A reader writes:
The NRA’s advertisement seems to rile up the base by suggesting that Obama thinks his children are more important than others, and thus he guards them. Well, setting aside that Obama didn’t set up those armed guards for the moment, I think it’s worth noting that Sasha and Malia ARE more important than other children … and not because they are the daughters of a rich person, but rather because they are the daughters of an influential person.
For much the same reason as, say, a director of a spy agency shouldn’t have a secret affair because if that kind of information fell into the wrongs hands, such a spy agency director might put his personal life before national security, the daughters of a President have to be protected because a) they will be targets, and b) it’s of national interest that the President keep his focus on the national good and not his family. If some “bad guy” were to get his hands on the Obama daughters, Obama’s interests might not be aligned with the nations, and by the fact that the bad guy has the power to change the course of the nation.
Or as another puts it, “While I love my child with all of my heart, I am not hated by 40+% of the country, so my child has a lower point of risk if some wacko wants to hurt him in order to hurt me.” Another:
Your readers who defend the NRA ad by pointing out that wealthy private schools (including Sidwell Friends) have armed guards [a claimdebunked by a reader] are missing the point. Yes, those schools are much more secure than most, and have been long before this tragedy, but that is to be expected for students who are more likely to be targeted for their influential parents. More importantly, it is the parents, not taxpayers, paying for that security. This is capitalism, not elitism.
If the NRA were proposing to establish an endowment to support putting a “Special Police Officer” in each of the nearly 100,000 public schools in the US (at a cost on approximately 10 billion dollars), objections to their ad would not be nearly as strong. But the reality is that either taxpayers will pay more (if NRA ally Grover Noquist allows it) or other programs will get cut, or educators will be asked to double as guards. Someone pays for the costs of protecting children against the misuse of guns, but it’s not gun owners, or gun manufacturers.
On that note:
The NRA is on to something. Let’s use Sidwell Friends School as a model for the nation. All children should have access to the same security and quality education the elitist give their children. Pay for it by taxing ammunition.