Leave it to the National Rifle Association to come up with the most backward argument against gun control yet. In a new ad, the NRA targets the guns carried by the Secret Service to protect President Obama's daughters in what is meant to convince Americans that our "elitist" president is hoarding all the good stuff for his family.
Wait a minute, haven't we seen this one before? It's awfully close to that photo on Facebook that shows the Obama family surrounded by Secret Service, and littered across the photo is the word gun, multiple times. Both are propaganda supposed to make us outraged that the Obamas get guns. There's just one problem.
Neither Barack nor Michelle Obama is armed. Neither are their kids.
The people that photo and the NRA ad refer to are all law enforcement, people trained in the use of guns, people who have had their backgrounds checked. They're the exact people that the pro gun control folks say SHOULD have the guns.
In fact, the administration's gun proposal outlined today says nothing about law enforcement. Instead, it includes bans on high-capacity ammunition magazines and assault weapons, as well as stricter background check laws and education and mental health proposals.
Oh sure, the alarmist NRA ad makes it sound like the president is trying to keep everything for himself and put our families at risk: "Are the president’s kids more important than yours?" it asks. "Protection for their kids, and gun-free zones for ours," it challenges.
Too bad they're comparing apples to oranges in a deliberate attempt to convolute the argument.
As it stands, the gun-free zones at schools in America apply only to private citizens, not to law enforcement. There's nothing to keep a school resource officer from carrying a gun into a local school. They do it every day. We're OK with that because, just like the Secret Service members who protect the Obama kids, they're trained members of law enforcement whose backgrounds have been checked, who have been trained.
We're not OK with the calls to arm teachers, the assertion from Wayne LaPierre, the NRA vice president, that random volunteers could be rounded up, handed a gun, and placed inside our kids' schools ... and neither is the Obama administration.
Take a look at the NRA ad and decide for yourself:
Do you agree with the NRA? Or is this another ridiculous attempt to skew the issue?
Image via United States Government Work/Flickr
Kim and Kanye's Baby Name Predictions!
Moms Love Birthday Parties, Too!
Father Knows Best - Happy Father's Day!
Are Cheaters Entitled to Privacy? - A...
Comments 11
What a ridiculous attempt to feed on the ignorance and fear of the public.
How is putting armed guards at every school a republican point of view anyway?? Besides having "guns" in it?? It's said to cost upwards of $500 billion and takes away the rights of the states and freedoms of the people.
And can we not use the presidents children as political pawns in this debate?? A little over the top if you ask me.
You are purposefully missing the point. The average family can't afford armed guards. So what is a parent to do when an armed creep breaks into her house intent on harming her or her children. The police are not just standing there. They must be called.
No where did I say the president and his family don't need or deserve armed guards. I believe they do. I also believe that average citizens have the right to defend themselves. I just happen to find it hypocritical that he can blame guns for crime and violence while he is surrounded by guns that are keeping him and his family safe.
Because nikolita87 when those changes don't magically make criminals stop shooting people they will come for all the rest of the guns. It's that whole slippery slope thing.