NRA Targets President’s Daughters, All Time Low

The National Rifle Association (NRA) released an ad today which targets President Obama’s two daughters for being protected by armed guards when they are at their school. This ad raises the claim that the President believes his daughters are more important than the rest of America’s children and that the President is being hypocritical for skepticism about appointing armed guards in public schools.

Not only is it vile to target two children to feed a referendum, it is also unrealistic to use an argument like this. The Secret Service has been protecting children from the First Family long before President Obama became our President. The First Family is not an average American family. They are the family of the leader of our country. They are to be honored and protected.

This does not mean that his daughters are more or less important than anyone else, or more or less deserving of protection than anyone else. This is the culture of our American society. We protect the First Family from possible harm because the chances of harm coming to the most famous family in the United States is highest.

I do not believe that an armed guard should be stationed at every single public school. I do not believe that teachers should be allowed to carry concealed weapons. There is no guarantee that such a thing works, and there is no guarantee that people, including children, will not be injured or killed by a gun fight between the guard and the shooter. I am not interested in working in a school where we are encouraged to behave like Rambo and disregard logical safety procedures which have a history of saving lives.

I have no desire to fight gun violence with gun violence. I want to prevent gun violence from happening. I want people to have access to healthcare and break the stigma surrounding mental illness. There is nothing wrong with treating mental illness. We want everyone, ill or not, to live a good life. There is simply no reason why we cannot take care of our people, our fellow Americans. I want clips which carry more than ten rounds to be banned. I want assault weapons to be banned. If it fires more than one bullet when you squeeze the trigger, then you should not have it. I want to seriously consider the 2nd Amendment’s original meaning and adapt its writing to fit modern day so that we don’t have silly debates about how it is unconstitutional to say that someone can’t own a certain type of gun. The right to bare arms should never be a priority over the lives of our children.

Also, what Chris Christie said about the ad:


12 Responses

  1. I would like to point out that Obama himself is using the same tactic to push his own agenda. The “Protect the children” and “if we can save one child” theme has been used time and time again to push gun control legislation. That automatically implies that if you do not support Gun Control you support the death of children. Just a thought.

    • So what you are saying is that doing better as a society to protect our children from being killed by guns is not a valid argument?

      They way I look at it is, if you want to breed violence in schools by fighting violence with violence, attack the President’s children and release an iPhone app that features shooting coffins on the one month anniversary of the Newtown shooting, an app which has already been played by a large number of children who have an iPhone/smart phone, then yes, you support the death of children. Just a thought.

      • 1. We are ignoring the real problems here. Mental health and criminal culture (criminal on criminal violence). Almost all gun related violence is accounted for by those two factors. Gun Control is sexy, but it doesn’t solve the problems at hand. People find ways to kill themselves without guns and criminals obtain guns illegally.

        2. I find it hard to take the Government seriously when it comes to Gun Control. Isn’t it Ironic the largest gun dealer and manufacturer in world history is proposing Gun Control legislation, but ignoring the message they are sending with perpetual war? Plus, how is everyone forgetting about Operation Fast and Furious?.

        • Your first point does not make sense because I mentioned mental health in the last paragraph of the blog entry. We cannot prevent gun violence by one tactic, we have to prevent it by both improving healthcare and gun control. You can kill someone with your own hands, with a car, with drugs, with knives, etc. The big difference between a gun and a person’s hands is that our hands are used for multiple things. Gun are only used for one thing: Shooting something/someone.

          Your second point makes even less sense because the NRA is not proposing gun control, instead they are opposed to it. They want a gun in the hands of everyone, because their logic is that if the wrong person goes into a public place and starts shooting, all the of the good people with guns can shoot that person. Considering the instinctual tunnel vision that a person has when a gun is pointed at them, they tend to forget other people are around that could be hit by stray bullets. They forget to take cover. If everyone pulls out a gun, how do you distinguish them from the “hero” and the “villain”?

  2. Reblogged this on Musings of a Manxie and commented:
    It’s so hard for us as Brits to relate to the gun debate in the US, because it’s simply an accepted societal norm, but this article writes a good argument about how the constitution, and more specifically the second amendment needs to adapt with modernity.

    • Thank you. It amazes me the difference between the UK and the US in regard to the amount of gun deaths. I remember X number of days ago, Piers Morgan had mentioned on his show that in 2011 only 39 people were killed by guns in Great Britain. On average, Americans are killed in the thousands to ten-thousands by guns. The numbers can make one feel less safe and secure in this country.

      • Facts are skewed. Over half of all US gun deaths are suicide. Almost all the rest are criminal on criminal or justifiable homicide (self defense). Great Britain actually has an overall higher crime rate and homicide rate – people just find other ways to do it. So what did gun control actually do for them?

        • Gun control didn’t do anything because we didn’t have enough of it to make a difference. Background checks are not required at gun shows. The ban on assault weapons was lifted, and the terminology of certain guns was changed so that they wouldn’t be considered assault weapons. You can have any clip you want, which means you can fire nearly 100 bullets in less than a minute. Exactly why does someone need a gun like that other than to kill a mass of people in a war battleground? People with a mental illness are not being given the proper care and it is ridiculous. Focusing on all of these things will only prevent gun violence but violence of all types. We have to change the way we behave as a society.

          • My point was that Gun control did nothing for Great Britain. Their violent crime rate and overall homicide rate is higher than that of the US.

          • Except we aren’t making legislation in Great Britain. My blog entry was about the United States and its problem with gun violence. Great Britain is a different country with a different culture, different government and different laws. Just because something doesn’t work for the British doesn’t mean it can’t work in the United States.

          • If you honestly think Gun Control, which failed in England, would work here then you are ignoring the evidence presented to you.

          • I think you have no sense of reality.

Share Your Thoughts

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: