NRA ad attacked for including President Obama's daughters - Polidicks

[QUOTE=UziXxX;39246620][video=youtube;0CcIkuxBYkg]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0CcIkuxBYkg[/video][/QUOTE] it's almost as if someone might be able to change their mind about an issue when circumstances become so unbearable that the status quo becomes more harmful than going back on your word

Leaving aside the fact that the family of the President is a fairly high-profile target, it's still absurd to suggest that armed men in schools and other 'gun-free' zones would be a bad thing when most of our politicians rely on having armed men for protection. I don't think you can say that people are safer if unarmed while two armed guards are right behind you without sounding like a massive hypocrite. At best, the politician is tacitly saying that you're not important enough to need protection. In other words, decent point, but leave it to the NRA to convey a decent point in the worst way possible.

[QUOTE=catbarf;39246801]Leaving aside the fact that the family of the President is a fairly high-profile target, it's still absurd to suggest that armed men in schools and other 'gun-free' zones would be a bad thing when most of our politicians rely on having armed men for protection. I don't think you can say that people are safer if unarmed while two armed guards are right behind you without sounding like a massive hypocrite. At best, the politician is tacitly saying that you're not important enough to need protection. In other words, decent point, but leave it to the NRA to convey a decent point in the worst way possible.[/QUOTE] I remember the ultimate ironic thing. A senator, Marco Rubio, was giving a speech against government healthcare, and simultaneously, his daughter was having health problems and was air lifted to a public hospital and such.

what is it with people that want guns so they can fight the government with wanting guards everywhere. it's like the nra isn't interested in consistent ideology but is instead selling someth

[QUOTE=Lazor;39246837]what is it with people that want guns so they can fight the government with wanting guards everywhere. it's like the nra isn't interested in consistent ideology but is instead selling someth[/QUOTE] Nobody wants guns for that purpose. It's just that it's unnecessary and fucking stupid to make restrictions because of a singular incident. Criminals don't follow laws and making it so that well to be people who have no history of criminal acts, are suddenly criminals because they owned something that is now illegal

[QUOTE=Lazor;39246837]what is it with people that want guns so they can fight the government with wanting guards everywhere. it's like the nra isn't interested in consistent ideology but is instead selling someth[/QUOTE] If they just wanted to sell guns they'd be enthusiastically supporting Obama, since prices and sales have skyrocketed since the first rumors of a ban. Having armed guards, or even armed citizenry, isn't exactly the same as calling for a police state.

[QUOTE=SigmaLambda;39246771]it's almost as if someone might be able to change their mind about an issue when circumstances become so unbearable that the status quo becomes more harmful than going back on your word[/QUOTE] A few kids died in an ultimately insignificant event. This status quo (the one with gun ownership at record highs and violent crime decreasing every year) sure is unbearable. Better criminalize and demonize millions of people who've done nothing wrong.

[QUOTE=catbarf;39246801][B]Leaving aside the fact that the family of the President is a fairly high-profile target[/B], it's still absurd to suggest that armed men in schools and other 'gun-free' zones would be a bad thing when most of our politicians rely on having armed men for protection. [B]I don't think you can say that people are safer if unarmed while two armed guards are right behind you without sounding like a massive hypocrite. [/B]At best, the politician is tacitly saying that you're not important enough to need protection. In other words, decent point, but leave it to the NRA to convey a decent point in the worst way possible.[/QUOTE] Um, the fact that they're "fairly" high value targets is kind of a huge deal

Obama has been using children as pawns for his political gain as well. The entirety of the situation is just sad.

Apart from the whole Obama family thing that add was quite cool.

