I totally agree with the new hashtag for the NRA

@MotherJones @DavidCornDC @NowWithAlex @ggreeneva The NRA IS #repugnantandcowardly @WiPolitics

@Morninmist

And I gree with this hashtag
@Everyone #morninmist is a useles idiotic hippie leach

I lean a little to the right on issues, but I think Obama's kids must be protected by armed guards. It is a matter of National security. Imagine if they were kidnapped (God forbid) by terrorists. They could force Obama to do almost anything- like take away our guns. Or redistribute the wealth. Or make cuts to defense. Or change the America from a free Nation to one dependent on Government assistance.
Heaven forbid some terrorist would be able to force Obama to do those things to us.....

so, you silly

Will you pull the girls secret service??

Then please explain why Rahms children also have armed security at their school? Please explain to me why Sen Feinstein requires armed security
?

The president does not request this protection for his children - it goes with the office and is implemented during both republican and democratic presidencies. the NRA is a disgusting example of corruption, greed, and the loss of all moral value. What started as an organization that would teach gun safety and some kind of camaraderie with events for responsible gun owners has ended up being a lobby for gun manufacturers that have become greedy. Without constantly getting people fired up emotionally, gun sales could decline - therefore, they must keep inciting people and getting them to believe that someone is going to take away their guns. No one NEEDS an assault rifle or magazines designed for mass killings. You can be a responsible, common sense gun owner while - at the same time - standing up for what is right - less risk of danger for our children and all people. If you want to drive, you need to be of age, have a license, undergo a test to determine if you can drive safely, and you have to register your vehicle and pay insurance to cover any accidents that might occur. There are RULES. The same should apply for something as dangerous as guns. This is nothing more than common sense.

Misty this was for you

"Weapons designed for the theater of war have no place in a movie theater"
Correct, but many of the weapons that they want to ban were never designed for a theater of war. The words "military style" create a very broad brush.

I can make my Ruger 10/22 look military. I can even put a bump stock or rubber band around the trigger to simulate automatic fire. Yet I wouldn't take it out in a theater of war.

Our military laugh at our "military style" auto reloading rifles.

Ron was wrong about that, along with many other things. Don't forget that he was a California Democrat before he switched to the Republican party! He was NOT the Conservative that some people think he was.

I think that you think too much of what you think.

Now my kids and everyone elses are just average? He didn't have to be President, I dont want my tax dollars protecting his, while mine aren't allowed the same.

Why would anyone GO AFTER an average American's child?

**********************

Have you already forgotten about the event that brought all this to the forefront?

Sandy Hook was not an attack on CERTAIN children. It was random. Trying to compare the president's children who are famous and under threat through no cause of their own to yours and my children is ridiculous. Those children HAVE been threatened repeatedly simply because of their father. Yes, our children are average....not an insult so stop acting like it is. You don't get to choose what your tax dollars go towards...that's life. Do I want my tax dollars spent on a NASCAR car for the Army? No, but I don't get to choose. And neither do you.

Sandy Hook was not an attack on CERTAIN children. It was random. Trying to compare the president's children who are famous and under threat through no cause of their own to yours and my children is ridiculous.

***********************

I'm sure the parents of the kids at Sandy Hook would agree with you. It was random, as will be the next attack of this nature. We just can't predict it. So let's do nothing. Or next to nothing. Let's put the "gun free zone" signs back up, practice the evacuation plans, counsel the kids and hope that Obama's 23 executive orders can eliminate every potential random nut out there from randomly obtaining a random weapon of his or her choice and doing something like this again. That's all we can do. Because it's random.

As a matter of fact, yes. It was random. I'm outraged over the lack of regulations for gun owners. MADD started a campaign against driving drunk....did it stop all drunk drivers? Of course not, but the impact it had on the situation was very markable. It's time for the same impact to happen on guns. Let's make gun owners more responsible for their own property. It is up to the gun owners to be sure that their firearms are kept in a secured place and accessible only by them. It is up to gun owners to demonstrate that they know how to use their guns....i.e. passing eye exams and competency testing. It is up to gun owners to show that they are mentally capable of owning a gun. The second ammendment states "well regulated" militia. The NRA believes there should be no regulations whatsoever. And back to this "ad"....comparing the POTUS children with average American's children is not the same. All children of POTUS have had Secret Service protection for over 100 years now. Where were the complaints about your tax dollars being used on secret service for the Bush daughters who got accompanied to bars to drink and party.

You obviously didn't get the point of the ad.

You can pass anti-gun legislation until you're blue in the face. Frankly, I don't care if you do. I'm not a gun owner. But if you do that without fortifying potential targets, you're not doing the single most effective thing that could prevent or minimize the effect of the kind of attack we saw at Sandy Hook and elsewhere.

You don't leave your home unlocked, advertise it as being a "burglar free zone" and expect that the cops are going to be able to round up every potential burglar in the area. You secure your house to the best of your ability to reduce the odds of you becoming a "random" victim of a burglary. You lock up your possessions. You do common sense things to prevent yourself from becoming victim. You don't rely on laws to protect you.

Unless this is just about guns for you, your stance makes no sense. If it's about seeing that stuff like this doesn't happen again, it needs to include providing protection at the site of potential tragedies like this one and getting away from this nonsensical notion that if we advertise locations as "gun free zones" that it's not an open invitation for the nut who wants to go out in a blaze of glory to maximize his kills. Use your head.

