• Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Subscribe
  • RSS

NRA Calls Obama ‘Elitist Hypocrite’ in New Ad

obama-elitist-hypocrite-nra

The NRA is calling President Obama an “elitist hypocrite” for opposing armed guards in schools while sending his own girls to school with armed guards.

CNN (“NRA airs new TV ad criticizing Obama on eve of White House gun announcement“):

The National Rifle Association released a new television commercial Tuesday night charging President Barack Obama of hypocrisy 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.”

The commercial is running on the Sportsman Channel, a cable network focused on outdoors programming such as hunting and fishing. It is also posted on a dedicated web site “Stand and Fight.”

On Wednesday, Obama is set to unveil a new set of proposals that would place very tough restrictions on the ownership and sale of firearms.

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.

Gregory questioned NRA CEO Wayne LaPierre in a December interview about the effectiveness of the organization’s proposal to put armed guards in schools. After the interview, the NRA and conservative media outlets noted that Gregory’s children attended the same school as Obama’s daughters and the school has a security department.

“Mr. Obama demands the wealthy pay their fair share of taxes,” the narrator says. “But he is just another elitist hypocrite when it comes to a fair share of security. Protection for their kids and gun-free zones for ours.”

Here’s the ad:

The “Morning Joe” gang was apoplectic about the ad, with both Joe Scarborough and Mika Brzezinski calling it disgusting and out of bounds. They’re wrong.

Now, I think the ad’s argument is silly. The president and his family have unique security requirements. It’s hardly hypocritical for Obama to send his girls to school protected by the finest protective detail in the world while opposing having poorly trained armed guards at the thousands of other schools out there. Generally speaking, not only is the security threat at schools quite low but the dangers of having loaded weapons there enhance rather than lower the risk of violence.

But the ad’s neither tasteless nor over the line. The Obama girls’ faces aren’t shown and there’s certainly no suggestion that they shouldn’t be protected; indeed, the ad advocates that all kids deserve the same kind of protection.

Beyond that, there’s a kernel of truth in the “elitist hypocrite” argument, even if it’s poorly articulated here. The fact of the matter is that a lot of liberal politicians and celebrities who are vocal on the need for gun control and who poo-poo the notion that Americans need to be armed to protect themselves and their families who nonetheless avail themselves of armed bodyguards. As with the president, there may be a legitimate case for a distinction—a US Senator or an actress is simply more likely to be a target than most of us—but the optics are indeed strange.

Related Posts:

About James Joyner
James Joyner is the publisher of Outside the Beltway, an associate professor of security studies at the Marine Corps Command and Staff College, and a nonresident senior fellow at the Atlantic Council. He's a former Army officer and Desert Storm vet. He has a PhD in political science from The University of Alabama. Views expressed here are his own. Follow James on Twitter.

Comments

  1. Rob in CT says:

    “Are the president’s kids more important than yours?”

    No, but they sure are a more likely target.

    Other than that… I grudgingly agree with you James.

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 16 Thumb down 5

  2. beth says:

    And those girls get to ride on that cool private plane and live in that great big house too! Why are they so special??? Really, this is just to distract from the real issues and rile up the base of Obama haters who already think he doesn’t deserve the presidency and all that goes with it. How can you have a serious conversation with these people?

    Highly-rated. Helpful or Unhelpful: Thumb up 46 Thumb down 3

  3. Tsar Nicholas says:

    What’s funny about this sort of thing — in the vein of a dark comedy farce — is that as much as the left is a collection of elitist hypocrites on guns (loopy Hollywood actors with armed bodyguards provide a particularly rich tapestry of ironies) the fact of the matter is that guns are not even the arena in which they’re the most hypocritical or the most elitist.

    Take taxes. For as many wealthy “anti-gun” leftists who themselves have conceal and carry permits or armed bodyguards a much higher percentage of wealthy leftists have expensive tax accountants or attorneys, offshore tax shelters, generation skipping trusts, tax-advantaged mutual funds, unrealized appreciation, 1031 exchange vehicles, etc. Shit, getting a wealthy liberal to pay more taxes is like trying to sandpaper a Bobcat’s arse in a phone booth. Good luck.

