NRA Ad about Obama's Daughters

122 posts / 0 new
Last post
Alissa_Sal's picture
Joined: 06/29/06
Posts: 6427
NRA Ad about Obama's Daughters

You can see the ad at the link.

NRA Ad About Obama's Daughters: David Keene says ad "wasn't about the president's daughters."

The ongoing flap over the NRA's controversial ad involving President Obama's two daughters continued this morning, with the gun lobby's president insisting that the 35-second online spot "wasn't about the president's daughters" but instead about "how to keep children safe."

"We believe that every parent ought to be able to be comfortable, knowing that their children are safe, and if that requires armed security, it?s as good for the working man as it is for the president," NRA president David Keene told NBC's Today show. Here's the tape (the entire back and forth between Keene and Savannah Guthrie is worth your time, but the quote in question comes at around the 3:20 mark).

The ad, first released online Tuesday night, calls the president an "elite hypocrite" for pushing for stronger gun-control laws while his daughters are protected by armed Secret Service agents. "Are the president?s kids more important than yours?" the ad asks at its outset. "Then why is he skeptical about putting armed security in our schools when his kids are protected by armed guards at their school?"

The commercial drew a harsh rebuke from the White House yesterday, with spokesman Jay Carney calling it "repugnant and cowardly."

Do you think the ad makes a fair point, or do you think that the President's daughters (by virtue of being the President's daughters) are a special case more likely to be targeted than most of our children?

GloriaInTX's picture
Joined: 07/29/08
Posts: 4116

It does make a fair point. Sure the President's daughters are more likely to be targeted. Thats why they have 11 armed agents at their school protecting them. Doesn't seem unreasonable to ask that normal kids could have at least 1 for the whole school does it?

Joined: 05/31/06
Posts: 4780

I'm in the "repugnant and cowardly" camp.

To compare the presidents daughters to my children in terms of the threats they both face on a daily basis is illogical and farcical. It is the same argument that I believe Gloria tried to make in the other thread, though, so I suppose some people do actually think this way. I asked her to cite it and she never did, so obviously this is just ridiculous opinion. (The whole only the elite can pay other people to protect them sort of statement she made). The President and his family, whether Dem or Republican, simply deserve and require a higher level of protection that the average person does as they are a target in this world. .To argue against that is to not live in reality.

AlyssaEimers's picture
Joined: 08/22/06
Posts: 6568

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

Joined: 05/31/06
Posts: 4780

"GloriaInTX" wrote:

It does make a fair point. Sure the President's daughters are more likely to be targeted. Thats why they have 11 armed agents at their school protecting them. Doesn't seem unreasonable to ask that normal kids could have at least 1 for the whole school does it?

Well, the presidential motorcade travels with 30 plus vehicles. Based on your stats do you believe that every school bus should be escorted by one police car, or have one armed guard on it? Is the 11:1 ratio strict?

GloriaInTX's picture
Joined: 07/29/08
Posts: 4116

"Potter75" wrote:

Well, the presidential motorcade travels with 30 plus vehicles. Based on your stats do you believe that every school bus should be escorted by one police car, or have one armed guard on it? Is the 11:1 ratio strict?

Well that depends. If people started shooting kids on school buses maybe.

AlyssaEimers's picture
Joined: 08/22/06
Posts: 6568

There is a reasonable expectation that there would be more of a threat to the Obama girls, but either armed guards work and are a prudent security measure, or they do not. It has been proven that any time you put a large number of people together in that way that there is a danger of some nut attacking.

GloriaInTX's picture
Joined: 07/29/08
Posts: 4116

"AlyssaEimers" wrote:

There is a reasonable expectation that there would be more of a threat to the Obama girls, but either armed guards work and are a prudent security measure, or they do not. It has been proven that any time you put a large number of people together in that way that there is a danger of some nut attacking.

Especially when you announce to the world that it is a gun free zone. Sitting ducks.

