January 15, 2013

"NRA airs new TV ad criticizing Obama on eve of White House gun announcement."

CNN headline.

Here's the ad:

152 comments:

traditionalguy said...

The issue is personal as hell. Obama wants us disarmed. We want that psychopath excuse for a President impeached.

Lem said...

This visual is all wrong when spliced with Obama signing the executive orders surrounded by the kids.

It plays into Obama's demagogy.

madAsHell said...

yeah...he's never fired a weapon.

chickelit said...

Mr. Obama is a fearsome salesman.

chickelit said...

yeah...he's never fired a weapon.

Really? That's the biggest tell of his phoniness.

chickelit said...

It is really telling when a Constitutional Law Professor has not exercised or enjoyed one of the primary amendments. He has totally outsourced his own security.

Lem said...

And whos kids are we really talking about?

The ones Michelle feeds?

The ones parents have to go to court just to be allowed to consent/notified pertaining to access to abortion services?

With free condoms at school?

wyo sis said...

The left really think they need to get rid of guns to prevent an uprising from the right.

Lem said...

Obama has neither the time nor the inclination to explain himself to a nation that rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom that he provides, and then questions the manner in which he provides it. He would rather we just said thank you, and went on our way.

a psychiatrist who learned from veterans said...

It reminds me of Church or at least one period of my reception of it. You know that thing about 'your neighbor.' Well who is your 'neighbor'? Not anybody like somebody you would maybe like know. No, it was some person of a different ethnicity far, far away. Obama is into science. You know maybe NASA could put one of those big ear listening devices on the White House lawn and they could listen real careful and see if they could pick up a signal of sentient beings in like a suburb in North Texas.

Oso Negro said...

In honor of our slide into despotism, I have written a song to honor the President. I am thinking of setting the following to "On, Wisconsin" -

"Fuck Obama, Fuck Obama, Fuck Obama's lame."

I am stuck after that.

David R. Graham said...

"The left really think they need to get rid of guns to prevent an uprising from the right."

Not quite. They want to make everyone unhappy, restless, distracted. To include their minions and even themselves. Happiness for them is universal unhappiness.

Stop watching them, listening to them, reading them, associating with them. So many "conservative" and "libertarian" out-speakers start their jeremiads with defensive/protective reference to leftist agitprop. Lame.

That's how to lose a battle and a war: respond to the enemy's agenda on the enemy's turf. Unmanly.

They want a civil war - only upset makes them happy - then for Christ's sake give it to them. But not on their terms. Make them pay in their personal lives, their families' lives.

They want a two-tier society, them and others? Fine. Let 'em have it: "Give 'em Watts, boys."

O Ritmo Segundo said...

So, am I supposed to care about that or what, exactly?

The NRA has become the right wing's ACLU. Not nearly as popular in their outrage as the gun humpers would like to believe. And gosh, wouldn't they desperately love for an advocate to believe in, in the face of policies that have increased the number dead by mass shootings.

That last bit is called "evidence". Ignore it and bluster away.

Ready, aim, bluster. And get ready to cue "Jay" and his complaints about caring too much.

With a guy like Alex Jones behind you, what could possibly go wrong?

Lem said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Lem said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Dave said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Levi Starks said...

It strikes me as a little cowardly to use children as a human shield.

O Ritmo Segundo said...

He has totally outsourced his own security.

What are you, a cop hater?

Ice T.

The disrespect for the real authority exercised by people whose job it is to put their lives on the line every day is messed up. Are you anti-economics in other regards or just in your disdain for division of labor, the greatest economic advance in like, ever?

Dave said...

YEAH - a nuke for every house - then that AY-rab O-lama won't force Shariah law on us!!

What's the median IQ on this blog? 65? what a bunch of pathetic, paranoid, impotent losers....

Lem said...

And if you are hoping to hear from the courts... dont hold your breath.

To date, U.S. courts have overturned only two executive orders... out of tens of thousands.

And dont forget what the chief pirate Roberts just finished saying...

“It is not our job to protect the people from the consequences of their political choices...”

Inga said...

And the insanity keeps ratcheting up.

So you're gonna have a revolution? You don't even know what the announcement Is yet.

N.U.T.S

Lem said...

And the insanity keeps ratcheting up.

And your assault on free speech continues unabated.

O Ritmo Segundo said...

Conservatives have put themselves in the position of being anti-cop.

I don't think this can be emphasized enough.

Say it loud and say it proud:

"Cop-hating conservatives".

The NRA's insistence on no restrictions on assault weapons or ammo ever is opposed by the nation's men and women of law enforcement. Tell them why you think it should be easier for criminals to have superior firepower to them. Tell them why it is you think crime and countering it should be a paramilitary exercise.

Go ahead, tell them.

It's about emotion, isn't it?

O Ritmo Segundo said...

We want that psychopath excuse for a President impeached.

Go ahead. Make his day.

Lem said...

Demagoguery: impassioned appeals to the prejudices and emotions of the populace.

Out of the mouth of silver tongue Ritmo is like magic.

Of course republicans are going to be put in a position of wiping king Obamas butt with their hands... tell me something I dont know.

O Ritmo Segundo said...

NRA = No Reduction in crime Association

O Ritmo Segundo said...

Words are the expression of how people think, Lem. Denigrating words amounts to denigrating thought.

Also, I never knew that respect for law enforcement in one's community was a problematic prejudice or overly emotional appeal. Most people live in communities in which they want to respect their law enforcement professionals.

Are you saying you have an interest contrary to theirs?

Lem said...

We are talking about the diminution of our freedoms and Ritmo and Obama is all about the politics... winning the game.

Control away from the citizen and into the hands of a more powerful and more knowing government.

Just remember when the rights you dont like are diminished the rights you like and enjoy suffer too. When we turn over our rights we dont get to pick and choose.

Its like giving up parental rights... you dont get to go back later because you changed your mind... you thought better of it.

Once a right is abrogated, given up.. its gone.

Shouting Thomas said...

Been up late watching a movie.

For once, I gotta agree with Inga.

Go to bed, wake up tomorrow and wait to see what it is you're fighting for or fighting against.

You don't know yet. No matter which side you're own, calm and composure will help you better than panicking before you even know what kind of battle you're in.

O Ritmo Segundo said...

Lem:

Feel as free as a bird to explain how you wish to defend Adam Lanza's rights.

Lem said...

Death by a thousand cuts... to the US constitution.

Lem said...

Feel as free as a bird to explain how you wish to defend Adam Lanza's rights.

Adam Lanza is just a Trojan horse.

My right to free speech is not abrogated because some Adam Lanza decides to cry fire in a crowded theater... so likewise should my other constitutional rights.

I think its a mistake to hold some rights in higher esteem than others.

Inga said...

Nucking Futs.

Lem said...

Rights are not parceled out like we are on a bread line... like we are a little pregnant with a little right that has a curfew or something.

We either have a right or we dont.

O Ritmo Segundo said...

My right to free speech is not abrogated because some Adam Lanza decides to cry fire in a crowded theater... so likewise should my other constitutional rights.

Your "right" to cry fire in a crowded theater is so curtailed.

Which side initiated the Trojan War? The side defending widespread access to weapons of mass murder?

The "left" didn't "create" this latest tragedy. It's just responding to the right's ineptness at preventing it.

As it should.

Lem said...

I mean... out of all the dumb stupid ways to loose your rights... we are saying we should volunteer them up because some medicated guy decided to give up his.

Not because we have been compelled by an invading force... no.

We are being compelled/shamed into voluntarily giving up... because some decided to give up theirs.

Where would that kind of backward thinking have put Rosa Parks?

Every other black before her was told to give up the seat and go to the back of the bus... and before her apparently all had acquiesce and it was "enforced".

Lem said...

I have to work tomorrow.

So I'm off.

Steven said...

Your "right" to cry fire in a crowded theater is so curtailed.

Mmm-hmm. A useful insight into your mindset, Ritmo. That cliche was specifically coined to justify putting a man in prison for producing and distributing anti-draft flyers.

Revenant said...

It is worth keeping in mind that while Obama is certainly ignorant enough to announce all manner of curtailments of our rights, he's basically lazy. The major accomplishments of his term have been initiated either by Congress or by activists within his own party. Mostly he's just played golf and whined that people aren't doing what he wants.

I don't expect any follow-through. He'll announce something that gets him good press, then move on once the media is done giving him a tongue-bath. :)

Palladian said...

Why do so-called "liberals" oppose gun ownership? I have asked this question several times here and, as far as I can tell, no one has tried to answer it. Yes, yes, I know that your "team" is supposed to be against guns and less restricted gun ownership by private citizens. But why? What is the liberal case, apart from partisan traditions, against a broad interpretation of the Second Amendment?

Kirk Parker said...

Ritmo,

Actually, the only cop-hating among conservatives I know is the hatred for the sort of cop who goes to the wrong house and shoots their dog.

Well-deserved, IMO.

Kirk Parker said...

Palladian,

The answer to your question lies in that prefatory "so-called" that you (correctly) included. Those on the left crave power, and guns (among other things) in the wrong hands threatens that.

Chip Ahoy said...

Why do so-called "liberals" oppose gun ownership?

I don't think that's the right question because most the gun owners I know are liberals. What makes sense to me is they are against citizens having ridiculous guns, guns like Rambo and Terminator. It's a good question why does a citizen in modern society need a 30 cartridge magazine for assault rifles.

Okay, now you leap and say there is no such thing as assault rifle, that's a made up term specifically for legislation that means nothing at all, and I'm saying on behalf of modern day citizen that assault rifle means those goddamn scary looking things that people thing are so goddamn cool. Those things. What are those for? There's no place for those. In cities.

I think that's the key too. It' a city thing. Gunshots in cities are just bad news no matter when you hear them. Resistance to bizarre gun ownership comes from cities. And just not having a place for guns in modern cities. So opponents are not stomping on anybody's constitutional rights they're just trying to be reasonable about scary scary very unnecessary guns.

Please overlook that guns are still necessary for them because of you and because some pigs are just flat better than other pigs.

Kirk Parker said...

Chip,

Wow, that's a confusing (and, I assume, confused) response.

Marshal said...

Inga said...
And the insanity keeps ratcheting up.

So you're gonna have a revolution? You don't even know what the announcement Is yet.

N.U.T.S


I love when Inga claims others are nuts. When you believe the religious right wants to implement the Handmaid's Tale but call others insane for criticizing gun restrictions it's pretty clear you're the nut.

pm317 said...

Obama does not have the smarts to correct the economy and put the country back on track but he will sign off on exec order on guns. Yeah, the most pressing issue this country is dealing with right now. What a laugh this man is. Fucking incompetent, that is what it is.

ganderson said...

I'm guessing that the 'police' that favor expanded gun control are mostly hacks- police chiefs and public safety commissioners, who tend to be WAAY more liberal than the average cop.

phx said...

They want a civil war - only upset makes them happy They want a civil war - only upset makes them happy - then for Christ's sake give it to them.

Some of you are cracked. I can't believe you're listening to yourselves.

Marshal said...

ganderson said...
I'm guessing that the 'police' that favor expanded gun control are mostly hacks- police chiefs and public safety commissioners, who tend to be WAAY more liberal than the average cop.


I think this overthinks the issue. Support for gun control among police isn't necessarily driven by liberal / consertative ideology.

Cops will have guns no matter the restrictions we place. In their risk/reward analysis more guns increases the likelihood of them accidentally being shot. The rest of us offset that small increased risk with the benefit of potential gun deterrence or self defense. But since cops have guns regardless they don't lose that benefit with gun control like the rest of us do. To them it's all benefit (admittedly small) with no cost.

Some cops no doubt take a broader view than themselves, but it's natural for differing circumstances to drive differing levels of support. Police opposition should therefore be discounted somewhat since they aren't the ones facing the consequences (loss of protection) of gun control.

edutcher said...

Troll-a-palooza.

Looks like the Lefties know the numbers are against them on this one.

And how dare the NRA criticize Dictator O?

He hasn't even taken the crown from the Pope's hands yet.

virgil xenophon said...

It's like Ground-Hog Day with the left. One can explain the basics of firearms and the relevant statistics about crime as well as the underlying "root causes" according to the best scientific/academic literature and it's as if the words were never spoken. "What we have here" is NOT a "failure to communicate." Both sides understand each other ALL TOO WELL. Rather, it's a "dialogue of the deaf"/"ships passing in the night"/"none are so blind as those who will not see" sort of thing. The left sees its chance to crush the opposition and it's taking it--"and don't confuse me with the facts btw while we're about it."

donald said...

I know a whole lot of cops.

Cops are all for responsible citizens owning any damned gin they want.

The paid hack leaders of unions and associations not as much.

AllenS said...

I can hardly wait for the announcement.

SGT Ted said...

Leftists don't give a shit about rights except to be used as a tool to gain power. Once they gain power, rights are what the left says they are.

Liberals and leftists stick up for and praise Communists and Islamic Fascists before they stick up for an actual written Constitutional Right so important to the Founders that it was the second one listed, after free speech and religious worship.

Hitler, Pol Pot, Mao, Stalin, all gun controllers. Obama fits right in. To Obama, the half of the country that didn't vote for him is the enemy and he is busy trying to marginalize them. The Democrats no longer want to Govern as Americans, but as Europeans and we are to just shut the fuck up and do as we're told.

Hey guess what lefties? Our founding documents call for shooting tyrants that try to violate our Rights.

Do you have any answer to that, other than bullshit name calling?

virgil xenophon said...

And I should add that the left is EVERY MUCH as cynical when they mouth their platitudes about "if it will save just one life"/"it's for the children" as was Strother Martin's character in Cool Hand Luke when 'splainin' to Luke what the facts of prison work-camp life were all about..

AllenS said...

Those young black criminals in Chicago must be really afraid that Obama will disarm them.

Rusty said...

O Ritmo Segundo said...
My right to free speech is not abrogated because some Adam Lanza decides to cry fire in a crowded theater... so likewise should my other constitutional rights.

Your "right" to cry fire in a crowded theater is so curtailed.

As it should, to use your words. Your rights end when they put mine in jepardy.

Which side initiated the Trojan War? The side defending widespread access to weapons of mass murder?

Any tool has the potential to be a weapon of "mass murder" as you so emotionally put it. JW Gacey killed more people with his libido.

The "left" didn't "create" this latest tragedy. It's just responding to the right's ineptness at preventing it.

But you will emotionally exploit it.

As it should.

What's your solution?
80 million and 300 million
What are you going to do?

NotquiteunBuckley said...

Conservatives ought to say "death" anytime they say "gun free."

So if you think "gun free zone" what you say is "gun free death zone."

Then there's this:

“Agents cited him for hunting without a basic and big game hunting license, failure to wear hunter orange, and hunting deer with illegal methods and during illegal hours with an artificial light,” TPPF recalled. “Rico pleaded no contest to hunting deer illegally at night with a .22 caliber rifle, and in addition to a fine of $1,051, he was sentenced to sixty days in the Avoyelles Parish Jail.”

From Joel Gehrke. This story made me feel great because the taxpayer's agents did the correct thing. If I saw some asshole hunting deer without a license at night wearing other than blaze orange using a fucking .22 I would demand the dangerous nincompoop pay society for his stupidity which has cost us all dearly, no doubt about it. And I would question the son of a bitch about how many deer he has plinked with a .22 before and how many miles he had to track them before he thought, then discarded the idea, that a .22 might not be the best deerslaying round available.

Joel seems to think this is government overreach in some manner. The Instapundit seems to agree.

Humperdink said...

Glad I went to bed before this thread was posted. Missed the early arrival by the now legendary thread killer, Ritmo and his sidekick, the Ally Oopster (who is at least entertaining).

Ritmo, when you think of limiting magazine capacity, visualize your keystrokes. Call it reasonable keystroke control. Some day our gracious hostess may issue an executive order.

Crimso said...

"It's about emotion, isn't it?"

1) "With a guy like Alex Jones behind you, what could possibly go wrong?"

2) "The side defending widespread access to weapons of mass murder?"

3) "What are you, a cop hater?"

4) The entirety of the comment which ended with the quote above.

It would be easier to consider the merits of your arguments if you would be consistent with your logic and rhetoric.

AllenS said...

O Ritmo Segundo said...
The "left" didn't "create" this latest tragedy. It's just responding to the right's ineptness at preventing it.

That absolutely stupid. The left runs Chicago and they have an enormous amount of murders. Banning high capacity magazines will do nothing to stop the bloodshed there.


rhhardin said...

Not acting to control guns would send a strong message that the government is still ruled by a Constitution, a message that needs sending today.

Moose said...

Aired only on the Sportsman's Channel - I'd say that CNN is giving them much wider coverage than what they paid for.

Moose said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Moose said...

@Chip re: gunshots in a city. Have to disagree. I remember shopping for Christmas trees one year on North ave in Chicago, and my wife and I heard 4 or 5 rapid shots off to the west. We paused, I mentally pictured the area, and turned to my wife and said "Oh, Cabrini-Green". She shrugged and we went about our tree selection. Depends on what you expect from where you are...

Jay said...

Hey, remember when politicizing tragic events was a bad thing?

Oh, that was when a Republican was in the White House.

Never mind.

Humperdink said...

O Ritmo Segundo said...
The "left" didn't "create" this latest tragedy. It's just responding to the right's ineptness at preventing it.

This comment should be sent to the Ritmo Hall of Fame. Really. This one stands out.

Clyde said...

Rumor has it that after Obama issues his 19 executive orders to ban guns, he will issue a 20th executive order changing the national anthem from "The Star-Spangled Banner" to "God Save the King."

Jay said...

O Ritmo Segundo said...

The "left" didn't "create" this latest tragedy. It's just responding to the right's ineptness at preventing it.


You mean except for the fact that CT already has an Assault Weapons Ban, gun sale background checks, waiting periods and gun registration, right?

I mean, it isn't like the Newton nut didn't break multiple laws by stealing those guns and transporting them to a "gun free" zone or anything.

You do realize, stupid shit, not one single law, regulation, or action you propose would have prevented this right?

Lem said...

The funny thing is that back in the civil rights days of the 60s and 70s the idea of having a more restrictive, a more 'enforcement', less rights, more controlled populace was anathema to the left.

I don't recognise this new left.

They are basically saying that they were wrong and that a more restrictive, top down control government dad is a more civilising approach... as oppose to a more independent, autonomous and free to choose individuals.

Is the left saying the 50s had it right and the 60s and 70s had it wrong?

They did away with God and now for some reason they want to replace that civilising force (if you will) with and omnipotent government.

The government this country, more than any other, has always tried to keep small and less significant.

