School Obama's Daughters Attend Has 11 Armed Guards

My concern over allowing armed guards, or arming teachers and principals, or allowing concealed-carry by anybody in a school is this: The person with the gun has to know how to use it, has to know when to use it, has to know how to react under heavy pressure, has to have real good aim (since the Newtown shooter wore body armor, it'd probably have taken a head shot to put him down), and most importantly -- has to have no reservations about taking a human life under these circumstances.

Everybody I know who owns guns claims that they can do all this, and it's not true. A couple of the vets I know could probably do it but one of them is so crazy I can't believe he's allowed to carry a handgun in the first place. But your average target-shooting civilian, with only minimal (i.e., non-military or police force) training, could wind up making a bad situation worse.

As for Congress being hypocrites -- did you know that whenever they pass a law restricting the rights of others, they always tack on a clause that exempts them from that law? They're beyond being hypocrites. In fact, they're so far beyond that that we need a new word for them.

Originally posted by Timing
reply to post by DarKPenguiN

 

No one is saying that that their children should run around unprotected because they are high value targets.

What we are saying is that if they aren't going to pay for the same protection that their kids get then they need to stop proposing legislation that restricts our rights to protect our kids.

The point is that they get up in front of the TV spouting off how guns are bad and proposing legislation that restricts our right to protect our kids, but yet send their kids to school with armed guards because trained armed guards have a better chance at thwarting any attempt to inflict harm to their kids while they are at school for political reasons.

That is what we are saying. Nice try at trying to twist the argument though.

I have been clear since my first post.

Who is denying protection for your kids? We have liaison officers in every school in out County and will soon have the right to carry a CCW on school grounds.

-So that is my point- Who is denying you anything? Write your Governor.

Originally posted by wolfbitch
My concern over allowing armed guards, or arming teachers and principals, or allowing concealed-carry by anybody in a school is this: The person with the gun has to know how to use it, has to know when to use it, has to know how to react under heavy pressure, has to have real good aim (since the Newtown shooter wore body armor, it'd probably have taken a head shot to put him down), and most importantly -- has to have no reservations about taking a human life under these circumstances.

Everybody I know who owns guns claims that they can do all this, and it's not true. A couple of the vets I know could probably do it but one of them is so crazy I can't believe he's allowed to carry a handgun in the first place. But your average target-shooting civilian, with only minimal (i.e., non-military or police force) training, could wind up making a bad situation worse.

As for Congress being hypocrites -- did you know that whenever they pass a law restricting the rights of others, they always tack on a clause that exempts them from that law? They're beyond being hypocrites. In fact, they're so far beyond that that we need a new word for them.

In Michigan the new CCW law (allowing carrying in school) requires a Training Coarse (quite extensive) from the Sheriffs Dept- Then if you pass you can carry... It wont be just "everyone".

-That said, Liaison officers are the answer- Not Private Security.

reply to post by wolfbitch


I agree with you and penguin. There has been a lot of chatter and uproar over the armed guard proposal but if you simply place a professional police officer in the school, as a liason or resource officer you essentially solve your problem. I support this 100%.

reply to post by wolfbitch


All of that has more to do with training than anything else. You can sign up for courses that simulate high stress situations to prepare you for those situations.

If we were to allow teachers to carry I would think it should coincide with a lock down procedure and should be used from a defensive stand point. As the teachers who do choose to carry don't engage the threat if they don't have too.

reply to post by DarKPenguiN


Have you not been paying attention to the news about wanting to strengthen gun control since this tragedy has happened?

All it would take is piece of legislation on the federal level to make all schools "gun free zones". At this point we don't know what kind of restrictions they are going to come up with beyond a ban on assault weapons.

Originally posted by kerazeesicko

What part about this don't you understand....he is the President of the USA..there are idiots out there that would take his children in hopes of using them as leverage for nefarious plot.

So his children have better odds of getting taken than yours do...that is a fact.

So there are idiots that might go to a school called Sandy Ridge.....no plot or leverage needed....

Originally posted by wolfbitch
My concern over allowing armed guards, or arming teachers and principals, or allowing concealed-carry by anybody in a school is this: The person with the gun has to know how to use it, has to know when to use it, has to know how to react under heavy pressure, has to have real good aim (since the Newtown shooter wore body armor, it'd probably have taken a head shot to put him down), and most importantly -- has to have no reservations about taking a human life under these circumstances.

how about this....

A guy walks into your school armed for bear and starts shooting.....use your gun....

You are also missing the MAIN point....if people knew there were guns at schools they would not go there in the first place. Newtown shooter would not have gone to a school since he would have known it would have been a shoot out...that is the MAIN point here.

Texas has CC in schools and no problems there...

Originally posted by DarKPenguiN


I can not see the logic many here have and am resigned to the fact they just hate Obama and anything he or his family does will be attacked.

WRONG.


This isn't about hatred. this is about Hypocrisy.

On Tuesday, the White House signaled in the boldest terms yet that the president and this administration is ready to act on the complex issue of gun control reform.

‘Sheriff’ Joe Biden and White House gun control

"Banning guns is an idea whose time has come." --U.S. Sen. Joseph Biden Associated Press 11/18/93

Don't worry. He only means American Citizens who don't have the "money" for private schools, or an armed team of guards to protect the wealthy political elites children........


This administrations "hypocrisy" knows no bounds. I would think the same if this was a Republican President, or even a Libertarian one. If you cant see the hypocrisy of having these armed guards, while promoting this type of rhetoric, I don't know what to tell you......

Originally posted by Xtrozero

Originally posted by kerazeesicko

What part about this don't you understand....he is the President of the USA..there are idiots out there that would take his children in hopes of using them as leverage for nefarious plot.

So his children have better odds of getting taken than yours do...that is a fact.

So there are idiots that might go to a school called Sandy Ridge.....no plot or leverage needed....

We already have Federal law of Gun free Zones- I had no idea but someone posted it in this thread. They are still calling our schools Gun free School zones (per the signs at the school) and will continue to.

Federal law is an interesting thing- There are quite a few my State does not follow.

That said- I do not think this is about gun control. My opinion is that they are using that as a "wedge" issue.. I could be mistaken but I do not buy that this about gun control.

Originally posted by sonnny1

Originally posted by DarKPenguiN


I can not see the logic many here have and am resigned to the fact they just hate Obama and anything he or his family does will be attacked.

WRONG.


This isn't about hatred. this is about Hypocrisy.

On Tuesday, the White House signaled in the boldest terms yet that the president and this administration is ready to act on the complex issue of gun control reform.

‘Sheriff’ Joe Biden and White House gun control

"Banning guns is an idea whose time has come." --U.S. Sen. Joseph Biden Associated Press 11/18/93

Don't worry. He only means American Citizens who don't have the "money" for private schools, or an armed team of guards to protect the wealthy political elites children........


This administrations "hypocrisy" knows no bounds. I would think the same if this was a Republican President, or even a Libertarian one. If you cant see the hypocrisy of having these armed guards, while promoting this type of rhetoric, I don't know what to tell you......

edit on 25-12-2012 by sonnny1 because: (no reason given)

When Biden said that there was an assault weapon ban in effect- There was no CCW in the State of Michigan (and many, manyu= others- not going to google it)
20 years later (as your quote is from 1993) we have no assault weapon ban and half a million CCW holders in Michigan alone (more nationwide than at any time in my life)- So 20 years later we have more lax gun laws...If its some "agenda" it is failing miserably.

reply to post by Asktheanimals


It seems sort of normal to me the Obama kids, etc are guarded. That quote said "Secret Service Protection," which to me is a whole lot better than the creepy cops I have in my area who would be taking the postion. I wouldn't trust them to guard my kids. But, I'm not a mother. And while considering paying for armed guards we should probably consider paying for their educations also. School funding is bogus these days and I see no point in kids being forced to go school(since i think it's the law to attend school/be home-schooled) where they need to be protected by armed guards to gain a virtually non-existant education.

reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus


The French had the right idea, cut there heads off.

Originally posted by bknapple32

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.

Of course every kid is worth protecting. Im not saying otherwise. But even those examples you gave.. arent public figures....

Thats the difference on the national security issue

tell me...how many of the kids who were shot recently were targeted because of their parent's status reguarding national security?

allowing teachers to carry concealed weapons doesn't even cost anything.

Originally posted by kerazeesicko

Originally posted by GeisterFahrer

Are his children "more valuable" than yours? Are we placing values on people and their lives now?

No child is more important than another's.

What part about this don't you understand....he is the President of the USA..there are idiots out there that would take his children in hopes of using them as leverage for nefarious plot.

So his children have better odds of getting taken than yours do...that is a fact.

Ok, I will answer this silly post. When was the last time you walked into a big box store that had pictures of missing children?

When was the last time any child of any US President was abducted? Could it possibly be that his children are protected - but this administration doesn't want any of your kids protected?

Originally posted by Bob Sholtz

Originally posted by bknapple32

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.

Of course every kid is worth protecting. Im not saying otherwise. But even those examples you gave.. arent public figures....

Thats the difference on the national security issue

tell me...how many of the kids who were shot recently were targeted because of their parent's status reguarding national security?

allowing teachers to carry concealed weapons doesn't even cost anything.

Wow! That didn't take long. I think it may have been Sunday where I was discussing this on these forums. I contacted a State Lawmaker, and they wrote up a bill right there on the spot to allow our State to do this. It will be voted on January 13, 2013.

There are far too many constituents getting fed up with this crap from our elected representatives. We are the boss, not them.

Originally posted by wolfbitch
My concern over allowing armed guards, or arming teachers and principals, or allowing concealed-carry by anybody in a school is this: The person with the gun has to know how to use it, has to know when to use it, has to know how to react under heavy pressure, has to have real good aim (since the Newtown shooter wore body armor, it'd probably have taken a head shot to put him down), and most importantly -- has to have no reservations about taking a human life under these circumstances.

Everybody I know who owns guns claims that they can do all this, and it's not true. A couple of the vets I know could probably do it but one of them is so crazy I can't believe he's allowed to carry a handgun in the first place. But your average target-shooting civilian, with only minimal (i.e., non-military or police force) training, could wind up making a bad situation worse.

As for Congress being hypocrites -- did you know that whenever they pass a law restricting the rights of others, they always tack on a clause that exempts them from that law? They're beyond being hypocrites. In fact, they're so far beyond that that we need a new word for them.

The Newton shooter did not wear any body armor.

A CZ 52 mil surp round will penetrate kevlar. It is C&R eligible.

Well you idiots voted for him.

More of his hypocrisy. What did you expect?

reply to post by Asktheanimals


Yah, but are they semi automatic? ^^ if not well then you can have a bazooka protecting your kids. Its those semi automatics you have to watch out for, those things are possessed.

reply to post by bknapple32

WE AREN'T PAYING FOR THIS.

really ?? which part of the SS don't we pay for ????
perhaps you might learn something here ... www.dhs.gov...

an SS detail is not part of any school's budget, nice try but, you're simply stranded out in left field again. and, since ignorance seems to flow freely from you, can you provide any 'source' for your nonsense ?