@ Lost in DC: I think what is more disturbing is Obama's shameful use of
little children both now and during his campaign. Very reminiscent of Hitler, if
you ask me (yes, I'm comparing Obama to Hitler since . . . gosh . . . they
both did the exact same thing for political gain).
In my opinion, if you're an American, you stand by the Constitution in its
entirety, period. The very idea that we are debating a Constitutional right
shows how pathetically ignorant some Americans are and how far gone our
government is.@EDM: I respectfully disagree. What is good for the
presidents kids is good for all kids. I'm tired of a government who thinks
they deserve a better retirement program than the rest of us, a better
healthcare system than the rest of us, and better protection for their children
than the rest of us, and if you don't see a problem with these
discrepancies, it is you with the problem, and not those of us who can.@ One Old Man: Insane? Because they disagree with your liberal views?
I'm paying them to defend my Constitutional rights. Does that make me
insane as well?@ Bubble: What are you talking about? The president
already made his intent clear last month. Weren't you paying attention?
Some of us were. And "gun ownership is way more portant [sic] than
children?" What unicorn did you have to ride on to make that fantastic leap
Mountanman said: To attack the NRA is to attack the second amendment to the
constitution. Nope wrong again, the NRA is just another lobbyist group
interested in earning arms dealers money.Then by your logic to
attack the ACLU is to attack the constitution itself, right?
How interesting - one of the President's proposals is money for more police
in schools - and the NRA is blanket-opposing everything Obama suggested -
including more officers in schools. Now who's the hypocrit?
To attack the NRA is to attack the second amendment to the constitution. Its no
wonder liberal hate both.
NRA insanity knows no bounds.It's a totally EVIL organization.
BO's mouthpiece calls the ads repugnant and disgusting, using BO's
daughters for political purposes.BO is using the Newtown victims for
his own political purposes. Using the dead to push your agenda is even more
repugnant and disgusting, but BO and the dems have always lived by a double
Are the President's daughters protected by armed guards or not? Did the
President reject the idea of having armed guards in public schools where most
other children attend or not? If the answer to those questions is YES, then the
President is an elitist hypocrite by his double standard. What's best for
him isn't necessarily what's best for the rest of us, right? By the
way, I do believe the President's daughter should be protected by armed
guards. The question is why not yours and mine then?
Attacking the President before they even knew what he was going to suggest...Gee, what a reasonable organization. For the record: No,
Obama's kids are not more important than mine - but mine are less likely to
be attacked or kidnapped and less likely to cause an international incident. And obviously gun ownership is way more portant than children since the
NRA opposes even the gun safety education aspects of Obama's plan. Also,
even though the NRA has stated violent video games and movies are to blame for
gun violence, they oppose allowing the CDC to study this connection. Yep, totally reasonable organization.....
Oh, good grief! Who on earth cannot see the difference between secret service
protection for the President's family and school security? It's an
absurd comparison. The NRA just gets more offensive and base every time it makes
a statement. Sure, there are people who hate Obama enough to rally behind any
anti-Obama statement, no matter how absurd. But no thoughtful person
wouldn't grant the President's family heightened security. To call
Obama a hypocrite because his family requires heightened security is just