E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
The White House is hitting back at the National Rifle Association for its web video, which refers to President Obama's children.
"Most Americans agree that a president's children should not be used as pawns in a political fight," White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said in a statement. "But to go so far as to make the safety of the president's children the subject of an attack ad is repugnant and cowardly."
Here's the transcript of the NRA's ad:
"Are the president’s kids more important than yours? Then why is he skeptical about putting armed security in our schools when his kids are protected by armed guards at their school? Mr. Obama demands the wealthy pay their fair share of taxes. But he’s just another elitist hypocrite when it comes to a fair share of security. Protection for their kids. And gun-free zones for ours.”
Leave a Comment:
["But to go so far as to make the safety of the president's children the subject of an attack ad is repugnant and cowardly."]
It's what the NRA does best...it's what they are good at...it's what they stand for.
Exactly Mickey....and increasingly, so are their supporters!
The Sandy Hook
PROMISE
Our hearts are broken;
Our spirit is not.
And it is with this knowledge
that we are able to move forward
with purpose…and strength…
This is a Promise
To support our own
our families, our neighbors, our teachers, our community
with dedication and love
as well as the material and financial needs they will require
in the days ahead.
This is a Promise
To truly honor the lives lost
by turning our tragedy into a moment of transformation.
This is a Promise
To be open to all possibilities.
There is no agenda other than to make
our community and our nation a safer, better place.
This is a Promise
To have the conversations on ALL the issues
Conversations where listening is as important as speaking.
Conversations where even those with the most opposing views
can debate in good will.
This is a Promise
To turn the conversation into actions.
Things must change.
This is the time.
This is a Promise
We make to our precious children.
Because each child, every human life is filled with promise,
and though we continue to be filled with unbearable pain
we choose love, belief, and hope
instead of anger.
This is a Promise
To do everything in our power to be remembered
not as the town filled with grief and victims;
but as the place where
real change began.
Our hearts are broken;
Our spirit is not.
This is our promise.
The Sandy Hook
PROMISE
Spread the word:
Repugnant does not begin to describe anything the NRA says or does. They are impervious to the suffering their actions inflict on people, they are are only interested in selling guns to inflict more pain and suffering on innocent people.
Please get involved to prevent this awful tragedy happen again.
Thanks for posting this GBM.
Just a few weeks after blaming the "violent" video game industry for being partially responsible for the Newtown incident, the NRA released a new app. It is called "Practice Range" and allows users to shoot at a "body target' with a red spot for aiming at the heart. It allows you to upgrade to an AK-47 or a MK-11 sniper rifle for an additional 99 cents.
Oh, and the NRA claims it is suitable for ages "4 and up".
http://money.msn.com/now/post.aspx?post=dec5dd94-931d-4d3d-bf84-8d4b6a366510&ocid=ansmony11
Hypocritical much?
What the NRA is doing is the equivalent of name calling on the school play ground. The NRA has no real argument, so name calling is it.
The NRA makes up at best about one percent of the population . . They just don't matter anymore and they know it.
And yet the White House and other gun banners have no problem using the Newtown kids as political pawns.
What I find especially repugnant is that son of a b!tch 0bama parading around on the graves of murdered children to advance his useless ideology.
0bama has just entered the realm of tyranny.
But it's OK to trot out other peoples kids to support his position?
It's time to "TAKE DOWN" the NRA and the TED NUGENTS of the World.
They are just trying to INDIMITATE us Peaceful Citizens with their GUNS.
It won't work this time.
Their RED-HERRINGS and STRAW-MEN Aguments are now Longer working!
No More "GUN-CONTROL"
WE're going to "WELL-REGULATE" the "GUN-NUT" Clowns
becaus that's what the CONSTITUTION and the SECOND AMENDMENT wants us to do!
"WELL-REGULATE" them!
I do agree with the NRA one One thing though.
"GUNS don't KILL People",
but "RIGHT WING NRA "GUN-NUTS types, with GUNS do KILL People.
Well it turns out the White House is repugnant and cowardly too.
ANGRY GUY your an Idiot, those Newton Kids got murdered and you compare that with the NRA picking on the president's kids?...yet another Ignorant NRA member
angry
And the NRA used it as an ad to buy more guns. Whets your point?
the proletariat Mob is out on march today eh? The left appears more Sturmabteilung than the right. go figure
Mickey, Seems you don't like the tactics being used when they are not to your party's advantage. This is the kind of @!$%# Obama has pulled during every election and major issue. Suck it up, buttercup. Once again your leader divides our county even more and you are too blind to see it.
pkw
Did the nra get obama's permission to use his kids in the ad? NO! But I bet you any kids that obama dealt with. He had their parent's permission.
Using children to promote your agenda is WRONG!!! With or without the parent's premission, it doesn't matter!!...
It's WRONG PERIOD!!
You liberals will stoop to new levels of low to get your point across... using children...
Talk about "repugnant!!
What is cowardly is using a terrible tradegy for political gain. What is cowardly is hiding behind a personal agenda while demonizing people who are law abiding citizens and believe in the Constitution.
ALL children are worthy of effective protection.
Nothing repugnant or cowardly about stating the fact.
Let's Face it!
The Republican and Teabagging and NRA and Ted Nugents of the World
wish there was a "Hunting Season" on us Peaceful Citizens
They wish they could Shoot us!
Heck, they've been Shooting us Color-Folk in our Churches!
They've been Shooting us Teenagers in our Movie Theatres!
And Now they've been Shooting our innocent Children and Kids in our Schools
The NRA and the Ted Nugents of the World are Cowardly and Repugnant
They only wish they had a "Legal Hunting Season"
so they could Shoot us "Legally" and Get away with it!
Come on you Right-wing posters,
Admit it!
You want to Shoot us for Sport.
Nothing wrong with Admitting it.
Go ahead and "Come Out of the Closet"
You NRA and TED NUGENT types want a "Legal Hunting" Season on us Citizens.
Well, we're "Cooling your Jets" and "Cutting you off at the Knees"
[But it's OK to trot out other peoples kids to support his position?]
[What I find especially repugnant is that son of a b!tch 0bama parading around on the graves of murdered children to advance his useless ideology.]
[And yet the White House and other gun banners have no problem using the Newtown kids as political pawns.]
Maybe you can ask the families of the victims if they object. I bet I can already tell you their answer, and that's what makes your posts irrelevant.
It is not surprising the NRA goes for the lowest level attack they can - it's all they have and represents the gutter level they have reached. The NRA is no longer the sports gun enthusiast's organization but a group owned and operated by and for the gun manufacturers for the sole purpose of selling as many guns as possible - to hell with the deaths caused by their lack of morals and integrity.
The NRA's sole purpose is to sell bigger and badder guns - create more fear among the less intelligent - and make the US another wild west. It is the only game they have and all they are about!
PKW, "other peoples kids" were murdered by a gun nut. A mentally ill man with free access to as much ammo as he could carry. One 6 year old was shot 11 times. I wish you had to clean that up, and I wish you had to tell the parents. I stop short of wishing you had to live with that image burned into your retinas ever day for the rest of your life. Nobody should have to do that. Why is your "freedom" worth the lives of "other peoples kids"?
elliot -
Besides the fact that your posts are offensive, you also seem to be laboring under the common right-wing misconception that Hitler took all the guns away from the Germans and thus rose to power.
Hitler and the Nazis only passed additional gun control laws well after the Nazis were in power, and those rules only applied to Jews and other political enemies. The average German citizen was allowed to "keep and bear arms" even under the Nazi regime.
I would suggest doing a little research before you post something so blatantly wrong.
On a personal level, this liberal isn't all that concerned about having armed guards in schools. So, this whole ad thing sort of slips over my head.
On the other hand, I AM concerned because armed guards did no good whatsoever at Columbine, Virginia Tech, Ft. Hood, and most recently that school in California. I'll bet there was an armed guard somewhere around that college in Kentucky where two people were murdered in their car yesterday, too. A hundred police officers on the scene within 3 minutes were totally ineffective at Aurora, as well. In Newtown, the police never got off a shot.
Which is to say, that arming schools probably will not hurt, but neither will it necessarily help. As false security measures go, it ranks right up there. Even at the President's children's school.
I find it ironic, however, that the people who want armed guards or armed teachers are the same ones who generally want to choke the lifeblood out of public education by denying funding for teachers and programs that might actually be effective in preventing this kind of violence in the first place.
You want to pay teachers dirt and call them names, make them pay for school supplies out of their pockets, take away the resources they need to do their jobs, vilify them for all of society's ills, and then expect them to guard your precious children.
Seriously. I'll bet you're proud of how you stood up for children here today.
Which is to say, not at all.
POTUS & staff seem to be looking for an Oscar for best drama.
That goes for you too, TNSEVOL.
It's very fitting to see an 0bama worshiping brown shirt like yourself try to defend the actions of Hitler and Nazis.
Furthermore... I don't agree with the NRA ad using Obama's kids either...
Leave the children out of this conversation... all together!!
This is no place for "emotional outrage" when trying to deal with a problem such as gun control!!
Is it something I said?
Come on you Right-wing and Ted Nugent "Gun-Nut" types.
Admit it.
You want to Shoot me!
Yeah its perfectly ok for our pathetic President to parade children out in front of his news conference and release thier letters etc but its not ok to show his hypocrisy in having his children protected while the rest of our kids are in "gun free' zones also know as "criminal free fire zones". Attempting to ban rifles that kill less than knives, ands feet and baseball bats, now that is Repugnent. How about following the constitution for once Barry....
wow really republicanobama lover, you think nra people want to shoot peaceful people?? thats called ignorance on your part. the nra wants peaceful people to keep there weapons for a few different reasons. two i can name is 1. armed citizens to protect there rights from a tyrannical government, cuz its happened once and is happening again, 2. armed peaceful citizens can protect themselves from an attact. period. do you really think a few new laws will stop crazies from harming people, lol nooooooo it wont, but it will take guns out of peoples hands like us cause we actually follow the laws of our government, well for now.....
People like Elliot are the reason we have to pass these measures!
Look at the insanity in his posts, look at the violent threats... this is the unstable kind of gun toting GOPuke that could snap at any moment.
Very scary.
It's not repugnant at all. The NRA makes a perfectly good point. The President expects his children will be protected by someone with a weapon, why should we not expect the same. You people who are so willing to freely give up your rights deserve none. Read the Constitution and then move to another country. Traitors you are.
