The National Rifle Association released a video Tuesday calling President Obama an “elitist hypocrite” for being skeptical of armed guards in schools when his daughters receive armed Secret Service protection every day.
“Are the president’s kids more important than yours?” a narrator asks. “Then why is he skeptical about putting armed security in our schools when his kids are protected by armed guards at their schools? Mr. Obama demands the wealthy pay their fair share of taxes, but he’s just another elitist hypocrite when it comes to a fair share of security.”
The president’s children are typically off limits, even in the grittiest political warfare in Washington. But the NRA salvo is likely only the first of many in what promises to be one of the toughest battles Obama has committed to fighting in his second term.
This is just another example of trashy cheap shots. Security for a president’s family is determined by the Secret Service. I doubt if the Obama children have one ounce more security than any other White House kids had.
If this is the best the NRA can do, then they are indeed more pathetic than I thought. Many of us don’t mind having a real LEO in a school. I just want to know who is going to pay for all 95 in Prince William County. I didn’t see the NRA offering to help out with any of the cost. From what I have seen, many NRA members are also the Stop Spending crowd. Have they found free cops for the nation. UFB.
I very much want the President (and his family), regardless of who the president happens to be at any given time, to receive top-flight security. Because of his office, he is at constant risk from enemies of the Nation as well as from lunatics who want to make a name for themselves. It is prudent that the citizens afford that protection. When we don’t adequately protect these men, the loss to the Nation can be great (Lincoln is obvious, but Garfield had the makings of being a superb president).
I have no particular desire, however, to live in a society where I or my children have to live in an armed camp. We know through sad experience that children can die when mentally ill people manage to get hold of a lot of firepower. But it is hardly hypocrisy to say that, because the President and his family have Secret Service protection, it might not be the best policy choice for the rest of us.
The NRA keeps sinking to new lows. This PR tack is clearly part of a personal vilification of this particular president. They know they can get some resonance out of that sort of approach with some of their members. It’s a base instinct and one that shouldn’t be encouraged.
Moreover, we’ll hear today what the VP’s task force recommendations are. I haven’t heard yet that the President opposes armed guards in schools. That may just be the price that we have to pay for a society that the NRA did much to produce – one that is awash in firearms. The argument thus far isn’t about whether the physical security of schools has to be upgraded. The argument has been whether this is a police function or (as the NRA appears to contend) these guards should just be gun-totin’ Joe and Jane Citizen.
Standing ovation @ Scout
I think the question has grown far larger than this petty argument. The question before us is whether the president can arbitrarily issue an executive order that limits a freedom afforded in the Bill of Rights. The issue is whether we allow this president, or any president for that matter, such a raw power grab that infringes on a constitutionally protected freedom.
It is one thing when a right is restricted by legislation and then signed into law by president. It is quite another when the president dictates these restrictions.
NO. The argument is right here…how effen low can the NRA go? They are sick. They brought it down to the lowest base level.
That ad puts them down there with the lowest fringe. This is extremism.
Any gun debate doesn’t belong here.
Kelly, I am sorry you think this is where the debate belongs. BTW, Obama hasn’t really done much of anything other than advanced a discussion. Carts before horses?
Furthermore, there is much room for debate on whether you get to decide the type of arm you have the right to bear. Perhaps if we dug up all the founding fathers they would limit you to a musket.
No, Kelly, he can’t amend the Constitution by EO. Don’t worry about it. This idea that Executive Orders would work some major amendment of rights is NRA and Limbaugh-fed fearmongering for people who don’t know much about America or its civic structures. Forget it. This is Chicken Little stuff. As I said elsewhere, there is as much chance of Milkmaids from Mars coming to confiscate all our dairy cattle as there is that an Executive Order would take away everyone’s weapons.
Find something else to worry about.
What is wrong with these “people? Two of the big recommendations, registration/background checks and blocking access to ammunition have zero impact on second amendment tights. That ad completely validates Sunday’s article in The Post about the NRA.
The NRA is disgusting, this abomination of an ad along with a SHOOTING ap for toddlers might make my head explode.
so, when the staff are allowed to carry weapons into the schools, as part of their school day – are parents and others who visit the school (repair, contractor, etc) also going to be able to bring a weapon into the school?
and what is this ad saying – that the children of our President should not get protection? Or is it that the school they attend (privately funded) should not provide protection to all the students? I wonder if the members feel this is money well spent?
