The NRA’s Slippery Slope Strategy To Fight Background Checks

To hear the National Rifle Association tell it, the biggest problem with the bipartisan agreement to expand criminal background checks is what it doesn't propose to do.

  • Share
  • Read Later
Brain Blanco / REUTERS

Brianna, 9, of the North Florida Survival Group hands an AK-47 rifle to Jim Foster, 57, the group's leader, before heading out to conduct enemy contact drills during a field training exercise in Old Town, Florida, Dec. 8, 2012.

To hear the National Rifle Association tell it, the biggest problem with the bipartisan agreement to expand criminal background checks is what it doesn’t propose to do. “I think what they’ll do is turn this universal check on the law-abiding into a universal registry of law-abiding people,” warns Wayne LaPierre, the group’s executive vice president, on Fox News Sunday. “Obamacare wasn’t a tax until they wanted it to be a tax.”

To be clear, there is no national gun registry. The federal government keeps no records from background checks that could be used to create a gun registry. In fact, federal law prohibits the creation of a national gun registry, and the bipartisan agreement to expand background checks specifically states that it is a crime to create a gun registry. So why all the concern about mandatory gun registration?

The answer can be found in history. For more than three decades, the NRA has consistently argued that pretty much any new regulation of firearms would move the country a step closer to more draconian regulations, like gun registration and confiscation. The slippery slope argument has underscored most of the gun owner lobby’s major messaging campaigns, and successfully helped rally a core group of Americans to oppose even the most incremental new measures, and become members of the organization. In the longtime logic of the Second Amendment activist, all gun regulations are suspect because of what might happen next.

(MORE: Bipartisan Background-Check Deal May Boost Gun Bill’s Chances)

In 1982, a New York congressman, Mario Biaggi, introduced a bill that would outlaw certain armor-piercing rounds, called cop-killer bullets. The NRA responded with a fundraising appeal that called the issue of cop-killer bullets “a Trojan horse waiting outside gun owners’ door.” As recounted in Ricochet, a memoir by Second Amendment lobbyist Richard Feldman, the appeal continued, “If the antigunners have their way, this highly publicized and emotionalized issue will be used to enact a backdoor, national gun control scheme.” In other words, beware the slippery slope.

Around the same time, the NRA made the same arguments about plans to ban cheap handguns, the so-called Saturday Night Specials. In a brochure called The Myth of the Saturday Night Special, the group argued that the a ban on cheap guns used by some criminals would lead to the eventual confiscation of all handguns in America. “Donate to us. Work with us. We need your help,” the brochure concluded.

In 1994, LaPierre published a short book called Guns, Crime and Freedom, that made the same argument about a proposal to create waiting periods for gun purchases. “Waiting periods are only a first step toward more stringent ‘gun control’ measures,” LaPierre warned. “It is just one more step in the march toward national disarmament.”

(MORE: Businesses Pressured, Punished in States Passing Tough Gun Regulations)

More recently, the NRA’s Institute for Legislative Action, which handles federal lobbying, has issued a steady stream of warnings about the coming plans for registration and confiscation of firearms, even though the President has not proposed this, and recent Supreme Court rulings would make any such proposal constitutionally suspect. Here is a video from the group’s top lobbyist, Chris Cox.

Cox quotes from a draft Department of Justice memo to suggest that there is greater conspiracy at work, and that Obama has unstated goals for registration and confiscation. But the quoted memo is simply a policy analysis, not a statement of policy. The Obama Administration has repeatedly says it opposed registration and confiscation.

That has not stopped Republicans in Congress from repeatedly raising the specter of registration and confiscation. Mitch McConnell’s campaign manager, Jesse Benton, has called expanded background checks a “thinly veiled national gun registration scheme.” The Washington Post’s fact checker, Glenn Kessler, gave this claim four Pinocchios, saying “foes of Obama’s proposals are welcome to leap to all sorts of assumptions about the impact of proposed laws, but such assumptions must be grounded in facts.” The fact is the background check expansion now under consideration in Congress does not involve registration. It expressly prohibits registration.

None of this rules out the possibility that political leaders propose a gun registry in the future. Certainly many leaders, including Barack Obama, have supported it in the past. But just as speed limits do not lead to the confiscation of cars, it does not logically follow that any incremental regulation of guns, like expanding criminal background checks to include gun shows, will lead to registration. What is clear, however, is that the specter of registration and confiscation is an effective messaging device for the NRA, and one it will not stop using anytime soon.

