NRA Obama Ad

Two Peas is Closing
Click here to visit our final product sale. Click here to visit our FAQ page regarding the closing of Two Peas.

Posted 1/16/2013 by Jamieson B. in NSBR Board
1 2 >
 

Jamieson B.
PeaAddict

PeaNut 477,549
August 2010
Posts: 1,385
Layouts: 0
Loc: Manchester-by-the-Sea, MA

Posted: 1/16/2013 4:32:39 PM
This NRA ad leaves me speechless, frankly. So Obama's an "elitist" for proposing changes in gun control laws? Ad




busypea
boring + nerdy

PeaNut 52,817
October 2002
Posts: 27,974
Layouts: 145
Loc: Oregon

Posted: 1/16/2013 4:37:59 PM
I think your link is going to the wrong thing - it's just a press release response to Obama's plan released today.

Jamieson B.
PeaAddict

PeaNut 477,549
August 2010
Posts: 1,385
Layouts: 0
Loc: Manchester-by-the-Sea, MA

Posted: 1/16/2013 4:49:37 PM
Thanks, Busypea, let me try again.




peano
Helicopter Dog Mom

PeaNut 43,034
July 2002
Posts: 6,992
Layouts: 4
Loc: Connecticut

Posted: 1/16/2013 4:51:08 PM
What I saw is that Obama is an elitist for sending his kids to a school with armed guards while maintaining that others' kids should be in a gun-free zone. Their argument is specious because he and his family are protected by armed guards 24/7 by virtue of his job.


My stuff:
Canon 7D
Canon Rebel XT
kit lens 18-55mm
28-135mm IS 3.5-5.6
50mm 1.8
85mm 1.8
580EXII Speedlite
CS5
LR4




Captain K
AncestralPea

PeaNut 247,594
February 2006
Posts: 4,495
Layouts: 0

Posted: 1/16/2013 4:55:37 PM
Peano - did his daughters go to a private school with guards before he was President? I honestly do not know the answer. I think there is some merit to the argument that guns are "good" to protect him and other elites (political, Hollywood), but that other people shouldn't have them...

mapchic
Top Tier Pea

PeaNut 31,157
February 2002
Posts: 12,615
Layouts: 55
Loc: Chicagoland

Posted: 1/16/2013 5:00:28 PM

did his daughters go to a private school with guards before he was President?
Yes. They attended the University of Chicago Lab school which has armed guards.

The Sidwell Friends School where the Obama children attend today has 11 armed guards. Those are separate from the Secret Service protection that the girls receive.


What I saw is that Obama is an elitist for sending his kids to a school with armed guards while maintaining that others' kids should be in a gun-free zone. Their argument is specious because he and his family are protected by armed guards 24/7 by virtue of his job.
The president is not the only person in politics or the media who chooses to send their children to schools which offer armed guards while saying that other people's children should not be guarded.




"When someone asks you 'think about what Jesus would do', remember that a valid option is to freak out and turn over tables" -- Unknown

“I am a Roman Catholic - the one true faith, (the Microsoft of Christianity) and I know Roman Catholicism is the one true faith because Roman Catholicism tells me it’s the one true faith... And if you remember from earlier in this sentence Roman Catholicism is the one true faith – so how could it be wrong?” ~ Stephen Colbert ‘The Word’ 11-28-06

Vocatus atque non vocatus, Deus aderit

*Erin
triathlon pea

PeaNut 80,864
April 2003
Posts: 10,658
Layouts: 13
Loc: Gone to chemo with BethAnne

Posted: 1/16/2013 5:04:34 PM

I think there is some merit to the argument that guns are "good" to protect him and other elites (political, Hollywood), but that other people shouldn't have them...
That's a false equivalency. Most people are not the target of nuts because of their notariety, so I don't think they need armed guards etc. Certain celebrities and politicians are in the crosshairs, so to speak, and I have no problem with them being given more protection.



Sarah*H
Bring me that horizon!

PeaNut 239,162
December 2005
Posts: 29,196
Layouts: 417
Loc: The final frontier

Posted: 1/16/2013 5:06:35 PM
I think the NRA has become a fringe group and is undeserving of being part of the national discussion on gun control.



Jamieson B.
PeaAddict

PeaNut 477,549
August 2010
Posts: 1,385
Layouts: 0
Loc: Manchester-by-the-Sea, MA

Posted: 1/16/2013 5:09:45 PM

I think the NRA has become a fringe group and is undeserving of being part of the national discussion on gun control.


I completely agree.




angievp
Ideay pues?

PeaNut 143,106
April 2004
Posts: 7,420
Layouts: 36
Loc: Miami

Posted: 1/16/2013 5:10:37 PM
I personally do not think the President has a "choice" in the matter, in the true sense of the word. Having armed guards for his children and sending them to a school with armed guards is a matter of national security. Nothing elitist about it.

lucyg819
pearl-clutching nitpicker

PeaNut 201,774
April 2005
Posts: 16,721
Layouts: 15
Loc: gone to chemo with BethAnne

Posted: 1/16/2013 5:27:34 PM

Personally, I like the concept of equal protection under the law.

Really? Do you also think the rest of us need Secret Service protection?

My kids went to an expensive private school and there was no, nada, zero, zip security. And that was in the city of Oakland which apparently the rest of the country thinks is a war zone.

The children at Sidwell Friends are natural targets by virtue of their parents' prominence. Not everyone has that issue to worry about.

I really, really don't want to live in the NRA wet-dream world of guns everywhere.


LUCYG
northern california

"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts."
--Bertrand Russell



Aggiemom92
PeaFixture

PeaNut 90,200
June 2003
Posts: 3,313
Layouts: 2

Posted: 1/16/2013 5:48:59 PM

I think there is some merit to the argument that guns are "good" to protect him and other elites (political, Hollywood), but that other people shouldn't have them...


Maybe I'm not talking to the right people, but I don't know anyone who is opposed to highly trained, professional law enforcement or private security (which would apply to both the secret service and the Hollywood bodyguards) having guns. If "other people" want to pay for them (or earn them by virtue of their job ), no one's objecting to that. This argument would only apply if the politicians or the celebrities THEMSELVES were packing heat.

Aggiemom92
PeaFixture

PeaNut 90,200
June 2003
Posts: 3,313
Layouts: 2

Posted: 1/16/2013 5:50:53 PM

Personally, I like the concept of equal protection under the law.

Really? Do you also think the rest of us need Secret Service protection?


Personally, I'm for equitable protection under the law. So, no, note everyone needs Secret Service protection.

Aggiemom92
PeaFixture

PeaNut 90,200
June 2003
Posts: 3,313
Layouts: 2

Posted: 1/16/2013 6:54:09 PM

Senator Feinstein has had a concealed carry permit for many years. Sen Schumer and Sen Boxer also have them.


And that's a more fair comparison. My comment was in response to those complaining that high status people have body guards but are asking for gun control.

It's also been my experience that most people are objecting to assault weapons, but are ok (or at least tolerant of) handguns. Are the politicians you reference carrying assault weapons?

tamhugh
Ancient Ancestor of Pea

PeaNut 12,875
March 2001
Posts: 8,668
Layouts: 11

Posted: 1/16/2013 7:14:11 PM

I am not for gun free zones as history has proven that they are prime targets for these kinds of shootings.


In most of "these kinds of shootings", I have always been under the impression that the shooters target the schools because they feel disenfranchised from their teachers, classmates, etc. They are going after a specific target group, not after a building where they think there will be no guns. In all of the journals, etc that have been recovered in the past, have any of them actually indicated that the shooter chose a location because it was a gun-free zone?

maddiesmum
BucketHead

PeaNut 574,034
December 2012
Posts: 975
Layouts: 0
Loc: Obamaland

Posted: 1/16/2013 7:37:08 PM
I would love to have seen how the Republicans would have reacted to a despicable ad like this if the Democrats had made it and used the Bush twins in their example.

I've never heard anyone before now criticize the security that the children of the President require. It's offensive and unfortunately very typical of the inappropriateness of the modern Republican party.

scrappower
Allons-y Alonso

PeaNut 174,150
October 2004
Posts: 15,754
Layouts: 0

Posted: 1/16/2013 7:40:47 PM

I would love to have seen how the Republicans would have reacted to a despicable ad like this if the Democrats had made it and used the Bush twins in their example.

I've never heard anyone before the now criticize the security that the children of the President require. It's offensive and unfortunately very typical of the inappropriateness of the modern Republican party.


I agree. What happened to the kids being off limits?



Kelpea
Owner of "best tacky invitation" thread EVER

PeaNut 176,832
November 2004
Posts: 14,039
Layouts: 2
Loc: Stalking Dave Gahan

Posted: 1/16/2013 7:42:59 PM
The NRA is getting more and more loony.

I just can't imagine SOMEone in that conference room at the headquarters NOT saying something like..."but, but, but, WAIT a second; haven't there always been security details on EVERY president's children?" It's stunning to me that this "ad" made it out at all. I guess they were just relying upon America's stoopidity in assuming they don't know this has been the policy for a veeeerrrrrry long time. And it crosses political lines.

As to added guards at those private schools? I would assume the parents are most likely paying for it.

And as it is a private, not public school choice, they can do whatever they want.




*Erin
triathlon pea

PeaNut 80,864
April 2003
Posts: 10,658
Layouts: 13
Loc: Gone to chemo with BethAnne

Posted: 1/16/2013 7:43:16 PM

Well, as long as you're okay with it.
You're right, I am ok with it. So?



~*kristina*~
Typical Liberal Pea

PeaNut 55,230
November 2002
Posts: 18,604
Layouts: 106
Loc: Fly Over Country

Posted: 1/16/2013 7:48:48 PM

I think the NRA has become a fringe group and is undeserving of being part of the national discussion on gun control.


I completely agree and I'll go further and say I feel sorry for the members who really think the NRA represents them. They have completely jumped the shark.


I would love to have seen how the Republicans would have reacted to a despicable ad like this if the Democrats had made it and used the Bush twins in their example.

I've never heard anyone before the now criticize the security that the children of the President require. It's offensive and unfortunately very typical of the inappropriateness of the modern Republican party.


It fucking disgusting is what it is and anyone who agrees with it is fucking disgusting too.





Epeanymous
PeaFixture

PeaNut 15,108
May 2001
Posts: 3,301
Layouts: 1

Posted: 1/16/2013 7:55:01 PM
Socialism!

pinseeker11
BucketHead

PeaNut 277,783
September 2006
Posts: 537
Layouts: 0
Loc: SW Missouri

Posted: 1/16/2013 7:56:23 PM
I'm just going to guess that when the President was choosing a school for his kids in Chicago or D.C., the first requirement was NOT that the school had armed security guards. Maybe academics? ACT scores? The NRA is just rediculous!


***********************************
Jamie



mapchic
Top Tier Pea

PeaNut 31,157
February 2002
Posts: 12,615
Layouts: 55
Loc: Chicagoland

Posted: 1/16/2013 8:56:12 PM

I think the NRA has become a fringe group and is undeserving of being part of the national discussion on gun control.
It's an organization of 4.25 million American citizens (more thean 8 times the size of the ACLU). They are organized and focused on one topic - protection of the second amendment. How are they a 'fringe' group?


It's also been my experience that most people are objecting to assault weapons, but are ok (or at least tolerant of) handguns
That's one of the things that is really irrational in the gun control discussion. Not just the use of the totally meaningless term 'assault weapons'... I am going to assume that they just mean rifles when they say that. Most murders involving guns are committed with handguns - not rifles. In fact, more people are killed with blunt objects (hammers and the like) than with rifles. If those who support gun control were genuinely interested in stopping murders then they would focus far more on handguns.




"When someone asks you 'think about what Jesus would do', remember that a valid option is to freak out and turn over tables" -- Unknown

“I am a Roman Catholic - the one true faith, (the Microsoft of Christianity) and I know Roman Catholicism is the one true faith because Roman Catholicism tells me it’s the one true faith... And if you remember from earlier in this sentence Roman Catholicism is the one true faith – so how could it be wrong?” ~ Stephen Colbert ‘The Word’ 11-28-06

Vocatus atque non vocatus, Deus aderit

Sarah*H
Bring me that horizon!

PeaNut 239,162
December 2005
Posts: 29,196
Layouts: 417
Loc: The final frontier

Posted: 1/16/2013 9:00:00 PM

I think the NRA has become a fringe group and is undeserving of being part of the national discussion on gun control.
It's an organization of 4.25 million American citizens (more thean 8 times the size of the ACLU). They are organized and focused on one topic - protection of the second amendment. How are they a 'fringe' group?


They are a fringe group based on the public statements of their leadership and their policy positions.



scrappower
Allons-y Alonso

PeaNut 174,150
October 2004
Posts: 15,754
Layouts: 0

Posted: 1/16/2013 9:01:39 PM

It's an organization of 4.25 million American citizens (more thean 8 times the size of the ACLU). They are organized and focused on one topic - protection of the second amendment. How are they a 'fringe' group?


They have gone the way of PETA, a good idea once, but have gone way too overboard and frankly nuts. My dad was a longtime member of the NRA and has cancelled his membership and many others have as well. LaPierre did way too much damage.



scrappower
Allons-y Alonso

PeaNut 174,150
October 2004
Posts: 15,754
Layouts: 0

Posted: 1/16/2013 9:08:13 PM

Posted: 1/16/2013 9:06:25 PM
They have gone the way of PETA, a good idea once, but have gone way too overboard and frankly nuts

If the Constitution had an amendment regarding animal rights, this might even be comparable.



Huh? The parallel is there. It doesn't matter what they stand for their actions have gone off the edge and into the realm of crazy.



lucyg819
pearl-clutching nitpicker

PeaNut 201,774
April 2005
Posts: 16,721
Layouts: 15
Loc: gone to chemo with BethAnne

Posted: 1/16/2013 9:28:17 PM

I think the Constitutional Amendment gives more weight to the purpose of the NRA. I'm glad they continue to fight to protect that important element of the foundation of our country. I don't always agree with the way they choose to get their message out there, but I do agree with their purpose for existing and I feel they are an important group. I do not think of them as a fringe group with so many members and supporters.

Just checking: you do hold the same amount of respect for the American Civil Liberties Union, correct? They fight for Bill of Rights protections even though you (and I) may not always agree with how they do it.


LUCYG
northern california

"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts."
--Bertrand Russell



ashazamm
PeaAddict

PeaNut 217,769
August 2005
Posts: 1,056
Layouts: 18
Loc: NY

Posted: 1/17/2013 6:13:12 AM
I think it's a valid case. Rich kids lives are more important than middle class or poor kids?? All our kids deserve protection.

Maryland
Ancient Ancestor of Pea

PeaNut 87,597
May 2003
Posts: 11,075
Layouts: 0

Posted: 1/17/2013 6:30:07 AM
I have no problem with children of any President or high up authority having armed guards to protect their kids. I do not want armed guards at my kids school though. I think it would scare my kids and they would not consider school a safe place. That's how we roll in my family.

mabel
BucketHead

PeaNut 27,880
January 2002
Posts: 855
Layouts: 22
Loc: Virginia

Posted: 1/17/2013 7:18:42 AM
The President kids are not more important then mine but they are way more in danger them mine .


Caroline



Be yourself; everyone else is already taken.













~*kristina*~
Typical Liberal Pea

PeaNut 55,230
November 2002
Posts: 18,604
Layouts: 106
Loc: Fly Over Country

Posted: 1/17/2013 7:26:13 AM

It fucking disgusting is what it is and anyone who agrees with it is fucking disgusting too.


Good thing we have freedom to think for ourselves and aren't limited to your judgment. Your nasty name-calling is what is disgusting.

I don't agree with using Obama's daughters in a commercial, but I do absolutely think it's a legitimate discussion topic. His girls have always attended private schools that hire armed guards for protection (besides the secret service they are absolutely entitled to have because of their father's position). Yet he thinks the rest of America's children should be in gun-free schools? Yes, that's elitist, and yes, President Obama is very hypocritical on the issue. Just like when he proposed limiting President Bush's secret service coverage to 10 years and turning around and signing a law keeping his secret service coverage for life.


I guess we're even.. I find most of your comments disgusting. I stand my statement.

ETA: to correct typo





GrinningCat
Proudly Canadian

PeaNut 43,061
July 2002
Posts: 33,591
Layouts: 2

Posted: 1/17/2013 7:33:27 AM
As one person put it this morning, that NRA ad is a lovely pile of horse manure. Of course, the President's children have more protection than the average child... because their Dad is the President and there are threats to them. Duh. The same protection would go with them, no matter what school they go to. The security detail for the daughters are only for the daughters, not for the school.

