Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

1 Bump

What do you think about Chris Christie speaking out against the NRA ad? Do you think the President's children should be off limits? I do and I think the NRA is wrong.

Chris Christie turns his wrath on NRA for ad involving Obama daughters

1 day ago

The NRA pulled no punches in its new ad attacking President Obama for attempting to impose stricter gun control measures, calling Obama an "elitist hypocrite" because his daughters attend a school with armed guards. The White House pushed back against the ad, and on Thursday, POTUS' most unlikely political BFF, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie — never shy about speaking his mind — came out in support of his pal. Christie didn't pull any punches either, pointing out that being the daughters of a president means a security detail is a requirement. Christie slammed the NRA for politicizing children to advance an argument, calling it "reprehensible." [Source]


Asked by booklover545 at 10:06 PM on Jan. 19, 2013 in Politics & Current Events

Level 38 (104,764 Credits)
This question is closed.
Answers (13)
  • I think it's ridiculous to compare the President's children to the children of us "normal folk". It goes without saying that his children could be and probably are targets. It makes sense that they would be carefully guarded.

    Answer by DusterMommy at 5:54 AM on Jan. 20, 2013

  • I don't think anything in particular about what Christie said about the NRA ad. I think he is a pragmatic politician.

    That said, I don't have a problem with the ad since what they stated was factually true and had little to do with POTUS's children but rather with the kind of security that is available to them and not the rest of us. I didn't see it as an attack on his children, but rather the hypocrisy of some of the anti-gun crowd.


    Answer by QuinnMae at 11:44 PM on Jan. 19, 2013

  • While any president's children need extra protection, the school they go to has armed guards regardless. Those armed guards are not there for his children only, they are there for the entire school. This is what is hypocritical. These crazy mass shooters don't want to go up against opposing guns, they want easy targets, which is why it makes sense to have armed guards in all schools, not just a select few. This is why cops are armed! Shootings stop when the good guys show up with guns.

    Answer by HHx5 at 11:29 AM on Jan. 20, 2013

  • I don't think anyone is saying that the president's children should NOT be protected by armed guards. I think what the issue is at hand and what the NRA is saying is that, considering the current circumstances of the various shootings that have happened, what is wrong with having armed guards at the schools to protect all kids.  Why has the president not offered and suggested having armed guards, let say the national guard at the public schools around the country?  When his kids have armed guards.  WHY is it OK for HIS kids to have armed guards and our kids to not?  If his focus is to protect the kids.  Instead he goes to stronger gun control and banning of certain guns.  Criminals will obtain guns regardless of the laws.  Liquor was outlawed at one time and that didn't stop liquor from coming into the country and making millions for criminals.


    Answer by Anonymous at 3:47 PM on Jan. 20, 2013

  • I think you first have to come to the table with clean hands before you have a right to bitch about it. I see some of the same people complaining that had no problem when it was Sarah Palin's kids.

    The president's kids are no more important than anyone else's kids. They bleed red just like mine. They are just as loved...they deserve the same chance at the future. If your kids aren't just as important then maybe you need to take a closer look at yourself as a parent.

    FTR....I think people are making too much out of the ad.

    Answer by yourspecialkid at 3:54 PM on Jan. 20, 2013

  • The NRA does not mention his children by name nor show their photos. They are merely making a point that there should be no difference in children. I agree that the Presidents children should have Secret Service but the armed guards at the school???Why them and not other schools as well?

    I personally think children should be off limits but they aren't. Remember Sara Palins daughter? How about Bushes daughters getting drunk? Chelsa Clinton was picked on for being homely in the White House and now look at her, She's a beautiful young lady.

    Answer by baconbits at 4:24 PM on Jan. 21, 2013

  • Yeah I think any ones kids should be hands off but he used kids when he signed his excutive order and in his political ads politicians use peoples families all the time. So you can see both sides. Should they have done it, no but it's fair game when it comes to politics...they are dirty.

    Answer by lambdarose at 11:20 PM on Jan. 19, 2013

  • Chris Christie speaks his mind...he doesn't just go one sided. He is a big advocate for his party however but knows that doing the right thing is not always popular.

    Answer by lambdarose at 11:21 PM on Jan. 19, 2013

  • I think it's ridiculous to compare the President's children to the children of us "normal folk". It goes without saying that his children could be and probably are targets. It makes sense that they would be carefully guarded.

    And his children have Secret Service protection. The 11 armed guards in their school are there ALL the time, not just when his kids are there and they weren't hired because his kids go there. That is part of the perks of that particular school. The NRA is highlighting that while he is against putting armed guards in all schools, he has no problem sending his kids to one that has them.

    Answer by DSamuels at 4:24 PM on Jan. 21, 2013

  • I agree with the ad. The potus is a hypocrite. Why should his children be protected and not mine? It's not attacking his children but its calling into question the type of security his children get while ours are neglected.

    Answer by BeautyGuru at 2:09 PM on Jan. 20, 2013