Before you consider concealed carry of a firearm and heading cross-country be sure to familiarize yourself with the rules of firearm carry.

Brad Fitzpatrick

When Illinois was ordered to overturn its ban on concealed firearms due to a decision by a federal appeals court in 2013, it became the last state to adopt concealed carry legislation. Although every state now has specific language that covers CCW (or CCP, or CCDW, or whatever your state calls it), the lack of federal laws provides legislative elbow room when it comes to specific state laws regarding concealed carry. That means every time you cross a border you may be playing by a new set of rules, and it’s your responsibility to know them.

With more than 8 million CCW permit holders across the country, websites and books are now available that helps those traveling from state to state stay inside the legal lines. And while it would be impossible to cover all of the state laws in a single article, let’s focus on some of the key points that vary from state to state. This will help you better understand the law as it pertains to concealed carry.

Shall-Issue Versus May-Issue: The vast majority of states are known as “shall-issue” permit states. That means that anyone who meets the criteria to earn a carry permit will receive that permit based upon state law. That doesn’t mean that every state has the same requirements, though. Background checks are common in many states, but the level of training required to earn your permit is stated in the law and anyone who meets those requirements shall receive a permit.

May-issue states are different. In these states, you must show cause to the governing body (usually local law enforcement) why you are qualified to carry a firearm and they may or may not issue a permit. Simply put, there are no guarantees of issuance. The ultimate authority lies with local law enforcement, and there can be great disparity from district to district regarding the number of permits issued. Currently there are only a handful of may-issue states including California, New York, Hawaii, Massachusetts, Connecticut, New Jersey, Maryland, Delaware, and the District of Columbia, but this legislation can change quickly. All other U.S. states and Alaska are shall-issue.

Reciprocity: Some states honor permits issued in other states, and other do not. Furthermore, some states honor carry permits that are issued in certain states but not others. The topic of reciprocity can be very confusing, but you need to be certain that you know which states allow you to carry concealed with an out-of-state permit.

Rather than rehash the stats for each state, it’s much simpler to head to usacarry.com, which has an updated, interactive map of the states that offer reciprocity with the state that has issued your permit. My home state of Ohio, for instance, has reciprocity with 39 other states, the exceptions being California, Hawaii, Oregon, Illinois, and several northeastern and Atlantic states. This allows me to immediately recognize where I can carry and stay out of trouble.

For years, states like Florida have been issuing carry permits to non-residents who met the criteria for a Florida permit. The reasoning behind this is that a Florida permit has more reciprocity than other states, but time has leveled the legislative playing field and the majority of states now accept permits from other states. Still, be sure to check before you travel.

Restricted Areas: This is where the waters get murky because states laws governing restricted areas varies. In most states, for instance, elementary and secondary schools are considered restricted areas, though some states do have laws that allow for carry during drop-off and pick-up of students. Most state and federal government buildings are restricted, as are some establishments that sell alcohol. In some states, bars that serve food and single drinks are not restricted, and in some cases percentage of profits from alcohol products are used as a gauge. Nevertheless, knowing the restricted areas in your state is critical to staying out of trouble with the law.

From CQB to nighttime animal control to extreme long range shooting, having the right optic on your AR makes all the difference.

Brad Fitzpatrick

I’m often asked which optic is the best for an AR, and that’s a topic I love because it offers me a platform to explain just how versatile black guns can be. AR carbines and pistols are light and compact, and that makes them perfect for close-quarters defensive work. In addition, they’re great for mid-range shooting, everything from 20 to 200 yards. But the reach of the AR extends far beyond that distance, out to 800 or even 1,000 yards. They’re great for hunting, home defense, and competition shooting. In short, your AR can do just about anything.

That is, if you select the right optic. There are a bunch of choices for AR shooters, but here’s a quick guide to some of the best scopes, lasers, and reflex sights based on what you plan to do with your rifle.

