Politicians don’t tell the truth. Its just the way of politics to tell people what you think they want to hear. Exaggerations, misleading statements and similar things are the rule. But sometimes politicians tell such blatant lies it is hard to understand how anyone can listen to them.

Hillary Clinton is constantly telling lies about gun laws, the gun business and why you and I own guns, all the time trying to make it harder for us to own a gun while she is hiding behind armed guards. The current lie of the day is that gun manufacturers and sellers are not liable for their product the same way other business are for their product.

The stated goal of the anti-gun groups is to put gun manufactures and retailers out of business by suing them when a gun is used in a crime. That is like Rosie O’Donnell suing spoon manufacturers because she is fat. Or it is like suing a gas station and Shell oil because someone buys a gallon of gas and uses it to burn down a house.

The law suits got so ridiculous a few years ago that our elected representatives passed a federal law that gun manufacturers and retailers were not liable if their product was misused. That is the way it is with every product made but liberal judges were singling out the gun industry. And they still are doing that, trying to put them out of business.

A state judge in New Jersey ruled last week a suit against Remington could proceed, even though there is federal law against such lawsuits. That lawsuit says Remington should not have made a gun for civilian sales that is a military weapon. Anyone knowing anything about guns knows the multiple fallacies of that claim.

Gun banners can’t get laws passed that they want because there are too many gun owners and other rational people opposing them. So they try to go through the courts to accomplish their goals. They can’t stand the thought of a law abiding citizen having something they personally don’t approve of so they try to ban it for everyone.

I had to “Laugh Out Loud” when I saw an editorial from the Atlanta Constitution reprinted in the Griffin Daily News on Friday, March 4 and saw it had to do with guns. The editorial board of that paper has never heard of any kind of gun ban or control law they didn’t support and they have opposed any kind of law that lessened any restriction of our 2nd Amendment rights.

The editorial was about the proposed law doing away with the restrictions of anyone over 21 years old who have passed a fingerprint background check and have a Georgia Firearms License to possess a gun on college campuses. I knew without reading it they opposed that law, and that they would make wild claims that have never come true anywhere the citizens have a right to carry on campus.

That editorial board ignores the fact you can’t get a Georgia Weapons License unless you are 21 years old and have to get a fingerprint background check. They ignore the fact that criminals see “gun free zones” as free fire crime zones where only they have guns. And they ignore the crime sprees caused by this on many Georgia college campuses.

It is not even safe to go to the library on the Georgia State campus because of all the robberies there. And why would the criminals worry – nobody is around to stop them and protect themselves or any other innocent folks.

Although they claim in the editorial to know the 2nd Amendment is a right, they support any effort to restrict it. I wonder if they would have the same attitude toward the 1st Amendment.

Laws do not affect criminals. Restricting our rights does not protect the law-abiding.

Not long ago the gun banners were crowing that gun deaths now outnumbered traffic accident deaths for the first time, proving guns should be banned. They ignored a lot of facts like that gun deaths are mostly suicides and car deaths had recently dropped due to higher cost of gas, and gun deaths were on a long term downward trend. They used this change to push their gun ban agenda.

Their gun control propaganda fails to come true just a few months later.

Some rational folks predicted that car deaths would increase again if gas prices dropped and people drove more. A news article in the Griffin Daily News on page A-7 on Friday, February 19 proved them right. The headline: “2015 Motor vehicle deaths increased by largest percent in 50 years.”

Do you think the gun control folks will admit to this change? I won’t hold my breath.

In Georgia one of the biggest gun controversies this legislative session has been making it legal to for citizens in our state with a “Georgia Firearms License” to carry their gun on college campuses. Campuses are a free fire zone, also known as a gun free zone, right now.

There have been many robberies on college campuses, especially Georgia State. The new law would allow people like me, who have gone through a fingerprint background check and have no criminal history or mental problems and are 21 years old or older, to carry their legal gun on campus.

Those against it come up with all kinds of weird excuse why it would be dangerous. They claim youth should not be able to carry guns, ignoring the fact the law only applies to those over 21. And they say college students are not mature enough to carry a gun, totally missing the fact that many 18 year olds are in the military and carry dreaded “assault” weapons daily.

When I was in college a long time ago I had my Marlin 30-30 lever action assault weapon in my dorm room from the time I started at 18 years old. It never shot anyone. I know times have changed, but gun free college campuses do nothing but keep law-abiding students from protecting themselves.