Joined: 05/31/06
Posts: 4780

"AlyssaEimers" wrote:

There is a reasonable expectation that there would be more of a threat to the Obama girls, but either armed guards work and are a prudent security measure, or they do not. It has been proven that any time you put a large number of people together in that way that there is a danger of some nut attacking.

This is the opposite of what you just said, but okay. They are not more valuable than your children, but they are more of a target than your girls, by virtue of who they are.

AlyssaEimers's picture
Joined: 08/22/06
Posts: 6568

My point is if the theory that an armed guard can help protect someone or they can not is the same. If armed guards would not help in a school setting, they they would not help in the schools where the Obama girls go. Obviously they do help, and would help in other school settings.

Joined: 05/31/06
Posts: 4780

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.

AlyssaEimers's picture
Joined: 08/22/06
Posts: 6568

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.

KimPossible's picture
Joined: 05/24/06
Posts: 3319

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

Joined: 03/08/03
Posts: 3189

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.

wlillie's picture
Joined: 09/17/07
Posts: 1796

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?

ftmom's picture
Joined: 09/04/06
Posts: 1538

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.

Alissa_Sal's picture
Joined: 06/29/06
Posts: 6427

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.

Joined: 04/12/03
Posts: 1686

"AlyssaEimers" wrote:

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?

Joined: 04/12/03
Posts: 1686

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.

mom3girls's picture
Joined: 01/09/07
Posts: 1537

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)

AlyssaEimers's picture
Joined: 08/22/06
Posts: 6568

It just smacks of hypocritical to act like guns are bad and should be banished, while at the same time being surrounded by guns.

FTR - I am not against some gun regulation. I do however think it was a valid point to be brought up.

Joined: 08/17/04
Posts: 2226

But I don't want my kids to live like a President's kids do. I don't want my kids to have restrictions on when and where they can go because of idiotic people. I could easily turn it around and say I don't want it to be like Obama's kids. I want my kids to not worry they are going to get hurt at school. I want my kids to go to school without armed guards. Why is that so hard to fathom?

I think Malia and Sasha need that protection because they are targets and daily. Yes, my kids could get hurt by some loon but the chances to that are slim. They are not in the spotlight nor do I want them to be because I don't want them to have that need to be guarded.

Joined: 05/31/06
Posts: 4780

Yes, OBama is totally an "Elitist hypocrite" like this ad CALLS HIM for obeying with the same SS protocol that every US president has abided by for the past several generations. Ridiculous and insulting. The NRA really has a lot of gaul referring to our standing president in such a way. Talk about disrespectful and disgusting.

I'm so glad Chris Christie came out against this ad, calling it "reprehensible". For any normal person to support this sort of hateful nonsense is BS.

AlyssaEimers's picture
Joined: 08/22/06
Posts: 6568

"Jessica80" wrote:

But I don't want my kids to live like a President's kids do. I don't want my kids to have restrictions on when and where they can go because of idiotic people. I could easily turn it around and say I don't want it to be like Obama's kids. I want my kids to not worry they are going to get hurt at school. I want my kids to go to school without armed guards. Why is that so hard to fathom?

It would be wonderful if no one, including the First Children needed this kind of protection. The fact of the matter is though, that there are millions of guns out there and there is nothing anyone can do to get rid of them all. If someone really wants one they can get one. School will have to up their security if they want to prevent things like this from happening in the future. It can be in combination with background checks and other preventive measures, but the up is security will have to happen as well. It is unfortunate that kids can not go to school and not have to worry about what could happen, but it is not the reality that we live in today.

Joined: 08/17/04
Posts: 2226

But I don't see it as a constant threat. If my daughter's school got a call that there was someone coming to shoot up the school, yes, I would expect the police to respond. I don't see this as an ongoing threat. No more than I think she can't go on her bus or the van for the chance they are in a bad accident which is highly more likely (and yes it terrifies me). It is scary and it is something that needs to be dealt with but I don't believe that armed guards at all schools is the answer.