It is very easy to tell why this discussion and avenues to action are going to be incrediably ugly, people are not listening instead they are throwing stones. The President and his administration are chief among them. Should the First Family be afforded security, sure they should, as should my family and my children. The President calls for those who supply weapons to others, in the form of straw buyers to be held accountable, I agree with that and knowing that why does Eric Holder, who was in contempt of congress over fast and furious, still have his job? He in essence armed foreign nationals against out border security, our community and State policing forces and our citizens, particularly those who own land at the border. Allowing Eric Holder to be held accountable for is actions and those in his Justice Department is a fist step to dealing with the underlying issue of assault styled weapons in the hands of criminals.
As for the hostage style appearance of the children standing behind the President in this press conference...why didn't they choose a letter from children who asked for adults to protect them when an armed criminal can walk in off the street and pick them off one by one in a classroom, movie theater or mall? Oddly enough, the children with those points of view would not fit this President's narrative and therefore would not be as valued as say a $$$$ donor's child.
Then there is the disturbing cover story that combines the efforts of Blumberg, Biden and Giffords? I can see where Blumberg has an honest stake in this storyline although I'm guessing that he has quite a personal security force at his beck and call. Then we have ol Uncle Joe who not to long ago, last week I believe, joking with members of congress to spread their legs, they're gonna get frisked....yes some how the creepy seems to wish to be taken seriously today. The final player, Gabby Giffords in this photo op...shame on her husband for putting her in this particular lime light. How many people were killed that day at the hands of another crazy because she wasn't concerned enough about her constituents to make sure there was some sort of security/police presence there to watch over the crowd of a political gathering? Wasn't her first duty as a legislator and policy maker to use best practice efforts to secure the safety of her constituents?
I don't disagree with all of the measures put forth today. Some actually are reasonable and should be the focus of law enforcement anyway. Should the ATF be responsible to arrest and prosecute criminals absolutely yes. Should any Government state or federal limit the ability for a rancher to protect their home and property but, most of all their loved ones from criminals who would walk up to them and start shooting...no that is most definitely an infringement of second amendment rights and yes second amendment responsibilitity.
As a parent...I would rather seem some well trained, well checked and well armed teachers/administrators in our local schools than I would a "gun free" zone where children and teachers die.
Dear George Gipp,
Obama is going to "Follow the Constitution for Once", as you want Him too!
He's going to "WELL-REGULATE" you NRA and TED NUGENT "GUN-NUT" types!
You don't have a PROBLEM with that,
Now do you?
I'm so Thankful that Obama is my President
and RULER, MASTER, and OVERLORD of all you REPUBLICANS and TEABAGGERS
and you NRA and TED NUGENT "GUN-NUT" types,
for the NEXT FOUR Very Long YEARS.
ALL HAIL OBAMA!
GOD BLESS YOU.
and GOD BLESS AMERICA
ps. JESUS LOVES YOU.
If Obama is going to use our kids for his political agenda to ban guns then he opens the door for the public to use his kids for opposing his political agenda. *HE* opened the door to using kids to get a point across to his opponents. If you don't want kids to be used by the NRA or anyone else then you tell the @!$%# in the Oval Office to stop using kids to further his socialist agenda that is destroying this country from the inside out. And if you don't complain about Obama using kids then you shut the hell up.
"Well regulated" means well supplied.
The best part is that Obama can pass all the executive orders he wants to restrict and even prohibit gun ownership in this country for ordinary citizens but he and his family will be protected from now until the day they die...
from old age. Agents will place their lives in the line of fire for each and every member of the Obama family every single day they draw breath, and as they do so, they will be fully armed, locked and loaded.
Not only that, but those agents will be alert and expecting danger around every corner, never taken unaware and off guard so that the Obamas and their children meet the fate of the children in schools such as Newtown... and your children, who will not know and not be prepared when a deranged killer decides to make a place in the killer's hall of fame for himself, will not be.
RepublicansForObama-6186389
You cannot possibly be as stupid as you make yourself out to be. Can you?
What some people are failing to realize is that the President's kids are just that. The President's kids. Not saying that any child is less important to their parents as my son is the most important thing in the world to me but no one will attempt to kidnap or kill him for ideological reasons because I am not in the political spotlight. That is why celebrities have bodyguards. They are in the spotlight and given the hateful rhetoric on this site and many others, if the President's kids did not have armed guards, who is to say what would happen to them. It comes with the job, just like a computer or vest would come with other jobs. It is not so much a matter of being cowardly or repugnant but they shouldn't have posted the ad beause that is what is required for those kids being raised by the President. I have seen a picture with all of the secret service around Obama with a bubble from him saying assault rifles make people less safe. This is the same thing.
All you gun nuts want to take the 2nd amendment literally and with the full meaning as it was intended by our founding fathers then fine. Turn in all your guns and we will give you muskets. That is what our founding fathers meant, they had no idea we would have guns that would fire 100 bullets a minute but rather people could bear weapons that took over a minute to load. If you don't like that then chill out and let the government do what the popular vote want them to. Isn't that the point of a democracy? The voice of the people is what decides the fate of the nation and last I checked, the popular vote voted for Obama, want an assault weapons ban, and want tougher restrictions as proposed today. If you don't like it, nove to a country that doesn't allow the democratic process to run its course.
Only the President is allowed to use children (including his) as props.
[Suck it up, buttercup.]
Sorry for you Griff...but it seems that you are the one who is performing the sucking duties today. And in case you didn't get the memo, my "leader" is YOUR "LEADER" as well...can't deal with it? Not my problem, junior.
Elliot, the brownshirts are coming for you, son. They know where you are due to that implant in your brain...hear it beeping?
...beep...beep...beep...
To all of the misguided that continue to demonize the President and lawmakers for "using the children of Sandy Hook for their own political agenda". Take your blinders off!!
By their logic, we should not use the financial collapse as a reason to look at financial regulation. We should not use Katrina as a reason to look at our emergency response. How dare we look at 911 and assess at our airline, port, domestic security.
WAKE UP!!
IT is the NRA after all, they will stoop to any level they deem necessary to keep the Gun and Ammunition manufacturers content.
elliot-
You continue to prove how irrational and misinformed you are. Where did I defend the actions of Hitler and the Nazis? I was merely pointing out that it was not gun control that led to their power, it was race-baiting, fear-mongering, us-vs-them propoganda.
Something YOU actually seem to be pretty familiar with......
TNSEVOL-
There is no need to feed him any longer. If you don't know by now he is an attention starved, right wing shill..... this is your notification. He will say anything to not only get a rise out of the realists here, but he will also distort the truth and use straw man, obsolete examples to bolster his "point".
A complete and utter waste of time.
When we see any kind of two-way, relevant discourse from Elliot which might actually include (gasp) an idea or solution it will truly be a new leaf for him. Until then..... just ignore.
Sorry folks, but our President parades his family in front of the cameras whenever it suits his theatrical/political needs. It's time you folks started admitting the fact that the Democrat Party is chock full of hypocrites. Republicans do it too, but this President and his administration has taken hypocrisy to an entire different level. He's emboldened to do so by his blind supporters who choose to ignore the failings of our present leadership in D.C.
Brandon, I don't think that anyone is failing to realize anything in regard to the President's daughters. The thing is he seems to be propogating a double standard. Guess what, my kids "are" as worthy of protection from harm as the Presidents. Personally, I think your kids are as well. That is the point of the NRA ad. So here is another point. The schools my kids attend actually have a police force presence protecting them. Yes on campus. I'm absolutely ok with the fact that there is a law enforcement officer, or more at times, available to keep them safe. I also think your children should have adults around them at school who are trained and prepared to protect their safety at school. We live in the wealthiest nation in the world why should our children not be protected.....
The funny thing is the President made a very infatic statement about if they could save just once child from this sort of attack....what he didn't say was how many others he was willing to sacrifice to save just that one that fits his narrative.
These sort of tactics from the NRA remind me of when Democrats claim Republicans want to end Medicare, end Social Security, want people to have to drink dirty water, breath dirty air, and the list goes on. Never any outrage from liberals about those lies. But then again Obama's kids do have the best security borrowed money can afford. So is the outrage over the fact this ad is true, or the fact the the NRA had the audacity to point it out?
And the award for best theatrical performance by an incompetant hypocritical president trying to take advantage of a national tradgedy for political purposes goes to BHO. This thin skinned weasel can dish it out but sure can't take it.
The rhetoric overwhelms, but few address the subject with any specificity. Mr. Rogers, Ben Chase, Maxx, 7-2-7, Jeremy, War Tev, Nico and so many others rant, misinterpret and make olympic leaps of logic but have no concrete complaints. Perhaps they, or others, would care to address any specific points of Obama's proposal or even New York's more restrictive legislation of yesterday that they believe are unfair, illegal or unconstitutional and make a case with facts and logic rather than emotion whipped up by Charlton Heston. Please omit any reference to abortion, drugs, drunk driving, spears, swords, poison, explosives, cancer, famine, flood, pestilence and any topic other than the control and regulation, not the outright ban, of firearms. These are not the topics of today's discussion.
I'm sick of this comment.
This is a non statement because it cannot ever be proved. Ever. I challenge the president or anyone else to show me how it can ever be proved. And when the gang bangers with their street guns continue to kill innocents as collateral damage, will the tally sheet count them on the anti gun fools side, or will they continue to be posted on the side of the sheet for those of us who feel we would have had a better chance at protection had we been armed?
There is absolutely no way to prove the statement that "even one life was saved because one less gun was one the street." And I seriously doubt the leadership ability of a man who makes such an asinine claim.
We had two small children shot here last night by kids chasing another kid down the street. One was treated and released; the other is still in critical condition. Where was the protection for these children? Where is the liberal outrage at yet another senseless shooting in an all-black neighborhood? What's that: only 2 children and only wounded? Yes, that's right, but it is still a shooting, still a case of black-on-black, still a case of illegal guns being carried by hoodlums. Come on,liberals, let's hear it now for total gun control (these were pistols BTW).
Oh, that's right, they're just a couple of strangely named black kids from the east side not deserving of Secret Service protection.
Bob...I wish for the recovery of both but more to the point....That should have never happened to those 2 babies or the scores that were gunned down in their own neighborhoods in Chicago this past summer or the one before that or the one before that. It should not happen to any children because each is worthy of the full force and protection of the United States of America. As we protect some we should protect all.
Let's forget about the president's kids for a moment. Let's back track.
Before he was president, did Barak Obama, the private citizen, have his children, attend a school where there were guards or security present, or did they attend a public "open" school where they were subject to the sudden and unexpected appearance of an Adam Lanza?
