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 5 7

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.

Flange on January 16, 2013 at 9:40 AM

he’s clearly way more important than you are.

sesquipedalian on January 16, 2013 at 9:48 AM

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

sesquipedalian on January 16, 2013 at 9:47 AM

Well, I never shot myself in the foot the way you keep doing, little toad.

Liam on January 16, 2013 at 9:49 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? Show me how pointing out that the mini-moochers school has armed security is exploiting the Obama brats. The WaPo pointed that out weeks ago, were they hitting below the belt? If so should you all on the left been offended with that? You are a typical liberal who, frankly, has no value to society because you can’t even be honest in your outrage.

Happy Nomad on January 16, 2013 at 9:49 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

The second amendment, along with the Federalist Papers, says otherwise. So go hang a “I have no guns here” sign on your lawn and quit trying to infringe our rights.

gryphon202 on January 16, 2013 at 9:50 AM

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

nonpartisan on January 16, 2013 at 9:40 AM

Ah…professionals. Would those be the same professionals who contracted with Colombian hookers while on duty and then lied about it to investigators?

Or would it be like the D.C. cop who recently killed his wife and left their baby to die in a hot car?

Bishop on January 16, 2013 at 9:50 AM

***** Alert *****

Hopey is also surrounding himself with the parents,er
relatives!!!

Relatives of Newtown school attack victims to attend White House gun announcement, spokesman says – @hartfordcourant

3 mins ago from courantblogs.com by editor
==============================================

http://courantblogs.com/capitol-watch/newtown-families-to-appear-at-obama-gun-announcement/

canopfor on January 16, 2013 at 9:50 AM

because he’s the president of the US…?

Last I checked, the US is not a class-based society. But, I would naturally expect special treatment from a racist lib like you.

Kingfisher on January 16, 2013 at 9:50 AM

Bishop on January 16, 2013 at 9:50 AM

Actually, armed guards have been at Sidwell Friends Academy for quite some time now. They’re employees of the school, regardless of whether a president’s children are there or not. All sorts of politicians’ and journalists’ children go there as well.

gryphon202 on January 16, 2013 at 9:51 AM

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

rubberneck on January 16, 2013 at 9:14 AM

I actually prefer S.E. Cupp, thank you.

Nutstuyu on January 16, 2013 at 9:51 AM

You (including me) are simply nto as important as a the President. Deal with it.

nonpartisan on January 16, 2013 at 9:48 AM

Then prove your point by erecting a sign saying that your residence is a gun free zone for all to see.

Hey, if the president is more important than you then put your money where your mouth is.

Kingfisher on January 16, 2013 at 9:52 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

All men are created equal, little liblet.

My granddaughters and my children are far more important than the half-black in the White House. I would protect, even at cost of my own life, my granddaughters before I would shield your precious Obama.

So don’t talk to me about ‘importance’ you liberal trash.

Liam on January 16, 2013 at 9:52 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

Tell that to Obama today when he’s standing among a group of children spewing his gun control plans. Who is using kids unethically?

Oh wait..ethically…my bad…the Left has no ethic other than “the end justifies the means” and will stoop to newer lows each and every time.

Firearms offer protection to those that possess them. Not 100% of the time. Liberals know that. They just don’t want the citizens to be armed.

A government that fears an armed citizenry is a government that is no longer by, of, or for the people and should perish from this earth.

ProfShadow on January 16, 2013 at 9:52 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

Isn’t Obama claiming that children are targets of gun violence?

If so, then why does he oppose armed guards in school?

There must be some level of child murder that he is comfortable with then.

BTW, Americans are entitled to the same level of protection or more if they can pay for it. If a school district wants to put an armed police officer in every classroom, it can…if it pays for it.

Resist We Much on January 16, 2013 at 9:52 AM

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

sesquipedalian on January 16, 2013 at 9:47 AM

Why should anyone care whether you are reassured?

Night Owl on January 16, 2013 at 9:53 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

I missed that in the title, president of the free world?

But even so, if I don’t rate my own SS detail can I at least be allowed to have a guns and ammo to try and protect me and mine since “trained professionals” aren’t watching over me 24/7?

Bishop on January 16, 2013 at 9:53 AM

The fact is, and I am no Obama supporter, but every president needs extra security for them and their family.

Like him or not, if something befalls his family it’s a national disaster…and he is a target.

To kidnap a presidents child and hold them hostage is the worst nightmare one could imagine…be realistic, the presidential office is a special office the demands unique support. Just ask Cheney where he was on 9/11, think he was in his office or a special bunker?

Each of Bush’s children were guarded, day and night…as was Clintons, and every other presidents children. Sorry, but the family of the president of the U.S., no matter who or how inept they are, is not like a normal average family…and the NRA knows that but are relying on the naivete of it’s members.

And by the looks of the comments, indeed they are naive and easily swayed.

right2bright on January 16, 2013 at 9:53 AM

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

This would just allow Obama to give a mighty Brandenburg Gate type of magnanimous speech (complete with foam pillars) announcing personal armed protection for all in the form of millions of armed guards that he personally will select to roam all neighborhood.
And they will even have nice shiny jackboots and my rainbow emblem on their weapons….
So turn in your guns people-your freedom is in good hands.

