Based on Wayne LaPierre’s speech today at CPAC today, it’s abundantly clear that this is a man, who, in the face of harsh criticism and never ending ridicule, only grows more passionate and unwavering in his defense of Americans’ Second Amendment freedom.

“In their distorted view of the world, they are smarter than we are. They are special and more worthy than we are. They know better than we do,” the NRA chief said, referring to political elites and liberal media. Although freedom-loving Americans are the ones being labeled as “crazy” in the the gun control debate, LaPierre argued that insanity has consumed the media and political class in Washington.

For example, in wake of the Sandy Hook the NRA proposed putting armed guards in schools. Meanwhile, the Department of Homeland Security issued an informational video suggesting people consider overpowering an active shooter with scissors.

“Let’s get this straight,” LaPierre said. “To protect our children at school, we recommend a trained professional with a gun. They recommend scissors. And they say we’re crazy? That’s sheer madness.”

And who could forget about our vice president’s asinine and dangerous advice to women threatened by an intruder? Or that in light of sequestration, “instead of rational belt-tightening, the first thing the government thinks to do, according to law enforcement officials, is let thousands of criminal illegals out of jail,” he said. “It’s as if sanity, itself, has been sequestered in Washington.”

There are plenty of gun laws already on the books, LaPierre argued, but the criminal justice system doesn’t enforce them—especially in Chicago. “President Obama’s hometown ranks dead last in firearms prosecutions — 90th out of 90 federal jurisdictions,” he said. 

In closing, LaPierre reminded the crowd that this fight is about our freedom—which is on the line now and in elections to come.

“You are here because you want to make your own difference, take your own stand. Plant your feet firmly in the foundation of freedom, don’t be swayed by the winds of political insanity, and no matter what, let the elitists who scorn you be damned,” he said. 

Things got interesting between Sens. Ted Cruz and Dianne Feinstein today during a Senate Judiciary Hearing on the so-called “assault” weapons ban, which ultimately passed on a party-line vote.

Cruz asked the Democratic lawmaker whether she would consider it “consistent with the Bill of Rights for Congress to engage in the same endeavor that we are contemplating doing with the Second Amendment in the context of the First or Fourth Amendment, namely, would she consider it constitutional for Congress to specify that the First Amendment shall apply only to the following books and shall not apply to the books that Congress has deemed outside the protection of the Bill of Rights?”

He continued, “Likewise, would she think that the Fourth Amendment’s protection against searches and seizures could properly apply only to the following specified individuals and not to the individuals that Congress has deemed outside the protection of the Bill of Rights?”

Feinstein wasn’t too happy about the question. “I’m not a sixth-grader,” she responded, before proceeding to list her experience in government.

“It’s fine you want to lecture me on the Constitution. I appreciate it. Just know I’ve been here for a long time. I’ve passed on a number of bills. I’ve studied the Constitution myself. I am reasonably well educated, and I thank you for the lecture,” she said.

Check out the full exchange below, including the answer she ultimately gave Cruz:

For what it’s worth, she’s sorry.

In the wake of Sandy Hook, progressives have unsurprisingly placed the blamed on inanimate objects rather than on the mentally disturbed individuals who use them. As such, gun-control proposals and legislation have swept state legislatures throughout the nation, Congress and the White House. But as the gun control debate rages on, common sense seems to have been hijacked by hyper-paranoia and zero-tolerance policies in schools across the nation.

And since there seems to be a gun-hysteria story du jour, here is a compilation of 10 recent incidents that best demonstrate how far off the political correctness deep end people in this country have gone:

1.      Michigan: “School confiscates cupcakes decorated with Toy Soldiers” – A woman made a batch of cupcakes for her son’s classmates. Her 9-year-old son decorated them with plastic soldier figurines. The mother was called shortly after delivering them and was told they couldn’t be served because the soldiers had guns. 

2.     Maryland: “Pop-Tart Pistol?: 7-year-old gets suspended for gun-shaped pastry”—The child claims he tried to make it into the shape of a mountain but it turned out looking more like a gun. Obviously he was suspended for two days. PS- students are being offered counseling services if they were troubled by the pastry incident.

3.     Colorado: “Colorado boy, 7, reportedly faces suspension for tossing imaginary grenade”—He was just trying to save the world from evil forces but apparently that flies in the face of the school’s “no weapons, real or imaginary,” policy. He doesn’t understand why he was “dispended,” either. 

