Here’s the problem with many of these claims: they contain a mix of fact, spin, and lie. This makes it difficult to pin down a statement as an unambiguous lie, and I fear here both to NRA claims and the refutations of those claims.
For example, one supposed lie from Czarcasm’s link is that the NRA claimed that Obama opposes your right to own a handgun.
He does, though.
Under certain circumstances, anyway.
The NRA’s blanket statement is certainly deceptive, because it invites the reader to infer that Obama opposes all private handgun ownership.
The refutation says that Obama supports an individual right to own a handgun, subject to “common sense,” restrictions. But the NRA rests its original claim on Obama’s state senate vote concerning a locality’s ability to forbid handguns in the home – this obviously preceded MacDonald v Chicago.
So it’s fair to say that in 2008, Obama’s voting record supports an inference that he was sanguine about Willamette, Illinois forbidding handgun ownership/storage in the home. Whether that restriction is “common sense,” or not is not a matter that can be called a lie, or called the truth; it’s opinion. The NRA surely feels it’s not; the rebuttal clearly supports the position that it is.
Similar analysis can, I expect, be applied to each and every claim above.