Apparently many of the posters missed the point of the NRA add: that it appears hypocritical of the President to deny to common citizens protections he has reserved for himself. Of course he and his family deserve all the protection the Secret Service can provide, including 24/7 personal bodyguards with automatic weapons. Most citizens (the 98%) are able to afford neither. Some may have been able to afford semi-automatic weapons the are designed to function in most adverse weather conditions (which is why the military uses the AR-15-style design) but the likelyhood of that choice is now much diminished. Diminished because responsible armed neighbors must pay for the sins of deranged people mainly due to the yellow press hype convincing those already fearful of arms in general, that their armed neighbors will arrive in the night to kill their children. If it wasn't so sad, it would be ironic that those most able to protect neighborhood children are being accused of callousness and blood-libel for what makes that protection possible. When seconds count, the police are minutes away.
There have been plenty of reports of clinically 'sane' individuals that, for no apparent reason, started shooting. What's to say an armed guard at a school couldn't "snap" and start taking out the kids he was supposed to be guarding?
Another thought, for those who hide behind the 2nd amendment clause of "...a well regulated militia...";
"The distinction between a well-regulated army and a mob is the good order and discipline of the first, and the licentious and disorderly behavior of the latter."
(General George Washington, upon arriving in Brooklyn on August 25, 1776, and observing this “licentious and disorderly behavior” in camp.)
Furthermore, a modern definition of "well-regulated militia" would approximate: "A population trained to effectively carry arms". This is where the NRA and gun-toters lose the battle they have cooked up. They want their guns with NO REGULATION at all. That's anarchy...and if the Founders had meant for our Republic to be an anarchy instead of a republic, they would have never drawn up the Constitution or Bill of Rights.
They are HIS children and his family is a part of his life, that does not give the NRA the right to use them!
Thank you paddywhack - that's the point I'd like to make.
This idea of putting gunmen in our 120,000 schools is crazy on several levels. For one thing, the armed guard only gets to step in after the first dozen or two kids are shot. For another, there's no guarrantee that our gunman will kill the other gunman. At best, it's a 50-50 chance, but the reality is that the crazy guy probably has more practice, a bullet-proof vest, and is willing to die (there were armed guards at Columbine who did no good whatsoever). But most importantly, hiring and placing 120,000 gun nuts in our schools is highly likely going to locate a crazy killer in many of them. I've known lots of crazy gun owners, and honest gun owners will admit it. The percentage of crazy among gun owners is way higher than the percentage of crazy over-all. Keep them away from our kids!!
So the White House finds a group repugnant. Well isn't THAT just a freakin' surprise. Just add to the list of OTHER people/groups the White House has already claimed they despised in the past:
1) Those who believe a person living in the United States should be legal
2) Wealthy
3) White people
4) Christians
5) GOP
6) Gun Owners
7) Business Owners
8) Oil Companies
9) Banks
10) Truck Owners
11) Entrepreneurs
12) And now the NRA
I know I must be leaving out others too. You see for a tyrannical government to take hold they must create so much hatred amongst groups of people so they can come in and supposedly try to "fix" things - meanwhile taking all rights away in the process under the auspices of "we must do something".
Any help? What other groups has this administration stated hatred towards that I have missed?
Pro Business
You need a mental evaluation or maybe just an attitude adjustment. The President's mother and grandparents who raised him were all white folks. I doubt that the President holds any of these groups repugnant. The actions of some members of the groups you cite are sometimes repugnant, but only reflect the actions of individuals. But the NRA is controlled by some very paranoid folks who have clearly stepped over the line today.
He also despises physicians, only do the treatments that pay the most. Thats why the government must take control of physicians and have access to your health records with electronic medical records. Lawyers, however, still need to be able to sue physicians anytime for anything they want, that is their right. Your right to bear arms? That is nothing compared to Obama holding dear the right for lawyers to friviously sue!
Once again, the LEFT cannot see the forest for the trees..... why no outcry for the way Barry used the CHILDREN to present his "reforms"?
Are you really so willing to go quietly into the night?
Say hello to Adolph when you FINALLY see the light.
The GOP
Shaak 322 - Actually, in Obama's own book "Dreams from my Father" he discusses his hate for "his mother's race." So ProBusiness is correct.
Cincinatus13. How would an AR15, safe in your gun closet at home, done to save the children of Sandy Hook? How would it of saved the victims in Aurora? Unless you are suggesting citizens start carrying assault rifles, to work, the supermarket, to the movie theater, they have nothing to do with the personal protection argument when it comes to spaces outside of the home.
As well, please give us a break with the "I have an assault weapon to protect my neighbor's children - High Horse".
Unlikely.
If anything, you endanger them as you wildly shoot at supposed perpetrator, coming out of your own dwelling (to protect your flat screen TV).
RepubsforObama: you are a sick fkn puppy... why you are allowed to post your inflammatory bs is beyond me. Attempting to goad gun owners into a response to your sick sh*t is pretty pathetic... tantamount to asking for suicide by gun owners? Idiot!!!
The NRA is evil for stating Obamas kids have a constant security detail and dragging them into the political arena? Is that anything like Obama surrounding himself with children while giving his anti gun political speech?
The NRA is trying to change how guns are perceived. They're trying to change the whole perception of guns as bad, which they are and which is understandable after so much violence. Their half-assd idea of guns in schools is about indoctrinating people almost from infancy that guns are okay and guns are their "friends". Never leave home without one. Sick.
In the last election we recognized that the TPers are insane and a national embarrassment. Now we need to recognize that gun fanatics are looney in their own right and ignore them and their crazy ideas. What's particularly concerning are the people, some of them on this newsvine, who have actual panic attacks about anything to do with gun control, even control of assault weapons. Guns are their religion and basically define their personalities and who they are. Let the mainstream sentiment prevail. When we reach that goal, along with voting the rest of the TPers out of office, it will be Done and Done.
Now it's bad to involve Obamas kids in the gun debate. Recently he told Barbara Walters he thinks it's GREAT to have "guys with guns" around HIS kids.http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/12/27/Obama-I-Ran-So-I-Could-Have-Men-With-Guns-Around-My-Daughters
@ Brandon by your point you wouldn't be here on the net with your point of view. Write it in to a news paper because thats all they had back in the day.
Ace:: So you believe what that Breitbart ackjass wrote or said? Bet you adore Rush Limburger and Shawn Hannity too-- adore them to the point where you love them and their drivel. Judging by your choice of lovers, you are an ackjass also.
@ Ace: If you find the Breitbart blog relevant, it's no big surprise that you've thrown in with the clueless gun-ghos. The blog has about as much credibility as Pinocchio. Or the Onion. Or Mad magazine.
To show the mentality of the people behind the NRA the President of it says the latest ad. didn't mention the presidents daughters by name! Da! So who did the ad. mean when it said the presidents daughter? Idiotic cowardly repugnant and disgusting NRA!
There is a lot of name calling going on ..the questiopn should be why? Kids were killed by a person that had no right to have a gun in the first place. An automatic weapon at that. Mybe someone from the NRA needs to explain just what the general public needs with automatic weapons ? Do they next want to sell cannons of some kind ? Anyone can protect themselves with pistols or rifles..but automatic weapons are not needed to do so..yet that it seems is what the NRA is most concerned about. What is the real problem with background checks on those who buy a weapon anywhere ? What would those people who are fighting against background checks so concerned about unless they are hidding something they want no one to know.
But it's OK for the White House to use the dead school children for political purposes. What a bunch of hypocrites. I guess I can't expect anything else though.
Repugnant? The NRA thugs are WAY yonder beyond that. They have shown themselves to be irrational.
If the NRA members do not begin to resign en masse, they show themselves for cowards who delight in attacking children. Which could be why that massacre at Newtown did not bother them one whit.
It's official - they have hit the third rail on the track of crazy!
After reading the comments by the gun nuts here over the last few days, I am more convinced then EVER we need some reasonable gun control!
Not a ONE of them has demonstrated an ounce of common sense!
Interesting comment you make with your brush painting all lawful gun owners as being irrational, or better yet, unphased by the Connecticut shootings...
One can only go with the evidence presented. The NRA thugs did not care about those children, only about their toys.
Which means that the crazy train has left the station.
Feisty states: Not a ONE of them has demonstrated an ounce of common sense!
What the hell do you or any other bleeding heart liberal know about common sense? None of you demonstrate good common sense. All of you demonstrate knee jerk reaction-ism to almost every issue brought to light. That and making the nastiest comments about each and every person who disagrees with your thoughts.
CA has some of the most stringent gun control laws in the nation. As everyone knows, no one is ever killed by a gun in CA so I guess all of this makes perfect common sense; right?
After watching Obama and Biden just minutes ago it is becoming increasingly clear that they have little common sense either. Stating that we need more background checks and talking about mental health is nonsense, but certainly knee jerk. What they are doing, or trying to do is simple. Whittle away at the second amendment until they can once and for all abolish all legal gun sales in this country and force everyone to turn in their guns.
inthemiddle
You are not "in the middle" ...... you are an extremist with the same "us vs them" attitude as your far right wing cohorts.
You don't believe in an effective system of background checks ..... you therefore share the blame every time someone who shouldn't have a gun buys one without a background check and uses that gun to kill other people. You become one of the bad guys. I would say you also share their guilt, but in order to have guilt you have to care, and it is clear that you don't.
It appears that the ones who do not care about the kids, are the Liberals/Statists who turned an elementary school campus into a target rich environment by instituting "gun free school zones." What is so repugnant, you get mad when it is pointed out. The NRA is spot on with this ad. So you know, I have absolutely no issue with protecting the President and his family. They should get the best protection available. I have serious issue with the government deliberately denying me the ability to protect my family. I have serious issue with the government deliberately denying any law abiding adult from protecting those kids until law enforcement can finally get there.
*laughs*
don... at this rate name one person that ISN'T an extremist or trying to push their ways or thoughts onto someone else?
NDD -
Homie-
Are you suggesting that all lawful gun owners are members of the NRA? Hardly.
I would suggest that ALL NRA members are either misguided or delusional if they think the NRA truly represent the concerns of "all lawful gun owners". The NRA is simply a lobbying group for the gun manufacturers.
Mike -
I don't believe I saw either of those things mentioned in the Presidents proposal.
Local school districts are allowed to have armed guards if they so choose.
Law abiding citizens will ALWAYS have the right to "keep and bear arms" in defense of their home and families. Why are you opposed to background checks and limitations on the types of weapons/magazines allowed?
Why the outrage and misrepresentation of the President's positions?
Are you just as ouraged at the latest NRA app called "Practice Range" that allows you to shoot at body-shaped targets with an AK-47?
http://money.msn.com/now/post.aspx?post=dec5dd94-931d-4d3d-bf84-8d4b6a366510&ocid=ansmony11
Translated into English it reads; YADA YADA YADA...
*yawn*
PS: Paranoia looks GREAT on you!
