NSSF is trying to address the AR-15’s image problem. Since Zumbo, I think it’s come around quite a bit. And it is the most popular sporting rifle platform around. From WV Outdoor News:

“It’s cosmetically challenged,” said noted gun writer Tom Gresham. “It’s kind of like one of those ‘replicars’, where you have a Volkswagen chassis that looks like a Ferrari. The AR-15 looks like an M-16, a fully automatic military rifle, but it is not. It’s semi-automatic and fires one shot each time you pull the trigger.”

It’s scary and black too! And some politicos (two of which are on the Democrat presidential ticket) want to ban these politically incorrect self-loading firearms based on cosmetics. Ahab has more, and notes:

I do have to agree that the AR platform of rifles kind of has an image problem outside of the sport shooting community; and I applaud the efforts of NSSF to take educational action to correct and manage that image problem.

Perhaps that’s where the image problem lies. But whenever I take a new shooter to the range, I always take an AR. And the new shooters always like it the best.

Apparently, not many. I discussed it yesterday but here’s a round up of what others have to say:

Joe on their bias:

There’s another possible explanation behind FactCheck’s positions. Just last year, FactCheck’s primary funding source, the Annenberg Foundation, also gave $50,000 to the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence for “efforts to reduce gun violence by educating the public and by enacting and enforcing regulations governing the gun industry.” Annenberg made a similar grant for $100,000 in 2005.

Also, didn’t Obama actually, you know, head up Annenberg?

NRA issues a presser:

FactCheck supposedly exists to look beyond a politician?s claims. Ironically, in its analysis of NRA materials on Barack Obama, these so-called ?FactCheckers? use the election year campaign rhetoric of a presidential candidate and a verbal claim by one of the most zealous gun control supporters in Congress to refute facts compiled by NRA?s research of vote records and review of legislative language.

Xrlqy Wrlqy:

That has got to be the most disingenuous use of the word ?however? I?ve seen in any screed not written by Glenn Greenwald or Andrew Sullivan.

David Kopel:

The September 22, 2008, FactCheck on the NRA criticism of Obama is marred by the omission of crucial facts, one-sided and misleading presentations of issues, and thinly-concealed political advocacy.

Basically, FactCheck’s response seems to be Nuh uh, because Obama said so.

David got his gun blog 45.

Broomhandle Mauser.

On the granddaughter!

Trying to tell people how we can’t turn air into money. Back later.

I agree with Slacktivist on this, and I expect that many readers, from across the political spectrum will also agree:

I’ll gladly concede that Paulson knows more about the world’s rapidly collapsing finance system than I do. That doesn’t matter. Paulson’s request violates an inviolable principle, namely, to repeat, that if a public official demands $700 billion by week’s end, no strings attached, with no democratic or judicial review of that official’s unfettered discretion to spend that $700 billion as he chooses, then you say, “No.”

“No” is the only possible answer a free person can give to that request.

If you don’t answer “No,” then you have to answer “Yes, Your Majesty, screw that whole experiment-with-democracy thing, we think you’ll make a fine sovereign and king and please take our money as tribute from your loyal, unquestioning subjects.” I prefer the former answer, and not just because it’s shorter.

…snip…

Fortunately, crowning King Henry and doing nothing at all aren’t our only options. The events of the past week seem to prove that the American financial sector is in a full-blown panic. The Bush administration is now insisting that we fight panic with panic. That won’t work.

It may, in fact, be the case that something huge and unprecedented and Very, Very Expensive will be required to save the republic. But if we can’t manage to do that democratically — with accountability, oversight and the full participation of the people’s representatives — then the thing we are saving will no longer be a republic.

Bob Owens has a lengthy post on Fact Check.

More from National Review.

The WaPo falls for the same line.

Funny how all these joints with fact check in the title don’t actually, you know, check facts.

Past coverage here.

In Georgia:

My Washington colleague Julia Malone sends word that the National Rifle Association has just endorsed the re-election campaign of U.S. Rep. John Barrow, the Savannah Democrat.

Read this as a significant blow to Barrow?s Republican challenger, John Stone.

More Dems like this please.

Here.

Update: David notes wiggle room in the aforementioned approval letter that would indicate one shouldn’t bet the farm on palm pistols.

Appleseed report and photos from Les Jones.

Seems FactCheck is feeling the hope and change. Or rather, they’re not fans of NRA’s ads that highlight Barack Obama’s record on guns. You would think that, since fact check is part of the name, that they would actually, you know, like check facts and stuff. But you’d be wrong. Tom (who still thinks I’m on a two year vacation) alerted me to it but I was out of pocket last night. For starters:

A National Rifle Association advertising campaign distorts Obama’s position on gun control beyond recognition.

Based on his past actions, his position is not beyond recognition. Fact Check seems to think his policy papers trump his past actions.

The NRA is circulating printed material and running TV ads making unsubstantiated claims that Obama plans to ban use of firearms for home defense, ban possession and manufacture of handguns, close 90 percent of gun shops and ban hunting ammunition.

Actually, the claims seem to be pretty well substantiated. However, NRA did spin a few of the claims.