MORE: Understanding The NRA Skittishness Over The Gun Show Loophole

156 comments
Maxwells
Maxwells

When You fail to report the opposing viewpoints and those that propose a ban and desire to confiscate guns, your article sounds like the NRA is imagining these fears and acting unsound, but the fact is their actions always seem to be in response to a proposal or plan by those opposing gun ownership, the people who's position you fail to acknowledge here, but have blatantly support.

Patriotgames
Patriotgames

Yes, those old enough know exactly what liberals and progressives want on the gun issue.  Total confiscation of all effective guns.  Total inabliity to defend one's self from criminals, tyrants, or unconstitutional acts by those under color of law.

Patriotgames
Patriotgames

And do you remember when the Government told us all we could only go 55 miles and hour.

Tboy68
Tboy68

Is the article suppose to make me realize that nobody wants to outlaw guns? Now that is funny. Even Richard Nixon wanted to outlaw and confiscate pistols, and Nancy Pelosi and others have called for the same thing. The slippery slope is real, and I don't think that a liberal antigun liberal reporter is going to fool anybody by trying to appear moderate.

markb3699
markb3699

Cup half full or cup half empty. You could look at any change in the law, such as background checks, as a step in the wrong direction. So why even try to improve things? But there's always room for improvement in anything. So what is the NRA really against? What does it stand for?

EddieVonMises
EddieVonMises

Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.

That means the Second Amendment supports prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, along with laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, and laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.

Also the sorts of weapons protected are those in common use. The government can and should prohibit the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.

jeromey
jeromey

A gun registry sounds like a great idea. Confiscation, even better. Want a gun? Rent one. 

DonQuixotic
DonQuixotic

Anti Gun Control Logic:  any stricter gun control measures in the form of background checks will lead to a gun registry which will lead to jackboot government lapdogs stealing all of our guns...

BUT

... existing background checks, which do exist, do not prevent gun purchases or block gun crime and the government is hopelessly ineffective at enforcing them.

Anyone else cross-eyed?

DonQuixotic
DonQuixotic

I'm seeing a lot of comments arguing about the definition of "assault weapons" and the like.

It already exists.  From the Assault Weapons ban of 1994-2004:

In the former U.S. law, the legal term assault weapon included certain specific semi-automatic firearm models by name (e.g., Colt AR-15, TEC-9, non-select-fire AK-47s produced by three manufacturers, and Uzis) and other semi-automatic firearms because they possess a minimum set of cosmetic features from the following list of features:

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

  • Folding or telescoping stock
  • Pistol grip
  • Bayonet mount
  • Flash suppressor, or threaded barrel designed to accommodate one
  • Grenade launcher
Semi-automatic pistols with detachable magazines and two or more of the following:
  • Magazine that attaches outside the pistol grip
  • Threaded barrel to attach barrel extender, flash suppressor, handgrip, or suppressor
  • Barrel shroud that can be used as a hand-hold
  • Unloaded weight of 50 oz (1.4 kg) or more
  • A semi-automatic version of a fully automatic firearm.
Semi-automatic shotguns with two or more of the following:
  • Folding or telescoping stock
  • Pistol grip
  • Fixed capacity of more than 5 rounds
  • Detachable magazine.
The Federal Assault Weapons Ban of 1994 amended Section 921(a) of title 18 of the United States Code to define semiautomatic assault weapons and specifically named the following nineteen (19) semi-automatic firearm models and/or model types, as well as any copies or duplicates of these firearms, in any caliber, as assault weapons (all of which are or were commonly used by police or military forces, in various countries around the globe):
  • Norinco, Mitchell Arms, and Poly Technologies AK-47 (all models)
  • Action Arms Israeli Military Industries Uzi
  • Action Arms Israeli Military Industries Galil
  • Beretta AR-70 and
  • SC-70 (variant of the AR-70)
  • Colt AR-15
  • Fabrique National FN FAL
  • FN LAR and
  • FNC
  • MAC-type handguns, including MAC-10
  • MAC-11
  • MAC 11/9 and
  • MAC-12
  • Steyr AUG
  • INTRATEC TEC-9
  • TEC-DC9 and
  • TEC-22
  • Revolving cylinder shotguns, such as (or similar to) the "Street Sweeper" and/or
  • Striker 12 (commonly referred to as the "Street Sweeper").

