If the NRA ad in question showed pictures of the President's girls or even mentioned them by name, I might have a problem with it. But introducing the CONCEPT that a President whose children have 24/hr armed protection opposed protection of layman's children in schools is more than valid. The ad never even specifies what sex the "kids" are nor does it even say how many "kids" there are...and actually ends with a reference to ALL the kids of Congress.
A perfect example of the liberal manufactured rage we talk about so often came from Philadelphia's Mayor Nutter who called the ad, "reprehensible, disgusting, and outside the bounds of human dignity." Really? Like I said, the ad never names them, doesn't show their pictures or allude to which school they attend. So, "outside the bounds of human dignity," Mayor Nutter? How about having firemen in Philly working for 3 years with no contract? That's a bit more reprehensible, wouldn't you say?
But, what about this:
"Flanked by four children from across the country, President Obama today unveiled a sweeping plan to curb gun violence in America through an extensive package of legislation and executive actions not seen since the 1960s." (source)
It's okay to use real, live children to push an agenda, but not to use an idea of "kids" to push back against it?
There is an interesting petition currently on the WHITEHOUSE.GOV website that is up to 25,000+ signatures:
Eliminate armed guards for the President, Vice-President, and their families, and establish Gun Free Zones around them
"Gun Free Zones are supposed to protect our children, and some politicians wish to strip us of our right to keep and bear arms. Those same politicians and their families are currently under the protection of armed Secret Service agents. If Gun Free Zones are sufficient protection for our children, then Gun Free Zones should be good enough for politicians."