NRA targets Obama’s kids in a scathing new ad


#1

The National Rifle Association is getting personal. In a new web video the gun lobby calls President Obama an “elitist hypocrite” for using the Secret Service to protect his two children, Sasha, age 11, and Malia, age 14.

The ad, posted to the NRA’s Stand and Fight website, criticizes Obama for opposing the NRA’s proposal of increasing the number of armed guards in schools as a way to prevent shootings like the Sandy Hook massacre.

“Are the president’s kids more important than yours?” asks the voiceover on the ad. “Then why is he skeptical about putting armed security in our schools when his kids are protected by armed guards at their school?” It continues, “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. Protection for their kids and gun-free zones for ours.”

The video does not show pictures of the president’s daughters, using instead images of outspoken gun control advocates such as New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg and Vice President Joe Biden.
tv.msnbc.com/2013/01/15/a-new-low-nra-targets-obamas-kids-in-scathing-new-ad/


#2

[quote="bellasbane, post:1, topic:311603"]
The National Rifle Association is getting personal. In a new web video the gun lobby calls President Obama an “elitist hypocrite” for using the Secret Service to protect his two children, Sasha, age 11, and Malia, age 14.

The ad, posted to the NRA’s Stand and Fight website, criticizes Obama for opposing the NRA’s proposal of increasing the number of armed guards in schools as a way to prevent shootings like the Sandy Hook massacre.

“Are the president’s kids more important than yours?” asks the voiceover on the ad. “Then why is he skeptical about putting armed security in our schools when his kids are protected by armed guards at their school?” It continues, “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. Protection for their kids and gun-free zones for ours.”

The video does not show pictures of the president’s daughters, using instead images of outspoken gun control advocates such as New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg and Vice President Joe Biden.
tv.msnbc.com/2013/01/15/a-new-low-nra-targets-obamas-kids-in-scathing-new-ad/

[/quote]

I could see where pointing out hypocrisy would be considered personal.


#3

Excellent ad:)


#4

[quote="bellasbane, post:1, topic:311603"]
[INDENT]The National Rifle Association is getting personal. In a new web video the gun lobby calls President Obama an “elitist hypocrite” for using the Secret Service to protect his two children, Sasha, age 11, and Malia, age 14. ...

[/quote]

I think the point is that the school itself has a security staff, whether Obamas are there or not, not that there are secret service there, too.


#5

I remember when President Obama commented on the Aurora Theater Shooting, he mentioned, I believe exactly his daughters and their security in going to see a movie? Correct?? So sometimes, when one personalizes an incident to begin with, it sorts of changes the playing field.


#6

I have asked a similar question re: his daughters excellent education and the failing & dangerous public schools the poor inner city children are stuck in by legislation he has supported.


#7

That’s correct. I can see the point about the Obama girls getting extra protection, as someone kidnapping most American girls would not have severe National security repercussions.

But the school has an armed security staff of 11, and they were there even before the Obama’s sent their girls there.


#8

"NRA targets Obama's kids" -- I can't imagine a more sensationalistic and misleading headline.


#9

[quote="BroomWagon, post:5, topic:311603"]
I remember when President Obama commented on the Aurora Theater Shooting, he mentioned, I believe exactly his daughters and their security in going to see a movie? Correct??** So sometimes, when one personalizes an incident to begin with,** it sorts of changes the playing field.

[/quote]

He does have a tendency to do that.


#10

[quote="tomarin, post:8, topic:311603"]
"NRA targets Obama's kids" -- I can't imagine a more sensationalistic and misleading headline.

[/quote]

Because it's MSNBC, the most far left and loyal to Obama it seems to me.


#11

[quote="bellasbane, post:1, topic:311603"]
The National Rifle Association is getting personal. In a new web video the gun lobby calls President Obama an “elitist hypocrite” for using the Secret Service to protect his two children, Sasha, age 11, and Malia, age 14.

The ad, posted to the NRA’s Stand and Fight website, criticizes Obama for opposing the NRA’s proposal of increasing the number of armed guards in schools as a way to prevent shootings like the Sandy Hook massacre.

“Are the president’s kids more important than yours?” asks the voiceover on the ad. “Then why is he skeptical about putting armed security in our schools when his kids are protected by armed guards at their school?” It continues, “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. Protection for their kids and gun-free zones for ours.”

The video does not show pictures of the president’s daughters, using instead images of outspoken gun control advocates such as New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg and Vice President Joe Biden.
tv.msnbc.com/2013/01/15/a-new-low-nra-targets-obamas-kids-in-scathing-new-ad/

[/quote]

FINALLY someone is speaking the truth!! BLUNTLY! .... :D


#12

Obama's executive order today said to

provide incentives for schools to hire school resource officers

These people are armed and patrol schools and to think how those on the left berated the NRA when they came up with the idea for armed personnel in schools


#13

they are the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES' CHILDREN! of course they get extra security, people.


