In response to:

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

wmou Wrote: Jan 18, 2013 3:16 PM
The ad was not reprehensible, it was stupid and unfactual. We have armed guards in many inner city schools.
Bea44 Wrote: Jan 18, 2013 4:04 PM

"We have armed guards in many inner city schools" stated "many inner city schools": we want the same security for all children regardless of status.

All we ask is that all children be treated equally vs. security. Why should the tax payers pay for the security of a few elitist children and NOT ALL American children???
Dyadd Wrote: Jan 18, 2013 3:29 PM
The ad was very accurate. The *fact* that Obama is an "elitist hypocrite" is beyond any rational dispute.

Of course, the same tag could be applied to most of our other leaders. An honest leader would have said something like "given that my children have more than a dozen armed guards the NRA has a point about the need for armed guards and teachers in all schools."
wmou Wrote: Jan 18, 2013 3:47 PM
If my kid was kidnapped, the world would not be at risk.
Earl29 Wrote: Jan 18, 2013 3:54 PM
Perhaps I just am not as willing as you to have your child kidnapped. Why can't we protect your kids and his, too?
Earl29 Wrote: Jan 18, 2013 3:20 PM
It was not unfactual. President Obama's children do indeed go to a school with armed guards and, when the NRA came out for armed guards at all schools, the President did ridicule the idea.
Dyadd Wrote: Jan 18, 2013 3:34 PM
And the President shamefully used children to promote his partisan agenda. Which adds crude exploitation to elitist hypocrisy.
RufusTFirefly Wrote: Jan 18, 2013 3:39 PM
Other children are not targeted for who their parents are. To equate other children with the Presidents children is a stupid argument and most conservative pundits have made the same comment I am. Only people that are blinded by partisan hatred could think otherwise.
wmou Wrote: Jan 18, 2013 3:45 PM
Schools are not gun-free zones.
Why does the NRA push the liberal idea of congress borrowing money , to pay to arm all the schools?
I want Mr Obama and congress to leave that to the people and the states.
Earl29 Wrote: Jan 18, 2013 3:49 PM
So children of us commoners are fair game?
Earl29 Wrote: Jan 18, 2013 3:52 PM
The NRA did not suggest that the Federal Government pay the bill. It did volunteer to train such guards free of charge. Get your facts straight. The NRA is quite aware, none more so, that this is a local concern.
wmou Wrote: Jan 18, 2013 3:58 PM
Mr. Obama is not stopping them. What role is the NRA suggesting for the central govt in school security?
wmou Wrote: Jan 18, 2013 3:59 PM
Our children are our responsibility, not the central govt or the NRA.
Earl29 Wrote: Jan 18, 2013 4:12 PM
If your children go to school, protecting them there is the school's responsibility. If you want to hire a guard to protect your child, feel free.

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...