Apparently The NRA Wants Every Child In America To Be Protected By Armed Guards At All Times

The NRA is continuing on their puzzling crusade to convince people that the solution to gun violence is having more guns, everywhere, at all times. To get their message out, the National Rifle Association crafted this commercial, aimed at fighting back against President Obama‘s rebuff of their idea to put armed security guards in every school in the country.

See, everyone! The President is a hypocrite because his family, the First Family, gets armed security guards at all times. Why shouldn’t your family have the same protection?

And let’s not stop at schools. If Sasha and Malia went to play at a park, they would get armed protection. There should be security at every park in the country. When the President’s daughters went to the beach, there were Secret Service protecting them, making sure that photogs didn’t get bikini pics of the girls. Lifeguards should all be carrying weapons and ready to shoot down anyone with a camera pointed at your little girl. Stand with the NRA and demand armed security guards for every child at all times. I’m sure that will end the horrible culture of violence in this country.

Okay, now let’s get serious. First of all, armed security guards don’t actually protect kids at schools. There was an armed guard at Columbine. There was an armed guard at Taft Union High School, where a student was recently wounded by one of his classmates, and where more could have been hurt without the level-headedness of one brave teacher. Armed guards at schools is not the solution to the gun violence problem in our country.

In response to criticism over their outrageous ad, an NRA spokesperson said, “Whoever thinks the ad is about President Obama’s daughters are missing the point completely or they’re trying to change the subject.”

It’s funny that they should mention “trying to change the subject.” It’s not a coincidence that an ad opposing gun control mentioned a tax increase. This ad had nothing to do with gun control, because the NRA realizes that no one expects their children to have the same security system that the President’s daughter have. This ad was simply about stoking anger at the President. It was created simply to induce rage and increase hatred where it already exists, not to change anyone’s mind on the issue of gun control.

This ad is ridiculous. It’s insulting to the intelligence of the American people. None of us expect that our children are going to have the same protection as the President’s family. Most of us do not want armed security following our every move. If a man were standing in my house with gun right now, as I type on my computer while drinking coffee and wearing my pajamas, I would be a little uncomfortable.

The NRA are the ones who really want to distract attention from the core issues. And debating armed guards in schools does that, it distracts from meaningful solutions.

Be Sociable, Share!
Be Sociable, Share!
  • Lastango

    “As reported on April 16, 2000, by the Associated Press, the U.S. president, as Clinton then was, spoke to his nation on the first anniversary of the 1999 Columbine High School massacre. The president used the opportunity to unveil “the $60 million fifth round of funding for ‘COPS in School,’ a Justice Department program that helps pay the costs of placing police officers in schools to help make them safer for students and teachers,” the wire service story reported. “The money will be used to provide 452 officers in schools in more than 220 communities.”

    “The news agency went on to quote the president saying that the program had already “placed 2,200 officers in more than 1,000 communities across our nation, where they are heightening school safety as well as coaching sports and acting as mentors and mediators for kids in need.”

  • Guest

    Look, if your children are as high-profile and under threat as Sasha and Malia Obama (Hi Vicki Beckham!) then you can send them around with armed guards all you want–Katie Holmes does; no one is *actually* protesting that. All we want are reasonable and sensible restrictions on the accessibility of firearms, particularly to people who have questionable backgrounds (certain psychiatric histories, criminal records), and the types of force they offer (no one *needs* an assault rifle or a 7+-round magazine).

    This all started with that letter from the dad who asked Sen. Feinstein why she could have protection but his kids couldn’t. Well, Dad, you are allowed, actually, to purchase a gun and to use it in self-defense if you must and as far as I understand it, proposed gun law reform does not seek to deprive you of that right.

    However, you’ll forgive me if I have a problem with you being around MY kids with a gun–then YOU are a threat to my children. Me having my own gun in response is not a solution; that’s an escalation.

    • Blooming_Babies

      “Me having my own gun in response is not a solution; that’s an escalation.”
      You hit the nail on the head, I couldn’t agree more

    • Paul White

      If someone else already has a gun and is going to use it, me having my own gun is not an escalation. It just gives me a chance to not merely be a victim.