Yes, Bob, I got caught up in the Secret Service aspect of the posts on here and people saying that the POTUS children didn't deserve protection. What the ad by the NRA did was it pointed out that the children's school has armed guards yet other schools are deemd "gun free zones". The school the girls go to is a school attended by many politicians children and has had armed guards there for a very long time. Long before the girls went there. It is a private school so that is paid for by the school, not the government. And I would say that one of the reasons there was deemed a "need" for armed guards there was because of the level of threats placed on the children attending the school. I don't actually have a probelm with a trained guard at schools, but even the last school shooting in CO proved that having an armed guard at the school did not prevent tragedy. Crazy people are still out there. But regulating guns will not in any way harm the 2nd ammendment. The main thing the Sandy Hook tragedy did was get American citizens to say now is the time to regulate!

What regulations would have prevented the Sandy Hook shootings?

The shooter wasn't legally able to buy guns, and did not obtain his weapons legally. Making more useless gun laws and/or regulations aren't going to prevent these kinds of shootings...

Read your first line again WIwishes...and then remember Newtown. As I recall, those kids were "children of average Americans" not the president's kids. Why do you think they DON'T go after the president's kids? BECAUSE they are guarded with people who carry guns. Why do you think they go after average American kids in schools? Because there is a sign that says "no guns allowed" on the front door!

The main thing the Sandy Hook tragedy did was get American citizens to say now is the time to regulate!

**************************

And that's the problem. The focus has gotten away from trying to do everything within our power to attempt to prevent similar situations from happening, to narrowly focusing on "gun control".

Let's look at what's resulted from that narrow focus, so far. Sales of firearms in general and, specifically, the kinds of ammo and firearms that are expected to become direct targets of legislation, have skyrocketed. More of the kinds of weapons used at Sandy Hook and elsewhere are entering into possession of the general populace at a faster rate than, most likely, any time in recent history. It's not going to be possible to round them all up and if laws are passed making their ownership either illegal or highly regulated, those folks who've bought them aren't about to come forward and produce them.

Gun owners don't believe the government doesn't want to take their guns away. And while they're still able to, they're stocking up. If we were having a sensible discussion that included fortifying the targets and acknowledging that doing so plays an integral part in attempting to prevent further occurrences, perhaps the folks who own guns wouldn't feel like they're the targets, and perhaps they wouldn't be stockpiling what they believe is going to be taken away from them.

The $400,000 lifetime pension makes up for any 'sacrifice' a President makes. Plus he gets a Pension from being a Senator on top of that.
If anyone thinks Obama's kids will use Planned Parenthood at any time in their life- they are badly mistaken.

And yet Obama uses other people's children to present his position on guns, SICK!
He did not just reference them, he had them right there with him. The NRA ad called out hypocrisy and Obama lived it.

@morninmist, you correctly said, " You have children who had no say in the decision on whether their father is going to step forward to be President of the United States, to run for President," but then you screwed it up by continuing, "one of the most bone crushing, sacrificing things any husband or wife can do to their family." I contend running for President these days is an ego trip for the individual and their family, nothing more. If you want to talk about "the most bone crushing, sacrificing things any husband or wife can do to their family," I say you need to speak to the families of our military. That is truly a profession of sacrifice, especially in today's world.

President Obama opened the door for the inclusion of his children in any political argument.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m9XXS0u2Zhs

Greg
Mocking gun violence proposals is SICK!

Renee @PurrpleCatMama 2m
Vermont Deer more protected than US children: VTers only allowed 6 bullets in a gun. - @abcnews

The post you linked mocks the very same issue. A hunting season for children is really S-I-C-K!!!!

because it wouldn't be able to fit a flat screen TV and the TV would be would be about this big and you would have to hold the wire and the position you would hold the wire you wouldn't be able to see the TV

That's a pain in the buns
Yeah, Yeah, Yeah

It's not complicated
Distractions and made up crisis are better

Brought to you by King Obama

The strange thing is that every time I see that commercial I want to shoot my TV.
But I have gun control.

That's because you can't do two things at once

https://i3.ytimg.com/vi/F0FL1AzCAJ8/mqdefault.jpg

Get a clue! This unconstitutional nonsense will go nowhere! The House will block any gun bills, and the courts will shoot down any unconstitutional "executive orders", not to mention that the attempts to pass gun bills will result in the loss of Democratic seats in the next election, and then the inevitable impeachment proceedings for Obama's Unconstitutional Executive Orders. Y'all are going to regret this war on our guns! It's funny that the Democrats didn't learn their lesson after they passed the first AWB in 1994, and lost control of Congress as a result. This ain't Europe, and you don't mess with our gun rights here. If you can't handle living in a free country, then LEAVE!

The Bill of Rights is untouchable. Anyone who attempts to rewrite it or eliminate it had better be ready for war.

morningmist, a leading cause of preventable nausea in the Patch.

Name one thing stated today that will make any child safer in school. Assault rifle ban? At the distances involved in the recent shootings, I could kill just as many people just as quickly with my handguns. Expanded registration? The weapons used in all of the recent shootings were registered. 10 round clip limit? This is probably the stupidest of the lot. It takes two seconds to change clips.

This was just a feel good dog and pony show. Put politics aside and demand real reforms that will actually work.

Angel, you points are quite valid in regards to recent shootings...and although it may be a political charade, are the points laid out by the president really going to hurt anyone? if you go point by point, it's hard to argue that they are bad for anyone except the person trying to buy a gun without a comprehensive (or sometimes any at all) background check. Most logical people agree it's the crazies that kill people, not the guns.

Yes Satori, his proposals are going to hurt people, by leaving them inadequately armed for self-defense. In recent years, the criminal element has been learning the advantage of strength in numbers and using it. A semi-auto with standard capacity 30-round mag is a force multiplier that enables people to defend themselves when outnumbered, and nobody has a right to take that away from us. Why do you think the police carry AR15s and high capacity pistols? They are the best defensive choice for them and for ordinary citizens.

do some people really think it's a bad idea to put highly trained armed security in schools? key words "highly trained" We're not talking about the shlep you see at your local Blockbuster video.

Read about his School safety plan here:

According to guidelines released by the White House in advance of Obama's speech Wednesday, schools that want to have armed guards will be supported in that pursuit, but schools won't be pushed to staff them. The plan calls for the creation of 1,000 new "school resource officers," which the White House describes as "specially trained police officers that work in schools," and mental health professionals to "help prevent school crime and student-on-student violence." ...............

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/16/obama-on-guns-schools_n_2487509.html

BTW--Lets have the NRA dues pay these school officers.

Dunno morninmist, you have a lot of free time, are you paying your fair share? ;)

I have no objection to cops in schools. We have DARE officers now, expand that program and take care of two issues with one dollar.
The way I read it: The ban on assault rifles will not affect those currently being manufactured, only future versions of them. So the guy with 4 AK's and 40 thirty round magazines has nothing to worry about. In fact, he just doubled the value of his investment and can sell the magazines for a small fortune.
I do like the idea of background checks on ALL gun sales, I hope those back alley deals with gangbangers buying weapons will prevent the criminals from buying guns.
I feel so much safer already..

Considering that there's only 1000 of them, it doesn't seem that they will able to be in every school--perhaps that is why the NRA is upset about it. That works out to only 1 'school resource officer' per 100 schools...

Yeah, those numbers don't add up. I wonder where the "1000" number came from. Seems like it should be replaced with "all"

CD: We have DARE officers in my school district, but they cover more than one school. Let the local municipalities figure out how to put more of them in the schools. In those schools where trouble is an everyday thing, why not put a police substation in that school? In Milwaukee alone there are many Police substations, they could easily be placed in the schools and sell off the old buildings.
Let's be serious about the issue: Banning magazine size in the future will not save anyone. There are millions of large capacity mags out there, and no doubt there will be a way to get more. Now if you are a criminal and can not buy a large capacity magazine, there is always a way to make your own- or pay someone with skills to do so.
Obama is performing a dog and pony show.

I like the idea of cops in schools, but what good are officers that have to cover more than one school? Yes, the DARE officers can provide added security when they are in the school, but it requires a full time presence to truly make a difference.

The ban on assault rifles will do nothing--we have had mass shootings while the assault rifle ban was in effect. We have also had mass shootings that didn't involve assault rifles at all.

School security is going to take more than an armed gaurd. I hate to say it, but what other security measures are used at the school of the first children?
The TSA may be a great option.

Lyle - Remember that Obama's team through Holder let guns flow to Mexican cartels, which resulted in the deaths of both American and Mexican citizens, and without the knowledge of the Mexican government.

So far as I know, no one, NRA included, is wishing harm on any children, they are making the point that it should be equal protection.

That's the way I see it as well, Lyle. If Obama is going to surround himself with children to promote his gun control plans, it seems fair to ask the question why armed guards are OK for his daughters' school, but not OK for other schools...

@Erik Helgestad & CowDung....Every President since JFK has had armed protection for their families because they are at serious risk. For the NRA to make this a straw man argument is despicable. They are just trying to distract people from the real issue of their promoting unlimited firearms sales.

I don't deny that the president's family should have protection. The NRA ad is suggesting that every child deserves to be kept safe in their schools as well. I don't believe it to be despicable at all.

I'm not sure how calling for armed guards in every school will promote 'unlimited firearms sales'. I think that your perception of the messenger is influencing your opinion. Are you against Obama's plan for the 'school resource officers' that Obama is calling for? It sounds similar to what the NRA is asking for with their ad...

@CowDung....The NRA will profit from an increase in any program that promotes the sale of firearms. As far as armed guards in school, I am against it. I want to harden all schools and keep the firearms out.

Lyle, you really are clueless. The NRA doesn't get a lot of funding from the gun manufacturers. They get most of it from the 4.5 millions members, and they are in existence for US. Oh, and the correct phrase for you would have been "could NOT care less about you". Saying that they 'could care less" implies that they do care. Typical libtard...not too bright!

Lyle, why are you against armed guards in schools? Why is it OK to provide armed guards for banks and airports, but not for our children? You lefties are so morally bankrupt that it's sickening. That is the same type of warped logic that protests the death penalty for murderers, but supports abortion for innocent unborn children. You people are truly evil!

