Tgirsch over at Uncle’s points to the Fact Check.org response to the NRA’s recent Obama-related videos. Dry it out, and you can fertilize the lawn.
Let’s start with the basics:
Much of what the NRA passes off as Obama’s “10 Point Plan to ‘Change’ the Second Amendment” is actually contrary to what he has said throughout his campaign: that he “respects the constitutional rights of Americans to bear arms” and “will protect the rights of hunters and other law-abiding Americans to purchase, own, transport, and use guns.”
You goddamn idiots. That’s because what he’s saying in the campaign is directly at odds with what he’s done through his career. Duh. Sure, he’s paying lip service to the RKBA on the campaign trail, because gun control is politically unpopular. But what has he done to suggest that his RECORD is not the more accurate indication of his RKBA related positions? Rhetoric is cheap by comparison.
How freaking facile: to suggest that we ignore his record because of his campaign trail equivocation. Fact Check, indeed.
At least they make feints at being honest.
And on some points it is right; Obama has called for national legislation against carrying concealed firearms,
Uhm…Tgirsch? Do we need ANYTHING else to demonstrate that Obama is a threat to our gun rights? Do we need to point to anything beyond the fact that he’d use his position as the Chief Executive to roll back CCW rights in the 40+ states that allow CCW?
It quotes some Obama whoppers.
They support closing the gun show loophole
Which is, of course, hilarious. There’s no such thing as a gun show loophole. There’s nothing that’s legal to do at a gun show that’s illegal everywhere else. In all 50 states. Reciting this line unchallenged is irrefutable proof that FC.org is pushing an agenda here.
and making guns in this country childproof.
How the HELL do you do that? At least…without rendering them useless?
They also support making the expired federal Assault Weapons Ban permanent, as such weapons belong on foreign battlefields and not on our streets.
I like the FU statement here: if you live in the former Yugoslavia or the Middle East…you have to put up with the supposed “evils: of assault rifles in Obama’s world, but not us ‘Murricans. Whatever. I’m not aware of any jurisdiction any where in the US where you can lawfully have an AW on the “streets” legally. That statement is code word for “let’s make an entire class of firearms illegal in a vain effort to keep young black men from wanting to kill each other”.
Despite what Obama says, the NRA’s material claims that he plans to take such extreme measures as to “ban use of firearms for home self defense” and “ban the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns.” Where does the NRA come up with these?
His record, you morons. Obama voted against a bill that would have permitted the use of a handgun in the defense of one’s home. It stands to reason that Tgirsch and FactCheck should have to explain why President Obama would think any differently than State Senator Obama.
FC.org fires back:
False: Obama is proposing no such ban.
Who effing cares? He already voted against a measure that would have eliminated just such a measure. Frankly I find the “well you can have a long gun but not a handgun” defense of Obama’s position pretty weak–if you’re banning one type, there’s little reason to think you won’t try to ban another. What’s more, why should one type be illegal if another isn’t? A gun is a gun–and you should be free to choose which type you’d be more comfortable using for defending your home. They try to pull a fast one here next.
The NRA bases this overheated claim on a vote Obama cast on March 24, 2004, in the Illinois state Senate. He was one of 20 who opposed SB 2165. That bill, which passed 38 - 20 and became law, did not make it a crime to use firearms for self-defense, however. Rather, it created a loophole for persons caught violating local gun registration laws.
That “loophole” it was creating was making it legal to use a handgun in self defense, despite Wilamette, IL’s unconstitutional ban on handguns. I’m not sure how not agreeing that someone should be allowed to use a handgun in defense of his home is any different than what NRA is claiming–unless you make the thin-ice defense that he’d allow long guns for personal defense. This is of course ridiculous, as the handgun is the most common and the most affordable means of self defense with firearm. To wit:
The bill came about after Hale DeMar, of Wilmette, Ill., shot a burglar who had invaded his home. At the time, Wilmette had an ordinance that prohibited owning handguns.
Dumbasses: if Obama didn’t support ensuring people like De Mar aren’t prosecuted, he’s essentially saying you can’t use the principal self defense firearm without legal jeopardy. His vote was essentially a vote in favor of a handgun ban. Period.
Obama is not proposing to ban hunting ammunition. And he did not, as claimed in an NRA TV spot featuring a Virginia hunter named Karl Rusch, vote to “ban virtually all deer hunting ammunition.” What Obama voted for was a measure to ban “armor-piercing” ammunition, which the measure’s sponsor has said repeatedly would not cover hunting ammunition.
