New NRA Ad … Barack Obama Is an “Elitist Hypocrite” … Guns to Protect Me, Not for Thee


The NRA website released a new ad pointing out the hypocrisy of President Obama on guns. The ad calls President Obama an “elitist hypocrite” for having Secret Service protection of his daughters at school but saying he was “skeptical” about installing armed guards in all schools. What is most interesting is that after Wayne LaPierre stated that all schools should be protected by armed guards as the president’s children are, then why did Obama actually address this. although to a ridiculous amount of 1000 called for during his news conference yesterday.

When asked by NBC’s David Gregory in an interview, President Obama offered his skepticism over NRA’s proposal for putting armed police officers in schools. Even though both of their children’s schools have armed guards. No one is saying that the Obama and Gregory’s children should not be protected by armed guards, we are saying that there need not be a double standard and two sets of rules where our children are not protected. This is the liberal elitist way. Why is it so outrageous to consider protecting school children with guns, it seems to work for those who have their children go to schools with them.

UPDATE I: What must the liberal media be saying after even Obama said that schools need more armed guards? Will they now question his birth certificate and call him crazy like the did the president of the NRA?

If you liked this post, you may also like these:

  • Trump Points Out Hillary Clinton’s Hypocrisy on Guns: “Let’s See what Happens to her’ if Hillary’s Bodyguards Should Drop their Weapons
  • Der Spiegel Writes …’Obama Comes Across as Cold, Arrogant and Elitist’
  • US Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-NY), I was for Obamacare, Before I was Against It and Wanted a Waiver
  • The Hypocrite in Chief … After Demonizing the Rich, President Obama only Pays Effective Tax Rate of 18.4% for 2012
  • Barack Obama … Is this the Change that America Needs? Obama’s Small Town Comments …

  • Comments

    9 Responses to “New NRA Ad … Barack Obama Is an “Elitist Hypocrite” … Guns to Protect Me, Not for Thee”

    1. marmar on January 17th, 2013 1:34 pm

      Most ridiculous comparison imaginable. Now let’s see, why does the President of the United States have secret service with him and I don’t. Do these questions even require an answer?
      SM: You might actually want to learn to read, you may learn something. The school where the President’s kids go to school as armed guards other that secret service. Also, no one is saying to have secret service for all children but what is the matter with having protection for them with an armed guard, ex-police or police? YOU IDIOT, EVEN OBAMA PUT IN HIS PLAN AN INCREASE OF ARMED POLICE IN SCHOOLS.

      Good grief you moonbat liberals really need to get some reading comprehension.

    2. Tamikosmom on January 17th, 2013 6:42 pm


      Twenty children and six unarmed faculty at Sandy Hook Elementary were sitting ducks in a gun free zone to a shooter.

      When was the last time that any of the schools of elite were targeted? Could it be that armed guards may play a part?

      Could it be if there was armed security and/or designated armed faculty … Adam Lanzo would not have considered his mission to snuff out innocent lives? He may have been evil but he was not stupid.

    3. Tamikosmom on January 17th, 2013 6:53 pm

      Now let’s see, why does the President of the United States have secret service with him and I don’t.

      marmar on January 17th, 2013 1:34 pm


      The President and family have armed security because there is a perceived threat.

      If you believed that your life or a loved one’s life was threatened … would you also not want the option of being in a position to defend or be defended with lethal force if necessary?


      We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. – Thomas Jefferson

    4. publicenemy2u on January 18th, 2013 12:37 pm

      Do the math, 98,000 public schools x $ 50, 000 (cheap) for one cop = 4.9 billion or about $1,633 per NRA member per year. We’d better cut medicare and social security and raise taxes on the middle class to pay for it. Lets cut mental health funding to place a cop in each movie theater (30, 000) We’ll cut food stamps to pay for additional mall security….ect…ect….
      Then you read about a former cop firearm instructor who left his piece in a school bathroom yesterday…… an NRA instructor
      SM: There are numerous ways to handle this issue. No different than federal Marshalls on planes after 9-11. They were not on every plane, but no one knew which planes they were on. Between actual armed on-duty police officers, off-duty police officers, retired police officers, conceal-carry permit trained teachers, retired military, etc … there are more than enough resources. Heck, everyone knows that when the police put an empty police cruiser on the hwy median drivers slow down by there mere presence of the car. One could say that police could rotate schools and have police cruisers parked in lots as a presence as a deterrent.

      We are talking about protecting children in school, not stopping all violence. That is a fool-hearty premise if anyone thinks that all gun violent will end. However, if soft targets were made to be non-gun free zones I bet things would change.

      Where do you think a crazed killer is less likely to target as his killing fields, a) a movie theatre, b)a school, c) a mall d) a gun range?

    5. marmar on January 18th, 2013 2:15 pm

      Don’t appreciate you calling me an idiot! But what else can one expect of your level. The ridiculous comparison I was alluding to in this NRA ad is that a President of the United States and his family are obviously the most susceptible family in the country. Does anyone know or care about your children? If the NRA wants to put armed guards in every school (for obvious self serving reasons) than are they also willing to pay for this protection. Because the last people I imagine would agree to pay for this would be the GOP.
      SM: In the initial post I stated that the President’s family should have secret service protection. so the fact that you would make it an issue, does make you foolish. However, the school that the president sends his kids to has armed guards as well, other than the Secret Service. Guess who sends his kids there as well, David Gregory.

      Obviously, the only way to protect children from people who are hell-bent on killing is having individuals in the school with the gun. Schools are “soft” targets, that is why they are susceptible to these types of shootings. If you cannot understand that, then you are disingenuous.

      As for the funding for such things, it should be a State/local issue, not federal. If a state/county/town wants to pay for the protection of their children, its up to them. Maybe they can do it with two less lessons of Heather has two Mommies.

      So you do not think out children, our most treasured resource are worth the money … I guess we need to say little more.

    6. katts on January 18th, 2013 8:10 pm

      off the cuff I stopped and spoke to a local police officer and questioned his views on gun control.
      He seemed quite sincere in answering that he specifically was for an an assault rifle ban, based on the idea that they weren’t needed for hunting.

      He also said his fellow officers were not for a qun ban, his words, not mine, because of this administration.

    7. katts on January 19th, 2013 12:49 pm

      By the way, that Police Office was African American – People in the real world understand this adminstration’s agenda, which is not about the protection of children, but to find a highly emotional event that triggers outrage to justify disarming the public, exactly as Australia did.

      The below link quotes Obama as wanting to follow the “Australian Plan” The highly reputable Cato think tank

      DC Think Tank: Cato Institute

      Politicians (all) are highly aware that our economy is very weak & being propped up, the potential for a serious recession/depression at hand possibly creating the momentium for serious civil unrest

      Further public outrage will commence next year when insurance preminums fly through the roof, which is fact, not speculation.

      My god, our government couldn’t protect our citzens or manage the contained crises of Katrina and Hurricane Sandy.

    8. marmar on January 19th, 2013 2:57 pm

      The problem is that we can no longer look at a problem objectively. So finding solutions is becoming much more complex. Take a problem like “Mass shootings in public places,” be it schools, malls, movie theaters wherever. Instead of looking for a reasonable solution everyone gets on their own personal agenda wagon (Republican vs. Democrat). Reasonably, can we really put armed guards in every public place? That would be somewhat lubricious in a Mall, a shooter with an assault weapon can kill many before the guards would even get to them. However, I am not saying not to have them. Can we not have stricter gun control enforcement to try to keep assault weapons out of the hands of potential killers? If we are looking for solutions to problems than I think we can reasonably find them. But, if we are looking to be right about our political agenda than all objectivity goes out the window. Hope we can reach that pinnacle someday!!!
      SM: I would concur that a reasonable approach is needed; however, banning so-called assault weapons is not reasonable to stop violence. Maybe metal detectors are needed? Maybe conceal permits should be required in all states. The point being is that once you make an area a gun-free zone, you make it a target for the bad guys and the crazies. No one puts a sign in front of their home that says, this home has no guns and is not protected by ADT. There is a reason for this, its not reasonable.

      Reasonable would also be to make gun laws more strict and actually enforced. Not plead down by lazy DA’s.

      Criminals will get guns to kill no matter what law is passed. By definition, criminals do not follow the law. Who really thinks that less people would have been killed by an AR-15 with a 30 round magazine or a .44 caliber hand gun with 3-10 round magazines?

      The answer is not a ban on guns, the answer is to allow the better defense of innocents, stricter adherence to crimes with guns, making all children safer in schools.

    9. Super dave on January 20th, 2013 11:51 am

      Ok, for you uneducated Obama slaves. This is just the first step in total firearm confiscation. Remember China, the country that obama has pawned our lives to .? Wants us unarmed and has said so just a few short weeks ago.
      You obama slaves have sold the lives of your children to the democrat communists. You have no morals, you just obey the democrat plantation masters as you do their dirty work for them. I am no republican, but will never ever sell my life to a democrat.

    Leave a Reply

    Support Scared Monkeys! make a donation.

    • NEWS (breaking news alerts or news tips)
    • Red (comments)
    • Dugga (technical issues)
    • Dana (radio show comments)
    • Klaasend (blog and forum issues)
    E-mail It