Chris Christie nails NRA on Obama daughters video.

Try putting it in context. The NRA was responding to Obama surrounding himself with children when he signed his 23 Executive orders restricting or potentially restricting or banning firearm ownership.

So you're saying that was ok, to exploit children like that, individuals society does not think yet mentally capable of deciding political issues themselves but who are put in the position of visually seeming to endorse the President's actions or are at least being exploited as symbols to emphasize that he is not restricting Constitutional gun rights of adults but simply protecting children?

The NRA was saying that was not ok. The Obama children, like Obama himself and Michelle, are constantly protected by armed guards. Yet rather than support putting armed guards in schools, he discourages individuals from owning guns for self defense. That does not make sense. That was the point you and Chris Christie apparently missed.

Nobody wants to take away your gun, unless you think you need a Kalashnikov-47 7.62×39mm assault rifle or something comparable, just to defend your home and family!

If you know how to use a firearm, a .30-06 will work just fine.

Bur Gerald, the assault rifles are not for use against burglars and your usual home invaders, they’re for use against the crews of the Black Helicopters when They come to take away our other guns!

And this be our motto: E Pluribus Paranoia

Try putting it in context.

The context is that the NRA wants to sell guns. The mass murder of 20 six-year old children and their teachers convinced the public that some effort should be made to curb gun violence. That hurts NRA's business, so as one of the richest and most influential lobbies in Congress it decide to go on the attack and shamelessly increase the risk to the lives of Obama's children. And they did so by lying about security at the school and misleading the American people on the solutions being suggested.

That is the context.

That was the point you and Chris Christie apparently missed.

Actually, Governor Christie was exactly on point. It's a shame you are defending the NRA's actions on this.

David K: Like hell it was the context. The NRA does not sell guns. It is an association of gun owners. Their money comes primarily from dues and donations, most of the donations solicited from average people like me who make a modest income but believe the Second Amendment in the Bill of Rights of the US Constitution guarantees an individual right to own and carry firearms for SELF DEFENSE and defense against potential tyranny.

How did they lie about security at the school and mislead the American people about the solutions being suggested?" It seemed pretty clear that they had their own recommendations, and that they would have been far more reliably effective than 23 Executive Orders which do not immediatey make anyone safer.

Note that "gun violence" is one form of violence. Why is it singled out for treatment? Mass murder can and is carried out by various means. An incident in China recently involved a creature with a knife wounding 22 children.

Too bad you did not get my point about the NRA responding to Obama surrounding himself with children at the EO signing. THAT was the shameful part the NRA was criticizing.

Gerald the new Executive Orders include a number of changes which will require that more people disclose what they own, as well as more opportunities for regulatory agencies to broaden the definition of such key terms as "mental illness" in ways which might include virtually anyone. That information can and has been used to take away what they have on threat of arrest. In fact this has already happened.

Obama has gone on record for many years for wanting to prevent people from owning firearms. He has not recognized the Second Amendment as guaranteeing an individual right. In his short Senate stint he was known as the most anti-gun rights member, challenging even John Kerry for that title. Excuse gun owners for being suspicious of his intent now, especially after he announced gun control as a top priority of his second term, and enthusiastically approved 23 Executive orders on the topic.

So you feel perfectly safe wielding a bolt action .30-06 rifle with maybe a thirty inch barrel when confronted by an intruder? You are the rare individual then who prefers one of the most unwieldy small arms to a handgun or short barrelled semi-auto rifle or a pump shotgun. But I'm sure your attacker will give you plenty of time and space to load it, heft it and point it, and that one shot will always do the trick.

Oh and an assault rifle, Russian or American or of any other manufacture, a real military assault rifle is selective fire, meaning you can set it to automatic or semi-auto. You can't own one of those in this country withouth undergoing additional checks and paying a big license fee in excess of a thousand dollars. It's called a Class 3 license. Therefore the only rifles which could be banned now would be semi-auto-only unless the Class 3 license system in place since the 1930s is repealed. There are semi-auto only AR-47s you can buy like any other semi-auto, one shot per trigger pull, but they are mostly rather cheap trash compared to other semi-auto rifles with an "assault rifle" feature or two such as a pistol grip or a flash suppressor.

David K: Like hell it was the context.

Of course it was the context.

The NRA does not sell guns.

