School Obama's Daughters Attend Has 11 Armed Guards

Grandchildren, if any, get secret service protection also while the President/Grandfather is in office. David Eisenhower had one secret service guard (presumably armed) stationed outside his classroom in the 5th grade (Ft Leavenworth, KS)....according to his teacher. The protocol is probably for more protection now tho.

reply to post by Asktheanimals


Those poor children must be terrified.

No guns for anyone, unless they're for protecting the rich people.
go to hell

Originally posted by zonetripper2065
No guns for anyone, unless they're for protecting the rich people.

go to hell

edit on 25-12-2012 by zonetripper2065 because: (no reason given)

No one has ever said that. Angry much?

reply to post by bknapple32


Law makers, our president implies it, libs in general. More than a few people have said no guns, what they leave out is unless it's protecting them.

I want to see if I understand this whole situation correctly. Ok...

[color=skyblue]...So Obama and the other high-and-mighty wealthy privileged politicians who are anti-gun, are COMPLETELY FINE and HAPPILY ACCEPT armed guards in THEIR CHILDREN'S SCHOOLS for reasons such as[color=gold] preventing kidnapping and "national security" related issues etc, [color=skyblue]but at the SAME TIME, THESE SAME POLITICIANS ARE AGAINST ALLOWING ARMED GUARD in OUR CHILDREN'S schools [color=gold]to prevent MASS SHOOTINGS???

[color=skyblue]So its [color=gold]GOOD and RIGHTEOUS REASONING for THEIR CHILDREN [color=skyblue]to be protected via ARMED GUARDS with firearms in THEIR CHILDREN'S SCHOOLS, but all of a sudden its [color=gold]BAD, BAD, BAD, when its suggested as a solution for MASS SHOOTINGS IN OUR CHILDREN'S SCHOOL??!!

Am I understanding this correctly???

Because if I understand it correctly, I am witnessing the WORLDS MOST EXTREME CASE OF HYPOCRISY AND ABSURD THINKING EVER IN HISTORY!!!!!!!!!

That's where the organized crime bosses send their kids too. The President's daughters are learning valuable skills for the future. Kids of wealthy parents are treated like valuable property, more than gold. If they aren't spoiled rotten, how many of them are being forced to go to college and learn what their parents tell them to learn? Family businesses is where disgruntled dysfunctional leaders come from.

Just another institution.

We could federalize all the schools across the country, take them away from local taxation. Put armed teachers in classes. Call it a national defense agenda, because it is. Making our population smarter does pay back later on. We could make a national newspaper and give it to students to keep them all on the same page. Nationalize the homework schedule.

You know those guards are really there to keep the kids from running away. It must be horrible to be under a national microscope growing up. I'm surprised the tabloids don't have a journalist waiting every day for an event.

I dont know if it has been said, i wont read through this thread, but, nyc public schools have nypd officers as their guards, armed also.

It's already rumored that there's a group of people at the tippy-top that want to pare down the world's population. They're for the rich, because money equals power. The ones with money get to go to mega-safe places to keep them and theirs alive and thriving. To them, the people in the lower and middle classes are not people. They are statistics... useless consumers of "their" non-renewable resources. Of course they're not going to adhere to the "warm and fuzzy" universal sanctity of life.
The more money you have, the more valuable you are. That's the logic of the most powerful. I don't see what's so hard to understand about it.

reply to post by WaterBottle


Exactly and private schools tend to have higher graduation and success rates. But that isn't the point.

The fact remains that Obama and politicians kids go to schools with armed guards and when the NRA mentioned that there should be armed guards in all the schools the left balked at them like they were crazy.

The government could easily change this and provide funding to have one police officer in every school.

reply to post by DarKPenguiN


I believe the main point is that when it was suggested that armed security guards should be posted at all schools the gun control crowd balked at them like they were crazy.

When I was in school we had a school resource officer who was armed and it wasn't a big deal at all. I'm against privatized security myself because of the cost factor and the reasons you mentioned.

It would go a long way if the national media would quit using these tragedies to push their agenda. In most cases people like this are starved of attention and have some kind of mental issues and do these kinds of things for attention.

Yep Obama and other politicians get armed guards, get the best guns and the public is left blowing in the winds.

Yep it is hypocrisy always setting the laws of the land and never lives by them.

reply to post by neo96


Quiet Neo........

Don't point out the hypocrisy !

Especially on Christmas!

reply to post by oper8zhin

but at the SAME TIME, THESE SAME POLITICIANS ARE AGAINST ALLOWING ARMED GUARD in OUR CHILDREN'S schools to prevent MASS SHOOTINGS???

when did they say this? i thought biden was reporting back next month on possible actions to take?

Good for them.

Was this supposed to be compelling in some way?

Do you want 11 armed special forces in every school in our country?

I thought big government was bad..

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.

A number of people like that were killed a few years ago by a madman/possible-jihadist at an intersection in McLean.

With the school in question, it's children of people who have a job which is high profile enough to be a target of sophisticated criminality, organized terrorism or even international action. Barack Obama is one such person.

The North Korean secret service has a well known desire for , and success with, assassination of defectors or others who are on its enemies list.

The children of a former president of some banana republic might similarly be targets.

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

It has nothing to do with worth, but probability and access. The children aren't the target---the parents are.

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

They are. But they aren't specific targets.

Originally posted by oper8zhin
or=skyblue]So its [color=gold]GOOD and RIGHTEOUS REASONING for THEIR CHILDREN [color=skyblue]to be protected via ARMED GUARDS with firearms in THEIR CHILDREN'S SCHOOLS, but all of a sudden its [color=gold]BAD, BAD, BAD, when its suggested as a solution for MASS SHOOTINGS IN OUR CHILDREN'S SCHOOL??!!

Am I understanding this correctly???

You aren't thinking sufficiently about the problem, and your anger is in the way.

Mass shootings---with random victims---by suicidals with rifles and armor can't be easily stopped without security and construction equal to a base in Afghanistan, quite literally. 20 Marine guards, trenches, razor wire, alarms, body searches, etc. There was an armed guard at the school shootings in Columbine who fired his weapon at the shooters. Even then after many police arrived, they didn't enter for a long time.

The perpetrators of specific targeted action against children of prominent people aren't like that. The threat is different. Firstly, they aren't suicidal, and they have a specific goal. Security can definitely inhibit them.

They want to kidnap/threaten one specific child. Remember that many children at Sidwell's are likely to be born of foreign parents.

Even a jihadist with a suicide-homicide-vest isn't likely to be successful at getting one particular enemy's child.

Mass shootings come from young men with mental disturbances. You can't prevent these, they are facts of biology. Reduction of harm means firstly mental health treatment and ability to commit people, or restrict firearms to them. Also, requirements for storing firearms in the home and liability if they are used because of negligent safekeeping.

The money spent on armed guards in every elementary school in the nation could pay for lots of mental health treatment which would probably help many more people.

I don't know if this has ever been said in any of these threads covering this topic, but I find the notion of sending armed men in to guard a school to be a strange one to say the least.

What happens when the trained and armed guard flips out one day and decides to shoot the place up? I shudder at the thought.

Well I would think all POTUS kids should have armed guards at school. There are some sickos out there.

reply to post by Asktheanimals


I agree. You want to protect our schools and create jobs. Run psych evals on vets coming home and hire them to do the Guarding. We could even call them the Guard. Most of them would gladly do it and already have the training. Just run them through police training to keep them in shape and do regular psych evaluations just like the police. Most of these men and women have kids of there own and would gladly take a job that would be for protecting our schools. If its good for the Rich and the President it is good for us.