Fact check.org Obama not after Duck Guns!

DougTravels

Not a Member
If you don't believe me here is a link. It is a hoax too bad so many LOSers believe it. The link reads much better than my paste, it can be hard to tell on the paste what is the fact and what is the question.


www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/did_obama_promise_last_year_to_ban.html

December 8, 2008
Q: Did Obama promise last year to ban all semi-automatic guns during his first year as president?
Obama on his gun control plans once president:

"My first priority will be to reinstate the assault weapons ban as soon as I take office. Within 90 days, we will go back after kitchen table dealers, and work to end the gun show and internet sales loopholes. In the first year, I intend to work with Congress on a national no carry law, 1 gun a month purchase limits, and bans on all semi-automatic guns."

--Barack Obama, VPC Fund Raiser, 2007
Is there any way that your office can verify or deny this quote? If true, it undermines what Obama said in his presidential campaign. If false, it just confirms how far the ultra right-wing conservatives will go to instill fear about something they don't understand.

I know that you are extremely busy with other political matters of greater import. But thanks for any comment that you have time to provide.
A: A widely circulated e-mail quoting Obama is baseless and almost certainly fabricated. He does support reinstatement of the expired "assault weapons ban" but isn't calling for a wider ban on all semi-automatic weapons. He said repeatedly during the campaign, "I am not going to take your guns away."
The quote contained in this e-mail supposedly came during a "VPC Fund Raiser" in 2007. "VPC" could stand for the Violence Policy Center, a Washington-based group that bills itself as the "most aggressive group in the gun control movement." But Josh Sugarmann, executive director of the Violence Policy Center, said in an e-mail to us that Obama made no such speech to his group:

Sugarmann: It is categorically false that Barack Obama attended, or made these remarks, at a VPC fundraiser in 2007. To our knowledge he has never attended any VPC fundraiser. In 2007 the VPC held no fundraising events.

Sugarmann added that he had no knowledge of Obama ever making such a comment.

Could "VPC" be an acronym for another group or organization? We checked with the Violence Prevention Coalition of Greater Los Angeles, which seeks to reduce violence in Los Angeles communities, and it also denied any knowledge of the alleged Obama remark:

Violence Prevention Coalition of Greater Los Angeles: [W]e can verify that President Elect Obama has never spoken at any of the Violence Prevention Coalition of Greater Los Angeles’ events. We can also verify that this quote did not originate from any one affiliated with the Violence Prevention Coalition of Greater Los Angeles.

In July 2007, Obama delivered a speech on inner-city gun violence at another potential "VPC," the Vernon Park Church of God in Chicago. But the quote our reader is inquiring about wasn't included in the prepared remarks delivered to the congregation by the former senator. If Obama veered from the script, the alleged quote wasn't in the reports about the event from the Associated Press or the Chicago Tribune. Anyway, the event at which he spoke was not a fundraiser at the church, but was a regular Sunday church service.

We also conducted searches of the Internet and of proprietary news databases, and found no news reports, video or audio of Obama making any such remarks. References to this dubious "quote" on gun-rights blogs, online forums and in the comment sections of Web sites all fail to provide any link to an original source, or to cite any authority.


Obama: "I'm not going to take away your guns"


The spurious "quote" is contradicted by what Obama has said publicly on the subject. He is not proposing "bans on all semi-automatic guns." Such a ban would cover a wide range of rifles, shotguns and handguns, including many common hunting rifles. We find no instance of Obama calling for such a ban at any time during his presidential campaign, much less promising to bring one about during his first year as president.

A decade ago, while running for a seat in the Illinois Legislature in 1998, Obama responded to an Illinois State Legislative Election National Political Awareness Test and indicated that he would support action to "ban the sale or transfer of all forms of semi-automatic weapons." But he has not called for such a ban in recent years.

To the contrary, he has said repeatedly that he has no intention of calling for a broad ban on guns.

