|

NRA TV ad calls Obama an elitist because his daughters have Secret Service protection

Stay classy, NRA.

Stuff like THIS is sure to endear you to most Americans:

The National Rifle Association released a new television commercial Tuesday night charging President Barack Obama of hypocrisy for being “skeptical” about placing armed guards at schools, while his own two daughters are protected by the U.S. Secret Service.

“Are the president’s kids more important than yours?” a narrator says in the 30 second ad. “Then why is he skeptical about putting armed security in our schools, when his kids are protected by armed guards at their school.”

The commercial is running on the Sportsman Channel, a cable network focused on outdoors programming such as hunting and fishing. It is also posted on a dedicated web site “Stand and Fight.”

On Wednesday, Obama is set to unveil a new set of proposals that would place very tough restrictions on the ownership and sale of firearms.

In the ad, the narrator only mentions Obama by name, but it also features images of Vice President Joe Biden, Sen. Dianne Feinstein, New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg and NBC anchor David Gregory. Bloomberg is an influential voice in favor of stricter gun laws and has dipped into his personal fortune to help fund a lobby campaign, and Feinstein, a California Democrat, is helping spearhead a congressional effort to enforce tougher gun laws.

Gregory questioned NRA CEO Wayne LaPierre in a December interview about the effectiveness of the organization’s proposal to put armed guards in schools. After the interview, the NRA and conservative media outlets noted that Gregory’s children attended the same school as Obama’s daughters and the school has a security department.

“Mr. Obama demands the wealthy pay their fair share of taxes,” the narrator says. “But he is just another elitist hypocrite when it comes to a fair share of security. Protection for their kids and gun-free zones for ours.”

UPDATE: Josh Marshall of TalkingPointsMemo has an appropriate reaction:

There are so many vile things about this ad. But one thing to note is the ad is really only designed to appeal to people who have a deep – really deep – animosity toward the President. The sort of people who don’t think he and his daughters should be in the White House and wish him the sort of ill citizens should never wish upon a freely elected head of state.

UPDATE II: Here’s the reaction from Paul Waldman of the American Prospect:

What an elitist, that Barack Obama, thinking he’s somehow above ordinary people, like he has some particularly critical job or something, and he and his family might be unique targets for violence requiring special protection! It’s almost like he thinks he’s the president!

This does actually reveal an important aspect of the NRA’s world view. As far as they’re concerned, all of us should act as though we exist in the same security situation as the president of the United States. You may think you’re just the assistant regional manager of a widget company, but in fact, a terrorist commando strike force could be coming to lay siege to your home at any moment. Which is why you need to be prepared not just with a gun, but with enough weaponry to hold your own in the two-hour firefight that’s just inevitable.

I think what this ad shows, beyond the obvious conclusion that the NRA leadership is a bunch of crazy people, is that persuasion isn’t part of their strategy. They know that they’re facing the greatest threat they have in years, and they’ve concluded that the way to win this conflict over whether gun laws will be changed is to rile up their base. They want their most fervent supporters as paranoid and angry as possible, to get them to write letters and call their members of Congress to keep them in line. And it just might work.

Share:

15 Comments

  1. Incorrect. The school they attend employs armed guards.

  2. swampy: Obama’s daughters are accompanied by Secret Service agents when they go to school. The feds do background checks on the school’s staff, and the Secret Service maintains a command center at the school, with video coverage of doors and corridors.

  3. Does this mean the NRA is in favor of a massive expansion of government to employ armed federal agents at every public school in America. And here I thought 47,000 TSA officers was a lot. How much would that cost the taxpayers?

  4. If you have a link that supports that, I would love to see it. From my research this school has employed guards as standard operating procedure before the Obama’s and will continue to do so afterwards. No different than the Rockford School District having armed officers in the middle and high schools. I look forward to your link. Thank you Mr, Cunningham.

  5. swampy: It is little wonder that Sidwell Friends, the school Obama’s daughters attend, has long had extraordinary security. Children of various other American presidents, vice presidents and other important government officials have attended that school at least since the presidency of Theodore Roosevelt more than a century ago.

  6. Craig Knauss

    Secret Service code names for George W. Bush and family:

    George W. Bush: Tumbler
    Laura Bush (wife): Tempo
    Barbara Bush (daughter): Turquoise
    Jenna Bush (daughter): Twinkle

    As usual, the NRA’s passing gas.

  7. Big Dave

    Putting children out front trying to get something he can’t. Nothing more but nice try Pat!

    I have no problem with armed guards for schools. My problem with all of this is its aimed at the law abiding public not the criminal thus meaningless.

