Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 51

Thread: NRA Propoganda at Nations Largest Gun Show: 'Obama is an Enemy of Gun Rights'

  1. #1
    Founder's Club Member - Moderator longwatch's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Northern Fauquier Co, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    4,297

    Post imported post

    Looks like the left wants to pick a fight with gun owners. Duct tape alert on the comments at the host page.

    http://thinkprogress.org/2008/11/24/gun-show/

    Since Barack Obama’s election, the National Rifle Association (NRA) and other pro-gun groups have been warning that the new president will take away their second amendment rights. This multi-million dollar campaign is already having effects. Not only is the NRA trying to profit off this fear-mongering by increasing its membership, many gun sellers are holding “Obama Sales.”


    On Friday, ThinkProgress visited The Nation’s Gun Show in Chantilly, VA, where 1,000 vendors took over a building the size of two football fields. The NRA’s fear-mongering was all over the event. An ad in the Washington Post read, “GET YOUR GUNS WHILE YOU STILL CAN!!!” While we waited in a long line in the cold, visitors willing to begin or renew their NRA membership were able to get in free and skip the line.



    We spoke with an NRA coordinator at the event who confirmed that the organization had seen a dramatic increase in membership after Obama’s election and noted that the turnout at this gun show was much higher than at one two months ago. When we asked whether Obama would revoke gun owners’ rights, she strayed from the official line and admitted that with important issues like the economy, he may not go after it right away. Some of the materials that were being handed out at the NRA booth:




    Traces of these myths infiltrated some of the vendors’ tables as well:
    One vendor with Liberty Firearms was wearing a button with Obama’s name crossed out and warned a couple, “Get ready for the Obamanation.” He told us that he was actually having trouble restocking and ordering new wares because suppliers were canceling orders and getting ready to dramatically increase prices to take advantage of the hype, as they did in 1994. The man selling the “NObama” shirts said that his business was also way up. “People are afraid,” he said.


    Despite the NRA’s best efforts, many individual gun owners recognize the campaign as nothing but hype. ThinkProgress spoke with Gary Foster of the Virginia Citizens Defense League, who said that while he could not speak for his organization, his personal opinion was that many media stories about a rush on guns are overblown:
    [flash=425,344]http://www.youtube.com/v/_ckMhOVmdcM&hl=en&fs=1[/flash]

    As FactCheck.org has explained, much of the NRA’s information is completely inaccurate: “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. [Many of NRA] TV spots and fliers also make claims that are directly contrary to what Obama actually says about guns.” Obama has also reassured voters that he has no intention or desire to take away their guns.

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Hodgenville, Kentucky, USA
    Posts
    1,261

    Post imported post

    Better to be safe than sorry. Is a 'propaganda' agenda from NRA any less than the BS from the Brady Bunch?

    I think the pro gun people are pretty well restrained compared to 'cooked' polls and damn well lies from the antis.

    Just wait. It has only begun. I have all I need, so I can sit back and watch. Personally, I think it's time we fought dirty and spewwarped infolike the Brady Bunch. Sad part is....we gun owners are just too honest.

  3. #3
    Regular Member Huck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Evanston, Wyoming, USA
    Posts
    647

    Post imported post

    TheMrMitch wrote:
    Personally, I think it's time we fought dirty and spewwarped infolike the Brady Bunch. Sad part is....we gun owners are just too honest.
    Why stoop to the anti's level? The lies and warped info they spew is why they have no credibility. Our side has credibility, lets keep it that way.

    III
    "You can teach 'em, but you cant learn 'em."

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Boone, NC, ,
    Posts
    81

    Post imported post

    I hate how the liberal media gives Obama a free pass on his very anti-gun voting record, and then cites the false factcheck site in order to discredit the NRA. Congressional voting records are not hard to access, but then again the liberal media does not want to paint "the one" in a bad light.

    Now, I hope Obama is smart enough to not push gun control in an effort to get re-elected in 2012, but Ifear he's too arrogant not to.

    Still feel likeputting downthe NRA? I hope not.

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Phoenix, Arizona, USA
    Posts
    460

    Post imported post

    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.
    How magnanimous of him.


  6. #6
    Newbie
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Swanzey,NH, ,
    Posts
    218

    Post imported post

    I sense that the origanator of this thread has no problem rolling over on his back, and may even be a shadow supporter of the anti agenda.

