The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > General Discussion Forum

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old January 17, 2013, 05:05 AM   #26
Ben Towe
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 6, 2009
Location: Middle Tennessee
Posts: 1,110
Quote:
Another good point. His children are NO MORE important than yours or mine!
As a human being? No, they aren't.

As an extension of the Presidency? They absolutely are. To be perfectly frank, if someone held a gun to your child's head could you compromise the security of millions? Of the entire world? No. The most powerful man on the face of the Earth could, however, if placed in that situation.

Such arguments sound petty and foolish. If you're going to spend the money on the ad, at least put something of substance into it. Attack the man's policies and stances, not the fact his kids are safe.

BTW, this is certainly not a condemnation of the NRA, because they are without a doubt the sharp end of our spear, I just think the premise of the commercial is poor.
__________________
'Merica: Back to back World War Champs
Ben Towe is offline  
Old January 17, 2013, 06:34 AM   #27
flyinpolack
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 4, 2010
Posts: 152
Quote:
It doesn't matter what you think. Notice, I didn't say "Obama's kids". The safety of the President's kids, wife, and himself are matters of national security. Whether you voted for him or not. And the safety of your kid is not. Period. End of discussion.
I'm not saying that his children should not be protected, but that mine should be protected also.
"All men are created equally", remember?
He is not our king

Quote:
Such arguments sound petty and foolish. If you're going to spend the money on the ad, at least put something of substance into it. Attack the man's policies and stances, not the fact his kids are safe.
That's exactly what we are attacking.
It's his policies that keep our kids unsafe.

Who's side are you guys on anyway??
__________________
Buy American, or don't bitch when you wind up on the bread line.
www.smokerbuilder.com
flyinpolack is offline  
Old January 17, 2013, 06:48 AM   #28
patriotic
Member
 
Join Date: November 22, 2009
Location: Ohio
Posts: 56
Personally I have no problem with background checks but when you must seek permission to exercise a right it is no longer a right.
patriotic is offline  
Old January 17, 2013, 07:37 AM   #29
Newton24b
Junior member
 
Join Date: February 10, 2009
Posts: 974
its an extremely important thing to put on the record, and into the discussion. the obama kids, they have 24/7 secret service guards. one of whom has that traditional mini uzi with 30 round magazines. both of wich are now illegal for private citizens.

heres a better comparison,

if a windowless van pulls up next to these kids, the driver will be spending time in jail no matter what.

if a windowless van pulls up next to one of OUR children, well have to wait 3 or 4 days before the police body dog smells something.
Newton24b is offline  
Old January 17, 2013, 08:40 AM   #30
thallub
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 20, 2007
Location: South Western OK
Posts: 2,018
Quote:
Case in point !!!!! How many of you watched the same video I watched on the day of the shooting and saw the LEO pull the Bushmaster from the trunk of the car?????
It was not a Bushmaster. It was a Saiga shotgun.
thallub is offline  
Old January 17, 2013, 10:29 AM   #31
coachteet
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 7, 2008
Location: Cincinnati, OH
Posts: 122
Wow, this thread has turned into a rabid Obama hate-fest instead of an intelligent discussion. Have fun trying to out-do each other guys.

(Note to self: never criticize the NRA, even if they deserve it. It brings the birthers out of the woodwork).
coachteet is offline  
Old January 17, 2013, 10:32 AM   #32
MacPointMan
Junior Member
 
Join Date: January 14, 2013
Location: Atlanta, Georgia
Posts: 13
I voted for Neither Candidate in this past election. I saw the writing on the wall long before the election every happened. My vote not withstanding didn't really matter as I am from a VERY red state. I voted for the candidate that most closely supported the same issues that I support. That candidate happened to be Governor Johnson.

That being said my point is that there is a better way of getting the message out to the masses. I have quite a few friends that hate guns. In fact I have friends that refuse to come to my house because they don't feel comfortable being in a house with guns. That is fin with me when I go to their house I simply leave my firearm in my car.

The discussion with us usually ends up in we respect each others right to our own opinion and beliefs. We also agree that if the NRA would promote a message of firearms safety and offer a more palatable way of communicating it would improve their image among those that are not very receptive.

I have another friend that constantly asks me why I feel the NEED to carry a firearm wherever I go. My response to her is that I hope I never NEED my firearm but it sure is nice to know that I have it in order to protect myself, my family, and others in just such an occasion that I may need to.

I have neighbors that are happy that I am able to carry firearms. Two of them are barred from doing so for previous life choices they have made. These people are nice people they have learned from their mistakes and care greatly for their community.

The majority of my friends are 2nd Amendment and support my same views. They also believe that the NRA should promote a much more tasteful message that educates rather than defends or attacks. I know what the NRA stands for as do you.

