Obama and the NRA

Debates of a more controversial nature, and discussions on the latest world events. Give your opinions, but no flaming!
Post Reply
User avatar
lackingimagination
Gnome
Posts: 52
Joined: Sat 9th Jun 2012
Gender: Female
Location: Municiberg

Obama and the NRA

Post by lackingimagination » Fri 18th Jan 2013

so as you may have heard, the NRA has released an ad saying that obama is a hypocrite for making a stand on gun control while his own two daughters are protected 24/7 by armed guards.
what do you think about this?

personally i think that we all want to protect our children. if a normal, everyday joe's children were such targets as the obamas must be, you could bet that their parents would keep them home and safe. but obama has the resources to send his children to school with more or less a guarantee of their safety. i would do it, wouldn't you?

User avatar
Bang Your Drum
serial addict
Posts: 5913
Joined: Tue 1st May 2007
Location: Penn's Forrest
Contact:

Re: Obama and the NRA

Post by Bang Your Drum » Sat 19th Jan 2013

The NRA pulled that ad, due to controversy. The presidents daughters are protected heavily because they are more likely to be kidnapped/harmed in any way due to who their father is. By that logic everyone should, have a personal secrecy service staff.
Besides its not liked the armed guards would have assault rifles, like the man in the elementary school had.
Those gun are designed not for accuracy, but to spray a few dozens bullets per minute, their sole purpose is to kill.
The NRA represents the gun making industry as well, they are making money from all guns sold, it's just about protecting themselves... Not anybody in a town where 20 children where killed.
If you ask me that's far roe hypocritical.
Moses Seixas wrote:give bigotry no sanction

User avatar
Ash Kelp
Centaur Genius
Posts: 1087
Joined: Wed 4th Jan 2012
Gender: Male
Location: In the great and awesome Cascadia, where the norm is rain, and coffee.

Re: Obama and the NRA

Post by Ash Kelp » Sat 19th Jan 2013

^I agree, I also think that if there was this much gun violence going on you'd probably want your Children to be protected. And Obama is the most likely target for attacks, so there isn't really anything Hypocrictical about it.
Image
It's like Trouble, but with many a variation.

User avatar
Bang Your Drum
serial addict
Posts: 5913
Joined: Tue 1st May 2007
Location: Penn's Forrest
Contact:

Re: Obama and the NRA

Post by Bang Your Drum » Sat 19th Jan 2013

^ I would't say most likely, I'd say Obama is the most likely for verbal attacks/accusations related to this issue though.
Moses Seixas wrote:give bigotry no sanction

User avatar
artemisfowlexpert1
Dwarf Thief
Posts: 430
Joined: Thu 5th Nov 2009
Gender: Female
Location: Blasting DUBSTEP into my ears

Re: Obama and the NRA

Post by artemisfowlexpert1 » Sun 7th Apr 2013

Personally? Obama IS a hypocrite. If he is going to make the gun laws so strict, that we, the citizens of the United States can't even protect ourselves/family/friends, he needs to seriously rethink that situation. Whether or not guns are accessible to the public, CRIMINALS will find a way to hurt innocent people without the aid of guns. But with knives, or even their bare fists. So in a way, it is POINTLESS to make gun laws stricter.
<3 Psalm 23 <3Image
DANCER SWAG
My weapon is my BODY, my element is WATER, my world is SWIMMING.
"Real revenge, is making something of yourself."- Gerard Way
Long live the ROMANCE

User avatar
Bang Your Drum
serial addict
Posts: 5913
Joined: Tue 1st May 2007
Location: Penn's Forrest
Contact:

Re: Obama and the NRA

Post by Bang Your Drum » Sat 13th Apr 2013

Yes but how fast can you kill some one with your bare hands versus a gun that fire 40 bullets a minute? How fast can they be stopped? And it's not about taking guns away, it's about thig KILLING MACHINES away, not rifles or pistols, machien guns... Wy the heck does anyone need to own a machine gun? They do not even require presciosn to fire, the just hit a bunch of places, no matter here you aim them.
Moses Seixas wrote:give bigotry no sanction

User avatar
JLHxXxX
LEP Commander
Posts: 2028
Joined: Mon 6th Jul 2009
Gender: Female
Location: Dancing on the Eiffel Tower with Kitty~

Re: Obama and the NRA

Post by JLHxXxX » Sat 4th May 2013

Just remember, people.

The second amendment is there to keep the government in check. Not to hunt. Not to just have guns. It's to prevent what happened in England, Germany, Russia, and many other countries who dwindled the amount of guns among the people and struck.

On topic, Obama lunged at the opportunity to make stricter gun laws because democrats want more government involvement. That's no insult on anyone - that is simply how it is. Machine guns like that ARE illegal. Most guns made to kill like that? Illegal to the public. He's targeting semi-auto, auto, and guns in general. Can they be dangerous? Yes. Constitutional? Hell, no.

Obama, correctly, is focusing on the safety of the people. But for example, in my area? The nearest local police department is over forty-five minutes away. If I have a gun on me, I'll want my own. To hell that cop will arrive before a bullet could go through me.

Obama's daughters are more direct in the threat to be attacked. However, taking away the guns is no answer to anyone's safety, famous or not. As soon as something becomes illegal, organized crime rates skyrocket.

Gun free zones are the most dangerous zones on the planet. Remember that.
Waiting for the bus that never comes is silly. Once you start to walk, every opportunity will be stopping you in your tracks to greet you.

~HaTheAngel~

User avatar
Bang Your Drum
serial addict
Posts: 5913
Joined: Tue 1st May 2007
Location: Penn's Forrest
Contact:

Re: Obama and the NRA

Post by Bang Your Drum » Sun 5th May 2013

JLHxXxX wrote:Gun free zones are the most dangerous zones on the planet. Remember that.
Define a "zone" like a country, or library, or a amusment park?

again automatic guns ad even semi automatic can't really be written off as "for self defense" or hunting.... and to my understanding automatics and machine guns are the same?
Yes, limting the amount of rounds per catridge in guns being sold would drive up prices on older guns..but then that also means they'd be collector's pieces almost exclusivly, relics of a more brutal time... they'd be in the history museums with the decommisoed electric chairs and whips belonging to slave drivers. And the gradnchilrden of our generatrion will undoubtly leave with a sick feeling in thier stomach, ever genration gets a few chances to make the world better, let's not miss this one.
Moses Seixas wrote:give bigotry no sanction

Post Reply