babycheeks
babycheeks

I support the gun registration bill, but fully understand the distrust of the gun owners. Obama is on record of saying there is no individual right to possess a gun under the Second Amendment before the SCOUS ruled otherwise( check out youtube), Biden, and Finestien have on many occasion both have said the goal is to remove all guns from private ownership and Fienstien is now saying this registration is just the "start". So you wonder why there is such distrust? The slippy slope fear is a reasonable response to express desires of the Democrats.

apr1677
apr1677

Let's see... we are not to worry because federal law prohibits a gun registry? Who will enforce it? The same ones that enforce federal drug laws? The same ones that enforce our immigration laws? The same ones that were supposed to defend and enforce DOMA? The same ones that are supposed to provide the nation with a budget each year? The same president that has vowed to do what ever he can to get his way, even side stepping our legislative branch if they don't act as he wishes. If he is willing to side step the law makers then who in their right mind would believe he wouldn't side step the laws themselves.?

How does a federal law banning a national gun registry protect us from an "evolving" president. The president went from supporting DOMA to refusing to enforce it, refusing to defend it, to advocating for is removal...all in few short years.

Long live the NRA and to hell with the anti-gun crowd. Those in congress realize something that most do not. The NRA has over 4 million members....but it is not just the NRA members that care about their gun rights. There is over 100 million gun owners and even if they are not NRA members most understand they are responsible for protecting their own gun rights and will not support anything that takes that responsibility from them and gives it to the federal government.

Hey Sorne1947...as far as who the idiots are...lets see...those that have no problem with the slaughter of a million unborn children a year is going lecture me as to why we have to pass ineffective laws because children are being killed in gun free zones. If that is representative of your  logic and intelligence...then you might be the idiot.




Sorne1947
Sorne1947

The NRA is run by a bunch of scarey idiotic  people.  They need to be removed one way or another, they are nothing more than a home grown terrorist group.

DanielStoner
DanielStoner

And just last week Joe Biden announced "This is just the beginning".  It's not complicated to figure out whether the slippery slope is real or imagined.

bawgs
bawgs

The NRA doesn't want background checks because they want as many guns on the streets as possible. Their interests lie with the gun manufacturers, not the people who blindly send them money. If the criminals have guns (or at least if they can convince people that the criminals have guns) then you'll need a gun to protect yourself. They don't care about the constitution any more than they care about school shootings. Their philosophy is eerily similar to the politics of the Bush Administration in that if they keep you scared, you keep giving them money and power. Have you noticed that since Obama has been in office, we don't have a color coded terror levels anymore? The danger hasn't changed, just the integrity of the people in charge.

NickKatz
NickKatz

A picture tells 1000 words espcially the one on this article. Here 9 year old grab the gun with no concern for safety with your finger on the trigger and the barrel pointing at our dog!

I have no problem with guns and even kids that are taught proper gun safety but anyone should be able to look at that picture and be able to come up with a list of the safety concerns the guy is ignoring.

austin87j
austin87j

The slippery slope argument is a complete fallacy.  Basically the NRA is saying that we all are so stupid that once we pass a single piece of legislation (that 92% of the country favors) we are just too ignorant as a people to keep our government from taking our guns outright.  Gun advocates: you should be the most insulted.  You put all this time into protesting gun laws and advocating your rights and yet the NRA thinks that as a demographic you are too stupid to accept sensible legislation without just laying your guns down at Obama's feet.  The NRA thinks the left is a nuisance, but they think you on the right are complete sheep incapable of showing any restraint whatsoever, and they prove it by schilling this ridiculous argument time and time again.  You should be insulted gun advocates!

1913Intel
1913Intel

After this bipartisan agreement to expand criminal background checks gets passed, will all the anti-gun groups close up shop and say their work is done? Or will these same groups get ready for the next incident when they can start the process all over again? It simply doesn't make logical sense to compromise with the left because we all know that the left will be back again and again and again. It will never end until they take away guns from everyone.

Why should the NRA start down that path?


Patriotgames
Patriotgames

@Tboy68 Good Post, these people will never understand.  YOU ARE NOT GETTING OUR GUNS. 

Patriotgames
Patriotgames

@EddieVonMises Dangerous and unusual is a bb gun to a liberal and too a gun enthusiast, they know it means a real weapon of real mass destruction.

