• #1
    Yep, check mate on that, but most all executives, congressmen, and senators children all go to private schools with armed protection. Just not Obama, and it's been that way for a while. Still doesn't make it right. But nomatter who's child it is they all need protection.
  • #46
    No, not according to the "King"...we are now his "subjects" and under a monarchy for now, I guess even better things are in store for us 'peons'. Gee, can't wait!
  • R Load more replies

  • #168
    @Neo_NtheMatrix I don't pretend to know it all....But I do know, that allowing people such as the Governor of NY to have so much power as to ban entire classes of firearms, is setting a dangerous precedent.
  • #22
    Well, I was looking for primer on the false equivalency fallacy my search is over. The protection the Obama girls receive isn't exactly optional, as I'm sure the NRA writers knew but chose to omit, unlike the armed security children of many other millionaires and billionaires receive.

    But my favorite is the reference to tax rate increases for the wealthy (which, by the by, includes NRA VP Wayne Lapierre, who earns about $900,000 annually) and somehow equating that to the Secret Service detail for Sasha and Melia in order to use the "elitist hypocrite" phrase, why, that's just precious - and is far more applicable to the former GOP candidate for President and his "47%" remarks than to a mixed race son of a single mother who managed to become a successful attorney, politician, writer, millionaire and twice-elected President of the United States.

    I can hardly wait for the next NRA video responding to the Department of Justice actually enforcing the laws currently on the books, particularly the background check laws. Since this is an idea put forward by Mr. Lapierre himself, finding a way to attack it without admitting it was his idea will be an interesting exercise on rhetorical contortion.
  • #40
    All the NRA is trying to do is spin up the gun nuts...look at the replies on this thread.
  • #52
    They told the truth and gun owners by the millions are not "nuts". Name calling is a weak response to the question.
  • R Load more replies

  • #7
    Because, nra nutballs, the President's children are legally allowed to have Secret Service protection until they are at least 18 years of age. Have mommy read this to you in your hooked-on-phonics book.
  • Comment removed for Engagement Etiquette violation. Replies may also be deleted.
  • #26
    @2b1ask1 Just because you dont like the POTUS doesnt give you the right to call the kids names.
    Shame on you.
  • #36
    @2b1ask1 - Better? No. More important? Yes. Think about it. I'm dismayed by the number of people on this thread who don't understand that.
  • #136
    @Denizen_Kate If you're dismayed you haven't been paying attention. This is pretty much the kind of respionse I've come to expect on here.
  • #159
    So calling all the members of the NRA "nutballs", are you saying that the NRA members are the one's going off the deep end and killing everyone? Why is it the NRA's fault when not one member has commited murder. You need to quell your accusations and get some facts.
  • #5
    That is a good question. How come the president gets armed protection for his kids, but other American children are not worthy of security to keep them safe in schools. I'd like an explanation for that one.
  • #14
    If, for example, one of your kids were kidnapped, what would the kidnappers want, besides the usual money? What would the consequences be for anyone outside of your family? On the other hand, if the President of the United States has a kidnapped child, what could those kidnappers get him to agree to in order to ensure the safe return of the child? This could have consequences for the entire world, since the President has the power to launch nukes.
  • #21
    @Denizen_Kate - This is all understood and no one disagrees with any of the points you made. Additionally obama's children have dedicated protection for just them, not the whole school, just them. The NRA is not proposing that every child gets their own secret service agent, they are proposing that every public school gets at least one armed security person (could be an existing teacher, principal, or janitor) for that whole school. Do you not think an entire school of kids are worth protecting?
  • #29
    @Neo_NtheMatrix Let's cut the music program and the arts program. Let's cut the chess club and after school activities. Let's cut any type of mentoring. Let's chop the budget so they don't even have books issued in the century we live in. How about we layoff teachers and reduce the pay for the ones that remain with increased class sizes. Oh wait, suddenly we can afford a full time armed guard on site. Boy didn't he do wonders in Columbine as he shat himself in the parking lot during the entire incident. Don't worry though, we'll never cut funding to the football team.
  • #38
    @Neo_NtheMatrix There was an armed police officer at Columbine, Virginia Tech had an entire department of campus security agents, and Fort Hood is, well, an ARMY base. If the presence of trained and/or armed security personnel is demonstrably unable to protect students and soldiers then the assumption underpinning Mr. Lapierre's impractically expensive suggestion is clearly invalid.