    • K.

      So then fine, have a gun. Sit in the carpool lane packing for all I care. No one is taking away your gun, alright? Let me repeat: NO ONE IS TAKING AWAY YOUR GUN. You can go back to your corner and stroke it lovingly like Gollum now, it’s okay.

      The whole “NRA is standing up for my right to protect my children” is bupkus. Don’t kid yourself. The NRA couldn’t care less about children’s safety or the rights of parents. The NRA is a lobby for the gun industry. Period. And it’s simple really: they are using your paranoia regarding ‘children’s safety’ in order to push product.

      Leave it to the NRA to turn Newtown into a profit opportunity.

    • Paul White

      You realize that the NRA is primarily funded by individuals? The ILA and NSSF are the actual industry groups (in particular the NSSF) and are usually much more willing to roll over–see Ruger and Smith & Wesson’s behavior during the first AWB in the 90s.

      You can say no one wants my guns but when you have people like Fienstien on video saying that if she could get 51 Senate votes, she’d take them all, Mr & Mrs America turn them in it’s hard to believe that. And Fienstien isn’t some nobody; she’s a fairly powerful legislator with lots of experience in politics and a lot of clout. Ditto Schumer.

      I realize plenty of people that support some control don’t take it that far, but there’s enough people that do feel that way, in particular people with clout that feel that way, that I won’t just ignore it either.

  • Ask Back

    Banish nra for using anyone’s children in their argument for arms this shows what freaks and indecent people the nra are. Every President with children had body guard nra is a racist and trigger happy organization and the president of nra must be a maniac using children in the nra’s ad.

  • Matthew Underwood

    I think it’s a great ad. It’s a beautifully ridiculous point for a ridiculous argument. (I want the entire U.S. Marine force protecting my child, but that’s just me). The NRA has a big mouth and big pockets to make sure no one shuts them up. I’m about to pay for a lifetime membership just to do my little part in making sure they continue to be funded to be impolite, obnoxious, naggers of my second amendment. Columbine would have been a bit different if they had the new law in place that the guard can stop the shooter and not have to wait for backup, which, from what I understand changed because of columbine, because he was unable to legally help the way he should have been able to do. I had a police officer, sometimes 2 at my son’s elementary and now middle school and I couldn’t be more delighted. If anything ever happened, I’ll be glad they were there. And if my son happens to get shot, I will not be saying something idiotic, like, it didn’t help, so the cop shouldn’t have been there. That doesn’t even make sense. A cop that is present is more likely to stop a shooter than an invisible cop. …..even if it doesn’t always work out to 100% ideal outcome, at least the possibility is there.

    • Lastango

      And if the teachers are carrying, that adds even more people capable of defending themselves and the students.
      Free Americans lock and load.

    • K.

      Yeah, you guys are ‘free,’ alright.

    • Lastango

      We won’t be if you manage to take our guns. After, much to your own surprise, you won’t be free either.
      But then again, you never understood that free speech can’t exist unless there’s free speech for everyone.

    • K.

      Of course I understand free speech. You’re exercising it, as am I–we just happen to disagree.

      And by the way, *I* am not advocating a removal of your guns. I don’t think most Americans are either. The laws that were just passed in New York allow everyone who owns guns to keep ALL the guns that they have, okay? The restrictions being proposed in Washington right now are not threatening to take away anyone’s guns; they are mostly directed towards greater oversight regarding the acquisition of firearms IN THE FUTURE. No one is “taking” your guns, so yeah, by all means exercise your free speech, but you’re wasting it “defending” what isn’t even under threat.

      Here are some of the things that you are, in fact, defending:
      – you are arguing that convicted felons should be able to procure firearms without going through background checks
      - you are arguing that private citizens should have the right to own assault weapons
      - you are advocating that private citizens should be able to own 10+ ammunition rounds
      - you are against strengthening gun trafficking laws

      I don’t care where you are really on these issues so don’t bother; my overall point is that you can bark all you want about your 2nd Amendment rights and free speech and child safety and on and on and on–and that’s NOT what you are ACTUALLY defending when it comes to the ACTUAL laws being proposed in Washington. You will still have your right to bear arms–that is not under threat (unless you are a convicted criminal, in which case you have a lot of other compromised rights to worry about). So maybe instead of worrying so much about ‘protecting free speech’ you might think more about the quality and relevance of your speech.