AlyssaEimers's picture
Joined: 08/22/06
Posts: 6568

"Jessica80" wrote:

But I don't see it as a constant threat. If my daughter's school got a call that there was someone coming to shoot up the school, yes, I would expect the police to respond. I don't see this as an ongoing threat. No more than I think she can't go on her bus or the van for the chance they are in a bad accident which is highly more likely (and yes it terrifies me). It is scary and it is something that needs to be dealt with but I don't believe that armed guards at all schools is the answer.

Maybe not all schools. Each school should be able to assess what is necessary or not necessary for their district. It is definitely a viable option though and one that is proven to work or high profile people would not do it. I believe it is a MUCH better idea than arming teachers, and a necessity in many schools.

Joined: 08/17/04
Posts: 2226

Absolutely true and one I believe the POTUS agrees with. He agrees with letting each district figure out. What he is skeptical about is that it is the only solution and I agree.

Joined: 05/31/06
Posts: 4780

"AlyssaEimers" wrote:

It would be wonderful if no one, including the First Children needed this kind of protection. The fact of the matter is though, that there are millions of guns out there and there is nothing anyone can do to get rid of them all. If someone really wants one they can get one. School will have to up their security if they want to prevent things like this from happening in the future. It can be in combination with background checks and other preventive measures, but the up is security will have to happen as well. It is unfortunate that kids can not go to school and not have to worry about what could happen, but it is not the reality that we live in today.

I think that you view this with the warped and sheltered perspective of someone who not only homeschools, but never ever leaves their children in someone elses care (or at least that is the impression that I've drawn from reading your posts). My kids go to school, camps, childcare at my gym, all sorts of places other than just my living room, so leaving them with others is something that happens on a daily basis. I do not cower in fear every day when I drop them off for their activities at our gym. I don't cry when my son gets on his school bus, or I drop my daughter off at preschool. Statistically they are more likely to die in the car on the way there. I think that I have a pretty sane, normal perspective on all of this.

Do you cry in fear every time you go to the mall or a home depot or a movie? How about a grocery store or walmart or wherever you shop? Because killings happen there too, would you prefer to see all of those placed turned into armed facilities? The beach? Your local lake? All places where people gather. Should our lifeguards carry loaded weapons?

I get that the NRA is working very very hard to scare you. To make you wring your hands and believe in the "bad guys" being everywhere and it all being too hopeless and us all being surrounded and the only thing to DO is to arm ourselves to the TEETH! But it just isn't true. Obama is no more a hypocrite in having guns around him than I am in wanting security around the airport my husband is going to be flying out of tonight in CA. I know planes have been a terrorist target. I want extra safety surrounding them. Obama is a target, he needs extra safety. That neither makes me, or Obama, hypocrites!

AlyssaEimers's picture
Joined: 08/22/06
Posts: 6568

"Potter75" wrote:

I think that you view this with the warped and sheltered perspective of someone who not only homeschools, but never ever leaves their children in someone elses care (or at least that is the impression that I've drawn from reading your posts). My kids go to school, camps, childcare at my gym, all sorts of places other than just my living room, so leaving them with others is something that happens on a daily basis. I do not cower in fear every day when I drop them off for their activities at our gym. I don't cry when my son gets on his school bus, or I drop my daughter off at preschool. Statistically they are more likely to die in the car on the way there. I think that I have a pretty sane, normal perspective on all of this.

I also think you have a warped and sheltered view of what homeschooling is. It does not mean never taking your kids anywhere or not leaving them with anyone. People that homeschool take their kids all over the place. My not having any kids in Public school has nothing whatsoever to do with my ability to form an opinion on schools. DH works in a public school with over 2,000 students every day. I have nieces and nephews and other children that I care about.

