AD TAKES AIM AT BARACK OBAMA’S FAMILY … BUT WHY?
This website has never liked the National Rifle Association (NRA). Our beef with the organization dates back over a decade, when one of its Virginia-based hacks told us the NRA frequently endorsed candidates with weaker pro-Second Amendment records due to its “friendly incumbent policy.”
Right then and there, we decided we had absolutely no use for this group … which is clearly more concerned with advancing its own influence than protecting the Second Amendment.
Once again, the NRA is demonstrating its worthlessness in the “gun control” debate with a totally ill-conceived advertisement bashing the administration of Barack Obama for its opposition to armed security at America’s government schools.
Here’s the spot …
(Click to play)
This website is not disputing that Obama is an “elitist hypocrite.” He clearly is – on multiple fronts. In fact we’ve said as much given his tortured opposition to parental choice.
But why is the NRA focused on this particular aspect of the Second Amendment debate? And why is it engaging Obama’s family on the issue (a move which is sure to make the bleeding hearts in this country go positively apoplectic)?
The answer lies in the NRA’s support for mandatory armed security within our government-run education system – a premise we dispute on the basis that there ought not be a government-run education system in the first place.
Nonetheless the NRA – eager to put more deficit spending ahead of the core Second Amendment freedoms it ought to be defending – is running an ad it hopes will bring the public around to its way of thinking. Based on the content of this wanna be Ford F-150 spot, though, we think that’s a (pardon the pun) long shot. Seriously … even if we supported taxpayer-funded security for government-run schools (which we clearly don’t), is this really the best argument to make in support of that position?
No. Not even a little bit …
While this ad is pathetic on so many levels, the real problem we’re dealing with is the increasing frequency with which “right wing” activists embrace big government solutions as part of their knee-jerk response to isolated tragedies. While that may be the “Republican” way of doing things, it’s not in anybody’s best interests.
“Many Americans believe that if we simply pass the right laws, future horrors like the Sandy Hook Elementary shooting can be prevented,” former U.S. Rep. Ron Paul said last month. “But this impulse ignores the self evident truth that criminals don’t obey laws. The political right, unfortunately, has fallen into the same trap in its calls for quick legislative solutions to gun violence. If only we put armed police or armed teachers in schools, we’re told, would-be school shooters will be dissuaded or stopped.”
Amen to that …
The NRA’s ridiculous anti-Obama ad is bad enough on its own … but the underlying rationale behind this spot is what ought to concern taxpayers. At a time when the NRA ought to be waging war on the Obama administration’s jihad against our individual liberties, it has decided instead to push for the creation of a brand new government law enforcement function within our failing taxpayer-funded education system.
***
(Banner via)
51 comments
Mika and Joe were really pissed about the piece on “Morning Joe’ this morning.
Joe even let Mika talk for 3 minutes on the subject!!!!
WOW: FITS Bashing something NON-Leftist..
Suprise Suprise…What’s new?
STFU, FITS…You (and/or Sanford) fool no one…
Heard Haley is NOT endorsing Sanford…
Can’t wait to see you blow up over that one…i
But please endorse Haley…you always back a loser, so please do it. See if you can follow that logic, asshole.
Regarding Scott, who did not get his congressional seat on his own: You said he could just say who gets his seat and that person would get it. Still true?
The ad points to the double standard that elitists always enjoy…Do as I say and not as I do is the typical elitist MO…I pay taxes. Why should my three children be sent to a public school with no security or minimal security while our “leaders” send their kids to heavily guarded, private schools? Aren’t we all equal? hmmm…
Agreed – everyone thinks we should treat elected politicians as supreme beings
They work for US (you know – you and me!) – everyone of them – they have voted themselves better benefit packages, better retirement packages, but what is good for them is apparently not good enough for us.
Everyone needs to take elected officials – including the President, Congressman and even down to local politicians off the pedestal – they work for us!!
What is good for the goose should also be good for the gander!!
Joe did make a good point.
All shit like this is doing is making the NRA further align themselves with the fringe elements and aleinating (sp) level-headed types.
I’m an NRA member and I have considered canceling my membership. If Wayne LaPeir9sp) gets any whackier, I might just do that.
