screen-shot-2016-10-18-at-7-22-21-am-copy

kimber_blk_logo_small

We’ve hardly been alone in noting that so-called fact-checking organizations the media loves to cite are usually just thinly veiled political operations with an axe to grind. PolitiFact is a prime example of the art. Now, three weeks from the election, the NRA is out with this Fisking of PolitiFact’s takedown of one of the gun rights org’s campaign ads:

The so-called independent fact-checker, PolitiFact, is the latest example of blatant mainstream media bias on the issue of firearms and the Second Amendment.

The organization “fact-checked” an NRA campaign ad which quotes Hillary Clinton as saying that she thinks “it would be worth considering” when asked about gun confiscation in America. Those are Hillary’s exact words when asked at a town hall meeting in New Hampshire last year if she supported America adopting Australia-style gun confiscations.

The audience member’s question for Hillary: “Australia managed to take away tens of thousands – millions – of handguns and in one year they were all gone. Can we do that and why? If we can’t, why not?”

Hillary’s answer: “I think that’s worth considering.”

Fact: Australia’s 1996 gun law was not voluntary. It was compulsory. Anyone found with an illegal or unregistered firearm was threatened with 10 years in prison.

Hillary Claim: The Clinton campaign said Hillary opposes gun confiscation and accused the NRA of distorting her comments. According to PolitiFact, a campaign spokesperson emailed them with this whopper, “Of course Hillary does not support national mandatory gun buyback programs, including those modeled after Australia’s program. She was discussing voluntary buyback programs, which are drastically different than what occurred in Australia and are regularly run by cities across the America.”

Fact: Hillary Clinton was referring directly to Australia’s gun confiscation scheme when she answered the question. Her later attempts to back track on her support for “considering” gun confiscations is more of the usual politician double-speak.

PolitiFact Claim: “We asked the NRA if it had any other evidence that it believes shows Clinton is open to gun confiscation. A spokeswoman for the gun group’s lobbying arm questioned whether that was “relevant” to our fact-check and didn’t provide an answer.”

Fact: The NRA ad was referring only to Hillary’s comments at the New Hampshire town hall meeting. The NRA made no other claims about any other Hillary comments on the subject. So, to bring in other instances is irrelevant to this fact-check.

PolitiFact Claim: “…there’s an element of truth to the NRA’s statement, but it ignores critical facts that would give a different impression. That makes it Mostly False.”

Fact: PolitiFact ignored Hillary Clinton’s actual words when asked a direct question. That question was to determine her opinion on the Australia program. She answered that question saying “…it’s worth considering.” PolitiFact ignores Clinton’s answer to the voter’s question and accepts her staff ‘s clean up spin at face value.

Conclusion: PolitiFact had the relevant information necessary to fact-check the NRA ad. They ignored the facts and instead twisted the information to fit the Hillary campaign’s false narrative about guns. PolitiFact has been co-opted by the mainstream media and is 100 percent biased in this fact-checker on Hillary Clinton’s stated position that Australia-style gun confiscations are “worth considering.”

Recommended For You

23 Responses to Kimber Gun Rights Bulletin: NRA Fisks Slanted PolitiFact Campaign Ad ‘Fact-Check’

    • I am always a bit surprised that lying is the norm for many media outlets, politicians, and fact checkers.

    • The surprise is that the NRA is actually fighting back, instead of just absorbing abuse from leftist politicians and biased media flacks.

  1. So now we need a website that fact-checks the fact checker websites. Probably need to AdBlock all the penis enlargement ads and humiliated drunk girls videos from that site as well.

    • The ads I get are for suppressors and night vision scopes. What are you surfing for on the internet that keys your ads to penis enlargement and drunk girls? Then again, nevermind. I don’t want to know. ;~}

  2. “Fact checking” has been rolled into the main-stream media wheelhouse and so it has about as much credibility.

    There isn’t a damn thing left that hasn’t been politicized.

