NRA is Fact Checking the Fact Checkers over Hillary’s endorsement of the Australian Model of gun control. The problem with a lot of these Fact Check sites is that they are fact checking opinion. I’ve seen this in a more contexts than guns. It is a fact that Hillary Clinton endorsed the Australian Model. This is not disputable. But it’s the opinion of the fact checkers that she didn’t really mean it, because her campaign tried to walk it back. Fact checkers should judge facts. They shouldn’t be in the business of discerning whether a politician is lying or spinning for the general public. It’s fine to mention Hillary’s campaign tried to walk back the statement. It’s fine to mention when asked directly about supporting confiscation, she dodges. It’s the ultimate judgement that the claim is false because she’s of course telling the truth that she didn’t really mean it that I have issue with. That should be for the public to decide.
Based on how I see these fact check sites used on social media, their sole purpose is as a mean to allow Democrats to smugly shut down lines of arguments that are potentially damaging to their candidates: “Politifact said it was false, so shut up with your paranoid wing nut NRA talking points.”
Based on her whole body of comments, they can make a pretty good case that she thought Australia’s program was voluntary. But to call the NRA “mostly false” because of that is absurd.
“The NRA are a bunch of liars because Hillary has no idea what she’s talking about”
Bullshit,She knew well it was a mandate.
I could just as easily go with her lying. In general, even the staunchest antis pay a lot less attention to gun policy than we do.
Well, technically, I suppose it WAS voluntary.
All owners of banned firearms could VOLUNTEER to go to prison for ten years – oh, and lose their guns anyway.
See, they had a CHOICE!
With 100% registration of handguns for the lawful, there was no way for gun owners to avoid “turning them all in”.
/sarc
Sure there was. And, seemingly, a lot of them took it, just as was done in CT and NY.
If it’s the case that she *THOUGHT* it was voluntary, then that still isn’t flattering for her. There are only two possible reasons for her to endorse the Australian model:
1. She knows it wasn’t voluntary and she was trying to fool people into thinking it was, or
2. She didn’t know it was mandatory and thus was making political statements from her posterior nether region.
Those are the only two possible cases. Neither of them make her look good on this issue.
Democrat operatives with bylines.
They do the same thing with Clinton’s comments about the Supreme Court.