Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

NRA Targets Obama-Biden in Ongoing Ad Buy

By Ed O'Keefe
The National Rifle Association is likely to spend "in the eight figure range" on radio and television advertisements in the next 42 days as part of its efforts to deter undecided voters from voting for Barack Obama, according to an NRA spokesman. The group will air a series of ads starring group members that openly question Obama's commitment to protecting gun rights. Ads will air on radio stations and during local cable television ad breaks in Colorado and New Mexico through Oct. 5 and in Pennsylvania through Sept. 28, with plans to expand to other battleground states in the coming weeks.

One ad stars former Marine and Iraq war veteran Kurt Rusch. "Like all the guys I fought with in Iraq, I was honored to defend my country and our freedom. But when I got back stateside, I learned that Barack Obama opposes my right to own a handgun for self-defense. It's ridiculous," Rusch says in the spot, adding later in it: "There's no way I'm voting for a president" who would take away "the freedoms that I fought for, that my friends died to defend."

Another ad, called "Hunter", stars Kurt's father, Karl Rusch. "I gotta tell you, with the high cost of gas and just about everything else, we're all feeling pinched," Rusch says. "And now I learn that Barack Obama supports a huge new tax on my guns and ammo."

"Where is this guy from?" Rusch later asks. "He's probably never been hunting a day in his life." He concludes: "You don't have to be bitter to know Barack Obama isn't the kind of change we need."

Paul Helmke, president of the Brady Campaign, an anti-gun violence group, says this ad "takes ludicrous liberties with the truth" and the Washington Post's Fact Checker gave the spot three out of four Pinocchios for its claims that Obama would take away guns and ammunition used by hunters.

The Obama campaign notes the senator has no plan to raise taxes on guns or ammunition and did not vote to regulate the sale of hunting ammunition but instead on "armor piercing" or "cop killing" bullets. It also cites several votes Obama has cast in favor of legislation the NRA supported.

In Pennsylvania the group will target Joe Biden with an ad that states that Biden "wants you to believe he shares your values because he was born in Scranton. But Pennsylvania gun owners and hunters don't share his values. Joe Biden voted to ban ammunition used for hunting and self-defense. Voted to ban standard-capacity magazines. Voted to band hundreds of models of common rifles and shotguns." NRA TV ads will air in the Erie, Harrisburg, Johnstown, Pittsburgh and Wilkes-Barre markets.

All of the NRA ads invite viewers to visit an NRA Web site called GunBanObama.com that says Obama would be "The Most Anti-Gun President in American History."

"Barack Obama has voted against the right of a law-abiding citizen to defend himself and his family while within his own home," said NRA spokesman Andrew Arulanandam, referring to a 2004 Illinois General Assembly bill that passed. "That position is so extreme that it is out of the mainstream. Any reasonable American voter will agree that if they're attacked while they're in their home by a criminal, that the law should be on their side and not the criminal's."

The NRA's advertising follows the release of dozens of ads by other independent groups also hoping to sway undecided voters, and Arulanandam says "We believe that now is the right time to do it. Once we start we don't foresee ourselves stopping" and the group is "likely to spend in the eight figure range."

By Web Politics Editor  |  September 23, 2008; 7:51 PM ET
Categories:  Channel 08  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: McCain: Fiorina a 'Role Model'
Next: Candidate Reaction: Iranian President Ahmadinejad's Remarks

Comments

Why is it that the Democratic party is seeming more and more like the antagonist of some Orwellian novel. Obama's "Truth Squads", his cease-and-desist letters to the NRA, his very clever use of new media and his weird relationships with Ayers and Wright (and the lambasting of anyone that asks about them) feel fascistic and oddly like tactics Napoleon the pig from Animal Farm might use.

Posted by: azulu1 | September 27, 2008 2:31 PM | Report abuse

OK, that's all I can take of the sniveling from idiots;

I have been a certified law enforcement firearms instructor and no higher trained or experienced authority exists in the entire country...None!

