The point the NRA was trying to make is the school has 11 armed security officers assigned to it. This is not secret service, but armed guards in a school. It did not get translated that way through the press. I think the NRA was trying to point out that the very suggestion which the NRA put forth and was ridiculed is the exact policy of the school where the President's children attend along with other high profile families . All that being said, the children of presidents should be off limits regardless.

did you watch the ad?...there were no pictures of the kids, their names were not used....it pointed out the blatant hypocricy of this president, he(or I believe, Carney) made that statement dismissing the idea that guards in schools was any kind of alternative ....knowing that the president's own children enjoy the protection of many guards at their school.........I agree that in a less surreal world, the kids should never enter a debate....but these people wave issues in your face and then condemn you for commenting...it's shameful game...but necessary I guess, in the fundamental transformation of America


"repugnant and cowardly"?....those words define the left's leadership in this country currently, listening and watching both the national response and the NY response from liberal politicians I was struck by the "mould" that these people all seem to have been cut from...self-satisfied, arrogant, elitist, superior, blatantly dishonest(seemingly revelling in their own obvious dishonesty) and dismissive of anything but their "enlightened" opinion...I honestly don't think there's any "co-existing" with these people...they will continue to push and sneer and at some point all of the little fires that they are setting will burst into conflict...and they will sit back and watch it burn...it's what community organizers do...

"A People's Organization is dedicated to an eternal war. It is a war(in their minds) against poverty, misery, delinquency, disease, injustice, hopelessness, despair, and unhappiness(which provides them justification). They are basically the same issues for which nations have gone to war in almost every generation. . . . War is not an intellectual debate, and in the war against social evils there are no rules of fair play. . ."Alinsky

rules

1) One's concern with the ethics of means and ends varies inversely with one's personal interest in the issue, and one's distance from the scene of conflict (Alinsky 1972: 26)

2) The judgement of the ethics of means is dependent upon the political position of those sitting in judgement (Alinsky 1972: 26-9).

3) In war, the end justifies almost any means (Alinsky 1972: 29-30)

9) Any effective means is automatically judged by the opposition as being unethical (Alinsky 1972: 35-6).

10) You do what you can with what you have and clothe it with moral garments (Alinsky 1972: 36-45)

4) Make the enemy live up to their own book of rules (Alinsky 1972: 128).

5) Ridicule is man's most potent weapon (Alinsky 1972: 128).

11) If you push a negative hard and deep enough it will break through into its counterside (Alinsky 1972: 129).


"We are being played; it's time we learned the game.

Conservatives have their Constitution. Progressives have their Narrative. The current battle for America is between these two concepts, and each side uses different rules to fight it."
http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/...ef_manual.html


You might be a progressive ideologue if:

3. You are a master at projecting or "transferring" what could be your problem or attitude (but not really) on to others.

4. You find that people who don't agree with you are idiots or racists or mean-spirited...or mean-spirited racist idiots.

6. You consider your thinking based on emotion, and you express it through emotion -- even to the point of shameful antics. And you think that's perfectly okay.

10. You are certain that you never ever operate from an ideological position."

I agree, it was sleazy. Pres. kids should be off limits.

Did I hear correctly that Bank of America no longer will allow purchases of firearms or ammunition on a debit card??
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

he stated with great sanctimony and a tortured definition of sleazy...:uhuh:....it was TRUE :uhuh:....which is why there's such feigned indignation...

There are far more critical issues the Pres should be working on right now, we are falling into a Fiscal Abyss and he has the country focused on disarming themselves. Typical smoke and mirrors of Fundamental Change.

They are one of the least "moral" banks around......lot of balls to be tossing those rules out................

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

it wasnt about the presidents kids, it was about their protection - armed guards. The NRA has a point, the president believes his kids should be guarded with guns, but not everyone elses?
I think its a great point.

Exactly, the message being sent is that his children are more important than other people's children. I don't know too many parents who would agree with that.

i thought of this thread last night while watching tv. im not a prude, but this is exactly (shorter versions) what I saw last night while watching the Mavs vs rockets game with my kids on TV

Bullet to the Head Official Trailer #1 (2012) - Sylvester Stallone Movie HD - YouTube

The Last Stand TRAILER (2012) Arnold Schwarzenegger Movie HD - YouTube

Parker Trailer (2013) - YouTube

This was at 7:30 at night, prime time for LITTLE KIDS to be watching TV. WTF? This crap wasnt available on network television, it was LATE night on cable when I was growing up. We werent exposed to this level of violence. You can tell me this is not contributing to whats going on in the country. The f'in commericals are almost R rated! Where are the hollywood libs? Why arent they protesting their own companies???????????

