(This commentary has also been published at USConcealedCarry.com)

By Gerard Valentino

The flap over Jim Zumbo’s comments about so-called assault weapons brought the rift among gun owners into the public spotlight. Although Zumbo apologized, his comments show that some gun owners, and advocacy groups, are content to fight their own battle against gun confiscation unaware of the danger that poses for the movement as a whole.

Instead of only being concerned with protecting shotguns, pistols or target rifles from future legislative bans all gun owners should work for everyone’s individual right to bear arms. While specific advocacy groups have their place under the pro-gun umbrella each should fight, at all costs, legislation that bans any gun regardless of is use. Despite claims to the contrary, it is accepted that anti-gunners want to confiscate all guns, not just evil so-called assault weapons or Saturday night specials.

That means when a specific type of gun is banned it makes such a law seem reasonable, especially if every gun group doesn’t speak out against the ban.

By John Lott and Sonya Jones

What do you do when the police can’t protect you? Police may be the
single most important factor for reducing crime, but there is
something the police themselves understand: They almost always arrive
at the crime scene after the crime has occurred.

Expecting people to trust the police to protect them and to behave
passively is a recipe for disaster.

The last couple of weeks have seen a couple prominent murders where
restraining orders did women little good. Numerous news
organizations, such as ABC News, have run headlines asking "How Do
You Stop a Stalker From Killing You?"

Unfortunately, despite acknowledging that "many women find themselves
on their own," the media are drawing the wrong lessons. To simply
advise that women "Get the hell away from him" often doesn't go anywhere
near far enough.

Click here to read the entire op-ed at FOXNews.com.

Buckeye Firearm Association's web site is seeing an amazing growth in visitors and new articles are being posted several times a week.

This week's "Friday Flashback" is....

Personal Protection, a Personal Responsibility

By Gerard Valentino

The fifth anniversary of the 9/11 attacks on America brought the horror of that day back into the homes of millions of Americans.

As usual, the establishment media exploited the tragedy to bolster television ratings by bringing every possible so-called expert on the air to discuss how 9/11 changed America. Countless hours were also spent discussing the results of the 9/11 commission and how the government needs to protect us from harm.

It's true that part of the government's job is to protect American interests, but it is simply impossible for the federal government, or local police, to protect individual Americans.

The establishment media experts don't acknowledge that the personal security and safety of each American is each individual's own personal responsibility.

Establishment media safety consultants often ignore that it is up to each American to assure their own security when confronted with crime or the threat or terrorism.

Supreme Court rulings in several cases, most notably, Castle Rock vs. Gonzales, have cemented in the mind of self-defense experts that the government has no constitutional obligation to protect people from harm. The ruling was based on the failure of the police in Castle Rock to adequately enforce a restraining order leading to the kidnapping, and eventual murder, of three young children.

Such a ruling was not precedent setting and instead was well established constitutional law. Yet, most Americans still believe it is their right to be protected by local, state and federal officials. Regardless of the anecdotal and legal proof, that it is simply not the case.

Personal protection is, however, another personal responsibility that the establishment media, and those on the left, want to see given over to the federal government.

Click on 'Read More' for the entire commentary.