New NRA ad: Let’s redistribute school security

posted at 8:01 am on January 16, 2013 by Ed Morrissey

The NRA seems to have adopted a new strategy in their efforts to push back gun control: If you can’t beat ‘em, join ‘em.  Oh, they’re not falling in line with gun bans and magazine limits — they’re just adopting Barack Obama’s playbook in arguing against them.  Via Buzzfeed, here’s a new 30-second ad painting Obama as “just another elitist hypocrite” for disdaining the NRA’s proposal to subsidize armed guards in schools while send his own children to a school that has armed security on site.  Why should the rich and powerful be the only families with armed security guards for their children?  Redistribute the security!

You have to admire the strategy, even if you may be skeptical of the proposal.  These types of events are rare to the point where most armed guards won’t ever see anything close to a Newtown over the course of their lifetimes, and school security isn’t a federal issue; it’s local, and schools can add guards now, if they want them.  This is more of a pushback against the scorn heaped on the NRA for proposing the idea in the wake of Sandy Hook, even though the same scorn-heapers backed Bill Clinton’s COPS program, which subsidized armed guards in schools.  That blatant hypocrisy had the White House at least belatedly considering the NRA’s proposal as one part of their response.

The NRA must be doing something right in public relations, by the way.  Either that, or the nation’s best gunseller is even better than we imagined:

A day before President Barack Obama is scheduled to release Vice President Joe Biden’s recommendations to curb gun violence in the United States, the National Rifle Association told U.S. News and World Report that they have seen membership grow by 250,000 in the month since the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting in Newtown, Connecticut.

Politico reported membership had grown by more than 100,000 five days ago. The NRA says that when Politico reported the story, membership was close to 200,000, but the number has drastically grown in just five days. The association now has over 4.25 million members, but the NRA says that number is always fluctuating as memberships expire and new members join.

“I would say that every time President Obama opens his mouth and Sen. [Dianne] Feinstein opens her mouth and they talk about gun bans and restricting the rights of law abiding Americans, people pay attention to that and sign up,” says Andrew Arulanandam, the NRA’s public affairs director.

Yes, I think people are paying very close attention these days to Washington and the gun grabbers.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4 7

do you deserve your own secret service detail? don’t be silly.
sesquipedalian on January 16, 2013 at 8:55 AM

Who determines “deserve”? You?

Cleombrotus on January 16, 2013 at 9:00 AM

Jabberwock on January 16, 2013 at 8:58 AM

UGH ! More coffee !

feel and or

Jabberwock on January 16, 2013 at 9:00 AM

attacking the young daughters of a popular president is a deranged move by a deranged organization. so is trumpeting a 0.5% increase in its membership.

oh well. it only makes victory sweeter.

sesquipedalian on January 16, 2013 at 8:12 AM

A 0.5% increase would be 20,000. Try 6.25%.

Math is hard.

It is harder when you are stupid.

It is downright impossible when you are a Proggie like sesquipedalian.

Resist We Much on January 16, 2013 at 9:00 AM

I should say gop LEADERSHIP you suck.

PappyD61 on January 16, 2013 at 8:59 AM

No, you had it right the first time.

Nutstuyu on January 16, 2013 at 9:00 AM

saying that some children deserve protection and others don’t is not at all outrageous. just replace ‘children’ with ‘people’. do you deserve the same protection as the president?

sesquipedalian on January 16, 2013 at 8:45 AM

All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others.

Resist We Much on January 16, 2013 at 9:03 AM

do you deserve your own secret service detail? don’t be silly.
sesquipedalian on January 16, 2013 at 8:55 AM

YOU are scum, like all liberals. If I shot a black adult while he was raping my white teen granddaughter, and killed him, YOU and your kind would call me a racist. YOU, and yours, are rabbit sh*t. The world would be better without you and all like you.

Liam on January 16, 2013 at 9:03 AM

Missouri Bill Aims To Block Executive Orders On Gun Control
January 16, 2013 7:51 AM
*************************

http://stlouis.cbslocal.com/2013/01/16/missouri-bill-aims-to-block-executive-orders-on-gun-control/#.UPaxb_upDTU.twitter

canopfor on January 16, 2013 at 9:03 AM

saying that some children deserve protection and others don’t is not at all outrageous. just replace ‘children’ with ‘people’. do you deserve the same protection as the president?

sesquipedalian on January 16, 2013 at 8:45 AM

Interesting use of the word deserve. The Obama brats, Mooch, high-ranking members of the administration or Congress, or even the rat-eared wonder himself do not receive protection because they DESERVE it. I can think of individual less worthy of protection than individuals who contribute nothing of value to society as the Obama brats.

