Needless to say, the past few weeks haven’t been great for the National Rifle Association from a PR perspective. Shortly after Wayne LaPierre’s controversial speech blaming 1990s-era video games and movies for the Sandy Hook shooting, the NRA was accused of releasing a simulated target-shooting app.
There is still some confusion over whether the game was actually issued by the NRA, or whether it was a hoax aimed at embarrassing the group. But at the moment, evidence points to the former–the game’s developer told the New York Times that it was, in fact, an officially-licensed product of the NRA. There is an easy solution to the mystery: if the game is not the NRA’s, the group could issue a statement explaining that. Its silence seems to suggest otherwise.
That isn’t the only strange move from the gun rights lobbying group. They also released an aggressive ad about Obama’s children, calling the president an “elitist hypocrite” for opposing armed security at public schools while his own kids are protected by armed guards. It’s not that the sentiment is wrong–it’s that the ad itself isn’t politically helpful for the NRA. It comes off as fiery and partisan, during a time when many Democrats are standing up against the president’s overreach on gun control. Why intentionally antagonize Democratic allies at the very moment they’re needed most?
As Jim Geraghty noted in today’s Morning Jolt, public polling is not on Obama’s side on this issue. Americans largely support armed guards at schools, which is why the NRA’s hyper-aggressive strategy seems so unnecessary. A softer ad that focused on general child safety and stayed away from combative language would be much more helpful for the organization’s case.
–"when many Democrats are standing up against the president’s overreach on gun control"—really? I don't see that at all. n n—"comes off as fiery and partisan"—so what? Obama is the ultimate fiery partisan and it works beautifully for him.
–"when many Democrats are standing up against the president’s overreach on gun control"—really? I don't see that at all. n n–"fiery and partisan"–so what? Works for Obama beautifully. n nAnd what is wrong with releasing a shooting app? There are tons of them out there already. Are they shooting kids? No, they are shooting at targets. To think there is anything in the least bit wrong with that is exactly the sloppy thinking that Obama and his ilk prey upon–successfully, apparently.
I LIKE the idea of a shooting app that does NOT involve human targets. Isn't it a good thing to teach people to shoot at targets and not people — to score based on how close you come to the center and how tight a pattern you have, and not on how many you kill — to be rewarded with a numerical score increasing and not graphic blood splashes across the screen? n nImagine a driving application — a serpentine roadway — where instead of hitting cones you hit people. Would the issue be the driving or the hitting of people? Is the issue with shooting applications the shooting itself, or the shooting of human beings – may I suggest that it is the latter? n nThe issue with the violent video games is not that they are hypnotic (which they are) nor that they are addictive (which they also are) but that they are desensitizing people to the killing of human beings and that is not a good thing.
Alana–Democrats are not "standing up" to Obama just because they don't want to pass an assault weapon ban right now, so are privately signaling that to the White House. "Standing up" would mean PUBLICLY criticizing Obama by name. Not one has done that.
All the NRA has done, Alana, is make the point that YOU made relative to the newspaper editor who published the addresses of New York gun owners but herself had her own armed security detail. n nThe Secret Service are not police officers — even though they have police powers — they are a protective service. They have guns to protect specific individuals form harm, and the question is why should they have them (or need them) if people don't need guns to protect themselves. No, I do not want the Secret Service disarmed — my point is that everyone else should have the same right of protection as Obama's kids. n nHarry Reid didn't pressure Obama out of some new-found love of guns or bipartisanship — no Harry Reid loves being Senator in a state like Nevada where people believe that the 2nd Amendment means what it says. n nThe Dems KNOW that guns are the reason why Al Gore did not become President — Arkansas and Tennessee are both pro-gun states and both were lost to Bush because of guns.
In retrospect I think we would definitely be better off with Gore – despite his zany and conflicted Global Warming positions, I have no doubt about his patriotism at bottom – than Obama, who has done nothing to prove to me that he truly likes this country and its constitution that he has pledged to defend, and has done plenty to indicate that at bottom he could care less for this country or its constitution. (If you disagree with me, that is fine; but don’t tell me what Obama has said, I discount that categorically; prove it with what Obama has done.)
0h, I agree — and never forget that I believe it was Gore who first raised the "Willie Horton" issue in the 1988 Dem Primary against Mikey Dukakis — it was Bush '41 who will live with it, but it started in the primary. n nBut Al Gore was running against Bush '43 and not Obama — remember that Joe Liberman was Gore's VP pick — and how all the folk like Liberman have left the Democratic party now. n nThis is the point I was trying to make regarding Harry Reid. The Democrat politicians have shifted so far to the left that they really are worried about holding onto their base, and folks like Reid know that the gun issue makes him quite vulnerable to a Republican message to Livelong "Blue Dog" Democrats that their own party wants to take their guns away from them. That has traction — they know it — and why would any working class white guy want to be a Democrat anymore anyway? Fear from wild propaganda about the GOP only goes so far — something specific like gun bans gets attention…. n nJoe the Plumber — "you want to raise my taxes." That is something that Blue Collar America understands — and the Dem Politicians know how vulnerable they are on it. Throw in guns and they are more so. Throw in Israel and — maybe — some of the American Jews might also start voting Republican as well….
Actually, at what point *will* American Jews come to the conclusion that I already have — that the IslamoFascists essentially have a "1-2-3" plan. n nFirst, they destroy Israel – and drive everyone living in Israel "into the sea" — i.e. kill all the Israelis. Second, they kill the rest of the Jews. And then they kill all the Christians. Even though I may be third on the "to be killed list", I prefer not to be killed and take threats like this seriously. It's just like at Virginia Tech where people obediently lined up against the wall and waited to be shot — you don't quietly stand there while he is shooting someone else because you *know* he eventually will shoot you, so you act NOW while you still can. n nThe leaders of the Islamic World are openly talking about "killing all the Americans" — that is not subtle and when folks who have the means to do so (or soon may) openly talk about killing me, I take that seriously. Why American Jews don't is beyond me. n nWhen will the American Jews wake up and realize that someone who openly talks about killing them because (a) they are Jewish and (b) because they are an American might just try to do so. Yes, they might kill someone else *first*, but they are going to kill the American Jews too, regardless of how nice the American Jews are to them, *because* they are (a) Americans and (b) Jews…. n nWhen will the American Jews wake up and realize that someone as mature as Anne Frank was clearly was mature enough to be trusted with a small caliber handgun and that she might not have perished in the Holocaust if she'd had one. If everyone in her family had one… 4 armed Germans to 100 Jews — if that had been 100 *armed* Jews, I really don't think there would have been a Holocaust because while he might have been able to do it, I don't think that Hitler would have wanted to devote the military resources necessary to accomplish it while also fighting a 2-front war, nor would the German military be able to sustain the casualties of an armed Jewish population shooting back at those trying to kill them. n nInstead of reading the translation of her diary (do young people even still read it?), Anne Frank would be an 83-year-old woman whom the college Republican Clubs brought in to speak about how her family shot the Gestapo when they broke into where they were hiding, how she personally shot one of those schmucks with her little pistol — had to shoot him six times to drop him because the bullets were so small, but how she could and did — and why she thinks that every woman ought to both own a gun and know how to use it. n nSome bleeding-heart leftist would ask Anne Frank about the morality of her having killed that Gestapo guy and Frank well might have quoted Exodus 22.2 and that part of Jewish scripture about when someone is intent on killing you, it is ethical to get up "very early in the morning" and go kill him first. Or how it does still bother her and how she will never forget the blood spurting out of him and his death tremors. But at least she would still be able to tell it — she would have survived and not died in the Holocaust — she likely would have become a literally figure of great note. n nIf the girl only had a gun….. n nWhen will American Jews realize that the American economy — right now — is just about exactly where the German economy was in the years post-WW-1 — that we are borrowing from China the way that the Germans were borrowing from the US — and that China's economy could crash the same way (and for the same reasons) that ours did in 1929. When are American Jews not going to learn the lessons of the Wiemar Republic? Hopefully that won't happen here, but doesn't Hurricane Sandy teach us that if something *could* happen, it actually *might* happen and we need to be ready for that possibility? n nWhen will American Jews realize that people like Joe Liberman (who is by no means a conservative) have been run out of their party, and that folks like Charles Schumer are really all in it for themselves, telling Jews what they want to hear, but not believing a word of hit himself, let alone intending to actually act on those alleged values. n nWhen will American Jews stop being so damn Liberal (capitol "L") and start being liberal (small "l") and realistically look at the people and political party they are supporting.
nI see nothing wrong with this ad, Obama kids are good enough to be protected by guns, why aren't the rest of our kids worthy of the same protection. Elitist snobs like Obama don't see the Hypocrisy.
