HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Topics » Justice & Public Safety » Gun Control & RKBA (Group) » So. What are the opinions...

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 09:11 PM

So. What are the opinions of this distinguished forum about the Exceedingly Honorable NRA's ad

featuring Malia and Sasha Obama?

39 replies, 2155 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 39 replies Author Time Post
Reply So. What are the opinions of this distinguished forum about the Exceedingly Honorable NRA's ad (Original post)
2ndAmForComputers Jan 2013 OP
liberal N proud Jan 2013 #1
ZombieHorde Jan 2013 #2
2ndAmForComputers Jan 2013 #3
ZombieHorde Jan 2013 #7
krispos42 Jan 2013 #4
appleannie1 Jan 2013 #5
discntnt_irny_srcsm Jan 2013 #6
defacto7 Jan 2013 #8
Glaug-Eldare Jan 2013 #9
tosh Jan 2013 #12
Glaug-Eldare Jan 2013 #13
liberal N proud Jan 2013 #16
Glaug-Eldare Jan 2013 #18
liberal N proud Jan 2013 #19
Glaug-Eldare Jan 2013 #20
liberal N proud Jan 2013 #31
Glaug-Eldare Jan 2013 #33
NewMoonTherian Jan 2013 #24
liberal N proud Jan 2013 #28
Shrike47 Jan 2013 #10
NewMoonTherian Jan 2013 #25
jimmy the one Jan 2013 #26
sylvi Jan 2013 #11
2ndAmForComputers Jan 2013 #15
sylvi Jan 2013 #21
2ndAmForComputers Jan 2013 #35
Blue_Tires Apr 2013 #37
Blue_Tires Apr 2013 #36
sylvi Apr 2013 #39
rrneck Jan 2013 #14
ZombieHorde Jan 2013 #17
jimmy the one Jan 2013 #22
jimmy the one Jan 2013 #23
HockeyMom Jan 2013 #27
jimmy the one Jan 2013 #30
bubbayugga Jan 2013 #29
rightsideout Jan 2013 #32
Glaug-Eldare Jan 2013 #34
GreenStormCloud Apr 2013 #38

Response to 2ndAmForComputers (Original post)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 09:13 PM

1. This should be interesting



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 2ndAmForComputers (Original post)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 09:14 PM

2. I have not seen it yet, do you have a link for me? nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to 2ndAmForComputers (Reply #3)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 09:24 PM

7. Thanks! nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 2ndAmForComputers (Original post)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 09:17 PM

4. I saw a couple of excerpts while I had "Rachel" on in the background

Looks like typical "scary voice" campaign commercial, and typically disgusting.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 2ndAmForComputers (Original post)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 09:18 PM

5. It has sunk them to a new low. Dung beetles are above them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 2ndAmForComputers (Original post)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 09:21 PM

6. Haven't seen it.

Don't like at the NRA site.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 2ndAmForComputers (Original post)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 09:25 PM

8. I don't need to see it.

My NRA rating meter is already pinned to the bottom of negative territory.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 2ndAmForComputers (Original post)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 09:25 PM

9. I partly agree with it, and partly disagree.

I agree with the core message -- that it's hypocritical for wealthy gun control advocates to place their children in schools with armed guard while demanding that no armed security be available for the 99%'s kids. It does say to me that they consider their children more valuable and worthy of protection than ours. NRA should've made it clearer that they aren't talking about the Secret Service -- they're talking about private security guards hired by elite private schools.

As for the "blah blah tax and spend liberals blah blah" Republican crap, it makes me glad I'm not paying Norquist and Nugent anymore.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Glaug-Eldare (Reply #9)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 09:43 PM

12. "NRA should've made it clearer ..."

I believe that omission was intentional.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tosh (Reply #12)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 09:53 PM

13. Pretty stupid if it was.

The omission only hurts their message, since very few gun rights supporters would say that the President's kids shouldn't have SS protection.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Glaug-Eldare (Reply #9)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 10:09 PM

16. The Presidents children need protection from more than guns.

If they were kidnapped, national security could be in jeopardy.