ETA - I do want to clear this up because I feel that there is a lot of misconception to what homeschooling actually is. My girls have had tons of opportunities this year that they would not have had time for if they were in a traditional school. In a city where homeschooling is very common, there are so many opportunities for homeschoolers. Ton of co-op classes, homeschool groups. Tomorrow my oldest will be in a Homeschool spelling bee with dozens of other Homeschooler. Saturday we are going to the Aquarium and Monday we are going to a larger city 2 hours away to go to their zoo. We have gone to the local zoo at least once a week where there is a class where the zoo keeper teaches in detail about each of the animals. I am sure there are some homeschoolers with are kept bare foot up in the hills, but that is not the norm of what homeschooling is.

Joined: 05/31/06
Posts: 4780

"AlyssaEimers" wrote:

I also think you have a warped and sheltered view of what homeschooling is. It does not mean never taking your kids anywhere or not leaving them with anyone. People that homeschool take their kids all over the place. My not having any kids in Public school has nothing whatsoever to do with my ability to form an opinion on schools. DH works in a public school with over 2,000 students every day. I have nieces and nephews and other children that I care about.

No, I'm going by several of your posts saying that you wish you had opportunities for your children to play with other children and the like. If you leave your children in playgroups or camps or at a gym and I am mistaken I apologize. I thought that you had very recently posted here and elsewhere that you don't get to and wish that you did. Perhaps I'm thinking of someone else.

You have posted several times now that schools will never be the same, that flying was never the same etc. I just think that you don't have much of a world view to be able to form those opinions. Travel has gone back to being the same for most of us. We don't get on a plane in fear, or looking for scary Muslim men like it felt like we were immediately post 911. And Schools don't feel like the terrifying forever scarred places you keep posting them to be. I've been in my sons school several times since Sandy Hook and it feels pretty much exactly as it did before hand.

Do you worry every time you get in the car with your children? Because your children are less safe in your car than my children are in their school.

So while you seem to love to play up how unsafe the schools are, and how worried all of the children and parents ought to be.........I find it annoying of you. They are less safe tooling around in your car.

AlyssaEimers's picture
Joined: 08/22/06
Posts: 6568

"Potter75" wrote:

No, I'm going by several of your posts saying that you wish you had opportunities for your children to play with other children and the like. If you leave your children in playgroups or camps or at a gym and I am mistaken I apologize. I thought that you had very recently posted here and elsewhere that you don't get to and wish that you did. Perhaps I'm thinking of someone else.

You have posted several times now that schools will never be the same, that flying was never the same etc. I just think that you don't have much of a world view to be able to form those opinions. Travel has gone back to being the same for most of us. We don't get on a plane in fear, or looking for scary Muslim men like it felt like we were immediately post 911. And Schools don't feel like the terrifying forever scarred places you keep posting them to be. I've been in my sons school several times since Sandy Hook and it feels pretty much exactly as it did before hand.

Do you worry every time you get in the car with your children? Because your children are less safe in your car than my children are in their school.

So while you seem to love to play up how unsafe the schools are, and how worried all of the children and parents ought to be.........I find it annoying of you. They are less safe tooling around in your car.

Why is it ok for you to debate the personal decisions of my life? You do not appreciate it when others make assumptions about your life.

Joined: 05/31/06
Posts: 4780

It is unfortunate that kids can not go to school and not have to worry about what could happen, but it is not the reality that we live in today.

I'm debating this sentence. Your kids don't GO to school, so I'm telling you what REALITY is like. And if you disagree with me, feel free to correct me.

And you are free to make any assumption you like about my life, as you know that if you are incorrect I will correct you.

AlyssaEimers's picture
Joined: 08/22/06
Posts: 6568

"Potter75" wrote:

I'm debating this sentence. Your kids don't GO to school, so I'm telling you what REALITY is like. And if you disagree with me, feel free to correct me.

And you are free to make any assumption you like about my life, as you know that if you are incorrect I will correct you.

So every parent in America drops off their kids at school without a second thought and it never once comes into their mind that something could happen while they are at school? Every parent in America is 100% certain that their child is safe and they have no reason to worry over their kids? You might not ever worry about your kids, but that does not mean no one worries about their kids being in school. (Even though my girls are homeschooled now, my oldest went to school for preschool and Kindergarten, so she has been in school for more of her education than she has been homeschooled) Why would have conversations about gun control and not about school security? It does not make sense to not look at everything. The nations mental health, violent video games, gun control, AND school security. Not just ban some kinds of guns and then magically over night all of the threat of violence is going to go away.