  3. :”, PolitiFact, is the latest example of blatant mainstream media bias ”

    Umm… no, it’s not “lately” at all. I remember Politifact (in particular) doing this nonsense 8 years ago.

    The more interesting thing, is that Hilary seems to think that taking a hard-line on gun control is to her benefit, while Politifact is doing its level best to dilute her zeal on the subject.

    • They didn’t say it only happened “lately.” They said it was the “latest example.” That implies it’s been going on for a while.

      • They said that the fact checkER was the latest example, not that the individual fact CHECK was the latest example.

    • You have a real good point, there, if Hillary loses, I can imagine her blaming the biased media for preventing the people from hearing her excellent plans for firearm confiscation and civil war. You’d think they would be getting behind her and shouting her plans from the rooftops. Could be that even the morons who run the media are smarter than she is.

  4. So, by these standards, if Trump were to make some comment about grabbing women “right by the p***y”, his campaign could simply say he didn’t say that at all, he never touched a woman inappropriately, and his words were being distorted. Then any time the Clinton campaign refers to him saying those exact words, that claim would be rated “mostly false.”

    Right?

    I’m amazed at some of their rationales sometimes, where they basically come out and admit that the claim is totally correct (or totally false) , but since Chewbacca lives on Endor, but is not an Ewok, it doesn’t make sense and therefore it’s mostly false (or mostly true) .

  5. Oh please people, the question was not “Do you support mandatory firearm confiscation as a way to remove firearms from the public”. It was a very twisted way of asking that question. One that “gun people” would understand, but not necessarily Clinton.
    Now, do I think she is truly anti-gun, I have no idea. But her base is, and think she will say anything she needs to get elected and I don’t think she would have any problems with killing private firearm ownership if that helped her politically. At the same time, If being totally pro second amendment would guarantee her the election, she will do it in a heart beat.

    • Really? Assuming the quote is correct, even the question was worded such that Australia managed to “take away” handguns…. regardless, if you think Hillary doesn’t (or didn’t) know that the Australian buy back program was mandatory, I think you’re giving her a bit too much credit for ignorance.

      • “I think that’s worth considering.” sound like a political answer to WTF are you trying to ask. Why was the question just not “do you think mandatory gun confiscation would work in the US” ? And do you really think she really cares about gun ownership at all other than how it effects her personally? And do you think any of her power comes from defending the Constitution? Did you hear her in the debate? I will pick justices who live in the real world, not ones who will defend the Constitution. Do you think she would even care about the Lawful Commerce in Arms Act if the Newtown lawsuit?

        FYI, they did not take all the handgun’s. You can still own one, but it is a total pain in the ass. It was a total PITA before John Howard, so explain to me how the question makes any sense. You are actually into guns so you should know that.

  6. Politifact rated as “mostly false” Trumps statement during debate. Trump stated that 33,000 emails were deleted after a subpoena had been issued.
    Politifact agreed that a subpoena had been issued for the email. Politifact also agreed that weeks later the 33,000 emails had been deleted.
    Why the “mostly false” rating? Politifact decided there no intent to deceive or hide information. Again bias and quibble to avoid the facts

  7. Why does the “town hall meeting” link in this article link to a 2014 town hall transcript, rather than the 2015 one which contains the topic of this entire article?

  8. As far as I can tell the only change in “handgun regulations” after all that was the exact question, was that you have to start with with a 22 pistol. And as far as I can tell no legally owned handguns were required to be turned in.
    Almost all the law was centering around long guns.

    Interesting article on actual Australian gun ownership.
    http://time.com/4172274/what-its-like-to-own-guns-in-a-country-with-strict-gun-control/

    And just a disclaimer, I know Hillary has no respect for the Second Amendment and to be honest will you, I don’t think she respect for any of of the Constitution. But at the same time, I think we are all reading way to much into her answer.

    • “And as far as I can tell no legally owned handguns were required to be turned in.”

      That would be because handguns were _already_ extremely heavily regulated at the time. It was already illegal to own one outside of very limited circumstances.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *