Defensive Carry banner

NRA: media is being strong armed into dropping "false" NRA ad: Merged

2K views 37 replies 28 participants last post by  automatic slim 
#1 ·
#2 ·
Not since the Add is true...

Senator Obama, and now his legal staff, continue to attempt to argue that it is all about hunting. And continue to not know the difference between a "Armor Peircing" bullet as they define it, and any other Rifle round. They erroneously think that there are rounds out there for hunting that will not penetrate a bullet proof vest.

That letter smacks of pure ignorance and this guy is running for President and cannot simply have someone check into his stance to see if its based on fact?
 
#3 ·
#7 ·
Since I have not seen the ad, I don't know what it says exactly. I will say that factcheck.org does do its homework and presents things fairly regardless of political affiliation from what I have seen.

The only other thing I will say is that if an ad stretches the truth or misrepresents information it doesn't help the advertisers cause much, regardless of who puts it out. If the NRA wants to put an ad out against Obama, there is plenty of acurrate information out there supporting his stance against guns that they could use and would not be called on or questioned as misleading.
 
#8 ·
Since I have not seen the ad, I don't know what it says exactly. I will say that factcheck.org does do its homework and presents things fairly regardless of political affiliation from what I have seen.

The only other thing I will say is that if an ad stretches the truth or misrepresents information it doesn't help the advertisers cause much, regardless of who puts it out. If the NRA wants to put an ad out against Obama, there is plenty of accurate information out there supporting his stance against guns that they could use and would not be called on or questioned as misleading.



Exactly. Why lie or stretch the truth? You will get caught. Also, you have to realize that adds like this are not directed at you. The NRA knows that they have pretty big chunk of gun owners support. You are the choir so to speak. These adds are directed at gun owners who are not fearful of the government coming to take their gun but the NRA wants them to be. Where it hurts them is when you have a gun owner who knows how to look up facts on the Internet or other legitimate sources and finds out that something is not true. It makes one question your motives and other ideas.


This goes for both campaigns, when you lie or stretch the truth to make a point, everybody loses.




and one more thing, folks that hold an opinion different from you are not clueless.... Its just a differing opinion.
 
#11 ·
Threatening the station with their FCC license if they run the ad..... is enough ...

"threats" such as these show the character of the person and the campaign.
 
#12 ·
NRA Letter / Ad Campaign / Factcheck Info

A couple of emails from the NRA which they asked to share with others. Second one refers to Factcheck issues.
Check out website: www.GunBanObama.com
========================================

You can hardly go to your favorite news website today without seeing Barack Obama claim he supports the Second Amendment, or seeing some anti-gun front group telling the same lie.

"If you've got a gun in your house, I'm not taking it," Obama says, even though he voted in the Illinois state senate to do just that. And he goes on to admit the real obstacle: "Even if I wanted to take it away, I couldn't get it done. I don't have the votes in Congress."

But when you're done laughing, you realize how serious the stakes are. An Obama-Biden administration would spell disaster for American gun owners. In an Obama-Biden administration, we'd see:

Bans on your guns
Bans your ammo
Taxes on your guns and ammo
Anti-Second Amendment Supreme Court justices
Our mission is to ensure that Obama never has the chance to push the radical schemes he promoted in Illinois, or voted for in the U.S. Senate, or funded through the Joyce Foundation.

Fortunately, the NRA Political Victory Fund is leading the way to get the truth to America's gun owners. Between now and Election Day, November 4th, we'll be on the air on TV and radio in this year's battleground states to tell the truth about the Obama-Biden record. And we'll be advertising in some of our nation's top political papers to get the word out.

Our ads are the voice of average American gun owners. A family man outraged over Obama's attack on his way of life. A hunter explaining what an Obama administration would mean for sportsmen. And an Iraq war veteran talking about what an Obama administration would mean for American freedom.

Because we have to focus on the battleground states that will decide this election, we can't be on the air everywhere. But you can still see our message, and get the word to your fellow gun owners, by going to our new website, www.GunBanObama.com. It'll have all our radio ads...all our TV ads...and all our print ads. And please check back often as we'll have new ads up between now and election day as they appear.

Finally, please share this message with your friends...your family members...and your fellow gun owners. To defend freedom, we must defeat Obama. And we can only do that by getting the word to everyone who cares about the Second Amendment.