Oh and for the record, the security detail at Sidwell Friends is NOT armed and is spread over three buildings, so if you really take a moment to think about it, it's not that unusual for a school of its side.

The NRA is a fringe looney group who need minders. Someone should have spoken up and done some fact checking before they released that ad. It made the NRA look more out of touch and more dangerous and in it only for the guns than they were before. They don't really care about children, just about getting more guns into American society. Disgusting.

Sarah*H
Bring me that horizon!

PeaNut 239,162
December 2005
Posts: 29,196
Layouts: 417
Loc: The final frontier

Posted: 1/17/2013 7:36:54 AM

Someone should have spoken up and done some fact checking before they released that ad.


The ad did exactly what it was intended to do which was to incite those unwilling or unable to think critically. That sums up what the NRA has become.



Aggiemom92
PeaFixture

PeaNut 90,200
June 2003
Posts: 3,313
Layouts: 2

Posted: 1/17/2013 7:55:40 AM

The ad did exactly what it was intended to do which was to incite those unwilling or unable to think critically. That sums up what the NRA has become.


I don't think the NRA has cornered the market on this. This seems to be true of many (I might even go so far as to say most) groups now. As well as individuals. Those ridiculous annotated pics (right now I'm thinking of the one that juxtaposes a pic with Hitler surrounded by kids with one of Obama surrounded by kids) that go all over Facebook rely on people thinking emotionally rather than rationally. Sadly, this is the way it's done these days.

Add to that, the habit of many (I admit this includes myself at times) to argue emotionally rather than rationally. I'm totally not picking on the person who wrote this, I KNOW I've written stuff in this tone before, it just makes a nice example:


That's one of the things that is really irrational in the gun control discussion. Not just the use of the totally meaningless term 'assault weapons'... I am going to assume that they just mean rifles when they say that. Most murders involving guns are committed with handguns - not rifles. In fact, more people are killed with blunt objects (hammers and the like) than with rifles. If those who support gun control were genuinely interested in stopping murders then they would focus far more on handguns.


If this poster had left off the first two sentences and begun with "Most murders involving guns" it would have been a more "rational" (yep, using an emotional word to make my rational argument) argument. But because it begins with calling my idea irrational, I'm less open to the rest of the argument, which once I FORCED myself to let my defensiveness go actually interested me and made me think.

Similarly,


It has been my experience that people who use the term assault weapons haven't the first clue about guns in general. There is no such thing as an assault weapon and there are hand guns that can fire more clips of over 30 rounds.


Well, this one is just rude, actually (Sorry Mrs. Tyler). Now you've basically called me stupid, so I REALLY don't want to read the rest of your post. Instead, I truly believe YOU know what I mean when I say "assault weapon," though I get that I'm using the term wrong. Instead of helping me better understand by giving me a better term for what I know you know I mean, you just call me dumb. Shrug.

shannoninkc
PeaAddict

PeaNut 304,038
March 2007
Posts: 1,725
Layouts: 0
Loc: Where you vacation.

Posted: 1/17/2013 7:59:25 AM
Any regular Joe who thinks their kid needs what the President's kids need in the way of protection is quite honestly...ummmm...delusional. Lame argument.

I have no dog in this hunt. I don't care if my school has guns or not. I'd prefer not, but whatever they decide, I'll be fine. I sure as shit don't think my kids are in danger like the Obama kid, or the Bush kids, or Chelsea, or any of them.

NRA, Glenn Beck, PETA....crayyyyyzzzzzyyyyyy

Dalai Mama
La Pea Boheme

PeaNut 49,641
September 2002
Posts: 26,337
Layouts: 85
Loc: Drunk on the lawn in a nuclear dawn

Posted: 1/17/2013 8:08:31 AM

I beg to differ. Most victims of gun violence are not famous celebrities or politicians. Why? Because they have armed protection.
I would imagine that most victims of gun violence are not famous celebrities or politicians because most of the American population are not celebrities of politicians.


Jo Mama

***********************************

Gotta kick at the darkness 'til it bleeds daylight. - Bruce Cockburn

The knack of flying is learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss. - Douglas Adams


tserenity
BucketHead

PeaNut 397,621
October 2008
Posts: 523
Layouts: 0

Posted: 1/17/2013 8:20:51 AM

Any regular Joe who thinks their kid needs what the President's kids need in the way of protection is quite honestly...ummmm...delusional. Lame argument.



Alright...here is a scenario for you...our area had a nutcase shoot and kill several teenagers a few years ago...they were swimming at a local hangout and were ambushed and shot dead...this guy was on the loose...no one knew who he was or where he was to begin with...so for all of the parents who after this fact, had children out and about, not even on school grounds, how are they, in your words, delusional, for wanting to protect their kids?

What about the parent of a child whose school has had a shooting occur? Are they delusional for wanting their child protected?

Step away from that, and be a parent who believes in the 2nd ammendement, and does not have their head buried in the sand so to speak, and watches the news, and reads up on the goings on the world, and understands the dangers that are inherent in today's society...are they then delusional for wanting to have the option to send their child to a school that may have armed security?

Like someone else said, there are often armed guards in various places we take our children...you must be blind to not understand that simple fact...and children adjust to seeing 'armed' people...fact...how can I say that? WHat about all the children who live and go to school on military bases? Are they, every single one of them mentally damaged, because they see armed people in their day to day activities?? Be real people...the facts stand that having armed people about, do lower the chances of some idiot going off kilter.



TinaFB
the lunatics have taken over the asylum

PeaNut 25,135
November 2001
Posts: 25,984
Layouts: 349
Loc: Maryland

Posted: 1/17/2013 8:22:39 AM
Wait, didn't Obama call for up to 1,000 more school resource officers yesterday? What are we arguing about?





Tina


~*kristina*~
Typical Liberal Pea

PeaNut 55,230
November 2002
Posts: 18,604
Layouts: 106
Loc: Fly Over Country

Posted: 1/17/2013 8:24:01 AM

I don't care if my school has guns or not. I'd prefer not, but whatever they decide, I'll be fine. I sure as shit don't think my kids are in danger like the Obama kid, or the Bush kids, or Chelsea, or any of them.



Yep....I would prefer they not have them and in my school district they won't, at least not in the time that we have left in high school.

I definitely have to agree with poster about the conniption fit the right and Fox News would have had if this ad would have come out with the Bush girls on it. This would be a 10 page thread about the evil liberals and their media. In fact, I'm quite sure the right would be salivating over it.





TinaFB
the lunatics have taken over the asylum

PeaNut 25,135
November 2001
Posts: 25,984
Layouts: 349
Loc: Maryland

Posted: 1/17/2013 8:28:08 AM
So this is what the president is doing:

*Take executive action to provide incentives for schools to hire school resource officers: COPS Hiring Grants, which help police departments hire officers, can already be used by departments to fund school resource officers. This year, the Department of Justice will provide an incentive for police departments to hire these officers by providing a preference for grant applications that support school resource officers.

*Put up to 1,000 new school resource officers and school counselors on the job: The Administration is proposing a new Comprehensive School Safety program, which will help school districts hire staff and make other critical investments in school safety. The program will give $150 million to school districts and law enforcement agencies to hire school resource officers, school psychologists, social workers, and counselors. The Department of Justice will also develop a model for using school resource officers, including best practices on age-appropriate methods for working with students.

This is what you guys and the NRA wanted! How is this evidence of him doing nothing?


Tina


scrappower
Allons-y Alonso

PeaNut 174,150
October 2004
Posts: 15,754
Layouts: 0

Posted: 1/17/2013 8:28:35 AM
Oh and the only issue I had with armed guards in schools was the whole armed volunteers trained by the NRA nonsense that they were wanting to do. And arming teachers. That was ridiculous. If a school chooses to have a resource officer, great. But at least where I live they cannot afford it in most of them.

And no I don't think they have a "right" to it. They can't even afford the basics in our schools and classrooms have over 35 kids in them. That needs to come first.

Just because the Presidents kids go to a school that has armed guards doesn't mean everyone should have that. That assumption is just silly. If you want that, pay for a private school with guards then. I really don't see this argument being valid at all. And again the kids need to left out of these ads, I thought all peas agreed with that. Funny how it changes.



WannaPea
No Peas for you ! Come back one year!

PeaNut 151,172
June 2004
Posts: 26,982
Layouts: 175
Loc: In my PJ's

Posted: 1/17/2013 8:29:31 AM

This is what you guys and the NRA wanted! How is this evidence of him doing nothing?
It just....it just.....it just IS !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Heaven forbid someone would admit he did something they wanted him to do.


Cop's wife - Mom to one
"The invisible and the non-existent look very much alike." ~ Delos B. McKown

~*kristina*~
Typical Liberal Pea

PeaNut 55,230
November 2002
Posts: 18,604
Layouts: 106
Loc: Fly Over Country

Posted: 1/17/2013 8:37:01 AM

It just....it just.....it just IS !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Heaven forbid someone would admit he did something they wanted him to do.




You must be joking.....





Fraidyscrapper
She calls me a Fun Sucker

PeaNut 38,100
May 2002
Posts: 13,565
Layouts: 0
Loc: Jersey Strong

Posted: 1/17/2013 8:46:01 AM

His girls have always attended private schools that hire armed guards for protection (besides the secret service they are absolutely entitled to have because of their father's position). Yet he thinks the rest of America's children should be in gun-free schools? Yes, that's elitist, and yes, President Obama is very hypocritical on the issue.
I'm sorry. I have read this sentiment three times now on this thread and it still makes no damn sense. I can see the "gun-free school zone" sign from my window, yet our three SRO's are all packing weapons. The zone does not extend to law enforcement officers. Whoever said it did? Or is there some other meaning to this that I am missing? There must be, because what I am understanding no one would be suggesting.


"The sharpest criticism often goes hand in hand with the deepest idealism and love of country." - Robert F. Kennedy

Simply_Lovely
AncestralPea

PeaNut 463,295
April 2010
Posts: 4,172
Layouts: 3
Loc: New York City

Posted: 1/17/2013 8:54:11 AM

If this poster had left off the first two sentences and begun with "Most murders involving guns" it would have been a more "rational" (yep, using an emotional word to make my rational argument) argument. But because it begins with calling my idea irrational, I'm less open to the rest of the argument, which once I FORCED myself to let my defensiveness go actually interested me and made me think.


Mapchic has been nothing but polite and rational in all the gun arguments we had here. She never lost her cool and constantly replied with detailed facts and descriptions. In fact the post you quoted is the most "rude" she has ever been, and I would not deem that rude by any standards. What you have to understand is that after multiple threads it becomes aggravating to argue with people who unfortunately do not know anything about guns. So, no, we don't know what you mean by an "assault weapon."

Someone here yesterday called for a ban on "automatic assault weapons." Ummm...what the hell are those? And, ummmm.....assault weapons have been banned a long time ago. Do you mean the infamous AR-15? Because Mapchic has shown a comparison between that and a rifle with a wood handle that looks a lot less scary but packs the same power, and yet people keep saying "hunting rifles are OK, but the AR-15 is not." Why is one OK and one isn't? They don't know. Why are handguns OK, when some handguns are more powerful than some rifles and hold more bullets? They don't know. They just want something banned. It's frustrating.

It's like arguing about early term abortion, for example, when one party doesn't know how babies are made!! Could you really have a meaningful discussion abortion discussion with someone who doesn't understand about sperm and eggs and fetus formation? No, you can't. This is the same situation. How can you advocate bans of a category of weapons when you don't know the difference between auto, semi-auto, handgun v. pistol, rifle v. shotgun, etc. Mapchic has been amazing about trying to educate about this, and it gets ignored. And Aggie, nobody said you were stupid, they said you don't know anything about guns. Calling you stupid would be saying "you don't know anything!" If someone says I don't know anything about black holes and dark matter, they are not calling me stupid, they are stating a fact. It's OK to not know some things, I can't know everything. But I also don't debate black holes and dark matter, and if I did, and got called out on my lack of knowledge of the particular subject matter, I certainly wouldn't be offended. I'd ask to be educated on the matter.




Meow!

Aggiemom92
PeaFixture

PeaNut 90,200
June 2003
Posts: 3,313
Layouts: 2

Posted: 1/17/2013 9:08:39 AM

the President surrounded by children was intended in the same way.


Agreed, and while it's not really better, I guess I just don't notice the images that are meant to illicit a positive emotional response as much as those that are meant to incite fear/anger. But, you are right.


Mapchic has been nothing but polite and rational in all the gun arguments we had here. She never lost her cool and constantly replied with detailed facts and descriptions. In fact the post you quoted is the most "rude" she has ever been, and I would not deem that rude by any standards.


Ugh, I didn't say she was rude. In fact, I specifically said that I wasn't meaning to pick on her personally, it was just a clear example of my point. And I also said that I totally do that as well. I was just trying to say that the collective we have gotten in the habit of arguing with negativity towards the PERSON we're arguing against instead of the argument itself. It was meant as a general observation about the general discourse these days. I am sorry I quoted a generally nice person though. (How many times can I use a version of "general" in one paragraph?)

Frankly, I didn't quote any of the people I think are REALLY rude because, well, they're just rude (consistent foul language and name calling). There were some real doozies up thread that I didn't evan want to dignify by responding to. I guess I feel like there's no hope for some people, but people like Mapchic ARE reasonable. Does that make any sense?


And Aggie, nobody said you were stupid, they said you don't know anything about guns. Calling you stupid would be saying "you don't know anything!" If someone says I don't know anything about black holes and dark matter, they are not calling me stupid, they are stating a fact.


I'm sorry, when you use a phrase like "people who use the term 'assault weapon' don't have a clue about guns in general" (I know that's not exact), it's rude, and is interpreted by ME as you calling me stupid. If you say something like, "I think there's some misunderstanding here about the term 'assault weapon,'" that might be equivalent to saying I don't know anything about black holes. But a phrase like "you don't have a clue" is EMOTIONAL. The point of my post was about using emotional vs. rational language. Besides, I do have "a clue" about guns. I may not be an expert, and I may use the wrong term for what I mean, but I do know more about guns that I do about black holes.

I swear every time myself quoted in purple I stress out!

shannoninkc
PeaAddict

PeaNut 304,038
March 2007
Posts: 1,725
Layouts: 0
Loc: Where you vacation.

Posted: 1/17/2013 9:14:58 AM
No, I do not think parents who want their children protected are delusional, but to think your kids have the same chance of being gunned down.....I don't think so. So that ad from the NRC to me, is over the top and intended to divide this country just a little more, cause that is what we need right now.

Random shoot outs, are just that random shoot outs. The president's children are targets.

That was my only point, I don't care to argue how to solve this problem, I don't have the answers.

gottapeanow
Full of faith pea

PeaNut 79,417
April 2003
Posts: 10,977
Layouts: 57
Loc: Phoenix area

Posted: 1/17/2013 9:26:25 AM

I guess we're even.. I find most of your comments disgusting. I stand my statement.

ETA: to correct typo


Finding comments disgusting is one thing. Vulgar language is another. Have it, Kristina.

Btw, there was still a typo in your "corrected" post.

Lisa

tserenity
BucketHead

PeaNut 397,621
October 2008
Posts: 523
Layouts: 0

Posted: 1/17/2013 9:27:24 AM

No, I do not think parents who want their children protected are delusional, but to think your kids have the same chance of being gunned down.....I don't think so. So that ad from the NRC to me, is over the top and intended to divide this country just a little more, cause that is what we need right now.

Random shoot outs, are just that random shoot outs. The president's children are targets.

That was my only point, I don't care to argue how to solve this problem, I don't have the answers.


I don't mean to pick on you, but you said delusional...your words...As for random? I don't think any shooting is random...I think the climate we live in today, means to be smart, you take the action needed to protect your loved ones...armed 'whatever word makes you feel better'..guard, liason, whatever...I think every child is entitled to be educated in as safe as an environment as physically possible and if that means a few armed individuals who are already within the school, then so be it. My whole point is basically that I don't think most of those who are so against guns and all they entail, think beyond their immediate small world...they for whatever reason, don't hink about the world we live in as a whole...no sugarcoating needed for me...I get it, I wish more did.



scrappower
Allons-y Alonso

PeaNut 174,150
October 2004
Posts: 15,754
Layouts: 0

Posted: 1/17/2013 9:30:06 AM

Given the number of school shootings, the number of shootings planned but foiled, vs. the number of attempts on the lives of any First Family, it could be argued that that our kids have a better chance of being gunned down.


You cannot honestly say that though. I am sure they don't exactly advertise attempts made towards the First Family that were thwarted. They do tend to keep stuff like that quiet and for good reason.


1 2 >
Show/Hide Icons . Show/Hide Signatures
Hide
{{ title }}
{{ icon }}
{{ body }}
{{ footer }}