January 15th, 2013
09:28 PM ET
5 years ago

NRA airs new TV ad criticizing Obama on eve of White House gun announcement

Washington (CNN) - The National Rifle Association released a new television commercial Tuesday night charging President Barack Obama of hypocrisy for being "skeptical" about placing armed guards at schools, while his own two daughters are protected by the U.S. Secret Service.

"Are the president's kids more important than yours?" a narrator says in the 30 second ad. "Then why is he skeptical about putting armed security in our schools, when his kids are protected by armed guards at their school."

The commercial is running on the Sportsman Channel, a cable network focused on outdoors programming such as hunting and fishing. It is also posted on a dedicated web site "Stand and Fight."

On Wednesday, Obama is set to unveil a new set of proposals that would place very tough restrictions on the ownership and sale of firearms.

In the ad, the narrator only mentions Obama by name, but it also features images of Vice President Joe Biden, Sen. Dianne Feinstein, New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg and NBC anchor David Gregory. Bloomberg is an influential voice in favor of stricter gun laws and has dipped into his personal fortune to help fund a lobby campaign, and Feinstein, a California Democrat, is helping spearhead a congressional effort to enforce tougher gun laws.

Gregory questioned NRA CEO Wayne LaPierre in a December interview about the effectiveness of the organization's proposal to put armed guards in schools. After the interview, the NRA and conservative media outlets noted that Gregory's children attended the same school as Obama's daughters and the school has a security department.

"Mr. Obama demands the wealthy pay their fair share of taxes," the narrator says. "But he is just another elitist hypocrite when it comes to a fair share of security. Protection for their kids and gun-free zones for ours."

The introduction of Obama's children into the gun debate further demonstrates the high stakes in this very complicated and emotional issue about how to weigh Second Amendment rights with the safety of citizens following several high profile killings, including the recent massacre of 20 children and six educators at a Newtown, Connecticut elementary school.

As advocates for new gun restrictions pledge to pressure Congress to pass new laws, the NRA and other like-minded gun rights groups and conservative organizations have said they will fight any changes to the current gun laws.

"Stand and fight sums up what Americans need to do to preserve our Second Amendment freedom," NRA spokesman Andrew Arulanandam told CNN.

The NRA is not ruling out expanding the buy to air the commercial elsewhere.

The group, which had an existing partnership with the Sportsman Channel, has added an NRA hosted daily weekday program to the network's lineup.

Filed under: Ads • Gun rights • NRA • President Obama
soundoff (583 Responses)
  1. If we ignore them, maybe they'll go away

    Once again, the NRA is demonstrating its collective lack of basic common sense and logic. And once again, they're pandering to the fears and bigotry of a minority of Americans. Is "elitist hypocrite" their code for "uppity....."? The NRA doesn't deserve a public forum in which to spew their poison.

    January 16, 2013 01:58 pm at 1:58 pm |
  2. Smitty

    Once again, the NRA failed to connect with real people, and will rely on the far right to keep funding their backwards organization. I'm surprised that their memberships haven't plummeted after their recent reactions to the Newtown situation. Maybe there really are that many stupid people in this country.

    January 16, 2013 01:58 pm at 1:58 pm |
  3. Anonymous

    An Elitist? Elitist people don't support raising taxes on the rich.

    January 16, 2013 01:58 pm at 1:58 pm |
  4. USA Strong

    With everything that has happened since Sandy Hook, why is the NRA running so scared? Why if they believe that what they represent is for the good of all, are they so afraid? I don't have to own a gun or for that matter, believe it is right or wrong to do so, to understand the horrors that face us today. If limiting the sale of guns or delaying the purchase of them prevents one death, then we've accomplished something good and the NRA should celebrate that outcome. They’ve portrayed their organization as a group that most of us are now quite frightened of; I didn't feel that way about the NRA before the tragedy at Sandy Hook; but now, their reaction to this event and how they are responding to America makes me wonder if any of their members should be allowed to own a gun; none of their advertising or commentary sounds very rational.

    January 16, 2013 01:58 pm at 1:58 pm |
  5. JohnnyVV

    Just like the Mafia – Don't mess with us, we know where your family lives....

    January 16, 2013 01:58 pm at 1:58 pm |
  6. pat pat

    Take the guns away from the people so only the government will have guns. Hmmmmm? Socialism anyone???

    January 16, 2013 01:59 pm at 1:59 pm |
  7. Mark

    Just when you thought the NRA couldn't sink any lower. Keep feeding the ignorant and paranoid.

    January 16, 2013 01:59 pm at 1:59 pm |
  8. Rob

    How absurd! While I consider my life and my family important, I also realize that in terms of national security we're nowhere near as important as the President and his family. I would feel the same REGARDLESS of who the President is.

    January 16, 2013 01:59 pm at 1:59 pm |
  9. BC

    Talk about comparing apples and oranges. Secret Service protection has been in place for over a century. I am somewhat on the fence with regards to how much gun regulation is really needed and can be EFFECTIVE THROUGH ACTIVE ENFORCEMENT (see War on Drugs). When they come out with ridiculous statements like these I just walk away and there is no constructive conversation offered that would tip me to their side. Total loss of credibility.

