|
|
| Post Number: 1
|
KenV 
Group: Members
Posts: 5544
Joined: Mar. 2002
|
 |
Posted on: Jan. 17 2013, 1:11 pm |
|
   |
The NRA recently released an ad that I think is in very bad taste by dragging the President's children into a political debate. I think that a politician's children must be off-limits in all politicking.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zKLA3BODXr0
One thing this ad does seem to confirm is that the coming anti-gun control vs anti-gun fight is not only going to be hard fought but is likely to get nasty, with both sides appealing to irrational emotion. A sad commentary on the state of our politics.
|
 |
|
|
| Post Number: 2
|
High_Sierra_Fan
Group: Members
Posts: 39556
Joined: Aug. 2005
|
|
Posted on: Jan. 17 2013, 1:25 pm |
|
 |
They sure tripped over what otherwise is a valid political challenge:
Sidwell Friends School employés 12 armed security officers to guard the children who attend. So others, who in cases send their children to that verysame school (and the list reads like every political mover and shaker plus some recognized media names), have to answer for why their children warrant such armed protection and yet they oppose the same for the general school populace.
The failure is the NRA didn't wait to read the President's proposals where there IS support for armed guards for schools (as loudly derided that has been on this forum...). It's Congressional opponents to that concept that should be facing that challenge of hypocrisy, not the President.
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 3
|
george of the j
Group: Members
Posts: 463
Joined: Apr. 2006
|
|
Posted on: Jan. 17 2013, 1:26 pm |
|
|
I agree that the NRA ad was in bad taste. The NRA is very awkward with public relations aimed at middle-of-the-road Americans. Being against the assault weapon ban myself, I cringe to think of what the NRA will come up with next, and hope it does not do too much more damage to the cause.
President Obama complained that the NRA used his kids as "pawns" in the political game. Obama was much smoother politically with his speech, and was able to use a bunch of kids on his stage as pawns without coming off as unseemly.
---George
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 4
|
markinOhio
Group: Members
Posts: 354
Joined: Feb. 2005
|
|
Posted on: Jan. 17 2013, 1:30 pm |
|
|
It was in bad taste.
But, even given that his children are obviously under a much grater risk, I think that it is actually a valid point. It is hypocritical that his children are protected by well trained heavily armed guards (not just at school), but wants to deny the citizens of the USA to offer the same level of protection to their children in their home.
As a counterpoint, I offer Obama’s use of children as a human shield when presenting his gun control proposals. It is significant in that his entire argument for banning assault weapons and limiting magazine size is solely based on fear and emotion. Since it is devoid of any facts or reason, the use of children as props is critical to support his argument of fear and emotion.
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 5
|
High_Sierra_Fan
Group: Members
Posts: 39556
Joined: Aug. 2005
|
|
Posted on: Jan. 17 2013, 1:32 pm |
|
|
markinOhio- A large number of the proposals presented were directly related to school safety.
I'm opposed to children as props without regard to what the legislation is about. Had they wanted he could have been surrounded by school teachers and first responders.
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 6
|
Land Rover
Group: Members
Posts: 6529
Joined: Sep. 2006
|
|
Posted on: Jan. 17 2013, 1:53 pm |
|
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs....=pm_pop
Post called it a big whopper saying setting the legally mandated secret service aside the school has....
But we spoke to parents who said they had never seen a guard on campus with a weapon. And Ellis Turner, associate head of Sidwell Friends, told us emphatically: “Sidwell Friends security officers do not carry guns.”
Sidwell Friends, by the way, has two distinct campuses, a lower school in Bethesda and a middle and upper schools in Washington. So given shift rotations and three different schools, it appears that the 11 “armed guards” is really just one or two unarmed guards per school at a time.
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 7
|
Land Rover
Group: Members
Posts: 6529
Joined: Sep. 2006
|
|
Posted on: Jan. 17 2013, 1:56 pm |
|
|
And in terms of the children at the launch - this attempt at legislation is in direct response to a massacre of six and seven year olds at a school. We shouldn't let the NRA's and gun sluts' big distraction game cause us to lose sight of this.
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 8
|
High_Sierra_Fan
Group: Members
Posts: 39556
Joined: Aug. 2005
|
|
Posted on: Jan. 17 2013, 2:28 pm |
|
|
"gun sluts'"
Oddly enough that doesn't get any less moronic no matter how much you repeat it.
You that shaky about your argument's validity?
