Gun Control: A Realistic Look

[pinkytoe69]

When pushed on the issue, liberals have said that having armed guards at schools will lead to an increase in gun violence, yet if you are a wealthy person like David Gregory, your kids get the protection of armed guards and all of us rubes have to send our kids to gun free zones.
.

If that was indeed said (source?), then that is hypocrisy.

At the same time though, if you cannot understand why the children President of the United States have an armed security detail while yours dont...I dont really know what to say to you.

 

[ukoffroad]

Obviously the well being of an individuals children are more important to the individual than some other individuals children. That is irrelevant.

That ad is silly.

It is no different than asking, "Why should the president have a security detail if I dont have one too?"

Um, duh.

His kids are a target for all kinds of things, mine, well- some days I would be willing to hand them off.

 

[Mike_Rupp]

If that was indeed said (source?), then that is hypocrisy.

At the same time though, if you cannot understand why the children President of the United States have an armed security detail while yours dont...I dont really know what to say to you.

I'm not saying that the President's children shouldn't have armed guards. My point is that liberals won't allow an armed guard to be at my school. David Gregory is special. His kids get armed guards, but kids that go to public schools aren't important enough, I guess.

Here's the source: Gregory Mocks LaPierre for Proposing Armed Guards, but Sends Kids to High-Security School

 

[Mike_Rupp]

His kids are a target for all kinds of things, mine, well- some days I would be willing to hand them off.

Lovely attitude.

 

[1920SF]

A slightly different look at controlling your guns...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/...e-wrong_n_2490579.html?utm_hp_ref=mostpopular

 

[kennith]

The President's children are protected not because they are more important, but because they are more dangerous. Indeed, they are some of the most dangerous assets in America.

I appreciate that the NRA was at least trying to play that heart-string pulling game, though. It's frustrating to see our advocates perpetually reduced to building sand castles in a shovel factory.

It's nice to see an attack. Stop defending our rights all the time damn it, and start attacking those who would poison our nation against them.

And fucking learn how to do it properly.

Cheers,

Kennith

 

[pinkytoe69]

they are some of the most dangerous assets in America.

wut?

 

[stu454]

wut?

I suspect that Kennith meant that if someone kidnapped the President's children, he'd be compromised.

 

[Mike_Rupp]

A slightly different look at controlling your guns...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/...e-wrong_n_2490579.html?utm_hp_ref=mostpopular

Well of course: "Obviously, for every responsible, law-abiding gun owner out there, there's one of these folks." Yep, 50% of gun owners are complete morons. It's a typical left move to portray their political opponents are hillbilly morons.

 

[pinkytoe69]

Ah ok.

Going along with that, it would be hard to find good candidates for that position if they were not afforded familial security.

 

[kennith]

wut?

Because of their profile, privilege, and the fact that Obama loves his as much as you love yours, they are high value targets. Presidential children are living, breathing, and independently thinking national security risks; who's father just happens to be the most powerful man in the world.

If they didn't enjoy additional security, they'd be snapped up the moment they stepped out of that gate.

Cheers,

Kennith

 

[kennith]

I suspect that Kennith meant that if someone kidnapped the President's children, he'd be compromised.

You beat me to it.

Cheers,

Kennith

 

[kennith]

Ah ok.

Going along with that, it would be hard to find good candidates for that position if they were not afforded familial security.

You'd either have to elect someone with no children, or someone who could watch their children die without a further thought, knowing they have the power to stop it at any time.

Finding that first candidate would be difficult. Electing the second would not be ideal.

Cheers,

Kennith

 

[Eric N.]

Obviously the well being of an individuals children are more important to the individual than some other individuals children. That is irrelevant.

That ad is silly.

It is no different than asking, "Why should the president have a security detail if I dont have one too?"

Um, duh.

He can have his security detail but, I should be allowed to protect myself and my family (with deadly force) if needed. It's not like I have no need for protection. People get robbed and killed every day.

What I really think is funny about this is that I've been reading post (facebook and other forums) from parents in Fairfax County (where I live) calling the NRA crazy for even thinking about this yet these same parents are clueless to the fact that Fairfax County actually has an armed police officer (resource officer) in every public secondary, junior high, and high school in the county. It's a no brainer to extend that to all the schools. These parents are all up in arms about the idea yet they don't have a clue about what's going on around their children already. Also, if you have a VA CCW permit you are allowed to carry while dropping your kids off in the morning at the "kiss-n-ride" on school property and I have yet to see some wild west shootouts at the kiss-n-ride because some parents are having a bad day like all these anti-gun folks keep imagining will happen. So around here guns are already at the school and in some cases inside the school as well.

 

[pinkytoe69]

Because of their profile, privilege, and the fact that Obama loves his as much as you love yours, they are high value targets. Presidential children are living, breathing, and independently thinking national security risks; who's father just happens to be the most powerful man in the world.

If they didn't enjoy additional security, they'd be snapped up the moment they stepped out of that gate.

I figured something along those lines, but you express your thoughts in ways that are not always clear to me, and I didnt want to assume again.

Also, this is why that NRA ad, while possibly paved with good intentions, is stupid.

 

[pinkytoe69]

He can have his security detail but, I should be allowed to protect myself and my family (with deadly force) if needed. It's not like I have no need for protection. People get robbed and killed every day.

The reason that ad is ridiculous is the difference in scale of the threats to the subject matter.

There is a small risk of random violence carried out by petty criminals to your family every day.

The presidents family has hundreds, if not thousands, of people (well funded, in some cases) trying to figure out how kill them every day.

 

[knewsom]

Well of course: "Obviously, for every responsible, law-abiding gun owner out there, there's one of these folks." Yep, 50% of gun owners are complete morons. It's a typical left move to portray their political opponents are hillbilly morons.

50% of PEOPLE are complete morons. Remember, if 100 is at the peak of the bell-curve, half the population is below it.

 

[brian4d]

Look at the looks on these faces, priceless.

Maybe a bit fearful with the ever so popular nervous laugh/smirk?

http://washingtonexaminer.com/gallery/articleid/2518986/1/pictures/2591654#.UPmdVSfAfuw

 

[ptschram]

who's father just happens to be the most powerful man in the world.

If they didn't enjoy additional security, they'd be snapped up the moment they stepped out of that gate.

Cheers,

Kennith

I wonder how George Soros' and other of his ilk children are protected.

I don't think POTUS is the most powerful man in the world. George Soros bankrupted Europe single-handedly.

Michael Bloomberg has vowed to buy every political campaign in the country to push gun control.

 

[pinkytoe69]

My friend in high school felt the Chairman of the Federal Reserve is the most powerful man in the world.