NRA

[Jim in CT]

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.

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

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...

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

Chelsea Clinton? Any Carter?

[buckman]

Originally Posted by PaulS

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

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by buckman

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

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

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

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

Chelsea Clinton? Any Carter?

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.

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

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.

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?

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

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!

[Carl]

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?

[TheSpecialist]

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

Originally Posted by Carl

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?

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Slipknot]

Originally Posted by Carl

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?

Hi Carl, long time

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.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by PaulS

Its not my side - I've voted R many, many times in the past. funny, many of my liberal friends and customers says this...but they can never name any

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

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

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

[Sea Dangles]

Had to laugh as I read the story about more gun enthusiasts displaying exactly why more regulation needs to be applied to the industry. Three different gun shows and five people injured....talk about shooting yourself in the foot.Most of these gun advocates are bozos who will give the government no choice but to step in and tell them what's good for them.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Sea Dangles

Had to laugh as I read the story about more gun enthusiasts displaying exactly why more regulation needs to be applied to the industry. Three different gun shows and five people injured....talk about shooting yourself in the foot.Most of these gun advocates are bozos who will give the government no choice but to step in and tell them what's good for them.

huh?...wonder why the federal government hasn't "stepped in" to Chicago then.... or yet? people are actually dying there routinely....

2 shot to death in separate attacks on South, West sides
January 19, 2013|By Peter Nickeas and Liam Ford | Tribune reporters

About 9:15 p.m., a man was shot to death inside a Popeye's Louisiana Kitchen, 5500 W. North Ave. (Peter Nickeas/Tribune)Two young men were shot to death during another night of gun violence in Chicago Friday: One inside a well-lit restaurant along a West Side thoroughfare, the other in a dark gangway on a South Side block populated by vacant brick buildings.