Analysis: Fact-Checkers Wrong in Criticizing NRA’s Anti-Obama Ads
Date: Sep 26, 2008 7:17 AM
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,427347,00.html

AOL users click here
************************************************************
Analysis: Fact-Checkers Fall Short in Criticizing NRA’s
Anti-Obama Ads

Wednesday, September 24, 2008

By John R. Lott, Jr.

Guns have become an important issue for Barack Obama?s
campaign. Starting around the Pennsylvania primary, Obama
and his campaign surrogates began strenuously assuring gun
owners that he supports gun ownership, and it appears to be
paying off. A poll in August showed that John McCain led
Obama among hunters by only 14 percentage points, just about
half the 27-point lead that President Bush held over John
Kerry in 2004. If McCain had a similar lead, he would be
ahead in most polls, particularly in many battleground
states.

This past weekend, Joe Biden, campaigning in southwest
Virginia, called any notion that Obama wanted to take away
people?s guns ?malarkey.? Montana’s Democratic governor,
Brian Schweitzer, previously told reporters that Obama
“Ain’t ever going to take your gun away.” Obama regularly
makes similar statements — at least about rifles and
shotguns.

Yet, the NRA, which has given the voting records of both
Obama and Biden an ?F? rating, has a quite different view,
and has started a $15 million ad campaign to warn people
about what it regards as Obama?s and Biden?s records. One
mailer from the NRA says, “Obama would be the most anti-gun
president in American history.”

Critical news stories have been run on the NRA?s ads in the
Washington Post, FactCheck.org, CNN, and many other places.
ABC?s Jake Tapper and CBS?s Brian Montopoli posted stories
that merely stated what the NRA ads said.

The Washington Post describes its own Fact Checker report as
giving the NRA ?spot three out of four Pinocchios for its
claims that Obama would take away guns and ammunition used
by hunters.?

The Dallas Morning News describes FactCheck.org as saying
that ?NRA ads and mailers that say Obama wants to ban
handguns, hunting ammo and use of a gun for home defense are
false.?

CNN labeled the ads as ?Misleading? and claimed that ?While
Obama has supported some measures to limit gun rights, he
has backed nothing on the scale suggested in the ad.?

Brooks Jackson, who authored the FactCheck.org piece with
D’Angelo Gore, was extremely upset about the NRA ads.
Jackson told FOX News: ?They are lying. This is what they
do. This is how they make their money. Do these people
have no shame? They are just making this up. I just wish
that they would tell the truth.? He said that their ads were
?one of the worst examples of lying? that he had ?ever
seen.?

But what are the facts? Were the NRA ads this bad? How
accurate are the fact checkers? FactCheck.org, which is
regularly relied on by FOX News, had the longest critical
discussion of the ads. Here is a review of their most
critical comments.

“Ban the Manufacture, Sale and Possession of Handguns” –
FactCheck.org writes that this is ?false,? because of a 2003
statement from Obama that ?a complete ban on handguns is not
politically practicable.? They discount an earlier 1996
candidate survey where Obama says that he supports such a
ban primarily because it was older than the 2003 statement.
While they don?t mention another statement from 1998 where
Obama supported a ban on the sale of all semi-automatic guns
(a ban that would encompass the vast majority of guns sold
in the U.S.), they presumably also discounted that for the
same reason.

But Obama has come out for handgun bans as recently as this
past February. ABC News? local Washington, D.C., anchor,
Leon Harris, asked Obama: “One other issue that’s of great
importance here in the district as well is gun control …
but you support the D.C. handgun ban.” Obama’s simple
response: “Right.” When Harris said “And you’ve said that
it’s constitutional,” Obama again says “right” and is
clearly seen on tape nodding his head “yes.”

A statement to the Chicago Tribune by Obama?s campaign the
previous November stated that, “Obama believes the D.C.
handgun law is constitutional.” It doesn?t help that the
Democratic Party National Platform this year supports the
Chicago gun ban.