Sincerely,

Wayne LaPierre
Executive Vice President, NRA Chris W. Cox
Executive Director, NRA-ILA
==========================================
Factcheck And Brady Campaign Share Same Sugar Daddy
Impartial? Independent? NO!
FactCheck and Brady Campaign in Bed with Annenberg Foundation
FactCheck supposedly exists to look beyond a politician's claims. Ironically, in its analysis of NRA materials on Barack Obama, these so-called "FactCheckers" use the election year campaign rhetoric of a presidential candidate and a verbal claim by one of the most zealous gun control supporters in Congress to refute facts compiled by NRA's research of vote records and review of legislative language.

There's another possible explanation behind FactCheck's positions. Just last year, FactCheck's primary funding source, the Annenberg Foundation, also gave $50,000 to the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence for "efforts to reduce gun violence by educating the public and by enacting and enforcing regulations governing the gun industry." Annenberg made a similar grant for $100,000 in 2005. (source)

Regardless of the cause, it's clear that while FactCheck swoons over a politician's rhetoric, NRA prefers to look at the more mundane details - like how that politician voted on a bill and what kind of impact that legislation had or may have had on law-abiding gun owners.

FactCheck claims that NRA advertisements "distort" Barack Obama's anti-gun positions, but FactCheck's own sources prove otherwise. In fact, even Obama's campaign has refused to deny his most extreme positions.

FactCheck also dismisses NRA's statements as "contrary to what [Obama] has said throughout his campaign." But as FactCheck says, "believing something doesn't make it so." And unless FactCheck is an arm of the Obama campaign, isn't it their job to find out if Obama is telling the truth?

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 all deer hunting ammunition."

FactCheck is wrong. Obama voted for an amendment by longtime ammunition ban advocate Sen. Edward Kennedy (S. Amdt. 1615 to S. 397, Vote No. 217, July 29, 2005), which would have fundamentally changed the federal "armor piercing ammunition" law (18 U.S.C. ' 922(a)(7)), by banning any bullet that "may be used in a handgun and that the Attorney General determines... to be capable of penetrating body armor" that "meets minimum standards for the protection of law enforcement officers."

Federal law currently bans bullets as "armor piercing" based upon the metals used in their construction, such as those made of steel and those that have heavy jackets. (18 U.S.C. ' 921(a)(17)). The Kennedy amendment would have fundamentally changed the law to add a ban on bullets on the basis of whether they penetrate the "minimum" level of body armor, regardless of the bullets' construction or the purposes for which they were designed (e.g., hunting).

Many bullets designed and intended for use in rifles (including hunting rifles) have, over the years, been used in special-purpose hunting and target handguns, thus they "may be used in a handgun."

The "minimum" level of body armor, Type I, only protects against the lowest-powered handgun cartridges. Any center-fire rifle used for hunting, target shooting, or any other purpose, and many handguns used for the same purposes, are capable of penetrating Type I armor, regardless of the design of the bullet.

Obama also said, on his 2003 questionnaire for the Independent Voters of Illinois-Independent Precinct Organization, that he would "support banning the sale of ammunition for assault weapons." (source) The rifles banned as "assault weapons" under the 1994 Clinton gun ban fire cartridges such as the .223 Remington and .308 Winchester - the same ammunition used in common hunting rifles.

It's true that in 2005, Sen. Kennedy denied his amendment would ban hunting ammunition. But in a floor debate on an identical amendment the previous year, Kennedy specifically denounced the .30-30 Winchester rifle cartridge, used by millions of deer hunters since 1895. "It is outrageous and unconscionable that such ammunition continues to be sold in the United States of America," said Sen. Kennedy. (Congressional Record, 2/26/04, p. S1634.)

Isn't it FactCheck's job to be skeptical of politicians' claims, especially when the plain language says otherwise?

FactCheck claim: "Obama says he does not support any ... handgun ban and never has."

FactCheck is wrong. Obama has never disavowed his support for a handgun ban. On Obama's 1996 questionnaire for the Independent Voters of Illinois-Independent Precinct Organization, he clearly stated his support for "state legislation to ...ban the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns." Although Obama first claimed he had not seen the survey, a later version appeared with his handwritten notes modifying some of the answers. But he didn't change any of his answers on gun issues, including the handgun ban.

