Sorry, but in this picture today, he sure doesn't look very presidential, his jaw jutted out, looks like all this is totally over his head (which it is) and he looks so totally out of place at that table.
Posted on 09/25/2008 1:58:33 PM PDT by bahblahbah
The Obama campaign has written radio stations in Pennsylvania and Ohio, pressing them to refuse to air an ad from the National Rifle Association.
"This advertisement knowingly misleads your viewing audience about Senator Obama's position on the Second Amendment," says the letter from Obama general counsel Bob Bauer. "For the sake of both FCC licensing requirements and the public interest, your station should refuse to continue to air this advertisement."
The ad, "Hunter," conflates Obama's anti-gun stances of the 1990s with his current, more pro-gun, stand, and was chided for inaccuracy in The Washington Post, an item to which Bauer's letter refers.
NRA spokesman Andrew Arulanandam, who provided the letter, said it shows clear evidence that the ads are "hurting him," and stood by their substance. He also provided a copy of the NRA's own letter to the stations and memo disputing the Post story, after the jump. He also said the ad is running only in Pennsylvania at the moment.
MEMORANDUM
CLIENT-MATTER NUMBER
999100-0130
TO: Station Managers
FROM: Cleta Mitchell, Esq.
Counsel to National Rifle Association
DATE: September 25, 2008
RE: Documentation for Advertising by National Rifle Association Political Victory Fund ("NRA-PVF")
This firm serves as counsel to the National Rifle Association (“NRA”) and the National Rifle Association Political Victory Fund ("NRA-PVF"), which is the federal political action committee of the NRA and the sponsor of certain advertising purchased and soon-to-be purchased on your station. It has come to my clients’ attention that the Obama for President campaign is engaging in an effort to prevent or stop the airing of certain ads by NRA-PVF, falsely alleging that the ads are ‘inaccurate’. The Obama presidential campaign apparently relies on an article appearing in the Washington Post on September 23, 2008 to support its contention hat the NRA-PVF ads should not be aired.
The Washington Post is hardly an objective news source on any subject related to the issues to which the NRA is dedicated, having spent decades attacking not only the NRA but also fighting against the legislation and policies NRA supports to protect the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution, as well as supporting every conceivable government proposal or policy any officeholder or candidate suggests to weaken and disrupt the guarantees of the Second Amendment. It is therefore no surprise that the Washington Post would now attack the NRA for advertisements which truthfully disclose the anti-gun, anti-Second Amendment record of Barack Obama, the candidate supported by the Washington Post.
Attached please find the point-by-point refutation of the Washington Post’s article about the NRA-PVF ads regarding Obama’s record on the Second Amendment, as well as an article disclosing the bias of the decidedly not neutral “FactChecker” on which the Washington Post article is ostensibly based.
The NRA devotes 100% of its time and resources to protecting the Second Amendment and fighting for government policies and legislation furtherance of the rights of the American people to keep and bear arms.
The legislative and policy record of candidates and officeholders such as Barack Obama are well known and documented by the NRA on an ongoing basis. NRA-PVF’s advertising during the 2008 election cycle is based on that extensive research and documentation, which is being furnished to you with this Memorandum.
Accordingly, we respectfully request that your station disregard the shamefully false assertions from the Obama campaign and its attorneys regarding the NRA-PVF ads and that the ads run in accordance with the purchase(s) made by NRA-PVF in the media buy.
Please feel free to contact me at (202) 295-xxxx if you have any questions. Thank you.
-----
Factual Response to Washington Post False Statements on NRA Anti-Obama Ads
Washington Post Claim—500% Tax on Guns
It is unclear from the article exactly what weapons would have been covered by the proposed tax. … 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.
Facts:
The Post quotes Obama out of context, claiming that he only wanted to tax “certain types” of guns in 1999. But the full sentence in the 1999 article reads, “Obama is also seeking to increase the federal taxes by 500 percent on the sale of firearm, ammunition [sic] -- weapons he says are most commonly used in firearm deaths.” Chinta Strausberg, Obama unveils federal gun bill, Chicago Defender, Dec. 13, 1999, at 3. (emphasis added). Contrary to the Post’s assertion, the statement makes no distinction as to what type of guns Obama proposed to tax.
The Post is far too eager to let Obama off the hook just because he hasn’t mentioned the idea lately. Obama has supported the idea and has never repudiated that support. Therefore it is fair to say that the statement reflects his views on the issue.
Washington Post Claim—Ammunition Ban
Contrary to [NRA’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.
Facts:
NRA contested the point for a simple reason: The Post is wrong.
The Kennedy Amendment would have expanded the current ban on manufacturing “armor piercing ammunition” other than for sale to the government, 18 U.S.C. ? 922(a)(7), by banning any “projectile [i.e., bullet] that may be used in a handgun and that the Attorney General determines … to be capable of penetrating body armor.” The amendment called for testing of projectiles against “body armor that … meets minimum standards for the protection of law enforcement officers.” S. Amdt. 1615 to S. 397, July 29, 2005.
Body armor is rated in different classes based on the level of protection it provides. The “minimum” level of body armor under Department of Justice standards that were in effect in 2005, Type I armor, only protects against the least powerful handgun cartridges; only Type III and higher armor protects against high-powered rifle cartridges. U.S. Dept. of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Ballistic Resistance of PersonalBody Armor: NIJ Standard-0101.04 2-3 (June 2001).
However, there are many “projectiles that may be used in a handgun” that can also be used in a rifle. Handgun hunting is increasingly popular, and handgun hunters often use handguns that fire common hunting rifle cartridges such as the .30-30 Winchester. See, e.g., http://www.tcarms.com/firearms/g2ContenderPistols.php#spec_charts. A ban on “projectile[s] that may be used” in these handguns would have the effect of banning the same cartridges for rifle hunters. It would even ban rifle cartridges not commonly used in handguns, because any bullet may be fired in a barrel of the correct diameter, regardless of whether the barrel is installed on a handgun or on a rifle.
Finally, it is true that Sen. Kennedy denied his 2005 amendment would ban hunting ammunition. However, in a floor debate on a substantially identical amendment the previous year, Kennedy specifically denounced a hunting rifle cartridge:
Another rifle caliber, the 30.30 [sic] 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.
Cong. Rec. S1634 (daily ed. Feb. 26, 2004). The relatively low-powered .30-30 Winchester was introduced in 1895 and “has long been the standard American deer cartridge.” Frank C. Barnes, Cartridges of the World 52 (8th ed. 1997). As noted above, the .30-30 may be fired in a handgun.
Even apart from the Kennedy Amendment, Obama also said, on his 2003 questionnaire for the Independent Voters of Illinois-Independent Precinct Organization, that he would “support banning the sale of ammunition for assault weapons.” See Lynn Sweet, Obama’s 2003 IVI-IPO questionnaire may be getting closer scrutiny, Chicago Sun-Times, Dec. 11, 2007 (available at http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2007/12/sweet_column_obamas_2003_iviip.html). The rifles that were banned as “assault weapons” under the 1994 Clinton gun ban fire cartridges such as the .223 Remington and .308 Winchester—the same ammunition used in common hunting rifles. See 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(30) (repealed Sept. 13, 2004). Therefore, this statement also supports a ban on hunting rifle ammunition.
Washington Post Claim—Gun Ban
The … claim refers to semiautomatic rifles and pistols covered by the assault weapons ban, which expired in March 2004.
Facts:
While Obama does support the ban (which actually expired in September, not March, of 2004), the statement in the advertisement is based on Sen. Obama’s vote for much broader legislation and his public statement in favor of banning all semi-automatic firearms.
On March 13, 2003, Obama voted in the Illinois Senate Judiciary Committee for a bill that would have enacted a much broader gun ban. (The vote tally sheet is available at http://www.nrapvf.org/Media/pdf/sb1195_obama.pdf).
The bill under debate that day, SB 1195 (available at http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/93/SB/PDF/09300SB1195lv.pdf), would have made it illegal to “knowingly manufacture, deliver, or possess” a “semiautomatic assault weapon.”
The bill defined a “semiautomatic assault weapon” to include “any firearm having a caliber of 50 [sic] or greater.” See SB 1195, page 2, line 10 (emphasis added). Under this bill, a firearm did not actually have to be semi-automatic to be a “semiautomatic assault weapon.”
Shotguns 28-gauge or larger (by far the majority of shotguns owned in the United States) are all “.50-caliber or greater.” See National Rifle Ass’n, Firearms Fact Book 183 (3d ed. 1989). SB 1195 did exclude any firearm that “is manually operated by bolt, pump, lever or slide action” and “any semiautomatic shotgun that cannot hold more than 5 rounds of ammunition in a fixed or detachable magazine.” SB 1195 p.3, lines 12-23. However, the bill did not exclude firearms with hinge or similar actions, such as single-shot or double-barreled shotguns used by millions of hunters.
Anyone who possessed one of these firearms in Illinois 90 days after the effective date would have had to “destroy the weapon or device, render it permanently inoperable, relinquish it to a law enforcement agency, or remove it from the state.” SB 1195, p. 5, line 33. Anyone who still possessed a banned gun would have been subject to a felony sentence. SB 1195, p. 5, line 15. This “seizure and surrender” provision was much more severe than the former federal “assault weapons” ban, which had a “grandfather clause” to allow current lawful owners to keep their guns. See 18 U.S.C. 922(v)(2) (repealed).
Obama also supported banning a large class of popular hunting firearms on a 1998 Project VoteSmart survey. One of the questions, and the relevant part of Obama’s responses, were as follows:
Indicate which principles you support (if any) concerning gun issues.
X a) Ban the sale or transfer of all forms of semi-automatic weapons.
X b) Increase state restrictions on the purchase and possession of firearms.
See Illinois State Legislative Election 1998 National Political Awareness Test (available at http://www.votesmart.org/npat.php?can_id=9490#826:) (emphasis added). Millions of American hunters have used semi-automatic rifles and shotguns for over a century.
Finally, of course, a ban on hunting rifle ammunition (such as the Kennedy amendment Obama supported) would have been a very effective ban on the use of hunting rifles.
"They can't handle the truth!" (apologies to Jack...and George Castanza)
Ouch! This ad must be devastating to his campaign!
Sorry, but in this picture today, he sure doesn't look very presidential, his jaw jutted out, looks like all this is totally over his head (which it is) and he looks so totally out of place at that table.
What kind of person is this Barry Obama?
Right - this guy is way out of his league ....... he’s in the minors while every one else is in the majors ....
His luck on Chicago-style strong-arm tactics may have run out.
“There must be a great deal of truth in them as well or there would have been little response from the Obama campaign.”
But the Washington Post and Obambi campaign (I honestly can’t tell the difference these days) says the ad is full of lies. (sarc)
Especially the rubbish spouted by the so called “American Hunters and Shooters Association,” which endorses BO, but is really a front for Brady Gun Control & Co.
ATTENTION NRA!!!
Please run an ad related to this, i.e. how despot regimes don’t want it’s citizens to have guns and freedom of the press for messages THEY DON’T LIKE.
A Muslim-sympathizer Marxist.
Conservatives counter “untrue” free speech with more free speech, putting out their side of the issue.
Leftists’ reflex position is to use force and intimidation to silence the opposition.
Get in the face of the "adversary".
It's not working and people are waking up to what these communist agitprop activists are up to. The polls are swinging away from Obamacommie.
A good deer hunting round is one that delivers a lot of foot lbs of energy at 200 to 300 yards. Because of this it will also penetrate light armored vests. Obama would ban the best deer hunting rounds!
LOL!
And Obama sure wasn’t “misleading” folks suggesting McCain was “out of touch” about computers?
Oh no!
We had to find out later it was due to his injuries.
Obama can mislead - but McCain cannot tell the truth.
God help us if this marxist wins, the introduction of the “Fairness Doctrine” will be just the beginning.
Just goes to show you,
to anger a conservative, lie about him,
to anger a liberal, tell the truth about him.
[The ad, “Hunter,” conflates Obama’s anti-gun stances of the 1990s with his current, more pro-gun, stand, and was chided for inaccuracy in The Washington Post, an item to which Bauer’s letter refers.]
Are you going to believe my record or what I say now that I want your vote? Do the Obama people really think voters are this dumb?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.