Obama also served on the board of the Joyce Foundation,
probably the largest private funder of anti-gun and pro-ban
groups and research in the country. In total, the
foundation gave $18.6 million to approximately 80 anti-gun
efforts while he was on the board. For example, $1.5
million went to the Violence Policy Center, which puts out
such claims as ?Why America Needs to Ban Handguns.? During
Obama?s time with the foundation, not a single donation was
made to any group that supported individuals? rights to own
guns.

But there is much more evidence that Obama supported handgun
bans. As will be discussed below, there is legislation he
supported in the Illinois state senate that would have
banned over 90 percent of gun stores in the country and
eliminated gun stores in most states.

Brooks Jackson told FOX News that ?I believe that [Obama]
supported striking down the D.C. gun ban. That is what he
said that he believed.? In addition, he said that the ad was
?clearly discussing a national ban, not local bans. The two
have absolutely nothing to do with each other. It is just
an amazing lie.?

Regarding Obama?s work with the Joyce Foundation, Jackson
said, ?You are an academic? You are asking about the Joyce
Foundation? What does that have to do with anything? You
would have failed the freshman college logic test.?

“Barack Obama opposes my right to own a handgun for
self-defense” — FactCheck.org rewrites this slightly to
read: “Ban use of Firearms for Home Self-Defense” and
labels this statement as ?false.? Their evaluation of this
claim focuses solely on a 2004 vote Obama made in the
Illinois state senate. An Associated Press article
described the vote this way: “He also opposed letting
people use a self-defense argument if charged with violating
local handgun bans by using weapons in their homes. The
bill was a reaction to a Chicago-area man who, after
shooting an intruder, was charged with a handgun violation.”

FactCheck.org claims that the vote was merely over creating
a ?loophole? for letting people violate local gun ban
ordinances. Yet, it is hard to look at this vote and the
facts in the previous section and not see a pattern that
Obama favors rules that ban handguns. He voted against any
rules that would weaken the Chicago handgun ban, and if you
support a handgun ban, it would seem obvious that you oppose
those same people using handguns for self-defense.

“Ban Rifle Ammunition Commonly Used for Hunting and Sport
Shooting” — FactCheck.org acknowledges that Obama voted for
a bill that would ?expand the definition of armor piercing
ammunition,? but labels this statement as ?false.? Their
evidence is a statement by the bill?s sponsor, Sen. Ted
Kennedy, that the bill ?is not about hunting.?

But here is the problem with Kennedy?s claim. The bill
banned ammunition that ?may be used in a handgun? and can
penetrate the ?minimum,? type 1, level of body armor, which
only protects against the lowest-powered handgun cartridges.
Any center-fire rifle, including those used for hunting or
target practice, can penetrate this ?minimum? armor. There
are handguns that can fire these rifle rounds, so the bill?s
language of banning ammunition that ?may be used in a
handgun? would be met.

In addition, FactCheck.org ignores other information. Obama
said in a 2003 questionnaire that he ?support[ed] banning
the sale of ammunition for assault weapons.? The rifles
banned under the so-called assault weapons ban used such
standard ammunition as .223 and .308 caliber bullets, the
same ammunition used commonly in hunting rifles.

When asked about these arguments, Jackson told FOX News,
?Have you looked at the legislation? You have to look at
the legislative history. This is just an amazing lie put
out by them.?

“Appoint Judges to the U.S. Supreme Court and Federal
Judiciary Who Share His Views on the Second Amendment” –
FactCheck.org claims that this statement is ?unsupported?
because Obama hasn?t explicitly stated that he would appoint
judges using such a litmus test. Indeed, I can find no
record of Obama ever being asked if he would use the Second
Amendment as a litmus test, but Obama has been very clear
about what types of Justices he would and would not appoint
to the Supreme Court.

Obama has said that he ?profoundly disagree[s] with
[Clarence Thomas?] interpretation of a lot of the
Constitution.” He has also been critical of Antonin Scalia,
John Roberts and Samuel Alito. Together these four justices
provided four of the five votes to strike down the D.C. gun
ban, with Scalia writing the majority opinion.