    But here's the part that's beginning to annoy: where are your suggestions to keep kids safe in schools? Surely you have some notions to contribute that aren't simply a cut and paste of NRA talking points.
  • R Load more replies

  • #109
    This president and most of the career politicians are hypocrits for numerous reasons. They preach about conserving energy while they drive, fly, live in their huge mansions with the driveways lit up all night. Al Gore. They lecture about eating healthy and putting our soldiers on diets while they dine lavishly on expensive unhealthy spreads.obama and michelle. They extoll the virtues of obamacare and explain to all of us how great its going to be for all of us. Pelosi and reid and the rest. They are now telling us how we cant be trusted with firearms and we dont need them anyway while they are protected. No one is saying THEY shouldnt be protected we are simply saying that dumba__ politicians need to stop telling us what we can and cannot do! They waste our money and our time why would anyone trust them with any important decisions that affect their lives.
  • #34
    It's so typical of this President...of course he's an elitist, I mean wouldn't a pocket
    knife protect him and his family??! I'm sure his secret service people are very well
    armed. He should give up his secret service, since he is now against the second amendment...and tomorrow he is scheduled to use kids to promote his anti-gun
    agenda. Yeah, use kids to promote his agenda. There is truly no low this man will
    stoop to. Gotta love the hypocrisy of the Leftist nuts, what rights will he take next?
    It should be interesting...
  • #43
    If the guns of the Secret Service don't make the POTUS's kids safer, why do they have guns? If the guns do make them safer and they do, why won't an armed guard in the rest of the schools make those kids safer? They would.
  • #15
    Tired of his liberal elitist crap. Why doesn't he send his kids to a regular public school then like the rest of the country.
  • #33
    @marine1 Dunno, my parents were upper middle class, I went to private school, does that make them hypocrites?
  • R Load more replies

  • #11
    Yes he thinks he and his family should have armed protection but mine don't deserve it, tell you what, you give me and my wife and kids 24 hour armed secret service protection and I'll give up my gun,.... At least 1 of them!!
  • #17
    Great post, Sir. He said that more guns in schools does not make children more safe. So, do more guns at his children's school make his kids less safe. Can you say, hypocrisy?
  • #107
    @Mogal does not matter to me. His girls are no more important than my children . Oh wait I forgot that is King Obama. So it is OK. He doesn't have to worry out tax money will pay. Foe protecting his and all of congress's kids. Ours gets shot he will come in for a photo shoot and start screaming how it was the weapons that did it. Not talking about how the kids that have been doing these shooting were all on mind altering drugs.
  • #111
    @scotta The only thing you have said that makes any kind of sense whatsoever is that the people doing the shooting are mentally ill and need help.
    The rest is a bunch of hogwash.
  • R Load more replies

  • #123
    tell me this...if guns put us in so much danger, why then is EVERY politician surrounded by them for protection??

    I'm getting might sick of this "do as I say, not as I do" nonsense...they pass laws that don't apply to them, give themselves raises and free healthcare and retirement after 2 years and a check for life, but view social security as an "entitlement."

    and now this attempt to ban assault rifles....because they serve no practical hunting you honestly think that the american revolution would have been successful with our forefathers were not armed as well as the british military?? The entire point of the second amendment is to allow us the right to protect ourselves from a govt that becomes too powerful and attempts to remove our rights....not to go hunting....tell me...if another revolutionary war breaks out and there is an army in my yard with ar-15's and 30 mag clips...will my 5 round 45 be of any good? we have not only the right but the duty (as dictated by the declaration of independence) to defend ourselves from our government....not to go on a squirrel hunt.
  • #100
    I understand that the presidents kids are at more risk. I don't think anyone is saying they shouldn't be protected, but then what reason is there not to protect normal kids? Doesn't all of Obama's guard just go to show how guns do protect people.

    Aren't normal children basically in a wild nest of people out their trying to hurt them at school? SO we shouldn't have guards for them and hope no one shoots them just because they aren't being specifically targeted?

    And please ppl stop mentioning how sometimes security fails like Columbine, bad security doesn't mean that it doesn't work, for every incident where you can say guns didn't help, another can comes up and says they did.

    My mind is not made up and I am malleable to reason.
  • #207
    So I guess the president agrees with the NRA's argument that the most effective defense against an armed attacker, regardless of motivation, are trained and armed individuals. Seems like he believes the argument in practice if not in rhetoric.
  • #195
    The truth always pisses people off and never tastes good! That's why the elite hypocrite is calling foul!
  • #176
    For the unedukated on this board and there are quite a few on the right I place the following:

    Based upon Goebbels' Principles of Propaganda by Leonard W. Doob, published in Public Opinion and Propaganda; A Book of Readings edited for The Society for the Psychological Study of Social Issues.

    1. Propagandist must have access to intelligence concerning events and public opinion.

    2. Propaganda must be planned and executed by only one authority.
    a. It must issue all the propaganda directives.

    b. It must explain propaganda directives to important officials and maintain their morale.

    c. It must oversee other agencies' activities which have propaganda consequences

    3. The propaganda consequences of an action must be considered in planning that action.

    4. Propaganda must affect the enemy's policy and action.
    a. By suppressing propagandistically desirable material which can provide the enemy with useful intelligence

    b. By openly disseminating propaganda whose content or tone causes the enemy to draw the desired conclusions

    c. By goading the enemy into revealing vital information about himself

    d. By making no reference to a desired enemy activity when any reference would discredit that activity

    5. Declassified, operational information must be available to implement a propaganda campaign

    6. To be perceived, propaganda must evoke the interest of an audience and must be transmitted through an attention-getting communications medium.

    7. Credibility alone must determine whether propaganda output should be true or false.

    8. The purpose, content and effectiveness of enemy propaganda; the strength and effects of an expose; and the nature of current propaganda campaigns determine whether enemy propaganda should be ignored or refuted.

    9. Credibility, intelligence, and the possible effects of communicating determine whether propaganda materials should be censored.

    10. Material from enemy propaganda may be utilized in operations when it helps diminish that enemy's prestige or lends support to the propagandist's own objective.

    11. Black rather than white propaganda may be employed when the latter is less credible or produces undesirable effects.

    12. Propaganda may be facilitated by leaders with prestige.

    13. Propaganda must be carefully timed.
    a. The communication must reach the audience ahead of competing propaganda.

    b. A propaganda campaign must begin at the optimum moment

    c. A propaganda theme must be repeated, but not beyond some point of diminishing effectiveness

    14. Propaganda must label events and people with distinctive phrases or slogans.
    a. They must evoke desired responses which the audience previously possesses

    b. They must be capable of being easily learned

    c. They must be utilized again and again, but only in appropriate situations

    d. They must be boomerang-proof

    15. Propaganda to the home front must prevent the raising of false hopes which can be blasted by future events.

    16. Propaganda to the home front must create an optimum anxiety level.
    a. Propaganda must reinforce anxiety concerning the consequences of defeat

    b. Propaganda must diminish anxiety (other than concerning the consequences of defeat) which is too high and which cannot be reduced by people themselves

    17. Propaganda to the home front must diminish the impact of frustration.
    a. Inevitable frustrations must be anticipated

    b. Inevitable frustrations must be placed in perspective

    18. Propaganda must facilitate the displacement of aggression by specifying the targets for hatred.

    19. Propaganda cannot immediately affect strong counter-tendencies; instead it must offer some form of action or diversion, or both.
  • #178
    @Raptor Please excuse my spelling, I made a typo, I spelled uneducated wrong!

    Evil Smile!!!!!
  • Comment removed for Engagement Etiquette violation. Replies may also be deleted.
  • Comment removed for Engagement Etiquette violation. Replies may also be deleted.
  • Comment removed for Engagement Etiquette violation. Replies may also be deleted.
  • R Load more replies

  • R Load more comments...