jump to last post 1-21 of 21 discussions (206 posts)

NRA hits Obama over ‘hypocrisy’ of armed guards for daughters

  1. Stacie L profile image88
    Stacie Lposted 3 years ago

    By Olivier Knox, Yahoo! News | The Ticket
    In a sign of how brutal, emotional and deeply personal the coming battle over gun violence is likely to be, the National Rifle Association on Tuesday accused President Barack Obama of hypocrisy for having the Secret Service protect his daughters even as he opposes the NRA's call for armed guards in schools.

    The Web video, first obtained by The Blaze, opens with a narrator asking, “Are the president’s kids more important than yours? Then why is he skeptical about putting armed security in our schools when his kids are protected by armed guards at their school?”
    http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/nra- … itics.html
    It does appear hypocritical and I'm not sure what the answer is. This world is violent and we do need weapons

    1. Don W profile image84
      Don Wposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      The NRA releasing a shooting video game after (yes after) it's press conference for Sandy Hook. Anyone with a gun fetish care to comment on that particular piece of hypocrisy? No, didn't think so.

      http://edition.cnn.com/2013/01/15/tech/ … index.html

    2. rhamson profile image77
      rhamsonposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      The idea that schools need armed guards to protect our children is a natural progression instigated by the one sided thinking that is a part of our country. With the polarization of the people in this country only radical ideas seem to be promulgated. If no rules are to be administered than all bets are off as to gain any grasp on who should be allowed to aquire weapons and the current circumstances shall continue.
      Should Obamas children have any more considerstion than others when it comes to who could harm them. In one sided thinking I guess you could make the argument that they are the same as any other children and should recieve the same protection under the law. But the fact is that they are not the same as any other children merely on the fact that they are the Presidents Children and are suseptible to a much higher threat than any other children for national securities sake. It is a stupid argument and another perpetrated by his enemies just to collapse any of the Presidents domains.
      The pathetic truth is that there is no understanding of what the presence of armed guards will do on the young impressional minds that will be made to witness this armed guard reality in their school. Should the kids grow up to be afraid or made to think a gun is the answer to their fears?

  2. 0
    JaxsonRaineposted 3 years ago

    Not only the Secret Service, but the school he sends his kids to has a dozen armed guards in addition to that. I can't remember who, but some other gun-control politicians send their kids there too.

    Heck, you even get politicians who say citizens shouldn't be allowed to carry concealed, when they personally have a license to do so.

  3. psycheskinner profile image79
    psycheskinnerposted 3 years ago

    You seem to be mistaking support for gun ownership limitations with a desire to ban guns.  I see no hypocrisy at all as Obama has never suggested that military, police and secret service should not have guns. Not has he suggested that members of the public should not have handguns (unless identified as criminal or dangerously insane).

    1. 62
      whoisitposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      The hypocrisy is he doesn't want armed guards at your kids school but his kids attend a school that has armed guards. That is hypocrisy.

      1. psycheskinner profile image79
        psycheskinnerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        When has he ever said schools can't have armed guards?  They can and do.

        I think all that is being shown here is that people don't know what Obama's position actually is.

        1. 62
          whoisitposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Some schools do, Bill Clinton suggested that schools have armed policeman in them and enacted just that very thing while he was President. Barrack Obama de-funded that program! Obama has said that he is skeptical about having guards at schools just not skeptical enough to remove them from his own children's school.

          Do you need more examples of this Presidents hypocrisy? There are many.

          1. psycheskinner profile image79
            psycheskinnerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Let's start with this one.  It doesn't exist.

            Schools control their own budgets, they can and do have armed guards where they see the need.

            The idea of federally funded police in every school crashed because it would cost a fortune and many schools didn't want it--not for gun control reasons.  Ergo, no hypocrisy.

            1. 62
              whoisitposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Yes hypocrisy, I don't expect you to ever admit it. Obama's goal is to remove firearms from citizens denying their constitutional rights. Every tyrant does it.



                  Clinton also unveiled the $60-million fifth round of funding for “COPS in School,” a Justice Department program that helps pay the costs of placing police officers in schools to help make them safer for students and teachers. The money will be used to provide 452 officers in schools in more than 220 communities.

                  “Already, it has placed 2,200 officers in more than 1,000 communities across our nation, where they are heightening school safety as well as coaching sports and acting as mentors and mediators for kids in need,” Clinton said.

              1. psycheskinner profile image79
                psycheskinnerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                I have already addressed those points.  It fell over on the 60 mill a year price tag, not gun control.

                With the support of small government Republicans, I might add.

                1. 62
                  whoisitposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  You miss the point entirely, on purpose? I would not support anything this Justice department might do. That is not the point however. You don't get that Obama doesn't want armed guards at your school but is just fine with the fact they are at his kids school. Hypocrisy...

              2. LucidDreams profile image83
                LucidDreamsposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Those tyrants, always trying to take away our guns and rule the world! Can you say FANTASY LAND! Talk about being fearful!!!!

            2. Ralph Deeds profile image68
              Ralph Deedsposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Good points. Also, aside from the cost of providing police at schools, it would be poor policy because the police would inevitably become involved in student disciplinary matters best handled by teachers and school administrators, either on their own initiative or because teachers would call on them to deal with issues they should be handling themselves. [I'm  not suggesting that police should never become involved in school situations, but merely that LaPierre's proposal that all schools have police or armed guards is a dumb idea.]

              There is no hypocrisy on Obama's part. He has received more threats on his life than any recent president. My understanding is that Secret Service protection for presidents and their families is a policy which didn't start with President Obama.

              1. 62
                whoisitposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Police officers are not going to be involved in discipline? As I have said before my area of the country has police stationed in the schools and there has never been a school shooting. You are not interested in keeping schools safe you are only interested in taking guns.

                1. Ralph Deeds profile image68
                  Ralph Deedsposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Well, it's too bad you have to have police stationed in your schools. Just curious, where do you live? I don't suggest that no schools need armed guards but rather that not ALL schools need guards or that most schools don't need armed guards. My jackass state rep proposed a bill that public school teachers be encouraged to arm themselves in the class rooms. I think the bill was vetoed by the governor or didn't pass.

              2. habee profile image92
                habeeposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                We've had armed policemen in our schools for years, and it has worked well. Sorry, Ralph, but I don't think the Obama kids are any more important than my grandkids. How many presidents' kids have been shot or killed at school? How many kids of regular citizens have suffered that fate?

                Also, Ralph, according to Politico, Obama has received about the same number of death threats that W.Bush and Clinton received - and that's from the Secret Service director:

                http://www.politico.com/blogs/glennthru … inton.html

                1. 62
                  whoisitposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Many worthwhile suggestions have been brought to peoples attention to keep kids safe, they are not given credence because the goal is more important. There is no sense in denying that democrats/liberals are only interested in getting our guns.

                2. tammybarnette profile image60
                  tammybarnetteposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Habee were the preceding Presidents children not protected in the the same manner? We as people are also as important as all of the folks in Washington, including Obama, but we are not followed around by SS....how is this different, I do not understand, I see no hypocrisy here?

                  1. 62
                    whoisitposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    What possible difference could it make what protection other Presidents had? Obama's children go to a school that has armed guards, he doesn't want my children to have armed guards in their school.

                3. Don W profile image84
                  Don Wposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  I have to agree with Ralph. Putting armed guards in all schools is a dumb idea. It has been shown not to work on a least one occasion of a mass shooting. And why should kids have to learn to read while people with guns stand over them? That's not exactly conducive to learning.

                  As for the N.R.A, using the President's kids in an attack ad is crossing the line in my opinion. Criticise the President all you want, but leave the man's kids out of it. He has not said he is against the idea of guards in schools anyway, and he has not said he wants to band all firearms, so it's a blatant misrepresentation.

                  And don't for a minute think the NRA cares about your grandkids. It cares about the profits of it's biggest corporate sponsors in the firearms industry. And did you know that Asa Hutchinson, who was on the NRA 'task force' that suggested guards in schools also happens to work for a company called Securitas, which offers private security training services. Hmm, wonder what the connection could possibly be there?

                  Personally I'd rather trust the President with the safety of kids than those shysters who run the NRA. The difference in response to the tragedy says it all. The President shed tears for the fallen children. The NRA just bitched about the government. Oh what compassion. That speaks volumes in my book.

                  1. habee profile image92
                    habeeposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    I can speak only for the school where I taught. Our SROs don't "stand over" the kids. The teenagers actually like the officers' being there. The cops are friendly and supportive to the students, and I think that helps improve the image that many teens have of cops.

                    As for cost, I have no idea. I do know, however, that I live in a fairly rural South GA county, and we aren't rich. We have two cops on duty full time at our high school. We also have cops present at high school sporting events. Our school cops are great at handling emergencies that aren't related to guns. They've broken up fights, performed CPR on students and teachers, and rushed folks to the emergency room. One actually had to take me to the ER several years ago.

                    It's funny - when I was a high school student here, many of my fellow students brought their hunting rifles and shotguns to school with them - and left them in the parking lot. Practically every pickup had a gun rack that held at least one gun. We didn't have school shootings then. I'm not saying there's a correlation. I'm just commenting on how our society has devolved. We are failing people somewhere.

                4. Ralph Deeds profile image68
                  Ralph Deedsposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Habee,

                  "According to some reports, President George W. Bush received about 3,000 threats a year, while his successor Barack Obama received about four times that many.[12] This figure has been disputed by Secret Service Director Mark Sullivan, who says that Obama receives about as many threats as the previous two Presidents.[13] Wikipedia

                  "President Barack Obama Is the Most Threatened President In History." (Daily Kos 11-25 2012)
                  Secret Service Says The Number Of Threats Against The President Is Overwhelming:

                  "President Barack Obama is the target of more than 30 potential death threats a day and is being protected by an increasingly over-stretched Secret Service. He is the most threatened President in history.

                  "Since the President took office in 2008, the rate of threats against the president has increased 400% cent. Some threats to the President have been publicized, including the well known alleged plot by white supremacists in Tennessee to rob a gun store, shoot 88 black people, decapitate another 14 and then assassinate the first black president in American history.

                  "Most however, are kept under wraps because the Secret Service fears that revealing details of them would only increase the number of copycat attempts. Daily Kos 11-25-12

                  [I can't explain the difference between the above and Politico's information. Perhaps the above are more recent???]

                  President Obama's daughters are in a private school in D.C. I don't know for sure, but I suspect that the guards at their school ( Sidwell Friends where Chelsea Clinton went) are from the Secret Service and are there because they are children of the president . It's patently unfair to accuse the President of hypocrisy on this.

                  I won't try to argue with you about the need police at your school. Maybe they are needed. In my suburban neighborhood nobody to my knowledge has proposed police protection although we are adjacent to Detroit which has a high homicide rate. And most times time the police and local prosecutors get involved in a statutory rape case (boy 18, girlfriend 16 or 17), a minor drug possession case or a allegation of teacher misconduct, sensible people wish they had not become involved. Bottom line, the matter of guards should be left up to the people in the school district who are paying the bills.

                  Perhaps there are police at your schools because of all the gun nuts in your community.???

                  1. 62
                    whoisitposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Perhaps there are police at those schools to keep the gun nuts away, and it seems to be working.  banning guns doesn't though.

        2. habee profile image92
          habeeposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          He didn't say schools can't have armed guards. He said he was "skeptical" about it.

          http://news.yahoo.com/obama-skeptical-n … 38269.html

          1. 62
            whoisitposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Never said he said that.

            1. habee profile image92
              habeeposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              I was responding to Psyche. I don't think he/she realized that Obama was at least sort of against the NRA proposal.

              1. 62
                whoisitposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Oh, he said it and he is against it. He is a hypocrite but getting an Obama supporter to admit he is is impossible.

