ace...here is his voting record on federal legislation:

Project Vote Smart - Senator Barack H. Obama Jr. - Voting Record (under - gun issues)

You can twist his vote on the Firearms Protection Liability bill and say it would "have had the impact of banning almost all rifle ammunition" and I can say that blanket liability protection for gun manufacturers, bought and paid for by the NRA, is bullshit.
-----Added 28/10/2008 at 04 : 25 : 43-----
His position is that it is a local issue. If the majority of citizens of DC or San Fransisco or Boise or Witcha want to enact local laws that go farther than the Brady Act and pass a Constitutional test, that should be their right.

Its called federalism, something the right wants on other issues, but not guns...go figure.

Thanks for your attempt at addressing this issue. My view has not changed and I don't feel my questions have been addressed. I apologize if my bringing this issue up has offended any Obama supporters. Obama is clearly for and against gun control.

ace...you are always looking for how Obama voted aganst the Democratic leadrership.

Look no farther than the Firearm Confiscation Prohibition Amendment that passed 84-16.

To prohibit the confiscation of a firearm during an emergency or major disaster if the possession of such firearm is not prohibited under Federal or State law.

U.S. Senate: Legislation & Records Home > Votes > Roll Call Vote

He voted with the Republican majority....not the 16 (Boxer, Clinton, Durbin, Feiinstein, Kennedy, Shumer.....) who voted against it.

the NRA hasn't drifted on their focus or their views, they've drifted to the extreme side of the political spectrum in order to get what they want. all roachboy is suggesting is that they may have been smarter to stay non-partisan in order to get what they wanted, as they are now being used by the RNC to get voters, which isn't the NRA's goal.

Yes, I looked at that vote and it further confused me regarding his views on gun laws. I also looked at his website and read his positions on the use of firearms for hunting and then his position on urban crime as it relates to gun control. Given, his postitions as a state Senator, his early positions on gun control, his US Senate votes on gun issues (including court nominees), his positions on the Supreme Court decision on individual's right to have guns, his campaign rhetoric, and website - I have no clue what he would do as President. Like I said earlier, thanks for the attempt.

I acknowledge his vote against his party.

ace....if you want to see inconsistencies in Obama's positions, you will.

But if you believe that residents of a community should have the right to enact strict crime control measures, including gun control, that pass a Constitutional test...then you share Obama's position.

If you believe that the federal government should not have the right to take away lawfully owned firearms during a "state of emergency" in a city/state, then you share Obama's position.

If you believe that firearm manufacturers should not have near blanket liability immunity for the misuse of their product that no other product in the country has, then you share Obama's position.

If you believe that the manufacturing, sale or importation of armor piercing ammunition should be restricted, then you share Obama's position.

And if you believe that the only additional federal legislation that should be considered are child safety devices on guns, better background checks at gun shows and the reauthorization of the ban on semi-automatic weapons, then you share Obama's position.

The case against Obama is more fear and smear.
-----Added 28/10/2008 at 06 : 40 : 11-----
FactCheck.org: NRA Targets Obama

I don't think so. I disagree with Obama on almost all the issues dealing with guns especially the ban on semi-autos (assault guns) which is just stupid. In my opinion he is just wrong and it has nothing to do with fear and smear.

flstf...I understand that the ban on semi-autos is the deal breaker for many, despite the fact that it had bi-partisan support when first enacted.

The "fear and smear" is the manner in which his positions have been mischaracterized by the NRA and more recently, McCain/Palin

(see the fact check in my post above for examples of the fear and smear)

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

NRA Claim: "Ban use of Firearms for Home Self-Defense" - false

NRA Claim: "Ban Rifle Ammunition Commonly Used for Hunting and Sport Shooting" - false

NRA Claim: "Ban the Manufacture, Sale and Possession of Handguns" - false

NRA Claim: "Mandate a Government-Issued License to Purchase a Firearm" - false

NRA Claim: "Pass Federal Laws Eliminating Your Right-to-Carry" - false

NRA Claim: "Expand the Clinton Semi-Auto Weapons Ban to Include Millions More Firearms" - partly true

NRA Claim: "Appoint Judges to the U.S. Supreme Court and Federal Judiciary Who Share His Views on the Second Amendment" - unsupported

NRA Claim: "Increase Federal Taxes on Guns and Ammunition by 500 Percent" - uncertain

NRA Claim: "Close Down 90 Percent of Gun Shops in America" - uncertain

NRA Claim: "Restore Voting Rights for Five Million Criminals Including Those Who Have been Convicted of Using a Gun to Commit a Violent Crime" - mostly true - if by giving ex-felons voting rights might also mean they could have a right to own a gun.

There are alot of smears in there, mixed with a lesser number of claims for which there might be some uncertainty.

And many of ace's claims perpetuate the same gross exaggerations as the NRA, particularly that Obama's support for legislation that would NOT give firearms manufacturers blanket liability protection (with few exceptions) that NO other US industry has, would have had the impact of banning almost all rifle ammunition.

One fair critique is that some may feel uncertain about the details of Obama's positions (applies to most candidates on most issues...the devil is in the details)...but it is also reasonable to say that neither Obama nor the Democrats in Congress have any intent of making federal gun control a central issue, particularly when they know that their own Blue Dogs wouldnt be on board.

I just read your factcheck link and it does seem like they are trying to make his positions much worse than they are. I am getting rather numb with all the campaign smears in this election. We are getting about 2 Republican robo-calls a day now, we even heard from "Joe the Plumber" today warning us against the socialist.

Wait, people seriously are pissed that they can't own semi-automatic or assault rifles for personal use? Really?

Yes. Semi-auto has nothing to do with automatic, machine guns were and are already illegal. It just means the rifle will fire one shot each time the trigger is pulled. The assault rifle ban did not get rid of guns that fire this way, only ones that look mean. In my opinion it was just a stupid political gimmick. There are many other threads here discussing these gun law issues.

Nuance is dead.

Things are either black-and-white, or they're too confusing to be understood.

It's a sad day.

you know what i find funny about this thread....

from here, i've learned more about mccain's platform than i have from a month of debates and RNC ads.

i'm not kidding.

to the other rb: i remember hearing that irony was dead a while back. judging by all kinds of recent happenings, that seems to have been premature.
that's why i have a nuanced hope for nuance: it's still around.
it's just been pushed to the background by a flood of idiocy.
even a confederacy of dunces can't kill it entirely.

how does that figure, that the NRA is geared to the exreme right, when they've endorsed numerous democrat candidates over the last 3 years?
-----Added 4/11/2008 at 01 : 41 : 15-----
machine guns are NOT illegal to own. They just require an inordinate amount of 'hoops' to jump through to acquire one as well as they only are available to the wealthy anymore due to the registry being closed in1986. Machine guns ARE legal to own.