TexasCHLforum.com

[youtube]http://youtube.com/watch?v=vP1sG2AcksA[/youtube]

What makes it even more stupid is that the ad didn't denigrate the president's kids. It simply pointed out the Left's hypocrisy about armed guards for the elites but not for the little people.

Hate to say it, but having moved here from the (police) State of New Jersey, Time got it right. He's more of a mobster than a politician. Hypocritical as they come too - He SLASHES spending like crazy (not a bad thing), but then takes the State helicopter to his kid's baseball game. The helicopter lands 400 yards away from the field, but he has 3 limos to bring him from the chopper to the bleachers. The limos were filled with NJ equivalent of secret service. Christie's real problem is that he makes off the cuff decisions that contradict what he may have said 2 days earlier.

Done with him.

For the record, he was one of a small group that I did NOT want to see get the nomination...because I read some statement by him that said he was quite okay with New Jersey's anti-2A firearms laws including the ban on hollow-point ammunition. The ONLY way I would have voted for this guy in the general election would have been because the alternate was BHO.

This guy is a closet Democrat... I'm done with him and I hope he doesn't pretend to run in 2016

77346 wrote:This guy is a closet Democrat... I'm done with him and I hope he doesn't pretend to run in 2016

Maybe Congress will slip in a bill that requires a physical fitness exam for those who are in contention for the Presidency with all results to be made public upon completion? That would certainly obliterate his chances of "running" for anything.

Soooo... Rand Paul in 2016? Maybe Thomas Massie? Bobby Jindal?

Gov. Christie says that "there are real issues to debate on this topic. Get to the real issues."

Real issue: The US Government has determined that my granddaughter goes to a school which has been advertized as a gun free zone. Since the law was past creating gun free zones, there have been over 30 shootings in schools. Before the gun free zones were created, there were many fewer school shootings.

Real issue: The politicians at the Federal level have created their own atmosphere. They give themselves pay raises when the rest of us don't get any for years, they give themselves "Cadillac" healthcare packages and then tax the rest of us who have anything the approaches the kind of plan that they have and, most important, they have enhanced security while denying the result of us the opportunity to protect ourselves under many conditions. I do not accept that because their lives are more public than mine, that their lives are worth more than mine. I have the God granted right to life, acknowledged in our country's founding documents and politicians and specifically Gov. Christie do everything that they can to take away that right away.

NJ has some of the most severe gun restrictions in the country. I lived there. The penalties for having a defensive firearm and attempting to use it for that purpose are severe. At the same time, Newark and Camden rank among the most dangerous cities in our country. I had to drive in and around Newark. I attest that even the police don't go in parts of that city.

The news this morning reported that the NJ lawmakers have voted to prevent State funds to pay for the cleanup from Hurricane Sandy by non-union workers. Gov. Christie was on TV a week ago blasting the House lawmakers for not doing everything that they could to speed the recovery from that storm.

HYPOCRITE!

Lots of the "republicans" in that area (New York NEw Jersey Connecticut among others) are democrats... They are just closer to the middle than the Leftist Democrats from those areas.

I do wish the NRA ad pointed out the school employs a staff of armed security guards in addition to the secret service that are there for the Obama girls. I don't think anyone in their right mind could begrudge the protection for the first family. It's the staff of armed security for the children of the elitist rich kids that think they need protection while our kids do not.

mojo84 wrote:I do wish the NRA ad pointed out the school employs a staff of armed security guards in addition to the secret service that are there for the Obama girls. I don't think anyone in their right mind could begrudge the protection for the first family. It's the staff of armed security for the children of the elitist rich kids that think they need protection while our kids do not.

Another point not often made is that the Sidwell Friends School is run on Quaker values
http://www.sidwell.edu/about_sfs/quaker ... index.aspx

I taught at a Friends school near Philadelphia and learned that they are strongly pacifist.
http://www.quakerinfo.com/quak_pce.shtml

The armed protection is not there because the Quakers who run the school see it as part of their belief system. It is there because the Elitist parents want it to be.

The liberal media and White House (now Gov. Christi too) are warping the ad to imply that the NRA was criticizing Obama for sending his girls to a private school with armed guards. They have even tried to pretend that the "guards" are the secret service.

The problem is not in what Obama is doing by sending his girls to a protected school, the problem is that he argues against the same protection for "less fortunate" kids who attend public school. He has invoked the teachers union and media to make outlandish statements like "more guns in schools is more dangerous" and "armed guards won't help". Perhaps some would argue he is not "elitist" but no one can dispute that Obama is a hypocrite as the ad says.

The White House's backlash against the ad and the NRA's suggestion to employ armed security at America's schools, is just more evidence that Obama's gun control agenda, which he had championed long before Sandy Hook, is about disarming the public and not about protecting school children. The extent to which the White House has politicized this event and the victims is disgusting.

Oh yeah, I am done with Christi too. The only way I would vote for him is if he is the only guy running against Obama for term #3!

karder wrote:The liberal media and White House (now Gov. Christi too) are warping the ad to imply that the NRA was criticizing Obama for sending his girls to a private school with armed guards. They have even tried to pretend that the "guards" are the secret service.

The problem is not in what Obama is doing by sending his girls to a protected school, the problem is that he argues against the same protection for "less fortunate" kids who attend public school. He has invoked the teachers union and media to make outlandish statements like "more guns in schools is more dangerous" and "armed guards won't help". Perhaps some would argue he is not "elitist" but no one can dispute that Obama is a hypocrite as the ad says.

The White House's backlash against the ad and the NRA's suggestion to employ armed security at America's schools, is just more evidence that Obama's gun control agenda, which he had championed long before Sandy Hook, is about disarming the public and not about protecting school children. The extent to which the White House has politicized this event and the victims is disgusting.

Oh yeah, I am done with Christi too. The only way I would vote for him is if he is the only guy running against Obama for term #3!

I saw some of the news footage during obama's visit to the storm ravaged NJ areas where christie was sucking up to obama. I thought christie was going to embrace obama and plant a big one on him there for a minute.

Scary stuff.

Anygunanywhere

liberty2014 wrote:Soooo... Rand Paul in 2016? Maybe Thomas Massie? Bobby Jindal?

Rand Paul
Mike Lee
(I still like Marco Rubio as a possible VP, but not at the top of the ticket)
Count on Jim DeMint to make a run in 2016.
Tom Coburn (OK) has pledged to retire from the Senate in 2016. He would also make an interesting candidate.