I find it useful to take in as much of the dissenting arguments as I can, so I know what the other side is promoting.  Usually an article like this, posted on the Huffington Post would be full of flat out lies and propaganda.  This one however, did a fair job with the facts about the rifle, even being truthful about the difference between Automatic and Semi-Automatic guns, and admitting that civilian versions of the AR are not Automatic as many on the left like to say.  I'm hopeful that we're seeing a change in the way the left operates to get their message out, because being completely misinformed about the product you want banned, only serves to make the other side not take you seriously and gets them riled up because they think you are lying to win the argument.  

Don't get me wrong, the article still has most of the Anti-Gun agenda weaved into the story, (i.e. Weapons of War is in the title), and several inaccuracies ($200 AR's - which would be the .22LR version, AR-22 and not the actual AR-15).  Please take the time to read through this article and think through what the other side thinks about you and your right to own this type of weapon. 


Walther PPS M2 Carry Gun

This is a MUST WATCH video for anyone that want's to understand how the law addresses the question "Why Does Anyone Need an AR-15".  By far, this is the best explanation that I've seen.

As we've said many times (previous site) anyone that wants to take property from citizens, MUST understand and recognize that citizens have the right to own guns.  Just like the anti-gunners have the right to speak their mind about our guns, we have the right to possess that gun.  That fact gives a baseline for both sides to have a conversation and all of the arguments against guns, falls apart.  Please take the time to watch this video and inform yourself on this issue, even if you aren't an AR / AK fan. 

It's fitting that our first post since bringing the site back up is about a Sheepdog!  Take a look at this man who jumps into action to protect a neighbor who was being violently stabbed. 

It's worth mentioning that his choice of weapon just happened to be an AR-15, and he didn't even need to pull the trigger.  On our previous site, we posted example after example of anti-gunners claiming the AR had never been used to save a life, only to take life as a "Weapon of War", so the fact that it was used not only to save a victims life, but also the life of the assailant should be celebrated by both sides.  Right?  

This one has me confused.  Fox News reports that a California Reserve Policeman, who also teaches at a Seaside, CA High School, was teaching a "Safety Class" when he inadvertently fired his handgun into the ceiling.  Original reports said that up to 3 "students" were injured, but this article says only one was hit in the neck with debris.  This makes no sense to me, especially with it happening in CA, the left's template for liberal Utopia.  I guess if it happened in my neck of the woods, it wouldn't  raise any flags, except for the fact that our schools don't teach "Gun Safety" classes to "Students," that's usually done by the state or NRA at gun ranges, etc... 

So let's go through this, a  California High School (in a state that hates guns and is overrun with snowflakes traumatized by pictures of a gun), holds "Gun Safety" classes with loaded handguns and children in the room?  My spider senses are tingling, this just smells.  Is it possible that the reporting on this incident was over blown and made to look like it was a regular class at a local high school in order to prove a point about children being harmed by teachers carrying guns?  Could it be possible that since all the articles (including Fox News) only address the people attending the class as "students" that this isn't a high school class at all, and just a state sponsored voluntary class that just happens to be held at the local high school?  This would make more sense to me, but if this is the case, why write the articles to mislead and make everyone think this happened to students during school hours.  I guess we'll find out at some point.

Also, as mentioned earlier,  early reports claimed up to 3 "students" had been injured.  What does that mean?  Did they get hit by the bullet, or did shrapnel from the round hit these students, or did some ceiling acoustic board fall and hit them in the head, knocking them out?  According to this article, only one student had a small piece of ceiling fall and hit his neck.  If that's true, why were the early reports trying to make it look as if there was mass carnage of students hurt by a teacher with a gun?

Oh, and by the way, there just happens to be a national debate going on about arming teachers to protect students from mass shootings.  Seems very odd to me that something like this would happen in leftist world, which seemingly gives credence to the gun hating leftist position that children would get hurt if we let teachers have guns in school.  Something tells me that if the left knew about this class happening in CA, there would have been calls and protests to stop it.  This is where I just can't let this one slip.  Maybe I'm jumping to conclusions and everything here is above the board.  Maybe CA does teach Gun Safety to high school kids with loaded weapons.  I would love to find out the truth on this, even if I'm completely wrong about my assumptions. 

I'm sure many have seen this video (it's been out a while) but just in case you haven't, take a minute to watch.  It's a very well done conversation between two co-workers, one Anti-Gun the other Pro-Gun.  While it doesn't really offer much in the way of an argument for our side, it does show the hypocrisy and the ridiculousness of the arguments on the other side. 

