Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity
Posted at 10:32 AM ET, 09/23/2008

NRA Misfires against Obama

By Michael Dobbs

"Now I learn that Barack Obama supports a huge new tax on my guns and ammo."
--Karl Rusch, National Rifle Association "Hunter" video, September 22, 2008.

The National Rifle Association has opened fire on Barack Obama for allegedly supporting a "huge new tax" on gun owners. The charge is contained in a series of new TV ads attacking the Democratic presidential candidate for his "anti-gun" stance. While it is clear that Obama is no friend of the NRA, the tax hike charge rests on very flimsy evidence. There are other problems with the ads as well.

The Facts

The NRA video shows a Virginia hunter and Iraq war veteran, Karl Rusch, complaining about the high cost of gas and accusing Obama of planning a "huge new tax" on "guns and ammo." "Where is this guy from?" Rusch asks. "He's probably never been hunting a day in his life."

The video cites a decade-old clip from a Chicago newspaper to support its claim that Obama favors a huge new gun tax. The December 13, 1999 article in the Chicago Defender said that the then Illinois state senator supported a "500 percent" increase in the federal tax on the sale of "weapons he says are most commonly used in firearm deaths."

It is unclear from the article exactly what weapons would have been covered by the proposed tax. Most of the article deals with proposals by Obama to "increase the penalties on gun runners who are flooding Chicago's streets with illegal weapons." Even if Obama did support a big tax increase on the sale of certain types of assault weapons back in 1999, that is hardly evidence that he will move as president to tax the "guns and ammo" most commonly used by hunters like Rusch.

The NRA video also accuses Obama of voting "to ban virtually all deer hunting ammunition" and supporting "a ban on shotguns and rifles most of us use for hunting." The deer hunting claim is based on Obama's support for an unsuccessful Senate amendment by Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.) that would have expanded the definition of "armor-piercing" ammunition. The shotgun claim refers to semi-automatic rifles and pistols covered by the assault weapons ban, which expired in March 2004.

Contrary to Rusch's claim, the Kennedy proposal of July 2005, SA 1615, was not aimed at "virtually all deer hunting ammunition." Instead, it would have authorized the attorney general to define types of illegal ammunition capable of penetrating body armor commonly used by law enforcement officials. During the Senate debate, Kennedy said that his amendment would "not apply to ammunition that is now routinely used in hunting rifles," a point contested by the NRA.

Rusch did not respond to a telephone message left with his wife requesting comment.

Click here for the NRA's backup for its anti-Obama ads. Click here for an analysis by the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence.

The Pinocchio Test

While it is true that Obama favors tighter gun laws, it is a huge stretch to argue that he wants to take away the guns and ammunition most commonly used by hunters. The claim that he favors "a huge new tax on guns and ammo" rests on a confusingly worded 9-year-old newspaper article that has little relevance for Obama's platform as a presidential candidate. The NRA misfires on this one.

(About our rating scale.

By Michael Dobbs  | September 23, 2008; 10:32 AM ET
Categories:  3 Pinocchios, Ad Watch, Barack Obama, Candidate Record, Social Issues  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Obama misleads on Social Security
Next: Read my lips...No new coal plants!


Maybe the NRA doesn't believe Barack HUSSEIN Obama?

Posted by: JakeD | September 23, 2008 10:59 AM | Report abuse

I had lost any and all respect for the NRA when they sought to fight a ban on armor piercing bullets being sold to the public. With a brother who is a police officer, I found this disgusting. The argument, which I thought was even to ignorant for the NRA to continue, is that these bullets were used for hunting. Now, I come originally from up north in deer country. I have seen thousands of deer. Still waiting to see my first one in a bullet proof vest. Some deer can be pretty smart, but they haven't got to that point yet!

Posted by: waynep | September 23, 2008 11:03 AM | Report abuse

Scared of what Jake?

Posted by: supreme | September 23, 2008 11:17 AM | Report abuse

Am I just being paranoid about this frightening ad or did the group's name sound like "Gun Down Obama" not GunBanObama? I had to listen to it three times before I was sure. Why do we have truth in advertising laws to protect us from claims on shampoo and cereals and nothing to protect Americans from lies about the most important decision of our lives?

Posted by: Sylvia Wilkinson | September 23, 2008 11:19 AM | Report abuse

Can we please be honest? I do not have guns primarily for hunting, although I do enjoy hunting. I have them for self protection. Cops are good for filing reports, not stopping criminals before or during a crime. I do not my house weapon loaded with armor piercing rounds, I keep it loaded with .45cal hollow points.
But, I do have a rifle, and I wish I could buy "armor piercing" which unfortunately are very difficult to obtain, and the ones that are truly designed to penetrate a vest ARE illegal in most states, including mine. The purpose of the 2nd amendment is to protect us (the people) from government. I do not care if it is local, state, or federal government. As it is, I must content myself with standard 7.62mm NATO standard rifle ammo.

" I love my country, but fear my Government"

Posted by: John Galt | September 23, 2008 11:21 AM | Report abuse

I lost respect for them years ago not only on the ban on armor piercing bullets which Dick Cheney voted against. But for defending the right of the Tim McVey's of this world to buy explosives with no background check.

Remember when G.H.W Bush 41 resigned from the NRA after the refered to federal law enforcement personnel as "Jack Booted Thugs"

Posted by: MRF | September 23, 2008 11:23 AM | Report abuse

Wow, Jake D. It's people like you that really make this world a better place. Have fun with your hockey mom (who doesn't actually have any children that play hockey). If ignorance is bliss, you must have a permanent smile on your face.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 23, 2008 11:25 AM | Report abuse

jake d - you are an ignorant racist.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 23, 2008 11:29 AM | Report abuse

Guns don't kill people! Stupid people who can't read or think for themselves kill people [andn their country as well]...

Posted by: braultrl | September 23, 2008 12:02 PM | Report abuse

JakeD: You are probably one of those "religious-right" extremists who use catch-words like HOUSEIN, MUSLIM, ELITEST to describe Obams, but what you mean is you do NOT want a n----r president, but are too chicken to say it right out.
So, keep your stupid assault weapons and armor piercing bullets, if this country keeps sinking into the black abyss YOUR president and YOUR party has created, you, like the rest of us will have to protect ourselves from each other.
All I can say is You and YOUR party believed George WALKER Bush and look what he did. John SIDNEY McCain is no better.
By the way the name "McCain" means "son of Cain" Cain was history's first murderer. He didn't kill an intruder into his home, he killed his BROTHER. Chew on that a while.

Posted by: ItsMyRight | September 23, 2008 12:04 PM | Report abuse

While Jake D. is spending all day in reliably Democratic California posting to the Washington Post blogs, I'm knocking on doors in northern Virginia for the Obama campaign. Guess which one of us is having a bigger impact?

Posted by: John Brisker | September 23, 2008 12:21 PM | Report abuse

I wonder if the Post will print a retraction when -- after Obama's elected -- he does exactly what the NRA claims he'll do.

I won't hold my breath.

Posted by: info | September 23, 2008 12:30 PM | Report abuse

A little more light and less heat, please. A similar "armor piercing" bill was proposed in Kansas about 12 years ago. It WOULD have included deer hunting rifle ammo because (as most are not aware) the "soft body armor" used by police officers will not stop ANY rifle bullet, period. So, the clever little politicians tell us they are protecting the police, but once the law is passed it's too late to stop the ammo-grab. By the way, the law in Kansas failed, as it should have.

Posted by: Bumper Guard | September 23, 2008 12:31 PM | Report abuse

Actually I view this as good news - if this is the worst dirt the NRA can dig up on Obama, he really does have a great chance to be president.

Posted by: P0p | September 23, 2008 12:31 PM | Report abuse

When will we expose the truth and hold our representatives to the truth? Has the public forgotten that the "government" is "of the people, by the people, and for the people"? I have asked numerous reporters to expose Palin's position on Native Alaskans and her attempts to terminate their soveriegnty as a tribal nation, taking away their subsistence hunting and fishing rights in order to open it up to commercial fisheries and sports game hunting, in other words viewing capitalism over the rights of indigenous people. If she ends up in the White House, all native tribes will be threatened and we Native Americans will become an "endangered species" along with the Polar Bears and Wolves she advocates killing off.

Posted by: tona wanagi | September 23, 2008 12:39 PM | Report abuse

"Never been hunting a day in his life." How DARE he? Doesn't he know that shooting crap is a prerequisite to being President?

Posted by: ManUnitdFan | September 23, 2008 12:44 PM | Report abuse

That is funny John Galt.

I believe the number of violent home invasions is minuscule compared to the number of accidents and deaths perpetuated by a local firearm. That would be common sense.

Second, I love my government, but I fear my country.

Posted by: horton | September 23, 2008 12:44 PM | Report abuse


At least shooting lawyers (like Cheney did ; )

Posted by: JakeD | September 23, 2008 12:45 PM | Report abuse

The NRA as usual has overstated its case. But most of what I have read on Obama’s Second Amendment statements makes it clear to me that Obama has in fact changed his positions. His original stances seem to me to be closer to what the NRA claims than they are to his current stated view.

By the way, I do not own fire arms and am not now nor have I ever been a member of any fire arms group.

Posted by: Tom Linehan | September 23, 2008 12:55 PM | Report abuse

Maybe the NRA has overstated its case a tad bit, it DOES show that Obama has supported these ideas in the past. The fact that he said recently in PA: "Even if I wanted to take away your guns, I don't have the votes to" shows that he's just biding his time.