      I am a teacher and although I don’t own a gun, I also shoot for recreation (and have done a little hunting on occasion) with my family (who are gun owners) so I am by no means “anti-gun.” I would never, however, bring a gun into my classroom. For one, if something terrible happened like Virginia Tech, Columbine, Aurora, or Sandy Hook, I would doubt my ability to defend students without endangering them–and I’m a decent shot. But I don’t spend a whole lot of time practicing my shooting skills in emergency simulations; I prefer to spend my time training to be a better educator. And two, I think it’s deluded to think that if children are around deadly weapons they are somehow safer. And I can assure you, parents of my students would feel the same way–they wouldn’t want me, the teacher, to be armed and they wouldn’t want their children learning in a classroom with guns.

    • Lastango

      Second Amendment defenders have been dealing with people like you for a long time. Defenders understand that guns are not grabbed overnight, in one fell swoop, or by one law in one city or state. They know that if they don’t fight the totalitarians on the beaches, they will eventually be fighting them from their own homes. They are not at all fooled about what you really want, or by photos of John Kerry going goose hunting.

    • K.

      I have some questions because your post above is fairly vague. Abstractions sound powerful (“Defend my freedom!” “Protect my kids!”) but they’re shallow and provide nothing substantive to discussion. “Slippery slope” arguments are also fairly useless because it’s a convenient logic to support the absence of criticality. So in that interest:

      WHO are “totalitarians on the benches”? And I hate to pull the whole high-school exam, “be specific,” but really–be specific. Don’t say people “like me” or anti-2nd Amendment or “those against freedom” or whatever. Name names. Because so far, I haven’t been able to pinpoint anyone in this country who who actually proposes totalitarian rule. And by the way, imposing restrictions on guns, if voted on and supported by a majority of the populace does not constitute totalitarianism. So please, enlighten us. By ‘benches’ are you referring to the Justices of the Supreme Court or something? And what have such people done that is totalitarian and to what end and why do you think they want to be totalitarian? I mean, what exactly are they fighting for? In what reality or under what circumstances would people come and threaten to remove you from your home (which is different from your garden-variety home invasion–I mean, forcibly remove you from your land)? And are you using “totalitarian” to refer to people who believe in that type of government or are you using it to refer to one specific despot you have in mind? The phrase in itself is a little bizarre.

      WHAT do *I* really want–because, forgive me, but you don’t know me and you don’t really *know* what *I* want, therefore you’re constructing an entire argument based on what you think *I* want. And I’m willing to bet that you are constructing a vision of what *I* want solely based on your desire to maintain your perspective; ie, much easier to assume what I want because that allows you to maintain your point of view rather than actually listening to what I want and then having to consider your perspective in its context. I’m not holding my breath with that one because you don’t really seem all that inclined, but I figured, hey give it whirl because I don’t know *you.*

      And by the way, I can assure you that what this country wants in terms of gun control is quite varied, indeed. It only looks black and white from your simplistic perspective. To that end, We could stay in the realm of philosophy–the meaning of freedom and the verbiage of the 2nd Amendment, rights of privacy and all that–but I doubt you’d want that because I’d run circles around you in the philosophical arena. And it’d bore me anyway to have it with someone more interested in ‘winning’ than having a discussion.

      But hey, I figured, “you’re getting over the flu, it’s Friday night, eh, give it a whirl” I’d be more than interested if you’d please name the individuals who constitute “totalitarians on the benches” and why you are characterizing them as such.

  • Pingback: Lone Star College Shooting Wounds Multiple Victims, Locks Down School()

  • Pingback: Delaware Shooting, Courthouse Gunman, Gun Violence, Control, Debate()