White House calls NRA video repugnant, cowardly

[Teddy B 17,252]

Not repugnant if you do believe all men, even elected officials, are created equal and are entitled to equal protection under the law and repugnant if you do not. Not repugnant if you do believe that the powers of the elected officals only derive from the consent of those they govern and repugnant if you do not.

What a foolish response. My statement addressed the risk factor that high ranking officials and their families face on a daily basis. What does that have to do with whether or not all men are created equal?

[ready4ONE 5,400]

It's repugnant to hide your children behind 12 armed guards and a staff of secret service agents then tell the people you lead that they are repugnant to call for armed security for their own children and that they are cowards for pointing this out.

You're in a position where you find yourself the frequent target of assassination attempts are you? Kidnapping or assassination of your children could effect national security?

[himher 634]

What a foolish response.

You acknowledge that the risk factor is there and you acknowledge that men with guns are there to mitigate that risk. That is what the video also acknowledged. So it was factually correct.

The video pointed out that since men with guns mitigate the risk factor (which you have already acknowledged is there) works effectively then perhaps men with guns will mitigate the different risk factors that children face in schools today.

Which gets them labelled cowards by those who want the job and fight to get the job but aren't really ballsy enough to hold their head up and walk down the street and take their chances after they get it

What a foolish response. My statement addressed the risk factor that high ranking officials and their families face on a daily basis. What does that have to do with whether or not all men are created equal?

Edited January 26, 2013 by himher

[himher 634]

Your post would be applicable had I or anyone called for removal of or expressed resentment about the referenced security rather than simply noting that since it works there perhaps it would be good to apply the concept to other valuable assets like say for instance schools.

Applying something that works to solve a problem that but does not really further a political agenda is offensive?

You're in a position where you find yourself the frequent target of assassination attempts are you? Kidnapping or assassination of your children could effect national security?

Edited January 26, 2013 by himher

[Dan and Judy 614]

When was the last time anyone here was threatened with assassination? Or the assassination of their family?

Do threats from ex-wives count?

[Pooky 3,839]

Do threats from ex-wives count?

Ex-wives vs professional assassins?

I'd rather take the assassin. Ex-wives (from what I hear) are relentless, always seem to know where you will be, know your weaknesses in minute detail and are often quite happy to see you suffer an embarrassing and humiliating demise, leading to your utter destruction.

A professional assassin, on the other hand, will find you and kill you. Far less dangerous, if you ask me.

[Teddy B 17,252]

What a foolish response.

You acknowledge that the risk factor is there and you acknowledge that men with guns are there to mitigate that risk. That is what the video also acknowledged. So it was factually correct.

The video pointed out that since men with guns mitigate the risk factor (which you have already acknowledged is there) works effectively then perhaps men with guns will mitigate the different risk factors that children face in schools today.

Which gets them labelled cowards by those who want the job and fight to get the job but aren't really ballsy enough to hold their head up and walk down the street and take their chances after they get it

So you believe that the children of high ranking officials,(ie: the children of the POTUS) and the children of the average Joe in any town USA face the same life risks in their everyday lives?

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Can we just clear up one major misconception here real quick? The school that Obama's kids and David Gregory's kids and many other "elitist" kids attend has, in fact, ZERO armed guards. That's right. None. Not a single one. The NRA has been LYING about this.

[Penny Lane 8,159]

Can we just clear up one major misconception here real quick? The school that Obama's kids and David Gregory's kids and many other "elitist" kids attend has, in fact, ZERO armed guards. That's right. None. Not a single one. The NRA has been LYING about this.

Way to ruin yet another topic with this truth stuff.

[Teddy B 17,252]

Can we just clear up one major misconception here real quick? The school that Obama's kids and David Gregory's kids and many other "elitist" kids attend has, in fact, ZERO armed guards. That's right. None. Not a single one. The NRA has been LYING about this.

I'm with you on that, but high profile people and their families do receive protection, some privately funded, some gov't funded. I'm attempting to get a level headed answer on why Him/Her seems to believe that high profile people share the same life risks as the average family in the US and therefore require the same type of protection. I don't see the logic in his argument that what's good for the kids of the POTUS should be the standard for everyone else in the country. It is logical to have armed guards protecting one or two high profile people at a time, people's who's lives ARE actually in danger on a daily basis. It is not logical to think that one or two armed guards placed in a school can protect 600 plus people, nor is it financially realistic. And that should not be the type of atmosphere our children should be raised in.

[Penny Lane 8,159]

I'm attempting to get a level headed answer on why Him/Her seems to believe that high profile people share the same life risks as the average family in the US and therefore require the same type of protection.

There isn't a level headed answer. It's a completely ridiculous argument that's making people look ridiculous for buying into it.

[Teddy B 17,252]

There isn't a level headed answer. It's a completely ridiculous argument that's making people look ridiculous for buying into it.

In that case Gary should be along any moment to put his 2 cents in.

[james&olya 1,121]

The issue is not even the safety' or lack of it, for the sake of the children involved. It is the safety of the US that is at issue with people who get Secret Service protection. The safety of Obama's children is no less but also no more important, for their own sake, than for any children here in the USA. National security IS the issue. How could any president remain objective in his decision making if his wife or children were taken hostage? That is why they must be protected, whether they like it or not. Most do not!

Whether the school they attend employs armed guards or not, I am sure that armed Secret Service agents are always nearby!