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.

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.

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.

In January, six Americans were killed and 13 injured, including Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords, when Jared Lee Loughner fired 31 bullets in 15 seconds using a Glock with a high-capacity magazine. These magazines dramatically boost a weapon’s firing power and lethality and have become the weapon of choice for the deranged. For that reason, they were prohibited from 1994 until 2004, when the federal assault weapons ban was in place. Since its lapse, high-capacity magazines have become easily accessible. There is no logical reason to encourage the proliferation of these weapons, which is happening. Former Vice President Dick Cheney, a staunch defender of gun rights, even commented recently about the magazine ban with: “We’ve had that in place before. Maybe it’s appropriate to reestablish that kind of thing.”

A second glaring vulnerability is the gun show loophole. At gun shows across the country, buyers can completely avoid background checks otherwise required by the Brady law. The Columbine High School shooters killed 13 people with weapons obtained at a gun show, and gun traffickers regularly patronize gun shows and buy weapons that wind up at crime scenes halfway across the country. Closing the gun show loophole would not prohibit anyone new from buying a firearm—it would simply make sure sellers at gun shows follow the same rules as gun sellers everywhere else. As you stated in a March op-ed to the Arizona Daily Star: “If we’re serious about keeping guns away from someone who’s made up his mind to kill, then we can’t allow a situation where a responsible seller denies him a weapon at one store, but he effortlessly buys the same gun someplace else.” The public agrees with you—recent polls found 89 percent of Americans and even 69 percent of NRA members favor eliminating the gun show loophole.

The Columbine shooters did not buy any guns themselves at a gun show. This is total misinformation. Closing the loophole would not have stopped those shooters, who had others buy the guns for them.

The fact that 89 percent of Americans and even 69 percent of NRA members is quoted from data gathered by anti-gun groups and does not accurately reflect real opinions.

Finally, we must close the dangerous Terror Gap. Under current law, the government does not have authority to deny a known or suspected terrorist from obtaining firearms or explosives. This is not merely a theoretical problem—the Government Accountability Office (GAO) found that since 2004, known or suspected terrorists have been cleared to buy firearms or explosives 1,321 times. This defies common-sense so much that 88 percent of Americans and 82 percent of NRA members support closing the terror gap.

What about due process? If these people are suspected of having committed a crime why are they not arrested? Does due process not matter in the case of firearms? Are people not innocent until proven guilty?

I have introduced legislation to close these three gaps in our laws, but your Administration has yet to join us on these proposals and has not shown the leadership to combat gun violence. It was nearly two years before a nominee for the Director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) position was chosen. Earlier this year, the Administration convened a working group to examine strengthening our gun laws, but no findings or recommendations have been released. While the gun lobby is always opposed to legislation to curb gun violence, the White House cannot avoid its obligations to protect our people.

Why is there no mention here of the ATF debacle known as Fast and Furious?

Experts have been warning about an increased threat from commando-style terrorism using guns or explosives, such as the 2008 Mumbai attack and the 2009 Fort Hood attack here in the United States. But the latest threat—and what should be the last straw—came earlier this month, when Adam Gadahn, an American-born Al Qaeda member, urged terrorists in a video to exploit weaknesses in U.S. gun laws to carry out terrorist attacks. Gadahn states, “America is absolutely awash with easily obtainable firearms. You can go down to a gun show at the local convention center and come away with a fully automatic assault rifle, without a background check, and most likely, without having to show an identification card. So what are you waiting for?”

Just because Adam Gadahn or any terrorists says something doesn’t make it true. Gadahn is incorrect when he says you can come away with a fully automatic assault rifle. But this misinformation is left to imply otherwise.

The 9/11 terrorist attacks are often blamed on a failure to connect the dots—we cannot repeat such a failure again. I know that we both share the desire to stop senseless gun violence, and now is the time to act.

Now is time to act, to keep anti-gun zealots such as Lautenberg from taking our Constitutional rights away!

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.

“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.

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.

Senator Grassley on Feb. 9 wrote Attorney General Eric Holder to again request that BATFE cooperate with his investigation, writing “the Terry family deserves answers.”

Grassley stated in the letter that he has documentation for his allegations.

“The whistleblowers have expressed a desire to honor agent Terry’s memory by disclosing this information. The Justice Department should work to do the same. The best way to honor his memory is to come clean.”

Senator Grassley has demonstrated that he is determined to uncover the truth regarding BATFE’s investigative tactics, even as BATFE seems intent on shutting down his investigation. BATFE has accused Grassley of conducting a “partisan” investigation and has even gone so far as to ask that Senate Judiciary Committee staff stop talking to law enforcement personnel.

Since Agent Terry’s killing, BATFE has denied the allegations regarding its investigations while at the same time claiming that a shortage of manpower and resources prevents the agency from accounting for all the firearms it is tracking.

The obvious question is: Did BATFE have no involvement with the firearms involved in the shootout, or did it lack the manpower to do its job effectively?

Either way, the BATFE’s desire to mandate reporting of multiple long gun sales by border area firearms dealers is questionable since BATFE seems incapable of managing the criminal leads it already has and unwilling to submit to constitutionally mandated Congressional oversight.

About:
Established in 1871, the National Rifle Association is America’s oldest civil rights and sportsmen’s group. Four million members strong, NRA continues its mission to uphold Second Amendment rights and to advocate enforcement of existing laws against violent offenders to reduce crime. The Association remains the nation’s leader in firearm education and training for law-abiding gun owners, law enforcement and the military. Visit: www.nra.org

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?