Tboy68
Tboy68

@EddieVonMises

Like most rights, the right secured by the First Amendment is not unlimited. It is not a right to speak and write whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.

That means the First Amendment supports prohibitions on free speech by felons and the mentally ill, along with laws forbidding free speech in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, and laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial use of speech.

Also the sorts of speech protected are those in common use. The government can and should prohibit the free speech of dangerous and unusual ideas.

I am starting to see your point of view EddieVonMises. We should apply your way of thinking to all of our rights.

JJ_Bronco
JJ_Bronco

@DonQuixotic I'm actually in favor of background checks on private sales (as long as there is not a registry), but I'm not foolish enough to think that it will have a huge impact.  Criminals rarely submit themselves to background checks when they purchase firearms, because they typically don't go through federally licensed dealers.  Also if very few people are ever prosecuted for trying to subvert the background check system by lying on the forms, then it's an open invitation to keep trying and eventually you'll get through.      

Tboy68
Tboy68

@DonQuixotic The term assault weapon was invented by liberal anti -2nd Amendment crowd once they gave up attacking the owners of pistols and Saturday Night Specials. They stole the term from the military's use of the term assault rifle. An assault rifle as defined by the military is a weapon that had a smaller bullet and a higher capacity than a main battle rifle, but the bullet wasn't as small as the bullets used in a sub machine gun, which uses pistol bullets. It was also capable of selective fire between fully automatic or burst fire and semi auto. The first assault rifles by this definition appeared as early as the 1890s, but were only used in limited use during WW II. Most notably the StG 44 by the German army. The USSR was the first country to adopt an assault rifle in mass and that was the AK-47 (50 million have been produced since then).

Don't come here and try to educate gun owners with your liberal propaganda about guns, because your basic lack of common sense and understanding of how firearms actually work. That is lie telling a mechanic what the definition of carburetor is. Everything on that list produced from the 1994 Assault Weapons ban is based on cosmetic features, because they look scary. A Mini-14 with a wood stock was legal, but and AR-15 that should the same bullet and has the same rate of fire was illegal. An AK-47 with a pistol grip and a flash suppressor was illegal, but remove those two features and call it a MAC-90 and it was legal. 

Liberals don't care about result they just want something that makes them feel good. And that has been what every bill they pass has accomplished. It has made them feel good about themselves, but has done nothing to solve the problem that they wanted to fix. 

bobcn
bobcn

@DonQuixotic

I'm' bored with the anti gun reform people who avoid addressing the mass-murders that keep happening by giving me a vocabulary lesson. 

Despite their denials, when we talk about assault weapons both sides know what we're talking about.

babycheeks
babycheeks

@DonQuixotic  the new proposed definition in Finestien's bill reduces the "two or more" qualifiers down to one.  The express list of named guns has also been expanded. Just for the record.

Peace_2_All
Peace_2_All

@babycheeks 

Ahh... Don't worry -babycheeks... the government is not going to take everyone's toys away.  Aint gonna' happen.

Peace...

apr1677
apr1677

@babycheeks

You make a good point...for instance on 4/4/2013 Obama during a speech in San Francisco said the following...notice the last few words in which he deliberately lies by claiming the weapon used at Newtown was a fully automatic weapon. The following is an excerpt from the official transcript taken directly from the White House website. Eventually they will realize that people are catching him lying and scrub it from the site.

"Now, over the next couple of months, we’ve got a couple of issues:  gun control.  (Applause.)  I just came from Denver, where the issue of gun violence is something that has haunted families for way too long, and it is possible for us to create common-sense gun safety measures that respect the traditions of gun ownership in this country and hunters and sportsmen, but also make sure that we don’t have another 20 children in a classroom gunned down by a semiautomatic weapon -- by a fully automatic weapon in that case, sadly.  

Why did he lie? Maybe because he knows many of the anti-gun advocates are clueless when it comes to guns and is using that lack of knowledge in his favor by intentionally misleading them. So you are right...I don't trust this president or his legion of uniformed parrots to not infringe upon my 2nd amendment rights...several of which are easy to spot in this comment section.

DonQuixotic
DonQuixotic

@babycheeks

Obama is on record of saying there is no individual right to possess a gun under the Second Amendment before the SCOUS ruled otherwise( check out youtube)

Could you link that please, because that sounds awfully suspicious of an edit or a taken out of context quote.