For you civilian clowns who think they're using "commonsense" in whining about "assault weapons", I'm telling you personally, you don't have the first clue and you should try to save yourself from further embarrassment and treason by shutting your holes while trying to learn something.

There was another man who was a researcher and he also attempted to use his "commonsense" in understanding the Second Amendment and what that really means to a free society so, he dove head first into the research as all the others who had attempted it before him with the exact same result.

Unlike many of the others who crawled away whimpering defeat this man of character and principle stood up and made his stand with the Second Amendment as it means exactly what it says.

That man is Dr. John R. Lott Jr. Read his books, read his articles and let it sink in but, try not to blame your parents for what they should have taught you long ago;

Analysis: Fact-Checkers Fall Short in Criticizing NRA's Anti-Obama Ads by Dr. John Lott
http://www.foxnews.com/printer_friendly_story/0,3566,427347,00.html


Posted by: Winghunter1 | September 25, 2008 1:22 AM | Report abuse

Who does the fact checking on Fact Check?

Investigative journalism is dead.

Obama will ban your guns, just look at his voting record at ontheissues.org


Posted by: no4gman | September 24, 2008 11:58 PM | Report abuse

I posted response's to (jwald1) & (ap1562a/Anonymous). Sorry i forgot my post ID.....JD

Posted by: JD | September 24, 2008 8:54 PM | Report abuse

(To jwald1) I forgot about your ridiculous comment. America already has 100's of gun control laws, do your research. Criminals wouldn't obey a million gun control laws! It's not the gun lobby, it's the 2nd amendment,constitutional right lobby. If people like you HATE guns so much why don't you leave America. There are MANY countries that don't have constitutional rights, good luck finding one. Anti-gunners are the MOST unreasonable people I have come across, I don't know why I argue with you ignorant fools.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 24, 2008 8:45 PM | Report abuse

(To ap1562a & Anonymous) ''AK47's are only meant to kill'' So what do you think other guns were meant to do, give you a massage, I'm shocked by your total ignorance. Anonymous, I have read that slanted, fact twisted trash you posted before.''Guns kill 30,000 people a year"(REALLY). CRIMINALS with guns kill 12,000 people per year(mostly other criminals) and 18,000 people with mental problems shoot themselves to death every year. Banning guns wouldn't stop them. I'm absolutely positive not one gun got angry enough to shoot any of those people on it's own. 32-40,000 people die in car wrecks every year, 1,000,000+ people are exterminated by abortion in America every year. Why don't you try banning those first, because those two killers aren't even constitutional rights! Go lay down by your dish you two freaks.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 24, 2008 8:21 PM | Report abuse

Gods speed Mr. Obama!
The majority of this country wants gun control. It is about time some one has the balls to stand up to this powerful lobby.
Isn't our government based on a majority rule?

Posted by: jwald1 | September 24, 2008 5:12 PM | Report abuse


Insurance, Life Expectancy and the Cost of Firearm Deaths in the U.S.


Despite its status as an advanced industrial nation, the United States has some unusual characteristics. For example, while its health care system is the most expensive in the world, its citizens are neither healthier nor do they live longer than citizens in other countries. In addition, while the U.S. is considered among the safest countries, deaths from gunshot wounds are staggeringly high. In 2000, the U.S. recorded close to 11,000 firearm homicides and more than 16,000 firearm suicides. The European Union -- an area with a population approximately 25% higher than that of the U.S. -- reported fewer than 1,300 firearm homicides for the same year. In Japan, the number was 22. [The EU figures pre-date the 10-country expansion which took place on May 1, 2004.]

Jean Lemaire, a professor of insurance and actuarial science at Wharton, argues that these facts should be looked at in tandem. In a recent paper entitled, "The Cost of Firearm Deaths in the United States: Reduced Life Expectancies and Increased Insurance Costs," to be published in the September 2005 issue of The Journal of Risk and Insurance, Lemaire works through the medical and financial impact of firearms on American society. The results are eye opening.

