NRA slams 'elitist hypocrite' Obama

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

  • -14

    BoredToTears

    Why would anybody be surprised? Is Obama's family on Obamacare? Then why would they expect he would deprive himself and his family the proctection of armed guards, just because he wants to disarm law abiding US citizens?

  • 10

    Laguna

    Comparing the family of the President of the United States to average citizens is foolish, and the NRA knows this. They will say and do anything so that their sponsors, weapons makers, can make more money. This is just disgusting.

    Oh, and BoredToTears, you cannot be "on" Obamacare. It is not an insurance program.

  • 15

    Speed

    Obama is the President of the United States leader of the most powerful country on Earth. ALL leaders and their families since the beginning of time have been attractive of targets for assassination. Leaders have and will always be protected with lethal weapons.

    You can't even compare the President's situation with those of "regular" citizens. This is a ridiculous argument.

  • 8

    globalwatcher

    NRA is a cancer of violent culture. I agree with Laguna. They will do anything to fool someone like Alex Jones alike.

  • 12

    Laguna

    If guards are required in schools, tax ammunition to pay for them. If mental health is such an issue with all these guns lying around, instead of putting the onus on public health, put it on gun owners: Insist periodic (semi-annual?) mental health checks with a certified specialist be a requirement for gun ownership. Owners of guns used in crimes, including suicide, should be prosecuted for manslaughter if their arms were not properly secured. Considering the high rate of accidental injury involving guns, insurance companies should include riders with special premiums for gun owners.

    Gun owners are always ranting about rights but are strangely silent when it comes to responsibility. They want society at large to pay for the hobby (or obsession) of a minority - both financially and with the atrocious warping of society their obsession has caused. Realistically, in the medium-term, eliminating weapons may not be feasible. That does not mean that gun owners can't be made to take responsibility, financially and legally.

  • 7

    globalwatcher

    Gun owners are always ranting about rights but are strangely silent when it comes to responsibility

    Freedom has two sides; right and responsibility. Well said, Laguna.

  • 7

    SuperLib

    That's good, NRA. Let it all hang out so everyone can see.

    The U.S. gun lobby lashed out at President Barack Obama Tuesday as an “elitist hypocrite” for providing Secret Service protection to his daughters but balking at having armed guards in all schools.

    Seems pretty obvious that these kids would be targets for kidnapping/ransom....doesn't it? Or is it just me? I'm not sure if the NRA manufactured this argument or if they are so deluded that they really can't see black and white anymore.

  • 4

    slumdog

    “I am skeptical that the only answer is putting more guns in schools,” Obama told NBC television’s “Meet the Press.”

    This does not sounds like Obama is against the idea of armed guards. It just sounds like he doesn't think that is the only thing to be done. Perhaps like many of his country's citizens, he thinks there should be better gun controll as well.

    Most Americans—55%—back the NRA’s proposal for armed guards in schools, according to an ABC News/Washington Post poll out this week.

    And 52% of respondents said the shooting in Newtown, Connecticut had made them more supportive of gun control.

  • 1

    FPSRussia

    WOW, what a piss poor shot at the POTUS. He's our Commander in Chief and both he and his family require protection. The Presidency is more than the man who sits in the chair. As Americans we won't allow anybody to violate that office.

    I see the weakness in the NRA's approach. They're aging and it's really starting to show. At the heart of the NRA remains the fear that White America carried for so many years. Foreign invasion. *which is what they did but anyway.

    Now it's a tragedy. Automatic weapons and powerful handguns creeping back into the communities that got rich off them. It's the serpent that was released on Black and Hispanic youth now slithering it's way back to Middle America.

    When something like that comes back to bite you suddenly it's a tragedy. So the NRA will lose it's battle this time. A taste of your own medicine is bitter.

    Their wasting their time attacking Obama. He's bulletproof. Get it? If anything, this approach will backfire on the NRA. Hahahha "Backfire". I have to stop.