The ads are reprehensible.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to liberal N proud (Reply #16)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 10:21 PM

18. It would have been a stronger message

if it didn't focus on the President of the United States of America -- the failure to illustrate how many wealthy but lesser-known families secure armed guards for their children makes it look like this is a criticism that only applies to big name politicians. It applies to lesser bureaucrats, executives, lobbyists, &c. who have no problem denouncing armed security for public school kids while securing armed guards for their own children. In the end, it was an idea with good potential that was horribly executed because of the rabid right-wing outlook of NRA.

Then again, they could've screwed up badly by going the other way. I can just see them putting out an ad publicizing the names and schools of the wealthy families' kids to make a point, and that would be as extreme a breach of privacy as the NY newspaper map, and hypocritical to boot.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Glaug-Eldare (Reply #18)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 10:29 PM

19. The proved they are despicable.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to liberal N proud (Reply #19)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 10:38 PM

20. What's despicable about it, besides "BLAH SCARY LIBERALS?"

The ad didn't say what school the Obama kids go to (which is already public knowledge, for better or worse), it didn't say the President's family shouldn't be protected, it didn't say they're less valuable than any other family, it didn't say anybody should commit violence...what did it say that's so bad?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Glaug-Eldare (Reply #18)

Fri Jan 18, 2013, 09:34 AM

31. The Obama girls security is not the Presidents choice

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to liberal N proud (Reply #31)

Fri Jan 18, 2013, 11:12 AM

33. Outside of the Secret Service, it is.

He could certainly send them to a private school that doesn't have its own private security with guns. Very few schools in DC have that. The ad is referring to that particular school's practice of hiring armed guards, not the fact that the President's family receives SS protection.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to liberal N proud (Reply #16)

Fri Jan 18, 2013, 08:08 AM

24. That would seem to indicate...

that the president's children are more important than average American children. They are receiving a specific type of protection that the president doesn't see as appropriate for public school students. The ads were presented poorly, but this is something I find hard to ignore.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NewMoonTherian (Reply #24)

Fri Jan 18, 2013, 08:54 AM

28. If your child was kidnapped, it would be a terrible thing, but would it jeopardize national security?

I doubt it, unless you are in a very high ranking government position, then you wouldn't be posting on DU.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 2ndAmForComputers (Original post)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 09:37 PM

10. It's hypocritical and disgusting.

They threaten him and his family with death and then complain his children are guarded. They are part of why those children need to be protected. Shame on those miserable cowards!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Shrike47 (Reply #10)

Fri Jan 18, 2013, 08:16 AM

25. They aren't complaining because his children are protected.

They are complaining because other children aren't protected, and are making the accusation that the president believes his children deserve more protection than others. Every child deserves to be as safe as we can make them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NewMoonTherian (Reply #25)

Fri Jan 18, 2013, 08:36 AM

26. cheap shots on obamas kids

new moon: They are complaining because other children aren't protected, and are making the accusation that the president believes his children deserve more protection than others. Every child deserves to be as safe as we can make them.

Specious argument; even were an armed guard placed in each & every school in america, students in those schools still would not be as well protected as obamas are (since they are more prone to death threats redounding from being children of a president).
An armed gd in each school would only marginally help the situation, since a shooter could still get past him & shoot a dozen kids before his jig was up. So don't claim an armed gd in each school would make children that much safer than now exists. He'd likely still wait for police backup too, before possibly martyring himself for no good cause, by rushing in prematurely without facts.