This is just retarded stupid. Show me the hunting round that isn’t armor piercing. Ignorance is not a defense here–the plain fact is, virtually all hunting rounds are going to pierce body armor. FC.org rattles on about how they’re only banning ammo “marketed” as armor piercing. Uh…what? What rifle round is marketed that way? None that I’m aware of–and even if there was such a round, the companies that made it would just change the box it comes in. That wouldn’t change the ballistic characteristics–saying that you’re only concerned with ammo marketed as armor piercing isn’t comforting coming from someone with Obama’s record.
Obama says he does not support any such handgun ban and never has.
How the HELL can they write this and live with themselves? Not twenty sentences earlier they were defending his vote against a bill that amounted to a vote in support of a handgun ban. He’s also on record as having supported the DC handgun ban.
He supports “reasonable restrictions on the sale and possession of handguns” (not manufacture) and has said a ban is not “politically practicable.”
Saying it’s not politically practicable is not the same as not supporting it. Especially when he’s supported bans like Wilmette’s and DC’s. In fact, the way he words it makes it sound like he’s rather regretful that he can’t outright ban handguns–you don’t mention that an outright ban isn’t practical or politically possible unless you wish you could get away with it.
Not sure why Tgirsch and Fact Check think we’re going to overlook that, but it’s rather insulting that they do.
In any event, they have to concede that Obama is pro-AWB and anti-CCW. Do we need any more justification in order to advocate that gun owners rally against Obama?
Nope.
[…] UPDATE: PGP has more. […]
Pingback by damnum absque injuria » Two Simple Questions — September 22, 2008 @ 8:32 pm
Once again, Sebastian makes my day!
Comment by Ishpeck — September 22, 2008 @ 10:46 pm
[…] How ammo (or anything) is marketed has NOTHING to do with it’s function. The fact is that almost any rifle ammo will pierce armor. And as The PGP says, no ammo I have ever seen commercially available advertises as armor piercing, and if some was, what’s to stop the manufacturer from simply changing the marketing? Furthermore, as to “designed … having armor-piercing capability,” anything over a certain energy level is going to pierce armor, so a cartridge designed to deliver a bullet with that amount of energy or more is “designed … having armor-piercing capability.” And the fact is, that’s most hunting ammo. […]
Pingback by What use is FactCheck.org? « Firearms & Freedom — September 22, 2008 @ 11:11 pm
Do we need ANYTHING else to demonstrate that Obama is a threat to our gun rights? … snip … In any event, they have to concede that Obama is pro-AWB and anti-CCW. Do we need any more justification in order to advocate that gun owners rally against Obama?
No, you certainly don’t. So why resort to spin and bullshit when there’s plenty of stuff that’s right out there and beyond dispute?
Obama voted against a bill that would have permitted the use of a handgun in the defense of one’s home.
While you might not like it or agree with it, last I checked, that’s not “[planning] to take extreme measures” to ban, well, anything. Obama voted against a bill (which passed without his support) which, as I understand it, gives you immunity for violating an existing gun law (in this case, a registration requirement) if you do so in defense of life on your property. That’s hardly “banning self-defense” by any stretch of the imagination. At worst, the self-defense isn’t the crime, the possession of an unregistered firearm is the crime.
But in kool-aid-drinking-pro-gun land, support for upholding penalties associated with failure to register a firearm amounts to support for an outright gun ban. Jesus fucking Christ, are you serious? And then you wonder why I accuse rabid pro-gunners of being unreasonable!
If you can’t see that calling that “taking extreme measures to ban self-defense” is some serious damn spin, then you’re too far from reality to see it with a telescope.
Look, you seem to be of the opinion that I think Obama isn’t anti-gun, when he obviously is. But I guess I didn’t realize that staking out a position you don’t like makes you a fair target for disingenuous bullshit. Silly me.
I criticize those I agree with on stuff like this all the time: when the facts are on your side, why resort to trumped-up bullshit? Here’s a hint: If your argument boils down to “he supported/opposed something which, if you follow it three steps further down the hypothetical slippery slope, would be a whole lot worse than the explicit thing he supported/opposed,” you’re engaging in disingenuous bullshit. I’ve seen the kind of pants-shitting that ensues when the anti-gun movement engages in that sort of contorted, six-degrees-of-Kevin-Bacon-type logic. But when your side does it, that apparently makes it okay.
Comment by tgirsch — September 22, 2008 @ 11:37 pm
“While you might not like it or agree with it, last I checked, that’s not “[planning] to take extreme measures” to ban, well, anything. Obama voted against a bill (which passed without his support) which, as I understand it, gives you immunity for violating an existing gun law (in this case, a registration requirement) if you do so in defense of life on your property. That’s hardly “banning self-defense” by any stretch of the imagination. At worst, the self-defense isn’t the crime, the possession of an unregistered firearm is the crime.”