Don L on January 16, 2013 at 9:53 AM

he’s clearly way more important than you are.

sesquipedalian on January 16, 2013 at 9:48 AM

Care to put that to a vote?

This is the complete list provided by Connecticut State Police of who was killed in the Newtown School Shooting, along with their gender and date of birth. Why don’t you point out the ones that are less important than the rat-eared wonder, his grifter wife, or the mini-moochers. Be sure and explain why they don’t deserve to be safe an the Obama brats do.

Charlotte Bacon, F, 02/22/06
Daniel Barden, M, 09/25/05
Rachel Davino, F, 07/17/83
Olivia Engel, F, 07/18/06
Josephine Gay, F, 12/11/05
Ana M. Marquez-Greene, F, 04/04/06
Dylan Hockley, M, 03/08/06
Dawn Hocksprung, F, 06/28/65
Madeleine F. Hsu, F, 07/10/06
Catherine V. Hubbard, F, 06/08/06
Chase Kowalski, M, 10/31/05
Jesse Lewis, M, 06/30/05
James Mattioli, M, 03/22/06
Grace McDonnell, F, 11/04/05
Anne Marie Murphy, F, 07/25/60
Emilie Parker, F, 05/12/06
Jack Pinto, M, 05/06/06
Noah Pozner, M, 11/20/06
Caroline Previdi, F, 09/07/06
Jessica Rekos, F, 05/10/06
Avielle Richman, F, 10/17/06
Lauren Russeau, F, 06/82 (exact date left off list)
Mary Sherlach, F, 02/11/56
Victoria Soto, F, 11/04/85
Benjamin Wheeler, M, 09/12/06
Allison N. Wyatt, F, 07/03/06

Happy Nomad on January 16, 2013 at 9:53 AM

There must be some level of child murder that [Obama] is comfortable with then.

Resist We Much on January 16, 2013 at 9:52 AM

Given Obama’s level of comfort with abortion infanticide, I’d say that level is rather self-evident, don’t you think?

gryphon202 on January 16, 2013 at 9:54 AM

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

jared monti would disagree.

sesquipedalian on January 16, 2013 at 9:54 AM

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

.
You’re not going to be “reassured” (satisfied), until non-elites are disarmed.
We’re never going to be satisfied, until we know the Second Amendment is INTACT as we interpret it !

Where does that leave us?

listens2glenn on January 16, 2013 at 9:54 AM

Where does that leave us?

listens2glenn on January 16, 2013 at 9:54 AM

Molon Labe.

gryphon202 on January 16, 2013 at 9:54 AM

If so, then why does he oppose armed guards in school?

because its not financially feasible considering our economic situation

nonpartisan on January 16, 2013 at 9:54 AM

Why should anyone care whether you are reassured?

Night Owl on January 16, 2013 at 9:53 AM

i thought your whole argument was that you need the reassurance of gun ownership, but nevermind!

sesquipedalian on January 16, 2013 at 9:55 AM

because its not financially feasible considering our economic situation

nonpartisan on January 16, 2013 at 9:54 AM

That’s for states and cities to decide, libby. Not the federales.

gryphon202 on January 16, 2013 at 9:55 AM

nonpartisan on January 16, 2013 at 9:48 AM

Your self-loathing is probably the root of your liberalism. If you ever grow a pair you’d realize you were born the equal of anyone who was/is/will be President. But until then you will view “your betters” in awe. Pathetic.

Flange on January 16, 2013 at 9:55 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

Yes we are.

he’s clearly way more important than you are.

sesquipedalian on January 16, 2013 at 9:48 AM

No he’s not.

Night Owl on January 16, 2013 at 9:55 AM

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

sesquipedalian on January 16, 2013 at 9:41 AM

Thankfully, our country’s forefathers took this into consideration, which is why we have a Bill of Rights, and not a bill of ‘Things that illogical Liberal Squishes are Comfortable with…’

CaptFlood on January 16, 2013 at 9:55 AM

You’re not going to be “reassured” (satisfied), until non-elites are disarmed.
We’re never going to be satisfied, until we know the Second Amendment is INTACT as we interpret it !

Where does that leave us?

listens2glenn on January 16, 2013 at 9:54 AM

you’re not going to be reassured until every school becomes an armed fortress, and every argument will be won by an AR15.

now where does that leave us?

sesquipedalian on January 16, 2013 at 9:56 AM

i thought your whole argument was that you need the reassurance of gun ownership, but nevermind!

sesquipedalian on January 16, 2013 at 9:55 AM

I think the argument is that we don’t care what you think; just as surely as 2+2=4, and will never equal 5 or 3, the second amendment protects my right to bear arms, and that is not an assertion open to debate or interpretation. It’s just a settled question.

gryphon202 on January 16, 2013 at 9:56 AM

No he’s not.

Night Owl on January 16, 2013 at 9:55 AM

your judgment is clouded by hatred. one day you’ll understand.

sesquipedalian on January 16, 2013 at 9:57 AM

Actually, armed guards have been at Sidwell Friends Academy for quite some time now. They’re employees of the school, regardless of whether a president’s children are there or not. All sorts of politicians’ and journalists’ children go there as well.

gryphon202 on January 16, 2013 at 9:51 AM

That’s the point the libs are conveniently glossing over, that self-righteous gun banners were sending their kids to protected schools long before Barky made the scene.

They’re against school choice and schools having armed security, yet they send their kids to protected charter schools.

Marie Antoinette had a quote which would fit nicely here.

Bishop on January 16, 2013 at 9:57 AM

because its not financially feasible considering our economic situation

nonpartisan on January 16, 2013 at 9:54 AM

But YOU said the other day that saving one child’s life is so important YOU would steal my right to be armed to protect my granddaughters. Now, you want to talk about mere money to defend yourself?

Liam on January 16, 2013 at 9:57 AM

But even so, if I don’t rate my own SS detail can I at least be allowed to have a guns and ammo to try and protect me and mine since “trained professionals” aren’t watching over me 24/7?

Bishop on January 16, 2013 at 9:53 AM

And that’s the rub, of course it should be “hands off our guns”, but to think that the average american is realistically as important as the president, even this one, is foolish.

If you were shot at, ho, hum, front page news in your home town…but if the president was shot at, you don’t think that impact is a little more important to the nation, the world? Or have you forgotten, Kennedy or Reagan?

Fortunately the only thing Carter had to worry about was a crazed rabbit who attacked him in a boat…

right2bright on January 16, 2013 at 9:58 AM

You (including me) are simply nto as important as a the President. Deal with it.

nonpartisan on January 16, 2013 at 9:48 AM

he’s clearly way more important than you are.

sesquipedalian on January 16, 2013 at 9:48 AM

So you’re acknowledging that President Bush was far more important than any of you. Got it, thanks for clearing that up.

I don’t see the president that way but you’re free to worship whatever god you choose.

That would mean if Bush is a dunce then I would think that either of you will soon be a recipient of a Darwin award.

Kingfisher on January 16, 2013 at 9:58 AM

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

sesquipedalian on January 16, 2013 at 9:41 AM

Your comfort level with my feelings is a moot point.

Jabberwock on January 16, 2013 at 9:58 AM

They’re against school choice and schools having armed security, yet they send their kids to protected charter schools.

Marie Antoinette had a quote which would fit nicely here.

Bishop on January 16, 2013 at 9:57 AM

Oh man, Sidwell Friends isn’t a charter school, Bish. It is a full-on private academy. Even politicians sometimes end up waiting YEARS to get their children in. It has a reputation as being one of the best performing (and probably the hands-down most expensive) schools in the entire nation, but it is also steeped in Christian tradition. The “Friends” in Sidwell Friends Academy refers to the “Society of Friends,” which you and I know more colloquially as “Quakers.”

gryphon202 on January 16, 2013 at 9:59 AM

because its not financially feasible considering our economic situation

nonpartisan on January 16, 2013 at 9:54 AM

So the “if it saves one child’s life…” argument is pointless. OK.

Kingfisher on January 16, 2013 at 9:59 AM

you’re not going to be reassured until every school becomes an armed fortress, and every argument will be won by an AR15.

now where does that leave us?

sesquipedalian on January 16, 2013 at 9:56 AM

A safer society, one where you liberals don’t leave children at the mercy of liberals and other psychos.

Liam on January 16, 2013 at 9:59 AM

BTW, Americans are entitled to the same level of protection or more if they can pay for it. If a school district wants to put an armed police officer in every classroom, it can…if it pays for it.

Resist We Much on January 16, 2013 at 9:52 AM

The cops in my area are rarely out and about doing traffic enforcement, yet we a municipal department, community college department, sheriff’s police, secretary of state police, and highway patrol. Surely, one of those overlapping departments could spare a few officers for schools.

Nutstuyu on January 16, 2013 at 10:00 AM

Tell that to Obama today when he’s standing among a group of children spewing his gun control plans. Who is using kids unethically?

Just Photoshop the pic and substitute fetuses for the kids and that crap will cease quickly.

Don L on January 16, 2013 at 10:00 AM

So you’re acknowledging that President Bush was far more important than any of you. Got it, thanks for clearing that up.

Of course President Bush was far more important than me. To think otherwise is silly.

nonpartisan on January 16, 2013 at 10:01 AM

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

sentinelrules on January 16, 2013 at 9:40 AM

Would need some evidence of that.
But good for you to have a goal.

(Will give you last word in the ‘I can insult you!’ game.
Not really my cup of tea.)

verbaluce on January 16, 2013 at 10:01 AM

rubberneck on January 16, 2013 at 9:14 AM

Sir, Madam, It, whatever,
I am trully offended by your language. Why can’t you people? ever defend without bringing sex into everything? Maybe because you have none?? go wash your pea-brain out with soap and please refrain from using nasties in the future. You already come off as a total loser, why make yourself even smaller.
Thank you

clinker46 on January 16, 2013 at 10:01 AM

because its not financially feasible considering our economic situation

nonpartisan on January 16, 2013 at 9:54 AM

ROFL

Senator Reid lamented that budget cuts might cost us cowboy poets, but when it comes to protecting children from marauders we need to concentrate on the budget?

ROFL again.

Bishop on January 16, 2013 at 10:01 AM

you’re not going to be reassured until every school becomes an armed fortress, and every argument will be won by an AR15.

now where does that leave us?

sesquipedalian on January 16, 2013 at 9:56 AM

An armed society is a polite society.

Reminds me of the story of the granny that got stopped on the highway, and handed her CC permit to the cop. Told the cop she had four different guns throughout her car, and the cop asks, “What are you afraid of?”

Granny says, “Are you kidding me? Not a damn thing.”

gryphon202 on January 16, 2013 at 10:02 AM

And by the looks of the comments, indeed they are naive and easily swayed.

right2bright on January 16, 2013 at 9:53 AM

It does not matter anymore what is true or honest. What matters is what a stink you can make of something in order to show your opponent in the most hideous light possible. It’s not naive, it’s Alinsky.

Night Owl on January 16, 2013 at 10:02 AM

Each of Bush’s children were guarded, day and night…as was Clintons, and every other presidents children. Sorry, but the family of the president of the U.S., no matter who or how inept they are, is not like a normal average family…and the NRA knows that but are relying on the naivete of it’s members.

right2bright on January 16, 2013 at 9:53 AM

A couple points R2B:

First, did you actually listen to the ad? Not once was the NRA questioning Secret Service protection of the First Family. They were pointing out the fact that Sidwell Friends, the mini-moochers school, has armed security. DC public schools whose demographics are much less affluent do not. Instead of calling NRA members a bunch of naive gun huggers, perhaps you should learn a few things about the truth yourself before you go off half-cocked (pun intended).

Secondly, there is a big difference between public officials and their families. I have no problem with the mini-moochers getting Secret Service protection. I do have a problem with the American taxpayer spending millions to let one of the brats go on a school trip to Mexico. This was not an official visit. Why should the taxpayer have to pay for the brat’s trip? Her family should have said it wouldn’t be possible becuase of the cost to the public or they should have paid for it themselves. It is absurd that we have to foot the bill just because a brat wants to go on a school trip.

Happy Nomad on January 16, 2013 at 10:03 AM

listens2glenn on January 16, 2013 at 9:54 AM

.
you’re not going to be reassured until every school becomes an armed fortress, and every argument will be won by an AR15.

now where does that leave us?

sesquipedalian on January 16, 2013 at 9:56 AM

.
You waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay “over-compensated”.

Firearms don’t win arguments. They win wars.

I’m for the abolition of public schools.

I’m also for the abolition of “elitism”.

listens2glenn on January 16, 2013 at 10:03 AM

Happy Nomad on January 16, 2013 at 9:53 AM

The oldest liberal trick in the book…every child is so valuable, so important that every gun should be banned…or as you would put it.

What is worth more, you gun, or the life of one of those children…see how foolish your challenge is?

What is worth more, the life of one child or a small increase in taxes for health care…what you don’t care about children?

What’s more important, the life of a child or…..pull at the heart strings.

Pal, if you and others don’t understand that the president and his family (even this one) is of utmost national security, than you so naive and ill informed that you should not be allowed to own something as important as a firearm.

right2bright on January 16, 2013 at 10:03 AM

Of course President Bush was far more important than me. To think otherwise is silly.

nonpartisan on January 16, 2013 at 10:01 AM

That’s no admission, liblet. A Paramecium is more important than YOU.

Liam on January 16, 2013 at 10:04 AM

gryphon202 on January 16, 2013 at 9:59 AM

You know what I mean, it isn’t part of the public school system which the left constantly reminds us is just fine.

Gregory wouldn’t allow his kids to so much as take a tour of an inner-city Chicago school, much less actually attend.

Bishop on January 16, 2013 at 10:04 AM

because its not financially feasible considering our economic situation

nonpartisan on January 16, 2013 at 9:54 AM

Now, shouldn’t that be a local decision? Why, yes, it should!

That’s the problem that you and the rest of My Progressive Little Ponyland have. You want the Federal government to do everything, which only results in it doing too much, too poorly.

I bet that you thought Obamacare was “financially feasible considering our economic situation.”

**eyef^ckingroll**

PS: As someone, who is intimately familiar with the NHS, the one great thing about Obamacare and where it will eventually lead is that idiots like you will be rationed out of existence.

Resist We Much on January 16, 2013 at 10:05 AM

I think the argument is that we don’t care what you think; just as surely as 2+2=4, and will never equal 5 or 3, the second amendment protects my right to bear arms, and that is not an assertion open to debate or interpretation. It’s just a settled question.

gryphon202 on January 16, 2013 at 9:56 AM

if a law is not open to debate, we’re in big doo-doo as a country.

sesquipedalian on January 16, 2013 at 10:05 AM

Of course President Bush was far more important than me. To think otherwise is silly.

nonpartisan on January 16, 2013 at 10:01 AM

Well, you’re free to act like a complete a$$hole while I protect my family wisely.

I know you think politicians are a class above us which is the reason why your dumb as $hit.

Kingfisher on January 16, 2013 at 10:05 AM

An armed society is a polite society.

gryphon202 on January 16, 2013 at 10:02 AM

Yeah, where everyone is polite to everyone else because they’re afraid of whoever they’re in sight of suddenly pulling out a Colt or Ruger because they’re having a bad day or didn’t take their medication.

Safe from criminals? Sure.
“Polite”? Like heck.

Guns are tools to kill and intimidate, not to act as a substitute for broken parts of society. You’re going to need to repair the traditional family – and maybe bring back corporal punishment for adults while you’re at it.

MelonCollie on January 16, 2013 at 10:05 AM

It has a reputation as being one of the best performing (and probably the hands-down most expensive) schools in the entire nation, but it is also steeped in Christian tradition. The “Friends” in Sidwell Friends Academy refers to the “Society of Friends,” which you and I know more colloquially as “Quakers.”

gryphon202 on January 16, 2013 at 9:59 AM

It has a good reputation, isn’t the most expensive of day schools even in DC, but its draw for lefties like the Obamas, Clintons, and Gores is that it has a long reputation of being more inclusive than other elite private schools in the area including the National Cathedral schools which are nearby the mini-moochers’ campus.

Happy Nomad on January 16, 2013 at 10:06 AM

Speaking of THE CHILDREN!

Joe Manchin: Media will ‘put up pictures of dead children’ to sway gun-control votes
Jan 16 -9:23AM
**************

http://dailycaller.com/2013/01/16/joe-manchin-media-will-put-up-pictures-of-dead-children-to-sway-gun-control-votes/?utm_medium=twitter&utm_source=twitterfeed

canopfor on January 16, 2013 at 10:02 AM

canopfor on January 16, 2013 at 10:06 AM

Pal, if you and others don’t understand that the president and his family (even this one) is of utmost national security, than you so naive and ill informed that you should not be allowed to own something as important as a firearm.

right2bright on January 16, 2013 at 10:03 AM

Whoa there, Butch. You’re not understanding the point the ad is trying to make! Calm down, take a few deep breaths, and come back and make a rational argument. If you’re really not comfortable with our side using alinskyite tactics on-principle, that’s fine. But don’t get swept up in indignance. There’s a lot more at stake here than armed guards in schools.

gryphon202 on January 16, 2013 at 10:06 AM

An armed society is a polite society.

it’s a mere opinion.

Reminds me of the story of the granny that got stopped on the highway, and handed her CC permit to the cop. Told the cop she had four different guns throughout her car, and the cop asks, “What are you afraid of?”

Granny says, “Are you kidding me? Not a damn thing.”

gryphon202 on January 16, 2013 at 10:02 AM

but everyone else is terrified.

sesquipedalian on January 16, 2013 at 10:06 AM

if a law is not open to debate, we’re in big doo-doo as a country.

sesquipedalian on January 16, 2013 at 10:05 AM

I guess the “shall not be infringed” part of the 2nd Amd. goes over your head. Too many syllables, perhaps?

Kingfisher on January 16, 2013 at 10:06 AM

if a law is not open to debate, we’re in big doo-doo as a country.

sesquipedalian on January 16, 2013 at 10:05 AM

We have people openly calling for the President to bypass Congress entirely, meaning laws will not be open to debate period. We ARE in big doo-doo.

MelonCollie on January 16, 2013 at 10:06 AM

you’re not going to be reassured until every school becomes an armed fortress, and every argument will be won by an AR15.

now where does that leave us?

sesquipedalian on January 16, 2013 at 9:56 AM

It leaves us in a safer country moron. Want to explain why gun violence has DROPPED dramatically since the Assault Weapon Ban was repealed?

Typical liberal spewing idiot feelings in place of facts.

Flange on January 16, 2013 at 10:07 AM

I know you think politicians are a class above us which is the reason why your dumb as $hit.

Kingfisher on January 16, 2013 at 10:05 AM

Um dood…it’s ‘you’re’, not ‘your’

nonpartisan on January 16, 2013 at 10:07 AM

I guess the “shall not be infringed” part of the 2nd Amd. goes over your head. Too many syllables, perhaps?

Kingfisher on January 16, 2013 at 10:06 AM

i don’t believe in divine laws. laws by men should always be open to debate.

sesquipedalian on January 16, 2013 at 10:07 AM

you’re not going to be reassured until every school becomes an armed fortress, and every argument will be won by an AR15.

now where does that leave us?

sesquipedalian on January 16, 2013 at 9:56 AM

Excuse me, what is an AR15? Besides the google search you will need to make, you have no idea of what an AR is…the AR designated rifles are now one of the best selling high end hunting rifles…accurate, light weight, dependable. There are dozens of variants of the AR style mechanical action.

right2bright on January 16, 2013 at 10:08 AM

. I do have a problem with the American taxpayer spending millions to let one of the brats go on a school trip to Mexico.

Happy Nomad on January 16, 2013 at 10:03 AM

“I do have a problem with the American taxpayer spending millions to let one of the brats go on a school trip send thousands of illegal guns to drug gangs to Mexico. \
Fixed it!

Don L on January 16, 2013 at 10:08 AM

rubberneck on January 16, 2013 at 9:14 AM

Howe old are you…14? Now, go back to the children’s table. The adults are having a discussion.

