppose any form of registration – even though such schemes are common in every other industrial democracy – and typically argue that registration violates the Second Amendment. This claim is also hard to square with the history of the nation’s founding. All of the colonies – apart from Quaker-dominated Pennsylvania, the one colony in which religious pacifists blocked the creation of a militia – enrolled local citizens, white men between the ages of 16-60 in state-regulated militias. The colonies and then the newly independent states kept track of these privately owned weapons required for militia service. Men could be fined if they reported to a muster without a well-maintained weapon in working condition.
What Cornell is describing isn’t a registration of privately owned firearms, and he provides no evidence whatsoever that the various colonies actually kept track of the rifles and muskets owned by militia members. Cornell is correct when he says that those mustering for militia service could face fines if their firearm wasn’t well maintained, but that has nothing to do with any sort of registration or list of guns in the hands of private citizens.
Next, Cornell claims that the Founders loved the idea of restricting the right to carry. For this argument, Cornell reaches way back to English common law and claims that there was no “general right of armed travel” at the time of the adoption of the Second Amendment. Were there any actual bans on traveling while armed? Cornell doesn’t cite any specific examples, though he is correct when he points out that by the mid-1800s many states had either banned or limited the practice of carrying concealed. What he doesn’t point out is that by attempting the manner of carrying arms, those same lawmakers were tacitly acknowledging a more general right to carry.
The Fordham University historian also argues that the Founders would also have been opposed to “stand your ground” laws, even though the Castle Doctrine had been a part of common law for centuries by that point.
The use of deadly force was justified only in the home, where retreat was not required under the so-called castle doctrine, or the idea that “a man’s home is his castle.” The emergence of a more aggressive view of the right of self-defense in public, standing your ground, emerged slowly in the decades after the Civil War.
I’m honestly not sure where Cornell gets the idea that deadly force was only justifiable in the home. I can think of one very famous case from the 1770s where that wasn’t the case. Most of the British soldiers who opened fire on a crowd of angry Bostonians who were throwing chunks of ice and razor-sharp oyster shells at them on March 5th, 1770 were ultimately found not guilty of murder because a jury found that they were acting in self-defense (two others were convicted of manslaughter).
Cornell goes on to claim that the Founders were on board with storage laws, based solely off of a 1786 ordinance in Boston that required guns had to be kept unloaded. His last assertion is that “the notion that the Second Amendment was understood to protect a right to take up arms against the government is absurd. Indeed, the Constitution itself defines such an act as treason.”
To wage an offensive war against the United States is indeed treason, as defined by Article III of the Constitution. To take up arms in defense of a tyrannical federal government, on the other hand, was most certainly acknowledged as a right of the people by the Founding Fathers. Here’s James Madison writing in Federalist 46.
Extravagant as the supposition is, let it however be made. Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger. The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence.
Saul Cornell has likely forgotten more history than I’ll ever know, but he’s off-base in asserting that the Founding Fathers embraced the idea of restricting the right to keep and bear arms. There’s simply no evidence to support the idea that the laws pushed by gun control activists today, like bans on commonly-owned firearms or magazines; gun licensing; gun rationing; or bans on carrying firearms would have found favor with the Founders or the early Americans who argued against ratifying the Constitution until a Bill of Rights was included and the pre-existing right of the people to keep and bear arms was protected.

Another one of these ‘not on the radar’, ‘very personable’, ‘quite out of character’, ‘no known motive’.

NASHVILLE EXPLOSION: Anthony Warner died in explosion, was ‘bomber,’ authorities say.

Anthony Q. Warner, 63, has been identified as the “bomber” in the Christmas day explosion in Nashville by U.S. Attorney Don Cochran.

Cochran announced the update to the investigation in a Sunday afternoon news conference.

“Anthony Warner is the bomber. He was present when the bomb went off, and he perished in the bombing,” Cochran said.

DNA found at the scene was matched to samples taken at another location searched by investigators, TBI Director David Rausch said Sunday. The TBI was involved in testing the evidence.

Because they had identified a suspect, investigators said they were able to match samples to a potential family member quickly.

At this time, officials said there is no indication that anyone outside of Warner was involved in the explosion. Authorities reviewed hours of surveillance footage and they say they only saw Warner.

A motive in the bombing has not been released and is still under investigation according to FBI Special Agent for Public Affairs Doug Korneski.

The types of explosives used in the bombing were still under investigation, authorities said. The FBI said Warner wasn’t on the radar of authorities before Friday’s explosion and declined to deem the explosion an act of terrorism.

Continue reading “”

Judge Barrett has fallen under such ‘scrutiny’ because she’s a judicial conservative, something the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, whom Barrett could replace, was not.

This is how ‘twisted’ the purported logic is of those who 1,  don’t like the idea of personal self-defense and 2, when guns are involved, their mind goes blank in a spasm of ‘Guns are BAAAAD!‘.  And being a former law clerk of a noted proggie, leftist anti-gun Supreme Court Justice seals the deal, his head full of mush being better used as a hat rack when it comes to propounding on anything to do with individual rights, especially RKBA.

I’m not going to waste my time, or yours, trying to fisk this crap-for-brains piece of opinionated garbage. Any of the readers I know are more than intelligent enough to detect the fallacies and mistakes (purposeful or otherwise) on their own that this thoroughly indoctrinated ‘Harvard professor’ made in this propaganda piece.

The purpose of this post being to – again – display the generations of people who are  teaching indoctrinating our children in the colleges and universities these days.

How Guns Twist the Logic of Self-Defense Laws

You’d think it would be easy to determine whether Kyle Rittenhouse can successfully plead self-defense after killing two people and injuring a third during protests in Kenosha, Wisconsin. Turns out that it’s actually pretty complex. Here’s why: When gun rights get involved, the law tends to depart radically from common sense. Continue reading “”

What’s a ‘consensus’ got to do with an election? Nothing in my book.

ZUCKERBERG: Election May Take ‘Weeks’ And Cause ‘Civil Unrest’ Until Media Creates ‘Consensus’ On Next President
The Facebook CEO warns of civil unrest after an election that may take weeks to determine a winner

In a recent appearance on Axios on HBO, Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg suggested that his company and “and other media” should work to convince the American public there is nothing illegitimate, strange, or suspect about the results upcoming presidential election taking days or weeks to be tabulated due to mail in voting.

Zuckerberg stressed that Facebook is preparing Americans to accept that election results may take weeks after November 3 to be tabulated, and explained that Facebook will add “informational context” to posts by any candidate who attempts to declare victory in an election before a media “consensus result” has been established.

“One of the things that I think we and other media need to start doing is preparing the American people,” said Zuckerberg, is “That there’s nothing illegitimate about this election taking additional days or even weeks to make sure that all the votes are counted, in fact, that may be important to be sure that this is a legitimate and fair election.”

Zuckerberg explained that Facebook will use “a bunch of of different messaging around that, just so people know that that’s normal.”

Then, Zuckerberg explained that “If one of the candidates, in any of the races, claims victory before there’s a consensus result, then we’re going to add some informational context to that post directly, saying that there’s no consensus result yet.” Continue reading “”