CALLING ALL DEMOCRATS

[TwoGuns]

Analysis: Fact-Checkers Fall Short in Criticizing NRA's Anti-Obama Ads

Wednesday, September 24, 2008

 

By John R. Lott, Jr.

 

E-Mail Print Share:

 

Guns have become an important issue for Barack Obama’s campaign. Starting around the Pennsylvania primary, Obama and his campaign surrogates began strenuously assuring gun owners that he supports gun ownership, and it appears to be paying off. A poll in August showed that John McCain led Obama among hunters by only 14 percentage points, just about half the 27-point lead that President Bush held over John Kerry in 2004. If McCain had a similar lead, he would be ahead in most polls, particularly in many battleground states.

 

This past weekend, Joe Biden, campaigning in southwest Virginia, called any notion that Obama wanted to take away people’s guns “malarkey.” Montana's Democratic governor, Brian Schweitzer, previously told reporters that Obama "Ain't ever going to take your gun away." Obama regularly makes similar statements -- at least about rifles and shotguns.

 

Yet, the NRA, which has given the voting records of both Obama and Biden an “F” rating, has a quite different view, and has started a $15 million ad campaign to warn people about what it regards as Obama’s and Biden’s records. One mailer from the NRA says, "Obama would be the most anti-gun president in American history."

 

RelatedColumn Archive

Analysis: Fact-Checkers Fall Short in Criticizing NRA's Anti-Obama AdsPlausible deniability?Analysis: Reckless Mortgages Brought Financial Market to Its KneesMedia One-Sided in Covering PalinIn Defense of Price GougersFull-page John Lott Jr. Archive

 

Stories

Obama's Tax Proposals Make a Complex System Worse John R. Lott Jr.: D.C. Handgun Ban Giuliani Bobs and Weaves on Gun Control Record A 'Tip' for Hillary: Admit Your Mistakes Media Coverage of Mall Shooting Fails to Reveal Mall's Gun-Free-Zone Status Critical news stories have been run on the NRA’s ads in the Washington Post, FactCheck.org, CNN, and many other places. ABC’s Jake Tapper and CBS’s Brian Montopoli posted stories that merely stated what the NRA ads said.

 

The Washington Post describes its own Fact Checker report as giving the NRA “spot three out of four Pinocchios for its claims that Obama would take away guns and ammunition used by hunters.”

 

The Dallas Morning News describes FactCheck.org as saying that “NRA ads and mailers that say Obama wants to ban handguns, hunting ammo and use of a gun for home defense are false.”

 

CNN labeled the ads as “Misleading” and claimed that “While Obama has supported some measures to limit gun rights, he has backed nothing on the scale suggested in the ad.”

 

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 that he supports such a ban primarily because it was older than the 2003 statement. While they don’t mention another statement 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 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 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 supports the Chicago gun ban.

 

Obama also served 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 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.

 

But there is much more evidence that Obama supported handgun bans. As will be discussed below, there is legislation he supported in the Illinois state senate that would have banned over 90 percent of gun stores in the country and eliminated gun stores in most states.

 

Brooks Jackson told FOX News that “I believe that [Obama] supported striking down the D.C. gun ban. That is what he said that he believed.” In addition, he said that the ad was “clearly discussing a national ban, not local bans. The two have absolutely nothing to do with each other. It is just an amazing lie.”

 

Regarding Obama’s work with the Joyce Foundation, Jackson said, “You are an academic? You are asking about the Joyce Foundation? What does that have to do with anything? You would have failed the freshman college logic test.”

 

"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."

 

FactCheck.org claims that the vote was merely over creating a “loophole” for letting people violate local gun ban ordinances. Yet, it is hard to look at this vote and the facts in the previous section and not see a pattern that Obama favors rules that ban handguns. He voted against any rules that would weaken the Chicago handgun ban, and if you support a handgun ban, it would seem obvious that you oppose those same people using handguns for self-defense.

 

"Ban Rifle Ammunition Commonly Used for Hunting and Sport Shooting" -- FactCheck.org acknowledges that Obama voted for a bill that would “expand the definition of armor piercing ammunition,” but labels this statement as “false.” Their evidence is a statement 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 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.