The bottom line is the American President is suppose to be "of the people." All Presidents before were temporarily President but permanently a citizen like the rest of the citizens. This president is not of the people, he is manifestly alien in spirit to what American presidents have always been.
Alana they released the video because they are winning this argument with the American people … yes, they are hitting Obama when he is down … something that should be done more often …
One other thing Alana — armed security — hopefully WELL TRAINED and DISCIPLINED armed security in our public schools, even our elementary schools, will help with a whole lot more than the gun-toting shoot-everyone thug. Do you have any idea how many bullies there are — not even in middle school but even some elementary schools? Middle school "protection rackets" are not unheard of — forget High School, this stuff happens in Middle Schools — and not in the urban core cities (where there already *are* armed police in the building) but in the Suburbs. n nThings got so bad my senior year of high school that members of the marching band literally had to carry baseball bats (all day, to all their classes) as a not-so-subtle message to members of the football team who would otherwise have beaten them up with impunity. As to the teachers, they were too scared to do anything and hence didn't say anything about the baseball bats either. One math teacher — a brilliant woman who had gotten an 800 on the Math SAT (back before they "renormed" it and inflated the scores) was shoved, fell, broke her neck and wound up in a wheelchair for life. This in the high school of a "good" suburb. n nBefore feminism, back when it was felt that only a male police officer could stop traffic on a busy street, the town had an actual police officer as crossing guard for my elementary school. They picked an older officer who was good with children, and I still remember some of the older children discussing things they had read in the local newspaper with him — a very real reward to a child for being able to read — and he made it clear that he was there to protect us from harm, with his old-fashioned gun-belt that had the bullets across the back, and he made it clear that was from all harm including that of other children. He set the tone. n nThis was before physical fitness requirements and the town had another officer who was dying of kidney failure back when less could be done about that — although that was kept quite quiet. He was the school safety officer — was that for at least a decade because I got some Boy Scout Merit Badges from him when I was older — and he came in and taught basic gun safety to first graders — basically if you find a gun, don't touch it and get an adult, likewise if you find a bullet — and he pulled one out of his belt to show us what a bullet was — and to never throw bullets into the trash because should the trash be burned, it would explode. And if a grownup had bullets they wanted to dispose of, the police would be happy to do that for them. n nBut "Officer Max" was only around occasionally — a police officer, usually the same guy, was *always* at the crosswalk every morning and afternoon. And then that changed… n nAnd I'd had a broken arm and at least 7 concussions before I got out of 8th Grade. n nThere are a LOT of things that an armed police officer can do in a school beyond shooting people — if it is the right police officer, and if he (and it should be a "he") is trained in things other than how to shoot people and drive fast. It needs to be a male officer because there is a desperate need for positive male role models in K-12, there are way too many boys without one, and there are very few male teachers, particularly in the elementary schools. (Were there any male teachers or administrators in the Newtown school — those shot and those quoted by the media were all female — were there any adult males in that educational environment?) There is a lot to be said for a male officer there — every day — in any school. n nFor that matter, I wonder how many battered women — truly battered women — would be more willing to seek the assistance of the school police officer in their child's school than all of these VAWA-funded advocates and such. Were the officer (who knew who her kid was) to promise to keep an eye on her kid for her so that she didn't have to worry about her crazy ex-husband harming the child in retaliation, that would mean more to a mother than any amount of verbiage from the VAWA advocate's office. n nAnd should you have an unsafe situation — say a nonchalant contractor who literally (accidentally) dropped a steel beam into an occupied classroom, fortunately not hitting anyone, as happened at another high school I am aware of — a police officer can immediately do a lot of things that a principal can't. A police officer is empowered to respond to completely unanticipated things in a way that administrators aren't — and can get the right EMS people (and equipment) to the scene quicker because both of his radio and his knowing what to say and what to ask for. n nI think the American Public would much rather have the police officer at/in their child's school than out harassing them for driving a few miles too fast on an empty road or not wearing their seat belts.
