After its "train wreck" of a press conference, the National Rifle Association is taking heat for a commercial that mentions President Obama's daughters.

In response to the proposed gun control legislation, the ad accuses the president of protecting his own children but not the rest of the country:

"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 schools? 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."

White House spokesperson Jay Carney called the commercial "repugnant and cowardly." Other critics, such as Republican New Jersey Governor Chris Christie, called the tactic "reprehensible."

In response to the criticism, NRA spokesperson Andrew Arulanandam said, "The president and his family enjoy 24-hour-security from law enforcement at taxpayer expense, and this ad asks very real questions: If it's good enough for the president, why shouldn't it be good enough for the rest for us?"

The NRA also issued a statement, focusing on safety:

"Throughout its history, the National Rifle Association has led efforts to promote safety and responsible gun ownership. Keeping our children and society safe remains our top priority."

 Discussion Starters:

• What type of reasoning is the NRA using in its commercial? Do you find it fair, out of bounds, or something else?
  
• To what audiences would the NRA's ad appeal? Despite the criticism, how do you think these groups reacted?
  
• Read the NRA's statement. What do you consider the strongest and weakest arguments?