The media will do anything to keep Eric Holder in a good light. Politico has a piece up about Mr. Holder’s statements on more police deaths. According to Politico the statistic jumped 13% in 2011 and Mr. Holder said it is “a devastating and unacceptable trend.” He blames them on illegal firearms.

Yes, the man who is in charge of the department that allowed 2,000 guns to be illegally bought and walked into Mexico — resulting in the deaths of 300 Mexican civilians and Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry — is upset about deaths caused by people using illegally purchased guns. Mr. Holder goes on to say:

“This is a devastating and unacceptable trend. Each of these deaths is a tragic reminder of the threats that law enforcement officers face each day,” Holder in a statement. “I want to assure the family members and loved ones who have mourned the loss of these heroes that we are responding to this year’s increased violence with renewed vigilance and will do everything within our power — and use every tool at our disposal — to keep our police officers safe.”

What a slap in the face to Brian Terry’s family. It wasn’t until Senator John Cornyn asked Mr. Holder if he apologized or expressed remorse to Mr. Terry’s family that Mr. Holder finally did say something to them. Ironically it was Politico (and the article was written by Tim Mak, author of this article) who leaked the apology to the public before Mr. Terry’s mother even had a chance to see and open it. It’s nice Mr. Holder is reassuring the family members of these fallen heroes, but why did it take so long for him to say something to Agent Terry’s family, especially since one of the guns from Operation Fast and Furious was used to murder Agent Terry?

(more…)

Come on Media Matters for America, you’re making it way too easy to prove you’re an Obama propaganda machine and should not be tax exempt. I would prefer a better challenge. I’ve already had to fix one of Chris Brown’s articles and now he has another out there filled with misinformation.

Mr. Brown wrote about the NRA’s “conspiracy theories” and, of course, one of them was about Operation Fast and Furious. Mr. Brown titles this part, “What the … Botched ATF Operation Initiated To Promote Gun Control?” First of all, Fast and Furious was NOT botched. This is how it was suppose to work. Secondly, this isn’t a “ridiculous claim” because it’s true. I already had to point out to Mr. Brown that Sharyl Attkisson at CBS News has documents proving the ATF was using Fast and Furious as a way to implement tougher gun control laws.

Mr. Brown says, “What’s truly breathtaking is LaPierre’s willingness to push such wild conjecture absent any evidence.” No, Mr. Brown it’s truly breath taking that no matter how much evidence is presented you and MMfA keep on the rose colored glasses. Again, look at the documents Ms. Attkisson provided in her report. There is evidence the ATF was using Operation Fast and Furious to promote tougher gun control.

(more…)

I’m speechless. Last night on ABC World News reported about illegal gun sales in New York. New York City Mayor Bloomberg is on top of it! So many gun sellers sold guns to people who wouldn’t pass a background check! Mayor Bloomberg said something has to be done!

ABC World News appears to be outraged this is going on! This was the second story on their show. There’s quite a bit of information on this on their website too. One of their investigative reporters even went undercover, posing as a 17 year-old trying to buy a gun online. They put up Mayor Bloomberg’s press conference too. I bet they would be so angry if the federal government sold guns illegally.

Oh wait. THEY HAVE. And guess what ABC World News! One of those guns was used to murder Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry. You know what yesterday was? The one year anniversary of his murder.

Yes, ABC World News did a report on illegal gun sales in New York City on the one year anniversary of Brian Terry’s death. You show outrage at ordinary citizens breaking federal gun laws, but no outrage at the federal government for breaking their own federal gun laws? On the anniversary of Brian Terry’s death? We don’t care if it was a coincidence.

The fact is ABC World News should be ashamed of themselves. How can they be angry about this and not Operation Fast & Furious? How can they report, even go undercover to investigate this and not do the same for Operation Fast & Furious?! Hello ABC World News a gun illegally sold to Mexican drug cartels was used to murder Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry on American soil. Why the lack of outrage over this?

