Aa
NRA targets Obama’s kids in a scathing new ad
http://tv.msnbc.com/2013/01/15/a-new-low-nra-targets-obamas-kids-in-scathing-new-ad/
The National Rifle Association is getting personal. In a new web video the gun lobby calls President Obama an “elitist hypocrite” for using the Secret Service to protect his two children, Sasha, age 11, and Malia, age 14.
The ad, posted to the NRA’s Stand and Fight website, criticizes Obama for opposing the NRA’s proposal of increasing the number of armed guards in schools as a way to prevent shootings like the Sandy Hook massacre.
“Are the president’s kids more important than yours?” asks the voiceover on the ad. “Then why is he skeptical about putting armed security in our schools when his kids are protected by armed guards at their school?” It continues, “Mr. Obama demands the wealthy pay their fair share of taxes, but he’s just another elitist hypocrite when it comes to a fair share of security. Protection for their kids and gun-free zones for ours.”
The video does not show pictures of the president’s daughters, using instead images of outspoken gun control advocates such as New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg and Vice President Joe Biden.
The ad served as a preemptive strike against President Obama, who plans to unveil his high anticipated proposals to reduce gun violence on Wednesday. Along with school security, mental health and the entertainment industry, the president is also expected to recommend universal background checks, a ban on high-capacity magazines and some sort of assault weapons ban.
Last week, Obama signed a bill to restore lifetime Secret Service protection for presidents, which includes himself, both Presidents Bush, Bill Clinton, Jimmy Carter and presidents in the future. The law gives children of presidents protection until the age of 16.
George W. Bush signed a directive four days before he left office, authorizing the Secret Service to provide a period of extended protection for his daughters Jenna and Barbara. The law says that the adult children of a president lose their protection when their father leaves office. But Bill Clinton had also authorized extended coverage for his daughter Chelsea when his term ended. The Secret Service asked that the period of additional protection be kept confidential.
The National Rifle Association is getting personal. In a new web video the gun lobby calls President Obama an “elitist hypocrite” for using the Secret Service to protect his two children, Sasha, age 11, and Malia, age 14.
The ad, posted to the NRA’s Stand and Fight website, criticizes Obama for opposing the NRA’s proposal of increasing the number of armed guards in schools as a way to prevent shootings like the Sandy Hook massacre.
“Are the president’s kids more important than yours?” asks the voiceover on the ad. “Then why is he skeptical about putting armed security in our schools when his kids are protected by armed guards at their school?” It continues, “Mr. Obama demands the wealthy pay their fair share of taxes, but he’s just another elitist hypocrite when it comes to a fair share of security. Protection for their kids and gun-free zones for ours.”
The video does not show pictures of the president’s daughters, using instead images of outspoken gun control advocates such as New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg and Vice President Joe Biden.
The ad served as a preemptive strike against President Obama, who plans to unveil his high anticipated proposals to reduce gun violence on Wednesday. Along with school security, mental health and the entertainment industry, the president is also expected to recommend universal background checks, a ban on high-capacity magazines and some sort of assault weapons ban.
Last week, Obama signed a bill to restore lifetime Secret Service protection for presidents, which includes himself, both Presidents Bush, Bill Clinton, Jimmy Carter and presidents in the future. The law gives children of presidents protection until the age of 16.
George W. Bush signed a directive four days before he left office, authorizing the Secret Service to provide a period of extended protection for his daughters Jenna and Barbara. The law says that the adult children of a president lose their protection when their father leaves office. But Bill Clinton had also authorized extended coverage for his daughter Chelsea when his term ended. The Secret Service asked that the period of additional protection be kept confidential.
If she couldn't lawfully have an assault weapon, that gun would not have been available to him. We can't know for sure what difference that would have made but my guess is there would be fewer casualties.
