NRA

[scottw]

Originally Posted by JohnnyD

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).


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

[buckman]

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

[scottw]

Originally Posted by buckman

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"


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"

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by buckman

" 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

I wish someone put that to Obama. Good point!

[PaulS]

(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.

[Jackbass]

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

[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

[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 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.

[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?

[PaulS]

Both of those 2's looks were repeatedly mocked.

[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.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

Both of those 2's looks were repeatedly mocked.

By whom? Comedians or news broadcasters?

[TheSpecialist]

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

[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.

[likwid]

Guys, Wayne LaPierre has the answer to all our woes.
If we ban violent movies and violent video games people will stop shooting each other.

[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.

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by spence

The 1994 sweep didn't happen because of the assault weapons ban, if anything that was a late sideshow...the GOP was successful because they ran against excess attributed to longstanding control by Dem's and the Contract With America.
-spence

Because I like to make sure to cite specific claims I make, but also mostly because you decided to ignore my reply to the above, here's are two interesting points from a speech that Bill Clinton made yesterday:
"And Clinton said that passing the 1994 federal assault weapons ban “devastated” more than a dozen Democratic lawmakers in the 1994 midterms — and cost then-Speaker of the House Tom Foley (D-Wash.) his job and his seat in Congress."

and to close his remarks:
"“Do not be self-congratulatory about how brave you for being for this” gun control push, he said. “The only brave people are the people who are going to lose their jobs if they vote with you.”"

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/0...443_Page2.html

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by scottw

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

The key, as you clarify, is the FEDERAL Government. We have been so conditioned by the transformation of government in our country that people routinely refer to THE government, and by that they seem to automatically mean the Federal Government. And I don't think most even consider federalism with its separation of sovereign entities when they say THE government. Only when local issues or state issues are presented as such do most pay attention to differences. But, for a great segment of our population, THE government, particularly, the President, is the repository of power to fix all of our problems. When an accident occurs at a gun show in state X, and it is reported in the national media, the hue and cry is not that state X should "solve" the problem, but that THE Government has to do something.

[scottw]

I don't know...I'm counting on the president to surround himself with a bunch of gang bangers on a stage and read some letters that they wrote and sign a bunch of executive orders to fix the problem if he can save even one life...it's worth trying....after all, it's his hometown....

[Fly Rod]

Machine guns R needed to rob convience stores in Massachusetts..

were the three men that used machine guns licensed to have them????

Bet cha not

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Fly Rod

Machine guns R needed to rob convience stores in Massachusetts..

were the three men that used machine guns licensed to have them????

Bet cha not

Isn't that sort of the point? People who rob convenience stores don't get licenses. Those who get licenses, tend not to rob stores. If neither got licenses, would't the results be much the same? If the majority of citizens of a state want licenses to be required, that's their concern, not the Federal Government's.

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Isn't that sort of the point? People who rob convenience stores don't get licenses. Those who get licenses, tend not to rob stores. If neither got licenses, would't the results be much the same? If the majority of citizens of a state want licenses to be required, that's their concern, not the Federal Government's.

How many illegal guns started off as legal guns?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Piscator]

Originally Posted by likwid

Guys, Wayne LaPierre has the answer to all our woes.
If we ban violent movies and violent video games people will stop shooting each other.

Sort of the same answer the president has, if you ban guns it will solve our woes. Both guys are idiotic....
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device