Watch The NRA Ad That Goes Too Far, Knocks Obama On Daughters' Security
invite response
2013 Jan 16, 12:56am 13,523 views 49 comments
« First « Previous Comments 6 - 45 of 49 Next » Last » Search these comments
Thedaytoday
2013 Jan 16, 1:24am
Forthood , your a fool you don't even know the what the Presidents actions are yet and still your OUTRAGED, your an idiot.
You probably think that Romney won the election.
Politicians like Dianne Feinstein disgust me when they recognize the value of concealed carry, get a permit for themselves and deny them to the rest of us.
What was the reason you were denied concealed carry?
If one cannot see the difference between a President and or his daughters having protection provided by the Government and armed guards in schools then there really can be no basis for further discussion.
The simple matter is there cannot be provided armed guards everywhere so you utilize guards in areas and or with people in an intelligent manner. That is, where they can do the most good. Certainly the President's daughters are at extremely high risk of being harmed, as is the President the average school age child is at much less at risk. Can't see the difference? Try thinking
Thedaytoday
2013 Jan 16, 1:28am
Armed guards on every corner, at every store, at every location a child may walk.
CRAZY! Just like the right wing nuts.
leo707
2013 Jan 16, 1:31am
Politicians like Dianne Feinstein disgust me when they recognize the value of concealed carry, get a permit for themselves and deny them to the rest of us.
What was the reason you were denied concealed carry?
People can get denied for a variety of reason, or really no reason at all. CCW permits are issued on a state and local level and the ability to get them largely depends on what county/city one lives in.
Politicians like Dianne Feinstein disgust me when they recognize the value of concealed carry, get a permit for themselves and deny them to the rest of us.
What was the reason you were denied concealed carry?
People can get denied for a variety of reason, or really no reason at all. CCW permits are issued on a state and local level and the ability to get them largely depends on what county/city one lives in.
And how is that Dianne Feinstein's fault exactly?
leo707
2013 Jan 16, 1:39am
He is a hypocrite. He gets personal armed security for life, but we have to be disarmed?
I'm not giving up my 2nd amendment to anyone.
The analogy of the Secret Service--or any private security for that matter--and citizens right to carry is a poor one. When getting a CCW--or buying a gun for that matter--has the same barriers to entry as does serving in the Secret Service then the analogy would be accurate. I am not aware of a state in the union that requires a psych evaluation, or extensive training, before being able to own a gun.
I agree that guns for personal security should not be the sole providence of the rich, and that private citizens should also be able to own and carry.
...but...for anyone to carry they should have to go through a "mini" police academy and pass the same type of psych evaluations that police and private security have to pass. Also, they should be required to periodically demonstrate that their skills and psyche have not diminished bellow set standards. One of the reasons I stopped renewing my CCW was that I was no longer finding time to make it to the range very often and practice.
The NRA choosing to frame the discussion on guns using tactics like this is just one more reason I am glad that I let my membership expire a long time ago.
leo707
2013 Jan 16, 1:40am
And how is that Dianne Feinstein's fault exactly?
I...don't...know...
Perhaps, drew will be able to give us details backing up his/her claims.
Thedaytoday
2013 Jan 16, 1:43am
NRA spreading lies and fear, they do not represent the people, they could not care less about the 2nd Ammendmant, it's all about the manufacturers.
NRA spreading lies and fear, they do not represent the people, they could not care less about the 2nd Ammendmant, it's all about the manufacturers.
Something like 75% of the NRA's "donations" come from "corporate partners". Anyone care to guess who those corporate partners are and what they manufacture? The NRA likes to talk about themselves as a grassroots organization of gun owners, but that's just fiction. The NRA is really just a front for gun companies, with lots of gun owners riding along on the gun companies dime.
NRA spreading lies and fear, they do not represent the people, they could not care less about the 2nd Ammendmant, it's all about the manufacturers.
Something like 75% of the NRA's "donations" come from "corporate partners". Anyone care to guess who those corporate partners are and what they manufacture? The NRA likes to talk about themselves as a grassroots organization of gun owners, but that's just fiction. The NRA is really just a front for gun companies, with lots of gun owners riding along on the gun companies dime.
That may be true (or not), but it has nothing to do with the 2nd amendment and how it is interpreted. Just because you suppose ulterior motives behind an organization doesn't mean that the case they are fighting for is wrong. You need to stop using emotions in this debate and think rationally.
You need to stop using emotions in this debate and think rationally.
Do you think the NRA's ad is making a rational comparison?
Thedaytoday
2013 Jan 16, 2:46am
Watch The NRA Ad That Goes Too Far, Knocks Obama On Daughters' Security
Good!
Filthy bastard
Low life scum bag.
Thedaytoday
2013 Jan 16, 2:48am
Scared little children, when will you reach adulthood, your government is not coming for you.
Your Republican leaders can barely keep the Government open! Yet you expect them to come for you?
You are children living in fear!
You need to stop using emotions in this debate and think rationally.
Do you think the NRA's ad is making a rational comparison?
