According to the NRA Obama is being hypocritical to have his daughters protected by the secret service while opposing armed guards at schools? Can they possibly be that obtuse? Hey, why not just call the POS out over the fact that the President himself is protected by the secret service.
Are these folks the most clueless human beings on the planet?
Well, it is a pretty good observation actually.
Yes, those kids are more at risk than the average kid but those NRA guys make some good points.
I don't think Obama actually said guards were a bad dea. 20% of schools already have them.
Standard Bearer wrote:
Well, it is a pretty good observation actually.
Yes, those kids are more at risk than the average kid but those NRA guys make some good points.
I don't think Obama actually said guards were a bad dea. 20% of schools already have them.
The fact that the President's kids are under armed protection is a good observation? Seriously?
Should be asked wrote:
The fact that the President's kids are under armed protection is a good observation? Seriously?
Yes, it is. The President's kids and anyone else's kids are not qualitatively different. Any kid can be taken for ransom.
Sheez! The difference is that the President's daughters are protected by the best trained, most disciplined and thoroughly vetted guards in the history of the world rather than a bunch of local Barneys - which is what we'd get with the NRA proposal.
"The difference is that the President's daughters are protected by the best trained, most disciplined and thoroughly vetted guards in the history of the world rather than a bunch of local Barneys - which is what we'd get with the NRA proposal."
Obama SS are jokes that don't even pay the local prostitutes for services rendered, the local Barneys would disarm and arrest the lot of them.
The more obvious point is that the safety of the President's children is a matter of national security. The safety of other children is not. I mean, obviously...
the letter why wrote:
The more obvious point is that the safety of the President's children is a matter of national security. The safety of other children is not. I mean, obviously...
Thanks for bringing the thread back to reality.
This just shows the hypocrisy of Obama. No guns for the American public (although never mind that pesky 2nd Amendment) but me and my family are better than you so we get the full security.
How man times must the hypocrisy with this guy be exposed before his supporters would actually listen? In this case, a bunch of white wimps.
you americans are a strange breed
Another view wrote:
This just shows the hypocrisy of Obama. No guns for the American public (although never mind that pesky 2nd Amendment) but me and my family are better than you so we get the full security.
How man times must the hypocrisy with this guy be exposed before his supporters would actually listen? In this case, a bunch of white wimps.
Obama has NEVER said no guns for the American public and has never opposed the second amendment.
Is that your reality?
Show me a parent that agrees Obama's kids are more important than their own.
Once you start making exceptions the premise falls apart.
I'm not a gun guy myself but te NRA guys are good.
They pull emotion out of it, make simple defensible points.
They are for increased penalties for lying on background checks.
Many people expect the president to lead by example. It does kill the hysterical 'guns are always bad' arguements some are putting forth.
Go read his earlier votes like SB2162 although he spins it now, that b*astard is lying,
It is hard to imagine Obama being a worse leader if his children were taken hostage to blackmail him, everything he does already seems designed to bankrupt and destroy America.
Standard Bearer wrote:
Is that your reality?
Show me a parent that agrees Obama's kids are more important than their own.
Once you start making exceptions the premise falls apart.
I'm not a gun guy myself but te NRA guys are good.
They pull emotion out of it, make simple defensible points.
They are for increased penalties for lying on background checks.
Many people expect the president to lead by example. It does kill the hysterical 'guns are always bad' arguements some are putting forth.
To quote someone who has a brain:
The more obvious point is that the safety of the President's children is a matter of national security. The safety of other children is not. I mean, obviously...
Seriously, are you that stupid? Or just a pretty convincing troll?
Back in the day the American children were considered a matter of national security, and the President was just some lowly civil servant, not our ruler, who deserved no security protection much less his family.
You think leading by example would be leaving his family exposed in the current political climate where Congressman Steve Stockman is calling for his impeachment, Senator Rand Paul is calling him a "king," saying "having a monarch is what we fought the American Revolution over," Alex Jones is calling for a new 1776 in defense of tyranny, the Tactical Response CEO James Yeager is screaming he will kill people if they try to take his guns? That's just the people who are engaged in public discourse. Who knows what's happening in the shadow of the tip of this iceberg. Who is acting irrationally again? Please clarify.
lkjdkljfnhjf wrote:
Back in the day the American children were considered a matter of national security, and the President was just some lowly civil servant, not our ruler, who deserved no security protection much less his family.
Ummm...collectively the safety of American children IS a matter of national security. As is the safety of Americans in general.
But if one child is hurt someplace it is a personal tragedy. If the president's daughter is kidnapped it could place the nation at risk. I am finding it difficult to believe that anyone could be too stupid to recognize this. So, nice trolling, i guess.
Another view wrote:
This just shows the hypocrisy of Obama. No guns for the American public (although never mind that pesky 2nd Amendment) but me and my family are better than you so we get the full security.
How man times must the hypocrisy with this guy be exposed before his supporters would actually listen? In this case, a bunch of white wimps.
Seriously? How about we look at the NRAs proposal? Was there an armed guard at Columbine? Yes. Did he have an impact? No? We're there armed persons where Gabby Giffords was shot? Yes. Did they have an impact? No, they could not shoot without endangering someone? Did the NRA push back on the assault weapons ban and background checks? Yes. Did people get killed by mentally unstable people with assault weapons and lots of ammo? Yes.
Oh yeah, POTUS, like every world leader has armed security protecting his family. Many other countries have laws that keep assault weapons out of the hands of crazy people.
Poor punctuation fixed
Another view wrote
This just shows the hypocrisy of Obama. No guns for the American public (although never mind that pesky 2nd Amendment) but me and my family are better than you so we get the full security.
How man times must the hypocrisy with this guy be exposed before his supporters would actually listen? In this case, a bunch of white wimps.
Seriously? How about we look at the NRAs proposal? Was there an armed guard at Columbine? Yes. Did he have an impact? No. We're there armed persons where Gabby Giffords was shot? Yes. Did they have an impact? No, they could not shoot without endangering someone? Did the NRA push back on the assault weapons ban and background checks. Yes. Did people get killed by mentally unstable people with assault weapons and lots of ammo? Yes.
Oh yeah, POTUS, like every world leader has armed security protecting his family. Many other countries have laws that keep assault weapons out of the hands of crazy people.[/quote]