Here's the latest from my fellow GREs:
Sean McClanahan/Des Moines:
David Codrea/National:
Dave Workman/Seattle:
Also check out these other Liberty-oriented Examiners:
Here's the latest from my fellow GREs:
Sean McClanahan/Des Moines:
Nearly every gun "buyback" of which I am aware (and certainly all of the really big ones, like those listed above) are administered and run by the police, meaning--you guessed it--every gun surrendered for a gift card, or whatever the inducement of the day--goes into "police custody." Instant "crime gun"--no crime necessary. Many "buybacks"--even those where it is promised that there will be "no questions asked" involve a check to see if the gun was used in a crime. But even a negative return on that check (which presumably includes the BATFE's "eTrace") will result in one more tally in the "crime guns" column. [More]That's today's St. Louis Gun Rights Examiner. Please give it a look, and tell a friend.
Here's the latest from my fellow GREs:
Liston Matthews/Knoxville:
In other words, this "threat to public safety in the U.S." is apparently a function of firearms becoming more affordable, according to the BATFE. In still other words, we are apparently to believe that "public safety" requires the disarming of the poor. This is a theme I have discussed often in the past, in such articles as "Disarming the poor," "Delaware Public Housing Authority's attempt to disarm the poor," and "Legal self-defense in Chicago: the poor need not apply." [More]That's today's St. Louis Gun Rights Examiner. Please give it a look, and tell a friend.
Here's the latest from my fellow GREs:
Sean McClanahan/Des Moines:
What's most telling, though, I think, is that anyone who denies that it is legitimate to resist, by force of arms, a tyrannical government, can only be arguing that resistance to tyranny is not legitimate. In other words, we are, apparently, expected to sit here and take it. [More]That's today's St. Louis Gun Rights Examiner. Please give it a look, and tell a friend.
Here's the latest from my fellow GREs:
Steve D. Jones/Fort Smith:
That's today's St. Louis Gun Rights Examiner. I hope it's worth your time--if only for the chuckle I hope you get from the photo caption.In an interview, [Deputy Director Kenneth] Melson said the ATF would no longer release such figures "because these percentages have been misused, misinterpreted, for political agendas on both sides of the gun issue.I don't know about "both sides," Deputy Director Melson, but I certainly agree with your assertion that the figures have been misused for a political agenda. [More]
Here's the latest from my fellow GREs:
Steve D. Jones/Fort Smith:
In the end, remember, our possession of guns offends the gun-haters, just as Westboro Baptist's hate speech offends people with any decency. The fact that it's entirely reasonable to be offended by their verbal toxicity, and entirely unreasonable to be offended by the exercise of the Constitutionally guaranteed, fundamental human right of the individual to keep and bear arms, is immaterial. [More]That's today's St. Louis Gun Rights Examiner. Hope it's worth your time.
But wait a second--I thought passing laws to close the so-called (mythical) "terror gap" was supposed to protect us from just the kind of danger that has Europe so worried. It's almost as if no one really expects all the gun laws to pose much of an obstacle to aspiring jihadists who want to get guns. [More]That's today's St. Louis Gun Rights Examiner. Please give it a look, and tell a friend.
The only plausible reason for not sharing that little detail is that the percentage is low enough that it hurts the case the gun-haters are trying to make, rather than helps it. And that leads us to one more question, although it's an elementary one--why doesn't the BATFE trace a very high percentage of the seized guns? What plausible answer to that question can there be, other than that a large proportion of those guns have never been on the U.S. commercial market, and thus tracing them would undermine the case the gun-haters are trying to make? [More]That's today's St. Louis Gun Rights Examiner. Hope to see you there.
Days of Our Trailers notes that the Brady Campaign's Dennis Henigan is apparently mathematically challenged, judging from his latest Huff 'n' Puff Post piece (not to mention factually challenged, and we cannot forget his unfortunate Constitutionally challenged condition).
