NRA's False Attacks And Campaign Of Division Are Out Of Step With America

The chief lobbyist for the National Rifle Association has been attacking Sen. Barack Obama's views on preventing gun violence in an Op-Ed in yesterday's Washington Times, and again on FOX News.

His charges fit into a pattern of attacks that CNN, The Washington Post, Congressional Quarterly, The Cleveland Plain Dealer and FactCheck.org have called "misleading," "a huge stretch," "intentionally dishonest," "pants on fire wrong," "exaggerated," and that "distort Obama's record on gun control beyond recognition."

On the other hand, he doesn't say much about the support for common sense gun restrictions once given by Sen. John McCain, a man the NRA used to call "one of the premier flag carriers for the enemies of the Second Amendment."

The truth? Sen. Obama has consistently indicated his support for an individual right to own a gun pursuant to the Second Amendment. He also believes, along with the U.S. Supreme Court, that there can be reasonable restrictions on guns to protect the public. Like most Americans, Sen. Obama believes we can enforce criminal background checks on all gun sales, crack down on illegal gun dealers, and restrict easy access to military-style semi-automatic assault weapons without infringing on the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding Americans.

As Sen. Obama said in his speech accepting the Democratic nomination, "The reality of gun ownership may be different for hunters in rural Ohio than they are for those plagued by gang violence in Cleveland, but don't tell me we can't uphold the Second Amendment while keeping AK-47s out of the hands of criminals."

So what explains the NRA's "intentionally dishonest" campaign against Sen. Obama? Two things seem important: the U.S. Supreme Court and economic concerns.

Ironically, it may have been Justice Antonin Scalia and the Supreme Court that stripped NRA bosses of their long-time weapon used to scare voters about candidates: "They're going to take your guns away!" When the Court in June declared an individual right to own a gun for self defense in the home, the gun issue began to lose its status as a "wedge" issue almost overnight. We see this today where the NRA is spending millions of dollars across the country and Sen. Obama remains competitive in traditional "gun rights" states from Virginia to Nevada.

In short, people know that nobody's going to "take their guns away" particularly because the Supreme Court said so.

Ironically for the NRA, however, while Justice Scalia said that total gun bans are "off the table," he also outlined an array of common sense gun policies that he said were "presumptively lawful." Some examples he cited are laws against carrying concealed weapons, laws against "dangerous and unusual weapons," and laws against taking guns into "sensitive places" like schools and government buildings. Surprisingly, the country's best-known conservative Justice may have sounded the death knell for the gun lobby's campaign of divisive wedge politics.

In addition, the nation's sagging economy has also clearly taken center stage since the Supreme Court's decision in June. Americans concerned about paying their mortgage, filling the gas tank, paying for college, and finding affordable health care for their children and elderly parents, probably aren't as receptive or concerned about all the misleading charges about Sen. Obama and guns. A lot less individuals are "single-issue" voters in today's complex world.

These two events cannot be taken in isolation. The economic pressures Americans feel are real; but because the Supreme Court made it clear that law-abiding citizens' guns are safe, gun owners are less likely to be swayed by appeals to their fears on this single issue, rather than their hopes for the country. Finding themselves in this political box, NRA leaders are stuck with just one option: tell lies over and over again about Barack Obama and hope voters buy it one last time.

So far, however, they aren't. Sen. Obama's message of finding a middle ground to solve America's problems is resonating across the country - not only about the gun issue, but on the whole range of issues facing this country today.

(Note to readers: This entry, along with past entries, has been co-posted on bradycampaign.org/blog and the Huffington Post.)

Comments

[MorgansRifles]

Interesting article about the change in polce tactics regarding active shooter scenarios. The study also shows that active killers almost exclusively seek out "gun free" zones for their attacks.

"The other statistic that emerged from a study of active killers is that they almost exclusively seek out "gun free" zones for their attacks."

In other words, putting up the "gun-free zone" sign only encourages most of these killers.

When Seconds Count: Stopping Active Killers
Reported by: Brendan Keefe

http://www.wcpo.com/news/local/story.aspx?content_id=d26c29ff-f134-4202-bc40-947534a6de3c

Michael

[Thirdpower]

Illinois Election Results by the numbers Pt I:

In comparison to the NRA:

The Brady Campaign endorsed a total of 34 people for Illinois seats.

