E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
The White House is hitting back at the National Rifle Association for its web video, which refers to President Obama's children.
"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 in a statement. "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."
Here's the transcript of the NRA's ad:
"Are the president’s kids more important than yours? 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. Protection for their kids. And gun-free zones for ours.”
Leave a Comment:
You cry babies that want to take guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens be sure not to cry out to your good neighbor who has a gun when five guys break into your house one night, rape, torture and brutilize your wife and kids and maybe your mother too. Be sure to remember that since you do not want help from your neighbor who is a law abiding citizen that acts responsibly and carry guns ... just watch what is happening to your family and forgive them!!!!!!!!! Freak'n idiots!!!!!!
The NRA loves and feeds off your type. Keep sending 'em your bucks.
The truth be told i would not hesitate to protect you and your family and your property regardless of our differences. I wish Bob Marley was right when he said that you can make people love each other through love in music. My heart goes out to all whom have been victimized by any means!
ALL guns? I didn't know he was doing that.
This also means that i will protect your right to say what you feel. In fact, i did from 1977-1981.
@Thomas, Illinois: i don't believe i said anything about "All guns". Also, it might take me more than five shots to get those five guys off your wife and kids....would you want to take the chance by limiting the number of rounds i can have in my clip? Think about it!
By the way, Illinois, how is that gun ban working in Chicago? I just recently heard a police officer from Chicago ask President Obama to come to Chicago and attend some of the funerals being held there. So far the President hasn't shown up to one of them. You have to ask yourself why doesn't the President want to go there and attend these funerals. My guess is, it is not politically suited for his agenda. Gun control has not stopped the violence in Chicago nor will it. It has not stopped the violence in New York nor will it.
OK, just a second let me do the math on this. I've got two guns with 10 shot magazines I believe thats four rounds per intruder, that should do it. Still don't need an assault rifle.
But apparently the White House sees nothing inappropriate in using other people's children in pursuit of their own Democrat political agenda of banning guns. Another example of Obama hypocrisy!
OBOY, You got a few of these gun nut jobs going!
new reality, I do not even own a gun. So now what say you?
Ted Nugent for President! Y'all sound like a bunch of 3 year olds argueing.
Hooray. The NRA is finally being exposed for what it really is: An extreme right wing and hateful organization devoted to promoting, and profiting from, extreme gun violence in our society. Yes, their true colors are finally showing, and now we are getting to see them for what they are: VIOLENT EXTREMISTS, who care nothing about the welfare and safety of the American people. All they care about is their profits from guns, and they use their misinterpretation of the 2nd amendment as cover while they rake in millions of dollars of profits annually.
Is it fair that the president's children have armed guards protecting their school and mine don't?
Our second amendment right says we have the right to bear and keep arms. It doesn't dictate what or how much we can or can not have. Infact we should be able to have the same if not more power then what we could stand a chance of being up against.
I think the right to keep and bear arms was meant for the people in the "Well-Regulated Militia's, being necessary for the Security of a Free State".. Not everyone.
The nra represents millions of law abiding people who are disgusted with our president using kids in his criminal quest to de-nut the constitution. why are my kids less important than his? when he brought my kids into the fray then his are fair game also.
I have to disagree...
The Second Amendment (Amendment II) to the United States Constitution is the part of the United States Bill of Rights that protects the right of the people to keep and bear arms. It was adopted on December 15, 1791, along with the rest of the Bill of Rights. The Supreme Court of the United States has ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess and carry firearms.[1]
In 2008 and 2010, the Supreme Court issued two landmark decisions officially establishing this interpretation. In District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), the Court ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm, unconnected to service in a militia[1][2] and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. In dicta, the Court listed many longstanding prohibitions and restrictions on firearms possession as being consistent with the Second Amendment.[3] In McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 3025 (2010), the Court ruled that the Second Amendment limits state and local governments to the same extent that it limits the federal government.[4]
Thomas; The 2nd was written to provide the "PEOPLE" the right to protect them self's from a repressive government and replace the same (revolution) if need be. Idiots like you haven't the brains to understand that.
@ Thomas: who do you think made up the militias....."We the people.."!!! And we have the right to bear arms in prepardness to defend out Constitution!!!!!!!!!!
["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."]
But the white House can exploit children on the podium for there speeches and that is some how noble?
Obama doesn't know how to be a true leader. That's why he politicizes EVERYTHING. A true community organizer at heart. To all those gullible people who voted for him: you deserve what you get.
Its pretty simple, when something however wrong, shameless, or hypocritical is done by the president for a purpose they agree with, liberals consider that noble and just. If the same actions are taken by someone on the right for a purpose they do not agree with, then its repugnant, evil, stupid, etc. Its hypocrisy in its purest form.
If the president's kids get to have armed guards why can't mine? Is that fair?
Yeah, only when there is a republican president are his children allowed to be used.
I don't remember Bush using his children and parading them around and I didn't even like Bush.
To all of the misguided that continue to demonize the President and lawmakers for "using the children of Sandy Hook for their own political agenda". Take your blinders off!!
By their logic, we should not use the financial collapse as a reason to look at financial regulation. We should not use Katrina as a reason to look at our emergency response. How dare we look at 911 and look at our airline, port, domestic security.
WAKE UP!!
So you are saying that the Senate when it drew up the bill for Hurricane Sandy victims didn't take political advantage of a tragedy by loading all kinds of pork in that bill and then tried to demonize the House because they wouldn't pass it? Maybe, just maybe it the Liberals truly cared about the victims of Hurricane Sandy, they would have enacted a bill without any pork. So give me a break, maybe you need to WAKE UP.
Apples and oranges you moron.
What if long ago the people had their weapons taken away.?
I don't think the US or a constitution would be here today for any discussion to take place.
If the NRA believes we should put armed guards in schools, than what about movie theatres, fast food restaurants, etc. where the nuts seem to target innocent people? If armed guards is their answer, than let the gun owners pay for it. We should put licensing fees on all guns (that must be paid each year), put steep federal excise taxes on guns, clips, ammo, etc. The government puts enormous taxes on cigarettes to prevent smoking and uses the money to supposedly reduce health care costs. If people want to own guns, than make them pay for that right just as smokers must do.
If you could only comprehend how stupid you sound.?
You make a good argument. Cigarettes kill many Americans every year, but I haven't heard one politican come up with a bill to ban cigarette smoking. In fact, doesn't the president smoke?
Those who possess guns near the President's kids have had extensive background checks and long, costly, timeconsuming training. Is the NRA finally saying that it agrees with those measures in order to possess guns, particularly near children? Or is it just too stupid to recognize the difference between Secret Service personnel versus an untrained individual with a gun in a school zone?
I recognize some of the names of these pro-gun nitwit posters. A year ago they were still clamoring for President Obama's birth certificate and school records. I guess they've moved on to the topic d'jour. Seems to be a pattern here, huh?
Let's see if the hypocritical, narrow minded Obama can put his (well, our) money where his mouth is. Let's begin by confiscating all the weapons from the secret service agents, (Obama's guards) then let's move on to confiscating all the weapons from bodyguards - the guards who protect his left wing rich hollywood friends (who also touting gun control laws) then let's move on to confiscating the guns from the guards who are stationed at the school of all the high profile ("wealthy") people, i.e Obama, David Gregory, etc. etc. That is where we should begin if Obama truly means what he says. However, he never does.
What is repugnant, the prez standing there surrounded by kids! he starts the politicization of kids, no child will be saved by these or any gun laws being the fact the nut or criminal will not obey the law. So mr prez, if you are going to politicize my kids so we will use yours as well. THESE LAWS WON'T PROTECT ANY CHILD.
Thank you Linda!
WOW. It's just amazing how the hypocrisy of Obama and the left went right over the heads of most of the people commenting here. (No, Obama's children were not used in the ad. Making a statement like that tells me that you haven't viewed the ad. And if you haven't viewed it, how can you comment intelligently on it? Makes me wonder how many of you haven't seen the ad. That's OK, I know you can't handle the truth anyway, so don't bother. Just continue to run your traps about things in your zone of ignorance and be proud about it.)
The only thing Obama is upset about is that he's been called out and he's unable to deal with the facts of the situation, so he resorts to name-calling. That's what you do when you don't have a reply to criticism.