  • 3

    globalwatcher

    Their wasting their time attacking Obama. He's bulletproof. Get it? If anything, this approach will backfire on the NRA. Hahahha "Backfire". I have to stop.

    The difference between you and Obama is that he is the President of United States of America-a decision maker. How many US presidents have we lost or injured in history? Hope you can name them all. Are you an American?

  • -2

    konjo4u

    Obama is not going to take away guns. I wish he would. He will not do it. In many ways he is more "conservative" than any other President in my 50 years.

    "Conservative" is the wrong word for it. Free guns is a liberal law. Gun controls are not liberal, and they are healthy.

  • 0

    Elbuda Mexicano

    Only idiots at the the NRA and racist fools at the KKK would come up with crap like trying to compare a US PRESIDENT's children,them have Secret Agents protecting them night and day and trying to suggest that same kind of SECURITY for the gun loving NRA's kids, sorry, that type of argument aint gonna fly!

  • -5

    Alphaape

    Comparing the family of the President of the United States to average citizens is foolish, and the NRA knows this. They will say and do anything so that their sponsors, weapons makers, can make more money. This is just disgusting.

    @ Laguna: Ok leave the President and his kids out of the equation. You would still have the school with 11 armed guards who patrol it daily without the Secret Service. That is why those who can afford to send their kids to the school do so amonng other reasons. But I thought that Obama was all about the "average guy" and against those who have made too much money and not paying their "fair share." Why don't they redistribute some of the money for school security to some of the DC schools that are near that need the help (sarcasam intended).

  • -6

    Alphaape

    Only idiots at the the NRA and racist fools at the KKK would come up with crap like trying to compare a US PRESIDENT's children,them have Secret Agents protecting them night and day and trying to suggest that same kind of SECURITY for the gun loving NRA's kids, sorry, that type of argument aint gonna fly!

    @ Elbuda: Nothing racist about comparing the President who sends his kids to a private school that has armed guards as part of their policy. He could have sent his daughters to a DC public school, and they would have had Secret Service protection with adequate security. I am not against SS protection for the President and his family, I understand that. But for those on the left whom identify with him against putting armed security in schools, and yet those that do have kids in school send them to such places that actually have armed security yet don't want others to have that opportunity is a bit hypocritical. Notice the NRA didn't say that everyone at the school should be armed, but guards.

    As far as race goes, I posted earlier about the new gun laws in NY and that these included tougher sentencing for those who commit crimes with guns. I am for that, but just like the unintended consequences of more Black males going to prison for crack possession vice whites who normally were using powdered cocaine, the gun violence in places like NYC involves more Black and Hispanics than Whites. In a few years, we will hear from people like you who state it is all just a plan on the racist NRA to get "people of color off the streets" when it is because this gun law will have a disproportionate effect of sending more people of color to jail for gun crimes. Notice how they have had to go back in some states and redo sentencing guidlines on crack versus powered cocaine cases, they will one day have to do the same with this law once the ACLU gets on to them.

    Acting too fast and too rash is not going to solve the problem. If they can act this fast on this issue, I would think that they should be able to get NY's other problems solved as quickly.

  • 7

    smithinjapan

    "The U.S. gun lobby lashed out at President Barack Obama Tuesday as an “elitist hypocrite” for providing Secret Service protection to his daughters but balking at having armed guards in all schools."

    The NRA are getting really ridiculous with their arguments these days. Next they'll be saying Obama's a hypocrite for allowing soldiers in Iraq to have assault weapons but not Cletis in backwater Kentucky.

  • 5

    SuperLib

    Alphaape: Why don't they redistribute some of the money for school security to some of the DC schools that are near that need the help (sarcasam intended).

    Why not have a gun tax to help pay for the extra burden guns place on the police and hospitals? How would you feel about that?

    It's strange to me that these arguments seem to pop up from nowhere and suddenly every gun supporter is saying them. It's like you're all reading from the same script or something.

    I've asked this before and I'll ask it again: Is there anything you guys will support? How about anything in the New York law? Background checks for all gun buyers? Banning guns in the homes of people with mental problems?

