Yes, I'm talking about the president's two young daughters. They're mentioned, not by name, just by the fact that he had kids, in an online video ad brought to us by the NRA.

The ad is a preemptive response to President Barack Obama's plans to try to reduce gun violence.

Many are critical of the NRA using the president's kids for political gain. Well, we'll see if there's any gain. At the most, it'll preach to the converted and it will, as most of the NRA's leadership does, likewise anger those who do not respect the NRA.

One of the critics is the Detroit Free Press columnist Brian Dickerson, who always writes with strong reason and sharp humor and says that the tactic shows the desperation of the NRA. It does reek of desperation and like I said, it will only convince the true believers.

But many of the comments I've seen have said it's wrong to bring the children of the president into the debate, to use them for political gain. Even the White House complained. Hmm. I don't think so. Presidential children are always in the news when they do something, good or bad, and he had mentioned his being a father as impacting how he feels about certain things. And it's a fair thing to point out, that the NRA wants guns in schools as protection and the presidential children have such protections.

Of course, they have that protection because there are so many nuts with access to guns, but hey, we only have 30 seconds to make up our minds.

Funny, too, that many complain about the president using Sandy Hook to look into gun control and prosecuting gun crimes. That's a pretty amazing argument, seeing how actions always cause reactions. George W. Bush didn't denounce the Taliban not consider a war with Afghanistan until after 9.11, and he wasn't politicizing anything there. He, and we, reacted. Most major changes come after something terrible, and it's not politicizing the event.

A boat sinks and dozens die, then we talk boating regulations. Hundreds get sick after food is tainted and we talk regulations and enforcement. Sometimes the reaction is too big, but when you have dozens of school shootings and thousands killed, it'll bring about a reaction. This one took a long time, and it's too bad for the gun owners that the NRA doesn't participate in the debate. They'll be left out of the decision-making process if they keep angering those in the middle.

But maybe it's just about membership dues for them.

Nonetheless, nothing wrong with their ad, except it isn't helping their cause. Their ads should reach the middle, if they want to be part of the solution and not relegated to fringe group status. 

Some of the debate about the guns is proving very laughable.

NBC News reported that a lawmaker in Texas defended on Fox News Sunday morning the availability of high powered 'assault' rifles - as many call them - to protect Americans against a tyrannical government. I'm rushing now but I've gotta look this up and watch, for it may be as funny as it sounds.

I'm sure he's not advocating shooting police officers, the front line of the government (local, state or federal, yes, but officers represent law and order and hence government in general). Don't need fancy weapons for that... just ask the families of the many officers gunned down when responding to typical calls. One in East Grand Rapids was killed with a shotgun by a man lying in wait as the officer responded to a call for help reporting domestic violence.

Then there's Patrick O'Rourke's family, mourning the loss of their father and husband, a longtime West Bloomfield police officer.

But I get it, this Texas gentleman is referring to the federal government, which taxes us and interacts with other countries through the United Nations. So if wants weapons available to fight that government, he'll need to legalize surface-to-air rocket launchers and small nuclear weapons, because nowadays, no militia is going to go up against our U.S. military and do any damage.

If that fight is going to be fought, it will be unarmed people being killed in what we now call terrorist acts. Is this political debate becoming so irresponsible? (And I'm not even considering the ludicrous idea of requiring teachers and administrators to be armed and trained to fight off other armed militants.... you know how much more taxes we would have to pay for schools if that were mandated?)

Here are the comments of Texas, hm, er, U.S. Rep. Louie Gohmert, as quoted by Livewire.com's Talking Points Memo:

"Well, for the reason George Washington said a free people should be an armed people," Gohmert said, responding to a question on why people need assault weapons. "It ensures against the tyranny of the government. If they know that the biggest army is the American people, then you don’t have the tyranny that came from King George. That is why it was put in there, that’s why once you start drawing the line, where do you stop? And that’s why it is important to not just look emotionally, our reaction, Chris, is to immediately say, 'let’s get rid of all guns.'" 

Gohmert argued that more guns would lessen gun violence, saying he wished the principle at Sandy Hook Elementary School that was attacked Friday had been armed. "I wish to god she had had an M-4 in her office, locked up so when she heard gunfire, she pulls it out and she didn’t have to lunge heroically with nothing in her hands, but she takes him out, takes his head off before he can kill those precious kids," he said.

Reminds me of the Simpsons, with Homer asking Lisa if she wants the king of England pushing her around. He's living in a fantasyland, where King George is still being fought and answers to problems are taking "his head off." Wow,

Of course, if we are fighting tyranny, I could use a nuke or two. I can be trusted. Believe me, I'm responsible enough to have a button to push. 

Ok, I paid $2.85 this morning, not quite filling up in Rochester Hills. A nice family owns the station and I like to go there and say good morning. Same people have been there ever since I moved into the area.

Driving to the office, I passed stations in Pontiac that were on Perry Street, selling first for $2.57 and then $2.55. Wow, big difference, I think.

Then I realize we're approaching the five-year anniversary of the murder of David Bingham, a father of two who was shot to death after surrendering his vehicle to a pair of teenage carjackers at a Perry Street gas station. The victim, I recall, had done everything right when confronted by the teens, who took his truck, drove around the block and then returned to eliminate the witness to their crime.

They were none too bright, being caught a short while later by patrolling officers. They had the man's property on them, I recall.

Christopher Eugene Jackson is 22 and has served five years of a life term. He'll never get out, as far as the law is concerned now. And though he was younger than 18 when he shot Bingham to death, the recent Supreme Court decision will not help him. (He killed someone, and the US's top court ruled life without parole was unfair for teenagers who had not killed.)

I covered the trial of one teenager (the other one pleaded to a lesser charge and testified) and it was horrific, hearing the shooting as Mr. Bingham talked to a 9-1-1 operator and then watching the video from the station's surveillance tapes.

I'm guessing this can influence why gas is cheaper in some areas.

During the sentencing, Jackson walked out of court, saying, "I'm going to bounce back." He's a level four (the second highest level) prisoner in Manistee County. He was absolutely horrible in court, defiant and disrespectful to the judge, attorneys and victim's family. For no real reason, he shot a man who was filling up on his way to work, on the morning after the July 4th holiday in 2005.

I'll pay the extra $3 or $4.