The AP version according to Newsbusters:

“The federal government under the Bush administration ran an operation that allowed hundreds of guns to be transferred to suspected arms traffickers — the same tactic that congressional Republicans have criticized President Barack Obama’s administration for using, two federal law enforcement officials said Tuesday.”

As noted by Newsbusters, the SF Chronicle essentially parrots this information, but it was Townhall that spelled the difference:

” Yes, however, the key difference between Operation Fast and Furious under Obama and Project Gunrunner under Bush is that under Obama guns were allowed to go back into Mexico without interdiction or arrests.”

That seems like a major point to note. Let’s see if the rest of the mainstream media notices that point?

Newsbusters: SF Chronicle Story Repeats AP ‘Fast & Furious’ Misinformation

“The U.S. agency that monitors gun sales has suffered a setback in its effort to increase scrutiny of the bulk sale of high-powered assault rifles in border state gun shops that are a chief source of weapons smuggling into Mexico.”

Is it really a setback that the White House won’t implement some nefarious and unnecessary ban on multiple rifle sales?

First, we question the use of the photo – and understand that it was ONLY used to be sensational. Why not show the lines at the capitol instead? The post then included this snide take on the situation:

“But there’s really no reason to worry, because anyone who is able to get a gun permit must be a stable, sane person who would never want to shoot a politician. Lobbyist Michelle Wittenburg told the AP, ‘If you do have a CHL (gun permit) then that shows you have gone through a background check and you’ve been vetted, so to speak. I don’t think those are the people that are going to cause your problems in the Capitol.’ Right on. You’ve really only got to worry about liberals and Mexicans causing problems. Good luck with all that, Texas.”

No one is going to accuse Gawker of being a serious news organization, but we still have a problem when New York and San Francisco writers, who probably never have held a real gun, comment on issues they don’t understand in a state they’d likely never want to visit. The purpose was to be humorous, but this is insulting to say the least.

“Don’t doubt for a minute that, if they thought they could get away with it, they would ban guns and ban ammunition and gut the Second Amendment,” said Palin, a lifelong NRA member who once had a baby shower at a local gun range in Alaska. “It’s the job of all of us at the NRA and its allies to stop them in their tracks.”

Now compare this to the follow-up paragraph from the voice of AP:

“Gun enthusiasts have trumpeted fears that their rights would erode under a Democrat-led White House and Congress, but President Barack Obama has largely been silent on issues such as reviving an assault weapons ban or strengthening background checks at gun shows. Obama also signed a law allowing people to carry loaded guns in national parks.”

First, we ask why it matters that Palin had a baby shower at a gun range, but did AP put that in to make her seem “crazy” to those who don’t like guns? You read the words “baby” and “gun range” together and that makes no sense right? Second, why does the AP feel it necessary to suggest that Obama has been silent on the issue – especially as Palin says, “if they thought they could get away with it,” but apparently the author missed that point. Finally, is the word, “fears” really necessary? “Fears” suggests a paranoid gun community, but that’s likely what the anti-gun crowd wants everyone to believe about gun enthusiasts.

The Associated Press story interviews numerous DC residents, all of whom are against changing the gun laws. In a city with a population around 600,000, the AP was unable to find one person who supports gun rights to quote. The story does mention that DC’s mayor, Adrian Fenty, wants the vote to go forward but because the mayor believes DC should get two House seats, despite a new gun law.

This is an example of the media’s shameless crusade against firearms ownership. The District of Columbia has some of the strictest gun laws in the country and yet is one of the most crime ridden places to live. Two of the quotes from the AP story site high crime as a reason to support the current laws. But clearly this isn’t working. Gangs, thugs and other criminal filth prey on law-abiding citizens that the criminal element knows is unarmed. Even though not mentioned in the Constitution, the Right to self-protection is just as sacred as those specifically spelled out. The AP and other media outlets support violent crime by spinning the myth that gun control laws make us safer.

“Two guns used in shootings this year at the Pentagon and a Las Vegas courthouse both came from the same unlikely place: the police and court system of Memphis, Tenn.

“Law enforcement officials from multiple agencies tell The Associated Press the guns were once seized as evidence in criminal investigations in Memphis and made their way separately to the shooters.”

It will be interesting to see how these firearms made their way to criminals. Yes, there is a possibility that the system failed and a background check wasn’t done when it was suppose to have been done. But it is interesting, and again disturbing, to find that these guns both sold by the Memphis police.

 ”Coffee chain Starbucks Corp. is sticking to its policy of letting customers carry guns where it’s legal and said it does not want to be put in the middle of a larger gun-control debate.”

 While the company offered this opinion, we still think we’ll be hearing from the anti-gun zealots.

Gun facts
By some estimates, about 90 million people in the United States own a total of some 200 million guns. Roughly 30,000 people in the United States die each year from gun violence; more than half are suicides. An additional 70,000 are wounded.
The Associated Press

These “facts” are clearly anti-firearms, stressing only the worst sides of guns. That clearly seems to be the intent doesn’t it?

“Federal investigators are trying to determine whether 500 weapons missing from the evidence room of a southeast Texas police station are part of a firearms trafficking ring.”

The story adds:

“ATF agents recovered 112 missing guns during a search at a Humble gun shop, according to court documents. Of those weapons, 98 had been listed by Kelley as destroyed. The whereabouts of the other guns remains a mystery.”

Again, we ask… why should anyone believe in a world where only the police have guns would criminals not get their hands on them? This comes a week after it was reported that the Department of Homeland Security had lost hundreds of guns! Yet, time and time again it is law-abiding gun owners who are made to suffer by harsher laws.

• Arizona’s permissive gun laws gained national attention last year when a man openly carried an AR-15 rifle to a protest outside a speech by President Obama.
• “That’s sheer insanity,” said M. Kristen Rand, legislative director for the Violence Policy Center.
• Police departments worry that making permits optional might encourage more people with bad motives to carry concealed weapons, said John Thomas, a lobbyist for the Arizona Association of Chiefs of Police.

Of course there were hardly as strong statements from those actually supporting to move for Arizona to allow concealed weapons to be carried without a permit. But why would we expect otherwise? About the only thing missing in this one is a quote from gun hating Mayor Mike Bloomberg. Yeah, we know Arizona is a long ways from New York City, but that doesn’t stop Bloomberg from offering his opinion about Virginia or Ohio laws!