Sleipnir Posted January 16, 2013 Report Share Posted January 16, 2013 (edited) WASHINGTON- Hours before President Barack Obama was due to unveil proposals on Wednesday to prevent mass shootings like the one in Newtown, Conn., last month, the National Rifle Association released an advertisement that referred to his two school-aged daughters. “Are the president’s kids more important than yours?” a narrator says in the 35-second television and Internet spot. “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.” Obama’s two children, who attend private school in Washington, D.C., receive Secret Service protection. The White House condemned the ad. “Most Americans agree that a president’s children should not be used as pawns in a political fight. 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,” White House spokesman Jay Carney said. Former Obama press secretary Robert Gibbs, speaking earlier on MSNBC’s Morning Joeprogram, said the ad was “disgusting on so many levels.” Gun control activists and gun rights advocates have said in recent days that they could find common ground, particularly over the issue of expanding background checks for potential gun owners. The NRA ad’s tone, however, and the personal nature of the attacks speaks to the cultural gulf that divides both sides. The clip, called “Stand and Fight,” promotes the leading gun lobby’s proposal to put armed guards in schools. The idea has been at the centre of the NRA’s response to the Dec. 14 shooting at the Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, in which 20 children and 6 adults were killed. The ad is airing on the Sportsman Channel, a cable network, but will likely receive a much larger viewership on news stations and through the Internet. The NRA, which says it has about 4 million members, also announced earlier this week that it would produce a nightly one-hour cable talk show hosted by gun advocate Cam Edwards on the Sportsman Channel. “I am skeptical that the only answer is putting more guns in schools,” Obama said in a recent interview with NBC’s “Meet the Press. “And I think the vast majority of the American people are skeptical that that somehow is going to solve our problem.” In a survey released on Monday, the Pew Research Center found that people favor putting armed guards or police officers in more schools by a two-to-one margin, 64 per cent to 32 per cent. Edited January 16, 2013 by Sleipnir Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scribblet Posted January 16, 2013 Report Share Posted January 16, 2013 They are not 'going after' his kids. They are using the kids to make a point about school security. Fairly scummy I guess, but no matter whose side you are one, they twist their message to suit their agenda. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted January 16, 2013 Report Share Posted January 16, 2013 As already discussed, Toronto put armed police officers into 27 area high schools after a single incident and resulting "potential violence" report. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
punked Posted January 16, 2013 Report Share Posted January 16, 2013 As already discussed, Toronto put armed police officers into 27 area high schools after a single incident and resulting "potential violence" report. So did Obama so what is your point? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BubberMiley Posted January 16, 2013 Report Share Posted January 16, 2013 So did Obama so what is your point? His point is that if he can mention Canada, it's a "gotcha"" moment. Give him a break. He's a shut-in who thinks he personally has access to nuclear weapons. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
punked Posted January 16, 2013 Report Share Posted January 16, 2013 His point is that if he can mention Canada, it's a "gotcha"" moment. Give him a break. He's a shut-in who thinks he personally has access to nuclear weapons. Silly BC there are no Nukes in Sask. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scribblet Posted January 17, 2013 Report Share Posted January 17, 2013 His point is that if he can mention Canada, it's a "gotcha"" moment. Give him a break. He's a shut-in who thinks he personally has access to nuclear weapons. Toto - I'm not in Kansas anymore Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Signals.Cpl Posted January 17, 2013 Report Share Posted January 17, 2013 So is the point here to arm everyone so that people feel safe? Are we to have armed guards in movies theatres and grocery stores? Why not fix the underlying issues rather than support stupid solution that will solve nothing? End of the day we can have majority of people happy on both sides or we can have no one happy... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted January 17, 2013 Report Share Posted January 17, 2013 Fairly scummy I guess, You guess? Are you a mother? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Derek L Posted January 17, 2013 Report Share Posted January 17, 2013 In a survey released on Monday, the Pew Research Center found that people favor putting armed guards or police officers in more schools by a two-to-one margin, 64 per cent to 32 per cent. And there you go……….. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moonlight Graham Posted January 17, 2013 Report Share Posted January 17, 2013 The NRA kinda has a point. I don't think it's a cheap shot at his kids. On the other hand, for ordinary people there aren't psychos who everyday would do anything to kidnap or kill your kids. He's the Prez. He wears bulletproof armour for a reason, and I bet you don't. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Derek L Posted January 17, 2013 Report Share Posted January 17, 2013 The NRA kinda has a point. I don't think it's a cheap shot at his kids. On the other hand, for ordinary people there aren't psychos who everyday would do anything to kidnap or kill your kids. He's the Prez. He wears bulletproof armour for a reason, and I bet you don't. The NRA doesn’t feel he shouldn’t have security for his kids, just that he’s hypocritical in saying it’s unwarranted for everyone else………..Ultimately it should be a State issue……..Some may put police, some security guards, some might allow staff to be armed and some might do nothing at all………..And of course, said “solutions” should be funded at the State and county level…….But it shouldn’t be Obama’s choice to make and lifting the Federal Gun-Free School Zones act would garner options to the various school board/districts on what best fits them…………If the poll if correct, the majority of Americans support the idea, including a great many that voted and support President Obama. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted January 17, 2013 Report Share Posted January 17, 2013 He's also able to launch nukes. Is it hypocritical that the rest of us can't? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Derek L Posted January 17, 2013 Report Share Posted January 17, 2013 He's also able to launch nukes. Is it hypocritical that the rest of us can't? Nor I or the NRA has said that he shouldn't have armed guards around his children. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shady Posted January 17, 2013 Report Share Posted January 17, 2013 Armed guards for Obama's kids, and other politicians at private schools, but serfs at public schools are forbidden. Classic leftist elites. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted January 17, 2013 Report Share Posted January 17, 2013 He's also able to launch nukes. Is it hypocritical that the rest of us can't? No he is not.....U.S. nuclear weapons are controlled by a national command authority that emphasizes at least two-man control. It is not hypocritical for Canadians for obvious reasons. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted January 17, 2013 Report Share Posted January 17, 2013 Captain Pedantic to the rescue of American Pride. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shady Posted January 17, 2013 Report Share Posted January 17, 2013 Captain Pedantic to the rescue of American Pride. Facts can be stubborn things sometimes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted January 17, 2013 Report Share Posted January 17, 2013 Captain Pedantic to the rescue of American Pride. ...whilst Captain Canada tries to vicariously be in the game. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moonlight Graham Posted January 17, 2013 Report Share Posted January 17, 2013 I don't see how this is an attack on Obama's children. The NRA is just making a point that involves his children. In no way is the NRA saying anything bad about his kids or family. I think the Obama camp just doesn't want to comment on the argument, which has some validity, and are using this "digust" as a way to deflect attack and score political points. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BC_chick Posted January 18, 2013 Report Share Posted January 18, 2013 He's also able to launch nukes. Is it hypocritical that the rest of us can't? OMG, I just laughed so hard at that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BC_chick Posted January 18, 2013 Report Share Posted January 18, 2013 (edited) I don't see how this is an attack on Obama's children. The NRA is just making a point that involves his children. In no way is the NRA saying anything bad about his kids or family. I think the Obama camp just doesn't want to comment on the argument, which has some validity, and are using this "digust" as a way to deflect attack and score political points. There is no hypocrisy at all. Politicians all around the world have armed services protect them and their family. Now if Obama was just a regular guy going to work everyday and talking about gun-control while having his children privately protected by armed personnel... well then, yes, he'd be a hypocrite. Edited January 18, 2013 by BC_chick Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Derek L Posted January 18, 2013 Report Share Posted January 18, 2013 No he is not.....U.S. nuclear weapons are controlled by a national command authority that emphasizes at least two-man control. It is not hypocritical for Canadians for obvious reasons. Exactly……..If access to nukes are the measure on what we should base security for ones children, what about the tens of thousands of American men and women that guard, maintain and if required, are in a position to deliver said arms……….. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted January 18, 2013 Report Share Posted January 18, 2013 Facts can be stubborn things sometimes. Fact is he's the Commander-in-Chief, Jack. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shady Posted January 19, 2013 Report Share Posted January 19, 2013 Now if Obama was just a regular guy going to work everyday and talking about gun-control while having his children privately protected by armed personnel... well then, yes, he'd be a hypocrite. Kinda like all the rich regular people that send their children to private schools with armed security. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.