@Thomas Jefferson....Sorry, but the NRA does get large contributions and advertising income from firearms manufacturers. Their funding changed quite some time ago and now membership dues are the lowest source of income. Recent articles have broken down their income sources and expenditures, including who is paying for their lobbying efforts. It's not about 2nd amendment rights but firearms sales and power.

I don't understand why you are resorting to ad hominem attacks when someone doesn't agree with you or your belief system.

@Lyle

Liberals use children as props all the fcking time. Where is your outrage at that?!

Typical weak white-guilt sickening liberal.

Lyle, of course they get some money from the manufacturers, but the majority is from private donations and dues. We have over 4.5 million members and growing every day.

Why am I resorting to "ad hominem" attacks, as you put it? Because you are attacking my Constitutional rights by supporting these gun bans, and I took an oath to defend the Constitution from people like you! If you don't want to own a gun, that's your choice. But you have no right to force your choice on others.

@Thomas Jefferson....I am not attacking your right to own guns nor am I asking for the elimination or change of the 2nd amendment. However, reasonable firearms regulation and control is not unconstitutional, as per the U.S. Supreme Court. The use of ad hominem attacks is a sign of someone who is unable to cogently argue a position or point.

You are not the only one who has taken an oath to defend the constitution! No one will be taking your firearms away as long as you are stable and responsible.

Lyle: banning semi-auto rifles and mags over ten rounds is not "reasonable" nor constitutional. The Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to own guns that are "in common use" and "of the type suitable for militia use". The semi-auto rifles (such as AR15s) and their standard 30-round mags fit both of those descriptions (the AR is the most common rifle in the country). So as usual, you are wrong, and any new federal AWB is going to be shot down in court. Not only that, but when they rule it unconstitutional, y'all are going to lose the state laws that have banned them as well. So this anti-gun push is really going to backfire on you and your lefty buddies!

Ben, I think most people agree that a politician's family should not be scrutinized. I believe that Bristol Palin's ex-boyfriend did most of the talking about her. Sarah Palin traveled a lot with her family and put them repeatedly in the public eye. It was a bit unusual, and other GOP candidates' families did not receive the same attention because frankly, they weren't put out for viewing the way the Palin family was. Who is responsible for that? I think everyone can agree, after she resigned her position as Alaskan governor after only two years on the job, that she has other priorities at this time in her life.

Governor Walker, like all politicians, has to deal with angry and/or weird constituents. It stinks but that's part of celebrity life. He certainly shouldn't be singled out as the only politician who has had to deal with this issue. The governor of Michigan, for example, has had protesters to deal with as well, such as this one last year: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k1htY4qn0YE

At least Wisconsin doesn't have "Emergency Managers" with which to contend.

Ben, you contradict yourself in your own comment. Children should be left out, but you won't give "two rips" about "Barry's" kids because specific GOP children were "targeted". Ridiculous. Keep the children out of it. Period. It is despicable behavior to target them in any way.

Ah yes, the umbrage of the loony liberals when anyone says anything about Our Dear Leader, Baraka Hussein Abu oumama and his off spring. But, they are silent when they themselves attack GWB's daughters, Sarah Palin's children, etc etc....you liberals are scum.

There is a HUGE difference in directly attacking the offspring of an individual (whether it be their character, the way they look, etc), as opposed to using their treatment as an example of their parents outright hypocrisy.

This ad is simply pointing out to the uninformed masses that the "Elites", the most staunch proponents of gun bans, are the first ones to put their children under protection by ARMED security. Whether Obama's children are at this school, or not, there are at least 11 armed security personnel present (then add the SS agents to the mix). This school is not specifically for the children of politicians, it is for the children of the rich, elitist class in the DC area.

This push for gun bans and advanced regulation will do nothing to quell the problem of gun violence, it is simply more feelgood legislation for (as Charles Krauthammer coined), "the appearance of motion". There are thousands of laws on the books which make these recent tragedies illegal, MURDER being #1, but those didn't even make the deviants bat an eyelash.

Additional regulation has failed miserably in the past, but history doesn't seem to be this country's strong suit.

So guns do protect. Got it!

I agree 100% Bren.
National security could be threatened without protecting the POTUS's kids.
Imagine if a terrorist group kidnapped them and used them as a tool to manipulate the POTUS.
He could be forced into making America a Socialist Country. Redistribution of wealth, cutting defense spending, giving money to foreign countries that we can't afford to give, banning weapons- all to play into the hands of terrorists.
NOONE should be against protecting his family, it is in every American's best interest.

Protecting other children does not put the first children at a greater risk.

Let him pay for it out of his own pocket. No one forced him to run for president. Maybe him and the Mrs could home school the kids. Oh wait, they would only get a sixth grade education then.

The Secret Service began protecting the President of the United States and families in 1901 after the assassination of William McKinley. There's no sensible reason to stop now.

Bren: I don't think anyone is seriously disputing the need to protect the first children.
As Americans, it is in our best interest to do so.

Leave the NRA out of this, not all owners of weapons join the NRA. In fact I would guess most owners are not members.
The better question is are you willing to fund armed support for schools?
Banning assault weapons is not enough, limiting magazines is not enough.
Seriously is ten children killed acceptable? Then why the limit of ten rounds per magazine? The only solution is fortifying and armed guards (and not some hillbilly with a little training).