 

When asked about these arguments, Jackson told FOX News, “Have you looked at the legislation? You have to look at the legislative history. This is just an amazing lie put out by them.”

 

"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 that he “profoundly disagree with [Clarence Thomas’] interpretation of a lot of the Constitution." He has also been critical 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 the majority opinion.

 

On the other side, Obama has pointed 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 wrote one of the dissenting opinions.

 

When asked about whether Obama’s statements about what judges he would appoint could explain the NRA’s concerns, Jackson said that it “doesn’t inform [Jackson’s] view. . . . He hasn’t said that he would appoint people who didn’t believe in the Second Amendment.”

 

"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, "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 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 who signed the friend of the court brief asking the Supreme Court to strike down the D.C. gun ban. While previous candidates, such as Al Gore, have supported licensing and registration, no presidential nominee for a major party has ever supported such widespread bans on guns and ammunition.

 

Jackson said that “Obama agrees with the NRA on this issue (that the Second Amendment is an individual right). They should just accept it rather than lying about it.” He noted that “Obama had to accept all sorts of abuse for coming out and saying this. It was the brave thing for him to do. He had to endure all sorts of abuse – claims of going back and forth on the issue, that he was vague on the issue.”

 

Obama campaign representative Bill Burton told FOX News that "These ads are just complete crap." When Megyn Kelly asked "Has [Obama] ever supported a ban on handguns? . . . And he never has?" Burton said flatly "no." He added that "All the points in these ads are just flatly false."

 

The Washington Post analysis only discusses two issues: the Kennedy ammunition ban and the 500 percent ammunition tax. On the Kennedy bill, the Post makes the same mistake as FactCheck.org. Regarding the tax, the Post doesn’t deny that Obama held that position, but points out that the legislation Obama supported was in 1999 and that it is not clear what guns would have their ammunition taxed. CNN’s discussion appears unwilling to admit that Obama has supported large-scale bans on gun ownership.

 

 

[.270]

and remember, us hicks tned to grab onto guns and religion a lot, and according to obamanation, that's a bad thing. guess we're too uneducated to make that decision for ourselves and we need him to do it for us. Lark.

[Kilimanjaro]

I support Obama

 

Are you afraid of Obama because he is black? democrat? liberal? change?

 

Tyson

 

 

Again Tyson, Im using your own words.. Not disrespecting your choice of who you're voting for, but here are some cold hard FACTS on the man you're wanting to be placed in charge of the most powerful country in the whole WORLD!!!

 

 

I highly encourage all of you to take a few minutes out of your day and watch this video.. It could be a real eye opener for some, and for others it could be seen as just good 'ol political propaganda wish wash.. But just remember this, could a video of John McCain be made to the likes of this?? Not in a million years. EVERYTHING on this video is pure fact and cannot be disputed. Most came straight from the horse's mouth himself.

[TAM]

With all sincerity I would like it if SBD or any other BO supporters would watch that video start to finish and attempt to dispell even one or two of the "Facts" presented in the video. Will someone please step forward and explain how they can see past these serious character flaws and still feel comfortable voting for BO?

 

Perhaps these facts are rumor? Untrue? Emblished? Misunderstood? Somebody please explain?

 

Thank you!

[JHAM357]

thats pretty scary. i too would like to know how any person can see this guy is good for our country. wow!!!

[SilentButDeadly]

With all sincerity I would like it if SBD or any other BO supporters would watch that video start to finish and attempt to dispell even one or two of the "Facts" presented in the video. Will someone please step forward and explain how they can see past these serious character flaws and still feel comfortable voting for BO?

 

Perhaps these facts are rumor? Untrue? Emblished? Misunderstood? Somebody please explain?

 

Thank you!

 

http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/obama.asp

[Kilimanjaro]

Ah, good ol' snopes to the rescue... I still lean towards the video.. It actually SHOWS HIM SAYING most of those things!! How can it be false if it comes directly out of his mouth?? Or those pictures worth a thousand words??

 

Im no bible thumper by any stretch, but by God, if a man will not salute the flag of the country he is trying to represent, or not only won't wear but OPENLY refuses to wear a small flag pin on his suit to show his patriotism during his campain to be the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES , then he has no business whatsoever sitting in the oval office. Nuff' said.

[ruffcountry]

Oh yeah good ole Snopes . Snopes on oppossum http://www.snopes.com/critters/wild/wild.asp

 

[TAM]

SBD the Snopes explinations are spotty at best and don't directly answer many of our questions. For example: Snopes says that he is not a "Radical Muslim". The fact is that his has Muslim ties, went to a Muslim school, has a Muslim father, says himself that he was once a Muslim. So the real question is just how "radical" his views are? We know that his Pastor of 20 years has some pretty radical views (GD America... What's up with that?), and numerous other facts that BO has ties with other people and orginizations with radical views. Not to mention he ONLY left his church after the negative public outcry! Why couldn't he stand up for himself and leave on his own without doing it for the sole reason to look good to the voters?

 

For what it's worth, I'd stand up and walk out if I was in the congragation of a church where a pastor was screaming "GD America" from the pulpit! It wouldn't take any public outcry for me to recognize that I don't want to part of a church with a pastor with such radical views against my country!

 

I've met some pretty good Muslims in my life and don't think I have as much a problem with BO being associated with the religion as I do the "Radical" part. A radical person in any religion can be a scary thing, let alone the Muslim religion.

 

It seems to me that Snopes is not 100 percent accurate in what information they are reporting. Lots of twisted facts! People can't be duped into letting BO or Snopes or anyone do all the thinking for them! People must learn to think for themselves! The phrase "Don't drink the Kool-Aid" comes to mind.

 

Perhaps you could answer this one in paticular, and preferably with your own words and not a link to Snopes. Why can BO get away with saying "typical white person"? What do you think would happen if McCain said "typical black person". I think he'd get slammed by the press. What do you think, and why is there such a double standard?

[Birddog]

 

I think I would rather vote for the guy that was a POW for four years and when given an option to leave he stayed with fellow troops until they came home together and for that reason took a beatting and not someone who will NOT SOLUTE OUR COUNTRYS FLAG. NUFF SAID!

[wetmule]

When it comes to politics snopes is less than a reliable resource and apparantly also with opossum behavior.

Personally I can't believe the dem. party crowned him and nominated him, well I guess I can when you look at the numbnuts they have leading their party in Reid, Pelosi and Howard Dean it all makes a little sense. O'bama's entire adult life he has surrounded himself with suspect, criminal, radical, terrorists and all around shady charachters and held them up to be his mentors - Let's see, we've got Rev. Wright - nuff said, Rezko - is in jail and O'bama greatly benefitted from a backdoor deal on his property & home, Wm. Ayers - should be dead or at least in jail for his terrorist activities and O'Bama has continually lied about his relationship with the guy - and all you have to do is a little research on the Ayers Foundation or the Chicago Annenburg Challenge. He has or had as his senior campaign advisors two of the very guys that brought down Freddie and Fannie in Jim Johnson & Franklin Raines who both now are rich beyond their wildest dreams while Fannie & Freddie are in ruins and we are left to foot the bill. Does this guy really sound like the next leader of the free world to some of you? The guy is severely lacking in any common sense, charachter, judgement or any semblence of moral fiber. I can go on and on but I will be shocked beyond my wildest dreams if the majority of Americans hand this guy the keys to the white house. Oh and he and Biden are both lawyers.

 

WATCH THIS

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H5tZc8oH--o

[DesertBull]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=usvG-s_Ssb0

[GodIsGood]

HOLY CRAP DB! why do you 'spose the McLame election campaign morons havent turned the Fannie-Freddie Connection into an attack ad against Osama???

 

That should make every American FURIOUS! With the Good Lord's help, conserving and hussle, I pray to keep my business and my home - regardles of how deeply the economy sinks. AND my heart goes out to thems who cannot - especially thems who didnt put themselves there by acting greedily or foolishly... but either way, there is sooooo much failure and bailing at every level, when the dust settles and everyone is treated with equal re-opportunity on a playing field leved by government-drive, trillion dollar bull dozers and everyone gets whatever hand-outs they can, WHY SHOULD I BUST MY butt TO MAINTAIN MY CREDIT RATING?

 

I'll do it cuz dad taught me to work 4jobs and sell a kidney b4 defaulting on a loan, but it makes ya think!

