School Obama's Daughters Attend Has 11 Armed Guards

Originally posted by sonnny1
Typical.

Those in Control, wanting more gun control, have private armies protecting them, and their families.

"I am consistently on record and will continue to be on record as opposing concealed carry." ~ Obama

"I am not in favor of concealed weapons. I think that creates a potential atmosphere where more innocent people could (get shot during) altercations." `Obama


I wonder if these "Guards" carry openly?

S&F

The guards carry openly. They have 9mm's openly displayed. Of course since Obama is black, YOU'D love his children to be unprotected.

Originally posted by Asktheanimals
I actually think the potential threat is somewhat overblown and I'm not really in to the idea of armed guards at any schools. School shooting are few and far between however if public consensus thinks otherwise then fine, I don't have an issue with it. I want to see our children protected.

Those who only respond that "of course they need protection, they're the President's daughters" didn't read the article. Armed guards are SOP for many of these private schools even if no politician's kids attend. We have them at airports, football games, banks, even convenience stores - but somehow it's a crazy idea to protect our kids at school?

Guns are no better and no worse than the person who holds them.
That's why we have extensive background checks.
It would certainly provide gainful employment for some laid off police officers and returning vets.

America also has thing about "equal protection under the law" and "all men are created equal". Maybe we're not all equal as adults but I think our children are deserving of that ideal.

edit on 26-12-2012 by Asktheanimals because: added comment

Am I the ONLY ONE who thinks we should have an Assualt Rifle BAN AND Armed Guards? And less violent games and movies (Hear me Quentin?)

Originally posted by bknapple32
reply to post by sonnny1

 

I dont know what to tell you. In reality, if your kid or my kid was kidnapped, its not a national security issue. Making them a million times less likely to be a target. Make no mistake, those kids are targets. Ours arent.

Doesnt mean that our kids dont need protection. But Im explaining why the status quo is the way it is.

When was the last time you heard of a terrorist or other organization abducting a political figures children, for financial, political, or terrorist purposes? I have never heard of 1 case. How many cases of kidnapping and murder have I heard about for the average joe's kids? Turn on the news, every day.

Well, I am not surprised by this at all. The upper classes will of course protect their young using all the resources afforded to them. They only care about kids when it is their kids.

I still think having armed guards at any school is not something to be taken lightly. I have been thinking that it would be better to focus on changing society as a whole so that there is little need to have kids go to a school which is guarded like a prison.

Does anyone stop and think about the kind of society America is becoming? Is it really a good thing to have schools on lock down with armed guards everyday? Is it really a good thing for there to be people so unhinged that they go off and kill 20 little kids?

American society needs to check itself big time.

In Japan for example, gun crime is really rare; even for the Yakuza. Yet, common citizens owning guns has never really been part of Japanese society so most people do not desire to have a gun; and the fact that Japan has some of the strictest gun laws in the world.

America has a history of private gun ownership pretty much from the day the nation was created. Guns are a part of the American tradition. Yet, American society is infected with a social sickness of hate and violence so deep that banning private gun ownership will really solve anything. Society needs to cure its social sickness before gun control can be taken seriously.

Originally posted by sensible1
The guards carry openly. They have 9mm's openly displayed. Of course since Obama is black, YOU'D love his children to be unprotected.

Isn't it a bit early to be playing the race card?

The fact of the matter is, that someone who wants to disarm his fellow citizens, has a different set of rules for his family. The lives of his children are not any more valuable than the lives of my children, yet he would disarm my family whilst surrounding his own family with armed guards.

I believe in leadership by example. If he believes that citizens do not need guns to protect themselves, then he should set the example by disarming the secret service. It is hypocrisy for any politician to talk about gun bans when he or she is surrounded by men with machine guns, true assault rifles, and sniper rifles. If I do not need a gun to protect myself and my family, then neither does he.

Originally posted by bknapple32
I went to one of those schools. Called Landon in Bethesda MD. The reason there are armed guards is because children of politicians and what not are kidnapper targets. The people of influence can be in quite a pickle if someone kidnapped their kid at school. Its really a national security issue.


Not a class issue, a national security issue

I think you missed the point.

