NRA Ads expose Obama Biden

Tawnos · Sep 26, 2008

imported post

heresolong wrote

And yet you are ignoring the more egregious distortions of the factcheck website regarding the same subject and have not, so far, been honest enough to say so.

You're kidding, right? You're telling me that this:

" on some points it is right; Obama has called for national legislation against carrying concealed firearms, and he would revive and make permanent the expired ban on semi-automatic "assault weapons," for example. On other points it exaggerates. Obama has spoken in favor of government registration of handguns, for example, but has not called for registration of all "firearms" including hunting rifles and shotguns"

and the rest of the analysis backing that claim is a bunch of biased statements which are egregious distortions of the truth, because in the past the Annenberg Foundation has given money to the Brady campaign? Seriously? Is that your answer?

*facepalm*

heresolong · Sep 26, 2008

imported post

Tawnos wrote:

heresolong wrote

And yet you are ignoring the more egregious distortions of the factcheck website regarding the same subject and have not, so far, been honest enough to say so.

Click to expand...

You're kidding, right? You're telling me that this:

" on some points it is right; Obama has called for national legislation against carrying concealed firearms, and he would revive and make permanent the expired ban on semi-automatic "assault weapons," for example. On other points it exaggerates. Obama has spoken in favor of government registration of handguns, for example, but has not called for registration of all "firearms" including hunting rifles and shotguns"

and the rest of the analysis backing that claim is a bunch of biased statements which are egregious distortions of the truth, because in the past the Annenberg Foundation has given money to the Brady campaign? Seriously? Is that your answer?

*facepalm*

I am so tired of this argument with you already. Do I really have to point by point go through items that people have already gone through, on this thread and elsewhere? You mock any arguments that we do make, you accuse us of not even having read the thread, and yet you refuse to recognize any valid arguments that we make.

The fact is that Obama has a long record of being anti-gun. He has answered numerous questionnaires stating anti-gun positions. He has voted against gun owners every single time he has had an opportunity, both at the state and federal levels. He has implied that he would ban handguns "if it was politically feasible". And yet you continue to post in this thread that factcheck.org, a website that is funded by an anti-gun foundation, is somehow a more reliable indicator of Obama's positions than the candidate's own record. You, on the other hand, are cherry picking quotes out of our responses and factcheck's website, and then claiming that our whole argument boils down to our own prejudices.

Tawnos · Sep 26, 2008

imported post

heresolong wrote:

I am so tired of this argument with you already. Do I really have to point by point go through items that people have already gone through, on this thread and elsewhere? You mock any arguments that we do make, you accuse us of not even having read the thread, and yet you refuse to recognize any valid arguments that we make.

The fact is that Obama has a long record of being anti-gun. He has answered numerous questionnaires stating anti-gun positions. He has voted against gun owners every single time he has had an opportunity, both at the state and federal levels. He has implied that he would ban handguns "if it was politically feasible". And yet you continue to post in this thread that factcheck.org, a website that is funded by an anti-gun foundation, is somehow a more reliable indicator of Obama's positions than the candidate's own record. You, on the other hand, are cherry picking quotes out of our responses and factcheck's website, and then claiming that our whole argument boils down to our own prejudices.

I don't mock the arguments you make. Instead, I point out that many of the very things you say are backed by analysis presented at fact check, and that others which are claimed as truthful are more of a stretch. For example, I find no substantial evidence of claims 1, 3, 4, or 10, and I see significant distortion or selective interpretation needed for all but number 2.

In my opinion, by mixing all of the unsubstantial, non-verifiable, or that which otherwise requires a twist, interpretation, et cetera with that which is clear, the point is watered down. By lying or stretching the truth on other points, the fact that should be most important is lost in the noise. This fact, supported by fact check, and repeatedly ignored as you try to attack me (and fact check, which provides its sources, yet you provide none (nor does saysuncle, nor any of the links branching from there, so don't point me back there)) is that yes, he's an anti-gun candidate, but no, the flier is not, by and large, factually accurate.

Damn, I posted something that gave no opinion, only analysis, and you all jumped as if I'd somehow declared Obama the greatest protector of gun rights anywhere. Maybe you should check your fear response.

heresolong · Sep 26, 2008

imported post

Tawnos wrote:

(and fact check, which provides its sources,

The only source factcheck provides for Obama's opinions is the Obama presidential campaign website.

