Apparently, they really didn’t like what they heard at the meeting.
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 ad is only running The Sportsman Channel so it’s basically just preaching to the choir. But it’s a start.
Odds are good that they’re devoting the bulk of their efforts working on a response to whatever “sweeping” ridiculousness is shoved down our throats tomorrow.
It is an appropriate comparison. However, Sidwell Friends has 11 armed guards on staff. The Secret Service is just a bonus.
P.S. What is the irony of having armed guards on the school’s payroll at a school that started out with Quaker roots???
What we are facing, in our time, is a fight between two concepts–the people are in charge, the government is monitored; government is in charge, the people are monitored. Today’s gun proposals will be with the second school of thought.
Awesome. Good ad, timely, well done and well said. I just have one question.
WHERE THE HELL WERE THESE ADS DURING THE CAMPAIGN??????????????
My general rule on what constitutes an “infringement” of the people’s right to keep and bear arms–
If in general a regulation would prevent an ordinary member of the community in good standing from functioning as a member of a militia to both defend an area against peer competitors and to maintain order against those outside the law (regardless of whether there is actually local use or organization of such a body), then there has been an infringement. This includes such regulations regarding time of training, frequency of training, etc. so as to make ownership incompatible with living a life where militia service is a collateral and infrequent duty.
I don’t care whether people think it good policy or not. That is the Second Anendment in a nutshell. Those who disagree are kindly invited to either invent a time machine and go back to 1790 and talk Jimmy Madison out of it, or to try to get a new amendment to the Constitution passed. For the record, I would against it.
The Supreme Court simply needs to decide whether its mission is to provide the cover of legality to Progressive desires, or not. It needs to decide now.