FactCheck flubs Obama gun fact check:
FactCheck.org is an excellent project of the Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania. It a non-partisan organization which provides factual evaluations of the claims of and about political figures. I have cited it in my own writing, and will continue to do so. However, that FactCheck has a well-deserved reputation for accuracy and good judgment does not mean that its work is infallible, as the VC has pointed out previously. The Encyclopedia Britannica also has a well-deserved reputation for accuracy and impartiality, but the Britannica sometimes contains errors or overstatements.
FactCheck’s September 22, 2008, report on the National Rifle Association’s advertising critical claims that the NRA “distorts Obama's position on gun control beyond recognition.” FactCheck itself, though, has overstated its claims, and made several errors.
(show)
The NRA’s advertising points to various positions which Obama has taken over the years. Not one of these positions (with a single very dubious exception, discussed below) has been subsequently repudiated by Obama.
Much of FactCheck’s critique of the NRA is the mere recitation of vague platitudes by Obama claiming that he supports of the Second Amendment.
FactCheck fails to recognize that Obama's platitudes and the NRA's charges could be simultaneously true. For example, John McCain might sincerely say, “I strongly support First Amendment rights.” A group critical of McCain might take out advertising which says “McCain sponsoroed the most comprehensive restriction of political speech in American history, and he is an opponent of your First Amendment rights.” All the statement are true: McCain sponsored the McCain-Feingold act, which outlaws a great deal of speech related to federal elections; people who are strong First Amendment advocates can therefore conclude that McCain is a very serious threat to First Amendment rights. McCain, however, is doubtless sincere in his belief that the political speech restrictions are consistent with his support for First Amendment rights. His First Amendment is simply much smaller than the First Amendment which free speech groups like the ACLU support. FactCheck would be incorrect if it declared that the free speech group was making "false" charges which "distorted" McCain's views.
Likewise, the NRA is not distorting Obama’s record when they accurately point out his advocacy for draconian gun controls, even if Obama offers generic platitudes about Second Amendment rights. Obama may sincerely believe that the various measures he has promoted are consistent with the Second Amendment; the NRA disagrees, and it is not factually inaccurate for the NRA to say so.
On some of the charges, FactCheck appears not to have studied Obama’s words carefully. For example, one NRA claim is that Obama wants to “Ban the Manufacture, Sale and Possession of Handguns.” FactCheck accurately reports that Obama did endorse such a position in his 1996 Illinois State Senate race. (FactCheck also supplies the details of Obama’s 2008 claim that the questionnaire was filled out by an aide without Obama’s knowledge, even though Obama’s handwriting is on the cover of the questionnaire.) But FactCheck asserts that the NRA is lying because of Obama’s response to the same question in 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.”
The 2003 response hardly means that Obama does not favor a handgun ban. He simply said he recognized it as politically impracticable. A candidate can simultaneously support something, and consider it “politically impracticable.” For example, in a 1997 Connecticut Law Review article, Glenn Reynolds and I wrote in favor the historic and textual interpretation of the Congressional power over interstate commerce: that it applies to commercial activities conducted across state lines, and to the regulation of activities which are “necessary and proper” for regulating interstate commerce. Thus, I think that laws about who can possess guns (e.g., persons convicted of particular crimes, children, alcoholics, etc.) should be matters of state law, not federal law. (With the caveats that state laws cannot violate the Second Amendment, and that other federal powers might be legtimately used in certain situations; for example, congressional power over immigration might be an appropriate basis for a federal restriction on gun possession by illegal aliens.)
If I were running for Congress in 2008, and somebody asked “Do you favor repealing federal laws about the mere intrastate possession of guns?” I would probably explain that a complete repeal is “not politically practicable,” and would say that I would work instead for marginal improvements in the laws.
Now suppose my opponent puts out a brochure which says “Kopel favors repeal of federal laws on gun possession.” Is the opponent distorting my position beyond recognition? Well, probably not.
A good FactCheck article would point out the difference between my 1997 position and my current statement on what is “politically practicable.” But my very choice of the words “politically practicable” indicates that if political circumstances changed, so that a broad repeal were politically practicable, then I would support it.
Conversely, if I (or, Obama or McCain) were asked "Do you think that the federal government should require journalists to get a government license?" the response would not be "Licensing journalists is not politically practicable, but there are other steps the government could take to improve media quality."
So Obama’s 2003 acknowledgement that handgun prohibition was not “politically practicable” (at least for a U.S. Senate term that would begin in 2005) is consistent with support for handgun prohibition.
FactCheck concludes the section by citing Obama’s claim at an April 2008 debate “I have never favored an all-out ban on handguns." The claim is, to say the least, highly dubious in light of the evidence about his 1996 questionnaire, and FactCheck should not have treated this dubious claim as the final word on the subject. FactCheck failed to report that during the Potomac Primaries a few weeks earlier, Obama had said that he supported the D.C. handgun ban, and considered it consistent with the Second Amendment
FactCheck also overlooked the Obama campaign’s statement when the Supreme Court granted cert. in the D.C. handgun case: “Obama believes the D.C. handgun law is constitutional” and that “local communities” should have the ability “to enact common sense laws.” (Chicago Tribune, Nov. 20, 2007.)
On the day the U.S. Supreme Court announced its decision in District of Columbia v. Heller, Obama campaign announced that he agreed with the Court’s decision because it affirmed an individual right. (The full quote is reproduced in another section of the FactCheck report.) Notably, Obama did not say that he agreed with the Court’s interpretation that the handgun ban was a violation of the individual right. Asked about the November 2007 statement supporting the D.C. ban, the campaign called the statement “inartful.” Not an inaccurate expression of Obama’s views—just “inartful.”
In sum, FactCheck's label of “False” for the NRA’s statement that Obama supports laws to “Ban the Manufacture, Sale and Possession of Handguns" was based on sloppy reading of some of Obama's statements, and failure to report other statements explicitly in favor of handgun prohibition.
A similar error is repeated for "Mandate a Government-Issued License to Purchase a Firearm", which FactCheck calls "Misleading." FactCheck quotes a Jan. 15, 2008, interview with the late Tim Russert:
The NRA claims that Obama’s position includes: "Ban use of Firearms for Home Self-Defense." FactCheck says this is “False.” FactCheck discusses Obama’s opposition to an Illinois bill to prevent localities with handgun bans from punishing a person who used a handgun in lawful self-defense on his or her own property. Obama’s statements in opposition to the bill (which are not quoted by FactCheck) explained that he was worried that the bill would erode local handgun bans. (At the time, Chicago and five of its suburbs banned handguns.)
FactCheck writes: “Letting the owner of an unregistered firearm escape the penalty for failing to register is one thing, but it's another thing entirely to make it a crime to use any firearm – registered or not – in self-defense.” Well, if you ban a person from having a handgun at all, you are certainly banning them from using it for self-defense in the home.
Moreover, the Washington, D.C., gun law--which Obama supported--forbade the use of any firearm in the home for self-defense. (Including a registered rifle, a registered shotgun, or a pre-1976 registered handgun legally possessed under the grandfather clause). The Supreme Court later declared the self-defense ban to be unconstitutional.
Another NRA claim which FactCheck says is "False" is: "Ban Rifle Ammunition Commonly Used for Hunting and Sport Shooting.” As FactCheck reports, the issue involves Obama’s support for legislation to expand the federal definition of armor-piercing ammunition. Almost all rifle ammunition used for hunting deer or larger animals will penetrate a bullet-resistant vest; such vests are designed to stop handgun ammunition, not rifle ammunition. (In part because rifles have longer barrels, their bullets generally have greater velocity, and hence greater kinetic energy, than handgun bullets.)
Obama supported a bill to give the Attorney General the administrative authority to ban any rifle ammunition which can penetrate the type of vests commonly used by police.
