In response to:

Is Chris Christie Overreacting Over the NRA’s “Reprehensible” Ad?

Phall44 Wrote: Jan 18, 2013 2:54 PM
Uh...Gov. are wrong. Take it like a man. You missed the point. You are wrong, and Obama doesn't care whether your kids have protection or not. I'm not so sure he cares whether his kids have protection, as long as he has his own.
Dyadd Wrote: Jan 18, 2013 3:09 PM
If this country really cared about children the teachers would have been armed years ago.

But then we release convicted child predators.

There is very little real concern for the welfare of children - just politically expedient posturing.
Gordon110 Wrote: Jan 18, 2013 3:13 PM
Whenever the left wants to push some particularly odious policy it suddenly becomes all about the chilren'.
Earl29 Wrote: Jan 18, 2013 3:31 PM
I'm afraid I have to agree with you, Dyadd. People get all up in arms about murdeted children, but when they get on a jury, they seem not to care very much.

New Jersey Governor Chris Christie is apparently up in arms because the National Rifle Association released an ad asking simple yet important question: If President Obama’s kids are protected by professional armed guards -- why can’t yours be, too?

I agree with the governor on a number of substantive points, but here are two things to consider:

1. The NRA -- at no point during their advertisement -- explicitly attacked Sasha and Malia Obama by name. Yes, they imply that the “president’s children” -- because of who they are -- have certain...