    Then take gentrification. Have you ever been to some of those wealthy neighborhoods in liberal enclaves? Pacific Heights. Malibu. Marin County. The gentrification is so extreme it’ll make your head spin. But of course the sheer irony is lost on rich, elitist liberals.

    Public schools. Liberals “support them.” They’re against school vouchers. They’re against charter schools. They back the public teachers unions. You bet’cha. And literally 100% of wealthy liberals send their kids to private schools. Again, the irony is lost on them.

    The list goes on and on.

    In any event, getting back to guns, Obama’s not so much an “elitist hypocrite” as he is gaming his own wealthy and loopy base for campaign money for the Democrat Party and firing up other elements of the Dems’ base. Obama’s from Chicago and he’s a smart guy whose seen that city’s seedier side. Deep down he knows that “gun control” does nothing but pile up bodies of gunshot victims, largely in the inner cities. But in left-wing politics it’s essential “never to let a crisis go to waste.” And Obama is a master politician.

    Poorly-rated. Helpful or Unhelpful: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 33

  4. OzarkHillbilly says:

    indeed, the ad advocates that all kids deserve the same kind of protection.

    The NRA wants to expand the mission of the Secret Service to include the guarding of every school age child in America? Really? How are we gonna pay for that?

    Highly-rated. Helpful or Unhelpful: Thumb up 28 Thumb down 4

  5. @OzarkHillbilly:

    Sidwell Friends has a private security force on campus unconnected to the Secret Service. Indeed, it pre-dated the Obama daughters attendance at the school. This is obviously what they are referring to.

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 7 Thumb down 18

  6. PSBFF says:

    The NRA has gone way too far with this AD. They are completely removed from the mainstream..My husband has been a member of the NRA for 18 plus years…He is DISSOLVING his membership….
    The NRA is in their own little world, and as far as I am converned they can stay there….

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 20 Thumb down 6

  7. Neil Hudelson says:

    “We are having a major PR crisis here! Let’s bring the Presidents kids into it!”
    -Wayne LaPierre. Probably.

    Highly-rated. Helpful or Unhelpful: Thumb up 29 Thumb down 5

  8. Neil Hudelson says:

    (as seen on twitter–didn’t want to take credit on what is not mine)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 0

  9. Mr. Prosser says:

    The administration and the liberal elite are not going to prevent a local school district from using armed security in their buildings. They are not trying to prevent individuals from having firearms in their homes. They will also not prevent states and local districts from using vouchers, Tsar Nick, see how well that’s going in Louisiana where you can send your kids to a school where they show the Flintstones as a documentary.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 1

  10. Woody says:

    The point of the ad is to infuriate those who advocate for stricter gun regulations.

    This will then result in bringing wavering NRA boosters back into the fold, as they have been conditioned for the past 30 years to dramatically oppose literally anything popular with liberals.

    (btw, if this was an ad mentioning a Republican politician’s children, the Fox/talkradio jocks would scream themselves hoarse)

    Highly-rated. Helpful or Unhelpful: Thumb up 20 Thumb down 3

  11. OzarkHillbilly says:

    @Doug Mataconis:

    Sidwell Friends has a private security force on campus unconnected to the Secret Service.

    How much does it cost to send a child there? As I understand it, a lot of high profile people send their children there and most if not all are at high risk for nefarious deeds, hence the security. Also, I rather suspect the Secret Service does not just drop the girls off. Don’t know it of course, but they are responsible for the security of the President and his family, I kind of doubt they allow others to take over for them. No matter how good they might be.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 14 Thumb down 2

  12. Andre Kenji says:

    There is another problem. Living around armed security is annoying. The security guards may be nice and professional people, but their own presence is enough to make you nervous. I know that, because here in Brazil you´ll find plenty of them in anywhere where you supposedly will find people with higher income.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0