And I think you will find, if you look carefully, that I never attacked you, only your opinions.

And I think you will find that the NRA provides numerous sources so I don't feel the need to provide them all again.

And I think that you will find that there are numerous sources quoted in this thread's argument against factcheck and for the NRA's positions. Take a look at chuckufarley's post. So your claim that we aren't providing sources is also wrong.

Tawnos · Sep 26, 2008

imported post

heresolong wrote:

1) The only source factcheck provides for Obama's opinions is the Obama presidential campaign website.

2) And I think you will find, if you look carefully, that I never attacked you, only your opinions.

3) And I think you will find that the NRA provides numerous sources so I don't feel the need to provide them all again.

4) And I think that you will find that there are numerous sources quoted in this thread's argument against factcheck and for the NRA's positions. Take a look at chuckufarley's post. So your claim that we aren't providing sources is also wrong.

In the style of factcheck, I've decided to number your claims and analyze:
1) FALSE: Fact check uses the campaign web site for only two sources, the remainder are from a variety of other sources:

Sources
Chase, John. "Keyes, Obama are far apart on guns; Views on assault weapons at odds." Chicago Tribune, 15 Sept. 2004.

Wereschagin, Mike and David M. Brown. "Candidates' gun control positions may figure in Pa. vote." Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, 2 April 2008.

U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes 109th Congress - 1st Session, Vote No. 217 S. Amdt. 1615 to S. 397

Illinois 93rd General Assembly. Senate Bill No. 2165, 25 March 2004.

Tozzi, Lisa. "Candidates React to Supreme Court’s Gun Ruling." The Caucus Blog, New York Times, 26 June 2008.

Obama-Biden Campaign. Urban Policy. www.barackobama.com, accessed 16 Sept. 2008.

Obama-Biden Campaign. BARACK OBAMA: SUPPORTING THE RIGHTS
AND TRADITIONS OF SPORTSMEN. www.barackobama.com, accessed 16 Sept. 2008.

Dann, Carrie. OBAMA ON JUDGES, SUPREME COURT. MSNBC First Read, 17 July 2007.

Moore, Solomon. "Former felons can often vote, but may not be aware of it." New York Times, 14 Sept. 2008.

Mendell, David. "Democratic hopefuls vary a bit on death penalty." Chicago Tribune, 20 Feb. 2008.

S. 804: Count Every Vote Act of 2007. Introduced March 7, 2007.

Pickle, Nedra. "Obama mentions God and guns in Idaho." Associated Press, boston.com. 2 Feb. 2008.

Black, Lisa and M. Daniel Gibbard. "Wilmette man shoots intruder in his home." Chicago Tribune, 31 Dec. 2003.

2) MISLEADING: Statements about my perception were made by you, as well as implications that I am too dumb to use a source with facts:

And yet you are ignoring the more egregious distortions of the factcheck website regarding the same subject and have not, so far, been honest enough to say so.

I choose to go with the NRA's analysis because they actually provide FACTS to back up their arguments.

3) FALSE: Point out the sources in this press release: http://www.nraila.org/Issues/Articles/Read.aspx?id=308&issue=047
Instead of facts and evidence, I see statements such as "You can bet" and "the same is likely to occur."

4) YOU MISS THE POINT: Apart from the fact chuckfarley just copied and pasted the same rehash of points, you somehow keep missing that I don't think Obama is a gun-right supporter, nor does fact check make that claim, either. Instead, there are exagerations being posted as truth that should be excluded from the discusion so the important message isn't lost by the inclusion (as you can see, it's already getting derailed because those of us who prefer avoiding hyperbolic claims in politics don't idly watch when such claims are made).

Let's go through these claims one by one.

The analysis provided for point 1 by the NRA (and say uncle, and other such sites) is that, because Obama didn't support an affirmative defense law, he'd (quoting directly from the NRA sheet) "ban use of firearms in home for self-defense." What it actually means is that he doesn't support a law which makes violation of another law retroactively okay due to circumstances. Meaning, a person in violation of municipal law for a period of time no longer is in violation should an act resulting in successful self-defense occur. Taking that stance and stretching it to "would ban use" is intellectually dishonest.

Point 2 has been covered and affirmed as true by fact check. He doesn't believe non law enforcement should carry firearms. I think that's bullshit, personally, but that's not relevant here, when both fact check and the NRA agree that he does not support carry (open or concealed) by citizens.

Point 3 can be debated ad nauseum. The problem is that you end up with a "he said/she said" scenario, and there is no affirmative evidence that either side is lying. The NRA claims a typed questionaire with some writing on the first page (presumably, in Obama's style, but I have no evidence for or against this) provides damning evidence. The problem I have with this is that pages 4-7 look different than 1-3. They are printed differently, have different identifying marks, et cetera. This all supports the claim that a staffer filled out the documents, and means that any discourse on their truthfulness is pretty meaningless.

I could go on, but I should go back to working. I just wanted to show that things aren't as unbalanced at fact check as claimed, and that there are false or otherwise misleading claims being presented along with the truthful ones.

kparker · Sep 26, 2008

imported post

a highly-political group without any pretenses of neutrality.

Dude, the NRA may indeed be highly political, but they are not be any means partisan (which is suspect you were trying to suggest, and hope that it was inadvertant rather than deliberate.) The NRA endorses Democrats all the time if the D's in question appear to be pro-gun-rights (or, sometimes, less anti-gun-rights than their major-party opponents.) Bill Richardson, for an example from the most-recent campaign cycle, is highly rated by the NRA and was endorsed by them for his latest gubernatorial run (and presumably for his earlier ones, too.) Howard Dean was also highly-rated by the NRA (just to pick somebody from the last cycle, so youdon't think it's a fluke.)

Tawnos · Sep 26, 2008

imported post

kparker wrote:

a highly-political group without any pretenses of neutrality.

Click to expand...

Dude, the NRA may indeed be highly political, but they are not be any means partisan (which is suspect you were trying to suggest, and hope that it was inadvertant rather than deliberate.) The NRA endorses Democrats all the time if the D's in question appear to be pro-gun-rights (or, sometimes, less anti-gun-rights than their major-party opponents.) Bill Richardson, for an example from the most-recent campaign cycle, is highly rated by the NRA and was endorsed by them for his latest gubernatorial run (and presumably for his earlier ones, too.) Howard Dean was also highly-rated by the NRA (just to pick somebody from the last cycle, so youdon't think it's a fluke.)

par·ti·san1

var interfaceflash = new LEXICOFlashObject ( "http://cache.lexico.com/d/g/speaker.swf", "speaker", "17", "18", "

/ˈpɑr

tə

zən, -sən; Brit. ˌpɑr

təˈzæn/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[pahr-tuh-zuh

n, -suh

n; Brit. pahr-tuh-zan] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation –noun 1.an adherent or supporter of a person, group, party, or cause, esp. a person who shows a biased, emotional allegiance.
I'd say that the NRA is quite partisan towards the cause of guns

. However, that post was more in reference to the sayuncle blog and its constituents/links, which make claims and don't claim to be politically neutral (where as the NRA is a bit more politically neutral, as evidenced by their support for any candidate supporting their partisan position).

Tawnos · Sep 26, 2008

imported post

Oooh, looks like I got a double post, that's fun, I only clicked send once >.<

Um...

My thoughts on peanut butter jelly time...

Cremator75 · Sep 26, 2008

imported post

heresolong wrote:

MetalChris wrote:

Cremator75 wrote:

Even though I agree that Obama is 100% anti 2A, even Biden was quoted as saying "Obama won't take MY shotgun".

Sorry I don't have a link to it.

Click to expand...

Of course Bama's not gonna take Biden's shotteh...since when have politicians ever been in the business of disarming each other?

Click to expand...

Yeah. Just ask Dianne "I have a California concealed weapons permit which the average Joe can't get but if I had the votes I'd tell every American to turn in their guns" Feinstein.

Anyway, since when is the dividing line between acceptable gun control and non-acceptable gun control whether or not you can own an over-under shotgun? What about pistols, revolvers, semi-automatic rifles, so called "assault rifles". I own all of those but not one over-under shotgun, so Biden's reassurance doesn't make me feel warm and fuzzy.

Don't get me wrong, I was not claiming Biden's words as reassurance. I was just trying to show how far anti 2A Obama was.

heresolong · Sep 27, 2008

imported post

Tawnos wrote:

3) FALSE: Point out the sources in this press release: http://www.nraila.org/Issues/Articles/Read.aspx?id=308&issue=047

Since when do press releases have sources? They are press releases. If you go to the NRA's website there are buckets of sources for all their claims. I also think that it is perfectly appropriate to look at a candidates actions and rhetoric and draw conclusions. I do think that factcheck is doing the exact same thing that you claim the NRA is doing, however. They are looking at Obama's record and drawing conclusions that are not supported by the evidence. So what we are really arguing about is who's interpretation of Obama's record is most accurate.