But why would you deny a child in DC public schools even one armed guard. Don’t they deserve a learning environment that is safe just like the mini-moochers of Sidwell Friends? Why are their lives less important than those scions of DC’s liberal elite who are spoiled self-absorbed parasites who happen to have been born into families able to drop $40K/year for their education?

Happy Nomad on January 16, 2013 at 9:04 AM

The Dims are finding out that real citizens, who can read and understand the Constitution, are not nearly as easy to manipulate as the Obamaphone lady. This gun grabbing exercise is not going to end well.

tngmv on January 16, 2013 at 9:05 AM

Obama gun panel draws lawsuit
Jan 15 2013
***********

http://www.politico.com/blogs/under-the-radar/2013/01/obama-gun-panel-draws-lawsuit-154311.html?hp=r4
=========================================

Freedom Watch ‏@freedomwatchweb

OBAMA, BIDEN AND GUN CONTROL TASK FORCE SUED http://www.freedomwatchusa.org/obama-biden-and-gun-control-task-force-sued

http://www.freedomwatchusa.org/obama-biden-and-gun-control-task-force-sued

canopfor on January 16, 2013 at 6:26 AM

canopfor on January 16, 2013 at 9:05 AM

they are more likely to be targeted than yours.

sesquipedalian on January 16, 2013 at 8:37 AM

That is not an answer. Do you think Obama’s children have more of a right to live than mine?

Night Owl on January 16, 2013 at 9:06 AM

do you deserve your own secret service detail? don’t be silly.

sesquipedalian on January 16, 2013 at 8:55 AM

I deserve the same right to use guns to protect my life, which has just as much, if not more value, than Barry Obama’s life. Don’t be a clueless moron.

AZCoyote on January 16, 2013 at 9:06 AM

Happy Nomad on January 16, 2013 at 9:04 AM

You just put some serious brain-hurt on a liberal. Good for you!

+1000

Liam on January 16, 2013 at 9:07 AM

attacking the young daughters of a popular president is a deranged move by a deranged organization. so is trumpeting a 0.5% increase in its membership.

oh well. it only makes victory sweeter.

sesquipedalian on January 16, 2013 at 8:12 AM

I’m appalled that you consider an attack on our Bill of Rights a ‘victory’ of any sort.

CaptFlood on January 16, 2013 at 9:08 AM

The basic fallacy of all of this is that too many Americans have come to believe that liberal meme that guns are for hunting and stuff, but not for personal protection nor to make sure government does not transit into tyranny.

The Constitution makes no mention at all of hunting, or personal protection, but nonetheless, there is it, enshrined in the Bill of Rights, individual citizens being enabled under our Constitution to keep and bear arms.

The Left is concerned…concerned that should the time come for their utopian vision of America to become reality, millions of Americans will resist. And will resist to the point of death. Armed. Armed resistance.

Armed resistance, the downfall of every tyranny known to mankind. Ever.

So…to make it all more palatable…they will use children, living and dead, to press forward to sweep the way clear for their agenda.

That’s the Progressive Plan for America in a nutshell.

coldwarrior on January 16, 2013 at 9:09 AM

Naturally Curly on January 16, 2013 at 9:08 AM

Worse is that, since Dec. 14, he and other liberals have been using 20 tiny caskets for a soapbox.

Liam on January 16, 2013 at 9:09 AM

there’s a reason we don’t put a bulletproof vest on every child in America. it’s overkill.

saying that some children deserve protection and others don’t is not at all outrageous. just replace ‘children’ with ‘people’. do you deserve the same protection as the president?

sesquipedalian on January 16, 2013 at 8:45 AM

That’s not the point, in fact remove the POTUS from the debate.

Why do the same anti-gun liberals who tell us schools MUST BE gun free zones send their kids to schools with armed security staff? Why isn’t Gregory using his media pulpit to decry the armed security which exists at the schools his kids attend, aren’t his kids in greater danger because of all those guns around?

Bishop on January 16, 2013 at 9:10 AM

oh well. it only makes victory sweeter.

sesquipedalian on January 16, 2013 at 8:12 AM

Video: Obama gun-control package not likely to get action in House … or Senate

“Failure in the House and Senate. Who cares? This is what victory looks like!”

- sesquipedalian

Resist We Much on January 16, 2013 at 9:10 AM

The Zero to announce gun control while surrounded by kids…and while under protection of plain-clothes Secret Service, uniformed Secret Service, Marine helicopters, and radar enforcing a no-fly zone.