Researchers who study firearm violence in the U.S. come at their subject from a number of perspectives, including the most obvious -- medical costs. Yet it is the other costs that are "more difficult to quantify," Lemaire writes. "They include the cost of public resources devoted to law enforcement, private investment by individuals in protection and avoidance, lost productivity of victims and changes in the quality of life, limits on freedoms to live or work in certain places, restrictions on residential and commercial location decisions, limitations in hours of operations of retail establishments, emotional costs to the forced adaptation to increased risk, and the cost of pain and fear."

Reduced Life Expectancy

The flashpoint in the long-running argument in the U.S. over the regulation of firearms is the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which states: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Gun control advocates read the amendment as permitting regulation of firearms possession; gun rights advocates read it as enshrining in law an individual's unfettered right to own guns.

While sensitive to the political context of the gun control versus gun rights debate, Lemaire stresses that what his work provides is data. For example, he cites a study from 2000 which estimates that the aggregate cost of gun violence in the U.S. is approximately $100 billion annually, or about $360 for every American. Given his background as an actuary, Lemaire has focused his research on life expectancy and insurance costs. His paper is based "on facts. It's an exact calculation designed to bring some more light into the debate.... I am providing figures that no one can disagree with," he says, acknowledging, however, that people "can certainly disagree about what we do with these figures."

Lemaire calculates how much time Americans lose off their lives as a result of gun violence and how much more they pay in insurance costs as a result. What is striking about both costs is how unevenly they are distributed throughout the population. According to Lemaire, all firearm deaths in 2000 -- that is, both homicides and suicides -- reduced life expectancy by an average of 103.6 days. Broken down by race and gender, however, there are notable gaps in how various groups fare. Men lose between five and six times more days than women: 166.8 versus 30.5. African-American men lose more than twice as many days as white men: 361.5 versus 150.7. The most significant gap, logically enough, combines these racial and gender differentials: There is more than a tenfold difference between days lost by African-American men (361.5) versus days lost by white women (31.1).

Lemaire calculates the annual insurance costs which can be ascribed to firearm-related deaths at billions of dollars. He cites statistics from a 2001 study by the American Council for Life Insurance which suggest that, at the end of 2000, there were 148 million group and 35 million individual term life insurance policies in force in the United States, as well as 125 million group and 8 million individual whole life policies, yielding a combined total annual premium income of just under $130 billion.

Having previously calculated the discounts for both term (9.87%) and whole life (1.89%) policies if firearm deaths were eliminated from the equation, Lemaire estimates that the annual insurance cost of firearm violence in the U.S. is $4.9 billion. However, "this calculation overstates costs," he writes, "as the mortality of insured lives markedly differs from population mortality." Lemaire goes on to note that since homicide disproportionately impacts the young, and since life insurance is rarely purchased by or for people under 25, the current actuarial tables already "discount" homicide simply by virtue of demographics.

Even paring the increased insurance costs down to compensate for those factors, he continues, they are probably still in the same general range as the estimated $2 billion to $2.3 billion in total annual medical costs for gun-related injuries or the increased cost of administering the criminal justice system due to gun deaths -- including incarceration costs -- estimated at some $2.4 billion.

To put things in an epidemiological context, Lemaire points out that "among all fatal injuries, only motor vehicle accidents have a stronger effect [than firearm deaths]." Further, the numbers show that "the elimination of all firearm deaths in the U.S. would increase the male life expectancy more than the total eradication of all colon and prostate cancers."

The Substitution Effect

One objection to the idea that reducing firearm deaths would increase life expectancy and reduce insurance costs is the argument that guns are simply a means to an end -- and that people who are intent on violence, either toward themselves or others, will find a way to achieve that objective with whatever tools are available. This is called the substitution effect. "I don't believe that Americans are necessarily more violent than the Japanese or the Europeans," Lemaire says, "and certainly the history of the 20th century shows a lot of violence in other countries. I don't think violence is in the genes of the American people."

