NRA anti Obama ads......is this true?

POSTED BY: OPPYH
UPDATED: Thursday, October 16, 2008 18:20
VIEWED: 6897
PAGE 3 of 7

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NEXT PAGE

KWICKO

Monday, October 13, 2008 4:14 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by out2theblack:
Gun Control is the ability to HIT YOUR TARGET !

I was taught that the best gun control is a steady hand.

This world is a comedy for those who think, and a tragedy for those who feel.

Trolls Against McCain!

OUT2THEBLACK

Monday, October 13, 2008 4:17 AM

'Steady Hand' enables you to HIT YOUR TARGET !

" In the next breath, he asserts that this constitutional guarantee does not preclude local "common sense" restrictions on firearms. Does the draconian prohibition in Washington fit that description? My attempts to get an answer have proved unavailing. The front-running Democratic presidential candidate is doing the gun dance. "

www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/06/AR20080406016
52.html

HKCAVALIER

Monday, October 13, 2008 4:22 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by OPPYH:
Thanks for your honesty.

^^^You know, I expected a little more from most people who posted on this thread. I just wanted an honest answer. For some of you to just blatantly say "NO" without doing any research or knowing what your talking about is a disservice to the truth. Obama is clearly anti-gun(at least handguns). For me this is a deal breaker. I'm simply not voting.

Obama has said repeatedly that as President, he is not gonna take your guns away, loudly and often and in front of large crowds. Supporting anti-gun legislation in a state with an extremely high crime rate is a little different from wanting to ban all guns in all 50 states. You ever think he might be in favor of gun laws on a case by case, state by state basis? No where does Obama's Illinois record show that he would support Federal anti-gun laws. Best just to jump to conclusions, though: oh no, he obviously hates guns and wants to repeal the 2nd Amendment!

I echoed FMF's "no" because I've been through this argument half a dozen times already and I have researched his position and the answer is "no."

And a lot has changed in this country since Clinton was President. Thanks to them mouthy Libertarians and our own government's creeping totalitarianism, a lot of people have a much greater appreciation for the 2nd Amendment now (myself included).

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

OUT2THEBLACK

Monday, October 13, 2008 4:32 AM

'When a child says "I'm sorry." for misbehaving and then immediately does the same thing, he either does not know the meaning of the words he speaks or doesn't care about the value of his word.

Similarly, when a politician says he supports the Second Amendment, and then votes for bills that violate those rights, there are only two options. He either doesn't know what he is saying, or he is saying what is necessary to get elected.

Either way, actions speak louder than words.

And so it is with Barack Obama.

Before you take the shortcut to FactCheck's analysis, remember that they are funded by the Annenberg Foundation, which just happens to also fund the Brady Bunch. Also recognize that their analysis relies on Obama's words and misrepresentations of the mentioned bills.

We have been hearing for months about how Obama was a constitutional professor and respects the Second Amendment as an individual right. Sportsmen for Obama groups have sprouted up here and there to try to accent the point. A skeet shoot in Brighton, Colorado, hosted by Ray Shoenke of the AHSA, was Obama's version of the Kerry absurd.

So, do we believe the words of a candidate or do we examine readily available information? I am not suggesting anyone take the word of the AHSA or the NRA. Investigate for yourself. Obama's voting record will speak for itself.

And his voting record is consistent with his words when running as an Illinois politician instead of a federal politician.

I suggest that you do not trust this site. And do not trust Gun Law News. Link through to bills like SB-2579 (Illinois 2003) and read the kind of bills that Obama actually voted for and read his speech on the bill (page 123). Then examine the kind of bills that Obama voted against: S-397.

Do those votes reflect a position of support for the Second Amendment?

Do Obama's words mirror his actions or give the reflection of someone hoping you will not research his actions?

Do not let Barack fool you. Despite his words, Obama will support all the gun control he feels he can get passed. And he will do it while saying that he is not infringing the rights of hunters.'

http://www.sportsmenforobama.org

OUT2THEBLACK

Monday, October 13, 2008 4:38 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by FutureMrsFIllion:
No

Ignorant Partisan Shill !

KHYRON

Monday, October 13, 2008 8:32 AM

O2B, chill out, none of FMF's responses to you warrant the verbal abuse you're throwing at her at the moment. It's people who can't control their temper, i.e. people like you, who give gun owners a bad name.

------------------------------

McCain/Palin: The first presidential ticket that features two candidates who have both been found to have violated ethics standards.

KHYRON

Monday, October 13, 2008 9:15 AM

Quote:
"Obama's Ten Point Plan to 'Change' the Second Amendment…Ban use of firearms for home defense."