I made an observation:
Says Henigagn:Huge numbers of guns are involved. According to a new report, U.S. Firearms Trafficking to Mexico, by the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars and the University of San Diego Trans-Border Institute, of 75,000 firearms seized by the Mexican government in the last three years, about 80%, or 60,000 firearms, came from the United States.Wrong. If you read the report itself, and then check the footnoted references, you will find that the report derives its "80%" figure from this Washington Post article: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/05/20/AR2010052002911.html
What that article says is quite different: "Calderón said his government had seized 75,000 guns in Mexico in a three-year period and found that 80 percent of those whose origin could be traced were bought in the United States."
80% "of those whose origin could be traced."
Quite a difference. The sleight of hand of ignoring the "whose origin could be traced" part has from the beginning been a key component of the strategy of those who want to use Mexican crime to justify yet more restrictive gun laws in the U.S.
Dear 45superman,Um . . . not so fast (modified to correct a bad link):
I beg to differ. I am one of the authors of the report you refer to and know first hand. If you check the other source the author gives, from the Washington Times, it says more directly that of the 75,000 firearms seized around 80 percent of them came from the United States. In addition, I have heard from several ATF officials and other U.S. government officials that the 60,000 figure (total amount of U.S.-origin firearms seized by Mexico from 2007 to 2009) I use is fairly accurate. The reason ATF knows this is that Mexico has been providing a lot more firearm trace requests. As of May 2010, ATF had information on 69,808 firearms recovered in Mexico from 2007 to 2009, which is tens of thousands of firearms more than it had information on as of June 2009. While it's important to continue ask ATF for exact data, it's also important to fully recognize that Mexican DTOs are using U.S.-origin firearms on a massive scale and something needs to be done to stop their easy access to firearms in the United States.
Colby Goodman
Mr. Goodman, I stand by my original contention. The Washington Times seems to have used less carefully accurate wording than the Washington Post (in that the Post included the "of those that can be traced" qualifier, and the Times did not).Tell a lie often (and loudly) enough . . . and we'll still hammer you for it.
I have ascertained this by going to the text of President Caldeón's address itself: http://bit.ly/coXs8m
There, we find this: "Just to give you an idea, we have seized 75,000 guns and assault weapons in Mexico in the last 3 years, and more than 80 percent of those we have been able to trace came from the United States."
As for your anecdotes about what you "have heard from several ATF officials and other U.S. government officials," come back to me about what they say under oath.
Steve D. Jones/Fort Smith:
Disarming heroes and shooting cops in self-defense
Liston Matthews/Knoxville:
Why is the left hostile to America?
David Codrea/National:
School's anti-gun bigotry is what's offensive
Dave Workman/Seattle:
Is this what Washington Post calls "sensible" gun regulation?
As we've discussed before (and again here), imposing prohibitive costs on the exercise of the Second Amendment is, like the poll tax, inherently racist, because ethnic minorities tend to disproportionately occupy the the lower economic strata. To quote Roy Innis, National Chairman of the Congress of Racial Equality (CORE): [More]That's today's St. Louis Gun Rights Examiner. Hope you find it worth your time.
Furthermore, in saying that the Discovery Channel headquarters incident "affirms the illegitimacy of political violence," they are equating a guy ready to kill to stop the broadcast of "Kate Plus 8," with, say, this guy--a comparison that is nothing less than evil . . . . [More]That's today's St. Louis Gun Rights Examiner. Sorry for the long silence. I expect to be gradually re-enter the gun writer world, so please keep an eye open for more soon.
