The ever-subtle geniuses at the NRA strike again

The National Rifle Association is not exactly renowned for its subtlety and sense of decorum. It does not persuade; it bullies. It does not discuss; it shouts. And decades of exposure to its own shouting have left it tone-deaf.

The NRA’s newest ad continues in the long tradition.

As the NRA apparently sees it, it is hypocritical and elitist for the president to protect his two daughters against kidnap efforts or physical attack by enemies foreign or domestic unless every other child in America also gets his or her own personal Secret Service detail.

– Jay Bookman

890 comments Add your comment

Dave

January 16th, 2013
9:33 am

I guess its that equal “protection” clause.

stands for decibels

January 16th, 2013
9:34 am

The NRA? F-ck those guys.

Keep Up the Good Fight!

January 16th, 2013
9:43 am

What a idiotic NRA position…. is that redundant?

Joe Hussein Mama

January 16th, 2013
9:45 am

Yanno, I said a week or two ago that the NRA had in its grasp an opportunity to negotiate in good faith and to be a key part of the national conversation on where we’re going to go from here with the private ownership of firearms.

I also said that if the NRA insisted on doubling down and on strong-arming its aims into the forefront of the discussion, it would find itself disinvited from the discussion and the national policy direction determined without its input and opinion.

Guess we know which path the NRA has chosen now.

Keep Up the Good Fight!

January 16th, 2013
9:46 am

I am sure we’ll see the cons outrage over using Obama’s daughters as a political weapon… oh wait.

Patrick

January 16th, 2013
9:46 am

Nice.

Class, nuthin’ but class.

JohnnyReb

January 16th, 2013
9:46 am

It is a good factual ad. It makes the point, that’s why Jay and gun banners don’t like it.

Today’s gun banning announcement with kids in the background demonstrates there is no end to which the Left will not go to get their agenda in place.

A better lesson for the kids would be our history, why the second amendment is not about sport shooting or hunting, and that it was written to specifically prevent actions by the government that will be proposed today.

This is just one more repulsive move by the Left that divides the Nation. The community agitator is doing really welll in that regard.

Oscar

January 16th, 2013
9:47 am

Keep – unfortunately it is. Not for the majority of the members, but for the NRA Board which sets the policy and runs the ads.

Oscar

January 16th, 2013
9:50 am

The second amendment was written so that when the State Militas were called out, the men would own guns they could bring with them to use as directed by the state or federal government. No other reason.

Jackie

January 16th, 2013
9:51 am

One would have a difficult time in determining what actions by our government being proposed requires the use of firearms to reject those actions.

Just seems to be more “hot air” than a cogent, rational statement.

Georgia

January 16th, 2013
9:53 am

….and there IS an audience for that piece by the NRA. It must have persuaded some Americans to donate to the NRA’s cause. Someone had to write that ad knowing it would increase support. Someone had to watch it and then pick up the phone. Probably thousands of folks just like you and me. Never mind ridiculing the NRA’s position. Believe it. It’s real. They are mobilizing support with their own instinctive sense of logic and it’s effective.

Nobody is proposing banning guns...

January 16th, 2013
9:53 am

…yet the ad is spot on, though I do think they overstepped their boundaries comparing Obuma’s kids to “regular” kids…

JamVet

January 16th, 2013
9:53 am

Reb, the idea is stupid beyond belief. No wonder you like it.

And does zippity doo dah to address the murdererS like James Adkisson who hated and killed liberals in a Knoxville Church.

As well as the slaughters in movie theaters and countless other public places.

I DEMAND ARMED GUARDS EVERYWHERE!! ESPECIALLY FOR JOHNNY REB’S FAMILY!!

Erwin's cat

January 16th, 2013
9:54 am

oh the horror….so common folk aren’t allowed to protect their kids from kidnapping and physical attack as well?

Keep Up the Good Fight!

January 16th, 2013
9:54 am

The President’s children are protected by the Secret Service because we have learned too many times that the President and his family are targets by virtue of holding the office of President.

The kids at Sandy Hook were NOT targeted because of their parent’s job.

btw, if this ad is “defensible” by the NRA conned, why has the NRA removed it from their website. They know it goes over the line.

Robert Lee - Cogito ergo zoom

January 16th, 2013
9:56 am

Its amazing that many of you cons will call yourselves Christian. What part of your hate is following the path of Jesus?