I happen to agree with the point the video is making. While the NRA is advocating a “balanced approach” of tighter enforcement of existing laws, and increasing point-security at schools, the administration is only entertaining things that will restrict the rights of law-abiding citizens…like me. He can afford to be “skeptical”, because his kids are well-guarded, and yet he’ll surround himself with other people’s kids today, as he lays out his plans to restrict the 2nd Ammendment rights of americans. What makes this approach such a travesty is we know that less than 2% of gun-crimes are committed with long-guns, and of this, less than .02% are committed with “military-style assault weapons”. We know that the 1994 AWB has been shown to have had little to no impact on crime. All it did was drive the cost of these weapons and accessories through the roof, again, for law-abiding gun owners.
Here’s what REALLY dissappoints me about the slanted arguments this blog is making: Where was the outrage when the BATFE and the US Justice Department engaged in gun-trafficing activities that violated US and International law, which resulted in the deaths of a US border patrol agent (Brian Terry) and many more Mexican nationals…several of them teens at a party? Where was the outrage when our Secretary of State tried to pin these deaths on Licensed Gun dealers, who were selling these guns to cartel gun-trafficing suspects….at the request of the BATFE and USDOJ, who also threatened these gun dealers with loss-license, loss of livelyhood, if they refused to participate?
Where was the outrage when some scumbag gamer developed a videogame where players could “shoot the NRA President in the head”…in simulation of course?
The NRA is NOT acting hypocritically. The NRA is fighting to protect the rights of not only its membership (of which I am a PROUD Life-member), but the rights of all lawful gun owners. If anyone is drenched in hypocrisy it is this administration, Harry Reid, Chuch Schumer, Diane Feinstein, Joe Scarborough and the media….
I would suggest that the NRA needs to hear from its responsible members. They are destroying their image.
To try to discuss other things other than what is going on right now with the NRA reaction to Newtown is just a distraction.
I advocate a holitic approach but I refuse to give the NRA a pass. They really need to stop saying stupid things. That ad was horrible and insensitive.
Well said Steve.
@Lyssa
Please check your facts…The NRA advocates for tighter enforcement of the laws on the books, like hammering the snot out of people who lie on their background-check form (straw purchasing…kinda like what the USDOJ was allowing to happen during “Fast and Furious”.
Regarding restricting access to ammunition, let me ask you this: If the government suddenly started arbitrarily restricting your access to gasoline, would that limit your ability to drive your car?
The reason people purchase ammo in bulk is it keeps the per-round cost down. It is cheaper to buy a Lot-purchase of 1,000 rounds, than it is to buy them 20 at a time. During a 1-hour trip to the range, shooters can easily fire 200-300 rounds. If you, as any responsible gun-owner should, practice twice a month, you are easily firing 500 rounds or more per month. When you go to the grocery store to buy apples, you can buy them loose, or in a bag. Which has the cheaper “per-apple” cost? The bag of course.
I have a dear friend who is an avid gun hunter, has been for many years, even worked for the NRA lobby. He is disgusted by the NRA’s lack of ability to engage in a rational discussion.
Moon and I both advocate a holistic approach, from school intervention to public safety enforcement regulations. Have SRO’s at all schools, not as “guards” but as prevention in the first place. Put a certified school counselor, along with a mental health psychologist in every school for starters! School, in many ways, are the canary in the mine.
As far as the issue of gun massacres and 20 dead first graders, let us stay on topic. I am not going to be distracted by fast and furious, period.
Joe Scarborogh, if one listened to him, even this morning, is advocating societal intervention from ALL fronts. I happen to agree, the glorification of violence in video games need to be taken more seriously, we need mental health improvements, to changed in gun regulations.
To suggest that society has no culpability in addressing these tragedies strikes me as completely irresponsible. Are we helpless to address these massacres? do you just throw your hands up in the air and say Eff it, can’t stop all the violence might as well stop none?
