So Obama can have armed guards for his kids but wants to take ours away.

[dadx4]

Why does this not suprise me one bit.

Hypocrit much? (http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/nra-hits-obama-over-hypocrisy-armed-guards-daughters-012508976--politics.html)

In a sign of how brutal, emotional and deeply personal the coming battle over gun violence is likely to be, the National Rifle Association on Tuesday accused President Barack Obama of hypocrisy for having Secret Service protect his daughters even as he opposes the group's call for armed guards in schools.

[rivergator]

When did Obama take your kids armed guards away?

[dadx4]

You completely missed the point River.

[rivergator]

You completely missed the point River.

so explain how Obama is taking away your kids armed guards. Do they have them now?

[rivergator]

By the way, here's Joe Scarborough's response to the NRA ad:

Scarborough, who as a Congressman was a strong supporter of the NRA, responded to the ad, asking "what's wrong with these people?" He continued, pointing out that once Obama decided to run for president, his children "have targets on their backs." Scarborough also said that the NRA is now a "fringe organization with millions of mainstream members." He concluded by saying the ad was "frightening and over the line."

link (http://mediamatters.org/blog/2013/01/16/scarborough-on-new-nra-ad-politicizing-protecti/192265)

[orangeblueorangeblue]

I don't follow the OP either.

Nor am I interested in a police state.

[exiledgator]

Obama can have Air Force One, but he won't let me have it. What a d!<k.

[rivergator]

I'm sure Dad will come back momentarily with a cogent and well-thought-out explanation of how Obama is removing the armed guards from the schools where Dad's kids go. I can't imagine that he was simply parroting the NRA ad without giving it any real thought ...

[wgbgator]

Look, people are always trying to kill me, and my posse. Don't take away my armed guard, Obama! Tiny needs work.

[1329gator]

I'm all about the 2nd Amendment...but the NRA is dead wrong on this one. President Obama is the leader of the free world- like it or not, and his children should be protected at all costs...imagine the chaos if his children were abducted or worse. He commands that respect just by holding the office.

[rivergator]

I'm all about the 2nd Amendment...but the NRA is dead wrong on this one. President Obama is the leader of the free world- like it or not, and his children should be protected at all costs...imagine the chaos if his children were abducted or worse. He commands that respect just by holding the office.

It's hard to imagine anyone but the extremely oblivious Obama-haters would not realize that. The NRA has targeted this ad toward a very select group, I think. And most people will see its offensive ridiculousness.

[malligator]

NRA's campaign aside, I guess I still don't understand why armed guards in schools is such a ridiculous idea? I get that some will agree and some will disagree, but I don't get the overwhelming mockery of the idea.

Confiscating tweezers and bic razors at TSA checkpoints makes us safer, but armed guards in schools won't?

[Tasselhoff]

I thought the real issue was that Obama does not believe there whould be armed guards at public schools.
I get the need for armed guards for HIS children and would not argue that they should not be guarded. But my children are precious to me and I believe they have every right to be fully protected as well.

The NRA has swung too far (much too far) to the right. However, I see some middle ground from where the Administration has stood and where the NRA is.

AS for taking our guns.....not happeneing. Neer thought it would and do not see it happening.

If the Administration wants to talk about the evils of guns and why there shouldn't be armed guards in schools....then I can see some hypocrisy.

[g8trjax]

So it's now considered ridiculous for us peasant's children to have similar protections as the king's already have?

[HALLGATOR]

Where are my Secret Service guards? After all Obama has them.

[rivergator]

I'm sure Dad will come back momentarily with a cogent and well-thought-out explanation of how Obama is removing the armed guards from the schools where Dad's kids go. I can't imagine that he was simply parroting the NRA ad without giving it any real thought ...

OK, I'm man enough to admit I was wrong about him explaining ...

I think it also makes it clear who the NRA ad is targeted to. It's not those are actually going to think about whether the president's children need more protection than normal kids. It's not those who are going to think about whether it's really Obama who decides if local, public schools will have armed guards or not.
It's just those who throw out the kneejerk reaction against Obam.

[orangeblueorangeblue]

NRA's campaign aside, I guess I still don't understand why armed guards in schools is such a ridiculous idea? I get that some will agree and some will disagree, but I don't get the overwhelming mockery of the idea.

