NRA add

every time a republican trys to say somthing or share a idea fuckin liderals just tel them there retarded or stupid. seriously pisses me off.

 
just made an account and this is my first post and i noticed the same thing, totally agree, and they dont say anything that makes better sense or what they think themselves
 
who gives a shit about ransom, they should not be treated differently because of what position their dad is in. period
 
NRA add? It's ad bro. Jesus

35mp83.jpg
 
except the "problem" obamas talking about is a shooting involving PISTOLS. and he's using it to address a non existent problem with rifles.
 
that awkward moment when there was a stabbing spree shortly after sandy hook in china o__o
 
I'll just explain it real quick here.

in short, they don't portray gun owners in a good light and as a result, make everyone look stupid.

I mean...their response to a major issue is to put out an ad asking why the kids from the apartment next door don't get the same protection as the presidents kids? It's as if a child wrote that argument.

certain people are more important than others. simple as that. why do they get armed guards and other kids don't? because other kids aren't related to the leader of arguably the most powerful nation to ever exist. That's why they get special treatment.
 
Does Obama even have a say if his kids get armed guards, isn't that just something they automatically due once you become president? I'm asking this as a legit question so I hope to get a legit answer.
 
yeah it's called appealing to emotion and it's one of the most commonly used tactics in politics. it's fucking politics man worry about yourself. if you're that disgusted then get off the internet and do something about it.
 
Great question, I wonder if the NRA asked the same thing.

Seems relevant considering that La Pierre is still Vice President of the NRA:
http://www.nytimes.com/1995/05/11/us/letter-of-resignation-sent-by-bush-to-rifle-association.html

This next one's for Barto, talking about how La Pierre was playing on people's emotions. A psychiatrist at Columbia said La Pierre "was playing into fears that are uniquely American".
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/wayne-lapierre-crazy-article-1.1226832

 
According to the United States Secret Service Wikipedia the SS is bound by law to protect the immediate families of the current US president and past presidents children until the age of 16 or 10 years after presidency (which ever comes first).

Here is the law that actual says all this: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/3056

 
I don't watch the news but I heard liberal stations were all pissy about this ad, did anyone address this issue? That the NRA ad is based on a law to protect the POTUS's children?
 
321094_435126893225450_836886255_n.jpg


let's be honest, what's so free about america? they stop people from doing things that don't affect the freedom of other people at all

fuck the state
 
The NRA makes is look like there is no security at schools when thats not the fact at all. It almost seems like they want schools to allow weapons on campuses and the is so fucking stupid and illogical. What if a kid were to get a hand on a gun a teacher had? More guns is not the answer especially in a place that is ment for the growing of people and minds. At every school I have been too there was an officer and security guards and the police had guns on them. They should be the only ones allowed to have a weapon in a place with such a high capacity of young people. They are trained to use it. The average joe isn't.

The NRA is fucking stupid. It makes sense that the president protects his daughters. He has the power to do that and they are related to him and have a much higher chance of being attacked than, you or me. Its like the same reason there is secret service all over the white house. Don't be fooled by these assholes.
 
My elementary school was in a small town, not as small as sandyhook though. We would have an officer there every day. Guns should not be allowed on a school campus unless its law enforcement and every school should have an officer that routinely goes to the school.

Maybe if we stop being greedy and pay our taxes schools will have suffice security. Has anyone thought of that? It would cost less than arming yourself and it will be safer.
 
First, anyone in the first family should have secret service protecting them at all times, which they do.

but here is the problem, the school they attend has armed guards in addition to the secret service, there are armed guards there whether the Presidents children attend or not. the rich kids of washington D.C. get special treatment. thats just the way it is.

and yes Obama is just using this as an opportunity to push his agenda.

can someone classify an "assault weapon" for me?
 
Dude like i said above i went to regular highschool and we had a "resource officer" there every day. He was just a cop assigned to the highschool. Sometimes there would be two if somebody wanted to come by and shoot the shit, or if something bad happened. We also had k9 roam student parking all the time. Im just saying its pretty normal.
 
I don't see why having armed police officers in schools is such a far out idea? We have armed guards at banks, sporting events, courthouses but not schools? Gun regulation doesn't keep us safer, armed officers can offer protection to our children.
 
So did I, but our local police wasnt what I classify as "armed guard" material. the training just isnt there, and honestly would probably have been one of the people running away from the shooter then running towards.
 
you are saying the cops don't have the training to suppress a crazed gunman or enforce the law? damn dude your town is fucked. Here in seattle we got some trigger happy cops. step out of line and get smoked.
 
I went to a really small high school. I cant recall any fatalities because of a LEO shooting someone.
 
did no one read barefootin's post where he said that there were 11 armed guards at that school in addition to the secret service protection provided for the first children?
 
I don't understand why the US needs so many guns when other similar countries like Canada, UK and Australia don't.
 
Well, its a lot of things. You gotta realize that the land in the UK for example, was more or less as conquered 100 years ago as it is now. I live in Washington State, which is 120 years old. The people of my great great grandfathers generation were literally settling wild terrain, battling indians, hunting for food, settling disputes with duels, etc. So at least out west its not that far removed that your guns are literally your most important survival tools.

Also, 200 years ago this country gained independece because of popular uprising. It would not have been possible without arms. Hence the prominence of the "right to bear arms" in our constitution. Generally, people refuse the idea that if necessary we could not do this again. Obviously its absurd, if we ever tried to overthrow the government they would incinerate us all in 2 seconds with predator drones and be done with it. But its the principle of defending your home from whoever wants to tread on you that people won't let go of.

The other big thing is inner city poverty and black market gun sales. Gun manufacturers have complete immunity from anything that a person does with a gun, so unlike lets say RJ Reynolds or Anheiser Busch, who got scared shitless/had to pay out the ass in settlements when the government started cracking down on drunk driving and the harm caused by cigarettes, Smith and Wesson has the luxury of not giving a fuck about the thousands of deaths caused by unlicensed and illegal firearms.

Anyway thats my take on it.
 
you may be a century or two off with that one.I'm not saying they weren't doing those things, but 120 years ago, most of that was pretty much over.

I'm also not american, so I didn't take american history, so don't hold me to it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top