Anyone thinking the current law keeps thugs from carrying a gun on campus ignore the armed robberies regularly in the news. And they ignore the fact that some states already allow students to carry guns and there has never been a problem caused by them.

I would laugh if it wasn’t so dangerous. The gun ban flakes think they have used up the lie “gun show loophole” since President Obama said he is illegally taking action to put into effect a law the representatives of the people have refused to pass three different times. So now those gun banners are calling for action on the “Charleston loophole.” Their gun control laws are dangerous and silly.

I heard Hillary use that term a couple of times in the democrat debate this past week and another liberal use it on a talk show. What do they want? No time limit on an answer on the “Instant” background check. So the government can delay your purchase of a gun for an unlimited time.

Right now, if the government can not return an answer on a check on the instant background check within three days the sale can go through. The reason the law was worded that way was to prevent the government from stalling and preventing law-abiding citizens from getting guns. The check is supposed to be instant but they have three days to do it. Gun banners want unlimited, meaning never ending, time.

Think that won’t happen? Many places delay and delay issuing carry permits because they can delay, without giving any reason for the delay. The most famous case of this happening is Carol Brown in New Jersey. She had a restraining order against her violent ex-husband but applied for a gun permit since she knew she could not defend herself with a piece of paper. He stabbed her to death. Her having a gun could have saved her life.

The New Jersey law says the local police are supposed to rule on permits within 30 days, a ridiculously long time to wait to defend yourself. But Browne had applied for her permit on April 21 and was killed in June, well over the 30 day delay. And waiting over 30 days is the norm for police departments in New Jersey that have no legal reason for denying permits, so they just sit on them and illegally deny the permit.

Gun banners whine that I, and fellow NRA members like me, won’t compromise for “common sense” gun laws. But what they propose have nothing to do with common sense, and they are never satisfied, as the “Charleston loophole” mantra shows. Compromise to them means do what I want today so I can demand further ridiculous restriction tomorrow.

These same folks are still lying about the law on suing gun sellers and manufacturers and also on the law on gun research. These folks want to sue gun manufacturers and sellers if a gun is used in a crime. That is like suing Texaco and the local gas station because an arsonists bought gas from them to burn down a house.

It is legal to sue if a gun malfunctions – just like with any other product. But the gun haters want to be able to sue if the gun works but the user commits a crime with it. That is just not rational.

And gun research is legal. A law bans government funding of research that starts with the goal of banning guns. Anyone can prove anything with research if they start with a bias and control the things they look at in their research. The gun banners want you and me to pay folks like Arthur Kellerman to research with the goal of banning guns.

In 1986 Kellerman published a “study” showing you are 43 times more likely to die from your own gun than you are to use it to protect yourself. To show how stupid such studies can be, you can look at protecting yourself only if you kill your attacker. Never mind that most times a bad guy just seeing a gun will run. Kellerman thinks that is not protecting yourself. And he includes suicides on the opposite side.

Kellerman’s numbers have been shown to be ridiculously inaccurate time and time again but the gun haters still parrot them almost daily. Don’t bother them with facts.

One definition of insanity is to keep doing what you have been doing and expect different results. The recent shootings in California and Colorado show that the gun control fanatics have only one mantra, and they don’t care how insane it is. Based on that definition, gun control insanity it common.

Within minutes of the news of the shooting in San Bernardino, California, President Obama was calling for “common sense” gun control laws to be passed nationwide. Those laws he wants include extended background checks, bans on so-called assault weapons, and bans on high capacity magazines. All those laws are now in effect in California and have been for a couple of years.

How insane is it to demand passing laws nationwide that had absolutely no effect on the terroristic actions of fanatics? President Obama wasn’t the only one demanding insane actions. Many talking heads on the news and celebrities with armed guards also were demanding them. Hillary Clinton was on the insane bandwagon, too.

Some folks were honest enough to admit what they wanted was the confiscation of all guns in the US. Odd how these folks think it is a good idea that the government somehow take away 300 million guns from law-abiding citizens while claiming it is impossible for the same government to identify, arrest and deport 11 million criminal illegal aliens.

I guess they only want to punish the law-abiding gun owner, not criminals in the US illegally.

When you push an agenda so hard you abandon all logic you often look foolish, as did President Obama when he said last week in Paris, soon after over 100 people were killed in a mass shooting there, that mass shootings happen only in the US, not in other countries. Even some of the liberal media had to look at that comment as silly.

