Is it wrong for NRA to drag Obama's daughters into gun-control fight?
Is it wrong for the National Rifle Association to drag President Obama鈥檚 daughters into the gun-control fight? That question comes up because the big gun-rights lobby group issued an ad this week that brings up Sasha and Malia and their (armed) Secret Service protection as an example of how Mr. Obama is a 鈥渉ypocrite鈥� on guns.
The 30-second ad is not subtle. It starts with a generic shot of kids playing and the quick statement, 鈥淎re the president鈥檚 kids more important than yours?鈥�
It goes on to question why Obama is skeptical about armed guards at schools, when his kids are protected by armed guards at their schools. Then it segues briefly into fiscal issues 鈥� saying that the president demands the rich pay their 鈥渇air share of taxes鈥� 鈥� before shifting back to its kicker, 鈥淗e is just another elitist hypocrite when it comes to a fair share of security.鈥�
鈥淧rotection for their kids and gun-free zones for ours,鈥� it concludes, after a quick shot of Obama, Vice President Joe Biden, gun-control advocate Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D) of California, New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, and David Gregory of NBC News, protected by a couple of armed guys in SWAT outfits.
(Mr. Gregory is in there due to a show where he questioned the need for high-capacity ammo magazines and pushed the limits of D.C. law to display one.)
We鈥檇 say this is a polarizing ad that won鈥檛 change any minds or votes. What it will do is inflame opponents, while perhaps rallying supporters to the NRA鈥檚 side and winning donations at a time when some gun owners are worried about possible upcoming government actions.
Actually, 鈥渋nflame opponents鈥� might be underplaying it. 鈥淢ake them apoplectic鈥� might be more accurate. As the respected Ron Fournier of National Journal , 鈥淭he ad is indisputably misleading, and is arguably a dangerous appeal to the base instincts of gun-rights activists.鈥�
There鈥檚 a good reason the president鈥檚 family has armed protection, after all: Unlike most people in America, they are the subject of constant and credible death threats. Their protection consists not of an armed school guard but highly trained teams of agents who practice constantly and know when to act and, perhaps more important, when not to react.
As maverick conservative in The Daily Beast, the NRA鈥檚 guard-in-every-school idea would require about 150,000 armed guards to protect 75 million students for 200 days a year. It is easy to envision the mistakes that could occur just because of the scale of this coverage and the fact that these guards would not be Secret Service-level trained.
Plus, schools are far from the only place where mass shootings occur.
鈥淪econd: even if the idea were a good one, the NRA鈥檚 sneering references to the president鈥檚 family are beyond the pale,鈥� Mr. Frum writes.
Obama and his family have long been charged with 鈥渦ppityism,鈥� says Frum, meaning the NRA鈥檚 ad verges on using racially coded language.
鈥淭his latest attack ad looks to many like only one more attempt to enflame an ancient American wound,鈥� according to Frum.
The NRA has said it has gained 250,000 more members in recent weeks as Washington has discussed new gun-control measures, and this new ad may be aimed more at keeping that rolling than at actually affecting policy. On the , the new ad is surrounded by bids to 鈥渟ign up to stand and fight鈥� and 鈥渟ign up for the latest updates here.鈥�
This is standard Washington procedure for many big interest groups: Take advantage of controversy to keep the group itself as big and wealthy as possible.
