Skip to comments.Brett Baier's All Star Panel Comments on NRA ad
Posted on 01/16/2013 5:07:22 PM PST by FR_addict
FoxNews Bret Baiers All Star panel, Charles Krauthammer, Juan Williams, and Steve Hayes, all called the NRA ad a mistake, vile and repugnant. I guess they all believe that the elite should have armed protection for their children, but not for ours.
Krauthammer even went so far as to say, of course the President's children should be protected because of who the President is and out kids don't need that type of protection.
What about kids of policemen, judges, FBI, ATF, correctional officers, etc? Their children may be targets because of who their parents are. Don't they deserve armed protection too?
The NRA did not call for taking away the right of the President to protect his children, but to give our kids the same right and not to make them sitting ducks in a gun free zone.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
They might as well have gotten their marching orders from the White House tonight.
Juan is a Marxist. The rest are NeoCons and lack true conservative principles. I find it difficult to find any conservatives on FoxNews.
Krauthammer can be brilliant, but like tonight shows, he can be a total buffoon at times.
Well if Sandy Hook school would have armed gaurds pretty sure that it wouldn’t have happened.
Simply, A circle Jerk... the four stooges...
The Prezzydent’s kids are too good for public school and his kids are too good to even permit other kids to attend their school using vouchers.
Most elites have bodyguards based one possible threats, while millions of Americans face threats daily that are known and real. These Americans don’t have the resources to live in castles with a private army.
What makes you believe they didn't?
The Beslan Massacre proved that schools are a “soft target”. Nidal Hasan was one man on a jihad terrorist attack on Americans. Denying defense of school children may just bite this president jive turkey on the ass some day.
I, too, was disturbed by Krauthammer’s response. I normally agree with what Charles has to say but he was way off the mark on this one.
The NRA ad drives home the abject HYPOCRICY of these DC morons. Now we need to remove a bunch of these azzholes from public life then go to work ELIMINATING THEIR CUSHY PENSIONS!!
In fact, I believe I’ll go to his site and let him know that. How about some of you do the same?
Sorry fellow freepers, the ad was stupid. I am 100 percent NRA, but comparing the risk to a President’s kids to ours is ridiculous. We risk the random crime, his kids have targets for the whole world on their backs.
That's what gets me. They know how to protect the kids, but instead they are going for banning guns owned by law abiding citizens and taking away our 2nd amendment right to bear arms.
Even Bill Clinton asked for money for SROs (armed security resource officers) in school.
They truly believe that Obama’s children are more important than yours or anybody else’s.
Hasan hit a "soft target," too. A lot of people don't realize that. They think "Army base" and they think of tanks and machine guns. Hardly. We're sitting ducks on-post due to gun laws and regulations.
Krauthammer—”some pigs are MORE equal than others”. He being a physician (neurologist) and an elitist himself, no doubt he has disagreement with firearm ownership. And is fine with executive orders countermanding the Constitution, apparently.
The fact that this got under a lot of people’s skin— points out that the prez says “if one life is saved” and then will not support armed school guards- it speaks volumes simply about the hypocrisy. The prez’s children will NEVER be shot
Bunch of women sexual organs.
I completely disagree with you. No one is saying that the President's kids can't be protected. Some of the kids have parents in high risk jobs and they deserve to be protected too.
What about the kids of policemen, judges, correctional officers, FBI, ATF, etc They have an added danger. After the publication of some of the addresses, the prisoners in New York were taunting the correctional officers.
And I don't really care if it is a random act, our kids deserve to be protected to. Even Bill Clinton recognized the danger and asked for money for armed guards. The teachers can also be armed if they can pass the background checks.
Our children are important too!
We don't need to have them used as sitting ducks in gun free political zones.
They weren't comparing the risk they were displaying the hypocrisy.
The Democrats are all whining about turning schools into armed camps and yet Sidwell Friends, an elite school with armed guards, manages to plug along just fine.
Wouldn’t want to catch something from the peasants, dontchaknow.
Our kids deserve protection because of who they are.
The NRA doesn’t dispute that Obama’s kids need protection. It merely points out so do the kids Obama used as props today.
Let me tell those brilliant commentators something. Every democrat controlled town around here stationed police at the schools shortly after the massacre. Duh.
I followed the link. Your “source” does say what you have as the text.
Krauthammer is a Powell-Bloomberg FAUX “conservative”
who reliably supports the DNC-script and Obama.
No surprise here.
“Fox was outstanding, now not so much, same old same old.”
Not to worry! Fox has just hired Dennis Kucinich, so the quality, accuracy and validity of their reporting will now be FIRST RATE!
I had forgotten about Beslan. I read about it not too long ago. What those kids went through before they were killed by those animals.
Some of the school districts are waking up and hiring armed guards on their own in the states where they can.
Some retired police officers are volunteering to help out at the schools.
The state must declare the child to be the most precious treasure of the people. As long as the government is perceived as working for the benefit of the children, the people will happily endure almost any curtailment of liberty and almost any deprivation. Adolph Hitler, Mein Kampf (and Barack Obama?)
“How dare those NRA hicks point out blatant hypocrisy! Who do they think they are?”
See who the RINOs are now ? Even Krauthammer.
They all need to be severely biatch slapped.
Every child in school deserves the protection afforded the presidents children. They are no better than the average kid in school.Since when has the presidential family become “royal?”