FactCheck accurately quoted a limitation in the bill: it would apply only to ammunition which is “designed or marketed as having armor piercing capability." The “marketed” prong is easy, since rifle ammunition makers do not tout such capability in their advertising.
However, the “designed” language is broad enough to allow bans on anything. Almost every automobile in the United States is “designed” to drive over 100 miles per hour. The speedometers show this capability, and even if they did not, every automobile manufacturer is fully aware that its autos can be driven at very fast, unsafe speeds. The auto engines are “designed” to have a certain amount of power, and this “design” is based on the full knowledge that that auto can be driven over 100 mph. Among the definitions of "design" in Black's Law Dictionary is "The pattern or configuration of elements in something, such as a work of art."
Just as the deliberate configuration of the elements of every automobile can be accurately said to be “designed” to drive over 100 mph, so every deer-hunting round can be said to be “designed” to penetrate body armor. Notably, the ammunition ban language did not say "designed and intended."
FactCheck does quote Senator Kennedy, the sponsor of the bill, saying that he did not want to ban hunting ammunition. Nevertheless, the plain language of the bill, and not Senator Kennedy’s floor statements, were what would be enacted into law. If there were ever a judicial challenge to ban on particular rifle ammunition ban, a court might well find that the language of the statute, along with judicial deference to agency interpretation of the statute, meant that there was no need to look to legislative history.
FactCheck give NRA a "Partly True" for: "Expand the Clinton Semi-Auto Weapons Ban to Include Millions More Firearms." FactCheck agrees that Obama has declared his support for "assault weapon" bans, because he think that "assault weapons" are guns which belong only on "foreign battlefields." But FactCheck adds: "We're not sure where the NRA gets its claim that 'millions' of additional weapons would be covered." The answer is straightforward, in the Illinois legislature, Obama for SB 1195, which defines "assault weapons" much more broadly than the 1994 federal law. It included double-barrel and break-open shotguns in 28 gauge caliber and larger; and also banned .50 caliber rifles.
The FactCheck gives the NRA a rating of "Uncertain" to "Increase Federal Taxes on Guns and Ammunition by 500 Percent" and "Close Down 90 Percent of Gun Shops in America." Both these statements, FactCheck correctly reports, come from a newspaper report of Obama's 1999 description his gun control plan. (Chicago Defender, Dec. 13, 1999.) (At the time, he was running for the U.S. House of Representativs.) FactCheck notes that Obama has not pushed for these proposals since his election to the Senate, and adds, "We asked the Obama campaign about his position on an ammunition tax but have received no response."
“Uncertain” is an awfully generous label, Obama-wise. Obama clearly announced he supported the particular policies. He has never said that he has changed his mind on those policies. His campaign was specifically offered a chance by FactCheck to say whether Obama had changed his mind, and the campaign refused.
Just because Obama is not pushing for something in Congress does not make the NRA's claim uncertain. FactCheck gives NRA a "True" for "Pass Federal Laws Eliminating Your Right-to-Carry." Illinois and Wisconsin are the only two states which do not have procedures for issuing concealed handgun carry permits. (40 states issue under mostly objective standards, while 8 states give nearly limitless discretion to the issuing authority.) In the 2004 U.S. Senate campaign, Obama said he favored a national ban on concealed carry permits. Like the carry ban, the bans on gun stores and the 500% firearm and ammunition tax proposals do not become less true simply because Obama is not pushing them at present.
The NRA gets a "Mostly True" for "Restore Voting Rights for Five Million Criminals Including Those Who Have been Convicted of Using a Gun to Commit a Violent Crime." FactCheck points to the relevant bill co-sponsored by Obama, and cites the Sentencing Project for the fact that 5.3 million felons who have served their sentences cannot vote. The Sentencing Project pointed out that most felony convictions are not for violent or gun crimes. So the NRA claim is “Entirely True.” The NRA never asserted that most felony convictions are for violent gun crimes.
"Unsupported" is how FactCheck describes: "Appoint Judges to the U.S. Supreme Court and Federal Judiciary Who Share His Views on the Second Amendment." FactCheck's reasoning is that "the NRA can point to no statement by Obama calling for a Second-Amendment test for his judicial appointees, and we could find none."
That Obama has not announced a litmus test does not mean that it is unrealistic to expect him to appoint Justices who share his views on Second Amendment and on other matters of constitutional law. It would be reasonably expected that Obama appointees would take a similar approach of nominal support for the individual right, but finding that hardly any gun controls short of complete prohibition violate that right.
One final NRA claim does not get a FactCheck rating, but it does get a response that might as well as come from the Obama press office. That is: "Obama would be the most anti-gun president in American history."
FactCheck supplies Obama's quote from Heller decision day, beginning with "I have always believed that the Second Amendment protects the right of individuals to bear arms..", and promising, "As President, I will uphold the constitutional rights of law-abiding gun-owners, hunters, and sportsmen. I know that what works in Chicago may not work in Cheyenne."
Well, that Obama has "always believed" in the individual Second Amendment right did not prevent him from proposing a national ban on concealed carry, a ban on 90% of gun stores, a 500% tax increase on firearms and ammunition--as the FactCheck article itself reports. If a candidate proposed banning 90% of bookstores and a huge tax increase on books, it might be justifiable to predict that he would be "the most anti-book president in American history"--notwithstanding his proclaimed belief in the individual First Amendment right.
FactCheck calls the NRA prediction, "a pretty tall statement. We don't know how George Washington, John Adams or Thomas Jefferson might have felt about armor-piercing ammunition or assault weapons."
Fortunately, there haven't been many anti-gun Presidents, in U.S. history; and only the Clinton administration invested a large portion of its politcal capital in gun control. So President Obama would not have much competition in the "most anti-gun" contest.
We know that Washington and Jefferson were avid gun collectors, and that Jefferson recommended daily hunting as the best form of exercise. We also know that Jefferson instituted a government program to supply guns, at federal expense, to people who couldn’t own one. We know that neither Washington, nor Adams, nor Jefferson ever proposed banning a type of gun simply because it was useful on “battlefields.”
As far as we know, Obama has never fired a gun, or even held a gun in his hands. We do know that no President in American history has, in his pre-presidential career, endorsed so many sweeping prohibitions and other severe controls on American gun ownership.
The September 22, 2008, FactCheck on the NRA criticism of Obama is marred by the omission of crucial facts, one-sided and misleading presentations of issues, and thinly-concealed political advocacy. According to FactCheck, the NRA refused to answer FactCheck's request for explanations of its claims. If so, the refusal provides a partial explanation of why so many crucial facts were missing. Whatever the reasons behind the problems in the September 22 report, FactCheck should publish a substantially revised edition.
Much of FactCheck’s critique of the NRA is the mere recitation of vague platitudes by Obama claiming that he supports of the Second Amendment.
FactCheck fails to recognize that Obama's platitudes and the NRA's charges could be simultaneously true. For example, John McCain might sincerely say, “I strongly support First Amendment rights.” A group critical of McCain might take out advertising which says “McCain sponsoroed the most comprehensive restriction of political speech in American history, and he is an opponent of your First Amendment rights.” All the statement are true: McCain sponsored the McCain-Feingold act, which outlaws a great deal of speech related to federal elections; people who are strong First Amendment advocates can therefore conclude that McCain is a very serious threat to First Amendment rights. McCain, however, is doubtless sincere in his belief that the political speech restrictions are consistent with his support for First Amendment rights. His First Amendment is simply much smaller than the First Amendment which free speech groups like the ACLU support. FactCheck would be incorrect if it declared that the free speech group was making "false" charges which "distorted" McCain's views.
Likewise, the NRA is not distorting Obama’s record when they accurately point out his advocacy for draconian gun controls, even if Obama offers generic platitudes about Second Amendment rights. Obama may sincerely believe that the various measures he has promoted are consistent with the Second Amendment; the NRA disagrees, and it is not factually inaccurate for the NRA to say so.
On some of the charges, FactCheck appears not to have studied Obama’s words carefully. For example, one NRA claim is that Obama wants to “Ban the Manufacture, Sale and Possession of Handguns.” FactCheck accurately reports that Obama did endorse such a position in his 1996 Illinois State Senate race. (FactCheck also supplies the details of Obama’s 2008 claim that the questionnaire was filled out by an aide without Obama’s knowledge, even though Obama’s handwriting is on the cover of the questionnaire.) But FactCheck asserts that the NRA is lying because of Obama’s response to the same question in 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.”
The 2003 response hardly means that Obama does not favor a handgun ban. He simply said he recognized it as politically impracticable. A candidate can simultaneously support something, and consider it “politically impracticable.” For example, in a 1997 Connecticut Law Review article, Glenn Reynolds and I wrote in favor the historic and textual interpretation of the Congressional power over interstate commerce: that it applies to commercial activities conducted across state lines, and to the regulation of activities which are “necessary and proper” for regulating interstate commerce. Thus, I think that laws about who can possess guns (e.g., persons convicted of particular crimes, children, alcoholics, etc.) should be matters of state law, not federal law. (With the caveats that state laws cannot violate the Second Amendment, and that other federal powers might be legtimately used in certain situations; for example, congressional power over immigration might be an appropriate basis for a federal restriction on gun possession by illegal aliens.)
If I were running for Congress in 2008, and somebody asked “Do you favor repealing federal laws about the mere intrastate possession of guns?” I would probably explain that a complete repeal is “not politically practicable,” and would say that I would work instead for marginal improvements in the laws.
Now suppose my opponent puts out a brochure which says “Kopel favors repeal of federal laws on gun possession.” Is the opponent distorting my position beyond recognition? Well, probably not.
A good FactCheck article would point out the difference between my 1997 position and my current statement on what is “politically practicable.” But my very choice of the words “politically practicable” indicates that if political circumstances changed, so that a broad repeal were politically practicable, then I would support it.
Conversely, if I (or, Obama or McCain) were asked "Do you think that the federal government should require journalists to get a government license?" the response would not be "Licensing journalists is not politically practicable, but there are other steps the government could take to improve media quality."
So Obama’s 2003 acknowledgement that handgun prohibition was not “politically practicable” (at least for a U.S. Senate term that would begin in 2005) is consistent with support for handgun prohibition.
FactCheck concludes the section by citing Obama’s claim at an April 2008 debate “I have never favored an all-out ban on handguns." The claim is, to say the least, highly dubious in light of the evidence about his 1996 questionnaire, and FactCheck should not have treated this dubious claim as the final word on the subject. FactCheck failed to report that during the Potomac Primaries a few weeks earlier, Obama had said that he supported the D.C. handgun ban, and considered it consistent with the Second Amendment
FactCheck also overlooked the Obama campaign’s statement when the Supreme Court granted cert. in the D.C. handgun case: “Obama believes the D.C. handgun law is constitutional” and that “local communities” should have the ability “to enact common sense laws.” (Chicago Tribune, Nov. 20, 2007.)
On the day the U.S. Supreme Court announced its decision in District of Columbia v. Heller, Obama campaign announced that he agreed with the Court’s decision because it affirmed an individual right. (The full quote is reproduced in another section of the FactCheck report.) Notably, Obama did not say that he agreed with the Court’s interpretation that the handgun ban was a violation of the individual right. Asked about the November 2007 statement supporting the D.C. ban, the campaign called the statement “inartful.” Not an inaccurate expression of Obama’s views—just “inartful.”
In sum, FactCheck's label of “False” for the NRA’s statement that Obama supports laws to “Ban the Manufacture, Sale and Possession of Handguns" was based on sloppy reading of some of Obama's statements, and failure to report other statements explicitly in favor of handgun prohibition.
A similar error is repeated for "Mandate a Government-Issued License to Purchase a Firearm", which FactCheck calls "Misleading." FactCheck quotes a Jan. 15, 2008, interview with the late Tim Russert:
NBC's Tim Russert, Jan. 15: Senator Obama, when you were in the state senate, you talked about licensing and registering gun owners. Would you do that as president?Obama then went on to list some things which thought could be done. The phrase "I don't think we can get that done" has the same import as "not politically practicable." It does not convey opposition to the idea.
Obama: I don’t think that we can get that done.
The NRA claims that Obama’s position includes: "Ban use of Firearms for Home Self-Defense." FactCheck says this is “False.” FactCheck discusses Obama’s opposition to an Illinois bill to prevent localities with handgun bans from punishing a person who used a handgun in lawful self-defense on his or her own property. Obama’s statements in opposition to the bill (which are not quoted by FactCheck) explained that he was worried that the bill would erode local handgun bans. (At the time, Chicago and five of its suburbs banned handguns.)
FactCheck writes: “Letting the owner of an unregistered firearm escape the penalty for failing to register is one thing, but it's another thing entirely to make it a crime to use any firearm – registered or not – in self-defense.” Well, if you ban a person from having a handgun at all, you are certainly banning them from using it for self-defense in the home.
Moreover, the Washington, D.C., gun law--which Obama supported--forbade the use of any firearm in the home for self-defense. (Including a registered rifle, a registered shotgun, or a pre-1976 registered handgun legally possessed under the grandfather clause). The Supreme Court later declared the self-defense ban to be unconstitutional.
Another NRA claim which FactCheck says is "False" is: "Ban Rifle Ammunition Commonly Used for Hunting and Sport Shooting.” As FactCheck reports, the issue involves Obama’s support for legislation to expand the federal definition of armor-piercing ammunition. Almost all rifle ammunition used for hunting deer or larger animals will penetrate a bullet-resistant vest; such vests are designed to stop handgun ammunition, not rifle ammunition. (In part because rifles have longer barrels, their bullets generally have greater velocity, and hence greater kinetic energy, than handgun bullets.)
Obama supported a bill to give the Attorney General the administrative authority to ban any rifle ammunition which can penetrate the type of vests commonly used by police.
FactCheck accurately quoted a limitation in the bill: it would apply only to ammunition which is “designed or marketed as having armor piercing capability." The “marketed” prong is easy, since rifle ammunition makers do not tout such capability in their advertising.
However, the “designed” language is broad enough to allow bans on anything. Almost every automobile in the United States is “designed” to drive over 100 miles per hour. The speedometers show this capability, and even if they did not, every automobile manufacturer is fully aware that its autos can be driven at very fast, unsafe speeds. The auto engines are “designed” to have a certain amount of power, and this “design” is based on the full knowledge that that auto can be driven over 100 mph. Among the definitions of "design" in Black's Law Dictionary is "The pattern or configuration of elements in something, such as a work of art."
Just as the deliberate configuration of the elements of every automobile can be accurately said to be “designed” to drive over 100 mph, so every deer-hunting round can be said to be “designed” to penetrate body armor. Notably, the ammunition ban language did not say "designed and intended."
FactCheck does quote Senator Kennedy, the sponsor of the bill, saying that he did not want to ban hunting ammunition. Nevertheless, the plain language of the bill, and not Senator Kennedy’s floor statements, were what would be enacted into law. If there were ever a judicial challenge to ban on particular rifle ammunition ban, a court might well find that the language of the statute, along with judicial deference to agency interpretation of the statute, meant that there was no need to look to legislative history.
FactCheck give NRA a "Partly True" for: "Expand the Clinton Semi-Auto Weapons Ban to Include Millions More Firearms." FactCheck agrees that Obama has declared his support for "assault weapon" bans, because he think that "assault weapons" are guns which belong only on "foreign battlefields." But FactCheck adds: "We're not sure where the NRA gets its claim that 'millions' of additional weapons would be covered." The answer is straightforward, in the Illinois legislature, Obama for SB 1195, which defines "assault weapons" much more broadly than the 1994 federal law. It included double-barrel and break-open shotguns in 28 gauge caliber and larger; and also banned .50 caliber rifles.