For Federal Elections they endorsed Dick Durbin for Senate and 11 for the House. They won the Senate and 9 out of 11 seats for the House (82%).

The NRA didn't endorse a US Senate candidate and endorsed 8 people for the House with 8 wins (100%).

There were two head to head contests. Both were losses for the Brady Campaign.

For state offices, the Brady Campaign endorsed a total of 22 people for the IL House and Senate. 17 and 5 respectively out of races. They won all 5 in the Senate (100%) and 12 out of 17 in the House (70.6%).

The NRA endorsed 19 for the State Senate with 19 wins (100%) and 57 for the State House with 55 wins (96.5%).

There were zero contests in the Senate but Seven in the House. The Brady's are crowing about their 'big win' over Dist 85 incumbent Hassert. What they're NOT telling you though is that of those seven contests, the Brady's came out behind in five of them. A 5:2 ratio.

Broken down :

NRA vs BC:

President 0:1
US House 2:0
IL House 5:2

[djkrlsn]

Looks like the NRA and ISRA still has its punch in guncontrol central in the Midwest since they won a higher percentage of their races than did the Brady Campaign. In regards to Obama/McCain--the decision was made on the economy NOT ON GUN CONTROL.

[Thirdpower]

Illinois election results, by the numbers: Pt 2

In comparison to the ISRA:

The Brady Campaign endorsed a total of 22 people for the IL House and Senate. 17 and 5 respectively . They won all 5 in the Senate (100%) and 12 out of 17 in the House (70.6%)

The ISRA endorsed 68 candidates and had 21 'preferred' for the IL House and Senate. 17 in the Senate and 51 in the House endorsed. 7 and 14 preferred.

For endorsed candidates, all 17 won in the Senate (100%) and 50 won in the House (98%)

For preferred candidates, it was 6 and 12 respectively (85.7% each).

Now the head to head results:

There were zero Senate races w/ endorsements by both the BC and ISRA. Of 'preferred', there was one with a Brady endorsed candidate win.

Of House endorsements, there were three races w/ BC/ISRA endorsements. Two were ISRA wins and one Brady win. 2:1 for the ISRA.

Of House 'preferred', there were also three races. Same results as endorsed candidates. 2:1 .

The ISRA had a 2:1 success ratio against the Brady Campaign in head to head elections. 5:3 if you include 'preferred' candidates.

So when it comes to endorsing (non-presidential) candidates , all of the various groups are good at picking easy winners.

When it comes to competing (non-presidential) endorsements, the NRA and ISRA come out ahead every time.

Broken down :

ISRA vs BC (preferred candidates)

IL Senate (0:1)
IL House 2:1 (2:1)

[shedances]

I'm not sure I believe what you're putting here as factual or as credible analysis, thirdpower. I can't verify your numbers from gun lobby groups like the ISRA, on the state of Illinois contests, for example. But even more importantly, I think you're all-too-easily missing what may be seen as a liberating proposition or truth in the Brady Campaign's excellent writings on the '08 elections & on societal attitudes (if you will allow, BC) on guns & similar issues.

[EmilyU]

Truth? Excellent? Brady Camp? Not likely.

[Thirdpower]

So a former professional journalist can't compare lists of endorsed candidates to election results?

[djkrlsn]

Kelli--for a journalist, you have a poor sense of how to tell if something is true or not--on this issue--the more you dislike it, the more likely it is to be true

[shedances]

Paul H. ~ I think this election in particular is worthy of our country & its diverse citizenry, and also serves, in a way, to highlight everybody's concerns over their (community's, nation's, global neighbors) humanity, safety & well being. I realize there may be a few lingering (fanatic type) gunright advocates who may gloomily attempt to 'rain on this parade' & process of change ... but honestly, such attacks matter little now. Americans have made their wishes & values known at the polls ~ Barack Obama/Joe Biden will soon be in the White House with a new administration & Sen. McCain/Gov. Palin were sent home. We now have an opportunity to move forward in developing valuable programs, policies ... and to be behave as a decent, caring & strong nation should be behaving (in all matters, including that of firearms & violence). I see that the Brady Campaign has also just put forth its latest report on the '08 election results & those kinds of important analyses are worth reading, in my view, as such "[w]ritings of light assault the darkness, more prodigious than meteors..." (J. Borges, Argentine writer).

He won!!! Nice job America!!!

[benEzra]

I'll join you in celebrating the future. And this is a historic time.

