NRA ad a mistake
The National Riffle Association’s “Stand and Fight” ad has drawn plenty of media attention. The ad criticizes President Barack Obama for being “skeptical” about armed guards in schools. Although the NRA is entitled to its opinion, this ad is tactless and illogical.
The ad compares Obama’s children, who are protected by armed guards at their school, to public school children, who are not. This is an irrational comparison. The president’s children are more likely to be specific targets of violence than other children. It is necessary for them to have special protection. In addition, it is overly personal to bring up Obama’s children in a political argument.
The ad also accuses Obama of being an “elitist hypocrite.” This name-calling is tasteless and meaningless. It is not hypocritical for the president to have additional security – it is necessary. Also, Obama has been called an elitist throughout his presidency, regardless of what he actually does.
For example, the ad precedes this attack by referring to Obama’s insistence that the rich pay their share of taxes. This statement is confusing because equal taxation seems to contradict elitist hypocrisy. Furthermore, taxation has nothing to do with school safety, so why is it included in the ad?
Lastly, the ad criticizes Obama’s skepticism without any reference to his action. In actuality, Obama’s proposal to increase school safety would place more resource officers in schools. This means that more schools would be protected by specially- trained police officers, which is as close to armed guards as public schools are going to get.
Therefore, the “Stand and Fight” ad was a rhetorical failure. It would be refreshing to hear a sound argument on school safety. Attacking the president and his family, however, is not the way to go about it.