Close Range: For everything out to 100 yards, I like a reflex sight. That’s because they’re compact, lightweight, and they offer a clear both-eyes-open aiming point. The red dot is the fastest and most flexible sight for shots out to 100 yards, and they perform well even beyond that range, but if the bulk of your shots in the field or in competition are closer than a hundred steps, a reflex or red dot is your best option because magnification can be a hindrance (ever tried to take a snapshot when your scope was on 9x?) On a recent helicopter hog eradication shoot in Texas I used the Trijicon SRS (sealed reflex sight) with great results, but the company’s newest offering, the MRO, is another superb choice. Likewise, Burris’s AR-F3 combines a lightweight, durable FastFire III optic with their durable AR-F3 mount, which allows the sight to sit low and has metal “wings” that protect it. For budget reflex sights, it’s hard to beat the economical Bushnell First Strike, which offers an easy-to-see 5 MOA dot. One other option is a laser sight like the Crimson Trace MVF-515, which has a light and laser. It’s great for moderate-range shooting, and if you have night vision equipment you can opt for the IR module.

Moderate Range: I consider moderate range anything from muzzle tip to a quarter mile. As previously stated, if my shots are under a hundred, I want a light, compact, reflex sight for fast shooting. If, however, I want to extend my rifle’s range I want the option of magnification. One of the best options is EOTech’s Holographic Hybrid Sight II, which combines an EXPS-2 holographic sight with a G33.STS magnifier. The EXPS-2 holographic sight offers all the benefits of a reflex sight, and you’ve got the option (the magnifier swings in and out of the line of view as needed) for instant 3X magnification. If you’re looking for a standard optic, pay attention to low-power variables like the Trijicon VCOG in 1-6×24. I like this sight a lot because it offers a first focal plane reticle (which maintains constant size relative to the target and aids in aiming) and it doesn’t require scope mounts. Leupold’s Mark AR MOD 1 1.5-4×20 is another great option, and it features a compact, durable design with Firedot illumination and stadia lines. Yet another great (and affordable) option is Nikon’s M 223 1-4×20 BDC 600 scope, which has holdover points out to 600 yards for 55 grain polymer-tipped loads. It also has zero reset turrets, another bonus when shooting at various ranges.

Long Range: The long-range AR is really a specialized platform, and if you are serious about banging steel way downrange you need to invest in top-shelf glass. For starters, a 30 or 34 mm main body tube makes sense; a good 30mm scope gives you more internal adjustment capabilities for making longer shots, and 34s are better still. You can select either MOA or Milrad reticles based on how you prefer to shoot, but be sure that you get good, clear glass. Other options like a zero-stop are nice when you’re trying to hit a target at a great distance.

Burris’s Veracity has performed well for me, and it’s available in magnification ranges from 2-10 to 5-25. The Veracity has Progressively Thick Crosshairs, which narrow toward the center for rapid target acquisition at higher magnification. The Leupold VX-6 offers extremely clear glass, 30mm tubes, a 6x zoom ratio and T-MOA reticle, which has 1 MOA stadia lines and can be used for range estimations. The VX-6 line is available in a variety of magnifications, from 3-18x all the way to 7-42x! Nightforce’s ATACR line is also excellent, with first focal plane reticles, .25 MOA/.1 Mil-Rad click values and magnifications ranging from 4-16x to 5-25x.

The first step to securing our rights is to truly understand who is at fault when a crime occurs.

Brad Fitzpatrick

October 27, 2015

Several of the current frontrunners for the 2016 Democratic presidential candidacy have emphasized their support for legislation that would allow individuals impacted by a gun crime to seek financial compensation from firearms manufacturers in civil court. In short, in the event of a shooting gun companies could be held liable. Many gun control proponents are, as you might imagine, in favor of this legislation.

Anti-gun legislation is nothing new, but perhaps this particular topic sheds light on a much broader and more dangerous attitude regarding firearms and crime in America—many voters seem to have a great deal of trouble identifying who is really at blame when a gun is mishandled.