Next time, go with the "black" patent leathers rather than the hip waders though. they make your butt look BIG! ;o)
They don't even represent their membership, who show a willingness to consider reasonable gun control
The fact that you refer to a gun as a toy is clearly indicitive of the fact you should NOT ever own or touch one. You might get hurt.
My husband and I are liberals and we own guns and enjoy recreational gun activities. We support limitations on assault weapons and ammunition and the other proposals the President has made. We DO NOT belong to the NRA.
Look on the bright side:
The NRA's members database will be quite useful when the final gun ban is issued. The feds will know exactly where to find millions of guns when the confiscation begins. The NSA probably already has them on file. I do hope that it is televised when LaPierre's guns are the first to be picked up by the soldiers; I so want to see the look on his face then! Pay-per-view, anyone? LOL
Steeler Fan -
I am a US Army veteran and a life-long shooter and hunter.
I would gladly undergo a background check and even register my weapons in the name of public safety. After all, I register my car and motorcycle, even my camper, why should I be worried about registering my gun?
I would never join the NRA because they oppose ANY and ALL common sense measures in regards to the types and quantities of weapons that are legally available for purchase.
The don't represent me, they represent the gun manufacturers who are unconcerned about who ends up with their products aslong as they sell a lot of them.
TNSEVOL---thank you for your service.
We have undergone background checks when purchasing weapons. We, too, would register them if required. Our insurance company already knows about them because they are insured.
Why do people assume that liberals don't respect the Second Amendment. If Justice Scalia is OK with restrictions on assault weapons, why doesn't the right accept that?
Actually NRA membership is increasing rapidly.
Once again Fiesty, you demonstrates how rude and intolerant your kind are. What an ugly human being. When you have no valid argument you begin your childish act of calling names. Sad, pathetic person. What happened in your life to make you such a hateful, sad, angry and pitiful person? You are the epitomy of what's wrong with your party. You represent everything that is negative about democrats.
Grif999 - Once again Fiesty demonstrates how rude and intolerant her kind are. What an ugly human being you are. When you have no valid argument you begin your childish act of calling names. Sad, pathetic person. What happened in your life to make you such a hateful, sad, angry and pitiful person? You are the epitomy of what's wrong with your party. You represent everything that is negative about democrats.
Can you say filthy gutter trash HYPOCRITE? That is you - in a nutshell - and I truly mean nutshell!
Most criminals do not care about background checks, in case you didn't know it, most of them steel guns from people who own them legally and did go through background checks. My brother-in-law had his guns locked up and someone broke into their house and stold the cabinet they were locked up in. Law abiding citizens obey the law, criminals do not and never will. Most of the recent shooting have been by people who have mental issues and are on some type of drugs. Now that would be a better place to start looking into and spending our tax dollars on. Also securing our borders and stopping the flow of drugs and cartel members coming into this country would be another good thing to do.
The hypocrisy from the White House is blinding... Quick everyone, fill up on the Obama Kool-Aid, you're all looking a little low. Raise your hand and Jay Carney will help re-fill your sippy cups....
NRA was simply stating the truth. Why does Obama's kids get more protection than mine, or yours? Obama knew that he puts his family in the spotlight and quite possibly in danger when he ran in 08' and again in 12'.
Whether you agree or not, you know as well as I do, this is only the beginning, and it's going to get nasty.
jersey girl
The opposition to the NRA is growing more rapidly.
It is indeed so plainly obvious that people like "Mike-1499840", "Inthemiddle12", Dave-397962 and so many of the other super-macho gun lunatics who post on these forums are truly penis-deprived. It is very clear that their phony macho stance with all sorts and manner of name-calling (I particularly relish "bleeding heart liberal" and "libtard") is nothing more than a crystal-clear manifestation of penis-deprivation, i.e., their so-called "manhood". That is why they love their guns, especially their big guns; that is why they have to resort to name-calling and attendant frothing at the mouth. Yes, indeed, when there is a gaping void between the legs of a male, especially an American male, a gun - preferably a big gun - becomes the substitute of choice. I am sure that all of the Mikes and the Inthemiddles and the Daves will want to come after me verbally, and if they were able to find out my real name and where I live, they would want to come after me with their most favorite penis substitute: a big gun.
Those who live in glass houses really shouldn't be tossing any stones... cupcake! ;o)
PS: I hope you feel better now that you got it off your chest! lol
Griff sounded spot on to me. And followed by your idiocy and name calling, it doesn't surprise me that you and fiesty are truly "birds of a feather"...
Our household is similar. We enjoy shooting sports (although not hunting), have a couple of guns and keep them safe and insured. Formal registration is not required because they are antiques. If I saw fit to purchase a new gun, then I would register it according to the law and not have a bit of problem with it.
I think one of the biggest things we can do to help stem guns getting into the hands of the criminals and mentally ill is make responsible gun owners responsible for their guns! Want to have them? Prove you can safely operate it it and store it where it cannot be accessed by a child or be easily found in a home burglary. If a gun is lost or stolen, it should be reported within 24 hours. Failure to do any of these things makes a gun owner legally liable with jail time.
Destroy all weapons found at a crime scene or in the possession of a person not legally able to have a gun. It's astonishing how many guns used in a crime are "recycled" back on the streets! (Note: an exception could be made for antiques, which could be offered to a museum.) Add a mandatory jail sentence (no parole) on top of the regular sentence if a gun is used or in possession of the criminal.
Make background checks required for ALL transfers of guns ... whether private, at gun shows or in a licensed establishment.
Make it easier for the mentally to receive help ... mandated if necessary ... and reopen hospitals.
Make parents more responsible for keeping violent video games away from children and young teens. They are rated for a reason!
Just some common sense ideas. Anyone got others?
Jersey Girl -
Another excellent reason to not allow the manufacture or sale of assault-style weapons and high-capacity magazines, so they don't fall into the hands of criminals. Thanks for helping to make my point!
If we don't allow manufacturers to make them, and we don't allow them to be sold at guns shows or "private sales", and we destroy what is captured during law enforcement activities, then at least we are reducing the flow and the overall supply of these types of weapons.
Even criminals can't steal what is not there.......
The NRA's members database will be quite useful when the final gun ban is issued. The feds will know exactly where to find millions of guns when the confiscation begins. The NSA probably already has them on file. I do hope that it is televised when LaPierre's guns are the first to be picked up by the soldiers; I so want to see the look on his face then! Pay-per-view, anyone? LOL
And the gun control crowed wonders why some are even hesitant for a national firearms registry. It's comments like this that help support those that oppose registering firearms for fear that it allows the government to know exactly who owns firearms to help confiscate them. And while the President is not talking right now about banning guns, there are enough on the far left fringe that are pushing full a full ban, just as there are those on the far right that want no gun laws.
I support more strict background checks, mental heatlh reviews, and longer waiting periods, as well as trying to regulate private sales. I do not agree with ban on assault weapons, high capicity mags, etc. as there are actually so few homicides comitted in the US each year. In fact, in the last five years, according the the FBI crime statistics, homicides comitted by rifles have decrease from over 450 in 2007 to 323 in 2011. That is almost a 29% decrease. The same stas show more people each year are murdered by personal weapons (hands, feet, fists) than homicides comitted with assault rifles. An assualt rifle ban will do nothing but infringe on the rights of law abiding citizens.
They just made the presidents family a target for their memberships thugs. NRA just stooped to a whole new low for all the wrong reasons. They have no argument and so they chose to attack the first family members. I'd bet the NRA leadership does not parade their family members around for all to see. I'd wager they are protected equally if not more than the first family. NRA hypocrisy on public display for all to see they're sounding more and more like gangsters every day.
As soon as there is a shooting that occurs, and there WILL be another shooting despite this magic show that Obama put on today, and it was worse than it could have been because someone ends up speaking out that they couldn't fight back because of these stricter gun laws then there will be blood on the hands of every single liberal who hates the 2nd amendment, on the president, the vice president, and everyone on here who wants to restrict firearms.
You liberals forget that banning guns doesn't make the problem go away completely. We already ban murder but the hardened and determined criminals still kill, don't they? So you won't stop the determined and yet it's the determined WHO KILL MULTIPLE PEOPLE. So when another massacre happens and a witness steps up to say that they would have had their gun with them but it's now considered illegal then there will be blood on the hands of everyone who wanted these new gun laws. Because someone *could* have stopped the massacre or minimized the damaged had they only been allowed to carry and use their firearm like a responsible citizen should be allowed to do to protect himself or herself and those around them.
If you want to protect kids then you give guns to people who are responsible and put guards in schools to protect the kids and the teachers who aren't comfortable using a gun or simply too young to use one. We already do this in banks to protect them from robberies so why aren't we doing it in schools? GUNS ARE SAFE in the PROPER hands. Why can't liberals understand that?
Wow, Obama's kids need more protection than mine do. He is the President of the United States of America!!! It isn't whether his kids deserve more protection, it is that they NEED more protection. As a matter of national security. There is truly no comparison in this case. Yes he knew his family would be in the spotlight, but honestly, someone leads this country, whether it be Obama or Kennedy, they and their families need extra protection because they represent the American people. There needs to be more and more stringent gun control laws, regardless of our constitutional rights, when something gets out of control, DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT!!!
@inthemiddle,
It doesn't matter how stringent our state laws are if one can easily travel to NV or AZ and buy guns that are illegal in the State. That is why a national law is needed. But you already knew that, right?
Furthermore, LA and NYC have the most stringenet gun laws in the country with less homicides by guns than New Orleans - one of the most lax gun laws in the country. Go figure.
I think the whole idea of those on the left being some how indignant that anyone dare invoke Obama's daughters is really very laughable....these are the same folks on the left who smashed the Bush girls at every opportunity. Then they were the same folks who still wish to slam anyone from the Palin household while insisting that there be some sort of double standard for their own? You folks, led by Feisty of all people, have no position of "morality" to stand from.
I'm an independent and really don't have a problem with his ideas even though I despise him. I honestly don't think the limitations are going to stop a damn thing though.
As far as the kids, the president should've left the kids out of it, the same for the NRA.
it is that they NEED more protection. As a matter of national security.
His kids aren't the president of the country, so no... they don't 'need' that level of protection.
Kennedy had no problem putting national security at risk with all his affairs. He had no problem putting our country at risk with the Bay of Pigs incident. Kennedy was an indecisive man who nearly got our country blown to bits. Obama is equally as rash as Kennedy. He is not a great president, he is in fact the worst one we have ever had, including Jimmy Carter. BTW, I remember doing the drills for bomb attacks when I was a child in school. I remember families building bomb shelters for fear of Russia attacking us. It was a very real and scary time for many school children.