Good point. I think the emphasis I often hear on "what about stolen guns/" and "What about the criminals?" is a kind of run around; while an important issue that must be addressed it is a distraction from dealing with the other part of the issue such as tightening regulations for legal gun ownership and restricting what is legal as well as the issues of mental illness and media exploitation. We cannot exclude other parts of the problem to the further our own agenda.
Good point. I think the emphasis I often hear on "what about stolen guns/" and "What about the criminals?" is a kind of run around; while an important issue that must be addressed it is a distraction from dealing with the other part of the issue such as tightening regulations for legal gun ownership and restricting what is legal as well as the issues of mental illness and media exploitation. We cannot exclude other parts of the problem to the further our own agenda.
Nancy Lanza was an avid gun collector. She had a large collection, all lawfully obtained, and she liked target shooting. I am not sure but I think she may have taken her son shooting in the past.
When I say the gun was legally obtained, people insist that it was stolen. I suppose it was, but not in the sense of the illegal gun trade. When I think of stolen guns I'm thinking more in the sense of illicit deals and altered serial numbers. When I think of how Adam Lanza got those guns its more in the sense of a teenager taking his mother's car without permission. Yes, technically it was stolen, but different to having it stolen and taken to a chop shop.
So okay, call it a stolen gun if you like. The semantics mean less to me than the concept that the guns that were available to Adam Lanza were guns his mother was lawfully permitted to own. They were part of the furniture (if you will) of his home, much like the cars in the garage. I don't know how securely they were stored but if they were locked up, well, he found the keys - the way kids will. It was lawfully in the house. If she couldn't lawfully have an assault weapon, that gun would not have been available to him. We can't know for sure what difference that would have made but my guess is there would be fewer casualties.
When I say the gun was legally obtained, people insist that it was stolen. I suppose it was, but not in the sense of the illegal gun trade. When I think of stolen guns I'm thinking more in the sense of illicit deals and altered serial numbers. When I think of how Adam Lanza got those guns its more in the sense of a teenager taking his mother's car without permission. Yes, technically it was stolen, but different to having it stolen and taken to a chop shop.
So okay, call it a stolen gun if you like. The semantics mean less to me than the concept that the guns that were available to Adam Lanza were guns his mother was lawfully permitted to own. They were part of the furniture (if you will) of his home, much like the cars in the garage. I don't know how securely they were stored but if they were locked up, well, he found the keys - the way kids will. It was lawfully in the house. If she couldn't lawfully have an assault weapon, that gun would not have been available to him. We can't know for sure what difference that would have made but my guess is there would be fewer casualties.
Not too long ago around here, when speaking of the Connecticut shooting, I believe it was newtowngirl who said that the guns used were legally obtained. (I'll question that all day because its certainly not clear that the kid had permission to use the guns that day... he stole them, theft is illegal.)
I dont know how true it is, but I heard on a news program where they were talking about this, that there were other guns found at the residence. The shooter chose the AR-15 and automatics and did not choose the deer guns. I think that says something in and of itself. Dont you? It shows he wanted to do as much carnage as he could and chose the weapons that would get that job done.
I dont know how true it is, but I heard on a news program where they were talking about this, that there were other guns found at the residence. The shooter chose the AR-15 and automatics and did not choose the deer guns. I think that says something in and of itself. Dont you? It shows he wanted to do as much carnage as he could and chose the weapons that would get that job done.
Not too long ago around here, when speaking of the Connecticut shooting, I believe it was newtowngirl who said that the guns used were legally obtained. (I'll question that all day because its certainly not clear that the kid had permission to use the guns that day... he stole them, theft is illegal.)
Theft is the easiest way for a criminal to get a gun. I feel that this will eventually come down to current gun owners, what guns they own, what magazines they possess. (New York wants to ban all "high" capacity, greater than I think 7 rounds.) If one is found to be in possession, he/she will be a felon. They are asking all high capacity magazine onwers to sell them to out of state consumers. (Doesn't that perpetuate the problem? Aren't we trying to keep these things out of "peoples" hands, and where are the bench marks in these sales to keep them out of the wrong hands?
