White House blasts NRA ad as 'repugnant'
January 16th, 2013
12:16 PM ET
2 years ago

White House blasts NRA ad as 'repugnant'

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.


Filed under: NRA • President Obama
soundoff (349 Responses)
  1. JM

    No one is afraid of the NRA anymore,they are not above the law.

    January 16, 2013 01:13 pm at 1:13 pm |
  2. Vick

    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.

    January 16, 2013 01:13 pm at 1:13 pm |
  3. musings

    I'm afraid the NRA is completely tone deaf. They are stomping on the graves of the Newtown children as well. Their ridiculous woulda coulda shoulda about public schools not crawling with quasi military police/private militias as the cause of outbreaks which kill dozens is a sign of severe thought disorder rising to the level of sheer madness. Now this – an attempt to equate the security around a President with that which we all should have is the only way to square the circle of their passionate attachment to the gun industry and its thriving business in human-killing toys.

    January 16, 2013 01:14 pm at 1:14 pm |
  4. Miquel

    "There seems to be some confusion here. The government does not want to take away your right to bear arms. You can still own your guns and protect yourself or hunt animals. They want to stop the sale of semi automatic weapons and assault style weapons."

    Every hunter I know uses a semi automatic rifle! If the people who are fighting for more laws against firearms actually knew what they were talking about these conversations would be much more productive.

    January 16, 2013 01:14 pm at 1:14 pm |
  5. Irene Milner

    My children are just as important as Obama's and our schools should have armed guards. Taking guns from private citizens is just an excuse of this administration to disarm us. We need guns to protect us from a tyrannical government and it appears that this is the administration from whom we need to protect ourselves. My son went to a government run school, but, as long as I and my family can afford it, my grandchildren will not attend any government run school. Take a look at the people(Bill Ayers, George Soros) who are deciding what our children are taught or not taught.

    January 16, 2013 01:14 pm at 1:14 pm |
  6. john1960

    Get me an AR-15 NOW. I need to protect myself against the NRA and their members. they are nuts

    January 16, 2013 01:14 pm at 1:14 pm |
  7. CatSh

    His children are not more important – but they are at much greater risk. Terrorists, kidnappers, crazies looking to be famous – be thankful your children don't HAVE to be guarded.

    January 16, 2013 01:14 pm at 1:14 pm |
  8. Republican supporter of President Obama

    Let me get this straight – conservatives in office do not want to share healthcare with the rest of us but they want to place armed guards at every school as a line of defense.

    Not one person has addressed a simple question in this "armed guard" debate – what happens if that guard losses it or decides to act out violently?

    As a father I want my child protected but it should be by law enforcement. This is not a time to play to party – it is time for a mature discussion and real decision making. Whinning about the president's kids having guards is not the way. Considering the terrorist and racist element here and abroad they are more likely to be targeted than a random nutjob lossing it.

    The NRA is dead wrong on this comparison.

    January 16, 2013 01:14 pm at 1:14 pm |
  9. JeffersonLives

    @CommonSense, they are touching the 2nd amendment, it all starts incrementally...you dont understand. Ignorance wont save you. First its the "assault" rifles, then the shotguns...then the handguns...one at a time until nothing is left. History is repleat with democracies that turn tyrannical, we are not immune to history. The second amendment had nothing to do with hunting or sporting...it was to be a check against a potentially tyrannical gov. The co-author of the second amendment made it quite clear, George Mason...look him up. AR15's are important because they are perceived by the gov to be dangerous...to them.. And thus the balance of power is maintained when the citizens have equal arms to the military. It prevents military takeovers....but to someone like you...who places way too much trust in gov...you will never understand until its too late.

    January 16, 2013 01:15 pm at 1:15 pm |
  10. CS

    This country HAS become a laughing all over the developed world. The extreme factions in this country will eventually destroy it. If I were younger I would move to a place more civilized.

