NRA airs new TV ad criticizing Obama

Originally Posted by Act of God

Cops are local, schools are local. Take one cop and tear him away from the oh-so-important task of writing window tint tickets and have him/her hang out at the school. Duh.

Maybe it's different in NYC, but here we have dedicated meter maids. The police don't write tickets. They patrol the streets.

Originally Posted by customisbetter

There is a difference between different requirements and flat out banning that same protection to other citizens.

What's being "flat out banned" here?

Originally Posted by Act of God

Irrelevant, and Obama just signed a law extending SS protection to him and his family for life (along with Clinton, Bush, etc.).

Did you start your post with "Irrelevant" because that's what it is?

Originally Posted by Act of God

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com...tion-for-life/

That's already been the case until 1997. I'm surprised they reduced it to 10 years. I'm OK with this.

Originally Posted by Act of God

Bloomberg walks around with an army. Politicians are not more important than you are.

Not saying they're more important. They are more endangered, though.

Originally Posted by 'busa

Not saying they're more important. They are more endangered, though.

That is an interesting comment. Obama's children are naturally a much higher target and thus the potential for a threat is higher. However, given the children's security detail, I would say their chances of harm are lower than an public school student who has no protection from an assailant or kidnapper.

Originally Posted by Green_Shine

That is an interesting comment. Obama's children are naturally a much higher target and thus the potential for a threat is higher. However, given the children's security detail, I would say their chances of harm are lower than an public school student who has no protection from an assailant or kidnapper.

Feel free to do an FMEA.

Originally Posted by 'busa

What's being "flat out banned" here?

We don't know yet obviously, however in New York there are government officials who are allowed things that are now illegal for regular citizens. 7+ magazines etc.

I believe the government has no right to remove weapons from (previously) law abiding citizens.

Nobody has had a weapon removed from them. You have all the guns you had before Obama took office.

Originally Posted by Lair

Nobody has had a weapon removed from them. You have all the guns you had before Obama took office.

False statement

Originally Posted by Lair

Nobody has had a weapon removed from them. You have all the guns you had before Obama took office.

I would never turn in any weapon however many lesser minded people have and will.

Originally Posted by casino is no lie

I'm sure you're equally as excited to receive your Sticky Buddy, Micro Touch Magic Max, Perfect Tortilla Pan and WaxVac.


No one said you needed to be smart to own a gun.

As proven by police officers all across the country

Originally Posted by JonJon

False statement

I was not aware that guns were confiscated. I'd be interested in see how many and under what circumstances.

Originally Posted by JonJon

As proven by police officers all across the country

Don't forget to insult members of the military while you're at it. Or is hating on the troops too unpatriotic for you?

^I think he was making a point that no employment status makes you more than human. Troops make mistakes just like Fry cooks and cops.

Originally Posted by customisbetter

^I think he was making a point...

He wasn't making a point. He was trying to make himself feel better.

I think we all know that JonJon has no feelings. He is a cold blooded killer.

Originally Posted by casino is no lie

Maybe it's different in NYC, but here we have dedicated meter maids. The police don't write tickets. They patrol the streets.

I think this place is in such a bad spot, money wise, that the primary function of the police is revenue generation.

Originally Posted by 'busa

Did you start your post with "Irrelevant" because that's what it is?


That's already been the case until 1997. I'm surprised they reduced it to 10 years. I'm OK with this.


Not saying they're more important. They are more endangered, though.

Obama is trying to pass legislation limiting gun ownership with simultaneously passing legislation that extends his secret service (read: GUNS) protection.

More for me, less for you

get it?

Originally Posted by casino is no lie

Cost benefit analysis. As tragic as these shooting are they're statistically rare. However, that's difficult to stomach when we think with our hearts over our brains in these situations.

They are not there for shootings. They are there for community contact, serious fights, gangs, drugs, etc. Of course they do carry a gun and could react to something like a shooting, but they are not just sitting around and waiting for a tragedy. They interact with the students and visitors on a daily basis.

I know of SROs that arrest students all the time. They make their schools safer every minute of the day.

Originally Posted by JonJon

False statement

Obama made the local NO police dept confiscate those guns?

The guns that the citizens got back after the crisis was over?

Originally Posted by 'busa

TIL the NRA does not know that the president of the US has different protection requirements than most other people.

Politicians frequently play the PR game of being ordinary citizens, Joe Averageguy, "I worry about my family the same way you worry about yours", and the rest of that crap.

The NRA is just playing the same game. Doesn't mean either of them are correct, but if politicians want to posture, their critics are welcome to posture right back.

Originally Posted by Act of God

Irrelevant, and Obama just signed a law extending SS protection to him and his family for life (along with Clinton, Bush, etc.).

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com...tion-for-life/

Bloomberg walks around with an army. Politicians are not more important than you are.

Congress passed the law, which reinstated protection to what it used to be. Now, it may be excessive, or self serving, or hypocritical. Since it came from DC, it almost certainly is at least one of those. But to act like its solely Obama's doing is disingenuous.

Congress probably made a deal that he'd get this for himself if he signed off on the salary raise they voted for themselves.

Originally Posted by 'busa

Feel free to do an FMEA.

Also, lead me to the analysis which will determine what children's lives are more important than other children's.