I am concerned that the NRA will give in to universal background checks giving the Federal Government the ability to build a database of everyone who is purchasing or has purchased firearms. This is akin to weapons registration.

If the NRA would stick to accurately Informing and educating instead of attacking I believe that the message will be better received by everyone.
MacPointMan is offline  
Old January 17, 2013, 11:48 AM   #33
Come and take it.
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 16, 2009
Location: Kentucky
Posts: 999
Keene is showing signs of compromise in news interviews. This I don't like. They have an enormous amount of money they have accumulated over the years. If this is truly the fight of the century on gun control than it is time for them to spend it. If they decide to go for broke I will join them.

If they don't I will continue to abstain becoming a member.

I was actually beginning to think the NRA had changed until I heard this morning that they may agree to supporting universal background checks.
Come and take it. is offline  
Old January 17, 2013, 01:19 PM   #34
MacPointMan
Junior Member
 
Join Date: January 14, 2013
Location: Atlanta, Georgia
Posts: 13
Background Checks

http://www.denverpost.com/politics/c...kground-checks

This article reflects what I have read regarding the Background check issue. The NRA hasn't said it supports Universal Background checks it says that it supports tougher background checks.

If the NRA comes out in support of Universal Background checks they are certain to hear from this Life Member.

I have no problem with a basic background check on the local and State level so long as there is no record of it kept. A national background check is a different story. I do not trust the Federal Government to not keep a record of such a check. This can start off very simple and get to the point that they are asking for much much more information over time to include positive confirmation of the purchase of a firearm, the type and serial number of it thus resulting in a national database of firearms owners with the types of firearms that they own.

It is my opinion that the current administration desires a national registry system and limits on the amount, and type of ammunition and firearms we can purchase and own and even consider purchasing. This can go so far as to requiring manufacturer to register every firearm manufactured and imported. Complete and utter control.

Long live the sheepdog for the sheep must graze
MacPointMan is offline  
Old January 17, 2013, 02:02 PM   #35
Come and take it.
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 16, 2009
Location: Kentucky
Posts: 999
I stand corrected and hope that is the case. Time will tell.
Come and take it. is offline  
Old January 17, 2013, 02:18 PM   #36
mack59
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 14, 2004
Posts: 409
The message is good because it is provocative and confrontational, it upsets some people and gets them talking. Once the conversation starts it goes right to protecting kids from mass shootings. My point to anyone upset with bringing the President's kids into the conversation would be - well that is the point - what about our kids and their safety - no one questions the appropriateness of the President's family getting secret service protection or that they go to a school that has it's own armed security force - but the point is the President said that this national conversation and the need to pass legislation was about making our kids safe - he even emphasized that by having kids with him at his announcement. But none of the legislation the President has proposed will do anything to directly protect our kids. Maybe the focus needs to be put back on taking steps to protect them instead of focusing on laws that won't. Like passing legislation the makes sure that armed security protects all our kids at school.

Thus it effectively provokes discussion and leads it back to how can we stop these mass shootings and protect our kids, instead of why do you need an "assault weapon" or a "high capacity" magazine.

I've already seen it happen on lots of discussion boards, comment sections, forums, and social media. People complaining about the ad and acting morally outraged, only to be put on the defensive almost immediately. That the President's kids might "need" more protection than the average kid doesn't even play if you are a parent. Besides, tell a parent on the South Side of Chicago that their kid doesn't need protection as much, or tell the kids at Sandy Hook that they don't need as much protection, oh that's right they're dead.
mack59 is offline  
Old January 17, 2013, 03:09 PM   #37
MacPointMan
Junior Member
 
Join Date: January 14, 2013
Location: Atlanta, Georgia
Posts: 13
I completely agree with your sentiment. I agree with the ad. What I would like to see though is the NRA bringing forth a message that everyone can get behind and understand. Specifically those that have a bit of animosity towards the NRA. We have legislators that detest the very existence of the NRA.

This is a Great time for the NRA to stand up and say "Hey we are with you on this. Though we may have a differing standpoint on the issue of guns lets agree to work together and at least promote Security and Safety in our schools. Can we do that?"

I think the NRA taking the tack of "Lets forget the guns for a moment and focus on one major thing. The number one way to prevent this type of event and others is School Security."

