Kids as tools.

Two wrongs don't make a right. I think what both parties (NRA and POTUS) did is immature and disrespectful and a complete distraction.

I think the NRA should do a press conference with kids and parents like Obummer did. Have stories of how a home invasion was deterred, a ccw holder defended themselves or or how a kid lost a parent in part to a restriction. At this point I think we need to get down to fight at the same level these politicians and media are at. I for one am pissed and very motivated.

To extend on Glockfan: Show LIVE kids as a result of self defense. Show the results of guns doing good things.

I thought the NRA ad was spot on.

The least we can do is point out the hypocritical behavior of those that would rip our freedoms away. I don't think it's distracting from the issue at all.......pointing out the logical inconsistencies of your opponent makes sense.

People who may not be swayed by the endless "The 2nd amendment says....." arguments can be shown something tangible. Sometimes seeing the character/motives of the people supporting a position can be enough for the undecided.

"Why is it that the politicians who support the highest amount of gun control, tend to surround themselves and their families with the most gun-toting security."

"Guns shouldn't be used to protect my family, but in the case of the president....."

Sadly, I have heard and read things in the mass media in the last 24 or so hours confirming the idea that they feel, "Some animals are in fact, more equal than others." Flat out stating that the president's and other leaders kids are more important and worhty of protection than others.

"I will work harder."

I think the whole display with the children was as repugnant as what Jay Carney called the NRA's commercial about Obama's children.

Michael Medved said it best yesterday -- the #1 lesson the NRA or any republicans can learn from amist this whole mess is this: Don't bring Obama's children into this. Gotta be smarter than this. No one's getting the message, nor do they care.

I think the fact that the NRA ad pissed off the media so bad shows that it worked.

arizona_cards_11 said:

The least we can do is point out the hypocritical behavior of those that would rip our freedoms away. I don't think it's distracting from the issue at all.......pointing out the logical inconsistencies of your opponent makes sense.

Click to expand...

Then allow me to point out the logical inconsistency of the NRA ad. My two daughters do not live under a daily, specific threat against their lives. Comparing the very real and daily threat against the children of any President to the much less statistically likely threat against my children is not consistent with logic.

"Why is it that the politicians who support the highest amount of gun control, tend to surround themselves and their families with the most gun-toting security."

Click to expand...

Can I point out that politicians who do not support gun control also surround their families with "the most gun-toting security?" Because the children of our elected President live every day of their lives under a specific threat of harm and death.

And frankly I it cheap that anyone would be use their kids, or anyone's kids, as props to score a political point.

Sometimes the way you score a point is beneath contempt. This was one of those times for all concerned.

radiotom said:

I think the fact that the NRA ad pissed off the media so bad shows that it worked.

Click to expand...

+1^^^

As a conservative, I like having rules and I expect everyone to follow them. Those that break the rules should suffer consequences.

Obama himself has used his children to support many causes he favored and has paraded them in the media for public approval. By doing so, they became fair game.

No one should use exploit children. However, I am tired of the hypocrisy. Obama ran his entire campaign, not on the merits of his achievements, but on smear tactics against his opponent.

Obama’s actions need to be called on. If his children and the elite children are worthy of saving, aren’t yours? Let’s use our 1st amendment rights to save our 2nd.

Sadly, the whole anti-gun campaign is being run on emotion rather than fact. The facts show that banning firearms or hi-cap magazines does not have an impact on crime. By using children, it involves the emotional side of peoples thoughts and clouds the air about the truth. obummers way of doing things is by distorting the way things are percieved by the voters. In a sense, perception is reality as the way he sees it and unfortunately it seems to work. I think that when obummer pulled the children on stage with him, he opened them up to exploitation by everyone involved in the debate. It is not tasteful in my opinion, but nothing that he does is what I consider positive. He is a huge failure in every aspect and we are stuck with his hypocrisy for the next 4 years.

No parent should allow having their child "used" by any politician. It is the worst type of propaganda.

Certainly the children of any president need protection by secret service and / or other qualified security personnel, and I don't begrudge Obama's children their security despite the fact I think the president is an empty suit. That isn't the fault of the children, and I think Obama can still be a good parent.
What strikes me is that while the threat against the president's kids must be assumed real the only children in history who have actually been injured or killed are those of ordinary people such as those at the Newtown Ct. massacre.
Certainly the "average" person is deserving of some consideration for security.
It's easy to complain that the NRA is inappropriatly bringing Obama's daughters into the fore on this.....I can't get too fried over this after the libs lost no time at all in dancing in the blood of the Newtown dead in proselytizing for more gun control laws and gun bans.
Our society has devolved into a rather vulgar mess.

I understand the attitude that using kids is a cheap shot, HOWEVER.... the POTUS chose to run for office knowing very well that this would put his children and loved ones in harms way, for no other reason than their relationship to him. And, he prudently surronded them with armed guards as a result. HE, not us, first began using the "dangers" to OUR children to justify attacking our rights... so we shouldn't be allowed to have armed guards around our loved one's? If it's a cheap shot well, who fired first?

Today, 11:24 AM #14
Drail
Member


Join Date: January 17, 2008
Posts: 2,380
No parent should allow having their child "used" by any politician. It is the worst type of propaganda.

Click to expand...

Including the poor people at Sandy Hook.

freyasman said:

I understand the attitude that using kids is a cheap shot, HOWEVER.... the POTUS chose to run for office knowing very well that this would put his children and loved ones in harms way, for no other reason than their relationship to him. And, he prudently surronded them with armed guards as a result. HE, not us, first began using the "dangers" to OUR children to justify attacking our rights... so we shouldn't be allowed to have armed guards around our loved one's? If it's a cheap shot well, who fired first?

Click to expand...

I'll say it again: two wrongs do not make a right. Now the NRA/pro-RKBA have sh*t on their hands too. Either side defending their actions on the basis of "well *they* did it first" sounds and looks petulant.

I am with two wrongs dont make it right.....

Lets leave the wrong to the wrong.....

The kid thing has been used many times by many bad people!

Hasn't the NRA been talking a lot lately about a woman who used a gun to defend herself and her children? It may be to a lesser degree but its still invoking "the children".

Regardless, the NRA ad is idiotic. The rest of us aren't the leader of the free world and as such the threat level to our families is just a tad bit different. Its like saying "i should get to be commander in chief, or is my opinion not as important as the presidents". The ad just makes us look stupid.

Fair point; I'm not sure HOW I feel about invoking the safety of the "children"... but don't demonize one side for using the same tactics as the other.
Punching someone in the face, is by most civilized standards, considered out of line; but I have a hard time faulting someone for punching BACK...

The kids that were *used*... Are they not getting extra attention as a result? Who's looking after them? He exposed children to danger by showing their faces on TV as if they were supporting him. So, now what makes them any different from his own kids at the moment? Instead, they all went home unguarded (likely) and are now more of a target than before.