Detroit Pastor Shoots Church Attacker, Saves Congregation

1 Comment

This is from Bearing Arms.

It is time to have background checks done on purchases of bricks.

We need brick control.


The pastor of a small storefront church in Detroit was forced to shoot a 25-year-old man to defend his congregation during a service yesterday afternoon after the man came in and threatened them with a brick:

A pastor shot and killed a man armed with a brick during a church service on Sunday after the man threatened parishioners at the City of God Church on Detroit’s west side, according to police.

The shooting happened inside the church on Grand River Avenue around 1:45 p.m.

The 25-year-old man stormed into the church during a service wielding a brick. Police say the man was well known by the congregation and especially the pastor.

The 36-year-old pastor pulled out a gun and shot the man multiple times. Authorities say the pastor had been trying to help the man, but those efforts had gone south.

Investigators said four or five shots were fired from the Glock handgun.

“The suspect entered the church, he allegedly had a brick in his hand and was threatening the pastor,” said Asst. Detroit Police Chief Steve Dolunt. “We’ve had a previous incident, at least one, and the pastor filed a police report.”

The man was taken to the Botsford Hospital and was pronounced dead.

Authorities said the man has a history of threatening the pastor and members of the congregation.

The pastor is being questioned at police headquarters.

Authorities seem to believe that there is little doubt that the shooting was indeed a legitimate case of armed self-defense, but the video report suggests that there may be some question as to whether the pastor had the gun legally within the church.

Under my understanding of Michigan law the pastor should have the right to carry a gun in church, so the investigation may be less than the media is suggesting.


Bankruptcy On The Horizon For Colt

Leave a comment

This is from The Daily Caller.

After 160 years will we see the end of Colt Firearms?


Only Colt makes M4s, and only Colt can call an Armalite-designed, direct-gas impingement rifle an AR-15. Forget that at your legal peril. Read more:



The American gunmaker Colt is currently in a downward financial spiral, CNN Money reports. For over 160 years, Colt has been a key player in the gun industry.

However, the company has reluctantly admitted they have been in a state of financial turmoil since missing a $10.9 million interest payment in May.

The 30-day grace period to make the payment ends June 14th so Colt will be forced to make a variety of decisions regarding the structuring of its debt after the deadline. If the company is unable to properly redistribute its debt, Colt will have to pursue aid under bankruptcy code.

In an attempt to work with bondholders, Colt proposed a restructuring plan that would keep the company afloat. Bondholders themselves, however, are refusing to agree to any plan that would end in losses. The bondholders believe that under bankruptcy code the company would be able to recover the entirety of the bonds’ worth and debt.

With a shining legacy like that of Colt’s, there’s a good chance that another big name American company like Smith and Wesson could be a potential buyer. Since the 1840s, Sam Colt’s company has been the most famous of the American gun manufacturers.

Used in a multitude of American films, the Colt brand has been synonymous with high sales. In recent years, however, competition from other lighter-weight handguns has caused revenues to dwindle. In fact, the American police force has opted to carry a lightweight Glock with an equally high capacity magazine. Between the financial troubles and decreasing popularity, the future of Colt remains to be seen.

Read more:



Leave a comment

This is from Brietbarts Big Government.

I remember this hysteria about plastic guns when Glock first started selling guns in America.



Jay Janner/AP Photo

On June 9, Congressional Democrats will propose an all-out ban on the manufacture of “entirely plastic guns.”

They claim “plastic guns can be even more dangerous than traditional firearms because they’re harder to detect.”

According to The Hill, the Democrats are making this push via the Undetectable Firearms Modernization Act. This act will require at least one “major component” of every plastic gun to be made of metal or contain enough metal that one cannot sneak it by an airport metal detector.

Rep. Steve Israel (D-NY)4% previewed the legislation by saying, “Plastic guns are real, they can be fired, they can kill someone, and there’s nothing we can do to stop them from going right through the airport security line because they are undetectable.” He then admitted that even detectable guns can escape detection at times.

He said, “If detectable weapons can make it through security checkpoints, how can we expect to catch wrongdoers carrying undetectable plastic firearms?”

