Washington (CNN) – A television ad from the National Rifle Association which features President Barack Obama's children elicited a sharp, angry response from the White House Wednesday.
"Most Americans agree that a president's children should not be used as pawns in a political fight," Press Secretary Jay Carney said in a statement. "But to go so far as to make the safety of the president's children the subject of an attack ad is repugnant and cowardly."
The ad, which the NRA said is airing on the Sportsman Channel, was announced Tuesday. It calls Obama a hypocrite 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."
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.
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.
Opps, NRA forgot to read section 3.0 of the President's comprehensive initiative which advocates for more school resource officers. I remain skeptical of anything the NRA might say or do...
John , you sound like a white racist spoiled brat. I pray your white spoiled kids are never in harm's way. I will remember you in my prayers.
What is repugnant is that al Qaeda is operating with impunity and taking 3 Americans hostage in an Algerian gas field.
I was told by mr. Hope and Change that they were dead. Tell me now that this is the Zombie al Qaeda standing in for the now dead real al Qaeda.
I enjoy when someone other than Dems use there tactics against them. Obama has been using kids as props for years. LOL
The post on this page make me absolutely sick to my stomach. Is this really the uneducated, pathetic morons that we've become? At no time has there been any discussion of disarming Americans. Yet all I see are people talking about "Obammie takin our guns." I am a law abiding, card carrying conservative that routinely fires handguns, shotguns, rifles, and the like. But at NO time have I been worried about losing that right. The crazy, gunluvin nuts on this page are the reason that we are evening having this discussion in the first place.
Not only is the ad repugnant, it's also stupid. Do they really expect the American public think having an armed guard on children is something to be desired?
It's tragic that two innocent children have to be guarded 24/7 to prevent them from evil persons who might seek to harm them simply because their father is the U.S. President. And it's sickening that the NRA would rather see every American children be put under armed guard, rather than taking ANY more rational action to try to limit our children's risk of being killed by disturbed individuals with easy access to substantial firepower.
The scariest thing is the number of people on this website who buy into the NRA argument that the President's children are more important than your own children. Really? How many people in this world know your name much less your children's names? Do you people have no motivation to use your brains and think this through? Are your children a target for world terrorists and any number of crazies? The President's children are at a greatly increased risk compared to your children, that is why they are guarded- not because they are more important than your children.
I recommend that anyone who purchases a gun undergoes a stricter background check, such as including the family members in the background check and any family member found with some sort of mental impairment, historical or not, the gun purchaser will have to sign a contract that puts him accountable if in the future there is a misuse of the gun involving a mentally impaired family member, accidental or intentional.
Obama is the disgusting one. He is always advertising someone's misery to promote his message. He is a little man is a big job.
It is ignorant morons like you who make having an informed debate in this forum difficult. I believe and i am certain the majority of the American people are on the side of gun control. The majority of NRA members are on the side of gun control. The only people not on the side of gun control are people like you , Wayne Lapierre and David Keene. I am sure if someone shot your family members , with an assault rifle, your tune will be different. Who is the hypocite now ?
Wellwisher: Are you serious about our government not being oppressive? We are constantly monitored, the TSA violates the 4th Amendment all of the time, and the Patriot Act is a joke. If you want to repeal the 2nd Amendment, go through the amendment process. Good luck with that.
The politicians claim that they are doing this for the children and enough is enough while at the same time using Newtown as an excuse to FURTHER THE POLITICAL AGENDA THAT THEY ALREADY HAD PRIOR TO THE NEWTOWN INCIDENT. Was newton tragic? Yes. Could it have been prevented or circumvented (i.e. at least one child saved as Obama stated as being worthy of change) had there been an armed guard or two at the school? Yes. They put these laws in place with children behind them so now we can all feel better that we are giving away our freedoms in the name of the children. Would the have passed these laws before Newtown. No, because they would have looked crazy to push this agenda (that they already had beforehand) without the illusion that they were doing this in our children's best interest.
Wake up people and start thinking for yourselves.