For example, he said at a campaign rally in Lebanon, Va., on Sept. 9 that "I am not going to take your guns away." Video of the event is posted on YouTube.

Obama, Sept. 9: I don't want any misunderstanding when you all go home, and you're talking to your buddies, and they say, "Aw, he wants to take my gun away." You've heard it here; I'm on television, so everybody knows it. I believe in the Second Amendment. I believe in people's lawful right to bear arms. I will not take your shotgun away. I will not take your rifle away. I won't take your handgun away. ... There are some common-sense gun safety laws that I believe in. But I am not going to take your guns away. So if you want to find an excuse not to vote for me, don't use that one. ... It just ain't true.

He made similar remarks days earlier at a campaign event in Pennsylvania, where he promised sportsmen that "I'm not going to take away your guns." As The Wall Street Journal reported:

Wall Street Journal, Sept. 5: “If you’ve got a gun in your house, I’m not taking it,’’ Obama said. But the Illinois senator could still see skeptics in the crowd, particularly on the faces of several men at the back of the room.

So he tried again. “Even if I want to take them away, I don’t have the votes in Congress,’’ he said. “This can’t be the reason not to vote for me. Can everyone hear me in the back? I see a couple of sportsmen back there. I’m not going to take away your guns.’’

Assault Weapons Ban: Obama does support permanent reinstatement of the so-called "assault weapons ban." That ban, which expired in 2004, covered certain military-style, semi-automatic firearms. (Fully automatic assault rifles remain illegal to own in most cases under legislation dating back to the 1930s.) This e-mail exaggerates, however, when it quotes Obama as saying he would make reinstatement "my first priority." We could find no evidence of Obama promising any sort of gun-policy time table.

During his nearly two-year presidential campaign, Obama declared that he believes the Second Amendment protects the rights of individuals to bear arms, but he said that some "common-sense" laws are necessary for safety. The president-elect's transition Web site contains a general outline of how he plans to address gun violence in cities, including closing the so-called "gun show loophole" that allows unlicensed individuals to sell guns at gun shows without having to perform a background check on potential buyers. There is no mention, however, of Obama pushing to do that "within 90 days":

Obama-Biden, "Urban Policy": As president, Barack Obama would repeal the Tiahrt Amendment, which restricts the ability of local law enforcement to access important gun trace information, and give police officers across the nation the tools they need to solve gun crimes and fight the illegal arms trade. Obama and Biden also favor commonsense measures that respect the Second Amendment rights of gun owners, while keeping guns away from children and from criminals who shouldn't have them. They support closing the gun show loophole and making guns in this country childproof. They also support making the expired federal Assault Weapons Ban permanent, as such weapons belong on foreign battlefields and not on our streets.

The Obama-Biden agenda doesn't mention implementing a "national no carry law," imposing "1 gun a month purchase limits," or placing "bans on all semi-automatic guns," as mentioned in the e-mail quote. Nor does the 2008 Democratic National Platform. While Obama has favored these regulations in the past, he hasn't said that he plans to pursue them during his presidency.

In 2004, the Chicago Tribune reported that Obama "backed federal legislation that would ban citizens from carrying [concealed] weapons, except for law enforcement," and quoted the then state senator as saying, "National legislation will prevent other states' flawed concealed-weapons laws from threatening the safety of Illinois residents." Then last spring, the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review reported that Obama said, "I am not in favor of concealed weapons. ... I think that creates a potential atmosphere where more innocent people could (get shot during) altercations." In 2004, Obama did vote for a measure that would have allowed retired police officers and retired military to be able to carry concealed weapons.

In 2000, Obama was a cosponsor of SB 1614 in the Illinois state Senate. The bill sought to prohibit the transfer of more than one handgun in a 30-day period, with exemptions for federally licensed firearms dealers, military personnel, law enforcement officers and certain hunters. And in 2003, Obama voted in favor of HB 2579, a measure that would have made it illegal for someone to sell or give a person more than one handgun in a 30-day period. Neither bill became law.

-D'Angelo Gore

Correction, Feb. 6: We originally referred to "unlicensed dealers" at gun shows. We meant to refer to "unlicensed individuals." Federal law defines "dealers" as "any person engaged in the business of selling firearms at wholesale or retail" and requires them to hold a federal license.
 
Last edited:

greg334

Veteran Expediter
C'mon Doug... Since when FACTS matter in this forum?? :D

No Mr. Buddha, there are no facts until the legislation is written, the it goes through the law making process and it gets to be a law.

Until then anything can happen and like our history has shown us, anything does happen.

It is funny that neither of you two get the reason some are in a panic over the rhetoric of the messiah, maybe it is because they have heard this before somewhere else or experienced something that most of the euphoric brainiacs haven't? Maybe if some look at it outside of their box, a box that our messiah wants them to continue living in, they may see the other side for that fleeting moment and understand a slice of the truth.

Obama broke a very important promise that you both seem to miss, he said that we are returning the government to be accountable for their actions and the promise was not to sign anything for a number of days after it hits his desk, or was it cartoon version of Obama who said this?

If he wanted to be honest about things, then he would uphold that promise and also not release things that hurt the country. But again Pelosi seems to be in the spotlight and Obama is sitting there not fulfilling another promise, to go after people who knew and approved this alleged torture.
 

MrGautama

Not a Member
There is a popular expression in Spanish that describes the content of your writing: Cantinfleo, but the meaning gets lost in translation! :D
 

LDB

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
Facts without the tinted glasses for viewing and beverage for sipping while perusing them: Sportsmen for Obama? - The Illinois Years - Obama's Gun Control Votes

Obama voted the wrong way on every vote of substance, if he bothered to vote at all. He is an enemy of the Constitution and the people, at least those with any common sense and intelligence. He is a friend of the sheeples, blindly (or tintedly) praised and followed in every way on every issue. The information provided above by Gore (is it a requirement that people surnamed Gore provide erroneous information?) is wrong. The Tiahrt amendment does not prevent law enforcement from doing their job. It prevents reporters or John Doe public from obtaining information that is none of their business. It prevents newspapers from publishing the names and addresses of firearms owners, something the liberal gun hating rags used to do and still would be doing if not prohibited. The VPC, the Brady Institute, Obama et al want all firearms confiscated. Any of you who don't think so just sit back and keep enjoying your beverage and tinted views.
 
Last edited:

mjolnir131

Veteran Expediter
There is a popular expression in Spanish that describes the content of your writing: Cantinfleo, but the meaning gets lost in translation! :D

ROFL .... man if thats not the pot calling the kettle i don't know what is but in this case the kettle is a nice shinny green one
 

greg334

Veteran Expediter
There is a popular expression in Spanish that describes the content of your writing: Cantinfleo, but the meaning gets lost in translation! :D

OK Great Buddha, let's decipher it

I said said:
No Mr. Buddha, there are no facts until the legislation is written, the it goes through the law making process and it gets to be a law.

This means that FactCheck.org can't look into the future. They can correctly report what he has said and done in the past but Dougy is using them as something that is a sure bet which either he misses the point that Obama is not truthful like everyone else in that position has been or just plain reaching for straws.

I said said:
Until then anything can happen and like our history has shown us, anything does happen.

This means that our government, our system is unpredictable and many things happen from the time a bill is introduced into congress and it becomes law.


I said said:
It is funny that neither of you two get the reason some are in a panic over the rhetoric of the messiah, maybe it is because they have heard this before somewhere else or experienced something that most of the euphoric brainiacs haven't?

This means that you seem to live in a world of illusion, not understanding what has come to past in other places on the globe. Many like you are living in a place that seems to forget what makes this all work and want to change things for all for the few.

I said said:
Maybe if some look at it outside of their box, a box that our messiah wants them to continue living in, they may see the other side for that fleeting moment and understand a slice of the truth.

This means that maybe you need to have a more open mind over issues instead of tagging people as groups. It is the same as other countries, I see a return of a lot of things that happened in the UK in the 20's and 30's, Germany in the late 30's and 40's and so on - you may never see that or understand it because you repeat the same thing about what we did in other countries which most of us today had nothing to do with.

I said said:
Obama broke a very important promise that you both seem to miss, he said that we are returning the government to be accountable for their actions and the promise was not to sign anything for a number of days after it hits his desk, or was it cartoon version of Obama who said this?

This means that this individual ran on the platform of change, of accountability and of progress - none of which has yet happened. He instead lied about all three, putting people in place who were the same ones that help us get here in the first place. No accountability yet, he should have started with his past, the people who shaped him into a man and the truth - nothing yet.... we are waiting.

I said said:
If he wanted to be honest about things, then he would uphold that promise and also not release things that hurt the country. But again Pelosi seems to be in the spotlight and Obama is sitting there not fulfilling another promise, to go after people who knew and approved this alleged torture.

This means that honestly should be his platform through practice. If he knows that pelosi knew about alleged torture, than he should make her fall on the sword for the administration,the agenda and like many others - the party. but not lie about who knows what when they knew it, it looks bad when the documents say otherwise. The same goes for the 'fly over' that they are making a big deal over - for any of those planes to move any where, there are a lot of people that know about it and it has to have his approval only, no one else can make that decision.
 

DougTravels

Not a Member
Facts without the tinted glasses for viewing and beverage for sipping while perusing them: Sportsmen for Obama? - The Illinois Years - Obama's Gun Control Votes

Obama voted the wrong way on every vote of substance, if he bothered to vote at all. He is an enemy of the Constitution and the people, at least those with any common sense and intelligence.

The VPC, the Brady Institute, Obama et al want all firearms confiscated. Any of you who don't think so just sit back and keep enjoying your beverage and tinted views.

Voted the wrong way on every vote of substance?

Coming from someone who voted for W. --how many times now? Oh yeah you never answer that, (I wouldn't admit it either, you must be quite embarrassed) I'd bet at least 3- if he coulda ran again and it was W. vs Obama you'd probably have voted for him again. HAHA So laughable you claim common sense and intelligence????

Obama et al want all firearms confiscated?

Don't know what et al is supposed to be, but I get the drift. Where exactly did you pull this fact out of, I can only guess where and I bet it doesn't smell like roses.

(get it, I am saying you pulled it out of your azz):)
 

Poorboy

Expert Expediter
Voted the wrong way on every vote of substance?

Coming from someone who voted for W. --how many times now? Oh yeah you never answer that, (I wouldn't admit it either, you must be quite embarrassed) I'd bet at least 3- if he coulda ran again and it was W. vs Obama you'd probably have voted for him again. HAHA So laughable you claim common sense and intelligence????

Obama et al want all firearms confiscated?

Don't know what et al is supposed to be, but I get the drift. Where exactly did you pull this fact out of, I can only guess where and I bet it doesn't smell like roses.

(get it, I am saying you pulled it out of your azz):)

I see Dougy's Still On His Orange Crate Preaching to the Choir Lol :D
 

LDB

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
Doug, if you weren't totally in love with the man you might see a few things. I got his voting record from the facts in the posted link. He voted the wrong way every time. His votes made things better for criminals and worse for honest citizens. His votes were in direct opposition and violation of the Constitution. Here are a few quotes from Sarah Brady.

We must get rid of all the guns.

Our main agenda is to have ALL guns banned. We must use whatever means possible. It doesn't matter if you have to distort facts or even lie. Our task of creating a socialist America can only succeed when those who would resist us have been totally disarmed.

I don't believe gun owners have rights.

I did not vote for Bush (either one) any times, not that it is anyone's business, but since you can't come up with anything better you fall back on that out of desperation all the time. If either party runs someone remotely worth voting for I'll vote for them. Until they do I'll vote against the greater evil as I've been doing.
 

DougTravels

Not a Member
Here are a few quotes from Sarah Brady.

We must get rid of all the guns.

Our main agenda is to have ALL guns banned. We must use whatever means possible. It doesn't matter if you have to distort facts or even lie. Our task of creating a socialist America can only succeed when those who would resist us have been totally disarmed.

I don't believe gun owners have rights.

Sarah Brady's husband was shot. Of course she feels that way. It doesn't mean Obama is coming after Duck Guns!
 

LDB

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
Just keep telling yourself that. I'll stick with the truth.
 

DougTravels

Not a Member
To Leo:
and there's a Red under your bed and a little green man in your head.



images gazoo.jpg <---Who me?
 
Last edited:

cheri1122

Veteran Expediter
Driver
Sarah Brady is a zealot, and she's not the President. The man who is has said repeatedly that he has no intention of taking people's guns away. Until and unless he acts contrary to that statement, I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt. As a former professor of Constitutional law, I believe Obama is aware of the right of the people to bear arms, and as a pretty intelligent man, I'm just as sure that he knows what sort of a backlash he'd be facing if he reneged on his words.
He hasn't yet, has he?
 

greg334

Veteran Expediter
Doug, by bringing up Bush, you proved our point.

Letzrock, if the NRA had a strong lobby then I think there would be a lot more going on to help with safety and allowing the right people to purchase a firearm. But alas they are not that strong.
 

LDB

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
You folks just keep telling yourselves that. He has repeatedly voted against gun owners and for more control. He has repeatedly said he's for the bogus "assault weapon" ban. You are deceiving yourselves if you believe he's not for gun control. You are deceiving yourselves if you believe he's a Constitutional supporter. For that matter the idea that he's a Constitutional expert is questionable. He's an expert on what he wants the Constitution to be but I'm not so sure he's expert on what it actually is. Being a professor of something doesn't mean truthful and accurate knowledge and interpretation, whether Constitution or Chemistry or Communications or whatever.
 

DougTravels

Not a Member
You folks just keep telling yourselves that. He has repeatedly voted against gun owners and for more control. He has repeatedly said he's for the bogus "assault weapon" ban. You are deceiving yourselves if you believe he's not for gun control. You are deceiving yourselves if you believe he's a Constitutional supporter. For that matter the idea that he's a Constitutional expert is questionable. He's an expert on what he wants the Constitution to be but I'm not so sure he's expert on what it actually is. Being a professor of something doesn't mean truthful and accurate knowledge and interpretation, whether Constitution or Chemistry or Communications or whatever.

Silly boy you got so much to live for
So much to aim for, so much to try for
You blowing it all with paranoia
Youre so insecure you self-destroyer

(and it goes like this, here it goes)
Paranoia, the destroyer :D:)
 

greg334

Veteran Expediter
Letztrock,
I don't think you are naive or a repeater of the party talking line and I have heard the same thing too.

But my concern is the back door approach to some of this stuff. Like restrictions of ammo and parts.

Clearly the agenda is gun control but without propping up law enforcement or proper education reform, which leaves us with a criminal element still going to have access to firearms and other weapons to keep being criminals.

Already we seen this with 'assault weapons' which there is only one true assault weapon. I have one of the redefined rifles that is now an assault weapons and it is only because it has a detactable magazine and a pistol grip which makes it an assault weapon. The funny thing is it is a hunting rifle and made for a specific reason that way in the 50's. There is no way it makes a good anything other than to hunt bear and deer.

I haven't heard the increase in crime among the US citizens when we didn't renew the AW ban, but we have had a serious increase in crimes from people crossing the border with weapons that we can't get here at all.

I see a knee jerk reaction to events that are blown out of proportion by the media and the vocal people and it will give more an excuse to tightening gun ownership laws across the country either for political puroses or from people who think it is the right thing to do to eliminate crime.
 
Top