Question on the NRA - President seems to be a bit extreme

[Romer]

I was about to join the NRA when the NRA President commented about the Presidents kids needing armed gaurds. Look I don't like Obamas policies and voted for Mitt, but the Presidents family need to have proper security. I have no qualms that the secret service protects his kids and mine don't have any armed guards. Not like they could kidnap my kids and hold the country hostage to set off a nuke or something. Even his back pedeling seemed poor. I would have thought the leader of such a large and important organization would have beem more elequant. I was thinking when he announced his press conference he would have been more elequent as this was a great opportunity to stregthen the NRAs image across the nation. I sent the NRA a letter after that and received no response.

I wanted to join the NRA to support our rights. I likiley will join in any case as thats the only group I see that will push it. I would just like the leader to not be as poilarizing, no need for that. He could easily make statements that put the NRA in a better light. He could have said that the NRA will work with the goverment to improve gun safety. Thats a statement that says nothing, could be taken in a positive note and doesnt make them do anything. If they show support on one thing, they can claim success. I am not suggesting give on the gun ban or high capacity magazine, but there were some small no big deal and make sense. The NRA could easily have said they supported the following 3 points to the Presidents plan and dont agree on the gun ban or magazine count. None of the 3 items below impact our rights and only deal with response or helping the mentaly ill.

• Financing programs to train more police officers, first responders and school officials on how to respond to active armed attacks.
• Providing $30 million in grants to states to help schools develop emergency response plans.
• Providing financing to expand mental health programs for young people.

Like I said, I will likely join the NRA to help support Gun ownership. I am just venting because I thought the President of the NRA could be handling this situation much better. Members of the NRA support his views, the left wing does not. Like the election, there is a center group on the fence and those are the ones who made a difference in the last election. Thats the group my fellow Republicans forgot in the last election. You don't want those folks to take a position because they are irritated by the tone of the NRA, that would hurt in a future election and also gaining support from constituants.

You can state you are strongly opposed and fight for rights, just don't come out and say stupid things and in my opinion thats what he did. By at least supporting the above 3 items, the NRA can easily say they are working to improve the process and it costs us nothing.

Sorry for the vent. To be clear, I am not dissing the NRA, it's policies or for the work the organization is doing to protect our rights. This vent was about one man and his being the mouthpiece for the organization. I apologize in advance if I insulted anyones view.

I am sure there will be plenty of discussion here and I look forward to a positive discussion. I am hoping to get educated by the forum members in things I am not aware of as I know I am a dumb noobie in this area. It would be great if I could also see the many positive things the NRA is doing that are not widely known.

[Prometheus]

First of all the nra president didn't write the commercial, in an interview he said when he first read the script he took it in a different light, also hes not talking about the secret service hes talking about how obama thinks its ok that their school has a team of armed guards for all the students, and he is against having armed guards in other public schools that our kids attend

[cstone]

IMO this issue is about the "Gun Free Zones" mandated by the federal government. If you are a law abiding citizen, who has gone through the background check to work in a school, and then take on the responsibility to obtain a CCW permit, why should the federal government prohibit you from having your weapon with you while you are at work? Removing the federal prohibition from allowing school employees from concealed carry costs the taxpayers NOTHING! It may never prevent a crime, but it does allow adults, law abiding citizens the ability to defend themselves and others in the event that something like this ever occurs again.

If you say that guns in schools are dangerous, then why has Sidwell Friends School in Washington, DC been allowing armed federal agents to possess numerous automatic weapons inside the school for decades? Are the President's children more important than mine? Is the US Secret Service so much more trustworthy than the average citizen?

The best government is less government.

Be safe.

[Skully]

The best government is less government.

Be safe.

AMen!



Government doesn't have to spend any money, just at the very least allow teachers and administrators in schools to carry concealed. NRA and several other organizations offered extended training for FREE. I forgot where it was but some twit said in a news article; "It worries me teachers being armed, what if one of the kids found a teachers gun in their desk and shot people?" That is the stupid factor uneducated crap we are arguing against.

[HBARleatherneck]

chris is that you?

[Gman]

David Gregory that showed the 30 round AR mag on TV in DC and got off scott free has his kids in the same school. A commercial pointing out the hypocrisy isn't out of order. There was no personal attack against the children, but that doesn't stop the lefties from trying to distract from the issue.

[theGinsue]

IMO this issue is about the "Gun Free Zones" mandated by the federal government. If you are a law abiding citizen, who has gone through the background check to work in a school, and then take on the responsibility to obtain a CCW permit, why should the federal government prohibit you from having your weapon with you while you are at work? Removing the federal prohibition from allowing school employees from concealed carry costs the taxpayers NOTHING! It may never prevent a crime, but it does allow adults, law abiding citizens the ability to defend themselves and others in the event that something like this ever occurs again.

If you say that guns in schools are dangerous, then why has Sidwell Friends School in Washington, DC been allowing armed federal agents to possess numerous automatic weapons inside the school for decades? Are the President's children more important than mine? Is the US Secret Service so much more trustworthy than the average citizen?

The best government is less government.

Be safe.

Cstone and I are of one mind here. This comment was how I wanted to reply, but Chuck said it better than I ever could. My kids (now grown) are just as important as his kids are and if firearms inside of a school are so dangerous for my kids schools, then they're too dangerous for his kids schools as well. There is no gray area on this one, it's black or it's white.

[XC700116]

The commercial and the statements are simply about pointing out that while all the kids that go to Sidwell Friends (Where Obama's kids go to school) have armed security, and yes they had it before the Obama's came to town. The POTUS doesn't seem to think we have the same rights to defend our children with armed security. BTW that armed security is in addition to the secret service detail that the kids have with them at all times.

[Romer]

Thanks for the clarifications. Again, I was not arguing against or for any policy or position by the NRA. I just have not been impressed when I heard the NRA President speak. I understand others wrote the commercial and I can see the point that the school the Presidents kids go to has armed guards even without the Secret Service. I would think they would look for a well guarded school for the Presidents and even speaker of the house kids to ensure they can't get kidnapped as they are much more of a target.

They should have used a different person to get the message across rather than the president (obama) as then the first response would not have been "of course they need armed guards".

Frankly, if someone wants to send their kids to a school with armed secruity, I have no problem with that. If others send kids to schools that don't have armed guards, thats fine as well. Thats a choice

I do get the point of sending your kids to a school with armed security and advocating against it at the same time. That point was very poorly communicated and he should have left the President out of that one. Again, not a fan of the President, but I respect the office and feel who ever is in there should have the best protection for their family even if I don't don't get the same as the stakes are different.

Hypocricy is a negative argument and you can take lots of events in random and paint the argument. It's not as concrete and convincing at least to me. A more positive campaign would convince the more center. I mean afterall, he doesnt need to convince you, you are on board with the NRA. The point of any campaign is to convince and get support from others. At least thats how I see it. The negative item took a moderate/conservative Republican like me who was about to join to show my support and made me cringe.

I am not disagreeing with the Hypocricy comments. I guess my main point I am trying to make is the NRA could be doing a better job at their campaign. Thats really what they should be doing to stop the changes in the law, getting those who have not already made up their mind to support.

BTW- thanks for not taking the discussion down the drain or virtually "bitch slapping me"

[Romer]

chris is that you?

No relation. He is a democrat and I am not