Friday, January 18, 2013

What A Stupid Move

Hey, NRA and GOP...can I give you a little advice? If you don't want to drive away moderates (especially women) you should refrain from running ads that talk about the president's children. Even Chris Christie is pissed.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-nras-diabolical-ad-about-obamas-children/2013/01/17/4b3f0bd2-60f8-11e2-9940-6fc488f3fecd_story.html?hpid=z2

34 comments:

T. Paine said...

And here's some advice for the dumbass king... er, President. If he doesn't want to piss off those remaining Americans that still revere the Constitution, perhaps he shouldn't surround his gun control photo op with children and imply that those of us that don't support his agenda are indirectly responsible for killing kids.

free0352 said...

You really think women wont be able to see the hypocrisy of this tyrant.? The hypocrisy that his elite 1 percenter kids and the other elites at Sidwell Friends in Obama land should get a SWAT team to guard their children while we get a gun free zone sign? I think not. The women in this country are smarter than that. Yhank god for the NRA who has the guts to stand up to this over reaching power drunk administration and push him to protect everybodys kids instead of his own a s he sarifices our children and stands on their graves to advace his illegal and vicious agenda.

jim marquis said...


Paine, I admit posing with kids was manipulative but I honestly don't think Obama was implying folks like you are indirectly responsible for what happened in Connecticut. I think he was using them to point out what's at stake in this argument.


Free, you are one of the smartest people I know. But in my opinion you don't really understand the majority of women in this country. You said over and over and over again during last year's campaign that women would "see through" the War on Women message. But in reality there was nothing to "see through" because it was the truth. And the majority of women now don't see Obama as a hypocrite but as a leader who's making a serious effort to lessen the number of innocent lives lost to gunfire in this country.

free0352 said...

That must be why so many have joined the NRA these last few months and why 60% of my CPL classes are filled with women. I'm actually sick of training women first time gun owners. Hell, I'm out here with my terminally ill father and his female friens (all of whom are senior citizens) are trying to get me to organize a class at the scottsdale gun club.

More over do you have any clue how many NRA members are Democrats? This push at gun control is doomed. You won't get one Republican vote and you'll lose quite a few Democrat votes. Americans are a nation of Riflemen, and any more they're also a nation of Riflewomen. Women aren't interested in outsourceing the security of their children to a gun free zone sign.

S.W. Anderson said...

The NRA's organizational top tier has shown itself to be a cabal of vicious, unprincipled and selfish bullies concerned only with money and power. Not all the members are that way, but those who aren't need to see those at the top for who and what they are, and make a decision. Recent polls indicate some of this is going on, with substantial numbers of NRA rank-and-file members supportive of tightening laws and practices.

I understand it's hard for radical-right people to accept that a public official is acting out of conscience, moved to take up an unwanted fight because of circumstances that could no longer be passed off as isolated incidents. People tend to judge others by their own notions and attitudes, so the selfish, opportunistic and dogmatic predictably project their own ways on to anyone who steps up to do something those on the right don't like out of a sense of duty and responsibility.

Maybe "King" Obama should come out with a matter-of-fact statement the NRA and others on the right should be able to understand, given the precedent, and then shut up and get out of the way: "I'm the decider; I get to decide."

S.W. Anderson said...

The NRA's organizational top tier has shown itself to be a cabal of vicious, unprincipled and selfish bullies concerned only with money and power. Not all the members are that way, but those who aren't need to see those at the top for who and what they are, and make a decision. Recent polls indicate some of this is going on, with substantial numbers of NRA rank-and-file members supportive of tightening laws and practices.

I understand it's hard for radical-right people to accept that a public official is acting out of conscience, moved to take up an unwanted fight because of circumstances that could no longer be passed off as isolated incidents. People tend to judge others by their own notions and attitudes, so the selfish, opportunistic and dogmatic predictably project their own ways on to anyone who steps up to do something those on the right don't like out of a sense of duty and responsibility.

Maybe "King" Obama should come out with a matter-of-fact statement the NRA and others on the right should be able to understand, given the precedent, and then shut up and get out of the way: "I'm the decider; I get to decide."

free0352 said...

Even obama reluctantly admits this stupid push for draconian gun control won't prevent active shooters. I am convinced this is an attempt by the left to hobble what it sees as an obstacle to its agenda both nation wide and within the Democrat party, as the truth is there are many thousands of Democrat voters who are loyal NRA members. This is as much a political purge of the Blue Dogs as anything. They will comply or be terminated within your party.

free0352 said...

Also, its on NBC that the NRA has polled higher than the entertainment industry, all of congress, and President Obama.

If we ran the NRA for president, it would win.

S.W. Anderson said...

"If we ran the NRA for president, it would win."

I'll file that with all those election-night predictions and statements that Romney had it in the bag.

clif said...

draconian gun control

That is a LIE.

Told by an extremist gun fetishist.

free0352 said...

You didnt here those predictions from me Anderson. The were against Romney and I said forever he was doomed to lose. Its you who cant accept the truth the way those die hard GOP voters hoped against hope. Its a vocal and vicious super minority who want gun control.

Oh and cliff, excelent debate skills as always. Maybe next you cqn try breathing through your nose like a big boy.

clif said...

sorry freebee, tell a out right LIE, and I will call you on it.

You lied when you posted what you did,

you just don't like any regulations on guns like drug addicts don't like the regulations on drugs.

T. Paine said...

The left and Obama's stance on gun control is not so much about guns, but rather is about control.

Progressives created an environment over the course of the last few generations where anything goes and there is no sense of personal responsibility or morality left anymore. It is all up to the individual’s wants and desires. Parents don't matter. God is archaic and a superstition. What feels good and what you want is what really matters. If you need help, the government will provide via the "evil rich" whatever you think you need. To hell with societal standards and mores.

No guilt, no responsibility, and no consequences. Except there are consequences. When we have replaced parenting with government and created false senses of self-esteem that eventually come crashing down because they are built on lies, we then wonder how all of this happens.

How does a kid take a gun and kill other kids in his school? It is not the gun's fault. It is an inanimate object. It is the killer's fault... it is the fault of society, but not in the sense that the progressive left usually decries. It is the society THEY have created that is indirectly at fault. They wanted a society free of the bourgeois morality, rugged individualism, and personal responsibility that helped build this country and made it the greatest nation on earth. Well, this is the product of your desires, my progressive friends.

If you want to blame someone for these killings by nihilistic men-children, look in the mirror. It isn’t the NRA’s fault. It isn’t Smith and Wesson or Bushmaster’s fault. It is your own God damned fault! Live with that, if you can.

clif said...

Only in America;

Guy kills mother, declared mentally ill, years later amasses an arsenal of weapons with a gun permit

Thanks to the hard work and dedication of the NRA to help these people get guns.

T. Paine said...

Cliff, once again your facts are wrong. The NRA is militant, if you will pardon the term, in making sure that felons and the mentally ill do NOT get weapons, and when they do use them illegally that they are prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. Nice propaganda though. White House talking points memo perhaps?

jim marquis said...

That's an amazing story, Clif. Thanks for sharing.

I would say the NRA is suddenly very okay with background checks mainly because they're willing to concede that point in order to protect assault weapon sales. When you strip away all the bullshit, money is really what they're militant about.

clif said...

No t-boy no white house talking point, just a true history of how the "nra" have used millions in lobbyists money spread around Washington to try to stop common sense gun regulations to help their funders to keep making insane profits off the killings all across America.

Nice try at ignoring the relevant facts though.

free0352 said...

So you're saying a person who shouldn't have a gun got one anyway. Gee, ya don't say?

So... no matter what the laws are criminals will get guns and only people who follow the law won't have them...

I guess what you're saying is when you outlaw guns only outlaws will have them.


The NRA says the same thing.

clif said...

I guess what you're saying is when you outlaw guns only outlaws will have them.

You guess wrong as usual freebee.

the guy got guns because a NATIONAL data base of people who should NEVER be allowed access to any gun doesn't exist,

the cry babies in the "nra" fought to prevent that.

keep lying about the fatcs

clif said...

no matter what the laws are criminals will get guns

typical dumb as dirt wingnut thinking here;

If you are totally against gun laws cause somebody might violate them,

then are you against rape laws because people routinely break those laws?

Against laws against murder, because people are murdered every day?

You must be against laws against illegal immigration cause those laws don't work eh freebee?

free0352 said...

Murder is always a crime for obvious reasons. Gun ownership has no victim. A gun is a tool, one that often prevents rapes and murders. Jusy last October i was able to stop my own car jacking thanks to me being armed. But we do have laws, and one of those says the rights of the people to both keep and bare arms may not be infringed. If you are interested in following laws, start with that one.

clif said...

But we do have laws, and one of those says the rights of the people to both keep and bare arms may not be infringed.

Not a law, but an amendment.

Seems you cannot tell the difference.

The written amendment was written when flintlock barrel loading arms were the ONLY type of arms in existence, so it is ONLY the type of arms relevant everything else is an extension.

You might want to screech it isn't but given how rigid you are being in your demands for your views of the second amendment have to accept that the ONLY arms you have under that amendment were the ones that existed when it was written.

No magazine-fed, semi-automatic rifle, with a rotating-lock bolt, actuated by direct impingement gas operation or long/short stroke piston operation, mentioned.

Sorry but if you want ORIGINAL INTENT with no openings for modernisation, then the very weapon you fetishist faun over doesn't meet the original intent of the founders.

T. Paine said...

Cliff that is the most asinine argument you have made thus far. By that logic, free speech as exercised by Jim Marquis and all bloggers is not protected by the Constitution because the internet did not exist back then.

Give me a break.

free0352 said...

Well back in the flint lock days our founders let private citizens own their own naval ships with hundreds of cannons and issued them letters of margue... so I doubt they would have a problem with a little black rifle.

And a Constitutional Amendment is law. This concludes todays civics lesson. Your welcome.

clif said...

By that logic, free speech as exercised by Jim Marquis and all bloggers is not protected by the Constitution because the internet did not exist back then.

Thank you for proving my point T-boy .....that was easy.

clif said...

Your version of the second amendment would not allow any laws regulating arms at all. By the logic I get from you clowns, nobody should be denied the right to bear arms.

But I do not even think you are so deluded you think Charles Manson, Terry Nichols, James Holmes, and many other like them, should ever be allowed to possess any type of arms.

The only question if you agree those three individuals among others have lost their right to bear arms is where the line is drawn, on how the limits to the second amendment is drawn for the population by the government set up by the US Constitution.

PS; nothing in the Second Amendment about refusing criminals from bearing arms, however congress seemed to think they held that power. Heck the "nra" fights to prevent the US Government from forbidding terrorists the right to buy guns;

The Bush administration urged Congress to pass a law barring people on the terrorist watch list from buying explosives and guns. The gun lobby objected. Now the Obama administration is urging Congress to pass the same legislation, and the gun lobby continues to object.

I wonder why?

T. Paine said...

Cliff, I guess I missed your brilliant point. Are you actually stating that our first amendment rights to free speech, as exercised by Mr. Marquis and all those that comment on his blog are not protected because the founders did not envision the platform of the internet as the means of promulgating those ideas? Surely that isn’t what you are trying to say. If so, it really is pointless to debate you, sir.

For the record, I and nearly unanimously all other 2nd amendment rights supporters (including the NRA) are very much for ensuring that felons and the mentally unstable do not own or have access to firearms. If you would put down your erroneous talking points and actually do a little research, you would know that to be true, sir.

free0352 said...

nobody should be denied the right to bear arms

Not without due process of law. That means felons. I'm pretty sure terrorists are felons.

clif said...

Sorry but if you agree that felons cannot have guns then the shall not be infringed in the second amendment doesn't mean that congress cannot regulate guns.

Thus congress has the right according to you and the "nra" to regulate who can have a gun and under what conditions.

You plainly stated that.

free0352 said...

You are being silly again. We take away felons liberty all the time. We give them due proccess of law first. However, you cant criminalize gun ownership in and of its self because the constitutions guarantees you cant. That is a power the government doesnt have.

clif said...

you cant criminalize gun ownership in and of its self because the constitutions guarantees you cant.

Never said criminalise ownership in and of its self, that is the strawman argument you want to use here.



I said creating regulations that must be followed to own a gun, just like you agree we do with felons, machine guns and other arms.

The fact we can forbid felons from owning guns, that the second amendment doesn't reflect that in the statement

shall not be infringed


even though the term felon isn't even in the document, hence no infringement of owning arms with the idea of being a felon, is not in the US Constitution,


means congress has powers that you try to deny they have.

Regulate who can and under what conditions own arms.

If congress in the creation of laws can create the class of citizens called felons, and deny them the right to bear arms, means they can regulate arms.


If congress can regulate who can and under what conditions the citizen can own fully automatic arms, means they can regulate fire arms because they already are.

free0352 said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
free0352 said...

You should try actually reading the Constitution Cliff. Government can absolutely deny civil rights so long as there is due process of law. That doesn't mean simply passing a law. That is a specifically individual thing, that results from a guilty plea of a trial. Thats why criminals on parole lose their right to protections from unlawful search and seizure. Just ask any parolee about getting shaken down or having to take a drug test. We also take away their voting rights, or their very freedom of movement when we put them in jail.

Everybody knows this including you. You as usual are being child like and asinine.

But baring a felony conviction, the bill of rights MATTERS. Words do have specific meaning, in language and in law. It's the basis of all civilization. It's why our laws are written down: So the "letter of the law" carries the force of the law. That's why our Bill of Rights was written into law, to ensure the fundamental freedoms of a minority could never be denied by a majority. Just because you wish words meant something other than what they mean liberals, you don't have the right to define them any way you want. Because when words can mean anything, they mean nothing. When "absolutes" are abandoned for a President’s whim, the U.S. Constitution becomes a blank slate for anyone's graffiti and our rights and freedoms are void. In that moment, the United States of America is destroyed and replaced by a monster. Liberals might think that calling us "absolutists" is a clever way of name calling and bullying without using names. But if that is "absolutist," then we are as "absolutist" as the Founding Fathers and framers of the Constitution ... and we're proud of it!

clif said...

So the bar on fully automatic weapons are because due process of law, or just a ban because the weapon is too dangerous for the civilian population?

Sorry but the rest of your gibberish is a nice word salad reminiscent of some loser from Alaska.