 

"WHY BOTHER?... BIG BRO IS GONNA MAKE EVERYTHING ALL RIGHT FOR EVERYONE! - UNLESS YOU'VE ACHIEVED GREAT FINANCIAL SUCCESS - YOU'RE THE LUCKY CONTESTANT CHOSEN TO PAY FOR IT ALL"

 

x Barak Hussein Obsama, AKA Karl Heinrich Marx

[az4life]

I'm voting Democrat because English has no place being the official language in America .

 

I'm voting Democrat because it's better to turn corn into fuel than it is to eat the corn.

 

I'm voting Democrat because I'd rather pay $4++ for a gallon of gas than allow drilling for oil off the coasts of America .

 

I'm voting Democrat because I think the government will do a better job of spending my money than I could.

 

I'm voting Democrat because I agree that there should be no reference to God on our currency.

 

I'm voting Democrat because when we pull out of Afghanistan and Iraq, I know the Islamic terrorists will stop trying to kill us because they'll think we're a good and decent country.

 

I'm voting Democrat because my next door neighbor, who is unemployed, gay and on drugs, suggested I vote Democrat.

 

I'm voting Democrat because I believe people who can't tell us if it will rain in two or three days, can now tell us the polar ice caps will disappear in ten years if I don't start riding a bicycle, build a windmill or inflate my tires to proper levels.

 

I'm voting Democrat because I like the idea of relaunching the draft for all individuals, students or otherwise, between the ages of 18 and 42, as proposed again, most recently in 2007, by Democrat Senator Charles Rangle - NY.

 

I'm voting Democrat because it's alright to kill millions of babies as long as we keep violent, convicted murderers on death row alive.

 

I'm voting Democrat because I really like the idea of paying higher taxes and seeing this money being distributed to illegal immigrants flooding our schools and our medical facilities.

 

I'm voting Democrat because I believe businesses in America should not be allowed to make profits. Businesses should just break even and give the rest to the government so politicians and bureaucrats can redistribute the money the way they think it should be redistributed.

 

I'm voting Democrat because I think a President, and his first lady bride, who have for 20 years attended Sunday church sermons presented by the Reverend Jeremiah Wright, will be a positive influence on America, even though the theme of these sermons is consistently a voice of hatred being directed to America and it's white citizens.

 

I'm voting Democrat because I believe that granting equal rights to terror suspects is a good strategy for America, regardless of what happened on 9-11.

 

I'm voting Democrat because I believe it is good that a Muslim-connected president will take special steps to protect the bizarre religious practices and customs of other Muslims residing in America, in spite of the fact that some of these people are committed to the destruction of America.

 

I'm voting Democrat because I believe guns, and not the people misusing them, are the cause of crimes and killings.

 

I'm voting Democrat because when someone with a weapon threatens my family or me, I know the government can respond faster through a call to 911 than I can with a gun in my hand.

 

I'm voting Democrat because oil companies' 5% profit on a gallon of gas are obscene, but government taxes of 18% on the same gallon of gas are just fine.

 

I'm voting Democrat because I like turning on my TV and going to movies and hearing foul, profane language, and I like the idea that my kids hear it too.

 

I'm voting Democrat because I believe there is no place for God in American society, regardless of the fact that America was founded on a platform of Christianity.

 

I'm voting Democrat because I agree that we must protect the concept of free speech, including protecting the purveryors of internet pornography which is readily accesible to the children of America.

 

I'm voting Democrat because I believe three or four elitist liberals should rewrite the Constitution every few months to suit some fringe minority element, such as gays and lesbos, that could never ever get their ridiculous agenda passed by a majority of voters.

 

I'm voting Democrat because illegal aliens are not criminals, are not sucking up resources through government aid, hospital services, education, or social service, but are just people trying to make a better life by coming to America illegally. We can't blame them for that, can we?

 

I'm voting Democrat because I don't want my kids exposed to the Lord's prayer in school.

 

I'm voting Democrat because now I can now marry whatever/whoever I want, so I've decided to marry my horse.

 

Makes ya wonder why anyone would ever vote Republican, doesn't it? NOT

 

[Hooked_on_Coues]

I think people are voting for the idea of what Obama represents rather than who he is. He just won't stand up with any objective scrutiny.