Posts
7327
Joined
7/17/2007
Location
TX
US
Edited Date/Time
1/15/2012 6:32am
NRA's new ad saying Obama "supports a ban on the shotguns and rifles most of us use for hunting" is a simple lie. Not a stretching of the truth, not spin, a pure lie. You NRA members must be so proud of the organization you support...
NRA Lie
NRA Lie
I hope everyone believes it.
I hope there is a huge run on guns and ammo before the election.
I hope all the gun totin hay-seeds give shitpots of cash to McCain.
SENATOR OBAMA: What I think it has done is provided some clarity that, in fact, the Second Amendment is an individual right and that law-abiding gun owners can't be prevented from going out and hunting, protecting their family on their own. That doesn't mean that, as Justice Scalia and the Supreme Court noted, it doesn't mean that we can't have some common-sense gun control legislation out there-for example, background checks, making sure that we're keeping guns out of the hands of criminals or people who have mental illnesses. The important point is that I am very mindful of the fact that sportsmen in America may have gone hunting with their fathers, their grandfathers, their mothers, their grandmothers, and that this is part of a tradition and a way of life that has to be preserved. And there's nothing that I will do as president of the United States that will in any way encroach on the ability of sportsmen to continue that tradition.
It's an irrelevant argument, and an example of his obfuscation. He has an anti gun record, he supports major gun control.........and he will sign any gun control legislation passed by congress into law.
Sure, if Obama had his way.....hunters would still own firearms.........black power flintlocks.
The 2A however, does not guarantee the right to bear arms for hunting.
The Shop
End of Story.
Obama has repeatedly been on record supporting comprehensive anti gun legislation his entire political career.
His VP wrote a bill to revive a new, more restrictive AWB.
Losing argument for you..........stick to other issues.
Essentially saying its a dead issue now that the SCOTUS has ruled.
And as you've stated, much of his gun issues have since been removed from his website
BTW....just to make knuck understands something. Any bullet designed for deep penetration on heavy skinned big game......inherently meets the definition of his attempted "cop killer" ammo ban.
The 300 grain Corbon Penetrator rounds my daughter uses in her .44 mag deer stalker for elk.......would be illegal under ammo ban.
Obama would have you believe that the 2A only protects single shot bolt action rifles of specific calibers, or single shot and DB shotguns. Those are the ONLY types of firearms that he has not tried or supported a ban on during his career.
And those damn sure aren't the only types of firearms used to hunt.
While the SCOTUS ruling has resulted in him backing off gun control during his campaign......don't think for a second what he does and does not support has changed one bit. He will sign any anti-gun legislation the democratic congress hands him.
Seriously.........out of your 500+ posts.........400 of them are asking for a source, and the other 100+ claiming the sky isn't blue because there is no source. You may be the only fucking person on planet earth...........that hasn't yet figured out how to use a search engine.
Of course, I think you meant to say "most stupid" but why let 6th grade grammar get in the way.
If you know how to use one......why don't you use it? Or are you now claiming that you choose to be ignorant out of laziness?
Either way.........I don't see how your inability or lazines to verify something simple is my fault.
I myself think it's a laziness issue on your part. Nobody could possibly be so incompetent as to be unable to use google these days. I have been wrong though........
I'm not surprised you can't keep up. That was obvious on your second post.
-National Rifle Association on Friday, August 1st, 2008 in direct mail piece
Yes, and outlaw apple pie as well
In a hard-hitting direct-mail piece to its members, the National Rifle Association detailed an alleged plan by Sen. Barack Obama to transform gun-ownership regulations.
Obama's "plan" appeared on a section of the mailer designed to be cut out and carried around in a wallet. The front of the wallet card said, "Barack Obama's Ten Point Plan to 'Change' the Second Amendment." The reverse listed the 10 parts of the alleged plan, starting with, "Ban use of firearms for home defense."
An NRA spokesperson confirmed the authenticity of the mailer, which first appeared in early August 2008, but would not provide details of what its claims were based on. For that, she referred us to various NRA Web sites.
We could find no support on any of them for the allegation that Obama has a plan to ban the use of firearms for home defense. What we did find, and what we suspect is the root of this allegation, was information about a vote Obama cast as an Illinois state senator in May 2004. (See this essay by NRA chief executive officer Wayne LaPierre.)
The bill in question was a response to the case of Hale DeMar, a Wilmette, Ill., man who shot and wounded a burglar in his home in December 2003. Prosecutors did not charge him for the shooting, since they determined that he acted in self-defense, but they did fine him $750 for violating the local handgun ordinance. An outcry of sympathy for DeMar prompted the state legislature to take up a bill that would let people claim a self-defense protection for using a gun in their homes in violation of local weapons bans.
Obama voted against the measure. The legislature passed it, and later overrode the veto of Democratic Gov. Rod Blagojevich.
