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 ...
Nope, you just take out the armed guards first and then proceed to the main targets. The armed guards will have been lulled into a sense of complacency. The emergency responders really don't respond (the cops sat outside Columbine for hours after the threat was over).
Get a grip.
Maybe you argue for the wrong thing with the right reason?
Comparing and defining risks can be argued collectively or individually. Such as comparison may lead one or many to conclude there is high risk versus low risk and further that said risk could be motivated by putting in place additional security. One could conclude that such preferences may even be subsidized as a result of position e.g. Secret Service protection.
I would argue that the NRA Ad was dead on BECAUSE the inalienable right to life and property which premises the 2nd involves as well the right to assess individually as well as collectively threats.
The fact that President Obama can have his children protected while at the same time preventing others from protecting their children IS a problem and is not equality under the law. Further it infringes upon the 2nd by removing an individuals right to determine what and what is not a reason to defend.
In essence, your probability reasoning may apply to whether or not something is subsidized by government BUT never whether or not it is permitted.
Inalienable rights are endowed ALL by the Creator -there is no rational basis needed to prove that which is self evident and as such, no rational basis such as probability can legitimately be employed to infringe upon such rights.
Inalienable rights are only subject to limitation WHEN countered by other inalienable rights and in such cases it is usually the lessor of two evils which triumphs for the sake of social order and the common good.
Obama only security is a flawed hypocritical argument and the NRA was correct to pint it out.
Just heard Bill O'Reilly's opening discussion with U.S. Sen. Marco Rubio. BoR said he is for ...
1. ban on "military-style assault rifles" - The asshat still doesn't understand the difference between an automatic rifle and a semi-automatic rifle.
2. registration of all firearms - He claimed the progressive left believes this will reduce crime. The asshat is oblivious to the threat of federal confiscation.
3. along with registration, fingerprint all gun owners.
BoR is truly a useful idiot and carrying water for the 5th Column of which he is a leading figure. More and more Freepers see him for the lout he really is.
The criminal mind seeks soft targets. Liberals create soft targets. Are soft targets created on purpose? The argument could be made that indeed soft targets are created for the sole purpose of keeping the police busy, criminal attorneys busy, judges busy, the system busy, and the media busy with it bleeding so it is leading. These people have to eat too. It is similar to a make work type of stimulus package. The thing which makes it different is it is supposedly not a bailout because the bailout is reserved for the criminal, which employs more people. People die, and the system and media make money. We must accept this, must we not?
I’m really confused, if people pick up their kids after school and a police officer is parked out front, do the parents say “What’s that SOB doing here?”
Why is anyone even arguing against police protection?
Obama is ridiculing the NRA suggestion just because it was made by the NRA.
I seem to remember a similar response by rinos of the day when Wayne Lapierre confronted Billy ‘the pervert’ Clinton way back in the 90’s.
Sour Krauthammer was virulently anti-Palin. He showed who he really is during that time.
the NRA ad was perfect and true and Fox boys better get with it or their audience will desert them.
They are not RINOs.
The problem with that crowd is that none of them are firearm owners and not one of them understands the fact that Sidwell Friends school has armed guards.....not for the President’s children, but for all the students of elite Washingtonians.
The President’s children get an additional layer of protection from the Secret Service.
FReepers know this story. Those on Fox do not.
That is why they saw the ad as “out of bounds” while the rest of us love it.
The NRA didn't go after anybody. We want the same for our kids. We don't want anything to happen to Obama’s kids, nor the kids of people in the media and certainly not to our kids. Kids are innocent and need to be protected, no matter whose kids they are.
Let’s analyze this whole RINO reaction. They say “Of course the president’s kids need protection!”. I agree.
So- isn’t Obama’s whole point that now other kids need protection? That there is a threat worthy of national action?
So now tell me why there is a difference in the solution?
You can risk your kids if you want, but my kids deserve and WILL GET all the protection I can provide them!!!
I thought the ad was spot on and the pundits were way off. If Bammy wants to surround himself with human shields the way all dictators do, then all’s fair as far as I’m concerned.
We’re gonna have to realize we have to fight fire with fire with this guy. The media won’t like it and that’s fine. The way the WH reacted tells me the NRA hit a nerve.
Keep hitting.
Police are at our schools to give parking tickets to the moms during the chaotic pick up hour. At the high school, they are patroling the kids cars looking for illegal stuff that they can haul them in for. Sometimes they bring the sniffing dogs. It’s one of the top schools in the USA. Makes me mad sometimes.
What I don’t understand is how they are saying the polls are showing more people are agreeing with the proposed measures. How is it that this does not compute with the NRA has 250,000 more member ship and gun stores shelves are being cleaned out and lines are around the block at gun shows.
This is just like before the election, all signs were it was going to be a GOP blowout and the the fraud began.
I think his aim is to disarm the American people and used Sandy Hook as the crises to start implementing his agenda. As Rahm said never let a crisis go to waste.
Kauthammer even said the President was sincere in his attempt to do something. That is absolutely ridiculous. If he wanted to protect the kids, he would have insisted on arming either the teachers that want to be armed or have armed guards in our schools.
Everyone knows that taking away guns from law abiding citizens is not going to stop the terrorists, the crazies, and the criminals.
Your comment made me think of the movie Die Hard and the armed guards did get it your right.
Hannity Special – Inside the Gun Debate— 9pm Friday EST
I didn’t see the ad, but assume from the conversation that it is in regard to the Secret Service. And I would agree with you that of course the kids (and the president) are at a greater risk of being targeted - IF they did not have the Secret Service.
But our kids are no less worthy of the protection that we as parents want to provide them. Regarding the high profile of the president, there was a guy from the History channel that does the “Conspiracy History”? thing (like the Masonic Temple, Lincoln Assasination, etc.) He just came out with a new book called “The Fifth Assassin”. And he did a lot of research on the four previous assassins, as his fictional one is trying to mimic and follow in their footsteps.
Anyway - when he heard about the Aurora Theater and Newtown shooting people were saying “what has this world come to...”, and he thought “pretty much the same as before.” Young men, loners, wanting/needing to be heard and make a “name” for themselves. In the past it was “shoot a president”. But with security so much tighter around the president they resort to other, easier targets.
So I wonder, while the risk to any one particular child or person might be less than the president - the risk to us collectively by some nutball trying to make a “name” for himself is now higher than the risk to the president?
They will defend themselves by saying that the ad was using class warfare as the basis of its appeal. I heard the ad. It was brilliant BECAUSE it used Obama’s class warfare argument.
The NRA is definitely appealing to conservative gun owners, but it’s also trying to tap into those self-defense democrats and independents who too often are Limbaugh’s “low information voters”.
So, that ad in particular would appeal to the masses, and that is what makes it brilliant.
And that is why the liberal media is appalled and why the Mitt Media is tut-tutting.
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.