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. Elcid60

    Every president has had their children protected by the secret service, who are armed. We do this because they are at a unique risk that is not like the risk that the rest of us live under. The NRA has made a straw man arguement. They have missed the honest discussion that we all want to have by making statements like this. We all want our kids to go to school without armed teachers or armed guards...but with the gun culture and lax gun laws we have it may not be possible, but we should make laws to get us to that point again. Shame on you Wayne LaPierre!

    January 16, 2013 02:06 pm at 2:06 pm |
  2. Rob

    Well, does that mean I get armed guards now, b/c the President has them? Get a clue NRA.

    January 16, 2013 02:06 pm at 2:06 pm |
  3. Mike

    IJust when I thought NRA could not get any lower, then this.

    January 16, 2013 02:06 pm at 2:06 pm |
  4. Bill

    Well here is one republican who will not vote for any candidate that takes NRA money. I may not have anybody to vote for in the future. While I dont agree with this president on most things, his family has earned the right to have protection and they should have.

    January 16, 2013 02:06 pm at 2:06 pm |
  5. Wes

    Totally different situation. I'm on the fence about the whole Gun situation, but even I know this angle was a dumb approach by the NRA to try and make any pivotal difference in the discussion .

    January 16, 2013 02:06 pm at 2:06 pm |
  6. ricardo1968

    That is the most idiotic ad I have ever seen. That's fine if you believe in gun rights, but the person who made this add must have an extremely low opinion of our intelligence. 'Oh yeah, OBAMA's daughter's have secret service protection! Check and MATE!' How stupid.

    January 16, 2013 02:07 pm at 2:07 pm |
  7. alien

    The NRA is in business for one thing and one thing only and that is to lobby for gun manufacurers, along the way they figured out how to wring money out of hard working individuals, and they talk about the unions, same exact thing here.

    January 16, 2013 02:07 pm at 2:07 pm |
  8. sasss31

    The NRA should be ashamed of themselves but of course they won't since they are narcissistic sycophants. This is the President of the United States and his family. It has nothing to do with hypocrisy. It has to do with the fact that he is PRESIDENT. No wonder President George H.W. Bush left the NRA. It is nothing but an extremist right wing fringe organization that represents a fringe of our country. Shame on the NRA for using the daughters of the President for their political junk nonsense. The kids of Presidents have always been off limits. But I guess that doesn't apply to our first black President.

    January 16, 2013 02:07 pm at 2:07 pm |
  9. bhanji

    In this land of the free abd home of the brave we the people dictated by NRA soon we will not be able to take care of parentsand grandparents because we blew the SS we can take care of Vetrens and we are about to destroy our children. I have more respect for Obama now. We will act in responsible and respectful manner

    January 16, 2013 02:08 pm at 2:08 pm |
  10. Joe

    I do not mind listening to a sound argument. However this is just absurd. I agree his children are not more important than mine but with him being the president of the United States of America, the family are at greater risk and if something were to happen it could hurt the nation by having a parent of a kidnapped or something far worse in charge of this country. I am on the fence with gun control and I see the slippery slope that we are approaching but this argument is a joke.

    January 16, 2013 02:08 pm at 2:08 pm |
  11. Vera Waitress

    Mental health checks aren't needed– just round up the crazies from these posting boards. In fact, what's been proven is that people with large gun caches and virulently strong opinions on the issue are most likely mentally ill.

    January 16, 2013 02:08 pm at 2:08 pm |
  12. One Shot One Kill

    Shall not be infringed !!!!!

    Can't you liberals read ?

    January 16, 2013 02:08 pm at 2:08 pm |
  13. Rod in Dallas TX

    President Obama has every reason to be skeptical about armed guards at school. Virginia Tech had an entire police department on campus that didn't stop anything.

    January 16, 2013 02:08 pm at 2:08 pm |
  14. Drew

    The NRA in general, and Wayne LaPierre in particular, are the gift that just never stops giving to the gun-control cause. Every time he opens his mouth, he reinforces stereotypes and the NRA loses one more chance to challenge the stereotypes it keeps crying its the victim of, and take part in the fix. This idjit defies damage control, I don't care if they get another 250,000 to sign up ... they are still a minority in this nation.