Joined: 05/31/06
Posts: 4780

Just like you manage to drive your kids in your car without fear of death, I manage to keep the reality of the stats in my mind when it comes to school, preschool, the gym etc, yes.

Joined: 08/17/04
Posts: 2226

I'll admit there are days that I hear something or think of something and yes it is hard to let my baby go. She's 4 and has limited communication skills. The other 98% of the days I don't give it another thought. I don't sit there all day long thinking about the bad things that could happen. My mom takes them 2x a week. I don't sit there and worry about potential car crashes on their way to an errand at Target or the grocery store.

ftmom's picture
Joined: 09/04/06
Posts: 1538

Although we may not actively worry about things like our kids in the car, we have, as a society, decided that we need to make them safer by requiring car seats and seat belts. Although we may no longer 'actively' worry about flying, we have added extra security to ensure the safety of travelers. While I don't think that guns are the answer, and I would be upset if that happened in my kids school, I can also see that over the years we have been addressing these worries for our kids in school with things like lock down drills and locked doors. So really, there must be people out there who are worried, even if it isnt an active cry as your child walks away worry, it is thought about often enough to try to enforce some change.

We have yet to have the mass school shootings at the levels that they seem to happen in the states, so I cant really say what I would be calling for, or feeling if we did. But I am totally one of those people who would be worried, even if it isnt an active, keep them home from school worry.

Not sure I am being clear (lack of sleep and all). For example, my littles and I go to a playgroup in a school near here. Generally the school works their lockdown practices so that we are not there because they dont want to scare the littles by making them sit in the dark, so yesterday was the first day we were there for one. We knew it was coming, so were listening for it, but the intercom speaker didnt work in our room and we still almost missed it. Now, I am not super worried about being in a lock down at that school. It doesnt scare me to take my kids there, but when another mother and I passed the principal in the hallway later that day, we felt the need to tell her about the intercom not working, because there was a 'worry' that we would miss a real lock down if one happened.

Now I think I am rambling.....sorry if this makes no sense Smile

KimPossible's picture
Joined: 05/24/06
Posts: 3319

"ftmom" wrote:

Although we may not actively worry about things like our kids in the car, we have, as a society, decided that we need to make them safer by requiring car seats and seat belts. Although we may no longer 'actively' worry about flying, we have added extra security to ensure the safety of travelers. While I don't think that guns are the answer, and I would be upset if that happened in my kids school, I can also see that over the years we have been addressing these worries for our kids in school with things like lock down drills and locked doors. So really, there must be people out there who are worried, even if it isnt an active cry as your child walks away worry, it is thought about often enough to try to enforce some change.

We have yet to have the mass school shootings at the levels that they seem to happen in the states, so I cant really say what I would be calling for, or feeling if we did. But I am totally one of those people who would be worried, even if it isnt an active, keep them home from school worry.

Not sure I am being clear (lack of sleep and all). For example, my littles and I go to a playgroup in a school near here. Generally the school works their lockdown practices so that we are not there because they dont want to scare the littles by making them sit in the dark, so yesterday was the first day we were there for one. We knew it was coming, so were listening for it, but the intercom speaker didnt work in our room and we still almost missed it. Now, I am not super worried about being in a lock down at that school. It doesnt scare me to take my kids there, but when another mother and I passed the principal in the hallway later that day, we felt the need to tell her about the intercom not working, because there was a 'worry' that we would miss a real lock down if one happened.

Now I think I am rambling.....sorry if this makes no sense Smile

I get what you are saying. You can be concerned without being brought to the brink of paralysis by that worry. There is a difference between "I realize this is possible and we should take precautions and be prepared for that possibility" and "I'm terrified that this is most definitely going to happen someday and live in fear of doing anything"

Joined: 08/17/04
Posts: 2226

That's what I'm trying to say. There is normal worry and then there is active worry where I think we need to be under protection.

