Obama and Gun Control – Is the Media Waking Up?
Time and time gun control types and other anti-gun zealots like to paint Obama as a do nothing President on the issue of guns and the Second Amendment. While we agree that President Obama is very much a “do nothing President” on many issues, when it comes to guns we see he is far more sinister and dangerous than meets the eye.
Let’s not forget the ban on those M1 rifles from Korea. Let’s not forget his calls for “reasonable gun control,” and most certainly let’s not forget that he infamously said to Sarah Brady that he was working on gun control but “under the radar.”
So is the media paying attention? As we begin 2012 we can hope. However, for now the year ended with two notable Conservative news sites paying attention.
On March 30 of this year, President Obama dropped in to greet Sarah Brady, who was meeting with White House Press Secretary Jay Carney. Sarah is the wife of Jim Brady, the former White House Press Secretary under Reagan, who was shot but not killed in an assassination attempt on President Reagan in 1981. The Bradys subsequently became strong supporters of gun control. According to Brady, the President brought up the issue of gun control “to fill us in that it was very much on his agenda. [The President said,] ‘I just want you to know that we are working on [additional limits on gun ownership]. We have to go through a few processes, but under the radar.’”
Big Government offered this take:
What would four years of a lame duck President Obama mean for gun owners? The only way to know is to gauge it by the things Obama has done already. In 1995, when pursuing a state level office in Illinois, Obama “endorsed a complete ban on all handguns.” At that time, he also expressed his support for waiting periods for handgun purchases. A “waiting period” is a set period of time, usually 5 to 10 days, which has to elapse between the time an individual buys a gun and is actually allowed to take it home. In other words, customer “X” would pay for a gun on Monday of this week, but would not be allowed to pick it up at the store until Monday of next week. (The foolishness of this scenario is evident when one considers what that waiting period might mean for a female who is being threatened by a violent criminal or sexual predator. She would have to buy her gun then spend the next week, the “waiting period,” hoping the criminal or predator would be willing to wait a week before attacking as well.)
Now if only the rest of the mainstream media had its eyes open, and more importantly didn’t have its own gun control agenda.
NRA-ILA Year In Review 2011
From the NRA-ILA:
Here are some of the top stories we brought you in the NRA-ILA Grassroots Alert in 2011.
With what will be a critically important 2012, we must increase our efforts to ensure we’re prepared to meet the great opportunities and challenges we will face next year.
We will continue to provide you with information in future Alerts to ensure our mutual success. Read more
Is Obama Working on Gun Control Under the Radar?
To hear him speak President Barrack Obama is all about gun rights. During the 2008 campaign, running mate Vice President Joseph Biden even said “he ain’t taking away my shotguns,” but could gun control be Obama’s secret agenda?
This has been our concern if Obama is re-elected in 2012. Already the POTUS supported last year’s attempt by the EPA to ban lead ammunition, and the POTUS along with the State Department in essence banned the re-importation of American made M1 rifles from South Korea.
But if re-elected is gun control going to be the agenda? This week proof came out, but it isn’t getting much mainstream media play.
The Greenly Gazette is reporting that Sarah Brady was told by Obama that gun control was on his agenda, quoting Brady:
“I just want you to know that we are working on it. We have to go through a few processes, but under the radar.”
Isn’t this coming from the then-Presidential candidate who promise to have an open government with transparency? But let’s also consider this article from The Huffington Post from March, titled “Obama Looking For Ways Around Congress On Gun Policy.” That story offered this telling statement:
“…the Obama administration is exploring potential changes to gun laws that can be secured strictly through executive action, administration officials say.”
The question to ask is where is this going to go? Should we worry about what is going under the radar, or could all this backfire for the POTUS?
Sponsor Special: M1 Sling
M1 Garands are increasing in price, and many are seen without slings. Now our friends at International Military Antiques have some original World War II era (meaning these could be post-war) slings that will dress up any M1 rifle.
Original Item: In actual fact, it is possible that these might be postwar, however, they are indistinguishable from WWII issue. Each is sling is constructed of OD green web with steel hardware and will be an authentic addition to your original Garand rifle. Offered in good but used condition, sling will be complete and free of any major flaws, however, they were issued and will show some dirt, stains, age and minor wear. Most original ink markings have long ago faded away. Read more
Democrats and Republicans Ask to Lift Korean Import Ban
It must be an election year. Senators and House Members of both parties are asking Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to lift the import ban on classic U.S. made firearms. In March 2010 the State Department decided to disallow the importation of M1 Garands and M1 Carbines given to South Korea during the Korean civil war. FirearmsTruth has been on this story for months. Read more
Gun Collecting: Johnson M1941 Highly Prized By Collectors
The iconic M1 Garand isn’t the only semi-automatic rifle used by combat troops in WWII. Marine officer Melvin Johnson began work on what came to be known as the Johnson M1941 in 1935. At the time, the army was convinced that the M1 was the rifle of the future and some have speculated that when Johnson’s rifle was tested against the M1, the deck was stacked against him. But the Marine Corp wasn’t convinced by the Army’s praise for the M1.
By 1940, a controversy grew between those who supported the M1 Garand and the Johnson Rifle. The press got involved and in February of 1940 the Washington Evening Star ran a series of articles entitled, “Battle Efficiency of Garand Rifle provokes Controversy.” At the same time, the Rifleman published some articles that cast the Johnson Rifle in a favorable light. Life magazine called the Garand-Johnson battle “one of the greatest military squabbles in U.S. history.” Read more
Firing Back: Tale of Two Stories Proves Media Bias Against Guns
In the past month there were two notable stories that FirearmsTruth closely covered. Both stories involved American made guns, a foreign nation and calls to block the importation of these firearms. One made the mainstream media, stirred up all sorts of interest, resulted in coverage on the nightly news and even had political calls for action, while the other was barely a blip on the radar. Here is a look at back at these two stories and how it essentially proves the media bias against guns is all too alive and well.
The first story broke in August, and took weeks to gain any traction in the United States. This of course was about the efforts by South Korea to sell somewhere between 110,000 and 880,000 M1 Garand and M1 Carbine rifles. The story was ignored for weeks, and finally was reported on by The Washington Times and FoxNews. Kudos to both outlets for covering this story, but the question here is what took them so long?
One would think this story would garner more interest. The rifles were American made, desirable to collectors and valuable, but the media mostly ignored all facets of the story. There were no cries from The New York Times or The Washington Post that the State Department was stopping the re-importation of America goods, and no explanation even about why the guns couldn’t return home. The argument by the State Department of the guns being dangerous was cited, and the media had nothing more to say. In the end the story simply died.
Old soldiers might fade away, but rifles – even those of great value to collectors (both monetary and historically) it seem will only rust away.
And yet another story actually had the media buzzing – even if there was far less there that was actually “new.” This was the ABC News “breaking” piece that reported on a report from Mayors Against Illegal Guns, which of course was based on data from the ATF. As we previously noted, this was little more than hearsay, as it was a report of a report based on third party data. Worse, this report used the parts of the data that helped the argument from Mayors Against Illegal Guns while ignoring other important facts – notably the number of guns actually sent to the United States for tracing.
However, this story was picked up by the media left and… well, left, and cited over and over as “proof” that American guns are a real problem. Never mind that the information was old, never mind that report was biased. It was “proof” for so many outlets, and for anti-gun zealots such as New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg. When you have “proof” do you really need the truth?
These two stories did PROVE one thing. There is a continuing bias against guns by the mainstream media, both in how news is reported and on what is not reported.
Gun Collecting: What the Ban on the Importation of M1 Rifles From South Korea Means to Collectors
The history of the M1 rifle is well documented, so there is no need to retell the gun’s famous history. The truth is that it has become a highly sought after collectible. Over the past decade the prices of the M1 has increased at a pace greater than almost any other military firearm. Read more
Firing Back: Why Won’t U.S. Film Makers Boycott Australia?
If you have been following FirearmsTruth the last few weeks, you are aware that vintage M1 Garands and M1 Carbines were destroyed by the Australian government after filming for The Thin Red Line ended. The movie is about an army platoon that fought the Japanese on the island of Guadalcanal. The battle of Guadalcanal was fought to protect supply lines between the United States and Australia. Had the Japanese won the battle, Australia would have been ripe for invasion. Despite the sacrifices made to protect an ally, the Australian government is waging a war against our history by destroying the vary weapons that kept the island continent safe from Japanese imperialism.
So why won’t U.S. film makers boycott Australia? Obscure causes are legendary among the Hollywood crowd. Their fame is used to push a cause into the public’s conscience so that changes can be made. The protection of U.S. history a noble endeavor and this includes protecting the tools used by our warriors from the past. Threatening to film in other places other than Australia sends a powerful message that the destruction of our history won’t be tolerated.
More on Destroyed M1 Rifles
First it was The Pacific, and then it was The Great Raid. Finally, after some digging we got to the truth. It turns out that the M1 and M1 Carbines that were destroyed following the production of a movie were actually those used in the Oscar nominated film The Thin Red Line, and that was more than a decade ago.
This was confirmed to FirearmsTruth by the film’s armorer John Bowring of Paradox FX Pty. Ltd., who stated the guns destroyed by the Australian government included “335 M1 Garands and Carbines.” To survive a war and be destroyed for a film, sad irony.
