NRA slams the President over Hypocrisy

[umbrella39]

Troll poster still trolling.... bye bye Incorruptible.

 

[zinfamous]

I dont have kids, The problem that I have with obama is he is against armed guards to protect schools but he himself sends his children to a school with guards/SS, See the hypocrisy?

Of course I don't see it, because there is none. Only a raving lunatic would see hypocrisy.

 

[MooseNSquirrel]

Wrong, That disgusting POS wants to BAN ALL GUNS

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=blXkl9YVoHo

Still going to defend her?

I think you are confusing your senators from California.

 

[TerryMathews]

Troll poster still trolling.... bye bye Incorruptible.

Lol. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black.

 

[JulesMaximus]

A fairly powerful counterargument to the President's skepticism of armed guards in public schools. Obama's daughters attend a school that is protected by armed guards. Also, his daughters have a SS protection detail as well.

So the same protection cannot be offered to the children of ordinary citizens? 😕

I'd like to know what idiot thought up that advertisment and what other idiot gave it the green light.

Suggesting that the President is an “elitist hypocrite” because his children have the benefit of armed protection at school and the nation’s children as a whole do not is absurd. The nation’s children are not individually at risk the way the Obama children are.

 

[JulesMaximus]

I dont have kids, The problem that I have with obama is he is against armed guards to protect schools but he himself sends his children to a school with guards/SS, See the hypocrisy?

No stupid, I don't. The Obama children are not like other kids. They are the children of the President of the United States of America. If you think that doesn't give them a unique status requiring unique protection then you're an idiot.

 

[sigurros81]

Anyone posted this yet?

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/...ghters-reprehensible-230123003--politics.html

 

[exdeath]

The nation’s children are not individually at risk the way the Obama children are.

20 families in CT would beg to differ.

 

[jackstar7]

20 families in CT would beg to differ.

You think so? I mean I wouldn't ask them since they're in no emotional state to be polled about this, but I think even they would understand that the president's kids are threatened on a completely different level than average, ordinary children.

 

[highland145]

20 families in CT would beg to differ.

Or the 500+ in Chicago last year.

 

[jackstar7]

Anyone posted this yet?

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/...ghters-reprehensible-230123003--politics.html

Christie in 2016 is becoming a more serious thing each day. The only question is if Republicans will fall in line behind his popularity or force him to run as a 3rd party or just push him out of the race entirely with some intra-party smearing.

 

[exdeath]

You think so? I mean I wouldn't ask them since they're in no emotional state to be polled about this, but I think even they would understand that the president's kids are threatened on a completely different level than average, ordinary children.

Why are the president's kids more special than someone else's kids? When did we start putting relative value on people's lives?

When did the president become anything more than another American citizen, "one of us", volunteering for the duty of office for that matter? This us vs them royalty mentality is disgusting.

Kids are kids, I don't care what fucking title is in front of their daddy's name.

 

[jackstar7]

Why are the president's kids more special than someone else's kids? When did we start putting relative value on people's lives?

When did the president become anything more than another American citizen volunteering for the duty of office while we're at it?

More special? I don't know about that. But I will say they're targeted by WAY more people (domestically AND internationally) than just a random madman with indiscriminate goals causing tragedy for random families.

He's a volunteer who as a reward for service gets a huge target painted on himself and his family. You think that's reasonable and something that the average citizen has to worry about?

 

[exdeath]

More special? I don't know about that. But I will say they're targeted by WAY more people (domestically AND internationally) than just a random madman with indiscriminate goals causing tragedy for random families.

He's a volunteer who as a reward for service gets a huge target painted on himself and his family. You think that's reasonable and something that the average citizen has to worry about?

Ask the families of people who were targeted in 9/11, Oklahoma, etc, just for being American. They weren't anybody "special" either.

Whether or not we consider that politician's families are more likely to be targeted or not, it's still incredible hypocrisy saying that armed guards in schools aren't a good idea when you know your own kids are safe. Outright selfish even and two faced even. Regardless of whether or not the president is in a special position of vulnerability, it's hypocrisy to say that nobody else needs to be protected by armed guards while he and his family are sitting there telling you this with armed guards surrounding them.

Lets see them give up SS protection when he's no longer president... oh wait what was that bill he just signed?

Double standards at it's finest. Do as I say, not as I do. The democrat party line.

 

[fskimospy]

Ask the families of people who were targeted in 9/11, Oklahoma, etc, just for being American. They weren't anybody "special" either.

Whether or not we consider that politician's families are more likely to be targeted or not, it's still incredible hypocrisy saying that armed guards in schools aren't a good idea when you know your own kids are safe. Outright selfish even and two faced even.

You don't think that threats to the presidents family could cloud his ability to make decisions?

It is in no way hypocritical to say that the presidents children should be protected differently than others, it's common sense

 

[exdeath]

You don't think that threats to the presidents family could cloud his ability to make decisions?

It is in no way hypocritical to say that the presidents children should be protected differently than others, it's common sense

Still a double standard no matter how you justify it. Easy to say nobody else needs guns or security when you don't have to worry about your own, regardless if it's needed or not.

 

[jackstar7]

Ask the families of people who were targeted in 9/11, Oklahoma, etc, just for being American. They weren't anybody "special" either.

Whether or not we consider that politician's families are more likely to be targeted or not, it's still incredible hypocrisy saying that armed guards in schools aren't a good idea when you know your own kids are safe. Outright selfish even and two faced even.

You really think he considers his kids safe? I'm mystified by that assertion. I can't imagine him thinking his kids are safe even in the White House, since it's a giant political target. I cannot make the leaps you are making here.

All the people you are citing are not special. You're right. They were just people in the wrong place at the wrong time. The president's family is basically perpetually in the wrong place as walking targets for a slew of reasons, they just have to hope it's not the wrong time where someone penetrates their security and does them harm.

 

[jackstar7]

Still a double standard no matter how you justify it. Easy to say nobody else needs guns or security when you don't have to worry about your own, regardless if it's needed or not.

You're just asserting that he doesn't worry about it based on NOTHING. It's his family. You really believe he doesn't worry about their safety?

 

[exdeath]

You really think he considers his kids safe? I'm mystified by that assertion. I can't imagine him thinking his kids are safe even in the White House, since it's a giant political target. I cannot make the leaps you are making here.

All the people you are citing are not special. You're right. They were just people in the wrong place at the wrong time. The president's family is basically perpetually in the wrong place as walking targets for a slew of reasons, they just have to hope it's not the wrong time where someone penetrates their security and does them harm.

A life is a life. An American is an American. I don't subscribe to any sort of caste system in America like most people do. Everyone is equal in my eyes. The president is just another American citizen to me, he's not elite royalty.

That's not to say security isn't needed for certain positions, but that also doesn't it rule out the same security for others who feel they need it as well.

The proper response would have been to acknowledge the need for better security and allow individuals and communities to make that choice and work it out among themselves, not just shallowly dismiss it and say "oh you don't need it, only I do".

 

[jackstar7]

A life is a life. An American is an American. I don't subscribe to any sort of caste system in America like most people do. Everyone is equal in my eyes. The president is just another American citizen to me, he's not elite royalty.

That's not to say security isn't needed for certain positions, but that also doesn't it rule out the same security for others who feel they need it as well.

So you make no distinctions between irrational and rational fears? I believe that's what you just implied.

You just said anyone who feels they need it should have security.

And there's also the part where security isn't absolute, so chasing it has to be balanced against various other desires. I'd encourage people to take their kids to see the Grand Canyon before I'd tell them to build a bunker. That's just me though.

 

[exdeath]

So you make no distinctions between irrational and rational fears? I believe that's what you just implied.

You just said anyone who feels they need it should have security.

If they can afford it, more power to them. Only difference is president gets it free as a job benefit.

Movie stars and rappers have armed security. Are they as "important" as the president?

Again I don't subscribe to this "us vs them" elites vs commoners segregated caste system that the majority of our society believes in. A rapper or the president are no more important or expendable than any of the kids killed at Sandy Hook.

The difference is the president gets it for free and rappers can pay for it, but parents and teachers even if they were willing to foot the bill aren't allowed because of "gun free zones". And THAT is the crux of the hypocrisy: THEY ARENT ALLOWED EVEN IF THEY WANTED TO.

 

[jackstar7]

If they can afford it, more power to them. Only difference is president gets it free as a job benefit.

Movie stars and rappers have armed security. Are they as "important" as the president?

What?!

Can you stop looking for oranges to compare to the one apple? The president is vastly different from any other celebrity. He has nuclear launch codes.

 

[jackstar7]

Again I don't subscribe to this "us vs them" elites vs commoners segregated caste system that the majority of our society believes in. A rapper or the president are no more important or expendable than any of the kids killed at Sandy Hook.

The difference is the president gets it for free and rappers can pay for it, but parents and teachers even if they were willing to foot the bill aren't allowed because of "gun free zones".

What standards are you using to judge people's value, or are you saying you don't do that at all?

 

[Angry Irishman]

Sure, but the NRA wasn't attacking him for having secret service protection for his kids. It was saying that his school had armed guards. The ad was just a lie. I think it is an important difference because people don't expect secret service protection for their kids but they might see an issue with the school guards.

I'm sure there are a lot of legitimate ways to attack Obama on gun rights, this doesn't seem like one though.

The whole point is depending on which end of the propaganda circus one chooses to believe there is one constant...the media's non-objective one-sided party affiliations, the NRA's ads, the President surrounding himself with kids while signing executive orders, they all amount to one thing: brainwashing and propaganda. The majority of people on this board from what I've observed fall right into this fallacy. Myself included at times.

I try not to buy into any of them and use my own judgment. I just happen to staunchly believe in the Constitution. It's really, for the most part, a simple document....it's very clearly written. I don't believe the gun ban or control movement will make any difference towards reducing violence and it's certainly not the government's role to dictate watering down an amendment. If it's not right then change the amendment. The current effort is all based in emotion and very little logic. In the end it's not just about guns but the slow erosion of all of our rights. The second amendment is very simply written but is being twisted and watered down. This equals a reduction in rights.

As far as Obama; I don't care what party he is affiliated with. I think he is overstepping his bounds to violate the Constitution...my opinion. In general, I don't think he has led effectively at all. He finger points and tells the American people it's another President's fault or the opposing party but he doesn't lead and really moderate/facilitate compromise. This campaign is something he can use to easily garner the much needed attention he needs as it's a very emotional subject. Kids were killed and it is horrible. That said, the fact remains that when this is all said and done, even if he gets what he really wants, the violence will continue and good citizens will lose more of their rights in the mix. Effective screening and better education will be much more effective with reducing violence but nothing is going to completely stop it. This is why it's even more important for people to be able to protect themselves and those they love.

When someone can logically tell me how further reducing our second amendment rights by restricting magazines and AR15s will stop deranged people from killing or simply utilizing another means to kill...I'm all ears. These weapons have already been banned and yet the violence continued. There is plenty of data to support this right now.

It baffles me how so many people are willing to blindly trust the federal government without any skepticism while not questioning motives or long term implications. Doesn't the proposal to register weapons in a national data base not raise alarm flags? Really? Which right is to be threatened next? Our fourth or first amendment rights? Too late, that's happening now as well.

 

[Lemon law]

Sorry I don't buy it at all. As I had a front row seat to the gas bag in Rush Limbaugh making the argument on his radio show.

Even if am a liberal, its sometimes fun to listen to Limbaugh logic.

As the Limbaugh logic went as follows.

(1) As some Liberal totally unrelated to President Obama made the argument, that if Obama's children had superior protection against gun nuts enabled by the NRA, why should not all our children have equal protection all over the country by reducing the ability of someone totally insane to possess assault weapons unquestioned. ( INHO, not a unacceptable question for a individual to ask.)

(2) then the gas bag, totally went full on crazy in redefining the questions. (a) Limbagh stated as a fact, that if one random liberal who took a given position, it must be the position of President Obama, when no evidence existed that one random contention was the policy of President Obama.

(3) Then to really screw any logic, Limbaugh went on say, if any US President's child received superior tax paid secret service protection mandated by law for the past 100 years for all US Presidents, only President Obama does not care about the safety of all American school children. and only cares about the safety of his own children.

(4) And when Obama does finally get around to proposing gun control laws that will better protect the rights of all American children's rights to be better protected from gun nut violence at their schools, Limbaugh logic will still call Obama a hypocrite.

I so gotta love Limbaugh logic.