No one who believes in the Right To Life can possibly believe in the 'right' to own military assault weapons. n nThe right of our children to breathe far, far outweighs the 'right' of gun fanatics to own AK-47s, Gatling guns, or Howitzers.
Okay, Trent. No one who believes in the right to life can believe in taking a life — or having the means to take a life — in the defense of innocent life. n nI was not aware that Gatling guns, or Howitzers have been used in any school shootings, but in my opinion, the lives of our children to breathe far, far outweighs the the 'right' of gun banning fanatics to insure that the only people with access to a gun are people who want to commit murder. n nYou have shown on other threads that you are an ignoramus, a troll and a shameless liar (depleted uranium being used in 'cop killer' bullets? please!) and a troll when it comes to gun related issues.
You may defend the 'right' to own military assault weapons, and whatever else you want in your armory. Tommy guns. Why not? Gatling guns? Sure. You just don't care. As long as you can make a lot of noise and shoot people, you just don't care. n nThe rest of us will defend the right of children to live free of such threats. n nYou make it too easy to kill kids, Ahad. You make it too easy to obtain weapons of mass murder. When called on it, you pretend you are concerned about 'defending' kids — from the consequences of your own policy. n nYou can't have it both ways, which is why the gun lobby is in such difficulty. n nYou oppose bans on cop-killer bullets. You oppose limits on gun magazines. You oppose background checks for gun show buyers. And you oppose restrictions on rapid-fire guns whose sole purpose is to kill and maim human beings. n nYou make life too easy for the mass murderers among us.
You can only stop a bad guy with a gun with a good guy with a gun. Why are you campaigning to take the guns away from the good guys? Oh wait. You're a liberal. Liberals by definition have never understood the difference as long as the individual in question was a liberal.
You — literally — parrot the NRA line. Mr LaPierre used it after the latest gun massacre. It failed then. It fails now. n nYour answer to everything is always "guns, and more guns". People like you, Mr Rose, don't have a platform. You have a treadmill. n nYour policy is a proven failure. We are 311 million people. We have 300 MILLION guns. If your policy worked (it does not), we would be the safest country on earth. We are not. n nWe are, per cap, the most heavily armed First World country on the planet. 300 MILLION guns later, and we suffered 11,000 gun murders last year alone. Your policy in its own terms is a catastrophic failure. n nI understand that you just like guns. Fair enough. Some people never grow up, and are still playing Cowboys & Indians at age 40. It happens. n nBut for the rest of us, your "all guns, all the time" policy leads to an endless cycle of murder and more murder. Your policy has been tried. It has failed. Utterly failed. n nYou believe that your 'right' to own guns is more important than the right of children to live. 11,000 gun victims last year alone might disagree with you. n nNineteen children at Newtown would disagree with you, were they still alive to do so.
So trent1280 old buddy old pal please tell us in your reply to this comment how you are going to stop the bad guy with a gun since you have made it abundantly clear you won't have a gun.
"An ounce of prevention," Mr Rose. n nYou may imagine that the genie is out of the bottle, and that — 300 MILLION guns later — it cannot be re-stopped. n nI don't believe that. The ingenuity and the decency of our people always surpasses any obstacle. We are the greatest nation on earth because we know that any problem caused by humans can be solved by humans. n nDo you believe that the Japanese are a more moral people than we are? Of course not. We remember Pearl Harbor, the Rape of Nanking, and the Bataan Death March, among many atrocities. n nBut last year the Japanese had ZERO gun murders. Their children are safer than ours. And their nation is smarter about gun control than ours. We need to learn from the nations that do it well. n nA question: are your kids safer walking the streets of Cleveland, or the streets of Kyoto? The streets of Oakland, or the streets of Calgary? n nYou already know the answer.