It seems more and more rational citizens realize how insane the calls for more gun control really are. When our president and others say we should not blame a large group, like Muslims, for the action of a few extremists, but are perfectly happy to punish all law abiding gun owners for the actions of a few extremists criminals, it just makes him and the others look out of touch with reality.

The gun control Brady Bunch immediately sent out fun raising emails. And they got one of their gun control puppets in the US Senate to introduce a bill to make it a federal law that all gun sales have to go through a background check, their holy grail that has never worked anywhere. They bragged they got 10,000 gun control fanatics to contact the senators on this failed bill.

The Brady Bunch has somewhere around 30,000 members. Yet the NRA, with over 5,000,000 members like me, are called an arm of the gun industry. How stupid do they think the American people are?

Every room in my house has a loaded gun in it. The guns range from a 12 gauge semiautomatic shotgun loaded with #1 buckshot beside my bed to a Colt 1911 .45 caliber semiautomatic pistol with full magazine and one in the chamber on my desk.

I have had those guns in those places for years, yet none of them have ever shot anyone. I would be more careful with loaded guns if there were ever any kids in the house but that is not a danger. The guns are only a danger to someone threatening me.

For some reason some people demonize guns and claim they somehow lead to crime and murders. They want to put all kinds of restrictions on guns, from the look and style you can buy to the way they work. And those restrictions are demanded by folks that do not know the difference between semiautomatic and caliber.

In Virginia last Tuesday there was an election for state senate. The liberal governor of Virginia, Terry McAuliffe, has been pushing for new gun control laws since elected two years ago. The senate, with two more republican members than democrat members, has refused to pass them.

To correct this great injustice to his plans, McAuliffe had liberal democrats running in all districts that had republican senate members. The anti-gun group lead by multimillionaire Michael Bloomberg, who wants to control everything you do from owning a gun to the size of soft drink you can buy, poured many millions of dollars into the campaigns of the anti-gun candidates.

They lost every race. The voters in those districts were smart enough to not believe the stuff the anti-gunners were claiming. The gun banners have changed from asking for gun control laws to calling them common sense gun safety laws, but most voters are smart enough to know there is nothing sensible about them and they have nothing to do with safety.

The biggest push right now is something they call universal background checks. Right now if you buy a gun from a dealer you go through a background check. But if you buy a gun from a friend you don’t have to go through the check. And it is a given that little gang bangers don’t go through a background check when they steal a gun or buy one on the street, and no law will make them since they ignore laws.

The Brady gun control Bunch like to cite numbers to show the background check is working. This is what US Senator Kelly Ayotte presented, as checked by Politifact: “On the numbers, Ayotte is on track. In one year, more than 80,000 background checks were denied at the state and local level and federal authorities pursued 44 charges in court, as the senator claimed.”

So of 80,000 violations only 44 were followed up? What possible good could extending a law that is nothing but an irritation for law-abiding gun owners and is only very rarely enforced against those breaking it do? It is not exactly “common sense” to do more of something that is not being enforced in the first place. Maybe those violating the law in place now should be prosecuted before asking for extending the law!

Supposedly gun crime in Chicago is extremely high because a bunch of folks go to other states to buy guns and take them back to the city where they are almost completely illegal and give them or sell them to their criminal buddies. So folks like Chicago mayor Rahm Emanuel wants to make new laws for other states. Nevermind that it is already against the law to buy a gun for someone else, something called a straw purchase.

Are straw purchase laws enforced? As noted in the November 2 issue of “National Review,” It takes a special kind of foolishness to call for new straw-purchase rules when Illinois, California and – notably – Oregon generally fail to prosecute the straw-buyers they identify.”

The same article of National Review talks about how laws now on the books are not enforced and states “It takes another special kind of foolishness to call for more gun control when a murder is committed by a man out on parole for aggravated assault with a firearm.”

Gun control laws do not affect criminals, only law-abiding citizens, and they are not enforced when violated by criminals. So stop calling for new laws to make it harder for me to get a gun when you are not willing to prosecute and punish severely those violating the laws currently on the books.

The anti-gunners keep saying they don’t want to take legal guns. But some statements give lie to that. Hillary Clinton recently said gun laws like those in Australia are worth looking at for us.

In Australia, after a mass shooting, the government instituted a mandatory buyback program. They would pay you for your guns that you turned in but if you didn’t turn them in they would lock you up and take the guns anyway. If Clinton supports that kind of law here, she and others are lying if they say they don’t want to take my guns.

