<p>Because the Obama daughters (any first family children) are a SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCE with threats on their lives and overall security risks that aren’t comparable to those faced by everyday children attending school. Duh. </p>
<p>(But now we’re going to get to … well, I guess those Obamas think their kids are SO SPECIAL, don’t they? I don’t begrudge one penny spent on protection for our first families and our retired presidents, regardless of their political leanings, and I think it’s a small, vile person who does.)</p>
<p>I have an acquaintance who works in the Secret Service and protects the president. It’s no secret that the rabid pro-gunners make up a good chunk of the threats that the POTUS has to worry about.</p>
<p>Obviously you don’t realize that’s an incentive for people to break in to your house, when they know they’re not going to be bothered. You’ve probably been conditioned to be submissive your entire life so I’m not at all surprised at this.</p>
<p>That’s how it should be, the president should fear the people, not the other way around. I bet you don’t realize politicians are supposed to be public servants, not our masters.</p>
<p>More people were killed on the streets of Chicago this past year than American forces killed in Afghanistan. </p>
<p>No one in government got upset by this or proposed to do anything to stop it. It took a suburban school shooting in an affluent area. </p>
<p>Does anyone think that any of the proposed gun regulations will stop or even slow down gang violence in the inner city? Does anyone think that gang bangers are going to register their firearms, get background checks when they trade guns for drugs, or follow any of the laws in any way? Of course not.</p>
<p>What evidence do you have that they are under any greater threat? Since Adam Lanza was acting randomly why isnt it equally plausible that any school, including Sidwell, is under exactly the same threat level. Why are armed guards effective security at Sidwell but no where else?</p>
<p>Logically either they are effective every where or they are effective no where.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>So you have a citation then? If no secret then there must some statistics about what percentage are these rascally “gunners” who tiresomely insistent on their constitutional rights.</p>
<p>Can you imagine if other kids were killed as collateral damage in an attack on the President’s or other high profile peoples’ kids? Sidwell is accustomed to the security issues around schooling children of high profile people. Everyone would think it was nuts if there weren’t extra security there in light of threats that just the Obama family gets on a regular basis. Not providing security would be akin to ignoring terrorist threats and we all know how that turns out. There is no Quaker school that is anxious to have extra guns around without good reason.</p>
<p>The day they arm teachers at my kids school, is the day I will homeschool them.<br>
I am all for folks having guns in their homes. You should be allowed to protect your property. I have no problem with conceal carry either. I dont believe the solution is arming teachers. I can see it now, teacher:" sorry I shot this student or parent, I feared for me life". I can see some teachers feeling threatened by a very large, angry teenager. This will be just like Floridas , stand your ground law, which was pushed into law by the NRA. Now if a school district has funding for an armed guard, which a lot of schools already have, that is certainly up for debate. I think its funny that now districts can come up with funding for that, but they are cutting the arts, and pe.</p>
<p>Any student that’s stupid enough to assault a teacher knowing they have a gun probably deserves the consequences anyway, so you’re going to have to put up a better argument than that.</p>
<p>Well that study indicated 55% would support such a federal law. </p>
<p>Personally, I think it ought to be up to each State to decide and fund. I would also hope that Texas if the legislature approves such a measure would provide for local option.</p>
<p>I also note that, as partyof5 indicated, you can home school or go private to get or avoid the local option decision.</p>
<p>Here are some recommendations from an NBC site from a dude on the Gun Violence Prevention Task Force. </p>
<p>Notice how these items have nothing to do with preventing Newtown:</p>
<ol>
<li><p>Pass Assault Weapons Ban (including the banning of high capacity magazines over 10 rounds). NOT EFFECTIVE IN NEWTOWN</p></li>
<li><p>Pass the Fix Gun Checks Act, which would close the private-sale loophole NOT EFFECTIVE IN NEWTON- ALL GUNS WERE OBTAINED LEGALLY</p></li>
<li><p>End the War on Drugs: For forty years, we have waged war against our own people (blacks and Latinos), creating a school to prison pipeline that has destroyed the fabric of inner-city communities. NOT EFFECTIVE IN NEWTON</p></li>
<li><p>Adequately fund mental health services NOT EFFECTIVE IN NEWTON. LANZA’S MOTHER COULD AFFORD ANY HEALTH SERVICES </p></li>
<li><p>Support and fund violence intervention and prevention programs in urban areas NOT EFFECTIVE IN NEWTON</p></li>
<li><p>Pass The Youth PROMISE Act, a bi-partisan youth violence, gang and delinquency prevention legislation. NOT EFFECTIVE IN NEWTON. LANZA WASNT PART OF ANY GANG</p></li>
<li><p>Create dialogue with entertainment leaders about the glamorization of violence in our films, music and video games. POSSIBLY EFFECTIVE, NOT PART OF THE CONVERSATION</p></li>
</ol>
<p>I find it offensive that people are using Newtown as a casus belli to advocate for all sorts of off-topic pet projects. The “War on Drugs” didnt cause VTech, Newtown, or Aurora. Or contribute in any way. And private sales have nothing to do with it either. Or magazine capacity. </p>
<p>“We have to do something” turns into “here is an opening for my pet projects” awfully quickly. I’d be more impressed if these people’s call for action ever involved inconveniencing themselves. Banning gangster rap maybe?</p>
<p>While his style might be offensive, I think bl4ke360 has presented some helpful facts and arguments. I don’t think he is a ■■■■■; his posting history indicates otherwise.</p>
<p>Thats my point, the student doesnt have to “assault” the teacher, yet a teacher may be scared. There may be an angry parent that comes up yelling and screaming, or a kid that yells and screams, that frightens a teacher enough to pull out a gun. That parent/student has no intention of touching that teacher, yet the teacher feels “threatened”. No thanks, if its not a trained law enforcement officer, I wouldnt want a gun in their hands, not around my kids.</p>
<p>Rather than having parent volunteers show up and staple in the office or run car pool or shelve library books, you can easily imagine volunteers providing a security force equivalent to Sidwell at no cost.</p>
<ul>
<li>One who posts a deliberately provocative message to a newsgroup or message board with the intention of causing maximum disruption and argument *</li>
</ul>
<p>Sorry Bay, blk4ke360 is a classic example of a ■■■■■. As for the value of his arguments, I place as much credibility on them as I do Jesse Jackson’s.</p>
<p>Let’s let the parents here address the question of whether they are comfortable with their kids having armed teachers. I for one would not be and would absolutely consider alternatives if such a policy became a reality.</p>
<p>I agree with everything you wrote, Argbargy. I don’t think the Newtown shooting was preventable. Nor will every situation that could happen. NY has just passed some gun laws in reaction to the shooting, and I don’t think they would make a difference either in that case. What needs to be done is that attractiveness of owning those type of weapons that Nancy Lanza had and her son used has to be tarnished. And that has happened, to some degree. If we can make some gun owners undrstand that the guns that they own are more likely to be used on them than on their behalf, perhaps some of them will reconsider. I know some who have after some incident that showed this very clearly.</p>
<p>I don’t have an issue with trained law enforcemnt officials carrying a gun, but I don’t think arming private citizens is a good idea at all, for the reasons I’ve stated ad nauseum. </p>
<p>The NRA has acted disgracefully about all of this, IMO. And I think it gun rights will be curtailed because of their foolishness. The latest thing of releasing a shooting target game on the iphone/pad for ages 4 on up with coffins as targets is appallingly insensitive and hypocritical after big mouthing violent vidieo games. If they could have been more compassionate and addresed things less arrogantly, perhaps some progress could have been made.</p>