Exclusive: NRA senior lobbyist says attack ad was "ill-advised"

Comments (32)
Randy549 wrote:

“Obama’s daughters, 14-year-old Malia and 11-year-old Sasha, attend private school in Washington and receive Secret Service protection, as is routine for children of presidents.”

What the article does not mention is that the Sidwell Friends School that Malia and Sasha attend employs, and historically has employed, armed guards of their own, irrespective of the Secret Service protection afforded to Obama’s daughters.

Where the NRA ad really erred was in allowing viewers to get the impression that the armed protection came from the Secret Service only. It would have been much more effective the leave the Secret Service out of it and speak only of the *private* armed guards at Sidwell Friends School.

Jan 25, 2013 2:03pm EST  --  Report as abuse
fromthecenter wrote:

The NRA’s response to everything is ill-advised. They should have come out with something other then arming everyone as a solution.

Jan 25, 2013 3:39pm EST  --  Report as abuse
TheNewWorld wrote:

The ad tells the truth. Why is it ill-advised? Obama’s children go to a private school that has armed guards regardless of the secret service. Why doesn’t he want everyone’s kids to be protected?

Jan 25, 2013 4:17pm EST  --  Report as abuse
ihavenone wrote:

Maybe the ad wasn’t a great idea, but the truth is our government doesn’t lead by setting an example for the public to follow. Instead, it tell the public what to do while exempting itself. Congress and the President, no matter who’s in office, say one thing then do another. One of the latest examples is the Congressional insider trading debacle. We really need leadership rather than a bunch of deciders.

Jan 25, 2013 4:29pm EST  --  Report as abuse
4ngry4merican wrote:

Randy549 wrote: “What the article does not mention is that the Sidwell Friends School that Malia and Sasha attend employs, and historically has employed, armed guards of their own, irrespective of the Secret Service protection afforded to Obama’s daughters.”

What your post doesn’t mention is that Obama pays $34,000 per child per year for his daughters to attend Sidwell Friends School. Perhaps the party of cutting spending, cutting spending and more cutting spending would care to explain how much they intend to increase spending to pay for all these armed guards they want to hire. I have posed this question on many message boards, here on Reuters and on others. I have yet to receive an answer.

Jan 25, 2013 4:54pm EST  --  Report as abuse
4ngry4merican wrote:

TheNewWorld wrote: “Why doesn’t he want everyone’s kids to be protected?”

Because “everyone” doesn’t pay $34k/yr for their kids to go to school.

http://www.sidwell.edu/admissions/tuition-and-fees/index.aspx

Jan 25, 2013 4:57pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Randy549 wrote:

4ngry, do you really believe armed security guards are the reason Sidwell Friends costs $34k/year? LOL

Jan 25, 2013 5:31pm EST  --  Report as abuse
jks12 wrote:

Fact check, please. Susan Eisenhower is the daughter of John Eisenhower and the granddaughter of Dwight Eisenhower.

Jan 25, 2013 6:26pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Slammy wrote:

Placing armed guards in schools will help create jobs… at least for 9 months out of the year…

Jan 25, 2013 6:58pm EST  --  Report as abuse
BuffaloGirl wrote:

@ TheNewWorld and 4ngry4merican

First of all, protecting all president’s children is a matter of national security, it is not a matter of choice, and if you don’t understand that, then do some reading.

Secondly, not everyone’s children have the same level of threat to their lives such as any president’ children, every single day that the president is in office.

Thirdly, President Obama does want to protect everyone’s children, but chooses to do it differently from you. Rather than adding more guns and chaos to it (eg. who the perp when 20 people have guns?) he’d rather respect the 2nd Amendment to the constitution and minimize the impact of semi/automatic guns and high capacity magazines – NOT taking all guns away,or even threatening to, which NRA drivel puts out there everyday. It’s pretty two-faced to say you’re all for Romney’s wealth and what’s wrong with having a lot of money, then shoot down the President’s, particularly when a good number of Republican’s children go to the same kind of school. Your comments are ridiculous!

Jan 25, 2013 7:02pm EST  --  Report as abuse
krimsonpage wrote:

@BuffaloLady

Hear hear!

Jan 25, 2013 7:09pm EST  --  Report as abuse
DaMav wrote:

The advert attacked the hypocrisy of the wealthy elite sending their children to prestigious private schools protected by armed guards while they ridicule and disarm the rest of us. Pointing that out got some of the Palace Presstitutes upset.

Jan 25, 2013 8:10pm EST  --  Report as abuse
DaMav wrote:

The libs who have been trashing the NRA lobbyists relentlessly are now blowing an offhanded comment by one of them into a swooning article — rofl.

Jan 25, 2013 8:13pm EST  --  Report as abuse
4ngry4merican wrote:

Randy549 – You can make sarcastic remarks or you can answer my question. Guess which one of those makes you look smarter.

Here it is one more time in case you missed it. How is it that you propose to pay for putting an armed guard in every school in America?

Jan 25, 2013 8:42pm EST  --  Report as abuse
BuffaloGirl wrote:

@DaMav

You obviously don’t understand a word I said. It is a matter of national security, not a choice. The extreme NRA is the one who was stupid enough to make this an issue, NOT the Dems, libs, or sane Republicans who know it’s a requirement for the position of President who has children. Now that they have egg on their face, once again, they want to cry, “foul” when they were the one’s to start the whole farce to begin with. like the guy said, ‘it was ill-advised.’

Jan 25, 2013 8:49pm EST  --  Report as abuse
ConstFundie wrote:

@BuffaloGirl, First two, obvious and reasonable. The third is illegal and despotic. Respecting the 2nd Amendment is not being kind enough to leave a fragment of the inalienable Right left. Not infringing the Peoples Right to keep and bear arms is to not infringe it, obvious and reasonable. And respecting the Constitution, and his sworn oath to uphold the Constitution, is to actually uphold the Constitution, obvious and reasonable. There is no “minimize(ing) the impact of semi/auto guns..” there is only failing to uphold the Constitution. If the President and the People have a problem with the 2nd, then request Congress to Amend the 2nd, again obvious and reasonable.

Jan 25, 2013 8:50pm EST  --  Report as abuse
BuffaloGirl wrote:

Thanks krimsonpage.

Jan 25, 2013 8:51pm EST  --  Report as abuse
BuffaloGirl wrote:

@ ConstFundie

For a law to be constitutional is must:
be necessary to promote a compelling interest and be narrowly tailored to advance that purpose.

The compelling interest, here, is to protect high numbers of innocent people from being slaughtered by the use of semi/automatic weapons and high capacity magazines within a short period of time.

The narrowly tailored aspect of the law, here, is limiting it to guns/magazines of the specific type mentioned above.

Given the requirement of compelling interest and narrowly drawn, laws that meet this constititutional requirement may be enacted. For example, laws forbidding people to scream fire in public places are constitutional, despite the freedom of speech, because they have an overwhelming and compelling interest for the public safety. The situation with banning this type of gun and magazine are also addressing a compelling interest for public safety. If we cannot go to school, university, or the movies for fear of this specific threat, then our liberties, such as the pursuit of happiness, are infringed. The 2nd Amendment is an important right, and that is recognized by President Obama, despite your personal feelings, by limiting it to only these types of guns in the compelling interest of saving innocent lives. It is rare that a person yells “fire” in a theatre. If this legislation banning semi/automatic weapons, and high capacity magazines is passed, hopefully the slaughter of people With This Kind of weapon will also be rare, because there will be fewer circulating around that can be accessed by a sociopath.

So, while you say there is illegal and despotic, please consider further what that means, and the exceptions Under The Law, along with the fact that there currently exist a number of such laws that have been held constitutional by these standards.

The 2nd Amendment still stands and you still have other guns to choose from. There NEVER has been an intention by the Obama Administration to make all guns illegal.

Jan 26, 2013 6:45am EST  --  Report as abuse
fromthecenter wrote:

@buffalogirl Now that was the best explanation of the assault rifle ban I have heard to date.

Jan 26, 2013 7:44am EST  --  Report as abuse
TheNewWorld wrote:

@4ngry4merican

Why doesn’t he send his kids to a public school? He is against allowing vouchers for other parents to have the ability to send their kids to private schools. He is a hypocrite, just like the vast majority of politicians, both Republican and Democrat.

Jan 26, 2013 12:28pm EST  --  Report as abuse
TheNewWorld wrote:

@BuffaloGirl

Shall not be infringed. Care to look that one up?

Jan 26, 2013 12:30pm EST  --  Report as abuse
TheNewWorld wrote:

@4ngry4merican

“Here it is one more time in case you missed it. How is it that you propose to pay for putting an armed guard in every school in America?”

We pay for coaches, teachers, principals, vice principals, bus drivers, administrators, etc. Maybe we take 1% of the pay of everyone involved and pay for the armed guard. Armed guards don’t make much money. Where I work we have about 15. They make a little more than minimum wage. Since when are you concerned with spending? You think it is fine for teachers to make $50,000 to $75,000 a year, with full benefits, golden retirement and health care, for working 40 weeks a year, but paying $20,000 for an armed gaurd is just ridiculous to you? Some of the superintendents in California make over $200,000 a year. Maybe they can take a pay cut to help pay for the safety of our children.

So let me ask you this. We get your gun ban passed, and the next massacre is a kid with a home made bomb that kills 20 some students. Would you think about an armed security guard then? At what point to do you actually care about the children, and not passing new laws at aimed at law breakers who are going to ignore them?

Jan 26, 2013 12:36pm EST  --  Report as abuse
TheNewWorld wrote:

@BuffaloGirl

“First of all, protecting all president’s children is a matter of national security, it is not a matter of choice, and if you don’t understand that, then do some reading.

Secondly, not everyone’s children have the same level of threat to their lives such as any president’ children, every single day that the president is in office.

Thirdly, President Obama does want to protect everyone’s children, but chooses to do it differently from you. Rather than adding more guns and chaos to it (eg. who the perp when 20 people have guns?) he’d rather respect the 2nd Amendment to the constitution and minimize the impact of semi/automatic guns and high capacity magazines – NOT taking all guns away,or even threatening to, which NRA drivel puts out there everyday. It’s pretty two-faced to say you’re all for Romney’s wealth and what’s wrong with having a lot of money, then shoot down the President’s, particularly when a good number of Republican’s children go to the same kind of school. Your comments are ridiculous!”

You are fine with the hypocrisy of the politicians, I find your comments are ridiculous. By the way I am a Libertarian, not a Republican. And you, and your ilk are the biggest threat to America. I bet you feel all nice and happy that GW Bush and Obama have passed and strengthened the Patriot Act too. Lets burn the Bill of Rights, and the Constitution, enact marshall law, that way you can feel safe in the loving arms of an all powerful government. The ruling elite obviously knows what is best for us.

Jan 26, 2013 12:41pm EST  --  Report as abuse
4ngry4merican wrote:

TheNewWorld wrote: “Shall not be infringed. Care to look that one up?”

Your turn: Well regulated. Care to look that one up?

Jan 26, 2013 2:09pm EST  --  Report as abuse
4ngry4merican wrote:

TheNewWorld wrote:
“Why doesn’t he send his kids to a public school?”
Because he doesn’t want to and can afford not to.

“He is against allowing vouchers for other parents to have the ability to send their kids to private schools.”
Vouchers come out of my tax money and go to people who can’t afford private schools. Kinda like Obamacare, only for education. You should be screaming about vouchers just as loudly as you scream about Obamacare.

“He is a hypocrite”
Apparently so are you.

Jan 26, 2013 2:16pm EST  --  Report as abuse
4ngry4merican wrote:

TheNewWorld wrote: “You think it is fine for teachers to make $50,000 to $75,000 a year, with full benefits, golden retirement and health care, for working 40 weeks a year”

Yes I do. I used to be a teacher. So was my mother and my grandfather. Anyone who has never been a teacher but thinks that teachers are underworked and overpaid is an idiot not even worth debating with.

Jan 26, 2013 2:18pm EST  --  Report as abuse
onfireinky wrote:

4angry4merican
TheNewWorld wrote: “Shall not be infringed. Care to look that one up?”

Your turn: Well regulated. Care to look that one up?
It means having good order and discipline has nothing to do with the government controlling its arms or personnel.

Jan 26, 2013 3:15pm EST  --  Report as abuse
4ngry4merican wrote:

onfireinky wrote: “It means having good order and discipline has nothing to do with the government controlling its arms or personnel.”

That’s your opinion. Obama is following the second amendment to the letter. He is not infringing on anyone’s right to bear arms, he is simply regulating them. Well.

Jan 26, 2013 4:30pm EST  --  Report as abuse
onfireinky wrote:

4ngry4merican

No its really not my opinion its common word usage of the day.And the entire thing must be taken in context based on history.

Jan 26, 2013 6:33pm EST  --  Report as abuse
onfireinky wrote:

The term “regulated” means “disciplined” or “trained”.[122] In Heller, the U.S. Supreme Court stated that “[t]he adjective ‘well-regulated’ implies nothing more than the imposition of proper discipline and training.”[123]

Jan 26, 2013 6:49pm EST  --  Report as abuse
BuffaloGirl wrote:

@ TheNewWorld

The Federal Assault Weapons Ban (AWB), or Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act, was a subtitle of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, a federal law in the United States that included a prohibition on the manufacture for civilian use of certain semi-automatic firearms, so called “assault weapons”.[1] The 10-year ban was passed by Congress on September 13, 1994, and was signed into law by President Bill Clinton the same day. The ban only applied to weapons manufactured after the date of the ban’s enactment.

Worked before!

Jan 27, 2013 5:23am EST  --  Report as abuse
BuffaloGirl wrote:

@FromtheCenter

Thank you for your comment

Jan 27, 2013 5:42am EST  --  Report as abuse
This discussion is now closed. We welcome comments on our articles for a limited period after their publication.