NJ Gov: NRA ad on Obama daughters 'reprehensible'
TRENTON, N.J. (AP) — New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie says it is "reprehensible" for the National Rifle Association to run an ad bringing President Barack Obama's daughters into the gun-control debate.
The nationally prominent governor on Thursday criticized the ad, which accused the president of being a hypocrite for allowing his daughters to be protected by armed Secret Service agents but not embracing armed guards for schools.
Christie said children of public figures should be off-limits to political attacks.
The Republican governor also sided with the Democratic president when Obama came to New Jersey to tour storm damage in October. Christie's praise of the president six days before the election was sharply criticized by some GOP members, who accused Christie of helping to tip a close election to Obama.
The nationally prominent governor on Thursday criticized the ad, which accused the president of being a hypocrite for allowing his daughters to be protected by armed Secret Service agents but not embracing armed guards for schools.
Christie said children of public figures should be off-limits to political attacks.
The Republican governor also sided with the Democratic president when Obama came to New Jersey to tour storm damage in October. Christie's praise of the president six days before the election was sharply criticized by some GOP members, who accused Christie of helping to tip a close election to Obama.
This guy is just a loud mouth bag of wind. Who cares what he says? What makes him such a lord of knowledge? Shut up and get back to work.
Chrisite's right. The NRA stepped over the line.
why should his kids be any different than our kids dont all kids deserve to be protected when in school. his kids are no different than my kids our your kids.
Â
Chris Christie is just an Obama butt kisser.
Christie has been very vocal in the past about his true opinion of Obama. However, unlike most Conservatives, he thinks for himself, and in this case he is absolutely right. The NRA had no right to bring Obama's or any other children into this debate.
 @Stryker you are an expert on that topic?   kinda looks that way..
 @tufa23  @Stryker at what point are your posts going to make sense?
These anti-gun politicians were not elected to positions of royalty. They were elected to serve the public, not treat the public like serfs. If they want us to put our safety at risk, they should drop the pretense and give up their guns and guards before daring to suggest that anyone else do the same. GUN FREE ZONE = slaughterhouse. We see that over and over again. Schools,colleges, movietheaters, ...that is whre this stuff happens !!!
I know the police response times in the area I live in.
It's not that fast and that is becasue in this time of shrinking budgets, there are fewer patrol offocers in my county right now than there were 10 years ago. I know most of the LEO's in my area and they are well trained, well equipped men and women, but the are becoming greatly outnumbered. Jail space is limited and no longer do petty crimes get booked, it's all the violent stuff, which is good. But that does leave Billy Burg and car prowlers out to do more bad stuff. Those are classified as "non-violent offenses" that is until you come home while they are still in your house.
Â
Through FOIA requests, I have seen numerous cases where it has taken 15+  minutes for officers to arrive to call involving guns. It is a dangerous world. The bad guys are getting more bold and the punishments are getting smaller.
Apparently you havenât read a pole on the subject lately because a ridiculously large portion of the US population actually favors most of the common sense solutions the President has proposed. More than just about any other issue we have seen in the last few decades. But you are right politicians âwere elected to serve the public". It just doesn't support you points. Sorry, try again. You could have made another tired 2nd amendment argument but before you get to crazy and judge me as a gun hating liberal I own several guns and hold a concealed weapons permit. I am not too excited though about protecting ones right to own an âassaultâ rifle to screw around and have fun target shooting (I use quotes because I know the difference between an AR-15 and a Ruger .22LR with upgrades).
 @Keith Morse I do not see the issue with a right to own an AR-15 et al.because some do not understand them...fear them...or just do not like them. These are not more dangerous, and in the case of the AR-15 (firing .225/5.56) certainly less of a devastating round than most if not all hunting rifles. (in WA and many other states have to be over .243 for big game)
Â
I am for any type of common sense change that can produce a safer environment. I just fail to see the logic in recreating an "assault weapon" ban that did not produce any significant change in gun violence or adding new laws that are going to be followed by whom? (not the criminals) Do I have the answer to this? No, but I believe that if both sides were able to open their brains without bias and truly listened to the other the answers are somewhere in between the extremes.
@aintno1special Well, at least we can agree that our favorite gun is the 870
 @Keith Morse  @aintno1special The fact that you say "I feel like..." is truly the issue in this debate. What it is all coming down to is a rather large pooling of subjective data...with the hope that the ones with the best point/loudest voice will be deemed gospel. Honestly I think my "ARs" shoot better than a few of my other rifles I used to use for hunting...but then again I have put a lot more money in the "ARs" compared to buying a hunting rifle off the shelf. That said I preferred the bolt action when I did hunt with a rifle...but that is my personal preference. I have a HK 91 chambered in .308 that I would put up against many other off the shelf hunting rifles.