And that is utterly specious to phrase it that way, that obama thinks his children deserve more protection than others. He feels they are more AT RISK than other children - which is true; the way you put it is a cheap shot, tho this is the nra in it's cheap shot nutshell.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 2ndAmForComputers (Original post)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 09:40 PM

11. Go back to Meta, son.

 

No one here is biting.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sylvi (Reply #11)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 09:57 PM

15. The fact that I am not your son fills me with joy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 2ndAmForComputers (Reply #15)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 10:41 PM

21. You know

 

You know, I actually have more respect for trolls like jpak and bongbong. At least they make no bones about their being in this group to stir shit. Of course, bongbong is no longer allowed here, but still.

You, on the other hand, find a gun-related mole trap in in GD that's bounced a member or two, go to Meta and brag about it, them immediately bring it over here in the hope you can tease a out a word or statement or two from a pro-2A Democrat that'll get them bounced. All under the guise of, "What is your opinion of..."

Here's the last one you drew from:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1240203475

Before bringing it here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1172102551

Now you're springboarding off this one:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1240207078

and bringing it here in order to hopefully get a notch in your nonexistent gun handle, so to speak.

This is a group, at least ostensibly, for serious discussion of the RTKBA, not a fishing pond for you to show everyone back at the ranch what a big ol' troll-hunting dick you have. Show the group a little respect and ask a serious question. You might become enlightened.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sylvi (Reply #21)

Fri Jan 18, 2013, 12:40 PM

35. Please tell me in which way the OP question is not serious.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sylvi (Reply #21)

Tue Apr 2, 2013, 06:08 PM

37. Please enlighten me...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sylvi (Reply #11)

Tue Apr 2, 2013, 06:06 PM

36. Did you just call someone "SON?"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Blue_Tires (Reply #36)

Tue Apr 2, 2013, 08:04 PM

39. Sure did.

 

But for some reason he didn't find it as funny as I found your rendition.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 2ndAmForComputers (Original post)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 09:56 PM

14. Typically skeezy.

But it wasn't really about the Presidents children. It tries to paint him as an elitist. That message fits with the whole "liberal elitist" meme that they've been plumbing for years.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 2ndAmForComputers (Original post)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 10:10 PM

17. It didn't live up to some of the hype I have read.

I've read that it tells the viewer where the Obama kids go to school and hints that people should assassinate them. I've also read that it attacks or insults the Obama kids. Fortunately, the ad doesn't do either of those things.

I'm going to break down the ad a little, more for my sake than anyone else's.

The ad's overt claim is President Obama is an elitist hypocrite.

First supporting evidence: President Obama's kids get armed security at school, but he is skeptical about having the same for "our" children.

Second supporting evidence: President Obama demands (surprised that word in not in red) the wealthy pay their fair share in taxes.

In my opinion, the first supporting evidence is weak for two or three reasons: 1) the President is looking into have armed guards of some sort at schools, 2) the children of high-profile people are significantly greater targets than other children, and possibly 3) the school may have had armed guards long before the President's kids attended.

In my opinion, the second supporting evidence is even weaker. It isn't fleshed out, and we are left to assume the point. I think their point is the President demands fairness on the issue of taxes, but not on security for our children. I think this is a really poor argument because taxes and armed guards at schools are two very different subjects. "The wealthy" have paid much higher taxes in the past when we didn't generally have armed guards at public schools. As far as I know, the two have never been connected in this way before, I don't see a compelling reason to so now.

The overall presentation is poor, in my opinion, but it may be good for the targeted audience.
-The spooky voice is silly.
-Pause the video at 0:15 and what you will see is even sillier, in my opinion.
-Pause the video at 0:23 and you will see the words "PROTECTION FOR THEIR KIDS," and on both sides of those words will an assortment of some hardcore-looking weapons, except for the pistol. I wonder what those guns are, and how many of them are actually carried by the guards at the school.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ZombieHorde (Reply #17)

Fri Jan 18, 2013, 07:12 AM

22. Quakers, Friends

zombie horde: 2) the children of high-profile people are significantly greater targets than other children, and possibly 3) the school may have had armed guards long before the President's kids attended.

