« First « Previous Comments 28 - 49 of 49 Search these comments
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
They both suggested exactly the same thing: armed police in schools. See EO #18.
Right! NO!
"Equating your own personal security to that of the President and the Presidents children is PATHETICALLY SMALL MINDED"
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 ?
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.
(apply sarcasm font)
If they are going to improve background checks and databases of people with severe emotional problems, and limit large capacity clips, they might as well just take away all the guns now, because (darrrrr) it's a slippery slope.
all right wing conservatives will be labeled "mentally unstable" by their doctors
You don't need a doctor to tell you that
Exactly. Armed person in school. I remember you (or your other incarnation with lots of 1 and 2 in the name) lambasting the very concept of armed people on school grounds.
Yup, i'm still against it, fuk that idea
« First « Previous Comments 28 - 49 of 49 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