Hey shithead…where do you read unregistered? If the bill passed as a law, that makes it legal to use a registered gun in self defense–if obama view had won out you would not be able to defend yourself with a gun and would be charged with a crime if you did. That damn sure as hell is inhibiting someone from defending themselves. And if the law passed…then you’re be completely in your rights to use a gun–obama clearly didn’t give a shit about that and would rather see a guy who defended his life and family with a gun get jail time then oppose his thirst for banning guns.
“But in kool-aid-drinking-pro-gun land, support for upholding penalties associated with failure to register a firearm amounts to support for an outright gun ban. Jesus fucking Christ, are you serious? And then you wonder why I accuse rabid pro-gunners of being unreasonable!”
Seriously..all you want to do for us backwards hicks in enlighten us by charging us with a crime if we defend life and limb with a gun. Fuck our families. Fuck self defense. If you violate gun laws, mr. chardonnay and brie tgirsch is gonna come after you along with obama to put you in the slammer for 10-15 cause you dared use a gun.
“Look, you seem to be of the opinion that I think Obama isn’t anti-gun, when he obviously is. But I guess I didn’t realize that staking out a position you don’t like makes you a fair target for disingenuous bullshit. Silly me.”
I think its pretty clear what the author thought–you posted up a piece trying to debunk these ads against obama and that piece was filled with such disingenuous and blatant falsehoods that the fact you even endorsed its content suggest you’re more happy to suck obama off then to leave what are pretty much honest ads about him alone. Everyone one of those ‘fact checks’ on that site are either blatant lies or hedges to make obama seem better when he’s as anti gun as any democrat not name biden.
At least when you have tester or someone we can take its seriously, but don’t try spouting your disingenuous bs by linking to a pos article and then feigning anger that somebody called you on your numskull tactics.
Comment by tgirsch is a moron — September 23, 2008 @ 12:07 am
I’ve left a big comment sitting in moderation hell over at SayUncle picking about the many, many inaccuracies or simple lack of information in FactCheck’s page. I’m not interested in repeating it here just for fun.
The registration requirement was, in many cases, impossible to meet — in fact, the individual case involving a 59-year-old man defending his home from a burglar’s second stop in 24 hours, the very case that drove the bill, involved a situation where the registration could literally not be met and there was no way for this individual to lawfully register the gun he used. It didn’t create a new ban (for that, we’d need to look at his statements on CCW permits, handgun ammunition, the DC gun ban, and a few dozen other things), but it was a support of a ban that resulted in a fine and possible jail time for individuals who used a firearm to defend themselves in their own home.
Moreover, Obama’s stance on concealed carry laws — which, by the way, in most states involve the use of firearms for self-defense — are not even seriously contested by even the more crazy Brady Bunch fanatics. That would involve a ban on the use of firearms for self-defense in a pretty wide swath of areas, such as anywhere in public in the many states where open carry will result in outright confiscation and official harassment and/or where there is a prohibition on unlicensed open carry. The television advert, if the Factcheck transcript is to be believed, also specifies only handgun self-defense, which would be pretty completely and totally banned if Obama’s stated support of the D.C. gun ban or.
That’s before we get to the suspicious and totally-really-unrelated-to-Obama’s-handwriting survey paper. That’s before the ban on 90% of gun shops in the United States, which is apparently “uncertain” despite the Obama campaign never stating otherwise and never stated that Obama said otherwise, and gosh darn it, FactCheck just couldn’t wait til the Obama campaign picked up their phones. That’s before Obama voted for a ban on a wide array of ammunition as ‘armor piercing’ — the Corzine and Kennedy amendments would ban any ammunition which a) could be chambered in a pistol and b) could penetrate “body armor”, which includes the .223 and .30-06 ammunition for which various handgun models exist, and the Corbon .380 that would bypass a Type I ballistic vest, as well as anything more powerful (or, in the case of the named-to-be-banned Five-seveN, weaker), which would cover pretty much any gun worth hunting more than squirrels with. Just because Kennedy got drunk enough to say it doesn’t involve hunting ammunition doesn’t change the text of the proposed statute. Is that not a ban on the use of firearms for self-defense, or is banning the ammunition not counted?
Seriously, tgirsch, you’re smarter than this, and you have access to Google. You even claim to have a gun and a carry permit, although for some strange reason I seem to get the feeling you use the latter more as a talisman to stave off the ‘kool-aided gun fanatics’ than for actual utility. You should see red flags when the text of a law tries to differ between rifle ammunition and “a projectile which may be fired in a handgun” — you can’t live in Tennessee and tell me you’ve never seen a pistol chambered in .223.