Don’t take my word for this information. Look up the facts and truth for yourself. But especially don’t take what the gun banners say for facts. Check them carefully!

A couple of weeks ago I tried to get someone to bet with me. I knew I had two sure things but no one would take me up on either bets. This happened as I heard the news about the shooting at an Oregon college.

The first bet was that politicians would be calling for new gun control laws based on this shooting before anything at all was known about it. And the other was that the Brady gun control Bunch would get a fundraising email out within hours of the shooting. I was right on both.

President Obama went on TV within two hours of the shooting to call for ‘common sense” gun control measures. The main one he pushed was extending the background check to all gun sales, even the ones between parent and child.

As usual, the shooter in Oregon used guns that had been purchased after a background check was done. Extending the background check would have made no difference. I always want to ask those calling for gun control laws one question – if your desired law had been in effect, would it have made any difference. The answer in every case is “no.”

Along those lines, I was disappointed in an editorial from the Brunswick News reprinted in the Griffin Daily News on 10/13/15 titled “Something Must Be Done About Guns.” As I said in a column a few weeks ago, calling for “something to be done” when the something can have no effect on gun violence makes as much sense as cutting firewood and leaving it in the woods. You are doing “something,” but it is not going to warm your house.

Politicians constantly tell gun control lies.

President Obama also said it was terrible that gun violence research is suppressed. In a 10/11/15 editorial in the Griffin Daily News, Dick Polman echoed this. Both claimed congress passed a law banning research on gun violence.

Unlike Obama, Polman did finally admit neither one of them were telling the truth. As he states, “Technically, the law doesn’t literally ban federal gun research, the language reads, None of the funds may be used to advocate or promote gun control.”

That’s right, the law keeps gun ban nuts from using federal tax money to push their agenda. If they are unbiased and willing to do real research, they can still do it. It only stops those going into their so called “research” with the goal of slanting it so it pushes gun control. Anyone doing research with a preset outcome is not doing research.

Hillary Clinton claimed gun manufacturers and sellers are not held to the same liability law as other manufacturer. Even the liberal media had to admit she was lying. She was whining about a law passed a few years ago saying gun manufacturers and sellers could not be sued if the gun was used illegally.

They can still be sued if the gun malfunctions, just like any other product. The goal of the gun banners was to sue the gun industry out of business. That is why the law had to be passed. If it had not been passed, frivolous law suits would bankrupt the industry.

Suing a gun seller for a gun used in crime makes as much sense as suing Walmart for selling a baseball bat used to beat someone. Justice is not the gun banners goal, the elimination of guns by any means is their goal.

Within a few hours after the Oregon shooting I got a fund raising email from the Brady gun control Bunch. They are like buzzard circling roadkill. They use any dead body to try to get money and further their cause.

They pushed the same old usless agenda of universal background checks and limits on the kind of guns law abiding citizens can buy. Again, nothing they are pushing would have any effect at all on any of the killings they are using.

President Obama also made the ridiculous statement that it is easier to buy a gun than it is to buy a book. Go to any store selling both and see for yourself how dumb that claim is.

It may be true that it is easier for a little gang banger to get a gun than a book. In a headline article in the Griffin Daily News this past Friday an article told how several kids younger than 18 were arrested for gang activity.

There were several guns in the group and some of them were charged with various gun related charges. Since it is illegal for anyone younger than 18 to have a handgun, and illegal for a felon of any age to have a gun, several of them faced those charges.

The only way to do “something” about guns is to go after those breaking the law with them. Catch a gang banger with an illegal gun. Lock him up for a long time. Someone commits a crime using a gun? Don’t plea bargain the gun charge away, make it mandatory they server a long time where they and their illegal guns can’t do any damage to law abiding citizens.

The most recent police officer murder in New York was by a gang banger with at least 23 arrests over the past 16 years. One arrest was for shooting an 11 year old boy. Why was he still alive, much less free on the streets to shoot a police officer?

Hillary called me a terrorists since I am a member of the NRA. Until we take action against criminals by putting them where they can’t use a gun illegally, gun crime will be blamed on me and you, by those pushing a gun control agenda.

Go after the criminals, not the law abiding citizens!

We’ve got to do “Something” about guns. We’ve got to take on the NRA and do “Something.”

I am terribly sorry Mr. Parker lost his daughter when a mad fool shot her while she was doing a broadcast in Virginia last week. And his reaction, emotionally lashing out, trying to find something to blame, is understandable. But blaming me is not rational.