"the intent of the Framers was to prevent Tyrrany by making the government afraid of the people. With that in mind, we should have access to the best available technology."

I agree that was the framers intent. However, if someone genuinely believes that the only thing stopping the Marine Corps or the 82nd Airborne from attacking them is the possibility they might be armed...I'd say that person is extremely paranoid and not that bright.

If you want to keep those guns legal on the grounds that banning them is constitutional, I think you could have a valid point. If you say that citizens genuinely need these weapons to keep the federal gov't at bay, I don't think that argument holds water anymore. There are too many safeguards guaranteeing that can't happen.

"There are far more critical issues the Pres should be working on right now"

On that, I absolutely agree 100%. Even if you ignore the economy and say that violence is the most pressing issue, these bans won't do anything. 99.999% of crime is not committed with these weapons. In my opinion, that doesn't mean that some good can't be done by banning them (though we need to also talk aboutthe constitutionality of any proposed ban)...but far more good could be done by addressing the problem of violence at its source, which is family dysfunction, poverty, and mental illness. This ban does absolutely nothing to address these things.

Agreed, and on top of that, I don't care how many semi-auto AR-15s you have, you're going to be no match for a 50-cal machine gun or a Gatling....

Oh and the other funny thing about all of this is that its only helping the gun industry, Ruger stock is up...
A friend of mine purchased a gun a few weeks ago and he said he waited almost an hour just to talk to a sales person because there were so many people buying...

Give me a break. When has a President's kids not had protection? Is he the one who assigned protection for the kids? This is a President that has had more death threats then any other President.

Its not that he believes his kids are more important, it is that the risk of something happening to them is so much higher.

Are you high again ? 😜
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Huh? I would love to see your source on this please!!
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Do a quick search on "death threats against Obama".

But is he the one who ordered secret service protection for his kids? Did other President's kids have the protection that seems to have gotten everyone riled up or is he being treated differently?

noone has suggested the windmills that you are currently jousting....the "thing" that has everyone riled up was his dismissiveness and ridicule of the notion of having guards at schools... as he himself currently enjoys the assurance as a parent that his own children have guards at the school that they attend...for someone that (mis)uses the "h" word so frequently, you should have gotten that part :)

btw...this happens to be about the only thing that has been proposed that might have stopped the incident at Sandy Hook

Unacceptable when the NRA mentions kids when discussing why gun control won't work. However, it's ok for Obama to leverage the emotional response of children in his speeches and for the gun control crowd to leverage "dead babies" to further their agenda.

Keep guns out of schools (unless the children of high-profile parents attend there).
http://i.imgur.com/cbsYA.jpg

What's good for the King, the peasants aren't worthy of.

pretty funny that Spence began this thread whining about an adult conversation on gun control and we've ended up with his hero signing something with a bunch of 5 year olds standing around him.......

great title

"An Infantile Spectacle"

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/0...cle-86311.html

Come on Scott!
" Even if there's one life to save, then we have an obligation to try "
Wish he felt that way about Benghazi .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

not to mention the 40,000 plus..plus..plus....dead in Syria thanks to John Kerry, Hillary Clinton and Nancy Pelosi's favorite "reformer" :uhuh:


this is great...

"Here's Mrs. Clinton's fuller quote, from March 27, 2011, answering CBS's Bob Schieffer on why the U.S. was prepared to intervene against Moammar Gadhafi but not against Assad: "There's a different leader in Syria now," she explained. "Many of the members of Congress of both parties who have gone to Syria in recent months have said they believe he is a reformer."

That caused some raising of eyebrows. So a few days later Mrs. Clinton clarified: "I referenced the opinions of others. That was not speaking either for myself or for the administration." oops:)

How could Mrs. Clinton justify administration policy by citing opinions she supposedly refused to endorse? Because she's a genius, obviously. The more relevant point is that she was mouthing the conventional liberal wisdom of the day, which paid more heed to a dictator than to those he repressed. Maybe it's time Assad's apologists apologize to the people of Syria.