No Randy, we just ditch a useless social studies teacher.

Randy:

I seem to recall that the NRA called upon their membership to stand as armed guards for schools. Not sure if that counts the same as funding, but it accomplishes a similar goal...

We pour tons of money into schools for stuff like asbestos and mold abatement, when most times that would be best left alone. We build overblown additions to schools. We do regular, unnecessary upgrades because parents are goaded into thinking their kid is going to be a failure in life without a state of the art cafeteria, for instance. We upgrade athletic fields. And we push all this stuff through via repeated referendums until they pass.

Money is never an issue when someone can be convinced that not spending it leaves kids vulnerable to some sort of illness or at risk for being shortchanged in the leg-up on life department. We've got an actual (actually several) examples of kids dying at school, and this we can't afford.

Because it is stupidity and plays into the NRA shilling for their gun maker patrons that the solution is more guns.

Imagine what good it does to have one gun to patrol a 40,000 sq ft school. To have the kind of protection that the any president's kids have your would have to have dozens of guards roaming the halls.

That argument by the NRA just makes everyone dumber just listening to it.

Keith:

The types of threats that need to be addressed would be someone entering through an unsecured door, or forcing their way in through a secured entrance. Cameras and alarmed doors monitored by an armed guard can provide a decent level of security. Nobody is looking for a full staff of armed escorts present in every hallway and classroom in America.

@Bob McBride...I agree with your assessment. That is precisely why I support hardening the schools. It's a one time expensive fix, but probably the most effective solution.

It can be done, Lyle. Just like any other upgrade. The problem is people with a limited, two-dimensional, black and white way of viewing things - like Keith. Focusing on fortifying the target is as important, if not more important, than attempting to regulate such attacks out of existence. But if you admit that the NRA isn't wrong in its focus, even if you don't agree with the methods it promotes, it inhibits to a degree your ability to label a whole segment of society as mouth-breathing, knuckle-dragging Neanderthals and blame them for everything. And without that, the Keiths of the world really have nothing.

@Bob McBride....The fundamental difference that I have with the NRA is the means for hardening the potential targets. They want to arm teachers and staff or place armed security in every school; whereas, I want to make the school structure itself hardened to prevent the entry of perpetrators of violence. I much prefer passive means and I think it is safer and cheaper in the long run.

I understand and I agree with you on that. But the NRA also seems to be the only party actively focusing on the fortifying the potential target. Virtually no one else is. The president's largely ambiguous "resource officers" seem to be nothing more than a begrudging nod to some sort of need to harden the target and appears to be something he considers discretionary.

I think in most communities, the physical hardening of the facility combined with a rapid response plan on the part of law enforcement could provide an enormous improvement over what exists currently. It may be advisable, in some communities to have an armed, in-house response team, similar to the types of in-house medical response teams many organizations have. These aren't people who roam the halls with guns. Rather, they would be trained to be the initial responders until the outside responders could arrive. There are a lot of viable options worth considering.

@Bob McBride...We seem to be on the same page on the primary solution and as it turns out it is a community solution.

But the President IS SPECIAL.
He is even above being part of Obama Care...

The Victoria Jackson Show
‎"MR. PRESIDENT, WILL YOU AND YOUR FAMILY GIVE UP YOUR CURRENT HEALTH CARE PROGRAM AND JOIN THE NEW 'UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE PROGRAM' THAT THE REST OF US WILL BE ON ????"
THERE WAS A STONEY SILENCE AS OBAMA IGNORED THE QUESTION AND CHOSE NOT TO ANSWER IT !!!
IN ADDITION, A NUMBER OF SENATORS WERE ASKED THE SAME QUESTION AND THEIR RESPONSE WAS, "WE WILL THINK ABOUT IT."
AND THEY DID. IT WAS ANNOUNCED TODAY ON THE NEWS THAT THE "KENNEDY HEALTH CARE BILL" WAS WRITTEN INTO THE NEW HEALTH CARE REFORM INITIATIVE ENSURING THAT CONGRESS WILL BE 100% EXEMPT !
SO, THIS GREAT NEW HEALTH CARE PLAN THAT IS GOOD FOR YOU AND ME... IS NOT GOOD ENOUGH FOR OBAMA, HIS FAMILY OR CONGRESS...??

I don't see where the ad crossed the 'off limits' line. The ad wasn't attacking Obama's kids, nor was it critical of anything they are doing.

The only issue might be the use of them as political props, but it seems that there is precedent to use them in that way...

No, it certainly isn't. It's a shame for our country that the fringe has grabbed the GOP microphone, we could use solid conservative, humanitarian, principled leadership in Congress right now.

wait wha_?
Did someone spike my coffee this morning?

I think Obama's being bashed mostly because of the other gun controls he's pushing. It has been stated several times that the armed guards in schools is the only one of his dictates that will make any difference. Even that one is being criticized because it doesn't seem to cover very many schools...

As the SC says--we-the citizens have a right to regulate guns also.

The second amendment doesn't say that.
FYI: A well regulated militia does not mean regulations, as Federal regulations did not exist at that time.
Apparently Obama feels medical privacy laws are not applicable now that he has socialized medicine.
NY can publish a list of legal gun owners, but they can't publish a list of nut cases...well, at least not until Obama gets done shredding the US Constitution.

Craig - As you must not know, the Constitution is legally and finally interpreted only by the U.S. Supreme Court, not the President, Congress, the NRA nor you.
The U.S. Supreme Court leaves open reasonable regulation of guns.

And if you understood the use of pronouns and how they apply to the second, you would not be so wrapped up in a battle where you are unarmed.

Craig - Only on the Internet could a 20 yr. foundry worker like you pose as an expert on someone's pronoun usage, even though your criticism is incoherent.
Stick to your expertise, whatever that could possibly be.

Dirk: 20 years in a foundry afforded me the ability to get an education and open my own business after I finished with said education. Your insinuation that foundry workers are ignorant is self defeating, as I have schooled you more than several times.
But you go ahead and feel good about yourself, no one else will do that for you.

By the way Dirk, are you a maker or a TAKER?

Craig - You never answered my inquiry as to what was wrong with my pronouns. You model yourself as some kind of foundry Eric Hoffer, but come off as Joe five-pack.

Okay I guess you are a taker if you will not answer even the most simplistic question.

There are several other questions you have ignored in hopes they just go away.

I am not the type to ignore anything, so I will answer your question: "Craig - You never answered my inquiry as to what was wrong with my pronouns"

Look back at the thread and show me where you asked me that.

I can also tell you have a problem with reading comprehension, as I mentioned the use of pronouns in the context of the Constitution and Amendments.

School is over for the day, you may go out and play now.

Obama will calm the masses by giving away free sh-t. This is how he won reelection.
This is not unlike ancient Rome, where there were free bath houses just to please the stupid.
The mentality of, "as long as I get my quest card, I am not complaining" only works for so long.

@Mitchell...You are so wrong on so many levels. If you were right about socialism, why are the nations of Europe all communist or Israel?

@Craig....It wasn't free baths, but it was "bread and games" that was used to keep the mobs under control.

You keep bringing up DARE and it is and has been a total failure. That is why so many school districts have dropped the program.

@Lyle: It also included hot baths with state of the art heating. Floors, walls and water were heated, while the smoke from the fires were channeled away from the bath house users. It was the giant hot tub for the poor, just to keep them content.
DARE has not been a total failure. Coupled with proper parenting and it serves as a useful reinforcement, SOME districts it may fail in, but that is more of a role model issue than effectiveness of the DARE program.
Funny that you would not support throwing more money at the DARE program just because it doesn't raise a child alone.
I will continue to stand by my statement: Expand the program and get double results from the same dollar: a larger DARE program AND an Armed guard in the school.

@Lyle: "Bread and games" made me chuckle; reminds me of the Quest Cards Obama doles out to the masses to keep them quiet.
:-P

http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/roman_baths.htm

@Craig....No one is denying the benefit of the baths. However, Anything that was done to benefit the mobs was done to maintain the political structure, including bread and games. The only difference now is what is given to whom for what. The poor get Quest Cards, Medicaid, etc and the rich get tax breaks and loopholes. Which is more destructive?

@Lyle: "The poor get Quest Cards, Medicaid, etc and the rich get tax breaks and loopholes. Which is more destructive?"
The short answer is both, or neither...depending on how big the surplus, is or isn't.

When we are borrowing 40% of every dollar spent, I think the masses have to fend a little for themselves. Grannie and Gramps have paid into Social Security their entire working life, that money is held in "trust" (well, it is supposed to be). So asking Grannie and Pops to get along with less is immoral, unethical, and illegal. (due to the trust)
Asking the less fortunate to stop eating is immoral and unethical, but it is neither if we ask those who can work, to actually work.
Giving tax breaks and loopholes to Corporations is necessary in the global economy we have now. Even more necessary given the Corporate tax rates of other Countries in contrast to our own. Of course we could raise the Corporate rates, and watch more jobs go overseas- which I doubt anyone wants to see happen.

Regarding the Bath Houses, the poor were unable to afford such luxuries in their homes. Getting this as an entitlement/ benefit was also a way to calm the masses.

Nice. Wish we had a FF like this around here.

@Mitchell-BINGO!!!! You hit the nail right square on the head!!

@Mitchell...It is past the time for registration of firearms. You need to title and register a vehicle to legally operate it on public streets and they haven't come to confiscate your car yet. What makes you think they would confiscate your firearms? This myth has been around since the "red scare" of the 1950s promoted by the John Birch Society. Let's keep it real.

@Lyle-Tell that to the people of Germany, or Russia to name a few. Driving a car is NOT A RIGHT!! No comparison there Lyle. Stop with your progressive BS

Lyle:

Our country was born out of armed rebellion against the government--the precedent has been set. That option needs to be kept open...

@Patriot....You certainly don't know your history. Review German and Russian History and you'll find you have it wrong. Hitler never eliminated private ownership of firearms from German citizens, he took citizenship away from selected groups. It was the Wiemar Republic that attempted to regulate firearms long before the rise of National Socialism. In the Soviet Union there was never wide spread private gun ownership to be confiscated in the first place. Please read your history!

@CowDung....Who is removing the option of an armed rebellion if necessary. However, I don't want to fight an armed rebellion with just small antiquated arms. The government have all the big play things.

@Cowdung - The Black Panthers said exactly the same thing about being able to carry weapons to be able to fight the U.S. government.

