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

This is a discussion on NRA: media is being strong armed into dropping "false" NRA ad: Merged within the The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; http://www.nraila.org/media/PDFs/ObamaLetterNRAAd.pdf you'll have to click on the link...it's a scan of a letter. I didn't have an issue with that Ad at all....

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 38

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

  1. #1
    Senior Member Array 762's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Las Vegas
    Posts
    720

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

    http://www.nraila.org/media/PDFs/ObamaLetterNRAAd.pdf

    you'll have to click on the link...it's a scan of a letter.

    I didn't have an issue with that Ad at all.
    Let's Roll - Todd Beamer

    MOΛΩN ΛABÉ

  2. Remove Ads

  3. #2
    VIP Member Array cphilip's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    South Carolina
    Posts
    2,183
    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?

  4. #3
    Senior Member Array 762's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Las Vegas
    Posts
    720
    just like he sued because of the Ayers commercials that aired. he is threatening those who do not agree with him...i don't wanna get this thread locked, but look at this: Gateway Pundit: Missouri Sheriffs & Top Prosecutors Form Obama "Truth Squads" & Threaten Libel Charges Against Obama Critics

    Obama knows he is in doo-doo with gun owners, but thinks his AHSA ads will help.
    Let's Roll - Todd Beamer

    MOΛΩN ΛABÉ

  5. #4
    Member Array joemess's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    South Carolina
    Posts
    57
    Quote Originally Posted by 762 View Post

    Obama knows he is in doo-doo with gun owners, but thinks his AHSA ads will help.


    Not all of them.....

  6. #5
    Senior Member Array 762's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Las Vegas
    Posts
    720
    Quote Originally Posted by joemess View Post
    Not all of them.....
    the clueless ones, maybe...
    Let's Roll - Todd Beamer

    MOΛΩN ΛABÉ

  7. #6
    Distinguished Member Array sniper58's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Seattle, WA
    Posts
    1,631
    Looks like the desparation factor is kicking in. BTW - how can anyone other than the "victim" bring legal action?
    Tim
    BE PREPARED - Noah didn't build the Ark when it was raining!
    Si vis pacem, para bellum
    ________
    NRA Life Member

  8. #7
    VIP Member Array farronwolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    4,714
    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.
    Just remember that shot placement is much more important with what you carry than how big a bang you get with each trigger pull.
    www.ddchl.com
    Texas CHL Instructor
    Texas Hunter Education Instructor
    NRA Instructor

  9. #8
    Member Array joemess's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    South Carolina
    Posts
    57
    Quote Originally Posted by farronwolf View Post
    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.

  10. #9
    Ex Member Array jahwarrior72's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    the raggedy edge
    Posts
    1,438
    even though i'm no fan of the NRA, i will say this: they're not exactly in the habit of stretching the truth. if they claim to have facts, i'm apt to believe them.

  11. #10
    VIP Member Array cphilip's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    South Carolina
    Posts
    2,183
    Quote Originally Posted by farronwolf View Post
    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.

    Factscheck.org simply dismisses the facts if the Candidate says he disagrees. If he disagrees they say it is false.

    However, the REAL facts are that the Candidate has voted for, has clearly stated and clearly lists at his own campaign web site that he DOES favor the Assault Weapons ban permanently (all semi auto guns really), Favors eliminating "any armor piercing bullet" (virtually all rifle rounds as he apparently doesn't know the difference or the definition of that), favors bans on hand guns for self defense (has stated and voted for this), favors access to all BATF records and considers hunting the main reason for the 2nd amendment.

    It is simply easy and quick public record. It takes no rocket scientist to discover. He even posts it on his very own web site. it is clear that he is lying and is twisting the truth and does not like being made to admit it. And it is also clear that he has a lot of help trying to foist this scam on America.

    Come clean Obama and quit hiding and lying. We are not all ignorant bumpkins. The facts are clearly evident if you explore the facts rather than the rhetoric. Factscheck.org simply has not checked its facts or is demonstrating a bias. And has lost its credibility. You pick. You can go to Obama's official web site and confirm most of this...

  12. #11
    VIP Member Array Eagleks's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Kansas
    Posts
    7,431
    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.

  13. #12
    Senior Member Array jframe38's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    SC
    Posts
    620

    Post 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-

  14. #13
    VIP Member Array farronwolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    4,714
    Quote Originally Posted by cphilip View Post
    Factscheck.org simply dismisses the facts if the Candidate says he disagrees. If he disagrees they say it is false.

    However, the REAL facts are that the Candidate has voted for, has clearly stated and clearly lists at his own campaign web site that he DOES favor the Assault Weapons ban permanently (all semi auto guns really), Favors eliminating "any armor piercing bullet" (virtually all rifle rounds as he apparently doesn't know the difference or the definition of that), favors bans on hand guns for self defense (has stated and voted for this), favors access to all BATF records and considers hunting the main reason for the 2nd amendment.

    It is simply easy and quick public record. It takes no rocket scientist to discover. He even posts it on his very own web site. it is clear that he is lying and is twisting the truth and does not like being made to admit it. And it is also clear that he has a lot of help trying to foist this scam on America.

    Come clean Obama and quit hiding and lying. We are not all ignorant bumpkins. The facts are clearly evident if you explore the facts rather than the rhetoric. Factscheck.org simply has not checked its facts or is demonstrating a bias. And has lost its credibility. You pick. You can go to Obama's official web site and confirm most of this...
    I am not trying to say that Obama is not trying limit gun ownership or severely restrict ones ability to exercise the 2A at all. I was simply trying to get the point across that there is plenty of evidence of this without taking things on the fringe to make the point. That is what should be used, that which can not be refuted.
    Just remember that shot placement is much more important with what you carry than how big a bang you get with each trigger pull.
    www.ddchl.com
    Texas CHL Instructor
    Texas Hunter Education Instructor
    NRA Instructor

  15. #14
    VIP Member Array cphilip's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    South Carolina
    Posts
    2,183
    I don't think its on the fringe as you put it. I think its dead right on.

    And I think his attempts to keep people from point it out are an attempt to defraud. Plain and simple. They are not misleading anyone at all. The only thing misleading is his attempts to make sure no one knows it.

  16. #15
    Senior Member Array press1280's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    WV
    Posts
    750
    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.
    "The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree..."
    Nunn v. State GA 1848

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Similar Threads

  1. Police/Media: "Shotgun might accidently go off during holdup"
    By nutz4utwo in forum In the News: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly
    Replies: 28
    Last Post: December 19th, 2009, 12:52 PM
  2. A letter I am posting on all "Pro gun law" and "Pro ban" blogs and websites. (Merged)
    By chuck2780 in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: January 15th, 2009, 12:25 AM
  3. Media lies / "gun show loophole" exempts FFLs
    By paramedic70002 in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: December 13th, 2008, 09:34 AM
  4. HELP! The "Dark Side" of the force is so strong!
    By Thumper in forum Defensive Carry Guns
    Replies: 40
    Last Post: October 13th, 2006, 03:39 AM