Just a Thought …

The NRA is taking a lot of heat for its new ad about the supposed hypocrisy of the Washington elites regarding armed guards in schools.

In the ad, the narrator asks, “Are the president’s kids more important than yours?”

And then goes on to say, “Then why is he ‘skeptical’ about putting armed security in our schools when his kids are protected by armed guards at their schools? Mr. Obama demands the wealthy pay their fair share of taxes, but he’s just another elitist hypocrite when it comes to a fair share of security”

No one ever accused the NRA of being subtle.

The liberals on MSNBC’s Morning Joe, like many other liberals and more than a few conservatives, were outraged.

Mike Barnicle called the ad political pornography.”  Donny Deutsch said it’s “one of the grossest things I’ve ever seen in my life.”  Joe Scarborough asked Mika Brzezinski “what’s wrong with these people?” Brzezinski replied that some of the people running the NRA are “sick in the head” and that she is “embarrassed for our country.”

But what if the NRA had put it differently?  What if the ad had tried to persuade instead of bludgeon. What if the had had said:

“Mr. President, we’re glad your daughters are protected by security people with guns.  We understand that they need protection.  And we also understand that a president’s children are potentially in more danger than the children of accountants and lawyers and plumbers and hardware store clerks.  But can you understand, Mr. President, why we also want our children protected by security guards with guns?  Can you understand that we worry about the safety of our children just as you worry about yours?  Yes, Mr. President, sadly, your children are potential targets.  But so are all our children.  Didn’t Newtown make that painfully clear?”

Maybe that would have calmed things down.  But in our angry, polarized culture, maybe not.

Bernie's Next Column.

Enter your email and find out first.

  • Candy Barr

    Tell you what: If my kids were going to be sitting ducks every day while attending school with the Obama’s kids, I would be happy to pitch in for security. Haven’t we seen enough mass shootings in the schools over the past decade to know that the idiots aiming don’t always hit their targets?

  • lark2

    Bernie, Are you aware of the vile names Republicans and the N.R.A. have been called by our friends on the other side? I’m sure there is no need to remind you. Our Liberal friends on MORNING JOE wouldn’t’ have a show if they couldn’t be stupid. Why is it that only when the Republicans or their proxies say something strong and tough, the “moderates” are so incredibly anxious to set things “right”? The President ‘s children are important and they need protection. To the best of my knowledge … they have NEVER been attacked. Our children are attacked ALL THE TIME. David Gregory and all the other Washington “swells” also enjoy the protection of machine guns for their kids. Obama only has two girls in that school … why are the rest of the attendees so special … because their Liberal anti-gun parents want the protection of ASSAULT WEAPONS for their kids and they can pay? The N.R.A. made a good point. Apparently, they failed the “nice” test ? For others, there apparently is no nice test. At least not one that the sweeties on MORNING JOE can find.

  • http://www.facebook.com/wsukevin Kevin Austin

    Take a CCW class – http://www.personalccw.com

  • awesome:p

    schools should have armed security!

  • http://hemingwayreport.blogspot.com/ MerchantofVenom

    Donny Deutsch said it’s “one of the grossest things I’ve ever seen in my life.”
    Really?
    I guess he didn’t see the Joe Soptic ad.

  • rlpincus

    Of course, the school that Obama’s kids go to doesn’t have armed guards. The NRA’s ad was either a lie or incompetently researched. Either case, it makes most of the people here look like hooked fish.

    • Switchlight13

      Nice try Lefty. Sidwell-Friends School has 11 armed security guards on its pay roll.

      • rlpincus

        Name-calling. Always the height of intelligence.

        Read and learn. From WaPo:

        But what about the claim that Sidwell Friends has 11 armed guards, which some Web sites have depicted with images of armed police with binoculars?

        This is based on the fact that the online directory
        for Sidwell Friends lists 11 people as working in the Security
        Department. Five are listed as “special police officer,” while two are
        listed as “on call special police officer,” which presumably means they
        do not work full-time. The directory also lists two weekend shift
        supervisors, one security officer and the chief of security.

        Under the District of Columbia General Order 308.7,
        a special police officer is a private commissioned police officer with
        arrest powers in the area that he or she protects. They may also be
        authorized to bear firearms — but it is not required. Security officers,
        by contrast, cannot carry firearms and in effect are watchmen. So five
        to seven security personnel in theory could be licensed to carry
        firearms.

        But we spoke to parents who said they had never seen a
        guard on campus with a weapon. And Ellis Turner, associate head of
        Sidwell Friends, told us emphatically: “Sidwell Friends security
        officers do not carry guns.” (Note: this includes those listed as
        special police officers.)

        Sidwell Friends, by the way, has two distinct campuses, a lower school in Bethesda and a middle and upper schools
        in Washington. So given shift rotations and three different schools, it
        appears that the 11 “armed guards” is really just one or two unarmed
        guards per school at a time.

    • lark2

      The school actually has 11 guards who carry SUB-MACHINE GUNS and they are actively hiring more. Perhaps ripincus could apply.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100000589931407 Jerry Boggs

    Bernie’s revision of the NRA’s ad is more objective, honest, and truthful. Hence, it is far more compelling.

    Thanks, Bernie. Now tell the NRA to resubmit its ad.

    Here’s a point that has been missed: if you fortify a venue (schools, for example), deranged killers will simply choose another (a mall or a theater). Remember the Beltway sniper ten years ago who was able to kill for a three-week period because he (along with his younger partner) was hidden in a moving venue — the trunk of his car? And, decades earlier in 1966, the Texas Univ. shooter, Charles Whitman, who rampaged for about two hours, killing 13 and wounding 32 others, from the top of the Tower Bldg.?

    The same thing happens regarding weapons: ban one weapon, and killers choose another (homemade bombs, etc.). No “assault weapons” were used in the above examples.

    It seems the further away in time we get from a mass killing, the further we move away from focusing on the real problem (mental illness including extreme depression) and finding a real solution.

    It’s not coincidental that mass killers are virtually always young men. See “Guns don’t kill people — our sons do,” by Warren Farrell at http://malemattersusa.wordpress.com/2013/01/07/guns-dont-kill-people-our-sons-do/

  • Old Warrior

    Question: How many airplane hijackings have this country had since they put armed Sky Marshalls and allowed pilots to carry guns on aircraft?
    Answere: None, zero, zip, nada. Next question.

  • http://twitter.com/TripleDotter JD York

    The NRA needs to an Ad featuring Single Women and Single Moms that us Guns as their ONLY source of protection for themselves and their families. Then they can call it Barack Obama’s War on Women’s Right to Personal Protection. The Media will go crazy and we’ll cheer the NRA again for having the Courage of Conviction that the Spineless Republican Party will never have to confront Obama directly on his lies.

  • landofthefree1

    Seems as if whenever the Progressives / Communists hear a message that is truthful they attack the messenger and totally ignore the content of the message. The main point of the NRA commercial was that all children deserve to be protected from those who wish to harm them; a rational point of view. In our free nation, dialog that presents different views should be considered and embraced, not maligned or censured.

  • landofthefree1

    Seems as if whenever the Progressives / Communists hear a message that is truthful they attack the messenger and totally ignore the content of the message. The main point of the NRA commercial was that all children deserve to be protected from those who wish to harm them; a rational point of view. In our free nation, dialog that expresses differing view should be considered and embraced; not maligned or censured.

  • moronpolitics

    I have been working ideas for a book for about 15 years. No point in submitting it, though, because I’m not officially someone whose ideas are worthy. Fortunately, we have a system wherein publishers etc don’t have to read or even look at a book to decide that. It’s called “How to ‘not-think'”. There are endless examples of techniques which people believe to be “thinking”, but are usually word games of one sort or another. A question which would need to be answered here for a worthy analysis of Obama’s choice in schools is “does the school in question have armed guards when a President’s child is NOT enrolled?”. If yes, then the whole argument that it is his position as POTUS driving their presence rather than their presence influencing his and other wealthy, important parents’ decision falls apart like a urine drenched single square of T.P.. However, none of the articles and discussions of this urgent question have covered this. Of course, considering that this very article here is accompanied by an advert for a “degree” in providing security that may be earned ON-LINE just forget the whole thing.

  • FloridaJim

    If you could simply follow us around and clean up our conversation Bernie it would be a better world.

  • Dave W

    Bernie, you are absolutely right and your op-ed highlights another important point. We all know that Republicans are big supporters of the NRA and so an inflammatory ad from them adds to the long list of reasons why voters continue to run away from the Republican Party. The economic and foreign policy of the Republicans make sense but they are on the wrong side of so many social issues that have become unelectable.

  • catholicvoter

    Bernie, good ad. It’s more powerful than the ad run by the NRA. Perhaps they should hire you.

  • bonaparte3

    Good piece, Bernie; a skillfully rendered rewrite of the NRA ad.

    • Mark Cragin

      I’m a total supporter of the NRA, and a Life Member, but Bernie’s rewrite of the ad is preferable, cast as it is in a more positive and pleasant tone.

  • Venter

    Every child has to be protected and I think it would be a good idea for everyone to take a breath especially the president. Obamacare was pushed on us, now we have Obamaguncare being pushed on us. No thorough investigation on the best way to deal with the real problem such as violent video games, bullying, mental illness, loneliness, ILLEGAL GUNS, enforcement of laws on the books. What do we geT???? A POLITICAL SHOW. Shame on them while Newton, Conn. weeps! The law- makers are not out here with average Americans who know that what happened in Shady Hook could not have been stopped! Unfortunately there will be other tragedies and all the NEW laws on the books will do nothing to stop it. All our children should be protected.. Wisdom must rule. Don’t make this a false cause, Lets do the right thing and not for votes.

    Stop punishing little boys who use their fingers as pretend guns as they play at school recess. Will we be banning fingers and natural actions of little boys and girls at recess?
    GO AFTER THE BAD GUYS AND STOP THIS SHOW AND COVER UP TO KEEP THE DEBT CEILING, BENGAZI, UNEMPLOYMENT, FISCAL WOES OUT OF SIGHT

    PROTECT AMERICA AND THE SECOND AMENDMENT AND GO AFTER THE ILLEGAL GUNS WHICH ARE OWNED BY SOCIAL TERRORISTS. GET THE BAD GUNS THAT ARE OUT THERE RIGHT NOW !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  • Harvey Steinacher

    Excellent Mr Goldberg please be ure governor Christie gets a copy! The msm won’t open their minds but maybe it’s not too late for the Governor.

  • ulyssesmsu

    The idiot liberal-marxists would have found a way to condemn the NRA no matter what the NRA said. We don’t need subtle. Conservatives have been subtle for too long. Who cares if those media elites get upset? Speak the truth. Attack.

  • Legal alien

    Thank you . It was a good practice for students in communications like me! Very persuasive. Although in this issue, I’m against putting guns in ordinary people’s hands. Don’t get me wring, I love this country but I want to be secure. And the following are my ideals: If America doesn’t give up gunds, tragedies never ends like the eggs and chicken. If so, eggs have to be taken out from mkt and stop giving gunds to ordinary people. We are not perfect. So why such people can guarantee to control urself all the time? If people dont own guns, you will be less worry about dangerous mental illness people. In my opinion, public safty and people’s lives are the most important than anything. In the mean time, I respect the culture so I don’t say to change the law. However, America can still change that way easily with individuals’ attitudes when every one gives up owing guns in their common sense. And the movement grows to completely change the American mindset to go with modern society and the rest of advanced countries. There are enough police officers and secirities to carry guns to maintain public safty and superior laws to protect you at where there are no guns.

    • Legal alien

      To add this, the law here, I mean, is the second amendment. But the last one I mentioned is the civil law and criminal law. Thanks!

      • Legal alien

        This is interestimg article: http://www.isil.org/resources/lit/guns-safer.html
        This story reminds me that nearly 400 years ago, my country’s ancestor did force people to turn in their weapons to the government after the civil war. We inherited the history and normaly people do not own gunds. The country became safe.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1560111594 Robert Blum

    Obviously, the NRA has ‘earned’ the focus, attention and wrath of the Obama campaign wars. Saul Alinsky would be proud.

  • Drew Page

    Subtlety is wasted on the anti-gun crowd. If it weren’t for the NRA the Second Amendment would be only a memory. The hypocrites who are protected by armed guards and whose children are similarly protected can foam at the mouth with their phony outrage all they want.. They are not going to change the minds of honest, law abiding citizens who insist on their rights under the Second Amendment. Liberals are afraid of guns and want them abolished. I’m afraid of liberals and want them abolished. What makes their wishes any more important than mine?

  • Mike

    Doesn’t anyone know that in this country we something called “Freedom of Speech”? Of course there is a catch to it……..only when liberals agree with it is it “Freedom of Speech”.

  • Switchlight13

    Brady group recommends: Store guns in a locked container, unloaded with a trigger lock on them (lol). When seconds count, it will only take minutes to put your gun in action.

  • Iklwa

    It matters not how “soft” the NRA would have/could have made
    the ad. They would still be demonized by the left.

    When Bush was President I maintained that were he to commit
    suicide in the Oval Office, the left would have complained about the mess he
    made on the floor.

    They will never be happy with the conservative point of view
    no matter how it is espoused or who the proponent is.

    My wife and I re-joined the NRA three weeks ago. They are
    the only group of conservatives in America
    who actually adhere to their principals and they have only one founding
    principal that guides them: Protection of the Second Amendment.

    Would that the Republican Party was so inclined.

  • joer1

    Liberals would fake “outrage” no matter what was said. Their “outrage” is just an attention getting technique and they’ll never give it up. The NRA ad is right on… The armed guards at the Sidwell Friends School were there before the Obama girls got there…. guarding the children of the D.C. Elites. I have no problem with the level of security at that school … I just wonder why it is so crazy to arm teachers in our public schools. The liberals want to protect our kids by making public schools “GUN FREE ZONES … Why doesn’t.that work at the Sidwell school?

  • http://www.facebook.com/bill.henderson.35110 Bill Henderson

    Your ad would have been far superior, but I suspect it would have been savaged anyway by the lame-stream, simply because it’s an NRA ad.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Roscoe-Bonnifitucci/100000459519027 Roscoe Bonnifitucci

    YES! Great Vid! It is time to Stand and Fight the Libtards. They are indeed Hypocrites, Elitist and most of all LIARS, Thieves and in the case of Eric Holder & Barack Obama, Murderers of American Heroes. They must be held accountable for their Thuggery and Crimes.

    When is the Big Mouth Obama going to be Impeached for his Treason, Murder and Failure to Obey the Law? Why does the Liberal Media Ignore the Crimes against Americans? Why are Liberals treated with Kid Gloves and Conservatives held to a much higher standard? Obama is in violation of his Oath of Office. If he were Conservative, he would have been skewered and toasted by the Press….but they obviously pick winners (Libtards) and losers (Patriots). How long will Common Folk stomach this evil?

    Yes. It is time to Stand and Fight the Marxist Evil that occupies the White House and our Media. What Liars, Hypocrites and Evildoers these dictators are. They are NOT Patriots and desire the destruction of America.

    • Switchlight13

      “When is the Big Mouth Obama going to be Impeached for his Treason, Murder and Failure to Obey the Law”? The house could impeach BUT the DEm controlled Senate would never convict. Remember Clinton.

  • jazzdrums

    obama new stategy to use his campaign team to to get his electors to put pressure on their elected senators and congressman wont work…the fact is most of his electorate are lesser informed people who dont know they are alive unless they have a paper cut and see a drop of blood. the higher thinking electors may have some buyer’s remorse by now.

  • n2sooners

    Because we all know that those nice, feel good political ads work so much better than the hard hitting ones…

  • sean1

    Well-put. The NRA was correct in its argument. It simply should have communicated that argument more effectively.

  • jam24u

    The way the liberal MSM and the liberal politicians demonize and make terrible personal insults to those opposite of them, it is about time they begin to feel what they dish out themselves. How dare they feel they are above their own tactics.

  • POC247

    It wouldn’t matter how things are positioned…anything from the right is considered repugnant. Lib gloves were taken off when they gleefully besmirched the character of Romney and even Ann Romney’s illness. Time the right take their gloves off…no point in being subtle, articulate polite and sensitive.

  • Fed Up

    So where was all this outrage when Romney was being accused of killing a woman or his wife’s horseback riding treatments were ridiculed? Yes, the NRA ad was pointed, but the message was as Bernie put it.

  • ksp48

    I didn’t see anything wrong with the add. Wholly apart from Secret Service, the school they attend regularly has armed guards. If its “only fair” to provide health care for all at a level that only the wealthy can afford, why then should only the wealth have armed guars protecting their children’s schools.

  • Cletus

    The sophistry is strong here.

    “Then why is he ‘skeptical’ about putting armed security in our schools”

    Well, I guess he’s “skeptical” because putting armed security in schools only solves a minuscule part of the bigger problem. But in spite of that skepticism, Obama wants to make $150 million more available in resource grants for schools to hire and train new school resource officers.

    And guess what? No one’s is stopping anyone from doing that! There have been armed SRO’s around for years, and if your kid’s school doesn’t have one, then maybe you need to talk to your school administrators about getting one.

    The whole NRA campaign is a canard from the get go just to get you even more agitated over nothing than you already are. Don’t you get tired of being played for fools for so many years?

  • Kevin L

    I like the words Bernie uses much better than those the NRA chose to use. Most of these school shootings, I believe, are copycat shootings. We don’t show a streaker at football games so as not to give them any notoriety, perhaps we should do the same with these hideous, deranged people that shoot up our kids also. After each shooting, I know WAY more about the shooter than I ever do about the victims. Stop giving those people a reason to get their more-than-15 minutes of fame!

  • Sheryl

    Great point Bernie. The right has to be careful not to give the media any extra “ammo” (pun intended)

  • Switchlight13

    “During the National Rifle Association’s meeting with Vice President Joe Biden and the White House gun violence task force, the vice president said the Obama administration does not have the time to fully enforce existing gun laws”….The Daily Caller……. NRA’s Jim Baker said Biden gave him “5 minutes” to explain the NRA’s suggestions and ideas on reducing gun violence.

  • Cecilio Mendez

    “After teasing and harassing your dog, is not the best time to call your child to have them play together.” Or something very similar, was written in one of the books I read about human reactions. And this may be an example of that. The media has treated the NRA, it’s directors, members and relatives, like we are the lowest of the low. It has done so for decades. With this last assault to our Constitution and, specifically, the Second Amendment, the anti-gun (really anti-America) groups have gone to the very end of the matter. Is it “questionable” that the NRA comes out fighting? I don’t think so. I agree that things can be said more softly and contain the same message. But why? And why now, when our rights are viciously attacked? As an NRA member, I have criticized the organization for becoming too “Congressional”. But this time I will stand behind them and say: Carry on! Our friends won’t mind and our enemies won’t understand.

    • begbie

      I think it’s time the NRA get back to the reason we have a 2nd amendment in the first place, and it’s not about hunting. We have to remember and focus on the fact that it was included to give the people a chance to fight a tyrannical government, if that need for force ever came to pass. This is a physical mechanism in addition to the legislative mechanism in the Constitution to protect the people from the politicians.

      These rights also serve as peacetime deterrents to the local and federal governments against overstepping their bounds and taking power away from the citizen.

  • begbie

    I read the article and I read all the comments…..I conclude there is nothing wrong with the ad.

    Providing funding for armed guards is not good enough. Obama’s girls are protected by men who are permitted to carry in “gun-free” zones, and that’s fine with me AND the NRA. But Obama needs to embrace the 2nd amendment and support to allow regular citizens to carry in a school zone. Then someone like me can drop my daughter off at school, and then maybe put a double tap to the head of a perp trying to kill kids with his stolen weaponry.

    If he is serious about saving lives, the only answer is to stop trying to disarm me! That is the NRA’s message.

  • rlpincus

    Actually, the NRA ad has been quite a benefit for the rest of America. Normal people view it and are disgusted.

    • Switchlight13

      Normal people? You mean the sheep?

      • rlpincus

        The height of elitist narcissism: you are so much smarter than 90% of Americans.

        • Switchlight13

          I voted for Mitt so I’m at least smarter then 51% of the electorate.

  • Ken08534

    They made a very simple mistake – they focused on the President’s kids, but they didn’t clarify that the school (Sidwell Friends) itself has it’s own armed guards in addition to Sasha & Malia’s Secret Service security detail.
    I think the more powerful ad would have been to list all the politicians and network bloviators that denounce publicly the idea of putting armed guards in public schools yet send their children to schools with armed guards. Then, at the end of the ad mention that President Obama also denounces armed guards in schools, and his children also attend Sidwell Friends.
    A fairly large number of schools in America already have armed guards (20-30%, I think) – how many of those are in Democrat-led cities in Democrat-led states?
    BTW, one of Obama’s “Executive Actions” is to “encourage schools to hire ‘school resource officers'” – these are either armed guards OR they are simply additional unarmed potential victims if a shooter comes to the school.

  • John F. Tashjian

    And I am supposed to blindly believe President Soetero over the NRA? PLEASE!

  • SeattleSame

    People have a hard time telling the difference between an objectives and a strategy. Getting rid of guns is not an really an objective; it is a strategy for reducing homicides. But for liberals, the strategy has become the objective. Thus they really don’t care whether gun controls reduce homicides or not. Or whether some other strategy might be more effective in reducing ghomicdes. Substitute “Tax The Rich” for gun controls and you’ll get the same answer.