  13. tps says:

    @OzarkHillbilly:

    According to Wiki: Tuition for the 2010-2011 school year is $31,069 (prekindergarten-grade 4) and $32,069 (grades 5-12)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  14. C. Clavin says:

    Sidwell Friends has a staff of 11 guards…not suprising considering young Clintons, Nixons, and Roosevelts have gone there…not to mention countless diplomats, Government officials, and celebrities…in other words special threats…and I’m sure there is a high level of training and coordination with the Secret Service.
    Is the NRA advocating this level of expenditure and comittment at every school in the country?
    Because that would fall under discretionary spending which Republicans want to slash by 20%…(see Ryan budget, Romney campaign). Let’s see Sidwell’s budget and then ask the Republicans who refused to fund disater relief for Superstorm Sandy if they want to support the funding required.
    The reasons that Sidwell Friends has armed guards…and the guard-in-every-school idea is stupid should be self-evident.
    I’m sure the fringe gun nuts are incapable of discerning it.

    Highly-rated. Helpful or Unhelpful: Thumb up 18 Thumb down 2

  15. C. Clavin says:

    @ Tsar…

    “….And literally 100% of wealthy liberals send their kids to private schools….”

    Please provide a link for this.
    Otherwise STFU…because you are once again full of shit.

    Highly-rated. Helpful or Unhelpful: Thumb up 24 Thumb down 4

  16. mattb (who is in favor of enhanced gun regulation) says:

    Personally, if I had the time or the inclination, I’d put together a counter ad pointing out that Ted Nugent concerts don’t allow people to bring guns in (including concealed carry) and often have metal detectors to make sure that people don’t violate that rule.

    Considering the Nug’s strongly stated beliefs that guns make people safer and that if a mass shooting was to break out, the only hope of “sheeple” are good people with guns, it seems somewhat hypocritical that he’d be disarming the sheepdogs, and making them rely on his security, in a situation that’s a mass shooting waiting to happen.

    (I wish I could claim this was originally my idea, but I got the basic premise from someone else).

    Highly-rated. Helpful or Unhelpful: Thumb up 22 Thumb down 3

  17. michael reynolds says:

    I do enjoy the fact that the same people who rage against the TSA now want stop-and-frisk at every school in the country, and the same people who despise the ACA now want a federalized mental health regime, and the same people who become apoplectic at “political correctness” now seem to suggest censorship of TV, movies and video games.

    But like I’ve been saying, arguing for the gun cult makes people stupid.

    Highly-rated. Helpful or Unhelpful: Thumb up 30 Thumb down 3

  18. C. Clavin says:

    @ Tsar…

    “…Deep down he knows that “gun control” does nothing but pile up bodies of gunshot victims, largely in the inner cities….”

    Actually…the murder rate with gun contro in Chicago is 17% lower…so again…you are full of shit.
    If you have to resort to lies to make your point…it just ain’t much of a point in the first place.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 2

  19. MBunge says:

    I think this armed guards in school thing might actually be a tipping point for the gun fetishists. I mean, you’ve got to be really, really, REALLY stupid to not see the next step in the argument. If we need armed guards in schools…what about public libraries? Malls? Movie theaters? Office buildings? Bars? Gas stations? The obvious and near inevitable end point of having an armed government agent on every street corner might just be enough to break the spell.

    Mike

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 14 Thumb down 3

  20. James Joyner says:

    @Rob in CT: We agree on that point, too—I make it in the post!

    @michael reynolds: Yes, it’s just dumb. I don’t defend the quality of the argument, just the rebut the notion that it’s somehow tasteless or anti-Obama girls.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 8

  21. alkali says:

    Whether or not the ad makes an argument that is intellectually respectable is not what makes it disgusting or out of bounds. What makes it disgusting and out of bounds is that it is inherently dangerous to use the President’s daughters for this purpose. All it takes is one nutjob.

    Highly-rated. Helpful or Unhelpful: Thumb up 18 Thumb down 3

  22. Liberal Capitalist says:

    “Elitist” ?

