Then why is THIS ok?
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).
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.
Why is it that their children are more important and precious to save than everyone else's?
4 comments:
It's okay for the same reason that you don't need a Popemobile.
Whether I need one or not, I still have the option to get one.
Martin – I don't understand your reasoning – Why does David Gregory get a pass on his choice to send his children to Sidwell Friends School where armed security is maintained, while he opposes those who want to have the same type of security for their children? Why is it wrong for parents without the public visibility of Mr. Gregory to want to have the same type of protection for their children that he wants for his children?
You seem to be implying that such protection isn't necessary for the children of “ordinary folk”. Shouldn't that be a decision that rests in the parents hands? Should a public figure like Mr. Gregory be using his platform to belittle those who reach the same conclusion he did? Is it possible that he couldn't see how hypocritical his position is? Or did he know and didn't care that he was being intellectually dishonest?
After doing some thinking a little bit and reflecting on my own childhood and teenager years that I experienced about twenty years ago when all of the metal detectors, armed guards, chaining doors, etc was going on in the 1980s - 90s to protect against guess what? Gang members, guns and other stupidity?
What has changed in the past twenty years? We had kip kinkle who must be near his late 20s to early thirties when he shot up an Oregon school and not sure he was mentally all capable up there. Then Columbine, then Aurora, then Clackamas town center, then the latest shooting in Newtown, CT.
I am not against arming teachers if they wish and are willing follow some basic guidelines and common sense approaches for keeping of a firearm and being mindful that if a child or teenagers gets access to that gun, they will be held responsible for the actions of that child.
it also means the shitty locks on a teachers desk is NOT a sufficient place to store a gun. Any kid these days can get on the internet and figure out how to pick a cheap chinese lock on most Desks! And by all prayer and manner, don't announce it to the whole freaking world that you have a CWP or a weapon on you.
If you dig a bit back in the archives, there are kids, even as young as 11 year old just recently in the rockwood - gresham area that stole his felonious father's .22 pistol. So don't tell me that kids can't get them!
But think 20 years ago? Guns were in schools back then, what does one think they aren't there now? About the only people I believe are ignorant of this is the teachers and school employees, who choose to remain politically and mentally incapable of understanding fact. And it is further sad that it is now MY Generation who are the teachers, school administrators and employees.
If they are this ignorant of how the world works, I have a new fear...
(This post is in response to a comment that Rob Figley posted on the columbian forum comments off this: src: http://www.columbian.com/news/2012/dec/27/lawmaker-elect-enters-gun-debate-pike-washington/ He may be a local pastor or officiant of gay and regular weddings but I just can't fathom his ignorance? And no, I won't post in the columbian's forums.... And this post is related to some things in this article that Kelly has been saying since the shooting....)
Post a Comment