Sorry fellow freepers, the ad was stupid. I am 100 percent NRA, but comparing the risk to a President’s kids to ours is ridiculous. We risk the random crime, his kids have targets for the whole world on their backs.
I completely disagree with you. No one is saying that the President's kids can't be protected. Some of the kids have parents in high risk jobs and they deserve to be protected too.
What about the kids of policemen, judges, correctional officers, FBI, ATF, etc They have an added danger. After the publication of some of the addresses, the prisoners in New York were taunting the correctional officers.
And I don't really care if it is a random act, our kids deserve to be protected to. Even Bill Clinton recognized the danger and asked for money for armed guards. The teachers can also be armed if they can pass the background checks.
Our children are important too!
We don't need to have them used as sitting ducks in gun free political zones.
They weren't comparing the risk they were displaying the hypocrisy.
The Democrats are all whining about turning schools into armed camps and yet Sidwell Friends, an elite school with armed guards, manages to plug along just fine.
Once again, the NRA isn’t disputing protection for Obama’s kids.
Obama is rejecting the NRA’s suggestion of protection for other kids.
The NRA’s point is why does Obama see guards for others’ schools as being “inappropriate”.
OK Obama’s kids have greatly enhanced security needs. But some schools have a thousand kids or more. Less risk individually, but a lot of kids to protect.
The NRA should have gone after the kids of the MSM. That would have made their point. Going after the President was wrong.
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.
You can risk your kids if you want, but my kids deserve and WILL GET all the protection I can provide them!!!
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?
I am very shocked that you fell for this. It’s not just about the President’s kids - there are millions of liberals who have kids in protected schools...and thousands of liberals who have private armed guards - and all of them are in support of this...and just the HELL with anyone who thinks all of their kids are more important than any other citizens. You really fell off the wagon on this one pal....
The NRA ad was not comparing risks but comparing value. Obama sends his kids to a school that would have armed guards even if his kids didn’t go there. The armed guards are there to protect the kids of regular rich people along with the children of Obama and all the other super elites.
If you think Obama’s kids deserve better protection from terrorists or crazy people than your own kids, then you shouldn’t be a parent.
We have armed guards protecting banks and jewelry stores, but Obama and the libs want OUR kids to be unprotected in so called gun free zones while they send their children to armed fortresses.
Their kids are not more valuable than mine. If gund are protecting their children, then guns should be there to protect mine.
Except that the school where Obama's kids go had armed resource officers before the O'Kids enrolled at the school and it will have armed security at the school long after they leave. The point of the ad is to remind the public that when the NRA suggested a few weeks ago that our schools should employ armed personnel -- just like they do at the rich, private schools where the limousine liberals send their kids -- Obama and his peeps attacked the NRA and its members as dangerous and stupid.
my kids are just as important as his and deserve to have the same rights.
He;s not king, his fmaily are not and a childs life is equal, after all that is what the elft likes, we’re all equal.
My kids deserve the same protection as anyone elses, they are not better than my kids, and just because daddy never has done a proper job, and used fraud and a corrupt Chicago machine to help him get where he is now does not mean my kids are any less.
Obama and his elitist pals are hypocrites , plain and sime and the drones which follow him are the dumbest idiots this country has seen.
Fed up of the turds on our side putting our side down when they go on the attack and take the left on, those turds need to shut the hell up and let us take obama on for once not come to the help of the left unless they have an agenda
So Obama's kids are more at risk, so he has a right to defend his kids but we don't?
Look genius.
Obama can defend his kids with guns and so should we.
Your response is "stupid".
Which is why taxpayers pay for the protection of his kids.
He seeks to deny us the ability to protect our own.
The Ad was spot on, its way past time the gloves come off.
Really now. Do tell. So that a**wipe’s kids, his title be damned, are facing greater threats in their shangri-la world surrounded by badass SS agents, etc. than kids in...say....the south side of Chicago or East L.A. or east St. Louis?
Give me one, huge, honkin’ break. Please.
“Sorry fellow freepers, the ad was stupid. I am 100 percent NRA, but comparing the risk to a President’s kids to ours is ridiculous. We risk the random crime, his kids have targets for the whole world on their backs.
“
You are completely wrong! The president’s kids aren’t the victims of mass shootings because they Do have the protection. It’s the kids of everyday citizens who are the victims. That’s why they are EQUALLY deserving of the same protection. When was the last mass shooting you saw at Sidwell School? Huh? It doesn’t matter whether the threat is from international terrorists or from some lunatic! WOW! You can’t see that?
I agree except there is no excuse at all to leave American children completely unprotected in safe shooting zones.
“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.
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.
No, his kids are not more important.