    January 16, 2013 01:15 pm at 1:15 pm |
  11. SHARON

    I so agree with the NRA AD!!! Obama is more worried about gun control then school safety. I understand he is the President But why is the safety of his children more important the my sons????????????????? There is no way to take guns from criminals, but he can make our schools safer. So why isnt he working out a plan for this to happen???????

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

    The NRA should be abolished. The evidence is clear that some strong measures need to be taken against this organization. PLEASE bring in some legislation to control the NRA.

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

    His children are not more important – but they are at much greater risk.

    January 16, 2013 01:17 pm at 1:17 pm |
  14. FORWARD

    I really wonder if these people who defend guns, and despise this Black President, would feel the same if their child or grandchild had been in one of those classrooms. As a parent my heart aches for those kids; but I'm angry because hundreds of children are killed in Chicago and there has been no public outcry against their deaths.

    January 16, 2013 01:17 pm at 1:17 pm |
  15. RomY Monteyro

    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. The armed resources officers probably would not have been able to protect all of the kids, but many of them would have been spared. I don't have anything against Obama's kids being protected, but I wish he would see the logic and necessity of placing armed guards in our schools to protect our children. The NRA must compromise and Obama and Biden should stop grandstanding!

    January 16, 2013 01:17 pm at 1:17 pm |
  16. John Doe

    Everyone is blasting the NRA for their video and the President did the very same thing by surrounding himself with children who wrote him letters. I guess everyone is a hypocrite these days.

    January 16, 2013 01:18 pm at 1:18 pm |
  17. len

    Does the truth offend you? Good. It should!

    January 16, 2013 01:18 pm at 1:18 pm |
  18. Preserve our Republic

    Welcome to the New World Order.
    You will now be evaluated for compliance and programming.

    January 16, 2013 01:18 pm at 1:18 pm |
  19. Believe in right

    Mr. President Obama, do not listen to words designed to derail the good you bring. Shed your articulateness to expose them for the devils they are. Keep up the good work!

    January 16, 2013 01:19 pm at 1:19 pm |
  20. GuestAgain

    Unfortunately, to get a message out, conservative organizations have had to resort to the ugly tactics that have been used by liberals for years. And when they do...oh the outrage and disgust is appalling! Ridiculous.

    January 16, 2013 01:19 pm at 1:19 pm |
  21. SouthernDucks

    al, the NRA provides more gun safety education now than ever, and more than any organization in existance, including the Eddie Eagle programs for children, marksmanship training and certification for all types of firarms, personal protection courses, law enforecement firearms training, hunter education, and more.

    Harold, it is precisely because private citizens DO NOT get Secret Service or police protection all the time, because it would be logistically and financiallty impossible, that they MUST be entitles to protect themselves with firearms. That is eminently sensible.

    January 16, 2013 01:21 pm at 1:21 pm |
  22. David

    The sad part is that the population that this ad is targeted towards likely doesn't know the definition of "repugnant".

    January 16, 2013 01:21 pm at 1:21 pm |
  23. Richard

    The NRA has shown repeatedly that they cannot be trusted to become part of any gun related solution. Their twisted comparisons, half-truths and deceptive practices will not appeal to mainstream Americans no matter what their politics might be.

    January 16, 2013 01:21 pm at 1:21 pm |
  24. LocalVokal

    "John Spencer

    Then disarm Obama's security if he's so opposed to anyone having a gun."

    Can anybody tell me exactly when and where Obama said that he was taking away anybody's guns??? Can anybody explain to me the problem with having a few less bullets in your gun???

    January 16, 2013 01:21 pm at 1:21 pm |
  25. Citizen

    Designating a place as "gun free" without ensuring guns are kept out (control the perimeter – what is moving in/out) is the dumbest thing. If someone gets the urge to go "postal" and they want to cause a lot of damage or generate a lot of publicity, where do you think they are going to go? The path of least resistance, those places marked as gun-free and do not have proper security to keep guns out.

    There aren't bad guns, there aren't good guns. There are bad people.

    January 16, 2013 01:22 pm at 1:22 pm |
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14