That is because political leaders such Mexican President Calderon or Chicago Mayor Daley continue to blame guns and not the criminal element. Along with New York Mayor Bloomberg these anti-gun zealots call for an outright ban on firearms. Of course it is these men who never have to fear for their lives as they sleep in their ivory towers – in the case of Bloomberg this is practically true!

We’ve also unfortunately had to report on too many cases where law enforcement ended up doing something stupid or worse with guns, including those that were arrested for selling guns illegally – along with a few too many incidents that simply involved leaving guns in cars, where the items were stolen.

So we’re sticking around. We’ll continue to watch, and report on media bias. We’ll continue to note challenges to the Second Amendment and we’ll continue to fight the good fight.

Happy Memorial Day from everyone at FirearmsTruth.

“That was the last of the Jim Crow laws in Iowa They passed this law so they could legally deny guns to blacks.”

Glen McCannon further explained that old law, which end on January 1, 2011, has its origins to the 1910’s during the KKK resurgence in Iowa. Well, now that liberals know that should we expect them to suddenly demand all gun bans are examined to see if they’re a hold over from the days of Jim Crow?

There are a few problems with this, and for a matter of full disclosure this reporter had a cousin who was shot and wounded on that April day 11 years ago. But to tie Columbine to gun shows is unfair. First, there is little evidence that the shooters in this tragic event ever attended gun shows.

Columbine has been used far too often. It has been targeted by those who oppose video games – because the shooters allegedly played games such as Doom; it has been targeted by those who oppose certain types of music – because the shooters allegedly listened to that type of music; and of course movies and TVs were called into question – because the shooters watched video movies and TV shows. The two shooters also quoted from Shakespeare and spoke German – but even with potential “Nazi” obsessions no one is questioning teaching German in America, and there is no question that Shakespeare could be considered dangerous speech.

 And yet gun shows, which the shooters may not have attended is what Bloomberg goes after while evoking a tragic event in American history.

According to The Post, those passing aptitude and psychological tests to legally possess a gun. The paper adds:

“Starting Feb. 12, Cubans will have the ‘exceptional and one-time only’ chance to register their guns with police, and will be allowed to keep them provided they are over 18 and have passed the proper tests administered at police stations.”

But could there be another motive behind these? The paper reminds a more sinister past event involving guns and Cuba:

“Cubans were encouraged to register any weapons they owned in the years after Fidel Castro and his band of rebels toppled dictator Fulgencio Batista on Jan. 1, 1959. But later authorities used a list of those who had sought licenses to go door-to-door and encourage them to turn over their firearms – even antiques considered family heirlooms.”

And anti-gun types wonder why law abiding gun owners worry about events such as these. This could never happen here… we hope.

“The Pennsylvania Rifle was developed by craftsmen in the mid-18th century. Using native iron and woods, the earliest versions could take upward of 200 hours to build.”

It is nice to see that there are those in government who do care about the historic significance of firearms.

“OTTAWA — Like public health care, Canada’s tight gun-control laws help distinguish the country from its powerful neighbor to the south. But as Canadians commemorated the 20th anniversary of one of the country’s most notorious shooting sprees on Sunday, their Parliament was on course to eliminate one of its most significant gun-control measures.”

The question we’d like to ask is whether these laws actually distinguish Canada in a good way? Anyone? But let’s look at some other questionable points in the article. First up, note how the firearm is described in this passage:

“A decade before the Columbine high school shootings set off a national debate on gun violence in the United States, an angry, unemployed 25-year-old armed with a semiautomatic hunting rifle stormed the École Polytechnique, an engineering school in Montreal.”

Then the article goes a bit further, and note the use of the wording here:

“The current debate does not involve handguns, whose registration has been required since 1934. Nor does it involve a variety of military-style weapons like assault rifles and sawed-off shotguns, which are banned outright. And the law’s repeal would not alter the requirement that gun buyers take safety courses and obtain a license.”

A “military-style weapon” is not a “hunting rifle” nor is a “sawed-off shotgun” a military weapon or hunting weapon. This is just another case where lots of different scary sounding words are thrown around to confuse the reader. Not exactly solid reporting, now is it?

First, how important really are American firearms to the Mexican cartels? Is there any proof that if America were to step up our efforts that the crime in Mexico would fall? Aren’t many of the guns actually from their own military? And about the flow of Chinese made firearms to Mexico? The news organization merely says, “many guns used by drug cartels in gun-restrictive Mexico are from the U.S.” But what percentage does “many” mean? The long reported number was wrong. In fact, it has been proven that less than 20 percent of firearms are from America – so how much good could our efforts do? Would it even reduce the crime by 20 percent? Probably not.

Second, what is Mexico going to do about the flow of drugs to America? That’s an issue that is seldom brought up when these stories are mentioned. Maybe we should work with Mexico to reduce the crime, and the gun issue will resolve itself.

“With gun ownership falling, the US firearms lobby is targeting a new generation with dinky pump-action shotguns and junior shooting shows. But at what cost?”

Where are they getting their facts? Everyone else is reporting that gun sales are spiking because of fears of crime and other worries. Of course that article does cite this fact too:

“Over the last 30 years, the percentage of American households that have guns in the home has tailed off from a high of 54% in 1977 to 34.5% in 2006.”

But the question is how of much that decline is by choice? Many communities, such as New York City make it darn hard to even own a gun. So is it lack of interest, or are interested parties barred from their Second Amendment rights?

“For the past four years, Falmouth police had no idea six .40-caliber Smith & Wesson semiautomatic handguns had disappeared from the station.”

And there is more good news from the paper:

“But a Times survey of Cape police departments found Falmouth isn’t the only one having trouble tracking and storing department-issued guns.”

Given that Massachusetts has tough firearm laws, it seems the best way to get a gun might be to join a police force and just keep your service revolver! Of course we’re joking, and we’d laugh, but this story is far from funny.

Firearmstruth would like to thank all our veterans today!