  • 3

    JDB829

    The NRA is clearly reaching for straws. They may see the writing on the wall.

  • 0

    bruinfan

    @Laguna

    If guards are required in schools, tax ammunition to pay for them.

    No more of these "taxing" unfunded mandates...

  • 3

    Frungy

    I think that it is in defiance of the 2nd amendment that the president have ANY special protection. After all, isn't the 2nd amendment intended to allow the overthrow of the government if the government acts against the will of the people? What right does the president have to special protection against the people he represents?

    ... of course I DO think that the President's kids, wife and other family should be protected, since they aren't part of the government, and they are targets that could be used to coerce the President.

    Oh, and low-blow NRA, picking on a man's family is pretty disgusting.

  • -4

    sailwind

    If guards are required in schools, tax ammunition to pay for them.

    Firearms (hunting rifles etc) and Ammunition is already taxed by the federal Government at 11 percent. Handguns and ammunition is taxed at 10 percent by the Federal Government.

    They want society at large to pay for the hobby (or obsession) of a minority - both financially and with the atrocious warping of society their obsession has caused.

    Not even close to reality.

    The Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration of 1937, most often referred to as the Pittman–Robertson Act signed by Franklin D. Roosevelt on September 2, 1937.

    Prior to the creation of the Pittman–Robertson Act, many species of wildlife were driven to or near extinction by hunting pressure and/or habitat degradation from humans.The Act created an excise tax that provides funds to each state to manage such animals and their habitats. Notable species that have come back from the brink since the implementation of this act include white-tailed deer, wild turkey, and wood ducks.

    The Pittman–Robertson Act took over a pre-existing 11% excise tax on firearms and ammunition. Instead of going into the U.S. Treasury as it had done in the past, the money is kept separate and is given to the Secretary of the Interior to distribute to the States.The Secretary determines how much to give to each state based on a formula that takes into account both the area of the state and its number of licensed hunters.

    In the 1970s, amendments created a 10% tax on handguns and their ammunition and accessories as well as an 11% tax on archery equipment.It was also mandated that half of the money from each of those new taxes must be used to educate and train hunters through the creation and maintenance of hunter safety classes and shooting/target ranges.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pittman%E2%80%93RobertsonFederalAidinWildlifeRestorationAct

  • -1

    philsandoz

    Surely NRA has now been shown to stand for "Never a Rational Attitude?" The children of the president of the United States are, by definition, more likely targets of gun toting idiots than the children of non-presidents. I find it hard to believe that many Americans simply can't see that having millions of guns in the hands of millions of unregulated citizens is a crazy danger; after all the second amendment itself states "A well-regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". Do these nuts not understand the meaning of "a well-regulated militia"?

  • 2

    vctokyo

    NRA looking after themselves again with this pathetic propaganda attempt.

  • 2

    Tamarama

    How pathetic they are. How irresponsible.

    The NRA will say anything. They have no moral compass and the further this argument progresses, the more rediculous they look. It's actually somewhat bemusing that they are considered any kind of credible voice in this argument at all.

  • 0

    guuzendesu

    The issue is not with guns. People use knives and cars and just things lying around when guns aren't available. Mass killings happen everywhere. The problem is all the nut-cases society is producing. Before we put bandaids all over our bleeding society (and pay for all those bandaids), we should figure out where the hell we're going wrong, and fix that. I have a few ideas, but I won't bother mentioning since that would just be a whole new "off-topic" can of worms.

  • 0

    CraigHicks

    So ... the NRA believes that only the families of presidents who side with the NRA deserve to live. It takes a man with a gun to make that kind of decision.

  • 2

    Kabukilover

    Yes, the NRA will say anything. That is because they have a lot of power and they know they can get away with anything they say.

    The security protection for Obama and his family is not his invention. It was there for past presidents and their families. To this the NRA has never as far as I can recall raised an objection.

    There are good reasons for the security that Obama and his family are getting. They are high profile. There are always changes they will be attacked. We know that for a fact, given the assassinations and attempted assassinations that have occurred in the US in the past fifty years.

    The NRA has been especially since Sandy Hook. It is a sign that they are scared.

    I truly wish they had a better reason to be scared than they do at present.

    I write this from Japan. As I write I have another reason to be happy to be here. There is no Second Amendment in Japan.

  • 3

    yabits

    The American peoples' disenchantment with the NRA is growing steadily.

    Amazing how the gun organization keeps shooting itself in the foot.

  • 2

    Mark_Richards

    The same might be said for banks. In the US, most banks have a panic alarm, and in cities, most banks have an armed guard on duty. Schools must rely on a telephone to call for assistance. In a critical moment, a receptionist must have the time and focus to dial 911 and answer various questions from a clueless dispatcher.

    Clearly, the money is more important than the children.

  • 2

    Laguna

    Handguns and ammunition is taxed at 10 percent by the Federal Government.

    Good start. Let's see - one or two armed guards at every school K-12 would cost quite a bit. Why don't we tax bullets at 50¢ to $1.00 apiece - that ought to pay for most of it.

  • 2

    HonestDictator

    Hilarious that the NRA would show their own hypocrasy by their elitist gun-toting rants.

  • 0

    Alphaape

    Why not have a gun tax to help pay for the extra burden guns place on the police and hospitals? How would you feel about that?

    They do, it's called a sales tax whenever you buy anything in the USA.

  • -1

    Alphaape

    Surely NRA has now been shown to stand for "Never a Rational Attitude?" The children of the president of the United States are, by definition, more likely targets of gun toting idiots than the children of non-presidents.

    I think people are missing the point. The NRA is not saying that the President's children or family should have Secret Service protection. They understand that goes along with the office. But what they are saying is that long before his daughters attended the Sidwell Friends school, they have had a security system that includes armed guards. That is one of the reasons why those who have money and connections send their kids to that school. That's the point they are trying to make. Why is it that one group who has the means to pay to go to a school because they have enacted strict security policies with 11 armed guards patrolling the grounds, talk down to people who can't afford to send their kids there but maybe want a trained armed guard staff at their children's school. Nothing to do about Secret Service protection.

  • 0

    flygirl1221

    NRA, stop embarrassing America

  • 2

    SuperLib

    Mark_Richards: The same might be said for banks. In the US, most banks have a panic alarm, and in cities, most banks have an armed guard on duty. Schools must rely on a telephone to call for assistance. In a critical moment, a receptionist must have the time and focus to dial 911 and answer various questions from a clueless dispatcher. Clearly, the money is more important than the children.

    Nursing homes don't have armed guards. Is it because we don't care about the elderly?

  • 5

    Fadamor

    Armed guards at banks have no place in this discussion. Guards at banks are there to deter bank robberies, not prevent mass murders. If a mass murderer entered a bank, the first bullet fired would be into the temple of the armed guard's head, providing another weapon and ammunition for the mass murderer. The same is true for armed guards in schools. All putting an armed guard in a school will do is guarantee who takes the first bullet in the face. Mass murderers have already decided they're going to die and don't CARE if someone already has a gun there. There's NO deterrent factor to having some retired cop walking around with a gun on their hip. He may as well just put on a white uniform with a huge red bull's-eye painted on the front and back.

  • 1

    lucabrasi

    Mass murderers have already decided they're going to die and don't CARE if someone already has a gun there. There's NO deterrent factor to having some retired cop walking around with a gun on their hip.

    Best comment so far on this topic....

  • 2

    SuperLib

    Obama just announced 23 executive orders:

    1. "Issue a presidential memorandum to require federal agencies to make relevant data available to the federal background check system."

    2. "Address unnecessary legal barriers, particularly relating to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, that may prevent states from making information available to the background check system."

    3. "Improve incentives for states to share information with the background check system."

    4. "Direct the attorney general to review categories of individuals prohibited from having a gun to make sure dangerous people are not slipping through the cracks."