This is my problem with this "jump". As good as the intentions are, some of this is not being too well thought. Getting the magazines out of New York will A. Not stop gun crimes in New York, even regarding high capacity magazines and B. Are putting the evil high capacity magazines potentially in the worng peoples hands by selling them to "out of staters".
This can be done and something far more tangible than the pipe dream of gun crime going away can be attained. You cannot transfer "the problem" to another state....
To the powers that be, please take your time on this and do it right. I think the American people are tired of half baked ideas.
Theft is the easiest way for a criminal to get a gun. I feel that this will eventually come down to current gun owners, what guns they own, what magazines they possess. (New York wants to ban all "high" capacity, greater than I think 7 rounds.) If one is found to be in possession, he/she will be a felon. They are asking all high capacity magazine onwers to sell them to out of state consumers. (Doesn't that perpetuate the problem? Aren't we trying to keep these things out of "peoples" hands, and where are the bench marks in these sales to keep them out of the wrong hands?
This is my problem with this "jump". As good as the intentions are, some of this is not being too well thought. Getting the magazines out of New York will A. Not stop gun crimes in New York, even regarding high capacity magazines and B. Are putting the evil high capacity magazines potentially in the worng peoples hands by selling them to "out of staters".
This can be done and something far more tangible than the pipe dream of gun crime going away can be attained. You cannot transfer "the problem" to another state....
To the powers that be, please take your time on this and do it right. I think the American people are tired of half baked ideas.
"Tell your husband to turn in all his guns then, because the only way to make sure that guns don't get into the hands of the wrong people is to ban them all, because someone could break into your house and steal the guns, then shoot you and/or your family, as well as anyone else they come in contact with."
I have to respectfully disagree...The gun control laws do not effect existing guns and their owners. We keep our guns safe locked and not easily accessible..And let me tell you something, IF someone had the balls to break into my house, they wouldn't have the ability to steal my gins because first they are not easily accessible for that person to know where they are to steal them and I don't tell ANYONE where I keep my guns. 2nd they would not get passed my 125 lbs bull mastiff, 3rd IF they got past Bella, the one gun we do keep close "for emergencies", would allow me to unload 2 or more (if needed) shot gun blasts to their torso ......
I have to respectfully disagree...The gun control laws do not effect existing guns and their owners. We keep our guns safe locked and not easily accessible..And let me tell you something, IF someone had the balls to break into my house, they wouldn't have the ability to steal my gins because first they are not easily accessible for that person to know where they are to steal them and I don't tell ANYONE where I keep my guns. 2nd they would not get passed my 125 lbs bull mastiff, 3rd IF they got past Bella, the one gun we do keep close "for emergencies", would allow me to unload 2 or more (if needed) shot gun blasts to their torso ......
"All I'm saying is, this move on gun control is not to make life miserable for us gun owners, its to make sure guns do NOT get in the hands of the wrong people..Whatever steps they need to take, is fine with me."
Tell your husband to turn in all his guns then, because the only way to make sure that guns don't get into the hands of the wrong people is to ban them all, because someone could break into your house and steal the guns, then shoot you and/or your family, as well as anyone else they come in contact with. . But of course, you can be sure the criminals aren't going to care if there's a ban or not, they will not turn in their guns and if they need more, they'll find a way to get them.
When someone, with a gun, breaks into your house with the intent to harm your family, I hope you have the baseball bat handy and get to sneak up behind them, so you can strike them from behind before they shoot you.
Tell your husband to turn in all his guns then, because the only way to make sure that guns don't get into the hands of the wrong people is to ban them all, because someone could break into your house and steal the guns, then shoot you and/or your family, as well as anyone else they come in contact with. . But of course, you can be sure the criminals aren't going to care if there's a ban or not, they will not turn in their guns and if they need more, they'll find a way to get them.
When someone, with a gun, breaks into your house with the intent to harm your family, I hope you have the baseball bat handy and get to sneak up behind them, so you can strike them from behind before they shoot you.