    2. 0
      JaxsonRaineposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      He ought to be pushing for armed guards in every school, don't you think?

      Obama just said he wants to ban the manufacture of all 'military-style' weapons.

  4. habee profile image92
    habeeposted 3 years ago

    Armed guards are used to protect politicians, celebrities, banks, stores, gold, and jewelry. What do we have that's more  important than our children?

    1. 62
      whoisitposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      An agenda.

      1. habee profile image92
        habeeposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Sad, but true.

        1. 62
          whoisitposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Yes it is sad, but what is sadder is 50+million people who are blind to what is happening. Or, they just agree with the dismantling of our constitution.

          1. tammybarnette profile image60
            tammybarnetteposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            You are blinded by your one sided view, if you do not see that the NRA is yet another big business supported and protected by the Republican agenda...I'm afraid it swings both ways my friend.

      2. Don W profile image84
        Don Wposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Doesn't matter. Further gun control is happening. Get over it.

        "Without waiting for Congress, the president also acted on his own authority, signing nearly two-dozen executive actions designed to increase the enforcement of existing gun laws and improve the flow of information among federal agencies in order to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and others who shouldn't have them."

        http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/17/us/po … l&_r=0

  5. Stacie L profile image88
    Stacie Lposted 3 years ago

    Maybe metal detectors are appropriate instead of armed guards. NYC schools have had this for some time.

    1. 62
      whoisitposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Why would metal detectors be more appropriate than police officers?

      1. Mark Knowles profile image61
        Mark Knowlesposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Interesting that you favor increased taxation to pay for armed police officers at every school in the US. How much will that cost?

        1. 62
          whoisitposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          I pay police officers in my area to be stationed in schools now, I don't have a problem paying for something worthwhile. Why are you concerned about the cost? Kids not too important to you?

          1. Mark Knowles profile image61
            Mark Knowlesposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Interesting - Where do you live that all the schools have permanent police officers stationed there?

            You would not rather remove the threat in the first place? Or are children not important enough to you?

            1. 62
              whoisitposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              What is the threat? Should we shoot all people? You seem very dangerous to me. Why don't you care about children?

              1. Mark Knowles profile image61
                Mark Knowlesposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                I am dangerous because I don't think children should be threatened by a gun? Odd that you think this is not caring about children. Why do you want them threatened by a gun?

                1. 62
                  whoisitposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  You said we should remove the threat, a gun is no threat, the human holding and operating it is the threat. How should we remove the human? Shoot them? lock them away? Not very loving towards your fellow man.

                  1. Mark Knowles profile image61
                    Mark Knowlesposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    You hate children so much you want them threatened by guns? Humans without guns are much less of a threat than humans with guns - I agree.

                    Why do you hate children so much?

          2. tammybarnette profile image60
            tammybarnetteposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Is underpriviledged children's health insurance important to you? Or do you just draw the line at keeping them covered by police officers? Does this not scream police state to you? How much power should local police have?

            1. 62
              whoisitposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Not really interested in keeping children safe are you? Police are in schools here, there has never been a school shooting, the local police already have jurisdiction at the schools. No it doesn't scream police state it screams common sense.

              1. tammybarnette profile image60
                tammybarnetteposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                There are no police in schools here and have never been a schhol shooting here either. I have 4 grown children and a 4 yr old, of course, I want children protected...I support guards in schools myself, I DO NOT support the idea that it be a Federal Mandate, I am sorry if you do not see the difference.

                1. 62
                  whoisitposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  I didn't say I needed a federal mandate you threw that in. None of that has anything to do with this thread. Obama does not support guards in schools but sends his kids to a school with guards! That makes him a hypocrite, that is what this thread is about.

                  1. tammybarnette profile image60
                    tammybarnetteposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Since not of that is true, he is not a hypocrit...

          3. Ralph Deeds profile image68
            Ralph Deedsposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Schools are the smallest part of the unnecessary gun death problem.

    2. Ralph Deeds profile image68
      Ralph Deedsposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      The situation and need for different precautions in schools varies widely from community to community. One wouldn't have expected a massacre at Newtown, Connecticut, school.

      Ditto for the shooting at the Royal Oak, Michigan, Post Office in 1993 when a recently fired postman killed 5 fellow postal workers. The problem is not confined to schools and will not be solved, even in schools, by armed guards. Much more will be required to reduce the number of these horrible incidents. Focusing solely on schools would be a big mistake. The problem is unnecessary gun deaths in all circumstances.

      "Going postal"  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Going_postal

  6. 62
    whoisitposted 3 years ago

    As a matter of fact what you are proposing screams police state.

  7. SpanStar profile image60
    SpanStarposted 3 years ago

    What a childish positioned to take by the NRA regarding the protection of the president family-How is his actions any different from any of the presidents that have come into the office.

    The fact that he is WORKING FOR THE PEOPLE should mean that he is a target for those who are disgruntled with the government or dissatisfied with the decisions that he is making based upon what the people want as proven by the NRA.

    Frankly I think if the NRA expect anyone to take them seriously I would strongly advised they grow up.

    1. 62
      whoisitposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Pointing out the hypocrisy isn't childish at all. The NRA is taken a lot more seriously than Obama.

      1. SpanStar profile image60
        SpanStarposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        whoisit,

        It is most certainly is childish-one has to be blind not to see that. Where was this hypocrisy when all the other presidents were in office??

        What is the purpose for singling out this particular president?

        1. 62
          whoisitposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Because this president has stated he is against having guards at schools while his children attend school where they have armed guards. No other President is serving, thank you for your time.

      2. tammybarnette profile image60
        tammybarnetteposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        lol By whom? You, I suppose lol

        1. 62
          whoisitposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          By politicians in Congress, have you been paying attention?

          1. tammybarnette profile image60
            tammybarnetteposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Yes, and I am so supportive of those politicians in Congress who are lobbyied by the NRA lol

            1. 62
              whoisitposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Doesn't really matter if you are or you are not the politicians are in control.