    It is best to vigilant and prepared, than act in a crisis.

  7. #7
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193

    Post imported post

    We know (sense) Longwatch better than we know a trapped rat. Only a trapped rat can't flee a sinking ship of state.

  8. #8
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    190

    Post imported post

    where did they find a guy that would say exactly what they wanted.

    i bet they had to look all day.

    just look at chicago. shithole USA. hizza obongo

  9. #9
    Campaign Veteran deepdiver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Southeast, Missouri, USA
    Posts
    5,974

    Post imported post

    Once again the left hangs its hat on what Obama SAYS about guns since running for president and ignores what he said about guns previously and how he has voted regarding guns for the last decade.
    Bob Owens @ Bearing Arms (paraphrased): "These people aren't against violence; they're very much in favor of violence. They're against armed resistance."

  10. #10
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    DFW, Texas, USA
    Posts
    429

    Post imported post

    I'm sorry but, isn't consumers spending money on products and services ( guns, ammo, training )good for the economy? Why is this not reported? It seems to me that gun enthusiasts are doing more for the economy than most other segments of the population. Our efforts to stimulate the economy should be applauded, celebrated and emulated.

  11. #11
    Founder's Club Member Tess's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Alexandria, Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    3,765

    Post imported post

    Exactly:
    As FactCheck.org has explained, much of the NRA’s information is completely inaccurate: “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. [Many of NRA] TV spots and fliers also make claims that are directly contrary to what Obama actually says about guns.” Obama has also reassured voters that he has no intention or desire to take away their guns.
    "fact"check takes what obama SAYS as fact, not what he does.
    Laws alone can not secure freedom of expression; in order that every man present his views without penalty there must be spirit of tolerance in the entire population. -Albert Einstein

  12. #12
    Founder's Club Member - Moderator longwatch's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Northern Fauquier Co, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    4,297

    Post imported post

    Rattrapper wrote:
    I sense that the origanator of this thread has no problem rolling over on his back, and may even be a shadow supporter of the anti agenda.

    It is best to vigilant and prepared, than act in a crisis.
    That is a pretty insulting and moronic statement and utterly wrong. By the way, learn how to spell.

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Saulte Sainte Marie, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    30

    Post imported post

    Huck wrote:
    TheMrMitch wrote:
    Personally, I think it's time we fought dirty and spewwarped infolike the Brady Bunch. Sad part is....we gun owners are just too honest.
    Why stoop to the anti's level? The lies and warped info they spew is why they have no credibility. Our side has credibility, lets keep it that way.

    III
    Indeed the truth is scary enough, no need to lie.

  14. #14
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Just a "wannabe" in Mtn. Top, Pennsylvania, USA
    Posts
    1,441

    Post imported post

    A little research will reveal all the claims and quotes used by NRA are indeed factual.

    This has been done on a couple boards, I am still looking for the link(s).

    Meanwhile, it is no secret (or surprise) that factcheck.org is yet another looney left propaganda machine themselves.

    Yep, a propaganda machine claiming that varifiable quotes from "O" are false Imagine that.