[QUOTE=SigmaLambda;39246230]It's still really funny to me that one of the reasons the NRA supports gun rights is to prevent government tyranny but their alternative to gun control, which is to keep the peace by having armed police officers everywhere, is literally a police state.[/QUOTE] No the NRA supports gun rights so the gun manufacturers can make more money, and continue to pay the NRA to lobby for less gun control They don't care about the second amendment or freedoms or anything, they care about getting as many guns sold as possible

[QUOTE=Van-man;39246580][quote]As crude as the ad is, it is very true. Kudos to the NRA for growing some balls for once.[/quote] Too bad they've shot themselves in the foot with it. [/QUOTE] [img]http://i.imgur.com/toTlu.png[/img]

[QUOTE=Ericson666;39246986]Um, the fact that they're "fairly" high value targets is kind of a huge deal[/QUOTE] What I don't understand is that there's this idea that 'important' people benefit from and require the presence of armed guards, and nobody bats an eye because of course armed guards will keep them safe from deranged gunmen. It makes sense. But then these same politicians are turning around and saying that all us 'normal' people need to be safe is to declare schools and public areas 'gun-free zones', and then have the gall to say that having armed guards would be a bad idea and it would somehow make people [i]less[/i] safe! How does that make any sense?

Maybe it's just me but wouldn't it be better to live knowing we don't need armed guards in schools and on every corner? Having armed guards running around everywhere doesn't make me feel safer. This is just one Canadians opinion but I'd feel safer knowing we DIDN'T need security every five feet or people armed to the teeth.

[QUOTE=UziXxX;39246277]As crude as the ad is, it is very true. Kudos to the NRA for growing some balls for once.[/QUOTE] Didn't you say the same thing about Republicans in another thread? I don't know what alternate universe you come from, but I'd like to know if the portal is still open.

[QUOTE=chunkymonkey;39247410]Maybe it's just me but wouldn't it be better to live knowing we don't need armed guards in schools and on every corner? Having armed guards running around everywhere doesn't make me feel safer. This is just one Canadians opinion but I'd feel safer knowing we DIDN'T need security every five feet or people armed to the teeth.[/QUOTE] Nobody wishes for a world where we need personal weapons or armed guards to feel safe. But we have to deal with our current situation, and not all proposed solutions are good ones. Even if we can't find a good solution, keeping the status quo (which, I might add, is consistently decreasing gun crime each year) is preferable to making things worse. And that's not to say that it's impossible to find a good solution, but there are better solutions than draconian measures that hurt law-abiding citizens much more than they hurt criminals.

I'm wondering if the NRA realizes the irony in calling Obama a hypocrite shortly after both blaming video games and releasing a video game

[QUOTE=laserguided;39245269]Nope they aren't. Typically anti-gun people leach off of a massacre then the pro-gun people defend it. [editline]16th January 2013[/editline] I personally see NOTHING wrong with having a police officer in every school.[/QUOTE] So the whole arming teachers thing never happened? Everyone will use something to push their own agenda, it's how the world works.

[QUOTE=mastermaul;39246917]A few kids died in an ultimately insignificant event. This status quo (the one with gun ownership at record highs and violent crime decreasing every year) sure is unbearable. Better criminalize and demonize millions of people who've done nothing wrong.[/QUOTE] I'm pretty sure that the violent crime rate decreasing has to do more with the fact that we have the highest incarceration in the world than it has to do with gun ownership.

[QUOTE=Mingebox;39247514]Didn't you say the same thing about Republicans in another thread? I don't know what alternate universe you come from, but I'd like to know if the portal is still open.[/QUOTE] The portal is always open, friend. As long as you keep an open mind and are willing to do a little reading. :) But on a serious note, the Republican party has been a ball-less, value-less lump which always rolls over on command.

[QUOTE=The golden;39247513]This works in Canada because we don't have that many games here at all. Neither do places like the UK or Japan. Gun control works in these countries because there are limited amounts of firearms and putting in restrictions makes them even harder to obtain. The problem with the US is that it is literally saturated with firearms. They are piss easy to obtain and so is ammunition. How do you impose gun control when everyone and their dog and their dogs dog has a gun? Even if people WANTED to give up their guns it would still be a royal pain in the ass. I do agree with what you're saying though.[/QUOTE] A lot of people in Australia sold their gun back after the Port Arthur massacre. But I guess it only worked because Australia is a lot smaller, and don't have gun manufactures.

