The NRA released on Tuesday an ad that accuses Obama of being an "elitist hypocrite," because he provides armed protection for his children but insists that the nation's schools remain "gun-free zones."
The video is part of the NRA's offensive dubbed "Stand and fight," in response to its anticipation of Obama's announcement of stricter gun control measures.
According to Boston.com, the 35-second video posted to YouTube by user HotWeirdNews, also appeared on the NRA's website on Tuesday. However, the video was removed from the NRA's website by Wednesday morning.
The ad begins with a shot of a school, the American flag and a voice-over, saying "Are the president's kids more important than yours?"
The narrator continues: "Then why is he skeptical about putting armed security in our schools when his kids are protected by armed guards at their schools?"
The ad then shows images featuring President Obama, Vice President Joe Biden, New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg and Senator Dianne Feinstein, while the narrator says: "Mr Obama demands the wealthy pay their fair share of taxes. But he's just another elitist hypocrite when it comes to a fair share of security."
It ends with the argument that the "elitist hypocrites" (aka Obama, Biden, Bloomberg and Feinstein) are providing "protection for their kids, but gun-free zones for ours."
Media reactionsBoston.com reports that the White House has responded to the NRA video, describing it as "repugnant and cowardly."
The majority of comments on YouTube are critical of the ad, pointing out that Malia and Sasha, being children of the president, are vulnerable.
The Daily Beast comments that "it’s almost painful to list even a few of the many ways the ad is stupid," and argues that the president’s children have Secret Service protection because they are "the specific target of serious threats from foreign governments, terrorist cells, and unhinged individuals who have never heard of your kids. And that’s just for starters."
The website objects to the attempt of the NRA to drag Obama's daughters into the gun debate, saying: "The common denominator? Guns and kids. One month after Sandy Hook. It was a rare and ugly combination of cluelessness and callousness—and almost makes you think someone inside the NRA is trying to ruin its reputation. But such offensiveness is what happens when groups become consumed with speaking only to their base, self-satisfied with the sounds of the echo chamber. It’s the same dynamic that left members of the conservagencia so shocked when Mitt Romney lost the election: they were looking only at their own 'unskewed' polls. By focusing only on the true believers, they had forgotten how to persuade sensible skeptics on Main Street."
The Guardian's Paul Harris (yes, British) comments on what he terms the "incompetence of the ad" and notes that "a sensible person might suggest that the president's children have armed guards – called the secret service – because they are the president's children and thus face a bit more of a security risk than the average school pupil. Also, for fiscally-minded conservatives, extending secret service protection for every child in the country might strain the deficit."
The Daily Caller approves the ad, and berates those of the "mainstream media" who criticized Wayne LaPierre's call for "armed security in every school across America." The website asserts that most Americans disagree with gun control advocates, saying: "Most citizens support armed security in schools — and the NRA, as evidenced by its 250,000 new members over the past month. So the media can go speaking for elites, but America will speak for itself."
The Daily Caller urges readers to visit the "Stand and Fight" website and "get involved" in the fight against gun control.
The Guardian states the obvious when it says: "Of course, an ad like this will... go viral online, both with its supporters and those appalled by it."