4.     Maryland: “6-year-old boy suspended for pointing finger like a gun got off easy”—Just suspension, not expulsion? The author of this article quips, “Soon, six year-old children will be forced to sit indoors playing Sensitivity Training and delivering Powerpoint lectures to each other on Safety Within the Home and Workforce Best Practices.”

5.     Illinois: “Student ordered to remove U.S. Marines T-Shirt Due to Gun Imagery—or face suspension”—The 14-year-old had reportedly worn the shirt “many times” before without incident. The imagery in question shows two intersecting rifles below the word, “MARINES.”

6.     Washington: “Pasco school district overturns 6-year-old’s suspension for discussing toy gun”—But how did it come to suspension in the first place? The child was talking about the Nerf guns his family bought during a recent family vacation.

7.     Michigan: “L’Anse Creuse High School had security scare Tuesday morning”—Hardly. A former student who works at the Air National Guard Base, which is less than 5 miles away, entered the school looking for a letter of recommendation. “Concerns were raised” because he was dressed in camouflage. 

8.     Pennsylvania: “Schools locked down over "ambiguous message" taken as threat”—that ambiguous message would be a phone message that included a quote from the theme song to ‘The Fresh Prince of Bel-Air’ that says, “And all shooting some b-ball outside of the school.” Schools in the county were on lock down for 20 minutes as a result of a receptionist misunderstanding the message and calling police over the “threat.”

9.     Arizona: “Florence student suspended over picture of gun”—a high school student was suspended because he made the desktop background on his school-issued computer a picture of a gun on top of a flag. The student’s reason? He’s interesting in joining the military.

10.  Florida: “Fla. High school student reportedly suspended after disarming gunman”—this one is by far the most disturbing. A student wrestled a loaded gun away from a 15-year-old who was allegedly pointing the firearm at another student and threatening to shoot. By any account, what this student did was heroic and rather than being praised, he’s being punished.

While it’s perfectly understandable that schools take potential threats more seriously in the wake of Sandy Hook, it’s as though people have lost any and all ability to exercise sound judgment in situations involving “weapons” in schools—real, fake or imaginary—and the appropriate level of punishment.

Next thing you know, this will actually happen (H/T: Dalton Vogler). 

Forget about trying to bring more jobs to the Sunshine State or focusing on Florida's high rate of foreclosures, state Sen. Audrey Gibson thinks what the state really needs is for people to take an anger management course before they can purchase ammunition. Yes, really:

The bill filed Saturday by state Sen. Audrey Gibson, D-Jacksonville, would require a three-day waiting period for the sale of any firearm and the sale of ammunition to anyone who has not completed anger management courses. The proposal would require ammo buyers to take the anger management courses every 10 years. “This is not about guns," Gibson said.

"This is about ammunition and not only for the safety of the general community, but also for the safety of law enforcement.”

When Executive Director of Florida Carry Sean Caranna first heard about the bill he thought it had to be a joke. “They’re trying to say that anyone who owns a gun or shoots a gun or has ammunition for it needs counseling and obviously has some anger problems.”

The bill states, “[Selling] ammunition to another person who does not present certification that he or she has successfully completed an anger-management program consisting of at least 2 hours of online or fact-to-face instruction in anger-management techniques”—violation of which results in a second-degree misdemeanor charge.

However, attorney Jon Gutmacher says it’s very likely the bill would be found unconstitutional. “It has no reasonable relationship to anything,” he said. “There has to be a reasonable basis to believe that a person had a substantial anger problem that could cause public harm.”

Perhaps Gibson should be required to take a course on the U.S. Constitution before filing another bill.

Gun-rights advocates will be excited about this one: Colion Noir will be joining NRA News as its newest contributor.

If you’re part of the Youtube gun community at all you’ve certainly seen some of Noir’s videos where he breaks down gun arguments into easy to understand terms and cut through stereotypes.

Noir has over 82,000 subscribers on Youtube and over 6.7 million views on his videos.

We could not think of a better spokesman for the NRA to have right now.

Noir’s ability to cut through the BS and identify with younger gun enthusiasts should make him invaluable in the fight for our rights.