Let me provide a simpler example. Several months ago, I was researching the best holsters to wear while exercising and, during the course of that research, I came upon a running forum that addressed the topic. A young woman—new to running but familiar with firearms—asked which holsters were best to wear while exercising. It seemed a logical question to me; runners are frequently the target of assaults, and many holsters simply wouldn’t stand up to the abuse. Instead of addressing the woman’s question, the responders took this as an opportunity to attack her. The first response to her question read, “Maybe if you think you need a gun you should find another place to run.”

There was general agreement with the “find another place to run” response on the forum, but that comment infuriated me. Although it may seem benign, this is the type of attitude that abdicates criminals for their actions and levels a measure of guilt on victims. There are several fundamental problems with the “maybe you should find another place to run” attitude, and here are a few:

1. Violence Only Occurs in “Bad” Places: The notion that you know where crime will occur is absurd. Sure, there are statistics that show that certain areas have higher rates of crime than other areas, but that doesn’t mean you are completely safe in your suburban neighborhood where folks are watering their lawn or shooting baskets in the driveway with their kids. Crime is everywhere, in every community, good and bad, poor and rich.
2. Avoidance Is An Effective Means Of Crime Prevention: No one in their right mind (save first responders, who risk their lives for others on a daily basis) would seek out violent confrontations. But don’t mistakenly believe that avoiding crime will protect you from crime. One of the most frightening things about violent encounters is that they happen at any time, anywhere—at your kid’s soccer game, while you’re on vacation, when you’re walking from your driveway to your front door. If your sole protection against crime is avoiding crime you will fail.
3. Carrying a Gun means You’re Looking for Trouble: I don’t carry a gun looking for a conflict. I carry a gun because I don’t want to be a victim of violence, and if every other option is closed off to me then my last resort will be a firearm. Whether I’m at the store, on the road, or, yes, jogging on a trail through a park, I carry a gun because I may have no other option but to use it.
4. The Victim of Violence Shares in the Blame: Let’s be very clear about this one—when a crime occurs it isn’t the fault of the gun company, the community, the current economical condition, or the victim. It is the fault of the criminal alone. The victim of a crime isn’t at fault because she ran in the wrong area, because she got lost in the wrong neighborhood, or because she stopped at a rest area on the highway alone at three in the morning. Instead of warning victims against running where there is a remote chance that a criminal will attack them, let’s issue this warning instead—if you are a criminal and you choose to harm another person be prepared for them to exercise their Second Amendment rights, which may mean that you get shot. Magazine restrictions, civil litigation against firearms companies, and warnings against running in certain areas of town are all methods by which the uninformed point the finger of blame at law-abiding citizens. The battle for gun rights starts with a clear understanding of who is at fault when violence occurs, and that is criminals.

From the Ottoman Empire to Australia, private citizens have been forced to forfeit their firearms, and the results have been disastrous.

Brad Fitzpatrick

October 23, 2015

Americans are granted the right to own and bear firearms, a right that has been stripped away from citizens in many countries over the last century. But before any new gun control legislation passes, it’s worthwhile to examine how similar laws have affected ours and other nations in the past. Do less guns make us safer? What has happened in the wake of nationwide gun grabs? What can history teach us about firearms ownership that could prove valuable as we move into the future?

First, a few statistics from the NRA-ILA. There are an estimated 300 million firearms in America and approximately 100 million gun owners. Roughly 40 million of those gun owners have handguns, and it is believed that approximately 40-45 percent of homes have at least one gun. Many of these guns are owned by hunters, which account for the sale of 14.5 million hunting licenses annually. Those hunting licenses create billions of dollars and revenue, and the Pittman-Robertson Act has generated millions of dollars for conservation—not to mention the funds generated for wildlife by groups like Ducks Unlimited and other organizations. But there’s another telling statistic that has been largely buried since a 1982 study of violent criminals in 11 states. Of those criminals who were surveyed, 40% said that they had decided not to commit a crime because they believed the intended victim owned or had access to a firearm. 34% of the criminals surveyed said that they had been personally shot at, wounded, captured or scared away from the scene by private firearms owners, and 69% responded that they knew of at least one other criminal who had been stopped or scared away by firearms.

