VIDEO:Chris Christie turns his wrath on NRA for ad involving Obama daughters

[natina]

Chris Christie turns his wrath on NRA for ad involving Obama daughters



The NRA pulled no punches in its new ad attacking President Obama for attempting to impose stricter gun control measures, calling Obama an "elitist hypocrite" because his daughters attend a school with armed guards. The White House pushed back against the ad, and on Thursday, POTUS' most unlikely political BFF, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie — never shy about speaking his mind — came out in support of his pal. Christie didn't pull any punches either, pointing out that being the daughters of a president means a security detail is a requirement. Christie slammed the NRA for politicizing children to advance an argument, calling it "reprehensible."



http://now.msn.com/chris-christie-slams-nra-for-ad-mentioning-obama-daughters
Chris Christie slams NRA’s Obama daughters ad

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/01/chris-christie-slams-nra-obama-daughters-ad-86365.html

New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie blasted the National Rifle Association for an ad that pointed out President Barack Obama’s daughters have armed protection, calling it “reprehensible” and saying elected officials’ kids should be off-limits.

“I think any of us who are public figures, you see that kind of ad and you cringe,” he said during a news conference at which he announced a task force on guns and mental health.

Christie, a potential 2016 presidential contender, is the most prominent Republican to voice displeasure with the ad.

The spot calls Obama an “elitist hypocrite” for being skeptical of having armed guards at schools even though his daughters get Secret Service protection.

“Are the presidents’ kids more important than yours?” the narrator asks in the ad.

Christie’s hackles went up when he heard that.

“I’m a father who is a public figure, who has four children and my children had no choice realistically in what I decided to do with my career and what effect that has had on their lives,” Christie said, according to a NorthJersey.com blog post.

“Don’t be dragging people’s children into this,” he said. “It’s wrong and I think it demeans them and it makes them less of a valid trusted source of information on the real issues that confront this debate.”

[Prospero]

Christie is 100 per cent correct. it is a deeply morally reprehensible position taken by the NRA - but scarcely surprising. The children and immediate family of any head of state must and will be protected - the risk of assassination, kidnapping etc by wide variety of individuals and groups is very real. You've only to look at US history in the past few decades - Kennedy (JFK and Robert) assassinated, Martin Luther King assassinated, Governor George Wallace shot and disabled the shooting of Ms Gifford last year, a bid to shoot Reagan and other attacks..... and in the UK members of the royal family and the PM have armed guards (there was a bid to kidnap Princess Anne once - foiled by her guards as i recall). The security of leaders does not have any relationship to the safety of children in school - which is best addressed by the measures announced by President obama (though they do not go far enough and have little chance of passing Congress unscathed because of the power of the NRA over elected politicians)

[natina]

Protection For Obama's Kids, Gun-Free Zones For Ours?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2bKw7ZsQgtc

Does the NRA's New Obama Ad Finally Go Too Far?

After skirting the lines of decency for years, gun lobby pulls the president's daughters into the debate.


Has the NRA (http://home.nra.org/) finally gone too far?
The National Rifle Association has been skirting the lines of decency for years, but the gun-rights group stoops to a new low with a Web ad (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2013/01/15/nra-obama-ad/) calling President Obama an "elitist hypocrite." The ad criticizes Obama for giving his daughters Secret Service protection while expressing skepticism about installing armed guards in schools.
The ad is indisputably misleading, and is arguably a dangerous appeal to the base instincts of gun-rights activists.