The NRA's policy of "all guns, all the time" is a colossal failure, even in its own terms. n nThere are over 300 MILLION guns in America, and 311 million Americans. n nCONSIDER: if the NRA's policy of arming America to the teeth actually worked, we would be the safest nation on earth. We are not. n nLast year, we had 11,000 gun murders — and that was before the mass shootings at Aurora and Newtown. In the same year, Japan had ZERO gun murders, Canada had 170, and Great Britain had 39. They have gun control. We have none. n nIn its own terms, the NRA is a complete failure. With so many guns on our streets, we should have the safest streets in the First World. In fact, we are among the most dangerous in the First World. n nThe NRA's own position is undermined by the NRA's own facts. n nELEVEN THOUSAND gun murders last year? Their policy is a disaster. More guns = more murders.
"ELEVEN THOUSAND gun murders last year? " Of which 323 were committed with rifles, and even fewer with the rifles you are so keen on banning. And out of how many total, by the way? If a law drives the gun murder down but drives total murder rates up, along with rates of rape, armed robbery, armed burglary and assault, is that a good thing or a bad thing? n nLet's talk after you establish at least some connection with reality instead of lashing out at your real or imagined bogeymen. Until then, listening to you is about as interesting as watching the aftermath of a DWI collision.
You concede that we suffered ELEVEN THOUSAND gun murders last year. n nHowever, as "only" 323 were committed by rifle, you take no objection. n nBritain had 39 gun murders, Canada had 170, and Japan had zero. According to you, "only" 323 murders by rifle here is not worth worrying about. You dismiss them with an airy wave of rhetoric. n nThere is a black hole at the heart of your world, Ahad. You cannot see this, as your whole field of vision is distorted by your love of guns. Your love of human beings is somewhat less evident. n nELEVEN THOUSAND gun murders is appalling. "Only" 323 by rifle is no less so. n nTry offering your cold comfort to the twelve massacred by rifle at Aurora. Or the 26 children and teachers massacred by rifle at Newtown. Your utter heartlessness would not be welcome. There — or anywhere. n nAlas, you are a much better representative of the NRA than you may have intended. Thank you, at least, for that small service to America. It is always useful to be able to show a cold vacuum for what it is. While you measure "only", the rest of us will do what we can to make murder as difficult as possible. n nELEVEN THOUSAND gun murders a year is a disgrace to America. It should be to you.
I concede nothing. I point out that you are not addressing the problem of murder, let alone the much less frequent problem of mass murder, and have conflated it with your perceived problem of guns. n nYou do not address how many murders were prevented because the victim had a gun – both in cases where the criminal did and where the criminal did not. And you don't seem to acknowledge that when the UK banned guns, the murder rate went up, not down, as did the violent crime rate. n nBy establishing gun free zones and disarming law abiding people, you make murder too easy for the murderers among us, mass murder too easy for the mass murderers among us, and violent crime too easy for the violent criminals against us. But keep ranting about the scourge of deadly howitzer violence in our streets.
You posit "what if" because you cannot answer "what was". n n"What if we had no speed limit?" you might ask. "How many people would be killed on the highway?" You propose, "What if we had no FDA? How many people would be poisoned by bad medicine?" And so it goes. Yours is a rhetorical trick, Ahad, and obvious as Gibraltar. n nYou ask "how many murders were prevented" as if that was a serious question, open to a fact-based reply. It is not serious. It cannot be answered. No one keeps such records. The 'evidence' would be wholly anecdotal and unsound. It has no meaning. n nYou ask "what if" because you cannot handle "what was". n nThe catastrophe of gun violence you endorse is so appalling that you must avoid it. ELEVEN THOUSAND gun murders in our beloved country last year, and you find that acceptable. Zero gun murders in Japan, and you cannot deal with it. n nWere any member of YOUR family the victim of your pro-gun policies, you might feel differently. Or, perhaps not. You shut down your empathy a long time ago. In this regard, you remain a coldly efficient advocate for the NRA. n nI appreciate and am flattered by the plagiarism of your last paragraph. Well done!
Alana Goodman: Obama-A$$ kisser extraordinaire.
Based on WHAT? Or do facts not matter?