Apparently, you have come full circle.

Lyle:

Registration requirements, assault weapon bans, and limited clip/magazine capacities all work to weaken any potential rebellion that may occur. Yes, the government does have the 'big stuff', but it's difficult for a commander in chief to justify using those sorts of things domestically. The military is going to have to stick with the traditional infantry weapons to attempt to put down armed uprisings.

Dirk:

Not sure what your point is. Has anyone around here proposed that the Black Panthers be disarmed?

Cowdung - So you insinuate you want to arm yourself and ultraright wing buddies with assault weapons and battle the United States. And you want respect from normal people. You hurt your own cause, pal. Right wing terrorism is still plain old terrorism.

Dirk. Please define assault weapons.

Dirk:

George Washington and his buddies were probably considered to be terrorists as well. They stood up for their beliefs and made the fateful decision to fight for independence, even though the odds were against him. England was considered a superpower back in those days. While I am not Washington, I do recognize that there may come a time that a forced change of government is necessary in the US. While you may ridicule the idea, history has shown that no fighting force is invincible.

@Patriot....The 2nd amendment right is not a natural born right. It is an agreed to right and not G-d given. It is the difference between inalienable and alienable rights.

@Lyle-Take your liberal agenda some place else. The Constitution, Bill of Rights and Declaration we written as inspired by God our creator and certain inalienable rights to the people of which the 2nd Amendment is one. As is the right to life, liberty and freedom.

@Patriot...I am sorry you are lacking in a basis of knowledge and education. The Constitution and Declaration of Independence came straight out of the Age of Reason and Age of Enlightenment. It was written by men for men and to give it divine origins is just plain foolishness.

@Lyle-Seriously? This Country was and is so great because of that divine guidance. So take your liberal BS someplace else

Lyle Ruble is a moron and a fraud. Google and CCAP proves it all.

@Patriot...I want to see independent evidence of divine guidance and protection. Many in the world see us as the "evil empire" and they have enough evidence to support their claims.

@NRA Member...Get real for a change, old garbage is still garbage. How about uncovering so all of us can check you out.

I am a liberal and paid taxes all my life, you overbloated puff fish.

Yes Roger, this is a little over the top. Only those with the largest incomes (if an oil company is a person) and the smallest pay no taxes. The rest of us foot the bill. That's the American way!

@Koven-Your just another low information voter. Media fed. Just lay down and let them do what they will. So sad

Wow Dave Koven is so full of lies and misinformation, it's hard to know where to start?

Might as well argue with a child.

Random Blog Commenter...I stand corrected regarding the protection for life aspect of my comment. Thank you. As for the rest of my comments, they're good.

c - Please settle down, you are getting scary. Outrage + guns = violence.

Dirk+math=stupidity

Craig - Are you worried that a very low IQ might restrict you from purchasing yet another Bushmaster assault rifle?

Craig is smart enough not to purchase a Bushmaster. It is the worst AR on the market, bottom of the barrel, cheap as hell. Maybe it's more geared towards you Dirk.

Dirk:

What are you going to ban when Outrage + no guns = violence?

@ c.

Is that all you got?--Name-calling and making demands for posters.

...
c
12:03 pm on Thursday, January 17, 2013

@Morninmist

Please, stop posting links, and stop cutting and pasting from other websites. It's all you do. And it shows the depth of your intelligence and ability to think for yourself.

You are a mindless sheep who is programmed by what your read on dailykos et al. Go ahead, post more links to PROVE MY POINT. Idiot.

Sounds similar to what you tend to provide around here Morninmist. At least c calls names himself rather than just reposting twitter feeds that do the name calling...

Actually Dirk, if one's IQ limited the weaponry one could own, the you would have nothing to butter your bread.
Sorry to inform you that you are a single digit, but not to worry- you won't retain this information anyways.

Steve ® - As to the AR!5 being a cheaply made assault rifle, I do agree we should ban cheap guns. We used to be concerned about cheap Saturday night special handguns, but now we fret about cheap military style assault rifles.

What's next, really cheap Chinese QBZ-97A assault rifles flooding the U.S. market?

The Chinese SKS 7.62x39 is old news... They were popular during the last assault weapons ban. By removing the bayonet and making it hold ten rounds internally, it circumvented the ban. You could also buy Chinese surplus ammo, 1200 rounds for $120. The problem there was the rounds were not legal to hunt with because they were full metal jacket- also capable of piercing a bullet proof vest. But it was legal as the law was written. You could also buy stripper clips for quick reloading- at about a buck each they made inserting ten fresh rounds a quick task.
That being said: Tell me if you think bans on weapons are good for your cause or bad?

Craig - I don't have a burning need to buy a gun. You apparently do.
Your intellectual disabilities could therefore be a real problem for you.

Dirk: You are clearly uneducated on the subject matter and as a result are rendered impotent. I enlightened you several times about your incorrect assumptions. The latest post is indicative of your method to deal with your inadequacies; ignore the truth and regurgitate the same old talking points.
Did you eat lead based paint often as a child?

Craig - Funny you mention lead poisoning. Handling all the lead fumes at the foundry for 20 years and all that lead ammo over the years seems to have had a real effect on you. Get tested.

Craig - Was not talking about the SKS (the Chinese have more modern "sporting" assault weapons now), but you make a good point. The definition of an assault weapon needs to be broadened to include all the cheater models.

Dirk: I wasn't a melting man, and the alloy did not include lead.
I can tell you this because I was the metallurgist and knew the composition well.
I don't need testing, but it is clear you need to investigate if you were given paint as a substitute for formula or breast milk.
I do give you credit for one thing:
If bullshit was music, you'd be a brass band.

Dirk. I said the Bushmaster is a POS. The AR15 is vague description of style and look. When you know nothing it is better not to respond and skip to the next comment you think you are better suited to input useless text to.

Good article, I prefer to leave in a free country. I also noticed that there was no mention that the US violent crime rate is 1/3 what the violent crime rate is in Australia. We have more shootings and many are criminal on criminal, they have higher crime... which do you prefer?

So move to Australia, Fred!

Why do you guys make these FOX-fed statements when they are so easy to check on the Internet? Australia's homicide rate is 1 per 100,000, ours is 4.8. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate

Mr Schmitz-They let you out again? Lets compare violent crimes shall we? Do you have those statistics? Since they took away their guns violent crimes have tripled just as they did in the UK.

How easy is it to check really, Keith? The claim was 'violent crime rate', not 'homicide rate'.

Lay off Keif, its late in the afternoon and his morning buzz of $5.99 vodka from Walgreens is wearing off.

I call dibs on them

They say "Praise the Lord and pass another 30 round clip!"

Amen.

Greg - What woud Jesus say about assault weapons and huge ammo clips? Let me rephrase that, what does Jesus tell you about these?

Then Jesus asked them, "When I sent you without purse, bag or sandals, did you lack anything?" "Nothing," they answered. He said to them, "But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one. It is written: `And he was numbered with the transgressors' ; and I tell you that this must be fulfilled in me. Yes, what is written about me is reaching its fulfillment." The disciples said, "See, Lord, here are two swords." "That is enough," he replied. (Luke 22:35-38, NIV)

Thanks Dirky, We are going to declare our gun club a place of worship, mass is going to be a blast as we genuflect with our prayer sticks.

NRAMember - Nobody can check on Obama's background? The right wing fringe seems to know everything about him. Just ask them.

No there is actually a lot unknown and a lot ignored my your celebrity media.

@MITCHELL....You represent pure ignorance. No one is coming to take your firearms. However don't forget what happened to Leonidas, he died only gaining a moral victory and it was others who finally defeated the Persians. If you want a meaningless death, that is your choice. It appears you see yourself as some sort of romantic hero, could be the delusions of an ego maniac also.

Lyle- Your President should be impeached. He makes Richard Nixon look like the patron saint of honesty. The NRA is on target in their ad. no pun intended.

@Brian Dey....He's your president also as Walker is my governor. What high crime or misdemeanor has he committed? What do you remember about Nixon anyway, what were you; 8 or 9 when he resigned?

If the gov can have full auto so should the public. We need to stay lock step with this dictator before the likes of Lyle are named King. Good thing there is what we call bump fire. Keep that in mind. K bye.

Lyle- Lyle- Nixon was the first of 5 presidents that I got to shake hands with at the age of 9 at the Rivergate Hotel, New Orleans August of 1973. So yes, I was 9. But as you may have notice, I read and love history. If shook his hand as a child, you can bet I read the history of the man.

And no, this man is not my President. I have no respect for a man who tramples on the Constitution. None, zip, nada. You can't say the same about Walker.

@Brain Dey....For someone who claims to love history, you sure get a lot of it wrong. With your feelings about Obama, what can I say except: "Change the things you cannot accept, accept the things you cannot change, and may you have the wisdom to know the difference".

Mitchell - I like the liberty jewel of walking down the street without delusional people like you packing heat. We rational folks can hope the new mental health rules for gun purchases will get you disarmed.

@Dirk
It's not concealed carry permit holders you need to worry about, dimwit, its the thug who has a gun illegally.

Jesus what a dumbarse.

@Tom-Yes Mr Lashley they meant firearms similar to our armed forces. So you could not be so wrong. Again the second Amendment is for protection against all enemies foriegn or domestic and personal protection. A well regulate militia. Again it is a semi auto weapon with some fancy furniture nothing more.
Not a weapon for the theatre of war.

Obama needs dead kids to advance his agenda.

@Steve....Really tacky and stupid.

Yeah Steve. Tacky. Actually he needs living kids...

http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2013/01/17/watch-four-kids-who-want-president-obama-do-something-about-gun-violence

Looks like he needs about 30 dead ones and then the rest living. But certainly he is using dead kids to advance his left wing gun propaganda agenda. And if more die tomorrow, he will use their deaths to keep pounding his "gun control"

Amen. Proves the crazy left again to be just crazy, and tyrannical. First unions now weapons what will the likes of Lyle and Bren and Brian and Dirk and Randy and misty (this may be a computer bot) like to take over tomorrow?

KKM:

Obama has come up with nothing that would help curtail gun violence either. The NRA at least promotes responsible gun ownership and gun safety education.

We need to come up with a logical approach to addressing violence in general. The emotion based calls for more gun regulations is just acting to distract from coming up with a real solution to the problem of violence in our society.

Not far enough.