I just don't see how background checks would hurt anything except make reasonable people wait a couple more days to get a gun and keep a few more crazies from getting one too easily.
txmom
That is untrue.
Ha ha, O Supremo can't have a debate on gun control without making it about penises. Have you met Ewent? He's preoccupied with penises also. You should get together.
txmom, "these are the same folks on the left who smashed the Bush girls..."
Interesting choice of words regarding the Bush twins and their well known love for bars.
Plus, they were not young children, they just acted like they were.
So what does that have to do with the topic at hand?
George....how many gang bangers do you think are waiting to get their hands on a gun? What about abusive spouses? Do you see them as making an honest application to wait on getting a gun to blow away their estranged spouse. How often do our courts fall short in extending restraining orders to protect those who may have been threatened and yes a delay in their ability to get a legal firearm could well cost them their life or the lives of their kids.
txmom
How do you think that gang bangers get guns? They are purchased from gun shows WITHOUT BACKGROUND CHECKS or purchased from a private party WITHOUT BACKGROUND CHECK or stolen from a legal gun owner who did not properly protect his gun from theft WITHOUT BACKGROUND CHECK.
You people who are too damn impatient to allow a thorough background check ensure that people who should not have guns will have guns. Your lack of patience and unwillingness to endure a little inconvenience share the blame for the extremely high gun death rate in this country.
If people like me who do not have guns and have no intention of having guns support your right to bear arms it seems that you can exercise a little patience and endure a little inconvenience in the interest of public safety.
newday Dawning....so because they Bush Twins were in College before Their parents took the step to the Whitehouse made them fair game? Then perhaps we could surmise that by Obama deciding that he should run for President while his children were still young and vulnerable that maybe he and Michelle were hughly selfish with misplaced family values. No that doesn't cut it either, Hillary and Bill have always maintained that Chelsea was off limits even when she joined a Hedge Fund Company on Wall Street in 2006.
Funny thing the Bush twins were allowed to make mistakes in their youth and went on to work in very honorable persuits where Chelsea was a student forever and then went to work on Wall Street.
So do I considering that he had an array of children of different ethic types standing with him when he signed the $300million bill he is sending to Congress to finance the gun law he wants.
He did, however, not have his own with him this time, just other folks... white, black and hispanic.
txmom32
Here is a summary of Chelsea Clinton's wasted life. Thanks for your biased view from a gunslinger who places little value on education.
Jenna Bush graduated from college. Barbara attended, but did not graduate.
Background checks at public events where gun sales occur are a likely to eliminate those disallowed from gun purchase from buying guns at those venues and should be pursued. Eliminating private gun sales through legislation is unenforcible, as evidenced by most drug sales. Banning sales and posession of actual machine gun would only effect those well-off enough to be able to afford that hobby ($10,000 and up for the gun and thousands more for the ammunition) and have an effect on only those few criminals unlucky enough to get caught with one. Magazine capacity limitations are arbitrary and should be fought in the courts for the false solution they are. Banning military-style rifles is also arbitrary based only upon the look and is also a false solution as handicapped persons need guns that are easier to use and those living on ranches are likely to be confronted by packs of wolves, coyotes, wild dogs, or wild pigs. Mental health screening ( like those in the military induction centers)should be required of everyone before their 18th and 21st birthdays to be allowed general participation in society such as driving a car and voting as well as owning weapons. If you are too scary to be in the military, perhaps you shouldn't be out and about. Deny the rights of citizenship to those with IQ's under 70, as, according to the Supreme Court, they are not responsible for their actions.
cinci
Machine guns are already banned. Lets be less "arbitrary" about the military-style rifles. The reason lots of us do not believe such guns belong in the hands of ordinary citizens is that, like machine guns, they shoot lots of bullets in a short amount of time and make it very easy for a person who wants to kill lots of people in a school, mall or theatre to do so.
"So because they (sic) Bush Twins were in college before Their (sic) parents took the step to the White House made them fair game...?"
No, txmom. Their behavior did. They were complete brats.
What is wrong with education down your way?
Guns that can shoot 2 to 3 bullets a second are good for what? Toys for gun-toting adults? Weapons for potential terrorists? Weapons for deranged killers? Weapons of choice for those who want to destroy a target range? Making people who own them feel safe?
These weapons were banned almost 20 years ago. It has been determined that it was constitutional to do so. We need to get rid of these weapons. The price of having these adult toys is much too high for our citizens' safety.
Those of you professing to interpret the Constitution and the Second Amendment, you are entitled to your opinion. But your opinion is not my opinion, and I am entitled to mine as well. I do not agree with your interpretations, either literal or hypothetical. You define specific words but you define them to suit you. I do not agree.
If you're going for strict interpretation, then how do you feel about the fact that the original wording of the Constitution also prevents women from voting, that it allows slavery?
The President had children on stage with him because these specific children wrote to him asking him to address gun violence. They are the reason for his address.
The NRA, on the other hand, used the President's daughters without his permission. They are still minors and he IS their parent.
The reason the Presidents children, ANY President's children, are protected by Secret Service is because of the threat of someone using them to manipulate their father.
Dave-4427889
Because the children of the President of the United States would be far more likely to be targets of Islamic terrorists and right wing gun nuts than the average child. The same was true of Bush's daughters. I'll bet the NRA wasn't outraged by the Bush's children getting such protection. Few if any people who despised Bush went after his daughters' Secret Service security like Obama haters and the NRA are going after Obama's daughters.
BTW: Bush once trotted out a bunch of kids who were "Snow Flake Babies" to justify his opposition to embryonic stem cell research, so Obama is not the first to "exploit" children for a policy objective.
There is also this - the people protecting the president are well-screened professionals. If you go placing 120,000 gun nuts in our schools, by law of probability, a lot of those gun nuts are going to be as crazy as these shooters. I would not want any NRA crazy nut case walking around my kid's school with an AK 47 jsut one day of missed meds from killing a dozen children.
Look - if you own a gun or live with someone who does, I feel sorry for you. You are statistically 4 times more likely to die of a bullet than I am.
Google it -
Overall, Branas's study found that people who carried guns were 4.5 times as likely to be shot and 4.2 times as likely to get killed compared with unarmed citizens. When the team looked at shootings in which victims had a chance to defend themselves, their odds of getting shot were even higher.
SteelerFan:
Why do people assume that liberals don't respect the Second Amendment. If Justice Scalia is OK with restrictions on assault weapons, why doesn't the right accept that?
It's a valid question. Conversely, why do people assume that all republicans are right wing conservatives? That all gun owners are "gun nuts?" That all republican gun owners are against any gun control laws? And are all members of the NRA? It's just easier to lump people in some predetermined group and assign cute little names like Republitards, republicons, teabaggers, etc., to attack a person or an idea. I guess it requires less thought and effort.
Simple, Amy: the membership of the NRA is silent. They are letting their thug leadership do their talking for them. If they disagree, they have an obligation to act and remove the thugs from leadership positions.
The NRA is making stupid comments about President Obama's children having secret service? I wonder where they were when President Bush (Shrub) had their twin daughters with secret service protection. And those gals would manage to ditch the secret service-- so they were teenage biches then. Secret service coverage for the president's children goes with the presidency. But the NRA won't listen to that-- it would destroy their ranting and raving. The NRA members who think that way are the first ones who should be sent to their nearest acorn castle. In my book, the NRA ranks lower than a snake's belly. I wouldn't lower myself to be a member of that organization if they paid my dues.
Susie they weren't commenting on the secret service. The school has it on armed force. The girls have the added protection of the secret service while there. So its a point well made.
So much said, so little accomplished. One thing I didn't read here is what I see as the REAL problem - if the government REGISTERS all your guns, THEY KNOW WHERE THEY ALL ARE. Then, when they think civilians are a threat to government, they'll have an easy time rounding them all up. It's not about the 2nd Ammendment, it's not about "assault weapons" (which, at this time ARE Banned), it's not about paranoia, it's not about the children. It's about some excuse for the government to have records of every gun out there. So, keep on rooting for Obama, and keep losing your rights as stated in the US Constitution. Look around you, and you will see many governments that have taken rights away from their citizens. Look at Mexico - only the crooked police and drug cartels have guns. And how many innocent people have died in Mexico? This is what you want?
It's an honest commentary from the NRA, as the _resident & other elitists won't have their armed details or armed schools cease to exist under any laws or rules that the rest of society would be made to follow...
There are armed resource officers in many schools, including my rural area. That you believe the crap that the NRA puts out demonstrates that you are not quite au fait.
It's amazing that this President,.... President Obama, The First Family should not be protected like all the previous Presidents and their children!
Why?
Pretty sure we know the answer to that, chilled, as do the gun nuts.
Yup newday.......
I wait to see the crazies answer, if they indeed do respond.
Homie-
I don't believe anything in the President's proposal would limit any school district from pursuing an armed guard if they thought it was appropriate.
Are you suggesting the President should mandate the use of armed guards at all schools, overruling the local and state authorities?
These, "you are not going to take my guns away" people are CRAZY!
No Jobs, you Liberal kooks who are trying to destroy this country are the CRAZY ones.
Do you think that they believe that the black man himself is going to come into their homes and start searching for weapons?? Give me a break. Obama did less about gun control in his first term than GW, in fact actually EXPANDED gun rights, but the NRA would never let their members know anything about that. Stay calm, the black man isn't coming for your guns.
And how did Jay "Carnival Barker" Carney put it? Oh yeah, "Let's not let arguments over the Constitution's Second Amendment violate the spirit of the First." Now tell me you incredibily intellegent liberals (I know, oxy-oxymoron...), wasn't the NRA simply exercising their FIRST AMENDMENT right? Oh, that's right, they took the hypocrites to task, and while tactifully wrong, they do raise a point. Now, riddle me this, since you liberals must believe that Obama's children are worth more than the rest of America's children by the very comments I'm reading here, HOW much more are they worth then? Can you put a dollar sign on it?
Exactly TNSEVOL,
I don't see the Federal Government limiting armed guards at schools. LAUSD, the 2nd largest school district in the nation, has it's own school police force to respond to school incidents. Furthermore, since Sandy Hook, the school police have been supported by local law enforcement (LAPD and Sherrif's dept.) greeting kids as they arrive at school in the morning. For this mom, it's a little unnerving to see a large police presence everyday but this is what has to be done until we can tame the violence in our society.
NRA credibility has just gone down the toilet. If the GOP doesn't realize this very soon and distance themselves, they'll go with the next flush...
Ursula, how fast do you think Hollywood would scream if you put a ban on violent movies and TV shows?
Jersey Girl -
Facts are facts. Other developed countries watch the same violent movies and TV shows, even play the same violent games as the US. Most other developed countries have similar rates of theft and assault.