    5. "Propose rulemaking to give law enforcement the ability to run a full background check on an individual before returning a seized gun."

    6. "Publish a letter from ATF to federally licensed gun dealers providing guidance on how to run background checks for private sellers."

    7. "Launch a national safe and responsible gun ownership campaign."

    8. "Review safety standards for gun locks and gun safes (Consumer Product Safety Commission)."

    9. "Issue a presidential Memorandum to require federal law enforcement to trace guns recovered in criminal investigations."

    10. "Release a DOJ report analyzing information on lost and stolen guns and make it widely available to law enforcement."

    11. "Nominate an ATF director."

    12. "Provide law enforcement, first responders, and school officials with proper training for active shooter situations."

    13. "Maximize enforcement efforts to prevent gun violence and prosecute gun crime."

    14. "Issue a presidential memorandum directing the Centers for Disease Control to research the causes and prevention of gun violence."

    15. "Direct the attorney general to issue a report on the availability and most effective use of new gun safety technologies and challenge the private sector to develop innovative technologies."

    16. "Clarify that the Affordable Care Act does not prohibit doctors asking their patients about guns in their homes."

    17. "Release a letter to health care providers clarifying that no federal law prohibits them from reporting threats of violence to law enforcement authorities."

    18. "Provide incentives for schools to hire school resource officers."

    19. "Develop model emergency response plans for schools, houses of worship and institutions of higher education."

    20. "Release a letter to state health officials clarifying the scope of mental health services that Medicaid plans must cover."

    21. "Finalize regulations clarifying essential health benefits and parity requirements within ACA exchanges."

    22. "Commit to finalizing mental health parity regulations."

    23. "Launch a national dialogue led by Secretaries Sebelius and Duncan on mental health."


    He'll ask Congress to pass legislation that would:

    require background checks on all gun sales;

    restore a ban on "military-style assault weapons";

    ban gun magazines with capacities of more than 10 rounds;

    toughen penalties on people who sell guns to those who can't have them

  • 1

    blendover

    NRA must have known the way this approach would make them look, but they went ahead anyway in spite of an earlier promise at being constructive. The only reason for doing that which I can see is that they see their membership and corporate sponsorship as being under threat. Less members and money = lower number of jobs and lower salaries in admin.

    When it comes to the bottom line, they don't care how dumb they look to the majority. They appeal to their core redneck base to keep those subscriptions and manufacturer dolleros coming in.

  • 0

    JohnBecker

    Thanks for the posting, SuperLib. It didn't look like there was anything too onerous in there.

    The NRA used to be a wonderful organization, and in many ways still is. They were, and are, committed to safe and responsible gun ownership. They back this up with education for gun owners.

    BUT - starting mostly in the Reagan years, and ever since, they have stridently fought anything they perceive as a threat to free and easy access to guns in the U.S. Because of this shift in policy, their only answer to any problem is, "More guns." After Newtown, they could have said something as simple as, "Our society is broken; that's what needs fixing," and no one would have argued. But they couldn't do that - they had to advocate for armed guards in schools. More guns. Never mind that it teaches our children that they aren't safe unless they have a gun. Never mind that in many thousands of schools in the U.S. that day, nothing bad happened, even without armed guards. More guns.

    I can almost understand their stance. Just like the pro-choice lobby, they are loathe to "give an inch," lest it invite the other side to trample what's left of their rights. That's not to say that either side is right or wrong, just that their philosophies of defense are about the same.

  • 0

    Farmboy

    So ... somewhere in the future ... instead of big kids pushing little kids, we would have kids with large security details offing kids with small security details? And if the President were not an elitist, he would do this? Interesting ....

  • 0

    HonestDictator

    Once I read this I totally had to get this awsome link from an old Onion article. Utterly hilarious considering the real life source material xD.

    http://www.theonion.com/articles/obama-paranoid-government-coming-for-his-guns,30638/

Login to leave a comment

OR

More in World

View all

View all