Photo credit: Joshuashearn

Historically, there are several instances when governments seized firearms from private citizens and then committed atrocities. In 1911, the Ottoman Empire began a gun confiscation program that eventually led to the slaughter of 1.5 million Armenians. In 1938, Hitler’s Nazi party implemented gun confiscation programs that preceded the Holocaust, and in 1935 the Chinese government forced citizens to turn over their firearms, and between 1935 and 1952 20 million citizens were murdered. Similar gun control measures, gun seizures, and subsequent acts of violence against citizens have occurred in Cambodia and the Soviet Union, where unarmed populaces were left with little recourse when governments initiated acts of violence.

The Australian gun buyback program of 1996 resulted in the collection of approximately 650,000 guns, but did that serve to reduce homicide rates? Not according to a long-term study that was released in 2007 titled, “Gun Laws and Sudden Death: Did the Australian Firearms legislation of 1996 Make a Difference?” authors Jeanine Baker and Samara McPhedran examined homicide rates in Australia from 1980 until 2004. What is clear from their study is that homicide rates dropped steadily from 1980 until 1996, when a shooting prompted the legislation. According to Baker and McPhedran, the buyback program and stricter legislation had, “no influence on homicide in Australia.”

Such programs, if ever implemented in the United States, would cause major resistance and would cost a tremendous amount of money. History has proven once again that disarming legal citizens and stripping away their gun ownership rights has no positive effect on public safety.

What candidates—and statistics—say about gun violence in America.

With the 2016 presidential election on the horizon, candidates from both parties have developed stances on gun control and Second Amendment rights. As you might imagine, these stances vary greatly, and the recent Democratic debate sparked controversy over gun rights in America. Of particular interest to candidates on both sides of the debate were “assault” weapons bans, magazine restrictions, and universal background checks.

At the forefront of the debate was the notion of an “assault” weapons ban. Both Martin O’Malley and Hillary Clinton support legislation that bans or severely limits the sale of “assault” weapons, but the very term “assault weapon” is ambiguous and could open the door to the regulation of a wide variety of firearms. The sale of machine guns, short-barreled shotguns and a variety of other weapons has been regulated since the 1934 National Firearms Act, and today most candidates use the term to describe semiautomatic weapons like AR-15s. But the NRA-ILA contends that banning these firearms would have little effect on crime rates and would unfairly restrict American citizens from purchasing firearms designed for hunting, sport shooting and home defense.

photo credit: REUTERS/Kevin Lamarque

“ ‘Assault weapon’ is the term that gun control supporters use to malign general-purpose rifles like the AR-15,” says the NRA-ILA website. “Americans now own five million AR-15s, the number is growing by several hundred thousand annually, and the nation’s murder rate is down by more than half since 1991. They’re commonly used for home defense, sports (such as the NRA’s National Defense Match, NRA High Power, and Three-Gun), and hunting.”

The increase in the number of state-issued concealed carry permits and a growing number of right-to-carry laws has coincided with a significant drop in U.S. homicides—a fact rarely addressed when stricter gun control laws are being pushed.

“Forty-two states have Right-to-Carry laws, and 48 states prohibit cities from imposing gun laws more restrictive than state law,” says the NRA-ILA. “From 1991 to 2012, the total violent crime rate declined 49% to a 42-year low, and the murder rate declined by 52% to a 49-year low.”

Magazine restrictions, often erroneously referred to as “clip restrictions” by gun control advocates, are recommended by O’Malley, Clinton and others. Many self-defense handguns have magazines that hold more than 10 rounds, and these firearms would, under these proposed laws, be considered unlawful to own. But the NRA contests that magazine restrictions are not an effective means by which to control gun violence but rather another restriction that is aimed at gun owners and manufacturers.