And, clean up your foul mouth, cretin.

kingsjester on January 16, 2013 at 10:09 AM

i don’t believe in divine laws. laws by men should always be open to debate.

sesquipedalian on January 16, 2013 at 10:07 AM

No divine laws means that anything and everything, including every last one of your rights, is “open to debate”. Or in other words, exists only at the whim of whatever elected imbeciles are in charge.

MelonCollie on January 16, 2013 at 10:09 AM

Oh, nonpartisan, we are still waiting for your explanation as to how bullet tracing will lower crime because, other than creating the Wishful Thinking Unicornikevlar Bullet Shield©, we haven’t been able to understand your brilliant idea.

Since bullets do not need to be traced until they are used in the commission of a crime and have usually entered the person of another, how will bullet tracing decrease crime?

Please do not say that ammo tracking will act as a deterrent. Criminals don’t like to die either, but the death penalty has never been a deterrent.

Resist We Much on January 16, 2013 at 10:09 AM

I think the argument is that we don’t care what you think; just as surely as 2+2=4, and will never equal 5 or 3, the second amendment protects my right to bear arms, and that is not an assertion open to debate or interpretation. It’s just a settled question.

gryphon202
on January 16, 2013 at 9:56 AM

.
if a law is not open to debate, we’re in big doo-doo as a country.

sesquipedalian
on January 16, 2013 at 10:05 AM

.
It isn’t a “debate” that is going on. The President is trying to circumvent the U.S. Constitution, by “Presidential edict”.

listens2glenn on January 16, 2013 at 10:09 AM

Pal, if you and others don’t understand that the president and his family (even this one) is of utmost national security, than you so naive and ill informed that you should not be allowed to own something as important as a firearm.

right2bright on January 16, 2013 at 10:03 AM

Thanks moron, I’m no more interested in whether you think I should own a firearm than I am in the your rat-eared idol’s views. It is a right, not something that you get to decide by your own viewpoints. God how I hate you people who don’t respect the Constitution. Go eff yourself.

And no, I would actually be happy to see harm come to the Obamas. I’m not advocating it but I’m not going to lie and say I would be sad and declare it a national tragedy. These people have done too much harm for me to ever have something other than hatred toward them or their worthless children.

Happy Nomad on January 16, 2013 at 10:10 AM

There are dozens of variants of the AR style mechanical action.

right2bright on January 16, 2013 at 10:08 AM

thanks for that info, however immaterial.

sesquipedalian on January 16, 2013 at 10:10 AM

Guns are tools to kill and intimidate, not to act as a substitute for broken parts of society. You’re going to need to repair the traditional family – and maybe bring back corporal punishment for adults while you’re at it.

MelonCollie on January 16, 2013 at 10:05 AM

Which is why I am not pushing for more widespread gun ownership. I am merely advocating for lessening the restrictions on gun ownership. If someone is going to do me violence, and by “violence” I include any form of burglary or robbery, I want them to wonder if I’m packing heat whether I am or not. The more restrictions there are on gun ownership, the more likely it will be that those with ill intent towards me will go unpunished.

And I think that crack about “polite society” came about when pistols were so commonly carried as to be used in duels on a regular basis. Sometimes I wouldn’t mind bringing those days back, but whatevs. Just follow the damn constitution and don’t infringe on my second amendment rights.

gryphon202 on January 16, 2013 at 10:10 AM

but everyone else is terrified.

sesquipedalian on January 16, 2013 at 10:06 AM

How do even leave your apartment, there are guns all around you.

Bishop on January 16, 2013 at 10:10 AM

Why should anyone care whether you are reassured?

Night Owl on January 16, 2013 at 9:53 AM

i thought your whole argument was that you need the reassurance of gun ownership, but nevermind!

sesquipedalian on January 16, 2013 at 9:55 AM

That’s where you went wrong, trying to think. What I said was that if it’s a good idea for Obama’s children to be protected at school, it’s good idea for my child. I could not care less what you think because you are a brain dead leftist who thinks trees are more important than my child. You are the party of killing children in the womb, but you seriously want us to believe you care anything about my live child. I don’t think I’ll leave her safety to someone like you, and Obama is like you.

Night Owl on January 16, 2013 at 10:10 AM

but everyone else is terrified.

sesquipedalian on January 16, 2013 at 10:06 AM

Just because YOU are a liberal coward doesn’t mean everyone else is.

I also find, in life, that the ‘terrified’ are hiding some kind of wrong in their lives they never want exposed lest they have to finally own up to it.

Liam on January 16, 2013 at 10:10 AM

Would need some evidence of that.
But good for you to have a goal.

Stop smoking crack then.

Will give you last word in the ‘I can insult you!’ game.
Not really my cup of tea.)

verbaluce on January 16, 2013 at 10:01 AM

Libtard translation: “Waah, you’re mean to me. Can’t think of anything witty, thus proving I’m a dolt. Waaah.”

sentinelrules on January 16, 2013 at 10:11 AM

Fixed it!

Don L on January 16, 2013 at 10:08 AM

Well, that too!

Happy Nomad on January 16, 2013 at 10:11 AM

Happy Nomad on January 16, 2013 at 10:10 AM

O_O

Uh…

Bishop on January 16, 2013 at 10:12 AM

if a law is not open to debate, we’re in big doo-doo as a country.

sesquipedalian on January 16, 2013 at 10:05 AM

The second amendment can be changed through the amendment process. Until you get the required number of states to vote to voluntarily give up their second amendment rights, there is nothing to debate. I have the right to carry a gun just as you have the right not to. But until you put up a sign in your front yard announcing to the world that your home is gun-free, I will continue to deride you as a mooch who enjoys the protection of those willing to carry, as most liberals are.

gryphon202 on January 16, 2013 at 10:12 AM

i don’t believe in divine laws. laws by men should always be open to debate.

sesquipedalian on January 16, 2013 at 10:07 AM

as in, “Why can’t you just take a big bite of this forbidden fruit?

or as in: “Crucify Him” “No, give us Barabass” “Crucify Him!

You mean you don’t believe in that kind of divine law?

Don L on January 16, 2013 at 10:12 AM

Guns are tools to kill and intimidate, not to act as a substitute for broken parts of society.

MelonCollie on January 16, 2013 at 10:05 AM

Yeah, tell that to Eric Holder who declared otherwise about the New Black Panther Party’s standing armed outside white voting places.

Happy Nomad on January 16, 2013 at 10:13 AM

And I think that crack about “polite society” came about when pistols were so commonly carried as to be used in duels on a regular basis. Sometimes I wouldn’t mind bringing those days back, but whatevs. Just follow the damn constitution and don’t infringe on my second amendment rights.

gryphon202 on January 16, 2013 at 10:10 AM

That wasn’t specifically what I had in mind, FYI. On the surface dueling acted as a great mechanism for idiots (especially rich idiots) to Darwinize each other, but it became a mechanism for legalized murder in the name of ‘honor’, which most of those fata$$ fops didn’t have in the first place.

I’m not trying to infringe on anything; I’m just not buying into the notion that everyone with a pulse owning a gun = a polite society.

MelonCollie on January 16, 2013 at 10:13 AM

How do even leave your apartment, there are guns all around you.

Bishop on January 16, 2013 at 10:10 AM

if a senile granny armed to the teeth doesn’t terrify you, here’s your darwin award.

sesquipedalian on January 16, 2013 at 10:13 AM

if a law is not open to debate, we’re in big doo-doo as a country.

sesquipedalian on January 16, 2013 at 10:05 AM

The Second Amendment is not a “law.” It is a constitutional amendment. There is a method set forth in the Constitution in which a debate can be had on amendments. Go read it.

Resist We Much on January 16, 2013 at 10:14 AM

I guess the “shall not be infringed” part of the 2nd Amd. goes over your head. Too many syllables, perhaps?

Kingfisher on January 16, 2013 at 10:06 AM

.
i don’t believe in divine laws. laws by men should always be open to debate.

sesquipedalian on January 16, 2013 at 10:07 AM

.
I realize that not all Hotair commenters on my side of this argument, are Christian believers.

But that right there is a flaming example of the problem with atheism.

listens2glenn on January 16, 2013 at 10:14 AM

i don’t believe in divine laws. laws by men should always be open to debate.sesquipedalian on January 16, 2013 at 10:07 AM

19 EO’s coming today. By definition, no debate.
Both houses are signaling no debate.

Try again.

Jabberwock on January 16, 2013 at 10:14 AM

Yeah, tell that to Eric Holder who declared otherwise about the New Black Panther Party’s standing armed outside white voting places.

Happy Nomad on January 16, 2013 at 10:13 AM

Oh no worries, I’d LOVE to tell that to him…by carving that phrase on a wrecking ball and swinging it.

MelonCollie on January 16, 2013 at 10:14 AM

Whoa there, Butch. You’re not understanding the point the ad is trying to make! Calm down, take a few deep breaths, and come back and make a rational argument. If you’re really not comfortable with our side using alinskyite tactics on-principle, that’s fine. But don’t get swept up in indignance. There’s a lot more at stake here than armed guards in schools.

gryphon202 on January 16, 2013 at 10:06 AM

Whoa there, Butchette…you should read the post I am responding to, and to others saying the presidents family is no different from any other family…take a few deep breaths and learn to read.

I don’t care about “alinskyite” tactics, which is just a knee jerk scary term…I think their is better more important way to defend gun rights than by trying to say we shouldn’t protect the president any more than the average citizen…most mentally balanced, educated people, understand the president office is not the same as any other office in the world, and his family is unique in the world…tough to swallow because of the rascal he is, but it’s the truth, he deserves and his family deserves the finest protection on the face of the earth. And yes, being the president of the U.S. is an elite position…there is only one in the world, and only one that is elected by the majority…we were not the majority, but the office but be retained, protected, for when we have the right person in office.

right2bright on January 16, 2013 at 10:15 AM

I said the precise same thing this NRA ad says the day the day Sandy Hook happened… although, I admit, I was far less tactful. There’s a reason I don’t work on Madison Avenue…


Let’s Advance The Discussion

Seriously, my fellow HotAirians… why do you engage statist idiots like SesquiPudpuller and RubberDick? They only advocate for citizen disarmament because they know THEY will not have to knock on my door to relieve me of my weapons. They are cowardly shills for wannabe tyrants… the same people that slammed the doors on ovens and turned the spades on mass graves in bygone days.

