Jump to content
  • entries
    23
  • comments
    420
  • views
    24,403

Just a question


HeroofTime55

802 views

 Share

If guns have such an obscene inherent danger that we can't risk having armed guards in our schools, then why does the government use so many guns to defend politicians? Wouldn't Obama be safer if we did away with the secret service and all those evil guns that cause violence?

 Share

23 Comments


Recommended Comments

Yes he would! How dare you say anything otherwise.

No but to be honest, Obama may be the most hypocritical president ever and that is saying something. Today he said that Spending Needs to be cut but in the same sentence said that he will not negotiate spending cuts. He also said that assault rifles should be banned a few days ago but we all know that there are assault rifles in all presidential motorcades.

Not only that, shouldn't we ban guns from the military? Wouldn't we be safer that way?

Link to comment

Good point made. I am one of those who oppose the placing of armed guards in schools, but mostly because we could end up with another TSA type situation. Allow teachers and school staff their right to carry a firearm, and there would be no need for guards. These "Gun Free Zones" are invitations to homicidal maniacs.

Link to comment

The relative training of the guards makes a major difference. Not many schools can afford a decent trained armed guard.

Also, consider the cost of an armed guard on every school vs the cost of decent mental Health provision and investment in preventing the little switch that drives people crazy in the first place.

Link to comment

Or, in the reverse logic, the reason the President needs so many armed people with guns is because Guns are too easily obtained?

Yes, they are easily attained. Especially at gun shows. But backgrounds need to be put in place.

But the Drug Lords and the Gun Smugglers want us to put a bunch of gun regulations in place, it ups there profits.

Link to comment

Or, in the reverse logic, the reason the President needs so many armed people with guns is because Guns are too easily obtained?

Let's assume your premise is accurate (it isn't)

Why does it make the President safer, but present an increased danger to children in a school setting? There is a double standard being applied.

Link to comment

This just in: Heads of State require guards to protect from crazies.

Thanks Obama! Never in the past have people attempted to kill the president!

No !@#$ mister Holmes. I do believe this is the point.

Link to comment

This just in: Heads of State require guards to protect from crazies.

Thanks Obama! Never in the past have people attempted to kill the president!

Kennedy, Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, Hoover, Franklin D. Roosevelt, Nixon, Ford, Carter, etc...

Link to comment

Let's assume your premise is accurate (it isn't)

Why does it make the President safer, but present an increased danger to children in a school setting? There is a double standard being applied.

Because the SS guarding the president are highly dedicated and expansively and expensively vetted. It would be difficult to find enough people who are as dedicated to protecting the children as the SS are to protecting the president, not to mention prohibitively expensive.

It is a stupid comparison; there are far more people wishing to kill Obama or his family than there are people wishing to kill any certain child.

Link to comment

Despite having a secret service, people have still managed to kill JFK; Reagan IIRC was shot,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reagan_assassination_attempt

;

One thing you've got to remember is that the attacker always has an advantage. The defender doesn't know where the attacker is, and doesn't know when the attacker will strike; while the attacker has all the time in the world to plan an attack. You're expecting him to be stupid, and in many cases he will be, but in other cases he'll have considered the set-up properly and cased the environment.

Link to comment

TBH, once again, this is a disproportionate reaction. Deaths by spree shooter account for less than .5 deaths per 100,000 people. Being in a car is more dangerous than spree shooters; something like 4 deaths per 100,000 people in that case.

Link to comment

Obama's proposal was all fluff and puff. If he gave a damn about gun control, he would not have moved his presser from Thursday to Monday this week I(His Pressers are on Thursday). This is pure lip service to those on the left. Is he going to get his Assault Weapons ban? No. Is he going to get his Maximum Magazine Limits? Negative. He MAY get his Armor Piercing Bullet restriction. He SHOULD get everything else, including the arming of teachers, more cops, and his Metal Health package. It is that Mental Health package that will do far more to eliminate future Aurora's and Newtown's than any gun control bill would.

The reality is he is not going to go out of his way this year on guns with the economy tanking and immigration reform being screamed at him. Let's be real: Only those wishing to pimp the dead children of Newtown are going to go crazy over getting this passed (The usual pimps like McCarthy, Brady, Bloomberg and Mennino.). Obama? Certainly won't.

Link to comment
Guest
Add a comment...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...