White House calls NRA video repugnant, cowardly

[Danno 1,228]

Obama spokesman Jay Carney says most Americans agree that a president's children should not be used as "pawns in a political fight."

UNless you are signing a bill or an exec order... then by all means parade "other peoples" children on stage as a prop.

[The Nature Boy 4,224]

Say that each child of a governor and the President has a couple of guards assigned to them - it's probably more than that but let us just go minimal and say it's 2. Now, we have some 75 million children in this country. How do you propose we come up with those 150 million guards we are going to need to match the protection that the President's and the Governor's children have for each child in the country? Does each child get an armored vehicle, too? Police escorts for trips to the school, the mall and the ice cream parlor? I swear, you big government types really want to blow this country up.

You know, I know and the whole world knows that not one sane person in the whole world is advocating the govt provide a guard for every child. That is the exact kind of idiotic absurd liberal hyper babble that makes is so frustrating to try to talk to a liberal.

Do you really think people read that garbage, and think, WOW what a well thought out coherent argument.

The very argument is, we can't afford guards for our kids so do not take away our ability to protect them ourselves.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

When was the last time anyone here was threatened with assassination? Or the assassination of their family?

*crickets*

[JohnR! 5,495]

The very argument is, we can't afford guards for our kids so do not take away our ability to protect them ourselves.

That is why most Americans are calling for stricter gun control legislation. So that they can protect their kids, even when they can't be with them. Most can't stay wit their kids at school or even after school. Most spend more time away from their kids than otherwise. They need to be able to work knowing their kids are protected; and bringing guns inside schools is not much smarter than having loaded guns laying around the house when kids are present.

Edited January 18, 2013 by Gegel

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

You know, I know and the whole world knows that not one sane person in the whole world is advocating the govt provide a guard for every child. That is the exact kind of idiotic absurd liberal hyper babble that makes is so frustrating to try to talk to a liberal.

Do you really think people read that garbage, and think, WOW what a well thought out coherent argument.

The very argument is, we can't afford guards for our kids so do not take away our ability to protect them ourselves.

That's not the argument that LaPierre put forth. He specifically called on Congress to appropriate whatever it takes to put armed guards in every school in the country. So you're off on that point. The other problem that you have with that line of argument is that there aren't many people in this country that could protect their kids nearly as effectively as the details that the President's kids have for their protection. The vast majority doesn't come close.

[JohnR! 5,495]

*crickets*

tons of them...

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[Teddy B 17,252]

When was the last time anyone here was threatened with assassination? Or the assassination of their family?

Kip told me he wanted to beat me up once. Ahhhh the good ole days.

[The Nature Boy 4,224]

When was the last time anyone here was threatened with assassination? Or the assassination of their family?

I really don't know how much more silly, you anti gun folks can get. So I can assume that if no one threatens to assassinate me I am safe and happy right.

How about my neighbor that had two hood rats enter his home last week

How about the poor woman in GA that huddled in an attic with her two kids and shot the intruder, and unfortunately did not kill him.

How about the young man the other day that shot an intruder and protected his young sister.

I guess all of these people did not need a gun since no one had threatened to "assassinate" them

[JohnR! 5,495]

I really don't know how much more silly, you anti gun folks can get. So I can assume that if no one threatens to assassinate me I am safe and happy right.

How about my neighbor that had two hood rats enter his home last week

How about the poor woman in GA that huddled in an attic with her two kids and shot the intruder, and unfortunately did not kill him.

How about the young man the other day that shot an intruder and protected his young sister.

I guess all of these people did not need a gun since no one had threatened to "assassinate" them

You make a great case for all nations in the world that wish to justify their developing their nuclear arsenals!

Edited January 18, 2013 by Gegel

[The Nature Boy 4,224]

You make a great case for all nations in the world that wish to justify their developing their nuclear arsenals!

There you go with that nuclear nonsense.

[himher 634]

As the request for armed security is for protection outside the home your question is better suited for "gun free zone" victims and their families.

Otherwise for our homes and personal property the liklihood of being a crime victim at any location is published and readily available information which to prevent you from taking the lazy way out, as anti-gun rabble is prone to do, it is suggested that you get up and to get for yourself.

When was the last time anyone here was threatened with assassination? Or the assassination of their family?

Edited January 19, 2013 by himher

[himher 634]

Don't be stunned. It is quite normal for idiotic questions to be met with silence.

*crickets*

[himher 634]

Did he surround himself with children while he made that announcement?

Obama spokesman Jay Carney says most Americans agree that a president's children should not be used as "pawns in a political fight."

[james&olya 1,121]

not one sane person in the whole world is advocating the govt provide a guard for every child.

Do you really think people read that garbage, and think, WOW what a well thought out coherent argument.

I am guessing this is an exercise in futility but I will try anyway. The post you replied to was merely showing how a logical extension of the argument made by a previous poster ends with a completely absurd and impossible situation. The garbage and incoherent argument is the one you seem to support.

I wish I were more artistic. I would draw you a picture if I had that talent, maybe you would understand that!

[himher 634]

Not repugnant if you do believe all men, even elected officials, are created equal and are entitled to equal protection under the law and repugnant if you do not. Not repugnant if you do believe that the powers of the elected officals only derive from the consent of those they govern and repugnant if you do not.

What's repugnant is to compare life-risk factor of the children of the POTUS or any other high ranking official to the everyday kid in small town USA.

Edited January 25, 2013 by himher