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.
Cheap and shallow shot.
I'm so let down by both the NRA and house Republicans tea party people. Mr Rand take a flying leap!
His children are protected because of all the death threats. In addition, the children of every President since who knows when gets Secret Service protection. Grow up, NRA.
oh how I hate the rhetoric of these money grubbing groups like the NRA, who turn our politics into a circus. But are they worse than the people who give away their opinions to this propaganda without even stopping to think about it? I don't know.
The NRA fails to understand the the President HAS to have a different standard for his children. And the security decisions are no made by him..not even for himself, and for a very simple reason..he is emotionally involved. His daughters need protection for the safety of this country, as in ransom.
The NRA seem to be tone deaf when it comes to the situation and public sentiment right now. I am all for the 2nd amendment, but comeon.. we can have sensible restrictions. (and what the NRA should say in an ad is.. how can we trust this lot of politicians to make sensible decisions when they have not demonstrated the ability to do that to date?)
I fully support the 2nd ammendment. However, I am sick of the demonizing of anyone who is working to find a way to stop the violence. If Obama were not President his daughters would not be protected. Part of the reason they are in constant danger is because the gun lobby, the NRA, want to be sure gun sales increase. They could are less how many are hurt and or killed. The NRA has stooped to a new low by demonizing the president and his children only to increase gun sales.
The question: "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."
First, yes, his kid's ARE more important than mine. Of course my kids are as important to me as the Presidents kids are to him, but the question was framed in such a way that makes it sound like the President is only interested in protecting his kids, but not mine or yours. The question should be, "Do the Presidents kids REQUIRE more protection than mine?" Absolutely, of course they do. It's rather idiotic to even suggest that they don't. To save a little time, I'm going to assume that everyone can figure out the myriad of reasons why the President's kids need more protection than my kids. Obviously, it would be great if every kid could be protected by a contingent of highly trained Secret Service agents, an unknown number of plain clothes officers, all utilizing state of the art communications and an unknown number of redundant systems and responses.
Placing "armed guards" in every school, who may or may not have any training in personal protection or more specialized child protection training worries me more than a potential "mad gunman." Just as an untrained, panic stricken homeowner is more likely to shoot a family member than a burglar, armed guards in schools is a tragedy in waiting.
The problem is one of hyperbole. No one is suggesting taking away all guns from everyone, as this ad repeatedly implies. The NRA considers any and all regulation to be tantamount to banning guns entirely, and that's a very irresponsible position to take. The fact is that some steps can be taken to keep guns out of the hands of the wrong people, and doing so would in no way deprive the right people from their right to bear arms. Also, when the NRA wants to pay to put armed security in all of the schools, I say they should go ahead and do it. I imagine these are the same people that clamor for smaller government and less government spending, and they suggest this huge outlay of government money. Talk about hypocrites.
The lunatics are among us, and they identify with the National Rifle Association. Wayne LaPierre is the "Grand Poo-Bah" of gun idiots who think that the only way to combat firepower is more firepower, and the way you combat more firepower is, well, of course even more firepower. These people have blood on their hands and a place in hell reserved for them for being uncaring if not indifferent toward the pain and suffering caused by the use of guns.
If you are leader of the free world then you can have secret service protection too. No hypocrisy about it.
A group of wealthy white conservatives calling Obama an elitist.
And he's the hypocrite?
Barack Obama is the President of the United States– the LEADER of the FREE WORLD. Common sense would tell you his family requires a higher degree of protection. I don't get the argument. Nice try National Redneck Association.
He isn't an elitist.. he's THE elite – otherwise he wouldn't be the president. If the Romney was just a little more elite than Obama, he might be president right now. Unfortunately he wasn't and this is what we have. His intentions are good – he's not going to make the NRA happy. The only thing that makes them happy is filling their insecurities with gunpowder.
I support the right to bear arms as afforded to us by the 2nd Amendment. But c'mon NRA, this is your first/best argument? Ok, so take away the Secret Service protection and we'll start a pool of how many days would pass before the first kidnap and ransom occurred. In the eyes of a terrorist, yes, those children are more important than yours or mine just as the President is a more valuable target than any of us.
NRA makes me want to hurl.
Until the American people stop accepting violence as a way of life-portrayed by the mass media culture that satisfies the public's craving for mayhem to such a point where many parents abrogate their responsibilities by allowing their children to watch senseless graphic violence in the name of freedom of speech-I have to reluctantly side with the NRA.
NRA: you are antiquated and dangerous. Think about yourselves for a minute. You KNOW ITS TRUE.
NRA, this is really, really foul. Divisive. Anti-American. Plainly you're feeling vulnerable. With good reason. It's about time.
We pay for protection for our leaders and they leave us at the mercy of others. This reminds me of something....
Some Americans are very Mentally sick people! i believe the so called NRA are loaded with psychopaths who will be happy to see the president and his family shot dead.Never heard anyone questionin the protection of the first family.
Of course the President's children are more important than ours in the sense that his children may be targets of terrorist groups or other extremists that will attempt to influence policy on a national or international level. If someone kidnaps my child, they can only ask for money.
So, in my opinion, on a personal level they are not more important, but they are on a national/global impact level.
Who's the bigger hypocrite, Obama or the NRA. The leadership of the NRA have fat wallets off of their advocacy of guns in every aspect of our lives. I'm willing to bet that some of them send their kids to private schools, too. They are professional hypocrites.
If the NRA membership is willing to pay additional taxes for trained, college educated security professionals to be in every school in the nation, then let them speak up. I'm not, and I'm not willing to allow untrained 'volunteers' in my schools with guns, either.
so its degraded into name calling for the NRA, I guess I expected them to shoot off their guns, not just the mouth. I think they would be wiser to shoot off the guns and shut up.
And the NRA has blood on their hands.
I am so very tired of the nra and the miss information they put out. I am also angry at the shareholders of gun companies. So much so that i will support all new gun control laws and the repeal of the second amendment! Just watch your stock drop. Might be wise to sell now. It a year it will be worthless.