#14

[quote="datritle, post:13, topic:311603"]
they are the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES' CHILDREN! of course they get extra security, people.

[/quote]

Yes, but are their lives more valuable than the lives of your children? Why should they get extra security while parents across the nation are simultaneously told that their kids should not receive any protection?

The NRA is not targeting the Obama children, nor is it saying that they should not get security, nor is it saying that Presidents should not get security either. It is pointing out the hypocrisy involved with a President accepting armed guards for himself and his own children, while lecturing the rest of America about how armed guards and law abiding folks with guns are unacceptable.


#15

[quote="bellasbane, post:1, topic:311603"]
The National Rifle Association is getting personal. In a new web video the gun lobby calls President Obama an “elitist hypocrite” for using the Secret Service to protect his two children, Sasha, age 11, and Malia, age 14.

The ad, posted to the NRA’s Stand and Fight website, criticizes Obama for opposing the NRA’s proposal of increasing the number of armed guards in schools as a way to prevent shootings like the Sandy Hook massacre.

“Are the president’s kids more important than yours?” asks the voiceover on the ad. “Then why is he skeptical about putting armed security in our schools when his kids are protected by armed guards at their school?” It continues, “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. Protection for their kids and gun-free zones for ours.”

The video does not show pictures of the president’s daughters, using instead images of outspoken gun control advocates such as New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg and Vice President Joe Biden.
tv.msnbc.com/2013/01/15/a-new-low-nra-targets-obamas-kids-in-scathing-new-ad/

[/quote]

Did the Secret Service protect Obama's two children BEFORE he became President? If not, I don't see the hypocrisy, since it should be apparent that the children of a sitting President are much more vulnerable than other children.


#16

[quote="bill martin, post:14, topic:311603"]
yes, but are their lives more valuable than the lives of your children? Why should they get extra security while parents across the nation are simultaneously told that their kids should not receive any protection?

The nra is not targeting the obama children, nor is it saying that they should not get security, nor is it saying that presidents should not get security either. It is pointing out the hypocrisy involved with a president accepting armed guards for himself and his own children, while lecturing the rest of america about how armed guards and law abiding folks with guns are unacceptable.

[/quote]

exactly, well said!!!!!!!!!!


#17

[quote="datritle, post:13, topic:311603"]
they are the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES' CHILDREN! of course they get extra security, people.

[/quote]

Indeed they do!!! And so do the kids I teach.

Where I differ with the NRA and the president's proposal to "provide incentives" is there is no constitutional basis for the general government to do that. It is a state and local issue.

It is also important to note that the president surrounded himself with other people's kids today. Using kids in that way seems demagogic to me. :shrug:

Jon


#18

[quote="meltzerboy, post:15, topic:311603"]
Did the Secret Service protect Obama's two children BEFORE he became President? If not, I don't see the hypocrisy, since it should be apparent that the children of a sitting President are much more vulnerable than other children.

[/quote]

I direct you to another response on this thread:

[quote="Bill_Martin, post:14, topic:311603"]
Yes, but are their lives more valuable than the lives of your children? Why should they get extra security while parents across the nation are simultaneously told that their kids should not receive any protection?

The NRA is not targeting the Obama children, nor is it saying that they should not get security, nor is it saying that Presidents should not get security either. It is pointing out the hypocrisy involved with a President accepting armed guards for himself and his own children, while lecturing the rest of America about how armed guards and law abiding folks with guns are unacceptable.

[/quote]


#19

[quote="meltzerboy, post:15, topic:311603"]
Did the Secret Service protect Obama's two children BEFORE he became President? If not, I don't see the hypocrisy, since it should be apparent that the children of a sitting President are much more vulnerable than other children.

[/quote]

They were probably protected during the 2008 campaign. So, yes, they were protected before he became president, more than likely.

Jon


#20

[quote="meltzerboy, post:15, topic:311603"]
Did the Secret Service protect Obama's two children BEFORE he became President? If not, I don't see the hypocrisy, since it should be apparent that the children of a sitting President are much more vulnerable than other children.

[/quote]

Not necessarily. Although you may have a point in theory, 20 children in Newtown were murdered and Obama's kids have never been targeted, from what I understand.

Not only that, but the elitists in Hollywood are wailing about gun control as well and you can bet your bottom dollar that many, if not most, use armed guards when going in public.

All of this just corks my snorkel. I'm absolutely sick of it.

Every child, as well as human being, is as precious as another, period.


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.