Keep Up the Good Fight!

January 16th, 2013
9:56 am

correction. My misunderstanding. The NRA has not taken down the ad.

Joe Hussein Mama

January 16th, 2013
9:56 am

Oscar, that’s pretty much what I’ve been saying in the 2A discussions around here lately. The “militia” of th 2A is the same as the Congressionally-controlled “militia” of Article 1, Section 8, and if any pro-gun folks want to explain how they’re not, I’m all ears.

JohnnyReb

January 16th, 2013
9:57 am

Do any of you pro-banners know of the Third Amendment, why it exists, and how it and the 2nd go hand-in-hand? Here’s a hint.

If you had been living in the Colonies, the British Army invaded and destroyed your property, and raped/kidnapped your wife and daughters, you would be a stern believer of both the 2nd and 3rd.

Clearly, beyond any doubt, Liberals are willing to entrust everything they have, including their families to government. Your naivete is breathtaking, and would be OK if not that you insist taking down everyone else with you.

Aquagirl

January 16th, 2013
9:57 am

I am sure we’ll see the cons outrage over using Obama’s daughters as a political weapon… oh wait.

Annnnnnd there’s JohnnyReb, right on schedule.

Joe Hussein Mama

January 16th, 2013
9:59 am

E. Cat — “oh the horror….so common folk aren’t allowed to protect their kids from kidnapping and physical attack as well?”

Never seen a feline respond so quickly and compliantly to a DOG whistle. :D

barking frog

January 16th, 2013
10:00 am

Unless the US Government proposes to ban all guns the 2nd Amendment
should not enter the conversation about gun control.

JohnnyReb

January 16th, 2013
10:00 am

JamVet – thanks for your concern, but we are covered by the well known such as Savage, Remington, and Springfield.

ByteMe - Got ilk?

January 16th, 2013
10:00 am

What part of your hate is following the path of Jesus?

Someone has to play the part of the violence-crazed Romans in the passion play.

DownInAlbany

January 16th, 2013
10:01 am

I’m not a NRA member, will not become one, but, I think this is a legitimate question. There is no doubt in my mind that his daughters are at a far greater risk than mine. No argument there. I’m sure I have no appreciation for the actual danger that those girls live with. But, I understand that having armed guards is standard operating procedure at this school. They don’t have guards because of the president’s kids. The practice predates their attendance. Is this not the case?

Pew reported yesterday that 64% of Americans and 62% of Democrats favor guards in school. I’m not advocating one way or the other. I admit the NRA has dictated policy for far too long. But, it looks like you are definitely in the minority on this issue. Is the NRA using emotions to drive their agenda? Yep. Is Obama’s supposedly surrounding himself with children today using emotions? Answer’s gotta be Yep, also.

Erwin's cat

January 16th, 2013
10:02 am

Never seen a feline respond so quickly and compliantly to a DOG whistle

touche Joe…same can be said about the faux outrage eh?

ByteMe - Got ilk?

January 16th, 2013
10:02 am

If you had been living in the Colonies, the British Army invaded and destroyed your property, and raped/kidnapped your wife and daughters, you would be a stern believer of both the 2nd and 3rd.

Pretty sure we didn’t have a standing army of a million able-bodied trained fighters at our disposal back then.

Granny Godzilla

January 16th, 2013
10:03 am

I’m with stands @ 9:34.

This ad and LaPierres press conference are both PR nightmares for he NRA
and it couldn’t happen to a more deserving group.

stands for decibels

January 16th, 2013
10:04 am

the British Army invaded and destroyed your property, and raped/kidnapped your wife

Gun porn? I guess it’s 5 o’clock somewhere.

Jerome Horwitz

January 16th, 2013
10:04 am

Reb – We have a method for making changes in our government that the Founding Fathers didn’t – it’s called an election. If the British Parliament had granted our forefathers that right we might be singing God Save the Queen today.

If you’re that worried perhaps a change in scenery is appropriate.

ByteMe - Got ilk?

January 16th, 2013
10:05 am

I’m sure I have no appreciation for the actual danger that those girls live with. But, I understand that having armed guards is standard operating procedure at this school. They don’t have guards because of the president’s kids. The practice predates their attendance. Is this not the case?

The school has not only Obama’s kids, but also the kids of foreign diplomats who are also targets for kidnapping and death.