It is nice they echoed my previous point:
"Note that Obama said he was skeptical that armed guards were the “only answer,” not that he was skeptical of the idea. Indeed, in the package of gun-control proposals he unveiled on Wednesday, he called on Congress to help schools hire more guards or other school resource officers." Which puts President Obama's proposal in opposition to many on this forum.
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 9
|
Land Rover
Group: Members
Posts: 6529
Joined: Sep. 2006
|
|
Posted on: Jan. 17 2013, 2:34 pm |
|
|
Not at all. I think Raz used it and it's pretty accurate. I think those with an inordinate attachment to certain types of guns need to stop associating them with "getting back their man card", as the Bushmaster ad suggested.
You seem to have missed the point that your entire post was factually wrong earlier huh?
You really want to get into a discussion about weak arguments?
Sidwell Friends School employés 12 armed security officers to guard the children who attend. So others, who in cases send their children to that verysame school (and the list reads like every political mover and shaker plus some recognized media names), have to answer for why their children warrant such armed protection and yet they oppose the same for the general school populace.
11 “armed guards” is really just one or two unarmed guards per school at a time.
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 10
|
High_Sierra_Fan
Group: Members
Posts: 39556
Joined: Aug. 2005
|
|
Posted on: Jan. 17 2013, 2:40 pm |
|
|
(Land Rover @ Jan. 17 2013, 11:34 am)
QUOTE Not at all. I think Raz used it and it's pretty accurate. I think those with an inordinate attachment to certain types of guns need to stop associating them with "getting back their man card", as the Bushmaster ad suggested.
You seem to have missed the point that your entire post was factually wrong earlier huh?
You really want to get into a discussion about weak arguments?
Sidwell Friends School employés 12 armed security officers to guard the children who attend. So others, who in cases send their children to that verysame school (and the list reads like every political mover and shaker plus some recognized media names), have to answer for why their children warrant such armed protection and yet they oppose the same for the general school populace.
11 “armed guards” is really just one or two unarmed guards per school at a time.
A discussion about "arguments" would be a marked improvement over the grade school name calling you've been routinely indulging in, along with a lot of others, for the majority of the time this topic has been being posted about.
And the Post agrees with my concluding observation in that post, you know, the portion you left out of your "quote"?
"The failure is the NRA didn't wait to read the President's proposals where there IS support for armed guards for schools (as loudly derided that has been on this forum...). It's Congressional opponents to that concept that should be facing that challenge of hypocrisy, not the President."
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 11
|
Old Frank
Group: Members
Posts: 624
Joined: Sep. 2007
|
|
Posted on: Jan. 17 2013, 2:50 pm |
|
|
Looks like we can all agree that the reference to the President's children was bad, no matter our position on gun control. My guess is the vast majority of NRA members would agree.
If a deranged wacko, or a lucid terrorist, shows up with a gun at the school, the NRA and all us gun owners are going to catch heat...regardless if the worse scenario (harm to innocents) happens or not.
--------------
My favorite compliment: "GrandPa, I've seen other old men, and their faces are a whole lot cruddier than yours is".
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 12
|
Land Rover
Group: Members
Posts: 6529
Joined: Sep. 2006
|
|
Posted on: Jan. 17 2013, 2:54 pm |
|
|
Really - I thought this was the conclusion - not really in line in any way with what you said is it.
A slashing attack like this has an especially high threshold to get its facts straight. The ad gives the impression that a phalanx of armed police are guarding students, such as the Obama and Gregory children, at Sidwell Friends.
But that is completely false. Far from being elitist, the relatively small force of unarmed security guards at Sidwell is not unusual for a school of its size.
Moreover, the ad also suggests that Obama rejects out of hand boosting security at schools, when in fact his proposals include provisions that would provide funding for more school security.
If the NRA is also trying to count Secret Service protection for Obama’s children as part of that force of armed guards, that’s even more ridiculous. As we noted, such protection is mandated under federal law — and only exists for the president’s children.
I'm probably going to continue showing little respect for those unable to accept any connection between the availability and prevalence of weapons like these and their use to bring such murderous destruction to a school.
I'm also going to continue to point out the BS points and distractions, such as comparing guns to children's swimming pools - and the one above - where you can't bring yourself to admit you were naive and misled.
Given that and your apparently fragile constitution on the matter perhaps you can consider using the ignore button.