If you aren't familiar with Noir, take a minute to watch this introductory video--you'll be glad you did: 

H/T: AmmoLand

When it comes to gun laws, California is vying to have the strictest in the nation. It comes as no surprise, then, that the state is not a particularly business-friendly environment for those in the gun industry.

And so Texas Gov. Rick Perry’s wishes are beginning to come true:

Shield Tactical, a California retailer and firearms training provider, has decided to ‘get the heck out of Dodge’ — and move to Texas

John W. Harrington founded Shield Tactical in 2008, but with California’s hard-line stance on gun control, he decided the state was no longer a good place for his business. Harrington, originally from Texas, said it was finally “time to go home.”

“The state of California treats all businesses as necessary evils,” he told Red Alert. “They treat those of us in the gun business as just evil. They make it very clear that they don’t want us there. It’s just that simple.”

As new gun control measures are being advanced in state legislatures across the nation, Gov. Perry has been trying to lure gun and ammunition manufacturers to set up shop in the Lone Star State—even making a recruitment trip out to California to do so.  Although Shield Tactical didn’t make the decision based on the governor’s efforts alone, Harrington said, “it didn’t hurt.”

Harrington hasn’t calculated the total cost of the relocation — which will not include their training division — but he expects it to be “in the tens of thousands.” He considers the investment “well worth it,” if only for the attention it has brought to the cause of gun rights advocates.

Meanwhile, Beretta and Magpul are also considering parting ways with Maryland and Colorado, respectively.

H/T: Red Alert Politics

In the wake of the Newtown massacre, New York became the first state to pass new control laws. Gov. Cuomo wanted to do something—and quickly. So, one month after the tragedy in Connecticut, New Yorkers found their Second Amendment rights further constrained by a slew of new laws. But as the saying goes, haste makes waste. First they forgot to exempt law enforcement from their new ban on high-capacity magazines, and now, Cuomo realized he forgot about his Hollywood friends. The state is seeking to provide a special exemption to ensure “movie and TV producers can stage running gun battles on Manhattan streets.” Why, you ask? 

Movie and TV productions have long been courted by New York and other states with tax breaks in exchange for the jobs and glamour of the industry. Hollywood is also a major campaign fundraising stop for New York politicians.

"We spend a lot of money in the state bringing movie production here, post-production here, so obviously we would want to facilitate that," said Gov. Andrew Cuomo, who wants to expand the film and TV tax credit.

He said movies and TV may use fake guns that wouldn't be subject to the new law but the industry wants "certainty." The revised law would allow them to use real weapons without real ammunition.

"There's no reason not to make a change like that to give an industry comfort, especially when it's an industry we want to do business in the state," the governor said.

First of all, Hollywood elites are being lured with tax breaks, yet it’s precisely these individuals and their progressive friends who continue to extol the virtues of higher taxes, as John Hanlon discussed in his feature on the issue in Townhall Magazine.

Secondly, it’s nice to know that Cuomo wants to go out of his way to give the industry comfort as they produce more violence-laden films. Don’t forget, media violence was one of the other topics discussed in the “national conversation” that unfolded in the wake of the Newtown tragedy, which somehow fell by the wayside in favor of more gun legislation.

And finally, what about considering an exception for law-abiding New Yorkers? My colleague Erika Johnsen over at Hot Air weighs in:

Gee, I don’t suppose that next they’ll consider an exemption for law-abiding New Yorkers who want to use firearms for self-defense, perhaps? Oh no, never — because Hollywood’s motives are certainly well-intentioned, while 99.99 percent of gun owners, well… we just can’t be sure, can we?

About that last point—looks like the gun control debate in New York isn't over yet:

The Buffalo-based attorney who is spear-heading a lawsuit against Governor Andrew Cuomo's recent gun laws said that Wednesday was "monumental," as a State Supreme Court Justice issued an order requiring New York State to show good cause that the law is constitutional.

New York State has until April 29 to respond or else an injunction will be issued.

It turns out wasteful government spending on lavish conferences didn’t end with the GSA’s Las Vegas bash in 2010. According to a new congressional report, 894 conferences were held in 2012 costing taxpayers a whopping $340 million. Worse yet, these figures only include “big-ticket” conferences, or those with a price tag of $100,000 or more.

The numbers, released in conjunction with a hearing Wednesday on the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, come as the federal government braces for automatic spending cuts set to hit Friday. Some lawmakers have claimed that Washington could offset the impact by trimming the waste -- be it low-priority hires, needless government studies, or conferences. 

