NRA's Inaccurate Statements about Obama

[Balog]

Has anyone ever actually shot one of those .50 pistols?

[Manedwolf]

KEYES: [to Obama]: I am a strong believer in the second amendment. The gun control mentality is ruthlessly absurd. It suggests that we should pass a law that prevents law abiding citizens from carrying weapons. You end up with a situation where the crook have all the guns and the law abiding citizens cannot defend themselves. I guess that's good enough for Senator Obama who voted against the bill that would have allowed homeowners to defend themselves if their homes were broken into.

OBAMA: Let's be honest. Mr. Keyes does not believe in common gun control measures like the assault weapons bill. Mr. Keyes does not believe in any limits from what I can tell with respect to the possession of guns, including assault weapons that have only one purpose, to kill people. I think it is a scandal that this president did not authorize a renewal of the assault weapons ban. ban.

My answer to Obama involves a single digit. Goddamned elitist bastard.

I've got a safe full of those misnamed "assault weapons". To this date, they have killed paper, milk jugs, and a tennis ball. They do not sneak out at night and kill people.

They would, however, be used to defend my family and those I care about in the event of disaster or civil disorder, because unlike a Prince of Chicago, I cannot afford armed bodyguards.

He makes me sick.

[gunsmith]

Anybody wanna discuss the NRA website?

No.

Me either.  I'd rather discuss your opposition to my basic rights. 

DB
I am not a hunter, I like to shoot AR15's and AK's,
Obama and you are trying to crap on my God given right to do so.
You and Obama & yer pals will lose yet another national election due to your blindness on the 2A.
You would rather lose then win because you really don't have a plan to fix anything anyway, your whole worldview can be summed up as
"Dem good Repub bad" you don't give a crap about working people and their needs and neither do most politicians, especially B.O

[Tallpine]

Anybody wanna discuss the NRA website?

To what purpose

You point seems to be that since the NRA is not quite perfect (well, I would agree with that - IMO they compromise too much ), that we should all vote for Obama. 

[Intune]

DB-

I only get to choose between two viable alternatives.

  For me, there is NO "viable alternative."  There is only one viable candidate.  The other one running should be thankful to even be mentioned in the same sentence or stand in his crippled shadow.

[TommyGunn]

ALL RIFLE AMMO IS ARMOR-PIERCING. A generic 30-06 ball will defeat police armor!

Why do you guys keep ignoring the phrase "designed or marketed as having armor piercing capability" in the amendment for which Obama voted?  Just being capable of piercing armor wasn't sufficient for rifle ammunition to be banned.

And just to confirm...you're okay with an AWB? That's what it sounds like.

I think there are more important issues facing our country.  I don't get to build my own candidate by selecting one option on each possible issue.  I only get to choose between two viable alternatives.

And for an amendment that would ban all ammo that can fit in a pistol and pierce body armor.

True, but that's not the part of the amendment that the NRA attacked.

One reason why we "ignore" the phrase "designed or marketed as having armor piercing capability"
is because laws are often drafted by politicans who do such a poor job, and/or lack an understanding of the subject, that the resultant law(s) affect a far wider group of products than intended.
And consider that while most centerfire rifle ammo can penetrate some types of body armor, I have never, ever actually seen any ammo marketed to do so.  I don't think Remington, Winchester, Federal, et al, market ammo with any idea that their ammo will be used that way, since it obviously would infer use against law enforcement. 
And if it were actually marketed that way, what's to stop the manufacturer from slimply stop marketing it that way and keep selling the same stuff?
See what I'm getting at.  It is in part atleast, a bad law.  It's also useless since even if there was ammo that was designed and marketed for that purpose, other common ammo around for over a century can still penetrate the armor, so it will not "save" any policeman's life, only uselessly hinder honest people.

For the record, I do not, and will not trust Obama on second amendment issues.  He "supported" the Washington D.C. gun control law as reasonable ... but also apparantly supports Heller.  What the.....? 
He is a "machine politician" from out of one of the most corrupt political entities in America; Daley's Chicago.
I have other issues with McCain... so far as this election is concerned I feel I am voting for the lessor evil, not anyone I actually support ... but that's life in this country.

[280plus]

Here is a collection of Obama's position statements.

http://www.ontheissues.org/domestic/Barack_Obama_Gun_Control.htm

Thanks for posting this, hoosier.