              1. tammybarnette profile image60
                tammybarnetteposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Are they? Seems the big money from the NRA and other lobbyist are in control.

      3. NotPC profile image60
        NotPCposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        The NRA is definitely not taken seriously at all...

        1. 62
          whoisitposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Except by the politicians running this country.

  8. 62
    whoisitposted 3 years ago

    It isn't true?

    Exits to bang head on wall.

  9. Mark Ewbie profile image82
    Mark Ewbieposted 3 years ago

    http://s4.hubimg.com/u/7581519_f248.jpg

    1. 62
      whoisitposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Classic, fortunately in the real world the police at the school could deter the gunman from coming at all.

      1. Mark Knowles profile image61
        Mark Knowlesposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        In the real world - there should be no gun man - I agree.

        1. 62
          whoisitposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          In the real world there will always be a gunman, why would you want the children unprotected?

          1. Mark Knowles profile image61
            Mark Knowlesposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Good idea - take away the guns and there will be no gun men.

            Why do you hate children and life so much that you want guns for all? Are you  a Satanist or something?

            1. 62
              whoisitposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Bad idea remember Germany? Didn't really work all that well for the Jews. Russia? same result.

              Why would you want that to happen to poor innocent kids?

              1. Mark Knowles profile image61
                Mark Knowlesposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                You also hate Jews as well as children? How odd.

                Why do you hate so much?

                1. 62
                  whoisitposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  You seem to be reading somebody else's post.

                  Exactly why do you not want children protected?

                  1. Mark Knowles profile image61
                    Mark Knowlesposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    I do. I want the gun men disarmed. Odd that you prefer to arm them.

                    Why do you hate children so much?

      2. Don W profile image84
        Don Wposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Really? You mean like how a fort full of soldiers and their weapons deterred a shooter from killing 13 people and injuring 29 others at Fort Hood in 2009? Is that the sort of deterrent you mean?

        1. 62
          whoisitposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Your comparing a terrorist to a school shooter? A trained marksman to a school shooter. You realize that on a army base not everybody is carrying an M-16? No I don't guess you were not aware of that.

          1. 0
            JaxsonRaineposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            At Ft. Hood, all the soldiers, minus the MPs, are disarmed except during training.

            Ft. Hood, ironically, was a gun-free zone.

            1. Don W profile image84
              Don Wposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              So the presence of armed MPs, and armed civilian DoD police did not prevent 13 people getting shot dead, and 29 people being injured. Is that the sort of deterrent whoisit is talking about?

              1. 62
                whoisitposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                How do you know there was an armed presence there at all? Just creating it as you go or do you have some proof an MP was there?

                1. 0
                  JaxsonRaineposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  I think he means, an armed presence on base. Having armed MPs 5 minutes away isn't much different than having armed police 5 minutes away. You're still unarmed, hoping the good guys show up before you die, unable to defend yourself.

                  1. 62
                    whoisitposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Maybe, but I would have thought that he would have understood that a military base is much like a small city with the police minutes away. Guess not.

                2. Don W profile image84
                  Don Wposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Personnel providing base security will always be armed. In addition the base had armed Department of the Army Civilian Police personnel who are armed with M-9 pistols. Oh and it was populated by soldiers, i.e. people with high levels of physical fitness who are professional trained to kill with their bare hands should they need to. Yet a gunman still shot 13 people dead and injured 29 others. Is that the sort of deterrent you hope to achieve with armed guards in schools?

                  1. 62
                    whoisitposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Asked and answered, got anything else?

                  2. 0
                    JaxsonRaineposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Yeah, armed... somewhere on base. How many bullets can you fire in 5 minutes before the cops show up.

                    And yes, those soldiers were trained. At least 3 of them rushed him unarmed, they were extremely brave and some of them died trying, so don't crap on their sacrifice.

                    The gunman was able to kill so many because the armed deterrents weren't right there. It's just like a school shooting, cops can show up in 5 minutes, but that can be way too late.

              2. 0
                JaxsonRaineposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Mark Todd was able to stop the shooter as soon as he arrived. Just like in a school, someone can do a lot of damage among unarmed people before the police show up.

                Ft. Hood doesn't make the point you seem to think it makes. The fact that people can do so much damage in just a few minutes shows the futility of depending on responders to save you.

                1. Don W profile image84
                  Don Wposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Ford Hood shows that the presence of armed guards is not a deterrent to mass shooters.

                  1. 0
                    JaxsonRaineposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    You're trying to compare armed guards at a school to a police force on a large army base. That's nowhere near the same thing. That's more like comparing Ft. Hood to an entire town. Just because there are armed police *somewhere* in the town doesn't mean they can respond quickly enough.

                    Having armed guards at the school is completely different. You really can't understand that?

              3. Ralph Deeds profile image68
                Ralph Deedsposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                How about a moat filled with alligators or piranhas?

                1. 62
                  whoisitposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  How about the police that are already stationed in the schools where there has never been an incident? Can't wrap your mind around that? Why are there never shootings at gun shows,shooting ranges or any area where there are armed citizens?

                  1. movingout profile image60
                    movingoutposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Why have shootings occurred at armed colleges and yes even armed schools? The minorty fighting this ridiculous battle of baloney, need to just move on and realize laws are needed to protected the majority of the people. You know, the ones who don't see a need for guns!

                  2. Ralph Deeds profile image68
                    Ralph Deedsposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Nope. I want good teachers and competent administrators. [As I've said previously there may be certain circumstances in inner city schools where police are justified, but certainly not in all or even most schools. There are better ways to spend the tax payers' money.

  10. movingout profile image60
    movingoutposted 3 years ago

    Dismantle our Constitution? Times have changed, I serious doubt our founding fathers ever expected this country in such turmoil and gridlock. Not to mention the fear factor driving people to stockpile firearms! Kudos for the POTUS. Finally a President with a pair, to take the bull by the horns, and represent the "majority of the People". Not just a few! He will go down in history as one of the best POTUS ever!

    1. 62
      whoisitposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Doubt it.

    2. 0
      JaxsonRaineposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Yeah, they probably never imagined a country in turmoil, boiling over with thoughts of revolution, divided as to how to address the ever-encroaching government. And they definitely never could have imagined the need to protect ones' rights with guns.

      Oh wait... that's actually what they went through, my bad.

      1. 62
        whoisitposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        That's humor!

      2. 62
        whoisitposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        They just don't really have any good arguments do they?

    3. tammybarnette profile image60
      tammybarnetteposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      +1

    4. 0
      SassySue1963posted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Majority of the people? No I don't think so. You have to actually break down the numbers.
      An overwhelming majority support some form of gun measures (not control). 92% support universal background checks. 56% support a ban on assault weapons. 82% however, support measures aimed at mental health issues in regards to weapons and access. 75% support the right for Americans to own a gun and keep one in their home. Only 51% of the country actually came out in support of stricter gun control laws according to Rasmussen (much more objective than a CNN poll). There is a vast difference between measures to limit access by criminals and those with a history of mental health issues and actual gun control laws aimed at law abiding citizens.

  11. movingout profile image60
    movingoutposted 3 years ago

    You mean those thoughts of revolution being spoken about by the far right? Radio hosts on the extreme right wanting better rating and more money by instilling fear? The loud minority? The POTUS is doing just what the majority of the people want. Trouble is, the extreme religeous right and the teapartiers are losing and just don't want to admit it. If the continue on this path, I'll venture to say the Republican Party will fall by the wayside

    1. 62
      whoisitposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Doubt it.

      1. tammybarnette profile image60
        tammybarnetteposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/ … story.html

        "More than half of Americans — 52 percent in the poll — say the shooting at an elementary school in Newtown, Conn., has made them more supportive of gun control; just 5 percent say they are now less apt to back tighter restrictions. Most also are at least somewhat worried about a mass shooting in their own community, with concern jumping to 65 percent among those with school-age children at home."

        1. 0
          SassySue1963posted 3 years ago in reply to this

          They back some measures of gun control. It's hard to really argue against universal background checks and waiting periods. Only those who sell at gun shows and privately are going to balk at that because it means more work for them and a longer wait for their money. The assault ban did nothing when it was enacted before, and it will do nothing this time either. Still, as long as it is narrowly defined and not vague so it can be interpreted to include non-assault weapons, I have no issue with that either. So far, though I've yet to see something that has a complete list of what the President is requesting, the ONLY issue I have is with the "National Gun Register". Sorry, but one need only check some history to know the only use for such a thing is to go collect the guns from the citizenry when they decide it's time to do so. It does absolutely nothing to deter shootings so why include it? This is going to be tough for sure. The Senate isn't solidly behind these proposals by a long shot and the House has already said it would not even take up gun control until the Senate passes something.

          1. tammybarnette profile image60
            tammybarnetteposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            I can understand where your coming from, but by knowing the information of those legally owning weapons it seems the process of catching a perp could be expedited this way...is this the intent?

            1. 0
              SassySue1963posted 3 years ago in reply to this

              I don't own any guns, so I can't say this is entirely correct, however, it is my understanding that we already have such a thing on a local level sort of. It isn't a registry exactly. However, if you are a suspect, and your name is entered, then it will say whether or not you have registered a weapon etc. If your gun is stolen, and you have the serial number (as you would have) then that can be punched in as well, in case it turns up etc. There is only one reason to instill a National Registry of every single gun owned by every citizen IMO. It has never led to anything good if one takes a look at history and I just don't see how it helps anything, which is why I am suspicious of the motives behind even wanting one.

              1. tammybarnette profile image60
                tammybarnetteposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                I see your point, this is such scary times. I was in a conversation yesterday and realized that many of these ideas would have appauled me as a young adult, my youthful self keeps asking me if my decisions are based in fear or fact....I worry about my children and their safety, but I do not want to squash their freedoms either...It's a quandry for me...

                1. 0
                  SassySue1963posted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  The difference is that in one instance, they have to have a crime committed. You are either a suspect in a crime, or they have recovered a gun with a serial number that was used in a crime and want to see who owned it. They can do that now in those cases. Otherwise, from what I have seen, and again, I've yet to see a comprehensive list of what is being requested, I can't find too much problem with it.

                  1. tammybarnette profile image60
                    tammybarnetteposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    I liked what I was hearing from the POTUS, I was referring mainly to the conversations I was having in this thread, which Obama did touch on, the armed guards in schools and cameras in schools, I can see all of these as great ways to protect the children but my youthful self screams 1984...I don't know Sassy, I don't like anything that goes to far right or left, I pray this will be the perfect mixed bag.

    2. 0
      JaxsonRaineposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Why don't you stick to your argument? Or did you forget what the point was?

  12. 0
    JaxsonRaineposted 3 years ago

    Don, let's try this for honesty.

    Do you think you would be just as safe with having 10 police who could get to your house in 5 minutes, as you would be having 10 police actually on the premises?

    1. Ralph Deeds profile image68
      Ralph Deedsposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      That would depend on the police. The rate of criminality is higher in the law enforcement community than in the population at large.

    2. Don W profile image84
      Don Wposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      whoisit suggested armed guards would put people off committing a mass shooting. In reality armed guards (on the premises or not) only act as a deterrent to sensible, reasonable people. They don't work as a deterrent on mentally ill people with a death wish and homicidal tendencies. The shooters at Columbine did not care that there were armed guards in the building.

      And these people know which weapons will allow them to kill a class full of kids within seconds, before guards have time to respond. So unless an armed guard can be posted in every single room, every single minute of the day, there is no deterrent.

      The combination of a mentally ill person with a death wish, and weapons that can kill really quickly is the problem. Armed guards do nothing to solve it. The Tucson shooter shot 19 people in 1 minute. His last message on MySpace was "goodbye friends". He wanted to kill, and he wanted to die. Armed guards would have been no more than an inconvenience, not a deterrent.

      1. 62
        whoisitposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Seems to have worked very well where I live, but don't worry, kids can take care of themselves.

        1. Don W profile image84
          Don Wposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          "Seems to have worked very well where I live, but don't worry, kids can take care of themselves."

          Armed guards do not deter mentally ill people with a death wish, and taking care of kids does not mean having a shoot out while they hide under their tables. It means doing everything possible to prevent that situation from ever happening in the first place. If armed guards are needed to protect our children, then we have failed our children. And if we remain silent, then we are complicit in that failure. Mentally ill people having access to weapons that would allow them to kill an entire classroom quicker than any human could respond. That is the issue. Armed guards do not address that. They just lull us into a false sense of security, maybe make us feel a bit better. We know that a bad guy can take lives with certain guns, quicker than any good guy can save them. We need to face up to that reality and deal with it properly, as challenging, and as messy as that is. Not bury our heads in the sand and pretend giving school kids bodyguards is the answer. That's cowardly and dishonest, and plain not good enough. Our kids deserve better.

          1. 62
            whoisitposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            But you aren't willing to do everything possible to keep them safe, that's why we are having this discussion.

            1. Don W profile image84
              Don Wposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              "But you aren't willing to do everything possible to keep them safe, that's why we are having this discussion."

              Being willing to do everything possible to keep kids safe means trying things you may not think are the best ideas. The President has allocated federal funding for schools that choose to have armed guards, despite being personally sceptical about the idea. I'm sceptical about armed guards too, but let's see what happens. You may be sceptical about certain measures the President has taken. Are you willing to try them and see what happens, despite your reservations? Is the NRA willing to see if the President's measures help, despite being sceptical about them? Showing willing is a two way street.

              1. 62
                whoisitposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                I can't speak for the NRA, I am not a member nor do I know any members. I am against any measure that limits my constitutional right to own firearms or magazines for firearms. The second amendment has zero limitations on it!

                George Mason asked at the VIRGINIA RATIFICATION CONVENTION

                "I ask, Who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers. But I cannot say who will be the militia of the future day. If that paper on the table gets no alteration, the militia of the future day may not consist of all classes, high and low, and rich and poor; but they may be confined to the lower and middle classes of people, granting exclusion to the higher classes of people.... Under the present government, all ranks of people are subject to militia duty."

                Our Government has not changed!

                1. Ralph Deeds profile image68
                  Ralph Deedsposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  "The second amendment has zero limitations on it!"

                  True, but subsequent interpretations of the 2nd Amendment by the Supreme Court say that reasonable and practical gun sale, purchase and use regulations are permissible, e.g., machine guns have been prohibited for a long time, assault weapons were not permitted for a period of years until the ban expired. As I'm sure you know, gun regulations vary widely from state to state.

                2. Don W profile image84
                  Don Wposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  "I can't speak for the NRA, I am not a member nor do I know any members."

                  You can have an opinion. In my opinion the NRA will never wait to see whether the President's measures work despite their reservations, not because of the constitution, and not because they don't think the measures will work but because those measures threaten the profits of their corporate sponsors in the firearms industry. The NRA is not willing to do everything possible for kids safety. It is only willing to do everything possible to maintain profits for the owners of the firearms manufacturers who sit in its board of directors. As such the hypocrisy in the title of this thread applies mostly to them.

                  "I am against any measure that limits my constitutional right to own firearms or magazines for firearms. The second amendment has zero limitations on it!"

                  I don't think stopping mentally ill people with a death wish from easily obtaining weapons that allow them to kill classrooms full of kids within seconds has anything to do with the second amendment. But if you think it does, then there is a conflict between making our kids safer and the second amendment. The nation needs to deal with that, not hide from it. A problem won't go away just because we pretend it doesn't exist. If it's a choice between the safety of kids and restricting access to weapons, the nation needs to decide which it's going to be. It needs to decide which is more important. Easy access to any type of firearm, or kids safety. I know which one I think is more important.

                  If you think having unrestricted access to all types of firearms is more important, then like the NRA you have no reason to criticise people for not being willing to do everything possible for kids safety. Demonstrate you are willing, and that criticism will have some meaning. But if you are not willing to do everything possible for kids safety, then you have no reason to complain about anyone else, and the hypocrisy in the title applies to you too.

                  1. 0
                    SassySue1963posted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    What measures are you speaking of exactly? There are certain things you can't come back from, and there isn't any viable reason to believe they will work at all because they would not have had any bearing on any mass shooting to date. The assault ban did zero before and it will do zero again. However, I have no issue with a ban on assault weapons, providing it is not vague enough to be "interpreted" to include other types of weapons. I have no issue with universal background checks. Longer waiting periods. These things are basically no issue that I can see. However, the President draws a line in the sand where I'm concerned when he starts talking about a National Registry, listing every single gun owned and by whom. This would have done nothing to prevent anything and history has shown that such a thing is only used to disarm the citizenry when the government in power decides it's time to do so. What are the motives behind even suggesting such a thing? And how is mental health issues being addressed by anything the President has proposed? IMO this is the real issue. Keeping guns out of the hands of criminals and those with a history of mental health issues. Not laws aimed at disarming law abiding citizens. I can be reasonable. I expect the same from the other side however.

  13. SpanStar profile image60
    SpanStarposted 3 years ago

    Ralph Deeds,

    I find your comments relevant when it comes to providing police protection on school grounds.

    I was wondering first of all if the NRA believes this approach is the best are they willing to go into their funds and fund this program?

    Having police security or any sort of security on the grounds is still no guarantee of people safety. We all know during these situations they become chaotic, the wrong information is passed while security is in one building the actual crime is taking place in another building.

    Usually police believe it is their job to maintain the peace and even though they may not be a crime occurring with this attitude I can't help but believe that law enforcement will involve themselves in disciplinary actions on the school grounds because if they can do with in people's homes by being called out when a child is not listening to their parents and they can certainly do it on the school grounds.

    1. 62
      whoisitposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Seems like I read somewhere you live in Austin, Texas?

      Are you aware that the School District has its own Police department?
      http://archive.austinisd.org/schools/police/

      1. SpanStar profile image60
        SpanStarposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        I say good for them, having their own police force yet in still that doesn't change the facts.

        One can be protected by a America's finest agencies which many people consider the Federal Bureau of Investigation is and still can wind up dead. Consider Doctor Martin Luther King Jr.

        1. 62
          whoisitposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          I have considered MLK and rejected it, MLK was killed by a sniper not the same as walking into a classroom and shooting children is it?

          1. SpanStar profile image60
            SpanStarposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            I must admit your comment is a bit shocking-because the issue we' re talking about is protection and essentially just saying that people are protected if the bad guys don't do this or they don't do that so in essence protection is based on what bad guys may or may not do which implies the back guys must play by the rules in order for people to be protected-like I said shocking.

            1. 62
              whoisitposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              I have no idea what you just said.
              Going into a secure school to shoot children is a little more difficult when security is there, you can't understand that? A sniper who shoots from a concealed position far away from the target is more likely to be successful. Frankly I amazed you don't understand that.

              1. SpanStar profile image60
                SpanStarposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                But I do understand that which is to say being in a school or even the president of the United States does not mean you can be protected.

                Perhaps you have forgotten the story with 2 young boys pulling the fire alarm. Forcing the kids out into the schoolyard and triggering door locks so they can't get back into the building and in a sniper position shot teachers and students-with police on the grounds they might eventually have gotten to these 2 kids but the kids deal point protected-those that were killed and injured.

                1. 62
                  whoisitposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  I haven't forgotten but what does that have to do with Police on school campuses? Any school shootings in Austin?

                  1. SpanStar profile image60
                    SpanStarposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    What is the point of saying we can protect people With We Can't?

                  2. Don W profile image84
                    Don Wposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    ". . . fortunately in the real world the police at the school deter the gunman from coming at all."

                    Columbine High School and Virginia Tech both had armed guards. Did they "deter the gunman from coming at all"?

    2. Ralph Deeds profile image68
      Ralph Deedsposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      The N.R.A. supporters tend to be Tea Partiers who aren't big supporters of tax increases. Experience in Mississippi with cops in schools has been very negative according to a recent Justice Department report.

      "In addition to statistics, the report described episodes in which a child was taken home by the police for wearing shoes that violated the dress code, and a school where misbehaving students were handcuffed for infractions as minor as not wearing a belt."

      1. SpanStar profile image60
        SpanStarposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        I agree with you Ralph.

  14. 62
    whoisitposted 3 years ago

    This has been fun, exposing the left always gives me a chuckle.

    1. Ralph Deeds profile image68
      Ralph Deedsposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      You are exposing yourself! Somebody call the police!

  15. LucidDreams profile image83
    LucidDreamsposted 3 years ago

    Just another pathetic attempt by a group of gun lobbyists (THE NRA) to hopefully trick people into following their lead. Many of the sheep will agree though and that's scary. Oh well, atleast some can actually think for themselves and ARE not scared of the BIG BAD NRA media propoganda!

    What a bunch of blow-hards!

  16. Kathryn L Hill profile image84
    Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years ago

    Guns don't kill, pharmaceuticals do.

    1. LucidDreams profile image83
      LucidDreamsposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Yeah, guns don't kill..........what a joke!

      1. Ralph Deeds profile image68
        Ralph Deedsposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Pharmaceuticals may actually kill more people than guns.

  17. Credence2 profile image86
    Credence2posted 3 years ago

    Cmon guys you are not just going to let the rightwingers distort this issue are you?

    The President of the United States by virtue of the office and in view of National Security concerns is entitled to Secret Service protection for him and his immediate family, PERIOD! This goes back at least to Abe Lincoln and Pinkerton, for heavens sakes, don't be taken by the right's vapid arguments!

    To let this inane representative from NRA twist this into a pretzel is insane. Using the President and his family as a point of argument is STUPID to say the least.

    It is a dumb idea to strap six shooter on our educators when one considers where all is this all is ultimately going to lead. All the rightwingers willing to pay the costs for their inate savagery and lack of civility across tightening municipal and state budgets? They and their Dogde City mentality need to be locked in their local insane asylum.

    1. GA Anderson profile image86
      GA Andersonposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Amen brother... the idea of this "logic" is pure political baloney. The NRA should make this guy go stand in a corner. ... and even stooping to discuss it, (beyond calling it out as you just did), is baloney too!

      GA

      1. Ralph Deeds profile image68
        Ralph Deedsposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        What's wrong with biased tirades? This topic is full of biased tirades.

        1. GA Anderson profile image86
          GA Andersonposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          What's that you say? You mean these aren't intelligent and informed opinions I have been studiously following?

          OMG

          GA

    2. PrettyPanther profile image88
      PrettyPantherposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      I agree with you that this has to be one of the stupidest arguments from the right I've ever seen, and that's saying something.

      1. LucidDreams profile image83
        LucidDreamsposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        You think you have seen stupid? They are just getting started.....Desperation and a recent track record of sticking their foots in their mouths could not possibly stop this train. When it comes to common sense and what is best for the people, they seem to live under a rock. I truly wish that the FAR RIGHT could come to terms with reality, but I fear that is just me being way to optimistic.

  18. ahorseback profile image50
    ahorsebackposted 3 years ago

    The people who need to "go stand in the corner" are all right here ! The  simple and sad truth is the eletism of our elected leladers provides a different set tof rules for the children of the president and congress !  Or for anyone with the resourses to provide more for 'them ' than 'you ' or your kids !  Listen, there has been a war against gun owners in America sinse the beginning !  It continues to this day !  And for what .........To  continue the domination of a people by its governing bodies !  That was the very reason for the formation of the declaration of independence in the beginning !  At this point though ,........the left is probably closer to the truth of our  real  direction    ...give up your rights and let big brother take care of us all!.......food stamps ,  entitlements , why defend your own independence if  you can have it all!

    1. LucidDreams profile image83
      LucidDreamsposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      You must spend a lot of time watching Fox News!

      1. BloodRedPen profile image72
        BloodRedPenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Polls show it is the most watched news network. Fair and balanced. News and commentary. If you can't tell the difference between the two that's not their problem. They make it very clear what is news and what is opinion.

        1. LucidDreams profile image83
          LucidDreamsposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          LAUGHABLE!!!!!........Polls on Fox maybe.... Exactly what I thought. It's always easy to see what people watch based on their distorted opinions. Did you know that "Hannity" might be pulled from the air based on horrible ratings.

          The problem is, mis-information!!!!! Fox has that down to a science. Go figure that's where you get informed, what a surprise!

          Read the recent facts!

          http://www.newscorpse.com/ncWP/?cat=6

          http://www.queerty.com/hannity-fox-news … -20130102/

          Sure Fox news may still hold an edge in over all viewing, who knows, the fact is, people who have a head on their shoulders are moving on. Those who grasp at what could have been still believe!

          Besides, FAIR AND BALANCED IS A JOKE!!! Exactly why people are moving away from this channel for dependable news coverage.

          1. BloodRedPen profile image72
            BloodRedPenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Fair and Balanced - Here is a non-biased poll - Fox News is both the most trusted and the least trusted news network
            http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main … -poll.html

            And this doesn't say fox is losing viewers
            http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2013/0 … th/166328/

            1. movingout profile image60
              movingoutposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Your link appears to show fox with the largest audience. Mostly GOP because those folks don't want to hear anything but what Oreilly and Hannity opinions. THe other networks are divided by those who watch all the other networks and formulate their own opinion. If you add those numbers together, fox isn't number  one.

              1. 84
                Education Answerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Mostly GOP, because we're tired of biased, liberal media.  We too deserve a place where our opinions are valid.  Why does Fox news bother liberals so much?  Really, you have CBS, NBC, CNBC, CNN, ABC, and so many other channels.  Why can't we have a channel?  Shall we start talking about how biased CNBC is?  Why aren't you bothered by CNBC's bias?

                1. LucidDreams profile image83
                  LucidDreamsposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Have you ever wondered why you have ONE channel? You can keep it! Fox news always crys about the liberal media and how they are mistreated, yeas, I watch Fox news also, I am not willing to be singular and lacking information that could be useful. Fox news does provide the other side of the coin and I am grateful for that. Do I agree with most of what they say? No, but I am willing to listen and sometimes, yeah. they are right.

                  Just most of the time, they are really out to lunch in my book!

              2. LucidDreams profile image83
                LucidDreamsposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Movingout
                Agreed........
                I know plenty of die hard Republicans and each one of them is glued to Fox news and will not venture to listen to another news programs that may show additional view points. It's easy to believe you are correct when you limit yourself to a singular group of people who think exactly like you do.

                Kind of like arguind with yourself, of course you will never lose.

                Unfortunately those who have defined themselves as JUST a Republican or Democrat can never see the whole truth because they are limited by party affiliation. Kind of like living in a little box where it is comfortable and cozy.

                Those who expand their thoughts and opinions by seeking information are most likely to find truth and awareness, (Learning and growing, not living in a box)

  19. LucidDreams profile image83
    LucidDreamsposted 3 years ago

    Not sure if you noticed, Fox news and others who promote ideals which are far right have not faired so well lately. This is because they are out of touch with what people want and reality in general. This is not the 1700's. We all appreciate the constitution and those who fight for our country. This does not mean that every couple of hundred years or so, things may need to be revised a bit.

    1. 84
      Education Answerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Revised by the same people who can't do anything in Washington?  I'll stick with Jefferson, Madison, Franklin, Adams, and the other geniuses that came up with the best constitution ever.  I'm fairly confident that our current Congress couldn't do better, fairly sure.

      1. LucidDreams profile image83
        LucidDreamsposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Our current congress can't do smack from what I have seen!

  20. taburkett profile image60
    taburkettposted 3 years ago

    http://s2.hubimg.com/u/7604489_f248.jpg

    It is your right to choose.

    1. LucidDreams profile image83
      LucidDreamsposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Another extremist! Just the little pictures gives you an idea of the mentality that Washington has to deal with.

      1. 84
        Education Answerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        What's wrong with being an "extremist" when protecting liberty?

  21. LucidDreams profile image83
    LucidDreamsposted 3 years ago

    The NRA needs to give it a rest!

    The National Rifle Association and its government affairs subsidiary, the Institute for Legislative Action, spent more than $3 million lobbying the federal government on firearms-related legislation in 2012, according to newly released lobbying disclosure forms.

    The nation's largest gun rights group reported $3.01 million in federal lobbying expenses for last year, $2.5 million of which was spent on its own in-house lobbyists, with another $510,000 going to four outside lobbying firms, including Karl Rove's consulting group Crossroads Strategies LLC.

    This money is separate from the nearly $19 million the NRA spent trying to influence the 2012 elections. Lobbying and electoral spending are the chief ways the group promotes its legislative agenda.

    The NRA's lobbyists reported working to influence Congress on a number of different proposed laws, NONE OF WHICH HAS BEEN PASSED SO FAR. The most ambitious bill, the Sportsmen's Act of 2012, would have allowed certain hunters to traverse national park lands, legalized the importation of trophy polar bear heads from Canada and cut funding for whale research. Other bills would have exempted lead bullets from toxic substance regulations and expanded hunting areas

    STAY OUT OF THE POLITICS OF OUR NATION YOU SELF ABSORBED IDIOTS!

 
working