Why don't you think you need armed guards as a person? Obama has the SS. Do you not think you deserve that?

When I am home we have a security system. I don't use it while we're home. I don't think it is an active threat for me to use it. When I go into my office there is security guards (unarmed) and we have gates and doors that you can only pass through if you have your ID. That's because we deal with sensitive information. I don't think my home needs that level of security.

KimPossible's picture
Joined: 05/24/06
Posts: 3319

"Jessica80" wrote:

That's what I'm trying to say. There is normal worry and then there is active worry where I think we need to be under protection.

Why don't you think you need armed guards as a person? Obama has the SS. Do you not think you deserve that?

When I am home we have a security system. I don't use it while we're home. I don't think it is an active threat for me to use it. When I go into my office there is security guards (unarmed) and we have gates and doors that you can only pass through if you have your ID. That's because we deal with sensitive information. I don't think my home needs that level of security.

Admittedly i did read a story not that long ago about a woman in GA who was home alone with her kids who shot an intruder. He used a crowbar to get into the house. Included a 911 call by her husband and it was scary. (did i read that story here or somewhere else?)

Call to 911 was in, they were aware of the problem, but they weren't there yet.

ftmom's picture
Joined: 09/04/06
Posts: 1538

"KimPossible" wrote:

I get what you are saying. You can be concerned without being brought to the brink of paralysis by that worry. There is a difference between "I realize this is possible and we should take precautions and be prepared for that possibility" and "I'm terrified that this is most definitely going to happen someday and live in fear of doing anything"

Yes! Thats is what I am trying to say. Thanks Smile

Joined: 05/31/06
Posts: 4780

See- to me it's not about who is worrying or not- it's about who is proposing rational solutions to address their worry or not. I just finished a class with about 60 other women in a gym with about 14,000 members. Like 6 other similar classes were going on at the exact same time. All of us were wearing very little clothing as was appropriate for our activity- I guarantee no one was cc'ing. Any crazy person could have walked in and shot us all. At my parents church 1000 people may gather on a Sunday. Anyone could walk in and start shooting. To me this isn't just about schools. I go to the beach and the swimming pool all summer. No one is armed. There are no armed guards . To use Gloria's phrase we are "sitting ducks".

so when someone wants to put all of their focus on how scary schools are - to me it's like someone sitting downstream by a river where dead bodies keep washing up. They freak out about the dead bodies and want to put in elaborate dead body pulling out systems in place in the river. Okay. Fine. I see that as cowardly and short sighted. I want to walk upstream. Because I LIVE upstream and I need to know where and why these bodies are coming from. I can't just sit downstream and figure out ways to pull out those bodies and talk about how scary it is up there.

i want effective gun control because I don't want the shootings to start happening at churches, or country clubs, or gyms, or public beaches, or public pools, or parks, or amusement parks. I don't want armed guards everywhere I go. I don't want metal detectors to go worship or to go swimming in the ocean or running at the park. I want to be proactive, not reactive.

ftmom's picture
Joined: 09/04/06
Posts: 1538

"Potter75" wrote:

See- to me it's not about who is worrying or not- it's about who is proposing rational solutions to address their worry or not. I just finished a class with about 60 other women in a gym with about 14,000 members. Like 6 other similar classes were going on at the exact same time. All of us were wearing very little clothing as was appropriate for our activity- I guarantee no one was cc'ing. Any crazy person could have walked in and shot us all. At my parents church 1000 people may gather on a Sunday. Anyone could walk in and start shooting. To me this isn't just about schools. I go to the beach and the swimming pool all summer. No one is armed. There are no armed guards . To use Gloria's phrase we are "sitting ducks".