FactCheck itself cites Obama's 2003 questionnaire to the same group. When asked again if he supported a handgun ban, he could simply have said, "No." Instead, as FactCheck notes, he "avoid[ed] a yes-or-no answer" by saying a ban on handguns "is not politically practicable," then stated his support for other restrictions.

The 1996 and 2003 positions are not at all contradictory. Many anti-gun groups, such as the Violence Policy Center and Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, support total bans on handguns but also support lesser regulations that are more "politically practicable."

FactCheck claim: Saying Obama supports gun licensing is "misleading."

FactCheck is wrong. Obama's fancy election-year footwork - claiming he doesn't support licensing or registration because he doesn't think he "can get that done" - isn't enough to get around his clear support for handgun registration and licensing.

What's really misleading is the idea that handgun registration isn't really gun registration. Handguns are about one-third of the firearms owned in the United States, and American gun owners know better than to think registration schemes will end with any one kind of gun.

FactCheck claim: Saying Obama would appoint judges who agree with him is "unsupported."

This FactCheck claim is just strange. Don't most Americans expect that the President will appoint people who agree with him to all levels of the government? And putting all Obama's campaign rhetoric about "empathy" aside, why would judges be any different?

And on the larger issue of Obama's view of the Second Amendment, FactCheck once again takes Obama's spin at face value. While Obama now claims to embrace the Supreme Court's decision striking down the D.C. gun ban, he refused to sign an amicus brief stating that position to the Court. And when Washington, D.C. television reporter Leon Harris said to Obama, "You support the D.C. handgun ban and you've said that it's constitutional," Obama nodded - and again didn't disavow his support. (WJLA TV interview, 2/11/2008.)


-NRA-
 
#15 ·
I wish they'd spend a few minutes or so in one of the debates about what the Second Amendment means to them. If the first thing out of Obama is "rights of hunters," you know he wants more restrictions. McCain ought to really go after him hard on that, being the battleground states have high numbers of gun ownership.
 
#16 ·
.....being that battleground states have high numbers of gun ownership.
I think the votes of gun owners are going to be the key to this election. Obama realizes this. This happened 4 years ago, but this time Obama is 10X worse, and will not be able to erase his beliefs and record. But he is trying to silence it.

BTW- I spent a few hours last weekend visiting former NRA Members' houses and making sure they are still registered and informed (by means of an NRA brochure). It was a GREAT experience. They Loved the fact that a PERSON showed up, instead just getting a call. Contact your local EVC if you want to be a part of the pro-gun message this election.

NRA-ILA :: Contact Your EVC

OR just look at the front of this month's NRA magazine.
 
#18 ·
I read that also, it really shows Obama's mindset.
I'm really sorry that he is offended by our firearms, Poor Baby:hand1::rolleyes:
 
#19 ·
Like some other flip-floppers he doesn't like it when it gets put in his face. You would think politicians would learn that changing your stance mid-stride will get noticed.
 
#21 ·
NRA: media is being strong armed into dropping "false" NRA ad

Tough call. Do they keep the ads because they bring in money, or dump them because it offends their liberal mindset.
 
#23 ·
I'm just curious if the NRA might have a bit more success with politicians and a large segment of the population that is distrustful of them and firearms owners in general if they spent less time sensationalizing issues to instill fear, resentment, and hatred, and devoted the same resources to educating and enlightening politicians and other people about the pragmatics and benefits realized from those who own & carry? I'm an NRA member and I can tell you that I work and interact with a lot of people who have just not been exposed to the opportunity to learn about lawful ownership of firearms and how it does not pose a threat to them - some are just downright scared because of the inherent danger of firearms because of their characteristics; to them I point out the inherent danger of automobiles - they can be dangerous also because of accidents or in the wrong hands. But we don't see so many folks opposed to automobile ownership as firearms. I think part of the problem lies in not having settings for reasonable dialog because of the high-emotion, name calling and labeling (on both sides), and lack of desire for respectful and thoughtful consideration of others' opinion even if we think it's misguided.

Whether you like it or not, a politician you may not favor may well be in a position of power and I for one would want to not be on that politician's list of folks who are unreasonable; and I'd be reaching out early on to make sure that my interests as a firearms owners are fairly and reasonably represented and supported. To accomplish this I would be more inclined to support efforts that educate and enlighten rather than tactics to rebuke and denigrate. A little diplomacy may go a long way especially with all of the benefits realized from gun owners.

