by BizzyBee 246 Replies latest members politics
Yeah, the president Did Something, so we are all safe now and can go back to watching American Idolatry and playing Farmville.
This doesn't change anything in California, because we already have stricter gun control laws than these, and we have nearly the lowest rate of gun violence in the US.
So take that NRA, and eat your shorts!
Rush Limbaugh and the NRA are nuts.
Unfortunately, those nuts are needed to balance out the nuts on the left that would ban all guns.
No EP, It's folks who have a sense of balance that are needed
double post
Obama is just angry at Americans who own firerearms, because he couldn't pass pass a federal background check and legally buy a firearm of his own.- ie, If you can't pass e-Verify, you won't pass a BATF background check.
Somewhere there's got to be a photo-shopped pic of the President wearing one of those Blaze Orange hunting caps with ear flaps
I agree with Bizzy on this one, the NRA's campaign against Obama on the issue they've raised will help gun control proponents. Idiots.
And in Limbaugh's case, nothing that drug addict says has any credibility or merit. He appeals to idiots.
Ditto Heads should hang their head in shame. Disgusting.
Rush Limbaugh is in the entertainment business.
It's his job to get headlines (for himself).
He is excellent at his job.
Evidently(TM), the "nappy headed ho" and "Slutgate" controversies are not bringing in the hits anymore.
Some folks foolishly think he's a politician.
"Crying all the way to the bank."
Doc
No EP, It's folks who have a sense of balance that are needed
Those reasonable folks exist and are drowned out by the shouting nuts on both ends. If only one side has shouting nuts, they will win. Neither set of nuts from either side should win.
Someone made the point that since the presidents children are at a higher risk for attack that they deserve protection that possibly those with a lesser risk do not need.
I think that I, as the parent of my child, deserve to be the one to make the decision if I think I am able to live with the risk presented to my child safety. I also had the thought of another poster that this school more than likely had security prior to his children attending since I'm assuming it is a private school.
In my mind, I have the same rights to have my children protected regardless of the risk you seem to think is small enough not to need the added protection of a armed officer, or more. Tell that to the parents of Sandy Hook, and prior to the shooting I think many would have agreed with you, ask them now how they would feel sending their children to a school and not having armed protection and see what they say.
I do not have to personally experience the loss of my child to learn from the disaster of recent months. That is what makes us intelligent beings as we are able to learn from others mishaps and make decisions that will lessen the risk of that type of disaster from happening again.
I would think that if you were in a public school and were in there visiting your child and a shooter entered the building and cornered you and a group of children and he was slowly going down the line shooting children and teachers you would prefer to have a armed police already in the building instead of waiting for the local police to show up to access the situation. I know that I would prefer this because when seconds count, police are only minutes away.
NJY
