School obama's daughters attend has 11 armed guards

[marsden]

Some interesting news has broken in the wake of the latest push for gun control by President Obama and Senate Democrats: Obama sends his kids to a school where armed guards are used as a matter of fact.

The school, Sidwell Friends School in Washington, DC, has 11 security officers and is seeking to hire a new police officer as we speak.

If you dismiss this by saying, "Of course they have armed guards -- they get Secret Service protection," then you've missed the larger point.

The larger point is that this is standard operating procedure for the school, period. And this is the reason people like NBC's David Gregory send their kids to Sidwell, they know their kids will be protected from the carnage that befell kids at a school where armed guards weren't used (and weren't even allowed).

"Shame on President Obama for seeking more gun control and for trying to prevent the parents of other school children from doing what he has clearly done for his own. His children sit under the protection guns afford, while the children of regular Americans are sacrificed."

School Obama's Daughters Attend Has 11 Armed Guards

[/QUOTE]

 

[cpwill]

:shock: That's.... so.... dangerous.....


we need to get those guns out of that school right away!

 

[Moot]

"Shame on President Obama for seeking more gun control and for trying to prevent the parents of other school children from doing what he has clearly done for his own. His children sit under the protection guns afford, while the children of regular Americans are sacrificed."

School Obama's Daughters Attend Has 11 Armed Guards

Schools in Utah have had armed officers present at the schools for YEARS. YEARS!!!! Some even teach entire courses in the junior and high schools. They've also had armed response patroling all the areas around the schools...again for YEARS. And if Utah has armed police officers in the schools then it stands to reason so do a lot of schools across the country.

It might also surprise you to know that Colombine had two armed police officers present when the school was attacked and they engaged in a shootout with the killers.


Shame on the NRA and Brietbart for not telling you the facts and inflaming your emotions and hate.

 

[marsden]

Schools in Utah have had armed officers present at the schools for YEARS. YEARS!!!! Some even teach entire courses in the junior and high schools. They've also had armed response patroling all the areas around the schools...again for YEARS. And if Utah has armed police officers in the schools then it stands to reason so do a lot of schools across the country.

It might also surprise you to know that Colombine had two armed police officers present when the school was attacked and they engaged in a shootout with the killers.

Shame on the NRA and Brietbart for not telling you the facts and inflaming your emotions and hate.

The police follow department policy which reflects the best current thinking and tacticsregarding each type of threat. As the nature of the threat changes or as the way of dealing with the threat changes you will see a different response by police to similar types of situations.

As a result of the Columbine shootings, where the SOP was for police NOT to quickly confront the shooters, police departments around the world have changed their procedures for dealing with these types of shootings and shooters.

So, to cite the presence of armed guards at Columbine without recognizing their instructions not to rush in and stop the shooters is misleading and unfair in discussing this matter of why the presence of armed guards at Columbine didn't lessen the mayhem, to our knowledge.

 

[ChuckBerry]

"Shame on President Obama for seeking more gun control and for trying to prevent the parents of other school children from doing what he has clearly done for his own. His children sit under the protection guns afford, while the children of regular Americans are sacrificed."

School Obama's Daughters Attend Has 11 Armed Guards

That's because his daughters are political targets because he is president, and the children of all high profile people are potential kidnapping and extortion targets. The average elementary school child is not such a target and thus does not need such heavy protection.

This is clearly a context-free anti-Obama hit piece. I don't begrudge anyone who chooses to send their children to such a heavily secured school. Nor do I think it makes them hypocrites, since afaik Obama has not called for nor shown support for general restrictions on civilian gun ownership.

 

[marsden]

Schools in Utah have had armed officers present at the schools for YEARS. YEARS!!!! Some even teach entire courses in the junior and high schools. They've also had armed response patroling all the areas around the schools...again for YEARS. And if Utah has armed police officers in the schools then it stands to reason so do a lot of schools across the country.

It might also surprise you to know that Colombine had two armed police officers present when the school was attacked and they engaged in a shootout with the killers.

Shame on the NRA and Brietbart for not telling you the facts and inflaming your emotions and hate.

Another point, which I failed to address from your post, is that if the Utah school systems have been using armed guards in their schools successfully, that's just one more bit of evidence that the NRA idea has already been tried and proven effective.

 

[marsden]

That's because his daughters are political targets because he is president, and the children of all high profile people are potential kidnapping and extortion targets. The average elementary school child is not such a target and thus does not need such heavy protection.

