Can the NRA possibly be serious? Presidential family is just a teeny bit different

grandma with a handbag wrote:

Yes, it is. The President's kids and anyone else's kids are not qualitatively different. Any kid can be taken for ransom.

Yeah, lets see, if I am a kidnapper, I would probably kidnap your kids if they were not guarded by anyone, or I would just kidnap or kill or rape the President's kids to get what I want, since they wouldn't be guarded anymore. Seems normal.

Yeah, I guess that does make sense, nobody is more inclined to harm them than they are your kids. Yep, good point.

The safety of the president's children is no more or less a national security issue than any other kids in the nation.

As to the poster who said the NRA takes all the emotion out of it and just looks at simple reasoning...well that is why the anti gun nuts hate the NRA. They know that all they have is emotions and feelings on their side. Take those out of the equation, and all we are left with is facts and reasoning, which those outside the NRA want no part of. They know if they can keep the emotions running high and reasoning out of it, that they will have a better chance of winning public sympathy.

My reaction to reading some of the comments on this thread:

http://replygif.net/i/209

Just when I thought some of the posters on this website couldn't get more obtuse. Sure there's nothing inherently more valuable about the President's children than anyone else's, but do we really have to spell out the other differences why they warrant that protection? C'mon!

And how economically feasible would it be to install SS-quality guards in every single classroom or school in the country? Please.

reading 101 wrote:

The safety of the president's children is no more or less a national security issue than any other kids in the nation.

As to the poster who said the NRA takes all the emotion out of it and just looks at simple reasoning...well that is why the anti gun nuts hate the NRA. They know that all they have is emotions and feelings on their side. Take those out of the equation, and all we are left with is facts and reasoning, which those outside the NRA want no part of. They know if they can keep the emotions running high and reasoning out of it, that they will have a better chance of winning public sympathy.

Excellent point. I haven't seen any emotion from the NRA and tyranny talking heads. None from Alex Jones, Larry Pratt, Rush Limbaugh, or others. They are so rational and reasonable in their presentation that we should all emulate their fine example of civility.

the DC school barACK!'s kids attend had multiple armed guards long before he was elected, so yes it's a double standard. Elite private skools for DC powerbroker's kids deserve protection, yet it's a horrible idea for your average govt skool in Toledo or Omaha..

I didn't read the link, but I don't think the NRA is talking about SS protection. They're talking about the armed guards employed by this elite skool for decades..

the letter why wrote:

The more obvious point is that the safety of the President's children is a matter of national security. The safety of other children is not. I mean, obviously...

Yes, some animals are more equal than other animals...

Link wrote:

Sheez! The difference is that the President's daughters are protected by the best trained, most disciplined and thoroughly vetted guards in the history of the world rather than a bunch of local Barneys - which is what we'd get with the NRA proposal.

Boom!

Link wrote:

Sheez! The difference is that the President's daughters are protected by the best trained, most disciplined and thoroughly vetted guards in the history of the world rather than a bunch of local Barneys - which is what we'd get with the NRA proposal.

exactly

The problem with American Children, obviously, is that they grow up to be Americans.

Obama has never proposed that guns be banned.

The presidents children are not more important than other children and not necessarily a matter of national security.

The presidents children are more at risk than most children because of who they are.

Some schools in bad areas already have armed guards because they are more at risk than most suburban schools or rural schools.

This is a matter of risk and resources.

The NRA can look into privately funding and supplying protection for all public schools.

The fact that they ask taxpayers to fund low risk situations is pretty amazing.

These people must be in favor of higher taxes if they want the government to support this.

reading 101 wrote:

The safety of the president's children is no more or less a national security issue than any other kids in the nation.

Seriously? Can you possibly keep a straight face when typing that?

So, some nut case or Al Qaeda hit man is likely to kidnap my child and then attempt to hold the entire country hostage? Seriously?

And if they did, the entire country's focus would be on this just as it would if the kidnapped child were the President's? Seriously?

Please try thinking before posting. It would do you good.

Mr. Obvious wrote:

the letter why wrote:

The more obvious point is that the safety of the President's children is a matter of national security. The safety of other children is not. I mean, obviously...

Yes, some animals are more equal than other animals...

Dude, you used to make so much more sense when you limited your posts to "pics?".

It is just a teeny bit likely that the President would have his judgement impaired by the emotional turmoil caused by the kidnapping of his daughter. No?

This could present a national security risk. No?

Please try thinking.

Or just stick with "pics?".

Viruses are no fun;

as a response to the Sandy Hook shootings, many people were calling for more gun control and/or bans.

The NRA's position is more armed guards.

Obama supposedly came out against this idea (I have no idea this is actually true, assume it is for sake of arguement).

The NRA's response to this is, the President has armed security for his kids and in fact the school they go to already has armed security, as do 20,000 of the 100,000 schools in the USA.

Now you are hysterical about the fact Obama's kids safety is a national security issue and that they are different. What I'm saying is that to every parent there child is everything to them. If armed guards provide better security than they would otherwise have then it is something that should be pusued EVEN THOUGH THE NATIONAL SECURITY COMPONENT is not there.

Is your arguement only national security threats deserve reasonable security measures?

Please get back to me when you can either:

a) Show where I am hysterical

or

b) Stick to debating what is actually said

Thanks

I'm sorry, how could a barACK! with 'impaired judgement' be worse than a non-impaired barry?

I love it. We spend trillions on the most under achieving skool system in the history of man, but when we get all hysterical over protecting students from a virtually non-existent threat & decide to blame a private organization made up of law abiding gun owners & then said organization suggests we consider armed security at skools - no different than at courthouses & various other govt facilities - we get all bitchy & tell the NRA they should pay for the security.

WTF?

My name is Lance wrote:

I'm sorry, how could a barACK! with 'impaired judgement' be worse than a non-impaired barry?

My but your rhetorical skills are unmatched. Logic so compelling...Not to mention cute.

we can afford to buy & maintain expensive fleets of half empty school buses so as not to inconvenience parents with having to drive their kids to skool or (gasp!) have little johnny walk 2 blocks to skool, but no way we should pay a security guy $35k to patrol the skool?

And to the idiot that posted something about school security being made up of 'Barneys', vice SS agents, who exactly is the enemy that Barney might have to face down? Not exactly Delta Force, but some 20 yr old loser with zero training or experience.

And why do these loser shooters choose skools to shoot up, vice some other locale? Because they're a target-rich gun free zone..

And how would outlawing rifles stop these losers in these extremely rare incidents? What - a dude with a suicide fantasy is gonna be deterred because it's 'illegal' to own a rifle?