Using the Pres. kids is going too far

[garyed]

I find it amusing that some strong gun supporters can be rational & others can't see passed the sights of their weapons.
While attacking gun rights may be attacking our personal freedom it still has nothing to do with protecting the President's kids.
Does anyone here really believe your kids are in immediate danger of a terrorist or kidnap attack at school. If so we would all be guilty of negligence every day our kids went to school without armed protection. Isn't it far more likely they get hurt in an accident. Any President though with kids in school today would have to be not only negligent but a moron to let them go unprotected.
That doesn't mean his kids are more important than ours but just that they are much greater targets than ours.

[ControlsInMT]

I find it amusing that you feel my kids shouldn't have the same right to protection. Are they under the same risk? No. Does that matter? No. So let's throw it back following your logic. Wouldn't Obama be at fault for becoming POTUS and putting his kids at risk to begin with? That is basically what you are implying about us if we sent our kids to school where they might be hurt in some way.

Perhaps you would like the picture comparing Obama hiding behind kids to take guns away from us with the one of Hitler hiding behind kids to take guns away? While I disagree with Obama, a comparison to Hitler is truely WAY out of bounds. The reality is Hitler and Obama were not being compared as individuals, but their methods.

[BamaCool]

Why has nobody made this comparison: The NRA simply mentions his kids and gets a bunch of flack about it. He actually had real live kids on the stage with him when he was promoting his ideas and nobody says anything about that?

[Tool-Slinger]

I find it amusing that some strong gun supporters can be rational & others can't see passed the sights of their weapons.
While attacking gun rights may be attacking our personal freedom it still has nothing to do with protecting the President's kids.
Does anyone here really believe your kids are in immediate danger of a terrorist or kidnap attack at school. If so we would all be guilty of negligence every day our kids went to school without armed protection. Isn't it far more likely they get hurt in an accident. Any President though with kids in school today would have to be not only negligent but a moron to let them go unprotected.
That doesn't mean his kids are more important than ours but just that they are much greater targets than ours.

The presidents kids have secret service no matter what. Nobody is disputing the extra protection. But the school the president chose to send his kids to has 11/12 armed security gaurds of it's own whether the president's kids attend there or not.

GEEZ.

[geerair]

the whole point is why should our children not have the right of the same protection?

Your children have the right to the protection. Whether that protection is of a level comparable with the President's children is a matter for your local school board and taxpayers to decide.

[jmac00]

This is why I no longer belong to the NRA. No reasonable solutions, just propaganda to make people by more guns. When are people going to realize the manufacturers run the show. Tone deaf to the majority of reasonable gun owners is putting it mildly. If folks can't see the difference in the level of risk between the president's children and their own they need to step away from the discussion since they have nothing to offer.

you don't have kids, do you. If you don't have children, then maybe you need to step away from the conversation

[garyed]

I'm sure that's what they thought in Newtown too...the whole point is why should our children not have the right of the same protection?

Because our kids do not need the same protection. The anti-gun advocates are using the Newton tragedy to propose anti-gun legislation. So now we are using the Newton tragedy to say our kids are in as much danger as the President's kids if they go unprotected. I like the idea of an armed security guard in schools but that has nothing to do with the President's kids need for protection.

[Integrity Aire]

I believe the ad was specifically directed at sidwell friends school that has armed security, not the general security provided to a first family. It does seem a little amoral to endorse security for the 1% and not for anyone else.

[netsalt]

you don't have kids, do you. If you don't have children, then maybe you need to step away from the conversation

I have six children, and care about each one.

[jmac00]

Six - and I would do whatever it took to keep them safe - don't push it.

or what? LMAO

[netsalt]

or what? LMAO

I know you are a tough guy but I edited the post as soon as I could - you are obviously not worth it.

[jmac00]

I know you are a tough guy but I edited the post as soon as I could - you are obviously not worth it.

but your argument is mute, thats why it's not worth it.

[netsalt]

So Ok all the children need armed guards at school, at the bus stop, walking to the bus stop, going to the rest room, on the field playing sports and any other time they are outside the bunker. YOU WIN. Now pay for it, I need to quit my job to protect my kids in the bunker I'm digging so I just won't have time to work and pay taxes.