Using the Pres. kids is going too far

[geerair]

both were not trained properly, and failed in there duty to protect

Whether they were trained properly (I've seen no evidence or mention of their training) is moot.

You claimed ALL mass shootings occurred in gun free zones. Obviously you were wrong.

[Tool-Slinger]

Actually, I fully agree with you but I don't know how that message got turned around in this posting. obama doesn't care about us or or kids, neighborhood, jobs, savings, family, dog, cat, etc, etc. He doesn't even know we exist except for his service and amusement.

He sees himself as a king. And the last two elections have proven to him that he is correct. So him mode of operation after the last election is full steam ahead into the rocks of the ship he is commanding keeping in mind he is not on that ship.

BTW, DC where his kids school, use to be a gun free zone for many years up until lately. It was illegal to have a gun in your possession even if you were just driving through from another state.

An old DC friend just sent me a map of our old DC neighborhood which is about 20 blocks away from the Capitol. This map shows the amount of killings, mainly by guns, in our old neighborhood. But it's been this way since the 60's. The criminals are armed to the teeth but the law abiding citizens are defenseless. BTW, most of the killings are drug related and black to black.

I just switched over to Mozilla Firefox and can't find my Favorites so I'll get back to you and the map of gun murders in DC.

Understood. Any of us with brains see the hypocrisy here.

As for children, I want everyone's children safe, but I don't think we can effectively fortify elementary schools against the occasional nut. It is just not practical. But neither should we make them easy targets with "GUN FREE ZONE" silliness.

Repeat, I understand Obamababes need additional security. We all do. That is about all I care to respond to geerair's blathering empty-headed commentary on the subject.

If you want a discussion, have some intellectual input. Or at least be funny. I am weary of reading cr@p replies.

Not you DT, I was talking to the geer. Me and you are having an intelligent discussion.

[Tool-Slinger]

I still don't buy it. Politics has nothing to do with how the President protects his kids. Every President that I'm aware of since Eisenhower has had armed protection for their families & it never made a difference on their policies on guns if they had one.
When you become president whether you're an elitist or not you still put your family in harms way & they have to be protected.
I think Obama is 100% wrong on whatever his proposed gun restrictions are & just about every other thing he's done as president but I see absolutely no double standard in protecting his family & still believing in gun restriction.

I see absolutely no double standard in protecting his family & still believing in gun restriction.

really? Obama wants guns to protect his family. He does not want you to have guns to protect yours.

If you cannot see the double standard you should have your driving license revoked, a mental health evaluation, a seeing-eye dog, and special Mr. Magoo glasses.

[geerair]

Understood. Any of us with brains see the hypocrisy here.

An insult. This is what you call intellectual input?

As for children, I want everyone's children safe, but I don't think we can effectively fortify elementary schools against the occasional nut. It is just not practical. But neither should we make them easy targets with "GUN FREE ZONE" silliness.

"GUN FREE ZONES" at public schools are not under Obama's authority. "GUN FREE ZONES" is a decision for local school boards.

So completely wrong statements are what you call intellectual input?

Repeat, I understand Obamababes need additional security. We all do. That is about all I care to respond to geerair's blathering empty-headed commentary on the subject.

More insults. This is what you call intellectual input?

If you want a discussion, have some intellectual input. Or at least be funny. I am weary of reading cr@p replies.

Actually, you are weary of being expertly debunked. As we have seen above, you have no interest in intellectual input.

[geerair]

[COLOR="#FF0000"] really? Obama wants guns to protect his family. He does not want you to have guns to protect yours.

Really? Then you should have statements made by Obama supporting your contention.

If you cannot see the double standard you should have your driving license revoked, a mental health evaluation, a seeing-eye dog, and special Mr. Magoo glasses.

More intellectual input?

[ga-hvac-tech]

I still don't buy it. Politics has nothing to do with how the President protects his kids. Every President that I'm aware of since Eisenhower has had armed protection for their families & it never made a difference on their policies on guns if they had one.
When you become president whether you're an elitist or not you still put your family in harms way & they have to be protected.
I think Obama is 100% wrong on whatever his proposed gun restrictions are & just about every other thing he's done as president but I see absolutely no double standard in protecting his family & still believing in gun restriction.