  • Switchlight13

    As expected, the unqualified buffoons from the rigged Gerrymandered districts ie. the Congressional Black Caucus played the old tried and true race card if their effort to support Obama’s attack on our second amendment rights. The usual nonsense that everyone who opposes Obama is a racist or an “Uncle Tom” black. They wouldn’t be elected except for the rigged made up Districts they represent.

  • Johnny Deadline

    Does anyone else find it ironic that Quaker schools like Sidwell Friends have armed security guards? It’s like being a conscientious objector in reverse.

  • Wheels55

    I think the NRA goes over the top at times, assuming they want to reach non-NRA folks. Bernie’s suggestion for an ad works better. Like the Republican party, the NRA has to adjust its posture, not necessarily its principles.

    • Switchlight13

      A good portion of the “non NRA folks” are the 56 million gun owners in the US who get a free ride off the 4 million NRA members who pay NRA dues.

      • begbie

        Good point. And for that reason I don’t believe the NRA should “adjust it’s posture”.

  • Judy

    I loved the NRA ad!!! Would they pay for an ad that they want or to please the Left??? Let the Left pay for their own ad!!!

  • stmichrick

    Bernie; you’ve nailed it. Lately I’ve been lamenting the rhetorical style of the conservative media and this NRA ad demonstrates the point.

    The problem is the ‘preaching to the choir’ syndrome. What the NRA says in the ad is what a lot of us ‘feel’ about the issue. But if you’re going to mount a PR campaign, you’ve got to think of how the uncommitted are going to hear it. We often delight in blasting out our conclusions without walking the uninitiated (Low Info Voter) through the process and ending by posing a pithy question.

    The best example of this is how Obama was overwhelmingly made the issue in the last election. We, in effect, insulted those who previously supported or were thinking about supporting him before we gave them a simple to understand rationale to reconsider their vote. We assumed they knew all that. Wrong.

  • faxxmaxx

    I thought the NRA ad was great. Since when do we care what the MSM has to say? Anytime they’re against something or someone, we know we’ve hit a nerve. Good for us!

  • Kayakbob

    Dear Mr. Goldberg. I like your presentation better. BUT…the NRA is absolutely correct on this issue. (And, no, I am not, nor have I ever been a member of the NRA.)

  • Jenna

    Would the media ever utter the words “the Bush girls are more important than your kids?” I mean really. I wouldn’t mind but the Bush twins went to a public high school. All they had was Secret Service. The NRA should’ve made a point of saying the Obama girls’ “school” has a lot of security. They’re not the only ones who got to that school. Why are politicans’ kids more important than ours, is the question.

  • trailbee

    I love this ad! Now think of this ad in a different context: Remember during the campaign when the Dems came out with that outrageous ad about Romney being a murderer? That oh so sad video about the old man losing his wife because he lost his health insurance? Then take a look at all those other over the top ads aimed at making Romney look like a ditz?
    What goes around comes around. This time the NRA used that same tactic on somebody’s beloved leader and they are enraged. Now they know what that whole campaign felt like for Conservatives!
    To all those who object? Stick it, people. What’s good for the goose is good for the gander. I hope the NRA has got a couple more just like this video!
    PS: Mr. G. I finished every one of your books. Do you have another one in the works?

  • Gizmo

    1st, Bernie, you know that ANY action taken esp. by NRA is going to be overblown. 2nd, these guys flat-out don’t understand anything unless it is spelled out directly in their faces. Remember? These are the guys blaming GUNS for crime & blaming the Tea Party for higher debt! 3rd, Could you imagine the cost of an ad long enough to explain any of this with enough information that they’d even pay attention?
    This WORKED! It got attention, it’s getting responses & results!

  • nickshaw

    What the NRA had to say was true. Liberals like to deride and mock the statements without noting that they are indeed, true statements.
    Can I say, they can’t handle the truth? Okay, I tried.
    Nevertheless, why should the NRA couch the truth in more soothing tones when liberals, for the most part, would not even consider toning down their rhetoric to appeal to us? They use it to pump up their base. Many times using outright lies along with the inflammatory rhetoric!

    Why shouldn’t we? Minus the lying, of course.

    Maybe that’s been our problem all along.
    It’s about time we use some of their playbook!

  • http://www.facebook.com/haaseline Douglas Haase

    Now can you take the GOP agenda and give them some speaking tips as it pertains to the 52% , Hispanics and the Youth. Well said Bernie, its unfortunate that we have to be the ones to reconstruct our speech to get our point across. But haven’t we always taken the higher road, well our generation always had.

  • rlpincus

    Law abiding American citizens support a vast majority of what Obama is proposing concerning guns. The NRA knows this and is throwing mud at the wall, hoping some will stick. Meantime, more normal people like Bernie will question the NRA’s ad techniques, with very good reason.

  • Joel

    Let’s set the record straight.

    1. After the Newtown shooting, the NRA waited a week, out of respect, then indicated that armed guards could protect schools.

    2. The NRA was roundly denounced for the position by elites. Some denunciations were quite offensive.

    3. The NRA prepared an add indicating that elites’ children are protected by armed guards, but many elites don’t want others’ children protected by armed guards.

    4. NRA denounced immediately.

    5. President issues an executive order to increase armed guard funding for schools (i.e.: resource officers).

    6. Elites do not denounce the president.

    Bernie, I really cannot find fault with the NRA’s response here. Perhaps they could have done things better. But in hindsight, their actions were pretty darn good and certainly miles above the elites, who are really blind partisans.

  • gbandy

    Has anyone ever heard of any group who either points out the many lies or hypocrisies of this Administration not being “attacked” by either MSNBC or the Liberals? Seems Obama has a complete free ride to say or do anything by these groups.

  • http://www.facebook.com/andy.trimble.18 Andy Trimble

    Like the liberal MSM has ever couched their words in kind polite terms. Who cares what they think? They love to mock sacred cows, as long as it’s not part of their herd.

  • ted

    New York has a new law now that limits bullet capacity in magazines to seven or
    less. Now almost all police have 9mm guns with 15 round magazines, and so does
    all the body guards for all those elite politicians.

    Bad guys will ignore the magazine limit law. Why is it that bad guys
    should have more bullets than good guys?

    The rule of “UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES” is at it again.

    • nickshaw

      I’m trying to imagine how many cops will use mandated “blockers” or “dummy loads” to comply with the law.
      It’s not hard to imagine the conversation around the locker room. ;-)

  • ted

    Thes school where the Obama girls attend has had armed guards there before the Obama girls arrived. So Obama placed his girls where they were already more protected than in most cases.

  • Beretta

    The debate has (purposely) switched from protecting children in schools to dismantling the NRA and gun owners. Since Sandy Hook I’ve heard more about the big, bad NRA (I’m a member), than I do about solutions to school safety. It’s the straw man/boogey man approach to agenda shaping when it should be almost exclusively about school safety. The NRA is merely hitting back. This isn’t patty cake and the liberals and their leaders aren’t going to fight fair in this battle. They want a big win. The Second Amendment is the high water mark in personal freedom. When it falls, the American way of life is history.

    • nickshaw

      Exactly, Beretta!

  • happtakytrails

    What bothers me is the media(FOX News) attacked this ad. I am sorry but I saw nothing wrong with the ad.

    Why is it liberals like Obama can demagogue every issue, hide behind women and children and use them to attack fellow Americans, then when an org. gives some of that back, they are attacked by people from FOX News?????

    I joined the NRA the day the panel on Special Report ALL attacked that ad. Even Hays, who I thought was a conservative from Wis.

    Your pal O’rielly is in the liberal govt. take all our freedoms away camp.

    Bernie, I know you mean well, but this country can’t take anymore libs control of the media.

    FOX News is getting crazy liberal these days.

    Buy a gun ASAP before its too late !!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  • gloria100

    Your ad is perfect but I don’t object to the NRA ad either for the reason that the narrative is way too one-sided. It’s open season on conservatives (think of the Palin kids, Paul Ryan’s wife, John McCain’s wife, etc.) and hands off liberal elites and their families.

  • Debdeb

    The media ran a story about a school district that recently put in armed guards. They had video of the school and location. If there is outrage about the NRA ad, why is there not triple the outrage about this type of media coverage?

  • RickonhisHarleyJohnson

    There is the right way to say something and the polite way to say something, but they aren’t always the same thing.

  • Jerzeyboy

    What is outrageous, Barney, is the way BHO has “bludgeon” anyone that does not agree with him or his left wing loons, the way BHO bludgeon the Constitution, but two of many example of BHO’s thug tactics Fight fire with fire as BHO is polarizing the USA in spades (can I say that?)

    • nickshaw

      Sure, you can say that, Jerzey. Here. Liberals don’t care for most common usage of phrase these days. Maybe it’s because if you can control the language, you can control the speech?
      Mind you, I don’t think Bernie would care for “Barney”. ;-)

  • I Hate Fascists

    Yeah Bernie, maybe that would have calmed things down. That’s precisely why they used their formulation and not yours. The NRA is a hate group and they must project that hatred in everything they say and do. It’s inbred in them and they know no other way. Before Heston and his “cold dead fingers” the NRA was more reasonable and was in favor of sensible gun control. If the NRA membership would like to return to that they must demonstrate it by replacing LaPierre and Keene with more sensible leadership

  • ARJ127

    The ad is misleading. I think that anyone with half a brain will recognize that Obama’s kids deserve increased security due to the fact that their father is the President. To call him a hypocrite on that score is a low blow and most fair-minded Americans will see it as such.

    Do all kids deserve a more secure environment? The answer is obviously, yes. How we achieve it is open to debate. Let’s see where the risks lie. Loaded firearms in the home are a greater risk to kids than a home without them. More children are injured or killed by firearms in the home than they are from home invasion robberies. So does keeping a firearm in the home help reduce the risk to kids? I don’t think so. Also, turning schools into armed camps seems like a bad idea too.

    What makes more sense are laws that mandate background checks, mental health assessments, storage regulations within private residences, etc. This doesn’t keep legitimate people from obtaining guns. It does however, reduce the probabilities of deranged people or felons from obtaining guns. From what I see, this doesn’t violate the second amendment and yet it provides some measure of safety.

    • nickshaw

      Armed security was employed by the school before Zero’s kids arrived.
      That served to only increase armed security with the arrival of the Secret Service.

  • John Daly

    This is my biggest beef with political ad campaigns – specifically the right-leaning ones. They have very compelling arguments to make but they almost always botch up the messaging.

    My guess, Bernie, is that you came up with that script of yours in no more than five minutes. Why is it so easy for you, yet so difficult for highly-paid p.r. people, like those who work for the NRA, to put out an effective message? It’s mind-boggling.

    • Debdeb

      John, Bernie’s script wouldn’t have worked either. The outrage comes from taking the opportunity to destroy the messenger. Maybe substituting “Mr. President” with the old generic standby “Mr. Rich” would have made the script less vulnerable to attack.

      • nickshaw

        You’re right, Deb. No matter how it was couched, the LSM would use it to attack the NRA anyway.
        How dare they tell the truth!

    • Johnny Deadline

      I agree with you John, but my cynical side taunts that a lot of low-information people think a fiscal cliff is a rock outcropping in Acapulco and the debt ceiling is a HGTV reality show. Reaching these people is imperative but mind numbing.

    • Kayakbob

      John, I completely agree. We (conservatives) always seem to lose the PR battle – usually because of presentation not ideology.

  • Bob Hadley

    I thought part of Pres. Obama’s plan IS to provide funding for schools that want armed security. Do facts matter?

  • Eric Johnson

    Nothing wrong with that message. It was to the point and specific. Better yet, it got all the liberals in a snot over the truth. They keep forgetting that the truth can be a hard thing to swallow sometimes.

    • nickshaw

      I was going to protest, Eric but, then realized that sometimes they do have to swallow the truth. Distasteful as it may be to them. ;-)

  • Ron

    Damned if you do Damned if you don’t. Obama and all his haters can put down anyone and everything and its OK. I may not agree with the tone of the NRA message but I believe in what is said. Obama hates America an all its people. The NRA loves America and all it stands for.

  • pol_incorrect

    The NRA ad is brilliant. Since we agree that both would have conveyed exactly the same substance, the second version would not have gotten any airtime whatsoever while the actual ad has been watched by everybody now and has given a chance to everybody to think about the core issue. It’s the same hypocrisy that Obama has towards school vouchers. He sends his kids, understandably so, to the best schools he can afford. However, when it comes to poor children in DC, he denies them the possibility of attending good private schools. It’s disgusting what he does with the school vouchers and it’s disgusting what he does in the whole guns debate.

    • http://www.facebook.com/frank.church.90 Frank Church

      Sadly most sites I initially and easily read, only used a small sample of the ad and then just spewed negatively about it. On youtube , there are several copies of ad – but only 2 have more than 200K viewers. When some videos get millions of views, that’s not too significant

      • pol_incorrect

        I think that while what you say is true (and in fact the small sample you mention is what has been aired in TV), that’s pretty much irrelevant. Most people still get their news mostly from TV. To give you an example, I hadn’t heard about that PSY guy until late November when the stupid video became the most watched, and that’s because some news source mentioned it. So even the small sample (the one in which the NRA tells people to consider whether the President’s kids are more important than yours) it’s enough to make people think about the matter.

      • nickshaw

        That may be true regarding the number of “original” viewers but, you fail to recognize the more widespread coverage of the ad in the media. This is exactly why hard hitting ads are placed on the internet. To get media coverage.
        By your logic, the mohammad video should never be used as an excuse for Benghazi due to it’s incredibly low viewership on Youtube at the time, right?

  • Switchlight13

    I like the NRA ad; it tells it like it is. We would have lost our gun rights long ago if not for the NRA.

    • ARJ127

      Perhaps you didn’t notice that the President’s kids are at greater risk by virtue of his being the President? If not, please go out and do some clear critical thinking. It may do you some good.

      • Mallet Head

        They do, but perhaps you didn’t know there are 11 armed guards at the school PLUS the SS. Pull the extra gun power out and it might not be so hypocritical. After all he pulled the extra gun power out of Bengazi and left 30 or more lesser American citizens to die or be held hostage by a bloodthirsty cult.

        • Bernie

          Not true. The Washington Post checked … none of the 11 are armed. Only the Secret Service detail has guns.

        • ARJ127

          Bengazi was a complete eff-up. It could happen to any administration. It is also a different topic.

          • io9f

            Benghazi happened because THIS administration ignored &/or denied American officals proper protection – especially as 9/11 approached! This administration is soft on Islamists.

      • KStrett

        No one is arguing that he shouldn’t have armed guards or his children are at a greater risk. However, the president is arguing that normal children going to regular schools are at risk too.

        He is arguing that children are at risk and the solution to the problem is gun control legislation. In other words, the right kind of legislation will stop school massacres.

        One one hand, Armed guards at schools are not the solution to the problem for the regular peasants but armed security guards employed by the schools and a secret security detail is permissible for him.

        He is being hypocritical and the NRA is making a valid point.

        • ARJ127

          Not at all. The armed guards for his children are specifically trained to protect his children due to his position as POTUS. That wouldn’t apply to any other child.

          It’s always better to prevent arms coming into the schools than shooting it out (with children being killed in the crossfire) with the intruders. That’s called common sense.

          He wasn’t being hypocritical. The ones who accused him of that are spouting nonsense.

          • KStrett

            “That wouldn’t apply to any other child.”

            That is like saying a car that costs 100,000 dollars has the absolute best safety features available but we shouldn’t bother to improving the safety features in cars that cost 15,000 to 20,000 because they aren’t as good.

            “It’s always better to prevent arms coming into the schools than shooting it out (with children being killed in the crossfire) with the intruders.”

            There were no guns in the school and they attempted to prevent a psychopath from entering the school with guns. How did that turnout?

            You are also assuming that children would be killed in the cross fire. You could also assume they wouldn’t be.

            “That’s called common sense.”

            The average response time for the police to show up is about ten minutes. Once they get their, they have to find the guy who is murdering people, which adds more time.

            Under your scenario, at best, a psycho has ten minutes to shoot as many people as he wants before the police show up. What were you saying about common sense?

            “He wasn’t being hypocritical.”

            He is absolutely being hypocritical. He is taking the position that the average citizen’s children are in danger too. Obviously, not to the extent his children are.
            He believes the main problem is we need to pass more legislation but he has armed guards protecting his kids.That was their position from the begining. There is no provision that has been proposed that would have stopped this horrific event.

          • nickshaw

            Not to mention that, if all schools have uniformed security, the madman who wants to murder children will plan to target such security before he gets down to business.
            Obvious security guards, in my opinion, are really just a feel good measure (unless there are a lot of them, which is not the suggestion of the president).
            The teacher who is packing is a much better deterrent as the bad guys don’t know where resistance might lie.

          • Mark Cragin

            Agree that teachers and administrators carrying concealed is a better solution even than armed guards, since a potential evildoer has to guess who might stand ready to blow him away.

          • KStrett

            Obviously, you can’t advertise who has the guns.

          • ARJ127

            Let’s just say that if you create an environment where there are fewer possibilities to fire bullets, you have a safer environment. If you can’t see the logic of that, there’s no use continuing the discussion. As for the President, his children are by definition potential targets and, as a result, whatever happens to them could affect the President’s judgement (as it would any parent) thereby affecting national security. The only people who can’t see this are NRA members (who view the 2nd amendment as sacrosanct and who refuse to accept any responsibility for gun ownership) and people devoid of any common sense.

            Anyone with any common sense will see that it’s best to keep guns away from nut cases. If Adam Lanza’s mother had secured her weapons, perhaps she and those children would be alive today. There’s no guarantee of that. However, the odds are that Lanza wouldn’t have been able to get his hands on those weapons, particularly because his mother was trying to get him committed.

            None of you have proposed any common sense solutions. You would instead turn the schools into a shooting gallery between security guards and nut cases.

            BTW, consider for a moment that most of these tragedies happen in America. Ask yourselves why that is and try to be honest in your thought processes.

            Good luck.

          • Mark Cragin

            What we need good luck with is to find our way through all the stupid Straw Man arguments in your post.

          • KStrett

            “Let’s just say that if you create an environment where there are fewer possibilities to fire bullets, you have a safer environment. If you can’t see the logic of that, there’s no use continuing the discussion.”

            He can fire less bullets? Let’s put our thinking caps on…… how could he get around that? He could bring in several clips of ammunition. It takes very little time to put a new clip in a gun. He could also bring in several more guns. He could bring in a duffel bag full of guns.

            The average police response time is about ten minutes. When the police get to the place they have to find the psycho. That takes even more time. Under your scenario, at best, a psycho has carte blanche to go on a killing spree for ten minutes A murderer can kill a lot of people in that amount of time.

            “As for the President, his children are by definition potential targets and, as a result, whatever happens to them could affect the President’s judgement #as it would any parent thereby affecting national security.”

            What you keep ignoring is the President is arguing that the average citizen’s children aren’t safe either. His children get armed guards at the school with secret service protection and the average citizen gets crappy legislation that hurts more than helps and gun free zones. That is hypocritical.

            “The only people who can’t see this are NRA members who view the 2nd amendment as sacrosanct and who refuse to accept any responsibility for gun ownership and people devoid of any common sense. ”

            Apply you logic or lack thereof to the first amendment. Those stupid conservatives believe that free speech is sacrosanct. The entire constitution is sacrosanct!

            All you are doing is making an ad hominem attack.

            “Anyone with any common sense will see that it’s best to keep guns away from nut cases. If Adam Lanza’s mother had secured her weapons, perhaps she and those children would be alive today. There’s no guarantee of that. However, the odds are that Lanza wouldn’t have been able to get his hands on those weapons, particularly because his mother was trying to get him committed.”

            Anyone with common sense will see if there was someone in that school who was armed perhaps the majority of the children would be alive……

            There have been so many conflicting reports on this story, it’s hard to know what is accurate and what is not. Let’s say his mother had the guns locked up in a cabinet. He kills her, takes the key, and takes the guns.

            You can’t stop someone from being irresponsible either.

            “None of you have proposed any common sense solutions. You would instead turn the schools into a shooting gallery between security guards and nut cases.”

            A common sense solution is to pass legislation that does nothing to prevent this from happening again?

            “BTW, consider for a moment that most of these tragedies happen in America. Ask yourselves why that is and try to be honest in your thought processes.”

            What are you talking about? Germany had one of the worst school massacres in history. What about the piece of human excrement that murdered almost 80 people at the camp in Norway? Why was he able to do that? They were on an Island and the psycho was the only one with guns.

          • Ken08534

            Sidwell Friends employs 11 armed guards to protect all the children NOT protected by the Secret Service. The ad should have specified the protection they were discussing wasn’t the Secret Service, it was the Sidwell Friends armed security force. I wonder how big the clips are in the security guard’s pistols?

          • JmThms

            “It’s always better to prevent arms coming into the schools”

            ?