“Most modern ammunition magazines designed for defensive purposes hold more than 10 rounds for handguns and 20 or more rounds for rifles,” says the NRA-ILA. “Not surprisingly, gun control supporters who claim that firearms aren’t useful for defensive purposes, claim that such magazines are also not useful for defense, but are instead only useful to criminals. The congressionally-mandated study of the federal ‘large’ magazine ban of 1994-2004 found that such magazines had only rarely been used in crime, a subsequent study found that revolvers were more associated with criminal gun injuries than semi-automatic pistols, and the official report on the Virginia Tech shooting concluded that a 10-round magazine limit would have not made much difference in the outcome of the crime. Americans own well over 100 million ‘large’ magazines and the nation’s murder rate is nearly at an all-time low.”

The issue of background checks has also taken center-stage in 2015, and several candidates are pushing for “more thorough” checks. But according to the NRA’s findings, background checks are not an effective means by which to control violence but rather a further restriction on gun owners. Current federal law requires anyone who purchases a firearm to be screened through the National Instant Criminal Background Check, or NICS, and felons are currently prohibited from owning firearms.

“Gun control supporters demand that sales and trades of firearms that don’t involve dealers be subject to NICS as well,” says the NRA-ILA. “They claim that such a law would prevent criminals from getting guns, but most criminals obtain guns from theft, the black market, or ‘straw purchasers’—people who can pass a background check and who buy guns for criminals. Furthermore, none of the high-profile crimes that they cite involved guns bought without a background check.”

The rights of America’s estimated 100 million gun owners are at stake, and legislation that, in effect, restricts or limits gun owners and does little to address the root causes of violence, serves little purpose in making American streets safer. The notion that purported “gun control” measures will help make the United States a more secure nation has not been backed by statistical evidence. It’s more important, then, that American gun owners understand that our rights as citizens must be preserved and that other significant issues in our culture like concerns over mental health are need to be addressed immediately. Taking firearms out of the hands of American citizens is not the answer to decreasing violence and preserving our rights.

-Brad Fitzpatrick

Writer/Contributor

October 22, 2015

Forged Versus Billet Lower Receivers on the AR-15 Platform

Ares Armor offers a variety of 80% AR-15 lower choices, which should you choose? There’s plenty of lively discussion about the pros and cons of each. Why the difference in price? Which is strongest? Which is lightest? What grade of aluminum should you look for? The discussion and debate seems to never end. This short article should help clean up some of the discussion and allow you as a customer make a more informed decision on an Ares Armor AR-15 lower receiver.

Manufacturing Processes

There are multiple ways to manufacture a lower but the most commonly discussed are forged AR-15 lowers and billet AR-15 lowers. 7075-grade aluminum is used for all Ares Armor 80% lower receivers. Forgings are made by hammering together two roughly shaped halves of hot aluminum and cleaning up the profile with machines later. This allows for minimal machining, keeping cost of production low, and overall a more affordable lower.

Billet AR-15 lowers are made by taking a single block of aluminum and having a CNC machine mill out the profile of a lower. This process takes longer, as the CNC machine mills an entire block of aluminum into shape, as opposed to starting with the rough shape in place. Billet lower manufacturing also allows for more unique designs and integrated features to be achieved.

Material Quality

There are two main grades of aluminum used for AR-15 parts, 6061 and 7075. These numbers are used to grade and specify what type of aluminum alloy manufacturers are working with. There is also often a subgrade added to the end of the alloy number, “-T4” or “-T6,” for example. These numbers measure the temper placed on the aluminum, meaning how metallurgists heat treat the metal to give it different properties other than what is found in the base alloy. 6061-T6 and 7075-T6 are two of the most common aluminum alloys around in AR-15 lower receiver use. While 6061 aluminum is a very useful and serviceable alloy, it is not as rugged as 7075-grade aluminum, especially when tempered to the “-T6” designation. Ares Armor’s AR-15 80% lower receivers are made from 7075-T6 aluminum alloy, the highest possible quality material selected for end users to own.

Functionality

In terms of strict function, there are operationally no differences between a forged 80% AR-15 lower and a billet 80% AR-15 lower when finished to proper specification. The main differences are aesthetic; forged lowers from any company will match dimensionally, both internally and externally. The vast majority of forged lowers are made to the latest military specifications. Forged lowers follow those specifications in order to give customers the classic look and feel of a traditional AR-15/M-16, keeping it simple for those who want a straightforward, battle proven design. Billet lowers allow more artistic leeway with manufacturers. Straighter edges, 90-degree angles, designs/decorations, and variations in magazine well sizing, to name a few things that can be done with billet lowers. Ares Armor billet 80%

AR-15 lowers come with clean lines, straighter edges, and an integrated, enlarged trigger guard. Ares Armor Signature III% AR-15 80% lower series offer even more than that: Beefier aesthetics, a flared magazine well, the III% logo on the front milled into the aluminum, all of which offer a more unique styling.

Durability

Durability might be the most hotly debated part of the forged lower vs. billet lower discussion. General consensus tends to be that due to the nature of the forging process that forged lowers are technically more durable. The pressure applied by the hammering of forging compresses the aluminum and makes the metal grain run in a homogenous direction; both good things for rigidity and durability. Forged lowers tend to be lighter than billet lowers, as they generally don’t have as much extra material from proprietary design differences. Billet lowers do not have those hammer-hardened characteristics, but with the use of high quality 7075-grade aluminum in this day and age any concerns about durability are largely unnecessary. It then ends up, as most things AR-15 will, as a personal preference choice from the end user.

In Summary

There are many things to think about when purchasing an Ares Armor AR-15 lower receiver, hopefully this brief breakdown of the differences between forged and billet AR-15 receivers can help you make a more informed decision. Ares Armor strives to make the highest quality lowers, parts, and accessories, so buy with confidence knowing you’re getting the highest possible quality of gear. So which should you buy? Only you can make that decision. Stay safe and happy building!

(White House photo)

President Obama admitted his gun control failures are his greatest frustration as a U.S. President. In an interview with the BBC just hours before the Louisiana movie theatre shootings, he sat down with North America editor Jon Sopel. The timing was to talk to Obama just before he traveled to East Africa today for his first time as president.

Unlike much of his time spent with American journalists, it was an interview covering a wide range of topics. The president was asked to talk about race relations in America, gay rights, the United Kingdom as a partner, ISIS, the Iran nuclear deal, and more.

For some reason, Mr. Sopel did not ask one specific question about gun control, the president’s attempts to infringe on Second Amendment rights, or even the recent mass shootings in Charleston, South Carolina, Chattanooga, Tennessee, and Lafayette, Louisiana. He only touched on the subject of guns in his final question of the interview.

You will see it was President Obama who fired away on the subject of firearms and his disdain for them.

Jon Sopel – BBC: “But is there an issue that there is going to be unfinished business? Perhaps most notably on race and on guns by the time you leave the White House?”

Barack Obama: “There will be…You mentioned the issue of guns, that is an area where if you ask me where has been the one area where I feel that I’ve been most frustrated and most stymied it is the fact that the United States of America is the one advanced nation on earth in which we do not have sufficient common-sense, gun-safety laws. Even in the face of repeated mass killings.

And you know, if you look at the number of Americans killed since 9/11 by terrorism, it’s less than 100. If you look at the number that have been killed by gun violence, it’s in the tens of thousands. And for us not to be able to resolve that issue has been something that is distressing. But it is not something that I intend to stop working on in the remaining 18 months.”

The Obama administration has been taking the lower road by working out of the public eye on its latest gun grab. Now it is known they have new ammo for the president’s tighter gun control agenda. They now want to extend background checks on purchases of firearms to include Social Security.

The Social Security Administration has never participated in the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS). Up until now, the agency had always determined it was not required to submit records to the NICS. This latest move by the Obama administration is to force the Social Security Administration to do so. As part of the existing federal regulations, they want to add Social Security records to the database to help determine which American citizens get reported to the NICS.

The proposed move shall infringe upon the Constitutional Rights of millions in the Social Security system.

Specifically, it would target the large group of those who receive monthly Social Security benefits, but who lack the mental capacity to manage their own personal finance affairs. These people have their monies handled by a fiduciary known as a “representative payee.”

