dudeone Posted January 16, 2013 Share Posted January 16, 2013 NRA targets Obama’s kids in a scathing new ad Sarah Muller, @digimuller 10:17 pm on 01/15/2013 http://tv.msnbc.com/2013/01/15/a-new-low-nra-targets-obamas-kids-in-scathing-new-ad/ 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. The ad apparently served as a preemptive strike against President Obama, who plans to unveil his high anticipated proposals to reduce gun violence on Wednesday. Along with school security, mental health and the entertainment industry, the president is also expected to recommend universal background checks, a ban on high-capacity magazines and some sort of assault weapons ban. Last week, Obama signed a bill to restore lifetime Secret Service protection for presidents elected after 1997, which includes himself and George W. Bush, and presidents in the future, along with their wives. The law gives children of former presidents protection until the age of 16. George W. Bush signed a directive four days before he left office, authorizing the Secret Service to provide a period of extended protection for his daughters Jenna and Barbara. Bill Clinton had also authorized extended coverage for his daughter Chelsea when his term ended. The Secret Service asked that the period of additional protection be kept confidential. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Common sense Posted January 16, 2013 Share Posted January 16, 2013 oh hey look another gun thread Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
canuck_trevor16 Posted January 16, 2013 Share Posted January 16, 2013 NRA is crazy to think more guns will be the solution..........this will just more ugly and messy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Parker Posted January 16, 2013 Share Posted January 16, 2013 Wasn't an 'attack' on Malia and Sasha, as much as it was a case of hyperbolic false equivalency from a group of ignoramii Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aladeen Posted January 16, 2013 Share Posted January 16, 2013 NRA is crazy to think more guns will be the solution..........this will just more ugly and messy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeNiro Posted January 16, 2013 Share Posted January 16, 2013 Hmm, don't you think the daughters of the president would be more of a target for an attack than the average kids? God, these people really grasp at straws don't they. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aGENT Posted January 16, 2013 Share Posted January 16, 2013 Hmm, don't you think the daughters of the president would be more of a target for an attack than the average kids? God, these people really grasp at straws don't they. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D-Money Posted January 16, 2013 Share Posted January 16, 2013 Yes, because the millions of terrorists and criminals who would attempt to abduct members of the POTUSA's family are just as likely to take your kids as a consolation prize. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dudeone Posted January 16, 2013 Author Share Posted January 16, 2013 Inside the NRA's New Action Movie for Its Post-Newtown Saga http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics/2013/01/nra-stand-and-fight-video/61092/ ALEXANDER ABAD-SANTOS 5:30 PM ET The National Rifle Association came ready for battle on Wednesday — action-movie trailer and all. Because it's been an important day for guns in America: President Obama announced his executive actions on gun violence and urged Congress to push for gun control, which the NRA preempted with a new ad about Obama's children and responded to with a statement that Obama ignored children in general. But it's been a long road for the NRA since the Newtown shooting, and the country's most powerful lobbying group is not about to let America forget that. As part of its new "Stand and Fight" campaign, the NRA released a pretty ridiculous (but action-packed!) four-and-a-half-minute video late Wednesday afternoon. And, well, it really is something. Let's take a look at how the NRA's latest push for putting armed guards in schools gets the superhero treatment — and who Obama (and David Gregory!) are very much the villains.... Yes, the theme music sounds like X-Men. And, yes, the graphics look like Iron Man. But there's some point here, right? Something about guns that are already in schools and how we're supposed to feel bad for the NRA? Maybe something like this: Chapter 1: "Planet Bizarro," Wherein Everyone and Stephen Colbert Hate Wayne LaPierre Lesson: Yes, the "call me crazy" narrative was created by Wayne LaPierre for a reason. The NRA is the victim now, and Steven Colbert is fanning the flames! With curse words! Chapter 2: The Villains, Wherein David Gregory's Kids Get More Attention Than Sandy Hook Lesson: And you thought this was just going to be an attack on Sasha and Malia! Chapter 3: The Map, Wherein Guns Appear and Membership Ticks Like a Bomb! Lesson: Guns are already in schools everywhere! Also: the NRA has 4.367 million members now! Count 'em! But back to our pseudo-narrator: LaPierre's narrative the whole time has been that the only way to solve school shootings is to put more guns in schools. And, America, just look at yourself! Look how fast that map filled up! Listen to your media speak back to you! The bottom line, the NRA's production experts would have America believe, is that America already agrees with its narrator: And maybe the tale of the tape is true — because the action-movie strategy may have been working, ever since LaPierre unveiled his good-guys-vs.-bad-guys strategy in December. A Pew research poll released on January 14 found that a majority of people favor more armed guards in schools. Of course, President Obama said today that if teachers wanted police in schools, so be it, because teachers want that anyway. And, of course, the poll drops off fast when you ask people about arming teachers, and look at it through party lines. Pew wrote: By a two-to-one margin (64%-32%), most favor putting armed security guards and police in more schools. But when it comes to more teachers and school officials having guns, most are opposed (40% favor vs. 57% oppose). The latter option is particularly divisive across party lines: 56% of Republicans would like to see more teachers and school officials armed, compared with just 23% of Democrats. That's more like, "Some of America agrees with Wayne." But that isn't as catchy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hobble Posted January 16, 2013 Share Posted January 16, 2013 So the debt-encumbered US government is now responsible to pay armed guards to stand vigilantly in schools in case of crazed armed madmen? Yeah, that's a lot more rational than changing gun laws. For example, there is NO FRICKIN' REASON why a person would need a military-style automatic weapon like the ones that guy bought at Walmart. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jägermeister Posted January 16, 2013 Share Posted January 16, 2013 People should realize how stupid the NRA is, regardless of their own personal stance on guns. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tortorella's Rant Posted January 16, 2013 Share Posted January 16, 2013 So the debt-encumbered US government is now responsible to pay armed guards to stand vigilantly in schools in case of crazed armed madmen? Yeah, that's a lot more rational than changing gun laws. For example, there is NO FRICKIN' REASON why a person would need a military-style automatic weapon like the ones that guy bought at Walmart. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Special Ed Posted January 16, 2013 Share Posted January 16, 2013 Yeah because protecting the president of the USA and protecting the an average person should be treated the same. I'm sure the NRA have the exact same security concerns as the president zzzzzzz. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Ambien Posted January 17, 2013 Share Posted January 17, 2013 Who would need to bother following the NRA when people here do such a great job of it? The NRA is not "targeting his kids" -- that kind of flat out lie is about as much journalistic integrity I'd expect from typical polarising media and their unnecessary dramatics. They know anything the NRA says will fire up their opposition, so I wonder why they need to add Jerry Springer spin to their story. Clearly the NRA is criticising Obama about his policy of guards and firearms. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bertuzzi Babe Posted January 17, 2013 Share Posted January 17, 2013 Clearly the NRA is criticising Obama about his policy of guards and firearms. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jai604 Posted January 17, 2013 Share Posted January 17, 2013 lol, the NRA. How can anyone take them seriously. Their legitimacy, if they ever had any, is even less than it was before. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wetcoaster Posted January 17, 2013 Share Posted January 17, 2013 lol, the NRA. How can anyone take them seriously. Their legitimacy, if they ever had any, is even less than it was before. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dudeone Posted January 18, 2013 Author Share Posted January 18, 2013 Christie: NRA ad with Obama daughters ‘reprehensible’ By Olivier Knox, Yahoo! News | The Ticket – 3 hrs ago http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/christie-nra-ad-obama-daughters-reprehensible-230123003--politics.html Blunt-speaking New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, thought to be eyeing a 2016 run for the Republican presidential nomination, blasted an NRA ad that mentions President Barack Obama's daughters as "reprehensible" and warned it "demeans" the powerful gun-rights group. "To talk about the president’s children, or any public officer’s children, who have—not by their own choice, but by requirement—to have protection, and to use that somehow to try to make a political point is reprehensible," Christie said. "The president doesn’t have a choice, and his children don’t have a choice, of whether they’re going to be protected or not," the governor said. "It’s awful to bring public figures' children into the political debate. They don’t deserve to be there." He added that "for any of us who are public figures, you see that kind of ad, and you cringe, you cringe." Christie's remarks are unlikely to endear him to those conservatives he already annoyed by praising Obama for the federal government's response to superstorm Sandy. But the NRA ad—which could either be about the Obama daughters' Secret Service protection or the armed guards at their posh D.C. private school—has drawn sharp criticisms for bringing the girls into a debate about gun violence. The NRA has said it's a legitimate criticism of Obama, who has expressed skepticism about the organization's call for armed guards in schools in the aftermath of the school shooting in Newtown, Conn. "They’ve got real issues to debate on this topic. Get to the real issues. Don’t be dragging people’s children into this, it’s wrong, and I think it demeans them and it makes them less of a valid, trusted source of information on the real issues," Christie said. The governor made it clear that, if he decides to run in 2016, his kids won't have much of a say in the decision. "My children had no choice, realistically, in what I decided to do with my career and what effect that’s had on their lives, in making them somewhat public figures, and making them subject to protection from the executive protection unit," he said. "My kids don’t have a choice about that. "My children had no choice that I wanted to run for governor. I mean, I pretended that they did, I asked them what they thought. But in the end they had absolutely no choice in whether I ran for governor or not," he said, to chuckles from his audience. "They knew that, by the way, when I was asking them, which is why they didn’t spend a whole lot of time answering," he quipped. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bertuzzi Babe Posted January 18, 2013 Share Posted January 18, 2013 I've liked Chris Christie since all the Hurricane Sandy coverage.......now I like him even more for telling it exactly like it is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tearloch7 Posted January 18, 2013 Share Posted January 18, 2013 I've liked Chris Christie since all the Hurricane Sandy coverage.......now I like him even more for telling it exactly like it is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.