            This will never be done satisfactorily. There HAS to be the final measure of immediate on-site armed response. Its common sense. Any other interpretation is nonsense. And it IS hypocritical of Obama that HIS kids have armed guards, and any other interpretation of it is nonsense. Regardless of whether he is POTUS or not. It is utter hypocrisy. Only deluded liberals would believe otherwise. Oh, and just a remark about the potential shootout (with children being killed in the crossfire): You have got to be kidding me! At that point the gunman is already through and firing!!!!!! Instead of a crossfire you want clear, uninterupted fields of fire for the crazy gunman? Think man, think!

          • joer1

            This school had armed guards long before Obamas girls enrolled AND the Secret Service detail assigned to his girls are IN ADDITION TO … the guards already employed by the school.

        • Bob Hadley

          Maybe i was dreamig when I listened to the president’s talk about his plan to help minimize gun violence, but I thought it was a comprehensive approach covering a wide variety of areas including (but not restricted to) mental health reporting and background checks as well as providing support for any school that wants armed guards.

          So i guess you’re calling Pres. Obama hypocritical beecause he does not force (or at least attempt to force) ALL schools to have armed guards even if a given school does not want armed guards?

          If you bother to read critically, Pres. Obama said that having armed guards at schools isn’t the ONLY answer. Similiarly, having the president’s children guarded by the SS is not the ONLY protection they get. Security for the president and his famiy goes far beyond armed guards. The SS performs all kinds of preventitive measures behind the scenes.

          • KStrett

            The president stated that the average person’s child is in danger too. He sends his children to a school that employs armed guards. They don’t employ armed guards because he sends his kids there. If he sent his kids some where else, the school would still have armed guards.

            He believes that the main problem is we need new legislation. Allowing teachers to carry fire arms and/ or employing police officers to be armed on the premises is not the main problem. In other words, armed guards for me and new anti gun legislation for thee. There is no provision that would have prevented this.

            He stole the guns! He refused a background check because he knew he wouldn’t be able to buy a gun.

          • Bob Hadley

            “He stole the guns! He refused a background check because he knew he wouldn’t be able to buy a gun.”

            Who are you talking about? Who refused a background check and stole guns?

            This is crazy talk. There must have been a full moon.

            BTW, I’ve heard that the security at the school President Obama’s kids attend are NOT armed. Does that make you feel better?

          • Mark Cragin

            Speaking of crazy talk, if the guards at the Obamas’ children’s school are NOT armed, they need to go to a different school.

          • KStrett

            “Who are you talking about? Who refused a background check and stole guns?”

            The psycho who murdered children at Sandy Hook….

            ” This is crazy talk. There must have been a full moon.”

            It is a fact that the murderer attempted to buy his own guns but couldn’t because he knew he would fail the back ground check. He then murderer his own mother and stole the guns.

            “BTW, I’ve heard that the security at the school ”

            As far as I know the school employs armed guards.

            “Does that make you feel better?”

            This has nothing to do with and should have nothing to do with feelings. The president sends his kids to a school with armed guards and has secret security detail protecting his kids at all times, as he should.

            Armed guards for me and a gun free zone for thee is hypocritical. We saw how effective a gun free zone is at the massacre. There is nothing he passed that would have prevented the murders. He and the left is using this horrific event for political gain. That is reprehensible. You will no doubt disagree with that point. Let me ask you this:

            If a few hours after the murders the NRA came out surrounding themselves with children, their narrative was “if there was a gun in the house these children would be alive today” coupled with pictures of children who were murdered as a result of violence to play on emotion , what would you say?

          • Mark Cragin

            Very good …

          • io9f

            Well put, KStrett. Good analogy.

          • Bob Hadley

            You’re seriously misguided. Pres. Obama never said schools are to be gun free zones. A lot of other people have, however. But a lot of schools do have armed guards.

            The president said that he’d provide support to schools who want armed guards. So what’s your point?

            Where did you hear that the shooter in Newtown tried but was refused from buying a gun? I’ve heard that he would have passed a background heck if he wanted to buy a gun.

            “If a few hours after the murders the NRA came out surrounding themselves with children, their narrative was “if there was a gun in the house these children would be alive today” coupled with pictures of children who were murdered as a result of violence to play on emotion , what would you say?”
            First, the NRA is a special interest group. It’s purpose is to promote guns and to advocate for gun owners. Although I listen to statements made by NRA agents, I consider their slant.
            At best, it’s tacky for anyone to make a statement about the cause or the prevention of a tragedy A FEW HOURS after the fact. If the NRA did that a week or so after I’d simply think it would be appealing to ignorance. Many more innocent people are seriously wounded or killed by gun in the house than by intruders.
            I favor people haaving hand guns and rifles if they want them. I also favor such people being required to take certain basic safety training.

          • KStrett

            “You’re seriously misguided. Pres. Obama never said schools are to be gun free zones”

            The President is arguing new regulations would prevent events like Sandy Hook happening in the future. He believes the best way to solve the problem is to pass legislation. The legislation is predicated on the idea, less guns equates to less crime. Statistics show that to be untrue. The more legally owned guns there are, the less crime there is.

            In other words, he is not arguing if someone had a gun at Sandy Hook, there would be a lot less murdered children. He is arguing there would be a lot less murdered children if bureaucrats pass the right kind of gun control legislation.

            “The president said that he’d provide support to schools who want armed guards. So what’s your point?”

            No he didn’t, he said he would provide 1000 councilors and security. I don’t think he broke that number down. It could be 999 councilors and 1 guard.That is not going to do anything even if it is 1000 guards.

            “So what’s your point?”

            My point is the NRA’s advertisement is making a valid argument.

            “Where did you hear that the shooter in Newtown tried but was refused from buying a gun?”

            He attempted to buy guns but didn’t go through with it when the gun store told him he needed to have a background check.

            “First, the NRA is a special interest group. It’s purpose is to promote guns and to advocate for gun owners. Although I listen to statements made by NRA agents, I consider their slant.”

            The NRA is slanted but President Obama and the left isn’t? You just proved my point.

            “At best, it’s tacky for anyone to make a statement about the cause or the prevention of a tragedy A FEW HOURS after the fact.”

            You must have a major problem with the way the left exploited the Sandy Hook massacre then, right?

            “Many more innocent people are seriously wounded or killed by gun in the house than by intruders.”

            I don’t believe that is true. If my memory serves me correctly, the studies that show more people are killed by accidents use a flawed methodology.
            For example, they don’t count the gun as stopping a crime unless the assailant gets killed. If someone breaks into your house, you pull a gun, and the criminal sits down and waits for the police, that doesn’t count.

            “I favor people having hand guns and rifles if they want them.”

            I take it you would support a ban on AR-15s? Explain this to me:

            Chicago has the strictest gun laws in the nation and it has the highest murder rate. There have be well over 500 murders and the majority of them have been with handguns.

            If something must be done because of Sandy Hook, why is Chicago being ignored?

            If we should ban AR-15s because of Sandy Hook etc, shouldn’t we also ban hand guns because of the 500 dead kids in Chicago?

            Many people commit suicide with hand guns too. The liberal logic chain dictates, if we ban hand guns, the suicide rate would drop. In order for you logic to be consistent, you must also want to ban hand guns.

            The liberal argument boils down to holding the position if Jeffery Dahmer didn’t have accesses to a crock pot, he would have been a vegetarian.

          • Bob Hadley

            You are so reactive it’s hard to have a rational discussion with you. But I’ll try again.

            Pres. Obama set forth a comprehensive approach to the problem of gun violence. Stricter gun laws was only a part of this over-all approach. Part of the plan is to provide financial support to schools that want Resource Officers. If you bother to look this up, you’ll see that Resource Officers are armed and trained police officers.

            As far as I know, Pres. Obama has not said or, as you put it, argued what would or would not have prevented the Sandy Hook tragedy. He used that tragedy as an impetus to address mass gun violence in general and school mass gun violence in particular. Again, his approach is multi-faceted, inclluding providing armed police at schools that want them. I suppose you want the fed. gov. to force all schools to have armed guards.

            The NRA is a special interest group. President Obama is the president of all of us. He was elected through our constitutional system. He was elected to do what he thinks is right. Polls have consistently shown that a majority of the American people favor certain restrictions on gun purchases and gun ownership. Even a majority of NRA members favor this.

            As I’ve said before, Pres. GW Bush was constitutionally elected president of all of us, even those of us who had serious disagreement with certain of his policies. Those who vehemently opposed Gore v. Bush need to get over it.

            Yes, I do have a problem with those few liberals who reacted to the shooting by clamoring, on the very same day, for gun control. I also have a problem with the few right wingers who reacted to the these few liberals.

            But I remind you, YOUR example was having some kind of press conference or press briefing discussing gun policy a few hours after the tragedy. That’s different from some talk show host mouthing off. But, yes, i do have a problem with it.

            Have you ever wondered where the thugs in Chicago get their guns? They get them from the surrounding areas and surrounding states. DUH! A lot of them are obtained from the secondary markets that do not have background checks.

            You ought to try to work out your own logic before you try to make-up other’s logic. You’re lousy on both counts.

            I agree with Pres. Obama that gun violence must be all-sided. All angles must be considered and, if feasable, should be addressed. According to the SCOTUS, which has the final say on this matter, the 2nd Amend. guarantees individuals the right to keep and bare arms. Any gun restrictions must respect the Heller decision. Any mental health aspects must respect the constitutional rights of the mentally ill.

            If you’re truly intereseted in rational dialogue, i suggest you read this post a few times before reacting. I have a nuanced view of this. If you don’t understand the nuances then you have missed the boat.

            While Pres. Obama is setting forth a comprehensive, all-sided approach, you seem to be a Johnny one-note: more guns, more guns, more guns. Did the armed guard at prevent the shooting there? Did the armed guards at Virginia Tech prevent the shooting there? Remember the recent shooting by the Empire State building? Trained police officers ended up by shooting several innocent people.

            Yes, having guns can sometimes prevent gun violence. But sometimes they don’t. And sometimes they make things worse.

            As president Obama said, having armed guards is not the ONLY answer, i.e. it is not a be-all-and-end-all, but rather is one aspect of minimizing gun violence consistent with the COTUS..

            I don’t expect you to agree with me, but you need to understand what i’m saying if you truly want dialogue.

          • Bob Hadley

            It was the armed guard at Columbine i was referring to above.

          • KStrett

            “You are so reactive it’s hard to have a rational discussion with you. But I’ll try again.”

            If you are being rational and I am not, why are you the one ignoring my points?

            “Pres. Obama set forth a comprehensive approach to the problem of gun violence.”

            None of the things he set forth would have prevent Sandy Hook. Just because the left uses the words comprehensive, common sense, and reasonable doesn’t make them any of those things.

            “Stricter gun laws was only a part of this over-all approach. Part of the plan is to provide financial support to schools that want Resource Officers. If you bother to look this up, you’ll see that Resource Officers are armed and trained police officers.”

            I have addressed that point. He wants 1000 resource officers AND COUNCILORS. Even if all 1000 were for security that is not enough to do anything.His main argument is predicated on gun control legislation.

            “As far as I know, Pres. Obama has not said or, as you put it, argued what would or would not have prevented the Sandy Hook tragedy. ”

            A guy kills a bunch of Children, the left sands up and says something must be done. Something must be done about what?

            Answer: something about the massacre at Sandy hook.

            What needs to be done?

            Answer: Gun control legislation must be passed.

            If gun control legislation must be passed because of the Sandy Hook massacre, that implies the legislation would have prevented it. You are playing games with semantics. He didn’t explicitly say his ideas would have prevented Sandy Hook but it is implied, so he is getting a pass?

            “Again, his approach is , inclluding providing armed police at schools that want them.”

            Using the term multifaceted sounds good but again doesn’t mean the legislation is good. Again, it would not have prevented Sandy hook and the security at school is a miniscule part of his plan that was probably added to give him cover.

            ” I suppose you want the fed. gov. to force all schools to have armed guards.”

            You guys are the big government people. I am not.

            “The NRA is a special interest group. President Obama is the president of all of us. ”

            You have to be joking. The NRA is partisan but the president isn’t?

            “He was elected through our constitutional system. He was elected to do what he thinks is right. ”

            Really? He doesn’t have the authority under the constitution to pass legislation. via executive order. That is unconstitutional. Just because he was reelected doesn’t mean he isn’t partisan or he can ignore the republicans who were also reelected.

            ” Polls have consistently shown that a majority of the American people favor certain restrictions on gun purchases and gun ownership. Even a majority of NRA members favor this. ”

            What polls? Some polls are complete garbage. There are other polls that show the opposite.

            Just because a majority of people believe something should be done, doesn’t make it a good idea. We are not a democracy, we are a constitutional republic.

            “As I’ve said before, Pres. GW Bush was constitutionally elected president of all of us, ”

            Red Herring……..

            “I do have a problem with those few liberals who reacted to the shooting by clamoring, on the very same day, for gun control. I also have a problem with the few right wingers who reacted to the these few liberals.”

            It wasn’t a few liberals. It was the entire left coupled with the media giving the exact same narrative. Something must be done……. more gun legislation. Right wingers were on defense……

            “But I remind you, YOUR example was having some kind of press conference or press briefing discussing gun policy a few hours after the tragedy. That’s different from some talk show host mouthing off. But, yes, i do have a problem with it. ”

            You agree with the narrative that the left and media has been shoving down our throats. You don’t have a problem with it. I think it’s reprehensible that David Gregory went right into that narrative on Meet The Press two days after the murders. You don’t have a problem with that, do you?

            “Have you ever wondered where the thugs in Chicago get their guns? They get them from the surrounding areas and surrounding states. DUH! A lot of them are obtained from the secondary markets that do not have background checks.”

            You just kicked the legs out from your entire argument. Criminals don’t buy guns legally do they? They buy their guns illegally. Comprehensive, rational, reasonable, multifaceted legislation isn’t going to effect them, is it? Comprehensive, rational, reasonable, multifaceted legislation is only going to effect legal gun owners.

            The proper statistical comparison would be to compare a city where it is easy to buy a gun to a city where it is next to impossible. What do you think you would find if you compared Texas to NYC or Chicago?

            Would you change you mind if you found that the cities where you can easily buy a gun had a much lower crime rate/ murder rate than the cities that were restrictive?

            “You ought to try to work out your own logic before you try to make-up other’s logic. You’re lousy on both counts.”

            You do realize that the ad hominem attack is a logical fallacy, right?

            “I agree with Pres. Obama that gun violence must be all-sided. All angles must be considered and, if feasable, should be addressed. ”

            You are regurgitating talking points.

            Does it makes sense to ban a gun because of cosmetics?

            “According to the SCOTUS, which has the final say on this matter, the 2nd Amend. guarantees individuals the right to keep and bare arms. ”

            No! The Constitution gives us the right to keep and bare arms.The original intent is what matters. SCOTUS could have 5 liberals overturn the 2nd amendment. Their opinion would be wrong.

            ” Any mental health aspects must respect the constitutional rights of the mentally ill. ”

            They are going to use the mental health aspect to go after guns.

            “you seem to be a Johnny one-note: more guns, more guns, more guns”

            If you actually bothered to look at the issue objectively, you would see the more legally owned guns there are, the lower the crime rates.

            “Yes, having guns can sometimes prevent gun violence. But sometimes they don’t.”

            Having no guns always results in more people being killed. Once again, your position dictates that a murderer can go on a killing spree until the police arrive. That gives them about ten minutes to kill as many people as they can.

            “If you’re truly intereseted in rational dialogue, ”

            Let’s stipulate that you are rational and I am not.

            Your logic chain dictates whenever a psycho goes on a murdering spree, he has ten minutes to kill as many people as he wants. Is that logical and reasonable?

            The argument the left is using is something must be done because of Sandy Hook. If you are going to do something shouldn’t it prevent Sandy Hook from happening? Yet, nothing being proposed would have stopped the murderers. Is that logical and reasonable?

            The killer used a AR-15 and AR-15s have been used in other murders, Therefore AR-15s should be banned.

            An AR-15 is not used by the military. It is not an automatic weapon. It shoots one bullet at a time. The only thing that designates the AR-15 as an assault weapon is cosmetic. In other words, they want to ban the gun because it looks like a weapon that the military might use. Banning AR-15 will not do a thing. Is that logical and reasonable?

            Chicago has the strictest gun laws in the nation and it has the highest murder rate. There have be well over 500 murders and the majority of them have been with handguns.

            If something must be done because of Sandy Hook, why is Chicago being ignored?

            If we should ban AR-15s because of Sandy Hook etc, shouldn’t we also ban hand guns because of the 500 dead kids in Chicago?

            Many people commit suicide with hand guns too. The liberal logic chain dictates, if we ban hand guns, the suicide rate would drop. In order for you logic to be consistent, you must also want to ban hand guns. Yet, liberals claim they do not want to ban hand guns.Is that logical and reasonable?

            You are not being logical or rational. In fact, you ignored the points above because you have no response to them but then you turn around and accuse me of not wanting a rational dialog.

          • Bob Hadley

            I checked Pres. Obama’s talk. He said that he’d provide support for any schools that want Resource Officers. The reason I asked you if you’d favor forcing schools to have armed guards is that you think having armed guards is the only answer to school massacres. Accoding to your logic, any school administration or school board that disfavors having Resource Officers is leaving the children at that school vulnerable to being shot.

            And you did not answer my questions: Did the armed guard at Columbine prevent any of the shootings? Did the armed guards at Virginia Tech prevent any of the shootings? Also, what about the recent Empire State building shooting where police officers shot innocent people when trying to eliminate the shooter?

            If you listened to Pres. Obama, Sandy Hook was the final straw. He was addressing gun violence in general and school massacres in particular.

            I did not say the NRA was partisan. I said it is a special interest group. Even the NRA would not deny that. You’ve got to be the one who’s kidding.

            As for the criminals committing murder in Chicago, “secondary markets” is not the same as “black markets.” For example, a lot of guns used in murders are bought at gun shows, where backgrund checks aren’t required. A lot of law abiding citizens, however, buy guns at gun shows. And a lot of guns used in murders were also bought from licensed gun dealers. Ask any mayor.

            There are strict gun control laws where I live, and a low rate of gun violence.

            Give me the links to the polls showing that majority of the people, including a majority of NRA members, disfavor any gun control legislation, e.g.universal background checks, limiting magazines to 10 rounds, trigger locks.

            We live in both a constitutional republic and a democratic republic. The COTUS designates the SCOTUS as having the final word as to the meaning of the COTUS. No matter how vehemently you may disagree with the SCOTUS, you don’t have the final say. But you’re right when you say that the Bill of Rights is not determined by popular opinion. In the finaI analysis, it’s determined by the SCOTUS’ reading of the Bill of Rights.

            Only a FEW liberals exploited the Sandy Hook tragedy by ranting about gun control on the same day as the massacre. There are tens of millions of liberals in this country. Are you trying to tell me that all of these tens of millions got up on soap boxes the moment Sand Hook occurred?

            To understand my logic, you must keep competing ideas in your head at the same time. The COTUS (and, as part of the COTUS, the SCOTUS’ opinions) is a given. Whatever measures are taken must not conflict with the COTUS. Even if there were no constitutional right to bear arms, I’d still favor certain gun rights.

            You have to weigh gun rights on the one hand, with the rights of citizens (esp. the most vulnerable) to be safe. Similarly, I weigh the right of people to drve cars even though cars are very dangerous and kill people. That’s why i favor licensing requirments and safety checks.

          • KStrett

            “I checked Pres. Obama’s talk. He said that he’d provide support for any schools that want Resource Officers”

            Politicians say things all the time and the majority of the time if their lips are moving, they are lying. As far as I know, he has called for 1000 councilors and resource Officers, without stipulating the break down of the two groups.A school cannot just call up the president and get armed guards.

            “The reason I asked you if you’d favor forcing schools to have armed guards is that you think having armed guards is the only answer to school massacres.

            You are making a straw-man argument. I did not say that armed guards is the only answer.I only said it is a valid point that the president is being hypocritical. I also said the liberal solution being proposed doesn’t work.

            ” Did the armed guard at Columbine prevent any of the shootings? Did thearmed guards at Virginia Tech prevent any of the shootings? Also, whatabout the recent Empire State building shooting where police officers shot innocent people when trying to eliminate the shooter?”

            Your questions is another straw-man. You are ignoring the myriad of examples of shooting sprees that have been prevented by armed citizens.

            If there is an armed citizen present at an attempted killing spree, the average deaths are about two. When there isn’t anyone armed, the average deaths are about 14.

            You also have ignored the flaw in your logic.Your position dictates a mass murderer has ten minutes to kill as many people as he can.

            The logical conclusion to your position should be to ban all guns because no matter what legislation is passed, a mass murderer can still bring in a duffel bag full of guns. It is transparently obvious you are ignoring this point.

            “If you listened to Pres. Obama, Sandy Hook was the final straw. He was addressing gun violence in general and school massacres in particular.”

            You are repeating the exact same thing and ignoring my response. We have to do something because of the Sandy Hook Massacre. This insinuates whatever they pass legislatively should prevent this from happening in the future.

            “I did not say the NRA was partisan. I said it is a special interest group. Even the NRA would not deny that. You’ve got to be the one who’s kidding.”

            More games with semantics…. In other words, the NRA has an agenda and President Obama doesn’t. The point is ridiculous.

