Speak Your Mind

Announcing the 2011 Gun Nut Target Photo Contest

Dave_Maccar — Thu, 09 Jun 2011 13:22:42 -0400

The Gun Nuts On Television

Online Editors — Wed, 30 Jun 2010 12:55:05 -0400

That’s me -- I’m the one on the left -- on the set of “The Gun Nuts” the other day. We had just filmed a highly scientific test on the shot-resistant properties of shooting glasses. What happens when 8 shot launched at 1200 fps meets polycarbonate lenses protecting googly craft eyes on cantaloupes representing human heads? Tune in to The Gun Nuts to find out.

Starting today, every Wednesday at 9:30 PM (EST) Dave and I will do our best to bring this blog to life onscreen on the Outdoor Channel. We will blast melons, torture red dots, debunk myths and even break out Dave’s famous Ballistic Buffalo. We’ll talk about guns both classic and new, give shooting advice, and speak our minds about gunny subjects. We may give some stuff away, too.

So far it has been a lot of fun to work on The Gun Nuts, and I hope the end result is as much fun for you to watch. We’ll find out soon enough. If you can’t wait until next Wednesday, then play the preview clip below, which the Outdoor Channel worked up for the show. -- Phil Bourjaily

How to Shoot a Magazine for Fun and (Maybe) Profit

Online Editors — Thu, 27 May 2010 13:20:41 -0400

We want you to take the July issue of Field & Stream out and shoot it. Well, not the whole magazine, but the target on page 49. It’s part of the special Gun Nut issue, in which DEP and I put this blog on the pages of the Field & Stream. In the section you’ll find shooting advice, lots of guns, Gun Nut rules to live by and such vital minutiae as my five favorite gun scenes in the movies and Dave’s nominations for the Three Meanest Gunwriters Ever. The issue hits newsstands on June 22nd.

Back to the target. We want you to shoot it. Really. With any gun, at any range. One shot or many – doesn’t matter – then shoot it again, this time with a camera. You can be in the picture, too. Whoever takes the photo our editors like best wins a Smith & Wesson M&P MOE in 5.56mm. And by “wins” I mean, we give it to you (via a registered FFL dealer) and you get to keep it. You can enter the contest here once your issue arrives.

I have shot a bunch of phone books (you test penetration by seeing how far in the alphabet the pellets reach) but I don’t recall ever shooting a magazine so you are on your own in your choice of guns and ammunition. My only advice is be safe, be creative, have fun, and send us your pictures.

There’s nothing in the rules that says you can’t send in pictures of more than one target. That will require buying more magazines which, of course, is all part of our insidiously brilliant plan. Magazines are supposed to be dying out, killed by the Internet as delivered on home computers, laptops, phones and iPads. Maybe someday, but for now, we are proud to say we have created an app for a magazine that can’t be replicated on a screen. Well, I guess you can shoot your laptop if you want to, but we won’t let you win a gun for doing it.

Chad Love: Toy Guns Don’t Make Kids Killers

Joe_Cermele — Thu, 10 Sep 2009 10:43:43 -0400

It's always refreshing to see a person reject "liberal" versus "conservative" politics in favor of non-partisan rationality, and a good example of this can be found in this essay on the "liberal"-leaning news site Salon.

From the story:

I was a violent kid. More than anything, I loved to play war. In my basement, I built a sandbag foxhole out of stacked-up sofa pillows. I would hide inside and peer out at what I imagined were the smoking slopes of Iwo Jima, crawling with Japanese soldiers ready to fight to the death.

My parents were liberal. More than liberal: Unitarians. We had a National Organization for Women poster hanging in our kitchen. A family friend stayed with us at the house while going through a sex change. My dad was, and probably still is, an advocate of the most draconian gun control proposals ever drafted, or even pondered. I'm sure both my parents voted for Carter, probably Dukakis, too. I remember a lot of family skinny dipping. Hell, my parents wouldn't even let me play on a football team.

Our family stood in sharp contrast to the countless Americans who grow up not only with toy guns, but also with real guns, as a routine part of life. Guns were anathema to my parents. Period. Guns were bad. That included toy guns.

Fast-forward 30 years, and now I am the proud parent of two children. Lovely wife. Cute brick row house. A waggly tailed, big old yellow dog. I either did something right or got really lucky, or both. Like many young parents, I've learned that despite all my whining about my Unitarian parents, I'll be lucky to be half as patient, evenhanded, thoughtful and engaged with my kids as my folks were with me, even during my lengthy jackass stage.

That does not mean, however, that I have to do everything exactly the way they did. Now, I have a son. He is just turning 4. And I have decided to arm him to the teeth.

As the father of a well-adjusted and completely normal child who also happens to think R. Lee Ermey's "Lock N Load" is the coolest show on television and who recently informed his parents that he wants to be a "gun expert" when he grows up, I commend the "liberal" author's rejection of the ridiculous notion that toy guns somehow turn kids into killers. It shows that maybe, just maybe, common sense is more powerful than political ideology.

Bourjaily: The Naked Truth About Concealed Carry

Online Editors — Thu, 13 Aug 2009 12:11:42 -0400

A little while ago Dave provided an excellent and important public service post about how to spot concealed handgun. Unfortunately, it didn’t cover every concealed carry situation, as illustrated by the case of George Vera, arrested recently in Houston for selling bootlegged CDs. Vera was frisked on the scene by arresting officers, at the city jail and again at county, yet officers never found his hidden 9mm until he confessed to possessing a weapon to guards at shower time. How did he do it? Read on.