Fact is, Obama has had an anti-gun slant his whole career. He has never voted for gun owners, he has routinely voted against gun owners, and the only way to make Obama seem to support the Second Amendment is to take Obama's word for it or the word of some other anti-gun person or group. Claiming, to take only one example, that Obama never wanted to ban hunting ammunition just because Ted Kennedy said that the bill before the Senate wouldn't ban hunting ammunition is putting the fox in charge of the henhouse. Almost every group or individual that knows anything about ammunition understands that the Kennedy bill that Obama supported would have allowed the attorney general to ban most hunting ammunition.

So what we are left with is the impression that an Obama presidency would be very supportive of severe restrictions on the Second Amendment. From his statements regarding the Heller case, you can assume that he will appoint judges to the SCOTUS who would uphold complete bans on firearms. You say you are not a single issue voter and I accept that. But if the right of self defense is taken from you (see Britain and Australia for what happens then) what good are all the other laws that you might be in favor of. If you are not secure in your person, the rest is sort of moot.

I happen to think that most things that a president can do domestically, especially with the help of a willing Legislative branch, are harmful to the country unless they involve getting the federal government the hell out of our way. Included in that are severe restrictions on our constitutional rights. I think that it is clear that Obama will gut the second amendment, given the opportunity. Obama will also bring back the Fairness Doctrine, gutting our free speech rights. He will probably raise taxes, reducing our ability to be independent of an overreaching government, and he will attempt to introduce large new social programs such as socialized medicine which will both reduce our access to quality health care and hurt our economy and our pocketbooks. Will McCain be the perfect president? I seriously doubt it. I have my issues with him. But overall I suspect that there will be fewer federal government intrusions into the lives and constitutional protections of ordinary people. And that is all to the good, in my opinion.

Sorry for the off topic but it seems to dovetail nicely with the current discussion. IMHO. Or maybe not.

Richard6218 · Sep 27, 2008

imported post

Tawnos wrote:

Richard6218 wrote:

I think it's reasonable to conclude from most of the posts here that Obama represents a very serious threat to the Second Amendment. Before going further, I think what heresolong was referring to about the NRA was Wayne LaPierre's editorials in the current American Rifleman. All of Obama's statements and his voting record show that he pushes the envelope at every opportunity. What no one has said, and I think the reason is that the notion is so unthinkable, is that Obama would repeal the entire Second Amendment if he thought he could get away with it. And I think it's not too far-fetched to think that he might try, if he could gin up enough support in the early stages. If this guy is elected we will be in for the fight of our lives.

Click to expand...

I think it's reasonable to conclude from most of the posts, anywhere, and the general discussion and reporting that people don't understand the very Constitution they complain another side doesn't support.

Your assertion that I don't understand the Constitution is a misstatement of what I said. I never said Obama would single-handedly take any legislative action, and to claim that I said so is just wrong. What I did not say is that the evidence in all of Obama's actions and statements points to a reasonable presumption that he secretly wishes there were no Second Amendment, and that given the opportunity he would use all the influence of the presidency to initiate an action to repeal it. So far he has not dared speak openly of it because is has not yet been elected. He certainly has supporters in the congress to initiate such action such as Feinstein and plenty of others who are well known to most of us. With a Democrat-controlled House and Senate and enough anti-gun supporters, to me it is not inconceivable that with a major push from Obama, and a campaign in some of the bluest states' legislatures, a repeal amendment could be pushed through. Whether this could succeed or not is at present pure speculation, but the thought of it is enough to, as the language of the RCW says so eloquently, "warrant alarm".

Shy_Panda · Sep 29, 2008

imported post

Well to make the situation even better, Obama is attempting to get the ads banned. Basically he is trying to dismantle the First Admendment because he doesn't want people to realize exactly how much he is against gun rights.

http://www.newsmax.com/politics/Obama_Wants_NRA_Ads_Banne/2008/09/27/135118.html?s=al&promo_code=6BBA-1

His campaign has been sending threatening letters to the stations that are running these ads saying that if the do not stop using the ads that they will have their FCC Licences revoked. They claim that because it is an independant political organization that they have no right to the use of the airwaves (apparently despite the fact that they are paying for the time) and that the stations have a 'duty to protect the public from false, misleading or deceptive advertising.'

