NRA pushes back with anti-Obama ad

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • Clinton Draper, UT
    Jan. 19, 2013 9:28 a.m.

    @ 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).

  • Clinton Draper, UT
    Jan. 19, 2013 12:44 a.m.

    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 in logic?

  • Happy Valley Heretic Orem, UT
    Jan. 17, 2013 3:52 p.m.

    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?

  • Maudine SLC, UT
    Jan. 17, 2013 2:36 p.m.

    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?

  • Mountanman Hayden, ID
    Jan. 17, 2013 11:35 a.m.

    To attack the NRA is to attack the second amendment to the constitution. Its no wonder liberal hate both.

  • one old man Ogden, UT
    Jan. 17, 2013 10:26 a.m.

    NRA insanity knows no bounds.

    It's a totally EVIL organization.

  • lost in DC West Jordan, UT
    Jan. 17, 2013 8:17 a.m.

    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 standard.

  • Mountanman Hayden, ID
    Jan. 17, 2013 7:38 a.m.

    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?

  • Bubble SLC, UT
    Jan. 17, 2013 4:06 a.m.

    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.....

  • EDM Castle Valley, Utah
    Jan. 17, 2013 12:16 a.m.

    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 outlandish.