Posted on 01/16/2013 5:07:22 PM PST by FR_addict
FoxNews Bret Baier’s All Star panel, Charles Krauthammer, Juan Williams, and Steve Hayes, all called the NRA ad a mistake, vile and repugnant. I guess they all believe that the elite should have armed protection for their children, but not for ours.
Krauthammer even went so far as to say, of course the President's children should be protected because of who the President is and out kids don't need that type of protection.
What about kids of policemen, judges, FBI, ATF, correctional officers, etc? Their children may be targets because of who their parents are. Don't they deserve armed protection too?
The NRA did not call for taking away the right of the President to protect his children, but to give our kids the same right and not to make them sitting ducks in a gun free zone.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
Every one of them put their elitist’s knee pads on and gave 0bama a big sloppy ‘job.’
In the world in which Americans live in. It may eventually come to bunkers. Either bunkers, concentration camps, or winning a war.
“but comparing the risk to a President’s kids to ours is ridiculous.”
Most of the anti-gun elites have armed guards, not just Dear Leader. Pointing out the hypocrisy of Obama makes Alinsky sense because it freezes and personalizes the issue, and this can be transferred to the other oppressors.
Dianne Feinstein has one of the rare carry permits in California, David Gregory’s kids go to a school protected by guns, Obama signed a law assuring that he’ll be protected by guns forever.
Is this well known on the right?
If Fox News had fully reported the ugly truth about Obama’s cult-like hateful religious belief and really hammered it home, Obama would never have been elected president. Fox News gives the impression of being pro-American, but they are actually kept on a short-leash, by their foreign-born, globalist and Islamist owners.
I don’t remember where I read or heard it, but somebody referred to CK as “when the evil Charley shows up”.
Guess that happened again.
I admire the guy for a lot...but he did work for Carter, right?
The point is that the basic premise exists in both cases. Children are exposed to potential attacks in school. His kids face danger at school and they have armed protection. All kids in public schools face danger (thanks to Federal law mostly) but 0bowdown doesn't think they deserve protection.
” Hardly. We’re sitting ducks on-post due to gun laws and regulations.”
And which Democrat president disarmed the military? Clinton. Some say he did it to lock up all the Army’s guns to prevent an armed coup. It fer shur was not about “safety”.
A retired LEO sitting in the front office with the secretary, eating a maple donut would have taken that POS out before he shot the Principal. Just a wild guess.
No, his kids are not more important.
“Are soft targets created on purpose?”
Did thugs in political power in Chicago disarm the populace to make them easier targets? Same in any big city. Why are there gangs and street crime? Because some are profiting from it and it keeps your people oppressed and not being troublemakers.
“We must accept this, must we not?” That is Official Reality.
Not a surprise. Krauthammer doesn’t believe in the 2nd amendment and is on record saying that all guns should be banned/confiscated. he supports Obama 100% on this.
http://www.grouchyconservativepundits.com/index.php?topic=3573.0;wap2
Ultimately, a civilized society must disarm its citizenry if it is to have a modicum of domestic tranquility of the kind enjoyed in sister democracies like Canada and Britain. Given the frontier history and individualist ideology of the United States, however, this will not come easily. It certainly cannot be done radically.
It will probably take one, maybe two generations. It might be 50 years before the United States gets to where Britain is today.
Passing a law like the assault weapons ban is a symbolic - purely symbolic - move in that direction. Its only real justification is not to reduce crime but to desensitize the public to the regulation of weapons in preparation for their ultimate confiscation
Yes, Sarah Brady is doing God’s work. Yes, in the end America must follow the way of other democracies and disarm.
I wonder what most conservatives would think about Krauthammer once they knew he wrote that.
Of course they were all insulted about the ad. Don’t forget this hits them where they live also. They are all DC elitists too.
I generally like Krauthammer, but I always have to keep in mind he has an inside the beltway mind. Most of the pundits do. If they didn't, they wouldn't get invited to the very expensive parties.
"Bad company corrupts good character." Most TV pundits have an arrogance about them most average Americans don't, so they lose touch with real America over time. Every now and then something catches their human parts attention and they come back to earth. Then, they work their way back into elitistville until another rock hits them in the head to wake them up again.
The ad was right on the money. All the elitist have armed guards for themselves and their kids, as if somehow the love they have for their kids is greater than the love we have for ours.
Why, don't we understand how much more important to the world THEY are than we are? That's the arrogance I'm referring to. All the self appointed elitists have it at some point. Today, the table showed us theirs as clear as day.
No, to me, the presidents kids are NOT more important than mine. If I had to save his kid or mine from a speeding car, I'd save mine.
” Maybe we need military patrols in every town?”
Back before GCA 68 and a raft of state laws, there were lots of citizens who were armed. No need for military patrols when you can do it yourself. Crime was lower and there were very few mass shootings. Concealed carry was much more common.
As we disarmed mass shootings and rampant gang crime increased.
America was set up initially to be its own militia.
yep, DBrow. They who rule us keep telling us we must accept and comply. Those who rule us keep hurting our nation and placing more of the law-abiding in jeopardy, and should the law-abiding sound an alarm, those who sounded the alarm are made into criminals. It is done so others may profit. Can be no other reason. The system places those making them a profit back on the street in many or nearly all cases. There is purpose in the madness of the system, so it appears. The system makes it difficult to keep those who seek to harm the innocent away from the innocent. Profit comes from harming of innocents. All is done for the purpose of profit? It does seem to be so, or is it? When in doubt one reads history to see if profit ever caused the harm of innocents. So is all profit evil? No, for there is profit in the private sector to protect one from its government. Governments never show a profit, only destruction and debt. History is a great teacher. Wonder when sane people will learn history’s secrets? I (myself) still grapple with the meanings of our planet’s past, present and future, but I do understand government (every government) throughout history has become tyrannical.
Fox has even hired uberleftist whacko Dennis Kuchinich. As of this day, I now view Fox as another leftist news source. That means that there exists a chance to serve a segment of the population -- those on the right -- with a new news channel.
Again, loud and clear to every elitist pundit out there....
No, to me, the presidents kids are NOT more important than mine. If I had to save his kid or mine from a speeding car, I'd save mine.
Agree. Nice to find a like mind.
Some is profit, like crime, but some is basic ideology like fascism.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.