Forget the Constitution. Forget the Bill of Rights. I don’t need them. My right to defend my family is God-given, and I do not ask permission from petty dictators and bureaucrats to do so. If the gun had never been invented, I would own a sword or an axe or a stout oaken club.

NON-NEGOTIABLE.

I WILL NOT DISARM.

PointnClick on January 16, 2013 at 10:15 AM

I’m not trying to infringe on anything; I’m just not buying into the notion that everyone with a pulse owning a gun = a polite society.

MelonCollie on January 16, 2013 at 10:13 AM

And since I am not advocating that everyone with a pulse own a gun to begin with, you and I are on the same page in that respect.

gryphon202 on January 16, 2013 at 10:15 AM

I realize that not all Hotair commenters on my side of this argument, are Christian believers.

But that right there is a flaming example of the problem with atheism.

listens2glenn on January 16, 2013 at 10:14 AM

Even the most flaming I-hate-all-you-bigots-and-all-your-rules a$$thiest should be scared witless by that kind of sentiment.

No divine laws means no right is inviolable; anything at all is up for debate to the whims of politicians and the public at large. Neither of which, as we have seen many times over, have the wisdom of a toddler or the IQ of a houseplant.

MelonCollie on January 16, 2013 at 10:16 AM

The NRA is hitting below the belt…

nonpartisan on January 16, 2013 at 9:30 AM

Good. More.

because its not financially feasible considering our economic situation
nonpartisan on January 16, 2013 at 9:54 AM

Suddenly something isn’t “financially feasible” to a liberal? Is this like a milestone moment? And where’s the compassion? I thought the central theme of modern liberalism is that we simply print money when it’s “for the children”? Or how about auditing the Stimulus and re-routing the $200 billion or so that went to phony zip codes and public employee union slush funds? Was that “financially feasible.” Was $6 trillion in new debt “financially feasible”?

rrpjr on January 16, 2013 at 10:16 AM

How can Liberals be so ignorant concerning the Constitution?

Criminently…how can Liberals be so ignorant…period?

kingsjester on January 16, 2013 at 10:17 AM

if a senile granny armed to the teeth doesn’t terrify you, here’s your darwin award.

sesquipedalian on January 16, 2013 at 10:13 AM

Feel free to stop by a gun-owner’s house at night and earn your Darwin award, liberal scum. Hopefully he aims low.

MelonCollie on January 16, 2013 at 10:17 AM

I don’t care about “alinskyite” tactics, which is just a knee jerk scary term…I think their is better more important way to defend gun rights than by trying to say we shouldn’t protect the president any more than the average citizen…most mentally balanced, educated people, understand the president office is not the same as any other office in the world, and his family is unique in the world…tough to swallow because of the rascal he is, but it’s the truth, he deserves and his family deserves the finest protection on the face of the earth. And yes, being the president of the U.S. is an elite position…there is only one in the world, and only one that is elected by the majority…we were not the majority, but the office but be retained, protected, for when we have the right person in office.

right2bright on January 16, 2013 at 10:15 AM

Indignance, it is. You’re not understanding willfully misunderstand the argument that’s being made here. But I guess if you want to persist in your foot stomping, suit yourself.

gryphon202 on January 16, 2013 at 10:17 AM

i don’t believe in divine laws. laws by men should always be open to debate.

sesquipedalian on January 16, 2013 at 10:07 AM

.
19 EO’s coming today. By definition, no debate.
Both houses are signaling no debate.

Try again.

Jabberwock on January 16, 2013 at 10:14 AM

.
That’s a good ‘counter-punch’, too, Jabber’. : )

listens2glenn on January 16, 2013 at 10:17 AM

if a senile granny armed to the teeth doesn’t terrify you, here’s your darwin award.

sesquipedalian on January 16, 2013 at 10:13 AM

No one ever said the granny was senile. YOU added that in to try saving a lame point. If the granny was senile, she likely forgot she has a gun in the first place, you chucklenuts liblet.

I would rather have a 99-year-old granny at my side covering my butt than being stuck covering your lame ass.

Liam on January 16, 2013 at 10:19 AM

The second amendment can be changed through the amendment process. Until you get the required number of states to vote to voluntarily give up their second amendment rights, there is nothing to debate.

you got it wrong: it is through debate that you develop support for an initiative. you must be really unsure of the strength of your ideas if you’d rather stifle debate.

I have the right to carry a gun just as you have the right not to. But until you put up a sign in your front yard announcing to the world that your home is gun-free, I will continue to deride you as a mooch who enjoys the protection of those willing to carry, as most liberals are.

gryphon202 on January 16, 2013 at 10:12 AM

once again, living in nyc, i wouldn’t need to advertise not having a gun even if i had a front yard. i also don’t need the “protection” of random nutters carrying guns around me.

sesquipedalian on January 16, 2013 at 10:19 AM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4 5 7