so when someone wants to put all of their focus on how scary schools are - to me it's like someone sitting downstream by a river where dead bodies keep washing up. They freak out about the dead bodies and want to put in elaborate dead body pulling out systems in place in the river. Okay. Fine. I see that as cowardly and short sighted. I want to walk upstream. Because I LIVE upstream and I need to know where and why these bodies are coming from. I can't just sit downstream and figure out ways to pull out those bodies and talk about how scary it is up there.

i want effective gun control because I don't want the shootings to start happening at churches, or country clubs, or gyms, or public beaches, or public pools, or parks, or amusement parks. I don't want armed guards everywhere I go. I don't want metal detectors to go worship or to go swimming in the ocean or running at the park. I want to be proactive, not reactive.

I agree with you for the most part, but, to use your analogy, it might take awhile to deal with the problem up river, and in the meantime we need to find a way to deal with the bodies downstream, because we drink this water. I personally dont think that guns in schools is the solution, but other people do seem to think that, and at this point I dont really have a viable alternative that wont be torn to shreds on here Smile I do feel that locked doors, lock down drills etc are enough, and they are where I live.

I also think that the reason so many people focus on schools is because we have this, probably irrational, belief that we could protect our children better than anyone else can, so if they are with us they are safer than when away from us, ie at school. I would think that people who are for guns in the school probably feel this stronger as they are more likely to have guns at home and CC. Since they thing guns equal safety, then they would want those same guns in the school. That is my take on it anyways.

GloriaInTX's picture
Joined: 07/29/08
Posts: 4116

"Potter75" wrote:

See- to me it's not about who is worrying or not- it's about who is proposing rational solutions to address their worry or not. I just finished a class with about 60 other women in a gym with about 14,000 members. Like 6 other similar classes were going on at the exact same time. All of us were wearing very little clothing as was appropriate for our activity- I guarantee no one was cc'ing. Any crazy person could have walked in and shot us all. At my parents church 1000 people may gather on a Sunday. Anyone could walk in and start shooting. To me this isn't just about schools. I go to the beach and the swimming pool all summer. No one is armed. There are no armed guards . To use Gloria's phrase we are "sitting ducks".

One of the differences is that no one has declared your gym or your church a "gun free zone" and publicized that fact. Do you know for a fact that none of these women have guns in their bags or purses in their locker? How would you know?

Joined: 08/17/04
Posts: 2226

My work is a gun free zone.

GloriaInTX's picture
Joined: 07/29/08
Posts: 4116

"Jessica80" wrote:

My work is a gun free zone.

And do you think that is going to keep some disgruntled employee from coming in with a gun to shoot everyone?

1/2 Hour News Hour 'Gun-Free Zone' parody | MRCTV

Joined: 05/31/06
Posts: 4780

"GloriaInTX" wrote:

One of the differences is that no one has declared your gym or your church a "gun free zone" and publicized that fact. Do you know for a fact that none of these women have guns in their bags or purses in their locker? How would you know?

I don't know that for a fact, but I do know for a fact that the locker room is a good 400 yards behind the classroom and towards the door from the classroom that we were in. If they did have their gun locked up in a locker, it would not do us any good at all if a gunman was standing in the doorway with an automatic weapon shooting hundreds of bullets at us.

You are missing the forest for the trees, however. I don't want to live in a police state. And I know that other countries don't. I've traveled to many parts of the world, and didn't have to swim or worship or study under armed guard. I don't believe that America has to be different.

GloriaInTX's picture
Joined: 07/29/08
Posts: 4116

"Potter75" wrote:

I don't know that for a fact, but I do know for a fact that the locker room is a good 400 yards behind the classroom and towards the door from the classroom that we were in. If they did have their gun locked up in a locker, it would not do us any good at all if a gunman was standing in the doorway with an automatic weapon shooting hundreds of bullets at us.

You are missing the forest for the trees, however. I don't want to live in a police state. And I know that other countries don't. I've traveled to many parts of the world, and didn't have to swim or worship or study under armed guard. I don't believe that America has to be different.

An AR-15 is a SEMI-Automatic weapon. Just the same as most handguns. Automatic weapons are very hard to get.

Here is an interesting take on it from someone who has actually been through it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DEJFAvA-ZUE

If you don't want a gun don't get one. Easy. But that doesn't mean other people shouldn't have the right to get one if they want to.

Believe it or not I don't have a gun. I just tend not to worry about someone shooting me, I am just that type of person. But I will fight for anyone who DOES want to carry one to have the right to do it.

Joined: 05/31/06
Posts: 4780

"GloriaInTX" wrote:

An AR-15 is a SEMI-Automatic weapon. Just the same as most handguns. Automatic weapons are very hard to get.

Here is an interesting take on it from someone who has actually been through it.
Dr. Suzanna Hupp Testimony Before Congress on the 2nd Amendment - YouTube

If you don't want a gun don't get one. Easy.

Believe it or not I don't have a gun. I just tend not to worry about someone shooting me, I am just that type of person. But I will fight for anyone who DOES want to carry one to have the right to do it.

None of this applies to what I am trying to debate.

Again, I don't want to live in fear, or in a police state. I don't understand why you believe that the USA has successfully made automatic weapons so nearly impossible to get but you buy the "criminals will always get guns" lie. Yes, if I don't want to have a gun it is easy to not have one. But if I don't want to get mowed down at my local park or gym or church and lunatics can get guns as easily as you say they can, that is a problem. I don't want that, and my right to not live in fear of those people is a valid one. I also have a valid right to not want to live surrounded by armed guards and to have to walk through metal detectors every where I go just because of your unreasonable desire to allow lunatics to be armed to the teeth, or to not want background checks, or to not have guns locked up, or to not provide for reasonable measures to prevent weapons of mass destruction being available to anyone who wants them.

I'm glad Dr. Hupp was awarded a lifetime membership by the NRA. She surely deserved it. I could not more forcefully disagree with her.

Joined: 08/17/04
Posts: 2226

You're right. It may not stop them. I don't go into work worried that someone I work with will gun me down. So far since the company has been around for 75 years no one has been attacked at work. I'd say that the chance it will happen to me is slim.

KimPossible's picture
Joined: 05/24/06
Posts: 3319

I agree with both Melissa and Kyla with the dead body analogy. Its critical that you find ways to stop it before it happens. But I also agree that we find ways to deal with the situation we are in now...until we determine the problem to be effectively resolved.

Also, I think its very rational to expect heightened security and more measures taken at schools compared to other places that are seemingly just as vulnerable.

Alissa_Sal's picture
Joined: 06/29/06
Posts: 6427

I think the thing that bothers me with the "arm every person" solution to gun violence is the same thing that bothers me (and many others) about the anti-rape campaigns that are all about what women should do to try to avoid being raped. Rather than focusing on ways that we might be able to discourage rapists from raping (or discourage people from getting guns to shoot us dead with) we are focusing on telling potential victims what they might be able to do to stop an attack. In a perfect world, I feel like the onus should be 100% on stopping rapists from raping, and stopping shooters from shooting. Having said that, I realize we don't live in a perfect world - there has to be some measure of both. It bothers me that the NRA seems unable to accept anything that might work on the preventative side, and wants to solely focus on the defensive side. They're all "here's how how to fight back if you're getting shot at" and none of "how can we put sane measures in place to try to reduce the liklihood of shooters in the first place." And it seems to me that the target keeps moving. As I said before in the Executive Order debate, first the NRA wanted a dialogue about mental health, which in fairness, is probably a dialogue that we should have. But now that the President is doing something about the mental health peice, suddenly it's a bad thing, and it's not a mental health issue, now it's a poverty issue. And sure, I can agree that we need to do something about the poverty issue too, let's fix that too, but what poverty has to do with mass murders like at Sandy Hook and Columbine, I'm not sure because that wasn't inner city gang violence. It's like they just keep changing the topic to try to make sure the topic never lands on keeping anyone from owning a gun who ever wants one. It's disheartening.

Pages