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 13
|
|
|
| Post Number: 14
|
Land Rover
Group: Members
Posts: 6529
Joined: Sep. 2006
|
|
Posted on: Jan. 17 2013, 3:06 pm |
|
|
And on a personal level - I think our tolerance and respectful attitude toward such extreme behavior as putting an assault rifle in the family home has led to the ridiculous situation we have now. Where the NRA owns the show, and politicians run from the matter.
Treating the "pro gun folks" with more respect than they deserve has led to the problem we find ourselves in now. Ted Nugent is not some sort of wise elder father - he's a gun nut - or a gun slut or any one of many variations on that theme. Pretending that those who seem to want to emulate him by arming themselves to the teeth aren't somehow weird or unhinged isn't the answer.
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 15
|
hbfa
Group: Members
Posts: 7073
Joined: Feb. 2002
|
|
Posted on: Jan. 17 2013, 3:18 pm |
|
|
This ad plays to their base IMO - the extremists.
They don't need to win over their base, their Base is already in lock-step.
This ad does nothing to help their tarnished image with the more reasonable people out there.
The NRA of past, the NRA that taught me hunter safety as a kid, is unfortunately long gone.
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 16
|
Land Rover
Group: Members
Posts: 6529
Joined: Sep. 2006
|
|
Posted on: Jan. 17 2013, 3:23 pm |
|
|
Sidwell Friends School employés 12 armed security officers to guard the children who attend. So others, who in cases send their children to that verysame school (and the list reads like every political mover and shaker plus some recognized media names), have to answer for why their children warrant such armed protection and yet they oppose the same for the general school populace.
It employs 11 guards not 12
They aren't armed
The others that send their kids there (movers and shakers) don't expect their kids to have armed guards.
They don't warrant such protection as they don't have it.
Rendering the point as to why they oppose it meaningless.
Even IF the school they send their children to does have armed guards proving that this "safety" matter was the reason they chose that specific school would make them hypocrites - not the very fact that their children go to a school with an armed guard.
A lot of schools in America already have armed guards, as I think you pointed out.
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 17
|
|
|
| Post Number: 18
|
markinOhio
Group: Members
Posts: 354
Joined: Feb. 2005
|
|
Posted on: Jan. 17 2013, 3:28 pm |
|
|
Yep, the NRA seems to be filled with some loony individuals. But, unfortunately, they are the only path to preserve private gun ownership in America.
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 19
|
Land Rover
Group: Members
Posts: 6529
Joined: Sep. 2006
|
|
Posted on: Jan. 17 2013, 3:31 pm |
|
|
Though given you're continuous juvenile hysteria (which shows little respect for yourself or what argument you may think you have, not much of anything at all about "others") you're probably one I should ignore, if for no other reason than to save the bandwidth
Don't be such a little knicker wetter.
You got upset because I called your comparison to "kiddies swimming pools" stupid or pathetic and dared to accuse you of being motivated by liking guns a little too much - which apparently I got wrong.
You've been throwing a little sulk on the matter ever since. You get stuff wrong HSF - I get stuff wrong too. Just deal with it.
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 20
|
|
|
| Post Number: 21
|
Land Rover
Group: Members
Posts: 6529
Joined: Sep. 2006
|
|
Posted on: Jan. 17 2013, 3:53 pm |
|
|
It's family members with the guns right? Vague recollection of past discussions - though I guess that may not have been you.
I freely admit to playing a little rough. I've just never seen you take offense before now.
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 22
|
|
|
| Post Number: 23
|
High_Sierra_Fan
Group: Members
Posts: 39556
Joined: Aug. 2005
|
|
Posted on: Jan. 17 2013, 4:29 pm |
|
|
Montecresto- Per a Washington Post research into the guard claim they find it's not accurate, though the number of listed security individuals is about that number (11 were there in Dec. with a reported 12th position being advertised), what security Sidwell does have is reportedly unarmed.
" Ellis Turner, associate head of Sidwell Friends, told us emphatically: “Sidwell Friends security officers do not carry guns.”"
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs....og.html
Now for security purposes that may or may not be true, but there's a Sidwell School representative on the record.
BUT in any case the administration's proposals request funding for armed school guards for public schools so the NRA should learn to take "Yes" for an answer, IMHO. 
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 24
|
wwwest
Group: Members
Posts: 4056
Joined: Dec. 2002
|
|
Posted on: Jan. 17 2013, 4:43 pm |
|
|
Oh, my prophetic soul! Turns out that Australia did pretty much what I envison being necessary here in order to get the many shooters under control.