NO OTHER developed country has anywhere close to our high rate of gun deaths.
It is a fact that there is a direct statistical correlation between the levels of gun ownsership in a country and the number of gun deaths per capita (including murders, accidents, and suicides).
No other factor explains it.
This administration flushed their "collective" credibility down the toilet after the fiasco that is Obamacare. Everything since is just swirling around these turds...
NPCDan
Sorry, but wrong.
The Supreme Court of the United States of America ruled the PPACA was Constitutional.
I guess YOUR credibility just went down the toilet.
Salud
Don't fool yourself into thinking that only Republicans are members of the NRA. There are a lot of Democrats too. Harry Reid probably can't get a bill through the Senate because there a Democrats that won't support it and he knows it so he blames the Republicans. Smoke and mirrors.
When I was young, we had violence on TV, but not as graphic as today. I don't remember one mass shooting taking place while I was growing up. We had plenty of guns around then. So what has changed? The deterioration of the family and families not taking their kids to church. A lack of respect by children for their elders and teachers and a lack of discipline.
No "little tom", while ruled constitutional, it was by far the most un-bipartisan piece of legislation put forth by Obama and company. Back room deals, and the "pass to find out what's in it" was by far, the most idiotic statement EVER put out by a politican. Even one as dumb as pelosi. Now, what were you saying about "credibility"?
Stay stupid my liberal friend!
and P.S. just saw that NM ranked near to last when it comes to the treatment of children.
SALUD!
Violent movies and TV shows have always been around, and they are quite clearly NOT the problem. No insane mass murderer enters a school armed only with a violent movie.
It's a simple equation. More Guns = More Gun Violence.
The NRA is a poster child for obsessive compulsive disorder in its unrelenting quest for more guns, and they should be put to sleep like a cancerous dog. Time to ignore the voice of Crazy - the NRA.
Because the solution to gun violence is more guns.
/sarcasm
Stay classy, NRA.
The solution to gun violence, is the right gun, in the right place, at the right time, in the hands of the right person. Liberal/Statist polices, precluded that from happening in Sandy Hook, thus contributing to the slaughter.
Mike . . .
Right - - - because that worked SO well at Columbine . . .
Colorado is a very pro-gun rights state and look at what happened there. No matter how many cowboys you've got, these crazies with automatic weapons and large magazines will mow people down, until we pass commonsense rules.
Mike -
The only known gun-owner in the Newtown incident was the mother of the shooter. Her guns didn't do a very good job of protecting her, did they? They just made it easier for one crazy person to kill her and others.
If there would have been an armed guard at the school he more than likely would have just been the second one shot (after the mother).
It is not a solution to gun violence - but less guns, with lower capacity magazines, being less available and harder for a crazy person to acquire sounds like a positive step forward to me.
So you are saying guns never protect anyone? So then why does the president need the secret service, why do movie stars have armed body guards?
Yep, let's give our overworked and underpaid teachers guns in their classrooms. Not only that but let's make them take a course in how to use the weapon. (At their expense of course.) Do you think that the students won't know the teachers have guns? Do you think that a gang of high school students could take down a teacher and steal their gun? I know they can. I have a friend who is in her late 60's and she is still teaching. I don't think she could even shoot a gun without falling down. As for armed guards at every school...my local school can't afford to buy school supplies for their teachers and they have almost 40 kids per class, how is an armed guard going to be paid for? Would the very wealthy NRA like to pick up that tab? My state doesn't have a sales tax to pay for their local schools, it is all paid for by local property taxes. What pisses off people more than gun control? Property taxes going up by THOUSANDS of dollars a year.
Jersey Girl -
No, what I am saying is that the same people who claim we should not ban assault-style weapons because they won't prevent ALL gun murders claim that the solution is armed security.
Do armed guards at banks prevent all bank robberies? NO. Does owning a weapon or having armed guards prevent all gun violence? NO.
I fail to see how the solution to gun violence is more guns.
How can we tell if the armed guards or the armed teachers aren't bat@!$%# crazy? They are people like everyone else and would tend to have the same percentage of crazy, violent people as the general population. How would we know we are not arming the murderers?
Jersey Girl: The difference in teh secret service protecting the president, and movie stars having security, is those people are trained. The vast majority of American's ARE NOT trained in weapons AT ALL. Just yesterday, in Norfolk, VA a 4 year old child killed his 56 year old grandfather!! You think that grandfather ever thought that would happen to him when he bought that gun? Once again, he had no weapons training! Now he's dead!
If you're going to argue about having weapons, thats fine. You can have all the guns you want, we really don't care. But what I require is that if my neighbor wants more guns, then I have a right to know if that neighbor is crazy, of if his/her children have mental issues that will cause them to take the gun, kill the parents, then come after me or my kids. The right to bear arms are not absolute! You have a right to bear arms, but we all have a right to live!
There is way too much money in the buying and selling of weapons and accessories-particularly, assault weapons, for any one to think that this market will go away willingly. No one needs an assault weapon or high volume magazines for hunting or protection. It is simply a way for gun enthusiasts and hobbiests to get and keep what they want. The NRA is the organization to protect this "right", even though our founding fathers could never have envisioned what would become todays weaponry. There is even some debate as to what the 2nd Amendment meant to our founding fathers in their day and age....we'll never really know.
I work in the small arms and munitions industry and I can say that those who "buy" into these types of weapons, accessories, and munitions, will not give up or give in to bans or legislation. It's like asking an addict to stop his habit cold turkey....it won't happen, no matter if they or someone else dies as a result of the habit.
Even with any legislation that is passed it will happen again. Unfortunatly that is a fact. Then who will you blame?
As a side note whichever state you live in it is those people who buy all those things and more that keep your state from raising your taxes even more. But I am sure you already knew that. You and the rest seem to know what is best for everyone.
Please tell me where in the bill of rights, it states that firearms are reserved for hunting. I'll wait.
Joe G -
Please tell me where in the Bill of Rights it says you have unfettered access to any type of weapon and ammunition you like?
I won't wait, because you won't find it.
No one needs Christianity, with so many other religions available. So we could just ban Christianity and say that we aren't infringing on First Amendment rights because there are other religions available from which to choose? When you apply some of the same logic to other rights, I think it becomes readily apparent how deficient and dangerous such arguments really are. You want government (or the will of the people - we don't have a democracy, you know, for this very reason) to determine what your needs are?
As stated by Brian Compton, commenting at http://www.fox19.com/story/20399062/the-very-politically-incorrect-truth-about-the-second-amendment
"Need" is never a metric used to determine the exercise of a right.
"Need", in this regard, is an artificial value judgment imposed by one person on another. In other words: Tyranny.
You do not get to determine what I need any more than I get to determine what you need. The list of items we possess, and actions we indulge in, that are "un-needed" and potentially (or even demonstrably) dangerous is endless.
A freedom to choose things outside of our "needs" is what it means to have self-determination and freedom. Unless someone's exercise of that choice directly infringes on another's freedom it should not be a consideration of the State or any other person what that choice may be.
"Need" is not the justification I must make to live my life.
___________________________________
I'll add that when "someone's exercise of that choice directly infringes on another's freedom," you do not punish everyone who makes similar choices, you punish the individual (by trial - that's called "due process," and it's another right guaranteed by the Bill of Rights) who abused his rights to the detriment of others. Case in point - James Holmes is going on trial for his crimes. Other owners of ARs, pump shotguns, and Glocks should not suffer because of his actions. If they do, then Holmes at least will have benefitted from the "due process" protection of the BOR, while the remainder of the citizens will not have so benefitted. This leads to a peculiar situation in which the actual perpetrator of criminal acts has his right to "due process" fulfilled, while the law-abiding suffer loss of rights without "due process." (FYI, before one of you someone shoots your mouth off and equates "due process" with legislative process, it's been long-recognized that "due process" refers to judicial process, i.e., charging someone with a crime and convicting with the consent of a jury. This is the only constitutional way to divest someone of any of his rights in this country. This is why the supporters of (gun) control insist that they're not taking anyone's rights away. If they did, they'd be admitting that they're denying rights to gun owners and other citizens without due process.)
Paloma, you wrote "the founding fathers could never have envisioned what would become todays weaponry."
Accepting this as true, it is equally true that the founding fathers could not have envisioned what weaponry would be at the disposal of government. Given the choice of these weapons in the hands of the citizens or the government, which do you think they would have preferred? Their intent was to prevent a government monopoly on force. Arguably, because they were opposed to standing armies, their intent was to grant the citizenry a monopoly on force, a concept many would turn on its head. If successful, this may not redound upon us, but upon your children's children. And then a killer of great power will be unleashed, for governments are forever man's greatest enemies, being imperfect and dangerous creations of his own imagination.
hehehe..that's telling setting it straight.. GOD, GUNS AND GUTS made america free..GOD, GUNS AND GUTS will keep it free..
All current and future gun owner must pass a psychological evaluation.
Sounds like a better plan to me.
Fantastic idea Freethinker; NOT!
First of all, anyone can be deemed mentally stable today and 'snap' tomorrow. What good was the evaluation at that point?
And what if a person is deemed mentally unstable to own a gun? Should they then be entitled to disability? Perhaps we could add more people to the welfare line in the name of progress.
Anyone deemed incapable of owning a firearm shall be provided a security detail.
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/threat-management/201003/the-pentagon-shooting-they-don-t-just-snap
Scared of what might be discovered of you inthemiddle12?
No, it is much better to just let everyone, even the very insane have these weapons. It just makes common sense.
The NRA is not what it used to be when my family were members in the 80's and 90's.
they are a gun manufacturers lobbying group - plain and simple. And right now, those well-paid lobbyists are showing how low and disgusting they are willing to get.
Exactly. Just like the GOp isn't a political party, anymore. They're just a bunch of tax-payer compensated lobbyists. They're gettin' it going and coming.
i am surprised that the nra does not advocate that every teacher have a flame-thrower.
That was red meat for their base. I would wager that mose everyone else saw it for the slime that it was.
Surely they could have thrown red meat to their base without involving the President's children. I do wonder how committed their base is if it needs this kind of red meat.
The rats are rabid and out of the sewers. The NRA leadership really is delusional, dangerous and increasingly distinguishing themselves as domestic terrorists.. The President is exponentially more important than the NRA leadership and so are his children. A hope this is the final self-detruction attempt by the NRA.
LOL... The NRA will now have record membership...
thomaswardoo - which tells you EVERYTHING about the current NRA membership. Pretty sad!!!
So, Obama's children are more important than everyone else's children? Very Stalinesque of you.
