By Kellene Bishop
While this site is dedicated primarily to the firearm self-defense education of future or current gun-owners—particularly women—I cannot avoid the genuine need to educate my readers on important matters of gun ownership. Indeed, your very ability to carry a firearm by which to defend yourself is intrinsically tied to our 2nd Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. This Amendment which reinforces your inalienable right to defend your life, your property and your liberty is consistently under fire from those who are threatened by it. While this may not make sense to a trusting citizen of this nation—that a government would attempt to take away such a security, especially in light of the fact that this same government has ruled time and time again that law enforcement, military, and even your own community members are under no obligation to protect you otherwise in any manner—it is still a matter of verifiable fact. The threat of the elimination of such rights has been thrust upon us ever since our leaders have been bedazzled with obtaining powers to which they are not entitled.
With great foresight based on a history of learning, the Founding Fathers specifically tied the right of the citizens to defend their liberty to their right to defend against a tyrannical government. Is it a coincidence that such a right to “keep and bear arms” was only the Second Amendment? I think not. As such it certainly cannot be accused of being a mere afterthought of our forefathers. Indeed, these wise servants of our nation desired that if the power of the spoken or written word was ineffective in ensuring the freedom and sovereignty our nation, then by all means they were willing to ensure such freedom by the “flint and lock.”
Since the sanctity of this right is consistently under fire, it’s impossible for any citizen to consider a firearm for personal self-defense and not be affected by the political landscape involved in such rights as well. As such, I feel it appropriate to enlighten my readers on matters which would circumvent or violate the Laws of the Land in this matter.
For a long time now, I’ve heard time and time again the misquote that “90 percent of the guns which are confiscated by criminals in Mexico come from the U.S.”
First of all, IF that was actually true, can I just say “SO WHAT?!” If the U.S. had provided guns to Mexico, did we do so with the intent that they be used for nefarious acts? I don’t think so. And if you believe that they were provided to Mexico with an ulterior motive, the U.S. doesn’t pull the trigger on such acts. The criminals do.
Secondly, I have written previous pieces regarding the fictitious state of such claims. However, while it may be common place for so-called journalists and gossipers to restate this mythical statistic, I believe it an act of ignorance and perhaps even treasonous for our Commander-in-Chief to do so. Recently, on his trip to Mexico, Obama “admitted” to President Calderon that “90% of the guns which are found in the use of crimes in Mexico have come from the U.S.” The problem is there was no such fact to “admit” anymore than it was a “fact” when he claimed that America was no longer a “Christian nation” at a recent international summit. This claim of the 90% weapon stuff is indeed NOT fact. And if Obama made such a statement knowing that it was in error, then he did so with the intent to put the American culture at odds with the rest of the world once again. In fact, a knowing mis-statement of this nature clearly shows his anti-gun agenda to the world, most importantly to those who elected him to office believing (however naively that may be) that he had a more favorable stance on the right of American citizens to defend themselves.
Here are the Make-No-Mistake-About-it-Facts on the guns in Mexico.
29,000 guns were recovered in Mexico in 2007 and 2008. 18,000 of those guns were clearly NOT from the U.S. They were instead from Israel, Turkey, Asia and other nations. So the remaining 11,000 guns were actually given to the ATF in hopes that they could be traced to somewhere, even if it was the U.S. Of those 11,000 guns which ATF received, only 6,000 were traceable, meaning that they had enough information such as serial numbers, brands, etc. to provide any tracing information. And finally, out of those 6,000 guns which were traceable, a whopping 5,114 were found to be from U.S. sources. U.S. sources means that they were purchased at a pawn shop, stolen from a U.S. owner, or obtained some other way within this nation and then delivered to Mexico.
5,114 guns out of 29,000 is nowhere near 90%. Yes, I realize that the people spouting this fictitious percentage of 90% are the very same people who don’t know how to calculate their taxes, read a bill prior to passing it, counting votes, and properly evaluate assets which they require the tax payers to foot the bill for…but come on! How in the world could they be so far off the mark?! It’s NOT 90%. It’s 17.6 percent. Gee. Just a LITTLE bit off there, eh? (If you must, you can read the ATF report here)
So what’s the motivation to spout such a number then? Hmm. Perhaps it gives the Powers That Be the ammunition they need (excuse the pun) to convince legislatures and gun-fearing ignoramus’s that there must be a ban on guns. After all, if there is a ban on guns then so many guns will not go to Mexico, right? We all know that the Brady Bill brought crime rates lower—NOT. And we all know that D. C., New York City, and the State of California which are notoriously anti-gun have very little crime as a result of their anti-gun laws, right? Yes, of course I’m being sarcastic. You see, here’s a rule of marketing… when you’re intending to support of falsehoods in your campaign, the only way you can do so is by dispensing more falsehoods! Statistics don’t lie. But plenty of folks lie about the statistics.
Folks, if you are really trying to get genuine information on the use of guns and their value to your life AND your freedom, please don’t get your information from the press. As I’ve said before, I perfectly accept someone’s right NOT to use or own a firearm so long as that person has come to such a conclusion via genuine education. Not to do so is about as wise as the Spaniards were in believing that the earth was flat… after all, wasn’t that published repeatedly as well?
(Clarification from the author: Let it be known that I am not a Republican, Democrat, or any other type of “it.” I do not attack anyone based on their political affiliation. (What kind of caliber they use for self-defense…yes, admittedly I may become quite riled when someone is stupid in this matter.) But otherwise I am merely an AMERICAN. As such I will defend American freedoms by taking to task anyone who would destroy such freedoms.
While this site is dedicated primarily to the firearm self-defense education of future or current gun-owners—particularly women—I cannot avoid the genuine need to educate my readers on important matters of gun ownership. Indeed, your very ability to carry a firearm by which to defend yourself is intrinsically tied to our 2nd Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. This Amendment which reinforces your inalienable right to defend your life, your property and your liberty is consistently under fire from those who are threatened by it. While this may not make sense to a trusting citizen of this nation—that a government would attempt to take away such a security, especially in light of the fact that this same government has ruled time and time again that law enforcement, military, and even your own community members are under no obligation to protect you otherwise in any manner—it is still a matter of verifiable fact. The threat of the elimination of such rights has been thrust upon us ever since our leaders have been bedazzled with obtaining powers to which they are not entitled.
With great foresight based on a history of learning, the Founding Fathers specifically tied the right of the citizens to defend their liberty to their right to defend against a tyrannical government. Is it a coincidence that such a right to “keep and bear arms” was only the Second Amendment? I think not. As such it certainly cannot be accused of being a mere afterthought of our forefathers. Indeed, these wise servants of our nation desired that if the power of the spoken or written word was ineffective in ensuring the freedom and sovereignty our nation, then by all means they were willing to ensure such freedom by the “flint and lock.”Since the sanctity of this right is consistently under fire, it’s impossible for any citizen to consider a firearm for personal self-defense and not be affected by the political landscape involved in such rights as well. As such, I feel it appropriate to enlighten my readers on matters which would circumvent or violate the Laws of the Land in this matter.
For a long time now, I’ve heard time and time again the misquote that “90 percent of the guns which are confiscated by criminals in Mexico come from the U.S.”
First of all, IF that was actually true, can I just say “SO WHAT?!” If the U.S. had provided guns to Mexico, did we do so with the intent that they be used for nefarious acts? I don’t think so. And if you believe that they were provided to Mexico with an ulterior motive, the U.S. doesn’t pull the trigger on such acts. The criminals do.
Secondly, I have written previous pieces regarding the fictitious state of such claims. However, while it may be common place for so-called journalists and gossipers to restate this mythical statistic, I believe it an act of ignorance and perhaps even treasonous for our Commander-in-Chief to do so. Recently, on his trip to Mexico, Obama “admitted” to President Calderon that “90% of the guns which are found in the use of crimes in Mexico have come from the U.S.” The problem is there was no such fact to “admit” anymore than it was a “fact” when he claimed that America was no longer a “Christian nation” at a recent international summit. This claim of the 90% weapon stuff is indeed NOT fact. And if Obama made such a statement knowing that it was in error, then he did so with the intent to put the American culture at odds with the rest of the world once again. In fact, a knowing mis-statement of this nature clearly shows his anti-gun agenda to the world, most importantly to those who elected him to office believing (however naively that may be) that he had a more favorable stance on the right of American citizens to defend themselves.Here are the Make-No-Mistake-About-it-Facts on the guns in Mexico.
29,000 guns were recovered in Mexico in 2007 and 2008. 18,000 of those guns were clearly NOT from the U.S. They were instead from Israel, Turkey, Asia and other nations. So the remaining 11,000 guns were actually given to the ATF in hopes that they could be traced to somewhere, even if it was the U.S. Of those 11,000 guns which ATF received, only 6,000 were traceable, meaning that they had enough information such as serial numbers, brands, etc. to provide any tracing information. And finally, out of those 6,000 guns which were traceable, a whopping 5,114 were found to be from U.S. sources. U.S. sources means that they were purchased at a pawn shop, stolen from a U.S. owner, or obtained some other way within this nation and then delivered to Mexico.
5,114 guns out of 29,000 is nowhere near 90%. Yes, I realize that the people spouting this fictitious percentage of 90% are the very same people who don’t know how to calculate their taxes, read a bill prior to passing it, counting votes, and properly evaluate assets which they require the tax payers to foot the bill for…but come on! How in the world could they be so far off the mark?! It’s NOT 90%. It’s 17.6 percent. Gee. Just a LITTLE bit off there, eh? (If you must, you can read the ATF report here)
So what’s the motivation to spout such a number then? Hmm. Perhaps it gives the Powers That Be the ammunition they need (excuse the pun) to convince legislatures and gun-fearing ignoramus’s that there must be a ban on guns. After all, if there is a ban on guns then so many guns will not go to Mexico, right? We all know that the Brady Bill brought crime rates lower—NOT. And we all know that D. C., New York City, and the State of California which are notoriously anti-gun have very little crime as a result of their anti-gun laws, right? Yes, of course I’m being sarcastic. You see, here’s a rule of marketing… when you’re intending to support of falsehoods in your campaign, the only way you can do so is by dispensing more falsehoods! Statistics don’t lie. But plenty of folks lie about the statistics.
Folks, if you are really trying to get genuine information on the use of guns and their value to your life AND your freedom, please don’t get your information from the press. As I’ve said before, I perfectly accept someone’s right NOT to use or own a firearm so long as that person has come to such a conclusion via genuine education. Not to do so is about as wise as the Spaniards were in believing that the earth was flat… after all, wasn’t that published repeatedly as well?
(Clarification from the author: Let it be known that I am not a Republican, Democrat, or any other type of “it.” I do not attack anyone based on their political affiliation. (What kind of caliber they use for self-defense…yes, admittedly I may become quite riled when someone is stupid in this matter.) But otherwise I am merely an AMERICAN. As such I will defend American freedoms by taking to task anyone who would destroy such freedoms.
Posts