    Well, let’s see… hmmm… he is the elected leader of these United States, and the de facto leader of the free world…

    So, yeah. I think “elite” would be vaild in this case.

    I would say that is a pretty rarified group.

    What often makes me smile is that those who usually use this as a criticism… well, not so elite.

    Usually outstanding underachievers.

    But hey, let’s not let logic get in the way of a mudslinging attempt.

    Just another day for the proud, misguided conservative leadership.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 14 Thumb down 2

  23. Rob in CT says:

    @James Joyner:

    Sorry. I knew that, but phrased my post badly. I’m a little sloppy this morning (didn’t sleep well). I was disagreeing with the NRA, and agreeing with you. Fully, 100% wrt to that particular point, and, like I said, grudgingly on the rest of your argument (re: “over the line” or not).

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

  24. bk says:

    @Doug Mataconis:

    Sidwell Friends has a private security force on campus unconnected to the Secret Service. Indeed, it pre-dated the Obama daughters attendance at the school. This is obviously what they are referring to.

    That’s a ridiculous assertion. Even from you.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 15 Thumb down 2

  25. rudderpedals says:

    How much of the resistance to firearm regulation is a result of users who just don’t want anything to stand between them having fun shooting their weapons? The link target from yesterday on a bump modification spilled thousands of pixels over how much fun it was to fire, just push smoothly for automatic fire.

    Time to stop pretending it’s about protection when it’s mostly about recreation.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 1

  26. Aidan says:

    Does the fact that the president and his children are regularly the target of assassination threats cross your mind when you refer to him as an elitist hypocrite? It would be extremely profitable for the NRA if every citizen believed they were under the same constant threat of violence as the president, but it’s dangerous for the rest of us to go along with it.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 2

  27. C. Clavin says:

    @ bk…
    I’m not happy defending Doug…but I’m pretty sure he is right.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

  28. Rafer Janders says:

    The fact of the matter is that a lot of liberal politicians and celebrities who are vocal on the need for gun control and who poo-poo the notion that Americans need to be armed to protect themselves and their families who nonetheless avail themselves of armed bodyguards.

    Oh, please. I grew up with armed bodyguards myself when I was a kid living in the Third World. You know why? Because people would call my parents and threaten to kidnap me or kill me.

    Nevertheless, I don’t walk around with armed bodyguards as an adult in the US. You know why? Because no one is threatening to kidnap or kill me. There’s a world of difference between someone who’s an active, high-profile target who gets specific threats directed at them by name, and someone who just kinda sorta feels unsafe but who has never actually been threatened in their life.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 14 Thumb down 1

  29. Rafer Janders says:

    @michael reynolds:

    But like I’ve been saying, arguing for the gun cult makes people stupid.

    And like I’ve been saying, most of them were already stupid.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 2

  30. Rafer Janders says:

    @MBunge:

    I mean, you’ve got to be really, really, REALLY stupid to not see the next step in the argument. If we need armed guards in schools…what about public libraries? Malls? Movie theaters? Office buildings?

    Even just keeping it to schools …what about after-school programs? Team practices? Theatre practice? Field trips? Weekend detention? And what about pre-school? Playgroups? Mommy-Baby Yoga?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 1

  31. Rafer Janders says:

    @James Joyner:

    I don’t defend the quality of the argument, just the rebut the notion that it’s somehow tasteless or anti-Obama girls.

    Well, you’re wrong. It’s inherently tasteless — beneath contempt, actually — to bring the President’s daughters into this. And you’d have to be spectacularly naive not to realize that the NRA put out this ad specifically to give offense.

    Highly-rated. Helpful or Unhelpful: Thumb up 18 Thumb down 2

  32. Aidan says:

    I agree with Josh Marshall:

    “There are so many vile things about this ad. But one thing to note is the ad is really only designed to appeal to people who have a deep — really deep — animosity toward the President. The sort of people who don’t think he and his daughters should be in the White House and wish him the sort of ill citizens should never wish upon a freely elected head of state. “

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 15 Thumb down 1

  33. Geek, Esq. says:

    “I am the NRA”–Timothy McVeigh.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 3

  34. bk says:

    @C. Clavin:

    I’m not happy defending Doug…but I’m pretty sure he is right.