Record membership so they have more money to back a presidential candidate who has never even shot a real weapon before.
NPCDan
Not MORE important, but threatened MORE by people who would do them harm than my own children, for sure.
Perhaps "CR", but the level of the threat, real or imagined, is irrevelant. Just like in "A Few Good Men", when posed with the question, "Did you consider it to be a grave danger?", reply, "Is there any other kind?" (I'm paraphrasing the best I can...). Point being, a threat is a threat is a threat, no matter how "grave", or dangerous. And I agree that these poor children are being used by BOTH sides to further their respective agendas, which is odeous at best, and deceptive at worst, OUR children need the level of protection that is afforded to the offspring of our politicians. We pay their salaries, and THEY are our employees, but their children get better protection? That is the epitomy of hypocracy.
So, NPCDan claims that we are the "bosses" of our elected officials. If you really think that, you should run for public office. You might learn something.
The President's children are in Grave Danger at all times. Period. Yes, they need constant protection, and yes our taxes should damn well cover those expenses. It's been that way since Lincoln was assassinated, and I never heard any of you rightwing nutballs demand the Bush family be stripped of their protections.
The children have only been "used" by the NRA - NOT the President. The President's impetus for this issue is the school shooting itself, as an incident - NOT the children. And it is a NATIONAL issue, so it's perfectly appropriate for a national leader to discuss it.
For Pete's sake, grow up.
So, when they are vacationing in Hawaii, chilling on the beach, they are in "grave danger" exactly how? Rabid seagulls? Jellyfish? The point I was trying to make is that there is danger in every aspect of our lives. You cannot eliminate danger, but you can mitigate it through proactive thinking and actions, and not knee-jerk reactions we are seeing from our "leaders" in Washington. And for the record "Jim", I've been grown for some time now, and if you had read my paragraph correctly, I was bashing BOTH sides for using these poor kids to further some political agenda.
Mitigation of danger through proactive thinking is correct. But that is why the President's family is assigned a Secret Service security detail - it is a proactive measure to mitigate danger. The President's children are targets in every sense of the word.
I love the immaturity of your post, especially the ridiculous bit about seagulls and jellyfish. It demonstrates your inability to take the subject seriously. As I said before, I now reiterate: the President did NOT "use children" to make a political point. Only the NRA did that. So if you were bashing both sides, you were doing so under a false assumption. You now stand corrected.
Wayne LaPierre is a clueless and classless thug and is sealing the fate of the NRA as an out-of-the-mainstream, extremist, irrelevant organization.
Look in the mirror if you want to see someone who is clueless, although I think that Obama and Biden, Feinstein, Cuomo and a few others may be even more clueless.
Lol, nobody here as refuted the charge. Rather they slander the NRA for posting a FACT. A very real fact at that. I am a liberal and voted for the President, I am also a gun owner, and I will be damned if I am getting rid of my guns. It is only repugnant because the White House says so. No it is disgusting that the politicians have separate laws for themselves.
Where does it say the President is taking away your guns? I didn't see that part.
He wants to take away my magazines, (an unconstitutional taking as well) and what about those weapons that have in internal ability to hold more that 10 rounds without a detachable click. Just continues to show this jackwagon's ignorance.
MLH - "just continues to show this jackwagon's ignorance." NO, but you've certainly shown yours!
NO ONE is saying that you have to get rid of your guns!! The President is NOT saying that you must give up your guns! It's not gonna happen... If you are a law-abiding gun owner, you have nothing to worry about. And another thing, all our past Presidents, since after Abe Lincolin have had secret services protection, so why is it now all of a sudden a bone of contention for the NRA? I am a former military, pro-hunting, gun enthusiast, and see no problem with limiting the size of clips or banning ASSAULT weapons. If you need a machine gun and 100 rounds to shot a deer, you are in bad shape, and need remedial target practice! The NRA is turning into a bunch of thugs and fear mongers!
MLH,
You'll notice that the left think that they know what's best for all of us... Quite comforting to know that someone like Obama is so well versed on this topic...
You are correct "drik"! I haven't seen ONE statement on this vine that refutes what was said about the children. NOT ONE!!! So, by their collective silence, these uber intellegent liberals must agree that the president's children are worth much more than any others! Wow.
Yeah because the republicans have NEVER thought that they knew what was the best for all of us. Vaginal probes, banning abortions, forcing women to have a rapists baby, putting MY hard earned money into vouchers. Yep, the repubs are completely innocent on that one.
JK1963
Hardly.
We Democrats are trying to restore this great nation after years and years of Republicans ruining our economy and spreading lies and propaganda through Rush Limbaugh and Faux sNewzzzzz.
The entire world is shaking their heads at the ignorance of the Tea Party and Right wing idiots who have run this nation into the ground because of their stupidity.
Salud
I suppose we should just let the President's children defend themselves against terrorists and crazies out there? Yes, you're right. The children are no MORE important than anyone else's child, but they are in MORE danger from people that want to do this President and his family harm. That is a fact!
may,
You care to cite where this ban is going to eliminate gun violence? Care to cite where criminals will not continue to use these guns against innocent victims? The left is grabbing at straws in a feeble attempt to capitalize on a senseless tragedy. But hey...it's all cool to parade those poor kids out in front of the media for your own political agenda... With a record from the left allowing women to kill their unborn children on demand with the country picking up the tab...well...that certainly is evident for people that are looking out for our collective best interest...
I don't have a problem with it. Good for them. It's an open game. Non-discriminatory and if the shoe fits, wear it.
Tomas,
Yes...of course...more of the elite attitude from the left... Hardly...as in Obama slowly taking away our rights. The problem with the left is you have no issues with it and that is SCARY!
Right on Tomas, people out there can't see what is happening to their freedoms. The NRA was making a good point, if the presidents children deserve protection so then also should all of our children. There is a lot of schools with an officier with a gun protecting our children. I hope all schools do that. Wake up people and see what is happening in this country. You might want to make a few changes.
Do any of you know that that are talking about the school private security force and not the secret service. No one is saying they shouldn't have the secret service. We are just wondering why their kids get their own security force besides the secret service and yours don't.
jk, care to cite where the tax payers are picking up the tab for abortions? Don't say Planned Parenthood because that has been debunked over and over again.
So Obama, the Democrats, the Liberals and the anti gun groups can exploit the victims of Sandy Hook but it is repugnant for the NRA to state that all children should be as safe as the President's.
Okay.
Excellent point, economy! My thinking exactly.
By trying to make sure it doesn't happen again, the President is "exploiting" the Sandy Hook kids?
So -- whenever a crime happens, we should immediately forget about it and try not to fix what made it happen?
My God, you folks are funny.
Nice deflection, Gum...care to argue where parading those Sandy Hook kids out in front of the media for Obama's political agenda is any different than what the NRA said?? A child is a child afterall...
That may be true if 'Gun Control' was part of President Obama's "political agenda", but it wasn't. President Obama's recommendations are merely a common-sense response to a national tragedy.
It is the NRA and the Republicans who are attempting to politicize the tragedy by refusing to discuss reasonable actions.
Reasonable actions? By what standard? Yours? Mine? The ones that lost loved at Sandy Hook? The NRA?? Start defining "reasonable" and then perhaps people will get somewhere. But clearly you don't refute the political gamesmanship of having Sandy Hook families paraded out in front of a camera.
JK:: I certainly hope you are a 6-month-old baby. There is a difference between WITH PERMISSION and WITHOUT PERMISSION. President Obama asked to have those children on stage with him-- after all, they had written to him about the situation that was discussed. The NRA did NOT ask permission to even mention the Obama gals. They are clearly OUT OF ORDER as well as out of their ever-loving minds.
Jay Carney needs to grow a pair!!!!!! You could knock this dope out with a feather... Now get back to licking your boss's boots there Jay.
He reminds of a pre-teen just waiting for puberty to kick in...
The NRA used to be a basic money magnet organization, collecting and earning millions of dollars to boost the sale of guns for gun manufacturers. According to various media and industry insiders who worked with the NRA, the higher-ups weren't fervent about the Constitution or Rights or anything really, other than making money by influencing legislation, and making money by playing to NRA client and membership desires. BUT, somewhere along the line of their using fear and paranoia to boost those sales and fees, and especially to boost those membership roles, they emboldened and attracted an insidious paranoid, violent, and racist element which is now showing its true colors. It has also obviously moved up the ranks of management when that type of garbage is getting national distribution in the name of the NRA. Methinks the FBI will be taking a strong interest in their management from a terrorist and white supremacy angle from here on out. They've not only crossed the line, they erased it and drew one several miles further back just to make a point about how far they are willing to go to threaten and disgust most Americans to further their paranoid dystopian agenda.
Methinks thou doest protest too much. If you're going to equate management to terrorists, you probably don't need to look very far: HSBC, FBA, DHS, BOFA, etc. You're hypocracy is flagrant.
Excellent post, Mike N.
The NRA makes no money from the sale of guns!!!! Get you BS right if you can.
Mikey N....it's not the NRA ...it's your young white males gone bonkers who did the mass killings....guns just don't appear out of no where and shoot a bunch of people at one time...a nut case has to holding the gun...millions of responsible gun owners will tell you that..sit down and take a chill pill..your hallucinating..
Truth hurt?? Nothing could be more repugnant how they keep using these kids of Sandy Hook to advance their agenda. Today's speech is a perfect example, the 20 beautiful children, yada yada yada . Todays speech was deserving of a grammy for the "drama" performance. An assault weapon ban and some more gun free zones will make everyone safe, what a joke.
Well trained school resource office program, would have made much more sense!!! Do agree with funding for more police on the streets we will see what that works out to be, 1 officer to most departments???
I thought it was the Republicans that were against additional "public union" employees like teachers, police officers and firefighters?
Republicans in states like Wisconsin, Indiana and Ohio have fought against the public unions that are in part responsible for the number of police officers on the streets.
Now you claim the Dems are against it?
As far as President Obama's agenda, gun control was not part of it until the massacre in Newtown. He is not "using" those kids to advance some previously-hidden agenda, he is responding to a horrible tragedy like a leader should and trying to find a common-sense approach to reducing the violence.
I don't understand how the President is "exploiting" the Sandy Hook kids. A horrible massacre occurred, and he's responding to it. What's so hard to understand?
Despite the NRA's paranoid fantasies, the kids in Newtown were killed randomly by a disturbed person with a high-powered weapon. The poor folks in that theater in Aurora were random victims as well, of a disturbed person with a high powered weapon.
However, unlike those people or "my kids" or "your kids", Sasha and Malia Obama ARE targets, every day of every week. So they get (and deserve) Secret Service protection.
