How low can Obama go?

Low? what about the NRA Obama Kids add? You know cause the kids of a black president don't need protection in a nation with 300 million guns.

What makes his kids special? How are they more important than mine or yours (if we had any)?

Liberal theme of the month: " Only important people deserve protection, not you silly proles"

They are kids of POTUS? Do you want someone holding them hostage demanding he nukes France? What if he does?

Stop acting retarded.

He's still an American citizen, and he's not supposed to have any special privileges not afforded to the rest of us. Like any other father, he should be responsible for the well-being of his children. And in the event that his children were kidnapped and the kidnappers demanded he take some course of action that would affect the nation, he would be temporarily removed from office.

Stop acting retarded.

edit: And in response to your pictures of presidential assassinations (not all successful), you will notice that I've never said we shouldn't guard the president. Guarding him is a necessary means to keep continuity in the government. If a president gets killed, is a tragedy, but no more so than the massacre of a school full of small children. They deserve at least some modicum of protection as well.

Oh I see. Point taken.

I don't see how NRA can whip people into such mindlessness to claim that current POTUS does not require additional protection.

It just boggles my mind. Plus NRA swamp fever somehow burns hot enough to have this connected in their sickly minds with gun control discussion.

Guess what champs? Nobody advocating police, military, secret service and so on get disarmed. They need guns in their line of duty, they get trained and screened multiple times before they get them.

What did I just say four posts up? Protect the fucking president, keep the police, the secret service, all of them. That's great! That aside, I don't understand the total mind-exploding bat-shit crazy that the NRA's suggesting of armed guards in schools brings out in people like you. Honestly, I don't give two fucks that it was an NRA spokesman that said it, I just happen to think it's not a bad idea.

Equally mind-boggling is how leftist skyscraper-fever thinks a school massacre links better to gun control than to lack of protection in a school.

Noone is saying dont protect the POTUS, or even his kids.

I see you did not order that copy of Rosetta Stone English I linked you. Or if you did, you have not gone through it yet.

What is being said, is that despite the need to protect the important people - less important people should also have the right to protection. Sure, the Fedgov should not be the entity footing the bill - but Obama wants to forcibly disarm people and forcibly keep people FROM protecting the schools with armed security.

Therein lies the hypocrisy.

That and the fact Obama has literally taken a page out of Mein Kampf by using children is such an atrocious manner to sell his fascist version of security theater to the public.

Think of the kids he is using... they are just tiny children, and the shame and stigma of being an integral part of a fascist disarmament program will haunt them for the rest of their lives. Its sickening to use kids in such a callous and sickening way.

Main Kampf ? Don't forget Tower 7 and Agenda 21!

I see swamp fever is as strong as ever.

Sorry guys, you're all wrong on this one, or at least you're arguing the wrong point.

No one is suggesting that the President's children shouldn't get SS protection. That NRA add is pointing out that, even without the SS in attendance with Obama's daughters, the school they attend has 10-15 armed guards on staff and on location at all times.

Now, armed with that knowledge, please continue to discuss the hypocrisy of a man who sends his children to a school with armed guards while telling you that you shouldn't.

Hmmm, relevance?

Obamas propaganda tactics are, in fact, out of Hitlers manifesto. You can blather on about swamps all you want but it will not alter reality.

The point is that it is utterly cynical, insults the intelligence of every one of us, and is the lowest form of demagoguery. After seeing such tactics used to hideous ends in the last century, you would think people would have learned to immediately scorn any attempts at such chicanery.

Cmon Sinij . . .


You don't think Obama's signing of his EO's with the kiddies on stage with him was just a wee bit overly dramatic ?

I mean . . . really now. :|

Guess he really wanted to make sure we were " Thinking of the Children "


In other news, a FIFTEEN year old kid in New Mexico kills five with a few flavors of firearms that he isn't even old enough to purchase. I have no idea where / how he obtained them yet. Apparently he planned on going to a Walmart and dying in a police shootout after killing his family.

Now the anti-gun types will simply work the insecurity of the gun storage angle, but I think the more relevant question is what the hell motivates a FIFTEEN year old to do something like this ? I mean damn. Have kids today just lost their f*cking minds or what ?

I grew up in a home full of unsecured firearms of all types. All of them loaded and ready to go. ( Family is LE ) Yet, not once did I ever contemplate loading them up and going to shoot up the school or church or whatever.


Personally, I think we cater to children too much anymore. We do everything we can to boost their self esteem and keep them happy. We don't allow them to fail at anything and, as a result, they have this warped view of how the world is. Understandable for parents to want to protect / shield their kiddos but if you go overboard with it, I think it does more harm than good.

The problem with that is when they finally get exposure to reality, it's the biggest slap in the face they have ever experienced and some just can't handle it.

QFT

Get your head checked if you honestly believe this and not just trolling.

If you are trolling - its Goebbels propaganda tactics, at least try to get it right.

Pretty sure Mein Kampf was written by Adolph Hitler, and the tactics Derid are referencing are straight out of that book.

edit: it doesn't matter anyway. Noone is trying to say that Obama is Hitler, all we're saying is that these sort of manipulation tactics have been used before and been proven to be effective at making a population more inclined to allow their freedoms to be taken away. The point of this argument is to try to show you that such a thing has happened before and very much can happen again.

Oh the horrors of using "for the children" excuse. Really, how low could Obama go?! Nobody else does that. He must be just like Hitler, who is infamous for using "for the children" and nothing else.

This must be new "I want to see the real birth certificate" craze.

They are simply drawing attention to the fact that since his argument doesn't have the support of facts, Mr. Obama has fallen back on an attempt to elicit an emotional response to influence folks to his side, and taking the opportunity to show you (who usually demonstrates a complete disregard for history and its power to repeat) where in history this kind of tactic has been used before. Now, based on experience, you would normally cry foul over this kind of tactic and start running around with your hair on fire screaming about how we're not adhering to the rules of debate. I cannot help but notice that it seems perfectly reasonable for your side to use this particular tactic to win a debate that they otherwise would lose horribly due to their complete lack of knowledge in the subject matter.

Having said that, good use of rule #5, however, you may want to review rule #7 because your use of rule #5 is starting to drag on. Remember rule #12 and make sure to continue to make personal attacks rather than address the issue.

Overall, I think Saul would be proud.

For the uninitiated, the Rules for Radicals mentioned are listed here:

RULE 5: “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.” There is no defense. It’s irrational. It’s infuriating. It also works as a key pressure point to force the enemy into concessions.

RULE 7: “A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag.” Don’t become old news.

RULE 12: “Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.” Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions.

Protection of the Presidential family is mandated. Because they are the first family, they are more likely to be attacked or assassinated. Secret Service protection and the average family don't add up.

Killing kindergardeners is a serious situation and should not be hidden or unspoken.

No one is trying to take the second amendment away! Background checks are supported by more than 70% of Americans.



Like I have said many many times, it should be as hard as it is to get a drivers license as it is to own a Gun. Why are you guys not upset about drivers licensing. I mean they keep a record one you!

Because commerce-supporting device that often enables gainful employment is a privilege, but a mass-murder tool is a natural right!

EXCELLENT! Nice work continuing to use rule #12 by moving away from focusing on a person and moving to an object. Good work attempting to polarize the object of the debate so that anyone arguing against you can be framed as a supporter of mass murders. Bravo!

Outstanding job of ignoring the subsequent posts that address and correct Brutal's statement. Good use of rule #12 by cherry-picking a statement that you can use in an attempt to color your opponent as ignorant or uncaring. This is an especially good tactic in a message board setting because most people will not bother to go back and look at posts that corrected the cited material and, if they read them when they were posted, likely will have forgotten them by the time they read your response. Well played!

Kaotic, hide your women hide your children, Brownshirt Panthers are coming to take away your high-capacity clips.

Wow Sini....you are the most talented troll I have ever met on the internet.



Continue with your liberal left extremist post....at least now I know to view your post as pure entertainment. Try not to take this as an insult. I am truely impressed at how well you can dodge and troll.

So Obama gets equated to Hitler, told that he and his family doesn't deserve protection by secret service and I am the one trolling here?

I am intrigued by your ideas and want to subscribe to your newsletter.

My newsletter would be freaking awesome if I owned one and you would probably want to subscribe.


Everyone has been equated to Hitler at some point. My wife just equated me to Hitler on my lunch break for not letting her buy a 24 pack of Dr. Peppers. *true story*

Whoever said Obama and his family doesn't deserve the same secret service protection that all presidents get is not a troll but just out right crazy or joking around.

But come on man, some of the stuff you say on here you can't honestly believe. So I have come to believe that you are having fun during your work day by trolling opposing political views on this forum. Which is actually fine by me....

Well, as you mentioned - this thread is full of crazy. I don't think I have to name and shame, we all know who you are.

Pfff.

Politics in general attract the insane.


Oh and Jet:

Firearm injury in the United States has averaged 32,300 deaths
annually between 1980 and 2007. It is the second leading cause
of injury death after motor vehicle crashes.

Remember to note there are more firearms out there than vehicles
yet the death toll for vehicles is still higher :D

I'm thinking that the issuance of a drivers license has done
as much to decrease vehicle related deaths as a firearms license
will to drop firearm deaths :D

It's funny because you state something that is completely false and then immediately try to smooth it over by posting a completely irrelevant fact(?). If 70% of American's are OK with gun restrictions (and bear in mind, ANY restriction is a violation of the 2nd amendment) then they have a very clearly laid out course of action for making it so; namely, they can amend the constitution.



Key difference: Automobile ownership or driving is not a constitutionally protected right. It is a privilege. As I said before, any restriction on gun ownership is a violation of the 2nd amendment, but this doesn't mean I'm full retard. I know good and well that some people absolutely cannot be trusted to own a gun. The restrictions that are already in place are, in my opinion, more than enough. If you want to try to stop killing sprees, taking guns away from sane, law-abiding citizens, or putting restrictions on what guns they can or can't own and how they have to go about getting them, is the wrong answer. How about instead we try focusing all that tax money on earlier detection of mental disorders?



I already very clearly stated that no one here believes Obama to be Hitler in any way shape or form. If you don't believe me, try re-reading my last couple of posts. I'm not going to copy/paste them for you. I also very clearly stated that I was not suggesting that the president or his family did not need protection. All I asked was how is it so bad to suggest armed guards in our schools when his children's school has armed guards. Yes, the first family is special, but so are the children of every other American citizen. Now stop mis-stating and falsely generalizing my comments you pretentious fuck.

edited for content.

qft

Yeah no point... you see him when you shave every morning!

As Kaotic pointed out earlier, its not even about the SS protection - but the fact that the elites in general have armed protection for their kids.

Noone ever said not to protect Obamas kids. In fact it was pointed out repeatedly many times that the issue was the hypocrisy denying the proles of that ability while the elite practice it and tell the proles that they are better off with "gun-free" zones.

But I doubt that would ever register in the brain of the crazy person you see in the mirror each morning.

"If 70% of American's are OK with gun restrictions"

Is a misleading statistic, one that is very likely skewed
based on the organization who conducted the survey.

For example, if CNN posts a poll about how many Americans
just love Obama to death, they'll get an overwhelming positive
response simply based on the fact that CNN ( and it's audience )
is pretty much Pro-Democrat.

If the same poll were conducted over on Fox, the result would be
overwhelmingly negative, for the same reasons. ( They just are
all Pro-Republican )

Statistics can be manipulated by just about anything. Thus, are
they rarely accurate.



If you want another reason why folks oppose any sort of firearm
registration, you need only look at what happened recently when
some self-rightous idiots published that data for the world to
see.

If all individuals were law abiding, I wouldn't care if my name
was on that list. However, we know they are not and all the
paper did was give folks a list of homes to hit ( or not if they
are trying to avoid a possible armed response ) at their leisure.

I did find it somewhat hypocritial that the paper resorted to
utilizing armed guards at the front door after publishing said
paper :D

Multiple polls have come out with background checks hitting int he 90% range. These are respected polling organizations. Even 47% of NRA members support universal background checks.

Back when the 2nd amendment was written, we were talking about muskets and militias. The best Musketmen could get a shot off every 15 to 20 seconds, in a very labored fashion.



With that said, I do not believe the framers intended any of the weapons in the video be in the hands of a private citizen:



With that said, the constitution dos not have a provision for any of the mandates that are being proposed. These would need to be changed to meet the original intent.

The US constitution is not a perfect document, and has to change with the times. And example of this is:



I am sure that none of you would argue that the statement above should be adhered to. (Wait is Ronnie reading this thread )

Like I have said with many common sense statements. There should be a process to license gun ownership. I am sure we all know people that should never be allowed to won a gun.

There is room to compromise here, and I honestly believe as a majority of people in the US do, that there should be some kind of increased controls. On a person level, I am looking in to a 12 guage for home defense as part of my San Andreas fault super earth quake kit. No sense in having 14 days of supplies if someone can come and take them from you. I don't need a 20MM Vulcan Cannon, nor does anyone else.

Is there any common sense left in this country?

The argument always goes towards guns like the video of the one you linked to. Don't you realize that weapons like that already have HUGE restrictions on them? No one is suggesting that fully-automatic or very large caliber weapons should be easy to buy. No one. I highly encourage you to go attempt to buy a .50 cal machine gun so you can see how tightly such weapons are controlled by the government. What this argument is about, and what most recent arguments have been about, are small caliber rifles whose public perception have been distorted to such a large extent by the government and media that now the average person whole-heartedly believes they are fully automatic military grade weapons and that they serve no purpose. This is all blatantly false and quite on purpose. Yes, the main ones like the AR-15 and AK-47 resemble military grade hardware, but then again so does every one of the high-powered rifles used a lot in hunting. Their military counterparts are simply seen less because they are not used by every foot soldier.

Yes, the constitution is old, and some of the language in it is completely dated - most of that language has already been changed through amendments. The fact that muskets were the firearm of the era when the 2nd amendment was written does not mean that the 2nd amendment was written to guarantee you the right to bear muskets (By the way, good job on quoting the president there, always good to throw in some of the party rhetoric when trying to make an argument). Weapons evolve, and governments and criminals all move along to the weapons of the era. Our right to bear arms must also evolve to cover the weapons of the era because our right to bear arms is a guarantee of our ability to protect ourselves from those other people who now have those weapons. How safe would you feel if the only weapon you were allowed to have in your San Andreas kit was a muzzle loading musket?

If you haven't read any common sense in these threads then you've been completely misinterpreting what has been being said (which, based on your video link, seems likely). Now if we can just get sini in here to post some pictures to Patriot missiles or nukes and say "why can't we have these? amirite?"