As the gun debate rages on, those pushing for gun regulation keep dodging the inconvenient questions while trying to portray those who oppose them as fringe lunatics who don’t care about kids.
The National Rifle Association ran an ad on YouTube questioning an obvious conflict. The discussion is about protecting children from armed attackers. We all respect that being the first family carries grave danger. So, if the president’s children are protected from such attack by armed guards, then why don’t our own children deserve the same protection from harm?
Comments
Only a comple idiot tea bagger would ask that question.
That's a real mature way to make a point.
Any substantial rebuttal, or was that the best you could do, just insult?
Salemreader: It does no good to attack an opinion in such an insulting way. The question is very legitimate, and if you believe that only the first family is deserving of armed protection, you should explain why. I am not an NRA member, nor do I own any guns. But I find it appalling that the left wing finds its enemy in a group that is law abiding and simply seeks to protect the 2nd amendment rights of Americans. If the problem we have with gun violence were caused by law abiding gun owners, you might have a point. But clearly, the gun violence is committed by people who do not care what the law is. Therefore, more laws do not mean less gun violence. But this approach gives the left wing the warm and cuddly feeling they get by attacking a straw man.
Tsk, tsk, you are trying to talk common sense! What is the matter with you? This is all about demonizing the NRA, gun owners, guns, etc. Go hang your head. You do not have a gun, you are not a member of the NRA, you are supposed to be anti 2A. What, did you go to school and actually learn what the Constitution means? Sheesh.
It is because those against the NRA will jump at any chance to take a shot at them. They also don't live in the real world and don't believe there are bad people out there. Must be nice to feel that way.
Hmm, the protection has nothing to do with the 30 death threats to the President and first family receive every day. The number of hate groups has tripled since a BLACK president took power. A law was just passed (full support by both sides in congress) for the secret service to protect Bush and Obama for life. NRA went too far on this one.
We all "get" why any President has SS protection for him and his family. But given the howling about school shootings, and how terrible they are (which they are), gun owners are all wondering why the President did not suggest even studying security for schools? Is it that his children (and children of governors, et al) are MORE precious than everyone else's? It would seem so.
Idiot
Are you saying that is why you did not comment? You are not mentally capable? Skippy? Skippy? Bueller? Bueller?
Why are armed guards the right answer for President Obama’s kids and not for ours if we are now worried about the same violence being perpetrated upon that which is most precious to us?
---------------
Because as the leader of the country, and a target for death threats and potential kidnappings, the First Family is protected against threats that could hamper the decision making of the president. While it would be nice to have that kind of protection everywhere for our children it is not economically feasible. The ad is trying to make a point where there is none, and be divisive by being open ended. Does this answer the question?
WOW! Safety for our children is not "economically feasible" but $1B stealth fighter jets are? The security of foreign countries is something "we must provide for", but not our own children?
Security of our children would be "nice"?
Curious as to your priorities?
The ad made a very valid point: "Mr President: WHERE IS THE SECURITY PLAN FOR OUR CHILDREN?"
You just didn't get it, cause you were looking to hate on the NRA.
Oh, missed one other point? Hamper his decision making...really? A lot of people have been questioning his decision making ability since he took office, not his campaigning, speechifying ability, just his decision making ability. He seems to make very poor ones, consistently.
The First Family has the burden of living with the inescapable presence of armed guards because of the high level of threat they live under. I would not want to live that way, nor would I want all of our children to grow up feeling that the presence of armed security forces is natural and necessary. I'm appalled that people who purport to speak for "freedom" would want us all to get used to living in an armed camp.