Posted by: Blacky Pete | September 23, 2008 1:06 PM | Report abuse

John McCain and the POW/MIA cover up.

Why McCain doesn't want his military records opened up.

Why did he sabotage the investigations into the disappearance of over 900 of our missing soldiers in Viet-Nam and Laos?

The attached article is written by a pulitzer prize winning war correspondent who has fought McCain for over 30 years on this issue.

If they bring it up in the debates McCain will explode.

Please read the whole article. It is simply damning and proves that McCain has not one ounce of integrity.

Possibly, he is indeed, the Manchurian candidate.

Wake up America. This nut wants war.

Viet-Nam Veteran

Posted by: Veterans against McCain | September 23, 2008 1:14 PM | Report abuse

Clearly, the NRA is protecting the right for gun owners to kill deer with semi-automatic rifles using cheap armor-piercing ammunition. You never know when the deer will start wearing body armor.

Posted by: Jason | September 23, 2008 1:22 PM | Report abuse

Who speaks for the NRA? Charlton heston?

Posted by: Wyatt Erp | September 23, 2008 1:45 PM | Report abuse

Please, nobody is taking the Washington Post fact checkers seriously anymore. Not after the Obama-Raines fiasco, where the Post called its own reporting pretty "flimsy."

Posted by: Kate | September 23, 2008 2:01 PM | Report abuse

First of all, the NRA is not going through all this fiasco to protect deer hunters...that is the same type of farce that this country has been running on for 8 yrs...that's what they want you to think. In fact, it's very clear that Obama's logical thinking is not something they are expected to grasp.

Posted by: NationsOldestCity | September 23, 2008 2:29 PM | Report abuse

The NRA is a fundraising scam, they have to keep the flock constantly scared and angry so they can be fleeced.

Posted by: aleks | September 23, 2008 2:47 PM | Report abuse

I'm one of those Bitter Gun owners, and I vote.
McCain/Palin 08

Posted by: NewsShooter | September 23, 2008 2:52 PM | Report abuse

Please, nobody is taking the Washington Post fact checkers seriously anymore. Not after the Obama-Raines fiasco, where the Post called its own reporting pretty "flimsy."
Posted by: Kate | September 23, 2008 2:01 PM

No, they called McCain's use of it flimsy. WP reported something, McCain made up something else and attributed it to the post. Who does that reflect badly on?

Posted by: aleks | September 23, 2008 2:56 PM | Report abuse

I've studied many of the bills that go into the house and senate and the problem I see is that every time someone wants to pass a good bill such as making sure armored piercing bullets are off the market some one in the house and senate tag on stupid pieces that make little sense and then if the bill passes there is a piece that says you can't hunt deer with a 30 cal. and that causes a problem in some states. So I see the NRA saying be carefull. For the young man who lost respect for the NRA because he has a brother thats a policeman, I to was a cop and my father and my uncle. The NRA is right you got to be careful. As for Senator Oboma, he is a bright man but knowledge comes with experience and age and he falls short on both.

Posted by: Dennis Cini | September 23, 2008 2:57 PM | Report abuse

John Brisker wrote:
"While Jake D. is spending all day in reliably Democratic California posting to the Washington Post blogs, I'm knocking on doors in northern Virginia for the Obama campaign. Guess which one of us is having a bigger impact?"

Okay, John, I've never met you, but you got me. After reading your comment, I'm headed out with my Obama door-knocking list this afternoon. Man, this election is turning out to be a LOT more work than the ones we lost!

Posted by: Fairfax Voter | September 23, 2008 2:58 PM | Report abuse

Wow. I heard that the Washington Post was a liberal hot-bed, so I thought I'd check it out to see what all goes thru your head. You guys are truly nuts!

When will you learn that the bigger your government, the bigger your problems will be - no matter what promises that your candidate offers you? There is no 'free lunch'. Ugh. Keep patting yourselves on the back and blaming it all on GWB...

Posted by: grateful_vet | September 23, 2008 2:59 PM | Report abuse

the second amendment is not to protect the people from the government, as some people argue. It is there to protect the people's right to form militia, and by natural extension, to keep and bear arms. The founding fathers had just defeated the world's largest empire, in large part due to the diligence & efforts of armed civilians, the militia. The NRA and various other gun nuts have highjacked this idea as a convenient excuse to push necessary legislation into the void. What about public safety? This is unconscionable, as it has helped to lead to an overly violent society. I do not oppose responsible gun ownership, I myself enjoy shooting clay pigeons, but what hunter honestly needs armor piercing rounds? What do you hunt with hand guns? It has been shown that a society need not be armed to the teeth to remain free.

Posted by: Eris | September 23, 2008 3:11 PM | Report abuse

Hmm. When Clinton was making similar claims about Obama and handguns, FactCheck gave it an "undetermined" w/ the same evidence:

"We can't say for sure if he did or not. We haven't been able to find any evidence that he acted on it if he did. In the Illinois Senate, he voted for gun control, including limiting handgun purchases to one a month, but no attempts at a ban that we are aware of. And he didn't advocate a handgun ban when he was running for U.S. Senate. Still, the reason for the answer on the questionnaire remains unclear."

Why the change?

Posted by: Thirdpower | September 23, 2008 3:12 PM | Report abuse

This lying, spinning "fact check" column has turned into a blesser-of-Obama ads and a rebutter-of-McCain ads.

It is what McCain campaign has called it: blatant biased partisan advocacy for Obama!

Posted by: AsperGirl | September 23, 2008 3:12 PM | Report abuse

Here's what the Violence Policy Center wrote about "Assault Weapons":

"The weapons' menacing looks, coupled with the public's confusion over fully automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons"anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun"can only increase the chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons."

This was written by them while Obama was on the board of the Joyce Foundation, which consequently provided most of their funding.

Posted by: Thirdpower | September 23, 2008 3:15 PM | Report abuse

Here's the quote from Sen. Kennedy on his 'armor piercing ammo" ban that Obama co-sponsored:

"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. Armor-piercing ammunition for rifles and assault weapons is virtually unregulated in the United States."

Yep, he included a low powered .30 cal round used in hunting.

Posted by: Thirdpower | September 23, 2008 3:17 PM | Report abuse

The NRA isn't relevant anymore. No one cares about the NRA.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 23, 2008 3:19 PM | Report abuse

If some posters here truly fear their government, why do they keep voting for Republicans?

First it's "Homeland Security Act," then it's Wall Street--what's next?

Have you noticed how the GOP leadership is consolidating more and more power into Federal control? What the hell is wrong with you? This is pathetic to have a Democrat point that out, don't ya think?

Posted by: tony the pitiful copywriter | September 23, 2008 3:25 PM | Report abuse

To Waynep
The point of the second amendment isn't just to protect people's right to hunt dear, but to protect ourselves from a corrupt government. If the government has armor, we should be allowed to have armor piercing ammunition...why wouldn't we be allowed to?

P.S. Your brother didn't become a police officer by accident, so why does he have rights the rest of us don't have?

Posted by: Michael | September 23, 2008 3:30 PM | Report abuse

To all you guys who think that owning guns will ever protect you from your own government: get real. If your government wants to squash you dead, they have bunker buster bombs, missles, and tanks etc., that you would not be able to pierce with any ammunition in a gun, be it body-piercing bullets or not. The truth is that you just want to be able to win a pissing match if it comes to that. When will you learn to stop being so macho and hung up on whose is bigger, and give some rational thought to who you want running the country? I am an older white woman who just wants to see her kids and grandkids have a better future, and Obama offers our last chance at stopping the slow slide of America into a third-rate, has-been, irrelevant country too ignorant to vote for real change.

And what's with all the emphasis on Obama's middle name? So what if it happens to be Hussein? Obama was born way before Saddam Hussein emerged in Iraq, so any implied connection is simply ludicrous.

What difference does a name make, anyway? Obama could be named Jesus H. Christ, and you would find something wrong with that too.

Put down your childish toys (guns) and learn to respect all life, not just that of those who "agree" with you.

Posted by: Jenny | September 23, 2008 3:54 PM | Report abuse

Face it, the folks who come up with gun control laws don't know anything about guns. The people doing the fact checking here, don't know the facts either. Biden is anti-gun despite his recent lies. In some states, you can hunt with semi-auto rifles and if you look at the guns banned by bills the Dems support, they ban about all semi-autos.

I don't hunt but I target shoot with my children and I collect curio and relic firearms. I also have some hi-cap rifles for home protection. I refuse to support anyone who wishes to take that right away.

Posted by: Michael | September 23, 2008 4:14 PM | Report abuse


I find it humorous that liberals like yourself tell us to give up our 2A rights while you are out complaining about "women's rights to abortion." More women kill babies in the U.S. each year than gun owners kill people. I won't give up my rights and I don't expect you to give us yours. At least mine are ethical and guaranteed by the Bill of Rights.

Posted by: Michael | September 23, 2008 4:17 PM | Report abuse


Specifically, recent Post's attack on McCain ad about Francis Raines (Fannie Mae CEO) relationship with Obama. (One in an apparently endless string of Post's biased "fact checking" of campaign ads).

The Washington Post Paradox

A recurring theme in the old "Star Trek" series was the machine run amok. An intelligent computer, entrusted with some important task, would conclude that human beings were imperfect because they do not always act logically. Because humans are imperfect, the computer would reason, they must be destroyed. (This seems like a bit of a leap, but maybe it made sense in the '60s.)