This is clearly a context-free anti-Obama hit piece. I don't begrudge anyone who chooses to send their children to such a heavily secured school. Nor do I think it makes them hypocrites, since afaik Obama has not called for nor shown support for general restrictions on civilian gun ownership.

Do you have school aged children?

Like you, I don't begrudge anyone doing what they can to afford their children a 'zone of safety.' All I'm saying is that, like Obama, I want safety for MY child, too!

Anyone who feels that the 'average' child doesn't need as much protection as Sasha and Malia may be looking at it objectively, but not as a parent, who has vto see this subjectively...'who says my kid isn't worth as much safety as Obama's kids!?!?'

 

[zhak]

Do you have school aged children?

Like you, I don't begrudge anyone doing what they can to afford their children a 'zone of safety.' All I'm saying is that, like Obama, I want safety for MY child, too!

Anyone who feels that the 'average' child doesn't need as much protection as Sasha and Malia may be looking at it objectively, but not as a parent, who has vto see this subjectively...'who says my kid isn't worth as much safety as Obama's kids!?!?'

great point, not biased, just common sense,

 

[The Man]

Obama's daughters have armed guards around them everywhere they go, not just school. They're called secret service.

 

[ttwtt78640]

That's because his daughters are political targets because he is president, and the children of all high profile people are potential kidnapping and extortion targets. The average elementary school child is not such a target and thus does not need such heavy protection.

This is clearly a context-free anti-Obama hit piece. I don't begrudge anyone who chooses to send their children to such a heavily secured school. Nor do I think it makes them hypocrites, since afaik Obama has not called for nor shown support for general restrictions on civilian gun ownership.

The Obama children enjoy SS protection, so that added school security is not about them at all, but likely for the comfort of other members of the "ruling class". The point is that Obama wishes, as all parents do, to have their children kept in a safe environment, even if that happens to be a public school. You may not like the NRA suggestion, to add arms to school security, but that is exactly what the annointed ruling class have chosen to do; so it is very strange that this suggestion is "disliked" (because the NRA made it?) but also used by those the seem to dislike it so much. Hmm...

 

[Moot]

The police follow department policy which reflects the best current thinking and tacticsregarding each type of threat. As the nature of the threat changes or as the way of dealing with the threat changes you will see a different response by police to similar types of situations.

As a result of the Columbine shootings, where the SOP was for police NOT to quickly confront the shooters, police departments around the world have changed their procedures for dealing with these types of shootings and shooters.

So, to cite the presence of armed guards at Columbine without recognizing their instructions not to rush in and stop the shooters is misleading and unfair in discussing this matter.

Nonsense. Your comments only prove that you haven't a clue what happened at Colombine. NOT A CLUE!!! :roll:

 

[RabidAlpaca]

Nonsense. Your comments only prove that you haven't a clue what happened at Colombine. NOT A CLUE!!! :roll:

And in instead of correcting him on his inaccuracies, you act like a child by writing in all caps and making little smilies. Great rebuttal.

 

[AliHajiSheik]

If the school district wants to pay for it, fine with me. Hope they late the community vote on it, though.

 

[Tonawanda]

"Shame on President Obama for seeking more gun control and for trying to prevent the parents of other school children from doing what he has clearly done for his own. His children sit under the protection guns afford, while the children of regular Americans are sacrificed."

School Obama's Daughters Attend Has 11 Armed Guards

[/QUOTE]

Although I'm not a proponent of the President's new war on guns initiative, I must say that I don't see any justification for your statement.

We don't even know the exact details of what he is going to try to push/rush through as a result of these recent shootings.

I believe he would be more than willing to provide every school in the country with as much armed security as necessary to protect all school children. $$$$$ is no object when it comes to his social programs, and what's a few more billion dollars to protect school children going to matter anyways.

I don't agree with his ideology, and especially him using a tragedy of this magnitude to make another fundamental change to America, but cannot question his sincerity to do what he thinks is the right thing. I believe he is fine with an "end justifies the means" approach to accomplish his mission.

 

[Moot]

And in instead of correcting him on his inaccuracies, you act like a child by writing in all caps and making little smilies. Great rebuttal.

It's not my job to do his homework.