I hope this future does NOT include any more revocation of the civil liberties of the law-abiding under the guise of fighting crime or preventing terrorism. It is as wrong to do that with regard to gun rights than it is with regard to privacy rights, habeus corpus, torture, or freedom of association, expression, or religion. Those rights are not for sale at any price.

Here's hoping that the gun-control lobby will refocus its efforts toward addressing criminal misuse, instead of attacking the lawful and responsible via baseless scaremongering and nonsensical policy proposals.

To all, have a great night, and here's to a brighter future for all---and one in which ALL civil liberties are respected and protected.

[shedances]

I think most people know that firearm ownership is a heavy burden, responsibility ... and one that not all people are (equally) equipped ~ for a variety of reasons, inc. mental illness, immaturity, etc. ~ to handle.

But what bothered me more specifically about your posts, Ben, in the past had to do with what you thought you were being denied in terms of 'civil liberties,' if you will. I mean, you had already indicated that you possessed more than one type of firearm (inc. at least one assault weapon ...) yet, that wasn't enough. And as far as interpretations go, Heller's been decided. It's over & done with.

What exactly are you fighting for now?

[Tencfan]

Shedances,

Those "fanatic types" you are refering to are your neighbors, mailman, fireman, police, insurance angents, doctors, lawers, manufacturing workers, laborers, office workers, etc... You must have missed that piece regarding firearm sales increasing from law abiding citizens in anticipation of Obama becoming President. You seem to have this perception that "we" adults, productive members of society who hold jobs, carry mortgages, pay taxes and consider ourselves to be a free, cannot be trusted with firearms. I collect curio and relics and go to the shooting range so as to be proficient with my firearms. I also build and restore old motorcycles and own my house. I go to work everyday to afford the luxuries that allow me my persuit of happiness. Who are you to tell me what I can and cannot do as long as I am hurting no one? What I just wrote is what conservatism is to me, people like you minding your own buisness and not be telling me what I should do with mine.

[Tao21Zen]

"Americans have made their wishes & values known at the polls" ~ Barack

Yes, and for most voters those wishes had nothing to do with the gun issue.

---

Newsweek Poll conducted by Princeton Survey Research Associates International. Sept. 10-11, 2008. N=1,038 registered voters nationwide. MoE ± 3.8 (for all registered voters).


Question:

"Which ONE of the following ISSUES is MOST important in determining your vote for president this year? The economy and jobs. Taxes and government spending. The Iraq war. Terrorism and national security. Energy policy and gas prices. Issues like abortion, guns, and same-sex marriage. Health care." Options rotated


Abortion, guns, marriage: 8% (ALL) 3% (Obama Supporters) 13% (McCain Supporters)

(see link below for all other results)

[ Notice that "guns" are included in a bundle with other important social issues and still rates very low importance for Obama supporters ]


Source:

http://www.pollingreport.com/prioriti.htm

[djkrlsn]

Kelli--I expect Obama to meet the same high standard on the 2nd amendment that the progressive posters on Huffington Post have on the rest of the BOR--if it is considered an infringement on the other amendments in the BOR--it is an infringement on the 2nd amendment. As an example of this--during the protests led by Martin Luther King--police protection started AFTER the activists started packing guns (yes, people in the civil rights movement of the '60's carried guns to protect themselves from the Klan and the power structure in the South) and this police protection started because the powers that be did not mind if those who supported equal rights for minorities got hurt--until they were able to hurt those supporting the racist status quo.

[DMeadows]

Beard's going to be sorely disappointed in seeing that an Obama presidency will not further the gun-control agenda.

[mike102]

"The truth? Sen. Obama has consistently indicated his support for an individual right to own a gun pursuant to the Second Amendment."

And in the same breath, he supported Washington DC's gun ban, denying law-abiding citizens their individual right to keep and bear arms. Not very consistent Paul. Of course, you keep claiming that the BC is not out to ban individual fireams ownership, while supporting every gun ban that ever existed. So, at least this inconsistent consitency is consistently consistent among you consistent gun grabbers.

Obama also promised to support the "2nd Amendment rights of hunters". Odd, that a former constitutional law professor doesn't know that there is no such thing. The 2nd Amendment doesn't say a word about hunting, because it has never been about hunting.