Japan "certainly provided more than its share of violence in the 20th century," he continues, "but at the dawn of the 21st century, Japan is among the safest countries in the world: Zero guns in Japan means zero crimes. It bears mention that Japan also has an extremely low rate of thefts, burglaries, etc., a counterweight to the argument by pro-gun people that guns at home reduce burglaries."

He cites a number of studies which show that, in the area of homicides, there is little or no substitution effect. One such study done in 1988 contrasts Seattle, Wa., and Vancouver, British Columbia - two cities nearly identical in terms of climate, population, unemployment level, average income and other demographic characteristics. But as a result of far stricter gun laws in Canada he writes, only 12% of Vancouver's inhabitants own guns, compared to an estimated 41% of Seattle residents.

The study finds "that the two cities essentially experience the same rates of burglary, robbery, homicides and assaults without a gun," Lemaire writes. "However, in Seattle the rate of assault with a firearm is 7 times higher than in Vancouver, and the rate of homicide with a handgun is 4.8 times higher. The authors conclude that the availability of handguns in Seattle increases the assault and homicide rates with a gun, but does not decrease the crime rates without guns, and that restrictive handgun laws reduce the homicide rate in a community."

In the case of suicide, Lemaire notes, there is greater evidence of a substitution effect. "Reduced availability of one method," he writes, "may prompt an increase in other methods. Some despondent individuals contemplating suicide may attempt to take their life by another means if a firearm is unavailable. Indeed, in [places like] Japan and Hong Kong, suicide rates exceed the U.S. rate despite strictly limited access to firearms. Less than 1% of suicides in these countries are committed with a firearm ...." Lemaire goes on to say that "the introduction of assumptions that I believe are appropriate to estimate the substitution effect hardly change the number of days lost due to guns: from 103.6 to 95.8 for the average U.S. citizen."

Future Lines of Inquiry

Lemaire is not clear what use will be made of his data. Japan, he notes in his paper, has approximately 50 handguns, mostly the property of athletes who compete in international shooting competitions. The best estimate is that there are more than 250 million guns in America. It is extremely unlikely that the U.S. is going to move to confiscate guns, he says.

He does see potential opportunities, however, in the area of how insurance companies can better price, and perhaps more equitably distribute the cost of, the risks associated with guns. "There is some evidence," Lemaire says, "including evidence from the Penn School of Medicine, that just owning a gun significantly increases your chance of dying -- even when you control for variables like neighborhood, education, and so on."

He also sees room for further work in this area, both in academia and also within the insurance industry. One logical thread to pursue concerns the risk calculations that insurance companies make in pricing life insurance policies. Demographics and lifestyle choices are the bread and butter of those kinds of calculations, but -- given recent personal experience -- Lemaire is a bit puzzled by the questions asked of policy applicants. "I just applied for life insurance last week," he says. "I am a scuba diver. [The insurance company] asked me 25 questions about my scuba diving habits. This is a sport that kills 100 people annually worldwide. Nobody asked me whether I have a gun in my house, yet guns kill 30,000 people every year just in the U.S. It is bizarre that no one thought to ask that question."

Publish Date: Jun 29, 2005


Enlaces
Wharton Department of Insurance and Risk Management
The Impact of Firearm Deaths on Life Expectancies in the US
Fact sheet on gun violence








[Advanced Search]





















buscar | suscripción | sobre nosotros | ayuda | inicio | contactar | patrocinadores

Posted by: Anonymous | September 24, 2008 5:04 PM | Report abuse

ap1562a:

You seem a bit confused. First you say the USSC ruled you can't ban guns, then you say a gun ban is "reasonable" because of facts you are making up out of thin air. The crime rate is still lower now than before the ban, even after the ban expired. And "AK47's" that you refer to (the civilian-legal semi-auto versions of real automatic AK-47 rifles) don't do anything differently than semi-auto Remington and Ruger rifles that fire the same ammo the same exact way. Please take a minute to sort yourself out. Thanks.

