Voice of America offered a choice quote from Matt Bennett, vice president of Third Way, a self-described moderate think tank:

“It is not just a Mexican problem. Guns and money are flowing from the United States south and fueling this problem and drugs are traveling north.”

Actually we see that the problem is that drugs are flowing north, and whether it is hardcore addicts or just the occasional recreational user, they’re the criminals who are in turn sending the cash back to Mexico. There remains little evidence that the United States is supplying massive amounts of firearms to the cartels. This week’s news about a 19-year-old who was caught with half a dozen weapons should be proof of that fact. The media notes this incident as proof that American guns are heading to the near war zone, but the truth isn’t so obvious.

First, you don’t supply guns in great numbers by having a few individuals drive across with half a dozen guns. For this type of conflict you need dozens, or hundreds of guns. Second, it isn’t clear where those illegal guns had come from, notably as they were described as “machine guns,” which aren’t exactly the sort of item you pick up at the average gun shop.

But back to our original point, this is an issue of criminals. Criminals selling drugs, criminals using drugs, and criminals shooting each other to control the drug trade. Unfortunately the word “guns” gets involved and that is something that can affect the law-abiding gun owners. Ironic isn’t it?

“…five automatic guns, two pistols, numerous rounds of ammunition, 23 loaded magazines, 10 rifle slings and other gun accessories.”

The San Diego Crime Examiner, which is part of Examiner.com included a bit more information, noting that U.S. Customs and Border Protection found several weapons. The site noted:

“The weapons included three P90 standard machine guns, a M-4 machine gun, and one AK 47 machine gun, the CBP said. The weapons stash also included a 5.7 semi-automatic handgun and a 10 mm Colt semi-automatic.”

No doubt some in the mainstream media, as well as numerous politicians will try to spin this into something it is not. First, it is not clear if the weapons are in fact “automatic,” which is a point that needs to be crystal clear. Several sources state the weapons to be “machine guns,” but as many firearm enthusiasts know only the P90 could rightfully be called a “machine gun.” The M-4 is a carbine, based on the M-16 assault rifle/AR-15 semi-automatic rifle; while the AK-47 is simply an assault rifle/semi-automatic rifle.

And here too the wording is the key. The “P90 standard machine gun” is a Belgian made submachine gun, which is used by numerous military, paramilitary and police units around the word. The PS90 is the semi-automatic commercial version. So the key is whether these were in fact “fully automatic” weapons, which wouldn’t be something you could buy at just any gun show. The commercial version, the PS90, also retails for $1800 or more, and it isn’t a gun that is typically stocked at many gun shows.

In other words there is much more to this story than just a 19-year-old who went north of the border to buy a few guns. This is one we’ll be watching very closely.

“In a place where gun ranges advertise assault rifles and machine guns on billboards and taxicab doors, it’s clear Nevadans like their guns.”

We do have a small problem with this introduction, as it doesn’t make it clear that these are guns to rent with supervision, and are NOT for sale. But where we have a bigger problem is how the story, after showing that Nevada residents generally agree with the recent Supreme Court ruling on gun ownership, takes a tone that suggests the author (or possibly the editors at the paper) are actually anti-gun. The author writes:

“It’s tough to find organized groups in Nevada who disagree with the high court ruling. The nationwide Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence doesn’t have a local chapter or contact listed on its website.”

If this is a fact, why even mention that the Brady Center doesn’t have a local chapter? If they don’t have a local chapter, it would seem to us that they don’t represent the views of Nevada. Moreover, we feel that the group is only included so the name can be seen with the key part “Prevent Gun Violence” included, so that someone skimming the article might read that message.

But the author didn’t give up and did find someone to quote. In this case it was Patti Kolknow, executive director of Women Against Gun Violence. As the author notes, this group is based not in Nevada but in Los Angeles, which again brings us to the point was this necessary to include? Ms. Kolknow is also quoted:

“The Supreme Court ruling is a disappointment. We know that increasing handgun ownership increases the likelihood of homicides, murders and unintentional shootings. Statistics prove that over and over again. Some people think that having a gun makes them safer, but that’s been proven not to be the case.”

This quote is a major problem, in part because there is no counterpoint to the argument. Worse still are these “facts” really the truth or just opinions from an anti-gun group. How does “legal” handgun ownership increase the likelihood of homicides for example? We’d like to call out Ms. Kolknow as well as author Kristi Jourdan to get some insight on those so-called “statistics.”

“About 68 percent said they think every eligible American should have access to handguns, but 67 percent say only police should have access to semi-automatic weapons.”

Whoever conducted the poll doesn’t understand the issue, which frankly could confuse the public. Likewise, the authors of the UPI story didn’t do their due diligence in explaining the issue. To any regular reader and gun enthusiast the problem with this statement is that it is highly questionable, because while 68 percent don’t see a problem with handguns some 67 percent think only the police should have “access to semi-automatic weapons.”