Continuing with some bullet points, they state NRA’s claim that Obama would Ban use of Firearms for Home Self-Defense. FactCheck gets it wrong. Obama opposed a bill that would have made it an affirmative defense to registration requirements if an arm was used in self-defense. That is to say that if you use your gun in lawful self-defense, you generally will not be found guilty of technical violations. Sounds to me like opposition to it is pretty much opposing lawful self-defense but it is not banning firearms use for self defense.

Next supposed fact check: Ban Rifle Ammunition Commonly Used for Hunting and Sport Shooting. Fact check calls it false. Fact Check is wrong. Armor piercing handgun ammo is already banned. Any popular hunting cartridge can penetrate body armor. Fact Check says it’s false because the bill targeted ammo designed or marketed as having armor piercing capability and Kennedy says it wasn’t meant for hunting ammo. Technically, all powerful rifle rounds by design have armor piercing capability, depending on the level of armor.

Next supposed fact check: Ban the Manufacture, Sale and Possession of Handguns. Well, let’s see. I wonder where anyone could have gotten the idea he wanted to ban possession and manufacture of handguns? Oh yeah, from FactCheck. Twice, even. I knew I’d seen it before.

Next supposed fact check: Mandate a Government-Issued License to Purchase a Firearm. Even Fact Check says ok, ya got me on this one. But calls it misleading.

Next: Pass Federal Laws Eliminating Your Right-to-Carry. Ok, we got him on that one too.

Next: Expand the Clinton Semi-Auto Weapons Ban to Include Millions More Firearms. Fact Check calls it partly true. And by partly, they mean absolutely.

Next: Appoint Judges to the U.S. Supreme Court and Federal Judiciary Who Share His Views on the Second Amendment. Fact check calls it unsupported. I suppose they leave open room that he may possibly nominate some textualists or originalists to the courts?

Next: Increase Federal Taxes on Guns and Ammunition by 500 Percent. Fact Check calls it uncertain then points out that it probably happened. That doesn’t sound very fact-checky.

Next: Close Down 90 Percent of Gun Shops in America. They call it uncertain. Which, at fact check, seems to mean true. After all, he did write a bill that made operating a gun shop within five miles of a school illegal. Trouble is, there seems to be a school every five miles or so in most places.

Pro-Gun Progressive has also responded to fact checks lack of checking facts.

Now, a couple things. NRA was spinning a lot of this stuff as things Obama will do instead of things that he has done. But along came Fact Check and spun it back the other way. That’s not very fact-checky.

It’s like FactCheck is in the tank for Obama, or something.

Looks like fact check may have scored 2 on technicalities but not by much. And definitely by being misleading.

Update: Countertop provides more on the ammo ban noting that Kennedy specifically wants to ban 30-30, one of the most popular hunting rounds in the US:

Another rifle caliber, the 30.30 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.

A popular caliber in lever guns. So much for that one.

Update: Pattycakes fact checks FactCheck:

Once again, if you give primacy to what his recent campaign statements have been, then, by golly, he supports the Second Amendment! But if you look at his record ? his past statements ? then the NRA is right to be concerned.

Update: Still more from Sebastian:

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.

The Gun Blog 45.

Action Airgun starts today.

I know quite a few folks seem to be into this.

Springfield 1911

Remington involved in the First Shots training program.

Red light cameras do not improve safety. No surprise. They’ve never been about safety and only about dollars.

Seems it’s not just the anti-gun folks who are guilty of it.

As a side note, per a user comment (Egregious Charles, maybe?), I tried to categorize this post under “Flaming Bag of Poo,” but I don’t have permission to add new categories. 🙂

UPDATE: PolitiFact.com is even less kind to the NRA mailer — be sure to send some of your vitriol that way, too:

Here’s what LaPierre wrote about the vote: “When Obama turned thumbs down on the bill, he voted against the most basic element of the Second Amendment ? the right of defense of self and family ? the reason that millions of Americans own firearms.”

That’s a bit of a leap. In concrete terms, Obama’s thumbs-down was a vote against the state legislature tweaking a local gun ban. In any event, there’s no fair way to interpret it as evidence that Obama has a future plan to ban the use of firearms for home defense.

…snip…

Ignoring that sort of evidence, and instead extrapolating from one vote on a jurisdictional debate in Illinois a broad-ranging plan to ban guns for home defense, is not just misleading, it’s intentionally dishonest. That is, Pants on Fire wrong.

In response to the NRA’s offense, Obama shill Sean breaks out the straws (and strawmen) to grasp:

National Republican Association

Per an NRA lobbyist I once had dinner with, NRA endorses more Democrats in Tennessee than Republicans. Continuing:

In the ad, they claim that “he also supports a ban on the shotguns and rifles most of us use for hunting.” An interesting claim, and the reference used to back it up is the 2004 debate between Obama and Alan Keyes.

It also comes from a 2003 bill (S.B. 1195) which would have banned a lot of weapons, even weapons that were not semi-automatic. The rest of Obama’s gun votes tell the same story.

But keep telling us it’s OK. He’s not getting Biden’s guns and he doesn’t have the votes anyway. It’s working so well.

NRA is running some ads about Barack Obama. See the videos here.

Seen at Bitter’s:

Texas Republican Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison and 46 other senators have asked for Senate floor time for House-passed legislation to roll back District of Columbia gun laws.

In a letter Thursday to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid , D-Nev., the group asked him to call up the bill before the end of the 110th Congress.

?We ask you to ensure that D.C. residents do not have to wait any longer to realize their constitutional rights,? Hutchison and her allies wrote. The letter was signed by five Democrats. ?

Reid has not decided whether or when to call up the legislation, according to his spokesman.

Some folks doubted ATF would classify the Palm Pistol as a pistol. Matt emailed me the ATF letter. Sebastian posted a copy.

Of course, it’s still possible for ATF to change it’s mind. Which, if history is an indication, will be after production and sales ramp up.

Over at NewWest, The American Hunters And Shooters Association is trying to deny that it is a false flag front for anti-gunners trying to appear pro-gun. And that they are shills for the Democrat Leadership Council. Seems they blame John Lott. John Lott is not the one who put the piece of that puzzle together. That legwork was done by Gun Law News who followed the money.

Meanwhile, David Hardy follows the money too and notes, as we suspected all along, they are a false flag. Why would Schoenke donate money to a group whose goal was to ban guns if he wasn’t, you know, anti-gun.

Meanwhile, from my own round up of the American Hunters and Shooters Association:

The NSSF has a fact sheet on them here:

Reported in an article by Bill Schneideri that the operating budget for AHSA is $500,000. Where did this money come from? With only a handful of members (paying $25 dues) – who is bankrolling their operation?

When you follow the money, they read like a who’s who of gun grabbers. They are a front for the anti-gun Democratic Leadership Council so that anti-gun politicos can say they belong to a group that sounds pro-gun.

Members (five of them that they disclose) of the AHSA are anti-gun lobbyists.

They’re basically a shill group set up so that anti-gun candidates can try to woo the hunting crowd. Note that their only endorsement victory (McCaskill) did not sign on to support Heller.

AHSA wrote a non-opposition opposition to Heller for it’s wording.

The president allegedley helped a reporter break the law by engaging in straw purchases.

They pay people to stand outside NRA meetings to protest. Can’t get any volunteers with all your members?

They support they anti-gun Mayors Against Guns.

Field and Stream (you know, real hunters and real shooters) don’t seem to be a fan.

They keep peddling the Zumbo myth.

They call gun owners extremists and whackos. That’s correct. The Executive Director of a supposedly pro-gun group is calling those who buy weapons for self-defense (i.e., the largest growing demographic of gun owners) whackos. So, who exactly are the shooters in American Hunters and Shooters?

They say any woman who buys a gun is a sign of law-breaking.

But remember, I’m just a shill for the NRA who is bad and not really pro-gun.

We’re winning:

The number of Floridians with permission to pack heat has jumped nearly 50 percent in three years.

In 2005, one year before the state Legislature’s decision to provide anonymity to people holding concealed weapons licenses, there were 347,350 active permits statewide.

Now, that number has swelled to about 520,000.

Some states ask applicants why they want a concealed weapons license. Florida isn’t one of them. That makes it almost impossible to say who is getting licensed and why.

Sort of related is Who’s Packing Heat:

A pit bull lunges for a 4-year-old boy as he walks with his father to Saturday services at a Harrisburg synagogue. The father pulls his pistol and shoots the dog. In the parking lot of an Annville-Cleona school, a student finds a loaded handgun. Turns out, a school bus driver with a permit to carry it dropped it from her purse.

In the wake of a shooting outside Harrisburg Mall, police arrest and then release an armed man in a car. He’s not a suspect, they say, and he has a permit to pack that pistol. Recent stories like these point to a quiet revolution in American gun laws that began two decades ago, with Pennsylvania in the vanguard.

Wow. It’s like normal, every day people get carry permits or something.

Read the whole thing:

Jim Richardson was aware of the odds when he made up his mind on a birthday gift for his father, Virgil Richardson of Davison Township.

The 54-year old Frankenmuth man wanted to track down the M1 Garand .30-caliber rifle his father carried more than 50 years ago as a soldier in the Korean War and present it to him on his 79th birthday next month.

Mr. C. notes that Hi Cap Guns will be bring some goodies to the Rendezvous.

Shaping up to be quite the event. Sadly, I cannot make it this year due to scheduling conflicts. I’m bummed.

Bullpup M-14: M4 size, M14 power.

Home defense guns.

Les Jones went.

Oleg took some photos.

Shooting Wire notes that Crimson Trace is catering to women with some pink laser grips.

Nothing new but a look at Obama’s anti-gun record.

Meanwhile, Biden (with an F from NRA) says:

‘I guarantee you, Barack Obama ain’t taking my shotguns, so don’t buy that malarkey,’ Biden said angrily. ‘They’re going to start peddling that to you.’

‘I got two, if he tries to fool with my Beretta, he’s got a problem.’

I seem to recall him saying other gun owner needed help. Relax, they keep saying, we don’t have the votes.

Meanwhile, Obama has never seen gun control he didn’t support.