Posted by: K-Romulus | September 24, 2008 3:28 PM | Report abuse

FACT: Obama cannot ban guns. The Supreme Court ruled against gun bans so it is constitutionally impossible for Obama to take away your guns. So relax.

FACT: Obama does support reinstating an assault weapons ban, which actually did lower the murder rate. AK47s are completely unnecessary, no matter where you live. They are only used to kill.

FACT: Obama supports closing the gun show loophole, so criminals and terrorists aren't allowed to purchase guns at shows.

Reasonable restrictions do not equal a gun ban!

Posted by: ap1562a | September 24, 2008 2:57 PM | Report abuse

I wonder what they are feeling about John Mcshame wanting to cut the budget that funds the troops? It is bad enough he fought the GI Bill , that would help our troops get proper medical treatment, and money to go to college , now he wants to keep them in Iraq for a 100 years, he wants to start a war with Russia, and Spain
our allies, and he wants to cut the military budget. This man is dangerous, and senile.

Posted by: tygirl | September 24, 2008 1:41 PM | Report abuse

(To Jim) Automatic weapons are already heavily regulated, one needs to obtain a class 3 license to own them. Any little blemish on your record and you WILL be denied ownership. B.O. also wants to ignorantly/arrogantly ban semi-auto firearms. Read my other two post's, they were meant for ignorant people like yourself, you'll learn something about reality. Dumb rednecks huh? I live in North Dakota(pop. 550,000) and we have one of the highest per capita gun owner rates in America. That includes 1,000's of semi-auto AR15/AK47 assault/hunting rifles. In 2007 we had 14 murders state wide, not all from guns. Does that low of a homicide rate + high gun ownership mean American's would be better off if they were as DUMB as us redneck's from ND? Yeeuup!

Posted by: JD | September 24, 2008 1:28 PM | Report abuse

Spongebob: Thank you for proving my own points. I hope that your children and grandchildren, like mine, will all be able to go to school and church and to watch FOX News safely--with a reliable gun by their side. God protects us all, but He is certainly no match for a .357 magnum!

Well, actually, God will obviously condemn all of those who threaten us (and cause us to be so afraid) to eternal damnation and torment in the bowels of His ever-lasting hellfire. That'll teach 'em that God loves us!

Posted by: JohnnySwift | September 24, 2008 12:52 PM | Report abuse

ANYONE WHO TRULY CARES ABOUT THE SECOND AMENDMENT KNOWS WHAT THIS GUY, OBAMA, AND HIS TYPE ARE ABOUT.

REGISTRATION, THEN CONFISCATION.

IF YOU WANT TO SEE THE SECOND AMENDMENT AROUND FOR YOUR CHILDREN AND GRANDCHILDREN THEN YOU CANNOT VOTE FOR OBAMA.

DONT LISTEN TO WHAT THEY SAY, WATCH WHAT THEY DO (AND HAVE DONE IN THEIR PAST).

Posted by: SPONGEBOB 409 | September 24, 2008 12:25 PM | Report abuse

Yes, Americans, all true Americans I mean, you should know by now that you should be afraid, be very afraid! Obama is going to take away your guns forever, and all other weapons, such as the butter knives hiding in your drawers. You'll have nothing left in the world to defend yourselves with against . . . well, against all those evil people out there that Bush-Cheney-Rove-McCain have warned you about are out there and you need to defend yourself against.

Meanwhile, Obama will mandate that all first-graders will have to know how to use a condom [supplied free, of course] and at least the basic principles of anal sex. All the while, the truly great tragedy of our school system continues--that there are still many children out there who every day must go to school unarmed.

Yes, this is still the land of the free, so I have a right to own my Kalashnikov AK47--I've also got a bazooka that no one is going to take away from me. How else could I stop an intruding tank coming up my driveway? It seems strange that Obama, who taught Constitutional law [he was obviously trying to subvert it to all those unsuspecting, ignorant, radical left-wing college kids], should not know about our second amendment rights. The rights so many of you fought and even died for. I know protecting our rights was why you volunteered to fight in Iraq and Afghanistan.

And yes, this is still the home of the brave. As long as you remember to be afraid of all those things that you really should be afraid of. Like all those things that all those crazy, gun-hating, God-hating, America-hating left-wing liberal Democrats are going to do to you, once they've taken away every right you have and every protection you have against them.

Posted by: JohnnySwift | September 24, 2008 12:21 PM | Report abuse

Montana State Senator Roy Brown:
"Just days before describing himself as a 'hard-coal miner' to a group of United Mine Workers, Joe Biden spoke out against coal in Ohio and pledged that there would be no new coal plants in the United States. Worse than the Obama-Biden position against Montana coal is the shameless pandering on the campaign trail that supports coal, but if elected, reassures strong opposition. While energy prices soar, the Obama-Biden campaign says no to tapping into proven American energy and instead is proposing higher taxes on oil, coal, and natural gas. Montana voters deserve an honest energy policy -- something they're not getting from Barack Obama and Joe Biden."

Listen to today's conference call with National Members of the Coalition to Protect Coal Jobs: http://blip.tv/file/1287903

Posted by: Scott | September 24, 2008 11:53 AM | Report abuse

The bottom line is if you have or use guns for hunting, self-defense or collecting and want to make sure you'll have them in the future, then don't vote for Obama. Any anitgun bill that lands on a Pres Obama desk will get signed.

Posted by: lorddunsmore | September 24, 2008 10:54 AM | Report abuse

Obama's issue isn't guns (he has said so, but don't let facts get in the way of the republicans now), his issue is automatic weapons. He wants to limit access (ban?) guns whose only purpose is to kill people. Yeah, I'm all for that.

Here's the info, watch how the stupid rednecks lie about it:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/23/AR2008092303436.html

Posted by: Jim | September 24, 2008 9:23 AM | Report abuse

(To justadad55=) I'm not sure if your insinuating registering guns would curb gun crime. If you are ,your sadly mistaken. How would forcing law abiding gun owners to register their weapons stop criminals from using their guns to break the law? You know the answer to that. Registration is just another useless law that would harass legal gun owners. By the way anti's, I know B.O. & Joe wouldn't TAKE my guns, but they WILL make it illegal to buy many guns they arrogantly deem "you don't need" and ban the parts to fix them. Enforce existing gunlaws,hire more law enforcement officers,crack down on illegal street dealers, and make criminals stay in prison for their entire sentence's. Guaranteed the gun crime would drop significantly. Banning certain types of firearms was a proven failure in curbing gun crime by the Clinton gun ban 1994-2004. FBI just published a report that violent crime was down again last year in America, how is that possible with AR-15 rifles being the #1 selling rifle the last 2.5 years.(Guns ain't the problem folks).

Posted by: JD | September 24, 2008 8:19 AM | Report abuse

Does Joe Biden Know How They Spelled POTATO in 1929?

Politico
September 23, 2008
Categories: Joe Biden

Biden garbles Depression history

Joe Biden's denunciation of his own campaign's ad to Katie Couric got so much attention last night that another odd note in the interview slipped by.

He was speaking about the role of the White House in a financial crisis.

"When the stock market crashed, Franklin Roosevelt got on the television and didn't just talk about the princes of greed," Biden told Couric. "He said, 'Look, here's what happened.'"

As Reason's Jesse Walker footnotes it: "And if you owned an experimental TV set in 1929, you would have seen him. And you would have said to yourself, 'Who is that guy? What happened to President Hoover?'"


Posted by: Scott | September 24, 2008 8:19 AM | Report abuse

A gun owner who votes for Mbombo doesnt realize that he is voting for eventual gun laws that will make owing a gun too expensive/prohibitive. It does not make sense to vote for someone who is popular with the American Communist Party, Al Qaeda, The Hezbola,and CAIR,who thinks HEs one of them.A gun owner who would do this does not strike me as being a true American Patriot.

Posted by: C4 | September 24, 2008 7:10 AM | Report abuse

Yep all your country needs is more unregistered guns. I' m not taking about the right to bear arms, but a cash of weapons. Give me a break.

Posted by: justadad55= | September 24, 2008 4:11 AM | Report abuse

JD,

No your AK-15 owners aren't criminals, just sick bast**ds.

Posted by: usa3 | September 24, 2008 2:04 AM | Report abuse

Yeah, because we have no idea who an 'undecided' voter who follows the NRA's advice would vote for.

.
.

Posted by: el_barto | September 24, 2008 12:15 AM | Report abuse

Seems to me that we are faced with evaluating Obama's "lies" [sic] about not wanting to take away guns vs NRA "lies" [sic] that he would. All things being equal, I think NRA is less concerned about their perception of second amendment rights and is against Obama and Biden for all the usual right wing reasons. Same as they were against Kerry, who was and is a hunter. What a disservice to responsible hunters and target shooters to cloud the real gun issue: in some places they are more than appropriate, in others they are not; some types are useful and appropriate, others have no purpose outside of the military. I have yet to hear any realistic plan from the NRA to solve gun violence, which should be their area of expertise.

Posted by: 66kicks | September 23, 2008 11:48 PM | Report abuse

The NRA is is factually correct. On both March 25, 2004 and May 25, 2004 Barack Obama voted against bill SB2165. This bill allowed home owners to avoid prosecution if they used a firearm in defense of their home, person, or other person in their home, even if local ordinances stated that firearm ownership in the home was illegal. He voted against this... twice. Do the research, people.

Posted by: Tyster | September 23, 2008 11:46 PM | Report abuse

(To Donna Hughes) I own a variety of guns, ranging from AR-15's to a single shot shotgun. Even owned a few Ak47's in my day(GASP!) Do you really think I am a criminal or dangerous just because of the type of gun I own? please, use some common sense. A duck gun is just as dangerous when pointed at someone as an AR-15 is, can you comprehend that reality? Should I be turned into a criminal if I move to Chicago with my assault rifle? Explain to me how banning my AR-15's would stop a criminal from using their gun on someone. Answer=It won't. 2nd Amendment and Hunting? My assault rifle is also my target,self defense, and HUNTING rifle. I and MILLIONS of other law abiding gun owners love our assault rifles and we are sick of being called criminals because we own guns which are used in less than 2% of gun crime and people like you don't approve of. Oh yeah, we also vote to keep our constitutional guaranteed 2ndA rights.

Posted by: JD | September 23, 2008 11:34 PM | Report abuse

Nobody lies as much as the lunatic right-wingers! You guys never met a smear you didn't like, or a lie that was too dirty. You think you own God and Country. You elected George W Bush & the Dick, Cheney! Dumb and Dumber! Anybody want to go hunting with Cheney? Maybe he can go shoot wolves from an airplane with Sarah. Very sporting!

Posted by: Donna Hughes | September 23, 2008 11:28 PM | Report abuse

Obama and the liberal left will lie to get in power. Once in power he will ban gun ownership. All the politicians and hollywood elites have body guards and firearms. Yet us peasants are expendable.
I am so sick of the left wing snobs. If we can not have guns then politicians and elites cant have armed guards

Posted by: Ralph | September 23, 2008 11:13 PM | Report abuse

Let me say it one time and maybe someone at the WPO will do some research. The bill Obama backed on banning ammmo did ban most hunting ammmo. Listen closely now----All centerfire(look it up every rifle caliber bigger than a .22) will pierce police armor. EVERYONE. So by saying "ammor piercing" instead of rifle caliber bigger than .22 Obama is playing with the TRUTH(I think he is ignorant of this fact or maybe he is a liar). As is your newspaper. One reason educated citizens do not believe the MSM anymore. You LIE. I dare you to research this and educate yourselves. It will take about 5 minutes on the internet.

