Hero's Soapbox

MAKES U THINK

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?

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.

HoT you know America is a country full of idiots who shouldn't be trusted with guns.

oh my god you cant be serious

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

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.

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.

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.

Too many Guns in america, get over youselves.

UK, NZ, Aus; hardly tyrannies are they?

That is literally the dumbest argument I have ever heard for gun rights.

I just going to assume he's joking. I hope.

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!

He obviously doesnt know of the tea party and some of the fringe elements within it (which one could argue itself is a fringe)

That is literally the dumbest argument I have ever heard for gun rights.

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.

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...

The amount of people missing the point is the truly sad part of this...

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.

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.

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.

shh instr, the gun grabbers don't like facts to get in the way of things.

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.