Yes, nra creates an asinine dilemma, that obama is an elitist stripping rights since his kids have armed guards.
The only way near parity protection could be achieved (as the nra would have it) would be to have a guard in each classroom, armed or not (I've heard reports that O's kids oftentimes have only gds with no firearms around - who's to know if/when a bodyguard might turn, eh? something parents need not worry about).
Adding one armed guard to a school of several hundreds is nowhere near the protection which obama's kids have whether by armed gds or just constant & necessary surveillance, & this is just normal security which all presidents children get. Did the nra harp on gwbush's security detail for his girls?
.. one armed gd in a school isn't likely to be there when a shooter immediately opens fire & hits a dozen students; while true it's far more likely that obama's kids bodyguards will be around if the shooter tried to get them, but again, that's because they are more 'delicious' targets for the sick minded & anti democrat crowd of demented gunnuts. Historically, enemies would always shoot at the standard bearer carrying the flag, and obamas kids are standard bearers.

The overall presentation is poor, in my opinion, but it may be good for the targeted audience.
-The spooky voice is silly. -Pause the video at 0:23 and you will see the words "PROTECTION FOR THEIR KIDS," and on both sides of those words will an assortment of some hardcore-looking weapons,


The video is sick, comes from sick minded people trying to play off political necessities to fabricate a bigoted view that obama is using something he's trying to ban, to protect his own while ignoring the plights of 'commoner children'.
Those common children (me, you in past lives) need not worry much about getting shot, it's fellow schoolmates who do most the bullying you know, they are only randomly selected by chance, wrong place wrong time, but the same would be true if an armed gd were in every school, as the shooter hit a few during the initial surprise attack.

I lived in DC area 30 yrs, & 'sidwell friends' is where obamas kids attend; I had heard of it previous but knew little of it, thought it was a mainly black public school but I am wrong after googling. Evidently has two branches, one in Georgetown DC the other about 15 miles north in maryland bethesda. Oh my, it's quaker based! - Quakers also are known as 'Friends', historically. The school is located in the Northwest quadrant of DC's 4 quads, the 'white' quadrant which is also the safest & most affluent & has the least crime. The other 3 quads in DC have more crime problems - the DC mall, capitol etc is in southwest or southeast but has high security so little crime. Qaukers, ironically pacifistic, generally opposed going around armed, quaker pennsylvania was last colony to form a militia.

wiki: Sidwell Friends School is a highly selective Quaker private school located in Bethesda, Md and Washington, D.C., offering pre-k through secondary school.. Founded 1883 by Thomas Sidwell, its motto "Eluceat omnibus lux" (Let the light shine out from all), alluding to the Quaker concept of inner light. All Sidwell Friends students attend Quaker meeting for worship weekly.
The school's admissions process is merit-based. As documented on the school's website, it gives preference in admissions decisions to members of the Religious Society of Friends (Quakers), but otherwise does not discriminate on the basis of religion. The school does accept vouchers under the D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program. Both Barack Obama's daughters, attend Sidwell, which has been described as "the Harvard of Washington's private schools". Joe Biden's grandchildren also attend the school. Previously, President Theodore Roosevelt's son, Richard Nixon's daughter, Bill Clinton's daughter Chelsea, and Vice President Al Gore's son all graduated from Sidwell Friends.


Came across this from dubious cred 'breitbart' but could be true, excepting embellishing about gds being 'armed' always: Sidwell Friends School in DC, has 11 security officers and is seeking to hire a new police officer.. If you dismiss this by saying, "Of course they have armed guards -- they get Secret Service protection," then you've missed the larger point. The larger point is that this is standard operating procedure for the school, period. And this is the reason people like NBC's David Gregory send their kids to Sidwell, they know their kids will be protected from the carnage that befell kids at a school where armed guards weren't used

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 2ndAmForComputers (Original post)

Fri Jan 18, 2013, 07:57 AM

23. 44,000 death threats to obama; me? you? none

The {nra} ad was extremely disingenuous. After all, unlike most of us, the president received 43,830 death threats between 2008 and 2012 -- more than 30 a day.
And unlike most of our children, Sasha and Malia Obama have also had death threats leveled at them.

