Obama's kids have armed guards at their school

Status
Not open for further replies.
You guys make a lot of good points.
We can only hope the American public sees through the hypocracy and inequity of this "do as I say, not as I do" behavior.
 
The next four years will be an extreme exercise in patience.

I'm thinking it'll be longer term than this--socialism and statism are the directions in which the country is clearly headed for the foreseeable future, in my opinion (the government is already talking about changing the culture--maybe they'll pick my shoes for me next :rolleyes:). Americans are becoming a dependent people who want to be coddled and cared for in every way by the ruling class, each generation more so than the last. Get used to being called a nut by those who claim simultaneously that the Constitution is too old and crusty to be relevant but we're a "young" country that has much to learn from older countries...huh? :confused: As a country, we will gladly trade liberty for perceived safety--that's the new and fundamentally (indeed) changed America that we've been voting for, to the applause of the rest of the world (none of their business, but our "leaders" seem to care).

All the while, the other "leaders" who might oppose this sort of change are too busy licking the boots of their benefactors to be taken seriously by the public--they will continue to be marginalized, maybe even out of existence before long because their lies and hypocrisy are often even more obvious. :rolleyes:
 
You guys make a lot of good points.
We can only hope the American public sees through the hypocracy and inequity of this "do as I say, not as I do" behavior.
We are in trouble when it comes to looking for common sense in the general American public. That really is the entire curx of the problem.
 
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).

Grassman, interesting screen name, but that's another story.

I still don't get your point, are you upset that some folks have enough money to send their kids to a private school with armed security, and you don't? If that is the case you have to understand that life is not always fair, but having money will generally tip the fairness scale in your favor.

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

The press doesn't report on this as it's a not story, rick folks providing the best they can for their kids. It's not hypocrisy either; neither the Obamas or David Gregory ever claimed to be poor. They got the money how they spend it is their business.
 
Last edited:
So if you have money, you can can buy more safety. Should we then agree that it is o.k. for money to buy more freedom (to be secure, pursue happiness, equality, etc) than the 2nd class citizens? As many have pointed out above, you can be rich, and protect yourself by surrounding yourself (or kids) with armed guards, but you shouldn't get to exercise the double standard and deny others the RIGHT to protect themselves.
 
Last edited:
Keep in mind these 11 guard are staff of the school. Not Secret Service agents assigned to the little Obamas. His kids are "important enough" to get armed school and SS guards while regular children he would be "open to discussing eventually." Everyone is made equal just some more than others...
 
Columbine had armed guards.


Virginia Tech had armed guards.


Ft. Hood had armed guards.

I appreciate what you believe to be a double-standard, but it's not there.
 
We are in trouble when it comes to looking for common sense in the general American public. That really is the entire curx of the problem.

To be fair, a great many Americans have what you, I, and most here on this forum would consider common sense--at the risk of sounding too proud or jingoistic, I'd say that we have more than our fair share of it among the human population of the world. The problem is that we're still a decided minority in a system where the majority rules. We had been doing well trying to reason with the general public, but an ounce of strong emotions and media propaganda that capitalizes on these emotions can undo tons of reasoning in the blink of an eye. Such is human nature, unfortunately.

The main weapon we have to use in self-defense is time, which also has a basis in human nature. The media will probably get bored with the subject eventually or supersede it with something more current, as they did with sharks 11 years ago. Do you remember the Summer of the Shark, when the media (hardly just tabloids) made it seem as though everybody at the beach was getting eaten that summer, when in fact there was nothing out of the ordinary regarding shark attacks? 9-11 put a stop to that hype, but it still stands as a prime example of the media attempting to create mass hysteria for ratings. Not to belittle the tragedy at Sandy Hook Elementary by any means, but the gun control hype that resulted is another example of media sensationalism, this time for a cause that they actually care about, which makes it even more intense (I'd also argue that using murdered children as an excuse to take away people's rights instead of discussing the real issues, including their own culpability, is pathetic).
 
"The reason the the school hires armed guards isbecause 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."

That is simply a rephrasing of the need-based argument.
 
but you shouldn't get to exercise the double standard and deny others the RIGHT to protect themselves.

I agree completely, but that is not what the O/P was upset about. I still believe that the O/P was upset do to the fact that some folks can afford things he can't.

Everyone is made equal just some more than others...