    Nope. If so, the ad copy would have said something to the order of “Obama sends his daughters to a school that has provided armed security for its students for the past x years”.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1

  35. john personna says:

    It is idiotic because the question does not revolve around the Obama family. As was widely reported following Sandy Hook:

    1/3 of schools already have armed guards or police

    Obama and “the liberals” are not removing those. They are just arguing for a different focus going forward. Rather than arming the remaining 2/3, they’d address the violence.

    And certainly no where to they restrict the 2/3 NOT to add security staff.

    Idiotic.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0

  36. bk says:

    @Rafer Janders:

    It’s inherently tasteless — beneath contempt, actually — to bring the President’s daughters into this. And you’d have to be spectacularly naive not to realize that the NRA put out this ad specifically to give offense.

    I could not agree more. “Obviously”.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 1

  37. Geek, Esq. says:

    @James Joyner:

    How is calling the President “Mr. Obama” and an “elitist hypocrite” and then invoking safety measures for the President’s family as an example of said character defect not tasteless?

    This is pure Obamahatred from the bowels of the cultural right.

    Highly-rated. Helpful or Unhelpful: Thumb up 18 Thumb down 1

  38. john personna says:

    I mean, this fails at the level of math.

    1/3 of schools have armed guards. Obama’s school has armed guards.

    Those are impossible odds, right? Elitism?

    (Jeez James, really?)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 1

  39. Franklin says:

    Are the president’s kids more important than yours?

    I would actually argue the answer to this question is yes. If they were killed or abducted, I’m pretty sure the President would be distracted. That affects the whole country if not the whole world.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 2

  40. Franklin says:

    … not to mention if they were kidnapped by a foreign entity, it would be an international incident possibly causing ware …

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1

  41. Franklin says:

    “war”, that is

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0

  42. Hoshnasi says:

    Teachers have been allowed to carry concealed in Utah for over a decade. There have been no accidental discharges, kids getting the gun, gun left unattended, etc. Further, there have been no shootings.

    Also,

    “opposing having poorly trained armed guards”

    Is a pretty broad assumption and generalization.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 3

  43. C. Clavin says:

    @ bk…

    “…Nope. If so, the ad copy would have said something to the order of “Obama sends his daughters to a school that has provided armed security for its students for the past x years…”

    Why would the ad say that? It undermines the point of the ad. You aren’t accusing the NRA of being truthful are you?
    Sidwell Friends had armed security guards long before the Obama girls.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 1

  44. EddieInCA says:

    NRA – Defending Criminals since 1977.

    That SHOULD be their tag line because the current NRA is not your father’s, or grandfather’s NRA.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 2

  45. wr says:

    I’m waiting for LaPierre’s apology: “We’re sorry we called the president an elitist hypocrite. We meant to say he’s an uppity ni**er.”

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 4

  46. Rick Almeida says:

    @OzarkHillbilly:

    The NRA wants to expand the mission of the Secret Service to include the guarding of every school age child in America? Really? How are we gonna pay for that?

    Tax cuts.

    Highly-rated. Helpful or Unhelpful: Thumb up 19 Thumb down 2

  47. @Rafer Janders:

    There’s a world of difference between someone who’s an active, high-profile target who gets specific threats directed at them by name, and someone who just kinda sorta feels unsafe but who has never actually been threatened in their life.

    And there’s a world of difference between a school guard or Secret Serviceman having a semiautomatic weapon, and Nancy Lanza having a semiautomatic weapon.

    There is zero logic to this ad, or the political party dependent on the advertiser’s support. It’s just pure animus.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 2

  48. @michael reynolds: I think the webcomic Penny Arcade put it best in response to what the NRA had said: “It is a very odd sort of Patriot that would destroy the First Amendment to protect the Second.”

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0

  49. anjin-san says:

    Are the president’s kids more important than yours?

    In the big picture? Yes. The safety of the first family is a national security issue. Just as it was when Bush was President.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 1

  50. bk says:

    @C. Clavin:

    Sidwell Friends had armed security guards long before the Obama girls.

    I’m aware of that. What I said was that Doug’s assertion that the NRA was “obviously” referring to that is bs.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1

  51. anjin-san says:

    Now, I think the ad’s argument is silly

    You should probably throw “bizarre” into the mix for good luck. Then you will have really and truly lobbed the marshmallow du jour at the crazy ass majority in your party.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1

  52. mantis says:

    The point of this ad is to put the idea of killing the Obama girls into gun nuts heads, because such things make them buy more guns. Just like everything the NRA ever does, with all it’s decades-long nonsense talk about government gun grabbers that don’t exist, is meant to scare gun nuts into buying more guns. That is why the NRA exists. To boost gun sales and protect gun manufacturers from any action that might reduce gun sales.

    But the ad’s neither tasteless nor over the line.

    You only say that because you don’t think like a gun nut, and the ad isn’t talking about your daughters. If it was, you’d think differently.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 1

  53. C. Clavin says:

    @ bk…
    you’ve lost me…what, then, is the ad refering to?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  54. bk says:

    @C. Clavin:

    you’ve lost me…what, then, is the ad refering to?

    Shorter NRA – the President is an uppity black guy. Longer NRA – the President’s kids have armed security at their school (and everywhere else, for that matter); why shouldn’t everyone? The ad copy would have been exactly the same if Sasha and Malia had been attending a school which heretofore had NOT had armed guards.

    Again, my point is that I very much doubt that the NRA even knew of Sidwell Friends’ history in that regard, let alone was “obviously” referring to it.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 1

  55. Franklin says:

    @Franklin: A downvote for this? I’d like to hear the argument that the President’s kids are not more important than anybody else’s.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1

  56. JKB says:

    So let’s review. Right to attend a good school with armed security is okay as long as you are part of the 1% and can pay. The rest, especially the inner-city black child, are condemned to failing schools racked with violence unprotected from external threats because their parents having a choice where their kids attend school would be bad for Liberals?

    The ad did muddle their message since so many are jumping on the secret service bandwagon when in total, the point is Obama sends his kids, with personal bodyguards, to a school with armed security.

    I do like the argument that those with armed guards are special and not like other people’s kids who are fine with a sign saying “gun-free school zone” and a cop 10-20 minutes away. Nice, special privilege for specially connected.

    We see the Progs are all about the 1% but also about ensuring the 99% don’t improve themselves through individual initiative. One wonders why they must work to keep everyone down. Perhaps they’re insecure in their position in the Party?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 10

  57. JKBh says:

    @Franklin: I’d like to hear the argument that the President’s kids are not more important than anybody else’s.

    No one is begrudging the President’s kids their secret service detail. But why the active attempts to stop other parents from implementing armed security for their kids. The laws seek to prevent any efforts for parents to secure their children.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 7

  58. stonetools says:

    I dunno. I’d be in favor of professional armed guards at every school and public place-so long as the guards were paid for by a special tax on all gun owners.

    Can we get an agreement on that? Somehow, I suspect no.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0

  59. wr says:

    @JKBh: The president is also giving the launch codes for nuclear missiles in case he feels he needs to use them to protect the nation. Why shouldn’t every citizen be given those launch codes? Why are liberals so elitist?

    Highly-rated. Helpful or Unhelpful: Thumb up 17 Thumb down 0

  60. beth says:

    @JKB:

    My daughter’s high school was a “gun free school zone” too but the resource officers there were armed police officers. I think you may have some confusion about how that term is applied. (I never had any illusions that a few armed officers could prevent anything at a school with over 4000 students situated on a 10 acre campus.) As a matter of fact, our DMV has a sign stating that it’s a gun free zone and no concealed weapons are allowed but the metal detector at the entrance is manned by armed security.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0

  61. Rafer Janders says:

    @stonetools:

    I’d be in favor of professional armed guards at every school and public place-so long as the guards were paid for by a special tax on all gun owners.

    So let’s say at least three guards per place, at two shifts a day, that’s six guards total, plus one to cover weekends and vacations, times how many “public places” (schools, malls, offices, stores, churches, mosques, synagogues, temples, apartment buildings, parks, etc.) there are in the US — at least two million? So that’s about 14 million armed guards, which is seven times the number of active duty soldiers in the US Army, and is also equal to about 5% of the total US population.

    Hell, I’m all for it — a millions strong extra-military federalized armed force, answerable directly to President Obama. It’s just what the right wing has been pushing for all along, isn’t it?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0

  62. Sandman says:

    @OzarkHillbilly: “How are we gonna pay for that? ”

    Don’t we just raise the debt ceiling? :-)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1

  63. anjin-san says:

    @JKB

    Your cut & run from the thread yesterday is noted.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0

  64. anjin-san says:

    @beth

    JKB is a great one for making claims when he has no clue what he is talking about. Yes JKB, I am referring to your comments on mental health and “socialism”…

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0

  65. Barry says:

    @Doug Mataconis: “Sidwell Friends has a private security force on campus unconnected to the Secret Service. Indeed, it pre-dated the Obama daughters attendance at the school. This is obviously what they are referring to.”

    You are Pissing on our legs and telling us it’s raining, Doug.
    Chelasea Clinton went there, so having such security would obviousy pre-date the Obama administration. I imagine the count of high profile children there wpuld be large.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0

  66. C. Clavin says:

    @ JKB…

    “…Right to attend a good school with armed security is okay as long as you are part of the 1% and can pay…”

    Roughly 1/3 of the schools in the nation have armed guards.
    As usual you are full of shit.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0

  67. mattb (who is in favor of enhanced gun regulation) says:

    @anjin-san:

    JKB is a great one for making claims when he has no clue what he is talking about. Yes JKB, I am referring to your comments on mental health and “socialism”…

    I’ll up the ante with pretty much anything he writes about higher ed.

    That said, to give credit where it’s due, when JKB is writing about certain gun topics — in particular the parameters for their use in personal self defense — he’s pretty good.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

  68. anjin-san says:

    Right to attend a good school with armed security

    Perhaps you could show where anyone claimed there is a “right” involved.

    Rich, well connected people get things that other people do not. Reality 101.

    Actually, I am a little surprised to see you take this tack, since the position of the right tends to be that the 1% are claiming the just rewards of success and wealth when they enjoy things that are not available to the majority of the populace, and that to claim otherwise is “success envy.”

    At any rate, your crocodile tears for kids in inner city schools are noted.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0

  69. mantis says:

    @Sandman:

    Don’t we just raise the debt ceiling? :-)

    Raising the debt ceiling doesn’t doesn’t authorize spending.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0

  70. @mantis: Sure it does, just ask the GOP. :)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0

  71. Dave says:

    @James Joyner: How is it not hypocritical that the same political the NRA funds to get elected can sit inside their gun free capitol complex. Where is the NRA calling out all of the GOP congressmen who call for all guns all the time. How dare these hypocritical Texas elitists tell me my conceal carry permit doesn’t allow my gun to enter courthouses, federal buildings, or the capitol? More guns is always the answer when will the federal government end these needless regulations to their safety. I don’t have the right to work in a gun free work place, why should they? Oh right, they called for my workplace to allow concealed weapons I just lack the ability to do the same unto them. Bunch of NRA elitist hypocrites.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 0

  72. SC_Birdflyte says:

    Personally, I would feel better about the safety of the nation (not just our schoolchildren) if Congress and every state legislature allowed concealed carry on the floor during debates. I seem to remember that after a whack job tried to shoot his way into the U.S. Capitol a few years back, Congress decided that tightening up its own security was Job # 1.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0

  73. Nikki says:

    @Dave: This. Let Congress allow concealed carry in its hallowed halls. Why should it miss out on living in the Wild, Wild West?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0

  74. al-Ameda says:

    The NRA is both stupid and powerful (those two attributes are not mutually exclusive).

    As if there is no overriding security reason to protect ANY president and his/her family.

    Gun violence in this country is a supply-side problem.

    Supply the people with a lot of weaponry and it’s not hard to understand why we have a lot of gun violence. What else would anyone expect when a nation of 315M people and 275M guns are put together? Add to that a strong cult of gun ownership and you have the conditions for regular periodic mass shootings, mass killings and homicides. And this isn’t going to change any time soon, because we are not interested in reducing the supply of armaments to the people.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0

  75. al-Ameda says:

    @SC_Birdflyte:

    Personally, I would feel better about the safety of the nation (not just our schoolchildren) if Congress and every state legislature allowed concealed carry on the floor during debates.

    A couple of years ago I was at a public park in San Francisco, I was waiting for a couple of friends to meet me, and a guy sitting near me on a bench near me had his jacket swing open briefly and I noticed a revolver tucked in his pants near his belt. At that moment I did not feel safer, I felt that nothing good could result from waiting at a spot near him. I immediately moved.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 0

  76. Franklin says:

    @JKBh: No one is begrudging the President’s kids their secret service detail. But why the active attempts to stop other parents from implementing armed security for their kids. The laws seek to prevent any efforts for parents to secure their children.

    The law prevent “any efforts” (some of which may have nothing to do with guns, for example a limited number of unlocked doors at the school)? And also the law prevents “armed security”?

    If these are true, that’s indeed outrageous. But that’s not my understanding.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0

  77. Steve V says:

    According to some reader of Andrew Sullivan’s blog, Sidwell’s security crew is unarmed.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0

  78. C. Clavin says:

    @ Steve V….
    Just saw that myself.
    I’m sure the NRA will issue a correction.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

  79. anjin-san says:

    @ Franklin

    As usual, JKB is making things up. When he gets called on it, he does a cut and run to the next thread.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1

  80. michael reynolds says:

    From Andrew Sullivan referenced above:

    I am a graduate of Sidwell Friends, in the same class as Chelsea Clinton (1997), so I know what I’m talking about on the issue of Presidential protection on campus. To respond to your misinformed readers, a few points:

    St. Albans and Sidwell have never had armed guards on campus. At Sidwell, this claim is particularly noxious, as it is a Quaker school. There was a great deal of uproar within the Sidwell community as to how to address the security needs of the President and his daughter against the school’s core value of nonviolence. An accommodation was made, but for the most part, Agents did not accompany Chelsea to classes, and were not visible on campus. A detail sat in an SUV in the parking lot, another monitored what happened in the building in an office with CCTV. While I am sure they were armed, it was not obvious, so the claim of “armed guards” is ridiculous.

    Indeed, the greatest controversy arose in preparations for the final meeting for worship for graduating seniors and their families. President Clinton was in attendance, but the Secret Service agreed to keep all weapons outside the room in which the meeting was held.

    Sidwell’s own “Special Police Officers” are simply security guards that you’d find at any school. They are not armed with guns, nor do they have access to guns (whether this is because of DC’s restrictive gun laws, the school’s Quaker values or a recognition that arming people increases the likelihood of negative outcomes, I’m unsure). There are eleven of them because they operate 24 hours a day, seven days a week. I’d expect that no more than four including supervisors would be on duty at any given time, and that’s to protect a campus of 5th through 12th graders, approximately 800 students.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 0

  81. M. Bouffant says:

    @al-Ameda:
    Of course the gun tucked into one’s pants is the safest thing possible. See: Burress, Plaxico, & any number of other incidents.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1

  82. Ben Wolf says:

    @michael reynolds: Thanks for posting that, Michael. Always nice to have information from a primary source.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1