The FactCheck gives the NRA a rating of "Uncertain" to "Increase Federal Taxes on Guns and Ammunition by 500 Percent" and "Close Down 90 Percent of Gun Shops in America." Both these statements, FactCheck correctly reports, come from a newspaper report of Obama's 1999 description his gun control plan. (Chicago Defender, Dec. 13, 1999.) (At the time, he was running for the U.S. House of Representativs.) FactCheck notes that Obama has not pushed for these proposals since his election to the Senate, and adds, "We asked the Obama campaign about his position on an ammunition tax but have received no response."
“Uncertain” is an awfully generous label, Obama-wise. Obama clearly announced he supported the particular policies. He has never said that he has changed his mind on those policies. His campaign was specifically offered a chance by FactCheck to say whether Obama had changed his mind, and the campaign refused.
Just because Obama is not pushing for something in Congress does not make the NRA's claim uncertain. FactCheck gives NRA a "True" for "Pass Federal Laws Eliminating Your Right-to-Carry." Illinois and Wisconsin are the only two states which do not have procedures for issuing concealed handgun carry permits. (40 states issue under mostly objective standards, while 8 states give nearly limitless discretion to the issuing authority.) In the 2004 U.S. Senate campaign, Obama said he favored a national ban on concealed carry permits. Like the carry ban, the bans on gun stores and the 500% firearm and ammunition tax proposals do not become less true simply because Obama is not pushing them at present.
The NRA gets a "Mostly True" for "Restore Voting Rights for Five Million Criminals Including Those Who Have been Convicted of Using a Gun to Commit a Violent Crime." FactCheck points to the relevant bill co-sponsored by Obama, and cites the Sentencing Project for the fact that 5.3 million felons who have served their sentences cannot vote. The Sentencing Project pointed out that most felony convictions are not for violent or gun crimes. So the NRA claim is “Entirely True.” The NRA never asserted that most felony convictions are for violent gun crimes.
"Unsupported" is how FactCheck describes: "Appoint Judges to the U.S. Supreme Court and Federal Judiciary Who Share His Views on the Second Amendment." FactCheck's reasoning is that "the NRA can point to no statement by Obama calling for a Second-Amendment test for his judicial appointees, and we could find none."
That Obama has not announced a litmus test does not mean that it is unrealistic to expect him to appoint Justices who share his views on Second Amendment and on other matters of constitutional law. It would be reasonably expected that Obama appointees would take a similar approach of nominal support for the individual right, but finding that hardly any gun controls short of complete prohibition violate that right.
One final NRA claim does not get a FactCheck rating, but it does get a response that might as well as come from the Obama press office. That is: "Obama would be the most anti-gun president in American history."
FactCheck supplies Obama's quote from Heller decision day, beginning with "I have always believed that the Second Amendment protects the right of individuals to bear arms..", and promising, "As President, I will uphold the constitutional rights of law-abiding gun-owners, hunters, and sportsmen. I know that what works in Chicago may not work in Cheyenne."
Well, that Obama has "always believed" in the individual Second Amendment right did not prevent him from proposing a national ban on concealed carry, a ban on 90% of gun stores, a 500% tax increase on firearms and ammunition--as the FactCheck article itself reports. If a candidate proposed banning 90% of bookstores and a huge tax increase on books, it might be justifiable to predict that he would be "the most anti-book president in American history"--notwithstanding his proclaimed belief in the individual First Amendment right.
FactCheck calls the NRA prediction, "a pretty tall statement. We don't know how George Washington, John Adams or Thomas Jefferson might have felt about armor-piercing ammunition or assault weapons."
Fortunately, there haven't been many anti-gun Presidents, in U.S. history; and only the Clinton administration invested a large portion of its politcal capital in gun control. So President Obama would not have much competition in the "most anti-gun" contest.
We know that Washington and Jefferson were avid gun collectors, and that Jefferson recommended daily hunting as the best form of exercise. We also know that Jefferson instituted a government program to supply guns, at federal expense, to people who couldn’t own one. We know that neither Washington, nor Adams, nor Jefferson ever proposed banning a type of gun simply because it was useful on “battlefields.”
As far as we know, Obama has never fired a gun, or even held a gun in his hands. We do know that no President in American history has, in his pre-presidential career, endorsed so many sweeping prohibitions and other severe controls on American gun ownership.
The September 22, 2008, FactCheck on the NRA criticism of Obama is marred by the omission of crucial facts, one-sided and misleading presentations of issues, and thinly-concealed political advocacy. According to FactCheck, the NRA refused to answer FactCheck's request for explanations of its claims. If so, the refusal provides a partial explanation of why so many crucial facts were missing. Whatever the reasons behind the problems in the September 22 report, FactCheck should publish a substantially revised edition.
(hide)
Related Posts (on one page):
- Doing My Patriotic Duty:
- Obama Campaign Challenges NRA Ad:
- FactCheck flubs Obama gun fact check:
-believing that Obama's generic statement of support for "2nd amendment rights" outweighs all the specific things he has done to destroy those rights
-giving credence to the idea that Obama's intern bothered to forge Obama's handwriting when filling out an entire questionnaire and that it wasn't Obama himself.
-confusing "not having the votes for something" with "not wanting to do something."
IMO the NRA is spot-on and I hope they continue to bash him over the head with this issue until he crawls back under his rock.
Great article, as usual. Just a quick and gun-nerd-technical question: isn't the primary cause for the greater kinetic energy of rifle bullets that they're generally propelled by far more powder than handgun bullets?
but those votes and statements were made before he realized that he might have to get votes from bitter gun clingers (some of whom are Democrats).
And, one suspects, before someone told him how many of those Democratic gun-clingers live in Michigan.
They basically have accepted the Obama campaign's talking points that Obama's warm and fuzzy generic pro-2nd amendment statements trump his actual voting record. Accepting Obama's statements at face value is their prerogative, but to claim the NRA's reliance on his actual voting record makes them liars is silly.
Converting Obama's mealy-mouthed statements about various ideas not being politically feasible into opposition to those proposals is just as tendentious.
That's one reason, although a longer barrel with the same cartridge will produce more energy than a shorter barrel. And it's not just more powder it's more powerful powder, they burn differently too. Though they make rifles in traditional handgun cartridges, and vice versa.
I can answer that one for you: Yes, and in addition rifles have considerably longer barrels, which increases velocity (a .22 LR fired out of a rifle has significantly more velocity than the exact same round fired out of a pistol).
To say BO wants to "Ban the Manufacture, Sale and Possession of Handguns" because he once said "While a complete ban on handguns is not politically practicable ...” is much like saying that "Bernstein Thinks Leavitt and Dubner are Thieves" because he's on record saying "very little in the book seemed especially new or original".
It may not be provably false based on the record, but it's a distortion of what HAS been said using what wasn't said.
More specifically, it also allowed the Attorney General to list as armor piercing "a projectile that may be used in a handgun and that the Attorney General determines… to be capable of penetrating body armor". You don't need to stretch the definition of "designed" when nearly every modern cartridge can be used in a handgun. There are handguns in .30-06 or .223. There even handguns in goofy cartridges like .45-40 and shotgun shells.
This was made clear in Mr. Kennedy's floor remarks, where he stated, and I quote, that :
For those of you who aren't experienced with firearms, the .30-30 Winchester predates the development of Kevlar by 70 years, and in tube-fed lever-action rifles has been *the* deer rifle of choice for more than a century.
The bill amendment Senator Obama voted for did not merely have the potential to ban every major firearm, including hunting rifles. The very man who presented the amendment clearly stated on the floor that it must pass in order to ban a hunting rifle round.