President Obama hopes to be able to ban these Social Security recipients from being able to exercise their Second Amendment Rights to legally bear Arms.

Statistics show about 2.7 million Americans with mental health problems currently receive disability payments. Another 1.5 million beneficiaries of Social Security have others manage their personal finances for a number of reasons.

Part of the strategy here for gaining the upper hand would be to apply restrictive federal gun law language to this large group in the Social Security system. The Obama administration would use terms such as “marked subnormal intelligence, mental illness, and incompetency” to deny legal gun ownership.

There will be plenty of critics to argue against using financial competence to expand the list of prohibited gun owners. Some Americans may just have money management issues such as trouble balancing a checkbook. Others may have a faulty memory.

Dr. Marc Rosen has researched how veterans with mental health issues manage money. The Yale psychiatrist summed up the Social Security issue perfectly in the LA Times. “Someone can be incapable of managing their funds but not be dangerous, violent or unsafe.”

Surprisingly, even the totally wired Washington insiders of the National Rifle Association just became aware of the gun grab tactic. Chris W. Cox, chief lobbyist of the NRA issued this statement: “If the Obama administration attempts to deny millions of law-abiding citizens their constitutional rights by executive fiat, the NRA stands ready to pursue all available avenues to stop them in their tracks.”

The National Council on Disability added it would also oppose such an political attempt to trigger expanded gun background checks to take away the fundamental rights of people with disabilities.

#WakeUpAmerica

The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention calls insufficient sleep “a public health epidemic.” Millions of men, women, teens, and children are sleep deprived. They’re working too much. They’re too overstimulated by technology, and what they put into their bodies.

The problem is getting worse.

Researchers from the University of Chicago found that in the 1970s the average night’s sleep in the U.S. was 7.1 hours. Now, most Americans are down to about 6.1 hours of sleep at night, and in many cases it isn’t even “good” sleep.

Wake Up America.

2015 in the United States is not the same as it used to be. The world when you were born or the one you grew up in has changed, big time. It seems too many Americans are too tired to notice. Perhaps some are too stubborn to change, especially when it comes to guns and Second Amendment Rights.

The “We are safe, we are untouchable in our home bases and on our homeland” only exists in dreams. It is not real in 2015. Those who honor the U.S. Constitution and exercise their legal right to bear Arms know this is true.

How many nationwide wake-up calls do we need in America?

The tragic Chattanooga shootings this week acted as the latest one. Sadly, now we must add the wounded sailor to the list of those senselessly killed by Mohammad Youssef Abdulazeez. The death of Navy Petty Officer 2nd Class Randall Smith was announced today.

One armed military member, or one armed citizen at those human shooting galleries in Chattanooga could have changed everything. Knowing good people with firearms and willing to return fire were there, might have even prevented it.

Go back to the nationwide wake-up call one month ago.

One armed civilian at a church in Charleston, South Carolina could have brought down the twisted, hateful intentions of Dylann Roof. Knowing good people with firearms and willing to return fire were there, might have even prevented it.

Go back to the nationwide wake-up call two and a half years ago.

One armed security guard, school official, or responsible citizen could have laid down Adam Lanza before he went on a rampage at the Sandy Hook Elementary School. Knowing good people with firearms and willing to return fire were there, might have even prevented it.

Go back to the nationwide wake-up call three years ago.

One armed security guard, employee, or moviegoer, could have been the hero who took out the villain, James Holmes in the Aurora, Colorado theatre. Knowing good people with firearms and willing to return fire were there, might have even prevented it.

Wake Up America.

People and politicians who are anti-gun, or who don’t like guns, or believe in guns, can stomp their feet all they want. Complaining is not a strong enough form of self-defense. If any of those people were in a life or death situation, they would suddenly realize their best chance to protect themselves, their loved ones, or any other innocent defenseless people would only be possible if they were bearing Arms in that moment.

Calling 9-1-1 is an option. It does offer comfort through hope. But it does not offer the immediate solution necessary in a life or death situation.