(more…)

On January 8 2011, a criminal named Jared Loughner opened fire on a crowd outside a Safeway grocery store in Tucson, Arizona. As a result, six people were killed and many others injured: among them, U.S. Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords (D-AZ).

What happened that day was a crime and a tragedy. And while it reminded sensible, salt-of-the-earth Americans of the need to arm ourselves to protect our families from criminals like Loughner, it has taught the left nothing. This is demonstrated by the fact that they have spent the months since January calling for more gun control while also doing their best to spare Loughner from prosecution because of his mental state.

Moreover, from the moment the shooting happened till now, they have continued to blame it on Sarah Palin. (I have no doubt they would also be blaming Charlton Heston, were he not already in heaven where their machinations cannot harm him.)

But as it is, wimpy leftists like Piers Morgan are still trying to demonstrate that Palin had some culpability in Giffords’ shooting because she had marked certain congressional races with crosshairs on a map to show tea partiers which races needed to be focused on. (To my knowledge, Morgan has yet to say anything about the fact the left was targeting certain conservative congressional districts with bulls-eyes at the same time that Palin was using crosshairs.)

As a matter of fact, just this week—over 11 months since Giffords was shot—Morgan wasted another entire segment of his unwatched show expressing outrage over the fact that Palin has yet to apologize for the fact that Giffords was shot.

Talking to Giffords’ husband, Mark Kelly (who is doing his shameful best to sell books in the wake of his wife’s shooting), Morgan said:

In her haste to take no responsibility, [Palin] didn’t even bother to pick the phone up, to write, to do anything. I find that extraordinary.

Since when is Palin obligated to call members of congress who face some extraordinary hardship?  Even the hint that should she have called demonstrates just how divorced from reality Morgan really is.

(more…)

So far this month, two MSNBC personalities—Alex Wagner and Craig Melvin—have twice mocked or otherwise maligned the Second Amendment and the people who look to it as a bedrock guarantee of the right to keep and bear arms. In one instance, Wagner even called for us to “get rid of the second Amendment” altogether and to bid adieu to “the right to bear arms.”

If you’re thinking that you’ve never heard of either Wagner or Melvin, that’s okay, no one else has either; they’re on MSNBC, for Pete’s sake.

Anyway, MSNBC or not, the two mental heavyweights each made some statements that are so ludicrous they must either flow from raw ignorance or an ideologically-driven arrogance that is unimaginable to the average American.

For example, on November 1st, Melvin was guest hosting News Nation when he tried to take Spartanburg, S.C. Sheriff Chuck Wright to task for suggesting women in Spartanburg should arm themselves to defend against would-be rapists. In fact, the Sheriff not only suggested getting a weapon, but actually used a press conference to describe the best kinds of handguns women should consider carrying: “They got one called ‘The Judge’ that shoots a .45 or a .410 shell. [With it] you ain’t gotta be accurate. You just gotta get close.”

Asked Melvin: “If women are shooting potential attackers, aren’t they presuming guilt before innocence? What if a woman kills an attacker? Isn’t that opening another whole legal can of worms?”

Sheriff Wright responded: “Well, it’s easy to fix that. Just don’t attack a woman.” (more…)

When the scandalous “Operation: Fast and Furious” began to get attention from Republican lawmakers and finally the press, the guardians of Left’s pro-Obama / Democrat narrative tried to discredit the people talking about it. Chief among the smear factories was, of course, Media Matters. The gun-walking operation, which has led to numerous deaths in Mexico and the murder of at least one Federal Agent – Brian Terry, is clearly a disaster. But in the sick and twisted world of Media Matters, the real threat comes from the people speaking out against their Dear Leader’s potentially criminal debacle.

Several commentators have speculated the operation was purposely botched in order to lend some real world data to the assertion that the guns used in Mexico mainly come from the United States, the crux of the argument being that this statistic bolsters attempts for tighter gun control here in the US. It may be a leap to make the connection, but the statistic has been used in reporting about the Mexican drug wars. Reporting including statements like this:

But finding a way to stop the weapons flow, now known as the “Iron River,” is being hindered to some extent by U.S. gun laws, officials say. In November, the inspector general of the Department of Justice detailed the problem, citing the lack of a federal statute specifically prohibiting firearms trafficking.

Again, it might be a leap, but the jump isn’t that far. The point is that there’s really no reason to paint those who have been following Fast and Furious as kooks because they see the potential. Someone should be asking these questions, but those questions are uncomfortable for the Obama administration, and Media Matters can’t have that. When Democrats are being questioned, Media Matters goons suddenly become strict constructionists in interpreting journalistic standards. They also try really hard to shoot the messengers like Mike Vanderboegh.

(more…)

I usually email and post an article after I’ve done all the research on a show about Operation Fast and Furious, but Rachel Maddow will be a two-parter because of her May 6th 2011 episode. In this episode Ms. Maddow attends the NRA convention with Meghan McCain, Senator John McCain’s daughter and she speaks with Rev Ricky Burgess, Pittsburgh City Councilman, in two segments. Ms. Maddow and Rev Burgess were making the case for more gun control. Ms. Maddow used Tuscon and the shooting of Representative Giffords as her prime example while Rev Burgess used his part of Pittsburgh as the reason for more gun control. One thing that came up in both conversations were assault rifles. I bet you can guess what was NOT mentioned:Operation Fast and Furious or Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry.

Before I say more here is the email I sent to Ms. Maddow. Of course I attached a picture of Brian Terry.

(more…)

Everyone wants to keep guns away from criminals, but gun control advocates, such as Media Matters, don’t want to acknowledge that there are costs to disarming law-abiding citizens. Lately Media Matters has particularly been incensed that anyone would point out that the vast majority of denials from Brady Act background checks involve so-called “false positives” — law-abiding citizens incorrectly being identified as banned individuals.

Media Matters claims that all those stopped by the background checks from buying guns are prohibited individuals, that no mistakes are made by the government. And Media Matters is willing to engage in any amount of name calling and fraudulent photos to attack those who question their claims.

There are several things to understand about how the Brady Law background check process works. At gun stores or other registered dealers, would-be buyers have to fill out a form asking whether there are any criminal convictions or types of mental illness that would prevent them from legally purchasing the weapon. Falsely answering these questions amounts to perjury. If someone answers the question by saying that they have a background that prohibits them from buying, a gun dealers stop right there and do not even process those forms. And if someone is believed to have knowingly provided false information on the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) form and prosecutors believe that they can prove that knowingly false information was provided, the would-be buyer faces prosecution.

Yet, the NICS system accidentally flags many law-abiding people, stopping those who simply have the same name as a prohibited individual from buying a gun.

(more…)

From time to time, an event of national significance serves as a Rorschach test for whether you are on the left or the right.  This is the case with the rampage in Tuscon this past Saturday.  Enter Tom Brokaw:

To a leftist like Brokaw, a 22-year-old male shot 19 innocent people attending a rally in front of a Safeway, killing six, and nearly assassinating a sitting U.S. Congresswoman, and it’s the fault of… the gun.  This is clarifying.

For those of us on the right, we have a different reaction.  First we see a tragedy perpetrated by an individual capable of pure evil that should have been locked away from society years ago.  We see a town Sheriff, who knew the evil individual had previously made death threats, suspiciously anxious to pass off blame to the political right (the famous quote from Hamlet comes to mind: he “doth protest too much, methinks”).  And lastly, we wonder if more people in the crowd had concealed weapons on their persons, would Jared Lee Loughner have gotten off a whopping twenty gun shots, killed six people, and wounded a dozen more? (more…)

Despite all our experience with permitted concealed handguns, the debate continues. There are always fears about what might happen.  A New York Times article on Monday repeated some of those concerns in an article on Utah’s permit system:

Peter Hamm, a spokesman for the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, asserted that Utah’s policy was dangerous because many states were lax in submitting felony and mental health records to the federal database used for background checks.

“I think it’s absolutely shameful and ludicrously irresponsible to say that anybody anywhere who wants one of our concealed-carry permits, and thus will be able to carry legally in dozens of states, can just log on to our Web site and pay 60 bucks and that’s all she wrote,” Mr. Hamm said. . . .

It is interesting that the reporter, Dan Frosch, used the term “asserted” when describing the Brady Campaign’s claims.  Indeed, the article makes it clear that much more is required to get a permit than simply logging on to a website and paying $60.  Criminal background checks and a four hour training course are also necessary.  But there was a way of directly evaluating the Brady Campaign’s other claim that permit holders pose a danger to others.  In fact, it is easy to show that permit holders are extremely law-abiding by looking at the Utah Department of Public Safety’s quarterly “Firearm Statistical Review.”

With over 226,000 active concealed-handgun permits as of March 31, 2010, there were only 14 revocations for any type of firearms-related offense over the preceding twelve months. These offenses are also usually trivial, such as accidentally carrying a permitted concealed handgun into a gun free zone. (more…)

In 2008, as the Supreme Court was preparing to hear D.C. vs. Heller, the case against D.C. handgun ban, liberal news outlets were going out their way to explain why the ban should be kept in place. Anti-gun columnists like Marian Wright Edelman, writing for the Huffington Post, argued that the ban ought to be upheld as a means of “protecting the health and safety of America’s children.” The Court did not agree with Edelman.

Earlier this year, as the Supreme Court was considering McDonald vs. Chicago, the case against Chicago’s handgun ban, gun-grabbing Mayor Richard Daley scoffed at the pending decision. In May 2010 he told the Chicago Tribune that maybe one of the justices would “have an incident and…change their mind” on guns: that they might “see the light of day.” But I suppose none of the justices had an “incident,” because the Court did not agree with Daley.

When the Supreme Court ruled against the D.C. gun ban in the Heller decision, gun owners and lovers of liberty were elated. But amid all the joy, it began to dawn on people that because D.C. was a federal district instead of a city in state, the ruling was not likely to reverse bans in cities there were in states. This meant Chicagoans were likely to continue living unarmed, because Mayor Daley was consumed with the thought of preventing law-abiding citizens from keeping arms on their persons or in their homes. (more…)

The Ohio Free Press, an independent online news source run by liberty-minded citizens, has its sights fixed on setting the record straight and is taking aim squarely at one newspaper’s editor.

Two and a half years ago, when readers of the Sandusky Register in Ohio opened the paper on June 25, 2007, many were shocked to find their name, age and county of residence published alongside those of nearly 2,700 other law-abiding private citizens.  At the top of the page read only the title, “Sandusky County Concealed Carry List“, accompanied by a menacing graphic with the words “Conceal Carry: Who Needs to Know?” cunningly framed around a gun’s scope.  While the page offered no other content or context whatsoever, the lack of such more than set the tone.  It may as well have been headlined, “Hey – Fear These Scary Gun-Toting People.” (more…)

Pollster Frank Luntz is trying to hawk his new poll on gun laws commissioned by the left-wing group, Mayors Against Illegal Guns. He’s trying to sell the concept that NRA members are just as interested in “common-sense gun policies” as anti-gun nuts and that legislators should take this into account when crafting future anti-gun legislation. The problem is that this poll (.pdf at link) is misleading in some important ways, and the fact that the devil is in the details is totally glossed over.

In an op ed in the Los Angeles Times written by Luntz and Tom Barrett, gun owners are compared favorably with non-gun owners over their feelings on gun banning laws. “The culture war over the right to bear arms isn’t much of a war after all,” the pair tells us. “As it turns out, there is a lot everyone agrees on.”

And this main point serves as the biggest problem with Luntz’s poll. Of course everyone will claim he’s for “common-sense” firearms laws. But the first thing that anyone will find out when discussing concrete policies is that disagreement quickly reigns when people start getting specific. An assumption that everyone “agrees” on just what common sense means disappears pretty quickly when the details are laid out. (more…)