The NRA's main job is to encourage the sales of guns and ammunition. It does this by playing to the paranoias of those who fear their government is coming to get them. Sure, they also encourage sportsmen, who buy guns for hunting. But the real gun sales go to those fear. Which is why gun sales always skyrocket immediately after a mass murder, just like happened right after 20 six-years old were murdered. Of course, gun sales also skyrocketed right after Obama was first elected to be President. Why? Because the NRA encouraged the belief within the most paranoid people in the country that Obama was coming for their guns.

most of the donations solicited from average people like me who make a modest income but believe the Second Amendment in the Bill of Rights of the US Constitution guarantees an individual right to own and carry firearms for SELF DEFENSE and defense against potential tyranny.

Thanks for making my point. The NRA has pushed the "second amendment" narrative because it sells guns more than "buy a shotgun for skeet shooting" and "buy a rifle for deer hunting." The second amendment narrative not only sells more guns, it sells more of the bigger, more expensive, semi-automatic guns with large volume ammo clips. Big bucks. All because the paranoid folks are fighting for their "freedoms" and "second amendment rights." One of the best gun sales marketing campaigns ever invented.

How did they lie about security at the school and mislead the American people about the solutions being suggested?

The ad was "completely false" (4 Pinocchios). It also endangered not only Obama's children but all of the children at the school.

Note that "gun violence" is one form of violence. Why is it singled out for treatment? Mass murder can and is carried out by various means. An incident in China recently involved a creature with a knife wounding 22 children.

Did you even read what you wrote? Here's a hint.

Newtown: 20 six-year old children and their teachers murdered in just a few minutes. [Ditto for Aurora, Columbine, etc.]

China: 23 children wounded. No children died.

Too bad you did not get my point about the NRA responding to Obama surrounding himself with children at the EO signing.

I got it. It wasn't valid. As I clearly explained.

Pete S. that is mostly untrue about gun owner paranoia about Black Helicopters. But to burglars and home invaders you might add gangs of home invaders, since drug gangs are one of the most numerous groups of lawbreakers in the country. The real concern is that a new gun ban would fulfill the old gun banners' "camel's nose under the tent" rule, that once you get one thing banned, it is much easier to expand it to others, until it applies to all. That is how it worked in England, and so far Australia and Canada as well. If more than ten rounds is too many, what about eight? Six? Four? Two?

When did we become a society which does not trust the individual to do the right thing for his own self interest within the law? The Founders did. There is an old cliche which FDR liked to use: "the best way to make someone trustworthy is to trust them."

K David, biggest load of BS I've ever heard about the NRA. I know better, you should know better. Your paranoid view of the NRA national gun owners organization is ironic. Where do you even get this crap?

Yes I read what I wrote. So it's ok to merely wound school children, but not if you kill them. I get you.

And however the NRA ad is interpreted, it does not change the fact that Obama shamelessly exploited children to aid in legitimizing his EOs and get emotiuonal support.

"Try putting it in context. The NRA was responding to Obama surrounding himself with children when he signed his 23 Executive orders..."

Try making up a better BS excuse. President Obama signed 23 executive actions (not the same thing as Executive Orders) in the presence of four children on Jan 16. The NRA's ad was released on Jan 15. Psychic NRA leaders were responding to an event from the future? I don't think so.

"How did they lie about security at the school and mislead the American people about the solutions being suggested?"

They lied about the security at the school by saying that the school had 11 armed guards. It doesn't. None of the school's security officers is armed with a gun. They lied about the solutions being suggested because one of the solutions President Obama suggested was providing more funding and other incentives for school districts to get more school resource officers (specially trained police officers who work in schools) if they want them.

Your paranoid view of the NRA national gun owners organization is ironic.

I'm not paranoid about the NRA. I'm aware of the NRA. You seem to be in some alternate state in which the biggest gun lobby organization on the planet is some sort of defender of the Constitution. It's not. The "second amendment strategy" is a tactic employed by the gun lobby to sell guns to people who are paranoid about the government coming to take their guns away. Fearful people buy guns. Big guns. With lots of ammo and mega-round clips they can use to blast away those "jack booted government thugs" (as Wayne LaPierre, the NRA's long-time CEO so expressively articulated).

That's why the NRA instituted some steep discounts on membership immediately after 20 six-years were massacred. They knew they could stoke the fears of the anti-government folks, get more members (all of whom will pay full price next year), and sell more guns.

You do see how this works, right? Basic marketing.

Where do you even get this crap?

They are called facts.

So the NRA, the gun lobby, puts out a patently false "campaign-style" attack ad that lies about school security and endangers both Obama's children and all of the kids at their school. [See Wil's additional information above]

"They are called facts."

Clearly problematic for many Teabaggers, gun fetishists, sufferers of Obama Derangement Syndrome, etc.