  8. So is that a no, you have no link to back what you posted at 1:22pm? Just trying to get the real story here. So only the elite deserve to have a safe learning environment or in this case children of “important government officials”? You basically just backed up the NRA’s claim in that spot.

    Still trying to figure out when armed police officers started to patrol middle and high schools in Rockford. I remember a wave of violence several years back, but have no idea if this was the response to it. If so it seemed to work, if not, guess the trouble was temporary. Either way, did any up roar happen when guns went into the local schools?

  9. Craig Knauss

    Dave,

    Do you realize that until a “criminal” actually commits a crime they are still “law abiding citizens”? The mass shootings we’ve had in our schools, etc. were committed by people who had not committed any prior crimes. It wasn’t “criminals” committing those atrocities, it was “law abiding citizens”.

  10. APersonConcerned

    Craig, Since when was murdering your mother not considered a crime? Lanza killed his mother before he committed the atrocity of murdering the 26 people at the school. The Aurora shooter planted explosives in his apartment in order to create a diversion, since when did this not get considered to be a crime? He walked into a theatre while armed even though is was established as a gun free zone, thus committing a crime.

    The only thing that you are trying to imply here is that law abiding citizens, such as yourself, are the ones not the be trusted. And Liberals believe that the gun rights advocates are paranoid???????

  11. truth hurts

    Lets see the democrats, liberals, and pat say that obama is not being hypicritical with the protection of his children.

    Well we all know that his children are in danger in todays world and need protection (to which I also agree).

    But so is the common taxpayers children as seen by the latest school shooting.

    Now obama, Feinstein, and other democrats/liberals believe the solution to protect our children is to ban “assault weapons”, hi capacity magazines, and banning some weapons by name.

    Now their talking points say if we pass this law this will stop the criminals and our children will be safe.

    If we take them at their word then obama’s children should also be safe, thus we can save the taxpayer’s money because the law will protect them like our children.

    Well guess what if obama is willing to do this then by all means pass the law.

    If obama wont do this then YES he is being a hypicrite, just as the NRA says.

    Because the cold hard reality is that it was not the guns that caused the shooting, it was not the gun laws already on the books that failed, but the fact a EVIL PERSON wanted to kill kids.

    It is the fault that the law that established a gun free zone where NO ARMED RESISTANCE was available to stop this evil person from commiting his murderous act.

    Lastly I find it also hypicritical that the liberals are more than willing to use taxpayer funds to protect their kids and themselves but they see it as too much money to protect the rest of us (who ironically pay to protect them).

    I guess we finally found something that the liberal democrats are unwilling to spend money on thats “for the children”

  12. Big Dave

    Craig,

    Do you realize that if your under 21 and have a pistol you’re breaking the law? Or why single out law abiding citizens for laws meant for people who what to do you harm? So why do you keep harping on this issue, are you afraid of something?

    Do you think creating some new law that that will end gun violence, if so you are wrong. There are plenty of laws on the books now and sorry to say those laws are not doing anything. But I do have an idea for you, I’ll put up a sign that says I have a gun in my home and you put a sign in yours saying you don’t have a gun.

    I wonder who’s home will get broken into first?

  13. Big Dave

    I forgot something Craig.

    The Connecticut shooting was done by someone who could not get a gun on their own. The mother who could legally buy guns didn’t secure them properly and that cost her dearly because she was the first victim of her son.

    But then if the kid had been caught and tried for this crime I’ll bet that the term ” PREMEDATATED” would never have seen the light of day since he was mentally disturbed.

    But then some liberal attorney would have stated that the kid had rights and those rights cannot be violated.

  14. Big Dave

    Wow, just read this:

    “swampy: It is little wonder that Sidwell Friends, the school Obama’s daughters attend, has long had extraordinary security. Children of various other American presidents, vice presidents and other important government officials have attended that school at least since the presidency of Theodore Roosevelt more than a century ago.”

    So the ruling class should have better security than anyone else children!

    Man you got to love liberals like Pat. He will call anyone a “wingnut” who disagrees with him, then he makes this statement. Hahahaha, this is all I can do with this one!

  15. “Do you think creating some new law that that will end gun violence, if so you are wrong. There are plenty of laws on the books now and sorry to say those laws are not doing anything. But I do have an idea for you, I’ll put up a sign that says I have a gun in my home and you put a sign in yours saying you don’t have a gun.

    I wonder who’s home will get broken into first?”

    Wouldn’t it depend on if the would be robbers were after guns?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

CAPTCHA Image

*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>