| From | Message |
|---|
|
 NRA hits Obama over ‘hypocrisy’
In a sign of how brutal, emotional and deeply personal the coming battle over gun violence is likely to be, the National Rifle Association on Tuesday accused President Barack Obama of hypocrisy for having Secret Service protect his daughters even as he opposes the group's call for armed guards in schools.
The Web video, first obtained by The Blaze, opens with a narrator asking, “Are the president’s kids more important than yours? Then why is he skeptical about putting armed security in our schools when his kids are protected by armed guards at their school?”
The 35-second video makes no effort to hide the tension and animosity between the NRA and Obama, even stepping into the recent "fiscal cliff" debate. The video continues:
“Mr. Obama demands that the wealthy pay their fair share of taxes but he’s just another elitist hypocrite when it comes to a fair share of security,” as an altered image of the president peers over a stack of dollar bills, followed by images of “Meet the Press” host David Gregory, California Sen. Dianne Feinstein, New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg and Vice President Joe Biden.
A White House official declined to comment on the video. However, spokesman Jay Carney did announce that Obama would outline his administration’s plan to address gun violence on Wednesday.
|
|
... why is protecting the children of the president of the United States by profession guards considered hypocrisy? Or, is this just more partisan bashing?
|
|
What a load of rot.
|
|
So
it ok to use guns for protection then? Nevermind I thought a lot of people had a problem with it.
|
|
I would love to see the President and all other national politicians put their kids in public schools. I would love to see these guys fly in coach on regular passenger flights. I would really love to see them go without their armed security guards.
Can anyone tell me why it is that they deserve all these perks? Why aren't their kids in the public schools where they live?
Chaz? DM?
|
|
Softy
Stop attacking them, suddenly they have no problem with guns. We all get along now.
|
dmaestro
15-Jan-13, 21:49
|
They are high value targets. They deserve protection. Not hypocrisy at all.
|
|
They
are no higher then my kids to me. Or anyone elses for that matter. Matter of fact my own are of much much greater value to me. So yes complete hypocrisy.
|
|
stinky would your children be as high a risk of kidnap as the president of the US kids? Probably not.
|
|
Change
It doesnt matter. You dont tell me the risk or how much care I should take. Its not for you to decide. There are thousands of people who have had their children kidnapped, how many presidents have had their children kidnapped? I rest my case.
|
|
It's obvious that Obama's kids are more important and special than yours are. All rich people's kids are.
|
|
stinky you are right I cannot tell you how much you care about your kids. That is not the issue brought up. I doubt it was Obama or any recent president who put secret service employees to guarding the children of any president. They are by definition high risk targets for any nutter who does not agree with the parents of said children. Of course we all want to protect our children as much as is possible. It is a little different when it comes to a presidents children or are you just angry about it because it is Obama's children?
|
dmaestro
15-Jan-13, 22:13
|
We should protect all children but clearly the risk is much higher for the Obama family.
|
|
It's not that high profile and rich people do not deserve to have protection.
It is that all citizens deserve having their personal protections and NOT having them taken away, leaving them helpless to people who want to do harm to them.
And, it does not matter whether that means personal protection from criminals and mentally deficient people or societal protections from a tyrannical government.
|
dmaestro
16-Jan-13, 06:42
|
Yes you really need those military style weapons for your insurrection, oops "protection" is how you framed it. Lets see if you can keep them. I have no moral issues with prying them out of the cold dead hands of rebels and enemies of the state.
|
|
softy
The Obama children are not simply 'rich people'. Where is your sense of perspective gone? Can you imagine the position the parents would be in if those children were 'taken', by anyone. What would you do to get your children back? Empty Guantanamo for instance? Send all the prisoners home? Perhaps give in to Iranian/North Korean demands? What price would you put on your children's lives in that position?
|
|
change
Yes, and that is exactly why they get their protections.
You miss the point where I said it is not that do not deserve their protections.
The point is that ALL Americans deserve their protections (however they can arrange it) also.
Do you understand my point now?
|
|
Yes I do, except we have a very big difference of opinion on how that can be achieved. Your constitution and the second amendment, I believe, is actually standing in the way in this modern age. It has gone way past the point where any civilian uprising would do any good against a federal government. It would be wholesale massacre in spite of thumper's insistence that the military would not fire on their own, they did once before. What is the penalty for disobeying orders in the US military?
All the arguments that rage over gun control, right to bear arms, personal protection and the rest, does not alter the fact that over 10,000 Americans die every year because guns are available in one way or another (not all of them intentional homicides or gun rampages).
I actually 'read' a non existent comma in you post.
|
Log in 