JJ_Bronco
JJ_Bronco

@babycheeks Not to mention that we'll be getting a new president in a few years, another one a few years after that, and so on.  There's no guarantee that a power given to a benign president won't later be wielded by a tyrant.

DonQuixotic
DonQuixotic

@apr1677

If your argument against a gun registry centers around the inability to perfectly enforce law, why do we have any laws at all?

Long live the NRA and to hell with the anti-gun crowd. Those in congress realize something that most do not. The NRA has over 4 million members....but it is not just the NRA members that care about their gun rights. There is over 100 million gun owners and even if they are not NRA members most understand they are responsible for protecting their own gun rights and will not support anything that takes that responsibility from them and gives it to the federal government.

I'm a gun owner and I fully support stricter gun control laws.  Don't act like a small sliver of fringe gun enthusiasts speak for the rest of us.

Tboy68
Tboy68

@Sorne1947  

Scared idiotic people? 100 million gun owners have not committed a crime.Now who is running around scared trying to tlimit objects that have harmed nobody and never will either?

Tboy68
Tboy68

@bawgs  

You scared of the color code? And you think changing the color code gives a new administration more integrity? Wow, no offense, but I wish that I was that easily impressed. That explains a lot about Obama's reelection. 

JJ_Bronco
JJ_Bronco

@bawgs Your president hides behind children and insinuates that if he doesn't get his way, all of our kids are doomed.  But the NRA are just a bunch of fear mongers...  Be careful there, your ivory tower might actually be a glass house.  

Tboy68
Tboy68

@austin87j  

You antigunners can claim the slippery slope is myth all you want but a lot of people are not buying it. Twenty years ago the NRA had 3 million members, and it was hailed as one of the most effective lobbyist organizations in history. Now it has5 million members, so I can't wait to see what they can accomplish in the next election, especially now that the Democrats are exposing their true colors after laying low on gun control for ten years. This has been the best thing for the conservative base in years!

DanielStoner
DanielStoner

@austin87j Then why did Feinstein say should would ban ALL guns in America if she could?  Why did Joe Biden say just last week that "This is just the beginning", referring to the proposed gun control package?  Why did New York state just change their magazine round legal limit from 10 to 7?  Why did Conn. just pass a new stricter so-called "assault weapons ban", when they already had one, and it did nothing to stop the tragedy?  The ban-happy crowd are NEVER satisfied - they always want more bans, more bans, and yet more bans - they / you will never ever stop until guns are completely illegal or maybe you'll let us keep a .177 cal air rifle which shoots under 500 fps. The slippery slope argument couldn't possibly be more real, obvious, and patently true.  You know nothing of what you speak, Austin.

JJ_Bronco
JJ_Bronco

@1913Intel Great point.  It doesn't matter what side of the spectrum they come from or how just the cause in the beginning, these groups never seem to "put down their sword" after they win.  Because by that time, they have tasted power, money, and fame and they don't want to let it go.  

bawgs
bawgs

@1913Intel Because it's what's in the best interest of our country and it's what a majority of the people want. Isn't it ironic that you gun nuts all love to pretend that you only want guns to keep the government in check, and yet, here you are fighting against them for trying to do what a vast majority of the American people want? And stop saying that they're coming for your guns since you know they're not. There will always be some people who want that, but as reasonable, intelligent people, we have to learn to ignore the extremists on both sides of the issue.

NickKatz
NickKatz

@1913Intel The NRA has only one path and that is to get as many guns out there as they possibly can no matter what they have to do to get more guns out there. I am a gun rights supporter and a gun owner and quite honeslty the NRA makes me sick to my stomach. Kids shot in schools who is first on the scene the NRA to tell people it is there fault because they didn't have security gaurds with MORE guns in the schools.

NRA = Right Wing PETA

babycheeks
babycheeks

@DonQuixotic@babycheeks 

A fair request. Trying to locate the comment I saw on youtube in 2008. However have found so far that   "1996 document, which was filed when Obama was running for the Illinois state Senate. A Chicago nonprofit, Independent Voters of Illinois, had this question, and Obama took hard line:

35. Do you support state legislation to:
a. ban the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns? Yes.
b. ban assault weapons? Yes.
c. mandatory waiting periods and background checks? Yes.