But don't fret, pro rights supporters. Obama is going to have his hands so full dealing with other issues, that he won't have time to bother much with 2nd Amendment issues. Add to that the fact that he wants to be re-elected, and I don't think we have much to worry about from him. at least for four more years.

"His charges fit into a pattern of attacks that CNN, The Washington Post, Congressional Quarterly, The Cleveland Plain Dealer and FactCheck.org have called "misleading," "a huge stretch," "intentionally dishonest," "pants on fire wrong," "exaggerated,"

Now coming from you, Paul, this is beyond funny. Obviously, the above named sources have never perused the BC website. Neither have you, apperently.

[Sneaky]

MorgansRifles

RE: EO 12949

"Section 1. Pursuant to section 302(a)(1) of the Act, the Attorney General is authorized to approve physical searches, without a court order, to acquire foreign intelligence information for periods of up to one year, if the Attorney General makes the certifications required by that section."

That's another example of something illegal that can affect all citizens (with harassment, NOT imprisonment), but you have still provided nothing to show how an Executive Order can be used to impact GUN OWNERS.

[MorgansRifles]

Sneaky:

I am copying/pasting my reply from below...

"How did that not answer your question? That executive order could be used to harass or even imprison gun owners without going through due process. There is no need to have probable cause and it eliminates the checks and balances provided for by our court system.

Tell me, do you approve of the losses of civil liberties under the PATRIOT Act? If so, I guess I understadn why something like this wouldn't bother you.

Michael"

[Sneaky]

You listed an executive order but did not explain how it could be used to harass or even imprison gun owners. Please be specific, because unless you're talking about arbitrarily considering gun owners sources of foreign intelligence I'm not seeing it.

[MorgansRifles]

Sneaky:

First of all, under the law, even "harrassment" (if it restricts the movement of the defendant in any way) is considered an arrest unless there is probable cause. A search is considered a "seizure" or arrest under the law.

Executive orders can and have been used to bypass the Bill of Rights. Yes, it does impact all of us but could be used surgically to target a particular group that the government dislikes or wants out of the way.

I am a licensed peace officer in Texas and work as a deputy constable. I learned a lot about illegal search and seizure in the academy. In Terry V Ohio, Chief Justice Warren wrote that the Fourth Amendment was applicable to the situation, applicable ''whenever a police officer accosts an individual and restrains his freedom to walk away.''

Under Bill Clinton, many FFLs were pressured to give up their licenses. They were mostly ones who worked out of their homes but had done nothing illegal...Clinton just wanted them out of the business. While no EO was signed, it is an example of what can happen.

The Bill of Rights is what separates us from police states. Tear up one part of the Constitution and it makes it easier to tear up another part of it.

Michael

[Sneaky]

You say that this can surgically target a particular group the government dislikes, but you haven't explained how. Considering the subject matter, that's kind of important. How can one target gun owners with an executive directive explicitly designed to acquire foreign intelligence?

The Clinton example is not an example related to EOs. Not what we're talking about.

Michael, I'm not saying that it's not an abuse of civil rights. It's a stupid, and unconstitutional, executive order, and you won't find me saying anything but. However, my statement was very simple: executive orders are a very low-priority concern right now for gun owners because they can do comparatively little to gun owners. We have a lot more to worry about from an abusive BATFE and bad legislation than we do from EOs. Executive orders have already done almost all of the damage they can do; most of what's left can be very easily challenged and defeated in court.

Show me exactly how an executive order, either the one you mentioned or any other potential one, can be used to hurt GUN OWNERS. Showing an EO and saying it 'might' without explaining how is poor form and you know it.

[shedances]

BC/Paul H ... you have been a constant & strong voice of support for Barack Obama & Joe Biden, and you stood behind the former when a variety of lies/false accusations flew from the NRA. I, too, took your excellent recommendations on the candidates with me to the polls & so, I am THRILLED this morning that my candidate (Barack Obama) won a clear & decisive victory (along with Dick Durbin, who also supports gun control measures in my state). As so many have already written & voiced on various blogs this morning ... I think we now have a real chance to turn things around for the good in this nation. This was nowhere near a smooth ride to the finish line; but we all, our combined efforts, made it happen!

[Sneaky]

What more gun control can your state create, Kelli?

Anyway, electoral college aside, the votes were pretty close. It's worth noting that not only did the Democratic Party fail to reach its goal in Congress, but most of the new Democrats are more centrist and less party-line. Some are even pro-rights and have flat said they wouldn't support legislation like HR 6257.