While trimming government waste certainly isn’t the only means by which we can bring our out-of-control spending in line, it's certainly the best first step, and people like Sen. Rand Paul are setting a fine example of fiscal prudence for others to follow. It’s absurd to think that most American families have to cut back every day just to balance the budget yet government bureaucrats think the slightest cuts are unfair. What’s particularly troubling, however, is that a few agencies held more than 100—in one year.

But the Defense Department, which is also the biggest department in Washington, held nearly 300 conferences at a cost of $89 million. 

The Department of Veterans Affairs held 127 at a cost of $72.7 million; the Justice Department held 107 at a cost of $58.7 million; and the Department of Health and Human Services held 140, at a cost of $56.1 million. 

And for what? “A lot of them are essentially sessions to make people feel good,” Chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Darrell Issa says. 

Washington bureaucrats could stand to learn a thing or two from Neal Boortz’s Dollar Bill Savings Plan.

It’s no surprise that the ebb and flow of gun and ammunition production closely follows the changing political landscape in America. The most significant peaks in production are seen leading up to the 1994 “Assault Weapons Ban,” and after the election of President Obama. Although he didn’t advance a gun control agenda in his first term, production has been on a steady and dramatic rise throughout his presidency—reaching an all-time high.

Source: Sources National Shooting Sports Foundation; IBISWorld

Frank Pompa, Janet Loehrke and Denny Gainer, USA TODAY

Since the administration’s push for gun control in the wake of Newtown, however, supply has not been able to keep up with demand. Stag Arms, for example, is so overwhelmed they’ve actually stopped taking orders and the company’s president Mark Malkowski says they’re not alone—“It’s like this across the industry.” While it’s good for business for now, if new gun legislation comes to fruition that could all change.

"This administration represents the most serious threat to the industry since the 1990s," said Larry Keane, the National Shooting Sports Foundation's general counsel, referring to Congress' enactment of the decade-long assault weapons ban that expired in 2004. "The stakes are very high."

From manufacturing to sales, the overall firearms industry employs nearly 100,000 people in the U.S, providing roughly $4 billion in wages.

ABC news is defending their decision to selectively edit Michelle Obama’s claim during Good Morning America today that an “automatic weapon” was used in the murder of Hadiya Pendleton, the 15-year-old who was killed shortly after performing at President Obama’s inaugural celebration. The “sole” reason, they argue, was for time.

Via the Washington Examiner, the first lady’s quote in full is below, showing the portions removed:

She was standing out in a park with her friends in a neighborhood blocks away from where my kids grow – grew – up, where our house is.  She had just taken a chemistry test. And she was caught in the line of fire because some kids had some automatic weapons they didn’t need. I just don’t want to keep disappointing our kids in this country. I want them to know that we put them first.

Those 10 words, or 17 in total, do not take enough time to warrant an edit on that basis alone in my opinion. The fact is that the first lady made a false claim that the weapon was automatic when it wasn’t. The Associated Press reported police said a man  “opened fire with a handgun before fleeing in a waiting car.” If she didn’t actually know what kind of weapon was used, however, wouldn’t it have been more natural to have just said, “Because some kids had some guns they didn’t need”? Probably. But even if she meant to say, “assault weapon,” she was definitely attempting to use the gun-control agenda buzzwords. Either way, the edit (er, not in the web version) assured that she didn't make an erroneous claim on the show and/or look ignorant on the issue.

If, however, she truly doesn’t know the difference between automatic and semi-automatic weapons, Emily Miller breaks it down for her:

Automatic weapons have been highly regulated for civilian owners since the National Firearms Act of 1934. Owning one means going through an extensive process and background checks with the ATF. It is hard to believe that Mrs. Obama, a Harvard Law School grad, is not aware of the national firearms laws.

They have been banned from manufacture and import since 1986, so the low demand has made them very expensive, often more than $20,000. The last known crimes from automatic firearms were by law enforcement in the 1980s. Street criminals can’t get them, but confusing the public into believing that gang members are using weapons of war helps perpetuate myths to push a gun-control agenda. 

Any way you want to look at what the first lady said, she was completely wrong on the most important point: Hadiya Pendleton’s life was taken because of someone’s decision to pull a trigger--and that has nothing to do with what type of weapon was used.