O's kids have 11 armed guards at their school not counting secret service protection

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/12/23/School-Obama-s-Daughters-Attend-Has-11-Armed-Guards-Not-Counting-Secret-Service



So, why are people ranting against guards at public schools when armed guards are good enough for the POTUS?

Some interesting news has broken in the wake of the latest push for gun control by President Obama and Senate Democrats: Obama sends his kids to a school where armed guards are used as a matter of fact. The school, Sidwell Friends School in Washington, DC, has 11 security officers and is seeking to hire a new police officer as we speak. If you dismiss this by saying, "Of course they have armed guards -- they get Secret Service protection," then you've missed the larger point. The larger point is that this is standard operating procedure for the school, period. And this is the reason people like NBC's David Gregory send their kids to Sidwell, they know their kids will be protected from the carnage that befell kids at a school where armed guards weren't used (and weren't even allowed). Shame on President Obama for seeking more gun control and for trying to prevent the parents of other school children from doing what he has clearly done for his own. His children sit under the protection guns afford, while the children of regular Americans are sacrificed.

PACEDOG#1 wrote:http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/12/23/School-Obama-s-Daughters-Attend-Has-11-Armed-Guards-Not-Counting-Secret-Service



So, why are people ranting against guards at public schools when armed guards are good enough for the POTUS?

Some interesting news has broken in the wake of the latest push for gun control by President Obama and Senate Democrats: Obama sends his kids to a school where armed guards are used as a matter of fact. The school, Sidwell Friends School in Washington, DC, has 11 security officers and is seeking to hire a new police officer as we speak. If you dismiss this by saying, "Of course they have armed guards -- they get Secret Service protection," then you've missed the larger point. The larger point is that this is standard operating procedure for the school, period. And this is the reason people like NBC's David Gregory send their kids to Sidwell, they know their kids will be protected from the carnage that befell kids at a school where armed guards weren't used (and weren't even allowed). Shame on President Obama for seeking more gun control and for trying to prevent the parents of other school children from doing what he has clearly done for his own. His children sit under the protection guns afford, while the children of regular Americans are sacrificed.

Remember when 'celebrities' (?)....like R O'Donnell would rant and rave about guns violence etc., and then send her kids to school with an armed guard!..This is typical thinking on the part of some...they want to believe that they know what is best for everyone else and yet they expect/posses freedoms that they want to take from others...Sen Harry Reid said in 2011...Everywhere I go I have a gun...again listen to what he says and compare it to what he does...

I bet they can add $1-2/yr to the school taxes for the county and have armed guards at every school in Escambia County OR sell candy or cookie dough like they do for everything else the parents with kids in school don't want to or can't afford to support..

The truth is that every museum, church, sporting event, down to the little league game will need to have armed guards, and we still will not be a bit safer. If a terrorist group wanted to take out that school with rocket launchers and heavy weapons......11 armed guards are not going to stop them, and we are talking about prime targets.....so exactly how are you going to protect everybody in America......by getting more guns?

Gun safety will require common sense regulation which makes it more difficult for illegal use of guns, but there is not one fail safe method of reducing gun deaths. The best deterrent is the knowledge that every school in America has a locked gun locker with trained personnel in every school, but the idea of hiring millions of people to stand around 99.999999 % of the time is stupid on steroids. A secret service detail protecting elected officials in this day and age is prudent use of resources, but 20 terrorist zeroing in on our elected officials children.......almost impossible to stop.

They're Not in public schools..

PACEDOG#1 wrote:http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/12/23/School-Obama-s-Daughters-Attend-Has-11-Armed-Guards-Not-Counting-Secret-Service



So, why are people ranting against guards at public schools when armed guards are good enough for the POTUS?

Some interesting news has broken in the wake of the latest push for gun control by President Obama and Senate Democrats: Obama sends his kids to a school where armed guards are used as a matter of fact. The school, Sidwell Friends School in Washington, DC, has 11 security officers and is seeking to hire a new police officer as we speak. If you dismiss this by saying, "Of course they have armed guards -- they get Secret Service protection," then you've missed the larger point. The larger point is that this is standard operating procedure for the school, period. And this is the reason people like NBC's David Gregory send their kids to Sidwell, they know their kids will be protected from the carnage that befell kids at a school where armed guards weren't used (and weren't even allowed). Shame on President Obama for seeking more gun control and for trying to prevent the parents of other school children from doing what he has clearly done for his own. His children sit under the protection guns afford, while the children of regular Americans are sacrificed.

The other kids are not kids of a leader of a nation so this whole thread is rather silly.

Dreamsglore wrote:

PACEDOG#1 wrote:http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/12/23/School-Obama-s-Daughters-Attend-Has-11-Armed-Guards-Not-Counting-Secret-Service



So, why are people ranting against guards at public schools when armed guards are good enough for the POTUS?

Some interesting news has broken in the wake of the latest push for gun control by President Obama and Senate Democrats: Obama sends his kids to a school where armed guards are used as a matter of fact. The school, Sidwell Friends School in Washington, DC, has 11 security officers and is seeking to hire a new police officer as we speak. If you dismiss this by saying, "Of course they have armed guards -- they get Secret Service protection," then you've missed the larger point. The larger point is that this is standard operating procedure for the school, period. And this is the reason people like NBC's David Gregory send their kids to Sidwell, they know their kids will be protected from the carnage that befell kids at a school where armed guards weren't used (and weren't even allowed). Shame on President Obama for seeking more gun control and for trying to prevent the parents of other school children from doing what he has clearly done for his own. His children sit under the protection guns afford, while the children of regular Americans are sacrificed.

The other kids are not kids of a leader of a nation so this whole thread is rather silly.

If Obama's kids were not enrolled there, they would still be 11(soon to be 12) armed guards employed by the school. The only absence would be the Secret Service agents.

Since you're such a strong believer in israel and their actions bite on this.. http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57560761/israel-rejects-nras-guns-in-schools-claim/

"There are other measures of prevention of an attack taking place, which are carried out 24 hours a day, seven days a week, all over the country," police spokesman Micky Rosenfeld said. Many are not for public knowledge.

geez.....so the multi faceted solution actually works better than putting armed guards in schools. Maybe we should stop folks who make millions of the sale of a product from dictating to us the solution for the violence committed with their products.

The violence is done by the people holding an inanimate object, NOT the gun itself........

2seaoat wrote:The truth is that every museum, church, sporting event, down to the little league game will need to have armed guards, and we still will not be a bit safer. If a terrorist group wanted to take out that school with rocket launchers and heavy weapons......11 armed guards are not going to stop them, and we are talking about prime targets.....so exactly how are you going to protect everybody in America......by getting more guns?

Gun safety will require common sense regulation which makes it more difficult for illegal use of guns, but there is not one fail safe method of reducing gun deaths. The best deterrent is the knowledge that every school in America has a locked gun locker with trained personnel in every school, but the idea of hiring millions of people to stand around 99.999999 % of the time is stupid on steroids. A secret service detail protecting elected officials in this day and age is prudent use of resources, but 20 terrorist zeroing in on our elected officials children.......almost impossible to stop.

When the president brings ALL of our troops home (that includes the ones stationed in Germany, Japan, South Korea, etc...) and provides them their separation pay to the private sector, and gets rid of ALL of his, and his families, bodyguards I'll be willing to discuss gun control measures.

He should lead by example.

*****SMILE*****

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ww5GXbk58R0

Damaged Eagle wrote:

2seaoat wrote:The truth is that every museum, church, sporting event, down to the little league game will need to have armed guards, and we still will not be a bit safer. If a terrorist group wanted to take out that school with rocket launchers and heavy weapons......11 armed guards are not going to stop them, and we are talking about prime targets.....so exactly how are you going to protect everybody in America......by getting more guns?

Gun safety will require common sense regulation which makes it more difficult for illegal use of guns, but there is not one fail safe method of reducing gun deaths. The best deterrent is the knowledge that every school in America has a locked gun locker with trained personnel in every school, but the idea of hiring millions of people to stand around 99.999999 % of the time is stupid on steroids. A secret service detail protecting elected officials in this day and age is prudent use of resources, but 20 terrorist zeroing in on our elected officials children.......almost impossible to stop.

When the president brings ALL of our troops home (that includes the ones stationed in Germany, Japan, South Korea, etc...) and provides them their separation pay to the private sector, and gets rid of ALL of his, and his families, bodyguards I'll be willing to discuss gun control measures.

He should lead by example.

*****SMILE*****

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ww5GXbk58R0

I'm sure he'll be holding his breath until you discuss it w/ him.

2seaoat wrote:The truth is that every museum, church, sporting event, down to the little league game will need to have armed guards, and we still will not be a bit safer. If a terrorist group wanted to take out that school with rocket launchers and heavy weapons......11 armed guards are not going to stop them, and we are talking about prime targets.....so exactly how are you going to protect everybody in America......by getting more guns?

Gun safety will require common sense regulation which makes it more difficult for illegal use of guns, but there is not one fail safe method of reducing gun deaths. The best deterrent is the knowledge that every school in America has a locked gun locker with trained personnel in every school, but the idea of hiring millions of people to stand around 99.999999 % of the time is stupid on steroids. A secret service detail protecting elected officials in this day and age is prudent use of resources, but 20 terrorist zeroing in on our elected officials children.......almost impossible to stop.

Terrorist groups can come one man at a time obviously,,,see Tim McVeigh...11 armed men will stop fools like Lanza, Dylan Klebold at Columbine and the Asian guy who did the Va Tech massacre who only used handguns.

Ghost_Rider1 wrote:

Dreamsglore wrote:

PACEDOG#1 wrote:http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/12/23/School-Obama-s-Daughters-Attend-Has-11-Armed-Guards-Not-Counting-Secret-Service



So, why are people ranting against guards at public schools when armed guards are good enough for the POTUS?

Some interesting news has broken in the wake of the latest push for gun control by President Obama and Senate Democrats: Obama sends his kids to a school where armed guards are used as a matter of fact. The school, Sidwell Friends School in Washington, DC, has 11 security officers and is seeking to hire a new police officer as we speak. If you dismiss this by saying, "Of course they have armed guards -- they get Secret Service protection," then you've missed the larger point. The larger point is that this is standard operating procedure for the school, period. And this is the reason people like NBC's David Gregory send their kids to Sidwell, they know their kids will be protected from the carnage that befell kids at a school where armed guards weren't used (and weren't even allowed). Shame on President Obama for seeking more gun control and for trying to prevent the parents of other school children from doing what he has clearly done for his own. His children sit under the protection guns afford, while the children of regular Americans are sacrificed.

The other kids are not kids of a leader of a nation so this whole thread is rather silly.

If Obama's kids were not enrolled there, they would still be 11(soon to be 12) armed guards employed by the school. The only absence would be the Secret Service agents.

Yes so arm up guards AT SCHOOLS since the schools that are not armed up are probably the next targets. The point of the post was that if it is good enough to have armed guards (not including SS) at that school for the elite, then the average kid elsewhere deserves the same.

Dreamsglore wrote:

Damaged Eagle wrote:

2seaoat wrote:The truth is that every museum, church, sporting event, down to the little league game will need to have armed guards, and we still will not be a bit safer. If a terrorist group wanted to take out that school with rocket launchers and heavy weapons......11 armed guards are not going to stop them, and we are talking about prime targets.....so exactly how are you going to protect everybody in America......by getting more guns?

Gun safety will require common sense regulation which makes it more difficult for illegal use of guns, but there is not one fail safe method of reducing gun deaths. The best deterrent is the knowledge that every school in America has a locked gun locker with trained personnel in every school, but the idea of hiring millions of people to stand around 99.999999 % of the time is stupid on steroids. A secret service detail protecting elected officials in this day and age is prudent use of resources, but 20 terrorist zeroing in on our elected officials children.......almost impossible to stop.

When the president brings ALL of our troops home (that includes the ones stationed in Germany, Japan, South Korea, etc...) and provides them their separation pay to the private sector, and gets rid of ALL of his, and his families, bodyguards I'll be willing to discuss gun control measures.

He should lead by example.

*****SMILE*****

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ww5GXbk58R0

I'm sure he'll be holding his breath until you discuss it w/ him.

Then my answer to you supposedly enlightened progressive liberals about gun control is that gun control is being able to hit the center of the target every time and that you all can just...

*****ROFLMAO******

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SLnOFE3Yf64 !!!!!

Damaged Eagle wrote:



When the president brings ALL of our troops home (that includes the ones stationed in Germany, Japan, South Korea, etc...) and provides them their separation pay to the private sector, and gets rid of ALL of his, and his families, bodyguards I'll be willing to discuss gun control measures.

He should lead by example.

*****SMILE*****

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ww5GXbk58R0



VectorMan wrote:

LEAD? You're joking right? LOL

Look up "do as I say, not as I do" and there'll be a picture of Barrack. LOL

To stop a bad guy with a gun you have a good guy with a gun. Pretty much the way it's always been.

I think one of the biggest reasons I have guns for self protection is the stinking judges that let the criminals free with minimum sentences to run free and repeat the same crimes over and over.. Of course, the juries that find guilty criminals innocent because they are afraid are ALMOST as bad as the judges..