In a the 35-second video, a deep-voice narrator asks, "Are the president's kids more important than yours? Then why is he skeptical about putting armed guards in our schools when his kids are protected by armed guards at their school?"
The fact is, Obama is not opposed to armed guards in schools. Indeed, many of the nation's schools already hire security. This is what Obama is skeptical of: the NRA's position that putting more guns in schools is the only way to prevent mass shootings.
The president wants to ban assault rifles, require background checks, and ban high-capacity ammunition. He does not want to confiscate guns, despite the NRA's unsubstantiated warnings to the contrary.
There are fair arguments to be had over Obama's proposals: Redefining the Second Amendment shouldn't be done without a vigorous debate. But to drag the president's daughters into the fight, and to question their need for security, suggests that the NRA is slipping further away from the mainstream. Over-the-top tactics discredit the NRA and its cause.
Gun-rights supporters deserve a better advocate.
The gun lobby's approval ratings are plummeting, and it is losing the support of opinion leaders who should be in the NRA's corner. In a Politico column titled "The High Cost of NRA Extremism," (http://www.politico.com/blogs/joe-scarborough/2013/01/high-cost-of-the-nras-extremism-154295.html)former conservative Rep. Joe Scarborough writes, "As a longtime supporter of the Second Amendment, I had hoped their executives and lobbyists would not take an absolutist position on the issue since that would ultimately set back the cause of gun rights. Unfortunately, [NRA leader Wayne] LaPierre chose to respond as if it were 1994."
Scarborough points out that a new ABC News/Washington Post shows that a majority of Americans now support a ban on certain types of assault weapons, a shift in public opinion since LaPierre's tone-deaf response to the shootings at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut. An overwhelming majority of Americans also support universal background checks, a national database to track gun sales, and a ban on high-capacity magazines.




In the wake of the Oklahoma City bombing in 1995, LaPierre famously called federal law-enforcement agents "jack-booted thugs" and compared them to the Nazis. Former President George H.W. Bush and other GOP leaders denounced the remarks. Will gun-rights supporters walk away from the NRA today?

After Newtown, LaPierre called for all schools to have armed police officers (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2012/12/21/nras-wayne-lapierre-put-armed-police-officers-in-every-school/) in place. "The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun," LaPierre said.
A shooting-range app (http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/01/15/the-nra-s-shooting-app-misfire.html) for the iPhone and iPad branded as an "Official NRA Licensed Product" was released on the one-month anniversary of the Newtown massacre.
After meeting with Vice President Joe Biden on gun control, the NRA accused Obama of an "agenda to attack the Second Amendment," a gross distortion of the president's position.
The ad signals the NRA's intention to fight a campaign-style war with Obama. The White House response: Bring it on.
"The president has the most exciting campaign apparatus ever built. It's time to turn that loose," Obama adviser Robert Gibbs said on MSNBC. "If the NRA has a list, then Obama for America has a bigger list.

Christie: NRA is ‘reprehensible’ for targeting Obama’s daughters

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/01/17/christie-nra-is-reprehensible-for-targeting-obamas-daughters/

[fivekatz]

The NRA "crossed" the line many years ago and has become very extreme in its views, which in many cases do not represent the views of their members who own firearms but instead represent the gun industries interests.

And as is often the case with industry viewpoints, the gun industry is opposed to any government oversight or regulation. There is a lot of irony here of course, examples like financial institutions and their problems with derivatives or auto manufacturers and fuel economy abound but that is a whole can of worms unto itself.

Taking up the zero regulation cause in the mid 70's the NRA has found itself taking very hardline positions regarding even matters of basic safety in construction and using an ad like the one about the POTUS kids is hardly shocking when considering the tact the organization has been on in recent years.

I think in the long run they will find themselves on the wrong side of history but at this time they are still a formidable lobby with a tremendous amount of clout. But they are not defenders of the 2nd Amendment, rather they use it to cover the fact the are defenders of high profits for an industry.

Just my take

[trish]

The safety of children cannot be extricated from this discussion. It was the child of a gun enthusiast who shot twenty first graders with his mother's firearms. The children standing behind the President during his signing have expressed their own sentiments by their attendance and have their parents permission to be there. Has the NRA acquired parental permission to use the Obama children in their ad or allow them to express their personal views? LaPierre is the fucking hypocrite.

[muh_muh]

Has the NRA acquired parental permission to use the Obama children in their ad or allow them to express their personal views?

assuming the youtube link somewhere above is the actual ad i suppose they can get away with it through never actually naming or showing obamas children

[trish]

It is an actual ad. Legally, I think, they could get away with it even if it had showed or named the Obama children, though I believe public opinion would have really turn sharply against them if they had. They were smart and stayed just behind the line. The bullying implication in their ad is that those children at the Obama signing were being exploited and not there to express their own concerns and the concerns of their parents.