I'm undecided on that, it's more complicated than it seems. I certainly don't think they overstepped any boundaries, they are entitled to their opinion. And aside from the gun debate, the theme that politicians legislate and preach one thing while they are completely doing the opposite for themselves and their family is a widespread evil that is not bound to the US. For example in Europe a lot of politicians say there are no problems with crime and the quality of schools in certain areas and tout the greatness of "diversity" while they avoid those areas like the plague and have their family live in the super-upscale posh areas and have their kids go to super nice school without "diversity". After all Obama is the president of diversity, so maybe his kids should go to schools with a little more social diversity.
Hey Republicans, were going to raise your taxes so we can pay for armed guards in schools. Or we can just fire the teachers and put a bible on each desk.
Hey Republicans, were going to raise your taxes so we can pay for armed guards in schools. Or we can just fire the teachers and put a bible on each desk.
I wouldn't assume that everybody who doesn't (fully) support this ban is a Republican. There is more than blue and red.
Hey Republicans, were going to raise your taxes so we can pay for armed guards in schools. Or we can just fire the teachers and put a bible on each desk.
Or, we can stop paying the democrat senators their salaries until they pass a budget... that would definitely free up money to pay the guards...
Legalize pot and the shooting will stop.
Hey Republicans, were going to raise your taxes so we can pay for armed guards in schools. Or we can just fire the teachers and put a bible on each desk.
Or, we can stop paying the democrat senators their salaries until they pass a budget... that would definitely free up money to pay the guards...
Legalize pot and the shooting will stop.
That we can agree on ;)
deepcgi
2013 Jan 16, 3:27am
If President Obama does not talk about registration of guns (that may even be "assault weapons" grand-fathered for the benefit of owners) then I might be impressed with his attempts to regulate in this matter.
However, before anyone can "come for the guns", they must first know who you are and criminalize you.
I could easily envision a massive financial penalty for non-registration, because it could be argued that registration is not abridging the right to bear arms. However, if the government turns law-abiding citizens into criminals when those citizens believe that such a list WOULD inevitably lead to an abridgment, then the citizens are constitutionally justified UNLESS the gun control legislation contains some language that actually protects them...
...which it won't.
How hard can it be to make it impossible to get into a school without being checked for a small arsenal? I think there are less expensive security measures that could be adopted than armed guards. Again, I'm not against armed guards per se, I'm just not convinced it's the best solution.
In my opinion if you were to really break down the reasoning behind many of those who seem opposed to ANY sort of possible legislation on guns, you'd probably find that their real argument is less about the actual practicality of owning weapons-especially the ones coming under scrutiny- and more to do with:
" Hey! I don't want anyone to tell me what to do!!"
I've actually heard the exact same attitude when there were new measures passed during the Bush administration to get rid of conventional 100 watt incandescent light bulbs. As soon as that happened some people started bitching about HAVING to buy those greeny CFL bulbs and so on. It was again less to do with the actual content of the law and more to do with " I don't like being told what to do!!!"
That's probably more or less it. Otherwise there is actually widespread support for many of the measures that are being proposed on BOTH sides of the isle. Perhaps if more people realized this there would be less bickering and more constructive debate.
" Hey! I don't want anyone to tell me what to do!!"
That's a big part of it. Many people like the "nanny" state, like being taken care of, like hand-outs and like being lead around by their noses...
And others, want the government out of their lives so they can take care of themselves without interference by "big brother".....
I'll let you guess who's who....
Unless of course they themselves are in a position to benefit from the nanny state then they are all for it.
Thedaytoday
2013 Jan 16, 4:00am
But, the schools make for such a nice "emotional" backdrop to push for gun control, because it's "for the children".
And others, want the government out of their lives so they can take care of themselves without interference by "big brother".....
Tell us again what has the President suggested and what has the NRA suggested?
Who is "THE" big brother? Who suggested we have armed guards on every street corner and who suggested a comprehensive background check?
Exactly!
The NRA are promoting big brother and you cannot see beyond the end of your nose.
Thedaytoday
2013 Jan 16, 4:03am
Who suggested we have armed guards on every street corner and who suggested a comprehensive background check?
I give up... who??
Impotent moron
Your hollow arguments about a nanny state and a big brother are pathetic.
What the NRA are proposing is Ridiculous, Orwellian and COWARDLY.
By not addressing the issue head on they alienate themselves and ARE IRRELEVANT!
Thedaytoday
2013 Jan 16, 4:09am
In the BIG picture, the schools are a non issue. The shooting in CT was a aberration in the bigger picture of gun violence. Statistically, compared to overall firearm deaths, it's a very small number.
But, the schools make for such a nice "emotional" backdrop to push for gun control, because it's "for the children".
and yet the NRA is calling for ARMED SECURITY AT EVERY SCHOOL.
THEY MAKE A MASSIVE TV ANNOUNCEMENT ABOUT IT & IT"S NOT AN ISSUE! You call it and ABBERATION, YOU UNSYMPATHETIC IDIOT!
Millions are going to be spent on the NRA and Gun manufacturer PROPAGANDA!
The NRA are COWARDLY SHILLS FOR THE MANUFACTURERS.
This is sensible conversation! Denying the issue, evading the issue!
Your full of shit Call it Crazy like the NRA!
