As the gun debate rages on, those pushing for gun regulation keep dodging the inconvenient questions while trying to portray those who oppose them as fringe lunatics who don’t care about kids.
The National Rifle Association ran an ad on YouTube questioning an obvious conflict. The discussion is about protecting children from armed attackers. We all respect that being the first family carries grave danger. So, if the president’s children are protected from such attack by armed guards, then why don’t our own children deserve the same protection from harm?
The NRA was in no way attacking the first daughters, as some alleged in the media. Quite the opposite, the organization applauds armed protection for the first family. The NRA just wants an answer from the anti-gun movement to an inconvenient question: Why are armed guards the right answer for President Obama’s kids and not for ours if we are now worried about the same violence being perpetrated upon that which is most precious to us?
Is this the same double standard by which our elected officials enjoy the best pensions and health care?