 

[clownboy]

Nonsense. Your comments only prove that you haven't a clue what happened at Colombine. NOT A CLUE!!! :roll:

You're not showing much of a clue here yourself. Columbine wasn't a school shooting as much as a highly planned armed assault. Read the timeline and you'll see that without the armed officer response in the school things would have been so much worse and gone on for longer, possibly giving them time to repair their explosive deployment.

The proposed ban on AW and magazines would not have made one whit difference in the matter. Not only would they already have had the weapons, but even if they didn't, they showed quite clearly in planning that they were not adverse to buying stuff off the black market and knew where to get it. They had the budget for it despite being HS students.

 

[Bob N]

"Shame on President Obama for seeking more gun control and for trying to prevent the parents of other school children from doing what he has clearly done for his own. His children sit under the protection guns afford, while the children of regular Americans are sacrificed."

School Obama's Daughters Attend Has 11 Armed Guards

I feel that the writer of the Breitbart article, Mr. Hawkins, left out some other details when he said the following:

Shame on President Obama for seeking more gun control and for trying to prevent the parents of other school children from doing what he has clearly done for his own. His children sit under the protection guns afford, while the children of regular Americans are sacrificed.

Protection guns afford? Well seeing that Sidwell Friends is a private school that expects payments for their services, I can not possibly see how this kind of exclusive environment can be compared to a public one. Mr. Hawkins is wrong. Any time parents wish to place their children in a private school, armed guards or not, they have always had that right to do so. Take note of the costs that Sidwell Friends has most likely figured in to their operations for armed security though.

With most small communities, like I live in for example, suffering the lack of revenue to even pay for the common services that most local citizens need--everyday cost of running schools without the security; garbage pickup; police and fire; etc; --I see where the costs of paying for well trained security like at Sidwell Friends could become a burden to a small community.

Anymore, where I live just the garbage pickup is getting to be difficult; in my area the garbage is to be picked up on Mondays but most of the time it is picked up the next day. There are cut backs on police for the city and law enforcement for the county Sheriff's Department.

Our city has a private school but do not have any armed guards patrolling them.

 

[ttwtt78640]

I feel that the writer of the Breitbart article, Mr. Hawkins, left out some other details when he said the following:



Protection guns afford? Well seeing that Sidwell Friends is a private school that expects payments for their services, I can not possibly see how this kind of exclusive environment can be compared to a public one. Mr. Hawkins is wrong. Any time parents wish to place their children in a private school, armed guards or not, they have always had that right to do so. Take note of the costs that Sidwell Friends has most likely figured in to their operations for armed security though.

With most small communities, like I live in for example, suffering the lack of revenue to even pay for the common services that most local citizens need--everyday cost of running schools without the security; garbage pickup; police and fire; etc; --I see where the costs of paying for well trained security like at Sidwell Friends could become a burden to a small community.

Anymore, where I live just the garbage pickup is getting to be difficult; in my area the garbage is to be picked up on Mondays but most of the time it is picked up the next day. There are cut backs on police for the city and law enforcement for the county Sheriff's Department.

Our city has a private school but do not have any armed guards patrolling them.

Yep. It is far cheaper for the authoritarian, nanny state to simply ban all tools of potential evil (guns) than to actually contain, deter, arrest, try and jail those that actually perform violent acts with them. It is more "cost efficient" to disarm the population and allow armed police agents to "keep order" by executing any potentially threatening (armed?) folks than to mess with all of that garbage needed to allow a free society and that presumtion of innocense nonsense.

 

[Moot]

You're not showing much of a clue here yourself. Columbine wasn't a school shooting as much as a highly planned armed assault. Read the timeline and you'll see that without the armed officer response in the school things would have been so much worse and gone on for longer, possibly giving them time to repair their explosive deployment.

The proposed ban on AW and magazines would not have made one whit difference in the matter. Not only would they already have had the weapons, but even if they didn't, they showed quite clearly in planning that they were no adverse to buying stuff off the black market. They had the budget for it despite being HS students.

I did read a timeline and the armed response did absolutely nothing to stop those two killers. In fact, the killers were joking about it. And believe you me, those two were killers in every sense of the word. Pure evil if ever there was such a thing.

The two killers got their guns from a straw purchase. Had there been a law against straw purchasing then maybe the girl wouldn't have bought the guns for those two maniacs. So to say that gun contol is useless I whole heartedly disagree....

