To the editor:
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 NRA ran a YouTube ad 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 the very same threat?
The NRA and its members were in no way attacking the first daughters, as alleged by the media and in a letter in Thursday’s Times. The opposite is true.
They applaud armed protection for the first family. They just want an answer from the anti-gun movement to an inconvenient question: Why are armed guards the right answer for his kids and not for ours, if we are now worried about the same violence being perpetrated upon that which is most precious to us?
Why is it different? Is this the same double standard that our elected officials enjoy, like having the best pensions and health care?