Without fail ALL of the people with whom I associate about firearms and carrying are reasonable, smart, respectful, and show a concern for the general populace. It's a shame that there appears to be a a divide that keeps the reality of the firearms-owning community from becoming more mainstream and aligned with one politician against another.

Just my opinion on this; I hate to see resources wasted every time there is an election. Rather, I'd prefer a more long-term approach via education of the public.
 
#24 ·
If every add that might twist the truth or reflect an asumtion made after collecting facts were to be banned then. No politician or any political add would be allowed to be aired. I have only one thing to say to Obama, If you cant take the heat then get out of trhe spotlight.
 
#28 ·
no twist from NRA



The ads do NOT twist... it simply cites past statements and/or votes. I agree with your claim but it is not relevent here since the ads ARE truthful.

All you can say about them is that they are "dramatic" in the same way that shining a strong spot light on a Deer may make it stop and notice.

But sadly for Obama... it's still the truth.
 
#26 ·
First... the NRA ads are accurate and YOU can see where they cite their "case" to support their claims right in their ads... and you can follow up to confirm that to your own satisfaction.

Second... Obama comes from a city and state with VERY high gun control laws and he doe NOT HAVE one shred of evidence to have even tried to turn it around. Think about it. It's like being a part of a church that hates America and then saying that he "never" heard the reverend say anything like the clips we've all heard.

Third... the attempts to stop the ads shows that this IS more than if it's right or wrong... how come no one tried to do the same when making false statements about President Bush... remember the incident with the "letters" that "proved" what Bush did?
 
#27 ·
I think it would be safe to say he most likley wouldnt really like any of us here either... which come to think of it... I don't really care for him either.
 
#31 ·
Obama Wants NRA Ads Banned

Newsmax.com – Obama Wants NRA Ads Banned

The Obama camp has been threatening television and radio stations to keep them from airing anti-Obama ads.

The latest target is the NRA and stations in Pennsylvania.

Earlier this week, the National Rifle Association's Political Victory Fund released a series of radio and television spots to educate gun owners and sportsmen about Barack Obama's longstanding anti-gun record. In response to the NRA-PVF ads, a clearly panicked Obama campaign and the Democratic National Committee (DNC) are doing everything they can to hide Obama's real record by mounting a coordinated assault on the First Amendment.

They have gone to desperate and outrageous lengths to try to silence your NRA by bullying media outlets with threats of lawsuits if they run NRA-PVF's ads.

The Obama camp is particularly angry with an NRA ad entitled "Hunter" which lays out Obama's record on gun control.

Other NRA ads include "Way of Life" and another focusing on Joe Biden's record, "Defend Freedom, Defeat Obama."

This week, Obama's campaign general counsel Bob Bauer wrote seeking to censor the ads at stations in Pennsylvania.

"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.'"

"This advertising is false, misleading, and deceptive," Bauer continued. "We request that you immediately cease airing this advertising."

The NRA says Obama's camp are sending out these "intimidating cease and desist letters" to cable operators and television stations, threatening their FCC licenses if they run the ads.

The NRA charged that "Obama and the DNC have been using strong-arm tactics reminiscent of Chicago machine politics to try and cover up the truth and silence NRA by forcing the stations to assist them in hiding Obama's radical anti-gun record."

And now, Obama and the DNC have opened a new front in their assault on your First Amendment rights by calling on their followers to contact these station managers to demand that the stations not run NRA-PVF's ads.

NRA stands behind the accuracy of these ads, and NRA attorneys have responded to the Obama campaign's despicable and abusive attempt to trample on the First Amendment by sending a thorough rebuttal to station managers. This rebuttal clearly and conclusively refutes the Obama campaign's fallacious claims that the ads are inaccurate.

The NRA has set up a Web site detailing its position on Obama at Gun Ban Barack Obama.


Anyone seen any of these ad's yet?
It'll be intresting to see if this story gets any further in the national media AND if the NRA's information will be validated OR if they'll back Obama's claim of NRA deceit.

This kinda smacks Obama's position 'shift' and hints of bans that the DC vs. Heller decision didn't address (ie. "reasonable restrictions")
 
#34 ·
First they take away the second amendment and then the rest one by one.They are already trying to trample on the first amendment,every attempt by any government to control it's population is by disarming them and then controlling all media outlets to print or air only what they approve.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top