If that wasn’t enough to make you feel slightly ill, ask yourself: if the gun was unloaded, where did he hide the bullets?

Chad Love: Locked & Loaded in Parkland

Joe_Cermele — Wed, 27 May 2009 15:28:51 -0400

There's already been a boatload of bloviation expressed on the recent reversal of the ban on loaded firearms in our national parks, some of it sensible but most of it (predictably) bordering on hysterics.

This column from the Huffington Post is a perfect example:

"In fact, the new rule is likely to make national park visitors less safe around wildlife. Packing heat could give some people a false sense of security and make them more likely to approach bison, elk, moose, and grizzly bears, rather than keep a safe distance which is better for both people and animals."

But the most certain outcome of this congressional action is that it will promote poaching. The National Park Service warned in its fiscal 2006 budget submission each year for the past several years ... The data suggests that there is a significant domestic as well as international trade for illegally taken plant and animal parts." Poaching, the agency said, "is suspected to be a factor in the decline of at least 29 species of wildlife and could cause the extirpation of 19 species from the parks."

Two points I'd like to make in response. First, poaching. When you make an argument it's generally a pretty good idea to make sure the data you use in defense of your argument actually support it. Apparently Mr. Markarian skipped that chapter in his high school debate class. There's absolutely no, none, nada, zip not a shred of evidence or data to support his assertion that allowing visitors firearms "promotes poaching." He, to be perfectly blunt, reached around his backside and pulled that statement out of his a**. And that National Park Service budget submission he quoted was published in...2006. Yes, three years ago. You know, back when packing in national parks was illegal.

Second, it's obvious the author has never visited a national park. If he had he would know that it's complete fantasy to believe that current (unarmed) visitors to our national parks exhibit good judgment and keep a safe, prudent distance from roadside wildlife. Quite the opposite. Thanks to the constant anthropomorphization we're subjected to we now believe that wild animals have a deep, intrinsic empathy toward humans. They would love us, if only we would put down our guns and let them.

In fact, if one could make a sweeping generalization about the common sense of the average American tourist by observing their behavior around national park wildlife, one would have to reach the inevitable conclusion that we're already a nation of clueless, pushy, overly-aggressive suburban jackasses. Guns certainly aren't going to change that. If you point out the obvious fact that wild animals have no interest in connecting with us on a spiritual level but if we intentionally harass them they will most assuredly connect with us on a physical level, then you're simply an unevolved lout who doesn't get it. See video below.

But I'm a pragmatist, and I think I've reached a compromise that will make everyone happy. Why don't we make loaded firearms illegal within say, 100 yards of any RV-accessible road but allow loaded firearms in campsites and on all trails? This achieves two goals: it gives backcountry hikers and campers a measure of personal protection from criminal and animal attack. It also gives park wildlife the freedom to (without the threat of being shot) continue stomping, goring, maiming and otherwise communing with the hordes of camera-wielding Animal Planet watchers who choke our national park roads every summer.

Discussion Topic: On Obama And Gun Control

Joe_Cermele — Tue, 19 May 2009 11:27:26 -0400

From Politics Daily:

This should be a time of great hope for supporters of stricter gun control laws. They've got a new president on their side, a Congress dominated by Democrats, even a terrible string of shootings this spring that should lend urgency to their cause.

Instead they're facing discouraging signals from the White House, falling support for tighter regulation, spikes in gun sales and a resurgent National Rifle Association. Just the prospect of new federal limits on guns has sent enthusiasts rushing to buy guns and join the NRA.

Are you encouraged that gun-control does not seem to be at the top of President Obama’s to-do list—at least so far? That more democrats seem reluctant to fight hard for gun control? Or do you feel it’s unwise to let down your guard?

A Man's Grill

Joe_Cermele — Fri, 15 May 2009 13:00:00 -0400

Discussion Topic: Senate Okays Guns In Parks

Joe_Cermele — Thu, 14 May 2009 09:05:58 -0400

Strange things are happening in Washington—and not just the usual strange things. Democrats are voting pro-gun. Or at least they did on Tuesday, when the Senate overwhelmingly approved a measure (attached to credit-card-reform legislation) that would allow permit holders to carry loaded guns in national parks and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service public lands.

The vote was 67 to 29, with 39 republicans, one independent, and a whopping 27 democrats voting aye—prompting The New York Times to ask “Who’s Senate Is This?”

And that’s not all; referring to a since-overturned rule implemented by the Bush administration in its last days to allow guns in parks, the Obama administration said it would not appeal the former president’s decision, a stance hailed by gun-control groups.

So what do you make of this? Does any of this increase your faith in Democrats on gun control, or is this just a political breeze momentarily gusting in an odd direction?

Second-Amendment Restoration Act Re-Introduced

Joe_Cermele — Mon, 04 May 2009 09:21:54 -0400

From the office of U.S. Congressman Bart Stupak:

U.S. Congressman Bart Stupak (D-Menominee) has introduced legislation to restore the gun rights of individuals convicted of minor, non-violent crimes. . . .

“To be absolutely clear, the NRA believes it is both constitutional and appropriate to disarm convicted felons,” NRA Director of Federal Affairs Chuck Cunningham wrote in a letter of support for the bill. “However, we also believe that no person should lose the right to arms due to convictions for minor, non-violent crimes, especially those that occurred many years in the past.”