Firing Back: Why Have Guns Been Selling?
The mainstream media has spent the last two months reporting on record gun sales, and time and time again it has made sure to include commentary from the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence or some other anti-gun group to “explain it.”
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.
Firing Back: Will Holder Face Impeachment?
Hell no, Eric Holder won’t go! That’s pretty much how the embattled Attorney General is playing it, even after last Thursday’s hearing over Fast and Furious.
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.
Firing Back: More on Fast and Furious – and Defense of ATF
This week we noted that Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif) defended the ATF and pointed the finger of blame for the Fast and Furious debacle on lax American gun laws. This is an outrageous turn of events. To put it bluntly this is no better than blaming a rape on the fact that the woman was dressed in a way that was “asking for.”
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.
Firing Back: Cries for Gun Control When Tragedy Strikes
Last week it might have seemed all too familiar. A high profile shooting, people questioning why it happened and then outrage that included calls for gun control. This happens every time there is a shooting, and the cycle begins anew.
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.
Firing Back: Media Silent on Role Guns Played in America
Today is the fifth of July. Just another day. Unfortunately the Fourth of July is to many people not exactly another day – it is a holiday, a day off from work and it is a day of fireworks and barbeques. What is forgotten is that yesterday was also “Independence Day,” and it shouldn’t take a lousy movie from the mid-1990s to remind us that this is really bigger than just a day off from work.
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.
Firing Back: Our Response to Lautenberg Letter
Last week Senator Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.) wrote to President Obama calling for more gun control. We offered a full transcript of the letter, and took time to debunk it. Here is our response to his letter (our response in bold):
I am writing to express my concern with the Administration’s silence on critical gun issues and to seek some leadership to better protect the American people. The issues transcend partisanship and could attract bipartisan support. Read more
Firing Back: More on the Numbers From Mexican Drug War
We’ve noted since launching FirearmsTruth.com in May or 2009 that many numbers are thrown around by the mainstream media on the topic of guns. The most common numbers are 80, 85 and even 90 – as in percent of guns seized in Mexico that can be traced to the United States. As we’ve long reported, the problem is that these numbers are actually inaccurate. But yet the media continues to report on these time and time again.
Yet, last week in reporting of the meetings of heads of states of the United States and Mexico, CNN offered a far more chilling number: 2 percent. Even if 100 percent of guns used by Mexican cartels actually came from the United States, it probably wouldn’t matter because of this 2 percent. Here is why, according to CNN:
“(A) cable quoted U.S. officials talking about “widespread corruption” in Mexican security agencies and ‘a dysfunctionally low level of collaboration.’ The cable, dated January 29, 2010, also described the Mexican army as ‘slow’ and ‘risk averse’ and concluded that only 2% of people arrested in Ciudad Juarez — the most violent city in Mexico, wracked by drug-cartel-related killings — were charged with a crime.”
If only 2 percent of people arrested are ever charged with a crime how can Mexico ever expect to win the drug war? Instead the blame of American guns will continue, when if this cable is to be believed – apparently released from Wikileaks – the problem is that those committing the crimes are never actually punished.
Firing Back: Chicago Mayor Daley Calls for “Common Sense” Gun Laws
Outgoing Chicago Mayor Richard Daley called for a push for “common sense” gun laws, reported ABC News from the Windy City. Windy being the key word, as this wind bag continues to open his mouth about gun laws. He offered this thought on guns in America:
“Why isn’t America outraged about this? We get outraged by a lot of things, but why can’t we be outraged when someone loses their mother, father, brother, sister, their friend or neighbor, what is taking place in America.”
What Daley has lost sight of is that there is “outrage.” Daley sees the crime in his city, a problem he never was able to solve, and thinks guns are only used by the bad guys. The outrage is actually from those who respect guns and respect the law. Daley clearly lacks the “respect” of the law-abiding gun owners, and that is clear as he can’t accept that anyone who follows the law would want a gun.
But the soon to be “former” mayor will lose his security detail, so let’s see if he changes his tune about guns. Maybe if he moved to Otis McDonald’s neighborhood instead of some posh part of the city, he’d finally understand.
NRA: Senator Grassley Presses BATFE On Project Gunrunner
From our friends at the NRA:
Pointing to documentation that guns used by Mexican nationals in a shootout with Border Patrol agents were allowed to be sold under suspicious circumstances with the knowledge of the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, U.S. Senator Charles Grassley (R-Iowa) is calling on the agency to fully respond to his inquiries into the case.
Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry was killed in that encounter on Dec. 14 of last year.
Grassley has called the response of BATFE to his original letter on inquiry “little more than delay and denial.”
Assistant Attorney General Ronald Weich responded to Grassley on Feb. 4 denying the allegations. Read more
Firing Back: Bloomberg Blames Congress – Where Does New York City End?
Where does New York City end? Isn’t the border on the Hudson River? Apparently, the honorable Mayor Michael Bloomberg seems to think he knows what is best for the rest of the country. Not only did he send a team out to Arizona gun shows, post videos (heavily edited mind you) online and even draft a post for the Huffington Post, but he is even blaming Congress for gun sale loophole.
In an article for the good old Huff and Puff, Bloomberg’s actions were described:
“Citing findings from a recent investigation of Arizona gun-show sales, New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg offered a harsh indictment Monday of Congress’ failure to close gun-control loopholes that allow individuals to buy weapons from private sellers without a background check.”
“Gun control loopholes” – could that be a new statement we hear? We’re also seeing “gun sale loopholes.” In other words, Bloomberg isn’t looking to just close the nefarious “gun show loophole,” but we think he’ll aim at all private sales of firearms – something that could prove difficult.
But what is so bothersome is that Bloomberg is over reaching his authority. He’s mayor of a city, albeit the nation’s largest, and that’s it. He’s not in Congress and he doesn’t even represent the people of the State of New York, just the people of the City of New York. And yet, he’d like to change the laws not only for the 20 million in the New York area but for the 350 million throughout the country. So where does he think New York ends? More importantly, where does he think his power ends?