Wake Up America.

Anti-gunners can try gun grabs every day of the week, every week of the month, and every month of the year. The Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution is clear. We have a legal right to bear Arms in the United States of America.

Besides, it is virtually mathematically impossible to take away all guns. The bad guys like the ones named above will never surrender their firearms. Then, any gun grabs only make the rest of population more vulnerable to becoming human target practice.

You can complain until the blood runs out of your body…how it isn’t right. You shouldn’t have to carry a gun to work. You shouldn’t have to carry a gun to church. You shouldn’t have to carry a gun to a school. You shouldn’t have to carry a gun to a movie theatre.

Are we Waking Up America?

In real-life situations like we saw this week in Chattanooga, it’s not a matter of what’s right. It’s a matter of what is. And it’s a matter of who’s left, when a bad person with a gun wants to do harm, and knows there is not another gun nearby to stop them. Now at least, the debate over the danger of Gun-Free Zones can be heard again.

Hopefully, more Americans are starting to wake up, and understand the real-life landscape in 2015. Like it or not, the Department of Homeland Security begins with each one of us in our home and communities.

Photo: courtesy Lynne Russell

Maybe even the liberal media will wake up. The recent news headlines with Lynne Russell and Chuck de Caro could help. The former CNN anchor and reporter respectively, are now married. Recently, in a New Mexico motel room, they were luckily able to turn a very dangerous armed robber into a DOA in the parking lot.

While Chuck was in a hospital recovering from multiple gunshot wounds suffered during his act of heroism, Lynne boldly went back into the media to tell everyone who would listen…how the Second Amendment saved their lives.

Hopefully, we won’t need too many stories like that in order to keep Waking Up America to our reality. We need to be armed. We need to be vigilant.

Who says “crime doesn’t pay”? In committing his final crime, Tomorio Walton paid for it with his life. Meantime, former CNN Headline News anchor and correspondent, Lynne Russell, and her husband saved their lives because she legally carried a gun in her purse.

You might have heard the story recently. If you did, you had to be tuned in to select news outlets. That’s because it seems like the headlines make room for every cry for more gun control. However, positive gun news stories such as what happened in this case don’t always spread like wildfire.

For those who will listen, Lynne Russell just told her story on Fox News. She titled it: “The Second Amendment Saved My Life.”

She shared details of crashing for the night in a Motel 6 in Albuquerque, New Mexico on a long road trip with her husband, Chuck de Caro. He’s a former CNN reporter, and U.S. Army Special Forces veteran.

While Chuck was in the shower, Lynne went to the car to bring in food, and was returning to the motel room. Suddenly, she was assaulted by a man with what she said was a big, silver, semi-automatic weapon. The man shoved into the room and on the bed.

Then came the gunman’s surprise. Lynne Russell was not alone.

Buck naked, Chuck de Caro came out of the bathroom. Husband and wife instantly worked together. They began distracting the armed robber by talking to him, moving around, and offering things to him. They sensed he was comfortable having committed this crime before.

Lynne walked her purse over to Chuck. A trusty .380 gun was inside. The thug lunged for a brief case, and moved toward the door. Then, instead of running, he opened fire on Chuck, who bravely emptied his gun in returning fire.

Lynne Russell said the bottom line was the bad guy was in the parking lot DOA. Her husband and hero who she married one year ago on Independence Day is now recovering from five gunshot wounds. She so eloquently wrote:

“Now ask me how I feel about the right to bear Arms.”

Lynne Russell added some key points in strong defense of the Second Amendment:

• If America didn’t already have #2A – the Second Amendment, we would create it.

• Don’t make the argument about criminals. They will always get their hands on guns.

• Prevent “violent” offenders from owning firearms, but allow “white collar” criminals.

• And finally, she saved the best for last. “Get a gun. Get legal. Be responsible. Trust yourself. Don’t trust yourself? Then don’t carry. But for God’s sake then, shut the f**k up about it, because that’s where your involvement ends.”