A lengthy and mostly flattering New York Times profile from 2005 portrays Assad and his wife Asma as a progressive duo struggling to drag their unwieldy country into the 21st century—while trying to deal with an inept Bush administration too stupid to engage him or give him latitude for reform. sounds strangely familiar

Also in 2005, a ferocious battle erupted in the U.S. Senate over the confirmation of John Bolton as ambassador to the U.N. A key point of contention: his congressional testimony from late 2003 claiming Damascus had "one of the most advanced Arab state chemical weapons capabilities," and that it might have a covert interest in developing a nuclear bomb. The CIA reportedly went berserk over what it considered Mr. Bolton's undue alarmism, which would later help sink his nomination in the Senate.

What came next was a chorus of congressional sycophancy. In 2007, Nancy Pelosi enthused that "the road to Damascus is a road to peace." On March 16, 2011—the day after the first mass demonstration against the regime—John Kerry said Assad was a man of his word who had been "very generous with me." He added that under Assad "Syria will move; Syria will change as it embraces a legitimate relationship with the United States." This is the man who might be our next secretary of state."



it's just "bizarro world" :uhuh:

I wish someone put that to Obama. Good point!

(Reuters) - New Jersey Republican Governor Chris Christie harshly criticized the National Rifle Association on Thursday for referring to U.S. President Barack Obama's children in an ad that advocates putting armed guards in schools, calling it "reprehensible" and "wrong."

"I think it's awful to bring public figures' children into the political debate," Christie said at a press conference in Trenton, New Jersey.

The NRA ad, posted online on Tuesday, calls Obama a "hypocrite" for expressing skepticism over a NRA proposal to put more armed guards in schools following the shooting in a Newtown, Connecticut, school last month that killed 26 people, 20 of them six and seven years old.

"Are the president's kids more important than yours?" a narrator asks in the ad, pointing out that Obama's two daughters have Secret Service protection.

"To talk about the president's children or any public officer's children who have - not by their own choice, but by requirement - to have protection, to use that somehow to try to make a political point is reprehensible,"

"I think any of us who are public figures, you see that ad and you cringe," said

Christie, who is considered a possible Republican presidential contender in 2016, said the ad undermines the NRA's credibility at time when gun control has moved to the center of the political debate.

"It's wrong and I think it demeans them and it makes them less of a valid trusted source of information on the real issues that confront this debate," he said.

I tend to agree with Christie on this. Obamas kids need more protection just due to the fact that they are his kids.

That being said Obama using children to promote his gun control package is nearly as bad.

"I have seen studies suggesting that stricter gun laws disarm law-abiding citizens and make it easier for violent criminals to operate. But I’m open to reviewing new data if the President has some to offer after he’s done tweeting the most recent missive from an eight-year-old."

This was my favorite quote of an article written by Carrie Lukas - Women And Policy - Forbes

She brings up some decent points.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I hear a lot of folks saying that the children of politicians should be off limits. I guess the Democrats forgot to read that memo when Sarah Palin was running for VP, because not only were her kids mentioned, but they were attacked. Her youngest son with Downs Syndrome was used to start rumors about the family. What's good for the goose...

I could care less what Christie said. He's entitled to his opinion of course, but that doesn't mean he's correct.

Obama's children enjoy the peace of mind that can be achieved when you have professionaly trained armed guards looking after your kids.

Christie says that Joe Shmo's kids aren't as threatened as the presidents kids. He may have a point. Then again, 20 parents in Newtown CT might disagree.

Between the threat of terrorism and the threat of crazy would-be mass murderers, our kids are vulnerable to a threat. Is any one child as specifically threatened as the children of the President? Probably not. And that's why no one is saying that every kid needs his own team of secret service agents.

I see the armed guard thing as a local issue. If my town decides it's a good idea and we're willing to pay for it, we should be able to do it.

And anyone who claims that Obama's proposed "gun safety" bill will have a menaingful impact, is a blind ideologue. It's cannot do much. Most crimes don't use these weapons. And his bill completely fails to address the root causes of violence - poverty, family values (or complete lack thereof in the liberal agenda), mental illness.

funny, I remember how indignant you were then (rightfully so). But now it is ok?

Chelsea Clinton? Any Carter?