Keep Up the Good Fight!

January 16th, 2013
10:05 am

EC — oh the horror….so common folk aren’t allowed to protect their kids from kidnapping and physical attack as well?

Gun free zones are meant to protect schools and kids overall.

Do you have an armed guard with your child at all times? If not, then your just blowing nonsense.

Christian Conservative

January 16th, 2013
10:06 am

This is a great ad. I can understand why so called lib elites don’t like it but to bad… Again.. Suck it up….

Greg Allen

January 16th, 2013
10:08 am

If anyone wants clarification as to the purpose of the second amendment, read the Federalist 46 where James Madison, the author of the Bill of Rights explains and defines it’s purpose. To summarize Madison’s words using modern language, he stated that if the a state or many states were to have the need to defend against abuses by the federal government, then an armed people having the means to fight could outnumber and overwhelm a federal army if called upon to organize and defend the state. The intent is clear that the founders believed that the people should possess individual weapons equal to that of individual federal soldiers in order to defend against tyranny. For those that believe we have evolved, or our government has evolved, to a point that we the people have nothing to fear from government, then they are making the same mistake that millions of slaughtered people have made during the history of man kind.
As for the NRA ad, I believe the point is clear and just. Obama’s children attend a school where armed guards protect the children from possible exposure to violent criminals intending to do them harm. It is fair to say that all children deserve the same protections.

Recon 0311 2533

January 16th, 2013
10:08 am

Let’s see what does the loony left hate the most, the NRA, Fox news, conservatives, pro-life advocates or Evangelical Christians? Maybe we can see a vote from the left wing bloggers. Maybe I omitted a group.

barking frog

January 16th, 2013
10:09 am

Byte Me
The school has not only Obama’s kids, but also the kids of foreign diplomats who are also targets for kidnapping and death.
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
and now it seems the children of average americans are also targets of
kidnapping and death….

Erwin's cat

January 16th, 2013
10:10 am

Gun free zones are meant to protect schools and kids overall

wasn’t the movie theater in Aurora CO a gun free zone?

Keep Up the Good Fight!

January 16th, 2013
10:10 am

Poor Del…. hate is your forte.

JohnnyReb

January 16th, 2013
10:10 am

Repeating my favorite bumper sticker of the moment -

You actually think that criminals will obey gun control laws?

You’re a special kind of stupid, aren’t you?

Erwin's cat

January 16th, 2013
10:12 am

Greg Allen – Director: Redundant Dept of Redundancy

barking frog

January 16th, 2013
10:12 am

Recon
. Maybe I omitted a group
………………………………………..
neocon jarheads.

Cherokee

January 16th, 2013
10:13 am

“This is a great ad. I can understand why so called lib elites don’t like it but to bad… Again.. Suck it up….”

….said by someone who has clearly never read the teachings of Jesus Christ, yet claims to be a Christian…

Christian Conservative

January 16th, 2013
10:14 am

Libs really do believe that if we plant “Gun Free Zone” signs in the ground everywhere that all will be rainbows and unicorns….

Robert Lee - Cogito ergo zoom

January 16th, 2013
10:14 am

Hey CC, you guys lost the election. SUCK IT UP!

Oscar

January 16th, 2013
10:15 am

And I always thought the right to bare arms meant you could wear short sleeve shirts if you wanted. Puritians would not let you do that, particularily their women. Would incite the baser instincts in the menfolk and passing indians.

Granny Godzilla

January 16th, 2013
10:15 am

I just can’t imagine the overwhelming depth of fear one must live with everyday to believe that more guns would make us safer.

All fear no faith, what a terrible, terrible way to live.

I posit that gun nuts are actually cowards.

Redneck

January 16th, 2013
10:15 am

We (NRA) are looking to protect all kids and this administrations poor attept to disarm law abiding American’s at a time when we are under attack show his hate for the American people. This add just shows the hypocritical and elitist mentality of the President.

ByteMe - Got ilk?

January 16th, 2013
10:16 am

Jay, can you adjust the video to not auto-start? I’m getting sick of hearing it on every refresh. Thanks!

Christian Conservative

January 16th, 2013
10:16 am

Cherokee:

….said by someone who has clearly never read the teachings of Jesus Christ, yet claims to be a Christian…

Said by someone who has no clue what Christianity is…. What in this ad goes against the teachings of Jesus?