    http://www.plumbbobblog.com/?p=1417
    09/29/2008 (11:39 am) How Reliable is FactCheck.org? I have a lot of respect for the Annenberg Public Policy Center, but they’ve made some serious errors in the past several weeks, errors that all lean in the same direction. They’re on their way toward marking themselves as just another biased source. It’s unfortunate; we all want unbiased sources to which we can resort, but that’s sadly becoming a thing of the past. The one that caught the attention of major blogs was their response to the NRA’s criticism of Barack Obama. The National Rifle Association put together a flyer and a pair of video ads criticizing Obama’s record on 2nd Amendment issues (see “Hunter” here). FactCheck.org took them to task for the campaign, claiming that the campaign “…falsely claims … that Obama plans to ban handguns, hunting ammo and use of a gun for home defense.” The problem is, FactCheck.org is basing its assessment entirely on the Obama campaign’s policy claims since the end of 2007, after Obama’s dramatic and utterly utilitarian shift toward the center; the NRA, explicitly and with good reason, bases its claims on Obama’s voting and speaking record before that shift. Patterico tears FactCheck to bits over it, but even the mild and scholarly Volokh Conspiracy (whom I judge to be very near the center of the political spectrum) calmly declares that FactCheck.org completely missed the boat on this one. This is not the first time FactCheck.org has taken Obama’s side incorrectly on a complaint about an ad, though. Back on Sept. 10, they complained about the ad claiming that Barack Obama’s “one accomplishment” on sex education was “legislation to teach ‘comprehensive sex education’ to kindergarteners.” Byron York was the biggest name to respond, doing yeoman’s duty to track down originators and original wording of the legislation in question, and determined that the ad was accurate. Not wanting to take his word for it, I read over the proposed legislation myself, and discovered not only that it said precisely what the McCain ad claimed it said, but that Obama’s defense of the measure was not even plausible in light of the wording of the measure. The act calls for age-appropriate instruction of grades K-12 on the subject of “the prevention of sexually transmitted diseases;” the Obama campaign said he was supporting age-appropriate instruction against unwanted touching, which is not even mentioned in the legislation. You can read the act for yourself here. The only complaints from the FactCheck article that hold water at all were those that objected to calling this “his one accomplishment.” On one hand, FactCheck points out, Obama neither wrote nor sponsored the measure; however, his committee approved the legislation, and if the committee under Obama’s leadership produced no other significant changes in education policy, then this measure could properly be called his “one accomplishment” in the Illinois legislature regarding education. FactCheck further observes that Obama proposed 3 amendments to a federal act while in the US Senate that were accepted by acclamation; calling these amendments “relevant to education” is a stretch, as is calling them “accomplishments,” but I’ll at least agree that the McCain ad should have specified that it was talking about his tenure in the Illinois legislature specifically. Finally, FactCheck claims that Obama co-sponsored the Chicago Education Reform Act of 2003, but that occurred during a period when Emil Jones was shuffling legislation toward Obama in an effort to make him a US Senator; Obama’s co-sponsorship was on paper only. In short, the McCain ad was substantially correct, and the FactCheck.org response to it was wrong. Two days later, FactCheck.org griped about Gov. Palin’s comment in her interview with Charlie Gibson on ABC that her state produces “20% of the US domestic supply of energy.” This turns out to be a minor quibble that the McCain campaign corrected as soon as it was brought to their attention; it’s correct to say that Alaska historically has produced about 20% of the nation’s oil and gas supply, and it’s pretty clear that’s what Palin meant. It’s also correct to note that the percentage is smaller now than in past decades (more like 14%,) but since her point was that she was governor of a state that contributes significantly to the US supply of energy, a quibble over the specific percentage or over the accidental substitution of “energy” for “oil and gas” hardly deserves a title like “energetically wrong” (even allowing for the pun,) nor the apparent energy that the article’s author felt, saying things like “Not even close.” The point is that sadly, we cannot take FactCheck.org as an unbiased and reliable source of information, as they seem to be starting to flack a little for the Obama campaign. Naturally, I never took their word as gospel anyway, but until fairly recently I’d been impressed with the level of objectivity I’d seen. No longer. Let the browser beware.

  15. #15
    Newbie
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Swanzey,NH, ,
    Posts
    218

    Post imported post

    longwatch wrote:
    Rattrapper wrote:
    I sense that the origanator of this thread has no problem rolling over on his back, and may even be a shadow supporter of the anti agenda.

    It is best to vigilant and prepared, than act in a crisis.
    That is a pretty insulting and moronic statement and utterly wrong. By the way, learn how to spell.
    Spelling is not one my strong traits. So is that the best you can come up with, how shallow

  16. #16
    Regular Member VAopencarry's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    The 'Dena, Mаяуlaпd
    Posts
    2,147

    Post imported post

    Rattrapper wrote:
    I sense that the origanator of this thread has no problem rolling over on his back, and may even be a shadow supporter of the anti agenda.

    It is best to vigilant and prepared, than act in a crisis.
    Thinking is not your strong suit. You attack a member that his been a member of this forum since it's inception. Your 'senses' must be clouded in a drug haze or something.
    "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." - Thomas Jefferson

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    , Nevada, USA
    Posts
    716

    Post imported post

    John Lott set the record straight on Factcheck.org. I think that they need to learn how to check the facts.

    http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,427347,00.html

    I remember hearing on one of the radio talk shows that Factcheck.org is owned by a company that was very active in the Obama campaign.I wish I could remember which show it was.