    January 16, 2013 02:09 pm at 2:09 pm |
  15. Jose M, Guzman

    We must understand he is teh President of the USA, therefore he and his familly are at 24/7 risk, terrorists , radical muslims,drug cartel lords, etc etc.........this are world professional assasins, that is the reason why his daughters need extra protection, stupid NRA.

    January 16, 2013 02:09 pm at 2:09 pm |
  16. scooter

    The NRA is a business organization that does not want their bottom line impacted by policy. They are no different than any other lobby group when it comes to policy that might cost them. All this talk of liberty and freedom is nonsense. The NRA today is where the Tobacco lobby was back in 1975. It just a matter of time, and time is NOT on their side.

    January 16, 2013 02:09 pm at 2:09 pm |
  17. Reality check

    The NRA has, once again, "shot itself in the foot". Name-calling and pandering, while avoiding a reasoned discussion of legitimate issues, demonstrates that the once-useful organization has been a tool of the firearms industry and now utterly lacks credibility in political discourse. The American people are waking up to the fact that this is not your grandfather's NRA, and the organization is marginalizing itself more each day.

    January 16, 2013 02:09 pm at 2:09 pm |
  18. str009

    You know; I'm just not afraid of being called an "elitist" any more. If by an "elitist" you mean that I value a rational, intelligent, educated, intellectual approach to life and it's problems, then you're DAMN RIGHT! It's only arrogant for me to think I'm smarter than you if I'm wrong. I'm not. When you choose to be willfully ignorant of the facts and science of everything from evolutionary biology to climate change to basic reproduction you deserve to feel stupid when others choose to be informed and educated. Damn right I'm elite. And proud of it.

    January 16, 2013 02:10 pm at 2:10 pm |
  19. What the?

    The conservatives on here make the silliest comments. I mean really. The NRA isn't even a government branch and yet you treat them like they have a right to lobby. Do you know that they mostly work for overseas rifle makers? Do you conservatives realize that the NRA is promoting terrorism?
    Of course the President and his family will continue to have guards with guns. They have to be protected from the terrorists that the NRA is supporting!

    January 16, 2013 02:10 pm at 2:10 pm |
  20. lcleejr

    this democrat was not an advocate for gun control. however with the increase in mass shootings something has to be done. what i would like to see is the statistics that compare shootings in large cities compared to shootings in the rest of a state.

    January 16, 2013 02:10 pm at 2:10 pm |
  21. Kyotosun

    Anyone who has any brains would NOT Listen, See this video. What message are we sending the rest of the world if we have to install Armed-Guards in our public and private schools? Is this what we have become? We need to send a message that the incident at SHES in Connecticut can no longer be tolerated, and that stronger gun-control measures must be taken seriously, changes are needed!! If the NRA thinks that putting an armed guard at every school is the answer, than the money to pay for this idea MUST come from them!!!

    January 16, 2013 02:10 pm at 2:10 pm |
  22. Virginia

    The NRA and it's spokesmen may be America's future home-grown terrorists. They vilify what is good and peaceful and appeal to that which is evil and harmful. If you live by the sword, you will most surely die by the sword.

    January 16, 2013 02:10 pm at 2:10 pm |
  23. Jeff

    Ya gotta love on that picture..the only non-political figure being shown is the Meet The Press host.

    January 16, 2013 02:10 pm at 2:10 pm |
  24. david g

    Bravo! spot on!! Obama thinks hes the king- circumventing the law when it suits him, but signing a bill for secret service protection for life (yup with guns) for his family: Hypocrite! and elitist- fools those who voted for him

    January 16, 2013 02:10 pm at 2:10 pm |
  25. pntkl

    Wikipedia explains the NRA's style fairly well: "A straw man or straw person, also known in the UK as an Aunt Sally, is a type of argument and is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position. To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by replacing it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition (the "straw man"), and to refute it, without ever having actually refuted the original position. This technique has been used throughout history in polemical debate, particularly in arguments about highly charged, emotional issues."

    January 16, 2013 02:11 pm at 2:11 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