The wording of “semi-automatic weapons” could sound dangerous, even ominous to the uninformed. The simple fact is that many handguns are semi-automatic, many rifles are semi-automatic, many shotguns are semi-automatic. But the usage of the words with weapons could be seen to imply the image of a machinegun or at least an assault rifle.

To the informed this is laughable. For everyone else, all semi-automatic means is that you have to pull the trigger each time you want the gun to fire. You don’t need to manually cock it with a lever or bolt or hammer. Semi-automatic should never be confused with fully automatic, which is how a true machinegun operates. There is very big difference. It is irresponsible in our opinion for this to slip through un-fact checked in either the poll or the news story.

Angus Reid Public Opinion poll: Americans Say Second Amendment Guarantees Gun Ownership for Citizens

So we must ask, is “strict” the same as “sensible?” While he talks about strict laws, he first suggests keeping guns away from “criminals, gang members, the mentally ill and others who would visit harm upon our citizens,” but later he calls for closing the “gun show loophole” and banning “military assault weapons.”

The problem we continue to have is what exactly is meant by these two terms? In the former, Chief Knight never defines the “gun show — no background check needed” loophole.” This is a typical argument by those who can’t back up their opinion. He doesn’t even define it, possibly because it doesn’t really exist. To the next point, on the matter of “military assault weapons,” we must ask again what he means? Is it the look of the gun? The fact that it can hold a bayonet? What exactly makes a gun a “military assault weapon?”

To the average reader it sounds like a very dangerous gun, but the truth is that you can’t actually buy a military assault weapon. You can’t go to the gun show – and through loophole or otherwise – purchase a fully automatic machinegun or assault rifle. This just doesn’t happen. What you can buy is a gun that might look like one, but it is semi-automatic and is generally no different from commercial sporting rifles. So we wonder if those would be the next items in the crosshairs of people like Chief Knight. That’s our concern.

According to the report this included 11 weapons in total. The story noted that the weapons were in a crate with a false bottom:

“The cache contained an AK-47, a rifle with a 50-round drum, five 9 mm pistols and four other handguns, according to court records.”

What is interesting is that Assistant U.S. Attorney Christine Sanner was quoted as saying the secret compartment was “pretty clearly the wrong way to bring firearms back to the United States.” In fact, we can’t agree more… but to add that special permits are required for the importation of guns! So it comes as a shock that Bindeman has plead guity to one felony count of entry goods by means of false statements! The news posted added this choice bit too:

“With the plea, Bindeman, a sergeant in the Army National Guard, admitted that while he was deployed in Iraq, he hid the guns in the crate and shipped them from Iraq to the Readiness Center in Cambridge Springs.

“Why he shipped the guns and what he intended to do with them was not explained at the hearing.”

We’ll be watching closely to see what fines or penalties Bindeman faces, but this clearly is another example of how illegal guns do come into this country.

But the latest exception to the rule has come up, and this time it was a soldier who sold not only guns but even landmines, reports The Leaf Chronicle of Clarksville, Kentucky. The paper noted:

“A 22-year-old Fort Campbell soldier on Monday sold a machine gun and a Claymore mine to an undercover ATF agent in Oak Grove, Ky., according to a news release from the Hopkinsville, Ky., Police Department.”

Again, this wasn’t a straw purchase, anything to do with the so-called “gun show loophole,” but instead this was just another example of how bad people would (and do) obtain guns when legally doing so isn’t an option.

“Lawyers for the city and the Albany Police Officers Union, which is part of Council 82, said the records should remain sealed because the officers who possessed the guns may have engaged in misconduct or possibly illegal activity. Therefore, they argued, the records fall into a category of ‘personnel’ files which precludes disclosure under state Civil Service Law because they could be used to evaluate an officer’s employment status.”

Now this could be considered just one side of the story, but let’s consider this fact:

“No officers have been disciplined, arrested or passed over for a promotion due to the gun purchases, according to multiple departmental sources.”

It is also worth noting – at least to us – that Albany is just a couple of hours away from New York City, and yet Big Apple Mayor Michael Bloomberg hasn’t said a peep about this story. The mayor has spoken out about illegal gun sales in states hundreds of miles away, targeted gun shows and so-called straw purchases but a sale of truly illegal guns in practically his backyard and he’s quiet on the issue.

“We have seized 75,000 guns and assault weapons in Mexico over the last three years. More than 80 percent of those we have been able to trace came from the United States.”

There is no denying that Calderon made the statement, but the problem is that National Journal – as with much of the mainstream media – didn’t bother to check if the statement above is true. In fact, as has long been proven, this number isn’t just misleading, it is outright lie. If an American politician made such a statement we think the MSM would question it a bit more closely.