Jay said...

O Ritmo Segundo said...

That last bit is called "evidence". Ignore it and bluster away.


Except it isn't "evidence" at all.

See stupid, there are people who dispute your silly assertion. The Assault Weapons ban had no impact on violent crime. None. Zero.

So you can just go about ignoring that. It makes your ignorance much more appealing.

Jay said...

Ritmo Segundo said...
Conservatives have put themselves in the position of being anti-cop.


It wasn't "conservatives" attacking police and shitting on cop cars during the OWS.

The entirety of your comments are parody.

Jay said...

Inga said...

So you're gonna have a revolution? You don't even know what the announcement Is yet.



Is there anything, any single thing, the President can not do in your mind?

master cylinder said...

Hi Palladian, I will speak for some of the libtards when I say: "well regulated" means some things are off limits. Have your guns. The guns that make it too easy for mass destruction, aka assault weapons, and high capacity clips are what we aim to take off the table. Those have no use in recreation. And all you folks who are concerned about protecting your homes from the evil US govt, your guns are no match for drones. We have so ceaselessly funded our military industrial complex, they made stuff! You are officially screwed. Yall sound crazier than usual.

NotquiteunBuckley said...

It's all about Power. You spout some bullshit one day about freedom, the next day you sign a law set restricting freedom because **this time is different** and you are doing good.

Next year, change positions on a dime and turn toward demons when looking to define your opponents. Think Democrats voting to send troops into Iraq, then entertaining thoughts of Murtha and Pelosi pertaining to slow bleed strategies.

Slower bleeding than the dead Americans on Obamas watch (literally) in Benghazi.

Some days I'd like to think there are good altruistic reasons for my hoping John Murtha is suffering in Hell this very moment; other days I feel revenge is more than just something you vote out.

Jay said...

I will speak for some of the libtards when I say: "well regulated" means some things are off limits.

Um, the term 'well regulated' has nothing to do with government regulation.

This is made clear in Federalist 29

Jay said...

These people are sick.

The White House today released letters from little kids pleading for gun control, just hours before President Obama is to release a comprehensive proposal to limit guns and ammunition. The letters were released to the Associated Press in what appears to be a coordinated effort to help shape the narrative the day of Obama's announcement.

master cylinder said...

Okay, whatevs...please make the case for assault weapons and high capacity clips.

Jay said...

I know facts mean nothing to the gun control zealots, but:

Gun-related violent crime in Virginia has dropped steadily over the past six years as the sale of firearms has soared to a new record, according to an analysis of state crime data with state records of gun sales.

The total number of firearms purchased in Virginia increased 73 percent from 2006 to 2011. When state population increases are factored in, gun purchases per 100,000 Virginians rose 63 percent.

But the total number of gun-related violent crimes fell 24 percent over that period, and when adjusted for population, gun-related offenses dropped more than 27 percent, from 79 crimes per 100,000 in 2006 to 57 crimes in 2011.

master cylinder said...

All of our rights are limited. That's the nuance most of y'all ignore/don't get

NotquiteunBuckley said...

Slave cylinder you have the semblance of a point.

It doesn't mean much though.

Keeping an AR 15 because too many slaves think like you do is prudent and wise, even if Obama could, theoretically, nuke our homes thereby negating our preparations using the AR 15.

And remember there are many more of us than them. And in many cases they are us and we are them.

You just remember that.

Jay said...

master cylinder said...
Okay, whatevs...please make the case for assault weapons and high capacity clips


Um, ok. First, Prior to 1989, the term "assault weapon" did not exist in the lexicon of firearms. It is a political term.

FBI data shows that 323 murders were committed with rifles of any kind in 2011. In comparison, 496 murders were commited with hammers and clubs, and 1,694 murders were perpetrated with knives. So, the use of "assault weapons" in US homicides is statistically insignificant - knifes killed 4 times as many people as rifles in 2011.

Thanks.

Marshal said...

Humperdink said...
O Ritmo Segundo said...
The "left" didn't "create" this latest tragedy. It's just responding to the right's ineptness at preventing it.

This comment should be sent to the Ritmo Hall of Fame. Really. This one stands out.


Interesting reveal. He seems to believe responsibility for governance belongs to the right, otherwise why does the left not share in the failure to prevent? I happen to agree with this since reliance on children would be an abdication of responsibilty. But even so the left doesn't avoid blame by refusing to act responsibly.

Jay said...

master cylinder said...
All of our rights are limited.


Owning a machine gun is already practically illegal for the average citizen.

So yeah.

Jay said...


Interesting reveal. He seems to believe responsibility for governance belongs to the right,


yes. No matter that CT is a deep blue state and is has some of the more stringent gun laws in the country.

Because there is no federal assault weapons ban - remember, one wasn't enacted by Obama when had the House & Senate controlled by his party - it is apparently all the Republicans fault.

Of course the whole thing could be an act by another poster here as it is all such silly, over the top, parody.

cubanbob said...

Zero can just issue an executive order declaring the entire nation a gun free zone. Once done there will be no need for armed police or secret service.

Ritmo Zero is just the hired help. If his life is worth protecting with firearms yours is more so. Interesting to note that NY just past the strictest gun control law in the country but the really interesting part is they recognized that when it comes to guns and mass shootings its nut control that is key and that is the real heart of the legislation.

NotquiteunBuckley said...

Slave cylinder feels as though our weapons are useless against big daddy; therefore we don't need weapons in the first place and should simply French ourselves.

Doubtful.

Marshal said...

master cylinder said...
All of our rights are limited. That's the nuance most of y'all ignore/don't get


Actually we get that just fine, which is why there are already many firearm restrictions.

I can't figure out why anyone would make such a ridiculous accusation. Did you accept the drum circle talking points as fact?

Jay said...

master cylinder said...
All of our rights are limited.


All 50 states have laws restricting gun ownership.

The federal government has 10,000+ pages of regulation related to firearms.

So um, what the fuck are you talking about?

Humperdink said...

master cylinder said...
All of our rights are limited.

And they are becoming even more limited with each passing day. And the left sees nothing wrong that. That is, until one of their pet rights gets gored. Then watch them howl. Like the Patriot Act.

Oh, wait a minute ......

Michael Haz said...

Death of young people by gunshot has been a horrible problem in Chicago for decades, particularly among minority populations.

Barack Obama has done nothing about this, while in Chicago, Springfield or D.C. Nothing.

He did, however, jump into the gun control area with both feet within hours after the deaths of suburban white children in Connecticuit.

He is always about the optics, always. Watch his dog and pony show today. There won't be a single tattooed saggy-ass pants'd urban kid in the group. Just nicely scrubbed suburban-looking kids. The children of donors, most likely.

And while his little show is on the air, his kids will be well protected by men with guns.

He cares not about gun control nor the deaths of innocents. He cares in restricting rights, controlling the population, an imperial presidency.

Jay said...

Gun homicides down almost 14% since expiration of the federal assault weapons ban.

bpm4532 said...

When Obama wraps other people's children around him to use them to make a point, it pretty much opens the door to us using his children to make a point.

Kelly said...

On Good Morning America, Elizabeth Vargus was talking about the NRA ad and said in a shocked tone that they called Obama an elitest hypocrite. It was so funny the way she said it. My fourteen year old said sarcastically, "what! That isn't against the law!?!" I love my daughter.

Tom said...

I support the NRA fighting for our civil right to self defense. However, I don't think this ad is the way to do it. This isn't about guns, it's about our families and our ability to protect them. There are so many stories of self-defense that need to be told. I hope those stories are told - not of "gun nuts" but from normal people who had to do the unimaginable to protect themselves or their families. Or who couldn't protect themselves or their families because of miguided gun laws. Can you imagine women telling their stories of domestic violence or sexual assault and how only a gun did or could have equalized the fight. These stories are powerful and real. And we as a people need to realize the government cannot protect us from all evil - it's up to us. Showing a bunch of cool guns in a television ad (that looks like Call of Duty) and pointing out a silly (but disburbing) hypocrisy cheapens this fundamental civil right. We need fight for this civil right like our lives depend on it!

cubanbob said...

Zero trotting out little kids for his agit-prop is just so North Korean. Time to start calling him Little Kim Jr.

Master is right. No one has absolute rights but he forgets the other side of the coin; the government has enumerated powers not unlimited powers.

dbp said...

It is a great ad! Obama is a world-class hypocrite and it needs to be pointed out. Constantly.

Paul said...

Ann,

I'm a NRA Patron and Life member to the Texas State Rifle Association, so you can guess how I feel.

Now am I a uneducated hillbilly, Neanderthal, or redneck?

Hmm. B.B.A. degree, computer programmer for 30+ years, wife, kids, paid home, good standing member of Catholic Church.

Politically and philosophically I'm to the right of John Wayne.

Now there, you now see what a NRA member is like.

Oh, and I just signed up 3 new NRA members this week. We will win in the end!


As for the commercial, Obama is 180 degrees off on what should be done.

Just look at any state with harsh gun control. They have MORE murders, robberies, muggings, rapes, etc... than those with very few laws.

That is just a fact born out by FBI stats.

The real problem is cultural. The destruction of the nuclear family, absent fathers, running wild kids, horrific video games, gangs that replace the parents of so many kids, drugs, etc.... clean that up and crime will drop.

Simple as that.

Tridad said...

chickelit said...
It is really telling when a Constitutional Law Professor has not exercised or enjoyed one of the primary amendments. He has totally outsourced his own security.


To be fair, he's never quartered a solider in his house.

chickelit said...

ritmo scolds me last night: The disrespect for the real authority exercised by people whose job it is to put their lives on the line every day is messed up. Are you anti-economics in other regards or just in your disdain for division of labor, the greatest economic advance in like, ever?

Cop hater? Nw you sound like garage mahal during the Wisconsin Union brew-haha. "How dare you criticize a cop!"

I expect much more from you Ritmo. Why don't you go back to bashing white people in a bigoted way--that's what you're best at.

Patrick said...

I still find it funny that the neighbor of mine who is most ardently pro-gun control has, of all things, a swimming pool.

But, that's different, don't you know.

Tom said...

High cap mags help women and individuals who may not be as physically strong. A .22 caliber weapon can be effective for self defense but its going to require a lot more ammo. Banning all mags above 7 rounds sounds great and may make us feel better. It's not really effective if the goal is self-defense. Also, high cap mags have zero effect on suicides since that really only needs one round in the chamber. Well, unless mass shooters run out of rounds and can't shoot themselves at the end - but I'm not sure that's the goal here.

phx said...

It is a great ad! Obama is a world-class hypocrite and it needs to be pointed out. Constantly.

Calling someone a hypocrite does not attend to the merits or demerits of their argument.

LilyBart said...

This visual is all wrong when spliced with Obama signing the executive orders surrounded by the kids.

He doesn't care about those kids. Not really.

I weep for my fellow country men that they are so gullible to be swayed by such nonsense.

If Obama really cared about those kids, he'd be worried about their futures - and the impact of the ruinous levels of debt on that future. Very few kids are actually in danger of gun violence. But EVERY ONE of our kids are having their future severely, negatively impacted by out of control spending and debt.

LilyBart said...

cubanbob said...
Zero trotting out little kids for his agit-prop is just so North Korean. Time to start calling him Little Kim Jr.


The whole thing does have the stench of a dictator, doesn't it.

X said...

how many divisions does an extra-constitutional Obama have?

LilyBart said...



chickelitsaid...
Mr. Obama is a fearsome salesman.


I think you mean conman

Hagar said...

Stringent gun registration laws reduces the number of registered guns and increases the number of un-registered guns.

However, that is not what this is about. What it is about is to gin up a hot button issue and split the Republican party this spring sufficiently to "win" on the debt ceiling and budget issues.

"Win" in quotation marks, because it is all about the short term and "winning," not about what is good for the country in the long term, and certainly not about any "compromise," "bi-partisanship," or any other idea of having the citizens get along with each other.

Mattman26 said...

One problem with the ad is it isn't clear if the Prez's kids have armed security at school because they're the Prez's kids (i.e., Secret Service) --- in which case I think most people could accept the premise that his kids need more security than the average Joe's --- or simply because it's a wealthy private school. I suspect it's the latter; I wish the ad made that clear.

Tom said...

We still need to discuss Benghazi...

EMD said...

No Reduction in crime Association

But crime rates have fallen as gun laws have become more relaxed? Hmmm ...

Ritmo still has yet to get back to me on how to explain the reduction in the labor participation rate since 2009, even though Obama has brought unemployment down 2 points!!

cubanbob said...

Mattman his kids are no more valuable than yours. And if Dick Gregory's kids are worthy of protection why aren't yours?

damikesc said...

The NRA has become the right wing's ACLU.

Except with an infinitely better record on civil rights. They protected blacks from the Democrats of the KKK when few others would do so.

Conservatives have put themselves in the position of being anti-cop.

I don't think this can be emphasized enough.

Say it loud and say it proud:

"Cop-hating conservatives".


Knock yourself out.

Can you name how long it took cops to get to Sandy Hook?

How long it took them to respond to Aurora?

Columbine?

The NRA's insistence on no restrictions on assault weapons or ammo ever is opposed by the nation's men and women of law enforcement.

Those same men and women also vigorously oppose use videotaping their actions in public.

Take that for what it's worth.

Fr Martin Fox said...

The NRA ad makes a valid point, albeit ham-handedly:

The gun-grabbers favor gun-provided protection for themselves...but not for you.

Remember when the left was saying that every American deserves to have the same health-insurance protection the politicians have?

Why doesn't the left believe every American deserves the same gun-provided protection the politicians have?

Because the left does not believe that. They agree that Obama and his family are morally superior--their lives are more precious than yours or mine.

And those of us who believe in equal protection under the law are "nuts."

Rocketeer said...

"Those have no use in recreation."

Thousands of dead Brits and Hessians that died defending oppression should be a small clue to you that the 2nd Amendment is not about "recreation."

I've made the point before, but I'll make it again for the dull-witted: Peirs Morgan and his ilk prattling on about "muskets" ignorantly but unsurprisingly misses an important point about whether or not civilians "need" super-scary "military-style assault weapons". Waaaaay back in the 1770s, American civilians used rifles to kill British soldiers with muskets. In other words, our civilians have had an expectation that they have a right to superior weaponry from the revolution and the founding.

Rocketeer said...

Remember when the left was saying that every American deserves to have the same health-insurance protection the politicians have?

Wait - when did Congress decide they would be covered by Obamacare? Did I miss something?

President-Mom-Jeans said...

I'm just imagining what it would be like if President Bush surrounded himself with little children and announced restrictions on abortion by executive action.

Oh the gnashing of teeth and wailing of the retards like ritmo and Inga, it would be deafening. Or any other of the left's pet causes.

The next four years are going to be really, really bad. With the fellating press and an Obama with "flexibility" its goin to be a bumpy ride. All the more reason to be well armed.

AJ Lynch said...

I remember doing the tourist thing in San Francisco and we came to a street where Senator Feinstein lived. I was told that even thought it was a public street, it was verboten for non-residents of that street to walk down that street or drive through it. And that was prior to 911.

Bruce Hayden said...

Okay, whatevs...please make the case for assault weapons and high capacity clips.

Let's reverse that - banning "assault weapons" essentially bans gun designs newer than 50 years ago. The AR type rifles were originally designed in the late 1950s and adopted by our military in the mid 1960s. At the time, they were primarily distinguished by using modern materials instead of the wood that had been in use for centuries. Plus, they were lighter and allowed soldiers to carry more rounds, for use primarily as suppression fire in fully automatic "rock and roll" mode.

Since then? The materials have gotten better, as have the guns. Much more reliable. And, they are almost completely modular, allowing people to switch out calibers, butts, sights, etc., and easily switch out accessories, such as sights, lights, etc., when rails replace the standard carrying handle.

In other words, anyone attempting to ban AR-type semiautomatic rifles is essentially trying to ban 50 years of technology, just because it looks scary. They are trying to move gun owners back to much earlier technology. And, why? Because these more modern weapons have been glorified by Hollywood violence.

As to "high capacity clips" - first they are magazines, not clips. The semiautomatic M-1 Garand, standardized by the U.S. military in 1936, destandardized two decades later, and then completely replaced by those black scary guns in the 1960s, utilized "clips". Modern weapons utilize magazines, and what libs and other gun grabbers consider "high capacity" is considered minimal capacity throughout much of the gun owning portion of our populace. Outside of gungrabbing states like California, almost semiautomatic magazine fed weapons (rifles or pistols) are initially sold with larger capacity magazines than would be legal under the bills by such notables as DiFi.

And, somehow, cops need 15 or so bullets in their magazines, while civilians only need 5 or 6? When the cops supposedly practice much more? Why do the cops need so much higher capacity magazines than anyone else? Are their lives worth more? Is David Gregory's?

edutcher said...

master cylinder said...

Hi Palladian, I will speak for some of the libtards when I say: "well regulated" means some things are off limits. Have your guns. The guns that make it too easy for mass destruction, aka assault weapons, and high capacity clips are what we aim to take off the table.

Ever hear of the statue in MA dedicated to the colonial woman who killed 7 Indians with an axe?

PS As for limits on rights, funny how all those "limits" originated post-WWI.

Humperdink said...

The left's strategy is fairly obvious. They know this won't work to eliminate mass shootings. So when the next one occurs, they will want more restrictions. And more. And more. Until we are disarmed.

Similar strategy with the stimuli packages. Didn't work, need to spend more. And more. And more.

Hagar said...

Again, it is about politics, not gun "control."

Dave said...

"Fr. Martin Fox said...Because the left does not believe that. They agree that Obama and his family are morally superior--their lives are more precious than yours or mine."

Counseling 101, Padre - don't assume you know what other's think or believe. In other words - don't project - listen. Abusers assume that the abused is "enjoying it." WRONG!

Regarding the ad - Obama has had more death threats than any President in modern history. All President's family's receive Secret Service protection, because they ARE potential targets. The NRA ad is pathetic.

I Callahan said...

Calling someone a hypocrite does not attend to the merits or demerits of their argument.

Yes it does. If it's OK for him to have armed people protecting him, then it's OK for me. This is the argument that works better than any other. I hope the NRA pounds this home.

Darrell said...

Obama has had more death threats than any President in modern history

More than Bush? Impossible to believe unless you include "non-threats"--words said in anger that no one believes is a credible threat ("He should be shot t the moon!). Things that didn't even make the radar when they were said about Bush.

I'll believe you when plays fantasizing about BO's death start appearing on stages across the country.

I Callahan said...

in which case I think most people could accept the premise that his kids need more security than the average Joe's

This is where I disagree, especially since the ideas this president has make it MORE difficult for my kids to be protected. THAT'S what makes him a hypocrite.

I Callahan said...

Counseling 101, Padre - don't assume you know what other's think or believe. In other words - don't project - listen. Abusers assume that the abused is "enjoying it." WRONG!

OK, Dave, I'm listening. Why do the president's kids DESERVE more protection than yours? Go ahead and explain that.

Insufficiently Sensitive said...

Obama has neither the time nor the inclination to explain himself to a nation that rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom that he provides

He provides???

He doesn't provide freedom. The Constitution does that, in the face of the President's best and most mendacious attempts to weaken it, and to reduce any freedoms he personally disapproves of.

Bryan C said...

Dave, you don't seem to understand. The NRA isn't arguing that the President's kids should not be protected. They're simply pointing out that other parents also care about their own kids, and have exactly and precisely the same right to protect their kids as citizen Obama does. How is this hard to grasp?

phx said...

I don't care if the president is a dingbat or a libtard - I want his or her kids protected by armed guards anywhere they go. It's not because he or they "deserve" is more, it's because those children are a highly valued target among some real bad people, and this country shouldn't be put through the kind of trauma that would ensue if they were attacked.

Bryan C said...

You can stop firing, phx. That strawman is already dead.

Jay said...

Obama has had more death threats than any President in modern history.

Complete and utter bullshit.

Marshal said...

Insufficiently Sensitive said...
Obama has neither the time nor the inclination to explain himself to a nation that rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom that he provides

He provides???

He doesn't provide freedom

The quote's paraphrased from a Few Good Men, so I presume it's sarcastic.

phx said...

Bryan C - Strawman? What strawman are u talking about? It's an argument for sending the president's children to school under armed guard.

You can disagree with that argument fine, but you'll have to say where the strawman is if that's your problem.

Chip Ahoy said...

Regarding the ad - Obama has had more death threats than any President in modern history.

Sez you. I haven't seen any adverts for films fantasizing about killing O like have seen for killing Shrub, but since you sez so it must be so. Your point is still taken, however it fails because he's not the only person who receives threats and it doesn't really matter that much how many when one threat is enough, or in the case of the Newspaper that printed the names of gun owners, good enough without any actual threat at all.

Marshal said...

phx said...
I don't care if the president is a dingbat or a libtard - I want his or her kids protected by armed guards anywhere they go. It's not because he or they "deserve" is more, it's because those children are a highly valued target among some real bad people, and this country shouldn't be put through the kind of trauma that would ensue if they were attacked.


No one is saying Obama shouldn't protect his kids. You may think the difference in risk eliminates the need for defense of non-presidents. But the constitution, common law, and cultural tradition all make clear it is neither your nor Obama's decision to make for others.

Rocketeer said...

But the constitution, common law, and cultural tradition all make clear it is neither your nor Obama's decision to make for others.

And that, Marshal, is what really gets to them...

phx said...

I'm saying there is an argument to be made that the President's children need armed protection while other citizens' children don't necessarily. You can argue against that on many grounds but there's no strawman.

My argument hinges on the special circumstance that an attack on the president's children would harm our nation in a way that an attack on my children wouldn't.

You can accuse me of sounding like Dukakis though.

Marshal said...

phx said...
I'm saying there is an argument to be made that the President's children need armed protection while other citizens' children don't necessarily. You can argue against that on many grounds but there's no strawman.


Your strawman claim was theat people object to to Obama usuing gund to protect his children.

phx said...
I don't care if the president is a dingbat or a libtard - I want his or her kids protected by armed guards anywhere they go.


Who is against this?

phx said...
I'm saying there is an argument to be made that the President's children need armed protection while other citizens' children don't necessarily


Isn't it great that we have protection choice? You can decide for yourself, and others will decide for themselves.

phx said...

Your strawman claim was theat people object to to Obama usuing gund to protect his children.

You don't even know how to say what you don't know what you're talking about.

Tom said...

Okay -- here are the gun control laws I counter-propose:

1) No fire arm or replica of a fire arm may be used in or transmitted through a movie, film, or on television. This includes the broadcast or theatrical screening of any movie or television show where a fire arm or replica is present.

2) A national concealed carry law with complete reciprocity shall be implemented. This law will be a "shall-issue" unless the person fails the background check.

3) End of most gun-free zones for CCW permit holders.

4) Allow properly trained and licensed school officials/teachers to carry at schools. Implement effective training.

I'm no gun nut by any means. I own one fire arm for home protection and my wife inherited a shot-gun. But we believe in our right and duty to protect ourselves and our family. And we no illusions that the police can protect us in an emergency. I don't believe there is an effective way to disarm the nation and I believe the 2nd Amendment is as much about defense of government tyranny as it is about self-defense -- so I don't support universal gun registration. If those are the constraints, then the only solution is to have enough people armed as to serve as a deterrent to those that would commit violence. Not everyone needs a gun -- we just have to be armed to the point that criminals never know.

grackle said...

It's a good question why does a citizen in modern society need a 30 cartridge magazine for assault rifles.

Answer: To defend myself and my family against crazy potential shooters who could be using a 30 cartridge magazine for assault rifles since the shooters really don't care that certain magazines or rifles are banned. I do not want to be out-gunned by a shooter.

… assault rifle means those goddamn scary looking things that people thing are so goddamn cool. Those things. What are those for? There's no place for those. In cities.

Appearances, always the emphasis on appearances instead of reality. In reality the rifles the commentor references are no more lethal than the non-scary-looking rifles. I'm supposed to limit my constitutional rights because the commentor is unnecessarily frightened silly by an image that has no basis in reality. Not if I have anything to do with it, thank you all the same.

Resistance to bizarre gun ownership comes from cities. And just not having a place for guns in modern cities. So opponents are not stomping on anybody's constitutional rights they're just trying to be reasonable about scary scary very unnecessary guns.

The commentor is eager and determined to limit my constitutional right to bear arms while at the same time vigorously denying doing just that. Does the commentor believe I will not notice? Does the commentor even realize that is what the comment does? And again the emphasis on appearances instead of reality. But remember – they are only trying to be "reasonable."

The real problem is … The destruction of the nuclear family, absent fathers, running wild kids, horrific video games, gangs that replace the parents of so many kids, drugs, etc.... clean that up and crime will drop. Simple as that.

Simple, yes. Easy? No. The destruction of the family will not be easy to reverse.

The NRA ad is pathetic.

The ad has the anti-gun folks frothing at the mouth – which means it is highly effective. The Morning Joe's on MSNBC were beside themselves this morning. That's a good thing. They are happy and content only if they are winning. A version of this ad can be run over and over again using other politicians as examples because the elites always want armed security for their own – and as a result this general theme will always be effective.

My argument hinges on the special circumstance that an attack on the president's children would harm our nation in a way that an attack on my children wouldn't.

Other than causing a period of national grieving over the deaths I see no harm to the nation. Aside, perhaps, from a flood of emotion-motivated ill advised legislation being passed by our idiot Congress in the aftermath. Tragic? Of course. But no more tragic than the deaths at Newtown. No more tragic than a "gang-related" shooting in Chicago.

As a parent I am disturbed by the commentor's attitude. I believe the lives of the commentor's children to be fully as valuable and worth saving as the President's children.

chickelit said...

phx said...
I'm saying there is an argument to be made that the President's children need armed protection while other citizens' children don't necessarily. You can argue against that on many grounds but there's no strawman.

Written by someone who doesn't have kids him or herself.

Please elaborate. Is it a hostage type National security threat?

My lashing out at your soulmate, ritmo, was that the President outsources his kid's protection. Good for him. Others can't. Why give POTUS the power to prevent parents from protecting their own?

You're a heinous anus, sometimes.

Marshal said...

phx said...
Your strawman claim was theat people object to to Obama usuing gund to protect his children.

You don't even know how to say what you don't know what you're talking about.


That was a pretty pathetic effort at typing. On the other hand you're lecturing others that hypocrisy doesn't invalidate an argument, so maybe you can learn something from yourself.

And I note you have yet to substantively respond to any argument posed to you. As usual.

Mattman26 said...

cubanbob, I wasn't suggesting that the President's kids are more valuable than mine, simply that a President and his immediate family are, absent security, almost certainly more prone to being targeted for violence than me or my family.

Rusty said...

master cylinder said...
Hi Palladian, I will speak for some of the libtards when I say: "well regulated" means some things are off limits.

Check your OED or an 19th century Websters, if you can find one.
The word had a different meaning in 1778 than the meaning you give it.
Today "regulated" means controlled. The founders use of the word meant more like qualified, or equipped to do the job. Much like clocks of that era were said to be regulated. Qualified to tell the right time. In the 2nd it meant that as a militia member you had all the equipment you needed to be a citizen soldier.
If you want to extend that to today it would mean that every willing citizen between the ages of 16 and 60 would have a real "assault rifle". capable of automatic fire. A supply of ammunition and the accoutrements that would let him do the job of a regular soldier.
Much like the Swiss today.
Keep in mind that the 2nd amendment was included in The Bill of Rights to insure that a tyrannical government never messed with the other 9
And before you think it can't happen here, that's what the Jews in Germany thought.

grackle said...

1) No fire arm or replica of a fire arm may be used in or transmitted through a movie, film, or on television. This includes the broadcast or theatrical screening of any movie or television show where a fire arm or replica is present.

2) A national concealed carry law with complete reciprocity shall be implemented. This law will be a "shall-issue" unless the person fails the background check.

3) End of most gun-free zones for CCW permit holders.

4) Allow properly trained and licensed school officials/teachers to carry at schools. Implement effective training.


I have a problem with #1. Movies, even porn movies, have been found by the courts to be protected speech. The legislation would be struck down almost immediately.

I believe #2 to be ill-advised and unnecessary. The states should decide, not Washington, DC. And many states already have reciprocity – with more sure to follow. For example, most of the neighboring states of my state already have reciprocity.

… I wasn't suggesting that the President's kids are more valuable than mine, simply that a President and his immediate family are, absent security, almost certainly more prone to being targeted for violence than me or my family.

The unspoken assumption here is that the danger of attack to ordinary schools is insignificant compared to the school attended by Obama's children. Which is probably true. But if the risk to ordinary schools is insignificant why call for sweeping legislation and a "national conversation?"

Kirk Parker said...

master cylinder,

Yeah, except that's not at all what "well regulated" means. Hint: the modern regulatory state wasn't even a gleam in anyone's eye at the time...

Good modern equivalent phrases would be "properly-functioning" or "well-practiced".

phx said...

And I note you have yet to substantively respond to any argument posed to you. As usual.


I wonder why you even bother with me.

phx said...

Is it a hostage type National security threat?

Okay.

You're a heinous anus, sometimes.

No need for that between old frenemies, chickelit.

Fr Martin Fox said...

Dave quotes me as follows:

"Fr. Martin Fox said...Because the left does not believe that. They agree that Obama and his family are morally superior--their lives are more precious than yours or mine."

Dave says:

Counseling 101, Padre - don't assume you know what other's think or believe. In other words - don't project - listen. Abusers assume that the abused is "enjoying it." WRONG!

Thanks for the counseling advice. I simply described what liberals sure seem to believe, based on what they say and do.

Now, if you or anyone else what's to dispute it, or offer a counter-explanation, have it.

The question is, why shouldn't every American have the same gun-provided security the President and his family do?

It's a simple question. Please answer it, or else explain what part of the question confuses you or is invalid?

Regarding the ad - Obama has had more death threats than any President in modern history. All President's family's receive Secret Service protection, because they ARE potential targets. The NRA ad is pathetic.

Yes, I know they receive threats; we all know that. I'm glad they are protected, and happy to pay for it.

But other Americans get threats, too. Other Americans are targets.

Should the taxpayer provide gun-based security for them? Or should they be allowed to provide it for themselves?

If not, why not?

Fr Martin Fox said...

Here's my gun-control bill:

Any and every American citizen seeks to obtain a weapon, for self-defense, and is prevented by any gun-control measure...

And then is injured or killed...

Shall be able to sue the government for civil damages, and win simply by demonstrating that the weapon s/he sought to obtain might reasonably have lessened the harm s/he incurred.

In other words, wherever the government restricts your ability to defend yourself, the government becomes legally responsible for your safety.

You get to sue the taxpayer for not protecting you.

Show of hands for that?

No, don't like it?

Then don't stop people from protecting themselves.

The day you can neither protect yourself, nor the government will protect you, is the day the government loses all moral authority whatsoever.