Community Blogs
NRA calls the shots...
Americans should applaud the NRA for:
1) Having the backbone to stand up to the Dear Leader (unlike many Republican and Conservative politicians)
2) Pointing out the glaring hypocrisy of the left. The "do as we say not as we do" crowd."
3) Pointing out that children DO deserve to be safe in schools.
4) All of the 23 (yes, you read that correctly) Executive Orders that Obama issued today in regards to gun control (oops, forgot the new moniker is now "gun violence") not one of them would have done ANYTHING to prevent Sandy Hook, Virginia Tech, or other mass shootings. Plain and simple. All Obama is doing is targeting law-abiding citizens and their right to bear arms. (And Rush Limbaugh made an excellent point on his conservative talk radio show earlier - Obama wants more and more in-depth background checks and information on Americans - mainly on people who wish to buy and/or sell guns and/or visit a health care provider as to their mental state). When will we Americans get a background check on President Obama? Obama has YET to be properly vetted. What's up with that?)
5) The elitism of Obama and Co. is on full display (and the NRA commercial sure is "on target."). For some reason, Obama and his fellow socialists seem to believe they know best and the government can solve all of societies problems. Here's a news flash: Obama and Co. have no clue what is best for the American individual, and the government cannot solve every problem that pops up. (In fact, I'd venture to argue that the Obama government of today is the leader in creating problems (Obamacare anyone?).
6) Not caring if Obama and other lefties criticize and attack them for this commercial. (Already the liberal media is in a tizzy over this ad...)
Thank you, NRA - for having the guts to do what too many of our elected officials of today are afraid of. We need more people to stand up and speak out for America - and not let Obama destroy our country before our very eyes.
We encourage your comments but will strive to remove discussion that contains personal attacks, racial slurs, profanity or other inappropriate material as outlined in our guidelines. We post-moderate comments on most content, but may choose to pre-moderate some comments so please be patient if you don't see yours appear right way. We also ask for your help by reporting comments you think are inappropriate.
- Rain: "Hold my umbrella" - Benghazi: "Stand Down" (182)
- Does the truth matter anymore? (265)
- "My kind of town, Chicago is" (262)
- Two words we must not utter: radical Islam!!! (314)
- Boston Massacre (279)
- What's missing? (308)
- Just in time for Easter... (232)
- The definition of "fair" according to Obama (127)
- Why I Do Not Like The Obamas (207)
- Just a few observations... (311)
- More It's Hemmer Time posts
125 Comments
ahemmer - Jan 16, 2013 6:50 PM
@Peter123: So you don't care if your kids are safe at school, as long as the Obama girls are, cuz they are waaay more important than your own kids? My goodness.
Guess what, Peter? The Obama girls are pretty darn safe wherever they are. That's a given.
What is key here is that all schools COULD and SHOULD employ or have armed personnel on hand to at least give school personnel and students a fighting chance should an armed intruder(s) arrive with intent to do harm. (The "gun free zone" signs are a joke. Why not just have a sign with a duck in a circle?) That is the real solution to this issue. Not Obama and his anti-gun, anti-2nd amendment cronies going after law-abiding citizens with all his executive orders. As I stated before - NONE of Obama's Executive Orders would have done anything to prevent any of the previous school/mall/etc. shooting. Nada. So, what is the point? The point is, Obama's orders are the foot in the door to even go further. And Obama COULD be the driving force by suggesting armed personnel in schools - but instead he is "skeptical" of such a solution. I think its similar to all the big Hollywood leftie stars who rail against guns, while their armed bodyguards surround them...
As I stated before: "Wayne LaPierre (leader of the NRA) had this to say: "It's not about protecting your children. It's not about stopping crime. It's about banning your guns. . . PERIOD!"
