PDA

View Full Version : Obama...the gun grabber



dan58
09-24-2008, 09:46 PM
The Dem's golden boy is quite the anti-gun supporter. Read away. He even has factcheck.org on his side. Their "facts" are quite facts.

Brooks Jackson, who authored the FactCheck.org piece with D'Angelo Gore, was extremely upset about the NRA ads. Jackson told FOX News: “They are lying. This is what they do. This is how they make their money. Do these people have no shame? They are just making this up. I just wish that they would tell the truth.” He said that their ads were “one of the worst examples of lying” that he had “ever seen.”
But what are the facts? Were the NRA ads this bad? How accurate are the fact checkers? FactCheck.org, which is regularly relied on by FOX News, had the longest critical discussion of the ads. Here is a review of their most critical comments.
"Ban the Manufacture, Sale and Possession of Handguns" -- FactCheck.org writes that this is “false,” because of a 2003 statement from Obama that “a complete ban on handguns is not politically practicable.” They discount an earlier 1996 candidate survey where Obama says (http://www.youtube.com/swf/l.swf?swf=http%3A//s.ytimg.com/yt/swf/cps-vfl56573.swf&video_id=DhL8aeIsTEo&rel=1&eurl=&iurl=http%3A//i1.ytimg.com/vi/DhL8aeIsTEo/default.jpg&t=OEgsToPDskJKWOD22mnESZXmkDOnukoK&use_get_video_info=1&load_modules=1&fs=1&hl=en) that he supports such a ban primarily because it was older than the 2003 statement. While they don’t mention another statement (http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/barack_obama_gun_control.htm) from 1998 where Obama supported a ban on the sale of all semi-automatic guns (a ban that would encompass the vast majority of guns sold in the U.S.), they presumably also discounted that for the same reason.
But Obama has come out for handgun bans as recently as this past February. ABC News’ local Washington, D.C., anchor, Leon Harris, asked (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-wu9jE1MnAE&eurl=http://whynotbarackobama.blogspot.com/2008/06/obamas-supreme-mistake-on-guns.html) Obama: "One other issue that's of great importance here in the district as well is gun control ... but you support the D.C. handgun ban." Obama's simple response: "Right." When Harris said "And you've said that it's constitutional," Obama again says "right" and is clearly seen on tape nodding his head "yes."
A statement (http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/06/26/mccain-taunts-obama-for-reversal-on-dc-gun-ban/) to the Chicago Tribune by Obama’s campaign the previous November stated that, "Obama believes the D.C. handgun law is constitutional." It doesn’t help that the Democratic Party National Platform this year (http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/2008%20Democratic%20Platform%20by%20Cmte%2008-13-08%20%282%29.pdf) supports the Chicago gun ban.
Obama also served (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joyce_Foundation#Governance) on the board of the Joyce Foundation, probably the largest private funder of anti-gun and pro-ban groups and research in the country. In total, the foundation gave $18.6 million to approximately 80 anti-gun efforts while he was on the board. For example, $1.5 million went to the Violence Policy Center, which puts out such claims (http://www.vpc.org/studies/unsafe.htm) as “Why America Needs to Ban Handguns.” During Obama’s time with the foundation, not a single donation was made to any group that supported individuals’ rights to own guns.
"Barack Obama opposes my right to own a handgun for self-defense" -- FactCheck.org rewrites this slightly to read: "Ban use of Firearms for Home Self-Defense" and labels this statement as “false.” Their evaluation of this claim focuses solely on a 2004 vote Obama made in the Illinois state senate. An Associated Press article described the vote this way: "He also opposed letting people use a self-defense argument if charged with violating local handgun bans by using weapons in their homes. The bill was a reaction to a Chicago-area man who, after shooting an intruder, was charged with a handgun violation."
"Ban Rifle Ammunition Commonly Used for Hunting and Sport Shooting" -- FactCheck.org acknowledges that Obama voted for a bill (http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=1&vote=00217) that would “expand the definition of armor piercing ammunition,” but labels this statement as “false.” Their evidence is a statement (http://bulk.resource.org/gpo.gov/record/2005/2005_S09383.pdf) by the bill’s sponsor, Sen. Ted Kennedy, that the bill “is not about hunting.”