Invariably, Captain Kirk and the other protagonists would save mankind by using illogic to fight the computer. They would feed the computer some paradox or logically incoherent statement, such as "Everything I say is a lie," which would overload the computer's logic circuits and destroy it.

Last week John McCain's campaign put out an ad criticizing Barack Obama for his ties to Franklin Raines, former CEO of Fannie Mae. The ad said that Obama relies on Raines "for 'advice on mortgage and housing policy.' " The Washington Post claims that the McCain ad is "a stretch":

So what evidence does the McCain campaign have for the supposed Obama-Raines connection? It is pretty flimsy, but it is not made up completely out of whole cloth. McCain spokesman Brian Rogers points to three items in the Washington Post in July and August. It turns out that the three items (including an editorial) all rely on the same single conversation, between Raines and a Washington Post business reporter, Anita Huslin, who wrote a profile of the discredited Fannie Mae boss that appeared July 16. The profile reported that Raines, who retired from Fannie Mae four years ago, had "taken calls from Barack Obama's presidential campaign seeking his advice on mortgage and housing policy matters."

So the Washington Post is saying you can't believe McCain's ad because it is based on reporting in . . . the Washington Post. The Washington Post is not a reliable source of information, according to the Washington Post.

But if the Washington Post is not a reliable source of information, how can we believe the Washington Post when it says it's not a reliable source of information? But if we don't believe the Washington Post when it says it's not a reliable source of information, then we must believe the Washington Post is a reliable source of information, in which case how can we believe the Washington Post is not a reliable source of information. But if . . .

You get the picture. Clearly this is part of a sinister plot by the Obama-coddling mainstream media to induce madness in all Americans who have the capacity for logical thought, rendering them unable to vote and ensuring the election is decided by Obama backers who act totally on emotion.

Posted by: AsperGirl | September 23, 2008 4:21 PM | Report abuse

Under the Palin-McCain adminstration I look forward to more gun freedoms in our schools.

Posted by: For Her | September 23, 2008 4:27 PM | Report abuse

i plan to cancel my NRA membership when it comes time to renew. i grew up in a family of hunters & fishermen. however, the NRA continually aggravates it's relationship with moderates, & purposely makes enemies of American Democrats. recently, the NRA has supported lies & misinformation.
many Americans are standing tall to give our country a better future. Obama/Biden08

Posted by: lawrence2xl | September 23, 2008 4:28 PM | Report abuse

The NRA have run gun rights all the way up to the Supreme Court and emerged victorious.

So what is the reason for all this paranoia other than the fact it raises lots of cold hard cash for the NRA lobbyists to use to help buy elections.

The 2nd amendment was totally upheld geniuses so really all this whining is pretty silly.

Posted by: Marc | September 23, 2008 4:32 PM | Report abuse

Stop the presses: The NRA LIES!!! Omigod! lol just trying to catch up with the whoppers being dropped by their boy McCain and his lil' lady Palin ... who by the way is in NY today meetin' and greetin' lots of heads of state.... check this out for a funny take on her visit ...

Posted by: Did I mention I'm a LIAR??? | September 23, 2008 4:35 PM | Report abuse

This proves yet again that America is full of racist, arrogant idiots that care nothing about truth or justice. The American way is to lie and see how many idiots will follow you without checking the facts.

Emotion, Bigotry and ignorance is what drives many americans, especially in the midwest.

There is a reason why the under educated, white midwesterner are the people voting for McSame.
There is a reason why the GOP is filled with uneducated red-necks, b/c they don't understand logic and reasoning...Hence their reason for thinking palin was a good pick - b/c she has SPUNK!!! WHATEVER!


GO MCCAIN 08. go idiots!

Posted by: E | September 23, 2008 4:51 PM | Report abuse

It's amazing how few facts are actually presented by those attacking the NRA while ignoring the real ones. Here's another:

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.

Posted by: Thirdpower | September 23, 2008 4:52 PM | Report abuse

Whatever one's position on Sen. Obama, "The Fact Checker" = FAIL.

1) The "ammo and gun tax" has been a goal of the anti-gun-owner complex for years. Here we have a record of a political candidate's position on the issue, and all "The Fact Checker" can say is that is a "decade old" (and that statement itself is factually incorrect).

2) The "Armor piercing ammo bill" would have banned deer-hunting rifle ammo because there are pistols out there that can fire the same ammo. Under the bill, *any* ammo that could be fired from a handgun and that could defeat soft body armor would be banned. That's pretty much all rifle ammo (except maybe .50BMG).

3) "The guns most commonly used by hunters" is a broad category. Do you mean deer hunters, turkey hunters, prairie dog and coyote hunters, goose & duck hunter, or rabbit hunters? All of these disciplines use different types of firearms. The most popular types of goose & duck hunting shotguns (semi-auto), turkey-hunting shotguns (semi-auto with pistol grip shoulder stock) and prairie-dog rifles (AR-15)would be be banned under the various forms of the so-called "assault weapons" ban.

Too bad, Fact Checker, but at least you were trying. May I suggest hiring a consultant the next time an issue arises where you are not familiar with the subject?

Posted by: K-Romulus | September 23, 2008 4:56 PM | Report abuse


You are so stupid. Don't you know the WSJ is looking to sell newpapers, just like the Post.

They too need an angle to make you and others come to their website, as opposed to someelses.

I told you, people will say and do anthing to get a buck. The WSJ is no better than the Post, who is no better than the others. Every person in America has their own bias and their own opinions and they are entitled to theirs, but stop trying to act like this is not about money and ratings and selling papers, b/c it is. And all the media outlets are guilty. EVERY LAST ONE OF THEM.

Wake up girly

Posted by: e | September 23, 2008 4:56 PM | Report abuse

People who support the right to own guns without restrictions always point to the fact that it is based on the second amendment pointing out a need for a "militia." The amendment actually says "well regulated Militia." And "regulated" means ... regulations. Yet these NRA folks want to be unregulated, which makes them ... unAmerican.

Posted by: edwcorey | September 23, 2008 5:04 PM | Report abuse

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.

Posted by: Thirdpower | September 23, 2008 4:52 PM is also putting out a lot of lying, biased "factcheck" attacks on McCain. Guess what, Obama was an Annenberg project executive for 5 years. Guess why he didn't list it on his resume: (1) it was working closely with William Ayers, who brought him on the project of his and (2) it was a big fat failure, squandering about a hundred million dollars on a vast educational program to try to radicalize early education teaching (teaching children left-wing activist principles).

Annenberg is a liberal funding foundation that funds the advancement of left-wing agendas, and its is a big, partisan, dishonest fraud. They have big conflicts of interest this election year because of their ties with Obama.

Obama & Ayers Pushed Radicalism On Schools
By STANLEY KURTZ, Wall Street Journal

"Despite having authored two autobiographies, Barack Obama has never written about his most important executive experience. From 1995 to 1999, he led an education foundation called the Chicago Annenberg Challenge (CAC), and remained on the board until 2001. The group poured more than $100 million into the hands of community organizers and radical education activists..."

more at

Posted by: AsperGirl | September 23, 2008 5:04 PM | Report abuse

I go hunting and own firearms. But I no longer am a member of the NRA, which has been taken over by party hacks who lie like McCain.

Posted by: DG | September 23, 2008 5:08 PM | Report abuse

And who do you think owns the WSJ? Who do you think funds, finances, seeks grants from, etc. all thise media outlets?


WAKE UP AMERICA. All have special interests and all are financially backed by someone who has a bias opinion about something.


China lends us money, yet they are on our list of Countries that at are sanctioned b/c of inhuman treatment of their citizens. Does that matter? NO, B/C they have the money, so we take it and keep our mouths shut.




Posted by: E | September 23, 2008 5:31 PM | Report abuse

Wayne - what you - and most cops don't realize is that bill would outlaw most types of rifle hunting ammo.

Yes, the dirty little secret is that the average vest supplied to LEO's will not stop non-armor piercing hunting ammo.

The ones you need to lose respect for, are the ones who spun this up to people like you who don't know any better.

Same as the fact check nonsense. They like to quote what Obama SAYS - not his record.

Obama has resisted the 2nd amendment at every opportunity. He has voted against two supreme court nominees only because of their 2nd amendment views - and their reluctance to murder babies. Not because of their qualifications.

Those evil bastar*s at the NRA - how DARE they bring up Obama's record.

Their spin and BS certainly resonates amongst the ignorant and the haters - but it falls apart under objective scrutiny.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 23, 2008 5:35 PM | Report abuse

Someone here referred to Obama as HUSSEIN, I guess in his/her case he does not support Obama cos of his name/assumed religion etc. Forget about the man for a second and just look at the Republican Policies and and Democrat's policies. Vote for the policies which benefit your country and yourself. Guns should really not be at the top of your priority list when there is a looming recession. Food on your table should be. Dont lose focus, the US of a decade ago is very different from the US of 2008, the fundamentals of the economy at least in the short term are not strong but you need to vote for the right POLICIES to address this. Again, its the policies that matter, clearly the Republicans have failed the country in the past 8 years, try something new for a change (I am referring to the POLICIES here)

Posted by: jj am | September 23, 2008 5:39 PM | Report abuse


You really need to switch to decaf.

Posted by: Thirdpower | September 23, 2008 5:40 PM | Report abuse

No, we don't support Obama because he is an unqualified, inexperienced, racist, terrorist loving empty suit.

We are not going to "forget the man." The current administration is not running for office.

We are going to concentrate 100% "on the man" and make sure the left is not successful with their propaganda and nonsense.

Obama is not fit for office. He probably never will be. I am sure there are plenty of countries which have similar American hating views as his, his wife, his friends and his church.

Not here.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 23, 2008 5:49 PM | Report abuse

Yeah, lets deregulate GUNS as well.
After your home, savings, and nieghborhood is bought up by some bank in another country, you can sit out on the street with your gun and hunt deer!

Posted by: VB | September 23, 2008 5:49 PM | Report abuse

Veterans against McCain posted something VERY important, and it was probably overlooked by many of you. After reading it myself, I'm going to post it again, because it's just that important:

This is not about McCain so much as it is about a sick government cover-up. Of course McCain is directly involved, though.

Posted by: Godheval | September 23, 2008 5:52 PM | Report abuse

Hey Third power.


It is funny how you never addressed the truth or lack there of regarding what I said.!!

You must be related to Palin, not really answering question, but having enough SPUNK to dance around it!

Posted by: E | September 23, 2008 5:56 PM | Report abuse

Hey anonymous,

Aren't you the coward?

I love how big and bad you talk, yet offer no support of your racist and illogical stance on Obama.

Does his skin color make you that angry?


Posted by: E | September 23, 2008 5:58 PM | Report abuse


Your posts speak for themselves. I don't need to 'address' them.

Posted by: Thirdpower | September 23, 2008 5:59 PM | Report abuse

thnak you jj am. your comment is well reasoned & is certainly a good suggestion for all of us voting in this election.
in my state, Barack Obama enjoys a broad coalition of support that includes people of every race, religious, economic, & political background. no candidate is ever perfect. none of us has clean hands. but we can look around us & plainly see the destruction wrought by bush. there is no reason to continue on a path of failure.
Obama/Biden offer the change we need!

Posted by: lawrence2xl | September 23, 2008 6:06 PM | Report abuse

Just because America rejects Obama does not have anything to do with race. It has to do with his lack of experience, qualifications, and previous statements - just for an opener.

He and his wife's racism is obvious. The church he belonged to for 20 years would have been proof enough - if he were a republican.

But the left has a long history of shielding their racists. Look at the WV senator. Look at the racist comments Biden has made.

The racism blow has been dulled into irrelevance because of the double standards we can all agree exist.

If thats the best you can do, E, go back to your crack pipe, tune in the View and try again.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 23, 2008 6:07 PM | Report abuse

Anyone else catch the WSJ blog calling out the Washington Post Fact-Checker after Michael Dobbs lame attempt to blame McCain for an ad that relied on information printed in the Post?

It was pretty funny. "According to the Washington Post, you can't rely on what is reported by the Washington Post."

Good stuff.

Posted by: dbw | September 23, 2008 6:30 PM | Report abuse

And of course like most liberals, Obama misses the point when it comes to trying to control guns:

"Most of the article deals with proposals by Obama to 'increase the penalties on gun runners who are flooding Chicago's streets with illegal weapons.' "

Ummmmm, small question: if the weapons are illegal, that means they were obtained illegally. So how would a 500% tax be applied to the stores that don't sell them to guys who don't buy them legally? What does 500% times $0 equal as far as tax revenue?

Only liberals....

Posted by: dbw | September 23, 2008 6:36 PM | Report abuse

"It has to do with his lack of experience, qualifications, and previous statements - just for an opener."

So you think Mr. McCain is experienced and qualified? I remember that during the Republican primary, Mr. McCain himself said he doesn't know much about the economy. His own words!

Mr. McCain's slogan is "Country First." Then he chose Ms. Palin to be his VP. Perhaps he should change his slogan to "ME first."

Posted by: Anonymous | September 23, 2008 6:44 PM | Report abuse

My loyalty is to my country, not the government. The 2nd Amendment does not restrict the right of the people to keep & bear arms.
Lets keep it at that & stop playing word games with types of ammo etc.

Posted by: Rubicon | September 23, 2008 6:48 PM | Report abuse

experienced and qualified are very subjective terms.

For the purposes of this discussion the answer for McCain/Palin is yes.

For Obama/Biden, it has to be: are you shi**ing me? These two morons couldn't run a McDonalds.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 23, 2008 7:22 PM | Report abuse

anon, I wish for once that you or some other girlie man would tell one rcaist thing that Michelle Obama has said. I mean truly, not the made up "whitey: speech she never gave in her church. You are just a cowardly rcaist pig who believes all tghe pablum the righties spew your way. You have no brain.
Why is the National Rifle Association caring so much about Handguns? No one is advocating taking away hunting rifles. I don't hunt, I have target shot, but I have friends and family who do hunt. I couldn't care les if they do. Hell, I'm happy to get some deer meet if they want to send some my way. However, the NRA is cowardly using false arguments to scare the hunters. Remember, even Justice Scalia in the DC ruling said that there can be regulations on gun ownership. We can't have automatic weapons, we can't have bazookas or hand grenades, which I'm sure perplexes the NRA. The support cop-killer bullets that police forces throughout the country oppose, so, in essence, the NRA supports those who would use those bullets against police. You want to hunt, be a man, like in the "Deer Hunter." One shot. One shot rifle is all you need. Anyone can believe he is a true hunter with a 15-shot clip.

Posted by: stryker | September 23, 2008 7:26 PM | Report abuse

I trust the NRA much more than I trust Obama, and certainly more than I trust the Washington Post. Obama is a disaster waiting to happen!!!

Posted by: Peter Parrott | September 23, 2008 7:27 PM | Report abuse

Guns don't kill people....

....bullets do!

Posted by: Anonymous | September 23, 2008 7:30 PM | Report abuse

This tired line that gun owners need their guns to protect themselves from what, other people with guns, is just nonsense.

Most people killed by guns are killed by people they know, not strangers breaking into their homes.

Posted by: jb | September 23, 2008 8:12 PM | Report abuse

stryker you don't know a "cop killer" bullet from a watermelon.

You are typical of the left wing drooling idiots who don't know which end of the gun a bullet comes out of - but you regurgitate any and all moronic venom spewed by your fellow travelers.

The NRA is absolutely correct to call Obama on his record. You are a dope to believe his propaganda - rather than his record.

You may not like Obama's record to be put if front of everyone who can comprehend a simple sentence - but its there.

Demonizing the NRA for simply calling attention to Obama's record is the ultimate in being a useful idiot.

Its amazing - you people can believe in a word document purported to have been generated by an IBM typewriter - but refuse to believe what is Obama's very recent and documented record.

Thats why you and the chicago race hustler are toast.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 23, 2008 8:14 PM | Report abuse


Posted by: priscilla | September 23, 2008 8:14 PM | Report abuse

The Washington Post is involved in another discussion of the number of angels which would fit on the end of a pin. Obama's anti-gun position is a long-standing one. He may adjust his language, as he does with most things, but he needs the support of the liberal elite. Being anti-gun pays big vote dividends among liberal elitists. The pathetic tragedy of it all is that the average fellow or woman cannot defend themselves against what one rapper calls "the Glocks in the Co-Ops". Obama and the Washington Post should expend their efforts in getting fully automatic pistols and rifles from the gangsters who freely roam South Side Chicago "strapped". Obama's anti-gun platform is pablum for the effete, most of whom live in gated communities.

Posted by: moeursalen | September 23, 2008 8:37 PM | Report abuse

As long as we are going to bring up Palin - it is absolutely disgraceful that HClinton could not set aside her vicious partisanship long enough to show a united front against Iran.

That is despicable.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 23, 2008 8:41 PM | Report abuse

More nonsense from the far-left Post. They quote Obama's position to tax the weapons used by criminals on the streets, and "certain types of assault weapons". The problem with this age-old definition is that thugs on the streets are using the same legal weapons used for target shooting and hunting.... not military style assult weapons. Liberal judges keep putting these guys back on the streets and blaming their murderous crimes on society... that would be us working people.

I am one of those people Obama claims are "bitter" and hanging onto my Bible and my guns. Yeah, I'm bitter that this Harvard elitist thinks he knows me. I'm bitter because he thinks people who read the Bible are bitter about our President. I'm bitter because he is an empty suit who plays dirty politics, hangs with terrorists, accepts favors from corrupt billionaires, takes money from and appoints the likes of heads of Fannie Mae / Freedie Mac to his campaign as economic advisors. Yes, Sen. Obama, I am bitter and I am not voting for you or Joe Biden, the plagiarist from my home state. And I vote for Democrats as often as R's. Just not you jokers.

Posted by: IndependentVoter | September 23, 2008 8:52 PM | Report abuse

I wonder if the Post will print a retraction when -- after Obama's elected -- he does exactly what the NRA claims he'll do.

I won't hold my breath.

Posted by: info | September 23, 2008 12:30 PM

I wonder if info will print a retraction when after Obama gets elected he does exactly what he says he'll do. Probly not.

Posted by: atlliberal | September 23, 2008 9:11 PM | Report abuse

The anti-gun people are phony-baloney. It would be hard to find a single one who wouldn't shoot someone committing a rape or murder against their children. If you did find someone who would hold fire for that, you would also find a complete fool.

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

Obama supported Kennedy's ammunition bill. Kennedy lied when he said it exempted hunting ammunition, because the language of his bill allowed the AG to determine exactly what ammunition was covered.

What the NRA and the rest of the shooting public is well aware of, is that the AG has no technical knowledge and therefore would defer to others. What was expected, was that any centerfire ammunition which would penetrate a level 3 vest, which is virtually all deer cartridges, would be banned.

Thats why the bill was opposed and defeated.

The myth of the "cop killer" bullet has received untold reams of publicity and is one of the most re-told of liberal "truths" about a subject of which they are universally ignorant.

Like all liberal myths trotted out as absolute truth, it is bs and easily exposed.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 23, 2008 9:27 PM | Report abuse

The funniest thing is when the republican attack the fact checker with bias opinion and NO facts. Now that is down right funny!!

Posted by: richard | September 23, 2008 9:37 PM | Report abuse

I don't understand. The conservatives are pro-life. But guns (with bullets) kill. They want it both ways.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 23, 2008 9:52 PM | Report abuse

I don't understand it. The leftists love to kill babies - but want to save criminals.

I guess they are just sick.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 23, 2008 10:07 PM | Report abuse

Does a 3" mag for a shotgun fall in the lines of armor piercing? I am sure they would pierce light body armor. Furthermore should a semi-auto pistol gripped shotgun be banned? I guess so. Obviously we want all the animals we shoot at to suffer. Hunting is about quick humane kills not watching the animal suffer. 3" mags give knock down power for quick kills. Semi-auto shotguns with pistol grips give better accuracy and quicker cleaner kills (not to mention saving the shoulder).... Why should they be banned?

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

For years I belonged to the NRA but they are so far off the wall I will never join again. These people would rather starve or freeze to death which is happening in this country and will big time this winter than to vote for someone who just wants illegal type weapons off of the streets. Go ahead and vote for McSame, stay unemployed or work for the minimum wage the democrats got you as McSame voted against your raise and Bush threatened to veto it but some republicans who was up for re-election got scared and voted for the raise.

Posted by: Buckeye | September 23, 2008 10:15 PM | Report abuse

If weapons are illegal - they are illegal and the possessors face imprisonment.

Please send your concerns about people's welfare to your saviours in congress: The semi honorable Chris Dodd - although unless your concerns are attached to at least as much money as the financial institutions give him - I doubt he will take your call.

Same goes for the Boston madam.

And what the hel* is a semi auto pistol gripped shotgun?

What does a 3" magnum have to do with any of this? Are you aware that the individual pellet velocity of a 3" magnum is lower than that of a sporting clays load? Do you know that power is a function of velocity and mass?

Didn't think so.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 23, 2008 10:26 PM | Report abuse

The NRA isn't relevant anymore. No one cares about the NRA. no one should care

Posted by: Anonymous | September 23, 2008 10:28 PM | Report abuse

what isn't relevant is Obama and socialism.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 23, 2008 10:31 PM | Report abuse

Sorry but Obama was a Board member of the Joyce Foundation which is the single biggest funder of anti-gun groups in the United States. So all througout the 1990s he was instrumental in directing money to be used by groups that among other things favored the prohibition of the private ownership of all firearms. But of course I don't expect that fact to be included in the WaPos over the top advocacy for Obama.

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

obama is a crafty liar,
sweet how he lies and lies
and changes every single
and all the while misdirects
his media flunkies
with talking points
that are ludicris'
increase the tax burden
on the economy,
and yet 'give' individuals
tax breaks?????
that is so bizzare'
as idiotic as a windfall tax
on gas companies
to fund a taxpayer rebate.
if you take money from a corporation
they are forced to raise prices!
so you get 1200 from the government
and the oil companies raise the
price of gas and get it back
from you.
proving how stupid americans are,
time and again.
and Gun Laws?
my god, this guy is so far right
he fell off the map!!!!!

Posted by: usa3 | September 23, 2008 11:14 PM | Report abuse

Since Heston died the NRA has lost one of their most recognizable and ignorant advocate/spokesman. Does anyone know if Heston died with a gun clinched in his "cold dead hands"?

I agree that the NRA is becoming irrelevant, outdated and any other word that can describe a group of boneheaded, narrow minded and a socially blind group of fanatics living in 1950's era America.

The outrage that the majority of American's feel about the violence associated with guns is beginning to bring a new reality and urgency to enact new over due laws and regulations.

Extensive background checks and "super" taxes on the purchase of guns and ammo is a damn good idea.

Lawsuits against gun manufactures for deaths as a result of gun use is not a bad idea as well.

The gun industry should receive the same respect and pressure as the irresponsible tobacco industry has received.

Posted by: Hoot | September 23, 2008 11:18 PM | Report abuse

Last time I checked,the Va. Dept of Game and Inland Fisheries doesn't allow the use of AK-47's and illegal assault weapons during hunting season. I don't think bow and arrow weapons and hunting rifles fall into this category. DUH.

This is a ridiculous ad aimed at low-information voters who believe anything the see and hear on the "teevee."

We are back to God, Guns, and Gays. Great.

Posted by: VAreader | September 23, 2008 11:32 PM | Report abuse

Perhaps we should send the leaders of the NRA to go fight in Iraq,perhaps then they could use any weapon they would like and it might just get some of this out of there system.Although I doubt that.
The NRA has always beena republican hack and will always be.
If America believes them at this point,shame on us.

Posted by: Lance Newell | September 23, 2008 11:48 PM | Report abuse

Aspergirl wrote:
Annenberg is a liberal funding foundation that funds the advancement of left-wing agendas, and its is a big, partisan, dishonest fraud. They have big conflicts of interest this election year because of their ties with Obama.

My Comment: Yawn. You are aware that the founder of the Annenberg foundation was Richard Nixon's Ambassador to the Court of St. James and was a close personal friend and supporter of Ronald Reagan? That the Annenberg foundation is presently headed by Ronald Reagan's chief of protocol? That she is invited to State Dinners by George Bush?

To claim that a foundation founded by someone with right wing roots and headed by someone with Right wing roots is out to promote the liberal agenda is newspeak of the highest order.

What the Annenberg Foundation does is go out and get the best people to serve its mission without a paranoid test as to their ideology. For example, they got William Ayres because he is generally regarded as one of the leading experts on Educational Reform in the United States. And they got Barrack Obama because he was a bright guy with a very good cv who also had shown a commitment to good works.

Facts are tricky.

Posted by: Guilt by Association | September 23, 2008 11:52 PM | Report abuse

AsperGirl, Your the world record holder for ongoing PMS. It must be difficult to have a nice day.

Posted by: luke | September 23, 2008 11:58 PM | Report abuse

These right wing nuts are usually the ones who breed children who go into schools and massacre other children. I suppose they will say, if those kids had guns, they coulda shot back. A bunch of cowardly losers.

Posted by: NRACanKissMyA | September 24, 2008 1:12 AM | Report abuse

For those with no ballz, there's guns.

Posted by: jime | September 24, 2008 1:58 AM | Report abuse

I had lost any and all respect for the NRA when they sought to fight a ban on armor piercing bullets being sold to the public. With a brother who is a police officer, I found this disgusting. The argument, which I thought was even to ignorant for the NRA to continue, is that these bullets were used for hunting. Now, I come originally from up north in deer country. I have seen thousands of deer. Still waiting to see my first one in a bullet proof vest. Some deer can be pretty smart, but they haven't got to that point yet!


Bans on "armor piercing" ammo need to be examined very carefully. Most of them are purposefully obtuse attempts to scare people with a phony problem in order to get them to "solve" that problem with a solution with far greater implications than the general public is lead to believe.

The problem is that bullets are generally by design "armor piercing". Many of the proposed A.P. ammo bans are really back door attempts to ban solid bullets, by far the most common type produced for all purposes, including hunting, defense and target shooting. There is absolutely nothing new, high tech, or more dangerous about solid ammunition, it's literally centuries old. But by calling it "armor piercing" the anti-gun Left hopes to stampede the public into banning ammunition that's been legal in this country since its inception.

Two of those Pinnochios should be for Obama and Ted Kennedy for foisting this disingenuous amendment on us in the first place.

Posted by: Robert17 | September 24, 2008 2:21 AM | Report abuse

It's a shame Obama is trying to take all our guns. That's my freind and me started the guns for the homeless program. The homeless live a high risk lifestyle and they need guns for protection. We're fighting to get them the guns they need for self defense. Its there 2nd amendmant right.

Posted by: Joe Fargo | September 24, 2008 2:24 AM | Report abuse

I'm a gun owner and I vote too.
I dont hunt (unless you invade my house).
I have guns of all types.
I'm even white, male and from the Deep South.

And I'm gonna vote for the Obama/Biden ticket, without ANY reservation whatsoever about my guns or the ammo. If you think Obama will take away your guns or put an extra tax on the ammo, then you've been listening to propaganda from the NRA or McLiar himself, swallowing it whole and you've failed to research it in any objective way.

Obama/Biden '08!

Posted by: BitterInNC | September 24, 2008 2:45 AM | Report abuse

Anyone who thinks that Kennedy's bill could not have been used to ban hunting ammunition has 1) not actually read the fine print of the bill and 2) knows little about ballistics.

The bill would have given the Attorney General absolute power to ban any projectile deemed 'more likely' to penetrate body armor than a 'standard' bullet. Almost any caliber more powerful than a light pistol round can penetrate soft body armor, and with no guidelines as to what a 'standard' projectile is, the AG can decide it can be anything he or she wants to be. No AG should have that kind of power.

Furthermore, in a 1997 report, the BATF said that further bans are unnecessary since current law is sufficient.

Sure, Kennedy SAID he wasn't going after hunting ammunition, but his bill sure could have, and actions speak louder than words.

Posted by: Chris in WA | September 24, 2008 3:02 AM | Report abuse

Jake writes:

"Maybe the NRA doesn't believe Barack HUSSEIN Obama?"

The more important question is, will the American electorate believe John SIDNEY McCain ?

Believe that he won't be four more years of Bush ?

Believe that he'll not only continue the Iraqi occupation, but start another middle east war with Iran ?

Believe that he has some plan for the US economy besides Bush's deregulation, tough talk and bluster ?

Believe that his pick for VP can step up if the 72 year old McCain succumbs to his age ?

Believe that the NRA attacks are anything more than the majority of NRA political herrings ?

The polls are swinging in Obama's favor, nationwide and in several key swing states.

Will this NRA attack have any impact on voters who weren't already committed to McCain ?

Posted by: MA | September 24, 2008 6:58 AM | Report abuse

The NRA lost us years ago but if McCain doesn't come out against this ridiculous ad he can count on myself and most of my precinct voting for Obama.

Putting our lives on the line on a daily basis is bad enough but now you want to make sure criminals and terrorists have access to bullets that can pierce the shielding on vehicles, including the ones used by the president, as well as the body armor that we use?

The NRA is becoming one of the most anti-American institutions and ironically they are using the 2nd amendment to justify it.

You don’t need “cop killer” bullets to protect your home or kill a deer. You use them to kill protected cops. If you feel comfortable with criminal gangs and drug syndicates having the same fire power as the people you employ to protect you maybe you should think about moving to Rio and then you can see how fun it really is to live in that type of a situation.

Posted by: VA Police officer | September 24, 2008 8:09 AM | Report abuse

So "VA Police Officer":

Define a "Cop Killer Bullet" please. Police have the option to purchase/use fully automatic firearms. Civilians do not. If the gangs are using them, look south of the border.

Posted by: Thirdpower | September 24, 2008 8:52 AM | Report abuse

VA Police officer: Thank you sir (or ma'am) and I appreciate your service.

However, the State of Texas last year raided a Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints ranch and swept away all of the children and detained all of the women. We now know that Texas had no right to do so. This is the reason that the NRA takes such a tough stance. Not because they want to see you killed by criminals, but because sometimes our Government forgets to read the Bill of Rights before sweeping in and violating those rights.

The same thing happened in 1992 when the ATF raided the Branch Dividians outside of Waco, Texas. These religious groups may not worship the way that you or I think that they should, but they have a right to worship as they see fit. It's called FREEDOM of religion.

How many African-Americans would have been lynched in the South during Jim Crow if they had been armed? Not many.

There is a line. The NRA crosses it often, but so does the ACLU. It's all about checks and balances.

As a Marylander, I've often thought about moving to Virginia because you have concealed carry laws for your citizens and we don't. How many times have you (or any of your fellow officers) been shot accidentally by a law-abiding concealed carry citizen?

Posted by: ProfWrightBSU | September 24, 2008 9:03 AM | Report abuse

Fact Checker needs to check his facts. Police bullet resistent vests can only stop LOW velocity bullets but not high velocity bullets. Rifle ammo has larger cases to hold more gun powder and long barrels to allow pressure buildup. ALL rifle ammo will go through a police vest. The most popular deer hunting round, the 30.06, has three times the velocity of a .38 Spl. NRA knows more about guns and ammo than Kennedy, Obama or Dobbs.

Posted by: Ric | September 24, 2008 9:06 AM | Report abuse

I am a Life Member of the NRA, but they have proven themselves political operatives, not Sportsmen's advocates. Obama is supportive of hunters, period!! Read his positions. Nether McCain or Obama are hunters. All this BS is political positioning by organizations who make a living trashing the other party.

Posted by: Big Dave | September 24, 2008 9:17 AM | Report abuse

I,ve hunted for 48 years and I was a member of the NRA for 19 years from 1973 to 1992, until I realized that the NRA is an anti-union right-to-work arm of the Republican Party. They are a big bunch of liars and my two brothers and I can not stand these people..We are all avid deer hunters in Michigan.

Posted by: majorteddy | September 24, 2008 9:45 AM | Report abuse

Look, it is a simple choice...

If your main concern is guns, guns, guns... vote for McCain/Palin.

If it is economy, economy, economy... vote for Obama/Biden.

Posted by: Patriot | September 24, 2008 9:48 AM | Report abuse

And America thought Bush/Cheney were the 1st major LIAR's in Politics. So funny, Repbulican's think that people believe their LIEs.

Posted by: J.L. n MD. | September 24, 2008 9:50 AM | Report abuse

Look, it is a simple choice.

If your 3 main concerns are guns, guns, guns, vote McCain/Palin.

If your 3 main concerns are economy, economy, economy, vote Obama/Biden.

Posted by: Patriot | September 24, 2008 9:51 AM | Report abuse

For VAReader and anyone else dense enough to think that one state's laws are a nationwide rule in some way:

In Maryland, semi-auto firearms (even semi-auto AK-47 lookalikes) are 100% LEGAL (repeat, LEGAL) for hunting, and are increasingly popular due to their light weight, short-range accuracy, and ergonomics.

And "VA police officer" (in reality more-likely-than-not simply a Virginians Against Handguns member), not to worry: the current federal ban on armor-piercing handgun ammo remains in place. You can rest assured that some thug with a magnum slug-loaded 12-gauge (.65cal) shotgun doesn't have "armor piercing" 9mm handgun ammo. Whew, that would have been scary! What was that again about body armor? Oh, never mind, I forgot - we're not talking facts here.

Posted by: K-Romulus | September 24, 2008 10:17 AM | Report abuse

I hear everyone very willing to defend their positions on this. Let's break this down. 1st of all , since what they are referring to in the ad is a quote from 1999, I don't think this is a huge priority for Obama. His voting his party ticket in support of Sen. Kennedy, again shows that this was a routine call to party lines. I am a liberal, and I am against guns: I am scared of them. I would like tighter gun control on hand weapons and weapons usually used for combat in war. This stems from my prejudice of the men in grease paint in the woods preparing for doomsday, a myth that spread to my previous nyc home. I wasn't unduly afraid of guns in nyc because people statistically use guns on their on demographic group, and I was middle class white living in a very affluent neighborhood.
Reality is that criminals or maybe just people are going to do what they are going to do. I don't think Obama or anyone else is going to legislate everyone into looking identical.
I think our nitpicking over these issues , instead of going for common goals is what makes us so easy to control. We either end up with laws so cumbersome that they piss everyone off, or we go for deregulation and end up in messes like the melt down we are having now.
The very reason I am a huge Obame supporter is because he makes sense, I believe he wants to us make a better home , country. I love this country so very much. I do not want to live anywhere else- and I have lived in other countries. I want us to reach our potential. We are a very rich country, and we are so very trusting of our leaders. Just like any rich entity, we have people who want to take it without earning it or giving anything back. Some are not from here, others are our fellow citizens.
Prejudice is playing a huge role. The republicans used our fear of African American "crime" to to keep us line ; they also used our belief that God is a patriarchal white man , there to protect us.
I wish it were that easy- we would be able to identify the boogey man easily, and our savior would be smiling down on us from the white house.
we tried that for years, does it really work for you?
I am sick of non issues of what a threat other people are to me, of distractions that get all the attention: Really: a moose shooting Housewife that lies, I have lived in small towns too now , so I know 20 Sarah Palins. What they have said about her is a non issue. You want to know the truth - every small town that I've lived in could use her , She grabbed as much money as she could for her small town, her state. The poverty and apathy I have seen in those small towns make Harlem in the 60's look affluent.
Point is Obama doesn't like guns too much, the republicans quoted him out of context to gain support from people who support a very strong lobbying group. Those people are pretty much republican base anyway, so what was the point? The point is is this: divide the US, Black against white, South against North, East against West, on and on.
The real us against them is those who want to take back control of a runaway country. We all live together right now, no civil war, since All the rest of the Presidents has anyone noticed any laws or taxes that are so huge that they affect us all? We all love our country, no blacks are NOT moving back to Africa- they have been here longer than most of us. Our country has a lot to love, let's protect it by getting thing under control and chipping away at the problems. No magic wand, just good old U.S. hard work. THAT Is Obama's message. We CAN do it ,we just need some help. Let's stop pretending that issues that are controlled at a state level play any importance in a national campaign.

Posted by: Jolie | September 24, 2008 10:21 AM | Report abuse

I have been a certified law enforcement firearms instructor and I've completely researched NObama's treasonous positions against our Second Amendment.

With the outrageous votes, speeches and other comments NObama has made it is easily understood that he will do anything to strip us of our right to defend ourselves.


Posted by: Winghunter1 | September 24, 2008 10:35 AM | Report abuse

Amazing how many people 'know' stuff that seems to be simply opinions and often seems to be inaccurate. What I know is that I took the NRA hunting safety training course in high school, which was a good, sensible thing. I don't hunt, but most of my firends and neighbors did where I grew up. I've shot at groundhogs (scoped .22) and birds (12ga), but I'm not a very good shot, so even paper targets don't need to worry much. I now live in an urban area which is flooded with cheap and widely-available guns of all kinds, particularly handguns and increasingly auto weapons. The big problem, from a police point of view, would be pistol-fired "AP" rounds. That some pistols can fire rifle rounds seems to me to be a red herring; surely there can be some adjustment made in legislation to account for that? That's like calling handguns hunting weapons - sure they are, but they're not terribly effective hunting weapons. You want to hunt seriously, you use a rifle or shotgun; you want a challenge, you could just as well use a bow, use a car or use a pointed stick to hunt deer. It's a misleading argument. I'm all in favor of a national restriction on handgun sales, and strict registration of all guns. You can't bail out the boat until you plug the leak, and as long as handguns are pouring in, even draconic enforcement of existing laws is only marginally effective. As to the frequently-used "home-defense" argument, personally I don't put much faith in a pistol; I'm far more likely to hit something with a load of buckshot, and anyone who's experienced a shotgun blast at close range indoors knows that's a heck of a lot more demoralizing than any pistol, no matter how loud. Not to mention that even large pistols can be held, pointed and fired by small children, where shotguns are simply too heavy and unwieldy. There's a good reason why almost all the kids that get shot by other kids are shot by pistols.

Posted by: JohnR | September 24, 2008 11:04 AM | Report abuse

Why are these kinds of ads allowed? I know gun-owners who will believe this ad hook, "lie", and sinker. What does it say about American education when lies and extreme distortions become the essence of elections?

Posted by: J.D. | September 24, 2008 11:55 AM | Report abuse

Obama strongly believes in our second amendment rights and he realizes that hunting is a strong American cultural tradition in many parts of the country. He also comes from a city where about thirty kids a month are killed with hand guns and assault weapons. We need some balance and some reason about how we deal with both sides of this important American issue. If the NRA would invest itself in finding a solution to the illegal weapons trade, they would find a lot more support from many of us for their guns.

Posted by: karela | September 24, 2008 12:09 PM | Report abuse

Bonus Quote of the Day
"When the stock market crashed, Franklin Roosevelt got on the television and didn't just talk about the princes of greed. He said, 'look, here's what happened.'"

-- Sen. Joe Biden, in an interview with CBS News.

Of course, as Reason points out, Roosevelt wasn't president in 1929 and televisions were still experimental.

Posted by: Helen | September 24, 2008 12:28 PM | Report abuse

Hi just heard a little of Rush: man
is he sweating now!he is hoping the NRA
save him from his big fat azz shadow!
cry me a river you Nazis SOB,your days
with the hate are numbered. and JakeD
don't let them take you out! join us Bro
we have the momentum now,God is fulfuling
his promise to us from centuries of mistreatment and unjustices,you want to be on this team,BELIEVE ME! AMEN

Posted by: Redeemer | September 24, 2008 12:36 PM | Report abuse

We live in rural Missouri and we took a pole - us rednecks are voting for Obama. He will not take my shotgun from me - it only shoots one shot at a time ..........

Posted by: Ohg Rea Tone | September 24, 2008 12:42 PM | Report abuse

Helen: I think the point was that Hoover (a Republican) did nothing to stem the tide of the great depression during his 4 years. Then Roosevelt (a democrat) came in as president and healed the nation through policies and programs that got people working with a living wage that could be taxed... you know, a cyclical monetary strategy that starts with putting money in peoples pockets so that they can make purchases that help the economy grow.

Educated-Christian-Republicans for Obama

Posted by: ProfWrightBSU | September 24, 2008 12:58 PM | Report abuse

Folks - Jake's not a racist, just a cynic. The middle name is just to rile folks up.

By the way, Jake, shouldn't that be the National RIFLE Association? :-)


Posted by: Fairlington Blade | September 24, 2008 1:09 PM | Report abuse

We're off topic with opinion but still not recognising FACTS. The fact is that police body armor is not capable of stopping ordinary hunting ammunition, PERIOD! It's light and flimsy and will stop handgun ammo that is not suitable for hunting. The vast majority of handgun ammo is ILLEGAL to hunt with because it is inhumane to use it due to it's lack of power. Thus the "armor piercing" ban is nothing but Kennedy's way to ban ammunition if he can't ban guns. The NRA ad is correct and "Fact Checker" Todd is wrong. He didn't check the facts regarding police body armor vs rifle ammunition. I expect a retraction.

Posted by: Ric | September 24, 2008 1:57 PM | Report abuse

People who are willing to ignore the EXISTING laws against murder are not going to observe any NEW law against carrying/owning/buying/etc any type of guns. Enacting NEW laws against gun/ammunition/"Assault Rifles"(???) is no substitute for enforcement of the EXISTING laws. THESE FACTS CAN NOT BE DISPUTED.
However, it IS a convenient way of making it look as if you are doing something worthwhile when you are 'politic-ing'.

Posted by: Nunya D Binnez | September 24, 2008 2:00 PM | Report abuse

By the way, the "weapons he [Obama] says are most commonly used in firearm deaths" happen to be......firearms.

Posted by: Nunya D Binnez | September 24, 2008 2:08 PM | Report abuse

The NRA is about as relevant as Sarah Palin. Who cares what they (or she) thinks?

Posted by: LPLT | September 24, 2008 2:11 PM | Report abuse

Okay...last post.

Why is it that we are constantly required to defend our freedoms, not granted but PROTECTED by the U. S. Constitution by those who seek to protect us from ourselves? When I joined the military I swore to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against ALL enemies, foriegn AND DOMESTIC. If you are afraid that you might be killed by someone with a gun, buy a friggin' gun and make it a fair fight!! Don't try to take away MY right to do just that. Forget hunting, I own guns (yes, plural) to protect my family. There are armed murderers out there...for real...not just in the scary pictures. Suffice to say that I would much rather have a gun and not need it than to need one and not have it.

Posted by: Nunya D Binnez | September 24, 2008 2:22 PM | Report abuse

"The NRA is about as relevant as Sarah Palin. Who cares what they (or she) thinks?

Posted by: LPLT | September 24, 2008 2:11 PM"

The same could be said about anyone. In fact, I'll say it.

Who cares about what you think? Not our candidates for President of the United States of America. They only care about how you vote.

Posted by: Flippant Idiot | September 24, 2008 2:27 PM | Report abuse

God wanted me to tell you he's REALLY disappointed in all of you. He said something about disowning you. Man! I've never seen him this upset!

Posted by: A Prophet | September 24, 2008 2:31 PM | Report abuse

VA Police officer,

Would you mind telling me who came up with the term, "cop-killer bullets"? I've never heard of such a brand. I've never seen an ad promoting such a product. I have heard them mentioned by alamist groups and the ratings-hungry, bad-news-is-good-news media. Go into a gun shop and ask for some "cop-killer bullets" some time. See what happens.

Jestful bantor aside, the rounds you refer to as "cop-killer bullets" are not capable of penetrating body armor. They are designed to expand violently on impact and create a cavernous wound cavity. That's exactly the point.

Look...I would never aim a gun, loaded or otherwise, at another person unless I intend to KILL them. Not wound, not disable, not scare or harass. I would not hold someone at gunpoint. If I felt the need to draw-down on someone, it would be to kill them before they kill me. If I choose to purchase a round that will increase the chance of success, it's my business to do so. If you are afraid to do your job in a country that allows it's citizens to arm themselves with deadly weapons perhaps, with all due respect, you should seek more appropriate accounting.

You would never have heard me whining like a sissy when I was being shot at in Iraq and my closest friends were dying around me everyday because the bad guys weren't playing fair. It's shameful. What about the people who are paid to protect YOU!? Maybe you should do a tour in Anbar. Rio would look like Club Med and your job would look like a preschool playground.

I'll protect myself, thanks.

Posted by: Curious | September 24, 2008 3:09 PM | Report abuse

People will believe anything they hear or read if it reinforces what they already believe. Has anyone ever noticed that when a "financial expert" talks about the average American, they call them "consumers"? Or when a politician talks about the average American, they call them "taxpayers"?

Call me an AMERICAN! I'm more than just a source of revenue! Stop treating me like a naive child.

And something for everyone to consider. Just because you don't agree with me, that doesn't make me wrong, nor stupid. And just because I don't agree with you, I don't consider you anything but free to believe what you will. But maybe I'm just insane.

On topic:

If you don't have a gun, the person with the gun will likely win an argument.

In the REAL world, gunfights happen.

An unarmed man in a gunfight is at a serious disadvantage.

Your car won't protect you. Stop acting like it does.

"9-1-1 is a joke" - Public Enemy

Bad guys aren't afraid to break your windows. Closing and locking them won't protect you.

A phone won't protect you from a gunshot.

Hold up a lawbook when someone shoots at you and see if it stops the bullets...or makes the shooter realize he being bad.

Where were the police when all of the murder victims were being murdered? Will they be in the same place when you're the victim?

We are all victims waiting for a crime.

Posted by: American-American | September 24, 2008 3:53 PM | Report abuse

the second amendment is not to protect the people from the government, as some people argue. It is there to protect the people's right to form militia, and by natural extension, to keep and bear arms. The founding fathers had just defeated the world's largest empire, in large part due to the diligence & efforts of armed civilians, the militia. The NRA and various other gun nuts have highjacked this idea as a convenient excuse to push necessary legislation into the void. What about public safety? This is unconscionable, as it has helped to lead to an overly violent society. I do not oppose responsible gun ownership, I myself enjoy shooting clay pigeons, but what hunter honestly needs armor piercing rounds? What do you hunt with hand guns? It has been shown that a society need not be armed to the teeth to remain free.