[QUOTE=Zet;39247751]A lot of people in Australia sold their gun back after the Port Arthur massacre. But I guess it only worked because Australia is a lot smaller, and don't have gun manufactures.[/QUOTE] Or a border with Mexico. Or close to one firearm for every citizen. Or a rampant drug trade. Or widespread gang violence. Or appalling healthcare, including mental health. And even then there are stories of Australians burying their guns.

[QUOTE=catbarf;39247897]Or a border with Mexico. Or close to one firearm for every citizen. Or a rampant drug trade. Or widespread gang violence. Or appalling healthcare, including mental health. And even then there are stories of Australians burying their guns.[/QUOTE] It really becomes aparrent that the US has a lot of domestic problems to solve. Half of those are firearm related though.

[QUOTE=UziXxX;39247726]The portal is always open, friend. As long as you keep an open mind and are willing to do a little reading. :) But on a serious note, the Republican party has been a ball-less, value-less lump which always rolls over on command.[/QUOTE] Rolls over in what sense of the phrase exactly? Were they 'value-less' that time a good chunk of their legislators signed a pledge by Grover Norquist never to raise taxes? How about all those times they blocked same-sex marriage getting more recognition, or restricting abortion? Or how about when their leader in the Senate, Mitch McConnell, said that the GOP's #1 priority was to make Obama a 'one-term president'? Seems awfully obstructionist and socially conservative to me, not exactly ball-less or whatever you'd call 'value-less', although the values in question are pretty shit.

[QUOTE=Megafan;39249221] How about all those times they blocked same-sex marriage getting more recognition, or restricting abortion? Or how about when their leader in the Senate, Mitch McConnell, said that the GOP's #1 priority was to make Obama a 'one-term president'? [/QUOTE] We call them re[B]pubic[/B]ans. Most no longer have conservative values in my opinion, so why I say "roll over" I mean give into things that a conservative, who they claim to be, would be against. I personaly have no problems with aborition or gay marriage, I don't know why most republicans do.

[QUOTE=-Get_A_Life-;39244512]Yeah right, the president and his family need the same amount of protection as the average joe right? After all, not like anyone would want to target the president of the united states of america or anything right? Gun owner or not, you've got to find the NRA retarded.[/QUOTE] are you saying that the president deserves more protection than I do? the point of the ad is that I should have the same level of security as him, not he should have the same level or security as us. [editline]16th January 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=chunkymonkey;39247410]Maybe it's just me but wouldn't it be better to live knowing we don't need armed guards in schools and on every corner? Having armed guards running around everywhere doesn't make me feel safer. This is just one Canadians opinion but I'd feel safer knowing we DIDN'T need security every five feet or people armed to the teeth.[/QUOTE] it's not about needing it, it's about having it if the need arises.

[QUOTE=Zeke129;39247606]I'm wondering if the NRA realizes the irony in calling Obama a hypocrite shortly after both blaming video games and releasing a video game[/QUOTE] They were blaming violent videogames. A gun range game isn't overly violent.

[QUOTE=ButtsexV3;39249373]are you saying that the president deserves more protection than I do?[/QUOTE] yeah absolutely it's like complaining that bomb technicians in afghanistan are being given an unfair advantage by being equipped with bomb-protection suits, but you aren't. the difference is that the president is an extremely large target who thousands of people would love to kill right this second. you aren't

They call obama a hypocrite, right when they say violent video games are bad and releasing a video game about shooting targets, some are which are human shaped V:v:V

[QUOTE=Psycho9182;39249472]They call obama a hypocrite, right when they say violent video games are bad and releasing a video game about shooting targets, some are which are human shaped V:v:V[/QUOTE] Reeeeaaalllllly stretching the definition of human shaped... [IMG]http://img.gawkerassets.com/img/18bl9jlubk8v8jpg/original.jpg[/IMG] ^Hilariously editorialized banner for a Kotaku article