Yea thanks, it sure bolstered my opposition to the man and the party. Not that I needed any. 

[DaveBeal]

See what I'm getting at.  It is in part atleast, a bad law.

I didn't say that the bill was a good idea.  I said the NRA misrepresented it by saying that it applied to "almost all rifle ammunition commonly used for hunting and sport shooting".  The great majority of rifle ammo is not designed or marketed as armor piercing, so the NRA's statement was incorrect.
 

[Intune]

You just don't get it, do you?  It IS armor piercing by its very nature and they would ban it ALL if given half of a chance. 

[280plus]

The great majority of rifle ammo is not designed or marketed as armor piercing,

While the ammo(s) in question were not SPECIFICALLY designed to pierce armor it is inherent in their design that they can. All those morons have to do is shoot one of each type through the flimsiest body armor they can come up with and then say, "Whoop, armor piercing!" and on the ban list it will go. THAT is what the NRA is saying. Way to twist things up to fit your needs though. It is a war of misinformation and semantics you folks are waging and what you don't realize is the INFORMED voter sees right through it all. My only fear is that there aren't enough of them left in this country to beat you people back again seeing how you all run the education system and feed our kids this BS on a daily basis. Go ahead and vote for Obama, I'll vote for McCain and cancel yours out. 

Don't think I have any special love for McCain, I'd just be voting for the candidate I dislike the least, as usual.

And please don't forget, your boy Bill Clinton was in the Oval office working on getting his willy wet while people were busy plotting the hijacking of multiple airliners so they could crash them into targets here in the US. I sure haven't.

[TommyGunn]

See what I'm getting at.  It is in part atleast, a bad law.

I didn't say that the bill was a good idea.  I said the NRA misrepresented it by saying that it applied to "almost all rifle ammunition commonly used for hunting and sport shooting".  The great majority of rifle ammo is not designed or marketed as armor piercing, so the NRA's statement was incorrect.
 

The NRA's statement was actually correct.  It is you who does not understand.  A number of posters have pointed this out now.  Whether you think the bill was a good idea or not is not the point.
But I admit that at THIS point, I am at a loss as to how to better explain this to you . . . . .

[nico]

See what I'm getting at.  It is in part atleast, a bad law.

I didn't say that the bill was a good idea.  I said the NRA misrepresented it by saying that it applied to "almost all rifle ammunition commonly used for hunting and sport shooting".  The great majority of rifle ammo is not designed or marketed as armor piercing, so the NRA's statement was incorrect.
 

Are you intentionally misrepresenting the bill, or are you really ignorant of what it says?  The bill says:

(iii) a projectile that may be used in a handgun and that the Attorney General determines, pursuant to section 926(d), to be capable of penetrating body armor; or

``(iv) a projectile for a centerfire rifle, designed or marketed as having armor piercing capability, that the Attorney General determines, pursuant to section 926(d), to be more likely to penetrate body armor than standard ammunition of the same caliber.''

There is no projectile that can be used in a rifle that cannot also be used in a handgun.  EVERY centerfire rifle caliber will penetrate some form of body armor.  Therefore, this bill would be a de facto ban on all centerfire rifle ammunition.  Kennedy SPECIFICALLY listed .223, 7.62, and 30-30 as calibers that he intended to be banned under the bill.  The NRA's characterization of the bill was perfectly consistent with the intent of its author, and if you dispute this or just don't care, then frankly, discussing gun control with you isn't worth the time I took to type this response. 

In a recent report, the ATF identified three, .223 and the 7.62 caliber rifles, as the ones most frequently encountered by police officers. These high-capacity rifles, the ATF wrote, pose an enhanced threat to law enforcement, in part because of their ability to expel particles at velocities that are capable of penetrating the type of soft body armor typically worn by law enforcement officers.

Another rifle caliber, the 30.30 caliber, was responsible for penetrating three officers' armor and killing them in 1993, 1996, and 2002. This ammunition is also capable of puncturing light-armored vehicles, ballistic or armored glass, armored limousines, even a 600-pound safe with 600 pounds of safe armor plating.

[drewtam]

Quit ducking. Are you okay with an AWB? YES OR NO.

A new AWB wouldn't bother me.

Why do you hate America Dave?

[BReilley]

See what I'm getting at.  It is in part atleast, a bad law.

I didn't say that the bill was a good idea.  I said the NRA misrepresented it by saying that it applied to "almost all rifle ammunition commonly used for hunting and sport shooting".  The great majority of rifle ammo is not designed or marketed as armor piercing, so the NRA's statement was incorrect.
 

Just remember, the people who decide:
what guns you may purchase with your own money(at least, what they let you keep),
where you may store them(remember, it's just common sense that a stolen gun's rightful owner be punished for crimes committed by someone else in unlawful possession of the weapon, if he did not "properly secure" his own property),
in what state you may store them(really, why would anyone in the nation's crime-riddled capitol need to keep a weapon assembled or even *loaded*?),
what sort of ammunition you may keep in them("cop-killer" bullets?  "armor-piercing" bullets?),
and many more factors - ANY ONE OF WHICH may affect whether you live or die in a gunfight or whether a gunfight actually occurs(but remember, your guns don't deter crimes - they "have only one purpose, to kill people") -

Use phrases like "The shoulder thing that goes up".

Don't even try to tell me that lawmakers are going to give us the benefit of the doubt.  They're in their own world, and all that matters to them is the perpetuation of that world.

Why, anyway, are we debating this?  I agree that the NRA(of which I am not a member, nor do I wish to be) is not perfectly precise regarding Obama's record on 2A issues(precision and accuracy are two different things).  So what?  They're a political organization with an agenda.  They're going to spin his statements to instill fear in readers, and any intelligent consumer of information should know to take any propaganda with a grain of salt.

Can you tell me that Obama has been consistent on any specific gun issue("common sense", his favorite catch-all phrase, is not specific)?  He stated that the DC ban was Constitutional, before he stated that he supported the DC v. Heller ruling.  His interpretation of the ruling is VASTLY different from my interpretation, but that's another thread.

To sum it all up, the NRA has made imprecise, somewhat misleading statements about Obama.  Are they all that far from the truth?  I don't think so.  I do agree with the general consensus here, however; the truth is frightening enough.

Edit:

Why do you hate America Dave?

Don't go there.  He's been perfectly civil.

[wacki]

See what I'm getting at.  It is in part atleast, a bad law.

I didn't say that the bill was a good idea.  I said the NRA misrepresented it by saying that it applied to "almost all rifle ammunition commonly used for hunting and sport shooting".  The great majority of rifle ammo is not designed or marketed as armor piercing, so the NRA's statement was incorrect.
 

Are you blind or do you ignore what I type?  Ted Kennedy called the .30-30 armor piercing in the INTRODUCTION OF THE BILL!

"In a recent report, the ATF identified three, .223 and the 7.62 caliber rifles, as the ones most frequently encountered by police officers. ......Another rifle caliber, the 30.30 caliber, was responsible for penetrating three officers armor and killing them in 1993, 1996, and 2002. This ammunition is also capable of puncturing light-armored vehicles, ballistic or armored glass, armored limousines, even a 600-pound safe with 600 pounds of safe armor plating. It is outrageous and unconscionable that such ammunition continues to be sold in the United States of America." - Ted Kennedy introducing a bill Obama voted for

http://obamagun.blogspot.com/2008/08/ban-rifle-ammunition-commonly-used-for.html

[TexasRifleman]

I'm surprised we've wasted 3 pages of space arguing with an anti troll.   Must be a slow night.....     

[wacki]

Wow.  Little ol' APS must be moving up in the world.  We now merit the attention of the Obama gun control misinformation campaign.

yup.  I'm a firm believer that the reason politics forums get shut down on THR and TFL is that the moderators there don't have what it takes to deal with the morons for hire from the Brady Bunch that are causing the massive degradation in their precious "signal to noise ratio".  The number of so called "gun owners" defending Obama in some of those threads is staggering.  You might as well be a Jew defending Hitler.

This is the last place gun owners can talk politics.  I hope moderators finally get into gear and realize that this is a private forum (exempt from the 1st amendment) and certain levels of stupidity should not be tolerated.   Whether this noise is caused by hired AstroTurf from the Brady Bunch & Axelrod's Astroturf or your run of the mill internet drama queen it does not matter.  This forum is a good thing but it's fragile and it's our last safe haven.  One Brady Bunch employee posting away for 20 hours a week under multiple aliases is all it would take to make this forum unbearable.  One person is all it would take to cripple one of the best tools we have to fight oppression.  It's really sad in a way.