Source: FactCheck.org analysis of 2008 Philadelphia primary debate Apr 16, 2008"

austin87j
austin87j

@DanielStoner @austin87j Never once in modern history has anyone seriously proposed banning all guns from American citizens.  As for what off-hand comments Feinstein said - who cares?  If you all get this upset over background checks for all gun sales, how would the government ever take guns away?  It's not possible, it's never going to happen, no one wants it to happen. You like all your cronies just make spew extreme NRA talking points to get people scared and riled up so our government will pass extreme legislation written by the NRA like making it illegal to keep a national gun registry.  To all the points you make in your comment I stand by original comment:  none of them are going to lead to all-out ban on guns, and there is no slippery slope.

apr1677
apr1677

@DonQuixotic @JJ_Bronco

"we" whoever they are... have no right to draw lines for me.

"I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
George Mason
Co-author of the Second Amendment
during Virginia's Convention to Ratify the Constitution, 1788

"And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the Press, or the rights of Conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms; …"
Samuel Adams
quoted in the Philadelphia Independent Gazetteer, August 20, 1789, "Propositions submitted to the Convention of this State"

"The supposed quietude of a good man allures the ruffian; while on the other hand arms, like laws, discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as property. The same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of arms, for all would be alike; but since some will not, others dare not lay them aside … Horrid mischief would ensue were the law-abiding deprived of the use of them."

Thomas Paine

"Firearms stand next in importance to the constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence … from the hour the Pilgrims landed to the present day, events, occurences and tendencies prove that to ensure peace security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable … the very atmosphere of firearms anywhere restrains evil interference — they deserve a place of honor with all that's good."
George Washington
First President of the United States

When it comes to my 2nd amendment right .it is perfectly clear  and as long as the Constitution is the law of the land then I have the right to stand with the backing of the Founding Fathers and say "up yours" to the "we" that would draw lines of infringement.

DonQuixotic
DonQuixotic

@JJ_Bronco @DonQuixotic 

It's up for debate about where we should draw the line on the type of firearms citizens should be allowed to own (and what qualifications they should have to go through to own them), but having the debate is the first step.

JJ_Bronco
JJ_Bronco

@DonQuixotic @JJ_Bronco  I would agree that there are some weapons that no citizen should own, but my position is that those firearms are already illegal, or so difficult to legally purchase that they might as well be illegal.  I do not believe that a semi automatic, .223, mini 14 is okay if it's equipped with a wooden stock, but is a "weapon of war" when you put a pistol grip on it.  

DonQuixotic
DonQuixotic

@JJ_Bronco @DonQuixotic @babycheeks

So called "Assault Weapons" are guns and he supports legistaltion that would take them from law abiding Americans.  So I think you have to at least concede that, Obama does want to confiscate some of our guns.

I do, sure, but there are some guns that no citizen reasonably needs.  Why do you think private citizens are not allowed to own weapons of war?

babycheeks
babycheeks

@DonQuixotic@babycheeks Check YouTube,  "Barack Obama Flip Flops on D.C. Gun Ban" that references his belief that the DC gun ban was constitutional before the Supreme Court ruled otherwise. DC's ban was so complete you could not have a handgun in your home.  I cannot locate the video I saw in 2008 but I suspect it is the one the reporter references in his question to Obama. Sorry.

JJ_Bronco
JJ_Bronco

@DonQuixotic @babycheeks So called "Assault Weapons" are guns and he supports legistaltion that would take them from law abiding Americans.  So I think you have to at least concede that, Obama does want to confiscate some of our guns.  And then we have this:

"Because frankly, in my home town of Chicago, there’s an awful lot of violence and they’re not using AK-47s. They’re using cheap hand guns."

Maybe I'm reading too much into this, but I predict that we'll be revisiting the "Saturday Night Special" debate right after we are done with the "Assault Weapons" one.

DonQuixotic
DonQuixotic

@babycheeks @DonQuixotic

Thanks.  I found the FactCheck article you referenced which seems to be the source of all of this:

Politico.com, March 31, 2008: "Sen. Obama didn’t fill out these state Senate questionnaires – a staffer did – and there are several answers that didn’t reflect his views then or now," Tommy Vietor, a spokesman for Obama’s campaign, said in an e-mailed statement. "He may have jotted some notes on the front page of the questionnaire at the meeting, but that doesn’t change the fact that some answers didn’t reflect his views. His 11 years in public office do."

I'm inclined to believe that as lazy as politicians are, and even if he did write it that was back in 1996.  I'll believe Obama wants to confiscate guns when I see legislation that suggests as much.