False NRA Attacks On Obama and Biden Backfire
The presidential campaign is entering the home stretch, and once again the National Rifle Association leadership is firing its big propaganda guns at the Democratic candidates for president and vice president.
The difference this year? The guns have jammed.
The NRA leadership likes to talk a lot about freedom, but when it comes to their political advertising and direct-mail literature, they must mean the "freedom" to distort and deceive.
This week at least two national news organizations plus a leading political watchdog (along with the Brady Campaign) criticized a new NRA advertising effort being waged against Senators Barack Obama and Joe Biden.
Among other things, observers characterized this ad campaign as "a huge stretch" (The Washington Post), "misleading" (CNN), and one that "distorts Obama's position on gun control beyond recognition" (FactCheck.org).
This is nothing new. Congressional Quarterly and The St. Petersburg Times also recently gave the NRA their "Pants On Fire" award for being "not just misleading, [but] intentionally dishonest. That is, Pants on Fire wrong."
What's more, NRA leaders seem to forget that they used nearly the same deceptive vitriol on Sen. John McCain just a few years ago.
For example:
Of course they didn't "forget." The fact is, for all their vaunted election prowess, they're stuck with a C-plus student as their "valedictorian" this year and there's nothing they can do about it.
The NRA's leaders are looking down the barrel of an election year pointed right at them and they're scared to death.
Yet after the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in D.C. v. Heller, it should be clear to the American people, and specifically gun owners, that nobody's going to "take your guns away."
Sadly, NRA leaders seem to feel their only option is to make Americans so afraid that they can't see the truth about the candidates -- or the NRA's pattern of deception.
Thankfully, the American people are catching on.
(Note to readers: This entry, along with past entries, has been co-posted on bradycampaign.org/blog and the Huffington Post.)
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Since Jade claims that they have, I'm sure some evidence will be forthcoming any decade now.
"The NRA never claimed it had the ability to defeat Obama on its own. "
Of course, they have. Don't be silly.
When they ask you for donations so that they can defeat Obama--do you really think they're just saying that but intend to use the money on new carpeting?
I didn't say they were not trying to defeat Obama. Trying listening for a change. What I said was, they never claimed they alone held the ability to defeat him. There are just too many factors in an election for one lobbying group concerned with one issue to have the ability to make or break a presidency. It will never happen, and the NRA knows it.
Second try:
Well, Good Afternoon, Tool! Glad to see you back!
Hey, Dude, we are still waiting for you to tell us just how you determined that I am unqualifie
Old SF MJT
So much for EmilyU making excuses for NRA lies.
Obama's up 10 points in VA. A state Dem prez candidates haven't carried in over 40 years.
McSame's given up on Michigan.
We're talking landslide.
So much for the NRA.
The NRA did not lie and I am not offering excuses. Further, your post fails to refute anything I wrote. And finally, tying an increase in Obama's polling numbers to what the NRA did or did not write is disingenuous at best.
The NRA never claimed it had the ability to defeat Obama on its own. Obviously there are many issues at stake in the elections, and people are not going to vote solely on the issue of guns.
It does indeed look like Obama will win the election, but as I've said before, that's not going to hurt the NRA. If anything, it may help them. If Obama wins, I bet we'll see a drastic increase in their membership.
Where are these lies and excuses?
Never seem to get an answer to that one.
Seems the Joyce Foundation doesn't agree:
"Sen. Barack Obama panders hard to the NRA in a new ad running in Ohio, Pennsylvania and North Carolina according to Politico.
In the ad, the voiceover says that "Barack Obama supports gun rights, our right to defend ourselves, and the Second Amendment.
Obama has, unfortunately, taken the gun lobby's bait and framed his position on guns in terms of "rights" and "self-protection" versus fighting the lobbyists and special interests who control the agenda in Washington. Hmm, is that really "change we can believe in" Sen. Obama?"
-Gun Guys
NRA Claim: "Expand the Clinton Semi-Auto Weapons Ban to Include Millions More Firearms"
FactCheck says “Partly true”.
FactCheck concedes that Obama wants to restore the ban, but denies he wants to expand it.