MGarber - Jan 16, 2013 7:26 PM
No need to apologize. Its been long obvious you dont read many of the comments.
ahemmer - Jan 16, 2013 9:14 PM
I do usually read the comments, unless they are from the banned commentors. As soon as I see certain names, I just hit the delete button.
ahemmer - Jan 16, 2013 9:25 PM
And I don't believe any taxes would have to be raised in order to have armed personnel within school buildings. A school administrator and/or a few teachers willing to be assigned to protect the students should a crisis situation arise with an intruder and/or intruders would suffice. They could go through the necessary gun safety course and target practice. The local police departments would probably be very willing to help assist in various capacities to educated the educators on the proper procedures and protocol for keeping the kids safe and what to do. I bet that most schools would have a volunteer - or two - or three - or four, etc. that would be willing to step forward. I fail to believe that most people want to be sitting ducks in the future at the mercy of whatever nut bag walks into their schools.
patriot4progress - Jan 16, 2013 9:28 PM
President has not been vetted. Limbaugh couldn't get elected to any public office with his
history. Answer this Hemmer why should people that can't pass a detailed background
check be allowed to own guns?
Peter123 - Jan 16, 2013 9:29 PM
WFB resident - Jan 16, 2013 9:37 PM
in politics ! Peter please inform us on how many times any Presidents children were
targeted ? Now go and look at how many of our children have been targeted in
schools ! Notice that not one Presidents chid was a target ? lol... Please show us
your proof of what you commented about above ?
WFB resident - Jan 16, 2013 9:38 PM
WFB resident - Jan 16, 2013 9:50 PM
the several hundred thousand dollars that having armed personnel at the schools
would require? " NO ! I am in favor of reducing the teachers salaries to pay for
these guards ! Plus I am willing to allow those teachers willing to carry to keep their
current wages !! lol...
Peter123 - Jan 16, 2013 10:06 PM
Did I make a point which is an opinion? Yes, and I gave supporting reasons.
You have successfully made a counterpoint which is unrelated to my reasoning. Congratulations.
patriot4progress - Jan 17, 2013 12:09 AM
is great for Americans to see... Nothing will out what complete nut jobs the NRA leaders
are than this... The core NRA members don't approve of this... They are going down the
same path republicans did with the tea party and will end up the same as they now have
just a joke
Carl Hicks - Jan 17, 2013 2:42 AM
Here is the list...go read it...I don't see what anyone is excited about...
http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2013/01/white-house-guns-action-executive-orders-legislation
Yeah spit on the constitution by appointing an ATF director!
jman99 - Jan 17, 2013 6:40 AM
Well you can't expect the NRA to tell the truth, its just not in their DNA.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/4-pinocchios-for-a-slashing-nra-ad-on-security-at-sidwell-friends-school/2013/01/16/95b2127a-6032-11e2-9940-6fc488f3fecd_blog.html
You have to remember that where the president's kids go is a Quaker school. Quakers are not big on guns.......
ahemmer - Jan 17, 2013 6:40 AM
Peter and others: Of course most of us do realize that the president and his family do receive protection 24/7, as they should.
What I am referencing, and what the NRA ad points out so nicely, is that nut job shooters are targeting public places in which they know people are defenseless. (The "No Gun Zone" signs tell them so!). Why not accord children in school the same safety in school that the president's children are able to have? I am not saying our children need bodyguards around the clock like the president and his family. I know that is absurd.
What I - and the NRA - am saying is that we know nut jobs target public places - one of which is schools. Let's not advertise a "gun free zone" and instead allow a few school employees access to a firearm. That's it. A fighting chance. Otherwise, all the Executive Orders and laws targeting honest, law-abiding citizes won't do diddly, until mental health issues are addressed.
Mucho - Jan 17, 2013 7:49 AM
He has stooped to a new low.
WFB resident - Jan 17, 2013 9:25 AM
have a constitutional right that says I can protect them with guns ! Just a while ago
several (20+ children and adults were killed in Sandy hook . Yet the o wants to
disarm me from protecting other children and adults ! These are facts ! Your
opinions that we should lose our gun rights are just opinions ! The o protects his
children with guns , and Peter and jman argue that the o's family are of worth ? So it
is justifiable to protect them with guns !!! Do you PDLS's even see the hipocrasy ?? ".
I don't want the President to have to choose between protecting his family and
serving the interests of the country." That was a quote from peter above . Why must
I choose to not protect my children the way I deem correct ? (because I am not
important )? You PDLS's are raising the o on a stool as if he were god !
WFB resident - Jan 17, 2013 11:37 AM
worried about the name of what the o is over him actually being a "Elitist Hypocrite"
?