Oh hell..... I think that that Carter kid was even used in garbage like this. It ain't right to use kids in garbage like this, but that is not the problem here folks.
Go to the post that I posted with ALL of his plans...
I am not disputing exe orders as a way to get somethings done. But the actualy bans he just spoke about it not a way and I am glad he didn't do it because he would be facing a lot of trouble if he did.
Oh and it is a power given, but it has its limitations also.
Overall when he is leaving up to Congress is the right stuff to leave to congress. I have to hear more on what he did with Exe order because I only heard a little bit of the speech.
Oh and it is a power given, but it has its limitations also.
Overall when he is leaving up to Congress is the right stuff to leave to congress. I have to hear more on what he did with Exe order because I only heard a little bit of the speech.
"MrsP your assuming that laws are going to go to Congress and Obama is not just going to use Exe. Orders to ram this through. That is not leading that is being a dictator."
He signed the laws that he could use exec orders with today..... There area PLENTY of Presidents that have used exec. orders..Its a power given to ALL of the Presidents of the United States...
He signed the laws that he could use exec orders with today..... There area PLENTY of Presidents that have used exec. orders..Its a power given to ALL of the Presidents of the United States...
MrsP your assuming that laws are going to go to Congress and Obama is not just going to use Exe. Orders to ram this through. That is not leading that is being a dictator.
Database...So the feds can see that Brice legally owns 40 guns? Hmmm, he must be up to something. Lets arrest him under the Patriot Act. Lets perform illegal search and seizure under the Patriot Act.
A database reminds me of something similar where people where branded with numbers.
When people act with emotions you get on a very slippery slope which often infringe on the rights of people.
Database...So the feds can see that Brice legally owns 40 guns? Hmmm, he must be up to something. Lets arrest him under the Patriot Act. Lets perform illegal search and seizure under the Patriot Act.
A database reminds me of something similar where people where branded with numbers.
When people act with emotions you get on a very slippery slope which often infringe on the rights of people.
" The President and the Vice President have both said that talks with the NRA have been productive, so why not believe that? "
I do believe that...They were productive with everyone except the NRA..They showed opposition from the start..They blamed everything except guns..Hollywood, Video games, mental health AND guns have a part in it...All I'm saying is, this move on gun control is not to make life miserable for us gun owners, its to make sure guns do NOT get in the hands of the wrong people..Whatever steps they need to take, is fine with me.
"None of that is going to stop criminals, maybe with the exception of gun shows not allowing anyone to walk out with a gun in their hands."
It may not stop all criminals but it WILL save lives...
I do believe that...They were productive with everyone except the NRA..They showed opposition from the start..They blamed everything except guns..Hollywood, Video games, mental health AND guns have a part in it...All I'm saying is, this move on gun control is not to make life miserable for us gun owners, its to make sure guns do NOT get in the hands of the wrong people..Whatever steps they need to take, is fine with me.
"None of that is going to stop criminals, maybe with the exception of gun shows not allowing anyone to walk out with a gun in their hands."
It may not stop all criminals but it WILL save lives...
Apparently, (and I mean no disrespect) you and I are very different in regards to gun ownership. I took responsibility for my guns and gun ownership when I got them. Every gun that I have purchased required me to fill out federal paperwork and each hand gun I have purchased required me to go through the required background check and I had to wait either 7-10 days to actually take the guns into possession. I have absolutely no problem with any of that. I have absolutely no problem with gun shows to have to have/require everyone who makes a purchase to go through with background checks. I have no problem with AR 15's no longer being produced. I have no problem with no high capacity magazines being made.
None of that is going to stop criminals, maybe with the exception of gun shows not allowing anyone to walk out with a gun in their hands. All it will do is slow down law abiding citizens who want to purchase a gun for protection or recreational reasons. Most people will have no problem with that. That is fine.
Criminals will have no problem getting guns since they don't follow the proposed Federal protocol anyways.
