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

[ChartsandGrafs]

Originally Posted by LittleBlueLW

Let the riverdance begin!

[surfn1080]

Originally Posted by rivergator

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?

Yes i did. Again it's the fact they are "armed" and not the fact that they have guards. I don't expect a lib to look 10 feet in front of them.

"We have to pass it to see what's in it"

[rivergator]

Risking the ire of the conservative base of his party yet again, Christie called the recent NRA ad calling President Obama an “elitist hypocrite” because his daughters have armed guards at school “reprehensible.”

“To talk about the president’s children or any public officer’s children who have, not by their own choice, but by requirement to have protection and to use that somehow to try to make a poetical point I think is reprehensible,” Christie said.

link

[tec68]

Attachment 2452

[gatordavisl]

Originally Posted by baygator1

Of course they should. But, that doesn't mean that similar protections aren't appropriate or warranted for my children.

You believe it's practical and necessary (forget logical, because there's no chance of that) for your children to merit the same protection as the children of the President of the United States?

[gatordavisl]

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

Good luck eliciting logic or rational sentiments. This place is like an unruly, mis-educated mob.

[gatordavisl]

Originally Posted by ChartsandGrafs

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

Yep. It worked for rebels because they had assault rifles . . .

[ChartsandGrafs]

Originally Posted by gatordavisl

Yep. It worked for rebels because they had assault rifles . . .

What are you saying here? That U.S. military casualties in Afghanistan are primarily attributable to Stinger missiles and their equivalent?

LOL.

[gatordavisl]

Originally Posted by ChartsandGrafs

What are you saying here? That U.S. military casualties in Afghanistan are primarily attributable to Stinger missiles and their equivalent?

LOL.

Of course not. Are you saying that Afgani militia have been successful solely using assault rifles? That's the assumption I responded to.

[oragator1]

This is pretty funny...The dems here are arguing for more limited government and the pubs are arguing for a more expansive one.

I love this place.

[ChartsandGrafs]

Originally Posted by gatordavisl

Of course not. Are you saying that Afgani militia have been successful solely using assault rifles? That's the assumption I responded to.

The bread and butter of the rebel resistance in Afghanistan is the "assault" rifle. Not Stingers. Not rocket propelled grenades. Not IEDs. Not landmines. Not suicide bombers. It's all about the "assault" rifles.

[HALLGATOR]

Originally Posted by ChartsandGrafs

The bread and butter of the rebel resistance in Afghanistan is the "assault" rifle. Not Stingers. Not rocket propelled grenades. Not IEDs. Not landmines. Not suicide bombers. It's all about the "assault" rifles.

Doesn't look to be that way:

IEDs top cause of US Afghanistan casualties

"This year nearly 1,900 U.S. casualties have been caused by IEDs," Lt. Gen. Michael Barbero testified, and he was not optimistic about the future.

Pakistan is a major source of the problem, he said.

Evidence shows that most of the IEDs in Afghanistan are made with ammonium nitrate, the fertilizer used in the Oklahoma City bombing, Barbero said, and it is illegal to make or import ammonium nitrate into Afghanistan.

The United States has made several proposals to Pakistan to reduce the threat from fertilizer-based bombs, including putting die in all ammonium nitrate to make it easier for border patrol agents in Afghanistan to spot, or reformulating it so it could still feed crops but wouldn't be explosive.



Read more: http://www.wtae.com/news/national/IE...#ixzz2IIqd9q00

[helix139]

Originally Posted by ChartsandGrafs

The bread and butter of the rebel resistance in Afghanistan is the "assault" rifle. Not Stingers. Not rocket propelled grenades. Not IEDs. Not landmines. Not suicide bombers. It's all about the "assault" rifles.

To be fair, theirs are select fire

[egator1245]

Originally Posted by gatordavisl

You believe it's practical and necessary (forget logical, because there's no chance of that) for your children to merit the same protection as the children of the President of the United States?

My children are as important and precious as the president,s children.

tell me your's aren't. Obama and his family are humans just like me, no better, no worse. Although he is president and has a more important job, he is not "worth" more than me or my family. Maybe you think he is?
























t

[HALLGATOR]

I don't know of anyone who would think Obama's children are more important than their very own. I also don't think that is the thrust of the discussion.

[ChartsandGrafs]

Originally Posted by HALLGATOR

Doesn't look to be that way:

Well it is that way, regardless of military statistics and body counts.

Afghanistan rebels plant IEDs, but they fight with "assault" rifles.

[ChartsandGrafs]

Originally Posted by helix139

To be fair, theirs are select fire

Selective fire "assault" rifles will flood across our borders too if and when the U.S. government goes tyrannical.

[HALLGATOR]

Originally Posted by ChartsandGrafs

Well it is that way, regardless of military statistics and body counts.

Afghanistan rebels plant IEDs, but they fight with "assault" rifles.

So you know more than the military does about their own casualties?

[ChartsandGrafs]

Originally Posted by HALLGATOR

So you know more than the military does about their own casualties?

Why, is that what I said?

[HALLGATOR]

Sure appeared to be. Unless of course you thing the news service just made up the story I posted.