The victim’s blood had not even stopped dripping before the gun control buzzards were circling their bodies. The usual thoughtless politicians were immediately calling for some kind of law – to do “Something,” regardless of what it might be. And the Brady Bunch gun control advocates were busy sending out emails asking for donations. I got one a few hours after the shooting made the news.

Governor Terry McAuliffe of Virginia had the best comment I saw. While ranting about how laws must be passed to restrict law-abiding gun owners, in order to do “Something,” a reporter asked him what he knew about the details of the shooting. And his response was perfect. Reminded me of Sergeant Schultz on Hogan’s Heroes.

“I don’t know anything” he said. And he was right. He was determined to use this tragedy to further his political agenda on gun control although he had no idea what he was talking about. That is not unusual.

The current evil they want to do “Something” about is what they call common sense background checks. Never mind the murderer in Virginia had gone through a background check, and had put a deposit on the pistol he used two months before he shot the reporter. So much for waiting periods, too.

People die every day from car accidents caused by someone illegally driving and texting. If the reporter had been killed in such an accident, would her father be demanding we do “Something” about cell phones? Maybe a background check and waiting period before buying one? How about the common sense action of not allowing individuals to sell their cell phones to someone else? Those are the kind of illogical things they apply to guns.

Keeping the insane from getting guns is reasonable. But how? Do as some are trying and take guns away from those drawing social security because they can’t take care of their own finances? Or take guns away from any veteran who has admitted war bothered him?

While Amy Parker’s father blamed the gun, not the fool shooting his daughter, and wanted to do “Something” about guns, the husband of Vicki Gardner, executive director of the Smith Mountain Lake Regional Chamber of Commerce who was also shot, said he didn’t blame the gun. He knew the murderer that shot his wife would have, as he said, done it with a machete, bomb, knife, he would have found something.

Maybe “Something” could be done if the gun grabbers didn’t always go to extremes to try to take all guns.

The definition of insanity is doing the same thing and expecting different results. In the case of extended background checks, several studies have shown that the background checks do not reduce crime. So why extend them? That is definitely insanity.

I have loved reading science fiction since I was about eight years old. There are more than 550 paperback science fiction books in my library that I bought mostly when in high school. I still enjoy reading those kinds of stories and books.

One of my favorite kinds of story was about exploring worlds in our solar system or in others. I especially liked it when intelligence life was found and the explorers had to try to understand them. Not only was communication almost impossible at times, but just understanding how they though posed a very difficult task.

Some aliens had such different though processes and logic that it was very hard to make sense since humans usually have at least the same basic for our logic. We communicate through sound or sight, and sometimes touch. But how about an alien race that communicated through color, or telepathy, sending thoughts to each other.

Even more hard to understand were the stories about exploring other realities. In them the inhabitants were so different from us that absolutely nothing made sense. Their logic, if they had it, was not ours, not even of our universe.

When I look at our politicians I think some of them must be an alien race, and a few from a different reality totally. When it comes to guns, I have a hard time understanding most of their thought processes and some are simply so foreign to me it is impossible to understand.

For example, when a reporter questioned the mother of the murderer that killed five of our armed services members in Tennessee recently, the reporter kept asking if he liked guns, if he hunted or liked to shoot. I could understand a little of her thought process. She is so sure guns are evil and cause people to do bad things she focused on it, rather than the obvious cause.

When an insane fool killed five people in a Charleston church, President Obama immediately called for more gun control. That fit his agenda and nothing else really mattered except pushing it. Guns are bad so something must be done about them. It didn’t matter to the president or his thought process that this murderer was not allowed to have a gun under current laws.

And all gun owners are bad so they must be controlled. Although there are millions of gun owners like me who have had and shot guns all their lives, and have never hurt anybody with a gun, President Obama condemned all of us based on the action of one idiot. But at the same time, to fit his agenda, he says we can’t condemn all Muslims for the actions of a radical few.

One case pushed the line to, or past, the line between our reality and that of the being that was questioned. This being, I can’t call her a woman, is on the San Francisco Board of Supervisors. It is one of the beings that voted to make the city a sanctuary city, meaning criminal aliens from other countries, not other universes, could stay there with no threat of being arrested.

After one of those criminal aliens who was a wanted felon and had already been deported five times found or stole a federal agent’s gun and killed an innocent woman on the board walk, he admitted he was in San Francisco because he knew he would not be held accountable for his crimes.

