New NRA ad calls Obama hypocrite for USSS protection

[Dalton]

This has got to be one of the most bizarre things I've ever seen. The NRA, who are seriously proposing having armed police officers in every school, call Obama an "elitist hypocrite" because his daughters have Secret Service protection.

Link

The National Rifle Association has posted a new video on its website calling President Obama “an elitist hypocrite” for dismissing the group’s suggestion to put armed guards in schools while his own daughters have Secret Service protection.

“Are the president’s kids more important than yours?” the narrator asks. “Then why is he skeptical about putting armed security in our schools when his kids are protected by armed guards at their school?”

The video, which also is running on the Sportsman Channel, says the president "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."

(continued)

[Broken]

Does really anything the NRA does really surprise anyone anymore? Is there really anything to discuss besides the NRA's continued decent into insanity?

[The Kernel]

Why exactly is anyone surprised by this? The NRA isn't a think tank or research foundation, it is a lobby group. The purpose of a lobby group is not to compromise or find out the truth of an issue--in their minds they already know what is right (in this case keeping gun laws as weak as possible) so anything they do is to further than cause. This particular ad has incredibly stupid logic for obvious reasons but it is designed to fire up an audience that already agrees with them and to poison the well sufficiently that those who are on the fence get turned off.

Remember the NRA is fighting for the status quo which is a very advantageous position to be in. Change is difficult and all the NRA has to do to successfully thwart the change is to put out enough propaganda that people either start believing it or they just become too overwhelmed that they tune out.

[Terralthra]

Also, the US Secret Service protects the family of the President by law.

[Gil Hamilton]

It strikes me as dumb because no one thinks that the President or his family shouldn't have that security.In fact, someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't believe it's even legal for the President or Vice-President to decline protection even if they were so inclined, nor can their families, due to the nature of their job.

If the NRA continues to push godlessness, violent video games, and "the President is a hypocrite for accepting something he legally can't refuse", they deserve to lose this fight.

EDIT: spelling correction.

[Nephtys]

It's a really really old whine aimed at riling up the easily riled. The president has bodyguards! Whaa.
Well, that's because there's people who'd directly and go out of their way to target a public figure specifically, for who he is, without ever having any personal prior contact. That's just not the case for 300+ million Americans.

[The Kernel]

It's a really really old whine aimed at riling up the easily riled. The president has bodyguards! Whaa.
Well, that's because there's people who'd directly and go out of their way to target a public figure specifically, for who he is, without ever having any personal prior contact. That's just not the case for 300+ million Americans.

Actually that's not the reason why his kids get Secret Service protection. The real reason (as heartless as this sounds) is because the President cannot be compromised in order to effectively do his job and using his family against him has the potential to do that. The nightmare scenario here is someone kidnapping a member of the First Family and using them to influence policy.

The reason this distinction is important is because some people who are idiots act like we give Obama this protection because we are protecting him and his family personally which is absolutely wrong. Yes that's a nice side benefit but we are actually protecting the office of the Presidency itself regardless of who is in it. What's more the people at the NRA are perfectly well aware of this (as is virtually everyone in Washington) so them trotting this out is pure attempts to poison the well, it is NOT an attempt at logical discourse.

[Havok]

“Are the president’s kids more important than yours?”
Love it. Right off the bat.
No one including the President is saying that. But of course lets not ask the more correct question. "Are the President's kids a high profile target that could be a detriment to functioning government if kidnapped or killed?"

Oh or what The Kernel said.

[The Romulan Republic]

I find it rather creepy that gun nuts, who are often very open about the fact that they have their guns at least partly so they can overthrow the government, are saying the President's family shouldn't have security.

[Havok]

Partly? Are you daft? That is the entire reason. The 2nd Amendment is a 'right to overthrow your government' law.

[The Romulan Republic]

The Second Amendment was also partly to protect against invasions, wasn't it? And their are other reasons people have guns, including hunting, protection from crime, and collecting/being a gun enthusiast. You shouldn't over simplify.

[Crown]

This has got to be one of the most bizarre things I've ever seen. The NRA, who are seriously proposing having armed police officers in every school, call Obama an "elitist hypocrite" because his daughters have Secret Service protection.

Wait, did they rip off this idea of a picture that was doing the rounds on Facebook? Ha!

[Havok]

The Second Amendment was also partly to protect against invasions, wasn't it? And their are other reasons people have guns, including hunting, protection from crime, and collecting/being a gun enthusiast. You shouldn't over simplify.

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.

That is pretty fucking straight forward. Guns are to be had and not outlawed so citizens can maintain a militia. Why do you suppose the founding fathers would want to be able to have a militia around? It couldn't be because they just fought a war of independence from a government considered to be unjust and tyrannical could it? Also considering that government and any other body at the time considered a threat was from overseas, the idea of invasion is pretty well implied.

[Havok]

This has got to be one of the most bizarre things I've ever seen. The NRA, who are seriously proposing having armed police officers in every school, call Obama an "elitist hypocrite" because his daughters have Secret Service protection.

Wait, did they rip off this idea of a picture that was doing the rounds on Facebook? Ha!

Sometimes I think Facebook was created by the NRA.

[Scrib]

It's a really really old whine aimed at riling up the easily riled. The president has bodyguards! Whaa.
Well, that's because there's people who'd directly and go out of their way to target a public figure specifically, for who he is, without ever having any personal prior contact. That's just not the case for 300+ million Americans.