Oh I know, a shitload have joined since the shootings, blah,blah,blah……
Plus leave the kids out of this and that goes for ANY public officials kids in situations like this.
The NRA’s shdowy leaders include the CEO who sells Bushmaster assault rifles and a top director who lives in Newtown. The NRA operates like a Politburo more than a lobbying organization. Its 76 board directors and 10 executive officers keep a grip on power through elections in which ordinary grassroots members appear to have little input.
LaPierre took home $960,000 from the NRA and related organizations in 2010.
I call it blood money.
Shadowy leaders?!?
Here’s a link to let a little sunshine into your confused dreary little life: meetthenra.org/board-list
The link will give you the name, bio and affiliations of every “shadowy leader” the NRA has.
Imelt took home $22,000,000, his GE engines keep blowing up on Boeing’s jets I call it hydraulic fluid money…
Will- you are totally wrong. The only reason you and I enjoy 2nd Amendment rights today is the NRA. If not for them, we might be left with a shotgun and a deer rifle if lucky. The NRA and their membership is among the best group of people in the USA and I urge everyone to join at the NRA website.
Which is all you and anyone else should be left with.
Face in the Crowd is an idiot.
Go stroke your barrel, Neil.
Masturbation related comeback, eh? Is lunch over? You best not be late for english class.
Neils arms are to short and that’s why he’s mad all the time.
‘Our beef with the organization dates back over a decade, when one of its Virginia-based hacks told us the NRA frequently endorsed candidates with weaker pro-Second Amendment records due to its “friendly incumbent policy.”’
Give us a name or I’ll just dismiss this as typical Fits BS and file it next to “a media outlet will publicize my affair with Nikki Haley if I don’t do it first”
“his tortured opposition to parental choice”
“there ought not be a government-run education system in the first place.”
Apparently Howie has modified his pay method to Sic Willie. It is now based on the number of mentions in a piece and not by the piece.
The NRA is a scumbag filth pit to take shots at the children of the President.
The NRA needs to be brought down, just like Big Tobacco was.
Big tobacco “brought down” yeah right, when was the last time you darkened the door of a Zippy Mart? Oh, that’s right, you work in one – look closely at all that stuff on the shelves behind the cash register. Last year Big Tobacco killed more than 158,000 people by giving them lung cancer.
Guns killed less than 14,000 and more than a 1,000 of those were justifiable.
And let’s not forget how many unborn children are annually aborted in the USA – if I was the Republicans, and if their hand is forced, they should include an anti-abortion section in the law, but liberals and a lot of women would have none of that -with the dont’t touch my womb mentality. But we as a nation have no morals when it comes to abortion.
“How DARE the president’s kids have access to protection by the Secret Service!”
Someone didn’t think that one through. Obama’s got armed guards following him too, but you don’t see me demanding my job give me a security detail. Pretty sure that any sitting president has to worry a bit more about their safety and their family’s safety than the average person does, and for pretty obvious reasons.
Besides, what about “states rights?” Can’t a state pass a law allowing teachers to carry, or hire armed guards themselves? Didn’t SC pass a law for CWP holders to stash their weapon in their car on school grounds? Why can’t states just do it and get it over with?
Oh, that’s right, because they want the federal gubmint to pay for whatever changes they make.
Think what through? Who said the quote you offered? I didn’t hear it in the ad, so where did it come from?
Didn’t the NRA add 100,000 new members based on the Assault by Obama on the 2nd Amendment???… That’s BIG!!!!
Rock on!!!!
An armed citizenry is not the basis of America’s freedom. Certainly not mine.
Your NRA has permitted a blood tax paid by the lives of American children.
The NRA must be brought down once and for all. Like Big Tobacco was.
The NRA is like the NAACP, they stick their nose into everything and make everything seem to be much worse than it actually is because that is what brings in the dough. There are far better pro gun rights groups out there, but unfortunately those are much smaller.
I read its membership spiked 250,000.
ceilidh, if it wasn’t for an armed citizenry you’d still be singing God Save the Queen. Take your freedom hating socialism elsewhere.