Nutstuyu on January 16, 2013 at 8:56 AM

Not to mention in a very fortified facility (i.e. the White House). You or I can’t have stinger missiles on hand to thwart intruders.

IMO, and based on local talk radio, using children as props is a step too far. It is offensive.

And one can’t help but gag on the hypocrisy of not only the amount of firepower surrounding the rat-eared wonder as he attacks the Second Amendment. But also the fact that the man who voted against letting children of botched abortion live is now going to lecture us that he needs to confiscate all guns “for the children.” In other words, children are not to be protected in the womb but make useful props when it is politically convenient.

Happy Nomad on January 16, 2013 at 9:11 AM

Surrounding himself with children strikes me as rather cowardly. I wonder where he got that idea?

Naturally Curly on January 16, 2013 at 9:08 AM

I was going to guess Hamas or Hezbollah, but your works too.

Night Owl on January 16, 2013 at 9:12 AM

Hold on there, Maverick! Before the election, you presented yourself as a Romney supporter! You mean you were a Liberal Troll all along? I’m shocked! Shocked, I tell you!

kingsjester on January 16, 2013 at 8:32 AM

All the losers in here say that. Will saying it after 2014 when the GOP gets shellacked, cause they are on the losing side of every argument. Go masterbate to rush and levin for awhile. Total winners.

rubberneck on January 16, 2013 at 9:14 AM

saying that some children deserve protection and others don’t is not at all outrageous. just replace ‘children’ with ‘people’. do you deserve the same protection as the president?

sesquipedalian on January 16, 2013 at 8:45 AM

Tell that to the parents at Sandy Hook.
What a truly loathsome world it would be if you and yours ever gained total power…

CaptFlood on January 16, 2013 at 9:15 AM

rubberneck on January 16, 2013 at 9:14 AM

Come back after you learn to spell, baby killer.

Liam on January 16, 2013 at 9:15 AM

Even if the Obama kids were not in attendance, it is ironic that Sidwell Friends school would have an armed detail on staff, and has for decades…think about it. Sidwell Friends…a Quaker-based school. Rooted in the Quaker principles of non-violence and tolerance.

But, if you are an outsider…watch out. Their personal protection force will blow a hole through you big enough for an Escalade…or Mercedes, depending on who is dropping the lids off at school that day.

Hypocrisy?

Indeed.

coldwarrior on January 16, 2013 at 9:16 AM

Surrounding himself with children strikes me as rather cowardly. I wonder where he got that idea?

Naturally Curly on January 16, 2013 at 9:08 AM

I was going to guess Hamas or Hezbollah, but your works too.

Night Owl on January 16, 2013 at 9:12 AM

Night Owl, your guess doesn’t work. Hamas or Hezbollah don’t actually show children, they just make the claim that US drones, Israel, or whoever home in on orphanages and hospitals and kill untold numbers of their children. That is a tad different than this offensive use of children as props.

Happy Nomad on January 16, 2013 at 9:16 AM

Ha…
Narator in snarky voice:
“Mr. Obama demands the wealthy pay their ‘fair share’ of taxes”…

Yep. NRA brass…at the end of the day, just a bunch of conservative lobbyist hacks. And paid well enough I’m sure that they needed to get a tax dig in for their funding base…in the middle of their ‘gun control’ ad.
“Mr. Obama wants to fun Planned Parenthood…but he won’t pay for country club golf course grooming?”

verbaluce on January 16, 2013 at 9:17 AM

Ha…
Narator in snarky voice:
“Mr. Obama demands the wealthy pay their ‘fair share’ of taxes”…

Yep. NRA brass…at the end of the day, just a bunch of conservative lobbyist hacks. And paid well enough I’m sure that they needed to get a tax dig in for their funding base…in the middle of their ‘gun control’ ad.
“Mr. Obama wants to fund Planned Parenthood…but he won’t pay for country club golf course grooming?”

verbaluce on January 16, 2013 at 9:17 AM

(fixed)

verbaluce on January 16, 2013 at 9:18 AM

Yes, I think people are paying very close attention these days to Washington and the gun grabbers.

Too bad they didn’t pay attention back in November.

Oldnuke on January 16, 2013 at 9:19 AM

verbaluce on January 16, 2013 at 9:17 AM

Standing on those 20 tiny caskets again, aren’t you, little liblet?

You’re not changing any minds around here. You need to call in a professional.

Liam on January 16, 2013 at 9:19 AM

(fixed)

verbaluce on January 16, 2013 at 9:18 AM

Not really, your post continues to be retarded.

sentinelrules on January 16, 2013 at 9:20 AM

they are more likely to be targeted than yours.

sesquipedalian on January 16, 2013 at 8:37 AM

Then maybe we should ban presidents that have children under 18 (or 26 according to Obummercare)

Nutstuyu on January 16, 2013 at 9:22 AM

Surrounding himself with children strikes me as rather cowardly. I wonder where he got that idea?

Naturally Curly on January 16, 2013 at 9:08 AM

I was going to guess Hamas or Hezbollah, but your works too.

Night Owl on January 16, 2013 at 9:12 AM

Night Owl:I was thinking of Dear Leader..North Korea!:)

canopfor on January 16, 2013 at 9:22 AM

Standing on those 20 tiny caskets again, aren’t you, little liblet?

Liam on January 16, 2013 at 9:19 AM

Swing and….miss.
You work for the NRA ad team?

verbaluce on January 16, 2013 at 9:24 AM

Here’s a nice violent crimes propaganda-buster that really exposes the left’s manipulation and cherry-picking of outlier stats to attack the second amendment.

Harbingeing on January 16, 2013 at 9:24 AM

And they also just released their new 3D shooting app for pre-schoolers.
Not going over well.
Exit the debate…stage right….

verbaluce

Is that the one that lets you shoot the NRA president in the head?

it’s statistics, you wouldn’t understand.

sesquipedalian

.05%, 5%, whatever.

saying that some children deserve protection and others don’t is not at all outrageous. just replace ‘children’ with ‘people’. do you deserve the same protection as the president?

sesquipedalian

But I thought we needed gun control to protect every child. Now you’re telling us every child doesn’t deserve protection. Liberalism is so confusing.

xblade on January 16, 2013 at 9:25 AM

Go masterbate to rush and levin for awhile. Total winners.

rubberneck on January 16, 2013 at 9:14 AM

Go learn how to SPELL.

Resist We Much on January 16, 2013 at 9:26 AM

Not really, your post continues to be retarded.

sentinelrules on January 16, 2013 at 9:20 AM

Zing!
(Kidding. Not zing at all.)

verbaluce on January 16, 2013 at 9:26 AM

I was thinking of Dear Leader.

canopfor on January 16, 2013 at 9:22 AM

Comrade, your staunch observance of filial piety and adherence to the Principles of Chuche are duly noted. You shall be rewarded with a gift of 500 grams more millet in your ration this week.

coldwarrior on January 16, 2013 at 9:27 AM

Here’s a nice violent crimes propaganda-buster that really exposes the left’s manipulation and cherry-picking of outlier stats to attack the second amendment.

Harbingeing on January 16, 2013 at 9:24 AM

Screw the Left. What the trolls did here against us after the Sandy Hook murders (that they allowed to happen) used up any last patience I had with them.

Liam on January 16, 2013 at 9:27 AM

Night Owl, your guess doesn’t work. Hamas or Hezbollah don’t actually show children, they just make the claim that US drones, Israel, or whoever home in on orphanages and hospitals and kill untold numbers of their children. That is a tad different than this offensive use of children as props.

Happy Nomad on January 16, 2013 at 9:16 AM

I was thinking more of the fact that they use children as human shields to fire their rockets from schools, etc.

Night Owl:I was thinking of Dear Leader..North Korea!:)

canopfor on January 16, 2013 at 9:22 AM

I guess you could pick any cowardly dictator and it would still fit!

Night Owl on January 16, 2013 at 9:27 AM

Zing!
(Kidding. Not zing at all.)

verbaluce on January 16, 2013 at 9:26 AM

And YOU are useless to the betterment of Man.

Liam on January 16, 2013 at 9:28 AM

Zing!
(Kidding. Not zing at all.)

verbaluce on January 16, 2013 at 9:26 AM

Whoa, good comeback./sarcasm

sentinelrules on January 16, 2013 at 9:28 AM

Wow, is that ad awesome. Holy crap. “Just another elitist hypocrite…” Yep, sums up Obama to a T.

changer1701 on January 16, 2013 at 9:29 AM

That is not an answer. Do you think Obama’s children have more of a right to live than mine?

Night Owl on January 16, 2013 at 9:06 AM

no, but they need more protection.

sesquipedalian on January 16, 2013 at 9:29 AM

they are more likely to be targeted than yours.

sesquipedalian on January 16, 2013 at 8:37 AM

sesquipedalian:
===============

FBI: No credible threats against Obama inauguration

http://www.usatoday.com/media/cinematic/video/1838021/fbi-no-credible-threats-against-obama-inauguration/

canopfor on January 16, 2013 at 9:30 AM

The NRA is hitting below the belt…they should know that the president’s family, esp kids, are simply off limits. This ad will backfire imho.

nonpartisan on January 16, 2013 at 9:30 AM

Since the libbies don’t seem to “get it,” I’ll spell it out in black-and-white for them:

If the presence of guns makes kids unsafe, armed guards make kids unsafe. If armed guards make kids safer, guns do not, in point-of-fact, make kids unsafe.

Get it now?

gryphon202 on January 16, 2013 at 9:31 AM

But I thought we needed gun control to protect every child. Now you’re telling us every child doesn’t deserve protection. Liberalism is so confusing.

xblade on January 16, 2013 at 9:25 AM

deary me, the question is not who’s more deserving, it’s about who’s more likely to be attacked.

sesquipedalian on January 16, 2013 at 9:31 AM

no, but they need more protection.

sesquipedalian on January 16, 2013 at 9:29 AM

Why?

My white granddaughter needs more protection from the blacks in her school than pitiable lil’ YOU can imagine.

Liam on January 16, 2013 at 9:31 AM

no, but they need more protection.

sesquipedalian on January 16, 2013 at 9:29 AM

So guns make them safer. And guns make other kids unsafe? Explain, please?

gryphon202 on January 16, 2013 at 9:32 AM

The NRA is hitting below the belt…they should know that the president’s family, esp kids, are simply off limits. This ad will backfire imho.

nonpartisan on January 16, 2013 at 9:30 AM

You must have been upset when the Left went after the Bush daughters and when Obama went after Trig Palin.

Wait, not upset…happy with glee.

sentinelrules on January 16, 2013 at 9:33 AM

they should know that the president’s family, esp kids, are simply off limits. This ad will backfire imho.

nonpartisan on January 16, 2013 at 9:30 AM

Umm yeah a$$wipe. Tell that to Sarah Palin’s kids. I wonder how much she has to pay out of her own pocket now to protect her family from scum like you.

Harbingeing on January 16, 2013 at 9:33 AM

deary me, the question is not who’s more deserving, it’s about who’s more likely to be attacked.

sesquipedalian on January 16, 2013 at 9:31 AM

My white granddaughter is more likely to be assaulted in her mostly-black school.

Don;t you dare, liberal, make claims you can’t sustain.

Liam on January 16, 2013 at 9:33 AM

Tell that to the parents at Sandy Hook.
What a truly loathsome world it would be if you and yours ever gained total power…

CaptFlood on January 16, 2013 at 9:15 AM

climb off those kids’ graves and try to understand that the president’s daughters, like the president himself, need more protection than you and i do.

sesquipedalian on January 16, 2013 at 9:33 AM

deary me, the question is not who’s more deserving, it’s about who’s more likely to be attacked.

sesquipedalian on January 16, 2013 at 9:31 AM

I don’t think that’s even the question. Why do guns on armed guards make them safer, while guns in the hands of law-abiding second amendment-loving citizens in flyover country make them less safe?

gryphon202 on January 16, 2013 at 9:33 AM

My white granddaughter is more likely to be assaulted in her mostly-black school.

Don;t you dare, liberal, make claims you can’t sustain.

Liam on January 16, 2013 at 9:33 AM

can we keep race, and your views on it, out of this conversation? many thanks, liam.

sesquipedalian on January 16, 2013 at 9:34 AM

no, but they need more protection.

sesquipedalian on January 16, 2013 at 9:29 AM

Again, admitting that guns deter crime.
We have the same right.
Period

Jabberwock on January 16, 2013 at 9:35 AM

The NRA is hitting below the belt…they should know that the president’s family, esp kids, are simply off limits. This ad will backfire imho.

nonpartisan on January 16, 2013 at 9:30 AM

LOL! There is no below the belt anymore, a$$hole.

Night Owl on January 16, 2013 at 9:36 AM

But why would you deny a child in DC public schools even one armed guard. Don’t they deserve a learning environment that is safe just like the mini-moochers of Sidwell Friends?

Happy Nomad on January 16, 2013 at 9:04 AM

Because they don’t have the authority to write welfare checks, that’s why they’re expendable.

The NRA is hitting below the belt…they should know that the president’s family, esp kids, are simply off limits. This ad will backfire imho.

nonpartisan on January 16, 2013 at 9:30 AM

Gee, you mean just like Obama who plans to announce his gun control plans while surrounded by children?

Seems pretty “below the belt” to me. I forgot, the left can do anything it wants.

If it backfires, fine. It will backfire against Obama too.

Kingfisher on January 16, 2013 at 9:36 AM

it’s about who’s more likely to be attacked.

sesquipedalian on January 16, 2013 at 9:31 AM

Let’s narrow it down a bit.

In the past 100 years, how many children of sitting US Presidents have been attacked by gunmen?

In the past 100 years how many kids of normal rank and file working class stiffs have been attacked by gunmen?

Which group is more likely to be targets?

Which group is less likely?

coldwarrior on January 16, 2013 at 9:36 AM

Why should the rich and powerful be the only families with armed security guards for their children?

Heh…I’ve already witnessed this argument being used (a couple of weeks ago) in a discussion between a gun-rights advocate and a few pro gun-control liberals. As far as the liberals in the group were concerned…armed security in schools was just a ridiculous notion… until they were confronted with this line of thinking. The silence that followed was unbelievable.

lynncgb on January 16, 2013 at 9:36 AM

climb off those kids’ graves and try to understand that the president’s daughters, like the president himself, need more protection than you and i do.

sesquipedalian on January 16, 2013 at 9:33 AM

You liberals are one making a soapbox of those 20 caskets. You trolls were using them against us even before their bodies were taken from the school, you liberal vermin.

So do yourself a favor and don’t dare trying to lecture us.

Liam on January 16, 2013 at 9:36 AM

Whoa, good comeback./sarcasm

sentinelrules on January 16, 2013 at 9:28 AM

Just playing at your level.

verbaluce on January 16, 2013 at 9:37 AM

The NRA is hitting below the belt…they should know that the president’s family, esp kids, are simply off limits. This ad will backfire imho.

nonpartisan on January 16, 2013 at 9:30 AM

It’s interesting how attacking Palin’s family is never “below the belt.

Kingfisher on January 16, 2013 at 9:37 AM

Hello? Libbies? Care to tell me why guns at Sidwell Friends make them safer while guns everywhere else make us unsafe?

*crickets*

gryphon202 on January 16, 2013 at 9:38 AM

climb off those kids’ graves and try to understand that the president’s daughters, like the president himself, need more protection than you and i do.

sesquipedalian on January 16, 2013 at 9:33 AM

In your opinion. In my opinion, I could do without him or his daughters before I could do without mine. She is irreplaceable, but two bit grifters are a dime a dozen.

Night Owl on January 16, 2013 at 9:38 AM

So do yourself a favor and don’t dare trying to lecture us.

Liam on January 16, 2013 at 9:36 AM

Are you channeling your inner Piers?

nonpartisan on January 16, 2013 at 9:39 AM

climb off those kids’ graves and try to understand that the president’s daughters, like the president himself, need more protection than you and i do.

sesquipedalian on January 16, 2013 at 9:33 AM

You’ve been standing there since day one. They are not yours to stand on.

We are entitled to to the protection we feel we need.
Not for you to define.

Jabberwock on January 16, 2013 at 9:39 AM

gryphon202 on January 16, 2013 at 9:38 AM

Since no gun control advocates seem willing or able to answer that question, I’ll answer it for them:

It’s not about safety. And it never was.

gryphon202 on January 16, 2013 at 9:39 AM

Why do guns on armed guards make them safer, while guns in the hands of law-abiding second amendment-loving citizens in flyover country make them less safe?

gryphon202 on January 16, 2013 at 9:33 AM

the safest would be if every child in America were surrounded by an infantry division and surveilled by a dozen drones. we’re not doing that because, come on.

the idea is that we want to children safe without fortifying schools. an arms race with madmen is not the right way to go.

sesquipedalian on January 16, 2013 at 9:40 AM

Just playing at your level.

verbaluce on January 16, 2013 at 9:37 AM

That would require you having more than three combined brain cells.

sentinelrules on January 16, 2013 at 9:40 AM

climb off those kids’ graves and try to understand that the president’s daughters, like the president himself, need more protection than you and i do.

sesquipedalian on January 16, 2013 at 9:33 AM

Why? Because they’re “black” and can’t stop evil white folks? Are they divinely royal? Because they hold some big secret about Area 51?

Nutstuyu on January 16, 2013 at 9:40 AM

Hello? Libbies? Care to tell me why guns at Sidwell Friends make them safer while guns everywhere else make us unsafe?

*crickets*

gryphon202 on January 16, 2013 at 9:38 AM

because the president’s kids are protected by trained PROFESSIONALS…not amateurs.

nonpartisan on January 16, 2013 at 9:40 AM

can we keep race, and your views on it, out of this conversation? many thanks, liam.

sesquipedalian on January 16, 2013 at 9:34 AM

No, you liberal vermin. You see race, and I see truth by experience. My white granddaughter is like to be assaulted by the blacks in her school because she is white. It’s happened many times before, you scum-sucking liberal.

Get a clue about reality for once, you putrid heartless vermin.

There is NOTHING a liberal, especially YOU, can tell me.

Liam on January 16, 2013 at 9:40 AM

climb off those kids’ graves and try to understand that the president’s daughters, like the president himself, need more protection than you and i do.

sesquipedalian on January 16, 2013 at 9:33 AM

This is what you liberals don’t get. The President IS NOT more important than anybody. He IS JUST A MAN. He and his family are NO MORE important than I am. His children, and the children of every President before him, are NO MORE important than my children. I don’t care if they MIGHT be more likely to be attack, which of course they aren’t. Only the most hardcore and dedicated criminal would go after a President, or Mayo or Governor’s children. Children of the average citizen are far more likely to be attacked than the spoiled children of our “leaders”.

Flange on January 16, 2013 at 9:40 AM

Sounds good. The NRA might use the left’s demand for background checks against them.

Why? We have a president we gave control of the entire nation and no one with credibility checked the man’s background to see if he could be trusted with the entire nation and its military.

Mental illness you say?

It was the Soviet Union that perfected mental illness to deter any legitimate opposition. Why would we expect any Godless Marxist to not use faux “mental health” as the perfect weapon to further destroy freedom–especially since the code of morality is “any means (evil or not) to an end, and they are already using Doctors to aid in their knowledge of who has guns?
None of the left has told your what that end really is. They use and pervert fair sounding concepts to do their evil.

They need no further weaknesses to achieve their goal—let’s not rush to assist them.

Don L on January 16, 2013 at 9:40 AM

We are entitled to to the protection we feel we need.
Not for you to define.

Jabberwock on January 16, 2013 at 9:39 AM

i’m not comfortable to rely on your “feelings”.

sesquipedalian on January 16, 2013 at 9:41 AM

The NRA is hitting below the belt…they should know that the president’s family, esp kids, are simply off limits. This ad will backfire imho.

nonpartisan on January 16, 2013 at 9:30 AM

.
LOL! There is no below the belt anymore, a$$hole.

Night Owl on January 16, 2013 at 9:36 AM

.
You liberal progressives have pushed us to the brink of civil war.

Night Owl is right.

listens2glenn on January 16, 2013 at 9:41 AM

The NRA is hitting below the belt…they should know that the president’s family, esp kids, are simply off limits. This ad will backfire imho.

nonpartisan on January 16, 2013 at 9:30 AM

Really? Ask a parent if they think that they should be able to defend and protect their children…just as the President does his.

Resist We Much on January 16, 2013 at 9:41 AM

because the president’s kids are protected by trained PROFESSIONALS…not amateurs.

nonpartisan on January 16, 2013 at 9:40 AM

So? The second amendment reads “…the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” I don’t see anything about “professionals” in there. What you’re arguing for is that civilians should be able to get the same type of firearms training that those professionals have, not that “amateurs” shouldn’t have guns. Try again.

gryphon202 on January 16, 2013 at 9:42 AM

i’m not comfortable to rely on your “feelings”.

sesquipedalian on January 16, 2013 at 9:41 AM

Fortunately, your comfort level is I-R-R-E-L-E-V-A-N-T.

Resist We Much on January 16, 2013 at 9:42 AM

All the losers in here say that. Will saying it after 2014 when the GOP gets shellacked, cause they are on the losing side of every argument. Go masterbate to rush and levin for awhile. Total winners.

rubberneck on January 16, 2013 at 9:14 AM

Just understand this: You are on the wrong side of our Constitution, the wrong side of the American ideal, and the wrong side of history.

You may be riding high at the moment, but then again, so were the Vichy French during Hitler’s initial reign.

How’d that work out for them?

CaptFlood on January 16, 2013 at 9:42 AM

because the president’s kids are protected by trained PROFESSIONALS…not amateurs.

nonpartisan on January 16, 2013 at 9:40 AM

I’m trained in firearms. Am I an ‘amateur’ if I reserve and demand the right to protect myself and those I love?

Liam on January 16, 2013 at 9:42 AM

sesquipedalian on January 16, 2013 at 9:40 AM

So…unilateral disarmament is the answer?