Remember, the left won't use logic based on the law to argue for their side, they will spout false statistics and knowingly lie in order to win.  Just as an example, one of the statistics that they use often is that 40% of gun sales don't have a background check, which is obviously not true and only shows their ignorance about the subject.  One of my favorite lies is that guns are easier to purchase than vegetables in a grocery store (Obama), and of course the Automatic vs Semi-Automatic lie that everyone on their side buys into. 

Welcome to CivilianDogs.com 

A "Safe Space" for all that understand the necessity of the

Sheepdog to the Flock 

For those new to firearms, the last decade has seen an explosion of concealed carry holders in this country and as such, the gun manufactures tried desperately to keep up with demand.  Up until about 2005, there weren't many guns on the market that were considered true conceal carry, only larger versions of the same gun with a shortened grip or barrel that were labeled "Compact".  The problem with these guns was that they were still bulky (double stacked magazine) and very uncomfortable to carry.  

Enter Walther with a revolutionary pistol design.  Striker fired (no hammer) smooth rounded edges that don't get caught on clothing or skin, and a single stack magazine which allowed for a very thin body to be more comfortable inside the waistband.  The PPS (Police Pistol Slim) truly changed the idea of a carry gun and slowly the rest of the manufacturers followed suit.  Now just about every major manufacturer has a single stack carry gun in their line up, and some of them have been extremely successful.  We'll highlight some of those soon with a new page of guns that we like or that should be considered for purchase.  If you're in the market for a carry pistol, you should definitely be considering the updated version of the PPS, the M2.   

Just a quick article from the "murderous, terrorist organization, with blood on their hands" NRA, reporting on the IL legislature voting to ban guns in the wake of the FL school shooting. 

There are several points I want to make about this legislation, but there is one in particular that stands out in contrast.  We are told over and over again by the gun hating leftist that they "Are Not Coming for Your Guns", but as you will soon find out, that is exactly what this new law will do.  According to House Bill 1465, anyone under the age of 21 is denied to purchase or possess commonly owned Semi-Automatic guns and magazines over 10 rounds.  So not only are they raising the age to purchase guns, but they are also forbidding young adults from owning such firearms and will give them 90 days to "Dispose" (Turn In) of the gun and the accessories.  If that's not coming for our guns, then I give up.  

To put this into perspective, forget the fact that the average age of these mass shooters is around 30 years old, but the new law literally takes away any protection a single mother in Chicago might have to defend her life and the life of her child.  It takes away any protection that a young man might have against gangs in Chicago.  Remember that we're not talking about taking the guns from criminals, they'll still get them, rather taking away from Law Abiding citizens just trying to survive in a state that has been bankrupted by liberal policies.   

I found this review while looking for some duty guns and wanted to post it.  I've been an XDM fan since the gun came out (primarily for it's looks) but one I purchased one, it because my go to gun for self defense and tactical classes.  This review is done by Pew Pew Tactical and is really well laid out.  They approach the gun as someone who had never shot one, and come to the conclusion that it was a strong competitor to the Glock.  If you don't have an XDm or are looking at purchasing one, you should take a minute and check out the good folks at Pew Pew Tactical. 

For anyone that is fairly new to guns, it should be noted that Glock has historically been the favorite for Law Enforcement and shooters alike.  For years Glock dominated sales of polymer frame, striker fired handguns.  They are extremely reliable and have a low bore axis which makes it easy to fire with recoil.  As the gun industry started changing, and manufactures turned their sights on this segment of the market, it was only natural that Glock would take a hit, and they did.  Don't get me wrong, they are still very popular and are still considered the "Gold Standard" for these types of guns, but now the free market has many options available and some are arguably better than the Glock.

One thing the review failed to mention (probably because he shot the .45 ACP version of the gun), is the XDm in 9mm holds 19 rounds in the magazine and one in the chamber.  That's 20  rounds of damage before you have to stop and reload.  If you've ever taken a tactical class, there always seems to be a couple of guys that bring a 1911 instead of something like the XDm.  They are making two mag changes for every 16 rounds you shoot, and you still have four more in the gun.  Having options (meaning rounds) in a gun fight, is much more preferred by me than having a larger round or using an iconic gun. 

This is an excellent gun and I've shot many rounds through mine, with zero malfunctions.  If you aren't a die hard Glock fan (or even if you are) you should consider this gun for your home self defense, or "Duty" gun to run during classes or just shoot at the range.  I think you'll be surprised at how well it shoots.