Do the gun morons really don't understand that
 

Obama's children need gun protection because their father is the president of the USA? Really? They are THAT retarded?

No. It just makes for an emotional statement.

hey your password is working again!

Emotional statements make points in gun discussions, apparently. That's why Sandy Hook is being used to try to ban assault rifles, for example, even though an assault rifle may not have actually been used and therefore has nothing to do with what happened.

It didn't work?

was my assumption..

it says a lot about the nra that they would actually lead with that. obviously, the nra feels gun nuts/ card-carrying nra members would identify with that message.

sad to use the president's kids as pawns in political marketing.

just as sad, the other side of the same coin feels that using children in their marketing message re: assault weapons is also ok.

http://oi45.tinypic.com/1zoxdar.jpg

the NRA has done some seriously stupid things for an organization looking for a 'way out'

that whole 'a gun in every childs hand' speech for example

what in gods name..?

well, maybe they rly do think their members are retards then. :upsidedow

i have no dog in the race.. but seriously.. can you think of a worse thing they could have said?

it's just.. so painfully brutal

My son has owned a .22 rifle since he was 10. Here in the USA, I'd bet most of our grandfathers owned guns at an even younger age than that. Society is dumbing itself down, expecting less maturity as we go along, which is why some of you will make a deal of my son having a gun at age 10. He's 13 now, and very responsible for his age. Kids live up to what's expected of them.

This^^


P.S. What the message of the NRA is, (and it is touching a nerve with people), is that the political elite class have no problem carrying guns themselves, and having armed guards for THEIR kids at THEIR schools, but the peasants shouldn't be allowed to have the same protection. The same thing applies to anti-gun celebs who have armed protection for their families. It's a case of "do as we say, not as we do", and America was built to be a nation of equally applied laws, not separate elite classes to whom different laws apply.... The political class in the US have become such a class of people, to whom a different set of rules apply. Look at all the laws that congress passes that they exempt themselves from.

Not going to argue the gun debate with you, no one will be persuaded, but I'm just explaining the message of the OP point.

.:2 cents:



.

He is the president and what? AND WE DON'T WANT ANYBODY TO KILL THEM SO WE GUARD THEM WITH GUNS. The point is that they don't make his kids less safe, they make them more safe.

:1orglaugh :1orglaugh :1orglaugh

I learned to handle firearms at age 10 in the Boy Scouts. They put shotguns in our hands at 12.

I'm probably not the only one here, either.

Sounds about right.

That's insane.

Thanks for answering my question.
Amazing.

it's not the argument but the analogy that is ridiculous. it's 2013, of course the president's children need armed protection. obama didn't just come into office and command that to happen. bushie's daughters were fully covered, harumph.........

WTF was that! O.o

kids goofing off better than doing those jackass stunts :2 cents:

The NRA has completely fucked up. Twenty fucking six and seven year old school children brutally murdered and their only response is "we want more guns". Then a month late they release a video game for five year olds. Outstanding.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal.

Hang on everyone porn will be the next target. A porn addict will rape some kids and the government will blame the product and not the person.

When it happens remember it's for the good of the people.

.

We just bought a goat and we tied a bunch of ak's arond em im not scared

Some of them...:Hollering

i just saw on the news that video games are the blame for violence. :1orglaugh

What do they need armed guards for? For protection. What do you need to be armed for? For protection.

They're sociopaths. The blood of children only boosts gun sales, and that's how they like it. Sandy Hook was Christmas for them. Gun sales have skyrocketed.

These vipers have brought Obama's children into this. These gun peddlers are the enemy of the people.

http://www.sabinabecker.com/media/we...to-the-nra.jpg
http://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphoto...80797789_n.jpg
http://skreened.com/render-product/s...k.w760h760.jpg

fuck @@##

You do know HANDGUNS killed the people at that school right? NOT the assault rifles and hi capacity mag you are continually whining about.

.

Yes, and the US is currently fighting with the UN to see who controls the Internet... I don't think that will lead to good things. I don't see how anyone could favor more government control.

You're not a target. Are you?

And as an aside, the First Family (because they are possibly the highest-profile targets on Earth) is protected by an army of not just armed but highly trained experts who follow them constantly and monitor their every move. It's different than simply "being armed."

Well, HANDGUNS aren't what Obama is proposing to limit, so why the fuck do you care?

You don't even understand your own argument. You are using the "children" as the reason for banning guns but the guns used to kill the kids aren't being banned?

So why the fuck do you care?

Lots of people everyday "believe" they aren't targets and they get dead.

You're not too bright, are you? His point was that the gun type Obama IS trying to ban, namely the "assault rifle" category, wasn't even involved in the emotional example his administration is trying to use to justify banning it. This isn't hard to comprehend.

A kid with mental problems murders 20 some people in a school using handguns. The government responds by making a production of banning assault rifles and high capacity magazines as a solution to the problem.

Just wait until this same logic is applied to censoring the internet or porn industry maybe then some of you will get the point about government intrusion.

.

That is very true and if every single person could have an armed guard when they go to the movies, school, work or a mall that theory would be sound. :2 cents:

I vote and I support this. So what you call intrusion I call representation. Additionally since every poll I have seen supports these actions it might be called democracy.

Only to some dutch weirdo lol...

No guns, but we did trapping rabbits and skinning and cooking them - except we didn't catch any so were given ones from the butchers to skin and cook.

Well actually what we are hoping is that more Americans will step up and take responsibility to be their own armed guards instead of depending on the government for everything.

Here's a quote I saw yesterday that sums it up:

If you are for gun control, then you're not against guns, because the guns will be needed to disarm people. You'll need to go around, pass laws, and shoot people who resist, kick in doors, and throw people in jail, and so on; rip up families, just to take away guns. So it's not that you're anti-gun, because [...] you'll need the police's guns to take away other people's guns, so you're very pro-gun, you just believe that only the government (which is of course so reliable, honest, moral, virtuous, and forward-thinking) should be allowed to have guns. So there's no such thing as gun control, there's only centralizing gun ownership in the hands of a small political elite and their minions. Gun control is a misnomer.

Actually the school they goto always has had armed guards there. its not just there for "his kids"

That doesn't sum it up at all, that's a bullshit strawman argument that has nothing to do with the issue at hand. Why does everybody keep trying to equate rational gun control laws with: "Big gubment wants take all ur guns"?

At least I'm not Dutch.

Actually what gun control nuts (the more nuts the merrier) want is for everyone who wants a gun to be as well trained and checked out as a secret service agent. Jokes on you?