And, hyperbole…an infantry division…do we even have those anymore? Thought we’d transited over to Combat Brigades a long time ago.

coldwarrior on January 16, 2013 at 9:43 AM

i’m not comfortable to rely on your “feelings”.

sesquipedalian on January 16, 2013 at 9:41 AM

But here you are crying and bitching about how you “feel” unsafe even though murder is way down in America. You are a liar.

Flange on January 16, 2013 at 9:43 AM

because the president’s kids are protected by trained PROFESSIONALS…not amateurs.

nonpartisan on January 16, 2013 at 9:40 AM

You really are stupid. Then, according to your logic, I want PROFESSIONALS protecting my kid too.

Night Owl on January 16, 2013 at 9:43 AM

gryphon202 on January 16, 2013 at 9:38 AM

.
because the president’s kids are protected by trained PROFESSIONALS…not amateurs.

nonpartisan on January 16, 2013 at 9:40 AM

.
Elitist thinking. That disqualifies you as “American”.

listens2glenn on January 16, 2013 at 9:43 AM

canopfor on January 16, 2013 at 9:22 AM

I guess you could pick any cowardly dictator and it would still fit!

Night Owl on January 16, 2013 at 9:27 AM

Night Owl:Oh man,correct you are:)

canopfor on January 16, 2013 at 9:43 AM

i’m not comfortable to rely on your “feelings”.

sesquipedalian on January 16, 2013 at 9:41 AM

No, but we gun rights advocates have to rely on yours, despite the fact that more restrictions on guns ALWAYS means more violent crime rather than less. But that’s okay, because at least you liberals feel better./

gryphon202 on January 16, 2013 at 9:43 AM

it’s not okay. hence gun control.

the president’s daughters are protected by not a hapless moron with a pistol, who couldn’t stop the crazies anyway, but at least a dozen highly-trained professionals. you can’t do that in every school even if it were desirable.

sesquipedalian on January 16, 2013 at 8:54 AM

this school has had armed security for a long time, and has nothing to do with the present SS complement.

dmacleo on January 16, 2013 at 9:45 AM

Why? Because they’re “black” and can’t stop evil white folks? Are they divinely royal? Because they hold some big secret about Area 51?

Nutstuyu on January 16, 2013 at 9:40 AM

because he’s the president of the US…?

so much racial resentment dripping through the comment section today.

sesquipedalian on January 16, 2013 at 9:46 AM

because the president’s kids are protected by trained PROFESSIONALS…not amateurs.

nonpartisan on January 16, 2013 at 9:40 AM

.
Elitist thinking. That disqualifies you as “American”.

listens2glenn on January 16, 2013 at 9:43 AM

I see where this is going. The liberals will shoot back:

You can have professional armed guards too, if you can pay for them.

And that’s where I point out that Obama isn’t paying for his armed detail. Or his daughters’. I am, along with every taxpayer in the nation. Elitist, indeed.

gryphon202 on January 16, 2013 at 9:46 AM

i’m not comfortable to rely on your “feelings”.

sesquipedalian on January 16, 2013 at 9:41 AM

Yet YOU demand we be comfortable with yours.

Scratch YOU, little liblet.

If I was in a combat situation with you in my foxhole, YOU would be the one I shot first.

Liam on January 16, 2013 at 9:46 AM

I’m trained in firearms.

Liam on January 16, 2013 at 9:42 AM

coming from you, that’s not at all reassuring.

sesquipedalian on January 16, 2013 at 9:47 AM

The NRA is hitting below the belt…they should know that the president’s family, esp kids, are simply off limits. This ad will backfire imho.

nonpartisan on January 16, 2013 at 9:30 AM

Is this sarcasm? The ad didn’t attack his kids, it just pointed out that his are protected with armed security, yet he doesn’t think everyone else’s ought to be. Get a grip. These are the same folks that accused Romney of giving a woman cancer.

changer1701 on January 16, 2013 at 9:47 AM

because he’s the president of the US…?

so much racial resentment dripping through the comment section today.

sesquipedalian on January 16, 2013 at 9:46 AM

Molon labe, libby. When the violation of the constitution gets this egregious, I don’t care if the occupant of the White House has green skin.

gryphon202 on January 16, 2013 at 9:47 AM

A lame ad…the NRA could do better. The typical “deep voice of fear”, the “hypocrite” old line, “scary images” of “elitists”…just lazy and lame.

right2bright on January 16, 2013 at 9:48 AM

you guys are not entitled to the same level of protection as the friggin President of the free world. You (including me) are simply nto as important as a the President. Deal with it.

nonpartisan on January 16, 2013 at 9:48 AM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4 7