NRA rank-and-file are seeing through the NRA political leadership’s false attacks against Sen. Obama.

And they’re not afraid to shout it from the rooftops.

In the Lakeland Times:

As a life member of the National Rifle Association and as a hunter and competition shooter since junior high school, I believe strongly in protecting our Second Amendment right to bear arms.

I am also a retired Marine who remains a passionate devotee of government according to the U.S. Constitution I was sworn to uphold and defend.

Frankly, I am disappointed by the NRA’s orchestrated attacks on Sen. Barack Obama and by the deliberate distortion of his positions concerning gun ownership.

I believe that sportsmen who really examine the facts and who sift out the propaganda will agree.

Gun ownership is not a one-size-fits-all issue. In cities like Milwaukee and Chicago, we need to get control of gun crime and make our city streets safe for those who live there.

…

The bottom line is this: neither Sen. McCain nor Sen. Obama will take away our guns or our ammunition.

Period.

I believe levelheaded sportsmen and women know this. However, there is one candidate who has a clearer grasp of the Constitution and the best solutions to solve our crucial economic, energy, and international problems.

That candidate is Barack Obama.

I intend to vote for him on Nov. 4.

[more]

The chief lobbyist for the National Rifle Association has been attacking Sen. Barack Obama’s views on preventing gun violence in an Op-Ed in yesterday’s Washington Times, and again on FOX News.

His charges fit into a pattern of attacks that CNN, The Washington Post, Congressional Quarterly, The Cleveland Plain Dealer and FactCheck.org have called “misleading,” “a huge stretch,” “intentionally dishonest,” “pants on fire wrong,” “exaggerated,” and that “distort Obama’s record on gun control beyond recognition.”

On the other hand, he doesn’t say much about the support for common sense gun restrictions once given by Sen. John McCain, a man the NRA used to call “one of the premier flag carriers for the enemies of the Second Amendment.”

The truth?  Sen. Obama has consistently indicated his support for an individual right to own a gun pursuant to the Second Amendment.  He also believes, along with the U.S. Supreme Court, that there can be reasonable restrictions on guns to protect the public.  Like most Americans, Sen. Obama believes we can enforce criminal background checks on all gun sales, crack down on illegal gun dealers, and restrict easy access to military-style semi-automatic assault weapons without infringing on the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding Americans.

As Sen. Obama said in his speech accepting the Democratic nomination, “The reality of gun ownership may be different for hunters in rural Ohio than they are for those plagued by gang violence in Cleveland, but don’t tell me we can’t uphold the Second Amendment while keeping AK-47s out of the hands of criminals.”

So what explains the NRA’s “intentionally dishonest” campaign against Sen. Obama?  Two things seem important: the U.S. Supreme Court and economic concerns.

Ironically, it may have been Justice Antonin Scalia and the Supreme Court that stripped NRA bosses of their long-time weapon used to scare voters about candidates: “They’re going to take your guns away!” When the Court in June declared an individual right to own a gun for self defense in the home, the gun issue began to lose its status as a “wedge” issue almost overnight.  We see this today where the NRA is spending millions of dollars across the country and Sen. Obama remains competitive in traditional “gun rights” states from Virginia to Nevada.

In short, people know that nobody’s going to “take their guns away” particularly because the Supreme Court said so.

Ironically for the NRA, however, while Justice Scalia said that total gun bans are “off the table,” he also outlined an array of common sense gun policies that he said were “presumptively lawful.”  Some examples he cited are laws against carrying concealed weapons, laws against “dangerous and unusual weapons,” and laws against taking guns into “sensitive places” like schools and government buildings.  Surprisingly, the country’s best-known conservative Justice may have sounded the death knell for the gun lobby’s campaign of divisive wedge politics.

In addition, the nation’s sagging economy has also clearly taken center stage since the Supreme Court’s decision in June.  Americans concerned about paying their mortgage, filling the gas tank, paying for college, and finding affordable health care for their children and elderly parents, probably aren’t as receptive or concerned about all the misleading charges about Sen. Obama and guns.  A lot less individuals are “single-issue” voters in today’s complex world.

These two events cannot be taken in isolation.  The economic pressures Americans feel are real; but because the Supreme Court made it clear that law-abiding citizens’ guns are safe, gun owners are less likely to be swayed by appeals to their fears on this single issue, rather than their hopes for the country. Finding themselves in this political box, NRA leaders are stuck with just one option: tell lies over and over again about Barack Obama and hope voters buy it one last time.

So far, however, they aren’t.  Sen. Obama’s message of finding a middle ground to solve America’s problems is resonating across the country – not only about the gun issue, but on the whole range of issues facing this country today.

(Note to readers: This entry, along with past entries, has been co-posted on bradycampaign.org/blog and the Huffington Post.)

Following its standard pattern of behavior, National Rifle Association leaders are saying little-to-nothing in the wake of a tragedy that even gun enthusiasts agree was a complete breach of common sense – if not Massachusetts law.

This time, the insult of silence comes directly from the top.

Per the AP:

The head of the National Rifle Association refused to comment Wednesday night on the accidental shooting death of an 8-year-old boy at a gun show.

“I don’t think all of the facts are in in this case,” NRA chief John Sigler said. “So it would be inappropriate for me to say anything except that I wish we could all offer a silent prayer for that family tonight.”

Christopher Bizilj of Ashford, Conn., accidentally shot himself  with an Uzi on Sunday at a gun show in western Massachusetts. The gun recoiled when he fired it and wound up pointing at his head.

The family of is planning a funeral Mass Thursday at Sacred Heart Church in Springfield, followed by a private burial.

Authorities are investigating whether criminal charges should be filed in Christopher’s death.

It wouldn’t be “appropriate” to say anything, Mr. Sigler?

How about this: “Massachusetts law prohibits furnishing machine guns to minors, and besides, allowing children to fire machine guns in the first place is insane.”

Mr. Sigler, is it really so hard to state the obvious?

The National Rifle Association is methodically destroying its own credibility as one news organization after another calls out their false attacks on Sen. Obama’s record.

CNN, The Washington Post, Congressional Quarterly and The St. Petersburg Times, FactCheck.org.

Now it’s the Cleveland Plain Dealer:

THE AD: “Imagine,” 30-second television commercial

PRODUCER: National Rifle Association Political Victory Fund

WHERE TO SEE IT: Cable television and above.

RATING: 1 on a scale from 0 (misleading) to 10 (truthful)

…

ANALYSIS:

This ad by gun rights advocates is loosely based on a 2003 crime in suburban Chicago. Someone stole a set of house keys in a posh neighborhood. Later, the keys were used to enter the home. But, the burglar was shot multiple times by the homeowner.

Under a village ordinance banning handguns, the man was fined $750. The state legislature passed a bill that said such local gun bans could not be enforced when the gun was being used for self-defense. Sen. Barack Obama voted against the bill.

The independent group factcheck.org says this NRA ad is misleading because it stretches the truth. Yes, Obama voted to uphold enforcement of local gun bans. But, he did nothing that could be characterized as denying a citizen’s right to self-protection. And, the ad producers exaggerated details of the break-in, probably for political drama.

The ad does not address a campaign pledge from Obama that he will uphold the Second Amendment, the right to bear arms. Incidentally, after the U.S. Supreme Court struck down a local gun ban in Washington D.C. this summer, the suburban Chicago town repealed its ban.

[more]