National Rifle Association on Friday, August 1st, 2008 in direct mail piece

Yes, and outlaw apple pie as well

In a hard-hitting direct-mail piece to its members, the National Rifle Association detailed an alleged plan by Sen. Barack Obama to transform gun-ownership regulations.

Obama's "plan" appeared on a section of the mailer designed to be cut out and carried around in a wallet. The front of the wallet card said, "Barack Obama's Ten Point Plan to 'Change' the Second Amendment." The reverse listed the 10 parts of the alleged plan, starting with, "Ban use of firearms for home defense."

An NRA spokeswoman confirmed the authenticity of the mailer, which first appeared in early August 2008, but would not provide details of what its claims were based on. For that, she referred us to various NRA Web sites.

We could find no support on any of them for the allegation that Obama has a plan to ban the use of firearms for home defense. What we did find, and what we suspect is the root of this allegation, was information about a vote Obama cast as an Illinois state senator in May 2004. (See this essay by NRA executive vice president officer Wayne LaPierre.)

The bill in question was a response to the case of Hale DeMar, a Wilmette, Ill., man who shot and wounded a burglar in his home in December 2003. Prosecutors did not charge him for the shooting, since they determined that he acted in self-defense, but they did fine him $750 for violating the local handgun ordinance. An outcry of sympathy for DeMar prompted the state legislature to take up a bill that would let people claim a self-defense protection for using a gun in their homes in violation of local weapons bans.

Obama voted against the measure. The legislature passed it, and later overrode the veto of Democratic Gov. Rod Blagojevich.

Like Blagojevich, Obama framed that debate as a home-rule issue. He told the Associated Press at the time that he voted against the measure out of respect for local governments' authority to set gun policy.

Here's what LaPierre wrote about the vote: "When Obama turned thumbs down on the bill, he voted against the most basic element of the Second Amendment — the right of defense of self and family — the reason that millions of Americans own firearms."

That's a bit of a leap. In concrete terms, Obama's thumbs-down was a vote against the state legislature tweaking a local gun ban. In any event, there's no fair way to interpret it as evidence that Obama has a future plan to ban the use of firearms for home defense.

Moreover, there's ample evidence to the contrary. Here's Obama speaking at a forum sponsored by WJLA-ABC7 and Politico.com on Feb. 12, 2008: "I think we have two conflicting traditions in this country. I think it’s important for us to recognize that we’ve got a tradition of handgun ownership and gun ownership generally. And a lot of people — law-abiding citizens use it for hunting, for sportsmanship, and for protecting their families (emphasis added). We also have a violence on the streets that is the result of illegal handgun usage…We can have reasonable, thoughtful gun control measures that I think respect the Second Amendment and people’s traditions.”

That doesn't sound to us like someone planning to "ban use of firearms for home defense." Quite the opposite, actually.

Ignoring that sort of evidence, and instead extrapolating from one vote on a jurisdictional debate in Illinois a broad-ranging plan to ban guns for home defense, is not just misleading, it's intentionally dishonest. That is, Pants on Fire wrong.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/709/

------------------------------

McCain/Palin: The first presidential ticket that features two candidates who have both been found to have violated ethics standards.

SIMONWHO

Monday, October 13, 2008 10:46 AM

Pah, if the founders had wanted guns to be well regulated, they'd have used those words in the amendment.

And guess who the NRA labelled "one of the premier flag carriers for the enemies of the Second Amendment"?

AURAPTOR

Monday, October 13, 2008 10:47 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by out2theblack:
Decide for yourself :

There are many more facts on this matter , just waiting to be revealed...

Why does Obama lie when asked a simple question ? That alone should send alarm bells off in some of y 'alls heads.

It is not those who use the term "Islamo-Fascism" who are sullying the name of Islam; it is the Islamo-Fascists. - Dennis Prager

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

OUT2THEBLACK

Monday, October 13, 2008 2:04 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Khyron:
O2B, chill out, none of FMF's responses to you warrant the verbal abuse you're throwing at her at the moment. It's people who can't control their temper, i.e. people like you, who give gun owners a bad name.

Hey dude , she's the one that slipped in here , shooting from the lip...

Taking potshots in a drive-by ain't exactly fair play...If she had so much as a single fact on her side , she might be excusable...

But she doesn't . And she isn't...

She only shows up with a lie in the first place...Everything that followed that is not even so much as a well-formed opinion on her part...

Like I said , she's just a partisan shill seeking to mislead people...
Then she doesn't know to shut up and quit before she loses more ground...

That gets less than zero respect from me .

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NEXT PAGE