Confiscating tweezers and bic razors at TSA checkpoints makes us safer, but armed guards in schools won't?

Sure, let's put armed guards everywhere!

[g8trjax]

Just reading the article, it indicates Obama's disagreement with any armed personnel at schools.

[malligator]

Sure, let's put armed guards everywhere!

There already are, as long as the 2nd Amendment stands.

[orangeblueorangeblue]

Not exactly.

[malligator]

If you say so.

[orangeblueorangeblue]

There's a difference between an official, designated guard and people who may or may not have guns.

[malligator]

You're not seeing the forest for the trees, I'm afraid.

[DaveFla]

Sure, let's put armed guards everywhere!

Yes, because its obvious that's what the poster intended... :rolleyes:

[altalias]

1. It has been pointed out that the private schools where the children of the Washington elite attend schools have armed guards. I assume that Mr. Obama's children attend one of those schools.

2. Some students who are not the children of the POTUS also attend these schools.

3. So it acceptable to have armed protection if you are elite and can afford to pay someone else to do it.

4. If you are not elite and cannot afford paid protection, pray. It may not help in the case of an actual attack but may make you feel better about you and your children being vulnerable.

It acceptable that the rich have protection but if you common men start getting protection well just look at all the bad things that are happening.

This is the same logic they use for energy. It is acceptable for Al Gore etc. to drive a SUV but if EVERYBODY can drive one it destroys the planet. You should ride the bus so that the planet can heal. If only the rich can drive nice cars the planet can deal with that.

Same logic for health care. The middle class can't have access to top flight health care it is too expensive. We need to lower the middle, put everyone but the elite on a government program, so that is "fairer".

Why a working class person, not in a top flight union, votes democrat escapes me. Well for that matter why they would vote Republican escapes me, although pubs don't seem as openly hostile to middle class interests.

[fredsanford]

Why a working class person, not in a top flight union, votes democrat escapes me. Well for that matter why they would vote Republican escapes me, although pubs don't seem as openly hostile to middle class interests.

What???

If the corporatist GOP ever gets full control of this country, they will finish the job they started of moving every middle class job in this country to the middle east so that their elitist CEOs can earn $20M/yr. instead of $2M/yr. like they used to.

[wargunfan]

[QUOTE=rivergator;6321471]By the way, here's Joe Scarborough's response to the NRA ad:



Joe Scarborough: R-I-N-O

Joe has been infected with MSNBC-itus

[rivergator]

1. It has been pointed out that the private schools where the children of the Washington elite attend schools have armed guards. I assume that Mr. Obama's children attend one of those schools.

2. Some students who are not the children of the POTUS also attend these schools.

3. So it acceptable to have armed protection if you are elite and can afford to pay someone else to do it.

4. If you are not elite and cannot afford paid protection, pray. It may not help in the case of an actual attack but may make you feel better about you and your children being vulnerable.

It acceptable that the rich have protection but if you common men start getting protection well just look at all the bad things that are happening.

This is the same logic they use for energy. It is acceptable for Al Gore etc. to drive a SUV but if EVERYBODY can drive one it destroys the planet. You should ride the bus so that the planet can heal. If only the rich can drive nice cars the planet can deal with that.

Same logic for health care. The middle class can't have access to top flight health care it is too expensive. We need to lower the middle, put everyone but the elite on a government program, so that is "fairer".

Why a working class person, not in a top flight union, votes democrat escapes me. Well for that matter why they would vote Republican escapes me, although pubs don't seem as openly hostile to middle class interests.

So you want the government to provide every bit as much security for you as the wealthy pay for themselves? And you think if you vote Republican rather than Democratic, the govt will give you all that?
Can't make this stuff up, folks.

[wgbgator]

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/docs/wh_now_is_the_time_full.pdf

This plan says that the administration wants more police officers in schools, that's their stated position. What does the NRA mean by "armed guards" - non police men with guns or secret service members?

[orangeblueorangeblue]

You're not seeing the forest for the trees, I'm afraid.

If you supported people bringing guns to the airport or to elementary schools this would be relevant.

Yes, because its obvious that's what the poster intended... :rolleyes:

And you missed the point entirely.

[108]

NRA's campaign aside, I guess I still don't understand why armed guards in schools is such a ridiculous idea? I get that some will agree and some will disagree, but I don't get the overwhelming mockery of the idea.

Confiscating tweezers and bic razors at TSA checkpoints makes us safer, but armed guards in schools won't?

do you remember the shooting in NYC over the summer where 11 people were injured, all by stray bullets from cops who were trying to shoot a suspect?

now imagine a little kids head in the way

[Lawdog88]

do you remember the shooting in NYC over the summer where 11 people were injured, all by stray bullets from cops who were trying to shoot a suspect?

now imagine a little kids head in the way


So exempt NYC. They don't like guns anyway, and like you said, they don't seem to know how to use them.

[wargunfan]

I want Obama to say the following: "I understand that the world we live in is dangerous for our children. My children attend a school which is protected by armed guards with assault type weapons. I understand that many of you want this same level of protection for your children. You have my endorsement to enact, through your local school board and law enforcement authorities, a level of protection for school children which is legal in your state and which you feel appropriate to your locality. I promise you that your government will work to insure that persons who are shown to be mentally unstable will not have access to firearms. Thank you and good night."

That simple statement would buy Obama more good will than all the money spent on campaign ads.
But as is predictable with this president he has demagogued the issue by imperial fiat better known as executive orders.
As always Obama works to divide us and politicize a national problem.
Dianne Feinstein can take her gun control bill and line the bottom of her bird cage. It will be more useful there.

[ChartsandGrafs]

President Obama is the leader of the free world...

LOL, "free world".

You've got to laugh at people who still think they are "free".

[Dreamliner]

The White House is characterizing the NRA's add as 'cowardly.'

I'm not an NRA member, but I hope the NRA punches back twice as hard.

[rivergator]

The White House is characterizing the NRA's add as 'cowardly.'

I'm not an NRA member, but I hope the NRA punches back twice as hard.

The White House statement:

The White House attacked the National Rifle Association on Wednesday for an ad that mentioned President Obama's daughters, calling it "repugnant and cowardly."

"Most Americans agree that a president's children should not be used as pawns in a political fight," said White House spokesman Jay Carney.

The Obama spokesman added: "But to go so far as to make the safety of the president's children the subject of an attack ad is repugnant and cowardly."

[exiledgator]

The White House is characterizing the NRA's add as 'cowardly.'

I'm not an NRA member, but I hope the NRA punches back twice as hard.

"I'm rubber, you're glue"? That kinda thing?

[ChartsandGrafs]

The White House statement:

Most Americans agree that a president's children should not be used as pawns in a political fight," said White House spokesman Jay Carney.


Wait a minute. Isn't this the same president who uses foreign children as "pawns in a political fight" every time he bombs and murders them with his fleet of terror drones?

[baygator1]

I'm all about the 2nd Amendment...but the NRA is dead wrong on this one. President Obama is the leader of the free world- like it or not, and his children should be protected at all costs...imagine the chaos if his children were abducted or worse. He commands that respect just by holding the office.

Of course they should. But, that doesn't mean that similar protections aren't appropriate or warranted for my children. And I think that is the point the NRA is trying to make. Security for all of our children is important, not just politicians.

[rivergator]

Of course they should. But, that doesn't mean that similar protections aren't appropriate or warranted for my children. And I think that is the point the NRA is trying to make. Security for all of our children is important, not just politicians.

So you believe the federal govt should supply the same security for all of us that rich people pay for themselves? School guards, personal bodyguards, security guards at each of our homes?

You figure your kids should have the same Secret Service protection that Obama's children have?

[baygator1]

So you believe the federal govt should supply the same security for all of us that rich people pay for themselves? School guards, personal bodyguards, security guards at each of our homes?

You figure your kids should have the same Secret Service protection that Obama's children have?

Why stop at health insurance?

And please stop with the utter nonsense of secret service protection. You know I wasn't talking about that. If children attending public schools are going to be targeted, the folks that manage public schools need to mitigate that risk as strenuously as possible.

My wife and I are the security/body guards for our kids when they aren't at school. Even grandma has a concealed carry permit.

[g8trjax]

Some are having a problem with similar and same.

[g8orbill]

great adv by the NRA

loved it

[108]

this notion that if we only had more guns we would be safer is ludicrous

we have the most guns on the planet, 300 million some...if the above were true, the US would be the safest place on the planet

[108]

great adv by the NRA

loved it

if you like to compare apples and oranges

[ChartsandGrafs]

this notion that if we only had more guns we would be safer is ludicrous



Yes, just as silly as the notion that we can trust our government to never become tyrannical.

[108]

Yes, just as silly as the notion that we can trust our government to never become tyrannical.

and this notion that we can defend ourselves against the US military with some assault guns if this paranoid fantasy ever happens

[ChartsandGrafs]

and this notion that we can defend ourselves against the US military with some assault guns if this paranoid fantasy ever happens

Why not, exactly? It worked for the rebels in Afghanistan, didn't it?

Why are you so paranoid about the American people having "assault" rifles?

[DaveFla]

If you supported people bringing guns to the airport or to elementary schools this would be relevant.



And you missed the point entirely.

No, I really didn't.

[108]

Why not, exactly? It worked for the rebels in Afghanistan, didn't it?

Why are you so paranoid about the American people having "assault" rifles?

sigh

despite the false equivalency with Afghan Rebels, you really believe that large swaths of Americans will be fighting American troops?

im not paranoid about people owning assault rifles, but they are unnecessary in my opinion to protect oneself...but according to you, they are the only thing separating you and I from being taken out

[VAg8r1]

great adv by the NRA

loved it
It was a rather entertaining ad, could have passed for SNL satire. While the true believers probably loved it if the NRA actually thinks that it will influence anyone who is even remotely undecided, their level of self-delusion is on par with the righties who were expecting a Romney landslide victory back in November.

[ChartsandGrafs]

sigh

despite the false equivalency with Afghan Rebels, you really believe that large swaths of Americans will be fighting American troops?

What's false about it and why wouldn't Americans fight American troops?

im not paranoid about people owning assault rifles, but they are unnecessary in my opinion to protect oneself...but according to you, they are the only thing separating you and I from being taken out

Ah, so you want to determine what's necessary and unnecessary for people? Very well.

Is it necessary for you to own a TV? Is it necessary for you to eat chocolate? Is it necessary for you to take vacations? Is it necessary for you to attend Gator games?

If not, we should probably have the government pass legislation restricting access to these things, right? None of them are necessary, after all.

[g8orbill]

108- you would probably be the first one whining for someone with a gun to protect you in any type of attack

and I do not own an assault rifle nor do I intend to buy one-but I have zero problem with other people owning them

[malligator]

this notion that if we only had more guns we would be safer is ludicrous

we have the most guns on the planet, 300 million some...if the above were true, the US would be the safest place on the planet

300 million guns. Just imagine what the US would be like if guns actually killed people instead of murderers. I know...lets outlaw murder. Oh, wait...

[g8orbill]

libs think they can just legislate everything problem away

[orangeblueorangeblue]

No, I really didn't.

Your post indicates otherwise. The overall message of absolute security versus absolute liberty should have been pretty evident. Hopefully you're there now, though.

[rivergator]

libs think they can just legislate everything problem away

you realize that this thread is about conservatives claiming that all American kids should get the same protection that Obama's kids get, right? that the government should provide it.
I'm pretty sure that means it's the conservatives who are calling for far more government action.

[surfn1080]

I think the point is he wants to take guns away but uses them to protect himself and his family. I don't think arm guards was really the main point of it.

[rivergator]

I think the point is he wants to take guns away but uses them to protect himself and his family. I don't think arm guards was really the main point of it.

So we have an ad claiming that Obama's kids are protected by armed guards ... and a thread complaining about Obama's kids having armed guards ...but the point is not about armed guards?
Did you watch the ad or read the thread?

[LittleBlueLW]

Let the riverdance begin!

[ChartsandGrafs]

Let the riverdance begin!

http://simian-radiance.com/image/Animated-gif-River-Dance-chimps-moving-picture.gif

[surfn1080]

So we have an ad claiming that Obama's kids are protected by armed guards ... and a thread complaining about Obama's kids having armed guards ...but the point is not about armed guards?
Did you watch the ad or read the thread?

Yes i did. Again it's the fact they are "armed" and not the fact that they have guards. I don't expect a lib to look 10 feet in front of them.

"We have to pass it to see what's in it"

[rivergator]

Risking the ire of the conservative base of his party yet again, Christie called the recent NRA ad calling President Obama an “elitist hypocrite” because his daughters have armed guards at school “reprehensible.”

“To talk about the president’s children or any public officer’s children who have, not by their own choice, but by requirement to have protection and to use that somehow to try to make a poetical point I think is reprehensible,” Christie said.

link (http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2013/01/chris-christie-nra-reprehensible.php?ref=fpa)

[tec68]

:grin::yes::joecool:

2452

[gatordavisl]

Of course they should. But, that doesn't mean that similar protections aren't appropriate or warranted for my children. You believe it's practical and necessary (forget logical, because there's no chance of that) for your children to merit the same protection as the children of the President of the United States?

[gatordavisl]

this notion that if we only had more guns we would be safer is ludicrous

we have the most guns on the planet, 300 million some...if the above were true, the US would be the safest place on the planet Good luck eliciting logic or rational sentiments. This place is like an unruly, mis-educated mob.

[gatordavisl]

Why not, exactly? It worked for the rebels in Afghanistan, didn't it? Yep. It worked for rebels because they had assault rifles . . . :lie:
http://rt.com/files/news/anti-air-missile-syria-rebels-568/image.jpg

[ChartsandGrafs]

Yep. It worked for rebels because they had assault rifles . . . :lie:
http://rt.com/files/news/anti-air-missile-syria-rebels-568/image.jpg

What are you saying here? That U.S. military casualties in Afghanistan are primarily attributable to Stinger missiles and their equivalent?

LOL.

[gatordavisl]

What are you saying here? That U.S. military casualties in Afghanistan are primarily attributable to Stinger missiles and their equivalent?

LOL. Of course not. Are you saying that Afgani militia have been successful solely using assault rifles? That's the assumption I responded to.

[oragator1]

This is pretty funny...The dems here are arguing for more limited government and the pubs are arguing for a more expansive one.

I love this place.

[ChartsandGrafs]

Of course not. Are you saying that Afgani militia have been successful solely using assault rifles? That's the assumption I responded to.

The bread and butter of the rebel resistance in Afghanistan is the "assault" rifle. Not Stingers. Not rocket propelled grenades. Not IEDs. Not landmines. Not suicide bombers. It's all about the "assault" rifles.

[HALLGATOR]

The bread and butter of the rebel resistance in Afghanistan is the "assault" rifle. Not Stingers. Not rocket propelled grenades. Not IEDs. Not landmines. Not suicide bombers. It's all about the "assault" rifles.


Doesn't look to be that way:




IEDs top cause of US Afghanistan casualties

"This year nearly 1,900 U.S. casualties have been caused by IEDs," Lt. Gen. Michael Barbero testified, and he was not optimistic about the future.

Pakistan is a major source of the problem, he said.

Evidence shows that most of the IEDs in Afghanistan are made with ammonium nitrate, the fertilizer used in the Oklahoma City bombing, Barbero said, and it is illegal to make or import ammonium nitrate into Afghanistan.

The United States has made several proposals to Pakistan to reduce the threat from fertilizer-based bombs, including putting die in all ammonium nitrate to make it easier for border patrol agents in Afghanistan to spot, or reformulating it so it could still feed crops but wouldn't be explosive.



Read more: http://www.wtae.com/news/national/IEDs-top-cause-of-US-Afghanistan-casualties/-/9681152/17768196/-/4wnogiz/-/index.html#ixzz2IIqd9q00

[helix139]

The bread and butter of the rebel resistance in Afghanistan is the "assault" rifle. Not Stingers. Not rocket propelled grenades. Not IEDs. Not landmines. Not suicide bombers. It's all about the "assault" rifles.

To be fair, theirs are select fire

[egator1245]

You believe it's practical and necessary (forget logical, because there's no chance of that) for your children to merit the same protection as the children of the President of the United States?

My children are as important and precious as the president,s children.

tell me your's aren't. Obama and his family are humans just like me, no better, no worse. Although he is president and has a more important job, he is not "worth" more than me or my family. Maybe you think he is?
























t

[HALLGATOR]

I don't know of anyone who would think Obama's children are more important than their very own. I also don't think that is the thrust of the discussion.

[ChartsandGrafs]

Doesn't look to be that way:

Well it is that way, regardless of military statistics and body counts.

Afghanistan rebels plant IEDs, but they fight with "assault" rifles.

[ChartsandGrafs]

To be fair, theirs are select fire

Selective fire "assault" rifles will flood across our borders too if and when the U.S. government goes tyrannical.

[HALLGATOR]

Well it is that way, regardless of military statistics and body counts.

Afghanistan rebels plant IEDs, but they fight with "assault" rifles.

So you know more than the military does about their own casualties?

[ChartsandGrafs]

So you know more than the military does about their own casualties?

Why, is that what I said?

[HALLGATOR]

Sure appeared to be. Unless of course you thing the news service just made up the story I posted.

[ChartsandGrafs]

Sure appeared to be. Unless of course you thing the news service just made up the story I posted.

Hmmm... You bring up an interesting point.

I wonder if the U.S. military is telling the truth about their own casualties. It's not out of the realm of possibility that the top brass at the Pentagon might want to blame a higher number of casualties on IEDs than traditional firefights.

[surfn1080]

This is pretty funny...The dems here are arguing for more limited government and the pubs are arguing for a more expansive one.

I love this place.

I think you are misunderstanding this thread.....

[rivergator]

I think you are misunderstanding this thread.....

Not really. The very basic claim is that the govt should provide to all public school students what the parents of expensive private schools pay for.

[helix139]

Selective fire "assault" rifles will flood across our borders too if and when the U.S. government goes tyrannical.

They won't have to flood across our borders. It is easy enough to machine a sear

[gatordavisl]

My children are as important and precious as the president,s children.

tell me your's aren't. Obama and his family are humans just like me, no better, no worse. Although he is president and has a more important job, he is not "worth" more than me or my family. Maybe you think he is? Interesting that you place the term "worth" in quotes. Show me where I wrote anything about "worth." The obvious difference is that the children of the president are at a much higher risk. Would you argue that your children face the same level of risk as the children of the President?

And thanks to Hall for bringing facts and logic to the discussion. Funny that some will argue their point even when the facts demonstrate that they are wrong.

[baygator1]

You believe it's practical and necessary (forget logical, because there's no chance of that) for your children to merit the same protection as the children of the President of the United States?

Please, if you can, read both of my posts and then try - as hard as it may be - to avoid quoting only a single part and extrapolating your own rubbish.

Of course I do not believe that my children merit "the same protection as the children of the President of the United States".

Our local school district has armed school resource officers in each high school and roving officers at middle schools. But there are no resource officers for elementary schools.

Local school districts have a very difficult balancing act to prioritize meaningful security measures within limited budgets. And they also need to be creative. One suggestion that came out of some local discussions is creating a screened, vetted and trained volunteer security force that could help provide additional security at local schools that would augment the deputies already deployed. Another was taking advantage of existing district employees who already have training/certification with firearms. I think there are a number of options that can be both meaningful and cost effective implemented at the local level.

And if the district needs more money, put it to the voters.

So, the question isn't, and never has been, about having the same protections as the President's children.

It's this: Why shouldn't we improve security at public schools to align with the most effective model?

[baygator1]

Not really. The very basic claim is that the govt should provide to all public school students what the parents of expensive private schools pay for.

I don't think that's really it. But that's the basic approach our government took with health insurance.

[gatordavisl]

Please, if you can, read both of my posts and then try - as hard as it may be - to avoid quoting only a single part and extrapolating your own rubbish. I quoted the portion of your post that cued my response and the response of others.

Of course I do not believe that my children merit "the same protection as the children of the President of the United States". It's not rubbish to extrapolate same from similar. Really not much of a stretch at all.

Local school districts have a very difficult balancing act to prioritize meaningful security measures within limited budgets. And they also need to be creative. One suggestion that came out of some local discussions is creating a screened, vetted and trained volunteer security force that could help provide additional security at local schools that would augment the deputies already deployed. You are correct that the budgets are limited. When it comes to security, however, volunteer security forces lack the qualifications necessary to maintain the safety of hundreds of children in a school setting. Not only would there not be enough such volunteers, they would create an additional security hazard.

[HALLGATOR]

Hmmm... You bring up an interesting point.

I wonder if the U.S. military is telling the truth about their own casualties. It's not out of the realm of possibility that the top brass at the Pentagon might want to blame a higher number of casualties on IEDs than traditional firefights.

What purpose do you think that would serve?

[RealGatorFan]

1. It has been pointed out that the private schools where the children of the Washington elite attend schools have armed guards. I assume that Mr. Obama's children attend one of those schools.

2. Some students who are not the children of the POTUS also attend these schools.

3. So it acceptable to have armed protection if you are elite and can afford to pay someone else to do it.

4. If you are not elite and cannot afford paid protection, pray. It may not help in the case of an actual attack but may make you feel better about you and your children being vulnerable.

It acceptable that the rich have protection but if you common men start getting protection well just look at all the bad things that are happening.

This is the same logic they use for energy. It is acceptable for Al Gore etc. to drive a SUV but if EVERYBODY can drive one it destroys the planet. You should ride the bus so that the planet can heal. If only the rich can drive nice cars the planet can deal with that.

Same logic for health care. The middle class can't have access to top flight health care it is too expensive. We need to lower the middle, put everyone but the elite on a government program, so that is "fairer".

Why a working class person, not in a top flight union, votes democrat escapes me. Well for that matter why they would vote Republican escapes me, although pubs don't seem as openly hostile to middle class interests.

This only makes sense considering the wealth. Who is more likely to be kidnapped, a child of Fortune 100 CEO, or a child from a middle-class family? Unless the child is being kidnapped by a family relative, chances are the wealthy kids are targets to their wealthy parents.

[ChartsandGrafs]

What purpose do you think that would serve?

Well, wars are big business now, and they are fought in such a way as to maximize profits for connected insiders in the MIC. Some of the most expensive and profitable equipment on a battlefield are armored vehicles, and a disproportionately high IED casualty rate speaks of a need for either more armored vehicles or better, reinforced armored vehicles. This could mean billions of dollars in contracts and kickbacks, as hundreds, perhaps even thousands of armored vehicles would either need to be replaced or overhauled.

We're talking big bucks.

[baygator1]

I quoted the portion of your post that cued my response and the response of others.

It's not rubbish to extrapolate same from similar. Really not much of a stretch at all.

You are correct that the budgets are limited. When it comes to security, however, volunteer security forces lack the qualifications necessary to maintain the safety of hundreds of children in a school setting. Not only would there not be enough such volunteers, they would create an additional security hazard.

Not true. There are plenty of qualified people who could make up a volunteer security contingent...retired law enforcement/military are prime candidates.

[gatordavisl]

Not true. There are plenty of qualified people who could make up a volunteer security contingent...retired law enforcement/military are prime candidates. There are more than 98,000 public schools in the U.S. But sure, there are plenty of qualified, folks available to voluntarily wander those halls with loaded guns. :lie:

[rivergator]

Oh,by the way. The NRA was wrong. The school doesn't have armed guards.

link (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/4-pinocchios-for-a-slashing-nra-ad-on-security-at-sidwell-friends-school/2013/01/16/95b2127a-6032-11e2-9940-6fc488f3fecd_blog.html)

[Minister_of_Information]

SS doesn't count.

[wargunfan]

The funding for armed security at elementary schools can easily be paid for by the parents of the children. It would amount to less per month per child than the cost of a large pizza. If parents are serious about school security they will not wait for another government handout. But like most things we will argue endlessly about minutiae and wait for the government to do it for us.

[baygator1]

There are more than 98,000 public schools in the U.S. But sure, there are plenty of qualified, folks available to voluntarily wander those halls with loaded guns. :lie:

I'm not sure if you're being intentionally obtuse or not. Many public schools, as I pointed out in a previous post, already have resource officers. So please stop with the ridiculous hyperbole.

Some citizens are already stepping up to the proverbial plate to help school districts:

http://www.weartv.com/newsroom/top_stories/videos/wear_north-florida-mom-pays-school-security-out-pocket-28401.shtml

Other districts are working on it:

http://www.tampabay.com/news/education/k12/article1269651.ece

From the article:
"We're looking for retired law enforcement," said David Friedberg, the district's chief of security. "We're looking for a military background. And we're looking for young and inexperienced as well, that we can train."

Look, armed security isn't the only solution to improving security at public schools. But many believe it's a step in the right direction. It wasn't too long ago when an armed security professional potentially prevented a much larger tragedy at a school board meeting.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/12/14/florida-school-board-shoo_n_796689.html

If it's important enough to citizens in cash-strapped districts put it to them and let the voters determine if they'll pay for it. If they want it, they'll pay for it. Or, they'll work with the district on creative ways to improve security in budget-friendly/neutral ways.

There is no lie in any of that.