America's #1 Online Cigar Auction
first, best, biggest!

Last post 11 years ago by allichaparra. 28 replies replies.
.NRA hits Obama over ‘hypocrisy’ of armed guards for daughters
Jump to Bottom | Previous Topic | Next Topic
fishinguitarman Offline
#1 Posted: Wed, Jan 16 2013, 9:24 AM EST
Joined: 07-29-2006
Posts: 69,152
In a sign of how brutal, emotional and deeply personal the coming battle over gun violence is likely to be, the National Rifle Association on Tuesday accused President Barack Obama of hypocrisy for having Secret Service protect his daughters even as he opposes the group's call for armed guards in schools.

The Web video, first obtained by The Blaze, opens with a narrator asking, “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?”

The 35-second video makes no effort to hide the tension and animosity between the NRA and Obama, even stepping into the recent "fiscal cliff" debate. The video continues:

“Mr. Obama demands that the wealthy pay their fair share of taxes but he’s just another elitist hypocrite when it comes to a fair share of security,” as an altered image of the president peers over a stack of dollar bills, followed by images of “Meet the Press” host David Gregory, California Sen. Dianne Feinstein, New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg and Vice President Joe Biden.

A White House official declined to comment on the video. However, spokesman Jay Carney did announce that Obama would outline his administration’s plan to address gun violence on Wednesday.
HockeyDad Offline
#2 Posted: Wed, Jan 16 2013, 9:39 AM EST
Joined: 09-20-2000
Posts: 46,199
Are the President’s kids more important than yours?

YES. Stupid proles and their questions.
cacman Offline
#3 Posted: Wed, Jan 16 2013, 10:49 AM EST
Joined: 07-03-2010
Posts: 12,216
It's the guberment of "Do as we say, not as we do."
ZRX1200 Offline
#4 Posted: Wed, Jan 16 2013, 10:51 AM EST
Joined: 07-08-2007
Posts: 60,673
Well they are assuming control.
dstieger Offline
#5 Posted: Wed, Jan 16 2013, 11:04 AM EST
Joined: 06-22-2007
Posts: 10,889
Who is the NRA's audience? Anyone not totally behind them already is going to summarily reject the premise of the question. Obama's kids have armed security. My kids don't. Thus, the Obama girls are 'more important' than mine? I haven't done a detailed risk analysis, but I'm going to go out on a limb here and suggest that just maybe those kids are more likely to be targeted than mine...and I'd also suggest that the negative consequences to the nation of them being targeted are slightly greater than if mine were targeted.
NRA doesn't seem to be a fast track toward convincing anyone not already completely in their camp.
HockeyDad Offline
#6 Posted: Wed, Jan 16 2013, 11:10 AM EST
Joined: 09-20-2000
Posts: 46,199
The NRA is fighting an uphill battle. People would vote to repeal the 2nd amendment in exchange for a 4% increase in their gubment checks.
DrafterX Offline
#7 Posted: Wed, Jan 16 2013, 11:12 AM EST
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,588
where are we gonna get the money to give everybody a raise..??? Huh
tailgater Offline
#8 Posted: Wed, Jan 16 2013, 12:30 PM EST
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 26,185
dstieger wrote:
Who is the NRA's audience? Anyone not totally behind them already is going to summarily reject the premise of the question. Obama's kids have armed security. My kids don't. Thus, the Obama girls are 'more important' than mine? I haven't done a detailed risk analysis, but I'm going to go out on a limb here and suggest that just maybe those kids are more likely to be targeted than mine...and I'd also suggest that the negative consequences to the nation of them being targeted are slightly greater than if mine were targeted.
NRA doesn't seem to be a fast track toward convincing anyone not already completely in their camp.


In my opinion, putting armed guards at schools is an exercise is futility.
Also in my opinion, the children of the POTUS require armed security because of the higher expectations of needing such protection.

With that said, it is indeed more than just a little hypocritical for the president to openly oppose armed protection for the masses while enjoying said security for themselves.
HockeyDad Offline
#9 Posted: Wed, Jan 16 2013, 12:45 PM EST
Joined: 09-20-2000
Posts: 46,199
tailgater wrote:
In my opinion, putting armed guards at schools is an exercise is futility.
Also in my opinion, the children of the POTUS require armed security because of the higher expectations of needing such protection.