Like Blagojevich, Obama framed that debate as a home-rule issue. He told the Associated Press at the time that he voted against the measure out of respect for local governments' authority to set gun policy.
Here's what LaPierre wrote about the vote: "When Obama turned thumbs down on the bill, he voted against the most basic element of the Second Amendment — the right of defense of self and family — the reason that millions of Americans own firearms."
That's a bit of a leap. In concrete terms, Obama's thumbs-down was a vote against the state legislature tweaking a local gun ban. In any event, there's no fair way to interpret it as evidence that Obama has a future plan to ban the use of firearms for home defense.
Moreover, there's ample evidence to the contrary. Here's Obama speaking at a forum sponsored by WJLA-ABC7 and Politico.com on Feb. 12, 2008: "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.
Ignoring that sort of evidence, and instead extrapolating from one vote on a jurisdictional debate in Illinois a broad-ranging plan to ban guns for home defense, is not just misleading, it's intentionally dishonest. That is, Pants on Fire wrong.
=================================================
"Obama's Ten Point Plan to 'Change' The Second Amendment….Ban the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns."
-National Rifle Association on Friday, August 1st, 2008 in a direct mail piece
Fuzzy stand in '96 does not amount to a plan
In a hard-hitting direct-mail piece to its members, the National Rifle Association detailed an alleged plan by Sen. Barack Obama to transform gun-ownership regulations.
Obama's "plan" appeared on a section of the mailer designed to be cut out and carried around in a wallet. The front of the wallet card said, "Barack Obama's Ten Point Plan to 'Change' the Second Amendment." The reverse listed the 10 parts of the alleged plan, including:
"3) Ban the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns."
We examined item No. 1 here, and found it to be Pants on Fire wrong. (see above - Dave)
Some of the other items sound just as dubious, such as: "4) Close down 90 percent of the gun shops in America." And "6) Increase federal taxes on guns and ammunition by 500 percent."
But let's stick to No. 3 for now.
An NRA spokeswoman confirmed the authenticity of the direct mail piece, which first appeared in early August 2008. She would not delve into the details of how the organization supported its charges, but we're pretty sure we know where the NRA is coming from on this one.
In 1996, as a candidate for the Illinois state senate, Obama filled out a questionnaire for a community group called Independent Voters of Illinois-Independent Precinct Organization. It asked if the candidate supported state legislation to “ban the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns.” Obama’s answer: “Yes.”
The Obama campaign claimed the questionnaire was filled out by a campaign aide who “unintentionally mischaracterize[d] his position” on gun control and other issues, even though Obama's writing was on another part of the questionnaire. (Tommy Vietor, a spokesman for Obama’s campaign, said in an e-mailed statement to Politico, “He may have jotted some notes on the front page of the questionnaire at the meeting, but that doesn’t change the fact that some answers didn’t reflect his views.”)
But let's assume, for the sake of argument, that Obama approved of what was on the questionnaire. There are still serious problems with using that to justify a claim that Obama has a plan to "ban the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns."
For one thing, the question was about a state law. The NRA claims without qualification that Obama wants to ban handguns, implying that he intends to do so on a national level. Obama says frequently that gun regulation should be tailored to different geographical areas.
For another thing, Obama's answer on the questionnaire was a long time ago. On a more recent questionnaire, he said, "A complete ban on handguns is not politically practicable," but reasonable restrictions should be imposed, according to the Associated Press.
At the Democratic presidential debate in Philadelphia on April 16, 2008, Obama said: "I have never favored an all-out ban on handguns." His vote in 2004, for a bill that authorized the Illinois State Police to issue concealed weapon permits to retired police officers and military police officers, supports that claim. Furthermore, as a state legislator and U.S. senator, Obama has had plenty of opportunity to propose a ban on handguns, and has never done so.
Obama's alleged endorsement of a proposed state law in 1996 does not add up to a plan to ban handguns, particularly in light of evidence to the contrary that has accumulated since then. We find the NRA's claim to be False.
Politifact.com Truth-o-meter
I stay out of the gun issues
Part of the problem is that people who think that the 2A are somehow tied to hunting, or even self defense.........invariably do not truly support it. The 2A stands on it's own merit.......it's not about self defense, or hunting, or target shooting.......it's about the right of simple possession. There are no qualifiers. You can't support an enumerated constitutional right and say........"I recognize your right, but only if....or only when........or only under circumstances I define..........or only regarding certain types of functionaly identical products based on their appearance..........."
Pit Row
Whatever dude, I back up what I say. Don't keep hitting back on the "do your own work" bs. I read all the reports from both sides and watch the news shows from both sides. I'm as up to date on this as anyone else around.
And now you know about Jim Johnson too..........it's been a wonderful day of learning for you hasn't it?
Great reference!
Awesome!
Post a reply to: Typical NRA BS