Obama: I voted for that bill because I wanted to stop escaped convicts from shooting up a kindergarten with an M-16.
The bill: Possession of a firearm by anyone for any purpose, except law enforcement personnel, is unlawful.
That's entirely true. But it's also not the argument here; Obama did not merely say that a complete ban on handguns is not politically practicable. He's also stated that he believed the pre-Heller laws in D.C. were Constitutional. His 'campaign' (allegedly a misguided lesser official within) answered yes to whether or not he'd support a ban on handguns, on a piece of paper that Senator Obama's handwriting appeared elsewhere. He proposed a law that would have put 90% of all gun shops out of business, and and made the purchase of a legal firearm include a very long drive for a vast majority of Americans. He voted for a ban on firearms based on melting point. He explained his vote on the "loophole for use of firearms for lawful self-defense law" by explaining that he was concerned the law would erode local handgun bans.
Your sentence with Obama's explanation was incomplete. It should read--
do you even read FactCheck? They have been slamming Obama quite regularly. Pretty much up until McCain started running his garbage advertisements. And when Obama started running his own garbage, guess who became FactCheck's target?
geez, this is like the use of "judicial activism" i.e. you don't like what they say, so you create some sort of pejorative that is amorphous and can be molded to whatever you want it to be so long as it "supports" your pont.
I've read a few other FactCheck articles that go a little too far in defending something that's inaccurate or going too far in calling something inaccurate.
if only that is what I suggested. What great unknown would suggest is that there is bias. I asserted nothing as to the truth or lack thereof of FactCheck's articles, rather I suggest that based on their treatmeant of the statements of either party that there is no bias, one way or the other.
I've certainly been rubbed the wrong way by more than one FactCheck article, but I would be hard press to argue that they are not thorough in their research.
When statements such as these are made :
They called out the NRA, and the best the NRA could come up with is "We believe our 'facts'" (internal quotes added). Sounds a lot like the current administration's philosophy that saying it makes it so.
Why would any gun owner, or freedom loving American vote for Obama, when he will ban every gun and accessory he can get the votes for. It's as if in Obama's world, CCWs are non-existent. In my State of Florida, since the hurricanes of 2005, CCW permits have nearly doubled, while crime has gone down. It's no wonder liberals don't even try and make the connection between gun banning as crime issue -- What is their real goal here?
Who knows what Obama would do to the rest of the Bill of Rights, starting with free speech, and working your way down the list.
Hey at least your library card will be safe -- Tell me, you weren'tt dumb enough to fall for that one, were you?
As a gun owner (and freedom lover, although that's an exceedingly vacuous term), I will vote the candidate that matches my policy preferences the most. Not perfectly, the most. It's not a one-issue campaign.
Forever it was the NYT. Then Reuters. Can't forget the alphabets, of course, and my tax dollars at work: NPR. Lately AP and MSNBC have gone all in. Obama doesn't enjoy media favor. It's monolithic.
And now FactCheck is dipping a toe in; this has been an enlightening political season, hasn't it?
On the bigger field, just how sorry a program do you represent if the only president you've elected for two terms since Truman never got a majority, and cost you the Cpongress to boot?
We're going to need our guns when the entire economy breaks down and civil war breaks out. It would get ugly if all we had were knives and blunt objects.
Of course, according to Paulson and Bernanke, that could happen this weekend and by the time the election rolls around it won't be an issue, anymore.
Early this morning, I took the initiative and sent the following email to "Editor@FactCheck.org":
Dear Editor:
Today I came across this entry, posted yesterday (22 September 08):
I love the idea of independent groups fact-checking media and interest-group claims. It must be done in order to keep folks honest. So, I commend this endeavor.
However, I have serious concerns about your "NRA targets Obama" entry by D'Angelo Gore and Brooks Jackson. Specifically: 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." The crux of the matter centers on what Mr. Obama is saying now, during his presidential run, and what he has proposed or supported in the past. The entry clearly puts considerably more stock in what he's saying now, versus what his incontrovertible track record is. Actions speak louder than words. Obama's words on the second amendment are supportive now, but they are belied by his actions in the past.
I believe this entry runs entirely counter to your claim as a "Fact-Checking" organization. For the sake of truth, please reconsider this entry.
Carl (in Chicago)
My apologies.
I've certainly been rubbed the wrong way by more than one FactCheck article, but I would be hard press to argue that they are not thorough in their research.
Jack ... are you following this thread at all?
The entire premise of the thread is that FactCheck was not, in this instance, thorough in their research.
Are you sure crime has gone down in Florida since 2005? That's not what I find:
Florida Homicide Rate Jumps 27% in first half of 2006
Sheriff Rallies Forces to Combat Soaring Murder Rate
Violent crime in Florida rose staggeringly in 2006 and rose again in 2007 but at a much lower rate.
The FactCheck.org article uses Kennedy's assertion that his amendment "would not ban hunting ammo" to counter the NRA assertion that Obama voted for an amendment that would ban a wide variety of ammo including hunting ammo.
Given the full situation, it's clear that Kennedy's assertion is not a meaningful on the matter of overturning the NRA assertion -- he was either lying on the floor, lying about hunting ammo, or (most likely) both -- I think that when combined with the other facts present, it is reasonable to assume that Obama signed on with an amendment that specifically called for the ban of a large array of devices protected and recognized by the Constitution of the United States, and including devices overwhelmingly used for only lawful purposes.
I wasn't criticizing past behavior. I was placing a bet on future developments.
Baloney. This isn't a reading issue, it's logic. There is absolutely no refutation in FactChecks checking.
There is ONLY a statement by the NRA that Obama says X. FactCheck finds a statement by Obama - surprise, he says "NOT X, unfortunately". DK then reads the statement "NOT X, unfortuantely" as saying X.
The NRA may have guessed right about what's in Obama's heart, but they can't prove it based on the record.
The text of Senator Kennedy's amendment which would provide the Attorney General with the power to ban a wide swath of ammo including hunting ammo, and Senator Kennedy's speech on the floor advising that the amendment be used to ban the .30-30 Winchester cartridge, are matters of open and public records that no party has contested, and of which Senator Obama's vote is well-documented and uncontested. The matter is not about opinions or statements; the facts of that particular example are both clear and well-documented by available sources. These sources have been linked repeatedly throughout the thread; Thomas.loc.gov is not difficult to search.
FactCheck.org has chosen to ignore this in favor of quotes which play better in Peoria, either through ignorance or malice, but Senator Kennedy's inability to understand what is hunting ammunition does not change the facts of what .30-30 Winchester ammunition is overwhelmingly used for.
Likewise, the facts are that the Obama campaign has stated publicly that "... I think there is nothing wrong with a community saying we are going to take those illegal handguns off the streets", that "I believe in keeping guns out of our inner cities, and that our leaders must say so in the face of the gun manfuacturer's lobby", that "I would support banning the sale of ammunition for assault weapons and limiting the sale of ammunition for handguns", that he would "Ban the sale or transfer of all forms of semi-automatic weapons" and "Increase state restrictions on the purchase and possession of firearms" (in the 1998 survey that is currently uncontested by the Obama camp, unlike the 1996 one that an aide apparently filled out for him).
He has stated, in response to the statement ' "But you support the D.C. handgun ban and you’ve said that it’s constitutional", by Leon Harris of Washington television station WJLA the simple phrase : "Right, right." '
These are the facts, sir or ma'am.
However, that's right in line with the Brady Bunch's "Only Ones" divide and conquer strategy.
In other words it is as reliable as the Times and equally tendentious. If you read their analysis much of it depends on their “interpretation” of issues and their selective use of sources.
I went to their site just now and picked an item at random. It happens to be the very top of their recent postings. It’s called
Guilt and associations and examines a McCain ad.
This one about Obama’s association with the Chicago political machine.
Here’s the beginning of their rebuttal:
Other than spelling errors, beginning the rebuttal with the fact that Obama was not born “in” Chicago is not a rebuttal of the fact that he is began his political career in Chicago Democrat politics so that the assertion that he was “born of” the Chicago political machine is accurate. And to deny the corruption of that machine does not pass the laugh test.
The assertion that he often fought City Hall may or may not be true but is an assertion without citation. So is the assertion that his rise in politics as outside of the Chicago machine.
Feel free to see how fact filled as opposed to opinion filled the rest of Factcheck.org is.
Good grief, FactCheck.org actually spent time rebutting the silly, malicious rumor than Bristol Palin was the "real" mother of Trig, the Downs Syndrome and youngest child of the Palins, rather than Sarah Palin herself. This was "National Enquirer" material that belongs next to "Bigfoot," "Space Aliens" and "Vince Foster" headlines.
Resources. Priorities. Perspective.
Full disclosure: I contributed to this section.
Perhaps because the hapless heirs to the Annenburg fortune have too many other things with which to concern themselves than to see that their father's money is spent wisely.
It might be better if "FactCheck" simply retitled itself "PressReleaseRegurgitator." Then we could all relax and reduce our expectations.
FactCheck is a bit better about it than Wikipedia, but still noticably biased.
Note: this is based on their behaviour up until about 2-3 years ago (my life has been MUCH busier since then).
Because the Annenberg Foundation is the parent organization and primary source of funding of the Annenberg Political Fact Check.
And because last year during the Heller case, the Annenberg Foundation gave $50,000 to the Brady Center when they advocated on behalf of D.C.’s gun ban which was one of the central issues in this piece.
They probably should have mentioned it when they wrote the piece because learning that this supposedly objective and non-partisan group is run by a larger group that gives heavily to gun control causes when they’re writing a piece critiquing an ad by a gun rights organization may make people question their objectivity as well as the quality of their work.
It also *might* have belonged next to the John Edward's headlines, which, to the dismay of every "respectable" news agency, were correct. That explains the attention to the Palin debunking.
Read why the NRA gets 3/4 Pinnochios
squanderspend however they wanted?If so, the relationship is Annenberg gives money to Obama, Annenberg funds gun-control, and Annenberg tells people gun-control and Obama are good.
Read more goodly please. I never alleged Obama isn't anti-gun - he is. There is no proof on the record, however, that "Ban the Manufacture, Sale and Possession of Handguns" is an accurate description of his position or his past statements. It's way overstated, based on the record, just as FactCheck says.
gattsuru -
Obama's vote and/or statements on a pending bill are exactly that - a vote in favor of a bill, and statements related to a bill. Neither the statements or bills go as far as the NRA caricature of his position. Cite something that can be fairly summarized as "Ban the Manufacture, Sale and Possession of Handguns" or get over the fact that FactCheck is right.
Have you ever read anything written by Kathleen Hall Jamison (one of the FactCheck principals)? I suspect not, based on your rhetoric.
-
Aultimer . we don't have to "read anything written by Kathleen Hall Jamison".
WE just follow the money. And "the moneymen" behind FactCheck are the same thats behind "the antigun bunch" like the Brady Center and other leftwing organisations.
Last year alone they gave $50,000 to the Brady Center , an organisation that will ban ALL HANDGUNS AND MOST RIFLES for ordinary people.
FactCheck is a scamsite , the errors they have made are no mistakes , they are well intended.
The Second Amendment is foundational to the Constitution and, as with ALL laws impacting on our fundamental freedoms, any proposed restrictions should be subject to the strictest judicial scrutiny and must demonstrate a compelling purpose -- not just some specious argument that sounds good coming from a politician skilled at delivering speeches.
Here’s something by Kathleen Hall Jamison:
So apparently she would agree that it is important that readers of this article by FactCheck.org on the NRA’s ad attacking Obama’s support for gun control know that the FactCheck.org is part of the Annenberg Foundation which is a heavy financial supporter of gun control causes, including the one that was the topic of the piece.
Oh, no!!
The NRA claim may also come from the (now dead, pending a new Congress and administration) "Assault Weapons Ban and Law Enforcement Protection Act of 2007" HR 1022 bill that would ban substantially more weapons (including even M1 carbines [an evil 30.30 weapon], for Pete's sake) than the original gun ban.
The bill goes so far as to state (3.a.30.L) that all semiauto rifles and shotguns that are procured by the US military or Federal law enforcement agencies are presumed to be banned.
I don't know what Obama's position on that bill was, but it's not a big leap to think that he supported it, based on his other votes and statements.
But he has been closely advised by people who believe in the individual right to own destructive devices, like rifles over .50 caliber, or pipe bombs for that matter. But especially pipe bombs.
I don't have my Vast Rightwing Conspiracy decoder ring yet (despite many, many years of being a loyal, contributing Republican) so help me out - since FactCheck is a lefty scam, should I:
A. Believe that the anti-Democrat articles (like this) are as faulty as the anti-Republican ones,
B. Believe that the anti-Democrat articles are true, but are planted to give an appearance of fairness (since there would be more juicy stuff if FC were legit), or
C. Pick and choose what to believe based on whether it supports my preconceived notions?
Understand that the anti-Democrat articles are written when things are so blatant that they would lose all credibility by not checking them, but that when Republicans or the NRA say something, FactCheck looks for something (as inane as a campaign statement) to refute that rather than look for whether they have a factual basis for stating what they do.
You can evaluate my statements in a similar manner.
Again, the facts are that the Obama campaign has stated publicly that "... I think there is nothing wrong with a community saying we are going to take those illegal handguns off the streets", that "I believe in keeping guns out of our inner cities, and that our leaders must say so in the face of the gun manfuacturer's lobby", that "I would support banning the sale of ammunition for assault weapons and limiting the sale of ammunition for handguns", that he would "Ban the sale or transfer of all forms of semi-automatic weapons" and "Increase state restrictions on the purchase and possession of firearms" (in the 1998 survey that is currently uncontested by the Obama camp, unlike the 1996 one that an aide apparently filled out for him).
The facts are that he stated, as a goal, a ban on all firearms shops within 5 miles of a school or park. The facts are that he stated his opposition to the bill in support of Mr Hale DeMar's self-defense was to prevent the handgun ban which Mr Hale DeMar was suffering under from being 'eroded'. The facts are that he has supported a ban on the manufacture of any semiautomatic firearm.
It's not one law or statement, but when you have one for sales, one for possession, and one for manufacture, I think it's fairly accurate.
Try the other one. It's got bells on.
Obama is working very hard to ban ALL HANDSGUNS And longguns , and has done so for years. A couple of exampels:
1. When the senate A couple of years ago voted to repeal Washington DC's illegal ban of ALL HANDSGUNS And ALL LONGGUNS , Obama voted NO. Like all adults Obama knew the DC politicians was breaking the law , but he is so extremly antigun that even breaking the law is allright in his mind.
2. Chicargo has a similar illegal law , and the city still refuses to comply with the law. Obama suports these criminal city politicians AND THERE ILLIGAL LAW.
3.This week some politicians in the senate are trying to introduce a law that will force Washington DC to comply with the supreme court ruling ( the criminal city politicians still refuses to do so )The law already has 46 co sponsors including mcCains , but Obama refuses to sign it. Once again he thinks breaking the law is okay when it comes to guncontrol.
I could go on and on. So you see , Obama DO SUPORT A TOTAL BAN ON ALL HANDGUNS AND ALL LONGGUNS FOR CIVILIANS.
He is a very very extreme antigun politician , and he dosn't care about the law and the peoples civil rights either.
In my mind he is a lawbreaker and a criminal who belongs in a jail , not the white house.
2. It has also been revealed that the people who funds FactCheck are the same who funds "the brady center" an extreme antigun organisation.
3.When you combine all that , I don't think the word "scamsite" is to strong.
If a bill restricting "assault weapons" and "handguns" were to pass the House and Senate with him as president, would he sign it? Would he sign a national CCW reciprocity into law?
Anybody that thinks he is "pro-gun" either isn't paying attention to his voting record, rationalized his 2nd Amendment support, or doesn't value the 2nd Amendment themselves.
Which is it?
In the case of John Edwards' affair, the rumors were rampant and in fact the press was sitting on the story. As Howard Kurtz put it, "The whispered allegations about John Edwards were an open secret that was debated in every newsroom and reported by almost none." Iow, it was an open secret, one not being investigated and not being reported. Kurtz likewise noted, "Only Edwards's belated confession Friday to ABC's Bob Woodruff allowed news organizations to jump on what most people already knew."
By contrast, in the case of Trig Palin, the rumors were invented only after Palin became the VP pick and after the fact. There was no basis for the story.
They are highly respected , and have an exelent reputation of telling the truth.
FactCheck are a brand new Internetsite I don't know much about , but I will every day trust the NRA over FactCheck.
Of course Obama is against gun ownership. He always has been, he always will be. The only "nuances" here are for people who have severe brain damage, or for people that hope that you do. END GAME.
leave their opinions and biases behind. Who within the organization formulated this particular piece of corrupt work?
Take a look at the staff-all "journalists" and professors at the Ivy League U.of PA. Hardly a group with centerist leanings.Give me a break!!!!Check their political contributions and registration.
Is there anyone within the organization that even understands the second amendment and can parse the statements of a very political gun grabbers like the Obama campaign? I doubt it. Quite frankly these people are not non-partisan but it is a good marketing tool.
The website is called "Factcheck". What they've taken issue with are claims made by the NRA about Obama's positions on gun control which they claim he will implement if he takes office. Those claims are numbered. Either they can be supported or they cannot. WTF already ? Is counting to 10 the hard part here, because it would seem to be quite clear cut.
I take it that the reason why we can't find someone making it as far as point #1 in claiming how Factcheck's assessment is wrong is for the obvious reason.
"#1 - Ban use of firearms for home self-defense"
Tell us how that's not the NRA lying. Go for it.
Or tell yourself that you've somehow rebutted a website called Factcheck by talking about something other than the facts they are referring to.
Maybe one of you knows that this NRA spokesman isn't on record as pussying out and confirming they are lying when prompted to supply anything to substantiate the otherwise unsubstantiated claims made. Maybe you've just been to busy to post that so far. Chop chop.
Were you to busy to google and find the NRA response?
FactCheck claim: "Obama is proposing no ...ban" on use of firearms for self-defense in the home.
FactCheck is wrong. Obama supported local handgun bans in the Chicago area by opposing any allowance for self-defense. Obama opposed an Illinois bill (SB 2165, 2004) that would have created an "affirmative defense" for a person who used a prohibited firearm in self-defense in his own home.
As FactCheck notes, the bill was provoked by a case where a Wilmette, Ill. homeowner shot an intruder in self-defense in his home; the homeowner's handgun was banned by a town ordinance. (After the U.S. Supreme Court found Washington, D.C.'s similar ban unconstitutional, Wilmette repealed the ordinance to avoid litigation.)
The legislation was very plainly worded, but as limited as its protection was, Obama voted against it in committee and on the floor:
It is an affirmative defense to a violation of a municipal ordinance that prohibits, regulates, or restricts the private ownership of firearms if the individual who is charged with the violation used the firearm in an act of self-defense or defense of another ...when on his or her land or in his or her abode or fixed place of business.
[***]If a person cannot use a handgun for self-defense in the home without facing criminal charges, self-defense with handguns in the home is effectively banned.[***]
Even aside from SB 2165, Obama's support for a total handgun ban (see below) would be a crippling blow to defense in the home, since (as the Supreme Court recently affirmed) handguns are "the most preferred firearm in the nation to 'keep' and use for protection of one's home and family." (District of Columbia v. Heller, 128 S.Ct. 2783, 2818 (2008)).
FactCheck claim: Obama "did not ...vote to 'ban virtually
See:
http://www.nraila.org/News/Read/NewsReleases.aspx?
and
http://www.nrapvf.org/news/Read.aspx?ID=11588&T=1
Are you a part of Factcheck? When you write of factcheck you write "we".
I will say your organisation "factcheck" is a very manipulating organisation and has lost all credibility.
In 1996 Obama says in a candidate survey that he suports a law that will BAN the Manufacture, Sale and Possession of all Handguns.
Again in 1998 he said he supported a ban on the sale of all semi-automatic guns.
Factcheck discounts those earlier statements as they do with his wotingrecords , just because Obama during electiontime has changed his rhetoric. NRA are not that naiv. They look at a candidates entire voting record as well as earlier statements ( before electiontime ).
By the way , I am on the political leftwing my self ( I supose you and your site factcheck are as well ). If it wasn't because of Obamas views on the 2. amendment I would vote for him , now I have to vote for McCain.
Why is it that so many people on the political left dosn't care about civil rights? I don't get it. The political left should of all people stand guard of our civil rights.
You are either stupid or brainwashed.
The NRA are a very serious and highly respected civil rights organisation.
You can bet your ass , that Before they come with a puplic statement about a candidate , they have done a very thorough investigation. Like most people I trust The NRA over factcheck any day.
That said, I wonder why Factcheck thinks Joe Biden felt compelled to say that Obama would have to pry his shotguns from his hands or something like that?
Biden, one assumes, must have felt there was a need to say that and as Obama's VP, one would think he wouldn't be lying about Obama's record or intent. Then again, it is Joe Biden, but even he has to get some things right once in awhile, one would think.
Or maybe FACTCHECK can spin those quotes too.
Way to go Mr. Kopel!
Online Journal E-Mail Center
September 26, 2008 -- 5:00 p.m. EDT
See all of today's editorials and op-eds, video interviews and commentary on Opinion Journal.
FORMAT TODAY'S COLUMN FOR PRINTING
McCain Rules
The "maverick" is busy upending political traditions.
By JAMES TARANTO
The report includes interviews with Jennifer Joyce and Bob McCullough, chief prosecutors for St. Louis city and county, respectively. Neither threatens to prosecute Obama's critics, so it's possible that the station's citing of "Missouri ethics laws" makes this look more troubling than it is. But ABC News reports that the Obama campaign is trying to silence criticism elsewhere:
In this letter sent this week to TV station managers from Obama campaign general counsel Bob Bauer, obtained by ABC News, the Obama campaign argues that a TV ad by the National Rifle Association should not air.
"Unlike federal candidates, independent political organizations do not have a 'right to command the use of broadcast facilities,' " Bauer writes. "Moreover, you have a duty 'to protect the public from false, misleading or deceptive advertising.' "
The Obama campaign takes issue with an ad called "Hunter," pointing out that claims in the ad were called "false" by Factcheck.org, andwas given three Pinocchios by the Washington Post's "Factchecker."
A copy of the letter is here. David Kopel has a detailed rebuttal of the Factcheck.org critique. Whatever one may conclude about the merits of the ad's claims, the notion that an ad should be suppressed because the Washington Post or the Annenberg Center disapproves of it flies in the face of America's tradition of open debate. Never mind what Obama thinks of the Second Amendment, there's reason to worry about the First.
No, you are. Factcheck hasn't made any claims. They are assessing those made by the NRA. Factcheck isn't claiming to know what Obama will do if elected, they are simply saying that the NRA is being misleading when claiming that the NRA does know this.
The NRA has claimed that Obama supports a ban on firearms for personal self-defense. This is a lie and both you and I know it.
This is why we see you claiming I've missed the response by the NRA, then posted something that doesn't support what they have claimed. If you could post something that supports what they wrote, you would have.
