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

[ChartsandGrafs]

Originally Posted by HALLGATOR

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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

[rivergator]

Originally Posted by surfn1080

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]

Originally Posted by ChartsandGrafs

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]

Originally Posted by egator1245

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]

Originally Posted by gatordavisl

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]

Originally Posted by rivergator

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]

Originally Posted by baygator1

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.

Originally Posted by baygator1

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.

Originally Posted by baygator1

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]

Originally Posted by ChartsandGrafs

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by HALLGATOR

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]

Originally Posted by gatordavisl

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]

Originally Posted by baygator1

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.

[rivergator]

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

link

[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]

Originally Posted by gatordavisl

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.

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_s...et-28401.shtml

Other districts are working on it:

http://www.tampabay.com/news/educati...cle1269651.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/2010/1..._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.