Let’s consider the island nation of Jamaica, and gun ownership there. The nation’s Firearms Act, which was first passed in 1967 and has been amended over the years, regulates the ownership and use of firearms and ammunition. This sounds like something that American gun control types would like to see in America. The law requires gun licenses on ALL firearms, and a yearly registration fee of $6,000 and for a rather poor nation this is an outrageous amount of money.

The nation even has a Gun Court, which was established in 197, to try criminal cases involving firearms. In other words Jamaica is an example to the world where gun control is a very serious deal. But is it working?

In a word… no.

Guns are reportedly smuggled into the country from places such as Haiti where firearms are traded for drugs. The BBC reported that recently 2,000 guns were melted down, and in the coverage of this story noted:

The BBC’s Nick Davis in Kingston says that although gun crime has long been a problem in Jamaica, the murder rate has been falling. However, the authorities want to do more. Between 70-80% of fatal shootings have been linked to criminal gangs whose firepower equals that of the police, our correspondent adds.

So has gun control done its job? Clearly it has not. And while we know that some anti-gun zealots will blame American guns, suggesting that if America cracked down our neighbors in Mexico and Jamaica wouldn’t have a source of guns – we need to remember that it is vintage Soviet and even modern Russian and Chinese firearms that are used in Asia and Africa by insurgents and criminals alike.

Basically, Jamaica should serve as an example of why gun control will always fail as long as there are criminals around. And until the drug and crime problem can be solved, gun control only makes it harder for the law-abiding gun owner.

But what needs to be explained? We’re coming into an election year and despite the resounding statement from the anti-gun crowd that President Obama hasn’t done much with gun control, he hasn’t exactly been pro-gun either. Likewise, there is uncertainty with the economy, but there have been other factors.

First, women are picking up guns; to defend themselves and to hunt, or just take part in shooting sports. Is there anything wrong with this? And young people are once again showing interest in firearms.

But instead the media continues to ask why? And for reasons that make no sense in business related stories, ask for commentary from anti-gun types as if this will provide the answer.

The truth is that gun ownership is on the rise, crime is down. What is wrong with that?

And here is another point to consider, why would the media root against sales? Doesn’t the economy need to pick up? Imagine if this were any other product and the media tried to paint it as bad? The media wants strong consumer good sales, as it indicates a good economy. The media likes to report on strong housing or automobile sales, so why wouldn’t the media want strong firearms sales?

These are criminals buying guns, but to many in the media anyone with a gun should be deemed a potential outlaw.

The irony of this is that Holder by holding on as it were could actually make matters worse (for him) – not that they could get any better. Holder is hanging on and if impeachment is considered it would bring Fast and Furious into the spotlight.

The truth is that the media has been mostly mum on this, as it makes the Department of Justice look bad, and in turn makes President Obama look bad. By hanging on, instead of leaving silently, Holder’s hold out could shed light. So while it could make matters worse for him, it could bring due attention to Fast and Furious and the Obama administration’s culpability for this whole operation to light.

Of course, the media will likely try to trump that with the “Blame Bush” card, which various outlets have already played. But either way, this is slowly going from a sideshow to a main event. Let’s hope voters see this and remember, remember come next November.

Why should law-abiding American gun owners suffer because of the ATF debacle? Why should law-abiding American gun owners have to face bans of certain firearms because of problems in another country?

What makes this worse is that Feinstein, along with her co-conspirators Senator Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) and Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) are calling for a reinstatement of the assault weapon ban in part because of the ongoing cartel war in Mexico! In other words, American gun owners may be the real victims in this debacle and yet Feinstein says that the Republicans are unfairly targeting the ATF and Attorney General Eric Holder.

There have been suggestions that this is a conspiracy aimed at destroying our Second Amendment rights, and frankly we don’t think it is such a wild theory. This is a subtle move that is drawing attention away from the scandal and suggesting the cause of Mexico’s woes is our freedoms, our rights to own guns. This is certainly an issue to watch closely, and to keep in mind as the 2012 elections approach. President Obama has stayed out of this, but he let his true intentions be known when he suggested he was working on gun control, but “under the radar.”

Don’t be fooled. The 2012 election will likely decide the future of the Second Amendment.

We do find these tragedies to be disturbing. We do find these events to be horrific. But let’s consider a few things. Is gun control the answer? If there was gun control and citizens didn’t have guns we’d have no mass shootings. By that logic if we had no alcohol, we’d have no drunk drivers.

