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:
I personally agree that background checks need to be performed on all gun buyers. I don't have a problem with it, it is every time I buy a gun. I do have a problem with limiting what non military guns I can own. I also feel sorry for all of you that support a liberal left wing socialist as our leader. I wish you all had stayed away from the Obama koolaid! You may never realize the error you made by supporting him, but your children and grandchildren will.
Cigarettes kill many Americans every year. Young people manage to even get their hands on them, but yet not one bill has ever been proposed to ban cigarettes. In fact, I believe our president even smokes. The Left are a bunch of hypocrites.
The issue isn't banning all guns. Regulating. You know, like, not selling cigarettes to minors. Not letting ppl smoke in closed public areas like banks, planes, and restaurants.
The NRA is a bunch of nuts that have proven they don't care about anyone's rights they only care about making money for their organization and gun makers which they no doubt have interest in. They have bought and paid for the votes in congress and now want something on their return. They have stooped really low with this ad but they know they can get it by the redneck racist that can't understand that ALL the past presidents families are always guarded all the time, says alot about the mentality of the supporters of the NRA. Keep this kind of stupidity going and anyone with a brain will be embarrassed to claim any affiliation with the NRA.
Just think.... What if we didn't have any guns when the British came.....?
And just think about what if the Syrian people had guns and assault weapons to fight their dictator in chief.
Everyone seems to be running their mouth without thinking about what this add has to say. The NRA asks a reasonable question. Why should not our kids be protected at school the same as the president's.? The answere is that all children should be protected equally. How can anyone have a problem with that.
I remember a time when attacking someone involving their family over politics was strictly off limits. It is obvious that we have much more information and not as much class (much less intelligence) to deal with it. Obama's children have absolutely nothing to do with gun rights or gun control. No wonder both sides hold each other in complete contempt. They are completely contemptible.
Not getting a lot accomplished here, are we? All of the back biting, bitching and moaning, get none of us anywhere, on either side of this issue. There is common/middle ground, but it will not be obtained by mandates. This just pisses people off. There is room for a certain amount of gun control, more background checks (which the gun dealer/gunsmiths have no problem with). There is no way to control the private sale of firearms, so this part of the conversation needs to be dropped. We all need to concentrate on making this country a safer place to live, one of the ways, obviously, is to focus on the mentally ill, who are incapable of helping themselves. And yes, I am a gun owner, NRA member and citizen of the grand USA. My main focus, as should be all of yours, is to alleviate the violence that has become so common place in our society.
Not getting a lot accomplished here, are we? All of the back biting, bitching and moaning, get none of us anywhere, on either side of this issue. There is common/middle ground, but it will not be obtained by mandates. This just pisses people off. There is room for a certain amount of gun control, more background checks (which the gun dealer/gunsmiths have no problem with). There is no way to control the private sale of firearms, so this part of the conversation needs to be dropped. We all need to concentrate on making this country a safer place to live, one of the ways, obviously, is to focus on the mentally ill, who are incapable of helping themselves. And yes, I am a gun owner, NRA member and citizen of the grand USA. My main focus, as should be all of yours, is to alleviate the violence that has become so common place in our society.
This looks like the work of LaPU from the NRA, and by the way LaPU you should be able to afford a good rug or maybe some Rogaine Treatments. They sold Billions of Dollars in Guns last year. Doesn't he and his other Republican and Democrat friends get some of that. And by the way, don't use kids to stop violence against kids. Sick? Yes?
FINALLY ! Obama is being called out on his own terms. The NRA is not talking about Obama's children they are talking about what an F'n ELITIST HYPOCRITE Obama is, enough of this President and his "executive powers" railroading us with socialist garbage.
I agree. He can dish it out, but he doesn't want the light of day on his own behavior.
Obama-get the guns out of your own life if you want credibility. Then read the 2nd amentment out loud in a televised address, with a question and answer period afterward.
Steve -
Have you ever read the Second Amendment? "A well REGULATED Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State . . . ." Not only does it call for regulation, but the existence of a militia. Do you feel that every gun owner should be required to serve in a well regulated militia, such as the National Guard, as implied by the text?
A "well regulated militia" is also a fact of the 2nd amendment. Who do you think the militia members are, and who hands them weapons? The militia is the citizenry, and they own their own guns. It outlines the DUTY of the citizens to be ready to defend America.
But the 2nd amendment primarily speaks of NOT INFRINGING the right of the people to keep and bear arms. Did you skip over that to drool on the militia part?