But here is the problem with Kennedy’s claim. The bill banned ammunition that “may be used in a handgun” and can penetrate the “minimum,” type 1, level of body armor, which only protects against the lowest-powered handgun cartridges. Any center-fire rifle, including those used for hunting or target practice, can penetrate this “minimum” armor. There are handguns that can fire these rifle rounds, so the bill’s language of banning ammunition that “may be used in a handgun” would be met.
In addition, FactCheck.org ignores other information. Obama said in a 2003 questionnaire (http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2007/12/sweet_column_obamas_2003_iviip.html) that he “support[ed] banning the sale of ammunition for assault weapons.” The rifles banned under the so-called assault weapons ban used such standard ammunition as .223 and .308 caliber bullets, the same ammunition used commonly in hunting rifles.
"Appoint Judges to the U.S. Supreme Court and Federal Judiciary Who Share His Views on the Second Amendment" -- FactCheck.org claims that this statement is “unsupported” because Obama hasn’t explicitly stated that he would appoint judges using such a litmus test. Indeed, I can find no record of Obama ever being asked if he would use the Second Amendment as a litmus test, but Obama has been very clear about what types of Justices he would and would not appoint to the Supreme Court.
Obama has said (http://wpmobserver.com/WPMObserver/article.asp?ID=888) that he “profoundly disagree[s] with [Clarence Thomas’] interpretation of a lot of the Constitution." He has also been critical (http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=13857) of Antonin Scalia, John Roberts and Samuel Alito. Together these four justices provided four of the five votes to strike down the D.C. gun ban, with Scalia writing (http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZO.html) the majority opinion.
On the other side, Obama has pointed (http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=13857) to Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, David Souter, and Stephen Breyer as models for the type of people he would appoint to the court. Those justices provided three of the four votes that argued that there was no individual right to own a gun, and Breyer (http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZD1.html) wrote one of the dissenting opinions.
"Mandate a Government-Issued License to Purchase a Firearm" -- FactCheck.org takes Obama’s statement when asked about licensing and registration of gun owners that (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/15/us/politics/15demdebate-transcript.html?_r=2&ref=politics&pagewanted=print&oref=slogin&oref=slogin), "I just don't think we can get that done,” as evidence that the NRA’s claim is "misleading." FactCheck.org concedes that Obama has clearly supported licensing handguns, but argues that there is no evidence that Obama supported licensing for rifles and shotguns. Yet, it fails to mention the Illinois Firearms Owners Identification (FOID) Card that serves as a license that Illinois residents must have to buy any type of firearm.
While a state senator, Obama clearly supported (http://www.sportsmenforobama.org/content/view/42/) the licensing system. He voted to make it illegal for anyone to possess a firearm without a FOID card even when they were in direct supervision of someone with the card, and he voted against lowering the age for people to be eligible for a FOID card from 21 to 18. To Obama, these votes clearly indicate that the FOID card was a license to use the gun just as much as one needs a driver’s license to drive on public roads.
"Increase Federal Taxes on Guns and Ammunition by 500 Percent" and "Close Down 90 Percent of Gun Shops in America" are classified as “uncertain” because even though Obama has indeed supported these policies in the past, FactCheck.org was unable to get the Obama campaign to state what his current position was on these issues. Yet, it is hard to see how FactCheck.org could even raise questions about the NRA ads on these points since Obama clearly held these positions in the past and has never said that he has changed his mind on them. The very fact that the Obama campaign would not issue any statement disowning these previous positions would seem to imply that Obama still supported them.
"Obama would be the most anti-gun president in American history." -- FactCheck.org ends its analysis by questioning whether this “pretty tall statement” is justified and ends with a quote that Obama says that he has “always believed that the Second Amendment protects the right of individuals to bear arms.” Yet, this is the same candidate who months earlier supported a ban on guns as constitutional and who refused join the other 55 Senators (http://www.nraila.org/heller/proamicusbriefs/07-290_amicus_congress.pdf) who signed the friend of the court brief asking the Supreme Court to strike down the D.C. gun ban.