With that said, it is indeed more than just a little hypocritical for the president to openly oppose armed protection for the masses while enjoying said security for themselves.



You just made the list.

[email protected]
rfenst Offline
#10 Posted: Wed, Jan 16 2013, 8:38 PM EST
Joined: 06-23-2007
Posts: 39,447
Stupid move by the NRA. It just removed itself from table. Any suggestions or compromises it may have been able to float are dead in the water. Obama was just elected by a handy margin. This serves as an excellent example of stupidity in politics.
fishinguitarman Offline
#11 Posted: Wed, Jan 16 2013, 8:44 PM EST
Joined: 07-29-2006
Posts: 69,152
rfenst wrote:
Stupid move by the NRA. It just removed itself from table. Any suggestions or compromises it may have been able to float are dead in the water. Obama was just elected by a handy margin. This serves as an excellent example of stupidity in politics.







WAIT! There's stupidity in Politics???? d'oh!
ZRX1200 Offline
#12 Posted: Wed, Jan 16 2013, 8:55 PM EST
Joined: 07-08-2007
Posts: 60,673
Robert.

Seriously???



You think Obama had a seat for them???

Mr Executive Order is gonna do what the **** he wants. He's HNIC. King.

Resistance is futile the borg portion of the left is rollin.
fiddler898 Offline
#13 Posted: Wed, Jan 16 2013, 8:57 PM EST
Joined: 06-15-2009
Posts: 3,782
The NRA just reduced its already reduced credibility.








If that's even possible.
wheelrite Offline
#14 Posted: Wed, Jan 16 2013, 8:59 PM EST
Joined: 11-01-2006
Posts: 50,119
I usually support the NRA,,,

But, I saw this adv. and it was apalling,,,,

wheel,
rfenst Offline
#15 Posted: Wed, Jan 16 2013, 11:43 PM EST
Joined: 06-23-2007
Posts: 39,447
ZRX1200 wrote:
Robert.

Seriously???



You think Obama had a seat for them???

Mr Executive Order is gonna do what the **** he wants. He's HNIC. King.

Resistance is futile the borg portion of the left is rollin.


Well, its coming out with police/guards in school sure gave it 5-point point bump. Anyhow, NRA will get hammered. That being said, NRA could have minimized that by helping the process from inside the cone, rather than outside the cone, You think that ad got anyone new to support gun rights or at least give some benefit of doubt to the NRA? Yeah, he's a hypocrite because his family has secret service protection. Perhaps Presidents should waive the protection if they don't agree with the NRA. Stupidity.
cacman Offline
#16 Posted: Thu, Jan 17 2013, 1:20 AM EST
Joined: 07-03-2010
Posts: 12,216
So it's OK to parade and use the children of Newtown, including the children of other tragedies and our children in general, to push through their political emotional response right down to seating children behind the smuck during the press conference, but it's not OK to bring his children into it. Bullsh|t!!! His children don't deserve any better than mine. No offense but the last I heard NO ONE under 18 has the right to vote. So why should we be give a fuq what a bunch of toddlers have to say. They'd elect Elmo for Prez and Barney as VP if they could. They loose attention with a toy an hour after they've received it to play with the box.

All is supposed to be fair (that's their excuse for taxes) and what's good for the elected officials of America should also be good for the Americans that voted them into office. The guberment electees/employees should have to live with the same laws, health insurance, etc as those that pay their salaries. If the Prez or congressman requires armed security to follow his kids to school at my expense, then I should also be able to escort my children to school armed with the same weapons. Or at least have the choice whether I want to do it on my own and/or VOTE to have my district provide qualified armed security. Just because he's Prez, or a congressman, or rep, doesn't make him more privileged than those that elected him or above comparison.

I made sure I renewed my NRA membership this month. And I was pissed that my gun shop was closed early today, of all days. I want the firearm I ordered!
Dogmanshawn Offline
#17 Posted: Thu, Jan 17 2013, 1:29 AM EST
Joined: 01-03-2013
Posts: 625
Went to the local b+m gun store... Shelves were bare literally 3 guns in the store no ammo...everybody afraid of what obamagonna do...whats nxt
DadZilla3 Offline
#18 Posted: Thu, Jan 17 2013, 3:44 AM EST
Joined: 01-17-2009
Posts: 4,633
HockeyDad wrote:
Are the President’s kids more important than yours?