While some of those posting here conflate NRA members with mass shooters, call for the deaths of all NRA members, want to eliminate a voice for the gun-owning portion of the American populace, and call names (gun nuts, teabaggers, etc.), according to those same posters (based on their lack of objection to Obama's hypocrisy) it's OK for the elite in this country to protect their own, but not OK (according to that elite) for everyone else to do the same. And it's the NRA that wants to see more dead children in fake "gun free zones"?
Really people, most of you could be in the middle of the woods and see neither the forest nor the trees.
Here we go again with the "Elite" label. Why don't you all say what you are really thinking, and just go ahead and call him an "uppity n....". Elitist? what a crock! What is it that makes him elitist? His ivy league education? The fact that he is the PRESIDENT? Or maybe that he's the biracial child of an absent father who was raised by his grandparents? Some of you have no trouble calling the president elitist, but also agreed with Romney when he whined about the "47%"...that just makes you hypocrites!
To those of you, too numerous to name, who berate the president for including children in today's announcement: nice try, but get real. There is no way around the fact that people, and the president, were spurred into action because of the mass murder of 20 CHILDREN! Finally, a last straw. The fact that a few children were invited to take part in the announcement? Well, he was responding to THEIR requests for action, so it is pretty special for them to be acknowledged this way.
Oh and we really believe that all those children wrote him letters, right? sorry but obama is as dishonest as the day is long...... no credibility whatsoever
I am very disappointed the White House did not SLAM AND CONDEMN THE NRA for this filth.
The filth is in the White House. The big-eared bozo used children in his anti-gun ads and then cries like a little lib girl when it is thrown back in his face. Awwww, poor Obama. The liar in chief can't take it.
It is getting very close to a time when we are going to have to stand up and defend our rights by any means available to us. I know, I know, the libs will wet themselves and throw sandals at us, but we may just have to take back our rights by force. Oh, and before you libs start saying that the military and police will back Obama, think again. There are a lot of police and military people who will stand up with those of us who despise this president for what he has done to this country.
Wow. That's really big talk. So what are you waiting for? Get your gun and start shooting.
the 2nd amendment states "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." in this case "the people = militia" to "protect a free state = defending the USA", IT WAS IN 2008, THAT THE US SUPREME COURT ISSUED IT'S (WARPED) INTERPRETATION: In District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), the Court ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm, unconnected to service in a militia and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.
Maggie- don't bother trying to explain it to these gun-happy nitwits. They are far too blinded by hate for the President to hear anything rational, and most have the intelligence of a toaster to begin with. So what's the point?
gravy...get your nose out of Obama's ass. Your vision is clouded. Either that or your sandals are too tight. Libtard.
Dude, you are such a hardcore leftest. Did you ever think about looking somewhere in the middle for a clearer sence of direction.
Let's not forget to mention the botched gunrunning by Obama and the AG. I once saw a movie to which the Government and police were the only ones with guns. It was called Shindler's List!!
Leave the Guns - Ban the Liberals
Ft. Hood ~~~ Registered Democrat ~ Muslim
Columbine ~~~ Too young to vote, but both families were registered
Democrats and progressive liberals.
Virginia Tech ~~~ Wrote hate mail to President Bush and to his staff; was
a Registered Democrat.
Colorado Theater ~~~ Registered Democrat; staff worker on the Obama
campaign; Occupy Wall Street participant; progressive liberal.
Connecticut School Shooter ~~~ Registered Democrat; hated Christians.
The common thread is that all of these shooters were progressive, liberal
Democrats.
Interesting, isn't it?
The NRA must see the writing on the wall, because their recent tactics sure have a desperate ring to them. Anyone who would begrudge the young first children protection from the secret service: idiots! I am very happy they are well-protected, because with the recent attention from the NRA, there are probably more targets on their backs than ever. The inflammatory rhetoric from the NRA is very likely to fuel additional gun violence, not curtail it, as their members get whipped into a anti-tyrant, anti-commie, anti-African American frenzy!
Anti african american? What century are you living in? The fact that you use the term "african american" I believe makes you a..... RACIST!!!!