It should have taken you less than five minutes to tell that FactCheck’s editor is underinformed on the issues, at best, and full of shit at worst.
Comment by gattsuru — September 23, 2008 @ 12:32 am
Eight years ago, Gore and Lieberman repeated the mantra, “We’re not going to take a single rifle or shotgun away from a single American hunter.”
All of us gun-owners knew what that meant: they were going to restrict, or license, or perhaps ban handguns.
But the way they said it gave them cover. If a reporter asked, “Are you going to ban handguns?” they would answer, “I never said that!”
What if Obama said he was “not going to take a single book or magazine away from a single American reader.” Don’t you think that would make newspaper publishers nervous? And then if a reporter asked, “Are you going to ban newspapers?” and Obama answered, “I never said that!” Do you think that publishers and defenders of the First Amendment would be satisfied with that answer?
I also found the factcheck.org piece a little facile: it often fell back on, “Well, Obama never said that.” and ignored his disingenuous statements and votes to the contrary.
Nothing prevents Obama from coming out with a Shermanesque statement about guns: “If a gun control measure is proposed, I will work against it; if passed, I will refuse to sign it; if enacted, I will work to repeal it.” And the Heller decision gives him cover! He can always say, “Hey, folks, I took an oath to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution. And the Second Amendment has now been officially enshrined next to the First Amendment.”
But Obama has made no such statement. He continues with his disingenuous line (”I never said that!”) and by omission he gives every indication that, once elected, he will strongly support tough new federal restrictions on handguns, concealed carry, rifle ammunition, and semi-automatic rifles.
Comment by Turk Turon — September 23, 2008 @ 5:25 am
Here is a hint for you - in most states in the Union, there is no law to “register a firearm”. There is no federal law to “register a firearm”. In those states where there are such laws, there should not be.
Why?
Well, coincidental to your mentioned “outright gun ban”, we should probably take a look at how well “gun registrations” have gone for gun-owners in the past.
The facts are that Obama has shown a remarkable disregard for basic firearm ownership, for self-defense, and for a variety of other things us pro-gun-rights folks enjoy and hold dear. This has been supported by every action he has taken concerning firearms - that he lies to cover it up just makes him a politician. However, that he has not had the influence or the votes to make those desires manifest is the entire reason we are opposing him - why would we give him more influence and more power to execute desires that run completely contrary to our desires?
Comment by Linoge — September 23, 2008 @ 6:59 am
[…] Pro-Gun Progressive has also responded to fact checks lack of checking facts. […]
Pingback by SayUncle » Fact Checking Fact Check — September 23, 2008 @ 8:29 am
Tgirsch, what are we going to do with you. You’ve had your teeth pretty well kicked in at Uncle’s, but to address some points you raised here anyway:
“No, you certainly don’t. So why resort to spin and bullshit when there’s plenty of stuff that’s right out there and beyond dispute?
Far as I can tell, I pretty well demolished the idea that we’re resorting to bullshit and spin–most of FC.org’s objections don’t pass the sniff test.
As for the handgun for self defense, you’re still missing the obvious, dude: you CAN’T register a handgun in Wilmette. Obama’s vote essentially means he agrees that the use of handguns for self defense isn’t legitimate.
And yes, you’re clearly being unreasonable here if you can’t see that.
Is there a weeeee bit of spin in the NRA’s position? Perhaps–I’d call it nuance. But the big problem with your position is you’re suggesting they’re outright lying and distorting Obama’s positions, when clearly they’re not. There’s no equivalency between them suggesting that Obama’s record indicates he’d support antigun positions in the future and the outright lies the anti side engages in. Do I need to list them for you?
But don’t piss down my neck and call it rain–the NRA is largely right, as Uncle and I both demonstrated.
Comment by Administrator — September 23, 2008 @ 10:43 am
[…] I was originally planning a nuclear fisking on that garbage Hack“Fact” Check put out on Obama and guns, but others have beaten me to the punch in a well-deserved fisk-for-all, so instead I’ll focus on one particular aspect of their piece, the supposed refutation of the NRA’s accurate claim that Obama supports banning the use of firearms for home self-defense. Annenberg Political Fact Check (let’s call them “Annenberg Political” for short) non-explains their decision to label this true claim “false” thusly (links in original): The NRA bases this overheated claim on a vote Obama cast on March 24, 2004, in the Illinois state Senate. He was one of 20 who opposed SB 2165. That bill, which passed 38 - 20 and became law, did not make it a crime to use firearms for self-defense, however. […]
Pingback by damnum absque injuria » HackCheck on Guns — September 23, 2008 @ 9:10 pm