Tuesday, January 15, 2013

NRA Self-Degenerates; Goes After Obama's Kids

So they should go without Secret Service protection? With 300 million guns in the country and a history of assassination and racial violence. Obama's kids, fair game now?

Even for the NRA: an unimaginable and ugly campaign-style video low:

The NRA’s provocative, 35-second video is as harsh as any attack ad in a political campaign and illustrates how emotionally charged and personal the debate over gun control is becoming.
“Are the president’s kids more important than yours?” a deep-voiced narrator asks. “Then why is he skeptical about putting armed security in our schools when his kids are protected by armed guards at their school? Mr. Obama demands the wealthy pay their fair share of taxes, but he’s just another elitist hypocrite when it comes to a fair share of security.”


Boxer said...

Stay classy, NRA!

a message from Rayguns, self-proclaimed "Voice of Reason on This Blog"

Anonymous said...

The NRA is the one organization offering real solutions while upholding the constitution. When the kids went back to school in Connecticut they are now protected by armed guards in the school. Restricting the rights of lawful citizens in violation of the constitution while not doing anything to reduce violence is just another silly liberal response for the sake of a response.

Reagan's Disciple said...

...but true.

Nobody is discounting the threats towards a president and their family.

The NRA is just asking why shouldn't you be afforded the same protections if you so choose.

James Rowen said...

To RD - - You shouda quit with ...but true.

Any justification to the NRA indicts you, too.

It'd get the message if 50,000 of you send back your membership cards to say we're tired of the incessant and now disgusting politicization.


Reagan's Disciple said...

Harry Reid just said that he will NOT bring an assault weapons ban to the senate floor.

In other news: Harry Reid now becomes hated among liberals.

zombie rotten mcdonald said...

Well, for one thing, poorly trained volunteers or armed janitors =/= Secret Service.

For another, the relative risk factors of the President's children is hundreds of times higher than for a random kid out in the burbs.

It's one of those truthy arguments that apes the form of a logical argument, but isn't actually one.

Reagan's Disciple said...

Remember, Columbine happened during the last assault weapon ban.

It is not the gun, but the killer who is responsible.

Boxer said...

Once again Rayguns changes the subject by injecting Harry Reid's status into the conversation. He can't hold his focus, it seems, esp when losing an argument.

Max B said...

@Reagan's Disciple at 9:36 AM:

By your logic, why shouldn't every man, woman and child in the US be afforded the excellent health insurance and care that the US Congress has?

Also following your comment to its logical conclusion, (not the illogical conclusion you arrived at): if I am to have armed guards at my children's and grandchildren's schools, then I want the Secret Service protection that the Obamas have. I don't want some unemployed, gun-toting, itchy-trigger-fingered NRA "volunteer".

You interpret the second amendment incorrectly. It doesn't guarantee that anyone can have guns on their person everywhere at all times. You can drive a car, but you must drive it lawfully, on roads, not sidewalks. You aren't allowed to drive if you are blind, mentally incapacitated, drunk (though many do, unlawfully) or if you aren't old enough, or sometimes too old to react quickly. Or illiterate or cannot pass the test for any reason.

But a gun is very much like a car in that it can be a lethal weapon if employed improperly. That's why there are many, many traffic laws governing the use of a car, and why shouldn't there be as extensive laws regarding the use of a gun as well? If you are lawful gun owners exercising your second amendment rights as you claim, why are you so loathe to accept any reasonable law on its use? If you are pro-life as I suspect you may be, why are you so against restrictions on weapons which are designed to kill human beings?

Follow this link to an well-documented article explaining how, in the writing of the constitution, which you claim to love and wish to preserve in its "strict constructionist" originality, your beloved second amendment was written to preserve the states' slave militias.
Yes, it was all about slavery, even when we were forming the country.


James Rowen said...

@ RD: About Columbine. Greater restrictions on purchases at guns shows, and better checks on straw buyers could have made a difference:

Where'd They Get Their Guns?
An Analysis of the Firearms Used in High-Profile Shootings, 1963 to 2001

Date: April 20, 1999

Location: Columbine High School, Littleton, Colorado

Alleged Shooters: Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold

People Killed: 15 (shooters committed suicide)

People Injured: 23

Firearm(s): Intratec TEC-DC9 assault pistol, Hi-Point 9mm Carbine, Savage 67H pump-action shotgun, and a Savage 311-D 12-gauge shotgun


The two students walked through their high school at lunchtime on April 20, 1999, shooting at classmates and teachers before killing themselves. Twelve students and one teacher were killed. In addition to their firearms, they had scattered an assortment of explosive devices throughout the school, many of which did not detonate.

How Firearm(s) Acquired

Robyn Anderson, a friend of Klebold and Harris, bought the shotguns and the Hi-Point 9mm Carbine at The Tanner Gun Show in December of 1998 from unlicensed sellers. Because Anderson purchased the guns for someone else, the transition constituted an illegal "straw purchase." Klebold and Harris bought the TEC-DC9 from a pizza shop employee named Mark Manes, who knew they were too young to purchase the assault pistol, but nevertheless sold it to them for $500.

David Olinger, "Following the Guns," The Denver Post Online, 1 August 1999.
David Olinger et al., "Arrests Possible in Pistol Sale; Authorities to Interview Suspected Gun Provider," The Denver Post, 30 April 1999, sec. A, p. 1.
Mark Obmascik et al., "Tracing a Deadly Trail; Officials Say Girlfriend Bought Guns," The Denver Post, 27 April 1999, sec. A, p. 1.
David Ottaway, "With Often Arcane Tools, U.S. Agency Traces Littleton Guns," The Washington Post, 30 April 1999, sec. A, p. 6.
David Olinger and Peter Chronis, "Guns Used in Attack Believed Bought Through Private Deals," The Denver Post, 24 April 1999, sec. A, p. 13.

All contents � 2001 Violence Policy Center

The Violence Policy Center is a national non-profit educational foundation that conducts research on violence in America and works to develop violence-reduction policies and proposals. The Center examines the role of firearms in America, conducts research on firearms violence, and explores new ways to decrease firearm-related death and injury.

Reagan's Disciple said...


Your logic is flawed.

Driving a car is not a constitutional right, while "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." is.

Constitutional rights should not be burdened with unnecessary laws that do nothing but infringe the rights of law-abiding citizens.

You know as a lefty how off base you are when Harry Reid is on my side of the issue.

Reagan's Disciple said...

@ James,

Greater restrictions on purchases at guns shows, and better checks on straw buyers could have made a difference:

Wishful thinking.

James Rowen said...

Yeah, wishful thinking. What a defeatist.

And as for wishful thinking: your comments with little wiseacre nicknames for the President are going nowhere here.

Gary said...

These arguments that guns don't kill people are specious; what other device would the Newtown shooter (or dozens of other such perpetrators) have chosen? It is perfectly sensible to keep guns away from lunatics, even if any law embracing that idea is imperfect. "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
What are we to make of the second and third words in the law?