"Robyn Anderson, a friend of Klebold and Harris, bought the shotguns and the Hi-Point 9mm Carbine at The Tanner Gun Show in December of 1998 from unlicensed sellers. Because Anderson purchased the guns for someone else, the transition constituted an illegal "straw purchase." Klebold and Harris bought the TEC-DC9 from a pizza shop employee named Mark Manes, who knew they were too young to purchase the assault pistol, but nevertheless sold it to them for $500...."

VPC - Where'd They Get Their Guns? - Columbine High School, Littleton, Colorado

Straw purchasing, unlicensed sellers, gun show loophole are just a few of the gun control laws that could have stopped guns from getting into the hands of those two Colombine killers. At least the idiots who sold a gun to the killers were charged with felonies......

GOLDEN, Colorado CNN In a plea bargain that may keep him out of jail, the man charged with providing a semiautomatic handgun used in the Columbine High shootings pleaded guilty Wednesday to two felony charges.

Mark Manes sold a TEC DC9 pistol to 18 year old Eric Harris and 17 year old Dylan Klebold about two months before the April 20 attack in the Denver suburb of Littleton, Colorado.

Standing in Jefferson County District Court with his hands folded in front of him and his parents seated behind him, Manes pleaded guilty to providing a handgun to a minor and possession of a sawedoff shotgun....<snip>

Prosecutor Steven Jensen said Harris and Klebold contacted Manes on April 19, the night before the shooting, and asked him to get ammunition for the TEC DC9.

Manes went out that night and bought 100 rounds of 9 mm shells at a Kmart, the prosecutor told the court....read

Gun provider pleads guilty in Columbine case - CNN

To their credit, Kmart is no longer selling ammunition.

 

[Bob N]

Yep. It is far cheaper for the authoritarian, nanny state to simply ban all tools of potential evil (guns) than to actually contain, deter, arrest, try and jail those that actually perform violent acts with them. It is more "cost efficient" to disarm the population and allow armed police agents to "keep order" by executing any potentially threatening (armed?) folks than to mess with all of that garbage needed to allow a free society and that presumtion of innocense nonsense.

I'm sorry but I don't see anything back in post #17 (the words I wrote) of this thread saying anything about banning guns or disarming the population. Did you have a point concerning what I wrote or did you wish to start another thread?

 

[clownboy]

And doesn't it seem silly to you to suppose that if they had no problem figuring out how to buy the guns illegally that they wouldn't have done so even if the laws you suppose were in place? How absurd is it to pass a law making it illegal to buy guns illegally? Oh yeah, we're serious this time, we really mean it, don't buy guns illegally. Yeah, that should solve the problem.

And of course they were laughing, they planned this to occur during what amounts to shift change and circumstances helped them and hindered the protection (primarily the lapse in surveillence during the changing of the tape right when the guards were on break).

Btw, no mention from you about banning possession of propane cylinders for HS students. That's what they used for a diversion and what they planned to use on the school in the form of explosives.

 

[SMTA]

Nonsense. Your comments only prove that you haven't a clue what happened at Colombine. NOT A CLUE!!! :roll:

Way to address truth by acting childish.

 

[Carjosse]

During the Dawson College shooting armed police stopped the shooting there from getting worse. When they heard gun shots they rushed into the cafeteria, the shooter took hostages but the officer shot the shooter in the arm and later committed suicide. It would have been much worse if the officer wasn't there.

 

[ttwtt78640]

I'm sorry but I don't see anything back in post #17 (the words I wrote) of this thread saying anything about banning guns or disarming the population. Did you have a point concerning what I wrote or did you wish to start another thread?

OK, let me put it this way. If you wish to protect students from a given threat (gun weilding criminals), then you must try to eliminate/mitigate that threat. Your assertion is that since your school district lacks the funds/resources to provide more school security, that leaves little wiggle room except for either A) doing nothing to improve school security or B) attempting to eliminate that threat by other means. The "other means" being suggested by many, is the return to the AWB and restrictions on all civilian magazine capacity, the "other means" suggested in the OP is use of armed school security personnel. The fact that school (or any other) security is not without cost is beyond debate.

 

[jamesrage]

That's because his daughters are political targets because he is president, and the children of all high profile people are potential kidnapping and extortion targets. The average elementary school child is not such a target and thus does not need such heavy protection.

How many kids of presidents have been murdered at a school? How many school aged kids of everyone else have been murdered in a mass school shooting that resulted in the death of 4 or more children?