ByteMe - Got ilk?

January 16th, 2013
10:16 am

attept to disarm law abiding American’s at a time when we are under attack

We’re under attack?!?

Or just you?

Joe Hussein Mama

January 16th, 2013
10:17 am

E. Cat — “touche Joe…same can be said about the faux outrage eh?”

Whose outrage do you perceive as faux?

Aquagirl

January 16th, 2013
10:17 am

That’s right JohnnyReb, those invaders are just hankerin’ to rape your wimmenfolk and children. Only a multitude of guns can protect your manly property so you’re not punked by some Redcoat and his rampant…..uh, musket.

Keep Up the Good Fight!

January 16th, 2013
10:17 am

Libs really do believe that if we plant “Gun Free Zone” signs in the ground everywhere that all will be rainbows and unicorns….

Nope. But your comment demonstrates that you are unwilling to have a rational intelligent discussion about these matters. And you wonder why intelligent rational people dismiss and discard your nonsense?

ByteMe - Got ilk?

January 16th, 2013
10:17 am

I posit that gun nuts are actually cowards.

With tiny testicles.

Cherokee

January 16th, 2013
10:18 am

Let’s face it – the ad isn’t designed to influence any decisions – it’’s a tribal thing designed to pump up the people who despise the fact that an uppity Kenyan socialist nazi got re-elected to the Presidency. And based on some of the comments here, it’s working.

Jerome Horwitz

January 16th, 2013
10:18 am

Mr. Allen – If you are that paranoid about our Federal gov’t. perhaps you and Mr. Reb should look into alternative accomodations. I’m sure there’s a freer society out there that would love to have you gentlemen as citiziens. As Mr. Grizzard once said Delta’s ready when you are. And please vote – your government is a reflection of it’s citizens.

As for armed guards in schools – If the locals feel better about it that’s their decision. Frankly, I don’t think this would have helped in CT. The guy had superior firepower and body armour. A guard with a pistol? Just one more dead.

Oscar

January 16th, 2013
10:20 am

Greg = If your reading of Madison is correct, then he was advocating anarchy. Don’t believe that’s what he was saying.

And, his views were his alone. Federalist papers were not law, the Constitution is the law.

Logical Dude

January 16th, 2013
10:21 am

So, if the NRA thinks assault weapons are okay, then is it okay for me to have a bazooka? How about one of those guns they put in the front of the A-10? Can I get one of those? With depleted uranium shells?
Come on! Why not? It is my country-given constitutional right to bear arms. Why should the government decide which arms it allows and doesn’t allow?

(I’ll go ahead and stop there, because I don’t want to go ad absurdium to missiles and nuclear weapons.)

Seriously Folks

January 16th, 2013
10:21 am

Wow. I cannot believe my eyes and ears. So NOW the NRA and conservatives are FOR more spending for public education? I mean, if you think the ad is “spot on” as some of you have mentioned, then put your money where your gun barrel is!!!

But wait…if you want armed guards (aka sworn officers of the GOVERNMENT) wouldn’t that mean it would be easier for the “Obama Socialist Brainwashing” to be FORCED on our kids at gunpoint? THEN there goes the Constitution since all those kids would want Obama’s tyranny to rule forever, and away goes our freedom, and our country….slippery slope guys!

Cherokee

January 16th, 2013
10:21 am

Pretty much everything cc, go spend some time reading the four gospels.

You might learn something about Jesus’ teachings. But I’m guessing He wouldn’t be welcome in your ‘church.’

Christian Conservative

January 16th, 2013
10:23 am

Keep Up the Good Fight!

Nope. But your comment demonstrates that you are unwilling to have a rational intelligent discussion about these matters. And you wonder why intelligent rational people dismiss and discard your nonsense?

Oblama has already made it clear there will be no discussions…. Its his way or the highway… Fortunately for the sane of this country we have this little thing called the Constitution that backs us up…..

moonbat betty

January 16th, 2013
10:23 am

“Jay, can you adjust the video to not auto-start? I’m getting sick of hearing it on every refresh. Thanks!”

Jay is trying to brainwash everyone!!!

Oooooohh nooooooooos!

indigo

January 16th, 2013
10:24 am

I don’t think it’s the President’s decision to have secret service protection for his kids.

I believe it comes with the job.

