NRA

[buckman]

Originally Posted by scottw

or.... brilliant...depending on how you look at it...

There have been other dictators that surrounded themselves with children😬
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[JohnnyD]

Announced on the news this morning:
"Gov. Patrick expected to submit plans for increased income tax and additional Gun Control in Massachusetts during his State of the State address later today."

[TheSpecialist]

At that young of an age kids are easily brainwashed by teachers. During the election my daughter was rooting for Obama because her teacher convinced the class he was the man. We will see what she thinks now that I have to pay more in taxes in my paycheck this week and she will have to skip swimming lessons next session.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by TheSpecialist

During the election my daughter was rooting for Obama because her teacher convinced the class he was the man.

Religious and political ideologies have no business in the public school system.

[Jim in CT]

I'm no fan of access to anything that resembles the style of weapons that are legitmiately needed by the military, even if the resemblance is limited to appearance...

That being said, for anyone to claim that Obama's plan will have a noticable impact on 'gun violence' is ludicrous. 99.99% of gun deaths do not involve the things being banned, this ban will not help the poor black youths in Chicago or in Washington DC.

It's such an obvious, predictable, looks-great-but-won't-do-anything proposal. Better yet, he surrounds himself with cute little kids. That way, if anyone dares to diasgree with Obama, they are painted as being in favor of gunning down little children, as well as racist obviously.

This is precisely what you get when you have an utterly empty suit for a President. It's exactly what I'd expect from a guy who can't get one right even by accident.

[buckman]

You really can't make this up!
The NRA brought up the fact that the Presidents children are protected by armed secret service while in school...all American children deserve the same protection
Jay Carney stated "the Presidents children should not be used as " pawns in a political fight"
The President called it " repugnant and cowardly "
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[spence]

Agree, the NRA ad was so pathetic many thought it was a hoax.

I'm sorry but that organization is really flipping out.

Originally Posted by buckman

You really can't make this up!
The NRA brought up the fact that the Presidents children are protected by armed secret service while in school...all American children deserve the same protection
Jay Carney stated "the Presidents children should not be used as " pawns in a political fight"
The President called it " repugnant and cowardly "
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by spence

Agree, the NRA ad was so pathetic many thought it was a hoax.

I'm sorry but that organization is really flipping out.

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

This doesn't even make sense. Gun-grabbing groups politicians that cannot support any of their proposed policies with reliable statistics are the ones flipping out.

The bodies in Connecticut were still warm and liberals were already leveraging those "dead babies" to further their agenda - now that is pathetic.

So, the NRA using Obama's kids as an example is pathetic but the gun control crowd leveraging dead kids is not? This is the most blatant display of the pot calling the kettle black I've seen yet.

[buckman]

Originally Posted by spence

Agree, the NRA ad was so pathetic many thought it was a hoax.

I'm sorry but that organization is really flipping out.

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

And Obama using children ????
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

Agree, the NRA ad was so pathetic many thought it was a hoax.

I'm sorry but that organization is really flipping out.

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

as usual, you are as wrong as you can possibly be.

Maybe in 20 years when those same kids graduate college and are looking at income tax rates of 50% to pay for checks Obama wrote when they were 6 years old, Obama can get them together for another group hug. He can tell those kids why he was in the right to spend money on their behalf (on things that will clearly benefit those kids, like free condoms for life for Sandra Fluke), long before they have a say in how it is spent. Yep, he's really looking out for today's youth.

[Carl]

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.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Carl

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."

[PaulS]

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

[buckman]

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

[scottw]

Originally Posted by PaulS

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

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

[Fishpart]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

I'm no fan of access to anything that resembles the style of weapons that are legitmiately needed by the military, even if the resemblance is limited to appearance...

Jim, I am also a vet and have seen the devastaion these weapons are capeable of, but I am on the side of the people. Ultimately 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.

That being said, for anyone to claim that Obama's plan will have a noticable impact on 'gun violence' is ludicrous. 99.99% of gun deaths do not involve the things being banned, this ban will not help the poor black youths in Chicago or in Washington DC.

It's such an obvious, predictable, looks-great-but-won't-do-anything proposal. Better yet, he surrounds himself with cute little kids. That way, if anyone dares to diasgree with Obama, they are painted as being in favor of gunning down little children, as well as racist obviously.

This is precisely what you get when you have an utterly empty suit for a President. It's exactly what I'd expect from a guy who can't get one right even by accident.

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.

[Piscator]

Originally Posted by buckman

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

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

[Nebe]

Originally Posted by buckman

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

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[RIJIMMY]

Originally Posted by PaulS

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

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.

[fishbones]

Originally Posted by RIJIMMY

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.

[The Dad Fisherman]

Originally Posted by buckman

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

Originally Posted by Piscator

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

snopes.com: Bank of America Gun Sales

[RIJIMMY]

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







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???????????

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Fishpart

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.

"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.

[Rockport24]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

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.
.

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...

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by RIJIMMY

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.

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.

[buckman]

Originally Posted by Nebe

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

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

[buckman]

Originally Posted by PaulS

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.

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

[PaulS]

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?

[scottw]

Originally Posted by PaulS

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

[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.