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

[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]

Originally Posted by orangeblueorangeblue

Sure, let's put armed guards everywhere!

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

[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]

Originally Posted by altalias

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]

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.

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/defa..._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]

Originally Posted by malligator

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.

Originally Posted by DaveFla

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

And you missed the point entirely.

[108]

Originally Posted by 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?

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]

Originally Posted by 108

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]

Originally Posted by 1329gator

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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

[ChartsandGrafs]

Originally Posted by rivergator

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by baygator1

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?