NRA makes false claims

Uh-oh, factcheck said something negative about the NRA, must be one of those liberal media outlets.

 

Whoa, I was literally just reading this article. good post.

Goes to show, anything you are hearing in the "media" is nothing but distorted truths, lies, and exagerations. Constantly taking words and phrases out of context, twisting them only to mean something else, something that causes "controversy" or some other BS.

 

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1207/7312.html

It's always nice to have all the facts when looking at the opposition. Obama filled out an Illinois voter group questionnaire in 1996 when he was seeking a Seanate seat. Among his other extremely liberal positions, he answered YES to the question; "Do you support state legislation to … ban the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns?”

Later the questionnaire was "redone" and Obama had the opportunity to change his answers, but the answer to the handgun question stayed the same. So either Obama agrees with a handgun ban or he just said he did to get the Senate seat in Illinois. So he is either a liar or has a propensity to infringe on my 2nd Ammendment rights... I don't like either!

 

Obama says he does not support any such handgun ban and never has. He supports "reasonable restrictions on the sale and possession of handguns" (not manufacture) and has said a ban is not "politically practicable."

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.

Whatever his position may have been in 1996, in 2003 he submitted another survey form to the same group avoiding a yes-or-no answer to the gun ban question and stating a position similar to his current stance. According to the Chicago Sun-Times, Obama's answer read:


Obama, 2003: While a complete ban on handguns is not politically practicable, I believe reasonable restrictions on the sale and possession of handguns are necessary to protect the public safety. In the Illinois Senate last year, I supported a package of bills to limit individual Illinoisans to purchasing one handgun a month; require all promoters and sellers at firearms shows to carry a state license; allow civil liability for death or injuries caused by handguns; and require FOID applicants to apply in person. I would support similar efforts at the federal level, including retaining the Brady Law."

In February 2008, the Associated Press reported that Obama said, "[T]here are people who say, 'Well, he doesn't believe in the Second Amendment,' even though I come from a state – we've got a lot of hunters in downstate Illinois. And I have no intention of taking away folks' guns." Even more recently, on April 16 at a Democratic debate in Philadelphia, Obama said,"I have never favored an all-out ban on handguns."

 

I'm betting Obama's definition of "REASONABLE" when he talks about restrictions is quite a bit different than legal gun owners definition. Basically Obama says he is for reasonable restrictions because that gives him a chance to make restrictions later.

 

because we all know, president is KING and makes all the laws of the land.

 

If Obama won, he would make decisions on at least 3 supreme court justices and have a Dem controlled Congress; I'd say he'll have a little PULL!!

 

Yes, the NRA is guilty of exageration.
Yes, the people they oppose are equally guilty of exageration.
Yes, I am a member.
Kind of hard to have a fight in a pig pen without getting a little muddy.

The things that Obama admits to are enough for me to send another check to the NRA;
1) Not only supports the now expired Clinton Ban on Semi-Automatic weapons, he wants to expand it.
2) Supports a Federal Ban on Concealed carry for any persons not in law enforcement.
3) Supports restoring voting rights for some convicted felons.

Good luck to all of us.

 

Good luck in deed.

Choose between crap or chit.

 

The NRA refers here to the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, which was put in place during former President Bill Clinton's administration. Title XI of the legislation spoke directly to regulations on assault weapons. The law outlawed the semi-automatic versions of 19 kinds of military-style assault weapons, but it expired in 2004. The "assault weapon ban" was always a misnomer, however. Fully automatic assault weapons – the sort carried on battlefields – had always been illegal to own without a very hard-to-obtain federal license, under legislation going back to the days of Al Capone. They remain so today.

Nevertheless, Obama called the ban a "common sense gun law" and favors bringing it back on a permanent basis. Obama's "Urban Policy" fact sheet says he "supports making the expired federal Assault Weapons Ban permanent, as such weapons belong on foreign battlefields and not on our streets."

As recently as Aug. 28, when accepting his party's nomination at the Democratic National Convention, Obama said, "The reality of gun ownership may be different for hunters in rural Ohio than 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."

Obama's policy statement doesn't mention any expansion of the expired ban, however. We're not sure where the NRA gets its claim that "millions" of additional weapons would be covered.


NRA Claim: "Appoint Judges to the U.S. Supreme Court and Federal Judiciary Who Share His Views on the Second Amendment"



Unsupported: The NRA's fact sheet points out that Obama has voted against the two newest members of the U.S. Supreme Court. Obama voted against the confirmations of Chief Justice John Roberts in 2005 and Justice Samuel Alito in 2006. They happen to be two of the five justices that voted in favor of the Court's decision to overturn the District of Columbia's longstanding handgun ban this year. The New York Times has reported that Obama "favored Democratic filibusters to block many Republican nominees deemed too conservative." But the NRA can point to no statement by Obama calling for a Second-Amendment test for his judicial appointees, and we could find none.

What Obama has actually said about selecting judges is that "[w]e need somebody who's got the heart, the empathy, to recognize what it's like to be a young teenage mom. The empathy to understand what it's like to be poor, or African-American, or gay, or disabled, or old. And that's the criteria by which I'm going to be selecting my judges."

In any case, Obama says he believes the Second Amendment "creates an individual right" to bear arms. That's at odds with some strong gun-control advocates who had argued that the Second Amendment limited the right to bear arms to a "well-regulated militia." The Supreme Court rejected that view in its June ruling overturning the D.C. gun ban. But Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia wrote, "Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose." Chief Justice John Roberts joined that opinion. To the dismay of gun-control advocates, Obama did not criticize the ruling. Instead, he said it "will provide much-needed guidance to local jurisdictions across the country."

 

We could find no NRA citation to back up this statement. We note, however, that Obama was a cosponsor of the Count Every Vote Act of 2007. The section of the legislation, "Sec. 701. Voting Rights of Individuals Convicted of Criminal Offenses," states that the purpose of Title VII of the legislation was "to restore fairness in the Federal election process by ensuring that ex-offenders who have fully served their sentences are not denied the right to vote." There has been no action on the bill since March 2007 when it was referred to the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration.

Currently, the Sentencing Project estimates that 5.3 million Americans are denied the right to vote because of state laws denying the right to people with felony convictions. It further estimates that this bars 13 percent of African-American men from voting. Most of those ex-offenders were not, however, convicted of gun violence. "There is absolutely no way of getting to that," said Marc Mauer, executive director of the Sentencing Project. "All we can say is that the majority of felony charges are not for violent crimes and guns."

 

That about sums up this election.

 

indeed. I just hate seeing how distored these "facts" get. I don't care who you vote for, but do so based on reality, not this dirt being thrown back and forth.

oh well, crap or chit it is.

 

It appears that Factcheck is short on facts.

Article debunking Factcheck's article

 

^^ quote from the article above.

^^ quote from the Factcheck's article

Looks like the factcheck's checkers didn't quite read the ENTIRE article.... oops.

Take anything you read with a grain of salt. Debunk your own slander and myths, DO NOT RELY ON THE MEDIA FOR "FACTS".