“Krauthammer even went so far as to say, of course the President’s children should be protected because of who the President is and out kids don’t need that type of protection.” To make a statement like that is beyond repugnant! To insinuate that the life of any child is more or less important because of who the parent is,is ridiculous.
Does the parent living in the ghetto grieve over the loss of a child any less than the wealthiest person? Krauthammer fell into the liberal attitude that some are more important or valuable than others.
I for one that all children deserve the same protection and opportunities. So if these morons don’t believe our children should be protected by armed security as the elite, if they don’t agree then it should be required that their children go public schools without protection!
Once again, the NRA isn’t disputing protection for Obama’s kids.
Obama is rejecting the NRA’s suggestion of protection for other kids.
The NRA’s point is why does Obama see guards for others’ schools as being “inappropriate”.
OK Obama’s kids have greatly enhanced security needs. But some schools have a thousand kids or more. Less risk individually, but a lot of kids to protect.
Why are the opinions of three talking heads “breaking news”?
The NRA should have gone after the kids of the MSM. That would have made their point. Going after the President was wrong.
Fox = Murdoch = not to be trusted on the 2A issue.
Bingo. We’re all forgetting Al Queda is out there. Why they haven’t sent some suicide missions into schools, I don’t know. But if it happens I’d rather have at least one armed guard there to shoot back.
puh - leeez
Let's add district attorneys, high-profile trial witnesses, athletes playing in high stakes games, where kidnapping is a real possibility.
There are all sorts of "average people" who could find themselves in situations where they could be extorted with threats of violence.
Do any of the 3 panelists have kids currently attending public schools?
Won’t we all feel better when the next nut kills only 5 of our kids because of a smaller ammo clip, even though Obama prevented us from actually protecting the kids with an armed guard.
When did a cop stationed at a school somehow become a bad thing?
Nope, you just take out the armed guards first and then proceed to the main targets. The armed guards will have been lulled into a sense of complacency. The emergency responders really don't respond (the cops sat outside Columbine for hours after the threat was over).
Get a grip.
Maybe you argue for the wrong thing with the right reason?
Comparing and defining risks can be argued collectively or individually. Such as comparison may lead one or many to conclude there is high risk versus low risk and further that said risk could be motivated by putting in place additional security. One could conclude that such preferences may even be subsidized as a result of position e.g. Secret Service protection.
I would argue that the NRA Ad was dead on BECAUSE the inalienable right to life and property which premises the 2nd involves as well the right to assess individually as well as collectively threats.
The fact that President Obama can have his children protected while at the same time preventing others from protecting their children IS a problem and is not equality under the law. Further it infringes upon the 2nd by removing an individuals right to determine what and what is not a reason to defend.
In essence, your probability reasoning may apply to whether or not something is subsidized by government BUT never whether or not it is permitted.
Inalienable rights are endowed ALL by the Creator -there is no rational basis needed to prove that which is self evident and as such, no rational basis such as probability can legitimately be employed to infringe upon such rights.
Inalienable rights are only subject to limitation WHEN countered by other inalienable rights and in such cases it is usually the lessor of two evils which triumphs for the sake of social order and the common good.
Obama only security is a flawed hypocritical argument and the NRA was correct to pint it out.
Just heard Bill O'Reilly's opening discussion with U.S. Sen. Marco Rubio. BoR said he is for ...
1. ban on "military-style assault rifles" - The asshat still doesn't understand the difference between an automatic rifle and a semi-automatic rifle.
2. registration of all firearms - He claimed the progressive left believes this will reduce crime. The asshat is oblivious to the threat of federal confiscation.
3. along with registration, fingerprint all gun owners.
BoR is truly a useful idiot and carrying water for the 5th Column of which he is a leading figure. More and more Freepers see him for the lout he really is.
The criminal mind seeks soft targets. Liberals create soft targets. Are soft targets created on purpose? The argument could be made that indeed soft targets are created for the sole purpose of keeping the police busy, criminal attorneys busy, judges busy, the system busy, and the media busy with it bleeding so it is leading. These people have to eat too. It is similar to a make work type of stimulus package. The thing which makes it different is it is supposedly not a bailout because the bailout is reserved for the criminal, which employs more people. People die, and the system and media make money. We must accept this, must we not?
I’m really confused, if people pick up their kids after school and a police officer is parked out front, do the parents say “What’s that SOB doing here?”
Why is anyone even arguing against police protection?
Obama is ridiculing the NRA suggestion just because it was made by the NRA.
I seem to remember a similar response by rinos of the day when Wayne Lapierre confronted Billy ‘the pervert’ Clinton way back in the 90’s.
Sour Krauthammer was virulently anti-Palin. He showed who he really is during that time.
the NRA ad was perfect and true and Fox boys better get with it or their audience will desert them.
They are not RINOs.
The problem with that crowd is that none of them are firearm owners and not one of them understands the fact that Sidwell Friends school has armed guards.....not for the President’s children, but for all the students of elite Washingtonians.
The President’s children get an additional layer of protection from the Secret Service.
FReepers know this story. Those on Fox do not.
That is why they saw the ad as “out of bounds” while the rest of us love it.
The NRA didn't go after anybody. We want the same for our kids. We don't want anything to happen to Obama’s kids, nor the kids of people in the media and certainly not to our kids. Kids are innocent and need to be protected, no matter whose kids they are.