I came across this while I was doing a search for new Twitter avatars.

It came from the Flickr account of Mike Fett.

Okay, he admits it’s shooped, but if someone can make a real AR lower like this, with the second word spelled “YER,” please email me.

Seriously.

Photo courtesy of Mike Fett.

Nothing to see here. Step around.

In the last few days there has been a lot of blog and Twitter chatter about President Obama issuing new Executive Orders instituting new “gun safety rules,” or as it is known in the Real World, gun control.

I have some strong feelings about this issue, and I’ve tweeted about them, but 140 characters doesn’t do it justice, so here goes.

The whole idea of legislating new gun control by Executive Order is a steaming pile of BS. Don’t be distracted. Just walk around it.

The whole issue is a smokescreen to distract attention from the ongoing Fast and Furious / Project Gunrunner scandal, which is probably going to take down the Attorney General, if not others in the administration.

Why do I think this is meaningless? Consider:

First, as far as I can find, there was only one story reporting this prospect. A Google search I did failed to find any other stories corroborating this report. All the other stories quoted the original story. (And all the gun forum posts quoting this one story didn’t help the search any.) The only deviation was a story in March suggesting this was in the works, but again, no follow up other than quotes of this one story.

Second, as I said about the Fast and Furious investigation, the current Congress is sufficiently pro-Second Amendment that any attempt by the Administration to circumvent not only US law but the Constitution itself would be met and fought.

Third, Executive Orders do not have the force of law, in the absence of other legislation directing the President to take action. Executive Orders are almost always used to carry out things that are already written into law, but are in the form of a direction to the President and the Executive branch to carry out. They are also used to organize the Executive branch by establishing working groups and positions that don’t need Congressional approval.

An Executive Order that created a new regulation out of thin air*, would certainly by unconstitutional and would be fought almost immediately, both by the Congress, and by organizations like the Second Amendment Foundation and the NRA. In addition, trying to change the terms of an existing law would be unconstitutional, and would be blocked.

One example that’s been given of the latter is that a “paper trail” would be kept of NICS background checks done from firearms purchases. The problem is, the NICS law as written specifically states that records of the NICS check will only be kept for 90 days, then destroyed. So, any attempt to change this by Executive Order would be fought as aggressively as it was in 2009 when attempts were made to change the law to allow longer retention.

So personally, I would ignore it. Molon labe.

Here’s the kicker though.

Obama knows all this. He is just trying to distract us and make us commit limited resources to a fruitless fight against nothing. Then he and his gun control cronies can point to us reactionary, trigger happy, gun nut zealots, and make some headlines in the Washington Post about us all being right wing nut cases. And then the whole thing will disappear overnight, like Congressman Weiner.

I, for one, refuse to listen any more. I am concentrating my attention on the many more real threats to our rights. There are certainly enough.

* Yes, an Executive Order was used to establish the Japanese Internment Camps during World War II, which was not previously authorized by law, and which was almost certainly unconstitutional. However, even a casual study of history shows that the climate in the nation at that time prevented anyone from seriously disputing FDR’s authority to do so, and the Congress at the time lacked the courage to question it as well. Fortunately, that condition does not exist today.

This past weekend I was practicing magazine changes with my new Glock magazines. These FML mags will replace my old NFML mags. For now, only Magazine 2 has been completely retired, and Mags 1 and 3 will continue to be used.

Since most of the magazine changes I do are during competition, and I almost always compete with Bruce, the G17, with magazines that have “plus 2” extenders, I didn’t anticipate how much the lack of the extenders would affect how the magazine changes felt. Granted, I did have a preview of this during my last training session, Memorial Day weekend, using the Duke, my G21SF, but that experience was limited.

What the lack of the extenders means is that it feels to me like I have to push the magazines in farther than I used to. I didn’t think an inch or so would make that much difference, and it doesn’t really, when I’m using the full size guns, the G17 and G21, as long as I push until they stop and click in place.

But when I did a few practice runs with Liberty, my G19, which does not have extenders on its magazines either, I found that the shorter grip of the gun meant my the heel of my left hand, pushing the mag in, impacted the heel of my strong hand, which really felt awkward. This means there’s a chance I won’t fully seat a mag so that it latches, and I will end up dropping the full mag on my foot as soon as I return the gun to the shooting position.

I know where this heads. First it means I need a lot more practice time with the new magazines, and with my other guns. I’m going to have to practice until seating the magazine is a sure thing, no matter which gun I’m using. A few 10 minute practice sessions each night will go a long way to that.

Second, it means I probably need to budget for a lot more extenders. Eleven of them, at $9 each. Ouch. And no, the extenders from the NFML mags will not work on FML mags – I tried them when I first bought mags 4, 5, and 6, and got a rain of cartridges in return as the extender popped off.

Of course, the up side is that I will also gain 2 more rounds per magazine. You never know when that will come in handy.

It’s always something.

Photo by Erik S. Lesser for The New York Times via freerepublic.com

Where do you buy your guns, ammunition, and shooting accessories? It’s quite a decision to make. If you’re like me, you spend upward of $1,000 a year, maybe more if you decide to add an AR, or start reloading.

How do you decide where to spend that money? Does it matter?

To me, it does.

There is a war going on between pro second amendment people and organizations, and those who want to take our guns away. On the side of the anti-gunners are people like billionaire Michael Bloomberg. To say that we can be out-spent is an understatement.

There are a lot of places where I join the fight. I write my local, state, and federal representatives regularly about the issues, and I’m pleased that they are all on our side. I would say I’m fortunate to live where I live, except that this is one reason I choose to live here.

I also participate in action groups like the NRA, GeorgiaCarry, and the Second Amendment Foundation. These organizations take our message to meet larger foes head on.

One area most people may not consider is the gun and ammunition retailer. These businesses are on the front lines, too, and many times they pay the price.

I can do like we do for a lot of things, go for low price. For me that would be Walmart. But Walmart is part of the Mayors Against Illegal Guns, a Michael Bloomberg-funded anti-gun organization. Even their latest decision the start selling guns again doesn’t sway me. Walmart’s decisions are all based on dollars sold per square foot, and if they thought they could make more money converting their guns counters into nail salons, they would do it.

On the other side of the aisle are the locally owned stores. A really good one recently opened near me, Lakeside Guns in Acworth, Georgia. As a member of the National Association of Firearms Retailers, part of the NSSF, they help fight the war. Plus, the service is exceptional, and the people there all seem to love their jobs. When did you last see that at Walmart?

Consider, too, Adventure Outdoors in Smyrna, Georgia. In 2007, Michael Bloomberg decided that large gun stores in other parts of the country were responsible for the guns in New York City, and he sent people to 27 such stores around the country to buy guns using fake identification. He then sued those stores. Most stores settled out of court. Adventure Outdoors did not.

Owner Jay Wallace (that’s him in the photo above) has spent over $1,000,000 of his own money fighting Bloomberg. He is suing Bloomberg over the incident, and it hasn’t kept him from buying a large grocery store across the street, and renovating it, and adding an indoor shooting range, meeting rooms, and a cafe.

I recently needed to replace some Glock magazines. I chose to buy them at Adventure Outdoors so I could help them in their fight. Yes, I spent a little more than I could have if I had bought them on-line. Yes, it meant driving out of my way on the way home one day. But to me it’s money well spent. It’s money well invested.

So the next time you have money to spend, think about the big picture. Use your money to further the cause. If you have to spend a few dollars more, consider it an investment in your shooting future.