ITS ALL BUSH"S FAULT

January 16th, 2013
10:25 am

The only thing worse than one deranged idiot with a gun , is two deranged idiots with guns… Fk the NRA….

bookman parrot

January 16th, 2013
10:25 am

jay, you and libs should be totally on board with the ad, as libs love fairness and equalness for all no matter what… so i don’t see your point, unless you are trying to be hypocrite… then you are spot on..
as for what BHO is going to do, i’m going to venture it is going to be unconstitutional, but you and yours won’t care, and the Supreme Court will be stupid and back his majesty the supreme dictator.. the issue i have with libs is they only back the Constitution when it fits their agenda and ideology… otherwise they want to reinterpret… BHO is going to step all over the 2nd amendment … and it won’t fix the real problem and it will not stop criminals and nut jobs from further homicides and massacres … your intentions may be good, but your methods will only hurt rightful and honorable people

Redneck

January 16th, 2013
10:25 am

Granny we are not cowards. We belief that it is our God given right to protect ourselves and our family. I know you think that guns are bad and to even see one will cause harm to you. I also think that you belief that the government can protect you from harm. I don’t. I think it is my responsibility to protect myself and I use weapons as ONE of the tools to do that. To disarm me will not make you any safer or anyone else with the possible exception of criminals.

Seriously Folks

January 16th, 2013
10:26 am

And another thing about that ad’s audio…it is PRESIDENT Obama. NOT Mister. Whatever your politics, beliefs or convictions, the man was elected President. THE OFFICE deserves our respect…you may not like the holder of the office, but for crying out loud, this disrespect for the office is beyond childish!

Christian Conservative

January 16th, 2013
10:26 am

Cherokee:

You sure are a confused lost soul… Perhaps you didn’t take your meds today…

Recon 0311 2533

January 16th, 2013
10:26 am

And you wonder why intelligent rational people dismiss and discard your nonsense?

Says keep up the good freight who comments on what he purports to dismiss and discard. I guess he/she isn’t intelligent or rational.

moonbat betty

January 16th, 2013
10:26 am

Does the NRA really possess as much power as everyone fears here?

Where are they airing this ad?

indigo

January 16th, 2013
10:26 am

JohnnyReb – 9:57

So you think our Govt. is out to get you and only your guns are protecting you?

If the Govt. actually did take your guns, what would they do next?

Mr Right

January 16th, 2013
10:26 am

Thanks for posting this ad Jay, otherwise I would have missed it! Always wondered how certain people have their children protected but are against other people’s children having the same privilege.

Keep Up the Good Fight!

January 16th, 2013
10:27 am

Constitution waving is the new “flag pin” to the conned nuts.

0311/8541/5811/1811/1801

January 16th, 2013
10:28 am

A couple of points Mr. Jay:

1) “As the NRA apparently sees it, it is hypocritical and elitist for the president to protect his two daughters against kidnap efforts or physical attack by enemies foreign or domestic unless every other child in America also gets his or her own personal Secret Service detail.”

No …………. every child should not get a Secret Service detail but they still deserve protection ! I guess you don’t know (or fail to understand) that the school they attend has armed guards EVEN when the girls are off on one of their foreign junkets with Mommy & Daddy. Those kids are still protected even when the “First Kids” are gone! Why? Because elitist liberal Democrats have their kids enrolled there !!!!!

Where are the safest schools in the country right now? Inner city schools with armed guards and magnetometers ! Time for suburban and country schools to catch up.

2) “It does not persuade; it bullies. It does not discuss; it shouts.”

You couldn’t have described “El Jefe” better !

Logical Dude

January 16th, 2013
10:28 am

So, are there people that WANT armed guards in all the schools?

REALLY???????

And then you whine about how this country is going to be a “Police State”?

REALLY????????

Dudes, schools should be safe, but when children get used to seeing cops everywhere, they grow up thinking that there are restrictions on everything. It’s already gotten so bad in some areas that a kid is expelled for bringing a little army man to school because it might have a gun on it.

There are common sense solutions. Armed sentries (cops/guards, whatever) at every school is not a common sense solution. It’s a solution for some schools, sure, but not the right solution everywhere.

/driveby

stands for decibels

January 16th, 2013
10:28 am

Libs really do believe that if we plant “Gun Free Zone” signs in the ground everywhere that all will be rainbows and unicorns….

really? name two.