trailblaze
09-25-2008, 12:30 PM
so whats the conclusion?

OverkillZJ
09-25-2008, 12:47 PM
so whats the conclusion?

Obama bad.

BigDukeSix
09-25-2008, 01:51 PM
Remember: the end that goes bang should be pointed downrange, away from your face. Well, most of you anyway.

I think they should take all your guns. Like I would trust any of you around me with a loaded weapon.

Effjae
09-25-2008, 02:05 PM
Lame.

BigDukeSix
09-25-2008, 02:55 PM
Lame.

That's me. :overkill::overkill:

r6cyclegal
09-25-2008, 04:23 PM
I saw lots of words and no pictures. Boring!!! :confused: :101:

DMG
09-25-2008, 05:06 PM
Remember: the end that goes bang should be pointed downrange, away from your face. Well, most of you anyway.

I think they should take all your guns. Like I would trust any of you around me with a loaded weapon.

Yeah, guns are scary. Ban them all!

Harley25
09-25-2008, 07:39 PM
So when are we gonna have a range day?

dan58
09-25-2008, 08:03 PM
Yeah, guns are scary. Ban them all!

I'll collect them and hold them for safe storage. :077:

DMG
09-25-2008, 11:50 PM
I'll collect them and hold them for safe storage. :077:

Just drop them off at my place for disposal.

Now that thats handled, lets attack the 1st amendment.

BigDukeSix
09-26-2008, 08:09 AM
Just drop them off at my place for disposal.

Now that thats handled, lets attack the 1st amendment.

Oh let's do that next!!!!! Can we? That'll win me some more friends.

Wrecker
09-26-2008, 09:22 AM
No we really do not need any more "friends". We are really close to running out of stakes. When will you be home this weekend?

TimMichaels
09-26-2008, 10:32 AM
Now that thats handled, lets attack the 1st amendment.

The Patriot Act already took care of that in the name of counter-terrorism aka the new red scare :023:

DMG
09-26-2008, 10:39 AM
The Patriot Act already took care of that in the name of counter-terrorism aka the new red scare :023:

If that is true, why am I hearing your socialist-hippie-babble? :flipoff2:

trailblaze
09-26-2008, 12:05 PM
obama wants gun control because he'll probably get assassinated when elected...

BigDukeSix
09-26-2008, 02:45 PM
obama wants gun control because he'll probably get assassinated when elected...


Careful.... You are without a doubt joking. However....

You should probably delete that.

BigDukeSix
09-26-2008, 02:47 PM
No we really do not need any more "friends". We are really close to running out of stakes. When will you be home this weekend?


When will who be home? Are you dropping off all of your guns into my humble care???

Wrecker
09-26-2008, 02:55 PM
You. No we are just coming by with torchs and stakes. LOL. I will be on the Southside getting my drink on tonight though.

OverkillZJ
09-26-2008, 02:55 PM
Careful.... You are without a doubt joking. However....

You should probably delete that.

There's nothing illegal about that statement, and (unfortunately) there's some merrit to it. There was already one failed attempt.

Obama scares the hell out of me, and I feel he'd make a terrible leader at this point in his life, however that doesn't mean I wish him real physical harm. However, there are others who are scared by Obama, and do wish him harm.

BigDukeSix
09-26-2008, 03:05 PM
You. No we are just coming by with torchs and stakes. LOL. I will be on the Southside getting my drink on tonight though.


Just dont piss on my house please. I'll be watching out the window all night now.

One of my best friends (yes, I do have at least one friend m-fer's :flipoff2:) owns Casey's draft house.

OverkillZJ
09-26-2008, 03:20 PM
Casey owes me a drink for dealing with your sarcasm all day :D

BigDukeSix
09-26-2008, 04:39 PM
:icon_jook: haterade: "a figurative drink representing a modality of thought. those who consume it are themselves consumed by the negativity which with they speak"

XJchris98
09-26-2008, 04:58 PM
http://i88.photobucket.com/albums/k161/JeepinXJchris/untitled-1.jpg

BigDukeSix
09-26-2008, 04:59 PM
http://i88.photobucket.com/albums/k161/JeepinXJchris/untitled-1.jpg


Chris, you are a dick, but that's pretty funny.

TimMichaels
09-26-2008, 11:23 PM
If that is true, why am I hearing your socialist-hippie-babble? :flipoff2:

They didn't entirely eliminate free speech obviously, just considerably infringed upon it in the same way the Espionage Act did 70 years ago. That's why they could potentially illegally monitor your facist-witchhunter-dribble.

DMG
09-27-2008, 10:58 AM
They didn't entirely eliminate free speech obviously, just considerably infringed upon it in the same way the Espionage Act did 70 years ago. That's why they could potentially illegally monitor your facist-witchhunter-dribble.

See I put a smiley after my comment to indicate I was kidding. You did not. Now I am offended. I am contacting the TSA to have you put on the No-Fly list. Next time you get on a plane it will land in Gitmo where Cheney will waterboard you until you lose control of your bowels, hopefully. :flipoff2:

And you were wrong. The Patriot Act (thank fawking god it has a sunset provision) really infringes on the 4th, 5th, 6th, 8th, and 9th amendments. I do not see it infringing on the 1st amendment in any meaningful way.

BigDukeSix
09-27-2008, 02:27 PM
Unless you fart near a cop while talking about your religion. Then you're sentenced to go quail hunting with DICK Cheney so he can use his 2nd Amendment rights to legally lobotmize you.

DMG
09-27-2008, 06:00 PM
Unless you fart near a cop while talking about your religion. Then you're sentenced to go quail hunting with DICK Cheney so he can use his 2nd Amendment rights to legally lobotmize you.

And if that doesn't do it you can go for a ride with Ted Kennedy.

BigDukeSix
09-27-2008, 08:10 PM
And if that doesn't do it you can go for a ride with Ted Kennedy.

At least his name isn't DICK.