            “As for the criminals committing murder in Chicago, “secondary markets” is not the same as “black markets.”

            You are attempting to side step the points that I brought up. If AR-15s should be banned because they have been used in a few mass killings, it follows logically that hand guns should be banned too because of all the hand guns used in murders in Chicago and other large cities.

            Secondly, you cut the legs out from your entire argument when you conceded that criminals buy their guns illegally and don’t follow the law.

            “Give me the links to the polls showing that majority of the people, including a majority of NRA members, disfavor any gun control legislation, e.g.universal background checks, limiting magazines to 10 rounds, trigger locks.”

            You can just state whatever you want without providing any links and I have to post a link for you?

            Secondly, you have conceded that all of those ideas would apply to law abiding citizens and not criminals.

            When a criminal breaks into your house, he acquired his gun illegally, didn’t get a background check, has a large capacity mag in his gun.

            When you hear him break in to your house, you have to get your gun out of the safe, take the trigger lock off, and possibly have to load the the gun.

            How is that going to work out? Excuse Mr. Criminal …. could you hang back for a minute so I can get my gun out of the safe take the trigger lock off and load my gun so we can have a fair fight?

            You ignored my point that some polls are complete garbage and just because a majority of people believe something should be done, doesn’t make it a good idea.

            “We live in both a constitutional republic and a democratic republic.”

            We live in a constitutional republic. The founders abhorred democracy. Democracy is mob rule. If the majority of elected representatives in the house and senate voted to ban all guns that would be unconstitutional, regardless of if the majority wanted the legislation.

            “The COTUS designates the SCOTUS as having the final word as to the meaning of the COTUS.””

            The current view of the Supreme court is not what the founders had in mind. For example, if a supreme court justice cited foreign law or just legislated from the bench, the legislature can and should impeach that justice.

            The current court uses case law as justification for their decision when they should use the original intent of the founders.

            Again, if SCOTUS overturned the second amendment in a 9-0 decision they are wrong. The original intent of Constitution is for an armed populous.

            “Only a FEW liberals exploited the Sandy Hook tragedy by ranting about gun control on the same day as the massacre. There are tens of millionsof liberals in this country. Are you trying to tell me that all of these tens of millions got up on soap boxes the moment Sand Hook occurred?”

            You are making yet another straw-man argument.

            The vast majorly of liberal politicians, commentators, and news reporters hit the ground running with the narrative Sandy Hook demonstrates we need more gun control legislation.

            You ignored my example of David Gregory on Meet the Press. The shooting happen on Friday. On Sunday edition Greggory was pushing that narrative.

            Gregory is supposed to be an objective journalist. Instead, he was pushing an agenda. Aside from Fox the rest of the media was pushing the exact same narrative. The majority of liberal politicians and commentators were doing the exact same thing. To argue it was only a few liberals is laughable.

            ” Similarly, I weigh the right of people to drve cars even though cars are very dangerous and kill people.”

            You are making a category error. Driving a car is not a constitutional right.

            Secondly, we don’t restrict the right when someone breaks the law. When some yells ‘fire’ in a crowed theater, we don’t restrict the first amendment. We prosecute the person who screamed “fire.”

            “That’s why i favor licensing requirments and safety checks.”

            By safety checks do you mean a government official should visit gun owner’s homes and check to make sure they are properly conforming with the government’s safety requirements?

            Finally, you did not answer my questions:

            Your logic chain dictates whenever a psycho goes on a murdering spree, he has ten minutes to kill as many people as he wants. Is that logical and reasonable?

            The argument the left is using is something must be done because of Sandy Hook. If you are going to do something shouldn’t it prevent Sandy Hook from happening? Yet, nothing being proposed would have stopped the murderers. Is that logical and reasonable?

            The killer used a AR-15 and AR-15s have been used in other murders, Therefore AR-15s should be banned.

            An AR-15 is not used by the military. It is not an automatic weapon. It shoots one bullet at a time. The only thing that designates the AR-15as an assault weapon is cosmetic. In other words, they want to ban the gun because it looks like a weapon that the military might use. Banning AR-15 will not do a thing. Is that logical and reasonable?

            Chicago has the strictest gun laws in the nation and it has the
            highest murder rate. There have be well over 500 murders and the majority of them have been with handguns.If something must be done because of Sandy Hook, why is Chicago being ignored?

            If we should ban AR-15s because of Sandy Hook etc, shouldn’t we also ban hand guns because of the 500 dead kids in Chicago?

            Many people commit suicide with hand guns too. The liberal logic chain dictates, if we ban hand guns, the suicide rate would drop. In order for you logic to be consistent, you must also want to ban hand guns. Yet, liberals claim they do not want to ban hand guns.Is that logical and reasonable?

          • Bob Hadley

            “Politicians say things all the time and the majority of the time if their lips are moving, they are lying. As far as I know, he has called for 1000 councilors and resource Officers, without stipulating the break down of the two groups.A school cannot just call up the president and get armed guards. ”

            So, in other words, you get to choose what to believe and what to disregard? If you’d bother to read his executive orders, you’d see our president IS providing support to ANY school wanting resource officers, aka armed guards. That’s a good thing, but it’s the last line of defense.

            Other than having armed guards at schools, what other measures do you favor for making our schools safer from gun violence?

            Your solution of having armed guards at schools is, at best, a partial solution. It wasn’t a solution at Columbine. It wasn’t a solution a solution at Virginia Tech. A lot of schools are spread out and have multiple points of entry.

            Yes, having a gun at the right time at the right place can help. But it can also hinder, e.g. all the innocent people shot by police at the empire state building shooting.

            Again, it’s the last line of defense.

            “We have to do something because of the Sandy Hook Massacre. This insinuates whatever they pass legislatively should prevent this from happening in the future.”

            It insinuates that we must do something to reduce gun violence in general and school gun violence in particular within the framework of our constitution.

            there’s a real difference between being partisan and being a special interest group. The NRA promotes guns. It doesn’t promote a certain view on gay marriage or on federal safety net issues or on any other issues not affecting guns.

            The NRA will support a politician of ANY party who it deems to be friendly to them and it will oppose any politicain who it deems unfriendly.

            A partisan, on the other hand, is into team politics. He is interested in pushing policies on a myriad of issues. He will join the team that he thinks most supports his goals. Our initial discussion on this issue arose because I said that it was the NRA’s job to promote guns, while President Obama was elected to follow his own convictions and agenda on all issues, albeit convictions with which you seriously oppose.

            “…you cut the legs out from your entire argument when you conceded that criminals buy their guns illegally and don’t follow the law.”

            I did not say that. I said that a lot of the guns used in murders are bought in the secondary market (e.g. gun shows), which does not require background checks. The secondary market sells guns legally to gun purchasers, many of whom are responsible citizens who take care of their guns.

            “You are attempting to side step the points that I brought up. If AR-15s should be banned because they have been used in a few mass killings, it follows logically that hand guns should be banned too because of all the hand guns used in murders in Chicago and other large cities.”

            First, where did i say that AR-15’s should be banned? I think you’re addressing someone else. I know, we all look alike. Right? I don’t have a firm position on this, but I TEND to think they should either be banned or have serious restrictions on
            their sale.

            As for my logic leading to banning ALL hand guns, there you go again! Again I suggest, that you read what i say several times. It might pevent us from re-treading the same ground repreatedly.

            I said that we have a constitutional right to keep and bear arms. I also said that, even if we didn’t have the 2nd Amend., I’d still support the right to gun ownership. So logically, your conclusion above is absurd!

            Again, you must be able to hold competing thoughts in your head at the same time if you want to understand what I’m saying. I want gun violence, especially mass kiillings and especially of children, reduced. But I also respect the 2nd Amend. as interpreted by the Heller case. Even before the Heller case and even without the 2nd Amend., I’d favor basic gun ownership rights.

            Would a COMPLETE ban on ALL hand guns reduce gun violence even further? Yes.. But that would not be consistent with my premise of there being a general right to gun ownership.

            Theorectically, If we lived in a North Korea-type dictatorship, there’d be much less crime and far less gun violence (from private citizens, anyway). But I oppose living in a North Korean style dictatorship because it would negate all the other things I cherish.

            “How is that going to work out? Excuse Mr. Criminal …. could you hang back for a minute so I can get my gun out of the safe, take the trigger lock off and load my gun so we can have a fair fight?”

            You’re being absurd. A resposible gun owner secures his guns when he’s not around or when others (like children) may get ahold orf them. At the appropriate times, he keeps this guns near him ready to access and use.

            “We live in a constitutional republic. The founders abhorred democracy. Democracy is mob rule. If the majority of elected representatives in the house and senate voted to ban all guns that would be unconstitutional, regardless of if the majority wanted the legislation.”

            Here, you’re partially correct. At the time, demorcracy was a revolutionary idea. The Founding Faters, although a highly diverse group politically, favored some degree of democracy. They all basically agreed that political power should emanate from the people or, more accurately, from those who voted. They disagreed on how to filter or on how stronly to filter the passions of the electorate.

            One of the main issues that the Founding Fathers hammered out was what kind of filter and how strong of a filter was to be placed on the people or the electorate. They fought like cats and dogs, but finally reached a compromise known as the Constitution of the United States.

            For example, some of the founders wanted the POTUS to be elected by a straight majority vote and others wanted Congress to elect the POTUS. They compromised by having the (presumeably democratically elected) legislatures of the states selecting electors, known today as the electoral college. In addition, they compromised by having Senators elected by (presumeably democratically elected) state legislatures.

            In Federalist No. 10, James Madison discussed some of these isses. He also discusses the dangers of factionalism in a democratic socierty. You might say that Madison’s logic would be to oppose democracy outright in order to eliminate factionalism outright. But Madison was expressly against this extreme view. He said that a democratic society, which he favored, must have measures that create counter-vailing forces opposing factionalism and that for democracy to survive, the electorate must always be vigilant.

            You’re right when you say that Congress, for example, must legislate within the framework of the COTUS. But, the COTUS provides for the SCOTUS to have the final say on what the COTUS means. For example, if the SCOTUS deems a certain law constitutional, you and anyone else who disagrees (no matter how vehemently) do not have the right to disobey that law. To say otherwise would invite anarchy. That was one of the dangers that Madison saw in factionalism.

            “The vast majorly of liberal politicians, commentators, and news reporters hit the ground running with the narrative Sandy Hook demonstrates we need more gun control legislation”

            Previously, you said it was the entire Left. Now you’re say it’s the majority of liberal commenators, politicians and news reporters.

            There are thousands and thousands of liberal politicians, commentators and news reporters througout the country. How many of them hit the ground running advocating gun contol laws? I bet you can’t name more than twenty? Why do you make things up?

            “You ignored my example of David Gregory on Meet the Press. The shooting happen on Friday. On Sunday edition Greggory was pushing that narrative.”

            What about David Gregory? Such generalizations leads to bigotry. Just because one commentator does it, doesn’t mean that a majority of liberal politicans, commentators and news reporters also did it. In additon,, we initially were discussing liberals doing it on the SAME day as Sandy Hook.

            “By safety checks do you mean a government official should visit gun owner’s homes and check to make sure they are properly conforming with the government’s safety requirements?”

            No, but I do favor licensing at least certain types of weapons. As to the licensing requiremnent, I’m open to discussion. I’m also open to discussion as to whether gun licenses should be renewed and, if so, how often.

            “Your logic chain dictates whenever a psycho goes on a murdering spree, he has ten minutes to kill as many people as he wants. Is that logical and reasonable?”

            This is a good example of how you don’t read what I say and/or your unwillingness to keep competing thoughts in your head at the same time. Nothing I’ve said states, implies and insinuates this. I’ve repeatedly said that school should be able to have armed guards if they want that. I’ve aso repreatedly said that responsible citizens should be able to keep and bare arms.

            “If we should ban AR-15s because of Sandy Hook etc, shouldn’t we also ban hand guns because of the 500 dead kids in Chicago?”

            “Many people commit suicide with hand guns too. The liberal logic chain dictates, if we ban hand guns, the suicide rate would drop. In order for you logic to be consistent, you must also want to ban hand guns. Yet, liberals claim they do not want to ban hand guns.Is that logical and reasonable?”

            First of all, this is a diaglogue between you and me. Trying to get me to defend the “liberal logic chain” (whatever that is in your world) tends to shut down dialogue.

            As I indicated before, if all the handguns owned or possessed by people not in law enforcement or the military were to suddenly disappear, gun violence of the type I’m refering to would almost completely disappear. But I disfavor that. I’ve already said that I favor gun ownership rights by responsible citizens.

            As Madison indicated in Federalist No. 10, and as our founders well knew, whenever you have a free society you have the potebntial for misuse and abuse. It’s the price of freedom.

            As Madison indicated in Federalist No. 10, and as the founders well knew is to maximize liberty at one end and to minimize misuse and abuse at the other end. Inherent in this is a tension between the two concerns. Welcome to the wotld of politics!

          • KStrett

            “So, in other words, you get to choose what to believe and what to disregard? If you’d bother to read his executive orders, you’d see our president IS providing support to ANY school wanting resource officers, aka armed guards”

            What are you talking about? The president can not pass legislation by executive order. That is unconstitutional. If
            the president can do that we are not a constitutional republic, we are a dictatorship.

            “That’s a good thing, but it’s the last line of defense.”

            In other words, the first line of defense is passing gun restrictions that would not prevent events like Sandy Hook from happening again?

            “Your solution of having armed guards at schools is, at best, a partial solution. It wasn’t a solution at Columbine. It wasn’t a solution a solution at Virginia Tech. A lot of schools are spread out and have multiple points of entry.”

            Why do you keep cherry picking and ignoring the myriad of other attempted mass murders that were prevented by an armed citizen?

            Have you considered that not having multiple points of entry could also be a problem? A murderer goes into a school and no one can get out.

            “Again, it’s the last line of defense.”

            The police are the last people to show up. The people who are there when the killing starts are the first line of defense. You don’t believe the first line of defense is the main solution to the problem.

            Again, you believe the first line of defense is legislation.You conceded that your first line of dense wouldn’t have prevented this tragedy. Your first line of defense is no defense at all.

            “It insinuates that we must do something to reduce gun violence in general and school gun violence in particular within the framework of our constitution. ”

            Ignore and restate ……. A bunch of children were murdered. The politicians stood up and said something must be done. Thus, whatever is done must prevent the original event from happening.

            “there’s a real difference between being partisan and being a special interest group. ”

            You are still playing games with semantics. The NRA has an agenda on guns and President Obama and the left
            doesn’t. That is the equivalent of arguing that a conservative tax policy organization has an agenda and the President doesn’t. The point is laughable but you keep repeating it.

            “I did not say that. I said that a lot of the guns used in murders are bought in the secondary market (e.g. gun shows), ”

            More semantics. The bulk of gun violence comes from gangs. Gangs do not buy their guns legally. The point still remains that you undercut your entire argument. You believe we should pass legislation that will only effect legal gun owners.

            “First, where did i say that AR-15’s should be banned?……. but I TEND to think they should either be banned or have serious restrictions on”

            You were ignored the point because if you “tend” to think they should be banned, your logic chain dictates that you should also want handguns banned too.

            Your position on school massacres dictates you should want all guns banned because you can never stop someone from walking into a school and murdering people with whatever guns are available.

            “Again I suggest, that you read what i say several times. It might pevent us from re-treading the same ground repreatedly………………..I said that we have a constitutional
            right to keep and bear arms. I also said that, even if we didn’t have the 2nd Amend., I’d still support the right to gun ownership…. So logically, your conclusion above is absurd!”

            If AR-15s should be banned because they have been used in a few shootings and two dozen children were murdered by one, it logically follows that we should also ban handguns because they are used a thousand times more often in shootings and more children have been murdered with handguns as Chicago
            demonstrates.

            It is illogical to hold the position that AR-15s should be banned and handguns shouldn’t be. It is also illogical to want to ban a gun because of cosmetics. It is even more illogical to believe banning a gun because of cosmetics would play any factor in reducing violence.

            “I want gun violence, especially mass kiillings and especially of children, reduced. ”

            Why just gun violence, why not all violence?

            Mass killings occur infrequently. The bulk of gun murders are gang related and hand guns are used.

            You want to ban a gun that has been used infrequently in a few mass killings because of cosmetics but you don’t want to ban handguns that are frequently being used killing children in every city in the country?

            “Theorectically,If we lived in a North Korea-type dictatorship, there’d be much less crime and far less gun violence (from private citizens, anyway). But I oppose living in a North Korean style dictatorship because it would negate all the other things I cherish.”

            If we didn’t live in a dictatorship and guns were banned, you would see the violent crime percentage rate go up dramatically. The lowest crime rates usually coincide with a high percentage of guns owned legally. This is why the left frames the issue as gun violence rather than all violence.

            “You’re being absurd. A resposible gun owner secures his guns when he’s not around or when others (like children) may get ahold orf them. At the appropriate times, he keeps this guns near him ready to access and use”

            What is absurd is your argument is predicted on the notion that we know when someone is going to attempt do us harm.

            What if someone attempts to do you harm when children are around?

            What if the parents aren’t home and someone attempts to harm your child?

            There was a story in the news where a child protected himself and his sister with an AR-15 from a criminal.

            “But, the COTUS provides for the SCOTUS to have the final say on what the COTUS means. For example, if the SCOTUS deems a certain law constitutional, you and anyone else who disagrees (no matter how vehemently) do not have the right to disobey that law. To say otherwise would invite anarchy.”

            You ignored everything I said. The way we are supposed to measure a laws constitutionality is by the original intent of the founders not by case law. With case law you slowly evolve
            away from the original intent, which why the progressive movement changed original intent to case law.

            Once again, if we get 5 liberal judges on the supreme court and they decide in a 5-4 decision to overturn the second amendment, they are 100% wrong and violating their mandate.

            You also ignored the issue of impeaching of judges, which never happens today but did back then. The founders didn’t intend for SCOTUS to be a judicial dictatorship. If a SC justice used foreign law or legislated from the bench back then, they would have been impeached.

            “Previously, you said it was the entire Left.”

            More games with semantics.

            “How many of them hit the ground running advocating gun contol laws?. ”

            There is the same straw-man question you used before. The vast majority of liberals were out saying the exact same thing.

            “What about David Gregory? Such generalizations leads to bigotry. Just because one commentator does it, doesn’t mean that a majority of liberal politicans, commentators and news reporters also did it. In additon,…….we initially were discussing liberals doing it on the SAME day as Sandy Hook.”

            Even more games with Semantics……. it’s not ok the day
            of the massacre but it is ok to politicize it, two after the murders?

            You are side stepping the issue with a red herring.

            The vast majority of the press and liberal politicians were saying the exact same thing as David Gregory.

            “This is a good example of how you don’t read what I say and/or your unwillingness to keep competing thoughts in your head at the same time. ”

            A logic chain has nothing to do with what you have previously said. It has to do with your reasoning of lack thereof.

            If AR-15s should be banned because they were used to kill two dozen children, it follows logically that handguns should be banned because they were used in the murders of 500 children.

            Your response to this point is to argue that you never said that we should ban handguns. I am not saying that you did. What I am saying is in order for your logic to be consistent, your own line of thinking dictates that handguns should be banned too.

            “get me to defend the “liberal logic chain” (whatever that is in your world) tends to shut down dialogue.”

            You are right………. liberal logic chain is an oxymoron.

            Do you know why it shuts down dialog? Because liberal positions are inherently illogical and they can’t defend them.

            “AsI indicated before, if all the handguns owned or possessed by people not in law enforcement or the military were to suddenly disappear, gun violence of the type I’m refering to would almost completely disappear. But I disfavor that.”

            You are contradicting yourself and not making any sense. There are other automatic rifles that look like a regular rifle, can shoot just as many shots and are a higher caliber than an ar-15 but AR-15 should banned because it looks scarey. That makes no sense.

            More kids are murdered with handguns compared
            to an AR-15 but we should ban AR-15s and not handguns. That makes absolutely no sense.

            A murderer goes on a killing spree in a school with an AR-15, Therefore AR-15s should be banned.

            There are 500 kids who were murdered in Chicago with handguns. Therefore, handguns should not be banned…..

            “Here, you’re partially correct.”

            Once again, we are not a democracy. We are a constitutional republic. If 51% of the legislators voted to legalize rape, it violates the constitution. Democracy is mob rule.

            ” Inherent in this is a tension between the two concerns. Welcome to the wotld of politics!”

            You are going off on a red herring. To act like what is going on today are the same arguments they were having back then is patently ridiculous.

            The debate back then was between positions almost anarchy and libertarians who wanted a slightly stronger central government.

            The debate today is between socialists who want cradle to grave government care coupled with a giant powerful government and socialists-lite who want a smaller and a slightly different version of big government. The founders would be appalled at what the government has become.

            This brings us back to the second amendment. The founders put the second amendment in the constitution because of government tyranny. The second amendment’s purpose is to protect the citizens from it’s government.

            The entire constitution is designed to restrict the government because the founders knew that governments usually grows and grows and takes more and more power. To compare that position to the moonbattery that is going on today, is asinine.

            “what other measures do you favor for making our schools safer from gun violence?”

            First of all. I favor an honest debate. The far left is not being honest. They want to ban all guns like they have in England and Australia but they will not admit that.

            Instead they wait for a tragedy and incrementally attempt to ban firearms. The real debate is banning guns vs the right to have arms.

            As far as school massacres, I believe there needs to be an honest discussion. Instead, the issue is only about gun control legislation.

            Why is it, in the past, kids going on a school killing spree didn’t happen? There were more guns around, schools had shooting clubs, there were guns in the schools, and kids drove to school a gun rack in the back of the truck with a loaded guns and this wasn’t a problem.

            Teenagers going on killings sprees in school is a new phenomenon. I believe the first one was in the late 1970s. This demonstrates the issue is not access to guns. This question is the key to preventing things like Sandy Hook from happening again.

            Having a few armed guards around will not work either. All the shooters need to do is kill them first. Gun free zone labels needs to be dropped. Concealed arms need to be in the school and no one can know who is armed and who isn’t.

            The media needs to stop wall to wall coverage of school massacres as it encourages more to happen.

          • Bob Hadley

            “What are you talking about? The president can not pass legislation by executive order. That is unconstitutional. If
            the president can do that we are not a constitutional republic, we are a dictatorship.”

            Executive Orders are distinct from legislation. Executive orders are commonly used by presidents. If you think Executive Orders are unconstitutional, cite the specifc language in the COTUS that preempts them.

            “Why do you keep cherry picking and ignoring the myriad of other attempted mass murders that were prevented by an armed citizen?”

            “Have you considered that not having multiple points of entry could also be a problem? A murderer goes into a school and no one can get out.”

            You’re the one who’s cherry picking. I’ve already told you that having armed guards at schools can help, sometimes they don’t help and sometimes they make matters worse. That aint cherry picking.

            I’ve already said that I favor schools having trained armed guards if that is what they request.

            Yes, having multiple points evacuation more effective, but it can also make an armed guard less effective. What’s your point????

            I didn’t ignore what you said about the legislation aiming to prevent Sandy Hook from occurring, but I AM repeating myself because you apparently can’t read well. Why would legislation be designed to prevent Sandy Hook? Sand Hook already happened. That makes no sense. Legislation was designed to prevent future massacres, esp. school mass shootings so through that again.

            The distinction between a special interest group and an elected official is not semantics. The NRA has, by definition, a specific agenda regarding guns.

            An elected official is not, by definition, required to have a certain agenda. Pres. Obama was not required to have an agenda regarding gun violence. In fact, if it weren’t for Sandy Hook he may never have developed an agenda for gun violence. Once he decides to do something about gun violence, he’s not required, by definition, to favor a certain policy over other policies.

            Criminals very often obtain their guns legally, through gun shows. They also often obtain them through straw purchasers. If a criminal does not yet have a criminal record, he can buy them legally at gun shops.

            I said that I tend to think AR-15s should either be illegal OR have more restrictions placed on their sale. READ CAREFULLY NEXT TIME. My logic dictates the same for all guns IF AND ONLY IF I have the same one-dimensional thinking as you. Fortunately I do not.

            Apparently you can’t comprehend someone keeping competing thoughts in his mind at the same time, at least on this issue. I favor a comprehensive approach to gun violence that does not violate the 2nd Amend. (as was settled by SCOTUS as provided by the COTUS) and does not violate what I consider to be our rights to gun ownership.

            This comprehensive progam includes closing the background check loophole with certain common sense exception (e.g. a giving of guns frer to the other, friends sharing and trading guns), a law discouraging strawman purchases (limiting the number of guns one can buy within a certain period of time), stronger laws about keeping the data base current, stronger reporting people with mental illness who have been ajudicated as being potentially violent, outlawing bullets, limiting magazine capacity, and perhaps outlawing the selling of OR restricting the selling of certain types of friearmss, like the AR-15s, a law requiring gun purchasers to be licensed by first taking a safety course. And yes, existing laws should be enforced.

            Will this prevent all gun violence? Of course not. But it would reduce gun violense. Again, if all guns were to disappear we wouyld have no gun violence. But this is not what i want. Leaving open a certain possibility for gun violence is the price we pay for living in a free society. It’s a price worth paying.

            Do you think North Korea has a problem of gun violence with its citizens? Of course not! But I don’t want to live in that type of a society.

            I recommend that you read Federalist #10. In in Madison well illustrates that taking a middle course, one that allows for certain problems on both sides of a given issue is better than going to an extreme and thereby creating major problems.

            As Winston Churchhill once said, “Democracy is the worst system of government on the face of the earth, except for all the rest of them .” Yes, the comprehensive program I outlines above is inadequate, but it’s better than what we now have.

            A responsible gun owner does does not leave his guns where children can access them without supervision. There are countless cases of children shooting themselves or other innocents (usually other children) because the gun owers were careless.

            Guns in homes shoot many more innocents than they do invaders. A major reason for this is carelessness on the part of gun owners. This can’t be prevent entirely in a free society, but at least a safety course requirement and a license may reduce this quite a bit.

            I addressed everything you said about costitutional interpretation. You simply refuse to comprehend what I say. The COTUS provided for the federal courts to have the final say as to interpreting the COTUS. You stated your opinion as to how the COTUS must be interpreted. That is simply your opinion. You need to understand the difference between an opinion and a statement of fact.

            Even among those who generally agree with your “original intent” comcept of interpreting the constitution, there is a lot of disagreement as to what the original intent was.

            In the final anaylsis, yourt opinion as to constitutional interpretation does not matter. Neither does mine.

            One of the federalist papers says that the federal courts must be above popular passions if we are to have the rule of law. That’s why the COTUS gave federal judges lifetime tenure.

            When was the last time you read the COTUS?

            Federal judges are impeached today, but only for high crimes and misdemeanors (e.g. bribery). Just because, in your opinion, a judge made a bad decision is not grounds for impeachment.

            Judges do not base their opinion their opinions on foreign laws as far as I know. A few federal judges have, however, made reference to foreign law in their opinions. Their opinions are based on the applicable state or federal law.

            If you know of an instance where a judge based his opinion on foreign law, please give me the citation so i can look it up.

            “The vast majority of the press and liberal politicians were saying the exact same thing as David Gregory.”

            How do you know this????????????? There are thousands and thousands of press people and liberal politicians in this country. Again, I bet you can’t name more than 20, and probably not even 10. You simply don’t know this. This type of thinking leads to bigotry.

            I’m unaware of more than a dozen or so press people and liberal politicians who politicized this. Maybe a whole lot more did. But, if so, show me the evidence.

            “If AR-15s should be banned because they were used to kill two dozen children, it follows logically that handguns should be banned because they were used in the murders of 500 children.”

            There you go again! This would only be true if everyone had the same extreme mode of thinking that you exhibit. I see this issue as having competing concerns. I favor a partial measure. If i favored a more complete measure I’d favor eliminating freedom. Freedom always carries with it the possibility of abuse. I cherish freedom. Therefore, logically, i don’t support a complete gun ban. Not even close!

            “This brings us back to the second amendment. The founders put the second amendment in the constitution because of government tyranny. The second amendment’s purpose is to protect the citizens from it’s government.”

            The main purposes of the 2nd Amend. was to fend off invading armies and to suppress insurections among our populace (e.g. armed know-it-alls who violently disagree with policy and who start an insurrection). But, you’re right that another purpose was to fight a gov. that turned tyrannical. That referred to a break up of the PROCESS (not the end results or policy) as set forth in the COTUS. An example of this would be if the president suddenly declard martial law and the military tried to implement it.

            “The entire constitution is designed to restrict the government because the founders knew that governments usually grows and grows and takes more and more power. To compare that position to the moonbattery that is going on today, is asinine.”

            The Bill of Rights – the first 10 amendments – were designed to restrict the federal goverment. The original COTUS was designed to set up the federal government with its balance of powers and having political power originate (in the first instance) from the voters. Implicit in the original COTUS, however, were certain restrictions on the fedral government.

            BTW, the COTUS was designed because the founders thought that the Articles of Federation (which was actually our original constitution) was too weak. They wanted to strengthen the federal government. The Founders did not agree as to how much stronger the federal gov. should become, however.

            You did not really answer my question as to what measure you favor to lessen gun violence, esp. in our schools other than having more people armed. You kept saying that you want an “honest” discussion. I suppose that an “honest” discussion is one with which you agree.

            Let’s hear from you. What policies do you favor?.

          • Bob Hadley

            n i said i favor outlawing bullets as one part of a comprehensive approach to reducing gun violence, I actually typed out and meant armor piercing bullets. This website sometimes omits things that are typed. I’ll try to proof my replies better next time

          • ILoveAmerica

            oops should have sent that reply to you…oh well im sure u will see it :)

          • KStrett

            “Executive Orders are distinct from legislation. Executive orders are commonly used by president”

            You totally side stepped the issue. The constitution does not permit the president to pass legislation via executive order. If it did, we have a dictatorship.

            Do we live in a dictatorship where the president can pass an executive order and it automatically becomes laws or do we live in a constitutional republic?

            “You’re the one who’s cherry picking.”

            You side stepped the issue again. The issue is you bring up school murders and police shootings that went wrong to back up your position but ignore the situations where an armed citizen prevented a massacre.

            “Why would legislation be designed to prevent Sandy Hook? Sand Hook already happened. That makes no sense.”

            More games with semantics….

            “Legislation was designed to prevent future massacres, esp. school mass shootings so through that again.”

            You conceded that the legislation would not prevent massacres like sandy hook from happening in the future. You also said that the legislation is the first line of dense. By your own admission the first line of dense doesn’t work.

            “The NRA has, by definition, a specific agenda regarding guns.An elected official is not, by definition, required to have a certain agenda. Pres. Obama was not required to have an agenda regarding gun violence. ”

            You are seriously standing by the point that the NRA has an agenda with guns and President Obama and the left does not?

            That is the is the equivalent of saying the national low tax association has an agenda with taxes but the President and left doesn’t.

            “n fact, if it weren’t for Sandy Hook he may never have developed an agenda for gun violence.”

            Never let a good crisis go to waste……..

            “Criminals very often obtain their guns legally, through gun shows. They also often obtain them through straw purchasers. If a criminal does not yet have a criminal record, he can buy them legally at gun shops.”

            If someone doesn’t have a criminal record they should be allowed to buy a gun. Do you suggest implementing some kind of minority report program?

            You have already conceded that criminals do not buy their guns legally and or do not follow the law. At the same time, you believe that legislation will solve the problem. You cut the legs out from your entire argument.

            “I said that I tend to think AR-15s should either be illegal OR have more restrictions placed on their sale. READ CAREFULLY NEXT TIME. My logic dictates the same for all guns IF AND ONLY IF I have the same one-dimensional thinking as you. Fortunately I do not. ”

            Your thinking is illogical. If you TEND to think AR-15 should be banned or restricted because they have been used in a few massacres, you would have to think handguns should be totally banned as they are responsible for the bulk of children being killed.

            TENDING to think that ar-15 should be banned or restricted shows that you are not thinking about this issue at all. There are automatic rifles that are more powerful than the ar-15.

            On top of that, you cite the second amendment and concede that an out right ban is unconstitutional but you apparently have no problem with the President violating the constitution by passing legislation via executive order.

            “I favor a comprehensive approach to gun violence that does not violate the 2nd Amend.”

            Comprehensive is a great word isn’t it? Slap that word on any legislation and it automatically makes the legislation good.

            “And yes, existing laws should be enforced.”

            Here is a crazy idea…. how about we enforce the laws that are on the books before passing new ones?

            ” Again, if all guns were to disappear we wouyld have no gun violence.”

            Why do you want to do something about gun violence and not violence as a whole?

            Answer: Because when the left ban guns such as in England and Australia violent crimes sky-rocket. The left separates gun crimes from violent crimes to get around this problem. The people who read left wing web sites regurgitate what they read instead of thinking critically about the issue.

            “Do you think North Korea has a problem of gun violence with its citizens? Of course not! But I don’t want to live in that type of a society.”

            What about England and Australia?

            “I recommend that you read Federalist #10. In in Madison well illustrates that taking a middle course, one that allows for certain problems on both sides of a given issue is better than going to an extreme and thereby creating major problems.”

            I recommend you read my last post that you totally ignored before you restated the same argument. You are acting like this debate is the same debate the founders were having. It is not. The left is so far off the reservation, from what the founders believed, the founders would have deemed them domestic enemies of the constitution. The same would probably apply to the GOP.

            The spectrum of left and right was anti federalist vs federalist. Currently, At best, the democrats are socialists and the rep. are socialist-lite. Those positions are not in the same ball park as the founders. This renders you argument that this isn’t anything new completely false.

            “A responsible gun owner does does not leave his guns where children can access them without supervision. ”

            Why wasn’t that a problem 50 years ago? The guns were loaded in an unlocked cabinet and it wasn’t a problem.

            “There are countless cases of children shooting themselves or other innocents (usually other children) because the gun owers were careless.”

            Actually the rate is pretty low and you are cherry picking again. How about the kid who was left home alone with his sister and stopped a criminal with an ar-15?

            “Guns in homes shoot many more innocents than they do invaders.”

            Not true. They rig the stats to show that. They only count it as home defense if a criminal is shot and killed. If the home owned hold a gun on the criminal and waits for the police, it doesn’t count as defending your home with a gun.

            “I addressed everything you said about costitutional interpretation.”

            No you didn’t. You repeated the same argument. SCOTUS was not designed to be a judicial oligarchy.

            “The COTUS provided for the federal courts to have the final say as to interpreting the COTUS.. ”

            SCOTUS decides to ban all guns. Is that a constitutional decision?

            SCOTUS decides that the government can pick up any American citizen and detain them indefinitely. Is that a constitutional decision?

            “Even among those who generally agree with your “original intent” comcept of interpreting the constitution, there is a lot of disagreement as to what the original intent was.”

            Not true. It is very clear what the founders believed. The left is using deconstructionism to implement their agenda because they know it’s not constitutional.

            “Federal judges are impeached today, but only for high crimes and misdemeanors (e.g. bribery). Just because, in your opinion, a judge made a bad decision is not grounds for impeachment. ”

            You just side stepped my point again. Judges were impeached back then for making bad decisions. One judge was impeached because he had a drinking problem.

            “Judges do not base their opinion their opinions on foreign laws as far as I know. A few federal judges have, however, made reference to foreign law in their opinions”

            Liberal judges did just that when they decided the death penalty was cruel and unusual punishment for anyone under the age of 18.

            “How do you know this????????????? ”

            Keep making that same straw-man argument. ….Aside from FOX the rest of the press was hammering the exact same narrative. Who in the main stream media was not taking about restricting guns as a solution?

            “The Founders did not agree as to how much stronger the federal gov. should become, however.”

            The biggest government the founders wanted was a libertarian government. You can not look at the size of government today and the platforms of both parties, and argue they are remotely close to what the founders wanted.

            Were the founders socialists? NO!

            “You did not really answer my question as to what measure you favor to lessen gun violence, esp. in our schools other than having more people armed.”

            I did. The problem is not guns.

            Why is it, in the past, kids going on a school killing spree didn’t happen? There were more guns around, schools had shooting clubs, there were guns in the schools, and kids drove to school a gun rack in the back of the truck with a loaded guns and this wasn’t a problem.

            Teenagers going on killings sprees in school is a new phenomenon. I believe the first one was in the late 1970s. This demonstrates the issue is not access to guns. This question is the key to preventing things like Sandy Hook from happening again.

          • Bob Hadley

            “You totally side stepped the issue. The constitution does not permit the president to pass legislation via executive order. If it did, we have a dictatorship.”

            “Do we live in a dictatorship where the president can pass an executive order and it automatically becomes laws or do we live in a constitutional republic?”

            You side-stepped MY question. Please cite the specific provision or provisions of the COTUS that disallow executive orders. Executive Orders are limited in time and duration (until a president or the Congress nullifies it).

            Check Article II, Sections 1 and 3 of the COTUS.

            Again, please cite the specific provision(s) of the COTUS that disallows this.

            “You side stepped the issue again. The issue is you bring up school murders and police shootings that went wrong to back up your position but ignore the situations where an armed citizen prevented a massacre.”

            You’re wrong. I have said several times that armed guards have prevented or minimized killings. Now that you mention armed citizens, yes there are cases of armed citizens
            preventing or minimizing killings. I have also pointed out that armed guards or armed citizens have not been able to help or have even shot innocent people. Another example, is that an armed citizen who came rushing out of a store at the shopping center where Gabby Gifford and others were shot came very close to shooting the person who was on top of the shooter trying to separate him from his gun.

            “You conceded that the legislation would not prevent massacres like sandy hook from happening in the future. You also said that the legislation is the first line of dense. By your own admission the first line of dense doesn’t work.”

            I only said that armed guards is the last line line of defense. There are many lines of defense before that. Having a good mental health system is one. Putting away violent criminals for a long time is another. Having a good drug use prevention program and a good drug addiction rehabilitation system is another.

            But, yes, having universal background checks for the commercial sale of guns (with certain exceptions) and limiting the commercial sale of guns to those with a license (obtained only after passing a safety course) is still another line of defense.

            I didn’t say that legislation doesn’t work. I said that a comprehensive program such as I’ve outlined is only a PARTIAL solution, i.e. it will save amny lives, but not all lives. There will still be some gun violence. But, even the limited background checks now required, such as they are, have resulted in 2 million people being denied guns because of their record over a 10 year period. How many murders did this prevent?

            Yes, a rigorous but constitutional program to reduce gun violence is only a partial solution. As I stated before, living in a free society will always leave open a certain possibility of gun violence and mass shootings.

            On the other hand, YOU have conceded that your solution of having more guns is only partial. A lot of people will not carry guns even if the NRA has a publicity program to encourage them to do so. Othres who do carry guns will not know how to use them properly. . And people with guns will not always be on the scene of shootings.

            “You are seriously standing by the point that the NRA has an agenda with guns and President Obama and the left does not?”

            “That is the is the equivalent of saying the national low tax association has an agenda with taxes but the President and left doesn’t.”

            You still don’t understand what I said. Pres. Obama is not duty-bound to take a certain position on guns and he is not even duty-bound to have any agenda on guns. I’m NOTsaying that he doesn’t have an agenda on guns, but that he is not required to have such an agenda. In fact, several months ago he didn’t have an agenda on guns, although he probably had opinions about guns.

            On the other hand, Wayne LaPierre is duty-bound to push a certain view on gun ownership. If he publicly agreed with gun
            control he’d be fired. Publicly, he is not open to persuasion. His job is to toe the NRA line. This doesn’t mean he’s not worth listening to or that he doesn’t say anything worth considering. But this is a real distinction.

            Semantical arguments is merely over word usage, while here I’m pointing out a real distinction.

            “If someone doesn’t have a criminal record they should be allowed to buy a gun. Do you suggest implementing some kind of minority report program?”

            Read my posts more carefully. You stated that I said in my previous post that I conceded that criminal don’t buy their guns legally. I told you that I never said that. Then I proceeded to tell you of ways that criminals sometimes obtain guns legally. One of these ways was if they didn’t yet have a criminal record. Another was through gun shows.

            Yes, anyone without a pertinent criminal history (e.g. violence, threats of violence) or who has not been determined to be violent or to have violent proclivities due to mental illness should be able to purchase a handgun. However, I’d like to see i a requirement that gun purchasers have an appropriate license confirming that they’ve taken a safety course.

            “You have already conceded that criminals do not buy their guns legally and or do not follow the law. At the same time, you believe that legislation will solve the problem. You cut the legs out from your entire argument.”

            Again, I didn’t say that criminals do not buy their guns legally, althuogh I’ll say here that many criminals do not.

            But many criminals get them through straw purchasers and at gun shows from unlicensed sellers. One of the many things i favor is legislation making straw purchasing much more difficult and requiring background checks for commercial sales (with certain exceptions)..

            “Your thinking is illogical. If you TEND to think AR-15 should be banned or restricted because they have been used in a few massacres, you would have to think handguns should be totally banned as they are responsible for the bulk of children being killed.”

            Here, I refer you to several of my previous posts. I have consistently said that handguns should not be banned because I recognize the rights of private citizens to own them even if the 2nd Amend. did not exist.

            Again, the price we pay for living in a free society is leaving possibility of gun violence. It’s a price I gladly pay.

            I tend to think that AR-15s should either have more restrictions placed on them because they’re in at least a somewhat different class and can be used in mass shootings. Killing dozens of people in several seconds. The reason I’m not sure about this is because there are handguns that can also do this.

            “Actually the rate is pretty low and you are cherry picking again. How about the kid who was left home alone with his sister and stopped a criminal with an ar-15?”

            Now you’re cherry picking. The instances of a little kid saving lives because he had ready access to a gun are very rare. There are many, many more instances of kids shooting innocents (whether adults or other kids) because the gun owner was negligent.

            “SCOTUS was not designed to be a judicial oligarchy.”

            Read Article III Section 2 of the COTUS. The SCOTUS is to have the final say in interpreting constitutional issues. When was the last time you read the constitution?

            “SCOTUS decides to ban all guns. Is that a constitutional decision?”

            The SCOTUS doesn’t ban handguns. But if the SCOTUS interpreted the 2nd Amend. – as many do – by saying that the 2nd Amend. does not prevent the fed. or state gov. from banning all guns, as a citizen and proponent of the COTUS, I’d respect the decision. In that event, it’d be up to the populace to lean on lawmakers NOT to ban all guns.

            “Comprehensive is a great word isn’t it? Slap that word on any legislation and it automatically makes the legislation good.”

            No, it doesn’t. Not to me, anyway. Some comprehensive legislation I oppose, some I don’t. “Comprehensive legislation ” referes to legislation that addresses all facets of a problem that should be addressed by legislation. Again, most or all comprehensive legislation is only a partial resolution. n a free society like ours, there aren’t many complete solutions to social problems, and rightfully so.

            “Not true. It is very clear what the founders believed. The left is using deconstructionism to implement their agenda because they know it’s not constitutional.”

            The COTUS only hints at the founders’ collective intent in the Preamble to the COTUS. But the Preamble is a broad, sweeping statement.

            Remember, the COTUS is a compromise document. The Founders had tremendous differences amongs themselves. They fought like cats and dogs at the Constitutional Convention.

            The final product that emerged – the COTUS – layed out a framework for our government. Then the Bill of Rights – the 1st 10 Amendments – laid out general restrictictions on the fed. gov. and set certain rights of the populace.

            There was no clear unified intent, other than the language of the COTUS itself. But the COTUS is a general framework. General frameworks need definition and refinement. That’s why the COTUS gave the fed. courts that authority.

            When was the last time you actually read the COTUS?

            “You just side stepped my point again. Judges were impeached back then for making bad decisions. One judge was impeached because he had a drinking problem.”

            A judge being impeached because of a drinking problem has nothing to do with disagreeing with a decision rendered. If drinking prevents a judge from executing his constitutional duties, then that’s grounds for impeachment.

            I will correct my previous post on the grounds of impeachment for a federal judge. According to the COTUS a judge has lifetime tenure “on good behavior.” High crimes and misdemeanors is the standard for the POTUS.

            Another example is bribery. Bridery corrupts the judicial process as set forth by the COTUS. But a judge’s decision in itself is not grounds for impeachment unless that the judge somehow corrupted the process of arriving at the decision.

            Be so kind as to provide me the names of the federal judges who were impeached for arriving at a “bad” decision.

            “Liberal judges did just that when they decided the death penalty was cruel and unusual punishment for anyone under the age of 18.”

            Wrong. They based their decision on “cruel and unusual punishment” clause of the Bill of Rights. They used U. S. judicial decisions as guides for interpretation. Sometimes coruts will go back to English law when they can’t find adequate U. S. precedents because U. S. law is an outgrowth of English law. But, when they go back to English law, they use that law only as general guides that can be matched with the applicable (American) law.

            That’s right, call someone a “liberal” and it’s easy to dismiss them withiut thinking, right?

            I thought you might be refering to that Oklahoma case involving Sharia law that was misreported. That case involved a private contract between two independent, private citizens saying that if there was any dispute as to the contract, the dispute would be resolved accroding to Sharia law. The court was NOT asked to rely on or refer to Sharia law in arriving at its decision. It was merely asked whether teh contract was enforceable.

            “Keep making that same straw-man argument. ….Aside from FOX the rest of the press was hammering the exact same narrative. Who in the main stream media was not taking about restricting guns as a solution?”

            YOU were the one who made the statement that a majority of press people and liberal politicians politicized Sandy Hook within a few hours of it happening. I have given you repeated chances to name even 20 of the thousands and thousands of press people and liberal politicians. Your repeated failure to do so confirms that you’re full of hot air.

            I watch FOX News regularly. Fox named several (i.e. less than 10) liberal politicians and media people, but by no means gave a factual basis to believe that thousands of them did. Blowhards like Hannity often make broad, sweeping generalizations based on a handfull of incidents, but that doesn’t excuse you for doing so.

            “I did. The problem is not guns.”

            No, you didn’t say what, if any, policies you favor to reduce gun violence other than more guns in good guys hands. You just kept repeating what you think the problem is NOT and that you want an “honest” discussion (read: a discussion with which you agree).

          • KStrett

            “Please cite the specific provision or provisions of the COTUS that disallow executive orders.”

            Nice straw-man question! I never said executive orders are unconstitutional. I said passing legislation via executive order is unconstitutional.

            Executive orders apply to administrative issues. In other words, the president could sign an executive order for each department to give him a monthly budget . They do not apply to legislative issues. The president can not pass legislation via executive order. If he could, that means we live in a dictatorship. That is why you didn’t answer my question.

            Let’s try again:

            Do we live in a dictatorship where the president can pass an executive order and it automatically becomes law or do we live in a constitutional republic?

            You will not answer this question.

            “You’re wrong. I have said several times that armed guards have prevented or minimized killings”

            Where have you said that? You continually ignore instances where an armed citizen stopped a mass murdered and only bring up events where things go wrong as a straw-man.

            “Another example, is that an armed citizen who came rushing out of a store at the shopping center where Gabby Gifford and others were shot came very close to shooting the person who was on top of the shooter trying to separate him from his gun. ”

            You just proved my point.

            “I only said that armed guards is the last line line of defense. ”

            You said legislation is the first line of dense and you admitted that legislation would not have prevented events like Sandy Hook from happening again. Your first line of defense isn’t there.

            “Having a good mental health system is one. ”

            You want the mental health system reporting to the government who shouldn’t have guns?

            “Putting away violent criminals for a long time is another.”

            We agree on that i but that is a state issue. Locking up violent offenders for longer periods of time will not shop school murders. The majority of school massacres are not done by repeat violent offenders.

            “Having a good drug use prevention program and a good drug addiction rehabilitation system is another. ”

            You are making a category error. The people who go on a murder spree don’t do it because of drugs.

            “But, yes, having universal background checks for the commercial sale of guns (with certain exceptions) and limiting the commercial sale of guns to those with a license (obtained only after passing a safety course) is still another line of defense.”

            You have conceded that criminals don’t follow the law. This will not apply to criminals but to law abiding citizens.

            “I didn’t say that legislation doesn’t work.”

            You admitted that none of the provisions in the legislation would stop events like Sandy Hook from happening.

            “As I stated before, living in a free society will always leave open a certain possibility of gun violence and mass shootings.”

            It has been shown over and over again that this line of thinking does not work. Chicago is the most gun restrictive city in America and has the highest murder rate.

            The counter argument to that is to concede that criminals don’t follow the gun laws, criminals buy the guns illegally, and bring them back to Chicago. Therefore, if the entire country had Chicago’s gun laws we would have less violence.

            1. Cities that make it incredibly easily to buy guns legally do not have the incredibly high murder rate that Chicago has. The notion that it is the availability of guns that cause the violence is completely false. If criminals know that the population generally is unarmed and they are, they are going to be more bold in their crimes.

            2. When you totally ban guns in countries like England, the violent crime rate sky-rockets.

            “Pres. Obama is not duty-bound to take a certain position on guns .”

            You are repeating the same asinine point. It is the equivalent of saying the national low tax association has an agenda with taxes but the President and left doesn’t.

            “Again, I didn’t say that criminals do not buy their guns legally, althuogh I’ll say here that many criminals do not. ”

            You are conceding my point. Legislation doesn’t apply to criminals. It applies to law abiding citizens and doesn’t work.

            “Here, I refer you to several of my previous posts. I have consistently said that handguns should not be banned because I recognize the rights of private citizens to own them even if the 2nd Amend. did not exist. ”

            Your thinking is totally illogical. It is constitutionally permissible to ban a rifle? People don’t have the right to own a rifle but they do have the right to own a handgun?

            Rebuttal: It’s an assault rifle!

            You don’t know what an assault rifle is. An assault rifle is a term made up by the left to trick people into believing that are machine guns.The only think that differentiates an assault rifle from an ordinary rifle is purely cosmetic.

            “I tend to think that AR-15s should either have more restrictions placed on them because they’re in at least a somewhat different class and can be used in mass shootings. Killing dozens of people in several seconds. The reason I’m not sure about this is because there are handguns that can also do this.”

            The AR-15 is NOT AN AUTOMATIC GUN! It is a semi-automatic gun. That means it fires ONE bullet at a time.Handguns are semi-automatic too. The AR-15 looks like a gun the military uses but they don’t use them. Does that make any sense? No!

            “The instances of a little kid saving lives because he had ready access to a gun are very rare. ”

            Shooting accidents (whether adults or other kids) because the gun owner was negligent are also rare.

            “The SCOTUS is to have the final say in interpreting constitutional issues. When was the last time you read the constitution?”

            You did not address my points. Congress has the power to impeach judges and they did. This prevents judges from legislating from the bench.

            “But if the SCOTUS interpreted the 2nd Amend. – as many do – by saying that the 2nd Amend. does not prevent the fed. or state gov. from banning all guns, as a citizen and proponent of the COTUS, I’d respect the decision. ”

            Even though the second amendment makes it perfectly clear that American citizens have the right to own guns and the supreme court decided flush the constitution down the toilet, they didn’t violate their mandate?

            Your position on executive orders means the executive branch of government is essentially a dictatorship . You are also saying we have a judicial dictatorship. That is not how the separation of powers works.

            “The COTUS only hints at the founders’ collective intent in the Preamble to the COTUS. But the Preamble is a broad, sweeping statement. ”

            That is not true at all. There are volumes and volumes records that make it very clear what the intent was.

            “Remember, the COTUS is a compromise document. The Founders had tremendous differences amongs themselves. They fought like cats and dogs at the Constitutional Convention. ”

            You are buying into the deconstructionism propaganda. They did fight and disagree, that doesn’t mean the end result is some kind of vague sentiment that can be interpreted twenty different ways. Again, the current view of left and right is off the reservation from what the founders believed. None of them were remotely close to being socialists.

            “A judge being impeached because of a drinking problem has nothing to do with disagreeing with a decision rendered”

            You side stepped the issue again. They also impeached judges for making bad decisions that were not in line with the constitution.

            ” But a judge’s decision in itself is not grounds for impeachment unless that the judge somehow corrupted the process of arriving at the decision. ”

            Why were there judges being impeached for making making bad decisions that were not in line with the constitution? You are committing the error of modernism.

            “Wrong. They based their decision on “cruel and unusual punishment” clause of the Bill of Rights. ”

            They also cited foreign law. They said something to the effect that the rest of the word was trending against the death penalty. The legislated from the bench. Legislating from the bench means the judges have a preconceived idea and then they make their ruling to fit their preconceived idea.

            They are telling a state they may not execute a teenager who was the perpetrator of a horrific act, the same way they execute an adult. They redefined cruel and unusual to fit their preconceived idea and also cited foreign law.

            “They used U. S. judicial decisions as guides for interpretation. ”

            They are supposed to use the constitution and the original intent of it. They are not supposed to use past judicial decisions as guides

            “That’s right, call someone a “liberal” and it’s easy to dismiss them withiut thinking, right?”

            Liberal judges generally do not use the constitution for their judicial rationale. They legislate from the bench. They think something is a good idea, therefore it is law.

            “I thought you might be refering to that Oklahoma case involving Sharia law that was misreported. ”

            Was that the case where the wife was being beaten by her husband and the judge cited sharia law?

            “Be so kind as to provide me the names of the federal judges who were impeached for arriving at a “bad” decision.”

            Samuel Chase was the only SCJ that was impeached for his judicial rationale. There have been about a dozen or so Federal judges back then.

            “YOU were the one who made the statement that a majority of press people and liberal politicians politicized Sandy Hook within a few hours of it happening. ”

            You made a straw-mam argument as a rebuttal and now you want me to name every journalist and politician who didn’t want a good crisis go to waste?

            It is demonstrably true the the press was giving the exact same narrative. ABC, NBC,CBS,CNN, MSNBC, NYT, the Washington Post, ect were all saying the exact same thing.

            Was there anyone who argued to take a step back and NOT act as if guns possess people and cause they to go on murder sprees? NO.

            Was there anyone who argued that gun restrictions was not the answer? No.

            Was there anyone with a (D) at the end of their name in the Senate or House that wanted to take a step back and wasn’t pushing for more gun restrictions?

            “but by no means gave a factual basis to believe that thousands of them did. ”

            and there is the exact same straw-man…………. I wonder if you will use it again?

            “No, you didn’t say what, if any, policies you favor to reduce gun violence other than more guns in good guys hands.”

            Notice that you ignore my entire point………………..

            Thirty to fourty years ago, there were more guns around, schools had shooting clubs, there were guns in the schools, and kids drove to school a gun rack in the back of the truck with a loaded guns and this wasn’t a problem.

            Teenagers going on killings sprees in school is a new phenomenon. I believe the first one was in the late 1970s. This demonstrates the issue is not access to guns. This question is the key to preventing things like Sandy Hook from happening again.

            Why do you think despite having more guns, guns in schools, and loaded guns left around the house, kids murdering other kids in a school massacres didn’t happen?

          • ILoveAmerica

            I can’t believe I read all of this. I clicked on Kstrett’s name and found this large wall of text. Oh well at least I’m eating and bored with work so I have time to spare.
            Bob you probably should stop wasting your time. I have some comments, but I am not responding to all of that garbage.

            He continues to make ridiculous arguments: “You continually ignore instances where an armed citizen stopped a mass murdered and only bring up events where things go wrong as a straw-man.”

            But at the same time, he is ignoring instances in which an armed citizen has made their situation worse (whether it be a crisis or accidents at home being more frequent than defending oneself).

            he asked when you said that armed guards have prevented or minimized killings.

            One example you said:

            “Yes, having guns can sometimes prevent gun violence. But sometimes they don’t. And sometimes they make things worse.

            As president Obama said, having armed guards is not the ONLY answer, i.e. it is not a be-all-and-end-all, but rather is one aspect of minimizing gun violence consistent with the COTUS..”

            or another

            “[The president] IS providing support to ANY school wanting rescource officers, aka amrred guards. THAT’S A GOOD THING” [emphasis mine]

            It’s clear that your feelings, just from those two statements I quickly CTLR+F implied that you think armed guards are useful in stopping mass killings. I also don’t think he answered you when you asked if armed guards failed (like at columbine etc. as you listed above)

            He doesn’t understand that you two are speaking past each other wrt executive orders. He keeps throwing in legislation and you are talking about executive orders in general (at least from the looks of things). Instead of reaching a middle ground, he accused you of a stawman.

            “You have conceded that criminals don’t follow the law. This will not apply to criminals but to law abiding citizens.”

            We should make rape,murder, theft, speeding etc. legal. Criminals aren’t going to follow the law and these restrictons only hurt law abiding citizens..especially theft. There is nothing wrong with making it harder for criminals to get guns. That’s the point of background checks no? Ya know when Wayne La Pierre was slammed during the hearings after trying to make this ridiculous point, he was LAUGHED at by the chamber.

            Look at when he quotes you here:

            “As I stated before, living in a free society will always leave open a certain possibility of gun violence and mass shootings.”

            This is during a point in which you are espousing gun ownership. His direct response was to attack strict gun control?????

            How about this section in which he quoted you:

            “Pres. Obama is not duty-bound to take a certain position on guns .”

            Then he goes on to say that you don’t think obama doesn’t currently have an agenda with guns. Despite the fact you clearly explained: “I’m NOT saying that he doesn’t have an agenda on guns” and then you went on to explain that he currently has an agenda because of how times have changed so quickly. He did this to me in our brief exchange. he lifts smaller section of text and attacks the strawmen. It’s pathetic given we have the text sitting right in front of us.

            I also enjoy how you ask him for links to polls and he tries to turn it around….while not showing links. Amazing really. It’s as if he avoids them because he doesn’t have any credible sources. The smart individual might pause and reflect, but this guy doesn’t seem to do such things.

            If you respond to this guy Bob, make it your last. You are wasting your time. Kstrett, take his advice and stop being so reactive. Read your opponent’s entire post several times before responding and don’t take them out of context. I imagine you responding as soon as you read a sentence that offends you without reading on to the next. You have got to be one of the most obnoxious posters i’ve met…almost troll level. You think you are so clever but in the end, you are severely inattentive to detail and lose arguments that you most likely think you are winning. You clearly care about the subject, and at times you might have valid arguments…however that is overshadowed by your disregard for the opinions of others and your poor style or arguing.

          • KStrett

            Are you stalking me now? You have to be kidding…..

            “Kstrett, take his advice and stop being so reactive.”

            You just made a giant ad hominem attack.

            “There is nothing wrong with making it harder for criminals to get guns.”

            You are not making it harder for criminals to get guns, you are making it harder for law abiding citizens to get guns.

            “We should make rape,murder, theft, speeding etc. legal.”

            There is another straw-man……

            “I guess Ronald Reagan was too stupid or too left to figure that out since it’s only a left or right issue.”

            You love straw-men arguments. What designates a gun as an assault rifle?

            Cosmetics is the only criteria that designates a gun as a assault rifle. You can have two guns that are the same except for a few cosmetic features. One will be labeled as an assault rifle and the other won’t be. Ronald Regan using the term doesn’t change that.

            ” I also don’t think he answered you when you asked if armed guards failed (like at columbine etc. as you listed above)”

            Did I say armed guards is the solution? No.

            “10% of the guns brought into chicago are from mississippi. Why? because the background check system there is lax. …………. Most of the arguments from Kstrett’s side are single datum on places like Chicago.”

            It has been shown over and over again that this line of thinking does not work. Chicago is the most gun restrictive city in America and has the highest murder rate.

            The counter argument to that is to concede that criminals don’t follow the gun laws, criminals buy the guns illegally, and bring them back to Chicago. Therefore, if the entire country had Chicago’s gun laws we would have less violence.

            1. Cities that make it incredibly easily to buy guns legally do not have the incredibly high murder rate that Chicago has. The notion that it is the availability of guns that cause the violence is completely false. If criminals know that the population generally is unarmed and they are, they are going to be more bold in their crimes.

            2. When you totally ban guns in countries like England, the violent crime rate sky-rockets.

            Seeing that you followed me over here, perhaps you could answer a question:

            Why is it that Chicago has a high murder rate despite having the strictest gun control laws in the country but other big cities who make it easy to buy guns have a much lower rate?

            “I also enjoy how you ask him for links to polls and he tries to turn it around….while not showing links. ”

            Where are Bob’s links? You must have a problem with Bob not posting any links too, right? Bob doesn’t post any links and that’s fine with you but you have a problem with me not posting any links? That sounds a tad hypocritical…….

          • ILoveAmerica

            You asked a question on something I should have clarified earlier: “Where are Bob’s links? You must have a problem with Bob not posting any links too, right? Bob doesn’t post any links and that’s fine with you but you have a problem with me not posting any links?”

            Bob should post links. But as usual, you deflect. Pointing out Bob’s negligence doesn’t excuse yours. I’m sure in your world you will translate that as me holding a double standard for Bob. You can believe as you want, makes no difference to me. I notice you left out many sections of my response…typical. No honest discussions are to be had with this one.

          • KStrett

            “But as usual, you deflect. Pointing out Bob’s negligence doesn’t excuse yours. I’m sure in your world you will translate that as me holding a double standard for Bob.”

            You are deflecting. Why didn’t you call Bob out for not posting any links? In fact, you specifically made it a point to comment to Bob that I didn’t post any links, who didn’t post any links. That makes you a hypocrite….

            ” I notice you left out many sections of my response…typical.”

            More hypocrisy… You didn’t answer one question I asked you. You didn’t address ANY of issues about gun control I brought up. Yet, it is permissible for you to accuse me of leaving things out?

            I did not respond to anything that was predicated on an ad hominem attack.

            “Btw, look up what an ad hominem is. I never used your personal flaws to disparage your arguments about guns…………….but I am not responding to all of that garbage………..He continues to make ridiculous arguments……a know when Wayne La Pierre was slammed during the hearings after trying to make this ridiculous point, he was LAUGHED at by the chamber. It was rather entertaining……….The smart individual might pause and reflect, but this guy doesn’t seem to do such things……………ou have got to be one of the most obnoxious posters i’ve met…almost troll level. You think you are so clever but in the end, you are severely inattentive to detail and lose arguments that you most likely think you are winning…………however that is overshadowed by your disregard for the opinions of others and your poor style of arguing.”

          • ILoveAmerica

            wow…way to resurrect a dead thread….do you do this often? try to get the last word in days after so your opponent loses heart?

            What do you call not attacking someone else in lieu of answering a charge about yourself? It’s called deflection. That’s what you did, and that’s what you are doing now. Doesn’t matter if Bob is right or wrong, you have to respond to his claim by defending yourself.
            Thanks for proving my point. I said that you would tell me I have a double standard even though I said in the section, that you just happened to leave out, that Bob should have posted links. Dishonesty at it’s finest. You should be a politician. Why did i attack you and not Bob? Because I came here to address you and to point out your deflection. When you pressed me on Bob, I said Bob should also post links, so that invalidates your criticism.

            Why should I answer anything you respond with when you leave out substantial questions and context from my postings? Is that how an honest discussion goes with you? You can cut and skip around anything you don’t like and focus the talk only where you want it? If you had answered all of my questions and points, I would have more than likely answered your questions. Ofc it is hard to discern if you are being rhetorical.

            Those are not ad-homs. You do know what one is right? Let me grab you a definition off the interweb, but before that, i like to point out that you left out the next sentence I said about the truth of Wayne La Pierre’s arguments. I said ” Doesn’t mean he is right or wrong ofc just poking fun”. For that to be an ad-hom I would have had to have said the opposite, or at best left it off and let it be misrepresented by trolls….like yourself. Nice job Captain honesty. Anyway, about those definitions:

            “An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument. ”

            Source: http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem.html (Read their examples)

            “Mere verbal abuse in the absence of an argument, however, is not ad hominem nor any kind of logical fallacy.”

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem#cite_note-6 which cites:
            http://www.drury.edu/ess/Logic/Informal/AdHominem.html

            Now demonstrate for us where I said your arguments about gun control are invalid because you are not a “smart individual”, “obnoxious”, a “troll”, or “inattentive to detail”.

            your grasp of logical fallacies are on par with a middle schooler haha. I wouldn’t be this nasty if you weren’t so obnoxious.

          • KStrett

            No where in this garbage are you addressing the actual issues. You are just attacking me.

            Why is it that years we had more guns in the country and guns that were not locked up and loaded, and guns in schools and we didn’t have kids going on killing sprees?

            You are not going to answer that question. Please do not follow me around. I hope you didn’t follow me from another website…

          • Bob Hadley

            It sounds as though you have a live one! :)
            I write my posts to get my mind off of work during my frequent breaks. My work is often intense, and I need to relax my mind.
            I have no allusion king sense into him. It’s not worth it appealing to a closed and wilfully ignorant mind.

          • ILoveAmerica

            Very nice post. Justice Scalia’s thoughts on gun control might be of interest:
            http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/07/29/scalia-opens-door-for-gun-control-legislation/

            “I believe the Second Amendment guarantees an individual the right to bear arms,” he said. “But I also believe that a lot of gun owners would agree that AK-47s belong in the hands of soldiers, not on the streets of our cities.”

            Scalia said exceptions to gun rights were recognized when the Second Amendment was written, including a tort that prohibited people from carrying a “really horrible weapon just to scare people like a head ax or something.”

          • Bob Hadley

            Thanks! Below I have actual lquotes from ‘s opinion in the Heller case.

            The SCOTUS recognizes limits to the individual right to keep and bare arms. It states that only arms in “common use” are protected, as opposed to “dangerous and unusual weapons” such as “weapons that are most useful in military service – M-16 rifles and the like,” and that “felons and the mentally ill” may be denied this right.

            The Heller opinion says that all arms may be prohibited in certain places – the examples given are schools and government buildings. It also allows for “laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.”

          • ILoveAmerica

            These are good details to remember. Thanks :)

          • Bob Hadley

            “Nice straw-man question! I never said executive orders are unconstitutional. I said passing legislation via executive order is unconstitutional. ”

            You’re warm, but no cigar. :)

            Article II, Section 1 of the COTUS says that executive power is vested in the POTUS
            .

            Article II, Section 3 of the COTUS states that the POTUS “….shall take care that th laws be faithfully executed, and shall commission all the officers of the United States.”

            This is where the POTUS derives his authority to make executive orders. It’s more expansive than you indicated a few posts up, but you may be right that various of the POTUS’ might overstep their authority.

            To my knowledge, no one has ever challenged the executive orders issued by a POTUS. My hunch is that the party out of power hopes to be in no one in that party makes a challenge. There must be a non-partisan with adequate standing to make a judicial challenge to executive orders.

            But until a federal court of last resort – probably the SCOTUS – rules certain executive orders unconstitutional, they’ll continue. I suspect that, if challenged, the SCOTUS would limit the scope of executive orders.

            “Even though the second amendment makes it perfectly clear that American citizens have the right to own guns and the supreme court decided flush the constitution down the toilet, they didn’t violate their mandate?”

            Your premise is wrong. The 2nd Amendment is not clear at all. In fact, it’s probably the most ambiguous clause in the COTUS. What is a “well-regulated” militia in today’s society? The national guard? It doesn’t say. What does “arms” include in today’s society? A machine gun, a hand-held rocket launcher and rockets, bombs, TNT, tanks, nukes? It doesn’t say. Is the peoples’ right to bear arms only those in a well-regulated militia or is it an individual right. It didn’t make it clear. And who is comprised by “the people”? Adults only? Felons? Those ajudicated dangerous due to mental illness? It didn’t say.

            These are some of the issues the SCOTUS grappled with in Heller. Although the majority decision has the force of law, the minority decision was also well-reasoned and principled. Have you read it? I know, I know, I know. Any opinion that differs from yours on this topic is dishonest and/or ignorant, right?

            To my knowledge, no one has ever challenged the executive orders issued by a POTUS. My hunch is that the party out of power hopes to be in no one in that party makes a challenge. There must be a non-partisan with adequate standing to make a judicial challenge to executive orders.

            But until a federal court of last resort – probably the SCOTUS – rules certain executive orders unconstitutional, they’ll continue. I suspect that, if challenged, the SCOTUS would limit the scope of executive orders.

            “Do we live in a dictatorship where the president can pass an executive order and it automatically becomes law or do we live in a constitutional republic?”

            No, we don’t live in a dictatorship or oligarchy. We would only live in a dictatorship or oligarchy if virtually all political power came from one source that was independent of other sources.

            In this country, certain power is divided between three independent branches of gov. at the federal level, certain other power is divided between three other independent branches of gov. at the state level, and still certain other power is reserved for the citizenry (via the Bill of Rights and other parts of the COTUS).

            Further, all governmental power periodically comes up for review by the voters. Even the Senate, which was initially selected by state legislatures, was ultimately subject to the will of the voters.

            The most removed from the voters are federal court judges, who have lifetime tenure and their salaries cannot be lowered during the tenure of a given judge or justice. One of the Federalist Papers (I forget whether it who authored it) stated that this was deliberate to deral judiciary above the passions of the people.

            But the judiciary only acts on cases that are brought before it. It doesn’t solicit cases. And it only passes on cases to the extent that these cases involve federal questions.

            “Where have you said that? You continually ignore instances where an armed citizen stopped a mass murdered and only bring up events where things go wrong as a straw-man.”

            I do that because you only bring up cases where an armed good guy stops or minimizes shootings. I have repeatly said that having armed guards at schools and having citizens who had a background check and who have a license to carry can also help. If you are unaware of me saying this, then you need to reread my posts above.

            “You just proved my point.”

            No, I didn’t. Reread my post. I said that the armed citizen who came running out of a supermarket came very close to shooting an innocent citizen who was on top of Gabby Giffords and other’s shooters (in Arizona). The innocent citizen was in the process of subduing the shooter.

            “You said legislation is the first line of dense and you admitted that legislation would not have prevented events like Sandy Hook from happening again. Your first line of defense isn’t there.”

            I did NOT say that. I said that having armed guards is the last(HINT: between last and first there is sometimes a second, third, fouirth, etc.)

            We don’t know if the appropriate measures would have prevented Sandy Hook. If the shooter’s mother’s guns had trigger locks Sandy Hook might not have happened. If the mother had a gun safety course, may not have happened (she might have kept her guns locked up and away from her son)..

            If the State of Arizona had reported Gabby et al.’s shooter to the may not have been able to get his guns and ammo. As i recall, he purchased his guns and ammo legally and the state of his violent disposition emanating from the state of his mental health had come to the attention of authorities on more than one occassinon.

            Again, we can do more to prevent at least some gun violence without inconveniencing gun rights too much: virtually universal background checks for commercial gun puirchases, outlawing the sale of armor piercing bullets, making straw purchases much more onerous, requiring gun commercial purchasers to have a license verifying that they have taken a gun safety course, trigger locks, better reporting of criminal records and verified reports of mental illness coupled with verified (official)findings of violent proclivities among other measures.

            “You want the mental health system reporting to the government who shouldn’t have guns?.”

            I want people who have been established as having a mental illness producing violent acnt proclivities to be reported so that they cannot pass a background check. Do you want such people to be able to buy guns?

            “Locking up violent offenders for longer periods of time will not shop school murders. The majority of school massacres are not done by repeat violent offenders.”

            Yes, but it’s help prevent gun vioence of other types. Remember, Sandy Hook was the catalyst to try to minimize (consistent with gun ownership rights) gun violense. Sandy Hook, Auroa, Joneborough (Ark.), Columbine, Oak Creed (Wisc.), the recent school shooting in California, and all the gun violence throughout the country is aimed at.

            Again, not all these shootings can be prevented if we want to continue to live in a free society. But gun violence curbed.

            “You are making a category error. The people who go on a murder spree don’t do it because of drugs.”

            You keep forgetting that I’m aiming at all categories of gun violence. Addicts will often shoot people in confrontations out of anger or frustration when they are strung out on drugs. Other times they shoot people in the commission of a crime where they’re trying to get drug money.

            “You have conceded that criminals don’t follow the law. This will not apply to criminals but to law abiding citizens.”

            I have conceded that, by definition, criminal are law violators, i.e. they have broken at least one law. I did not say that criminals always get their guns illegally. They often get their guns illegally but not always. If they don’t yert have a criminal record, they can buy all the guns they want from a licensed dealer (and, before you go off on a tangent implying that I’m saying that a person without a criminal record should be prevented from buyim NOT saying that and I did NOT say that. I am saying that is how a criminal can buy a gun legally). .

            Crminals the guns they want from gun shows from unlicensed dealers. They can also get their guns from straw purchasers.

            “It has been shown over and over again that this line of thinking does not work. Chicago is the most gun restrictive city in America and has the highest murder rate.”

            90% of the guns used in Chicago come from out-of-state where gun laws are lax.

            “Cities that make it incredibly easily to buy guns legally do not have the incredibly high murder rate that Chicago has. The notion that it is the availability of guns that cause the violence is completely false. If criminals know that the population generally is unarmed and they are, they are going to be more bold in their crimes.”

            “2. When you totally ban guns in countries like England, the violent crime rate sky-rockets.”

            First, urban areas where guns laws are the most lax or that have a market in areas where gun laws are the most lax do not have the least per capita gun violence and they don’t have the least per capita crime. Rural areas generally have less per capita gun violence and violence in general because they do not attract the criminal element as much. The criminal element concentrates more in urban areas..
            Second, gun violence in England and Austrailia have plummeted since guns were outlawed.

            “You are repeating the same asinine point. It is the equivalent of saying the national low tax association has an agenda with taxes but the President and left doesn’t.”

            You keep missing my point. Yes, President Obama has developed an agenda on dealing with gun violence. A year ago there is absolutely no evidence that Pres. Obama had an agenda on guns. He may have had an opinion on guns, but there is NO evidence that he actually had an agenda on gun laws.

            On the other.hand, the NRA is formed for the purpose of promting an agenda on gun ownership, a specific agenda.

            It is Wayne La Pierre’s job to actively promote that specific agenda.

            If you can’t see that distinction by now, I guess you never will.

            “Your thinking is totally illogical. It is constitutionally permissible to ban a rifle? People don’t have the right to own a rifle but they do have the right to own a handgun?”

            It’s constutionally permissible (according to Heller) to own any gun in common usage. In my opinion, qualified people (which includes the majority of the adult population) should be able to purchase and possess most or all forms of rifles. As I said, I tend to think that AR-15s should EITHER be restricted more OR should be illegal.

            I’m aware that AR-15s are semi-am also aware that they can discharge multiple bullets in a few seconds. Even more in 60.

            “Shooting accidents (whether adults or other kids) because the gun owner was negligent are also rare.”

            It’s not rare. It happens not infrequently. Far too often it can at least sometimes be prevented be prevented without taking away gun ownership rights.

            “You did not address my points. Congress has the power to impeach judges and they did. This prevents judges from legislating from the bench.”

            I did address your point. Congress has the power to impeach (officially accuse or indict) federal judges, but only if they corrupt the judicial process by taking bribes for example. What you and certain others call legislating from the bench, still others call interpreting the COTUS broadly.

            You say that the COTUS does not need to be interpreted. That’s your opinion. You need to learn the difference between an opinion and a statement of fact.

            The only example you gave me of a federal judge being impeached for making a “bad” decision was Samuel Chase. Justice Chase was impeached primarily by liberals in the House of Representatives ostensibly because of polarizing politicking he did. But it was probably because, at least in part, he was a pain to Pres. Jefferson.

            Although Justice Chase was impeached (formally accused) by the House, he was acquitted in the removal trial in the Senate. he remained on the bench. You do know that impeachment is only the beginning of the removal process? Removal or conviction is up to the Senate. The Senate acuitted him because his impeachment (formal accusation) was political.

            And you do know that Justice Chase was a conservative judge?

            Name me some federal judges who were impeached and removed because they made “bad” decisions.

            “You side stepped the issue again. They also impeached judges for making bad decisions that were not in line with the constitution.”

            I’m unaware of ANY fedeal judges who were impeached becasue they made “bad” decisions not in line with the COTUS. Justice Chase is an inapt example. Can you name any? And of those who may have been impeached for making “bad” decisions, how many were actually removed by the Senate.

            “Your position on executive orders means the executive branch of government is essentially a dictatorship . You are also saying we have a judicial dictatorship. That is not how the separation of powers works. ”

            A dictatorship is where virtually all power is concentrated in one source that is independent. of other sources. As i explained above, power is distributed among the 3 branches of the fed. gov., the 3 branches of the 50 state gov.s and among the citizenry.

            But the SCOTUS is charged with deciding federal questions that are brought before it. Again, they don’t solicit cases or federal questions to be brought before it. The SCOTUS, as explained above, is charged with decising issues of the COTUS that are brought before it. The federal judiciary was deliberately designed by the COTUS independent of of popular passions. So, in a sense, the SCOTUS is somewhat ndent of voters.

            But, the POTUS appoints fedeal judges when vacancies arise. SCOTUS appointments was somewhat of an issue in the last several presidential elections.

            “That is not true at all. There are volumes and volumes records that make it very clear what the intent was.”

            What records show the clear intent of the COTUS? The most prominent documents purporting to show the intent or the justification of the COTUS are the 85 Federalist Papers. But they were written by only three of the founders- most were written either by Alexander Hamilton or James Madison, a few were written by John Jay.

            None of the documents I’ve read or seen referred to make it “very clear” how to apply the COTUS to the society back then, much less to the society of today. If yuo have references that no one else has, please share.

            “You are buying into the deconstructionism propaganda. They did fight and disagree, that doesn’t mean the end result is some kind of vague sentiment that can be interpreted twenty different ways. Again, the current view of left and right is off the reservation from what the founders believed. None of them were remotely close to being socialists.”

            In the final analysis, the only thing that the founders agreed to was the actual language and provisions contained in the COTUS. Many disliked the language and the provisions of the COTUS but finally agreed to it because it was far better than that of the Articles of Confederation, which had a very weak federal government. That’s one reason Justice Scalia is a textualist as opposed to advocating “original intent” as you, Judge Bork and others do.

            “You side stepped the issue again. They also impeached judges for making bad decisions that were not in line with the constitution.”

            Name some of those federal judges impeached for making “bad” decisions. As explained above, Jutice Chase is an inapt example. And how many of them were actually removed? Do you realize that “bad” and “good” decisions are in the eyes of the beholder. Honest, informed, accomplished, smart people can and do disagree on this. That’s why we have a judiciary.

            “They also cited foreign law. They said something to the effect that the rest of the word was trending against the death penalty. The legislated from the bench. Legislating from the bench means the judges have a preconceived idea and then they make their ruling to fit their preconceived idea.”

            “They are telling a state they may not execute a teenager who was the perpetrator of a horrific act, the same way they execute an adult. They redefined cruel and unusual to fit their preconceived idea and also cited foreign law.”

            In other words, yuo don’t like their decisions!

            The decision cited (i.e. mentioned) foreign law. Read the decision. It was based on U. S. law.

            You have no idea whether a judges made their ruling to fit their pre-conceived idea. You can’t read their mind. Have you actually read SCOTUS decisions? They are well-reasoned and supported by the facts of the case at bar and the pertinent law.
            All you know is that you don’t like many of their decisions.

            You obviously have no idea what the judiciary is about. There is an age old doctrine of Stare Decisus, meaning that an old decisions in many cases should stand even though a court populated by different judges or justices should in many cases be upheld even though the new court may disagree with it. This doctrine predates the COTUS and is adhered to in an effort to give some kinto the courts. Otherwise, any time there’s a change in judges or justices, the courts will be flooded with efforts to try to overturn decisions previously made by that same court (with different judges).

            That is a major reason why judges are to use judicial precedents in deciding legal issues. What if the justices of SCOTUS were not to use judiceaching their decisions? Then they’d have to rely on their whims.

            When interpreting the COTUS the SCOTUS always starts with the language and the provisions of the COTUS. But both sides of the case usually present compelling reasons to interpret the COTUS the way way they want to. Both sides will have documents they claim to show the founders intended the COTUS to be meant thier way.

            Similar to a side in a litiigation, you interpret the COTUS in a one-sided way to meet your own preconceived ideas or desires. And don’t fool yourself – it is an interpretation.

            How is a judside is correct or, if both sides are correct in part and wrong in part? .

            Read some of the SCOTUS’ decisions

            “You made a straw-mam argument as a rebuttal and now you want me to name every journalist and politician who didn’t want a good crisis go to waste?”

            “It is demonstrably true the the press was giving the exact same narrative. ABC, NBC,CBS,CNN, MSNBC, NYT, the Washington Post, ect were all saying the exact same thing.”

            You stated several times that a majority of the thousands and thousands of media people and liberal ppoliticized Sandy Hook within a few hours of its occurence. The truth is that you only know that rthere was a media blitz on virtually all the major national news networks (including Fox News) shortly after the
            incident.

            The truth is that you have no idea if a majority of the thousands and thousands of media people and liberal politicians throughout the country – in all 50 states – were politicizing this tragedy within hours of occurence.

            The truth is that you do not know of any media people or liberal politicians aside from a few national talking heads and a few prominent politicians who politicized Sabdy Hook within a few hours or even within days or weeks or at all.

            The truth is that you’re such a coward that you can’t admit that you made an overstatement.

          • KStrett

            “You’re warm, but no cigar. :)”

            You repeating the exact same argument. I did not say that executive orders do not exist. I clarified that in my last post. I am saying that executive orders do not apply legislatively. You responded as if I am arguing that executive orders don’t exist.

            You are completely side stepping this issue. If what you are saying is correct, the president can pass whatever legislation he wants via executive order. If that is the case we have a dictator.

            “To my knowledge, no one has ever challenged the executive orders issued by a POTUS.”

            Not true………… There have been several cases of this. Trueman was rebuked by SCOTUS, when he attempted to seize all the steal factories for the war.

            ” I said that the armed citizen who came running out of a supermarket came very close to shooting an innocent citizen”

            You keep bringing up tragedies and near tragedies while ignoring other instances where massacres were prevented by armed citizens.You did it again with the example above, thus proving my point.

            ” Justice Chase is an inapt example. Can you name any? ”

            The example of justice Chase shows that you are completely wrong. He was not impeached for corruption. He was impeached for his decisions. As I said before there were about a dozen federal judges that were impeached under those circumstances and about 7 that were removed.There were about 60 investigations for impeachment of judges.

            Jefferson described impeachment as a scare crow he obvious believed this also applied to the judiciary because it stopped judges from legislation from the bench. You keep bring up the federalist papers and apparently missed that the The Judiciary is the weakest of the three powers. The federalist papers also states that Congress is “the confidential guardians of rights and liberties.” They said this because the Legislature is closest to the individual and is more likely to responsive to the voters.

            Thomas Jefferson:

            To consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions is a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. . . . The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal.

            The Constitution . . . would be a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary which they may twist and shape into any form they please.

            The notion that the SCOTUS doesn’t have to answer to anyone is completely false.

            Instead of dealing with the substance of my argument you going to harp on naming the judges that were impeached. This would require me to spend an hour trying to find a book. There is no need to do that when the impeachment of the supreme court justice proves my point. It doesn’t matter if he was removed or not. He was impeached for his decisions.

            On top of that, what you are essentially arguing is that the founders thought is was permissible to impeach a supreme court justice but would not think it was permissible to impeach a federal judge.

            “A dictatorship is where virtually all power is concentrated in one”

            If a president can pass legislation and it automatically becomes law, we have a dictator.

            If the SCOTUS can ban free speech in a 5-4 decision without having to answer to anyone, we have a judicial dictatorship.

            This is your position: The SCOTUS can rule in a 5-4 decision the government can ban any speech it wants and that is constitutional.

            This was one of the grievances of that the founders had with England. The court made rulings and there was nothing they could do but they set up the same system here?

            If the SCOTUS can rule in a 5-4 decision the the government can ban any speech it wants, it is congress’s duty to impeach the 5 judges.

            You must believe that forced sterilization is completely constitutional, right?

            “What records show the clear intent of the COTUS?”

            To begin with, you have volumes upon volumes of the writings of the founders. There are clear record of the Constitutional Convention. There were the federalists and the anti federalists. The federalists wanted biggest government. The federalists where not remotely close to the seize and scope of the government today.

            You read the federalist papers and didn’t exact any principles from them? Instead, you act as if what is happening today is the same as what was happening back then and you get the deconstructionist notion that we can’t really know what the Constitution means….

