Obama threatens lawsuits against people who disagree with him.

[Cryozombie]

link

FWIW here's a WP link giving their view on the accuracy of the NRA ad.

I find it interesting that they say straight up in that article "Why yes this is stuff he was in favor of --- in the past"

So it's true. He supported the idea of it... For the NRA to claim that Obama is in favor of it isn't a stretch, since he DID vote for it.

Spin Spin Spin his position to try and fool us!

 

[Andrew Green]

I find it interesting that they say straight up in that article "Why yes this is stuff he was in favor of --- in the past"

So it's true. He supported the idea of it... For the NRA to claim that Obama is in favor of it isn't a stretch, since he DID vote for it.

Spin Spin Spin his position to try and fool us!

The article actually states:

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.

Which is not what the NRA is claiming, they are claiming he was going after hunting rifles, in reality it was assault weapons.

So unless you are hunting with an assault rifle...

 

[Shuto]

I find it interesting that they say straight up in that article "Why yes this is stuff he was in favor of --- in the past"

So it's true. He supported the idea of it... For the NRA to claim that Obama is in favor of it isn't a stretch, since he DID vote for it.

Spin Spin Spin his position to try and fool us!

I think the tense is critical for proper interpretation. The WP article quotes the commercial as saying that Obama is planning to increase the tax on ammo. Is he? Not that I'm aware of. The commercial would have been accurate and not misleading if it had said that he planned to increase taxes on guns and ammo, or even that he has been in favor of raisng taxes... But to say that he is planning to raise taxes on guns and ammo is inaccurate, at least as far as I know.

I wonder why the NRA were inaccurate since reporting the true situation would have still raised the concerns of gun owners, and rightfully so.

 

[elder999]

The article actually states:




Which is not what the NRA is claiming, they are claiming he was going after hunting rifles, in reality it was assault weapons.

So unless you are hunting with an assault rifle...

I'd like to see a good definition of "assault rifle."

My favorite deer rifle is an M-1 Garand, which fits some "definitions" of "assault rifle." While I don't recommend it (7.63X 39mm is a tad lighter than .30-30), people can and have used variants of the SKS for hunting as well.

 

[Andrew Green]

I'd like to see a good definition of "assault rifle."

My favorite deer rifle is an M-1 Garand, which fits some "definitions" of "assault rifle." While I don't recommend it (7.63X 39mm is a tad lighter than .30-30), people can and have used variants of the SKS for hunting as well.

I'd say this is a pretty good definition:

An individual weapon with provision to fire from the shoulder.
Capable of selective fire.
Intermediate-power cartridge between pistol and traditional rifle.
Ammunition is supplied from a detachable box magazine.
Fires from a closed bolt with the breech locked.

The M-1 does not meet those criteria. It certainly has a military history, but is not something I would consider a "assault rifle".

 

[FearlessFreep]

I'd say this is a pretty good definition:

I'd say that's a lousy definition. Looks more like some said "I don't know what an 'assault rifle' is but I know one when I see it" and then set out to find a technical definition that would match what they thought one was.

 

[elder999]

I'd say this is a pretty good definition:

An individual weapon with provision to fire from the shoulder.
Capable of selective fire.
Intermediate-power cartridge between pistol and traditional rifle.
Ammunition is supplied from a detachable box magazine.
Fires from a closed bolt with the breech locked.

The M-1 does not meet those criteria. It certainly has a military history, but is not something I would consider a "assault rifle".

None of the rifles under the 1994 assault rifle ban (now repealed) fit this definition, as they were not capable of selective fire, which is, of course, already illegal.

Eliminate that portion of the defintion, and, while the M-1 still doesn't quite fit, a whole range of rifles have. The term 'assault weapon" as used in the U.S. is pretty clearly cosmetic in nature, and there is no "good definition."

 

[Andrew Green]

None of the rifles under the 1994 assault rifle ban (now repealed) fit this definition, as they were not capable of selective fire, which is, of course, already illegal.

Eliminate that portion of the defintion, and, while the M-1 still doesn't quite fit, a whole range of rifles have. The term 'assault weapon" as used in the U.S. is pretty clearly cosmetic in nature, and there is no "good definition."

We got two different terms in here, "Assault rifle" is basically what I listed above, "Assault weapon" is a much more inclusive term.

US "Assault weapon" rules do seem rather wishy washy:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_Weapons_Ban#Definition_of_assault_weapon

However I still think the M-1 doesn't match US law's definition of a assault weapon with regard to semi-automatic rifles:

Semi-automatic rifles able to accept detachable magazines and two or more of the following:

• Folding stock
• Conspicuous pistol grip
• Bayonet mount
• Flash suppressor, or threaded barrel designed to accommodate one
• Grenade launcher (more precisely, a muzzle device which enables the launching or firing of rifle grenades)

 

[elder999]

We got two different terms in here, "Assault rifle" is basically what I listed above, "Assault weapon" is a much more inclusive term.

US "Assault weapon" rules do seem rather wishy washy:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_Weapons_Ban#Definition_of_assault_weapon

However I still think the M-1 doesn't match US law's definition of a assault weapon with regard to semi-automatic rifles:

Well. yeah, I said that. Under the terms of the provision Obama voted "yes" on, though, it would have-as would semi-automatic shotguns, and a variety of other sports oriented rifles.

 

[Cryozombie]

The article actually states:




Which is not what the NRA is claiming, they are claiming he was going after hunting rifles, in reality it was assault weapons.

So unless you are hunting with an assault rifle...

In making the determination, there shall be a rebuttable presumption that a firearm procured for use by the United States military or any Federal law enforcement agency is not particularly suitable for sporting purposes, and a firearm shall not be determined to be particularly suitable for sporting purposes solely because the firearm is suitable for use in a sporting event."

So the Remmington 870 pump action shotgun is not suitable to sporting purposes because it is Procured by the military.

'Nuff said.

 

[shesulsa]

Just out of curiosity - where do you see the imminent threat of lawsuit? Granted the letter comes from legal counsel and the letter states that the ad "may be airing" on their station. It is a cease and desist letter, not an order.

Just thought I'd point that out - it's not a threat, it's a request. Though in all fairness I'd probably feel threatened with a lawsuit if I received such a letter.

I'm looking at an extensive voting record for Obama now.

 

[Cryozombie]

Just thought I'd point that out - it's not a threat, it's a request. Though in all fairness I'd probably feel threatened with a lawsuit if I received such a letter.

To be honest with you... the NRA posted it as "Threats of Legal Action". Is it? No... but if they Run the Ads after receiving Cease and Desist letter s from attorneys, *I* would also feel threatened by a lawsuit.

 

[Archangel M]

There are plenty of hunting rifles (bolt action) chambered in .223...the notorious "Assault Weapon" caliber. Going after an ammunition type to "get" a specific weapon type is backdoor legislation and pathetic.

 

[Archangel M]

To be honest with you... the NRA posted it as "Threats of Legal Action". Is it? No... but if they Run the Ads after receiving Cease and Desist letter s from attorneys, *I* would also feel threatened by a lawsuit.

Exactly...what other way would a recipient interpret a letter like that?