Very true, and it's been that way since the first human walked on the earth. It appears as if many here don't understand this or don't think it is fair. Well it may not be fair but it's the way it is, and it will never change. If you want to be one of the "more equals" figure out a way to make or inherit, the best way, more money..
 
Last edited:
To be fair, a great many Americans have what you, I, and most here on this forum would consider common sense--at the risk of sounding too proud or jingoistic, I'd say that we have more than our fair share of it among the human population of the world. The problem is that we're still a decided minority in a system where the majority rules. We had been doing well trying to reason with the general public, but an ounce of strong emotions and media propaganda that capitalizes on these emotions can undo tons of reasoning in the blink of an eye. Such is human nature, unfortunately.

The main weapon we have to use in self-defense is time, which also has a basis in human nature. The media will probably get bored with the subject eventually or supersede it with something more current, as they did with sharks 11 years ago. Do you remember the Summer of the Shark, when the media (hardly just tabloids) made it seem as though everybody at the beach was getting eaten that summer, when in fact there was nothing out of the ordinary regarding shark attacks? 9-11 put a stop to that hype, but it still stands as a prime example of the media attempting to create mass hysteria for ratings. Not to belittle the tragedy at Sandy Hook Elementary by any means, but the gun control hype that resulted is another example of media sensationalism, this time for a cause that they actually care about, which makes it even more intense (I'd also argue that using murdered children as an excuse to take away people's rights instead of discussing the real issues, including their own culpability, is pathetic).
Hopefully you are right, but remember how quickly the last shooting I believe in 1996 in Australia that led to rapid gun ban in only a few weeks. I would not underestimate their desire to take away our guns.
 
Also consider the disparity in the level of protection that you get from a group of A team secret service vs a semiretired cop strolling around a school. The secret service provide a credible deterrent. The single cop is a token gesture.

Is the solution then to provide a team to every school? At what cost? let's say 100k schools would need guards (arbitrary #). So $500,000 for a respectable team of 5 plus training? That's $50 Billion per year.

Too much? What about the semi retired cop option? $50k per school? $5 billion.

How many school shootings in last 15 years? 323. 323/15 = 21

That's a quarter of a billion per life saved, assuming the token cop actually works. This is not a reasonable solution.
 
Oldbear, I think the OP isn't upset that a higher end school can afford armed security, it's that most schools don't have that option of armed security due to being gun free zones. Even the idea of a teacher being able to bring their own weapon in most places isn't allowed and that doesn't cost anything extra. It's probably understood that armed guards in EVERY school would be costly, but shouldn't our kids have the right to armed protection if there is a low cost option?
 
I think this argument can be described thusly:

If school shootings are such a widespread pariah that something has to be done immediately then we should "redistribute the wealth" so those less fortunate can have the same opportunities afforded those that are "part of the 1%". The top 1% have armed guards at their schools, so if there is an epidemic of school shootings that can't be ignored it is time to act and "level the playing field".

Hey, it's the same argument they used on us for universal healthcare. If there truly is an epidemic that requires immediate action then let's not choose "more of the same failed policies" (like the Clinton-era AWB) but instead make sure "the 99%" get the same benefits of security protection as those so-called fat-cats at the top.

Seems reasonable to me...
 
That is simply a rephrasing of the need-based argument.

Sure, there's a greater need, that's what threat assessment boils down to. The people who send their kids to the school make the school more of a target so the school pays guards, amongst other measures, to make the school less vulnerable. This reduces the risk to the students and the parents.

The point is that a threat assessment is why the school pays for the guards and why we don't need to pay for guards at our schools. Public schools may be vulnerable, but there's no credible threat directed to any one school.
 
Is there really any surprise here? We're talking about the First Family. The Obama family has armed escorts when shopping for groceries. If the President were so inclined, he could have Secret Service Agents escort his daughters to their lockers and sit behind them in classes; and rightly so - there's nothing wrong with that on a moral level.

I understand the irony and frustration, of course; but it is what it is. As much as I dislike that phrase, its totally applicable. I would have no problem with my tax money funding 24/7 armed escorts for the First Family. The fact that I disagree with almost every one of his political stances is irrelevant.
 
Is there really any surprise here? We're talking about the First Family.

I believe that Sidwell Friends has armed guards as a part of their SOP. The secret service is not charged with protecting the school or it's teachers/students. They are charged with protecting the first family. In the event of an incident they would secure the first daughters.

The school employs other guards charged with protecting the students and teachers. I've got no problem with that either. Especially since I'm not the one paying for it. I do, however, have a problem when the same people that day the armed guard idea is crazy, the same people that say guns are the problem, the.n send their kids to school in a city where guns are de facto banned and yet still pay for armed guards.

If gun bans work, why pay for guards? If guards are a crazy idea, why pay for guards?

Personally I'd rather allow carry at schools and spend some money training teachers. But, no one asks my opinion of such things.


Sent from my iPhone
 
If it is a private school, than aside from secret service protection, their security is privately paid for. By the parents in their tuition.

I dont see any problem with that.

If you consider the (much belabored at this point) fact that more kids die every day in car accidents than did on that Fri in CT and that school shootings are rare....I'd still want to see more justification for using public money to provide additional security. Time to set emotional reactions aside.

Leave it up to each individual community to decide what they need for their schools...let's face it...Detroit and po-dunk, KS (for ex) are not the same...and then figure out how to *privately* fund it.

I believe this is the point of the fiscal cliff we are trying to avoid? Less taxpayers paying for entitlements? Entitlements should be paid for by the private sector, fund-raising, grants, charities, etc?
 
Is there really any surprise here? We're talking about the First Family. The Obama family has armed escorts when shopping for groceries. If the President were so inclined, he could have Secret Service Agents escort his daughters to their lockers and sit behind them in classes; and rightly so - there's nothing wrong with that on a moral level.

I understand the irony and frustration, of course; but it is what it is. As much as I dislike that phrase, its totally applicable. I would have no problem with my tax money funding 24/7 armed escorts for the First Family. The fact that I disagree with almost every one of his political stances is irrelevant.

If you realize that it is morally right and is the policy for all standing presidents, why mention it at all, since you say that it's irrelevant to your opinions on his political views?

And I'm pretty sure they dont go grocery shopping.
 
So if you have money, you can can buy more safety. Should we then agree that it is o.k. for money to buy more freedom (to be secure, pursue happiness, equality, etc) than the 2nd class citizens? As many have pointed out above, you can be rich, and protect yourself by surrounding yourself (or kids) with armed guards, but you shouldn't get to exercise the double standard and deny others the RIGHT to protect themselves.

If the proposal is to provide armed security for public schools like they do in private schools, I dont see a double standard.

Parents pay extra in the tuition for their kids in private school for that security.

Parents with kids in public schools have that same option. Some school districts allow armed guards or cops now. Some may need to pass laws/policy that allow armed security. But then those parents can pay extra for that security in those schools. That doesnt seem like a double standard to me and no one is denying their right to protect their kids.
 
Once again, the patience of folks trying to rob us of our rights. 30 years ago they created gun free zones. Now the problem that they created has born the fruit of mass killings in these killing zones. Now, they want to blame it on law abiding citizens and gun ownership.

The NRA wants to place armed guards apparently in the manner of another federal TSA type organization.

The solution is the same as it was 30 years ago when they first created these artificial killing zones. That is, eliminate them and allow CCW for all lawful permit holders. We had all kinds of guns out in the parking lot at my high school when I was a kid. Lots of my friends would go hunting in the morning and then come to school and go hunting when they left. That was never a problem.

Once again, go take a look at the Utah CCW in public schools regulations. Since the Mormon church forbids guns in their churches, CCW is not allowed in places of worship in Utah unless that organization allows it with permission to the individual.

The problem, gun free zones, The solution, CCW allowed in these gun free zones. Armed guards but no CCW allowed is not a solution.
 
Can we agree that safety and security ought to be provided as fully in a public school, just as much as the education itself, especially if they deny the attending to provide their own self defense or security? I feel that way about every place I go in that denies me being armed. As long as they provide adequate protection, they can regulate the arming of others. Of course, in public schools, this would add to the operating costs, and taxes would go up accordingly. Why not have public schools as secure as the one being mentioned above?
 
link? Proof?

I'm not doubting it. Mainly because he's a piece of work.

But in order for me to spread the word I have to have some solid.
 
Of course they do - self perceived royalty and hypocrite equate to about the same. When is the last time you got a $4 million dollar, tax payer paid vacation to Hawaii complete with a security detail carrying "assault weapons."

I know there are perks that go with the job - still pretty pathetic that we have to pay for the security measures for the "royal family," that he would take away and deny from ours. Guess the average American is not worth as much as a politician.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top