Because Australia is a federation of states, the national government has no control over gun ownership, sale or use, beyond controlling imports. Given our decentralized system of government, I could reduce the number of dangerous firearms only by persuading the states to enact uniform laws totally prohibiting the ownership, possession and sale of all automatic and semiautomatic weapons while the national government banned the importation of such weapons.
To make this plan work, there had to be a federally financed gun buyback scheme. Ultimately, the cost of the buyback was met by a special one-off tax imposed on all Australians. This required new legislation and was widely accepted across the political spectrum. Almost 700,000 guns were bought back and destroyed — the equivalent of 40 million guns in the United States.
City dwellers supported our plan, but there was strong resistance by some in rural Australia. Many farmers resented being told to surrender weapons they had used safely all of their lives. Penalizing decent, law-abiding citizens because of the criminal behavior of others seemed unfair. Many of them had been lifelong supporters of my coalition and felt bewildered and betrayed by these new laws. I understood their misgivings. Yet I felt there was no alternative.
The fundamental problem was the ready availability of high-powered weapons, which enabled people to convert their murderous impulses into mass killing. Certainly, shortcomings in treating mental illness and the harmful influence of violent video games and movies may have played a role. But nothing trumps easy access to a gun. It is easier to kill 10 people with a gun than with a knife.
Passing gun-control laws was a major challenge for my coalition partner: the rural, conservative National Party. All of its members held seats in nonurban areas. It was also very hard for the state government of Queensland, in Australia’s northeast, where the National Party was dominant, and where the majority of the population was rural.
The leaders of the National Party, as well as the premier of Queensland, courageously supported my government’s decision, despite the electoral pain it caused them. Within a year, a new populist and conservative political party, the One Nation Party, emerged and took many votes from our coalition in subsequent state and federal elections; one of its key policies was the reversal of the gun laws.
For a time, it seemed that certain states might refuse to enact the ban. But I made clear that my government was willing to hold a nationwide referendum to alter the Australian Constitution and give the federal government constitutional power over guns. Such a referendum would have been expensive and divisive, but it would have passed. And all state governments knew this.
In the end, we won the battle to change gun laws because there was majority support across Australia for banning certain weapons. And today, there is a wide consensus that our 1996 reforms not only reduced the gun-related homicide rate, but also the suicide rate. The Australian Institute of Criminology found that gun-related murders and suicides fell sharply after 1996. The American Law and Economics Review found that our gun buyback scheme cut firearm suicides by 74 percent. In the 18 years before the 1996 reforms, Australia suffered 13 gun massacres — each with more than four victims — causing a total of 102 deaths. There has not been a single massacre in that category since 1996.
Few Australians would deny that their country is safer today as a consequence of gun control.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013....p&_r=1&
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 25
|
BillBab
Group: Members
Posts: 4490
Joined: Sep. 2008
|
|
Posted on: Jan. 17 2013, 5:44 pm |
|
|
So the lesson is....you can only use dead children to make your political point
Gotcha!
--------------
"Asking liberals where wages and prices come from is like asking six-year-olds where babies come from."
Thomas Sowell
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 26
|
|
|
| Post Number: 27
|
Montecresto
Group: Members
Posts: 1874
Joined: Jul. 2012
|
|
Posted on: Jan. 17 2013, 8:58 pm |
|
|
(High_Sierra_Fan @ Jan. 17 2013, 4:29 pm)
QUOTE Montecresto- Per a Washington Post research into the guard claim they find it's not accurate, though the number of listed security individuals is about that number (11 were there in Dec. with a reported 12th position being advertised), what security Sidwell does have is reportedly unarmed. " Ellis Turner, associate head of Sidwell Friends, told us emphatically: “Sidwell Friends security officers do not carry guns.”" http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs....og.htmlNow for security purposes that may or may not be true, but there's a Sidwell School representative on the record. BUT in any case the administration's proposals request funding for armed school guards for public schools so the NRA should learn to take "Yes" for an answer, IMHO.
Ok. Well ABC, the weekly standard, MSNBC and others disagree. And I posted the comment because of the reaction that so many hear had when the NRA suggested it. And much of the press ridiculed W.L. for suggesting it, and lo and behold, the White House agrees.
--------------
Killing one person is murder, killing a 100,000 is foreign policy
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 28
|
|
|
| Post Number: 29
|
|
|
| Post Number: 30
|
|
|
|
|
|
Survival Skills 101 • Eat Better
