So Obama can have armed guards for his kids but wants to take ours away.

[baygator1]

Originally Posted by rivergator

So you believe the federal govt should supply the same security for all of us that rich people pay for themselves? School guards, personal bodyguards, security guards at each of our homes?

You figure your kids should have the same Secret Service protection that Obama's children have?

Why stop at health insurance?

And please stop with the utter nonsense of secret service protection. You know I wasn't talking about that. If children attending public schools are going to be targeted, the folks that manage public schools need to mitigate that risk as strenuously as possible.

My wife and I are the security/body guards for our kids when they aren't at school. Even grandma has a concealed carry permit.

[g8trjax]

Some are having a problem with similar and same.

[g8orbill]

great adv by the NRA

loved it

[108]

this notion that if we only had more guns we would be safer is ludicrous

we have the most guns on the planet, 300 million some...if the above were true, the US would be the safest place on the planet

[108]

Originally Posted by g8orbill

great adv by the NRA

loved it

if you like to compare apples and oranges

[ChartsandGrafs]

Originally Posted by 108

this notion that if we only had more guns we would be safer is ludicrous

Yes, just as silly as the notion that we can trust our government to never become tyrannical.

[108]

Originally Posted by ChartsandGrafs

Yes, just as silly as the notion that we can trust our government to never become tyrannical.

and this notion that we can defend ourselves against the US military with some assault guns if this paranoid fantasy ever happens

[ChartsandGrafs]

Originally Posted by 108

and this notion that we can defend ourselves against the US military with some assault guns if this paranoid fantasy ever happens

Why not, exactly? It worked for the rebels in Afghanistan, didn't it?

Why are you so paranoid about the American people having "assault" rifles?

[DaveFla]

Originally Posted by orangeblueorangeblue

If you supported people bringing guns to the airport or to elementary schools this would be relevant.



And you missed the point entirely.

No, I really didn't.

[108]

Originally Posted by ChartsandGrafs

Why not, exactly? It worked for the rebels in Afghanistan, didn't it?

Why are you so paranoid about the American people having "assault" rifles?

sigh

despite the false equivalency with Afghan Rebels, you really believe that large swaths of Americans will be fighting American troops?

im not paranoid about people owning assault rifles, but they are unnecessary in my opinion to protect oneself...but according to you, they are the only thing separating you and I from being taken out

[VAg8r1]

Originally Posted by g8orbill

great adv by the NRA

loved it

It was a rather entertaining ad, could have passed for SNL satire. While the true believers probably loved it if the NRA actually thinks that it will influence anyone who is even remotely undecided, their level of self-delusion is on par with the righties who were expecting a Romney landslide victory back in November.

[ChartsandGrafs]

Originally Posted by 108

sigh

despite the false equivalency with Afghan Rebels, you really believe that large swaths of Americans will be fighting American troops?

What's false about it and why wouldn't Americans fight American troops?

im not paranoid about people owning assault rifles, but they are unnecessary in my opinion to protect oneself...but according to you, they are the only thing separating you and I from being taken out

Ah, so you want to determine what's necessary and unnecessary for people? Very well.

Is it necessary for you to own a TV? Is it necessary for you to eat chocolate? Is it necessary for you to take vacations? Is it necessary for you to attend Gator games?

If not, we should probably have the government pass legislation restricting access to these things, right? None of them are necessary, after all.

[g8orbill]

108- you would probably be the first one whining for someone with a gun to protect you in any type of attack

and I do not own an assault rifle nor do I intend to buy one-but I have zero problem with other people owning them

[malligator]

Originally Posted by 108

this notion that if we only had more guns we would be safer is ludicrous

we have the most guns on the planet, 300 million some...if the above were true, the US would be the safest place on the planet

300 million guns. Just imagine what the US would be like if guns actually killed people instead of murderers. I know...lets outlaw murder. Oh, wait...

[g8orbill]

libs think they can just legislate everything problem away

[orangeblueorangeblue]

Originally Posted by DaveFla

No, I really didn't.

Your post indicates otherwise. The overall message of absolute security versus absolute liberty should have been pretty evident. Hopefully you're there now, though.

[rivergator]

Originally Posted by g8orbill

libs think they can just legislate everything problem away

you realize that this thread is about conservatives claiming that all American kids should get the same protection that Obama's kids get, right? that the government should provide it.
I'm pretty sure that means it's the conservatives who are calling for far more government action.

[surfn1080]

I think the point is he wants to take guns away but uses them to protect himself and his family. I don't think arm guards was really the main point of it.

[rivergator]

Originally Posted by surfn1080

I think the point is he wants to take guns away but uses them to protect himself and his family. I don't think arm guards was really the main point of it.

So we have an ad claiming that Obama's kids are protected by armed guards ... and a thread complaining about Obama's kids having armed guards ...but the point is not about armed guards?
Did you watch the ad or read the thread?

[LittleBlueLW]

Let the riverdance begin!