  18. #18

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Northern Virginia
    Posts
    1,128

    Post imported post

    VAopencarry wrote:
    Rattrapper wrote:
    I sense that the origanator of this thread has no problem rolling over on his back, and may even be a shadow supporter of the anti agenda.

    It is best to vigilant and prepared, than act in a crisis.
    Thinking is not your strong suit. You attack a member that his been a member of this forum since it's inception. Your 'senses' must be clouded in a drug haze or something.
    However much I may have disagreed with his political picks, Longwatch isa source of reliable and accurate information, and certainly is no "anti."

    Some claims made inNRA's materials about Obama have been more accurate than others. I don't think it makes sense to get into the specifics again after the election: we'llhave the opportunity to see whatObama's priorities are . . . maybe . . . eventually . . ..

    Obamahas a different personal narrative about firearms than almost all participants in this forum:some skepticismis warranted however about whether that translatesinto policy, and whether he really is a "socialist" (whatever that means for guns)or as unteachable and unreachable as some have suggested. He does not seem intellectually rigidlike some who have commented on him.But we'll have quite a while to wait. Given other matters luming on the political radar screen, affirmative gun controlissueswill not makeit onto Obama'sagenda, if at all,for quite a while. (I exclude the National Park Ban from this, about which he may not have a choice).

    The NRA is laughing all the way to the bank about these election results andI'm getting ready to send them a resume: they, at least,must be hiring.



  19. #19
    Newbie
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Swanzey,NH, ,
    Posts
    218

    Post imported post

    Maybe ANTI was a bit strong, But my guardhairs go up like crazy when ever some one supports FACT CHECK as being a real source of validation. And yes I am 100% NRA. Life Member, That does not mean that the otherPro Gun groups (w/ exceptionASHA) are less valid or with out purpose.

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Montague, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    100

    Post imported post

    If you own a rifle with a detachable mag (like a ruger 10/22) take a look here!

    http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:H.R.1022.IH:

    http://akeyboardanda45.blogspot.com/...-traction.html

  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Phoenix, Arizona, USA
    Posts
    460

    Post imported post

    A socialist believes that all guns should be under control of the government. They certainly do not support an individual right to keep and bear arms.

    Now, if you can't point to any evidence that Obama supports that right by his actions (i.e. voting record) and not just by his pre-election rhetoric, I might consider the possibility that he is not a socialist.

  22. #22

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Northern Virginia
    Posts
    1,128

    Post imported post

    Slayer of Paper wrote:
    A socialist believes that all guns should be under control of the government. They certainly do not support an individual right to keep and bear arms.

    Now, if you can't point to any evidence that Obama supports that right by his actions (i.e. voting record) and not just by his pre-election rhetoric, I might consider the possibility that he is not a socialist.
    "Socialism: An economic system in which the basic means of production are primarily owned and controlled collectively, usually by government under some system of central planning."

    Unless it is the means of producing GUNS you are talking about, I do not think "socialism" really relates.

    I do not think Obama has ever votedon whetherthe governmentshould bail out Colt, Remington or S & W in exchange for stock.

  23. #23

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Northern Virginia
    Posts
    1,128

    Post imported post

    SIGfreed wrote:
    If you own a rifle with a detachable mag (like a ruger 10/22) take a look here!

    http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:H.R.1022.IH:

    http://akeyboardanda45.blogspot.com/...-traction.html
    In 2 years, HR 1022 was only able to attract 67 house cosponsors. It is going nowhere.

    (However, it is interesting that Rahm Emmanuel was one of the cosponsors).

  24. #24
    Regular Member Deanimator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Rocky River, OH, U.S.A.
    Posts
    2,086

    Post imported post

    The Donkey wrote:
    Obamahas a different personal narrative about firearms than almost all participants in this forum:
    REALLY??? What IS his "personal narrative"?


    --- Gun control: The theory that 110lb. women have the "right" to fistfight with 210lb. rapists.

  25. #25

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Northern Virginia
    Posts
    1,128

    Post imported post

    Deanimator wrote:
    The Donkey wrote:
    Obamahas a different personal narrative about firearms than almost all participants in this forum:
    REALLY??? What IS his "personal narrative"?

    Part of it: in his book "Dreams of My Father," he tells a story about having to hit the dirt when a clueless 14 year old with a gun and no sense of consequences was shooting at another kid of similar age and disposition as he walked through a neighborhood with a friend.

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •