Christie Slams NRA

Status
Not open for further replies.
Why doesn't he just come out of the closet and admit that he is a liberal Democrat and Obama supporter. Be a man about it Mr. Christie
 
Just think of all the hungry children that could be fed with what Christie eats during the day......chris3
 
If Christie has any ambitions beyond being governor of NJ then he's going to be sorely disappointed. He consistently goes out of his way to disparage conservatives while glad handing with liberals.

I don't live in NJ have no say in what happens there, but he will be hard-pressed to ever win any national GOP nomination.
 
Husker_Fan said:
It looks like he was just being critical of the ad about the President's kids' school.
Click to expand...

It's obviously just a smokescreen the antis have been using to avoid admitting their own hypocrisy. One anti I saw on TV even went as far as to say that there is no parallel between Obama's children and other children. That either means that they are superior beings who deserve more protection than "common" children, or it means that they're in danger while other children are not. If it's the latter, then what are we all worried about? And if more guns are not the answer, then why are they used to protect children (Obama's) who are in danger?

No matter how you slice it, any counterargument they could possibly make would reveal their hypocrisy, so instead they say "How DARE you bring the president's children into this--that's just low and cowardly!" It has nothing to do with the discussion, but it makes us look bad (straw man) and makes some people discount the point we're trying to make. Let's face it, many of the people we are fighting against for our Constitutional rights are far from stupid--in fact, they are highly intelligent (they understand us perfectly and know that we're right) and communicate effectively to the many stupid people out there who cast ballots. Which is more effective: a lie that most people believe and even want to believe, or a truth that is ignored?
 
scaatylobo said:
I might be wrong,but I am willing to bet that the Secret Service agents that guard the prez and his children are armed.
Click to expand...

The school that the Obama children go has had armed security there before the Obama children attended the school. Many of Washington's elite send their children there including, I have heard, David Gregory's children.

It is the Sidwell Friends School in Washington , DC. Here is an article where they are looking to add to their security force.

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Govern...g-School-Posts-Job-Opening-For-Police-Officer

I would guess, if an incident occurred at the school, the Secret Service would only protect the Obama children.
 
Christie is a fraud. I hope the Republicans are smart enough not to run him for President. Speaking of frauds, Obama claims to support the Second Amendment. As an Illinois State Senator, he said that he didn't think anybody except the police and military should have a gun.
 
Phil, I don't really care at this point what Obama said as a Senator. I care about the fact that is right now calling for another ban.
 
There are a lot of THR members that think the NRA made a mistake with that approach and that it damaged the NRA's credibility.

If we're going to criticize this administration for having children on the podium while Biden and Obama use them as props for their firearms prohibition agenda then how can we be proud of our side dragging any kids into the propaganda battle being waged?
 
hso said:
There are a lot of THR members that think the NRA made a mistake with that approach and that it damaged the NRA's credibility.

If we're going to criticize this administration for having children on the podium while Biden and Obama use them as props for their firearms prohibition agenda then how can we be proud of our side dragging any kids into the propaganda battle being waged?
Click to expand...
Are you kidding me hso? I'm a Liberal and was 100% ok with that ad...it wasn't even directed at his kids. It was directed at the astounding hypocricy from the president that I voted for. His kids get 11 armed guards plus secret service, but ours shouldn't? That's all the NRA was saying and they are absolutely right on this issue.

Why are kids from middle class families and lower class families worth less than someone's kids who are born into a wealthy family?
 
HSO, I think the antis brought kids into the argument. If we don't make our argument that we DO care about the kids, then we come off as apathetic to the plight of murdered children.

Obama showed kids who are apparently writing policy for him, and is trying to say that we do not care about kids. We need to show that we care about our kids by protecting them and including them in our favorite sport. How many uncles buy their nephews a wiffle ball and plastic bat? I bought my nephew nerf guns so that his father and I can teach proper gun safety before including him in range sessions. How many parents own weapons for the express purpose of protecting their family?

We shouldn't drag our kids into the fight. We should drag them out of the path of propoganda. Protect our kids' right to go to the range. Protect our kids' right to defend themselves if they are home alone. Protect our kids actively by being between them and a home invader...with a gun between us and the home invader. We do care about kids, they say we don't. Let's prove them wrong.
 
There are a lot of THR members that think the NRA made a mistake with that approach and that it damaged the NRA's credibility.
Click to expand...

I am not one of them. I think that the ad was a factual observation.
 
Yep, people have pointed out that those politicians and their families have security details because there are enemies of the United States that would target the families and we keep arguing that Sandy Hook was such a rare event that this movement to ban firearms is pointless and misguided because there's no credible threat to the nearly 90,000 public schools. Since there's no credible threat to our schools there's no reason to "do" anything like these attacks on gun owners. OTOH there are credible threats against the families of political figures and the Secret Service is there to reduce the vulnerability to those threats. By equating the two we risk reinforcing the argument that there is a threat to our kids equal to that of political figures and the Antis will point at us and say we're the source of that threat and our kids have to be protected from us.
 
I'm nauseated by sniveling cowards telling people they don't need guns for protection while cowering behind phalanxes of men armed with machine guns.
 
Last edited:
Now that Obama has publicly ceded that legislation is required to make any of the changes these anti's clamor for, it seems the anti's have gotten very very shrill. If things aren't going their way, they summon the most annoying behaviors and comments. I'm not saying drop our guard, in fact quite the opposite, but it seems like the banners are getting more and more.... odd... and loud. Keep your ears protected...
 
You're getting confused on the danger part though. Just because Malia's (don't know if I spelled it right) school would be a bigger target for a spree shooter or something due to the relations to their parents, doesn't necessarily mean that her school is in more danger. Believe it or not, bigger target =/= more danger. I'm no psychologist, but I'm pretty sure that psychos pick their targets for many reasons as we saw in Aurora. If anything, the fact that her school has 11 armed guards puts every single other school in her area in danger hso.

So I'll ask again, why are rich kids more important than middle class or poor kids?
 
hso said:
Yep, people have pointed out that those politicians and their families have security details because there are enemies of the United States that would target the families and we keep arguing that Sandy Hook was such a rare event that this movement to ban firearms is pointless and misguided because there's no credible threat to the nearly 90,000 public schools. Since there's no credible threat to our schools there's no reason to "do" anything like these attacks on gun owners. OTOH there are credible threats against the families of political figures and the Secret Service is there to reduce the vulnerability to those threats. By equating the two we risk reinforcing the argument that there is a threat to our kids equal to that of political figures and the Antis will point at us and say we're the source of that threat and our kids have to be protected from us.
Click to expand...

Huh? That is the most convoluted and confused thing I have heard yet!

So it is okay for rich and politically connected people to have armed guards at their schools, but not for every one else, because we somehow are the threat to their children, and our political lords and Masters have to protected from the people they rule over.
 
Nobody was "attacking" Obama's kids. That's just a red herring from the gun grabbers who don't want the spotlight shown on their hypocrisy. Nobody is saying his kids shouldn't be protected, only that ours should have the option of protection.
 
NJ and Christie deserve each other. I hope they live happily ever after.
Wish we could just push both of them off to sea.
 
Christie is a short, fat loudmouth that probably got swedged daily at school and developed an inferiority complex. He is all show and mouths off to men that, if he wasn't governor and had armed protection would give him an attitude adjustment or another swedgie. He is for control and that includes guns and people he can attain only by political office.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top