reply to post by bknapple32
You're right: no, these politicians haven't outright come out against guards for all schools, but they have done nothing to reinstate the assault
weapon ban that ended in 2004, even though the US has had mass school shootings since then. And why should they when their children attend heavily
guarded schools? However, given budget constraints, I doubt anyone in Washington D.C. is going to suggest spending 4-6 billion dollars on armed
guards for all public schools. And given the reaction by some members of the Democratic caucus regarding the NRA's proposal, I can't see them
supporting any such measure.
For the record, I don't see putting one armed guard in each public school as being an effective countermeasure to such attacks; seems like
restrictions on high firepower weapons and large-round magazines, along with better public mental health care would be a more efficacious solution.
Now if you would have a dozen security guards at each school, like SFS, that would be another matter...
No, I don't have hostility for privileged kids of politicians and policy makers, only for their parents who set the funding and policies of education
for the masses, and have their own, higher level of care for their own children. I feel the same way about how congress has a sweet health care deal
for its members, but expects the average joe to deal with health insurance companies. It is a class issue, but it is not because of any personal
resentment on my part regarding privileged children of elected officials/the ruling class.
Similarly, it is intolerable that Obama and his family doesn't get groped or bombarded with radiation when they travel by air, like ordinary
Americans have to. We have a two-tiered system in this country in terns of law enforcement, justice and economics, and this is why this country to
falling into ruin.
In the same vein, the drug money launderers of the HSBC (sp?) bank only had to pay a fine of about a month's profit of the company, whereas if a
normal citizen is JUST ACCUSED of having money made from illegal drug activity, their property and wealth can be confiscated. In the case of this
bank, no individual was accused of a crime or had to pay a personal fine; it was only a fine on the company. The whole company should have been
confiscated, along with all the property and wealth of anyone involved in the money laundering.
I understand that political leaders' kids probably need more protection than other kids for the reason you give, but it also makes these policy
makers out of touch with what the hoi palloi have to make due with.