“Obama's policy statement doesn't mention any expansion of the expired ban, however.” – FactCheck
FactCheck is correct there.
However, as pointed out by others, while an Illinois Senator, Obama supported a looser version of the federal law for state law. For example, the federal law required that to be an “assault weapon”, a rifle had to be a semi-auto fed from a detachable magazine and have two or more other characteristics from the list. In Illinois, the bill supported by Obama only required one of these characteristics. Thus, expanding the definition and affecting even more firearms.
Verdict: NRA
NRA Claim: "Mandate a Government-Issued License to Purchase a Firearm"
FactCheck says “Misleading”.
“Obama indeed has spoken in favor of licensing handguns, but so far as we can determine he hasn't called for registration of hunting weapons.” - FactCheck
FactCheck confuses licensing with registration. A license is a writ issued to a person giving them permission to do or possess something, in this case a firearm. Registration of a firearm is a record that a person possesses a specific firearm.
Obama clearly supports Illinois’ FOID (Firearm Owner’s Identification system), which is a government issued license and applies to all firearms including rifles and shotguns… common hunting arms.
Further, FactCheck incorrectly assumes that handguns are not used for hunting.
Verdict: NRA.
NRA Claim: "Ban Rifle Ammunition Commonly Used for Hunting and Sport Shooting"
FactCheck says “False”.
The turth is bill Obama voted for does not say “handgun ammunition”. It says ammunition which “may be used in a handgun"
“Handgun ammunition” refers to ammunition originally designed for use in a handgun. Ammunition which “may be used in a handgun” means any ammunition which will work in even one of thousands of handguns.
Consider this: “Rifle ammunition” is ammo which was originally designed for use in rifles. Ammunition which “may be used in a rifle” means any ammo for which there is even one rifle so chambered. The 9x19 mm AKA 9 mm Luger was designed around 1902 for use in a handgun, making it “handgun ammunition”, but there have been numerous rifles chambered for this cartridge, making it ammo which “may be used in a rifle”.
Do the same thing with say a .243 Winchester cartridge. This is “rifle ammunition” in that it was originally introduced for use in a hunting rifle. However, there have been several commercially sold handguns which chamber this cartridge, rendering it ammo which “may be used in a handgun”. (Thompson Contender, Savage Striker, Weatherby CFP, and others)
Just about every rifle cartridge has been chambered in a handgun, from the diminutive .223 Remington to the powerful .50 BMG.
Verdict: NRA, even though they overstate things when they imply he intentionally and directly voted to ban rifle ammo. Instead, it would have been a plausible side effect.
More Obama ignorance. Obama says he "would support banning the sale of ammunition for assault weapons ".
"Assault weapons" fire a wide variety of calibers and cartridges, most of which are also fired by other firearms.
The .223 Remington fired by the AR-15, the 7.62x32 of the AK-47, the 9x19mm of the TEC-9, the .308 Winchester of the FN FAL, as just a few examples, are all fired by other firearms which are not "assault weapons".
What Obama "would support" is a ban on some of the most popular ammo there is simply because he does not understand that ammo is not unique to a firearm.
Obama believes "that the Constitution confers an individual right to bear arms". Confer means to give or grant. The Constitution (and I am giving Obama some latitude to include the Bill of Rights) does not confer rights. The founders made it clear that we have rights, regardless of government, and that we give the government powers, not the other way around. None of the Bill of Rights "give" us our rights, instead the BoR recognizes them and spells out how the government must respect our rights.
One would think that someone of Obama's legal acumen would know this. So, either Obama isn't as smart as he wants us to believe, or Obama has a vastly different view of what our rights are and where they come from.
Either way, the American public should be scared.
It looks like Fact Check has amended its article twice now. I wonder how many more times the mistakes they made will have to be exposed before they redact the entire thing.
It is probably instructive to check out some of the gunloon blogs. That's right, I say we visit some gunloon websites to learn something.
And what have we learned?
Well, the gunloons are conceding the presidential campaign to Obama.
This means the over-hyped reputation of the NRA to influence and dictate election results is deader than a doornail.
Lesson: fools and their money are soon parted.
I understand what you mean, Caseytool!
Thanks.
What's insructive is to remember, when push came to shove, both Hillary and Obama pandered to gun owners.
They remember 1994, even if you don't.
Most reasonable people abhor gun violence.
That's, in part, why I find it difficult to stomach some of the very flawed & sick reasoning of the extreme pro-gun advocates who frequent here ... who also, BTW, seem to believe that this kind of violence is ~ & will remain ~ an American inevitability. If & when gun violence occurs again, it'll be because of our nation's continued FAILURE at keeping firearms out of the wrong hands ... along with our inability to unclasp the hooks the National Rifle Association (NRA) has on our society when it concerns guns & politics.
Furthermore, with respect to several quarrels by the gun crowd with gun control advocacy on private military-style assault weapon ownership ... I'll sum up my own position briefly by adding that the costs to everyone else easily outweighs whatever perceived benefits assault weapons are argued to have by the NRA & others. And I, personally, see absolutely no benefit whatsoever in terms of self-defense, sporting, etc. that would justify the private possession of these types of dangerous firearms.
I have no doubt that there will be a virtual storm of questions now from the pro-gun extremists designed to be like a mousetrap on my fervent opposition to owning assault weapons ... however, I generally keep in mind, when dealing with such black-and-white thinkers here, that "[i]t is not every question that deserves an answer," Syrus.
Shedances out.
Most reasonable people abhor ALL violence.
That's, in part, why I find it difficult to stomach some of the very flawed & sick reasoning of the few extreme anti-gun advocates who frequent here ... who also, BTW, refuse to even acknowledge the existence of violence committed without the use of the implements that they have a personal agenda against.
When non-gun related violence occurs again, it'll be because of finite resources being instead used on continued WASTED attempts at keeping firearms out of the law abiding hands ... along with the anti-gun crowds inability to elevate their compassion for their fellow man above and beyond their own personal agendas.
Furthermore, with respect to several quarrels by the gun control crowd with pro gun advocacy on private military-looking semi-automatic firearms ownership ... I'll sum up my own position briefly based on the fact that actual factual knowledge of these weapons as well as the actual statical data of their infrequent usage in crimes easily outweighs the negative illusions deceitfully cast on these firearms by The Brady Campaign, the VPC, & others.
I have no doubt there will be an absence of answers from gun-control advocates to questions asked by the pro-gun side designed to demonstrate facts about the operation, functionality, engineering, capabilities and statistics of usage of Semi-automatic military looking firearm... however, I generally keep in mind, when dealing with so called 'educated thinkers' here, that "[k]nowledge isn't always the same as personal insight into an issue" Kelli
we object because your arguments make no sense...in 1880 the winchester repeating rifle was the best you could buy..accor
Don't forget the Spencers and Henrys (direct ancestor to the Winchester family of lever action carbine) were issued to Union troops. Which is why I stated earlier that Kelli's trying to ban "military style weapons" would leave no firearms legal to own.
kelli's logic
1. Reasonable people abhor gun violence
2. Gun owners are not reasonable (by kelli's interpretation)
3. Therefore, gunowners do not abhor gun violence
kelli, like many of the pro-civil rights crowd here, I have proposed what I believe to be "reasonable" solutions to gun violence. These include arming teachers and allowing lawful concealed carry in states like Illinois. You have your own ideas which include "gun-free" zones and banning assault weapons (even thoguh they are used in less than3% of crimes).
We all want to stop gun violence here...we just have different ideas about what to do.
Michael
http://www
Looks like the NRA 'power' is diminishing.
At least they can make the rent.
http://phi
I see Third changes the subject...
It's amazing that someone can believe being held in contempt for denying they confiscated the firearms and then later admitted they had them says nothing about their intentions.
Only in the world where Chicago has 9.7 million people and meteors land on hundreds of people every day.
Of course all one has to do is read the various court documents.
I repeat:
I guess when someone is held in contempt for denying they confiscated the firearms and then later admitted they had them, that says nothing about their intentions.
Only in the world where Chicago has 9.7 million people and meteors land on hundreds of people every day.
All one has to do is look at the court proceedings to see that Nagin et al denied collecting firearms at all.
Grasp for some more straws there .
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