And if I had a kid going to their school with them, I CERTAINLY would want armed guards there, because the girls are real targets and my kid might be in danger as well.
Because it would not nearly have the same impact to the media and pubic if he didn't have those victims paraded out in limelight. They are just being victims all over again...
Let us take down NRA and its management. That can happen when all folks ( gun lovers and non-lovers alike) realize that NRA idiots have blood on their hands. This blood of innocent children and adults is screaming loud and clear to ban assault weapons because America is not at war with itself. Let us stop this insanity.
LOL... No gun bans for you Liberals....
Obama just cost the Democrats the Senate in 2014...
thomaswardoo - nope - just guaranteed the Democrats not only the Senate but also the House in 2014!
Yeah...right. So by your "reasoning", the NRA went to this kids house, the NRA then made him either take, or not take his medications, then the NRA forced him to kill his own mother and STEAL her gun, THEN the NRA made him drive to the nearest "safe zone" school, and kill these poor, innocent children? My God! I had no idea that the NRA had reached "demi god" status! I find it both astounding, and alarming that so many of you uber-intellegent liberals think this way! I guess you can't fix stupid...
No. The NRA sold them their guns...
So the NRA now has stores, out of which one can purchase guns. They must have a hard time competing with WalMart...
Let's find pictures of the NRA President's children or other relatives and post their pictures so everyone knows who to aim for next!
Kim, the truth is cowards like Lanza know better then to assault people that might be armed. They know to go after "Gun free zones". Easier, uninterrupted shooting. Publish all the pics you want. One of you first.
While your taking that route how about you and yours?
So, once again, a uber-intellegent liberal advocates murder on a wholesale basis. I can almost feel the hypocracy oozing out of my monitor.
NPCDan - You need to learn the difference between "oozing out of" and "oozing in to".
Seriously Kim? You're disgusting
No "3rd", I do not. I was borrowing a phrase from the late Frank Zappa. I guess if you can't add to the discussion, simply denigrate those who do. Good job "tryingtoseefromtheleft"...
KimV...there you go ....you confirmed it....Democrats are loose canons...all the shooters were registered Democrats.
the people yelling the loudest to end this violence are ok with violence against nra members? really?
But, but the NRA is correct. President Obama please show us what a good example you are. Have your security detail give up its firearms.
Yes do us all a favor, wear some "Gun Free Zone" hoodies also. One for each of your family please, make sure the hood us up so we can read the writing on the back.
"Most Americans agree that a president's children should not be used as pawns in a political fight," White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said in a statement. "But to go so far as to make the safety of the president's children the subject of an attack ad is repugnant and cowardly."
Absolutely correct, Repugnantcans can only slink lower and lower.
So Rev. Jim, it is OKAY to use the poor children of Sandy Hook a pawns in a political fight? Stay hyprcritical my friend!
NPCDan,
Absolutely correct! Those that don't see the hypocrisy are truly rabid Obama fans. It's ok to call one ad out, but not miss a beat with parading victims out in the limelight to further an agenda and proposals haphazardly made up from the likes of Bumbling Biden and crew...
JK1963...you can't win against people who are mesmerized by this man....they have a great tendency to follow and not lead...that's why Republicans far outpace them in the job sector. Republicans have money that we earned by educating outselves and all they want to do is ride our coat tail and play Robin Hood without lifting a finger. Don't care if we worked two or more jobs to put ourself through college and make a more than decent earning and save for our retirement....you can't blame them for being angry. They missed the boat. Wait until all the rich start moving their money overseas....then what...the well went dry.
There are no words that describe the NRA ad more accurately than "repugnant" and "cowardly." Two runners-up do, however, come to mind: "intellectually dishonest."
The President doesn't mind at all using other peoples children.
You reap what you sow.
Obama really is a despicable human being.
Agreed, agreed , agreed, agreed.......
And you Mark O'Neal are the SCUM bag of the lowest order in the gutter of your brain. Those who live by swords die by swords....ahhhhh..... those who live by guns die by guns.
And if you have a gun, you stand a better chance of not dieing. dig?
Mark - The despicable human being (and I use the term loosely) here is you and you alone!
As someone stated before...... The children Obama uses in his speeches are part of the show by decision. Obama's children..... not so much.
The hypocrisy spewing from the right is so typical and so filthy.
But then again..... you already knew that.
Kahunahammer-
Actually, if you own a gun your chances of dying (by gunshot) go up dramatically.
It makes attempts at suicide more succesful, it makes domestic disturbances turn into murder, it makes an accidental gun death much more likely, it even makes it more likely you will be shot trying to defend yourself during an attempted robbery or theft.
Look it up.
Someone should tell the NRA that the secret service have been protecting all of the presidents children since the 1960's! Republicans and Demorcrats, not just Obama.
and now he and his family will have that same protection for the rest of their lives. even when he is no longer president. thanks to the law he just passed.
JosephLi I really wish you all were more informed. The NRA add is not about the secret service. Its about the schools on private security force.
Whatever... The regime is repulsive and continues to show their distain and disregard for the common citzen. The jackwagon has no problem using the Sandy Hook event for his own political purposes. Further shows his (and fellow gun control wingnuts) complete ignorance and lack of knowledge on the actual workings of weapons. So why not ban automatic weapons. and YES THEY ARE LEGAL!
Oh let's see, this is the first President whose children have been protected in school...NOT....all Presidents kids have security protecting them in schools right through college...
I want the same for my kids. So I bought them guns. If the government will not provide safety I will.
Yep, all the President's kids in the past, the only difference now being the President is black and so are his kids. So now all of a sudden we shouldn't protect them....hummm
NRA = Not Right Anymore
Since you brought it up "jgoing" every Americans children should be protected in the same fashion the Presidents kids are .... pretty good point you made there ..... are you sure you are a liberal ?
and now for the rest of their lives. is that really needed?
Be ready to be shocked. I love my kids more then I love Obama's. Shocking enough for you? Put armed gards in my schools please. Take the money we spend protecting politicians children and protect mine instead. I do not care if others die, protect mine with armed gards. Thanks. Need money to do that with? See SPENDING CONTROL or current President needed. Show us you mean business Obama, call off your gards. Go out un-protected, do us a favor.
And you idiotic @!$%# go back to school to learn to spell and write. You must be the brainless types NRA is looking for. Even Regan recognized the need for banning assault weapons. Why because they are not needed to hunt, for self protection or target practice.
Kahunahammer - your post is bordering on a threat and you probably need to rethink your stupidity - okay, that's not gonna happen. You truly are walking on very thin ice!
Truth hurts libs, film at 11.....................
-mono
While whining about spelling, try Reagan it will get you better results.
NO! It cannot be that you love your very own children more so than Obama's children! This does NOT line up with the party philosophy Sophistry!
You know,... years ago there were never shuch troubling things for the public to worry about. When I was going to school as a child there were NEVER any shootings, beatings, rapes, for any of us to worry about back then. The worst worry any of us had was "skipping school" and getting caught doing so, or having a "smoke" on school property.
Now look at the world today,... What things have changed over the past 50+ years to create what we now are enduring?? The gun laws back then were far simpler, nobody EVER had to worry about being shot at in a school or anywhere unless you were the "BAD-Guy" breaking the law and being sought after.
So what things have changed ??? The parents in today's world can no longer punish or correct their children like they used to for fear of their own child putting them in jail,.. kids now days get just about everything they ask for and never appreciate the things once they have them,.. When I was young and growing up I was taught right from wrong and was attended to and corrected if other then the fact.
The baseball fields that used to be full growing up are now empty after school,.. no more kids getting together in the neighborhood to put together a ball game,..they all stay indoors glued to their computers, smart-phones, online games, texting, and online chat is all the exercise they ever seem to get,... this world of people in today's society have become lazy and complaisant.
The majority of these horrific crimes seem to be emanating from a specific age group of people if anyone has taken the time to notice that fact. The reasons behind them are beyond my comprehension,.. the person doing the deeds are the ones at fault here, not the instruments that they wield. Guns, cars, knives,.. anything that is improperly used can do harm to another if used in the manner to do the harm,.. more laws on the public will not make the changes that they are seeking.
Warlock you're right, it won't make all the changes we are seeking. But it will give law enforcement the tools they need to get the crazies and bad people off the streets. My thing is this. If someone wants to own an assault weapon, fine. But they and their entire family must be subject to a background check and mental health exams.
The kid responsible for the Newtown thing got his hands on his mother's guns. Had there been a law in place requiring mom to submit mental health records for her son, then mom should have not been allowed to own an assault rifle. Maybe the kid would have done it anyway, but he would have only had handguns with 8 clip magazine. That could have saved maybe a dozen kids or so. Mom should also have been required to take a gun safety class and lock her guns in a safe where her son couldn't just get to them when he wanted to. You have any idea how many parents have kids who suffer from Asbergers, ADHD, ADD or other antisocial illnesses? I guarantee you either have a family member or a neighbor who has a child that suffers from one or more of these diseases.
So if we as a society want the freedom to buy whatever weapon we want, then the rest of society has a right to know if our neighbors are crazy as hell or not. Just last night, here in Norfolk VA, a 56 year old man was killed by his 4 year old grandson who got to grandpa's gun and was playing with it. Grandpa is dead. Killed by his own grandson. Had grandpa had the gun in a safe, or even had a trigger lock, he would be alive today.
Common sense will win. Sure the NRA has 4 million members. There are 124 million registered voters, and over 70% of them are pissed off right now at the NRA and gun manufacturers who don't give a damn about anything but making money by selling more guns.
Ft Hood~~~ Registered Democrat ~ Muslim
Columbine ~~~ Too young to vote; both families were registered
Democrats and progressive liberals
Virginia Tech ~~~ Wrote hate mail to President Bush and to his staff ~
Registered Democrat
Colorado Theater ~~~ Registered Democrat; staff worker on the Obama
campaign; Occupy Wall Street participant;
progressive liberal
Connecticut School Shooter- ~~~ Registered Democrat; hated Christians.
All of these shooters were liberal Democrats.
Considering the broad approach so far being suggested as solutions to gun violence, a more fruitful one might be one that all Democrats are banned from purchasing firearms. Any demographic study will show that the preponderance of gun violence is centered in heavily Democratic areas (e.g.: Chicago, Detroit, etc.). If Democrats are banned from all gun purchases it seems highly likely that the bulk of gun deaths a year would be markedly reduced.
This common sense measure should be instituted immediately and would certainly be much more effective than assault rifle or large capacity magazine bans presently being proposed.
You are the exact reason we need gun control. Crazies like you have so much hate against people who don't think like you that you are likely go kill them. The FBI should track you down and take the guns which you stockpile away from you.
"Hello pot, my name is kettle..."