Here's the latest from my Gun Rights Examiner colleagues:
Anthony Bouchard/Cheyenne:
Ron Micheli attacked by D.C. based union SEIU
Chicago style union thuggery makes an entrance into Wyoming. You say - "Not here, it can't happen in Wyoming"...Think again. SEIU, the...Keep Reading »
Here's the latest from my Gun Rights Examiner colleagues:
Sean McClanahan/Des Moines:
Iowa Public Radio talks about the new gun laws and gets it almost right
Here's the latest from my Gun Rights Examiner colleagues:
Anthony Bouchard/Cheyenne:
Matt Mead for governor, plagued by anti-gun past
What does a politician like Matt Mead do when they want to cover-up their “anti-gun” past? Simple, just use the media. But let us shine...Keep Reading »
Here's the latest from my Gun Rights Examiner colleagues:
Dan Bidstrup/Denver:
Wheat Ridge man faces attempted murder charges for using his gun
Here's the latest from my Gun Rights Examiner colleagues:
Dan Bidstrup/Denver:
In California it just gets better and better
The second Amendment is needed more than ever! Oakland, California announced yesterday a list of crimes they simply can't get to if they lay off...Keep Reading »
Here's the latest from my Gun Rights Examiner colleagues:
Don Gwinn/Chicago:
America's Victory Shoot--celebrating McDonald victory with handguns and training
Under a cloudless July sky in downtown Chicago last week, McDonald plaintiffs David and Colleen Lawson addressed the irony of Chicago's response:...Keep Reading »
Here's the latest from my Gun Rights Examiner colleagues:
Don Gwinn/Chicago:
New York Times editorial page mocks a Chicago son's "hypothetical" defense of his mother(This piece interrupts a continuing series on the Benson v. Chicago lawsuit, which began here and here. That series will continue.) Today, Gun Rights...Keep Reading »
Here's the latest from my Gun Rights Examiner colleagues:
Don Gwinn/Chicago:
Second Amendment Freedom Rally today in downtown Chicago
Here's the latest from my Gun Rights Examiner colleagues:
Don Gwinn/Chicago:
If you liked Mcdonald v. Chicago, you'll love Benson, Count II: teenagers with guns
This is Part II in a series. For the whole picture, start with Part I: "If you liked McDonald v. Chicago, you'll love Benson" at...Keep Reading »
Sean McClanahan/Des Moines:
It attacks Chicago gun laws on eight counts (defining the "home" as not including the porch or garage, 21-year age minimum for gun ownership, gun shop ban, etc.).That's today's St. Louis Gun Rights Examiner. Please give it a look (and a digg?) and tell a friend.
The next few (or perhaps rather more than a few) years of litigation will play an enormous role in determining how far the forcible citizen disarmament lobby will get in turning the Constitutionally guaranteed, fundamental human right of the individual to keep and bear arms into a mere privilege, to be granted or not at the whim of the government. [More]
Here's the latest from my Gun Rights Examiner colleagues:
Don Gwinn/Chicago:
If you liked Mcdonald v. Chicago, you'll love Benson v. Chicago
I hope everyone had a good Independence Day weekend. I haven't done a Round Up since last Friday, so here's what my Gun Rights Examiner colleagues have been up to:
Don Gwinn/Chicago:
Chicago's Second Amendment Freedom Rally is this Friday!
Here's the latest from my Gun Rights Examiner colleagues:
Anthony Bouchard/Cheyenne:
Newcastle Wyoming, police terrorize family on an alleged barking dog complaint
CHEYENNE - It’s some time after midnight, you are awakened by a loud persistent pounding at your front door. As you head to the front door...Keep Reading »
As I said when Washington's inmate voting prohibition was struck down, if denying an inmate the right to vote is "racist," because the inmate population is unfairly tilted racially, then denying an ex-convict an effective means of self-defense would have to be at least as egregious an example of racial injustice. Since I agree with National Gun Rights Examiner David Codrea, that any ex-convict so dangerous so as to be impossible to be trusted with a gun cannot be trusted to roam free among the populace without a keeper, I think Ms. Adams has something of a point. [More]That's today's St. Louis Gun Rights Examiner. Please give it a look (a digg?) and tell a friend.
But what about the people who actually live in cities with the most oppressive gun laws--and often some of the most dangerous neighborhoods? Reverend Al Sharpton found what was to him a surprising answer, as reported on Brian Maloney's Radio Equalizer . . . [More]That's today's St. Louis Gun Rights Examiner. Please give it a look (and a digg?) and tell a friend.
A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition.Rudyard Kipling
America is at that awkward stage. It's too late to work within the system, but too early to shoot the bastards.Claire Wolfe
When I die, it won't be for lack of firepower.45superman