I remember how upset you were Paul 😆
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Paul, if those 2 htings were identical, I would be guilty of hypocrisy as you suggest. They aren't even close to being identical.

In the current case, the NRA is saying that if it's morally acceptable for Obama's family to enjoy the peace of mind that comes from armed security, then it's morally acceptable for anyone else to come to that same conclusion.

In Palin's case, folks on your side called her daughter a slut, and claimed that her handicapped son was not actualy her son, but rather her grandson. That speculation served no public policy purpose except to attack Palin personally.

Obama's family is not being personally attacked by people sympathetic to the NRA. Not even remotely close.

Apples and oranges. Nice try.

Pls. pull up some quotes at what I said b/c I'm sensing a little sarcasm.

Its not my side - I've voted R many, many times in the past.

So at what point is ok to discuss family and how far can you go? How about Amy Carter and Chelsea Clinton?

I'd say that personal attacks that are made strictly for the sake of hate (like suggesting that Trig is not Palin's son) are off-limits.

Pointing to irrefutable fact to support a policy position (e.g., saying that guns can be useful, since Obama's kids are protected by men with guns) should be allowed. I don't think it's necessarily wrong to utter the names of a politician's family.

What did anyone say about Amy Carter or Chelsea Clinton? I honestly don't know. Amy Carter's time as First Daughter was before my time, Iamd I don't recall amuch news about Chelsea, other than the fact that she existed. I don't recall anyone using her as a pawn. Except for the fact that some organization named Bill Clinton 'Father Of The Year' for 2012, now that's good for a laugh!

Back on the track of the thread:

Here are some quotes from an article posted today. I did not edit this at all. I pulled a few paragraphs from the article.



Bloomberg: Assault weapons ban is tough sell
By Catherine E. Shoichet, CNN
updated 11:06 AM EST, Fri January 18, 2013

"Nothing the president is proposing would have stopped the massacre at Sandy Hook," Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Florida, said in a statement.
"That's probably true," Bloomberg acknowledged on Thursday. "But that doesn't mean that having fewer guns around isn't a better idea."

Last week, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich told AC360° that the evidence in Chicago tells a different story. "Chicago has very strict gun laws. It is also the deadliest city in America," Gingrich said. Asked Thursday about Gingrich's observation, Bloomberg said gun laws aren't a panacea.
"There's no one solution to this," he said. "This is, however, a very important step. Fewer guns means fewer murders. Fewer guns means fewer suicides. Fewer guns means you and your children are safer."


What are the rest of the steps that Bloomberg suggests?

Your thoughts?

Both of those 2's looks were repeatedly mocked.

They have no idea, nor do they care. Right now they have tunnel vision



Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Hi Carl, long time :wave:

my thoughts for one are to Bloomberg that -- that doesn't mean that having fewer guns around is a better idea either.
so big deal.
I think the more law abiding citizens that have their own legal weapons, the better off we all are to defend ourselves if need be.

By whom? Comedians or news broadcasters?

Here is further proof of the Democratic Agenda to get an Assault Weapons Ban. Biden telling the NRA they have no money, time or resources to go after people breaking Federal gun laws punishable by up to 10 years in prison. Way to go idiot!





VP: We 'don't have the time' to charge background check lies | The Daily Caller

Paul...way off on a tangent again...once again...noone made jokes about or ridiculed the Obama children or "mocked their looks", their names were not used, their pictures or likenesses were not used and their appearance or intellect was not commented upon...what was pointed out was the obvious "elitist hypocricy" of their father on this issue...now do you want to argue that he's "not" an arrogant elitist hypocrit? because that's what the ad alleges, there's nothing derrogatory directed at the kids themselves as you've seemed to wander off in search of, I'm pretty sure that most parents are very happy that his kids enjoy that type of protection at their school and wonder why the president dismisses the notion of security in schools for other parents and their kid's safety and peace of mind ....or do you want to keep throwing up phony irrelevant issues? I'd be happy, by the way, to produce a lengthy list of examples where Obama and his various Spokes Poodles have shamelessly used/cited their children and other people's children in political debates to garner emotional reactions and political leverage that were far more direct and egregious than this :uhuh:

what appears to be 'off-limits" is the president's arrogance and hypocricy...buuuuut...we already knew that..:)...it has a very cultish feel to it :uhuh: