search
top

More on FactCheck.org’s Bad Fact Checking

I will go into some more detail on FactCheck.org’s claims.  It may very well be that they don’t understand the gun issue.  In fact, I would say that’s so.  Let’s take a look at some of their claims:

Letting the owner of an unregistered firearm escape the penalty for failing to register is one thing, but it’s another thing entirely to make it a crime to use any firearm – registered or not – in self-defense.

I agree with them on this one, that it’s a bit of distortion.  But what they fail to mention is that you can’t register a gun in a lot of these communities because handguns are banned.  You have to have a registration certificate to own one, but you can’t get a registration certificate because they are banned.  The end result is, if you use a gun in self-defense, you go to jail.  Obama voted for that.  It’s not bullshit.

The amendment applied only to handgun ammunition “capable of penetrating body armor” and to rifle ammunition that is “designed or marketed as having armor piercing capability,” however.

The problem here is there’s no such thing as a handgun cartridge.  There are handguns made for hunting and target sports such as Metallic Silhouette which fire rifle cartridges, which will penetrate soft body armor.  Handguns have been made for virtually every rifle caliber.  There are also rifles which shoot ammunition that are generally considered handgun rounds.  But there is no set definition of a handgun round or a rifle round.  The amendment in question was badly worded enough, and poorly thought out enough, it would have had the effect of banning hunting ammunition.  When that was pointed out, the Senate properly defeated it.  But Obama and Kennedy knew exactly what the were trying to do, which was enact a back door gun ban.

As we wrote previously, an amended version of the questionnaire was later submitted to the group, with Obama’s handwritten notes on it providing more detail on some of the answers. Obama clearly saw and handled this version personally and did not alter the question about banning the sale and manufacturing of guns. Nevertheless, his aides maintain that the gun-ban answer was a mistake and didn’t reflect Obama’s true position.

Sure, that’s what his aides say now.  But there it was.  He reviewed the questionnaire and added notes, and he did not change his stated position on the gun ban.  Whether his aides wrote that or not is immaterial.  That’s the position his office took.  He might be singing a different tune now, but he has supported banning handguns.  There’s no rescuing him on this one.

Obama indeed has spoken in favor of licensing handguns, but so far as we can determine he hasn’t called for registration of hunting weapons. And he’s said a national gun registration law isn’t politically possible: “I just don’t think we can get that done.”

Can you explain exactly what hunting weapons are please FactCheck.org people?  I’d really like to know.  Because there is actually such a thing as handgun hunters out there.  You knew that didn’t you?  There are also a lot of handgun shooting sports, which are fast becoming the most popular shooting sports due to the fact that you don’t need a lot of real estate to build a pistol range.

I’ll give FactCheck.org a pass on the assault weapons issue, and on judges.  That’s based mostly on how we know the politics will play on this issue.  Let me ask you this, do you believe Obama will appoint pro-second amendment judges after refusing to sign onto the Heller brief and saying he thought DC’s law was constitutional?  It might be a lot of circumstantial evidence, but I think it would be enough to take to court.

It’s also interesting to note that FactCheck got no response on the questions of increasing ammunition taxes by 500% and on the 5 mile gun shop exclusion zone he one proposed.

I would encourage folks to contact FactCheck and tell them of some of their oversights here.  Be factual.  It very well may be, and probably is, that they don’t understand the gun issue that well, and NRA’s publications are meant more to rally gun owners than they are to educate the masses.  That’s often going to be our job.

UPDATE: SayUncle has a lot more too.

UPDATE: Also The Other Sebastian.

2 Responses to “More on FactCheck.org’s Bad Fact Checking”

  1. Daniel says:

    Definately contact them – I just did. Best if you have articles, dates, etc that you can reference.

    Be polite, be professional – I think they generally do a good job, so I am going to give them the benefit of the doubt, especially if they edit their article.

  2. teqjack says:

    http://progunprogressive.com/?p=1073
    has more opinion, e.g.

    “I’m not sure how not agreeing that someone should be allowed to use a handgun in defense of his home is any different than what NRA is claiming–unless you make the thin-ice defense that he’d allow long guns for personal defense. This is of course ridiculous, as the handgun is the most common and the most affordable means of self defense with firearm.”

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1. SayUncle » Fact Checking Fact Check - [...] Still more from Sebastian: I would encourage folks to contact FactCheck and tell them of some of their oversights…
  2. damnum absque injuria » HackCheck on Guns - [...] garbage Hack“Fact” Check put out on Obama and guns, but others have beaten me to the punch in a…
top