But wait, we tried that and it didn’t work. It actually made the problem worse. It created an era of gangsters, smugglers and bootleggers. And while it might make for good TV and movies, it was a dark time in our country. Prohibition doesn’t work.

Now let’s consider an airplane crash. These happen too, but no one says, “let’s stop flying. Think of the children.” The truth is that tragedies happen in life, and while we don’t intend to belittle the shootings, any shootings for that matter, the fact is the vast majority of law-abiding gun owners will never fire their guns in self-defense, they’ll never commit a crime with them, they’ll never have an accident. All of those scenarios are the exception to the rule.

And yet, the cries will continue. Because the news loves to show the blood. The news loves to cover these stories and ask “why did this happen.” How often the media report stories of hunters safely doing their thing, another safe but loud day at the range, or gun collectors flock to collectibles show. That’s not news, but it happens. And that’s the final problem. Tragedies are news, news gets attention and then the cries for gun control start anew.

Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership (JPFO) has produced a 20 minute documentary, “No Guns for Negros,” that exposes the racist history of gun control and its impact on minority communities today. The movie can be downloaded free at http://jpfo.org/filegen-a-m/movieplay-ngn-swf.htm and the organization wants as many people as possible to distribute their production as long as it isn’t done for profit.

So spread the word. Distribute copies to your friends and community organizations. Let’s make all of America safe by returning 2^nd Amendment Rights to all neighborhoods.

Video after the jump

No Guns for Negroes Part One:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=nckgyfGbdnU

No Guns for Negroes Part Two:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=2g7TbxkJuqA

“An oft-repeated statement that the Federal Aviation Administration’s partial shutdown has forced the layoff of 70,000 construction workers is, at best, an over-simplification, and at worst, an exaggeration, according to the expert behind the number.”

The sad truth is that the figure of “90 percent of guns used in Mexico” could also be called, “at best, an over-simplification, and at worst, an exaggeration.” But actually, it is even worse, because the 90 percent was widely debunked, widely proven false and yet the same mainstream media continued to report it.

The government of Mexico continued to state it, and Hillary Clinton, Secretary of State, even offered this number. For more than two years we’ve tried to spread the word that this 90 percent number – sometimes 80 percent and sometimes even the lower 70 percent – are all absolutely inaccurate. The numbers just aren’t there, but the MSM doesn’t care.

And when outlets such as CNN take the time to show how one number – such as the 70,000 jobs lost in the partial shutdown are inaccurate – is inaccurate, but never bothers for the 90 percent figure, this suggests a bias. But consider this passage from the CNN story:

“The rampant use — and misuse — of the 70,000 figure is a study in the wondrous ways of Washington, where facts and figures frequently enter the public debate filled with nuance and caveats, all of which are rapidly abandoned in the blazing heat of partisan battle.”

Does that speak volumes about the 90 percent number too?

So when Henigan, acting president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, the same group that was founded by Sarah Brady asks that pointed question we say it is nothing but a smoke screen. Meanwhile the POTUS has imposed tighter restrictions on the sale of guns in four border states.

Thus, President Obama isn’t working on gun control under the radar, he is doing it in the open, and yet his anti-gun allies are trying to make it seem like this isn’t the case. This is a shameful example of how this administration ignores the Constitution and the Second Amendment.

Rolley suggests this effort would cut down on crime and random gunfire. Of course how he expects to enforce this law is not clear. If Rolley had watched any episodes of HBO’s The Wire, which is set in Baltimore, he would know that the fictional drug gangs drove vast distances to obtain supplies of drugs, and even drove miles outside the city to burn disposable mobile phones (burners as they were called). What would stop criminals from driving outside the city to stock up on ammunition?

We feel that Rolley would just use this as an excuse to push for even greater restrictions against firearms and ammunition. Let’s hope that New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg and others from Mayors Against Illegal Guns don’t jump on this band wagon.

It is also a day that should be remembered for what it means for gun owners. That Second Amendment made it clear that it is about the individual being able to keep and bear arms. But some gun control types like to suggest it meant just the militias that should have the guns.

Of course what is forgotten is that the militias didn’t have quartermasters to supply the members with guns. Those militiamen that came to help America fight for her independence brought their own guns. Maybe this is why guns are so deep in the American spirit, as it goes back to our core.

Some anti-gun types would like to forget this or even for America to change at its core. Maybe this is why the media was silent on gun control this past weekend. Now if only they could be silent, or at least fair on the issue every other day.