• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

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

longwatch

Founder's Club Member - Moderator
Joined
May 14, 2006
Messages
4,327
Location
Virginia, USA
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:



gunsticker1.jpg

Traces of these myths infiltrated some of the vendors’ tables as well:
nobama2.jpg
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.
 

TheMrMitch

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 9, 2008
Messages
1,260
Location
Hodgenville, Kentucky, USA
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.
 

Huck

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 27, 2008
Messages
646
Location
Evanston, Wyoming, USA
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
 

Swampbeast

Regular Member
Joined
May 12, 2006
Messages
81
Location
Boone, NC, ,
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.
 

Rattrapper

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 5, 2008
Messages
218
Location
Swanzey,NH, ,
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.
 

mrbiggles

Banned
Joined
Oct 31, 2008
Messages
190
Location
, ,
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
 

deepdiver

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Apr 2, 2007
Messages
5,820
Location
Southeast, Missouri, USA
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.
 

cccook

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Aug 6, 2008
Messages
429
Location
DFW, Texas, USA
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.
 

Tess

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Jun 15, 2006
Messages
3,837
Location
Bryan, TX
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.
 

longwatch

Founder's Club Member - Moderator
Joined
May 14, 2006
Messages
4,327
Location
Virginia, USA
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.
 

RaspberrySurprise

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 24, 2008
Messages
30
Location
Saulte Sainte Marie, Michigan, USA
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.
 

Pa. Patriot

State Researcher
Joined
May 4, 2007
Messages
1,441
Location
Just a "wannabe" in Mtn. Top, Pennsylvania, USA
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 :rolleyes: 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.
 

Rattrapper

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 5, 2008
Messages
218
Location
Swanzey,NH, ,
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
 

VAopencarry

Regular Member
Joined
May 9, 2006
Messages
2,151
Location
Berryville-ish, VA
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 Donkey

New member
Joined
Sep 21, 2006
Messages
1,114
Location
Northern Virginia
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.
 

Rattrapper

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 5, 2008
Messages
218
Location
Swanzey,NH, ,
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.
 
Top