Based on this admission, Israel also said America’s airport security needs to “modernize… so the American people can count on it.”

Democrats made this same push in 2013, and it was supported by “Reps.

Rep. John Conyers Jr. (D-MI) 14%

Rep. Elizabeth Esty (D-CT) 9%
 Rep. Jim Himes (D-CT) 6%
  Mike Honda (D-Calif.) ,Rep. Jim Langevin (D-RI)  8%
 and Pete King (R-N.Y.).”

Concealed Carry Myths: Double-action Handguns Suck for Self-defense

1 Comment

This is from OutDoorHub.



Is a long , heavy, double-action trigger on a concealed carry gun (like this triple-safety-checked Beretta being used in the drill described below) a benefit or a curse?

Recently, there has been much rekindled and rehashed debate on whether striker-fired guns are the spawn of Satanic fire-breathing seahorses or the most effective self-defense technology ever to grace a holster.

Some folks remain convinced that striker-fired guns like Glocks have trigger-press motions that are too easy and too short. According to this view, negligent and unintended discharges are bound to happen, more so than with other designs. Under stress, your body does weird things, one of which is a sympathetic muscular response. For example, clenching one hand will cause the other to clench, although maybe to a lesser degree. If that “other” hand is holding a gun, then you just might fire it unintentionally. It’s happened before, but so have a lot of other things, like Clay Aiken running for Congress.

The opposing camp prefers long, double-action triggers like those on revolvers and pistols like Berettas, Sig Sauers, and the like. The first shot requires a very long and deliberate press of the trigger. On a Beretta 92FS, the base of the trigger moves over an inch before the shot breaks. The center portion of the trigger, where one’s finger will likely rest, moves over 5/8 of an inch. The double-action pull’s trigger weight can run over 10 pounds, compared to the five-pound range of many striker-fired pistols.

At first glance, it sounds like the double-action/single-action crowd has the debate nailed, but there are downsides to consider. First, that long double-action trigger press is harder to master, so it takes some work to deliver an accurate shot, especially under stress. Then there’s the dreaded transition. With a double-action/single-action gun like the Beretta 92/M9, the first shot requires a long trigger press with over 10 pounds of pressure. Subsequent shots operate in single-action mode with a five-pound, and much shorter, trigger press. Getting off multiple accurate shots requires the shooter to master this transition from double-action to single-action between the first shot and second. A striker-fired (or single-action only) pistol has no such transition to conquer. Proponents of that design claim you can unleash two rapid-fire shots at a 300-yard-distant Willy Wonka Bottle Cap candy and hit it both times.

Like most debates, there is some truth on both sides. Personally, I have double-action/single-action, striker-fired, and single-action only guns and am comfortable carrying any of those styles. I’ve never been stressed out about the whole double-action/single-action transition thing. In fact, my first “real caliber” gun was a 9x19mm Beretta 92FS. I carried it as my only option for years and never worried much about it. I guess I didn’t know enough to know that it was the worst concealed carry choice ever and would cause not only my eventual demise, but the downfall of Bingo parlors and tanning salons everywhere. I simply shot it enough to feel comfortable with “the transition.” As a new concealed carrier, I liked the multiple layers of perceived safety. The safety/decocking lever provided one layer. The long, double-action trigger press offered another. I still like those layers and carry double-action pistols frequently.

Until a recent training class I never really knew exactly why I was so comfortable with a double-action/single-action design for concealed carry. Then I found out why I like it. I took an abbreviated class with Ernie Langdon. You might have heard of him, as he’s one of the premier pistol instructors anywhere.

During the class, Ernie taught us the real value of using a double-action gun as a fighting pistol. In short, the idea is to develop a fluid motion of drawing, acquiring a sight picture, and making a fire/no-fire decision, all while starting that long and heavy double-action trigger press. By the time your front sight rises into the perfect sight picture, you’ve already made the decision to shoot (or not) and have fired the shot (or not). It’s exceptionally smooth and fast once you practice and get the hang of it.

I decided to give Ernie’s method a thorough try—and I don’t mean that I took a few shots at the range to see how it felt. Well, yeah, I did that, but more importantly, I allocated a lot of dry and live fire training time to honing the technique to see how it would work out for me.

Step one was to burn in the timing and sequence of the technique. Using my Beretta 92FS at home, double- and triple-checked for safe, dry-fire practice conditions, I started some slow drills. When I say slow, I mean glacially slow, as in the speed at which my dog walks himself to the bathtub. The reason I did these drills so slowly was to “burn” the exact sequence I wanted into my brain. I wanted every practice motion to be perfect and identical. With enough repetitions, speed will eventually take care of itself.

This is the drill:

  1. Move firing hand to gun grip and move support hand to chest (to keep it out of the way and position it for assuming a support grip).
  2. Lift the gun from the holster and rotate towards the target, while bringing it to my support hand.
  3. Assume two-handed grip with the gun still pressed close to my body.
  4. Flip the safety/decocking lever down.*
  5. Press the gun forward while raising the front sight into my field of view.
  6. Apply pressure to the (double-action mode) trigger while raising the pistol and acquiring a sight picture.
  7. Evaluate during this process as to whether it is appropriate to continue trigger pressure to fire or release pressure and stop the firing sequence.

* Yes, I said press down on the safety/decocking lever. You may know that the safety/decocking lever on a Beretta 92, M9 or PX4 is frame-mounted and moves up, not down. That’s correct, but here’s a nifty little trick that’s really a design feature. As Ernie Langdon demonstrated to the class, one of the purposes for the spring and detent motion of the safety decock lever is that you can press it down just a bit and the spring will cause it to continue circling until it moves into the up (fire) position. Trust me on this one and give it a try—it works like a champ.

Now back to the details. The motions taking the gun from your sternum area up to your sight picture are the key ones, hence my very slow and deliberate practice. I prefer to raise the pistol while keeping the barrel horizontal to the ground. If you raise it in a pendulum motion, with the muzzle pointed toward the ground at the start and finishing horizontal, you won’t get a decent sight picture until the very end of the movement. You also don’t want to bring your gun up in such a way that the muzzle points up and you eventually need to bring it back down. The parallel-to-ground method works for me as the front sight naturally comes into view. If necessary, I can fire at virtually any point during the presentation stage.

Is this method right for you? Got me, you’ll have to try it. My practice routines are resulting in some pretty impressive draw and fire skills (for me anyway) so I’m going to keep at it. I followed Ernie’s method during the class, then came home and gave it an extended trial. When a trainer of that caliber teaches me a new method, I may or may not adopt it, but I’m certainly going to give it a fair shot.

The important thing is test concepts on your own, fair and square, then make a decision. Don’t fall for the internet myths about striker-fired guns being too dangerous or double-action pistols being too hard to shoot accurately. Absorb the most credible information you can, preferably in person from a quality instructor, then go to work testing the principles you learn on your own.



Leave a comment

This is from Breitbarts Big Government.

This is the same pissing in their pants rhetoric the DemocRats spouted when Glock first hit the American market.

It was bullshit then and it is bullshit now.

Representative Steve Israel (D-NY) plans to introduce a bill which will ban the use of 3-D printers to make firearms that are actually or even potentially undetectable.

According to, Israel is chiefly concerned about The Liberator–the first truly “printable handgun designed by Defense Distributed.” Although the gun contains metal which prevents it from being undetectable, Israel believes the gun provides an option for terrorists who could remove the metal, and thereafter be in possession of a gun that could pass through metal detectors.

Note the way Israel is approaching this–although the gun contains metal and is therefore detectable and in compliance with law, he wants to further regulate the manufacture of the gun on the grounds that a non-law-abiding citizen might alter it–remove the metal–and misuse it.

In other words, Israel wants to punish law-abiding citizens for the possible criminal or terror-related behavior of others.

CBS News reports that other Democrats tried to do this same thing in December 2013, when Congress renewed the Undetectable Firearms Act (UFA). That act, first passed in 1988, bans the manufacture of undetectable guns, period. Yet during the renewal of the law, certain Democrats pushed to broaden it, so as to increase the amount of metal that every 3-D printed gun would have to contain.

This is where Israel’s proposal will come in.

His bill will make allowances for licensed persons and companies to have some freedom to print plastic 3-D guns, but those guns would be required to contain “3.7 ounces of stainless steel.”

Customer finds Nazi symbol on her chicken sandwich

Leave a comment

This is from News Channel 12 ABC WCTI.

What is wrong with someone who does something like this?

Why is it some many of the younger generation looks up to the Nazi’s?

My oldest took a 20 something to task over saying  he admired Adolph Hitler she said Hitler had over six million people murdered.

She asked “Are you special kind of stupid?”.I wonder where she got that?

He looked at her, then looked at me I think he noticed my Glock and walked away.


Customer finds Nazi symbol on her chicken sandwich

MOREHEAD CITY, CARTERET COUNTY A Carteret County mother makes a shocking discovery when she goes to eat her chicken sandwich from a McDonald’s drive-thru in Morehead City. That customer, Charleigh Matice, said when she went to put mayonnaise on her bun she found a swastika etched in butter on it.


Matice said she couldn’t believe someone could possibly do that in this day and time.

“Is this a joke? Does somebody really think they’re funny?,” Matice said.

This anti-Semitic symbol was used by the Nazi party in Germany during the Holocaust. Her grandfather had fought in World War II.  She said the swastika really offended her.

“Many people died because of that symbol and it’s not something that should be taken lightly. It’s not something that should be thrown around,” Matice said.

She said when she went inside the restaurant employees offered to replace it.

“I really didn’t have an appetite at that point so I said I rather have my money back,” Matice said.

However, Matice said even with the money she didn’t feel satisfied. She wants the incident addressed at a larger scale.

“Maybe it needs to be part of training, or maybe brought up more often so that people know that this is not okay,” Matice said.

We contacted McDonald’s corporate office about the incident. They emailed us a statement from the owner of that McDonald’s in Morehead City.

“We are very sorry for the service that our customers received, and to be clear we have terminated the employee who was involved. We do not tolerate that kind of behavior at McDonald’s, and it’s not what we stand for personally as owners. It is about providing the best level of service and care to our customers, and anything less than that is unacceptable to us.”  – Dulcy Purcell, local McDonald’s Owner/Operator in Morehead City, NC

Matice said she’s not upset with McDonald’s anymore.

“I’m a loyal customer and that’s why I don’t want people like that representing them,” Matice said.

She said she plans on eating there again.


NJ Gun Control Advocate: “No one needs a 15 round magazine unless they’re a domestic terrorist”


This is from Guns Save Lives.

My Glock has the standard capacity 15 round magazines.

For my evil black rifle I have 30 and 40 round magazines.

So does this make a super domestic terrorist?

This is what Jesus said about self defense,

Luke 22:36

King James Version (KJV)

36 Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.


Tell us how you really feel why don’t you.

“Nobody needs a 15-round ammunition magazine unless they are a domestic terrorist or a gangster”

Those are the words of Bryan Miller, executive director of Heeding God’s Call. God’s Call is a faith based organization that pushes for gun control. Those words were being spoken in regards to a proposed New Jersey gun law that will limit magazine capacity to 10 rounds in the Garden State. New Jersey already has some of the worst gun laws in the country, including limiting magazine capacity to 15 rounds.

According to, that’s not all the anti-gunners in Connecticut are hoping to accomplish this year,

It’s those measures — in particular, a restriction on ammunition magazine size, a ban on .50-caliber rifles, stricter limits on children’s access to firearms and mandatory safety training for gun owners — that will be their focus in the coming year. “Our top priority is a 10-round limit on magazine size,” said Bryan Miller, executive director of Heeding God’s Call, a faith-based organization focused on preventing gun violence.

“Nobody needs a 15-round ammunition magazine unless they are a domestic terrorist or a gangster,” Miller said. “We expect the legislative leadership to get behind this and the governor to see some sense.”

In last year’s session, the magazine restriction never made it to the governor’s desk. Instead, it was the Senate and president Steve Sweeney who stood in its way. The state currently restricts clips to 15 rounds, a limit Sweeney described last year as “effective.”

I wonder if Miller’s comments apply to law enforcement and the military as well? After all, he said NO ONE needs a standard capacity magazine (and even a 15 round magazine isn’t standard for many firearms).

New Glock commercial sure to infuriate liberals everywhere

Leave a comment

This is from Cain TV.

There is no doubt in my mind this commerical will

give the anti gunners apoplexy.


“Somebody picked the wrong girl.”

You’d think the party that claims to support strong, independent women would love her. OK, no you wouldn’t. Because they don’t. The party in question loves a woman who knows where to go to get government benefits. A woman like this is doing it all wrong:

dramatic and intense than you might have expected. Every time she goes back to the couch (what is she watching, by the way?) and sits down, only to hear that ominous knock on the door once again, you’re really starting to get concerned that the perp might get in before she’s armed and ready.

The first time I watched (spoiler if you haven’t already hit play), I was actually expecting her to shoot him dead. Now that would have been attention-getting, but it is a commercial after all, and I don’t suppose that’s really the association Glock is looking for. It’s about protecting yourself, not about killing someone. Granted, without the threat of the latter you can’t really do the former, but I do think it’s accurate that in the circumstances envisioned here, it would not be necessary to ever pull the trigger the vast majority of the time. The perp is either going to run or put his hands on his head and give up.

A lynchpin of the liberal argument against gun rights is that the average gun-toting citizen is more likely to get shot by his/her own gun than to use in successfully in self-protection. This ad really exposes the thinking that drives that argument. The left simply doesn’t believe that a young woman like this could handle herself in the situation depicted. In their minds, there is no way she’s pointing the gun at the door when the bad guy gets it open – poised and ready. And that goes for a 40-year-old dad looking to protect his family too. These dopes would just end up getting shot by their own gun, so they’re better off not being allowed to own it in the first place. That’s the argument.

I will say this: If I’m her, I’m not waiting until the third time I hear the noise to get the gun. The first time I might write it off as something harmless, but the second time I’m getting the Glock. Why does she wait so long? Just for the ad’s dramatic effect?

Anyway, if that’s the strongest criticism of the ad (and it would be mine), that’s not an anti-gun control argument. It’s an argument for getting that thing in your hands sooner.



Deadline looms on undetectable guns

Leave a comment

This is from The Hill.

This law is a stupid in 2013 as it was in 1988.

The big deal was the Glock pistols and how the

X-ray machines could not detect them as they were

made of plastic.

As a Glock owner I can tell you they not plastic

and they will be detected by X-ray.


Guns that cannot be detected by X-ray machines will no longer be banned if Congress does not renew the decades-old prohibition by Dec. 9.

The 1998 Undetectable Firearms Act will sunset that day, ending the prohibition at a time when new technology has made it easier than ever before to manufacture plastic guns with 3-D printers.
Gun control activists warn that a lapse would allow anyone with a few thousand dollars to build a homemade gun that would be undetectable at airports, government buildings or schools.

That threat was little more than “science fiction,” when Congress overwhelmingly backed the ban 25 years ago,” said Rep. Steve Israel (D-N.Y.), who is pressing legislation to renew the law.

“We didn’t think it would be a good idea to let the bad guys get a gun through metal detectors,” Israel said.

But with Congress away for a Thanksgiving recess and congressional Republicans in no apparent hurry to address the ban, the chances of a lapse in the ban are growing.

“I’m getting more skeptical,” Israel told The Hill.

Before the Senate adjourned Thursday night, Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) floated a request for unanimous consent to reauthorize the law for one year. Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) objected, effectively blocking any action in the upper chamber until at least Dec. 9, they day the Senate returns and the law is set to expire.

Sessions signaled a willingness to renew the law after the holiday.

“We will be glad to give it serious attention,” he said Thursday evening. “I know it is the kind of thing we probably can clear at some point, but I object.”

Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) said it was Senate Democrats who were to blame for refusing to work with Republicans on a separate proposal reauthorize the law for either five or ten years.