Are guns a danger at school or not? well, our leaders who say they are have no problems with guns at THEIR kid's school. It's the typical Democrat meme of "It's different when I do it".

reply to post by Asktheanimals


I'm a fan of capitalism, but in certain things, we have gone too far in the US. Those who can afford things, get them, and those who don't...don't. Plain and simple. Does it make sense that if you earned $50M/year, your children's schools would have armed guards? Of course it does! Does it make sense that schools where the average household income is $50,000 would NOT pay for armed guards? To those who believe in extremist capitalism, yes, it does. $2T and counting in Iraqand Afghanistan, and the national guard - paid for by taxpayers, is busy in the middle-east. We can't "afford" to use them, well, guarding the nation.

I know people are so opposed to any aspect of Socialism these days that they want fire departments disbanded, and they want children to die from easily curable diseases if they cannot afford to pay the price-gouging hospital bills, so it is no surprise that people would be opposed to having guards at schools, when they can be better used (in the minds of these lunatics) in Afghanistan, but maybe it's time we stopped basing our policy on the thoughts of the least-intelligent among us, and started doing things which make sense, even if Sarah Palin would scream "Socialism" at the idea of protecting children in this way at taxpayer expense (remembering, all the while, she'll be encouraging more middle-east wars.)

Originally posted by sconner755
reply to post by bknapple32

 

So then it stands to reason that anybody who has a job that could affect national security, like a computer programmer for the Air Force, should have their children protected by armed guards too.

But then the children of garbage collectors shouldn't need armed guards to protect their kids. Some kids are worth protecting, some aren't.

I bet every parent thinks their own kids are worth protecting though.

jesus, where have you been?....of course the wealthy and powerful have armed guards...it's called the upper class, and you're not in it...there is no class warfare...why?....because the upper class already won.

It's the president of the united states, of course his daughter's school has armed guards at every corner.

Originally posted by NavyDoc

Originally posted by sensible1
The guards carry openly. They have 9mm's openly displayed. Of course since Obama is black, YOU'D love his children to be unprotected.

Isn't it a bit early to be playing the race card?

The fact of the matter is, that someone who wants to disarm his fellow citizens, has a different set of rules for his family. The lives of his children are not any more valuable than the lives of my children, yet he would disarm my family whilst surrounding his own family with armed guards.

I believe in leadership by example. If he believes that citizens do not need guns to protect themselves, then he should set the example by disarming the secret service. It is hypocrisy for any politician to talk about gun bans when he or she is surrounded by men with machine guns, true assault rifles, and sniper rifles. If I do not need a gun to protect myself and my family, then neither does he.

Wait a minute here...I agree with you that playing the race card is stupid and ridiculous, but since when is Obama trying to disarm citizens, and since when has anyone even talking about stricter controls on assault rifles discussed taking guns away from licensed armed guards? If anything, we should be demanding the federal government provide armed guards at every grade school, at least. A 0.1% reduction in spending on foreign wars should more than cover the expense.

Originally posted by dogstar23

Originally posted by NavyDoc

Originally posted by sensible1
The guards carry openly. They have 9mm's openly displayed. Of course since Obama is black, YOU'D love his children to be unprotected.

Isn't it a bit early to be playing the race card?

The fact of the matter is, that someone who wants to disarm his fellow citizens, has a different set of rules for his family. The lives of his children are not any more valuable than the lives of my children, yet he would disarm my family whilst surrounding his own family with armed guards.

I believe in leadership by example. If he believes that citizens do not need guns to protect themselves, then he should set the example by disarming the secret service. It is hypocrisy for any politician to talk about gun bans when he or she is surrounded by men with machine guns, true assault rifles, and sniper rifles. If I do not need a gun to protect myself and my family, then neither does he.

Wait a minute here...I agree with you that playing the race card is stupid and ridiculous, but since when is Obama trying to disarm citizens, and since when has anyone even talking about stricter controls on assault rifles discussed taking guns away from licensed armed guards? If anything, we should be demanding the federal government provide armed guards at every grade school, at least. A 0.1% reduction in spending on foreign wars should more than cover the expense.

The President as well as the usual suspects of Feinstein, Schumer, Boxer, McCarthy, etc are all talking about AWB, mag bans, and handgun bans. I have no problem with providing guards at schools and I have no problem with removing the "gun free school zone" nonsense and permit liscensed citizens carry on campus as well.

reply to post by Asktheanimals


I do not see the hypocracy in this. I do not see that this says their children are more valuable than mine it only says that the parents have more money to spend on their children than other people. It does not mean that they are more valuable. That is a complex of yours. Perhaps you think that people who have more money are better or something when in fact they are just richer and can buy better things. It does not make the person any more valuable that is just silly.

reply to post by Timing


They didn t have much of a choice. This was the school or it was public school and the Pres kids are not about to set foot in a public school in Washinton DC where everyone is armed and the sceanery changes from touristy to slum with just a few footsteps from the Capitol Building.

Any of you been to Washington? Yes its lovely right around the historical area but take a few steps away from the main streets and you are in the depths of society in slums encumbedred with poverty. Hell even their Mayor had a drug problem.
SO given the set up of Washington DC there really was no choice but the Sidwell School.

Originally posted by karen61560
reply to post by Asktheanimals

 

I do not see the hypocracy in this. I do not see that this says their children are more valuable than mine it only says that the parents have more money to spend on their children than other people. It does not mean that they are more valuable. That is a complex of yours. Perhaps you think that people who have more money are better or something when in fact they are just richer and can buy better things. It does not make the person any more valuable that is just silly.

I would humbly disagree. Whereas I have no problem with a wealthy person purchasing any and all security they feel they need or want, when those people are pushing for laws that disarm their fellow citizens, then it does fall into the realm of hypocrisy.

The 11 armed guards are not for protecting the Obamas, they are for protecting the other children who do not have Secret Service detail. There are 15 agents on the girls at all times. Every school room they are in is monitored. Every teacher they have is vetted. All of that is to protect the Obamas.

26 armed security in what amounts to a fortress of surveillance giving THEM the greatest education you can get in the United States.

Why aren't you giving all of that to YOUR kids? Why don't you love your kids as much as The Obamas love THEIR kids?

Originally posted by NavyDoc

Originally posted by karen61560
reply to post by Asktheanimals

 

I do not see the hypocracy in this. I do not see that this says their children are more valuable than mine it only says that the parents have more money to spend on their children than other people. It does not mean that they are more valuable. That is a complex of yours. Perhaps you think that people who have more money are better or something when in fact they are just richer and can buy better things. It does not make the person any more valuable that is just silly.

I would humbly disagree. Whereas I have no problem with a wealthy person purchasing any and all security they feel they need or want, when those people are pushing for laws that disarm their fellow citizens, then it does fall into the realm of hypocrisy.

Why does this fall into the realm of hypocrisy? People legally obtaining guns to protect themselves from others with guns trying to make all of the guns illegal so that no one needs them anymore.

I think it stands up on its own.

Originally posted by sonnny1

Originally posted by bknapple32


Not a class issue, a national security issue

I thought ALL children in America warrant the same kind of Protection?

Not quite as not all children face the same kind of threats. If a child has the potential to be a target ( like a presidents kids for instance) then that child will require more protection. My children were not on anyones hit list. They werent on TV for anyone to see their faces. They were not in danger as they were not a target so my kids did not need the same kind of protection as the presidents kids.
On another note though yes all children deserve to feel safe where ever they are and it is up to us to make sure that they really are safe. There will always be crazys out there but they will always be the minority too and most schools are totally safe just the way they are. The crazy people will find in no matter what as we've seen.

reply to post by sensible1


Was that necessary?

Is this a private school?

If that's the case, than I don't really see the issue. It's not like they are using tax payer money to fund these armed guards.

It's an entirely different circumstance. I can appreciate the hypocracy sure, but I bet you those armed guards were hired by the school, not President Obama.

~Tenth

Originally posted by AngryAlien

Originally posted by bknapple32
reply to post by sonnny1

 

I dont know what to tell you. In reality, if your kid or my kid was kidnapped, its not a national security issue. Making them a million times less likely to be a target. Make no mistake, those kids are targets. Ours arent.

Doesnt mean that our kids dont need protection. But Im explaining why the status quo is the way it is.

When was the last time you heard of a terrorist or other organization abducting a political figures children, for financial, political, or terrorist purposes? I have never heard of 1 case. How many cases of kidnapping and murder have I heard about for the average joe's kids? Turn on the news, every day.

But still none of them are a threat to national security and that is the real point here. Perhaps these kids are not getting kidnapped because of the security surrounding them? That could have a lot to do with it. If these kids were not protected the way that they are we certainly would hear about their children being kidnapped and held for ransom by some foreign terrorist. It would happen in a heartbeat if they were not so well protected. On the other hand no one is going after my kids they are not a target.