The NRA (I'm no member) is swinging to extremes like anyone else wood and I believe it is an attempt to meet somewhere in the middle. The President and the Vice President have both said that talks with the NRA have been productive, so why not believe that?
None of that is going to stop criminals, maybe with the exception of gun shows not allowing anyone to walk out with a gun in their hands. All it will do is slow down law abiding citizens who want to purchase a gun for protection or recreational reasons. Most people will have no problem with that. That is fine.
Criminals will have no problem getting guns since they don't follow the proposed Federal protocol anyways.
The NRA (I'm no member) is swinging to extremes like anyone else wood and I believe it is an attempt to meet somewhere in the middle. The President and the Vice President have both said that talks with the NRA have been productive, so why not believe that?
The NRA is pandering to the under grumblings of the gun community. They feel it is a double standard to change a gun free zone of a school to a protective by gun zone for HIS kids while kids of regular Joes like me are still in a gun free zone. They are capitolizing on those thoughts and made an ad that they think will speak to people that feel that way or turn people to their side of the issue.
Personally, I think it is too late. Gun control is going to happen and there is much support that they didn't have previously (like me). That's a reality.
But,---- we have police that are at our school daily. We always have had that. Not like guarding but just a presence that you see there throughout the day whether in the parking lot of the school or in the school. It's like no big deal because it has always been the case. I'm sure the police that do this are armed.
Personally, I think it is too late. Gun control is going to happen and there is much support that they didn't have previously (like me). That's a reality.
But,---- we have police that are at our school daily. We always have had that. Not like guarding but just a presence that you see there throughout the day whether in the parking lot of the school or in the school. It's like no big deal because it has always been the case. I'm sure the police that do this are armed.
The President will speak at 11:55am....If you can watch for yourself and hear for yourself...Don't listen to hear say or assume....
"I believe that the NRA, just like any of you, are entitled to have and voice any opinion they wish.
I agree brice, I just think they could have chosen a better way to get the message across, imo."
ABSOLUTELY...they could've made that ad without including the Presidents daughters...Bill Clinton signed the original assault rifle ban, the country went on, people STILL had their guns..The NRA did NOT go after Chelsea Clinton in Ads...The passing of that ban proves that there are a majority of Americans that agree with common sense, responsible, and reasonable laws..What is wrong with having universal background checks for everyone that purchases a gun, what is wrong with NOT having military style weapons available to civilians? what is wrong with a database of gun owners? NOTHING...I could go on and on...Anyway, as a gun owner I am ready to be held responsible for my gun and who has access to them. I am ready for stricter laws for access to guns. I pray that NONE OF US EVER have to go through what those families in newtown, aurora, Virginia tech, columbine, went through...Something NEEDS to be done and IF the President wants to lead on that, then I'm all for it...
"I believe that the NRA, just like any of you, are entitled to have and voice any opinion they wish.
I agree brice, I just think they could have chosen a better way to get the message across, imo."
ABSOLUTELY...they could've made that ad without including the Presidents daughters...Bill Clinton signed the original assault rifle ban, the country went on, people STILL had their guns..The NRA did NOT go after Chelsea Clinton in Ads...The passing of that ban proves that there are a majority of Americans that agree with common sense, responsible, and reasonable laws..What is wrong with having universal background checks for everyone that purchases a gun, what is wrong with NOT having military style weapons available to civilians? what is wrong with a database of gun owners? NOTHING...I could go on and on...Anyway, as a gun owner I am ready to be held responsible for my gun and who has access to them. I am ready for stricter laws for access to guns. I pray that NONE OF US EVER have to go through what those families in newtown, aurora, Virginia tech, columbine, went through...Something NEEDS to be done and IF the President wants to lead on that, then I'm all for it...
I believe that the NRA, just like any of you, are entitled to have and voice any opinion they wish.
I agree brice, I just think they could have chosen a better way to get the message across, imo.