By the way, Stevie Ray? That’s^^ what you look like, when you post your broad-brush nonsense, as well.

Christian Conservative

January 16th, 2013
10:29 am

Seriously Folks

And another thing about that ad’s audio…it is PRESIDENT Obama. NOT Mister. Whatever your politics, beliefs or convictions, the man was elected President. THE OFFICE deserves our respect…you may not like the holder of the office, but for crying out loud, this disrespect for the office is beyond childish!

The office did deserve our respect… Not anymore.. He’s no better than the average person to me… He stands for progressive anti-Christian beliefs that have no place in my America…..

Mad Max

January 16th, 2013
10:29 am

I wonder if Obama consulted NLRB’s Richard Griffin on his gun control program? Currently under indictment for racketeering and ties to organized crime, Griffin was an Obama recess apointee that required no background check. With his role as a union puppet and ties to the mob, Griffin probably knows more about guns and circumventing background checks than anyone in the Obama administration. And don’t forget, selling black market assault rifles is an area the Obama/Holder regime has a great deal of experience in.

Erwin's cat

January 16th, 2013
10:29 am

JHM – Whose outrage do you perceive as faux?

those on both sides of the issue to be honest

Paul

January 16th, 2013
10:29 am

The NRA continues to separate itself from millions of otherwise-sympathetic mainstream Americans. I’m not surprised they’ve some defenders of these mindnumbingly stupid tactics. The old rule applies here as well: 20 percent of a group will believe anything.

And for those of you who keep regurgitating “this is what the Founding Fathers REALLY meant” – read Jay’s response and questions to you last night at 8:20. Oh, heck, many of you won’t bother being challenged so here it is:

“You write: “As (with) any other constitutionally mandated right, any action which imposes limits or conditions on that right will surely be found unconstitutional.”

Given that stance, surely you support private ownership of fully automatic weapons, flamethrowers and anti-tank weapons, up to and including F-16s for those able to afford them. Sure, Stinger anti-aircraft missiles could be used to bring down airliners, but they could also be used against black helicopters so they too must be publicly available to the heroic fighters of federal tyranny.

After all, if this fantasy of opposing a tyrannical federal government by force is to have any meaning, the private citizen must be allowed to arm himself in a fashion that would make such a fight somewhat plausible, right? That’s what the Founding Fathers intended, correct?

The Supreme Court, in Heller, made it quite clear that it disagrees, ruling that the Second Amendment “does not protect those weapons not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes.” Heller was decided almost entirely on the basis of the right to self-defense, with Justice Scalia giving short shrift to the whole idea of a right to armed revolution. Scalia essentially concludes that technology has made the whole concept of a right to armed rebellion an archaic artifact, because “a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large” and that “no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks.”

He’s right. In the modern world, access to personal weapons does little or nothing to resist tyranny. In Bosnia, private gun ownership is extensive, but that didn’t stop the Serbs from carrying out genocide there, a horror ended only by outside military intervention. In Iraq, guns are even more plentiful than in Bosnia. Everybody owns them, and many of them are fully auto versions of what we call assault weapons. Yet Saddam Hussein nonetheless succeeded in imposing a brutal tyranny on that country for many decades, and he did so without even attempting to confiscate personal weapons. They simply posed little or no danger to his power.

Conversely, in countries such as Tunisia and Egypt, gun ownership is very low. Yet in recent years they somehow managed what the well-armed Iraqis never could, overthrowing pretty brutal military dictatorships.

Guns don’t overturn tyranny. People do.

I also note that you yourself propose requiring “mental health certification for ownership of guns,” along with a requirement that all parties with access to weapons be listed on the certification. You yourself are proposing that the government be allowed to determine who can and cannot possess guns, based on mental stability. It’s a fine idea. How does that pass the constitutional test that you yourself established?

Maybe the list of those banned from ownership ought to include anyone who argues that private citizens have the right to take up arms against a legitimately elected government, simply because they don’t like what that government does. You know, Timothy McVeigh. David Koresh. And the idiot James Yeager from Tennessee, who just got his carry permit yanked because he started yacking about killing people if any new gun control laws are passed.

No doubt you disagree with that decision by Tennessee authorities. By your theory, after all, Yeager not only has the First Amendment right to advocate armed overthrow of the government, he and others like him also have an implied constitutional right to pursue “Second Amendment” remedies to what they perceive as tyranny. By your line of argument, Yeager should even have the right to possess Stinger missiles.

I ordinarily despise “slippery slope” arguments. But in this case, on your interpretation of the Constitution, what constitutional basis exists for denying Yeager as many Stingers as he might be able to afford? In what provision is that power contained.

Personally, I do not cede to idgits such as Yeager the right to decide when our constitutional order must be overturned at the point of a firearm.

It’s important to note that in the 1790s, when the people of western Pennsylvania launched the so-called Whiskey Rebellion, taking up arms against the federal government to fight a tax they did not like, George Washington, while president, led state militia troops into the field against the insurrection and the protesters vanished into the mist.

In other words — and as Scalia also notes in Heller — the armed and “well-regulated” state militia back then was a force to be used BY the federal government to suppress insurrection to its legitimate laws, not as a weapon by which to launch such insurrection.

Finally, you claim that a national database would only be useful after a murder, and can never be used to prevent a murder. That would be true, I suppose, if all murders were one-offs, if a murderer, having killed once, never kills again. However, that is not their pattern. A national database that allows a very quick identification of who last purchased a particular murder weapon would of course be useful in ensuring that a murderer does not kill again, and I think you’re stretching your case beyond its snapping point to claim otherwise.”

Seriously Folks

January 16th, 2013
10:30 am

CC – you are a piece of work…you answer a post with “unwilling to have a intelligent discussion” and then the first word of the next paragraph is some sophomoric reference to the Presidents name.. “Oblama”… wow. very classy dude.

moonbat betty

January 16th, 2013
10:30 am

If I hear this ad one more time, I’m going to shoot it with a Bush Master!

alex

January 16th, 2013
10:32 am

Another example of the polarization of the political discussion,just as redneck and jamvet cannot discuss without name calling and Jay and the NRA cannot do it either, neither leads to an intelligent discussion..This media circus by BOTH sides and the polarization of this country is nicely explained by Silver in the intro to the “signal and the noise”. The intro is owrth the price of the book by itself…

I am not in favor of assualt weapons, however a “fair” reading of history,especially the late Weimar republic could almost make one reasonably paranoid about he motives and aspirations of government..l

as for “uppity’Kenyan…” see my opening comments about lack of intelligence

Recon 0311 2533

January 16th, 2013
10:32 am

moonbat betty,

The left both despises and fears the NRA. The latter because they believe in thought control through propaganda as it works so well throughout their base of followers.

East Lake Ira

January 16th, 2013
10:32 am

Letting the NRA frame the debate will result in nothing being done. Armed guards in schools is BS. There was an armed guard at Columbine. There was an armed guard at the latest school shooting – shotgun kid.

I’m hopeful that the reccomendations that come from Biden et. al. are blunt and simple: no assault weapons, national registry, no high capacity magazines.

We already limit citizens access to weaponry – machine guns, sawed off shotguns, mortars, ICBMs etc.

Regnad Kcin

January 16th, 2013
10:33 am

” We belief that it is our God given right to protect ourselves and our family.”

I thought god told you to “turn the other cheek.”

RB from Gwinnett

January 16th, 2013
10:33 am

Oscar, “The second amendment was written so that when the State Militas were called out, the men would own guns they could bring with them to use as directed by the state or federal government. No other reason.”

WRONG… Keep in mind, at the time the 2nd amendment was added, it was the government those militia’s were gathering to take up arms against, not some foreign invader or some thoughts about hunting/sport shooting. Yes, they can be a part of the state or federal effort, but in the case of the writers, they were definately not taking up arms in support of ‘ole King George.

Redneck

January 16th, 2013
10:33 am

Monitor the newspapers and the local, national, and international television news and tell me do YOU think that law abiding people are NOT under attack ByteMe – Got ilk? The size of my anatomy is of no concern to you….I hope

Shar

January 16th, 2013
10:34 am

Caroline Kennedy attended the same school I did for a few years. Before she came, we had zero incidents despite being crammed full of the daughters of the rich and powerful (along with a few token regular people, like me). As soon as she got there, we had three bomb threats in the first month, a crowd of weird people waiting in the cul de sac outside hoping for a glimpse of her and the school, being situated on the bank of the East River, became a featured attraction of the Circle Line tour.

It was readily apparent why she had Secret Service protection. Through no fault of her own , her dad was murdered by a nut and she herself attracted the fascinated attention of the same kind of crazy people.

If we make running for, or being, President incumbent upon having your family slaughtered, we’d better get ready for only gay presidents.

Fred ™

January 16th, 2013
10:35 am

DownInAlbany

January 16th, 2013
10:01 am

I’m not a NRA member, will not become one, but, I think this is a legitimate question. There is no doubt in my mind that his daughters are at a far greater risk than mine. No argument there. I’m sure I have no appreciation for the actual danger that those girls live with. But, I understand that having armed guards is standard operating procedure at this school. They don’t have guards because of the president’s kids. The practice predates their attendance. Is this not the case?
+++++++++++++++++++++++++

It’s a PRIVATE school. You do understand the difference between a PRIVATE school and a public school yes? I know the lines are now blurry here in Georgia since the Republicans pushed through that amendment to steal public school money to pay for the chosen fews PRIVATE school, but there is a difference.

My daughter attends a PRIVATE school. I pay 20+ grand a year to send her there. I also pay taxes for the public schools. If we, the parents and financial supporters of our PRIVATE school decide to pay MORE MONEY TO HIRE ARMED GUARDS, that is our right. YOU don’t have to pay for it.

I CAN believe how low the NRA, talk radio and FOXBOTS can go since they have attacked the presidents LITTLE GIRLS before, but it amazes me that someone like you would condone it. I thought you were a Southern man of breeding and honor. Was I wrong?

stands for decibels

January 16th, 2013
10:35 am

I hereby propose that nobody should be allowed to post in any of Jay’s gun reg threads without first reading Paul’s post @ 10.29.

Any seconds?

Jay

January 16th, 2013
10:35 am

“The intent (of the Second Amendment) is clear that the founders believed that the people should possess individual weapons equal to that of individual federal soldiers in order to defend against tyranny.”

So Mr. Allen, you are of the opinion that the Second Amendment requires that we allow personal, private possession of anti-tank weapons, Stinger anti-aircraft missiles, grenade launchers, etc.? You know, “individual weapons equal to that of individual federal soldiers in order to defend against tyranny”?

Smoke&Mirrors

January 16th, 2013
10:36 am

Greg,

I’m just so glad that you are willing to have your taxes hiked through the roof to pay for all those seriously trained, intelligent, capable and well paid armed guards at each school, each church, and in every mall. You will really help the unemployment situation.

However, having seen such societies in the past, I, for one, am against going so far as having armed guards on every corner. That will mess up the scenery.

Jm

January 16th, 2013
10:36 am

I’d like a secret service detail

Scout what are you up to? :)

J/k

Seriously Folks

January 16th, 2013
10:36 am

CC – So previous administrations fabrications of truth to kill and murder innocent civilians in Iraq…THAT was not “anti-Christian”…and if it wasnt, PLEASE provide a link to that part of scripture that says its okay to do that…..

Redneck

January 16th, 2013
10:36 am

No Sir my GOD doesn’t require me to be rob, beatin, and raped.

Robert Lee - Cogito ergo zoom

January 16th, 2013
10:38 am

Hey Mr Right, I did not realize we had such a distinguished visitor to Jay’s blog. I must have forgotten so please tell us again why your kids need armed protection on the same level as the kids of the leader of the free world? I love my kids as much as anyone but I don;t think they need armed guards but I guess that’s jsut crazy old me.

Cherokee

January 16th, 2013
10:38 am

LOL No actually cc I did.

Like I say, go read all the gospels, then get back to me. And when you do you’ll be forced to deal with all those inconvenient parts – like ‘turn the other cheek’, and give up your coat also to the thief who asks for your shirt. As well as the parts about honoring the govenment – which at the time was a miserable dictatorship.

You are absolutely free to reject His teachings if you want – but you might be smart not to call yourself a ‘Christian’, if you refuse to follow what He said. He saved his worst fury for the self appointed religious people of the time.

F. Sinkwich

January 16th, 2013
10:38 am

Let’s posit a hypothetical, shall we?

You’re one of ten people stranded on an island. Would you feel safer if one person had a gun, or if all ten had guns?

I’d vote for the ten.

Jm

January 16th, 2013
10:39 am

Sfd is off to a roaring start

Pent up anger from yesterday presumably