Gun Rights Policies with John Snyder: Obama Wars Against Religion and Gun Ownership

Is Partisan Politics Polarizing Fast and Furious Hearings?

First it was “Blame Bush” and now it seems the media is ready to readily accept the findings of Rep. Elijah Cummings, D-Md. This week USA Today noted with a biased headline, “Report: Agents, not Justice Dept. to blame in Fast and Furious“:

A U.S. House minority report on the gun-smuggling probe known as Fast and Furious blames federal agents in Arizona for the flawed operation while exonerating top-level Justice Department officials.

The 89-page analysis, released Tuesday by Rep. Elijah Cummings, D-Md., ranking minority member of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, is based upon five congressional hearings, testimony from 22 witnesses and about 12,000 pages of documents.

Its conclusion: “Operation Fast and Furious was the latest in a series of fatally flawed operations run by ATF agents in Phoenix and the Arizona U.S. Attorney’s Office.

And there you have it. The media has ignored the story for months, but now that the blame can be cast away – far away from President Obama and his henchman Eric Holder – the media has decided this is a story worth covering!

Fast and Furious: Is it Partisan Politics at Play?

This week The New York Times showed how divided the nation truly is, and nowhere more so than the nation’s capitol building:

Democrats on the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee on Tuesday are expected to publish a report on the disputed gun trafficking investigation called Operation Fast and Furious, concluding that agents in Arizona — not Obama administration officials — were responsible for the tactics used in the inquiry and for providing misleading information relayed to Congress.

Of course this argument is more of the “Blame Bush” strategy that we’ve seen for months, and it is an attempt to distance President Obama as well as Attorney General Eric Holder from Fast and Furious. But the question still remains, even if Holder didn’t know (which according to recent information seems hard to believe), why didn’t he know?

NY Post: “A Fast & Furious fib”

Could it be that Eric Holder was lying? Actually we already think most of what comes of his mouth comes out of another part of a male cow, but that’s not just our opinion it seems. Writing for The New York Post over the weekend, Michael A. Walsh offered this commentary:

It’s not the crime, it’s the coverup, goes the old Washington cliché. In the case of the Fast and Furious gun-walking scandal, it’s both.
As Attorney General Eric Holder gets ready to face more congressional grilling Thursday, something’s clearly rotten at the Justice Department. The stench goes all the way to the top — to Holder.

Walsh noted that according to new emails Holder had known about Fast and Furious all along. Walsh closes this piece noting:

With a tough re-election fight, President Obama doesn’t need F&F to become a campaign issue. But surely even he realizes that the nation has had enough of Holder’s polarizing tenure at Justice. Given a choice between himself and Holder . . . well, there’s always room for one more under the Obama bus.

We agree with Walsh, except we have to note… the media has been mum on this story. The mainstream media doesn’t want this story to get out. And that makes it all the more important for the story to be told.

New York Times Editorial Suggests “gun lobby’s wrath”

The New York Times issued a farewell to Rep. Gabrielle Giffords last week, and we have to ask – why? We sort of know the answer, as it allows the Times’ editors a chance to climb on the soap box yet again, let’s keep in mind that Ms. Giffords didn’t represent the people of New York City or even New York State.

The editors of course tried to once again blame the guns and did some with the usual misreporting:

Ringing vows were made immediately after the Tucson rampage to ban the high-volume ammunition clips used by the gunman, to prod states to submit names of the mentally disturbed to the federal watch list for gun sales, and to plug the notorious gun-show loophole that allows anyone to buy high-powered military weapons without a background check. None of those have happened. Democrats, who once had the good sense to pass a ban on assault rifles, no longer fight for its renewal, wary of the gun lobby’s wrath. President Obama gave a stirring speech after the Tucson shootings, but the White House has said and done too little about gun control since then.

Our first point, yes this is an editorial and opinions are opinions. But facts don’t lie – and this editorial has one of the facts wrong. It isn’t an outright lie, but it is done to make a point. Namely the statement: “high-powered military weapons,” which isn’t fair. First, the shooter in Tucson had no such firearm. So what does it have to do with this piece?

But there is also the point of “high-powered military weapons” that suggests that the guns most can actually buy at gun-shows are “military weapons,” which they are not. The guns are civilian versions and there is a huge difference whether the editors at the Times like it or not!

Next, we note “wary of the gun lobby’s wrath.” What does this mean? It almost suggests as if the gun lobby would use said “military weapons” in a reprisal. But that’s not the case. What the gun lobby would do is stir up voters, who would send President Obama and other anti-gun types packing. But isn’t that how lobbyists are supposed to work? Isn’t that their job whether we like it or not? And at the end of the day it isn’t the majority of voters casting their ballot on the issue? Why is this point always lost in these arguments.

The paper adds:

Ms. Giffords, a supporter of gun rights, was sent off with good wishes from lawmakers who could have done something to stem the carnage. “I will recover and will return,” Ms. Gifford vowed in a her resignation letter, which was read by a colleague. Her departure offered a tragic display of how easily a brilliant career in public service was cut short because of the nation’s inadequate gun laws.

Couldn’t it be that the nation’s mental health system is what really failed here? This argument blames the guns, and whether the Times likes it or there are a lot of guns out there, so the laws seem to be fairly adequate when all is said and done. Tragedies happen, but we don’t try to ban everything.

Will cruise ships be banned because of the recent disaster in Italy? Were airplanes banned because of 9/11? Are cars or even alcohol banned because of drunk drivers? It is such an interesting argument to make, but banning the item involved is only done when it includes guns.

WaPo Suggests Gun Lobby Stronger Than Obama

This week, just prior to the State of the Union, The Washington Post suggested (gasp!) that President Obama isn’t Superman – or if he is, the gun lobby is his kryptonite. In an editorial titled, “A prime-time call for gun control would honor Rep. Gabrielle Giffords,” the editors offered this thought:

Mr. Obama last year delivered his State of the Union just weeks after the Tucson massacre and in the presence of victims’ family members. Yet he, like so many politicians intimidated by the gun lobby’s muscle, could not muster a single word about the need for reasonable gun control measures to ward off such violence in the future.

We would love if President Obama called for gun control and made it his pinnacle platform! By all means, because it would surely lower his chances for re-election in November.

However, we do have to ask – how is it that the most powerful person on the planet is “intimidated” by a lobby group? Doesn’t this actually suggest that this is a hot button issue with voters? This is a point that the gun hating media never seems to grasp. If Obama is “intimidated” by the gun lobby, it is only because he knows making it an issue will cost him his job.

And since this is the case, doesn’t that mean MORE Americans are pro-gun. But to the gun-hating media that doesn’t seem to matter.

Mayor Bloomberg Calls Out Obama on Gun Control

For us this is a lose-lose scenario, but at least we’re not the ones losing. This week, prior to last night’s State of the Union, New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg called out President Obama on gun control. It was the usual nonsense, about “loopholes” and supposed “easy access” for criminals to obtain guns. The truth is that all the measures Bloomberg wants only make it that much harder for the law abiding.

But anytime one sleazy politician calls out another we think an angel get wings! Bloomberg’s Letter After the Jump

Buckeye Firearms Foundation: Top Threats To Gun Rights In 2012 & It May Be You

From the Buckeye Firearms Foundation:

Every January, Buckeye Firearms Association identifies the top 10 threats to our gun rights for the upcoming twelve months.

Historically, the list includes an ever changing line up of anti-gun personalities including the likes of Sarah Brady, Toby Hoover and New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg.

One of the people included on the list more times than any other, however, is the apathetic and uninformed gun owner.

Few individual threats pose more danger to the right to bear arms than the self-proclaimed gun-rights advocate who doesn’t support the latest pro-gun reform, or who refuses to take their business elsewhere when a company discriminates against gun owners. Read more

Ask Obama About Gunwalker

“What would you ask President Obama?” a January 23 email from The White House begins:

“Tomorrow, President Obama will deliver his State of the Union address at 9:00 p.m. ET. During that speech, he’ll lay out his vision for an America where hard work and responsibility are rewarded, where everyone does their fair share, and where everyone is held accountable for what they do.”

“There is a range of ways to get involved with this year’s State of the Union address.”

“Immediately following the President’s speech on Tuesday, be sure to stay tuned to WhiteHouse.gov/SOTU for a live panel featuring senior White House advisors answering your questions about the speech.”

Continue reading on Examiner.com http://www.examiner.com/gun-rights-in-national/ask-obama-about-gunwalker

About David Codrea:
David Codrea is a long-time gun rights advocate who defiantly challenges the folly of citizen disarmament. He is a field editor for GUNS Magazine, and a blogger at The War on Guns: Notes from the Resistance. Read more at www.DavidCodrea.com.

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.

Next Page »