"such as the national guard" is NOT language of the 2nd amendment, but rather your own invention. Yes, I feel (as does the constitution) that every citizen should be required to serve in a well regulated militia if called for. If we were invaded, how long do you think it would be before groups of armed citizens would be out taking on the invaders.
But the oath of office for many is "protect and defend" the constitution from attackers "foreign and domestic". In other words...the constitution recognizes that there may be attackers from within, and that they were to defend ourselves from that.
Does anyone else find it to be an outrageous that the people who are scamming and scurrying to legalize/decriminalize drugs, making it easier for them to get in to the hands of children, are same hysterical crowd demanding that the government restrict and punish those who legally own and use their firearms; that the ignorance of the hoplophobic is so pervasive, they consider the term to be pejorative.
Very good point.
I needed to use a dictionary, but I eventually figured out that I agree with you :D
Do the guards that protect Obama, his family, and other government officals have a limit of 10 rounds? I have to wonder why Obama recently signed a bill to provide himself a lifetime of secret service protection for himself. It used to a 10 year limitation at the taxpayers expense. Is he special? Or is he living in fear? I think if the law is changed to 10 rounds, that includes those who provide security to anyone. Even those who call themselves the Hollywood elite must have the 10 round limitation. Hiding under the umbrella of a security detail does not give one the right of exemption.
OK, how about some proof he did this. Not some right wing blog either. Credible evidence.
I seriously doubt you can do this. Just keep believing those intelligent bagger chain emails.
http://www.secretservice.gov/protection.shtml
The Secret Service says you're a liar. I say you're an ignorant liar.
This article was published by USA Today. NOTE:::::: Check out the last 2 sentences......
President Obama signed a law today granting lifetime Secret Service protection to former presidents and their wives.
As it stands now, the measure affects only two presidents -- Obama and predecessor George W. Bush.
The bill approved by Congress reversed a 1994 law that had ended Secret Service protection 10 years after a president left office; it applied to presidents first elected after Jan. 1, 1997 -- i.e., Bush and Obama.
From the Associated Press:
"A sponsor of the bill, Republican Rep. Trey Gowdy of South Carolina, says increased terrorist threats and the greater mobility and youth of former presidents made the change necessary.
"The new law also authorizes Secret Service protection for the children of former presidents until they turn 16."
http://www.usatoday.com/story/theoval/2013/01/10/obama-secret-service-lifetime-protection-bush/1823961/
"We must reject the idea that every time a law's broken, society is guilty rather than the lawbreaker. It is time to restore the American precept that each individual is accountable for his actions." --Ronald Reagan
NBC is
'repugnant,' 'cowardly' for taking sides.
Why would this be any other way? You have an African American Family in the White House. As can be seen here and many other blogs a true hatred of minorities exists. There is their need to remove the First Family from the most powerful position in the world so the wealthy Yankee whites can make it RIGHT for themselves again. What President's children didn't receive such protection? All did. Just because they're black it's supposed to be different? Your bringing attention to it shows your full intended bigotry. Republicans better get use to it now. They are not making any friends or winning any support from We The People. Our numbers have surpassed anything you can diminish to maintain power. Your only methods of staying in office are redistricting but a counter action is in the works. We The People will not say as you have kept your moves quiet until the clouds opened our eyes. You are bad people and when the people who defend you finally begin to lose they too will abandon you. Neoclowns. Shame on you and all your rich buddies. It is time to shut you down. Wait till you see what happens in 2014.
So you are saying that whites, who are recently the minority in the US, are hated? Of course they are; you've just provided an excellent example of your point, albiet unintentionally.
You are correct, the children of other presidents were also protected, and when those presidents acted hypocritically in the same avenues or, out of ignorance of the facts, they too were justifiably criticized. How quickly you all forget, though not surprisingly, how Chelsea was was "abused" by those who criticized her private school education opportunities. Stop sniveling, drop your pretenses and, join those who would prefer to alter the culture of violence, propagated by the very same media which denounces those who simply and legally own a gun, but provides children with "first person shooter" "games" (?) and oh, so much more, on tv, at the movies, and on the internet. Hello!
Newbop---You totally missed the point. The point wasn't their "color" but the fact that they had the security "paid for with our tax dollars" while their father is trying to disarm the majority of the people who have to provide their own security.
Another thing that no one ever covers, what drugs did these individuals use?
When TAMIFLU was given to the Japanese it made them have psychotic and great amount of pain that people was jumping out of windows to kill themselves.
So the American people should demand a blood test from a living shooter and an Autospy from the dead shooter. You could tell by their eyes they were on some type of drugs what were they?
So in this way it becomes the drug that killed someone and not the guns???? Right??? Bull@!$%#!!! A weapon like this is just a penis extension because most of the people carrying them don't have enough toughness in them to fight. Nothing wrong with not fighting . Better yet beat a fellow with your brain. But a gun gives Godly power. You can snipe, wipe, hype, strike a target from distances without having a fist break your nose. People who carry guns but don't want to use them usually want to ward off thieves or trouble makers. People who shouldn't be in possession of a gun but do are bad guys who got circumcised with the doctor taking off too much. Get real jerk.
Newbob---- Be my guest, go ahead and try to beat a guy that is trying to murder you, with your brain. Good luck with that, from what you write, it appears you are under gunned
Unless you believe the guns go off by themselves with evil intent, you have to assign some significance to the person holding the gun.
Obama's protection detail are trained, right? So that makes it okay. No president's children have ever been assaulted, but hey, we can pretend.
I agree. The issue is the PERSON, and not the implement. Gun deaths are a mish mash of suicide, armed crime, outbursts by lunatics. Armed crime by criminals is the 65% elephant in the room. Suicide is most of the rest. Occasionally a lunatic will shoot up a theater or a school, etc.
Assuring our safety, if that is important to anyone, is a matter of rounding up armed criminals and disarming them. Also the Lunatics. Suicides are a small portion of the risk, but enough of them kill their families first so that they are considered. THEY FIT IN WITH THE LUNATICS.
So...Ban guns for criminals and lunatics. Because the rest of gun owners, 99%, are not committing crimes, not having psychotic episodes, not contemplating suicide or mass murder. The huge majority of gun owners are not in favor of gun violence, and will not engage in gun violence unless (god help them) some criminal or lunatic enters their property with bad intent.
Obama, ban guns in your own life or shutup and sit down. Soon as you disarm completely, then we can watch you disarm criminals and psychotics. Good luck to you.
So what will happen if the President's gun control proposals pass? Will that loudmouthed NRA coward Ted Nugent run up to the White House and shiit his pants like he did to avoid the draft?
What will happen is exactly what happens when we banned drugs. Now all the drugs are gone.
Obama what a hypocrite. His kids are being protected by armed security in their school. FACT. Why didn't he recommend all the schools have armed security guards. He know it would work and cant hurt. It not about our kids Its about his anti gun agenda. Obama said he will do anything to protect our children. Not one thing his so called task force mention would of have stop the killer in Sandy Hook. Only an armed guard would have saved more lives that day. He pick the kids that meet his agenda and he uses those kid to make his appeal. How about the kids that wrote him and asked to protect there school with arm guards. There where many kids in our school who wrote the president asking for better school security and arm guards. Not one mention from the president. It not about school safety, its cheaper to in act bans and make laws than to help the mentally ill. more social programs against violence and hire guards for our schools.
Another dummy. Go ahead. Protect your right to be wrong. It makes sense to just you. Shhhhush!!! Gotta be a Neoclown.
I do not think a lot of everyday Joe's know that the supreme court has upheld that the police have no duty to protect you. A common misconception, especially when a lot of the departments use the slogan, "To Protect and Serve".
Protecting is part of their job description - it is the partial purpose of their job - but this is much different than a moral obligation or duty to do so.
This is why if you call 911 as someone is breaking into your home and you get shot because it took them 15 minutes to get there you cannot sue them for failure to execute their job in a timely and prompt manner.
Those of you who wish to have a cell phone as your defensive measure against criminals more power to you. But that is your choice, not mine - I'm not sure why you think it is OK to make that decision for me. Or why you think it is OK to associate my AR-15 with murdered children.
"Civilians have no use for those."
Well why does every car we buy allow you to travel faster than 75MPH? Can anyone name a US road or highway that permits travel faster than this?
Why does someone need a Corvette when they can buy a Volt? They both go from point A to point B? Hmm?
And finally...
Guns are what have protected your right to demonize them. The 1A exists because the 2A is around to ensure that it is not infringed.
In the classic history of Nazi Germany, They Thought They Were Free, Milton Mayer writes:
“What happened here was the gradual habituation of the people, little by little, to being governed by surprise; to receiving decisions deliberated in secret; to believing that the situation was so complicated that the government had to act on information which the people could not understand, or so dangerous that, even if the people could understand it, it could not be released because of national security. And their sense of identification with HITLER, their trust in him, made it easier to widen this gap and reassured those who would otherwise have worried about it.
“This separation of government from people, this widening of the gap, took place so gradually and so insensibly, each step disguised (perhaps not even intentionally) as atemporary emergency measure or associated with true patriotic allegiance or with real social purposes. And all the crises, and reforms, so occupied the people that they did not see the slow motion underneath, of the whole process of government growing remoter and remoter.