I agree brice, I just think they could have chosen a better way to get the message across, imo.
I believe that the NRA, just like any of you, are entitled to have and voice any opinion they wish.
Do you think it was ok for Code Pink, Moveon and others to go after Bush's daughters in ads? .
None of it is okay, IMO. I know that everyone tends to at some point, lower their standardsm, and resort to pettiness, and I don't like it when anyone does it.
The NRA is better than that. They could have still released a message, even a dramatic one, that wasn't insulting or offensive. I want them to prevail in protecting gun rights, but with stuff like this, they make themselves look like the unreasonable ones.
Biden announced the other day that talks went well, and right after, the NRA publically harschly critisized Biden and company, talking about how they are determined to take gun rights away. Like, where they in the same meeting?
That kind of message doesn't help the spirit of compromise. And even if they are not willing to budge an INCH on this issue (which is their perogative), they could present the info in a much more professional and reasonable way. They could have said, "We appreciate being invited by VP Biden to discuss the issue at hand, but we will continue to maintain that we feel there should be no changes to the current gun law, to protect the gun rights of citizens".
See what I mean? They're hurting themselves by taking such a radical and extremist approach, which actually, is kind of out of character for them. They usually are much more professional and sensitive.
None of it is okay, IMO. I know that everyone tends to at some point, lower their standardsm, and resort to pettiness, and I don't like it when anyone does it.
The NRA is better than that. They could have still released a message, even a dramatic one, that wasn't insulting or offensive. I want them to prevail in protecting gun rights, but with stuff like this, they make themselves look like the unreasonable ones.
Biden announced the other day that talks went well, and right after, the NRA publically harschly critisized Biden and company, talking about how they are determined to take gun rights away. Like, where they in the same meeting?
That kind of message doesn't help the spirit of compromise. And even if they are not willing to budge an INCH on this issue (which is their perogative), they could present the info in a much more professional and reasonable way. They could have said, "We appreciate being invited by VP Biden to discuss the issue at hand, but we will continue to maintain that we feel there should be no changes to the current gun law, to protect the gun rights of citizens".
See what I mean? They're hurting themselves by taking such a radical and extremist approach, which actually, is kind of out of character for them. They usually are much more professional and sensitive.
Well, LOL.
Of course it hasn't been released yet. I tell you, the morning show I watch (CBS I think?) presented this story as though it was a done deal...even talking about how he had children with him when he announced the details, and they were very specific about all of the measures to be included. (??????) I swear, I hate the media anymore...they are so confusing sometimes!!
Okay, well, I guess we'll have to wait and see later today what is EXACTLY in it. If their info was correct, it was a very well rounded plan, that included many different mental health initiatives.
Of course it hasn't been released yet. I tell you, the morning show I watch (CBS I think?) presented this story as though it was a done deal...even talking about how he had children with him when he announced the details, and they were very specific about all of the measures to be included. (??????) I swear, I hate the media anymore...they are so confusing sometimes!!
Okay, well, I guess we'll have to wait and see later today what is EXACTLY in it. If their info was correct, it was a very well rounded plan, that included many different mental health initiatives.
Do you think it was ok for Code Pink, Moveon and others to go after Bush's daughters in ads?
Not that I'm agreeing with the ad, but, to play devil's advocate...they are scrambling to get as much support as possible. Normally, even after mass shootings, most people don't change their idea about gun violence and gun control, this incident has been different, with long standing NRA members, gun owners, and staunch pro-gun supporters flip flopping.
Their "job" is to maintain gun rights, and they actually do it very well...so in a sense, they're kind of resorting to the fear mongering kind of message to garner as much support as they can (not that I think that's right).
I acually don't have an issue with them pointing out that the president's children get the benefit of armed security (even though that's a given), because many people would be able to appreciate that contrast....him and his family surrounded by countless guns every day, and yet him fighting for stricter gun control..there IS an irony there that can be appreciated. I don't think it's at all relevant, but they're capitalizing on it. The name calling was just stupid and unprofessional.
I saw an outline briefly this morning of Obama's proposal...most of it I think its actually very good....it's well balanced and covers a lot of important areas, including mental illness and I LOVE that he offers federal support for schools who choose to go the armed guard route...that's awesome. That tells ME that he really DID take into account suggestions from all sides, as it was the NRA who recommended arming all schools. Obama puts that out there as an option. I'm pleased with that. I have to say that this is a proposal where the president has really incorporated a little of everything. Kudos to him. The gun control part I honestly haven't looked into, so I'll reserve comment on that until I know more what I'm talking about. But overall, I think it was nicely done.
I'm going to see if I can find an article that outlines the proposal well. Someone here may have already posted something, don't know.
Anyway, my point was...the NRA is fighting a little dirty, and I don't care for it. I think it makes them look desperate, and takes away from what they've always stood for. Like already said here, they have been a very well respected agency...they're lowering themselves,. They can still fight tooth and nail for gun rights, and oppose any action from the WH...but without that kind of unnecessary and childish approach.
Their "job" is to maintain gun rights, and they actually do it very well...so in a sense, they're kind of resorting to the fear mongering kind of message to garner as much support as they can (not that I think that's right).
I acually don't have an issue with them pointing out that the president's children get the benefit of armed security (even though that's a given), because many people would be able to appreciate that contrast....him and his family surrounded by countless guns every day, and yet him fighting for stricter gun control..there IS an irony there that can be appreciated. I don't think it's at all relevant, but they're capitalizing on it. The name calling was just stupid and unprofessional.
I saw an outline briefly this morning of Obama's proposal...most of it I think its actually very good....it's well balanced and covers a lot of important areas, including mental illness and I LOVE that he offers federal support for schools who choose to go the armed guard route...that's awesome. That tells ME that he really DID take into account suggestions from all sides, as it was the NRA who recommended arming all schools. Obama puts that out there as an option. I'm pleased with that. I have to say that this is a proposal where the president has really incorporated a little of everything. Kudos to him. The gun control part I honestly haven't looked into, so I'll reserve comment on that until I know more what I'm talking about. But overall, I think it was nicely done.
I'm going to see if I can find an article that outlines the proposal well. Someone here may have already posted something, don't know.
Anyway, my point was...the NRA is fighting a little dirty, and I don't care for it. I think it makes them look desperate, and takes away from what they've always stood for. Like already said here, they have been a very well respected agency...they're lowering themselves,. They can still fight tooth and nail for gun rights, and oppose any action from the WH...but without that kind of unnecessary and childish approach.
Another once respected group has turned fringe. This is terrifying what is happening in our country. How low low low can we go? Now we know why no one wants to come up against them to make policy. Who wants a target on their back? For me, this is over the top and to me? NRA just cooked their own goose and it appears are their own worst enemy.
Did you see the app they put out where the game was deemed okay for 4 year olds?
Did you see the app they put out where the game was deemed okay for 4 year olds?
Ok, so as much as I am not sure about the whole gun control debate, this is very silly. Of course his children are going to protected by the Secret Service. That ad doesn't even make any sense. Incredible extremism on this issue isn't there.
The family of a sitting president is always protected by Secret Service. This makes it sound like Obama in doing something unusual. He's not.
This kind of ad just gets people stirred up and makes it harder for us to come up with some kind of reasonable answers to our problems with gun violence.
This kind of ad just gets people stirred up and makes it harder for us to come up with some kind of reasonable answers to our problems with gun violence.
You must join this user group in order to participate in this discussion.
You are reading content posted in the Current Events . . . Group
A list of national and international resources and hotlines to help connect you to needed health and medical services.
Herpes sores blister, then burst, scab and heal.
Herpes spreads by oral, vaginal and anal sex.
STIs are the most common cause of genital sores.
Condoms are the most effective way to prevent HIV and STDs.
PrEP is used by people with high risk to prevent HIV infection.