OK, lets look at this another way:

Yeah, the kids of a person in public light (recognized) are more vulnerable.... The major church pastors in Atlanta have body-gaurds and their kids to go private schools with security. Just life.

What I am saying is: It is BLATANT HYPOCRACY for POTUS to have kids in his press conferences talking about disarming the citizens so they cannot protect their kids... while HIS kids are protected by guns.

IMO I could care less about his kids safety, this is his responsibility... I am concerned about MY kids. And if the person running for public office does not share that concern for me and my kids... well they do not get my vote.
The bottom line is: They work for US... not the other way around. The USA is not a monarchy... it is a democracy.

[ga-hvac-tech]

I see absolutely no double standard in protecting his family & still believing in gun restriction.

really? Obama wants guns to protect his family. He does not want you to have guns to protect yours.

If you cannot see the double standard you should have your driving license revoked, a mental health evaluation, a seeing-eye dog, and special Mr. Magoo glasses.

I realize TS is being a bit sarcastic with his reply... however it is not far off IMO.

There is a definite and blatant double standard here... and it will be enacted if the American public does not push back.
I just hope there are enough Americans who understand and have the gonads to step out and do something.

[geerair]

What I am saying is: It is BLATANT HYPOCRACY for POTUS to have kids in his press conferences talking about disarming the citizens so they cannot protect their kids... while HIS kids are protected by guns.

I listened to the relevant press conference. There was nothing said about disarming citizens so they cannot protect their kids.

Methinks GA been lstening to too much talk radio.

[Tool-Slinger]

I listened to the relevant press conference. There was nothing said about disarming citizens so they cannot protect their kids.

Methinks GA been lstening to too much talk radio.

Kay Geer, The prez is not going for disarmament, he is working in that direction as best he can.

Not trying to lose my own point in my high-stringed-whacky-discussion-patterns, The wins and losses in these type situations happen in small steps normally.

We had a shooting, not the first one. The gun and magazine bans are going to do NOTHING to prevent it from happening again. That is what they are going for, handguns are next. Using children for propaganda props. Obama sends out e-mails for support from his campaign network, I get them. He wants any degree of gun ban he can get.

The hypocrisy is undeniable. Obama wants more guns to protect his, wants less guns for everyone else to protect theirs.

Using children for props is wrong. Anyone above 500 microns vac in the head knows that.

[AStudent]

Seriously? If something tragic happened to an immediate family member he would have a very hard time conducting business for a while and would probably make some bad decisions that could affect thousands if not millions of people.

[ga-hvac-tech]

Seriously? If something tragic happened to an immediate family member he would have a very hard time conducting business for a while and would probably make some bad decisions that could affect thousands if not millions of people.

That is assuming he is making good decisions... which he does NOT.

However I will give him the benefit of the doubt if someone can list a few decisions BHO has made that were in the BEST interest of the average American citizen? Please do list a few with an explanation of how they help better our lives.

[ga-hvac-tech]

Kay Geer, The prez is not going for disarmament, he is working in that direction as best he can.

Not trying to lose my own point in my high-stringed-whacky-discussion-patterns, The wins and losses in these type situations happen in small steps normally.

We had a shooting, not the first one. The gun and magazine bans are going to do NOTHING to prevent it from happening again. That is what they are going for, handguns are next. Using children for propaganda props. Obama sends out e-mails for support from his campaign network, I get them. He wants any degree of gun ban he can get.

The hypocrisy is undeniable. Obama wants more guns to protect his, wants less guns for everyone else to protect theirs.

Using children for props is wrong. Anyone above 500 microns vac in the head knows that.

As usual... Geer tries to pick away at details... while avoiding and denying the major picture.
Classic textbook liberalism.

[Tool-Slinger]

Seriously? If something tragic happened to an immediate family member he would have a very hard time conducting business for a while and would probably make some bad decisions that could affect thousands if not millions of people.

Sorry. That ship has already sailed port without personal tragedy.