The POTUS and his family gets 50 death threats a day, of course they are protected by SS, just like any other President.
It just all boils down to good ole fashioned racism and these idiots extreme fear of having a black President. Nothing more, nothing less. You never saw this rhetoric when Cheney/Bush were running things (into the ground). Think about it. Why weren't these "freedom fighters" going bonkers when The Patriot Act was passed? That piece of legislation is 10 times more treasonous to the people of this country than putting a ban/restrictions on military grade weaponry in the hands of civilians.
"Most Americans agree that a president's children should not be used as pawns in a political fight," Press Secretary Jay Carney said in a statement. But apparently it's perfectly fine for the President and Vice President to use OTHER PEOPLE'S CHILDREN to do the same thing. Or didn't anyone notice how they paraded out 4 children for their gun control announcement this morning? Obama is a jug-eared treasonous hypocrite with no concept of what the Constitution actually says.
and the same people wanting armed guards in schools are calling for smaller government? We can't afford to buy supplies for teachers, but we can pay for armed guards? There were armed guards at Columbine... Probably have to run more background checks on guards than they do on legal gun owners. we need to get real and quit thinking the government is turning into a dictatorship or kingdom.
I can understand the NRA's ideas of trying to scare the population with lies (money talks) it keeps them RICH. But I can't understand so much of the population believing the lies. They won't make YOU rich. That is what it's all about for them. Not your rights or your safety. I have to scratch my head and wonder why some people have chosen to switch the intelligent gene God gave them off. Willfully. Now that is scary.
@JeffersonLives – come on, get with the times – technology has way out dated what the framers had in mind with the second amendment writing. Do you really think some people having semi-auto weapons in their house can rise up against the military if our government somehow (really, really, really, impossible with the balances of our three branches) had a tyrant take over? This is the age of drones, intelligent missiles and stealth weapons.. even if you could pick up your rifle you'd be dead without even seeing the drone that was going to attack you. Should everyone be allowed to have drones in their garages? I think not. Stop trying to hang your hat on that old ridiculous argument. The constitution was meant to be a living and breathing document which means it needs to change with the needs of the people, it is not written in stone – and it is not perfect. It originally signaled African Americans as counting as 3/5th of a person which was rightfully amended as we realized the inhumanities we were doing with that line of thinking. The second amendment can be rationally evaluated (and should be, always) and amended as the majority of the people desire. Also, if you really need a semi-auto to kill a deer then you shouldn't be hunting because your aim sucks!
Never heard any of them ever use a word that big,repugnant.
This will 'backfire' on the NRA – this is the most pathetic, stinking excuse for an ad that I could ever imagine. If I was an NRA member I would be ashamed.
Rudy NYC, Maybe they would have the element of surprise and maybe they would not. I someone wants to keep a firearm just in case, they have the right. I guess you are satisfied with just accepting the fact that you will be a victim.
My kids are more important to me than Obama's kids. Obama does not care about my kids or the kids he brought to the "show" he is using them and Sandy Hook to further his control...
Obama sure didn't have a problem using someone else kids!!! He has eight year old kids on the stage, but thinks that his kids being brought in is repugnant? He opened himself up to that when he said that helping even one kid is worth it, when he didn't really mean it. If he meant it, he would deal with the root of the problem, and not just a symptom.
The NRA is sooo true, I was never a member but I am thinking about joining now
There is nothing repugnant about the truth. He will not give up the protection for his children that he would deny every other person in the country.
""What is undeniable is if there had been armed personnel at Sandy Hook School, that madman would have been stopped from killing many of those children.""
It took him 2 minutes from initiating his suprise attack to having killed 20 children and 6 adults via multiple gunshot wounds each using .223 ammo that fragments on impact and leaves massive wounds that are far harder to treat than a clean hole.
Please, provide a detailed narrative of precisely what could have occurred during every second of those two minutes that would have resulted in him being stopped. "Heroic teacher whips out Glock and shoots him dead" is NOT a detailed narrative. Ready? Go.