Obama's kids have armed guards at their school

[Grassman]

The School Obama's daughters attend has 11 Armed Guards

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).

 

[JERRY]

As said before, guns for me, not thee. This is the Democrat's mantra.

 

[rcmodel]

Of course they do!

They also have an armored limo deliver them and pick them up.

Even though a yellow school bus goes by the white house several times a day.

rc

 

[floydster]

Your kids aren't important enough to have armed gaurds, what's wrong with you.

 

[somerandomguy]

We're little people, our kids' lives at school don't matter. However, because she's related to a celebrity, she gets special benefits and her life is worth something. Shame on you for thinking your kids deserve to be protected at school, only a celebrities kids deserve to be protected.

PS please someone come on and tell me that a president isn't a celebrity, I dare you. Presidents are just a spokesperson and that's it.

 

[bushmaster1313]

According to the blogosphere, the 11 armed guard security detail is SOP at this elite school every year.
And this in a city where handguns were illegal.

Seems like Wayne was so stupid and off the wall after all.

I bet Wayne knew.

 

[ngnrd]

I would hope that the President's family has armed protection wherever they are. The most powerful position in the world should not be compromised by the threat of a familial kidnapping or murder. Such protection really has nothing to do with who is currently sitting in the oval office.

 

[x_wrench]

i would be surprised to find any Washington d.c. politicians kids that did not go to a school with armed guards. they have the absolute best of everything. i am sure the schools that they attend are in the top 5% in the nation. the teachers get paid double what other teachers do, and most likely get in on the politicians health care and retirement plan.

 

[76shuvlinoff]

I would hope that the President's family has armed protection wherever they are. The most powerful position in the world should not be compromised by the threat of a familial kidnapping or murder. Such protection really has nothing to do with who is currently sitting in the oval office.

.....and I really don't begrudge him his protection as long as he supports mine.

 

[jmorris]

They don't go to public schools either.

 

[JohnnyK]

the hypocricy runs a bit deep.... why won't the press cover this?

 

[9 fingers]

I would hope that the President's family has armed protection wherever they are. The most powerful position in the world should not be compromised by the threat of a familial kidnapping or murder. Such protection really has nothing to do with who is currently sitting in the oval office.

ngnrd, you are 100% right. Most of the rest of us don't have hundreds of death threats against them each year.
9 fingers

 

[xfyrfiter]

And his 4 million dollar Christmas vacation (paid for with taxpayer money) is just one of the perks that comes with the job. The man is a hypocrite and does not care one little bit about the common man.

 

[Manco]

I would hope that the President's family has armed protection wherever they are. The most powerful position in the world should not be compromised by the threat of a familial kidnapping or murder. Such protection really has nothing to do with who is currently sitting in the oval office.

But isn't involving more guns supposed to be a problem rather than a solution? Anybody who suggests otherwise these days is literally called a nut in the news media, so why aren't they calling Obama (or any sitting president) a nut for having armed guards for himself and his children? Are we to believe that guns can be effectively used to protect them but not other children? Why would that be?

 

[Owen]

ngnrd, 9 fingers, you're missing the point.

That school has 11 armed guards even when the president's kids aren't there. Those 11 guards are in addition to the secret service detail.

 

[jim243]

you're missing the point

No, Owen the point is why are these children more important than our children. Because their parents are rich and important, well my kid (5 yrs old) is more important than some spoild brat whose father could give a hoot less about the safety of our children.

Jim

 

[W.E.G.]

I like it from a one-liner-back-at-the-anti's perspective.

 

[hso]

The reason the school hires armed guards is because it traditionally gets kids from government officials in DC so it is high on a threat assessment because of the parents and their positions in the government.

 

[imac98374]

I don't think it's about being more important or their lives being more valuable, it's about having a higher profile and a higher probability of someone attacking them.

 

[johnny_boy]

For me personally rather than instituting a police officer at every school and giving government even more control, I would much prefer NRA certified and trained volunteer parents, ex-officer/ex-military personnel to stroll the school ground. I hope the government will allow any school that want to participate in this program, rather than keep enforcing the federal gun free zone none sense.

 

[SharpsDressedMan]

Forget how, why, and how much it costs for extra prtection at the Obamas' private school. The real point is: Expanded, enhanced, or mere PRESENCE of armed security or police at schools IS the answer to an armed threat, not well-intentioned, but USELESS new gun laws. If more guns in the hands of security or police at schools was NOT the answer, then why would it be the answer at the Presiden's kid's school?

 

[leadcounsel]

Isn't the fact that the school is a gun free zone enough safety?

I'm at the point of just being absolutely sick of the hypocrisy of our leaders. Lavish lifestyles on our backs. Private military style security while trying to disarm us, and so on...

 

[W.E.G.]

The teachers at the schools need to step-up, and take responsibility for effectively guarding the school.

Despite the hand-wringing, weak-kneed, "school spokespersons" we keep seeing in front of the leftist-media cameras, I believe there are MANY educators who would be more-than-willing to serve as a school security operations officer.

 

[Manco]

I don't think it's about being more important or their lives being more valuable, it's about having a higher profile and a higher probability of someone attacking them.

But they and media pundits are saying that more guns is not the answer, so why then is this "crazy" idea being used at all? Why is it the answer for "important" people but not for regular people? You say that a higher threat level is the main difference, and clearly there is truth to that per se, but aren't guns supposed to be bad and doesn't having more guns involved therefore increase the risk of innocent children getting shot and killed?

The same question applies to calling the police, for that matter. Wouldn't disarming or disregarding the police theoretically yield a net increase in safety due to fewer "evil" guns being involved? I mean, you couldn't seriously be suggesting that "crazy" Wayne LaPierre may have a point about how only good guys with guns can stop bad guys with guns, could you? I mean, he's a loon--a nut, or even worse, a gun nut. Does the government actually agree with him, though? They act like they do, yet they don't want to allow us, the citizens of the United States, to do it for ourselves, even to protect our children. We don't even have to involve individual rights, either--the whole notion of armed guards is being described as ludicrous, yet Obama doesn't seem to mind when it's his children who are benefiting. Doesn't that seem a bit odd, even self-contradictory? I wouldn't go as far as to suggest hypocrisy, however, as I have far too much respect for the leadership of this country.

 

[Lex Luthier]

Pure hypocritical gang mentality. The next four years will be an extreme exercise in patience.