TexasCHLforum.com

" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

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.

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

The NRA has a good call, although bringing the Presidents kids into it will fuel the fire by the anti's. (I realize no names were given - just saying)

I've watched several pundits saying that the President's strategy is to crush the GOP. I agree with that. I think his strategy includes crushing the NRA.

http://nation.foxnews.com/robert-gibbs/ ... -apparatus

The 250,000 new members in a month suggests that the "crush" is not working.

Where is the best place for me to send money? Directly to the NRA or to NRA-IL? I'm sending money today.

chasfm11 wrote:Where is the best place for me to send money? Directly to the NRA or to NRA-IL? I'm sending money today.

If you want your money to go to gun safety, training, education, etc. send it to the NRA.

If you want your money to go to fight for pro-2A legislative action, send it to the NRA-ILA.

Either way, money well spent.

A commenter wrote:

John Sibley 8 hours ago

Bringing his kids into it? What a classless move. Kids should be off-limits as subjects of political posturing, particularly dragging them into smear jobs like this. This will backfire.

Dragging the Newtown kids into the political posturing was apparently OK. It's amazing how hypocritical liberals are and how blind they are to their own hypocrisy.

What disgusts me, is hearing this morning that at his press conference today, he will be surrounded by kids...handpicked of course...who have written letters asking him to do something about gun violence. I'm so sick of this "holier than thou" posturing and shameless use of the media to stir up emotional responses from the public. I realize it's all he can do because he can't present facts and make a logical case for what they want to do. For the last 60 days, every time he speaks it's like a recording...at least once in every answer to every question he will somehow manage to work in the statment that he: "wants to protect the middle class, make sure the "wealthy" pay their fair share so he can reduce the deficit, strengthen and preserve social security and medicare, make health care affordable, and protect our children from senseless gun violence". Every "hot button" he can push to try and frighten people into agreeing with his agenda. Yesterday, in his remarks about the debt ceiling (which of course Congress has to pass and will), he throws out the scare words that if THEY fail to authorize HIM to pay the bills, it may result in social security, veterans benefits, and militairy pay being delayed...not a word about federal employees and the all the other payments being delayed, because that won't stir up public fear. What Obama and almost every other politician in Washington ignores is that the underlying problem with out of control spending is not those programs that get all the attention...it's the unprecedented growth in the size of the Federal Government itself over the last 25 years. Each new agency that's created becomes a new bureaucracy and like all bureaucracies one of it's primary functions becomes self preservation and ever increasing growth and budgetary demands.

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.

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

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.

I agree with you about emotional pleas, but I don't see this NRA ad as being one. What it is doing, however, is pointing out liberal hypocrisy and nothing more. No guns for US but yes guns for THEM. No security for US, but lots of security for THEM. In other words, do as I say, not as I do. Now, if that evokes an emotional response (and I know it makes me madder than a wet hen - but then again, this whole situation does), then that's one thing. But they certainly don't seem to be pulling the usual "think of the children" bull.

I certainly agree our children need protection in schools. I feel anywhere you're required to be, either legally or by necessity, you should have a legal right to protect yourself. If you're not legally able to carry, I feel it should be required by law that the business or institution provided armed security at a level suitable to the number of occupants on the premises. If adequate funding is not available to provide armed protection, that business or institution should be required to allow legal carry.

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.

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

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

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.

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