On the other side, Obama has pointed to Justices Ruth Bader
Ginsburg, David Souter, and Stephen Breyer as models for the
type of people he would appoint to the court. Those
justices provided three of the four votes that argued that
there was no individual right to own a gun, and Breyer wrote
one of the dissenting opinions.

When asked about whether Obama?s statements about what
judges he would appoint could explain the NRA?s concerns,
Jackson said that it ?doesn?t inform [Jackson?s] view. . .
. He hasn?t said that he would appoint people who didn?t
believe in the Second Amendment.?

“Mandate a Government-Issued License to Purchase a Firearm”
– FactCheck.org takes Obama?s statement when asked about
licensing and registration of gun owners that, “I just don’t
think we can get that done,? as evidence that the NRA?s
claim is “misleading.” FactCheck.org concedes that Obama
has clearly supported licensing handguns, but argues that
there is no evidence that Obama supported licensing for
rifles and shotguns. Yet, it fails to mention the Illinois
Firearms Owners Identification (FOID) Card that serves as a
license that Illinois residents must have to buy any type of
firearm.

While a state senator, Obama clearly supported the licensing
system. He voted to make it illegal for anyone to possess a
firearm without a FOID card even when they were in direct
supervision of someone with the card, and he voted against
lowering the age for people to be eligible for a FOID card
from 21 to 18. To Obama, these votes clearly indicate that
the FOID card was a license to use the gun just as much as
one needs a driver?s license to drive on public roads.

“Increase Federal Taxes on Guns and Ammunition by 500
Percent” and “Close Down 90 Percent of Gun Shops in America”
are classified as ?uncertain? because even though Obama has
indeed supported these policies in the past, FactCheck.org
was unable to get the Obama campaign to state what his
current position was on these issues. Yet, it is hard to
see how FactCheck.org could even raise questions about the
NRA ads on these points since Obama clearly held these
positions in the past and has never said that he has changed
his mind on them. The very fact that the Obama campaign
would not issue any statement disowning these previous
positions would seem to imply that Obama still supported
them.

“Obama would be the most anti-gun president in American
history.” — FactCheck.org ends its analysis by questioning
whether this ?pretty tall statement? is justified and ends
with a quote that Obama says that he has ?always believed
that the Second Amendment protects the right of individuals
to bear arms.? Yet, this is the same candidate who months
earlier supported a ban on guns as constitutional and who
refused join the other 55 Senators who signed the friend of
the court brief asking the Supreme Court to strike down the
D.C. gun ban. While previous candidates, such as Al Gore,
have supported licensing and registration, no presidential
nominee for a major party has ever supported such widespread
bans on guns and ammunition.

Jackson said that ?Obama agrees with the NRA on this issue
(that the Second Amendment is an individual right). They
should just accept it rather than lying about it.? He noted
that ?Obama had to accept all sorts of abuse for coming out
and saying this. It was the brave thing for him to do. He
had to endure all sorts of abuse ? claims of going back and
forth on the issue, that he was vague on the issue.?

Obama campaign representative Bill Burton told FOX News that
“These ads are just complete crap.” When Megyn Kelly asked
“Has [Obama] ever supported a ban on handguns? . . . And he
never has?” Burton said flatly “no.” He added that “All
the points in these ads are just flatly false.”

The Washington Post analysis only discusses two issues: the
Kennedy ammunition ban and the 500 percent ammunition tax.
On the Kennedy bill, the Post makes the same mistake as
FactCheck.org. Regarding the tax, the Post doesn?t deny
that Obama held that position, but points out that the
legislation Obama supported was in 1999 and that it is not
clear what guns would have their ammunition taxed. CNN?s
discussion appears unwilling to admit that Obama has
supported large-scale bans on gun ownership.

John Lott is the author of Freedomnomics and a senior
research scientist at the University of Maryland.

The Second Amendment IS Homeland Security !