Now substitute Obama for Hitler and isn't it strange how nothing changes.....
Yes, yes. We know. Obama has come to turn us into Nazi Germany. Oooooh...oooooh...I think I just saw bigfoot out my window!
If the NRA had been heeded this last mass murder and several others would not have happened. They have been pushing for years to have the records of those who are deemed a threat to society included in the information used in checking on those who are purchasing a gun.
The NRA is demonized by those who want to disarm America and by those who know nothing about the NRA and what they do. Most people who criticize the NRA only get their information from those who want to push their own agenda and and are prodigious producers of false information.
Because either the gun goes off by itself with evil intent, or the person holding the gun is the issue.
The NRA and many others call for a more responsible approach by the "mental health" industry, but with no success. The lunatics have rights that can't be violated, and the rest of us have no apparent right to protect ourselves.The average number of people killed in mass shootings which were stopped by police is 14.29. The average number of people killed in a mass shooting which were stopped by a civilian is 2.33
Right on Steve. Trouble is the anti "gunners" don't want to be confused with facts.
And this S.O.B. uses 4 little kids on the stage with him. Give me a political over the top break. Typical Chicago politician, all boots and no HAT. The liberal hysteria in this country has 6 yr old boys being suspended for playing Cops and Robbers and using their hands....pointing fingers as guns. Unbelievable liberal nonsense. Yet their buddies can produce the type of violent (place any of the names here_______________) VIDEO GAMES that the libs can come up with and there is no control of their how to KILL OTHERS VIDEOS!!
If the information is true about the security of the school where where Obama's girls goes, why is it repugnant. It just points out the disparity there is between the haves ad the have not's. The only difference is Obama's are protected with our tax dollars and most likely the other government office holders children are protected with our tax dollars also.
The President's family has ALWAYS been protected by the Secret Service. Why not President Obama's family? OH, I get it, I forgot.
I love despicable people.
The NRA has taken scumbag to an all new low. Plus, they took their ignorant minions right down there with them.
Dennis, you sure you are not Newbob using a different name. If what the NRA said is true, why is it despicable. What you said isn't the being disputed, what is being pointed out is the disparity, where the President is using our tax dollars to protect his children, while trying to disarm the people who have to provide their own security for their families.
Why is it repugnant? Yes, our leaders' families have been protected by armed guards for years, but that's not the point of the question. The point is...We're all supposed to be in this together. At least that is what POTUS Obama has been telling us since he began his run for the office. If we're all in this together, shouldn't all of our children be protected in (basically) the same manner?
Calling names doesn't help the debate at all. It's juvenile. Our leaders need to be adults. That includes keeping your mouth shut on numerous occasions. If your point is valid, it will be borne out over the course of time. Calling names does not help this situation.
Car
Nobody, and I mean NOBODY has said they want to disarm ANYBODY. Stop listening to the NRA, tea baggers and Rush. Geeze what is wrong with you?
Use your head for a change. People are unbelievable!
Why not? Are his children more important than mine? When has a presidents children ever really served in a war, joined the military, or did any kind of service to this country. All they do is grow up and become snobs. Even Clinton's daughter did nothing.
My children are just as much in danger anymore as are the presidents. So to start name calling because the NRA hit the bulls eye with their comment is OBAMA'S bad not theirs.
Of course there are a lot more crazies out there trying to get to them, so that is why they have to have protection. But even then, they carry guns to protect them. Why should I not carry a gun to protect my children.
The White House is just being pricks. The NRA has it right. Of course if all you socialists liberal Democrats have your way we will loss our first amendment rights. It starts with gun control and it's all down hill from there.
The rights given to the American people 3 hundred years ago, when the population was a scant of what it is today, need to be changed completely. What we said back then that were "Rights" are no longer the "Rights" of the American people. We are too overcrowded and undereducated to do the things we once thought we were entitled to. If people want to continue to have large families and overpopulate the world then they have to realize that they will have to make some sacrifices and their children may not have the same rights as they had.
How would reducing/reversing America's population growth affect funding for the entitlements already promised to those who are currently alive?
"Naive" is a description of anyone who thinks that a large number of Americans (non-NRA members) hadn't already thought about the Obama children benefiting from armed guards in their schools. Heck, I'm not a member of the NRA (or any other "gun-organization") and I thought about it a few minutes after the first reports of the Newton tragedy, which was days before the NRA's press conference.
Too much logic has gone out the door in this debate.