Posted by: Maggie | September 23, 2008 11:09 PM | Report abuse

Obama is against private ownership of guns. His past tells the whole story. He is a radical left winger. They can not have power as long as they people can not be controled. Obama has not told the truth about his past. His close friends and advisors were all communists and terrorists. The 2nd amendmant protects us from liberal leftist

Posted by: Bill | September 23, 2008 11:05 PM | Report abuse

As a member of the Joyce Foundation for eight years 1994-2001, Obama voted tens of millions for gun control projects

And recently reports the Wall Street Journal:
September 5, 2008, 2:38 pm
... But the Illinois senator could still see skeptics in the crowd, particularly on the faces of several men at the back of the room.
So he tried again. “Even if I want to take them away, I don’t have the votes in Congress,’’ he said. “This can’t be the reason not to vote for me. Can everyone hear me in the back? I see a couple of sportsmen back there. I’m not going to take away your guns.’’

And his running mate,
"Banning guns is an idea whose time has come."
--U.S. Sen. Joseph Biden Associated Press 11/18/93

But the brady campaign say differently.
"We must get rid of all the guns."
--Sarah Brady, speaking on behalf of Handgun Control Inc (now Brady Campaign) Phil Donahue Show, September 1994

Interesting reading and videos at
http://www.sportsmenforobama.org/

Posted by: jackanderson1 | September 23, 2008 10:45 PM | Report abuse

> Probably shouldn't use the words NRA "targets" Obama in a sentence ;)

They've already stooped this low. At this point, I wouldn't put it past those people.

I mean, they won an individual right to bear arms from the Supreme Court. They won their battle already. Now they're just fighting for relevance because the NRA isn't really needed any more.

Posted by: JakeR | September 23, 2008 10:32 PM | Report abuse

Look at these pictures to see all the "good" Mr. Obama did for Chicago slums(I mean developer buddies) as "Community Organizer"....

http://directorblue.blogspot.com/2008/07/photo-gallery-results-of-obamas.html

"Grove Parc and several other prominent failures were developed and managed by Obama’s close friends and political supporters. Those people profited from the subsidies even as many of Obama’s constituents suffered. Tenants lost their homes; surrounding neighborhoods were blighted."

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/06/27/grim_proving_ground_for_obamas_housing_policy/

Hey, maybe he can do the SAME TO G*D D*MN AMERICA WHILE HE'S AT IT!!

Posted by: Kevin | September 23, 2008 9:49 PM | Report abuse

The NRA is a lunatic fringe organization. I used to belong, but one day saw a TV piece they did, which was quite tacky, and I began to see them for what they are: unreasonable.

As far as I am concerned the whole Republican/NRA crowd would say anything to accomplish their goals, so I don't believe anything they say.

Democrats own guns too. We just don't think they need to be AK47's and the like.

Posted by: Donna Hughes | September 23, 2008 9:08 PM | Report abuse

I AM NOT A CROOK!

Posted by: RICHARD NIXON (R) | September 23, 2008 9:06 PM | Report abuse

I AM NOT A CROOK!

Posted by: RICHARD NIXON (R) | September 23, 2008 9:06 PM | Report abuse

Shouldn't the header be "NRA Targets Membership With Fearmongering Distortion, Smear Campaign", or something like that?

Posted by: zukermand | September 23, 2008 8:49 PM | Report abuse

should = shouldn't

Posted by: JakeD | September 23, 2008 8:20 PM | Report abuse

Probably should use the words NRA "targets" Obama in a sentence ; )

Posted by: JakeD | September 23, 2008 8:19 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company