Then attack the broader issue of Guns and Gun rights. We will never be able to please everybody. But we can make our message a bit more tactful. Calling the president Ignorant and Hypocritical is divisive it turns a lot of people off and further galvanizes those who do not like the NRA.
MacPointMan is offline  
Old January 17, 2013, 03:38 PM   #38
Ben Towe
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 6, 2009
Location: Middle Tennessee
Posts: 1,110
Quote:
Who's side are you guys on anyway??
I'm on the side of believing the only thing you should have to do to buy a gun is lay down cash money. I think the point has been missed and judging from the bash fest, the attempt to even make one was futile.
__________________
'Merica: Back to back World War Champs
Ben Towe is offline  
Old January 17, 2013, 11:21 PM   #39
Al Norris
Staff
 
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,276
Meanwhile, it was entirely OK for Obama to call the NRA hypocritical, while dancing in the blood of Sandy Hook, and using kids as props for his gun control?
__________________
National listings of the Current 2A Cases.
Al Norris is offline  
Old January 18, 2013, 02:02 AM   #40
dorc-1
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 17, 2012
Posts: 106
Whoever heads up mkting should be fired. It was a terrible public relations message and the gerbil that wrote it has an IQ that wouldn't register on the richter scale. Any perception to those fence sitters that NRA has a reasonable argument just went out the window.
dorc-1 is offline  
Old January 18, 2013, 02:52 AM   #41
Ben Towe
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 6, 2009
Location: Middle Tennessee
Posts: 1,110
Quote:
Meanwhile, it was entirely OK for Obama to call the NRA hypocritical, while dancing in the blood of Sandy

Hook, and using kids as props for his gun control?
No. And us stooping to that isn't either. It's what separates us from them.
__________________
'Merica: Back to back World War Champs
Ben Towe is offline  
Old January 18, 2013, 04:43 AM   #42
Pond, James Pond
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 12, 2011
Location: Top of the Baltic stack
Posts: 2,418
I didn't think much of the ad when it was aired on a news channel over here as part of a report on Obama's announced legislation.

It seemed to be targeting the same emotional chord (he thinks he's better than you) as the anti campaign might do with "assault rifles make people go crazy".

I don't recall any stats, I don't recall any supporting arguements for the 2A. It was just sensationalist and peddling the only solution I've really heard from the NRA which is "fortify schools".

I'd have hoped they would have more in their repertoire in the search for solutions to this plague of "solo-gunman" violence.

And, to top it all off, it had the type of tough-guy voice over that I'd expect for the latest Steve Austin movie trailer that, to my mind, cheapens the ad further. Again; sensationalism.

Next time:
More logic and case study material based on the actual status quo in the USA: pro-gun v anti-gun states for example, all delivered by actual members of the American public, (voice over or interview with actual gun owners from around america: men, women, different ethnicities and faiths) and no comic-book graphics.
__________________
You cannot wake someone who is pretending to sleep. Stop pretending. Wake up.
Doubt: ...it's the only thing I'm sure of...
-Marsupials: Nature's idea of Concealed-Carry-
Pond, James Pond is offline  
Old January 18, 2013, 06:35 AM   #43
dayman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 18, 2011
Location: The Woods
Posts: 969
I guess I also fall into the group that agreed with general idea of the message, but found the add to be a bit distasteful/counterproductive. I thought the NRA did a fantastic job in the aftermath of Sandy Hook by staying above it, and I thought the first press conference went very well, and hopefully they'll get back up onto the high road.

Quote:
I will also remind everyone that the NRA is always being tagged as being compromising and not hardcore enough, well now they are pulling out all the stops
I do not know anyone - aside from a few extremely advocate gun owners - who thinks that the NRA is too compromising. And that's certainly not going to be the opinion of anyone who's on the fence about gun control.
60% of Americans don't own guns, and those are the people we need to be trying to get onto our side. A message that's going to appeal primarily to anti-Obama gun owners is kind of a waste of time.
__________________
si vis pacem para bellum
dayman is offline  
Old January 18, 2013, 07:25 AM   #44
Famas
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 5, 2009
Location: French, currently living in US
Posts: 121
For all the talk about the NRA ad being a bit uncomfortable...I just have to ask: what exactly does the NRA have to lose? Keep in mind that in the past 2 months, we've seen the NRA labeled as "KKK", "racist", "terrorists", and just last night a prominent journalist *cough-cough* likened the NRA and it's members to Nazis......for defending a constitutional right.

Just who is being distasteful here? IMO - the NRA needs to continue attacking. My only complaint is that other pro-RKBA groups seem to be keeping quiet. I'd like for them to also get a little limelight and say something. Anything which exposes the antis true agenda and their never ending hypocrisy is all good and fair game, and if it gets them riled and foaming at the mouth, then we're doing something right.
Famas is offline  
Old January 18, 2013, 08:33 AM   #45
Rifleman1952
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 1, 2012
Location: Ohio
Posts: 234
Coachteet:

Quote:
It doesn't matter what you think. Notice, I didn't say "Obama's kids". The safety of the President's kids, wife, and himself are matters of national security. Whether you voted for him or not. And the safety of your kid is not. Period. End of discussion.
The problem and the point of the ad is that politicians have been forcing us to live under laws, they themselves do not. The rich leftist elites are mostly anti-gun (for average folks), but have armed bodyguards to keep themselves safe. In all probability, these bodyguards, protecting the leftist elites, carry semi-auto pistols with high capacity magazines. This is a classic case of unbridled hypocrisy and applies whether you are speaking of President Obama or Rosie O'Donnell. To screech about "national security", misses the point by light years.

Last edited by Rifleman1952; January 18, 2013 at 08:41 AM.
Rifleman1952 is offline  
Old January 18, 2013, 09:29 AM   #46
Skans
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 20, 2008
Posts: 7,426
"Rising to the occasion" gets us nowhere. This is now a down and dirty fight - time for the gloves to come off....no-holds-barred is my preference. I would like to see the NRA actually go on the attack for a change, and not sit back and dodge punches from the gun-banners.
Skans is offline  
Old January 18, 2013, 10:35 AM   #47
tyme
Staff
 
Join Date: October 13, 2001
Posts: 3,133
I just heard the NRA ad a few minutes ago on NPR and I have to say that the NRA should be ashamed on behalf of all the members who joined recently, who deserved a better start out of the gate.

The ad was criticizing Obama for being hypocritical because his children are guarded at school, while he's opposed to armed guards for schools generally.

Here's why the NRA's ad is stupid.

First, the USSS is in an entirely different class of guards from the kind of guards that could be hired and placed in schools generally.

Second, the President's family has USSS protection for reasons completely different than armed guards at schools being contemplated by the NRA. The USSS has contingencies, much better logistics and manpower, and they only need to protect one or a few people... it's an entirely different dynamic.

Third, a uniformed armed guard wouldn't accomplish anything. Another school rampage shooter would simply shoot the guard first. Concealed carry by a large, or unknown, number of teachers or staff, is the only way to provide a reasonable chance at stopping another school rampage shooting.

Of course, I'm pro-gun and I think Obama's gun control proposals are stupid and ineffectual and unconstitutional, but the NRA was so far off on this advertisement that they hit the target carrier.
__________________
OOOOOOOO.OOOOO...OOO......OOOOOOO.OOOOO (8ob5o3b3o6b7ob5o!)
“Compleχity is a symptom of confusion, not a cause.” —Jeff Hawkins
“The egg hatched...” “...the egg hatched... and a hundred baby spiders came out...”
tyme is offline  
Old January 18, 2013, 12:03 PM   #48
Rifleman1952
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 1, 2012
Location: Ohio
Posts: 234
Quote:
Of course, I'm pro-gun and I think Obama's gun control proposals are stupid and ineffectual and unconstitutional, but the NRA was so far off on this advertisement that they hit the target carrier.
How is your position on the NRA ad any different than that of Piers Morgan?

The point of the NRA ad was not that all children deserve the same protection as the president. The point was the hypocrisy of those who push gun control for others while never having to be worried about their own security. All too often those who scream the loudest to ban evil "assault rifles" have either tax payer funded or private security. Obama is the leader of the gun grabber movement at present and has used children as props in his push. We are in a vicious political struggle at present. If you own a firearm and are an NRA member, you have been likened to a Nazi or KKK member by CBS & CNN news. Don't fall for the media spin on this.
Rifleman1952 is offline  
Old January 18, 2013, 12:36 PM   #49
bsstan
Junior Member
 
Join Date: May 27, 2004
Location: west tennessee
Posts: 2
NRA...the good and not so good, lately

The bad thing is that we, gun owners and conservatives, are held to a higher standard than the "liberal media". They can do gut wrenching promo's and "news stories", and be praised. We can tell the truth, in a not so touchy feel y way, we will get abused. I think we should take the gloves off, occasionally. We will never be loved by the liberal city dwellers. They live in Ivory towers, in a false security.
bsstan is offline  
Old January 18, 2013, 12:56 PM   #50
Chaz88
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 4, 2010
Posts: 998
Quote:
The bad thing is that we, gun owners and conservatives, are held to a higher standard than the "liberal media".
I think that it is an ongoing mistake to equate gun owners with conservatives. Often the most vocal people tend to be at extreme ends of the spectrum. But this battle, like most others, will be won or lost with those that reside in the middle. Often those people are looking for a direction to jump and base it on what camp they find more alienating to them. I am one of the people in the middle and agree with most of what the NRA has to say. But they do not need to sway my opinion. They need to talk to the people in the middle, that have not formed a solid opinion, and convince them.
__________________
Seams like once we the people give what, at the time, seams like a reasonable inch and "they" take the unreasonable mile we can only get that mile back one inch at a time.

No spelun and grammar is not my specialty. So please don't hurt my sensitive little feelings by teasing me about it.
Chaz88 is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:00 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2013 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.13288 seconds with 7 queries