DENIERS!
You want to talk about hypocrisy? How about the same people mewling about smaller government calling for armed guards in schools? Who, exactly, is supposed to pay for that? Not the government, surely.
leo707
2013 Jan 16, 5:45am
You want to talk about hypocrisy? How about the same people mewling about smaller government calling for armed guards in schools? Who, exactly, is supposed to pay for that? Not the government, surely.
When faced with the actual cost, they would surely shit a brick if Obama proposed that every school in the nation have the same level of security as his daughters school.
You want to talk about hypocrisy? How about the same people mewling about smaller government calling for armed guards in schools? Who, exactly, is supposed to pay for that? Not the government, surely.
When faced with the actual cost, they would surely shit a brick if Obama proposed that every school in the nation have the same level of security as his daughters school.
What they would do is call for cuts to social security and medicare to pay for it.
Shaman
2013 Jan 16, 6:34am
http://m.youtube.com/#/watch?layout=mobile&client=mv-google&v=Wx9GxXYKx_8&skipcontrinter=1
Sandy hook conspiracy stuff, better argument than the fake 9/11 IMHO. The Victoria Soto R.I.P. Facebook page being created 3 days BEFORE the shooting really makes me wonder. And then there's the united way sandy hook tragedy donations page, also created 3 days before the alleged tragedy.
This is hot stuff!
I love conspiracies that apparently are run by a sinister and smart group of people that get found out because they weren't smart enough to post a Facebook page after the event.
Did anyone hear the rumor the NRA told the Govt. Check receiving Republican,Tea Bag- Redistribution Socialists in the "House of Republic Party" to vote for "unlimited funding" to provide maximum security at all schools for our children's protection? I hope the rumor is true. If the RTBRS doesn't approve the spending then they may be more concerned about Money than children's lives.
Thedaytoday
2013 Jan 17, 2:51am
You want to talk about hypocrisy? How about the same people mewling about smaller government calling for armed guards in schools? Who, exactly, is supposed to pay for that? Not the government, surely.
When faced with the actual cost, they would surely shit a brick if Obama proposed that every school in the nation have the same level of security as his daughters school.
What they would do is call for cuts to social security and medicare to pay for it.
No they want to end the department of education for the new department of educational security of no schools.
Thedaytoday
2013 Jan 17, 3:13am
They both suggested exactly the same thing: armed police in schools. See EO #18.
Right! NO!
Thedaytoday
2013 Jan 17, 3:15am
"Equating your own personal security to that of the President and the Presidents children is PATHETICALLY SMALL MINDED"
Thedaytoday
2013 Jan 17, 4:25am
18. Provide incentives for schools to hire school resource officers.
Guess so.
School Resource Officer (SRO) is a law enforcement officer.
So how will the NRA respond to the rest ?
marcus
2013 Jan 17, 11:18am
Where NRA ad is wrong is in labeling Obama as one opposed to armed guards in schools. Judging from one of the recently announced EOs he wants to encourage the practice everywhere.
Biden's recommendations are out. In a separate comment he said, "We don't want rent a cops with gun at every school."
I agree. It sounds more dangerous than not having them. You would have to make them well trained and well paid police if you were going to do it.
The NRA like any other lobby, is capable of shooting itself in the foot.
« First « Previous Comments 6 - 45 of 49 Next » Last » Search these comments
"Equating your own personal security to that of the President and the Presidents children is PATHETICALLY SMALL MINDED"
The National Rifle Association on Tuesday released a controversial new ad that makes reference to President Barack Obama’s daughters - sparking outrage from critics who charged that the spot is over the line.
The video calls Obama an “elitist hypocrite†for not embracing armed guards in schools even as his daughters enjoy armed protection at their schools.
http://www.politico.com/story/2013/01/new-nra-ad-comes-under-attack-86268.html
http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics/2013/01/nra-takes-parents-lobby-new-ad-goes-after-obamas-daughters/61055/
NRA Takes on Parents Lobby: New Ad Goes After Obama's Daughters
As the White House prepares to unveil its gun-violence proposals Tuesday, the National Rifle Association has released an attack ad calling President Obama an "elitist hypocrite" for having armed protection of his daughters but not believing that putting an armed guard in every public school in America is the only way to stop school shootings. "Are the president’s kids more important than yours?" the ad asks. The ad has succeeded in that it is getting a lot of attention, and failed in that it is scaring the straights. Specifically, a core interest group in American politics: parents.
At National Journal, Ron Fournier asks if the NRA has gone too far, writing that the ad "is indisputably misleading, and is arguably a dangerous appeal to the base instincts of gun-rights activists." On MSNBC, Joe Scarborough asked, "What’s wrong with these people?" His co-host Mika Brzezinski replied, "They are out of step, out of the mainstream, totally out of sync with what’s going on in our society, and quite frankly after seeing that, I think some of the people who run that thing are sick." Real Clear Politics contributor and Bush family cousin John Ellis tweeted, "The iron-clad rule is you leave the kids out of it. No longer an iron-clad rule. Politics just keeps getting worse."
http://www.youtube.com/embed/miSjgv1MH7s
#politics