Thread: NRA Ad about Obama's Daughters

Well, yes. Every child being driven to school by professional secret servicemen in bulletproof glass limos and having individual guards who outnumber them 3:1 guard them every minute of their day would surely cut down on school shootings. I don't remember debating that as a viable option, nor is it.

If you remember the debate we had it was about ARMING TEACHERS for the thousandth time. Comparing a teacher with a gun to a SS agent is apples and oranges.

I will have to go back a re-read, but I was under the impression that "This" debate was about armed guards. If you were to go back to the debate on arming teachers you would see that I was very against that idea.

I agree with Bonita that it helps to prove that having an armed guard is typcially considered effective, or useful.

But beyond that, i don't think it helps support anything else.

And of course I do think Obama's kids are more at risk than my own. I don't have any objection to using armed guards in general, either for the Obama's kids or at schools (officers, not teachers!)...what i object to is that being a 'catch-all' solution and the suggestion that it is a replacement for gun control.

FTR I didnt' watch the actual ad yet and am only going by the article

I honestly don't know how you can compare these things. The President's children vs. our children? I'm sorry, the children of any president are living under constant physical threat, that's why they have that protection. My children don't need that level of security or even close to it. It wouldn't matter who the President is, his/her children need that security. I find the comparison preposterous.

His children aren't the only ones at higher risk for being targeted. Who gets to decide which children are more likely to get shot by a crazy person? Do we allow armed guards for governors' kids? State Representatives? Mayors'? FBI? IRS? CIA? Cops' kids (those who deal with violent criminals)? Teachers kids? Who decides which children need to have an exception made for the no guns in school rules? Is it *just* the President and former presidents' kids who deserve to have someone protecting them?

Because from what we see in the media, it's not the important peoples' kids being shot.

eta-if we're going to spend the money it's going to cost for the future legislation coming and the executive order, why not just hire someone to protect all kids? or set up a schedule for adults who are approved to own a gun to volunteer in the school? My husband had a full background check this year before he was allowed to coach little league despite having a really really high security clearance. If we have the money to pass all of the measures proposed, why don't we have the money for the background checks and labor to organize it?

The presidents kids security is completely different then a security guard at a school. Their job is to protect a person, mostly from kidnapping, not murder. The presidents kids need to be protected this way because the president needs to be free from threat and blackmail. If his children are in danger, he is like any other parent and (I assume) would do whatever he could to keep them safe. The country pays to protect them, to keep him out of a situation where he needs to choose between his children and his country. I don't have an issue with other 'employers' deciding that their employee is in a sensitive enough situation to warrant protecting his (or her) children this way, or a parent choosing to hire security for their own child, but I do think they should be put into a private school, where other parents are aware of, and agree to the body guard situation.

I don't necessarily disagree with school guards, not sure how I would feel, but I think it is a totally different situation.

I just can't see comparing the level of security that the President's family requires with my own family, as if that should be the standard. I don't think it's about comparing whose kids are more "important" nearly so much as comparing whose kids are more likely to be specifically targeted. I think that the President and his family is far more likely to be targeted for violence than me or my family, which is why it makes sense to me that he and his family have an armed gaurd and I don't. Can you imagine if I hired armed body guards to travel with me everywhere or put the kind of security in my house that I'm sure they have at the White House? You would all think I'm nuts, right? I just don't see that the two are comparible.

If our kids need the level of protection that the President's kids need, we are doing something very, very, very wrong.

Originally Posted by AlyssaEimers

I think it makes a fair point. One person's children are not more valuable that someone else's.

It's not about making one person's children more important than another's. They are at greater risk for harm.

AFAIK, in CA, it's murder 1 to kill a cop. Is he or she more valuable than another person? Or does their career choice make them more of a target?

Ya know, Justin Beiber has a bodyguard. I think if it's good enough for an 18 YO kid, it ought to be good enough for me. Clearly I must need one if he does.

I think it does show that if guards can protect some children, they could protect all children. I believe the intent of the ad was to show that point, not to make it seem like the Obama children do not need guards (could be wrong, I am not a huge NRA fan)