    January 16, 2013 01:59 pm at 1:59 pm |
  10. JJ

    For the National Rifle Association to suggest that President Obama is "elitist" or a "hypocrite" because his daughters get protection in school is a supreme IDIOTIC act, which is about par for these morons. The daughters of ANY president are always targets for wackos out there, in school or anywhere else they might be. It takes a useless IDIOT to make such a comparison as a justification for fighting gun control.

    January 16, 2013 01:59 pm at 1:59 pm |
  11. Mike

    Unfortunately, more gun control laws aren't the answer. People bent on destruction will find ways to destroy. Make it impossible to get guns and they will switch to something they can get. The real travesty is that we constantly have these knee jerk reactions and try and address the symptoms rather than address the much more difficult underlying problem.

    January 16, 2013 01:59 pm at 1:59 pm |
  12. scooter

    This ad has BACKFIRE written all over it. So as a proponent of gun control I am quite pleased with it.

    January 16, 2013 01:59 pm at 1:59 pm |
  13. pam

    It makes complete sense that the President's children have armed Secret Service agents protecting them. Just think how vulnerable we'd all be if a terrorist group kidnapped one of his daughters. We don't want a president to have to choose between his responsibility to his country and his children.

    And I don't want armed gaurds in my kid's schools. As I understand it there were armed gaurds at Columbine and it didn't help!

    January 16, 2013 02:00 pm at 2:00 pm |
  14. Name scott

    and the NRA likes it when children are murdered. See, just because someone says it, doesn't make it true!

    January 16, 2013 02:00 pm at 2:00 pm |
  15. NRA has too much power???

    If the NRA has too much power... What do groups like the NAACP have???

    January 16, 2013 02:00 pm at 2:00 pm |
  16. Tania

    As long as his aids don't carry more than 10 rounds in a mag, he is hardly being hypocritical. He did order for more law enforcement (armed) and more school resource officers (which I would think would be armed).

    January 16, 2013 02:00 pm at 2:00 pm |
  17. A Humble Perspective

    Andrea- Them being high profile is not the point. If you take Obama's logic and carry it out, then his daughters are actually more at risk by having armed people protecting them than they would be without the protection. The fix is to simply outlaw or restric the sale of guns by re-interpreting the constitution. Since this has already taken place today, his daughters should now be safe and there should be no need for this protection.

    January 16, 2013 02:00 pm at 2:00 pm |
  18. JCube

    The NRA is really going to compare the protective needs of a presidents children to those of the average American families? OK, lets make a deal: Any American can own any gun they want if they pass and maintain the same training and proficiency as the Secret Service. And that includes the same background and psychological screening.

    January 16, 2013 02:00 pm at 2:00 pm |
  19. Uncle David

    To compare the President's need for security to that of the average citizen is ludicrous! Give up your toys, NRA!

    January 16, 2013 02:01 pm at 2:01 pm |
  20. William

    I agree with Andrea. I'm tired of politicians and interest groups running fallacious ads to try to psychological trick people into accepting their arguments. It's dishonest. The risk of harm to the president's children is way higher than that of an average kid.

    January 16, 2013 02:01 pm at 2:01 pm |
  21. biblestudyspacecom

    Obama, Gov. Cuomo and Bloomberg will use guns to keep their children safe. But not our kids, they will let their Godless Liberal mass shooters kill our children.

    January 16, 2013 02:01 pm at 2:01 pm |
  22. Jay

    I knew the NRA was dumb but wow. Comparing a regular armed guard to the secret service is just dumb. Unless they're going to spend that much money on each armed guard at the school; which would cost more than the school budget most likely.

    January 16, 2013 02:01 pm at 2:01 pm |
  23. Patrick

    Andrea...you make think Obama's daughter's are "high profile"...implying they are more valuable than mine...I would trade Obama, all his family, and anyone else all week long and twice on Sunday to protect and scure my own children. HE lives under armed security because he is indeed an elitist and has nothing in common withthe average citizen. But I'm not worried...he AWB will never get passed...

    January 16, 2013 02:01 pm at 2:01 pm |
  24. thinkifyoucan

    Yeah, his kids are targets of deliberate violence, not random psychopaths. His family is surrounded by the best armed guards in the history of the world, and even they can lapse. Shall I dare mention Reagan and JFK? Armed guards at school do not prevent this kind of violence. It's not that they are more important than mine, but they are at greater risk than mine. Thank you Gov. Cuomo and the NYS legislature for increasing the gun control laws in my state.

    January 16, 2013 02:01 pm at 2:01 pm |
  25. Concerned mom

    I smell fear on the part of the NRA which in my opinion is a bunch of bullies. I have not yet heard anyone give a rational explanation for protecting the sale of guns that shoot multiple bullets per second or bullets that explode on impact assuring maximum kill damage to whoever was shot. Any explanations for why those are protected under the 2nd amendment when such guns and bullets didn't even exist when the 2nd amendment was passed? Hunters and personal protection I get, but rapid fire guns should be limited to soldiers at war.

    January 16, 2013 02:01 pm at 2:01 pm |
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24