In test of influence, NRA gets personal in anti-Obama ad

Comments (17)
spoc69 wrote:

Absolutely shameless aren’t they.

Jan 16, 2013 11:49am EST  --  Report as abuse
arttie wrote:

I USED to belong to the NRA. They’re nothing more than a Gun Owners Union. Raking in the bucks and protecting(?) our right to be a ‘Well armed militia. We don’t really need them around to protect a right granted by the Constitution. Whackos and crazies will always have guns to kill innocent people. They don’t need the NRA to protect their rights. The President is a high profile target and so is his family, so it’s fitting that his kids have special protection. I think a simpler approach is in order. Rather than having more guns on a campus how about we put up higher fences and control the school traffic (cars) in a way that limits approaching a school directly. Small shuttles to ferry the kids to the school interior. Using levels of security to gain entrance to the school would work. Just my thoughts.

Jan 16, 2013 12:50pm EST  --  Report as abuse

The NRA’s argument in this case (assuming that’s what they’re doing and not publicly threatening the First Family) is total BS. We don’t issue scalpels, bone saws and anesthetic to laypersons and allow them to practice surgery, nor do the airlines pick passengers at random to fly their airplanes. Firearms, in modern society, are professional tools Let’s get the amateurs and “just pretenders” out of the way and let the soldiers do the soldiering and the police do the policing. Who knows, maybe that will help the latter group put the third class of gun-wielding “professionals” (criminals) out of business.

Jan 16, 2013 1:00pm EST  --  Report as abuse

The NRA’s argument in this case (assuming that’s what they’re doing and not publicly threatening the First Family) is total BS. We don’t issue scalpels, bone saws and anesthetic to laypersons and allow them to practice surgery, nor do the airlines pick passengers at random to fly their airplanes. Firearms, in modern society, are professional tools Let’s get the amateurs and “just pretenders” out of the way and let the soldiers do the soldiering and the police do the policing. Who knows, maybe that will help the latter group put the third class of gun-wielding “professionals” (criminals) out of business.

Jan 16, 2013 1:00pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Concernedcitz wrote:

The NRA is dead wrong and we the American people will no longer allow the sale or resale of any assault type weapons or magazines inthis ocuntry. If the NRA doesn like it, we can also make all the gun owners renew their license each year for a fee just like we have to on our vehicles. In fact that should be a great tax revenue to ensure their fire arms are licensed and the receipient registered. Just like our cars – you don’t hear people screaming the government is out to get you ot take your cars because you have to register your license and pay a fee each year now do you? NRA your concerns are invalid and unreational – no one is buying you extremist posiitons – only nut jobs.

Jan 16, 2013 1:06pm EST  --  Report as abuse
AlkalineState wrote:

The NRA asks: “Then why is he skeptical about putting armed security in our schools when his kids are protected by armed guards at their schools?”

So the NRA wants to do like the Secret Service everywhere now? The NRA knows the Secret Service confiscates weapons at-will, right? Try bringing a gun to the next Presidential debate and giving the secret service guards your special talk about your second amendment rights. See if they’re moved by your words :)

Either the NRA is really this stupid, or they’re just good at faking it.

Jan 16, 2013 4:30pm EST  --  Report as abuse
AlkalineState wrote:

Is the NRA asking for an expansion of the Secret Service? Do they know that the secret service confiscates guns on the spot when those guns are deemed a threat? The NRA’s argument here is as silly as saying, “If regular people don’t want to get shot in public, the government should buy them an armored car. THE PRESIDENT HAS ONE.”

Either the NRA is really this simple, or they’re just good at faking it.

Jan 16, 2013 6:16pm EST  --  Report as abuse
TheNewWorld wrote:

I agree with the NRA. The President is stating that his children deserve armed protection, yours do not. Typical elitist thinking. Oh, and demanding that the ad be removed is a violation of the First Ammendment, not like the Bill of Rights matters to these people.

Jan 16, 2013 10:33pm EST  --  Report as abuse
TheNewWorld wrote:

@Concernedcitz

There is nothing in the Bill of Rights guaranteeing a right to own or drive cars. Certainly not one that says said right shall not be infringed. You are the one with the extremist position.

Jan 16, 2013 10:35pm EST  --  Report as abuse
jaroca wrote:

What’s the matter Reuters? Was my comment too close to the truth? Not up to your standards? I stated nothing libelous or profane. You know how to reach me…..please explain.

Jan 16, 2013 11:00pm EST  --  Report as abuse
jaroca wrote:

ummm……last I knew the automobile wasn’t yet invented when the Bill was written, pick-ups, either.

Jan 16, 2013 11:10pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Wizardling wrote:

Gosh, I wonder why the US president’s children need secret service protection, and ordinary kids don’t? Gee… that’s a real head-scratcher. Too tough for me to figure out! :-D

Logic. Reason. Reality. These things are foreign to the NRA.

Jan 17, 2013 1:50am EST  --  Report as abuse
jaroca wrote:

We’ll try this again Reuters………………

about what I have come to expect from a greedy organizational hierarchy, they only want your money and the power it can buy them …….shamelessly bullying and playing to the lowest common denominator of the ignorant masses that support this kind of divisiveness and fear mongering.

NRA = No Real Accountability

This is ‘in your face’ lobbying and intimidation at its’ best playing upon imaginary fears and mass hysteria. No one is safe and everyone is a potential target, especially if you speak out or think for yourself.

We don’t want your damned guns…..we want each and every one of you responsible for every weapon and piece of ammunition you buy.

Jan 17, 2013 1:59am EST  --  Report as abuse
txguy2112 wrote:

Jaroca

I am responsible for every weapon and every round of ammunition I buy as are the vast majority of gun owners. You seem to think that just because we want to own weapons (a right guaranteed by the Constitution that so many want to use as toilet paper) then we are somehow criminals. Unlike you, we are not trying to take away your right to not own a weapon.

Jan 17, 2013 7:23am EST  --  Report as abuse
jaroca wrote:

well txguy

I’d like your weapons to be treated as our vehicles. Full annual registration. It won’t stop whackos but there will at least be accountability for units manufactured.

It would be nice to see a national referendum on types of weaponry allowed by private citizens. This seems to be the main issue, what are termed assault weapons. Put it up to a vote of the people as to type available.

Let’s put the question of assault weapons and high capacity magazines up to a national ballot and abide by majority rule once and for all.

I personally don’t know why a civilian would need automatic of even semi automatic weapons for target shooting or hunting.

Those weapons are designed for maximum efficiency at killing humans, nothing more.

For the record, I own a shotgun, pistol and a rifle, not that it matters. I am in a rural area and small game hunting and target shooting with neighbors is a pastime. The fact I am on file as the owner of these does not bother me. I don’t feel intimidated by background checks and registration.

As far as treating the constitution like toilet paper, as you say, I think it’s time that you guys and gals quit sounding like a bunch mass hysterics. I said we don’t want your guns…..with the exception of the “assault” type. Convince me why those are needed by civilians. Even your law enforcement agencies at the local levels don’t support the type and kind of firepower that they face in daily exchanges throughout the country.

Jan 17, 2013 1:08pm EST  --  Report as abuse
txguy2112 wrote:

Let’s try this again seeing as Reuters is apparently not posting all items:

First off there is no such thing as an “assault weapon” the two words put together can mean anything I use to commit an assault be it a rock, a stick, a pen, a baseball bad, your hands or your feet. Aer you saying that we should ban all of those too. The problem with your referendum is that the Constitution uses the phrase Shall Not Be Infringed so any referendum you could properly use is to repeal the full Ammendment (good luck trying that). Just because you do not want these weapons does not mean they should be illegal. Remember there are people who think yout shotgun, pistol, and rifle should be illegal too. You seem to be ok with gun confiscation so long as it is not the guns YOU want. Once they start saying what types of weapons we are allowed to have or not have where do they stop? The law in New York makes the majority repeating weapons (revolvers, lever action, and semi automatics) illegal due to the magazine capacity. Examples would be the LeMat revolver from the Civil War, it holds 10 shots or the 1860 Henry rifle that holds 16 rounds

Jan 18, 2013 7:04am EST  --  Report as abuse
CaptnCrunch wrote:

The White House coaching first graders to write “please protect us from evil guns” letters and then surrounding the President with them while he promises to protect them from evil guns is perfectly fine, but the NRA mentioning that those same evil guns are protecting the President’s children is beyond the pale?

The NRA is the only cohesive national voice for gun owners, and on the big hitter scale of money influencing politicians, they barely make the top 50. Follow the money, who is influencing who?

http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/list.php

Oh wait, I’m trying to use reason and logic to argue against blind emotion, how silly of me.

Jan 18, 2013 8:08am EST  --  Report as abuse
This discussion is now closed. We welcome comments on our articles for a limited period after their publication.