Posted by: Eris | September 23, 2008 3:11 PM

Eris leaves out one important fact.The framers of the constitution were British citizens, the militia was used to protect them from their own goverment. Nowhere in the constitution does it say the right to bear arms to hunt or to target shoot. It was the 2nd amendment for a reason . Beyond free speech it was considered the most important right. The right to protect yourself, and your rights.

Posted by: DJM | September 24, 2008 5:57 PM | Report abuse

Maybe the Post should do some more research before they say the GREAT NRA lies. I do believe that the NRA does more research about the truth than any one from the post. All you need to do is look at Obama's record. One place you can see an unbiased view about the truth is right here,2933,427347,00.html. They did there research!

Posted by: rayray | September 24, 2008 6:45 PM | Report abuse

I find it laughable that the same Chicken Little's on the left who constantly warn us about the coming Republican fascism are the first to try and remove the people's means of resisting fascism.

Sen. Obama has a demonstrable history of antipathy toward the 2d Amendment, and his sprint to the middle politically in an attempt to win the Presidency is not reason to doubt his earlier avowed positions.

At the end of the day, Obama is anti-gun, and he is no friend of the American Gun Owner.

He expressly supports a national ban on concealed carry. If I may be so bold as to remind you, our right is to BEAR arms, not merely to own them.

Posted by: Falshrmjgr | September 25, 2008 5:36 PM | Report abuse

PLEASE NOTE that "armor piercing bullets" is a misnomer being used for political purposes!

The truth is that it is the WEAPON that enables the ammunition to fire at "armor piercing" speeds. Whether the projectile fired by that weapon is capable of piercing standard-issue "bullet proof" vests has much more to do with the weapon's design than it does with the nature of the cartridge.

Virtually ANY round fired from any RIFLE can pierce a standard-issue "bullet proof" vest given the right circumstances, and MOST cartridges fired from any RIFLE will ALWAYS be able to pierce such a vest. Such vests are not intended to protect the wearer from EVERY type of ammunition, but rather are intended to protect a peace officer who gets into a face-to-face situation with an individual armed with a PISTOL.

Against virtually every type of PISTOL, a standard-issue "bullet proof" vest is quite effective, simply because the pistol's barrel length it too short to allow the cartridge load to generate the speed required by a projectile to penetrate the Kevlar used in the vest. ("Bullet proof" vests that use ceramic plates, such as those worn by active military, are much more resilient to rifle fire, but are still not capable of stopping every round from every type of weapon.)

"Armor piercing bullets" typically refers to copper-clad cartridges which are NEVER used for hunting, unless the shooter is a wealthy idiot.

Posted by: James Butler | September 25, 2008 6:18 PM | Report abuse

And rayray ... you sure know how to make a fellow laugh ... linking to Fox News and claiming they are "unbiased" and that they do their research. Pretty funny!

Posted by: Anonymous | September 25, 2008 6:22 PM | Report abuse

Here's the thing about the supposed armor piercing armor debate.

From the article "the Kennedy proposal of July 2005, SA 1615, was not aimed at "virtually all deer hunting ammunition." Instead, it would have authorized the attorney general to define types of illegal ammunition capable of penetrating body armor commonly used by law enforcement officials. During the Senate debate, Kennedy said that his amendment would "not apply to ammunition that is now routinely used in hunting rifles,"

The problem with this is, almost every centerfire rifle round available today will penetrate the soft armor most worn by police. The change would of given an future AG the ability to ban ammo he felt had this capability. This would of taken any new debate on the matter out of the hands of the legislature.

So I oppose and I'm sure the NRA did to; to give any future AG the ability to ban all centerfire rifle ammo because it could penetrate the soft armor our police wear.

Posted by: AFerranto | September 25, 2008 6:32 PM | Report abuse

The 2nd Amendment has absolutely nothing to do with deer hunting and everything to do with empowering the citizenry to stand up to government tyranny - tyranny like the Obama campaign's dishonest attempts to circumvent both the 1st and 2nd Amendments.

It seems the affirmative action, self-proclaimed, "professor" of constitutional law either doesn't know or doesn't care about the Constitution of the United States of America.

C'mon Barry - u bitter gun-grabbing, baby-killing, critic-silencing POS - MOLON LABE, or kiss my *ss.

Posted by: Quiet Patriot | September 26, 2008 9:03 AM | Report abuse

ProfWrightBsu writes this as part of his post

How many African-Americans would have been lynched in the South during Jim Crow if they had been armed? Not many.

Prof: Jim Crow and the NRA had their start right around the same time. I will say roughly 1870 or so for the sake of discussion.

It is well documented that southern states acted very quickly to pass gun laws that prohibited the recently freed people from gun ownership.

So, the correct answer is PROBABLY NONE would have been saved from lynching as Government took away their right to bear arms.

You make a few good points but on this one, your reasearch is faulty.

Posted by: Thatsnuts | September 26, 2008 9:28 AM | Report abuse

"Contrary to Rusch's claim, the Kennedy proposal of July 2005, SA 1615, was not aimed at "virtually all deer hunting ammunition.""

What unmitigated BS. Then why did Kennedy specifically say the bill would ban the dreaded "cop-killer" .30-30 cartridge? The .30-30 is over a hundred years old and is arguably the most popular deer cartridge in the country. Poor Teddy must have been drunk, because he explicitly said this bill would ban a wildly popular hunting cartridge. And Obama agreed with him.

The NRA is right. Factcheck is dead wrong.

Posted by: CTD | September 26, 2008 12:00 PM | Report abuse

I read all of the posts here from the main article and I must say I am distressed. I believe in voting for the person not the party who uphold what my belief system is founded on. I have defended your rights to be able to have spirited disagreements. I am beginning to feel I may have wasted my time. I don't know exactly when we, meaning America, departed from our Christian tenets. I cannot believe my defence of freedom and liberty have been so squandered and that the lives of those who have died in in that same service have been squandered. The media ever ready to destroy the good work our military has done in Iraq never, I repeat never, talk about them. I weep for those lost, but am proud to amoung their number seriving my country. For it is we on the front lines who have to ultimately pay the price for the indicresions of those in power. I do not believe I can in good conscience vote for a man I believe to be bad for the country I protect. I don't like the choices we have in this election. Both candidates have not proven to be worthy of the office they aspire to. I will reluctantly vote the McCain/Palin ticket.

Posted by: CDR/USN | September 26, 2008 12:24 PM | Report abuse

Waynep, if what you say is true about coming from "deer hunting country," then you must know ANY standard hunting round fired from ANY rifle will penetrate a bulletproof vest (ironically, the low powered rounds fired from M-16s and other assault weapons are less capable in this regard than hunting rounds).

Obama wasn't just for banning so-called "armor piercing" rounds but was and is for banning any rifle round. Kennedy specifically spoke against the .30-30, a standard hunting round.

This "Fact checker" piece is a blatant, even deliberate lie, the author knows it, so do you.

Posted by: Art | September 26, 2008 1:03 PM | Report abuse

Talk about hate America. NOBODY on EARTH hates America more than the godbag right wing of this country. They love Jesus and Wall Street and their guns and their luxury. They do not care if the whole nation goes down the drain so long as they retain power.

You say "Not here". Well guess what, not here is exactly what is going to happen to the stinking right wing traitors of our nation and very soon, too. I can't wait.

Posted by: The Dee-cider | September 27, 2008 5:39 AM | Report abuse

James Butler: You're a little off on the "Armor Piercing" round. A full copper cladding around a projectile categorizes it as "ball" ammo. While it will increase the ability of the round to penetrate armor to some degree it is not really designed to pierce armor at all.

An armor piercing round is made by embedding a superhard (tungsten alloy) flechette or penetrator into the core of the round. The cladding and the main body of the projectile disintegrate on impact but the high velocity penetrator continues through the armor. These rounds, along with tracers and incendiaries are mostly illegal in the USA.

Posted by: The Dee-cider | September 27, 2008 5:58 AM | Report abuse

Obama used to hunt for crack cocaine. Does that count. If you love hunting; you will not vote for Obama. He will take your hunting rifle

Posted by: Josephine | September 29, 2008 7:01 AM | Report abuse

Obama used to hunt for crack cocaine. Does that count. If you love hunting; you will not vote for Obama. He will take your hunting rifle

Posted by: Josephine | September 29, 2008 7:03 AM | Report abuse

After reading most of these statements, I see why this country is going down the drain. All you people are so affixed to party bullcrap that you can't see that reguardless of who is elected president it will all be the same. If you support the Dem's and you your guy wins he can do no wrong because you voted and supported him, the same for the Rep.'s. If any of these politicans are on my side I hate to have them made at me. As for the gun issue I believe we have every right to own them. If you don't fine, but don't try to change my mind with a bunch stats and political retric.

Posted by: Jimbo | September 29, 2008 12:06 PM | Report abuse

Obama refused to sign the friend of the court brief from the Senate in support of the recent Heller case. That proves that Obama is in favor of the second amendment unless he actually has to do something in support of the second amendment. I guess there was no "present" block to fill in on the brief.

Posted by: Jack Atherton | September 30, 2008 12:49 AM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2011 The Washington Post Company