When confronted and asked if there were any second thoughts about this being’s vote to make the city a sanctuary city, it responded “We have a gun problem.”

At first I tried to understand this though process. Did it mean the federal agent should not have had a gun that could be lost or stolen? But this being has armed guards, to that didn’t make sense in any reality I could understand.

Maybe this being was like the old Chatty Cathy doll that had set responses when you pulled its string, or the old Magic Eight Ball that answered your questions with a limited number of set answers. As far as I can understand, there was no more though behind responses from those toys than the one given about guns.

And California Senator Diane Feinstein is quoted as saying that bad guys with guns would lay them down and do no harm if no good guys did not have guns. Again, that is from a reality I will never understand.

Guns and law abiding gun owners are not the problem, no matter what universe or reality you are from. But some will continue to try to do away with them and condemn all gun owners, no matter the lack of logic or sense of it

Washington Whispers About Gun Control and the Industry Prepares

Jim Shepherd
from The Fishing Wire

If the whispers in the hallways of Congress are any indication, the Obama administration is gearing up for as many as a dozen regulations which, although described as public safety issues are really gun restrictions. Their titling’s based on the tried-and true political strategy of calling something potentially distasteful a “safety” issue when in fact it’s something else entirely.

Measures being considered include new restrictions on the purchase and/or possession of “high-powered pistols”. The mainstream hasn’t bothered to ask what constitutes a “high-powered pistol” because the measures are being championed by “gun safety advocates” like Everytown for Gun Safety -the organization that is financially supported and largely run by former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg.

So is President Obama prepping for his final push against gun owners and Second Amendment rights? If what my Washington insiders tell me is accurate, the administration isn’t considering the plan; they’re implementing it.

First, a series of dubious “public safety” measures will be introduced into Congress – where they will likely be defeated. The administration will then demonize the “gun lobby” and accuse the politicians receiving their financial support of standing in the way of public safety.

If that trial balloon flies, President Obama will begin to issue a sweeping series of Executive Orders including the aforementioned restriction on “high-powered pistols” and requiring mandatory liability insurance for everyone who owns a firearm. They’ll all be made in the name of “the greater public good.”

House Democrat Carolyn Maloney (D-NY) has apparently already fired the first shot of this latest gambit with her “The Firearm Risk Protection Act” mandating that liability insurance be proven before being allowed to purchase a gun. A $10,000 fine would be the penalty for not having insurance. She says it’s “only reasonable” as car insurance is mandated and “guns are far more dangerous.”

While taking a fun photo with Ruger President Chris Killoy (left) and CEO Mike Fifer (right) at this year’s NRA Annual Meetings, I heard the first hints of what is now officially the Ruger Two Million Gun Challenge.

As normal, both the gun industry and gun owners are the bad guys – and the National Rifle Association the worst of our lot. That isn’t a situation any of us find unfamiliar.

Before the last presidential election, Ruger CEO Michael Fifer was listening to remarks by the NRA’s Wayne LaPierre and Chris Cox detailing the work of the NRA-ILA , the organization’s lobbying and political action arm.

At that point, Fifer realized all that work in Washington was done with money outside membership dues. Under federal law, dues can’t be used for lobbying. That’s the reason behind the NRA-ILA ‘s establishment in 1975.

“I realized we all needed to do more,” he told me, “and Ruger needed to come up with a way to help. So we took a big leap of faith with the Ruger 1 Million Gun Challenge.” Under the Challenge, Ruger would give the NRA’s political efforts a dollar for every gun during the one-year Challenge period.

Ultimately that “leap of faith” raised $1,273,000.

Last night, Fifer talked with me about Ruger’s latest –and significantly larger – “leap of faith”: The Ruger 2 Million Gun Challenge (you can read the details in today’s Top Story Exclusive).

Yep, Ruger’s doubled the potential number of guns in the challenge, but that’s not all. They’re also doubling the contribution of each unit, that’s $2/per unit or a potential of $4 million for the NRA’s efforts based on Ruger sales between the 2015 NRA Annual Meetings and next year’s annual gathering in Louisville, Kentucky.

“It’s pretty aggressive,” Fifer admitted, “but I’m hoping that we can energize consumers to support the NRA and the NRA-ILA efforts. It’s already energized us internally.”

Ruger will be launching a web micro-site and other resources in support of the Ruger 2 Million Gun Challenge, and as always, we’ll keep you posted.