Frankly, I'm more embarrassed at my state's approval of Amendment 2; I had hoped differently, but I had a good notion that Obama would win, since McCain was doing everything he could to drive away voters for the last couple months.

[benEzra]

And he won, in part, by promising to leave lawful gun owners the heck alone.

The surest way to hand the repubs another 1994 in 2010 would be to pass another nonsensical ban on the most popular rifles in U.S. homes, or issue other policy proposals that attack the lawful and responsible instead of the criminally violent.

The AHSA's Ray Shoenke spent an immense amount of time and effort traveling around swing states like Pennsylvania and reassuring gun owners that new gun bans are NOT on the table. But if you want another 1994, I guess you could agitate for them. Wouldn't do anything about criminal violence (rifles are consistently the least misused of firearms), but it sure would pull the rug out from under the Obama administration in the midterms.

[HisXLNC]

"And he won, in part, by promising to leave lawful gun owners the heck alone."

And it was an empty promise.

[Thirdpower]

So, care to show where Obama embraced the Brady endorsement even once?

[EmilyU]

Of course you are thrilled, you have no clue as to what you are supporting or what Obama has really said in the past. That is why you ignore what I have written and my queries.

[djkrlsn]

Emily--Kelli ignores everybody who is pro RKBA

[lbrooker]

The DC laws and subsequent Congressional action is exactly what I was talking about and demonstrates how a Supreme Court decision works. Of course the Supreme Court doesn't make laws, nothing in what I said indicated I believed that to be true. As is inherent with every Supreme Court case, lower courts are expected to rule in concurrence with the Supreme Court's decision. What you seem to be fearing is that Congress will come up with a myriad of new federal gun laws that violate the 2nd Amendment, but that isn't how it works. The Heller opinion coupled with the bipartisan composition of Congress makes it extremely difficult for them to blatantly flout a Supreme Court decision. This is what was proven in DC. When new laws are passed that ignore individuals' constitutional rights as explained by the Supreme Court, there are consequences. Furthermore, the vast majority of gun laws are passed at the state and local level, so neither John McCain nor Barack Obama really has much ability to affect your gun rights. If you're happy with your gun laws, there's very little that can be done to change that. Furthermore, Heller set a precedent that allows you to successfully challenge your jurisdiction's gun laws should you believe them to be reasonable, so in actuality, Heller has had a major impact on shifting the discussion from "can the government take everyone's guns?" to "what kinds of regulations should be in place to protect individuals' rights and lives?"

[EmilyU]

"What you seem to be fearing is that Congress will come up with a myriad of new federal gun laws that violate the 2nd Amendment, but that isn't how it works."

That is exactly how it works and the Heller decision is not much of an obstacle to that.

"When new laws are passed that ignore individuals' constitutional rights as explained by the Supreme Court, there are consequences."

Which can take decades to correct.

"Furthermore, the vast majority of gun laws are passed at the state and local level, so neither John McCain nor Barack Obama really has much ability to affect your gun rights."

There are an awful lot of federal firearm laws and yes, a President does have a good bit of ability to affect our firearm rights.

"Heller has had a major impact on shifting the discussion from "can the government take everyone's guns?" to "what kinds of regulations should be in place to protect individuals' rights and lives?""

Not as much as you think. As I stated, many our pointing to heller as supporting their efforts to ban various firearms.

[Sneaky]

I think you're misunderstanding my statement. Right NOW it is difficult for Congress to pass new gun control laws; that I certainly acknowledge. D.C. managed to go thirty years in contradiction with its highest law (coincidentally the US Constitution); the only thing proven in D.C. is that when something gets in place at the federal level it takes a considerable amount of time to dislodge. If the next president is one that is likely to side with Congress that shares his part, even by slim majority, it is quite conceivable that they will try to carry forth whatever party agendas they have. In the case of Obama, it's quite likely Biden, Feinstein, Pelosi and their ilk will maintain federal gun control as a target for their party to move forward with. They have in the past, and try again every year. I'm not worried about the president alone. I'm worried about the president in conjunction with a favorable Congress, which anyone in their right mind should be worried about no matter what party holds office.

On a note about precedent. Truly, the only thing Heller did is find that A) federal law mandating trigger locks and B) federal law banning handguns while also mandating other firearms be disassembled are both unconstitutional. FEDERAL law, not state law. Further, precedent doesn't have to be followed - if it did, a rather large population in this country would have fewer rights than I enjoy based solely on skin color.