I have no problem debating a hard core far left liberal.  I do it all the time with some of my co-workers.  Heck I even respect some of them.  But even these people can admit that Obama is anti-gun when shown the evidence.

[freakazoid]

But being as this is a .50 BMG, the most powerful rifle round in the world, and would blow your head clean off, you've got to ask yourself one question: Do I feel lucky? Well, do ya punk?

I think the real question is does the shooter feel lucky shooting that thing,  That has to kick like a beast.

[Perd Hapley]

freakazoid, you must wear lace on your panties.   


Gun nuts older than both of us will recognize that line.

[ArmedBear]

Here's the thing...

Most of us are pretty well-informed about politics. We have known Obama's positions regarding firearms and self-defense for a long time. He's adding new stuff to his website, even now, and none of it is good, for those of us who care about RKBA. Some is Orwellian newspeak. I wonder if it was written by someone at VPC or the Brady Bunch, but no matter.

The fact that DaveBeal intends to vote for Obama indicates that RKBA is not something that he cares about. That's his prerogative.

However, it would be a waste of time to try to convince anyone here who is pro-RKBA to vote for Obama. The exact wording of an NRA website or an Obama website would have NO impact on that.

That doesn't even account for the fact that Obama holds no appeal for me, and for many other informed voters, RKBA notwithstanding. Furthermore, he is a liar, and that can be documented quite well. Will I document that? Not here. Not worth my time. Look around the 'net -- if you're interested.

Dave doesn't seem interested in any of this. Perhaps the rest of us shouldn't piss into the wind.

[gunsmith]

Dave, this conversation can serve no purpose anymore. Goodbye.

H.A.L 2001 A Space Odyessy

[DaveBeal]

OK, I get it.  The amendment that Obama voted for could have been applied to rifle ammo, because a handgun could be built to fire it.  I think it's a stretch, but I see your point.

I admit that Obama doesn't like guns.  But I think his views on them have moderated significantly since he began campaigning on a national level.  And any new gun law has to be passed by Congress.  There's no way that Congress will pass a law banning all handguns or all semi-automatic weapons.

Why do I plan to vote for a guy who doesn't like guns?  Like I said before, there are a lot more important issues facing us.  I'll vote for Obama because I think my view of the world overall is more similar to his than to McCain's.  And the thought of Sarah Palin in the White House scares the heck out of me.

[Manedwolf]

OK, I get it.  The amendment that Obama voted for could have been applied to rifle ammo, because a handgun could be built to fire it.  I think it's a stretch, but I see your point.

No, it's not a stretch. It's an open loophole for the Dems to twist words and ban everything. Which they have done, which they will do, which they always have done when it comes to guns.

[mtnbkr]

OK, I get it.  The amendment that Obama voted for could have been applied to rifle ammo, because a handgun could be built to fire it.  I think it's a stretch, but I see your point.

It's not that a handgun *could* be built, but that they already have.  Check out the Contender, Encore, and various other "handguns". 

Chris

[Manedwolf]

OK, I get it.  The amendment that Obama voted for could have been applied to rifle ammo, because a handgun could be built to fire it.  I think it's a stretch, but I see your point.

It's not that a handgun *could* be built, but that they already have.  Check out the Contender, Encore, and various other "handguns". 

Chris

Yup. There's barrels for nearly everything for those.

Also, historical perspective on what the Dems coupled with BATFE did. Steelcore 7.62x39 was banned after Olympic released a pistol to shoot it.

Quoting ATF Director, John W. Magaw, as stating "...(t)hese bullets are designed, when used in handguns, to pose a life-threatening risk to all law enforcement officers," the notification stated:

    "Recent production of handguns that are designed to fire 7.62 X 39mm steel core ammunition has resulted in the reclassification of that ammunition as armor piercing (which) can only be sold to law enforcement or governmental agencies. Prior to introduction of these handguns in the marketplace, 7.62 X 39mm ammunition was not considered armor piercing, because it was only used in rifles -- primarily SKS/AK rifles."

See, now?