They call it "playing dumb" for a reason. So why don't you pony up and tell us that your brain is operating at a level that allows you to think there is anything to support the NRA's claim that Obama wants to and will ban firearms for personal self defense.
You need to either embrace gullibility or outright lying and I don't care which, just get on with it already. Say it.
Why would I bet anything at all on that ?
Why couldn't this very careful organisation just produce this supporting evidence for the claims they have made, you could see these and have something better than a tooth-fairy-belief to support your sentiment ?
Then you could post them here and say AHA! that your statements do come from a more persuasive source than a 4yo with a gap in her smile.
No, when I said that "we" couldn't find anyone posting anything here to support the NRA's claim, I meant you and I and every other person reading this.
Somehow, use of the word "we" was the most suspicious thing about that observation. Yeah.... sure.
Er.... no, he didn't. You are pretty much the only person here who's claimed that.
So, you know, I've got a certain amount of interest in having a discussion with you about the accuracy of statements made when this is how much you care about that.
Heres the dokumentation of the 1996 candidate survey.
In question 35. ( under Criminal Justice )
Do you support state legislation to:
A. ban the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns (yes)
B. ban assault WeaPons (yes)
C. mandatory waiting periods and background checks? (Yes)
www.politico.com/static/PPM41_obamaquestionaire1newest.html
(part 1 of questionnaire)
www.politico.com/static/PPM41_obamaquestionaire2.html
(part 2 of questionnaire)
I guess most people now recognize that Factcheck are lying and NRA are telling the truth.
OF course kilo , if you only get your news through obama.com you will probably never had heard about it.
Factcheck are a lying leftwing organisation that has absolutly no credibility what so ever.
The core problem is that Kopel is asserting that (as an answer to "Do you support X") "X is not practicable" means that "X is desirable but not achievable", which is just false. An honest observer would note that the "not practicable" answer is not particularly responsive, and that the reason for the non-responsive answer may very well be because the respondent (i.e. Obama) doesn't want to say that he actually does support X -- but it is also possible that the answer is effectively "lets not waste time talking about hypothetical situations that won't happen".
You/me/we all may choose to believe what we like about the reasons for the non-responsive answers, but you cannot honestly assert that the fact of the non-responsiveness proves those reasons.
Getting specific about gun issues: I think it unarguable that Obama would like greater restrictions on sales/manufacturing/ownership of weapons than many of us think appropriate or wise. But "would like" doesn't translate to "would make efforts to enact legislation" -- the fact is that efforts to ban (e.g.) handguns are 150-odd years too late, so anybody trying to seriously impose a ban is ultimately wasting their time and ours -- there are just too many people and guns for that to work, period.
As to the points Kopel makes about the Heller case, I personally don't see the contradictions Kopel saw; I believe states should have the right to some level of legislation (e.g. of gun shops), but those rights should be limited. And that's what SCOTUS basically ruled: the DC legislation exceeded those rights.
So what does this mean about Obama the candidate? I personally think it speaks quite well: even though he apparently thinks (for whatever reasons) that gun control is OK, he understands enough about America to realize that he can't impose those views on us. And that's OK: G W Bush apparently doesn't drink, but he hasn't tried to reinstate Prohibition.
Anyway, in the specific points Kopel raised in this article, his analysis generally fails: Factcheck was not wrong, because "not practicable" doesn't mean "I want to but I don't think I can". It just means "I don't think taht would work".
First they say NRA are lying , and Factcheck are telling the truth because Obama doesn't support a ban on the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns.
Then , someone says Obama has filed out a survey where he says just that.
The Obama/brady bunch's answer: THATS a LIE and FACTCHECK are telling the truth.
Then , the same person document his claims.
Now the Obama/brady bunch reaction is: IT DOESN'T MATTER BECAUSE THE PRESIDENT HASN'T THE POWER TO regulate LAWS.
Therefor factcheck are telling the truth when they saying OBAMA DOESN'T SUPPORT A BAN ON THE MANUFACTURE , SALE AND POSSESSION OF HANDGUNS.
Thats the most strangest answer I have ever heard , even if it was true that the president doesn't have that power.
But unfortunately the president has exactly that power. He doesn't need the congress to regulate gunlaws. He can bypass conress by apointing liberal judges , including supreme court judges , and he sure will apoint antigun judges , you can bet on that.
Yeah. Got any ideas as to why everyone except you has been so careful not to claim that Obama filled that questionnaire out ? There is the obvious reason of course, as explained to you everywhere, but this somehow hasn't registered yet.
I only heard of it here. From this post and all the readers who've referred to it. If you think they're all full of sheet, let em know. Otherwise just sit there and look foolish.
Seriously, you either think the author and everyone else here is lying in support of Obama when they don't claim what you do, or you agree with this yourself. Either tell us you are lying or that you are happy to bend to peer pressure on this. Either way, you need to clear this up.
OMG hahahaha that's soooo funny, what with it being the answer to the question being posed. I haven't heard one that good since I pulled jury duty and they asked us to decide whether someone was guilty or not. Oh how we laughed, as though we were mentally challenged.
Er... yeah James. Except there's nothing funny about that apart from you acknowledging that you've not grasped the concept what a "fact" is.
McCain may have a position on immigration. Someone saying he made comments to a reporter in 1997 which he disputes, has no bearing on what that position may be. Hence, claiming you know what borders he will throw open, if elected, based on this and while ignoring any and all verifiable and current statements is you demonstrating that you have no interest in his actual position. You'd just like to make him look bad regardless of how accurate you are when doing it. Hence, you get to have an opinion about factchecking like the Japanese get to have an opinion about whale conservation. Not.
No, they're not. But by telling this lie, Kilo is able to claim that it doesn't matter what Obama supports, so long as the NRA can't absolutely prove that he would implement these things in office they're lying when they put it in their ad. And since a president can't do most of these things, at least not all by himself, it follows that the NRA are naughty Pinocchios, making up fibs about the One.
Yes, Obama supports banning the manufacture, sale, and possession of all handguns. He said so in the survey which was submitted in his name, which he personally reviewed, and on which his own handwriting appears, and he has never repudiated that view since. He voted against a bill that would have imposed a self-defense exception on city anti-gun ordinances in Illinois. The fact that he has said it would be impractical to do it nationally doesn't change his view, and the onus is not on the NRA to prove that he hasn't changed, it's on Annenberg Political "Fact Check" to prove that he has. If they can't prove that he's changed his mind, then they have no business labeling the NRA claims false.
Look, Kilo, here's a fact: Wilmette had a ban on handguns, with no exception for self-defense, and actually charged a man who had used his handgun to defend himself. The state legislature passed a bill to impose a self-defense exception on Wilmette, so that the next Hale DeMar could not be charged. Obama voted against it. How does that not equal support for a ban on the use of handguns, even in self-defense?
Thats the most absurd argument I have ever heard. You say Factcheck are telling the truth , bacause Obama can't implements his own views?
Are you serious , is that really the best excuse for factcheck you can come up with?
You also say gunlaws can't be changed , it's 150 years too late. To many people have guns you say.
Thats not true , Firearm laws are subject to frequent change and court interpretation.
KILO
You keep saying you have only heard about the 1996 survey here , and therefore discount it.
Well , now you have not only heard about it , you have also seen the actual document with OBAMAS own handwriting with your own eyes. If not , here it is agin. Copy and paste the links and you will see it:
Heres the dokumentation of the 1996 candidate survey.
In question 35. ( under Criminal Justice )
Do you support state legislation to:
A. ban the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns (yes)
B. ban assault WeaPons (yes)
C. mandatory waiting periods and background checks? (Yes)
www.politico.com/static/PPM41_obamaquestionaire1newest.html
(part 1 of questionnaire)
www.politico.com/static/PPM41_obamaquestionaire2.html
(part 2 of questionnaire)