“Congressional Republicans support a lengthy extension of the ban on firearms that cannot be picked up by metal detectors,” Grassley said Tuesday via a written statement. “The Senate Majority consciously and consistently rebuffed our efforts to continue the prohibition for five to ten more years.”

The law has traditionally enjoyed broad support in both parties, passing the House by a tally of 413 to four in 1988.

It was renewed 10 years later and again five years after that, most recently via a noncontroversial voice vote.

But gun-control legislation has become increasingly controversial in recent years, as evidenced by the defeat in April of a bipartisan Senate measure seeking to extend federal background check legislation to all commercial gun sales.

The amendment from Sens. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) and Pat Toomey (R-Pa.) was among a host legislative gun control measures offered in the months after last December’s elementary school massacre in Newtown, Conn.

All failed in the face of fierce opposition from gun rights activists, who said the bills would violate the Second Amendment. Some groups oppose legislation to renew the undetectable gun ban on similar grounds.

“We would say, just leave it be — let it go,” said Erich Pratt, spokesman for the group Gun Owners of America. “We look at even that law as an infringement.”

Pratt argued that the law does nothing to keep undetectable guns out of the hands of criminals with no regard for the law in the first place.

“It’s not going to stop bad guys from making them,” he said.

Earlier this year, a Texas man caused a stir after posting detailed instructions for making a plastic gun with a 3-D printer. Thousands of people downloaded the blueprints, as did the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.

The agency built and tested a model, and released videos showing the weapon being fired.

Both Schumer and Israel stressed that they are supportive of 3-D printer technology, which is seen as having major upside for the American manufacturing industry.

Pro-gun groups note that it’s far easier to obtain guns — legally or otherwise — through longstanding channels than it would be to build one.  But gun control advocates say the new technology presents real danger.

“We have a deep, deep concern about 3-D guns,” said Brian Malte, senior national policy director for the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence.

Malte said the group is communication with legislative staffers about extending the ban. Those discussions could include consideration of whether to attach additional language to the law, he said.

“It’s just a question of whether the votes are there at the very end,” he said.

But any additional restrictions could make extending the ban more contentious, particularly if the language includes targets 3-D printers, said Pratt of the gun owners group.

Israel emphasized that his bill does not single out the printers. The legislation would add language clarifying that all firearms contain metal parts, so that they would set off a metal detector, he said.

Ultimately, the law’s backers appear more focused on keeping in place than expanding its scope.

“We are looking at a world in which anyone with a little bit of cash can bring an undetectable gun, that can fire multiple bullets, anywhere — including planes, government buildings, sporting events and schools,” Schumer said in a written statement to The Hill.

“This ban cannot be allowed to expire.”




This is from Breitbarts Big Government.

Which laws on the book now or proposed laws would

stopped Adam Lanza from getting a gun and using it?


A report released Monday by Connecticut’s Attorney for the District of Danbury says all the guns and ammunition involved in the heinous crime at Sandy Hook Elementary were legally purchased by Nancy Lanza and then stolen by her son, Adam.

The report lists “a number of crimes” Lanza committed with the stolen guns—including the crime of “Murder Under Special Circumstances,” which was committed twenty-six times—and the report says Adam Lanza “was solely criminally responsible” for all these crimes.

According to State’s Attorney Stephen J. Sedensky III, the firearms found inside the school after the crime were a Bushmaster XM15-E2S, a Glock 20 in 10 mm, and a Sig Sauer P226 in 9mm. The Sig Sauer was never fired, and the Glock was the weapon Lanza used to take his own life after shooting innocents.

An Izmash Saiga-12, a 12-gauge semi-automatic shotgun, was found in Lanza’s car outside the school, and a Savage Mark II .22 rifle was found at Lanza’s residence.

Lanza used the .22 rifle to shoot and kill his mother as she slept.

All of the guns were lawfully purchased by Lanza’s mother, as was all the ammunition. Lanza then bypassed all gun control by stealing the firearms before using them to carry out his heinous crimes.

Because the guns were stolen, Senator Joe Manchin‘s (D-WV) failed gun control bill would have done nothing to prevent the crime at Sandy Hook Elementary.


Older Entries

%d bloggers like this: