Why does the President have armed guards?

[bodecea]

Just wondering

Lincoln, Garfield, McKinley, Kennedy.

 

[Avatar4321]

It's insane because of the cost effectiveness. It sure is.

People dont just go shooting up little school children. Your chances of dying that way are so miniscule, that it would be more cost effective to put a giant inflatable ball on the bottom of every airplane that flies...EVER.

You're missing "perspective."

We dont have the money for things such as an armed guard in every little school everywhere, across America. It's almost retarded to compare that to the Secret Service. Seriously, it is.

It doesn't have to cost much at all. Just allow securty, staff, and teachers to carry conceal if they choose. If they want to carry, they can. If not, they don't. As long as it's not announced who has what, it will be a deterent because killers wont know who is armed and who isn't.

Oh. And just because you disagree with something, doesn't make what you disagree with retarded. That would be the point of the thread. Instead of trying to deal with topics or THINK, you label things and avoid putting any thought or effort into addressing anything.

The comparison IS retarded, that's what makes it...................retarded. Not because I disagree with it. I agree with plenty of retarded shit.

Also - most of these shooters end up suicidal. Don't know that guns for those particular suicidal shooters are much of a deterrant.

It's something that might end up making it so there are less bodies, but not a deterrant for a suicidal maniac.

So you think comparing the safety of one life to the safety of many lives is retarded? Are you kidding me?

 

[Mustang]

Just wondering

Maybe it's because conservatives keep showing up to anti Obama rallies carrying guns and signs showing Obama with a Hitler mustache.

 

[eflatminor]

Since cons like to privatize everything, why don't they advocate putting hired guns at their childrens' schools? What could possibly go wrong?

In private schools, they often do. Just look at the schools the children of our dear leaders attend. Armed to the teeth.

Then, our dear leaders aren't all "cons". Nor was Bill Clinton, who actually did put armed guards in public schools. Where was all the outrage then?

I say school security is a local issue. If your community wants and can afford guards, wonderful.

 

[Avatar4321]

You think that will be a deterent? Seriously, have you given this any thought at all? At what point did you come to the conclusion that people who walk into elementary schools and shoot children are thinking rationally?

The point where they were able to realize it would be easier to kill people there than if they walked into say a police station and started killing people. You notice we don't hear about many police station shootings. If they are truly suicidal, wouldn't that be one of the number one places for them to go? Instead, they go to the gun free zones. Why do you think that is?

 

[Avatar4321]

It would probably put more students at risk. Nutters that prey on children take jobs that put them around children. I'm sure this isn't news to you as there are always stories in the news about abusive teachers, priests, etc.

Wouldn't it be more logical to let the nutjobs be fired instead of making it virtually impossible to fire them through union negotiations then?

So rather than make an effort to eliminate bad teachers and nutjobs from being around students, you think taking away the rights of your fellow citizens is a better idea?

Now you're just being stupid. Enjoy yourself.

Yeah, you think letting teachers be armed would lead to abuse, and im the one being stupid.

 

[Warrior102]

Just wondering

Kennedy, Ford, Reagan and that's just in my lifetime.

Kennedy - Rifle - 6.5 mm Carcano (not automatic)
Ford - .45 and .44 cal handguns (not automatic)
Reagan - Röhm RG-14 .22 cal revolver (not automatic)

Get some better talking points, assfucker.

Neg rep'd for having an asswiping pole-smoker in your avatar and zero knowledge of firearms.

Stick to doing what you do best - sucking cock.

Merry Christmas.

 

[Avatar4321]

No, I'm not ok with my babies kindergarten teacher walking around the classroom with a .45 hidden under her skirt, but if you want that in your kids school, then do it.

You prefer she be absolutely defenseless if some nutjob comes in and tries to kill them all?

 

[Koios]

It doesn't have to cost much at all. Just allow securty, staff, and teachers to carry conceal if they choose. If they want to carry, they can. If not, they don't. As long as it's not announced who has what, it will be a deterent because killers wont know who is armed and who isn't.

Oh. And just because you disagree with something, doesn't make what you disagree with retarded. That would be the point of the thread. Instead of trying to deal with topics or THINK, you label things and avoid putting any thought or effort into addressing anything.

The comparison IS retarded, that's what makes it...................retarded. Not because I disagree with it. I agree with plenty of retarded shit.

Also - most of these shooters end up suicidal. Don't know that guns for those particular suicidal shooters are much of a deterrant.

It's something that might end up making it so there are less bodies, but not a deterrant for a suicidal maniac.

So you think comparing the safety of one life to the safety of many lives is retarded? Are you kidding me?

Yes; if you don't mind my jumping in.

Your child's safety: good car and parent who drives well; don't feed them too much crap food; monitor TV / video games; read them a lot of books; teach them to look both ways before crossing the street; regular doc / dentist check ups.

Your president's safety: lots of security people; coordinated with local LE; clear and monitor airspace.

Payback: no state funerals and your kid is better off.

Noodle on it; it'll come to you.

 

[Ravi]

Thank you for supporting my point. It IS easy for criminals to acquire firearms. Further, we know from history that your gun control laws have zero effect on criminals that don't give a shit about your regulations.

So I ask yet one more time, why would you support laws that result in ONLY law abiding citizens being restricting in their inalienable right to self defense? If you were serious about protecting children, why would you want to make it harder for good people to protect those children?

MY gun control laws? wtf are you babbling about?

Why are you putting words in my mouth?

Criminals get their guns from sloppy, lazy, shifty, irresponsible but otherwise law abiding people. These people should be held criminally responsible for not securing their weapons.

Actually, you're wrong. If a person sells a firearm to a criminal, that person is no longer 'law abiding'. You see, we already have laws on the books about selling firearms to felons. If a criminal steals a firearm, that's hardly the fault of the legal owner. I suppose if someone doesn't put their car in a locked garage and it's stolen and used to harm another, we should punish the legal car owner? Patently ridiculous.

You keep making my point for me, that criminals will get firearms no matter what laws are put in place. Yet, you call for measures to "make it harder for criminals to obtain guns" when you know damn well that means law abiding citizens are put at a disadvantage while criminals get those firearms anyway.

So, yet one more time, why would you support laws that help the bad guys while restricting good guys from defending themselves and their families (children)?

If you like it better you can call them would be criminals. As far as I can tell, not one of the mass shooters in this country had a criminal record.

So you are on record for not taking measures to make it harder for criminals, and would be criminals, to obtain guns.

You are part of the problem.

 

[G.T.]

It doesn't have to cost much at all. Just allow securty, staff, and teachers to carry conceal if they choose. If they want to carry, they can. If not, they don't. As long as it's not announced who has what, it will be a deterent because killers wont know who is armed and who isn't.

Oh. And just because you disagree with something, doesn't make what you disagree with retarded. That would be the point of the thread. Instead of trying to deal with topics or THINK, you label things and avoid putting any thought or effort into addressing anything.

The comparison IS retarded, that's what makes it...................retarded. Not because I disagree with it. I agree with plenty of retarded shit.

Also - most of these shooters end up suicidal. Don't know that guns for those particular suicidal shooters are much of a deterrant.

It's something that might end up making it so there are less bodies, but not a deterrant for a suicidal maniac.

So you think comparing the safety of one life to the safety of many lives is retarded? Are you kidding me?

No, I think comparing non targets to targets of that magnitude is retarded.

 

[Avatar4321]

Go hog wild. Name one, or a plethora.

Thank you for confirming you didn't bother reading anything.

 

[Avatar4321]

If the people in the state want to pay for the cost to have armed guards in their public schools, then do it. However since states have been so strapped they have cut emergency services, I doubt many states will have enough money for armed guards.

This sounds like a good case for private security. Since cons like to privatize everything, why don't they advocate putting hired guns at their childrens' schools? What could possibly go wrong?

Why do we need to hire anyone when all we have to do is eliminate the restrictions teachers, staff, and the already hired security have on defending themselves? It costs us nothing to do that. We dont have to hire anyone new. We get the same effect.

 

[Warrior102]

Good question OP.
This asswipe "Resident in Chump" wants to disarm every American yet surrounds himself (while in Hawaii and elsewhere) with light, medium, heavy machine guns, squad automatic weps, general purpose machine guns, revolver cannon, auto cannon, mini guns, Gatling guns, Chain guns, Submachine guns, a personal defense weapon, assault Rifle, firearm action, a Breda and a pocket knife.

Way to set an example Barry - ya fukcing asswipe

 

[AmyNation]

No, I'm not ok with my babies kindergarten teacher walking around the classroom with a .45 hidden under her skirt, but if you want that in your kids school, then do it.

You prefer she be absolutely defenseless if some nutjob comes in and tries to kill them all?

I recognize that my child is more likely to be killed with her teachers gun, than shot by a crazed gunman.

If you're looking for opinions on school security, I'd like to change how we build schools, better exit doors, video security, better plans in schools for emergencies such as sandy hook, and I'd be ok with keeping a loaded gun in a secure location assessable to a select number of school staff.

I would fight any attempt to arm teachers, or add guards in my child's school. However if YOU wanted those things in your schools, I wouldnt care.

 

[eflatminor]

MY gun control laws? wtf are you babbling about?

Why are you putting words in my mouth?

Criminals get their guns from sloppy, lazy, shifty, irresponsible but otherwise law abiding people. These people should be held criminally responsible for not securing their weapons.

Actually, you're wrong. If a person sells a firearm to a criminal, that person is no longer 'law abiding'. You see, we already have laws on the books about selling firearms to felons. If a criminal steals a firearm, that's hardly the fault of the legal owner. I suppose if someone doesn't put their car in a locked garage and it's stolen and used to harm another, we should punish the legal car owner? Patently ridiculous.

You keep making my point for me, that criminals will get firearms no matter what laws are put in place. Yet, you call for measures to "make it harder for criminals to obtain guns" when you know damn well that means law abiding citizens are put at a disadvantage while criminals get those firearms anyway.

So, yet one more time, why would you support laws that help the bad guys while restricting good guys from defending themselves and their families (children)?

If you like it better you can call them would be criminals. As far as I can tell, not one of the mass shooters in this country had a criminal record.

So you are on record for not taking measures to make it harder for criminals, and would be criminals, to obtain guns.

You are part of the problem.

Not at all. No one has asked me for my proposal.

But you first. You still haven't answered the question. You still haven't overcome the logical disconnect of more gun control laws that only restrict law abiding citizens ability to defend themselves. Why would you want to support such laws?

 

[Koios]

The comparison IS retarded, that's what makes it...................retarded. Not because I disagree with it. I agree with plenty of retarded shit.

Also - most of these shooters end up suicidal. Don't know that guns for those particular suicidal shooters are much of a deterrant.

It's something that might end up making it so there are less bodies, but not a deterrant for a suicidal maniac.

So you think comparing the safety of one life to the safety of many lives is retarded? Are you kidding me?

Yes; if you don't mind my jumping in.

Your child's safety: good car and parent who drives well; don't feed them too much crap food; monitor TV / video games; read them a lot of books; teach them to look both ways before crossing the street; regular doc / dentist check ups.

Your president's safety: lots of security people; coordinated with local LE; clear and monitor airspace.

Payback: no state funerals and your kid is better off.

Noodle on it; it'll come to you.

Postscript ...

OOPS! Forgot one, on your kid's safety, since well it's a remote risk, but VASTLY GREATER risk than going to a school with no armed guards, teachers nor adminstrators, and with a GUN-FREE ZONE sign.

Are you guessing what it is? Hmmmm? Anything? (tip: having a gun in the home; which btw, is why schools have the fucking signs ... kids bring em, and on occassion, a parent with child-like intelligence.)

 

[Avatar4321]

If you like it better you can call them would be criminals. As far as I can tell, not one of the mass shooters in this country had a criminal record.

So you are on record for not taking measures to make it harder for criminals, and would be criminals, to obtain guns.

You are part of the problem.

Think about it Ravi, how the heck are you supposed to know who is going to be a criminal in the future. For all we know, you could turn to a life of crime in the future. Should we lock you up now because you may be one later? Should we take your right to self defense because you might abuse the privileges you have of owning a gun with that right at some later point in time?

You can't predict who is going to be a criminal. It's impossible. If we could, there would be no crime and no courts. We can only be prepared when criminals act. And that requires we have weapons to fight back if we need to.

 

[Freemason9]

I haven't gotten involved much in the gun debate because I don't care, but I will say this...

Obama's daughters attend a heavily armed school, for obvious reasons of course. But it definitely begs the question of why shouldn't any other school be armed.

Money.

That, and I don't think Americans are ready yet for a world like Somalia. We like to think we are governed best through law, as opposed to overt threats of violence and death.

Although you may welcome such a world.

 

[bodecea]

Just wondering

Kennedy, Ford, Reagan and that's just in my lifetime.

Kennedy - Rifle - 6.5 mm Carcano (not automatic)
Ford - .45 and .44 cal handguns (not automatic)
Reagan - Röhm RG-14 .22 cal revolver (not automatic)

Get some better talking points, assfucker.

Neg rep'd for having an asswiping pole-smoker in your avatar and zero knowledge of firearms.

Stick to doing what you do best - sucking cock.

Merry Christmas.

Ah, Warbler's on his fav topic again.