            “In the final analysis, the only thing that the founders agreed to was the actual language and provisions contained in the COTUS”

            You are using deconstructionism. There were absolutely no founders who would agree with the platform of the democrat party or the GOP.

            ” In other words, yuo don’t like their decisions!”

            No, they used no constitutional rationale for their decision. They don’t like the death penalty, therefore it is cruel and unusual punishment to execute a minor. They use the same method of execution for minors that they do adults. It is not cruel to execute someone for murder, nor is it unusual. They redefined cruel and unusual and stepped on the state’s right to determine if a minor who is responsible for a horrific crime can be executed.

            “You obviously have no idea what the judiciary is about.”

            Why did they change judicial opinions and how they teach law from original intent to prior court rulings?

            “And don’t fool yourself – it is an interpretation. ”

            More deconstructionism…….

            “The truth is that you have no idea if a majority of the thousands and thousands of media people”

            Why do you keep making the exact same straw-man defense?

            It is demonstrably true the the press was giving the exact same narrative. ABC, NBC,CBS,CNN, MSNBC, NYT, the Washington Post, ect were all saying the exact same thing.

            Can you name one person on ABC, NBC,CBS,CNN, MSNBC, NYT, the Washington Post, etc who argued that we should take a step back and not get hysterical instead of pushing for gun legislation? The answer is NO!

            “The truth is that you’re such a coward that you can’t admit that you made an overstatement.”

            I did not make an over statement. If I did, there must be at least a few journalists on ABC, NBC,CBS,CNN, MSNBC, NYT, the Washington Post, etc who argued that we should take a step back and not get hysterical instead of pushing for gun legislation.

            Instead of dealing with my argument you constructed a straw-man and brought in every single liberal in the country. I must name every single person who went with the anti-gun narrative? There are so many, it is much easier to name the journalists and politicians who didn’t push that narrative.

            It is transparently obvious that you are side stepping the flaws in your position and are repeating the same arguments over and again with out addressing the objections.. It is unconstitutional to ban hand guns but it is constitutional to ban rifles that are just regular guns that look scarey….

            “But gun violence curbed.”

            Why are you only concerned with gun violence?

            “Yes, but it’s help prevent gun vioence of other types. ”

            Passing legislation has been shown over and over again to be ineffective.

            “Do you want such people to be able to buy guns?”

            If you believe some is a threat to go on a killing spree, do you want the person institutionalized or should we just take away their ability to buy a gun? That makes absolutely no sense.

            A psychotic individual is a ticking time bomb but we are not going to have him committed, we are just going to pass a law that restricts him from buying guns. What happens when he gets his guns by breaking the law or doesn’t use a gun?

            “We don’t know if the appropriate measures would have prevented Sandy Hook.”

            We do know that nothing that has been proposed would have prevented Sandy Hook.

            “If the shooter’s mother’s guns had trigger locks Sandy Hook might not have happened. If the mother had a gun safety course, may not have happened (she might have kept her guns locked up and away from her son)……I want people who have been established as having a mental illness producing violent acnt proclivities to be reported so that they cannot pass a background check. Do you want such people to be able to buy guns?.”

            The premise of your argument is insane. This person murdered 26 people. The majority of them were children. The premise of this argument is if the guns were locked away or had trigger locks, he would have just given up and not murdered anyone.

            Do you think maybe instead, he would have murdered his mother anyway, found the key to unlock the guns, and went on a killing spree anyway?

            The premise of this argument boils down to Jeffery Dahmer wouldn’t have eaten anyone if he didn’t have a crock pot. The problem is not the crock pot, the problem is Dahmer is bat crap crazy.

            On top of that, what you are essentially saying is that you think someone is a psychotic ticking time bomb but you are going to take a chance and instead institutionalizing the person, we should just attempt to stop them from buying guns legally. If you think someone has the potential to go on a murder spree, they should be locked up in a mental asylum.

            “Yes, but it’s help prevent gun vioence of other types. Remember, Sandy Hook was the catalyst to try to minimize (consistent with gun ownership rights) gun violense.”

            You are arguing in circles. Once again, this goes back to their argument to the American people. They were arguing that the legislation would prevent Sandy Hook from happening again. You drop this because you were attempting intellectual gymanatics to give the left a pass on my point.

            “Again, not all these shootings can be prevented if we want to continue to live in a free society”

            Exactly! If you ban ar-15s, someone can use a higher caliber gun and do the exact same thing. They could also load a duffel bag loaded with handguns.

            “You keep forgetting that I’m aiming at all categories of gun violence. Addicts will often shoot people in confrontations out of anger or frustration when they are strung out on drugs.”

            If that is the case you should not be using the murder of children at Sandy Hook to implement your political agenda. Drug rehabilitation centers have a unbelievably high failure rate.

            “I have conceded that, by definition, criminal are law violators, i.e. they have broken at least one law. I did not say that criminals always get their guns illegally.”

            You did concede that the majority of the time criminals acquire their guns illegally. That undercuts your entire argument. The legislation would apply to law abiding cityzens not crimals. You are making harder for law adiding cityzens to buy guns legally, while criminals will ignore the laws and still get them. This leads to higher crime rates and higher violent crime rates.This is why the left isolates gun violence instead of all violent crime.

            ” They often get their guns illegally but not always. If they don’t yert have a criminal record, they can buy all the guns they want from a licensed dealer”

            Criminals are so stupid they buy a gun legally with the intent of committing a crime with it that can be traced back to them?

            “First, urban areas where guns laws are the most lax or that have a market in areas where gun laws are the most lax do not have the least per capita gun violence and they don’t have the least per capita crime.”

            When you compare an urban area that has strict gun laws to another urban area that makes it easy to buy guns. The urban area with the strict guns laws have a much higher crime rate and violent crime rate. They have a higher gun violence rate. This shoots your entire argument in the foot.

            “Rural areas generally have less per capita gun violence and violence in general because they do not attract the criminal element as much. The criminal element concentrates more in urban areas.”

            I did not say anything about rural areas at all. I compared urban area to urban area. Chicago has the worst gun violence rate in the country despite having the strictest gun laws. It doesn’t work.

            “Second, gun violence in England and Austrailia have plummeted since guns were outlawed.””

            You ignored that fact that violent crime sky-rocketed after the gun ban.Te same thing happened in Australia. England is one of the most if not the most violent country in the world. This is why the left isolates gun violence.

            Do you care about other kinds of violent crime? Is violent crime ok with you as long as it isn’t committed with a gun?

            “You keep missing my point. Yes, President Obama has developed an agenda on dealing with gun violence. A year ago there is absolutely no evidence that Pres. Obama had an agenda on guns.”

            He had no agenda with guns because the right crisis hadn’t happened. You point is asinine. A low tax organization has an agenda but President Obama and the left doesn’t have one.

            “It’s constutionally permissible (according to Heller) to own any gun in common usage. In my opinion, qualified people (which includes the majority of the adult population) should be able to purchase and possess most or all forms of rifles. As I said, I tend to think that AR-15s should EITHER be restricted more OR should be illegal. ”

            Once again, the AR-15 is deemed an assault rifle only because of cosmetic issues. It is no different that any other rifle other than the way it looks. That makes absolutely no sense.

            A .22 caliber rifle is legal but a .22 caliber rifle that looks like a gun the military uses that shoots the same as a regular .22, should be illegal or restricted.You can’t ban a handgun but you can ban a rifle because of purely cosmetic reasons.

            There were about 300 violent acts committed with rifles. Auto-erotic asphyxiation had double the death rate as rifles.The stats are about the same with using hands and feet as weapons. If you are concerned about gun violence, your focus should be on handguns.

            Why is it permissible to ban a rifle that is exactly the same as any other rifle but it is not permissible to ban handguns?

            Twenty children are killed with a AR-15, therefore we need to ban or restrict Ar-15s. 500 children were murdered in Chicago with handguns, therefore……….

            You can’t address these illogical positions so you keep referring back to the Heller case. These position are absurd.

            ” I’m aware that AR-15s are semi-am also aware that they can discharge multiple bullets in a few seconds. Even more in 60.”

            You are just regurgitating left wing talking points. Any automatic rifle or handgun can do the exact same thing. You conceded this point.

            “It’s not rare. It happens not infrequently.”

            It is very rare. I believe more children die in bathtubs and swimming pools.

            No where did you address the issue of why kids going on a murder sprees is a recent phenomenon and did not happen when we had more guns and loaded guns were left unlocked around the house. This shoots your entire argument in the foot too, which is why you didn’t answer it.

          • JmThms

            Obama and the rest of the libs do not give enough emphasis to the armed guards solution. And it IS hypocritical of him and other libs to have guns be a solution to their own kids protection. His Jan. 16, 2013 speech says “”We will help schools hire more resource officers if they want them, and develop emergency preparedness plans.”. Evidently ‘resource officers’ carry guns. But he should emphasize armed guards more as a partial solution, along with his other partial solutions. Guns will always be around. Schools will always be a target. Only a well-trained law abiding person with a gun will limit the damage that a crazy person with a gun will do if all the preliminary measures fall through. Its common sense. And the NRA ad is spot on in calling Obama out for utter hypocrisy.

          • Bob Hadley

            “….he should emphasize armed guards more as a partial solution, along with his other partial solutions.”

            So, let me get this straight: You can’t find fault with Pres. Obama’s comprehensive program, but you object to him not devoting more rhetoric to the gun aspect of his program??????????????

            That’s crazy talk. You’re scraping the bottom of the barrel awful hard.

          • Mark Cragin

            JmT, I agree 100%. Once we get rid of the ridiculous fallacy of “gun free zones” (what they actually are is free-fire zones), schools will cease to be targets for demented would-be mass murderers.

          • Mark Cragin

            The Bamster is hypocritical because he’s so critical of the NRA’s proposal to have armed guards at schools. He’s incapable of recognizing the good ideas of other people. Who knows what in the world a “Resource Officer” is.

            My opinion: typical Bamster obfuscation. Many will draw the inference that a “Resource Officer” would be armed, but notice the lack of details about these positions – if you’re is inclined to support the NRA’s position in favor of armed guards, you’d naturally assume that’s what he meant.

            If on the other hand, you’re like the president, opposed to guns and the 2nd Amendment that guarantees our right to own and bear them, you’re probably against allowing armed guards, teachers, or administrator to carry concealed weapons to protect the children.

          • Bob Hadley

            Resource Offiers are armed policemen. Look it up. You make far too many assumptions.

        • Terry Dillard

          The President’s children are at LESS risk BECAUSE they have armed guards. In other words, the risk might exist in the first place, but is lessened to a level BELOW normal schools once armed guards are introduced. The President’s kids are safer than the general public’s because of the guards. Shouldn’t ALL children be that well protected?

        • io9f

          When isn’t Obama hypocritical & doesn’t double-talk! He’s a typical Chi-town politcian.

      • Terry Dillard

        How many attacks on any President’s children have occured EVER? On the other hand, how many people have been killed at schools where guns were outlawed? YOU’RE the one who needs some critical thinking… mass murderers don’t usually attack positions they know to be well defended! That critical thinking could do YOU some good, if you choose to exercise it!

      • Ken08534

        Sidwell Friends has 11 armed guards on staff, in the school every day IN ADDITION to the first children’s Secret Service detail. There would still be 11 armed guards at Sidwell Friends if Sasha & Malia didn’t attend it…

      • JmThms

        Yes, but that does not invalidate the NRA’s clearly spot on ad. The point is the Presidents kids ARE AT RISK. Evidently, based on recent events, SO ARE ALL OF OUR KIDS. And what is the solution the government, including Obama, has taken? Why, its having armed guards! Imagine that! P.S. Compare your post to this one and reevaluate your comment about ‘clear critical thinking’. It may indeed do YOU some good.

      • JohnHD

        Regardless their live are not more important than the lives of ordinary citizens. The NRA add was a little harsh, but they are simply using tactics initiated by the left. Example those like throwing grandma over the cliff in their anti Republican videos. I didn’t see any of the liberal medias condemnation of those. Why is it any different? But you have to admit that it gets your attention.

      • Larry B

        Kids are in much greater risk in BO’s Chicago. Is anyone’s skin who happens to live in the White House more valuable than an innocent child killed in a gang drive-by?

      • Ksp48

        Perhaps you didn’t notice that they attend a school that regularly has armed guards for all its students. If the NRA made a mistake it was focusing on secret service protection instead of the armed guards at the school they attend.

      • CentralScruntinizer

        Psst, you’re asking for the use of logic and objective reality on Bernie Goldberg’s internet watering hole for surly old right wingers who want to think they’re wise rather than angry, old and misinformed. You’ll do better selling foil tri-corner hats and subscriptions to World Net Daily than trying to reason with this group.

        One the up side, they will tell you how great it was to be a young white republican in Florida in the mid-50s…

      • nickshaw

        What is unclear about Switch’s thinking? Where does he imply the president’s children do not require extra protection or even mention it?
        The school had armed security before Zero’s kids got there, by the way.
        That gun rights would have been lost long ago without the resistance of groups like the NRA is true.
        Switch seems pretty clear headed to me!

      • Mark Cragin

        You win the Duh award for completely missing the point …

      • io9f

        You missed the point. All Children are equally important. Nobody’s saying a president’s children shouldn’t be protected, but that all
        Children should be.

  • Tim Ned

    I watched that episode of Morning Joe as well. You are spot on that the NRA ad could have been more Politically Correct. But the Media has made the NRA the enemy in this battle and nothing will change that. I am a NRA member. Many if not most members agree with me that we need to keep the guns out of the hands of idiots and we support that. However as a hunter and gun owner (only hunting guns), I also know that every gun is a threat in the wrong hands. And those of us that hunt and respect a shotgun, know how deadly this gun is in the wrong hands. We didn’t eliminate security at airports when murderers made it through security with box cutters. We improved it. Our schools and children need armed guards!

    • ARJ127

      I liked your statement that guns are a threat in the wrong hands. Background checks, waiting periods, etc. can help reduce that threat. Also, clear firearm storage rules would help as well. Let’s keep the guns away from the bad guys so that they can’t become a threat to our kids or ourselves.

      • Switchlight13

        Storage rules? When seconds count, it only takes minutes to unlock and load your firearm.

      • Tim Ned

        You cannot keep guns out of the hands of the wrong people. This is a dream (nightmare). You state that background checks, waiting periods, and storage rules would help. Help is not an answer. Waiting periods only apply to those that legally apply. Criminals don’t do that. I will insure that my grandchildren will attend schools that are properly protected and I have told my kids, that I will pay for private schools if necessary to achieve that.

    • JmThms

      Political correctness is almost exclusively a phenomenon of the Left. I am glad the NRA ad was not politically correct but to the point. Obama’s success is and always has been almost exclusively a product of political correctness.

      • Tim Ned

        I could not agree more.

  • Patrick H.

    Right on Bernie, if the NRA had said what you wrote, they would probably made the President rethink his position especially since he would be thinking not only as the President of the United States, but as a father too as he did on the day of the Newtown Massacre.

    By the way, I believe you meant to say “What if they had said” instead of “What if the had had said”, not trying to be a grammar policeman, just pointing out that error. Over good article and it’s a shame now because the NRA didn’t state it like you said, it only opened itself up to more criticism and ridicule.

    • Switchlight13

      “…if the NRA had said what you wrote, they would probably made the President rethink his position…..” Dream on.

    • nickshaw

      Not trying to be a grammar policeman of the guy who’s not trying to be the grammar policeman but, “Over good article…” ?

  • http://apostrophejones.com/ Gloves Donahue, Jr.

    Your ad is good. The NRA is getting hammered in the MSM, so maybe they were giving it back.

    Obama should have called for swift, harsh punishment of criminals instead of going after law abiding citizens’ rights. Maybe ask the media to focus on victims and quit featuring the bad guys and their bad chidhoods or whatever excuse they want to dredge up.

    Make jail a miserable place to be, have faster trials and stiff sentences for gun using criminals. The word will get out amongst them that picking up a gun to use in a crime is a really bad idea.

    • Switchlight13

      Use to be that way in this once great nation until the liberal thought took over about 50 years ago.

      • Ted Crawford

        I would respectfully submit that it’s the Progressive Ideaology, rather than the Liberal one that’s the problem. I’m old enough to remember the Liberals, long since murdered by the Progressives!
        ” By calling attention to a well regulated militia, the security of the Nation,and the right of each citizen to keep and bear arms, our Founding Fathers recognized the essentially civilian nature of our economy. The Second Amendment still remains an importanr declaration of our basic civilian-military relationship in which every citizen must be ready to participate in the defense of his country. For that reason the Second Amendment will always be important” John Kennedy (member of the NRA)
        “Gun bans don’t disarm criminals, gun bans attract them” Walter Mondale
        “Certainly one of the chief guarentees of Freedom under any government, no matter how popular or respected, is the right of the citizens to keep and bear arms” Hubert Humphrey

        • io9f

          Your positively correct – the Progressives have destroyed the once Liberal Democrat Party.
          Progressives = Communists = control every aspect on law abiding citizens’ lives.

      • Gungadin

        When I was a kid I remember an alarm sounding in a local store early one morning. The store had a placard of a then famous security company in their window. My Dad said “See that sign son; the bad guys know that a break in to that store will be responded to by that security company who will beat the brains out of those guys who broke in” “No cops will ever be called” “The word gets out to the rest of the bad guys that you don’t mess with stores that have that sign.”

        I was about 8 at that time. I’m now in my mid 70’s. This was long before it was against the rules to knock a bully on his butt….The libs have destroyed this country and are pushing even harder to bury us all…I feel badly for our grand kids…..

        • http://108.80.56.115/theEnd/ fuzzywzhe

          The libs have destroyed this country and are pushing even harder to bury us all

          It’s people like you who are the problem.

          Now, it’s a pretty good bet that you failed high school math, but if you had passed it, and ever bothered in your 70 years of existence to fit the exponential rise of the national debt to a logarithmic function, you’d notice it’s been going up 9.04% a year, on average, every year for 41 years now.

          So, it’s not just DA LIBS that burried us, DUH CONSERVATIVES did too. You fools like to pretend there’s a solution in the other group of thugs and criminals, and some of you even actually believe the other group isn’t a group of thugs and criinals.

          It’s people like you that have destroyed the country by tying yourself to a corrupt party and refusing to recognize that you never had a choice to begin with. Chose Democrat or Republican, it doesn’t matter. Neither care about fundamental civil right’s and both are blowing up government to insane levels.

          Just be glad you’re not your grandkid, because you lived a relaitvely easy life, but selling your kids and grand kids into slavery. That was what it took to buy you off.

          • Mark Cragin

            Nice partisan hack rhetoric … must have a fuzzy wuzzy brain.

          • io9f

            lol – By the tone of your rudeness: must be a progressive. You might want to return to your left wing propaganda tabloid: Huff Post where your equally rude companions await you.

          • io9f

            @fuzzywzhe – Feel better now that you posted off topic?
            The point was liberals – actually progressives – take a soft line when it comes to criminals; they pander to them and demonize the victim.
            Hello….this article wasn’t about the debt, spending, spout off mouth. Maybe a comprehensive reading course would help you.

          • EddieD_Boston

            Funny how Obama is utilizing the Patriot Act. You know, the same Patriot Act he voted against as a Senator (hey, at least he took a stand on something and didn’t vote “present” for once)

          • http://profile.yahoo.com/G5E7XHEYAH5GZ3OLZKC5FHWIRU Mike Stokes

            Im a conservative, have been all my life, you brought a lot of disconnected things into the subject. Perhaps if you focused on one at a time it might get easier for you. My head is still spinning. It is quite discouraging for all of us. Good luck.

        • io9f

          Right on, Gungadin

      • Bobo

        Let’s see – 50 years ago John Kennedy was killed and was followed by Johnson, Nixon, Ford, and Reagan. He had been preceded by Eisenhower, Truman and Franklin Roosevelt. Which group seems more “liberal” to you? Fifty years ago is about when liberalism died and was replaced by brain-dead phony conservatism. And yes, that’s just about exactly when American greatness began to die.

    • Jeff

      Spot On!

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/John-Colburn/663676634 John Colburn

      So how do you throw a corpse in jail? Many of these gun deaths are murder-suicides.

      • thatsitivehadenough

        Nothing is perfect.

    • nickshaw

      Bernie’s version would not get the attention of the media. Perhaps this is what the NRA was “aiming” for, to get attention that a Youtube video, by itself, would never receive.
      Otherwise, you suggestions are sound, Gloves.
      Make the punishment harsh and swift without the tear jerking, “He had a bad homelife!” crap. I tire of this apologist drivel offered up by the LSM.
      A great many of us, including myself, had a terrible upbringing. We don’t go out and shoot children because of it. We deal with it. And without prescription anti-depressants. Perhaps this aspect needs more attention too.

  • CareerSoldier

    Great observation. There is a valid point to make about the irony of people who live in gilded cloisters in Manhattan, Malibu and Washington, DC, surrounded by heavily-armed guards (government or private) pontificating about the need to disarm Americans elsewhere who have broken no laws with the guns they own. But this wasn’t the time or place for it. Another messaging opportunity lost to the unceasing, omnivorous Obama campaign.

    • Switchlight13

      What was the right time for it? AFTER yet another gun control law was enacted?