TexasCHLforum.com

chasfm11 wrote:

particle wrote: That being said - I think the NRA commercial is apples & oranges. The U.S. doesn't negotiate with terrorists - what's the fastest way to test that statement....? Yes, the president's children most certainly need 24/7 armed security - not even a question in most people's mind. The difference is that protection of the president's children is in the interest of our country's national security.

Sorry but I see this differently. I don't wish harm on the President's daughters or any other kids for that matter. But our granddaughter has the right from her Creator for protection, too. Because she is too young yet to fully assume that roll for herself, the rest of us have to step in and help her. She cannot yet drive a car either so we take her places that she needs or wants to go in our car. That is the way that it is with kids.

This is not about whether the President and his family but about whether the President, Bloomberg and the rest of the Elites can deny the rest of us and especially our kids and grandkids protection. As far as I'm concerned, neither he nor any member of Congress should have anything that they choose to deny for me. I would love to see a Constitutional amendment to that affect.

Here is the rub.

I, me, one of the ones who despises the president and what he stands for, would never want anything to happen to his family by any evil that exists in this world. I would beyond a shodow of doubt defend his little girls and their mother if I was to witness an attempt by someone to do them harm. I would gladly go to slide lock in a heartbeat.

Now.

Do you actually think that they believe the same about me and mine?

Do you actually think that they believe that me and mine deserve the same protection that they receive? It is true that I do not have near the individuals who are undoubtedly plotting against me that they do. This point is also irrelevant.

No one human in this world is above another ort more deserving of treatment than another.

It says so in Our Declaration of independence and constitution.

Anygunanywhere

blackgold wrote:So I'm new to this all but don't feel this ad is most effective. Among the EA's he is pushing is one discussing increasing Resource officers in schools. So he is still offering to increase them. Just not how you want him to...
Brian

I read up to 1,000.

That is 20 in each state.

Insanity.

Anygunanywhere

punkndisorderly wrote:Heven't had a chance to sit down and watch the add all the way through, so feel free to slap me down if what I say isn't accurate.

Seems the NRA is pulling a page from the liberal playbook, and not a good one. It's the page with the heading "Don't bother attacking the arguement, attack the man". I don't think it will work. It preaches to the choir, like us and the majority of gun rights people. May get a few people who were on the fence. Will turn off the block of people who support Obama, but maybe not his take on this (blue dogs, Union types, and those who disagree with everything the liberals do but still vote Democrat "cause their Pappy did").

I just have a harsh opposition to emotional pleas.

To you it might seem attacking the man.

To me it is telling the truth.

I can go along with attacking the man too. He and his like are attacking my rights. They NEVER use facts.

Anygunanywhere

A-R wrote:

You know how I know this new ad is working, and hitting a nerve?

MSNBC this morning is foaming at the mouth about it, with various pundits saying:

"The NRA is crazier than you thought they were"

"The NRA is now officially an extremist fringe group."

"That is just disgusting!"

Yeah, when you don't have a valid counter argument all you can really do is call the other side names and scream at the top of your lungs how "crazy" they are.

I represent those statements!

Anygunanywhere