YES. Stupid proles and their questions.

'All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others' - George Orwell, Animal Farm
RICKAMAVEN Offline
#19 Posted: Thu, Jan 17 2013, 7:55 AM EST
Joined: 10-01-2000
Posts: 33,248
THE NRA REPRESENTS ABOUT 30% OF THEIR MEMBERS.

THE MONEY THEY INVESTED IN THE LAST ELECTION WAS A WASTE OF DONERS MONEY
THEY SUCCEDED IN LESS THEN A 2% influence OVER the candidates they tried to help
and trying to prevent CANDIDATES THEY DIDN'T WANT TO BE KEPT FROM WINNING.

THEY ARE NO LONGER RELEVANT
DrafterX Offline
#20 Posted: Thu, Jan 17 2013, 9:32 AM EST
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,588
most NRA members are ok with the background checks and keeping the mentally unstable away from guns... if you took these two items out of the equation the members would be completely agaist the assault weapons ban... your polls are messsing with your head trying to make the NRA look bad.... Mellow
rfenst Offline
#21 Posted: Thu, Jan 17 2013, 5:57 PM EST
Joined: 06-23-2007
Posts: 39,447
cacman wrote:
... but it's not OK to bring his children into it. Bullsh|t!!! His children don't deserve any better than mine.
A

If the Prez or congressman requires armed security to follow his kids to school at my expense, then I should also be able to escort my children to school armed with the same weapons.

...Just because he's Prez, or a congressman, or rep, doesn't make him more privileged than those that elected him or above comparison.



Well, I'd like to say you are dreaming, but it seems more like a nightmare. Who in their right mind would serve as President if their school agechildren didn't have special protection? Unreal.
critter2 Offline
#22 Posted: Thu, Jan 17 2013, 8:22 PM EST
Joined: 11-02-2007
Posts: 6,110
special protection? i thought it was equal protection under the law
fiddler898 Offline
#23 Posted: Thu, Jan 17 2013, 8:37 PM EST
Joined: 06-15-2009
Posts: 3,782
^ So what do you mean by that? The Secret Service should not protect the President & family? Please give us the full meaning of your opinion, "I thought it was equal protection under the law.". Define "it".
critter2 Offline
#24 Posted: Thu, Jan 17 2013, 9:24 PM EST
Joined: 11-02-2007
Posts: 6,110
the pres has and unfortunately requires such protection. any citizen has an equal right to protect what is theirs
rfenst Offline
#25 Posted: Fri, Jan 18 2013, 3:24 AM EST
Joined: 06-23-2007
Posts: 39,447
fiddler898 wrote:
^ So what do you mean by that? The Secret Service should not protect the President & family? Please give us the full meaning of your opinion, "I thought it was equal protection under the law.". Define "it".


Come on everyone knows that the definition of "it" is the same as for "is". Didn't you learn that around 15 years ago?
TMCTLT Offline
#26 Posted: Sat, Jan 19 2013, 9:18 AM EST
Joined: 11-22-2007
Posts: 19,733
wheelrite wrote:
I usually support the NRA,,,

But, I saw this adv. and it was apalling,,,,

wheel,



And I saw this Toolbag use "other peoples children" on stage with him during his address.....shameful!!!

If ,and Noone here seems to disagree that he has armed guards because of the possibility of his being assasinated.....
Why would he put children in harms way to "Sell" his gun ban agenda?? And what were those parents thinking???
fiddler898 Offline
#27 Posted: Sat, Jan 19 2013, 6:48 PM EST
Joined: 06-15-2009
Posts: 3,782
^25. Robert, you're right. Must have been a typo.
allichaparra Offline
#28 Posted: Mon, Jan 21 2013, 1:28 PM EST
Joined: 01-19-2012
Posts: 40
TMCTLT wrote:
And I saw this Toolbag use "other peoples children" on stage with him during his address.....shameful!!!

If ,and Noone here seems to disagree that he has armed guards because of the possibility of his being assasinated.....
Why would he put children in harms way to "Sell" his gun ban agenda?? And what were those parents thinking???


The 1938 German Weapons Act – Hitler used kids as propaganda and banned all Jews from owning firearms.

Wonder what will become of the US if all these bans continue and they take away are right to protect ourselves.
Users browsing this topic
Guest
Back to Top