Pajama Pundits

'fact'check dot org (I won't send them traffic if I can help it) has apparently adopted the Rather gambit and jettisoned any pretense at neutrality in 'reporting' *ahem* "facts".

Okay, the NRA is not going to endorse a Kerry Presidency any time soon. It might have something to do with a 20-year record of supporting pretty much every gun control measure that came down any pipe. (take that however you like)

Does that excuse things like 'fact'check's deliberate obfuscation when referencing an NRA ad that was actually right in its particulars?
Consider:

The National Rifle Association Political Victory Fund began airing a TV ad Oct. 26 falsely accusing Kerry of voting to ban deer-hunting ammunition. In fact, what Kerry voted for was a proposal to outlaw rifle ammunition "designed or marketed as having armor piercing capability."

The problem is, the measure, as written, would ban deer-hunting ammunition.
Leaving aside the 'unintended consequences' of the thing, (but we'll get back to it) hunting ammunition is 'designed' to do two things, penetrate deeply, and expand uniformly. The problem is, the 'penetration test' Kerry's bill uses involves soft body armor worn by police units. (not the tac guys, the street cops) It was never intended to stop centerfire rifle ammunition, for a very good reason. Rifles are used in a very, very small fraction of all violent crime, because they're bulky and can be awkward to handle. The exceptions generally get LOTS of exposure, precisely due to their rarity.

So what does 'fact'check have to say about it?

The ad starts off saying, "John Kerry says he’s a sportsman, so why did he vote to ban deer hunting ammunition . . .?" In fact, what Kerry voted for was an amendment sponsored by Sen. Ted Kennedy that would have covered rifle bullets capable of piercing soft body armor and also marketed as "armor-piercing," and wasn't aimed at hunting ammunition.

Oh boy, I'm supposed to be comforted because Ted says 'it wasn't "aimed' at hunting ammunition? Lemme think for a second...
uhh...
no.
Okay, here's the deal. That 'soft body armor' is designed to be a balance between protection and wearability, because the cops have to be able to move in the damn things and wear them for a whole shift. You then do a 'risk assessment', studying what your field guys will likely encounter; measure that against the fact that the more protective body armor is, the bulkier it gets; look at the fact that the real 'weapon of choice' for garden variety thugs of all stripes tends to be a .38 revolver; and wind up with 'body armor' that protects the wearer's vital organs against most small-to-medium handgun rounds. Anything significantly stronger would be significantly bulkier/more restrictive, and would protect against incoming fire that generally, a cop won't face. The tac guys use much heavier body armor, but they don't have to chase anyone down and they don't wear it all day.
Enter centerfire rifles.
Even on the lower end of the 'power scale' where rifles are concerned, the soft armor vests police wear won't even slow the bullets down much. As a 'for instance', the .223 Remington (5.56 NATO, if you want it in metric) uses a very light bullet (55 grains or so) zipping along at around 3000 feet per second. It'll go through a level 1 vest like it was a t-shirt.
Guess what?
It's not powerful enough for hunting in most areas that allow rifles. The venerable .308 Winchester (7.62 NATO) uses bullets in the 150 grain range, at around 2800 FPS or so. It's not a hugely powerful cartridge as rifle cartridges go, but it will ignore a Kevlar vest. In between the .223 and the .308? There are a whole lot of pretty common 'deer hunting' rounds like the .243, the .257 and the .270, all of which, with a very ordinary hunting bullet, will go right through a level 1 vest.
The funny part about all this is that two of the most popular hunting cartridges in the US are the 30-06 and the 30-30. The 30-30 is fractionally under the .308 in 'power', if you want to look at things pretty simply, and the .308 is a shortened 30-06.
(If you're curious as to why; the 'ought-six', was the US military round through WWII, in bolt-action Springfields in WWI, and the Garand later. Looking to cut down on recoil a little, they shortened the case and brought out the .308, along with the M-14 which is still a very good battle rifle. Zillions of the bolt-action 30-06 rifles were surplussed and sold after WWI, Garands were available starting after WWII and NATO is still using the .308. In short, a whole lot of rifles using these cartridges were available very inexpensively. Hence: popularity. (it helps that they're perfectly adequate for anything one would care to hunt in North America, with the possible exception of really big brown bears))
All these cartridges, very commonly used in hunting, would fail the hell out of Kerry's 'penetration' test.

'fact'check would like you to believe that the measure is primarily designed to ban 'armor piercing' munitions, such as the stuff advertised here, but fails to tell you that the round would penetrate the 'soft body armor' without the hard metal core.

Larry Craig (R Idaho) talks about the 'hunting' part.

The amendment's actual aim and effect would be to expand the definition of ``armor-piercing'' to include ammunition based, not on any threat to law enforcement officers, but on a manufacturer's marketing strategy. . . . The standards he establishes in his legislation, performance-based standards, ban what is currently on-the-shelf hunting ammunition. Does the hunting ammunition in a high-powered rifle have the ability to penetrate soft body armor? Yes, it does. . . .He says not.
. . .The fact is, virtually all hunting and target rifle ammunition is capable of penetrating soft body armor. That is a reality. So by his definition does that go off the market? I believe it does.

I do, too. Remember that 'unintended consequences' part? This is why I don't think they're unintended at all. Set up an unrealistically soft target for a penetration test, one which not a few handgun rounds and pretty well all rifle rounds will fail, and you mightn't have 'banned' firearms, but you've damn sure banned everything that comes out the business ends of them, which works out to civilian disarmament, which has been the MassKK's plan for quite a long time. (in an interesting turn of events, one of Kennedy's bodyguards was busted with an unlicensed, fully-automatic submachine gun (for me, not thee (go figure)))

That is why I think it is unnecessary.

It depends on what you consider 'necessary', Senator Craig. Kerry and Kennedy apparently think it's 'necessary' to disarm the law-abiding citizens. (I have this sneaking suspicion that Kerry's firearms will go unaffected (Kennedy's bodyguard walked (what a surprise)))

'fact'check tries to cover Kennedy's... leavings: (my cat does that too, in a little box in the laundry room)

Ignored both by Craig and the NRA, however, is the plain language of the amendment itself, which referred to ammunition that could penetrate body armor and is designed or sold as "armor piercing." Both conditions would have had to apply for the ammunition to fall under the proposed ban.

Ignored by factlesscheck is the 'penetration test' by which pretty much all centerfire rifle cartridges can be shown to be 'designed' to ignore soft body armor.

They also cover NRA's assertion that Kerry voted 9 times to ban guns by saying that Kerry voted 9 times to ban guns.

Then we get to the shotgun gambit.
I'll cover that later. (rest assured, it's just more of the same)
Read for yourself