No, the time is NOW to do something to change the culture of destruction in this country.
from my dear friend of 20 years:
@Elena
The 2nd Ammendment doesn’t have a darn thing to do with rights to hunt, or engage in sporting activities.
I’m all for a “holistic approach”, and while we are discussing what this panacea will be to curb the instincts of one to due violence to another, which has existed since Cain slew Abel with an “Assault Rock”, let’s look at what the Administration is proposing? Nothing regarding the “holistic” approach you suggest. Nope. It’s “Let’s ban cosmetically ugly guns!”, and “Let’s limit the number of bullets that can be loaded at any single time!”. “Let’s ignore the fact that most criminals use handguns, and the smart ones use revolvers so no shell casings are left at the scene…Let’s ban any magazine that can accept more than 7 rounds, like the did in NY”. “Let’s make bulk-ammo purchases illegal, and put a violence-tax on ammo, like they did in IL” “Let’s register all the guns, so we know where they are when we want to go collect them, like Nancy Pelosi wanted to do”. “Let’s poo-poo and call ridiculous any alternatives such as allowing trained teachers and school administrators to be armed, and instead, just demonize lawful gun-owners, their representation, and their elected officials”….Does that about sum it up?
“As far as the issue of gun massacres and 20 dead first graders, let us stay on topic. I am not going to be distracted by fast and furious, period. ”
Elena, this is the problem. Law-abiding citizens and the NRA are being punished, blamed, and held-to-account for the actions of derranged, mentally-ill individuals, and yet you refuse to discuss the fact that this administration engaged in activities that resulted in the death of many more than 20 Mexican kids, as well as a border-patrol agent, and has not been held to account. I present facts, and you respond with the opinion of your friend, because he’s a “hunter and used to work for the NRA”. This whole thing is a power-grab hiding behind the emotions surrounding a tradedy. Who was it who said “Never let a crisis go to waste?” I do believe it was Rahm Emanuel, former Obama Administration Chief of Staff and current mayor of the city of Chicago….Chicago…the city that holds two distinctions: The highest murder-rate in the country AND the city that bans the exercise of 2nd Ammendment rights by its citizens. Correlation? Yes, yes there is.
Thanks Alanna…it needs to be said.
@Moon-howler
I guess that would make me an “irresponsible member”, because I agree with their points.
How about some “responsible members of the progressive left” contact those pushing to arbitrarily restrict the inalieable rights to keep and bear arms to dial back the hysteria a notch or two? It’s giving those law-abiding gun owners the wrong impression.
I don’t like how the NRA has responded. They want to correct everyone but themselves. I think the ad was dreadful.
I come from a family of gun owners. I have never lived in a house without guns.
Steve, while you might agree with their points, I expect you probably would have made them differently and more responsbily.
I go back to the good guy/bad guy….Unless I know who the good guy really is, I am going to assume he is a bad guy. Pardon my cynicism.
The hysteria seems to be coming from the easily whipped up right. One would think that it was urgent to possess any form of gun to protect us from the imminent collapse of civilization that many white, mainly Southern, males see happening because a bi-racial man is President. Many of us who are gun owners see nothing wrong with the proposed restrictions. We aren’t preppers, conspiracy-theorists, or otherwise paranoid about our own government and we don’t need the NRA (basically now a wing of the Republican Party) telling us to fear, fear, fear.
The goal of the NRA is to sell memberships. They do so by scaring folks about the home invasion criminal rampage that is supposed to be going on. They create a fear and then they become the answer for that fear. It is the same tactic that snake oil salesmen, car makers, cigarette companies, make-up firms, and sugar cereals manufactures have used forever. We gobble up the yarns that they are pedaling and then, gleefully, hand over our bucks. In the cases of snake oil, automobiles, cigarettes, cosmetics, and foods, we have sanely supported the government’s regulations. Common sense regulations (and they are minimal) have to be imposed on things that can cause harm. If you can’t protect yourself, your family and your property with a 5 shot revolver or a single barrel shotgun, you just may be a hysteric.
Which children are being killed in mass shootings in the US? The children of presidents, diplomats, wealthy lobbyists and industry leaders–i.e. the Sidwell Friends crowd?
Nope, it’s kids in the ‘burbs–our kids, regular kids, and we love them and value them just as much as the 1% value theirs. The NRA makes an excellent point on Obama’s sense of elitism.
Oh Emma, not you too!
No one’s kids should be killed.
What’s elitist about Obama’s children having the same protection as other President’s children have had?
Have you asked City Council for more money for officers for your children’s school? That would be the place to start.
The issue is not just the schools – it is the Mall, Temple and Movie Theater too.
I do not understand what is the problem with Obama sending his kids to private school – anyone can send their kids to private school. Why is that a sense of elitism??
The ad is wrong.
No public school can handle the disruption of presidential children attending. Its logistically not possible. Its not the easiest thing to have a senator or Congressman’s kid in public school, but its possible.
Wow, talk about reading comprehension issues. The point is that Obama opposes providing armed guards in public schools. So public schools get to be undefended, sitting-duck, gun-free zones. His children, and the rest of the 1-percenter Sidwell Friends crowd, have armed protection–of course appropriately so for presidential children. Why oppose it for the lower classes of kids?
Who says Obama opposes providing armed guards in public schools. I have never seen that in print. Who is going to pay for it? How do those armed guards fit into the “stop spending” mantra of the right? Just askin’.
I have heard that Elena and I are also opposed to armed guards. That simply isn’t true. I would gladly pony up some tax $$$ if I thought it would keep school children safe, especially my 6 year old first grade grand daughter.
Am I missing something here? I listened to the president’s speech today, and he mentioned putting armed guards is schools if local authorities wanted them as one of the things he would support. Where does this idea of Obama opposing guards come from?
You and I both are missing something, middleman. I never heard the Prez say he was opposed to guards in schools, armed or otherwise.
@Steve Thomas
I stand by my comments. When the NRA closes the gun show loophole let me know. But they are in denial that there is one.
From the Obama’s executive orders issued today:
18. Provide incentives for schools to hire school resource officers.
I know the NRA has a loose connection to reality, but they might want to at least read the x-orders before spending a bunch of money on media attacks on a false premise. Just sayin’…
The only ones opposed eliminating to “armed guards in schools” that I know of are our local bastions of conservatives who have cut School officers in past past years and recommended cutting more this year to have a flat tax bill.
@Lyssa
I think both Corey Stewart and Pete Candland proposed eliminating School officers.
From Stewart’s flat budget plan:
Police †School Resource Officer (shift 4 officers from middle schools back to patrol, saves partial cost of next phase of staffing plan)
Core-man–you might want to rethink that one.
Pete-cheaper isn’t always better, if you suggested the same thing. If you didn’t, my apologies.
This phony idea of Obama opposing school security seems to come from the same font of urban legend as the idea that obama was going to issue EOs confiscating all weapons. The NRA set it up as a straw man in this recent odious advert apparently assuming that some portion of the populous was so credulous, so ill informed that they would hit the lure. This thread validates that assumption.
They are so obviously working their hatred of Obama with their NRA membership mentality.
“But to go so far as to make the safety of the president’s children the subject of an attack ad is repugnant and cowardly.”
I couldn’t have said it any better. Coward is right.
@Censored bybvbl
that many white, mainly Southern, males see happening because a bi-racial man is President.
Yep. I knew I could depend upon you to bring out the “they’re racists!” angle.
She didn’t say they are racist. Cargo, while you might not know anyone who feels that Obama being black or half black is a problem, I do know people who feel that way. They aren’t all males either.
Lots of people don’t like the fact that we have a black president. they aren’t all southerners either. I would like to deny that such people didn’t exist…..but alasd…they do. You are fortunate you don’t know any people like that.
One would think that it was urgent to possess any form of gun to protect us from the imminent collapse of civilization that many white, mainly Southern, males see happening because a bi-racial man is President.
THIS doesn’t sound racist? The statement makes it sound as if that is the overriding reason for gun purchasers as opposed to the idiotic plans of many different politicians to enact gun bans.
I have to say, the NRA is continuing on the path the GOP took during the last election, and is making it pretty easy for the Democrats to look like the adults in the room. They seem to be playing right into Obama’s hand as they alienate huge sections of the American population, including the vast majority of gun owners like me.
The debt limit is next!
The debt limit thing is terrifying me.
The goal of the NRA is to provide a service to their members, that service being to lobby for the interests of their constituant members, same as the AARP, NAACP, AAA, or any other organization formed under the constitutional right of assembly and petition. As to your other very subjective comment regarding what is the appropriate firearm for self-defense, you have a choice whether to arm your self or not. You have a choice as to what to arm yourself with, be it a Louisville Slugger or a Mini-14. I will do the same, according to MY preferences, thank you.
Me too, but I suspect from a very different perspective.
Probably. I fear that we will go into default and screw up the economy which is recovering.
@middleman
So, you’re all for 2nd Amendment freedoms, but, the NRA’s ads are going to move you to the control camp…… The NRA is “alienating” you from supporting basic principles.
Ok, then.
Cargo, many of us don’t think your freedoms (which are the same ad ours) are being taken away.
The 2nd amendment gives you the right to bear arms. It doesn’t say what kind of arms or the caliber or the style. Societies have the right, in the interest of public safety, to keep ordinary people from having military and police equipment.
We might want to do whatever we want to do …and say that we are the good guys….but not everyone is a truth teller and not everyone is a good guy.
Now THAT’S convoluted logic…
@Moon-howler
I haven’t thought of it that way. So really the only weapon protected under the second is a musket. That is if we are purists and want a pure interpretation. So do we think the constitution should or shouldn’t evolve or change?
@Lyssa
The only weapon protected under the 2nd is whatever falls under the term “arms.” So no need to evolve the Constitution.
Muskets are not mentioned.
@middleman
Well…you said that the NRA is alienating you. And you said that you support the second amendment. And you said that you want more gun control since you are against the NRA’s stance. But, since the 2nd protects an inalienable right, and you can’t support the NRA’s basic stance…you, therefore are allowing your opinion of a third party to prevent you from supporting basic principles.
However when the Constitution was written, there were muskets and sidewarms. i would assume the framers weren’t clairvoyant.
I don’t believe they give carte blanche wo whatever weapon someone wanted.
I stand fully behind the proposition that the Second Amendment gives me the right to carry a sword wherever and whenever I want to (One has to learn to sit down carefully, and it’s hell getting in and out of the car). I have seen precious little energy devoted of late to protection of that right.
Would a baseball bat also count as arms if used for self defense?
@Scout
http://www.kniferights.org/
@Moon-howler
Then, if that was the case, your right to express your opinion would be restricted to a printing press.
The Framers were quite cognizant of technological change AND repeating firearms. Giradoni Air Rifle. Franklin and Jefferson were scientists.
And again, its not whatever weapon someone wanted. The protected right is arms. But, at the time, privately owned cannon, ships of war, etc were around.
You can’t take a ship into a bar one night and start blowing away the patrons.
Let’s just call them Jefferson and Franklin please. Not sure we should call Jefferson a framer. i always forget that he was actually in France during that time.
You ae purely speculating that they knew of technological change. They were not that visionary.
The Giradoni air rifle was a far cry from an uzi.
More important that tool change, they couldn’t have envisioned the amount of social change or the amount of growth of the nation when the Consstitution was being written.
The test of whether something is an “arm”, as in the “right to bear arms” is not whether it is used for self-defense. One only knows that after an event (and often after a trial). As many have pointed out, the Second Amendment doesn’t appear to have any express relation to self-defense. Self-defense may be a logical by-product, but the language of the amendment is very much geared to defense of a free society. I’m sure I could carry around a baseball bat as I go about my errands without anyone making much of it. If I am wearing my great grandfather’s cavalry sabre, I think I might get queried by the police. In fact, oddly enough, I think it is far more likely I would get an intervention from the police if I carry a sword than if I open carry a pistol. The sword is no less an “arm” than the pistol and should be no more provocative.
Wear a kilt and carry the sword. You would probably end up in jail.
i think it must be the non-conformity.
Kilts are not the most flattering fashion statement for me.
@Scout
I completely support your right to carry any weapon that you decide upon. Swords are cool. I’ve never understood the objection to sword canes or knives while one can carry a gun. Or any of the other prohibited hand weapons….
@Scout
Kilts: the anti-TSA clothing….. hehehehehehe