If, as some may argue, that the Second Amendment’s “militia” meaning, is that every person has a right to keep and bear arms. The only way to describe one’s right as a private individual, is not as a “militia” but as a “person” (“The individual personality of a human being: self.”). “Person” or “persons“” is mentioned in the Constitution 49 times, to explicitly describe, clarify and mandate a Constitutional legal standing as to a “person”, his or her Constitutional rights. Whereas in the Second Amendment, reference to “person” is not to be found. Was there are reason?. The obvious question arises, why did the Framers use the noun “person/s” as liberally as they did throughout the Constitution 49 times and not apply this understanding to explicitly convey same legal standard in defining an individual’s right to bear arms as a “person”?
Merriam Webster “militia”, “a body of citizens organized for military service : a whole body of able-bodied male citizens declared by law as being subject to call to military service.
=
Article 2, Section 2 “The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into actual Service of the United States;…”
=
In the whole of the U.S. Constitution, “militia” is mentioned 5 times. In these references there is no mention of person or persons. One reference to “people“ in the Second Amendment. People, meaning not a person but persons, in describing a “militia”. “People” is mentioned a total 9 times.
=
It’s not enough to just say that “person(s)” is mentioned in the United States Constitution 49 times. But to see it for yourself, and the realization was for the concern envisioned by the Framers that every “person” be secure in these rights explicitly spelled out, referenced and understood how these rights were to be applied to that “person”.
“..No Person shall be a Representative..”
“..whole Number of free Persons,..”
“..three fifths of all other Persons…”
“..No person shall be a Senator…”
“..And no Person shall be convicted…”
“..no Person holding any Office…”
“..Names of the Persons voting for…”
“…of such Persons as any of the States…”
“…not exceeding ten dollars for each Person…”
“…And no Person holding any…”
“…or Person holding an Office of Trust o…“
“…and vote by Ballot for two persons,…”
“…List of all the Persons voted for,…”
“…The Person having the greatest Number of Votes…”
“…and if no Person have a Majority,…”
“…the Person having the greatest Number…”
“…No person except a natural born Citizen,…”
“…Any Person be eligible to that ….”
“…No Person shall be convicted of …”
“…except during the Life of the Person attainted….”.
“…A Person charged in any State…”
“…No Person held to Service…”
“…The right of the people to be secure in their persons,…”
“…and the persons or things to be seized….”
“..No person shall be held to answer…”
“..nor shall any person be subject for the same offense….”
“…they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President,…”
“…the person voted for as Vice-President,…”
“…all persons voted for as President,….”
“…all persons voted for as Vice-President…”
“…The person having the greatest Number of votes for President, …”
“…and if no person have such majority,…”
“..the persons having the highest numbers …”
“… The person having the greatest number of votes…”
“..and if no person have a majority,…”
“…But no person constitutionally ineligible…”
“…All persons born or naturalized …”
“…nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property,…”
“…nor deny to any person within …”
“…number of persons in each State,….”
“…No person shall be a Senator or …”
“..and such person shall act accordingly….”
“…of the death of any of the persons from…”
“…death of any of the persons from…”
“…No person shall be elected to the office…”
“…and no person who has held the office of President,…”
“..to which some other person was elected…”
“…shall not apply to any person holding the office…”
“..prevent any person who may be holding…”
=
Excerpts in reading Emerson v. United States (1999), or Miller v. United States (1939), one can be struck with the many thoughts, interpretations of what the second amendment means, but more important how it came about and ended. However, even still, I am left with the thought if the Framers had treated Amendment 2 with the same obedience, and reverence to explain the 49 Constitutional references to “person”, there would be no controversy in what is perceived as a right to bear arms.
=
MEMORANDUM OPINION 1
United States v Emerson
“The American colonists exercised their right to bear arms under the English Bill of Rights. Indeed, the English government’s success in luring Englishmen to America was due in part to pledges that the immigrants and their children would continue to possess “all the rights of natural subjects, as if born and abiding in England.”
=
“A foundation of American political thought during the Revolutionary period was the well justified concern about political corruption and governmental tyranny. Even the federalists, fending off their opponents who accused them of creating an oppressive regime, were careful to acknowledge the risks of tyranny. Against that backdrop, the framers saw the personal right to bear arms as a potential check against tyranny.”
=
“The framers thought the personal right to bear arms to be a paramount right by which other rights could be protected. Therefore, writing after the ratification of the Constitution, but before the election of the first Congress, James Monroe included “the right to keep and bear arms” in a list of basic “human rights” which he proposed to be added to the Constitution. HALBROOK, supra at 223 n. 145 (citing James Monroe Papers, New York Public Library (Miscellaneous Papers of James Monroe)).”
=
307 U.S. 174 United States v. Miller
Structural Analysis
“Furthermore, the very inclusion of the right to keep and bear arms in the Bill of Rights shows that the framers of the Constitution considered it an individual right. “After all, the Bill of Rights is not a bill of states’ rights, but the bill of rights retained by the people.” David Harmer, Securing a Free State: Why The Second Amendment Matters, 1998 BYU L. REV. 55, 60 (1998). Of the first ten amendments to the Constitution, only the Tenth concerns itself with the rights of the states, and refers to such rights in addition to, not instead of, individual rights. Id. Thus the structure of the Second Amendment, viewed in the context of the entire Bill of Rights, evinces an intent to recognize an individual right retained by the people.”
=
After debating by the Framers on the proposed right to bear arms, from these few references, some credence is given to the “intent” to “to bear arms”. Analysis of structural statutory construction, “..viewed in the context of the entire Bill of Rights,..” individual citizens, a person, to “bear arms“ however proposed and debated, there is reference to “person” mentioned 49 times, is this not to be considered when looking at the context of the entire Bill Of Rights? Right to bear arms was debated and proposed, but the Second Amendment remains silent.
=
Jones v Smart [1785} 1 Term Rep.44,52 (per Buller, J.) “[W]e are bound to take the act of parliament, as they made it: a casus omissus can in no case be supplied by a Court of Law, for that would be to makes laws.” (Reading Law: The Interpretation of Legal Texts) Antonin Scalia/ Bryan A. Gardner .West.
=
What am I missing?
“What am I missing?”
Quite a bit, apparently, if you are confused to the point of believing the 2A protects some sort of “collective” right
“The only way to describe one’s right as a private individual, is not as a “militia” but as a “person” (“The individual personality of a human being: self.”).”
Actually, that’s not true. The First, Fourth, Ninth and Tenth Amendments all use the term “people,” just like the Second. In the context of those amendments, the term “people” is recognized as protecting the rights of individuals.
Furthermore, SCOTUS has recognized that the Second Amendment protects an individual right, both in the cases you mentioned, as well as in the more recent Heller and McDonald cases.
Honestly, I can’t really tell what point you are trying to make, so if I am missing your true intent, then I apologize. That said, the 2A clearly protects an individual right. If your point was to disagree, it seems you went to a great deal of trouble to confuse the issue by analyzing the Constitution without giving any consideration to the Bill of Rights.
I might join NRA just to get a free duffel bag to carry my Pepsi and Fritos.
Wait a minute. No one said anything about Fritos. This changes things.
Look, I have enjoyed shooting dove and quail. I have shot marsh hens in the Ashepoo River in Colleton County during a spring tide. I follow the rules. When I am done, I am done, until next time. It is fun to shoot with my friends and comrades, and to enjoy a drink and a pleasant dinner afterwards.
But what the NRA does is hold itself above everyone and everything in this country. It considers itself untouchable. It considers itself inviolate. It feels it does not have to answer to anyone. It thinks its shit don’t stink.
It is time for the NRA to act socially responsibly, to participate in the dialogue following all of the outrageous killings of school children and theater goers. The NRA is part of the problem. It needs to be part of the solution.
Guns kill school children. Guns cut down their lives. Guns must submit to controls that are reasonable and fair.
So your gun sport is okay but mine isn’t?!? I prefer to shoot national match rifle competitions. We shoot paper targets with military grade rifles, no defenseless birds die so that I can feel macho.
I used to hunt “at” quail. There USED to be several covies behind my house and I could literally go out my backdoor and hunt quail. I was a member of Quail Unlimited and loved the sport.
But due to developement & feral cats those days of free range quail in the Upstate are mostly gone
Many free range quail(NOT bred/raised/hunted on private hunt clubs) down your way?
Speaking of magazine capacity. The Ruger 10/22 has always had a 10 round magazine (you can buy 30-50 round magazines but if you shoot that many rounds trhough a 10/22 you can damage the barrel – it was NOT designed for that type of capacity). My old Ruger Mark II has a 9 round capacity. I’ve had both since the early 70’s so they are at least 40 years old and shooting fine.
Back then, nobody bitched about extra capacity.
In fact I distinctly recall having to sign a REGISTER to BUY .22 ammo at Sears and the hardware store back then. Again, noone bitched about it. I don’t recall when they did away with it signing for ammo as a condition of sale but no registering of ammo, no sale.
Back then, noone had a hard-on to buy M-16,AK-47’s, and the like. I was in the Army back then and Vietnam was still on so I guess M-16’s were still restricted to military use (I was shit-hot with a M-203). A tube or magazine .22 rifle holding 10 – 20 rounds was all anyone needed for plinking or shooting rats (my favorite!!!) or squirrel/rabbit. Anyone who hunts knows the first shot is the most critical and follow-up (if you miss the first one) shots are rare indeed.
Seems like it was the late 80’s – early 90’s when I first noticed civilian M-16’s & AK-47’s for sale and I never a reason to buy one.
Still don’t.
Sorry ceildh10 I would have to disagree with you on some of your points. I am not a member of the NRA but I am an avid hunter. You say you hunt but I would like to know what type of guns you use that jumped up and killed. The ones I have I have to load, point, and pull the trigger to get it to shoot. Guns to not kill by themselves no more than automobiles, knives, hammers, baseball bats or anything else that can be used as a weapon. It is the idiot that is using them that kills. Personally I think it should go back in time to when all guns were registered with the feds. If you bought a second hand gun you had to register it with local law inforcement. If a gun was stolen it had to be reported. You can’t stop idiots from killing people you can only deter them or stop them first.
“Personally I think it should go back in time to….”
Um, that time never existed in the USA. I understand the first part of your post, but there was never a federal registry, the vast majority of states have never required registering with local law enforcement on second hand guns, and there has never been a federal requirement to report stolen guns. Maybe a couple states might require that, but that would be something new, I believe.
Thank you.
Where is your call to get AAA to join the discussion on automobiles and their involvement in more child deaths by car, than by gun?
why shoot a defenceless marsh hen?
I’m waiting for a report on someone dying after reading one of BigT’s ranting posts – from laughter!
This just in, Big T posted a rant about Obama today, quote arrgh er gasp ugghh ………
Sorry, I only deal with mental cases.
I am so sorry – Fitsnews omitted the rest of my answer to you. Were you able to drive yourself to an emergency room? Please let us know if are ok now.
The NRA’s main goal is to sell guns,and with the death of the 20 children sales went up 400 per cent….no doubt the NRA leaders were thrilled…..This ad was sick,a new low even for the NRA.The President and his family walk around with targets on their backs and need that protection…All Presidents.
Please tell me where this NRA gun store you speak of is?
If it is not around the corner, try asking your mother-in-law.
If the NRAs real goal is to sell lots of guns, it doesn’t hold a candle to one Barrack Hussein Obama.
Lone Ranger say, “Tonto right!”
Mark Russell supposedly said this at some time:
“The NRA is attempting to lift the ban on machine-gun sales. Well, as an avid hunting enthusiast, I’ve been hoping to buy a fully automatic Uzi. One thing about a machine gun, it really takes the guesswork out of duck hunting.”
fuckwad’s blog suck shitty ass,then clean it up w/oral prowess
As a Lifetime NRA Member, I am saddened at the approach this group has taken in the past few weeks. They say that absolute power corrupts absolutely and I believe the NRA’s recent actions prove this. I feel they used to have the best of intentions but once the coffers started filling up, greed sets in.
Lets not fool ourselves, the current administration is not motivated by the shooting at that school. The reason they’re moving so quickly is to act on their true agenda while the American sheepole will let the government chip away at more of our rights.
One of the first things the NRA should have said was that while this is a true tragedy, the government needs to push for training. Training is knowledge and knowledge is power…. At least according to Schoolhouse Rock. People fear guns because they don’t understand them. Guns have no feeling or emotion. They alone aren’t anymore dangerous than the silverware we eat with. What you must do to stop senseless violence is to make the Juice not worth the squeeze. And I don’t mean staying incarcerated for 20 years. If you commit a crime with a gun, they you should be executed by the a gun.