Thank you, Chris Christie!

I agree with Christie on this one.

I remember how offended I was when the media brought Sarah Palin's children into the news. Children of politicians should be off limits.

Why are they a special class Larry? What about the children of business leaders? Is one child more equal than another?

What makes you think they're a special class, eagle? I don't think the media should exploit any children. I get angry when ESPN shows Little League players crying.

"Less" of a valid trusted source???
I am agreeing more and more with Christie lately. Wonder if he'll switch parties to the compassionate one?

He's already in the more compassionate one Leslie. Get a clue and stop letting a heavily biased Socalist media tell you who is the more humanitarian group. Find out for yourself.

There are more people around the world who have criminal intent towards the President's children and using them to further their own political agenda than towards anyone elses' kids.

THAT is why ALL the children of ALL Presidents have (and have had) Secret Service security details.

Yea right. Uh huh. But nobody shot up their school because they have armed guards there. So why can't we that foot bill have armed personnel for our school children? We pay for Obama's kids to be protected but he say's our kids don't deserve the same consideration. Screw him and the horse he rode in on!

Money. The answer to any question beginning with 'why can't we' or 'why don't they' is "Money". And while your precious darlings may mean the world to you, the reality is that not enough terrorists around the world think yours matter enough to try to kill them or for the rest of the country to be willing to fork out enough money to protect them.

Further, 'he' isn't saying that your kids don't deserve protection. On the contrary, he's willing to risk the political fight of the century in order to get whatever protections Congress will agree to in order to keep them safe.

Linda, I think you've hit on an important part of the answer. Some schools have armed guards, and some schools don't. Some don't have them because they don't want them, but no doubt there are also schools that do want them, but don't have them because a lack of money, too few appropriately trained officers, etc. All of which, as you've pointed out, comes down to money.

It's weird to see the same people who seem to be constantly complaining about pay taxes, about shrinking government until it's small enough to drown in a bathtub, etc. complaining because the government isn't supplying them armed guards for their schools.

It's also weird to see people ranting about the Secret Service protection provided by law to all presidents, with no evidence that they had any issues with it being provided to previous presidents.

I think the best explanation for such odd things may be...Obama Derangement Syndrome.

Wil, here's another example of Obama Derangement Syndrome:

A Gather member (I don't remember who, just the context of the remark) wrote a comment to the effect that it was such a selfish thing for Obama to do, to sign a bill into law that gives him (and all future Presidents) 10 years of Secret Service security detail at taxpayer expense after leaving office.

The writer was disgusted (I won't say irate) that taxpayers would have to foot the bill for Obama's protection for 10 years and how hypocritical it is of him to sign that into law.

I pointed out that the bill Obama signed into law actually LIMITS him, and all future Presidents, to 10 years of Secret Service security detail on leaving office--and that all PREVIOUS Presidents (including both Bushes) were entitled to those same services--at taxpayers' expense--for the REST OF THEIR LIVES.

big Mama thinks we should screw horses? that is odd. but not surprising.

Well, not only am I not fast enough to catch one for the purpose, I lack the necessary equipment. You guys can toss a coin for my turn.

United States Secret Service

In 1965, Congress authorized the Secret Service (Public Law 89-186) to protect a former president and his/her spouse during their lifetime, unless they decline protection. In 1997, Congress enacted legislation (Public Law 103-329) that limits Secret Service protection for former presidents to 10 years after leaving office. Under this new law, individuals who are in office before January 1, 1997, will continue to receive Secret Service protection for their lifetime. Individuals elected to office after that time will receive protection for 10 years after leaving office. Therefore, President Clinton will be the last president to receive lifetime protection.

Thanks for supplying the pertinent facts, ONT. I see that I wasn't entirely accurate since George W. Bush wasn't in office until after 1997.

I find it odd that this law will affect him retroactively. I have to say, though, I think he did do one totally correct thing by stepping out of the public spotlight after he left office. He could have stirred the pot considerably during the 2008 and 2012 elections and (mostly) refrained from doing so.

...yeah, a bit puzzling indeed.

Governor Christie has just cemented the fact that he will N E V E R be elected president.

Not by Republicans, anyway. If there's still a Republican party left by the time we get to 2016.

At this point, I wouldn't be surprised if Christie changes parties...

Yeah, I wish he would hurry up, he's only impersonating an "R".

That all-inclusive thingy the democommirats call an umbrella, is more like a circus tent. It's easy to maintain since they have no standards. But, the $#it does pile up.

He-he...they have roustabouts for that, Opinate...they call it a "job."