Blazer Bob wrote: You are trying to strain a camel through the eye of a needle.
You are arguing that since the safety of the first children is a matter of national security they should be kept safer. Since they are safer being protected by guns and that affects national security it is ok that are children arn't protected by guns because they are not as important.
You might as well argue that the ''common man" is less entitled to an annual check up than the mayor.
Raees wrote:
Nobody that matters wrote: I have several very well to do friends. In the past there have been abduction attempts on their children. They make sure their kids are safe in schools, none of which are public schools.
Don't the children of private citizens deserve the chance to be safe as well?
It's not about safety. It's about national security.
A terrorist group could kidnap any president's children and use them to force the president into doing something that harms the U.S.
I wouldn't put it past a terrorist group to videotape cutting off appendages until the president agrees.
Any president's kids are a key to the president for a terrorist organization.
The NRA doesn't seem to get that.
Holy rubber dog crap. I'm with you Blazer. Again, keep bleating, your shepherds calling.
Pretty much if your not a politician, your children aren't entitled to the same kind of protection. Hell, the NRA was only talking about one or two armed personell in schools, but that's over the top I guess. These same tards that blast the NRA are the ones that love to constantly bring up Sandy Hook. It's pretty dumb.
Jekyll wrote: Pretty much if your not a politician, your children aren't entitled to the same kind of protection. Hell, the NRA was only talking about one or two armed personell in schools, but that's over the top I guess. These same tards that blast the NRA are the ones that love to constantly bring up Sandy Hook. It's pretty dumb.
Edit: And disgusting, but oh well.
We know the kids of politicians are much safer from maniacs than the average peasant, and I'd be willing to bet that most Hollywood celebs who preach anti-gun also have kids who are protected in some way by a better layer of armed security. But us 99%ers should be satisfied and feel safer because of new gun laws.
The left is angry because they are now being judged by the content of their character and not by the color of their skin.
Something the Dog Said wrote: The only argument that you have made why you "are unable to have" armed guards at a private school is that the President is able to afford to send his kids to a private school. You, however, are envious of his wealth, and seem to think that you are entitled to have the taxpayer foot the bill for a similar luxury.
But you are OK with mandating insurance companies(and their premium payers) provide you with free birth control, health insurance for your 26 year only son living at home out of work, etc.
And yet another made up fact by Fred to deflect from the thread.
"Remember to always be yourself. Unless you can be batman. Then always be batman." Unknown
LadyJazzer wrote: What part of "ALL PRESIDENTS AND THEIR CHILDREN GET SECRET SERVICE PROTECTION" do you not get?
And the sheep continue to bleat what the NRA tells them to....
Thanks NRA!! Jus' keep doin' what yer doin'....
Pathetic...
I have several very well to do friends. In the past there have been abduction attempts on their children. They make sure their kids are safe in schools, none of which are public schools.
Don't the children of private citizens deserve the chance to be safe as well?
Absolutely. That is why it is critical to get the protections proposed by the President enacted as soon as possible.
"Remember to always be yourself. Unless you can be batman. Then always be batman." Unknown
Something the Dog Said wrote: So it turns out the sleazy ad by the NRA and the responses here by the righties are yet again another lie. Sidwell schools have ZERO armed guards. They keep two unarmed security personnel at each of the schools, but no armed guards. But hey, why should conservatives actually tell the truth? Facts just keep getting in the way of their outrages.
Do you think maybe people are referring to the Secret Service details assigned to the president's kids? Or possibly the security details of other high profile students?
"Whatever you are, be a good one." ~ Abraham Lincoln
Nope, the NRA ad made it very clear that they were claiming that Sidwell had armed guards. Since the ad also referenced David Gregory's kids attending school there, and certainly Gregory is not entitled to SS protection, they were clearly lying. If your point was correct, then does the NRA mean that everyone should have SS protection.
Another lie by this sleazy ad, and by the posters here supporting it, is the claim that the President is against armed guards in schools. He has never stated that proposition, that is simply a lie. His statement was that armed guards are not the only solution to the problem.
No, this is purely out and out sleaze and lies.
"Remember to always be yourself. Unless you can be batman. Then always be batman." Unknown
Something the Dog Said wrote: Nope, the NRA ad made it very clear that they were claiming that Sidwell had armed guards.
Nope, everything I've seen talks about "armed guards" not "Sidwell employed armed guards", and the head of the NRA has said in various interviews that it refers to the Secret Service Detail.
OOps, I did just find one interview that stated it wasn't about the Secrect Service, it was about the school's security.
Seems like the ad was ambiguous enough that it could be taken multiple ways. It's just an open invitation to spin spin spin
"Whatever you are, be a good one." ~ Abraham Lincoln