[Tao21Zen]

"Furthermore, the vast majority of gun laws are passed at the state and local level, so neither John McCain nor Barack Obama really has much ability to affect your gun rights."

So, the President no longer has the power to enact executive orders (like George H. W. Bush's importation ban on semi-auto rifles in 1989)? I guess Presidents also no longer have the power to decide whether to sign into law or to veto legislation presented to them by congress? You're right, Bill Clinton had nothing to do with the 94' Assault Weapon Ban (aka Clinton Crime Bill).

But seriously, the problem with your statement is that it assumes anti-gunners continue to respect and support State legislative rights when it involves states passing pro-gun laws or refusing to enact the anti-gun laws the anti-gunners support. When either of these scenarios occur, the anti-gunners are first in line to seek federal anti-gun legislation.

The BC can prove me wrong by stepping out and publically opposing the McCarthy AWB as being anti-state's right. Let's see if that happens.

[Sneaky]

Executive orders are almost a nonissue; EOs are limited in what they can do, and overriding state legislation is not something they can do. Not to mention that there isn't a state in the union that would put up with it.

[lbrooker]

I think we're missing the point here. The point of this post is that with the Heller decision, the conversation on gun rights and gun control has fundamentally changed. Because the Supreme Court decided unequivocally that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to bear arms within the limits of reasonable restrictions, there is no need for NRA fear-mongering through its portrayals of Barack Obama as someone who will take everyone's guns away. The discussion has shifted from whether individuals truly have the right to carry weapons or whether a gun ban could be constitutional to what kinds of regulations are necessary to protect an individual's right to bear arms while balancing the need to protect innocent people from unnecessary gun violence. The issue has become increasingly less polarized, but the discussion in these comments does not indicate that people realize this. Your guns are not going anywhere, now we're interested in hearing whatever solutions will best prevent criminals and the mentally ill from possessing guns and what will best prevent tragic accidents and crimes from happening.

[EmilyU]

Incrementalism is still alive and a very real threat, regardless of Heller. In fact, it is probably more of a threat because of Heller. So the discussion hasn't really shifted.

Obama still supports renewing the AWB and points to Heller to support this. Obama still supports banning "assault weapon ammo". Obama still supports bans on ammo "which may be used in a handgun" and can defeat police body armor. The ONLY thing which has changed is that Obama has less room to support his "home rule" position in which municipalities can complete ban firearms.

So no, we are NOT missing the point!

[Sneaky]

You don't know how the Supreme Court works, do you? If not, that's fine, few these days do and you wouldn't be alone in that category.

A SCOTUS decision is an opinion. The only ones that are actually effected by this opinion are inferior courts in the United States. Their opinion is NOT law, nor does it create law. What the SCOTUS decision in the Heller case did is direct lower courts to rule in line with the Heller decision. Evidence of this power is the legislation that had to be created in Congress to actually get the District to do something about its illegal/unconstitutional policies. The Heller case itself did very little but shift more momentum to the growing trend of weakening ineffective gun control legislation around the country.

Barack Obama has a record (something by which we can see and judge) that tells a different tale than his words. He has proven himself with his record, heck, even with his website, to be no friend of gun owners (this should have been apparent enough with his choice of running mate). The NRA isn't doing any more "fear mongering" than they usually do, which is pretty subdued compared to the opposing side, and is only being highlighted now because they're lighting up a candidate with a cult-like, fan-base following (go ahead and tell me I'm wrong).

[djkrlsn]

Barack Obama's record shows a strong history of supporting gun bans in Chicago and Washington D C, so in this case--I will go with his voting record and not campaign speeches (because he is very aware of how much damage support for gun control does to Democrats).

[benEzra]

I am not sure precisely what guns you think we are concerned about, but a ban on so-called "assault weapons" (or a ban on their magazines, their ammunition, or repair parts) would indeed "take our guns away." Far more Americans lawfully own "assault weapons," as defined by the gun-control lobby, than hunt, they dominate centerfire target shooting in this country, and they are the most common defensive carbines in U.S. homes.

The most popular rifles in the United States are NOT bolt-action deer rifles. They are small- and intermediate-caliber self-loading carbines with protruding handgrips and modern styling. The Brady Campaign very fervently believes that yes, they can ban them, and has spent an immense amount of money and political capital trying to scare people into believing that small-caliber rifles are a crime problem.

I don't personally care if I'm "allowed" to own a bolt-action deer rifle or a $2000 skeet shotgun; like the vast majority of gun owners, my wife and I neither hunt nor shoot skeet. We want to keep our small-caliber carbines, AND we want to continue to be able to buy ammunition, magazines, and parts for them, and buy new ones in the future.

I am open to suggestions as to how to best keep all guns out of criminal hands. But I very much oppose efforts to legislate rifle stock shape, restrict rifles to pre-1860's magazine capacities, or otherwise harass the lawful and responsible.

[Sneaky]

Have I read this before? I could swear this is a reprint article...

[EmilyU]

NRA dishonest?

"(Obama said) "I think we have two conflicting traditions in this country. I think it’s important for us to recognize that we’ve got a tradition of handgun ownership and gun ownership generally. And a lot of people — law-abiding citizens use it for hunting, for sportsmanship, and for protecting their families (emphasis added). We also have a violence on the streets that is the result of illegal handgun usage…We can have reasonable, thoughtful gun control measures that I think respect the Second Amendment and people’s traditions.”

That doesn't sound to us like someone planning to "ban use of firearms for home defense." Quite the opposite, actually." - Politifact

Oh, but wait! Obama supports using firearms for protecting families, but also supported Chicago's, Wilmette's, and DC's gun bans? Sorry Barack and Politifact, but you can't have it both ways!

BTW, how exactly do Wilmette's, Chicago's, and DC's bans qualify as "reasonable, thoughtful gun control measures that I think respect the Second Amendment"?

Verdict: NRA is correct.

[djkrlsn]

Wilmette, CHicago and DC gun laws absolutely do not qualify as reasonable thoughtful gun control measures that respect the 2nd amendment.

[EmilyU]

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 is correct.

[EmilyU]

NRA attacks are false?

“The NRA bases its claim on a disputed 1996 questionnaire that Obama's Illinois state Senate campaign filled out for the nonprofit voting group, Independent Voters of Illinois-Independent Precinct Organization. On it, somebody filled in the word "yes" in response to the question, "Do you support legislation to ban the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns?" But the Obama campaign said that the survey was actually filled out by his then-campaign manager who "unintentionally mischaracterized his position," adding that Obama never saw the survey.

As we wrote previously, an amended version of the questionnaire was later submitted to the group, with Obama's handwritten notes on it providing more detail on some of the answers. Obama clearly saw and handled this version personally and did not alter the question about banning the sale and manufacturing of guns. Nevertheless, his aides maintain that the gun-ban answer was a mistake and didn't reflect Obama's true position.” - FactCheck

FactCheck proves their own bias. First they say it was a campaign manager who filled out the questionaire and that the manager made a mistake. Then they trot out a later questionaire with Obama's handwritten notes to prove their point, but they even admit that despite handling the questionaire, Obama did not change his answer!

So how exactly did FactCheck prove that the NRAs statement was false? HINT: THEY DIDN'T!!! THEY PROVED THEIR OWN VERDICT WAS BIASED!!

[Ohio9]

Sheedances, you still have not accepted the fact that the BC's so-called "excellent publication" contained flat out lies. Look at this quote from the report:

"There are guns that can fire up to 30 rounds with a couple of pulls of the trigger."

As you well know, the report was talking about SEMI-AUTOMATIC firearms, which only fire one round per trigger pull.

Also, the report quotes Jim Zumbo without admitting that Zumbo retracted his anti-semi auto rifle statement and admitted he was wrong about everything he said. The BC report has no intergrity.

Furthermore, the guns covered under the AWB, are extremely LOW RISK guns that are hardly ever used in crime. That was the case before the AWB and after it.

Finally, the guns covered under the AWB were not designed for "offensive military assaults". On the contrary, they are civilian version of military firearms that are specifically modified and designed for use BY CIVILIANS. There is not a military on this planet that uses they AR-15. DC-9, Striker 12 shotgun, or AR-70, yet they are all covered under the AWB.

After all, if they are only designed for "offensive military assaults", then why is the AR15 the most common rifle used by the police? Are the police interested in storming beacheads or capturing enemy strongholds?

So long as you refuse to adress these points, you will continue to prove you are totally ignorant about firearms and should not be taken seriously.