I will let you guys figure out how to take that one; personally I view this guy as a threat to not only my Second Amendment, but also my First.

DEROS72 · Sep 29, 2008

imported post

Thank you Panda ,the very point I was trying to get across in the first place.For someone that touts free speech he certainly doesn,t others to have theirs.Once you eliminate the 2nd ammendment itg will be easy to destroy the 1st.

Huck · Sep 30, 2008

imported post

DEROS72 wrote:

Thank you Panda ,the very point I was trying to get across in the first place.For someone that touts free speech he certainly doesn,t others to have theirs.Once you eliminate the 2nd ammendment itg will be easy to destroy the 1st.

And with nObama's "truth police" and attempts to have TV stations stop airing the NRA adds, among others, nObama's already shown us what he thinks of the 1st ammendment.

I'm totally convinced that if Barak der fuhrer Obama gets elected, coupled with a democrat dominated congress,we'll have a dictator in the White House. None of our rights will be safe.

BTW, I consider "democrat" and "communist" to be one and the same.

DEROS72 · Sep 30, 2008

imported post

I do as well and believe we are headed headlong into civil war.

PrayingForWar · Sep 30, 2008

imported post

DEROS72 wrote:

I do as well and believe we are headed headlong into civil war.

Considering our enemies are largely drugged out, unwashed, unarmed, moonbats victory should be easy.

I have to disagree though. The gov't would never allow people to get so out of control so as to have a civil war. They'd just kill the lot of us.

DEROS72 · Sep 30, 2008

imported post

PrayingForWar wrote:

DEROS72 wrote:

I do as well and believe we are headed headlong into civil war.

Click to expand...

Considering our enemies are largely drugged out, unwashed, unarmed, moonbats victory should be easy.

I have to disagree though. The gov't would never allow people to get so out of control so as to have a civil war. They'd just kill the lot of us.

I live in a complex outside of Seattle.There are days I don,t here a word of english spoken.I see burkas and headscarffs everywhere.I feel like I live in Mogadishu.Your right about being unwashed etc.I see this filth everyday IN AMERICA.I saw a sign on a car in the parking lot, islam is the way death to America.I put my kids in private Christian schools because thay don,t say the pledge of allegiance or merryCHistmas anymore but will bend over for these filthy muslims.I see foriegn flags from time to time hanging up in different places.I went to war for the "In God we Trust America" personally I am sick of it.two of my daughters have at least been taught right they are in management with large companies and are very particular about who gets hired.Now we have someone running who literally wants to expand these take away the rest of our ideals and I would bet we are not to far from UN troops on our soil.........to diarm us and have us follow their more enlightened ideals.
Also why is my tax dollar going to support some minority that won,t work or can,t get a job.I see that all the time here people just hanging around doing nothing collecting from the public dole.I know for aq fact most have criminal records and should be put out in the street so these place could be used for AMerican citizens that have earned the right.Vets for example..I saw vets turned away from housing to give it to immigrants who have no right to anything.One more thing do I hate all immigrants ??No.....People that come here to be American ,The guys with green guards srving in our military (That warrants immediate citizenship in my mind) They are doing something for this country.But leave these third world Cultures behind.You only have to look at these third world countries that are always at war and starving to see how well those ideals work.

Comp-tech · Sep 30, 2008

imported post

I won't "let the cat out of the bag" but just suggest that you guys research just WHO started and controls FactCheck.....not who funds it, who started it

marshaul · Sep 30, 2008

imported post

marshaul · Sep 30, 2008

imported post

Jamfish wrote:

Thank you Chuck! FactCheck.org is not a holy, blameless creature and they really missed the boat on this one. I know they do try, but this was a failure of research.

Folks: if you take nothing else away from this, please look at what Obama has done and not just what he says about our 2nd Amendment rights.

Well, seeing as Obama has basically "done" nothing in his very short career, you'll have a hard time looking that up.

I'm not trying to defend the guy, but you need to recognize your own bias.

I'm not sure why this is so hard to grasp for you all. What we need to do is work to get out of the frying pan, not sit on our asses debating which side of the pan is cooler!

NRA Ads expose Obama Biden

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Founder's Club Member

Regular Member

State Researcher

Campaign Veteran

Campaign Veteran