Actually that's not the reason why his kids get Secret Service protection. The real reason (as heartless as this sounds) is because the President cannot be compromised in order to effectively do his job and using his family against him has the potential to do that. The nightmare scenario here is someone kidnapping a member of the First Family and using them to influence policy.

Which would be the only time that life would be worse than a West Wing episode.

[Terralthra]

Actually that's not the reason why his kids get Secret Service protection. The real reason (as heartless as this sounds) is because the President cannot be compromised in order to effectively do his job and using his family against him has the potential to do that. The nightmare scenario here is someone kidnapping a member of the First Family and using them to influence policy.

Which would be the only time that life would be worse than a West Wing episode.

That...actually was a West Wing episode. Season 4 finale and opening of Season 5.

[Knife]

The Second Amendment was also partly to protect against invasions, wasn't it? And their are other reasons people have guns, including hunting, protection from crime, and collecting/being a gun enthusiast. You shouldn't over simplify.

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.

That is pretty fucking straight forward. Guns are to be had and not outlawed so citizens can maintain a militia. Why do you suppose the founding fathers would want to be able to have a militia around? It couldn't be because they just fought a war of independence from a government considered to be unjust and tyrannical could it? Also considering that government and any other body at the time considered a threat was from overseas, the idea of invasion is pretty well implied.

And yet, in 1791 with Washington still in the presidency, there was the Whiskey rebellion. Washington rode at the front of the Federal army, with militia, to put down that rebellion.

[Channel72]

The 2nd amendment is obsolete nonsense. No redneck militia is capable of warding off a 21st century US military.

Wait... I'm temporarily experiencing vertigo due to the absurd contradiction of patriotic pro-military jingoism and anti-government hysteria/paranoia that constitutes the American right-wing.

[Civil War Man]

Wait... I'm temporarily experiencing vertigo due to the absurd contradiction of patriotic pro-military jingoism and anti-government hysteria/paranoia that constitutes the American right-wing.

I was reading Cracked recently, and came across an article regarding guns and video games. Author made a very good point about it.

America is a warrior culture, and most Americans have no war to fight, so they must go out in search of one. It's why the idea of the American soldier is practically worshiped, while so little care is given to the real ones. It's why the vast majority of video games and blockbuster movies involve killing. It's why some seem to value the right to bear arms over the right to free expression. It's why there is a right to bear arms in the first place. It's why we have more murders than nations with few guns, and more murders than nations with a lot of guns. It's why every attempt to address a societal ill is framed as being a War on Something, regardless of whether it actually involves fighting.

America in general is violent, and violence permeates every aspect of the culture to the point of being considered a virtue in many respects.

[Lord Zentei]

It is hardly surprising that having armed protection for families of members of the government while talking about disarming the general population would come off as hypocritical to people who feel strongly about their right to self defense. Especially if such people already have grievances with and mistrust for said government.

I was reading Cracked recently, and came across an article regarding guns and video games. Author made a very good point about it.

An anti violent video game article? Sigh. Countries with low levels of violence often play violent video games too.

Though it is true that America usually frames things in terms of War On Whatever.

[Sephirius]

The 2nd amendment is obsolete nonsense. No redneck militia is capable of warding off a 21st century US military.

Iraq and Afghanistan ring any bells? How long has that dragged on?

[Lord Zentei]

Not to mention that the 2nd Amendment is more useful as a disincentive for tyranny. Moreover, you still need boots on the ground, kicking in doors, to form a police state.

[Losonti Tokash]

The 2nd amendment is obsolete nonsense. No redneck militia is capable of warding off a 21st century US military.

Iraq and Afghanistan ring any bells? How long has that dragged on?

It's pretty silly to compare groups that are vastly better funded, organized, and motivated fighting against foreign occupiers to a bunch of freepers riding around their motorized wheelchairs in FREEDOM RALLIES.

[Ultonius]

An anti violent video game article? Sigh. Countries with low levels of violence often play violent video games too.

If it's this article, it isn't anti violent video games. The remainder of Civil War Man's post summed up the point that the article was trying to make: that violence is part of American culture, and that singling out video games is unproductive. The most critical thing it says about gaming is that gamers should not pretend that violent video games are not part of the wider problem, and that age ratings for games should be more strictly enforced.

[Ahriman238]

It's a really really old whine aimed at riling up the easily riled. The president has bodyguards! Whaa.
Well, that's because there's people who'd directly and go out of their way to target a public figure specifically, for who he is, without ever having any personal prior contact. That's just not the case for 300+ million Americans.

Actually that's not the reason why his kids get Secret Service protection. The real reason (as heartless as this sounds) is because the President cannot be compromised in order to effectively do his job and using his family against him has the potential to do that. The nightmare scenario here is someone kidnapping a member of the First Family and using them to influence policy.

The reason this distinction is important is because some people who are idiots act like we give Obama this protection because we are protecting him and his family personally which is absolutely wrong. Yes that's a nice side benefit but we are actually protecting the office of the Presidency itself regardless of who is in it. What's more the people at the NRA are perfectly well aware of this (as is virtually everyone in Washington) so them trotting this out is pure attempts to poison the well, it is NOT an attempt at logical discourse.

A group of terrorists trying to take the President and his family hostage ( to dictate policy) was the premise of Air Force One. There will apparently be not one, but TWO action movies this year with the same premise.