Quote:

---

Originally posted by Jongsstraw:
But the NRA apparently thinks there are people out there who aren't intelligent enough to understand that the President's children are national security targets and that they need special protections.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Brenda:
I'm with you that ad is sickening and a low blow.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Penguin:
The President's kids are targets for kidnapping (or worse) by terrorists.

The kids at the school down the block from me, not so much.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Hero:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Penguin:
The President's kids are targets for kidnapping (or worse) by terrorists.

The kids at the school down the block from me, not so much.

---

Your right. The kids at the school down the block are only targets for kidnapping or worse by criminals and the insane.

I note for the record that the kids down the block...have actually been victims, but nobody has gotten to a President's kid.

H

Hero...must be right on all of this. ALL of the rest of us are wrong. Chrisisall, 2012

---

Quote:

---

The NRA ad notes that Obama said he was skeptical about armed security in schools, which the organization has touted as a solution to mass shootings such as at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn., in December. Obama did use the word skeptical, in an interview with Gregory, but the NRA has clipped the full meaning of his words.
GREGORY: “Should we have an armed guard at every school in the country? That’s what the NRA believes. They told me last week that that could work.”
OBAMA: “I'm not going to prejudge the recommendations that are given to me. I am skeptical that the only answer is putting more guns in schools. And I think the vast majority of the American people are skeptical that that somehow is going to solve our problem.”
Note that Obama said he was skeptical that armed guards were the “only answer,” not that he was skeptical of the idea. Indeed, in the package of gun-control proposals he unveiled on Wednesday, he called on Congress to help schools hire more guards or other school resource officers.
“Each school is different and should have the flexibility to address its most pressing needs,” the White House said. “Some schools will want trained and armed police; others may prefer increased counseling services.”
So the frame of hypocrisy is already a bit misshapen. But what about the claim that Sidwell Friends has 11 armed guards, which some Web sites have depicted with images of armed police with binoculars?
This is based on the fact that the online directory for Sidwell Friends lists 11 people as working in the Security Department. Five are listed as “special police officer,” while two are listed as “on call special police officer,” which presumably means they do not work full-time. The directory also lists two weekend shift supervisors, one security officer and the chief of security.
Under the District of Columbia General Order 308.7, a special police officer is a private commissioned police officer with arrest powers in the area that he or she protects. They may also be authorized to bear firearms — but it is not required. Security officers, by contrast, cannot carry firearms and in effect are watchmen. So five to seven security personnel in theory could be licensed to carry firearms.
But we spoke to parents who said they had never seen a guard on campus with a weapon. And Ellis Turner, associate head of Sidwell Friends, told us emphatically: “Sidwell Friends security officers do not carry guns.” (Note: this includes those listed as special police officers.)
Sidwell Friends, by the way, has two distinct campuses, a lower school in Bethesda and a middle and upper schools in Washington. So given shift rotations and three different schools, it appears that the 11 “armed guards” is really just one or two unarmed guards per school at a time.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Penguin:
The President's kids are targets for kidnapping (or worse) by terrorists.

The kids at the school down the block from me, not so much.

---

King of the Mythical Land that is Iowa

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:

I think you and others are missing the point. Many may be doing so on purpose, too.

All the NRA are saying is that your kids are every bit as precious to you as the President's kids are to him. But while ANY President's kids are made as safe as humanly possible, with Secret Service carrying weapons, he expects the rest of us to be unarmed. Never mind the case in GA, where the mother , home alone w/ her twin daughters, shot an intruder while defending her family.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by RionaEire:
While they make a point that is worth pondering, they could have done it in a much better way, no need to be specific, they could have made the point in a more general way, something like "When there are children living in the White House they get lots of security to keep them safe, and aren't our children just as important as a president's children?".

---

Quote:

---

That being said I don't think armed guards is the answer. I'd be fine with teachers and/or parent helpers concealed carrying (with permit and good teaching of course) if they wanted to, not manditory of course. And they'd have to keep the gun concealed and on their person at ALL times.

---

Quote:

---

Hiring armed guards sounds too authoritarian to me...

---

Quote:

---

...and they could misuse that power easily, plus its distracting to have a guard around, it reminds you that there is the potential for danger and the kids don't need that reminder.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Niki2:
Agent, you...are...talking...to...Raptor.

Best to keep that in mind, y'know? So you don't expect sense, as it were...

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:
As I've noted before, try to show an inner-city kid the difference between a school surrounded with armed guards, metal detectors, and locked door and windows, and a prison. And if you think about it, is it any wonder so many want to be as far as possible away from there, as soon as possible?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by FREMDFIRMA:
although depending on the school I've given a little thought to having the student body elect responsible students as safe-eyes... but again that runs into the problem of the less-than-pets legal and social status and how no one will LISTEN to them if they do see something.

-F

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:
When you say "spotters", I can't help but think of cornerboys yelling "FIVE-O! FIVE-O!"

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by FREMDFIRMA:
Nah, didn't mean it like that, but something close to first responders, a little first-aid/emergency training to give them confidence, and evacuation plan and a whistle.
Kinda like meerkat sentries.

---

Quote:

---

In a situation like Sandy Hook, more important than ANYTHING is fast detection and response, get the kids the hell OUT of the killzone as soon as friggin possible, many older schools have fallout/tornado shelters and those doors can be held against even a madman for some time.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AgentRouka:
So yeah, having solid classroom doors, potential hiding places, wide-spread emergency exits and accessible shelters available seems to be the key in these rare situations. Giving teachers training in that sort of thing, and pointing out the options in their particular environment would seem to make a LOT more sense than any of this "armed teacher" nonsense.

---