NRA’s Controversial Ad on Guards in Schools
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/4-pinocchios-for-a-slashing-nra-ad-on-security-at-sidwell-friends-school/2013/01/16/95b2127a-6032-11e2-9940-6fc488f3fecd_blog.html
A recent commercial issued by the
NRA created quite the buzz from people around the country. The roughly four
minute ad asked why Obama’s daughters, Malia and Sasha, get the protection of
guards while many schools in America have nothing of the sort. The ad even goes
as far as asking why his kids are more important than the children of those
watching the ad. Federal law states that the family of the president should be
protected by secret service to help protect against attacks.
These laws seem fair right? The NRA
seems to disagree. They call President Obama an “elitist hypocrite” for
allowing his children to have protection. I cannot see how they can make this
claim when he is just following federal regulation. What do they want from him!
He never stated he was against the protection of children, having guards in
schools, or anything that prevents trying to help children. The NRA seems to be
reaching for something that might not be there.
The
NRA stated that Obama was “skeptical” of having guns in schools. These words
are taken out of context from an interview Obama did in December. In the full
quote, Obama says, “I am skeptical that the only answer is putting guns in
schools.” Shouldn’t we all be? I feel like having multiple, fully armed guards
at Prep would be a breach of my peace of mind as an American. This would only
divert those trying to harm people to other areas such as movie theaters,
office buildings and other social gathering places. I do not want to live in a
police state, Obama agrees. Putting more counselors and responsible leaders in
schools is what America needs to prevent violence, not guns.
great job!
ReplyDeleteI have to agree with you. When I heard of this advertisement, I thought it was absolutely absurd. Of course the President of the United States' children are going to have more personal protection than others, they'd be a far more obvious target for anyone trying to harm a person in power. I somewhat see their viewpoint, but I think if those who made this commercial are honest with themselves, they'd agree that giving his two daughters heavier than usual protection is completely reasonable.
ReplyDeleteMicah you are right, if we had guards at our school I would feel very unsafe even thought they are there to make schools safe. The issue with Obama is very odd and out of nowhere. The presidents children have always had extra protection, as Stavros said they are much more obvious targets
ReplyDelete