The notion that celebrities and their children are especially vulnerable to attack should be familiar to many members of the NRA's board of directors. For example, one director -- Oliver North -- was famously censured for accepting a $13,800 security fence from Iranian-American arms salesman Albert Hakim.
Another member, anti-tax activist Grover Norquist, had a bomb threat leveled against his office in 2011. Likewise, to NRA directors such as former Sen. Larry Craig (R-Idaho), actor Tom Selleck, and musician Ted Nugent, the notion that well-known public figures require more protection than the average Joe should hardly come as a surprise.

http://www.dailyfinance.com/2013/01/17/nra-obama-kids-ad-money/

And what of nra bd of dir member bob barr? He accidentally shot out a window somehow, toying with or dropping his gun. Armed gds about create that type of hazard as well.

And as most everybody knows by now, republican nj gov christie called the nra ad 'reprehensible'.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 2ndAmForComputers (Original post)

Fri Jan 18, 2013, 08:37 AM

27. I signed a petition to the NRA against this ad

I also had to give my name and address, which I proudly did. Stick it NRA. If they should check their membership rolls, which I doubt though, my surname will come up and they will see that I am the spouse of one of their LIFE MEMBERS.

"Households with Guns" does not apply to EVERYONE in that household. This ad, and the NRA, are despicable.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HockeyMom (Reply #27)

Fri Jan 18, 2013, 09:15 AM

30. You are not alone, hockey mom

I signed a petition to the NRA against this ad .... I also had to give my name and address, which I proudly did. Stick it NRA. If they should check their membership rolls, which I doubt though, my surname will come up and they will see that I am the spouse of one of their LIFE MEMBERS.

Brava, hockeymom. You have a lot of support from a lot of us here too.
You might recall that not a few others have resigned nra lifetime memberships (not that you did), in response to idiocy emanating from wayne laconmans' mouth. I bet nra members will 'fail to renew' in droves this upcoming year 2013, as repercussions continue to mount against the 'Nutty Rightwingers, Armed'.

HWBush, as president, resigned his lifetime nra membership after lapierre referred to the bureau of alcohol tobacco & firearms (BATF) as 'jack booted thugs' - hwbush knew many in batf.

Norman Scwarzkopf also resigned his membership in the nra, due similar disagreements in nra ideology. He thought it too extreme & not representative of average gun owners.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 2ndAmForComputers (Original post)

Fri Jan 18, 2013, 09:01 AM

29. personally, I don't have a problem with making our schools at least as secure as our airports.

 

the NRA nuts can fuck off though.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 2ndAmForComputers (Original post)

Fri Jan 18, 2013, 09:38 AM

32. And what if Romney had won and the Secret Service had to cover his 5 sons?

It was obviously targeted at their core audience which will buy the NRA's BS.

But everyone else (with half a brain) know's the President's immediately family members are protected by Secret Service. It's been that way for years.

It would take more resources, a larger Secret Service detail and cost more to cover Romney's 5 sons since there are scattered all over the place. Obama's kids are at one school. And we know Romney is a gun nut. But to these idiots protecting Romney's sons would have been OK.

So that could be our argument. Sure complain about Obama's 2 kids being covered at one school. Would you still be complaining if the Secret Service was covering Romney's 5 sons.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rightsideout (Reply #32)

Fri Jan 18, 2013, 11:16 AM

34. The Obamas selected a school for their children

which already had private security with guns before he was even elected. The Secret Service has nothing to do with it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 2ndAmForComputers (Original post)

Tue Apr 2, 2013, 07:03 PM

38. Haven't seen it, therefore, no opinion. N/T

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread