NRA attacks Sasha and Malia Obama

Here’s hoping that the gun violence prevention proposals coming out of Vice President Joe Biden’s task force are substantial. The American people deserve serious solutions on the issue of gun safety and it’s becoming more and more clear that now is the time to do it. Since the NRA has completely lost their minds.

Not only have they release a new game using human targets for practice, which is classy after the massacre of babies in Newtown, now they’ve gone after the First Daughters, Sasha and Malia Obama.


In the new ad, the NRA complains about the president’s daughters school having armed guards, “Are the president’s kids more important than yours? Then why is he skeptical about putting armed security in our schools when his kids are protected by armed guards at their school?” the NRA ad’s narration reads. “Mr. Obama demands the wealthy pay their fair share of taxes, but he’s just another elitist hypocrite when it comes to a fair share of security.”

Not only is the video offensive, it ignores the fact that young children going to school with armed guards isn’t necessarily awesome. Are we really at a point where sending your kids into a pseudo-war zone is the only available option? Not taking away easy access to Bushmasters? The NRA is protecting their profits and attacking the Obama girls as a distraction from their true motives.

Join the Conversation

  • unequivocal

    I’m not a fan of the NRA, but I think there’s some misinformation here. First of all, the game in the linked article didn’t use human targets, it used what the article described as “coffin-shaped targets” and what looked more like abstract semi-rectangular shapes than either humans or coffins.

    Secondly, it really seems like a stretch to describe the “Stand and Fight” ad as an attack against Sasha and Malia. It never mentions their names, nor does it say anything remotely negative about them; instead it calls out President Obama for hypocrisy.

    Again, I’m not agreeing with the NRA here, but they aren’t saying or doing the things described in this post.

    • http://feministing.com/members/gibby/ Nina

      I agree with the above comment. This post is totally misleading and blatantly false. If you’re going to call people out, at least do it based on facts and not what you wish was the reality.

  • http://feministing.com/members/gyunit/ galina

    Pretty sure it’s President Obama, since he won the election and all.

  • http://feministing.com/members/deirdreannb/ Deirdre

    Jesus Christ, I am so sick of the NRA. “Are THE PRESIDENT’S children more IMPORTANT than ours?” No, nobody is saying that. Are they more at risk of being attacked? Absolutely. When your parent is a leader of the free world, YES, you need higher security than Joe Schmo’s kid down the block. It is absolutely ludacris to even try to compare the two. It’s like saying, “Uh, The President has Secret Service. How come I don’t have a team of trained professionals guarding me at all times?” Cause you don’t face the same security threats as the leader of this nation, and neither do your kids. Fuck off.

  • http://feministing.com/members/complexmessiah/ Beck

    It feels disingenuous to call this an attack on Sasha and Malia, it makes no judgment call on them, their choices, their character, their actions.

    Instead, it is pointing out that there is a recognized, justified need for their protection…and that the way their father feels most comfortable carrying it out is by armed guards protecting them.

    Newtown has people afraid…the accelerating regularity of mass killings targeting ever more vulnerable segments of the population has people afraid…and these parents feel a recognized, justified need for their children’s protection…and they are curious why the solution which seems best for those with power isn’t worth it for them.

    It is not calling for a Secret Service detail of trained professionals to guard a child at all times…but it is asking, when the collective children of a community are all congregated in a location for a number of hours, that there be some on-site security with the training and tools to respond to an active shooter with a minimum of response time.

    While I think there are a host of institutional issues that can arise from such a policy…it seems much more rational to debate those than say that the desire for such protection is an attack on the people receiving it.

  • fyoumudflaps

    Who let the trolls out? Woof woof woof

    • unequivocal

      Ah, yes. Trolls.

      Troll (trōl) Noun

      Someone who disagrees with you on the internet.