Jan 15, 2013
The National Rifle Association released a new video on its Web site Tuesday calling President Obama an "elitist hypocrite" for having Secret Service protection of his daughters at school but saying he was "skeptical" about installing armed guards in all schools.
The NRA's provocative, 35-second video is as harsh as any attack ad in a political campaign and illustrates how emotionally charged and personal the debate over gun control is becoming.
"Are the president's kids more important than yours?" a deep-voiced narrator asks. "Then why is he skeptical about putting armed security in our schools when his kids are protected by armed guards at their school? 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."
A White House spokesman did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
The video takes issue with Obama's comments in a recent interview on NBC's "Meet the Press," in which the president voiced uncertainty about the NRA's proposal to put armed security guards in schools nationwide.
"I am skeptical that the only answer is putting more guns in schools," Obama said. "And I think the vast majority of the American people are skeptical that that somehow is going to solve our problem."
A majority of Americans, 55 percent, support the NRA's armed guards proposal, according to a Washington Post-ABC News poll released this week. Those with children at home are more apt than those without to want armed guards at schools, the poll shows.
"Most Americans agree that a president's children should not be used as pawns in a political fight," White House press secretary Jay Carney said. "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 never read into the ad that the NRA thought that Obama shouldn't have protection for his children. It was a critcism of Obama feeling that our children should be denied similar protection.
Obama signed 23 executive orders today. He is the most arrogant sitting President this country has ever known. What Obama cannot do? You guessed it....he cannot ban guns in America. He knows that. He hates that. But he'll keep trying to do just that....meanwhile the "impeachment" people are waiting for him to try to do just that....
First to you Sandy, I agree; the WH twists and turns as good as the MSM, don't they. The NRA only tried to make it clear that all children need equal protection; yes, we know the president's children need protection, but so do my grandchildren, so do all children. That is all they said and we know it; but they are going to take all that they can to paint their picture.
Diane, the only reason he stopped short of a complete ban on weapons is that he knows that would be the final straw and he would be facing impeachment for denying the 2nd Amendment rights to the citizens of this Country. But remember, he is also sneaky; he succeeded so far in using Sandy Hook to keep the heat of of himself and his Administration over Benghazi. Twist and turn; he would make an interesting amusement park ride the way he manages that.
Linda: More likely he didn't call for a total ban since he knew that would look too much like overreach even to the "ban the assault weapons" drones and he can bash the GOP and the NRA if he doesn't get what he has proposed. In addition, if he gets enough data to maintain a registry of all firearms then he has a basis for confiscation the next time we get an incident and these "reasonable control measures" don't work and then he calls for a total ban and confiscation. Like most tyrannical "progressives" he believes in a gradual approach to get all of what he wants. Keep in mind the Demagogues are pushing for removing the two term limit.
I can see that John. Good points. As for the removal of the 2 term limit; God help us if that happens as we could not survivie any more of Obama in the WH.
I cannot see 2/3 of both the House and Senate voting in favor of this, and even if they did, I cannot see 38 states ratifying it, and even if they did, I cannot see it happinging in time to do anything useful for the Big Zero. As soon as he becomes a non-incumbent, he will fade into the mist of time.
Jay Carney needs to get a grip on the fact that not only is providing effective protection for his own children while ridiculing the NRA for sugesting something similar for everyone else's hypocrisy, so is leveling the charge of politicizing the children as he and his boss dance in innocent blood for political gain.
You know, David, I had a real problem with Obama using the children as props to further his agenda when he has said from day one that his children are "off limits." And I agree that his children should be off limits but he can't have it both ways. I have stated a gazillion times on Care 2 that Obama has no shame.
I honestly do not have a problem with thorough background checks on people but the realist in me kicks in and says that the mentally deranged will find the weapon of their choice to further their agenda when they snap. It's like domestic abuse. You never know when it is going to happen.
It's politics, baby, full speed ahead for the next four years.
Amen to this Diane. Diane, there are more than mentally deranged that should not be allowed to own a firearm and these people pass the mental health test. How about those that purchase them illegally or steal them; they are not all mentally ill and their purpose for having them is nearly as bad. They do not go in to rob a store with the intent of killing someone, but it happens. It may not be 26 innocent chldren and teachers, but one life is one too many. All the background checks in the world will not stop them. Further, restricing semi-automatics is not going to stop these things, it is just a means to control gun ownership once more but not to address the real issues of mass killings; lack of security is more of an issue and when the President asked Congress to cut back funding for school security he made a big mistake. I have read that only twice, but it is fact and it is amazing that the media has not brought that up at all. Why are we not addressing this issue?
I am absolutely opposed to background checks. First, they can become de facto registration schemes. I know the law requires destroying the record of the check within either 24 or 48 hours, but we are relying on government agencies following the law which are constantly getting caught breaking it. Keeping records which are required to be destroyed is much less intense than 'fast and furious'.
Second, we must revisit the difference between a right and a privilege. Most of the same people screaming that people shoudn't have guns and should be scrutinized six ways to Sunday before being given a license to possess them would scream up a lung if Big Zero suggested taht they should be required to have background checks and licenses to post on the internet. They woulc scream 'First Amendment!' and fail to understand what I mean when I remind them that the spoken word and messages printed on paper were all they had when the Constitution was adopted. The authors could never have imagined a medium like the internet that would have allowed instantaneous worldwide communication.
The bottom line is that if we allow one part of the Constitution to be infringed, we have surrendered the principle that holds up the rest of it.
I almost forgot to mention that people who are too dangerous, too criminal, or too crazy to possess weapons should be incarcerated either in prison or in a psychiatric institution, not roaming the streets serving as an excuse for ignoring a clearly enumerated Constitutional right. Just for the record, I do not even support denying convicted felons their Second Amendment rights. If they are too dangerous to have all their rights, they should be in prison (and, conversely, people who are not dangerous should not be in prison) and allowing the creation of a de facto second-class citizenship opens the door to having the majority of teh population transitioned into this class forming an easy vehicle to eventually re-institute serfdom.