Â
Mind you that if I had to pick only one gun to keep it would be my 870...but without making it illegal to hunt with it can only hold 3 shells...this is why I always (when I can) carry my Casull in the woods. Nice thing about the freedom of choice is that there is no perfect fit for every situation. But the mere fact that you say you do not feel that there is any viable purpose for an "AR" and I pointed out at least 2, which you disagree with, proves to me that there should be no room in law for subjectivity. If there is then it is only opinion.
@aintno1special I feel like the usage of a larger chambered AR for hunting is a stretch to make one gun do two things. Again, an AR or AK would not be the first choice for that activity. As for bear protection you bring up anothing interesting topic. Weapon choice is a very personal decision and one must try and gage what there usage is going to be and pick a caliber to match. I will use the example of the Alaskan State Troopers as an example. Most carry a side arm, an AR and a shotgun. When they are going after a human they carry the AR but if a bear is a the threat they leave the AR in the car a pull out a 12-gauge shot gun. Becuase in these situation it is not a matter of number of rounds but rather stopping power. I don't know how many rounds you could pump into a grizzily with 9mm or even .223 that would have the same effect as a few well placed 12-gauge slugs or even your 454. That's why a real Alaskan would laugh at someone with a 9mm for bear protetion regardless of the number of rounds and would prefer at least a .357 or .44 better still. But just about everyone including all state employees are required to be trained on the usage of a 12-gauge and required to carry it in the bush.
 @Keith Morse  @aintno1special I do have friends that use their "AR" chambered in the larger caliber to hunt with. I am a bow hunter, so I do not use a modern rifle for hunting any more, but I do spend a lot of range time shooting and use several "ARs" at the range.I have been back packing in AK and my weapon of choice was my mini 14 with 30 round mag. So there is a purpose for "ARs".
Â
When I am bow hunting I do carry a 454 Casull revolver with 2 speed loaders(15 rounds)...I have on more than one occasion seen bears while hunting, so I feel be prepared for the worst. On 2 occasions I have been forced to drop a coyote that was charging at me and was unaffected by the "warning" shot near it so a side arm is necessary. Some people do not have a gun this large and carry a 9mm or .40...and if I was carrying a 9mm I would want more than 10 rounds immediately available to me if a bear was coming at me. My point is, that yes a case can be made for a small mag capacity, but I for one do not understand what makes the 11th round that much more deadly than the 9th or 10th...but I know that when I have been in the situation where using force was necessary I was glad I had more than enough fire power and rounds available.
@aintno1special a valid question that I appreciate and will respond to in the same fashion. It is one that I have often wrestled with myself. But it comes down to a few points for me. I like to fall back on research for many of my decisions. Caliber is not really the deciding factor in many of the mass shootings that have prompted the recent action. It is the type of weapon. The vast majority that we have labeled âmassâ are perpetrated by those carrying the so called assault type of arms. The call to ban them might be a knee jerk reaction by many but not by me. The bottom line that sets these weapons apart is their ability to handle higher capacity magazines which is the common thread between all mass shootings. Sure there are far more deadly calibers out there and a shotgun a close range would certainly be more destructive. Itâs also important to remember .223 was originally created to wound, not kill, like the 7.62 the Russians were using with the idea it was more resource intensive to handle wounded than killed. But if someone can tell me a valid reason other than killing humans and messing around for assault weapons I will listen. But the fact of the matter is these weapons were developed my militaries to kill humans and nothing else. Not to hunt and they would not even be my first or second choice to defend my family or home. This was a stance the even Ronald Reagan took. I am morally opposed to an all out weapons ban and have owned rifles, shotguns and pistols and hold my concealed weapons permit. But my interpretation of the 2nd Amendment does not protect assault type weapons.
 @hardtowatchitfade try to stay on topic.
The NRA ad and comments were nothing but ignorant, angry philandering. The president's and vice president's families have been protected by the Secret Service for decades.
 @Yadayada Thats the point.  The politicians are saying their children are much more important then any one else's and need to be protected.  Why is it that they will spend millions for a couple of children but won't advocate protecting millions of other children?
 @FBrumfield  @Yadayada Because a threat to those millions of other children doesn't compromise national security.
FBrumfield, you're pretty ignorant of how things work. The chance of somebody trying to get to the President's or other high ranking people's kids is far higher than the millions of other kids in this nation. If the President's kids were kidnapped, it would compromise the thinking of the President, which makes it a concern for national security. Put yourself in that place and think how you would handle it.
Â
Debating over whether or not the President's kids should be protected is silly. Any reasonable person can see it is necessary, even if we lived in a disarmed society.
 @FBrumfield  @Yadayada That's simply short-sighted.Â
 @jowsuf  @Yadayada There is no threat to national security.  The chain of command would be changed if the president of vice pres were compromised.  There are provisions to cover this so it is a non issue.  But if gun free zones are so safe then why would politicians children be in danger when they are in gun free zones?
If anything, the NRA stooped to the level of those who are trying to take/limit guns.Â
No, they went far lower.
Â
Â
Nobody is coming for anyone's right to have guns. That myth is getting harder to defend,so there's now an attempt to tap into the resentment and disaffection some feel for our president without regard for the actual topic at hand.
Â
Thanks, Gov. Christie, for calling the NRA out on this.
Â
Â
This add was no dumber then Obama's "plan" or any other gun control argument.Â
Dumber is not the right word. Heinous, slimy, scummy, stupid. Those are the words that describe the NRA's tactics. You can call the gun control recommendations anything you want, but the NRA took it to a personal, slimy level.
@Common Sense How is the plan dumb? Oh wait he might have to take a few useless guns away. What about the funding for more Resource Officers in schools or research for the link between violence and video games and movies? These were both NRA scapegoats for Newtown. Now answer me this question what is an AR-15 or AK really good for. Not hunting, not personal protection or any other 2nd Amendmant arguement that you might make on the subject.
What's also hypocritical is the medias NEED for the First Amendment, while they actively deride the Second. It's the liberal passivism taught in college's nationwide. It's destroying America.
 @SargeMcC America is a long way from being destroyed. This country has seen worse days. Much worse days. It would benefit us all to reign in the hyperbole and try to see things as they are, not as how someone tells you they are.
 @SargeMcC that's aitch esss and you know it.
It's the media spin. Obama can use the sensationalism of parading children for the media to promote gun cantrol, but the NRA can't mention the simple fact that Obama has armed guards around his children anytime they are in the public eye. Yes, very hypocritical, of Obama and the media.
 @SargeMcC Hey Sarg, sounds like you spent a little too much time in the military. Welcome to the new world.
Â
Not very fond of that military are you?
Yet, Obama's gun control campaign didn't hesitate to exploit the child victims of Sandy Hook Elementary massacre. Hyprocites!
@cawlnaduckaduck I have not seen anyone exploit anyone. The deaths of those babies did happen, as did the deaths of those kids and adults going to the movies in Aurora.
Â
That's real. The NRA ad is ludicrous and embarrassing.
 @flashlight  @cawlnaduckaduck by using the attack of a SINGLE lunatic homicidal murderer to pass an assault weapons ban that directly affects the rights of 350 million Americans he sure as hell is exploiting them and from the sounds of it, so are YOU.Â
Christie is only taking this position to get Federal funds for NJ and to color himself as to appear acceptable to Democrats in 2016. MO is same: suck up to B. Hussein Obama when not sucking up Krispy Kreme. I bet another great big sloppy bear hug (like when the president came to NJ) may seal the deal.
 @test_monkey keep it up and we'll have to permanently glue the tin foil to your head...
Sounds like a reasonable thing to say for me. Not sure where you get the glue and tinfoil hat comment from. Perhaps Katt Williams is a relative of yours?......
The NRA just made itself look stupid and lost a whole lot of credibility with that ad. Really? You don't understand how if the safety of the family of the President of the United States was in jeopardy that puts the President in a compromising situation that could effect national security? Honestly?? On top of that, they're a higher risk target and an attempt on their lives or safety compromises the safety of all those around them.
Â
Are they just pandering to loud idiots for support now? How extremely pathetic.
 @jowsuf So his children are more important than mine or yours?
Â
 @Itiswhatitis  @jowsuf they are as important to the Obama family as yours are to you, and mine are to me - the difference is that his children are exponentially more at risk of being targeted than yours or mine. Take Bill Gate's kids. Not a matter of national security, but nevertheless high risk targets. Do you think someone might be interested kidnapping them for ransom? There are different standards for different people, and I am certain, they wish it wasn't so. The NRA had a great chance producing an educational campaign bringing the interests of gun owners across to those who are apprehensive, but they blew it. Sorry.
 @Itiswhatitis  @jowsuf The NRA ad worked! What a bunch of sheeple.
@Itiswhatitis @jowsuf It's about national security.
His children would love to be able to go places unescorted, but they live in protection because of their parents' tireless service to our country.
I dont want his service. I think his service is destructive to the country.
@flashlight Service? Is that what he's doing to our country is called? and also that school had armed security even before his kids went there, That's were all the uppity up politicians send their kids in DC.
 @Itiswhatitis A threat to your children doesn't compromise national security. They aren't more important, but protecting them is.Â
@jowsuf @Itiswhatitis Fine! He and his family may have his Secret Service protection, however, I want him to lead by example and disarm his agents! Instead of packing "machine" guns, I'd like the Secret Service agents to wear "Gun Free Zone" signs around their necks!
 @Gadsden He isn't living by another set of rules. Secret Service protection for the first family has been in effect for decades for the reasons stated by "jowsuf" above. If he wasn't president, his girls would NOT have protection at school.
Â
I agree with Chris Christie, the NRA will say anything, do anything, and donate big bucks to any all politicians, to get their agenda supported. No wonder we have a mamby-pamby congress who don't have the guts to at least TRY new reforms. How many of THEIR children have to be killed, injured, or threatened at school, before this becomes a more important issue than campaign contributions.
 @jowsuf  @Itiswhatitis I see your point, but I have a problem with him pushing one set of rules, and living by another.