Why does the President have armed guards?

[boedicca]

Every cost has a benefit and every benefit a cost.

If our Ruling Elite are able to place their children in schools staffed with security guards, parents around the country should have the choice of placing their children in secured schools. One option is CC by trained school personnel. This is a sensible way of providing security, especially as the teachers and staff should know who the students are, and be sensitive to trouble based on behavioral clues.

 

[Avatar4321]

The secret services has been protecting American presidents since the 19th century. This really isn't something the Obama adminstration came up with.

well when you make a stupid thread, its going to be full of stupid answers.

Well, Ill keep that in mind when i make a stupid thread. Then again, the intelligence of the thread hasnt stopped you from providing stupid responses. Which is a shame. I know you aren't stupid.

 

[AmyNation]

And Michael Moore?

I bet he recieves a hell of a lot more death threats every year than I do.

And Bill Clinton? He wasn't putting armed guards in his kid's school (already there). He put armed guards in PUBLIC schools.

All I'm saying is old Bill disagrees with you that a firearm on school grounds is more dangerous than the treat of violence.

Well Bill and I disagree on a plethora of issues, so that's nothing new.

 

[eflatminor]

The fact is, there's more people out to kill the President than any school children. These are blips in the probability department, when these things happen.

Excellent point. So then you'll stand against any attempts to inhibit law abiding citizens from their inalienable right to self defense, right?

What right is that?

You saying we're not born with the right to defend ourselves and our family? Really?

 

[ScienceRocks]

Excellent point. So then you'll stand against any attempts to inhibit law abiding citizens from their inalienable right to self defense, right?

What right is that?

You saying we're not born with the right to defend ourselves and our family? Really?

Pretty soon people like Lone will arrest you and let the bad guy go. This is going on in europe right now...

The left is nuts.

 

[eflatminor]

I bet he recieves a hell of a lot more death threats every year than I do.

And Bill Clinton? He wasn't putting armed guards in his kid's school (already there). He put armed guards in PUBLIC schools.

All I'm saying is old Bill disagrees with you that a firearm on school grounds is more dangerous than the treat of violence.

Well Bill and I disagree on a plethora of issues, so that's nothing new.

That's fine. I disagree with him also. School security is not something for the federal government. It's a local issue.

That said, I think you're out of your mind to think a gun free zone (or otherwise restricting a school's ability to respond effectively to violence) is the answer.

 

[boedicca]

Excellent point. So then you'll stand against any attempts to inhibit law abiding citizens from their inalienable right to self defense, right?

What right is that?

You saying we're not born with the right to defend ourselves and our family? Really?

LL doesn't think we are born with any rights. In his worldview, all rights are granted by the government. That which the government giveth, the government may taketh away.

 

[Koios]

Nah; what's making it undoable as yet is you've failed to pick your favorite. Noodle it; even your pea brain might get around it.

Told you.

Nope; showed me. You're afraid to even hazard a try at one that you think might be effective and low-cost.

So instead you say 'I would have if I could have.' Horse shit; I do this recreationally and am not keen on disproving every little retard piece of shit idea you've lobbed so far. And even picking one or two, brings back all the others, effectively having me challenge everything you've yet advanced or have yet to conjure up, ad nasseum. Fuck that circular nonsense.

So unless you think you've got a peach of an idea, let it go. Easy. Yeah?

 

[Avatar4321]

you are in your own league.

No. I am sure that I'm not. I truly am sorry btw

what are you sorry for? Unleashing this stupid thread on the masses?
I've come to expect nothing less from a person who gets their info from beck.

Sorry that you think I stole your thunder. But I can tell you are doing quite fine.

You miss the point entirely. Disagreeing with an idea doesn't make it stupid, crazy, or insane. Calling an idea stupid, crazy or insane doesn't make it so. Nor does it make anyone intelligent to use that as an excuse to avoid thinking and discussing issues.

Take GT for example. We clearly disagree. But he, at least, is discussing the issue. No one should be afraid to discuss the issues.

 

[ScienceRocks]

A liberal loves government...Government is everything to them!

 

[AmyNation]

And Bill Clinton? He wasn't putting armed guards in his kid's school (already there). He put armed guards in PUBLIC schools.

All I'm saying is old Bill disagrees with you that a firearm on school grounds is more dangerous than the treat of violence.

Well Bill and I disagree on a plethora of issues, so that's nothing new.

That's fine. I disagree with him also. School security is not something for the federal government. It's a local issue.

That said, I think you're out of your mind to think a gun free zone (or otherwise restricting a school's ability to respond effectively to violence) is the answer.

I agree with the bolded. As to the 2nd, I never said that.

 

[G.T.]

What right is that?

You saying we're not born with the right to defend ourselves and our family? Really?

LL doesn't think we are born with any rights. In his worldview, all rights are granted by the government. That which the government giveth, the government may taketh away.

Rights are in accordance with the optimum way to peacefully co-exist, not in accordance with some mystical anything. In other words, they are arrived at intellectually by men - and now men should probably come up with a much more fool proof way of making them inalienable, with their brains.................before it's too late.

 

[Avatar4321]

Because, the min. you decide teachers ought to be allowed to carry guns to protect kids, you've made them something more than a private citizen with a CC. The idea that the state can permit staff to carry loaded guns and it won't cost anything is nonsense.

That really doesn't explain what it costs.

If I exercise my right as a citizen to carry a firearm, and I happen to be a teacher. How has it cost the state anything? Heck, the state probably made money of me for the licensing fee.

 

[eflatminor]

Well Bill and I disagree on a plethora of issues, so that's nothing new.

That's fine. I disagree with him also. School security is not something for the federal government. It's a local issue.

That said, I think you're out of your mind to think a gun free zone (or otherwise restricting a school's ability to respond effectively to violence) is the answer.

I agree with the bolded. As to the 2nd, I never said that.

My apologies then. You implied an armed individual in a school would present more of a danger than a criminal with evil intent. So, if not gun free zones, what is your answer?

 

[Avatar4321]

That's fine. I disagree with him also. School security is not something for the federal government. It's a local issue.

That said, I think you're out of your mind to think a gun free zone (or otherwise restricting a school's ability to respond effectively to violence) is the answer.

I agree. keep the feds out.

 

[boedicca]

You saying we're not born with the right to defend ourselves and our family? Really?

LL doesn't think we are born with any rights. In his worldview, all rights are granted by the government. That which the government giveth, the government may taketh away.

Rights are in accordance with the optimum way to peacefully co-exist, not in accordance with some mystical anything. In other words, they are arrived at intellectually by men - and now men should probably come up with a much more fool proof way of making them inalienable, with their brains.................before it's too late.

I'm taking this to mean that you don't grok the concept of "inalienable rights".

Thanks for clearing that up.

 

[AmyNation]

Because, the min. you decide teachers ought to be allowed to carry guns to protect kids, you've made them something more than a private citizen with a CC. The idea that the state can permit staff to carry loaded guns and it won't cost anything is nonsense.

That really doesn't explain what it costs.

If I exercise my right as a citizen to carry a firearm, and I happen to be a teacher. How has it cost the state anything? Heck, the state probably made money of me for the licensing fee.

You are being purposefully obtuse.

 

[Avatar4321]

Nah; what's making it undoable as yet is you've failed to pick your favorite. Noodle it; even your pea brain might get around it.

Told you.

Nope; showed me. You're afraid to even hazard a try at one that you think might be effective and low-cost.

So instead you say 'I would have if I could have.' Horse shit; I do this recreationally and am not keen on disproving every little retard piece of shit idea you've lobbed so far. And even picking one or two, brings back all the others, effectively having me challenge everything you've yet advanced or have yet to conjure up, ad nasseum. Fuck that circular nonsense.

So unless you think you've got a peach of an idea, let it go. Easy. Yeah?

I've already provided several variants of ideas on this thread alone. In fact, you've already responded to one when you issued this nonsensical challenge. If you want to challenge it, fine. Go ahead. But Im not going to waste my time rehashing what I've already pointed out because you're too lazy to read.

 

[eflatminor]

You saying we're not born with the right to defend ourselves and our family? Really?

LL doesn't think we are born with any rights. In his worldview, all rights are granted by the government. That which the government giveth, the government may taketh away.

Rights are in accordance with the optimum way to peacefully co-exist, not in accordance with some mystical anything. In other words, they are arrived at intellectually by men - and now men should probably come up with a much more fool proof way of making them inalienable, with their brains.................before it's too late.

Wow did you miss the entire idea behind the founding of America. I mean, COMPLETELY missed it. That we are born with inalienable rights that cannot be granted nor taken away without due process is the foundation, the very idea behind the founding of America.

Kings, dictators, tyrants...they grant and remove rights based on their ideas of what is 'optimum'. Not in America.

Geez. Get thee a history book!

 

[Avatar4321]

Because, the min. you decide teachers ought to be allowed to carry guns to protect kids, you've made them something more than a private citizen with a CC. The idea that the state can permit staff to carry loaded guns and it won't cost anything is nonsense.

That really doesn't explain what it costs.

If I exercise my right as a citizen to carry a firearm, and I happen to be a teacher. How has it cost the state anything? Heck, the state probably made money of me for the licensing fee.

You are being purposefully obtuse.

How am i being purposely obtuse by asking you what costs the state would have? I honestly don't see how it costs the state a dime if I choose to purchase a weapon, obtain training for it, and carry it concealed.