Why does the President have armed guards?

[Lakhota]

Here you go son - a thorough breakdown debunking the absurdity in your signature about the 2nd Amendment.

The Roots of the Second Amendment The Future of Freedom Foundation

Funny. That's old shit that has already been debunked.

 

[Avatar4321]

People have odd definitions of attempts. Threats, yes. Attempts are another matter. Perhaps they would have risen to an attempt level if there wasnt an intervention or not, glad we dont have to find out.

You would think the media would talk about this more. Go figure.

Still not really relevant to my point so it doesn't matter.

 

[squeeze berry]

Sooo, apparently some delusional religious racist NaziCons don't believe Obama has been targeted. Holy shit...

no one claims there have not been threats, just not to the extent you and your delusional, commie ,racist sources claim.

Actually there have been zero credible attempts that I can recall.

You would think the KKK and neo-Nazi's woud have been successful by now if you would read your posts about the pervasiveness of those types.

 

[jgarden]

People have odd definitions of attempts. Threats, yes. Attempts are another matter. Perhaps they would have risen to an attempt level if there wasnt an intervention or not, glad we dont have to find out.

You would think the media would talk about this more. Go figure.

Still not really relevant to my point so it doesn't matter.

Avatar4321 questions "Why does the President have armed guards?" but finds it irrelevant that the Secret Service intervenes before a threat directed at the president becomes an attempt!

Is the OP actually suggesting that despite the assassinations of Abraham Lincoln, James A. Garfield, William McKinley and John F. Kennedy, the authorities "sit on their hands" and not provide "armed guards" - only taking action when there is an actual attempt on a president's life?

Wasn't the Obama Administration recently criticized by Republicans for just that very thing - not providing adequate security ("armed guards") for the US ambassador to Lybia?

 

[Ravi]

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.

So we want an army of armed government liberals that are also trained in psychology. Totally awesome. I'd rather let the kids have guns as they are the ones being targeted by the nutters.

 

[Koios]

there have been more school shootings and more murdered children than presidents

As a percentage, not even close.

So once again we see you acknowledge how armed security is a good thing for U.S. presidents, but somehow you can't draw that same conclusion for anyone else

Can you please rationally explain your belief that heavily armed security saves lives for presidents, but somehow magically does not for everyone else? Do you seriously not see the contradictory insanity of your belief on this issue?

Try to stay with me: Of course security must be tight around all national leaders.

Security is also needed for citizens, in parallel to the relative threat to them. So we have police, fire, etc.

And if we truly cared for the wellbeing of children, we'd provide healthcare. We'd also do a better job of insuring they have proper nutrition, along with assurances that college would be paid for if they wish it and have the merits to continue their educations.

But to put armed security in every ******* school, knowing full-well that 99.999% of them are going to spend their entire ******* careers twiddling their goddamn thumbs, while much of what I mentioned above is going UNFUNDED, is something only someone more retarded than you would advocate -- and that would likely have to be retarded to an extent bordering on vegetable.

Are you getting it? (tip: of course not)

 

[LibertyLemming]

As a percentage, not even close.

So once again we see you acknowledge how armed security is a good thing for U.S. presidents, but somehow you can't draw that same conclusion for anyone else

Can you please rationally explain your belief that heavily armed security saves lives for presidents, but somehow magically does not for everyone else? Do you seriously not see the contradictory insanity of your belief on this issue?

Try to stay with me: Of course security must be tight around all national leaders.

Security is also needed for citizens, in parallel to the relative threat to them. So we have police, fire, etc.

And if we truly cared for the wellbeing of children, we'd provide healthcare. We'd also do a better job of insuring they have proper nutrition, along with assurances that college would be paid for if they wish it and have the merits to continue their educations.

But to put armed security in every ******* school, knowing full-well that 99.999% of them are going to spend their entire ******* careers twiddling their goddamn thumbs, while much of what I mentioned above is going UNFUNDED, is something only someone more retarded than you would advocate -- and that would likely have to be retarded to an extent bordering on vegetable.

Are you getting it? (tip: of course not)

You do realize that police as security is almost the opposite of the security provided to leaders. Police are basically janitors, they sweep in after a crime has already occurred; whereas the President's men are there to prevent a crime from happening (using those big bad guns I imagine!).

 

[Koios]

So once again we see you acknowledge how armed security is a good thing for U.S. presidents, but somehow you can't draw that same conclusion for anyone else

Can you please rationally explain your belief that heavily armed security saves lives for presidents, but somehow magically does not for everyone else? Do you seriously not see the contradictory insanity of your belief on this issue?

Try to stay with me: Of course security must be tight around all national leaders.

Security is also needed for citizens, in parallel to the relative threat to them. So we have police, fire, etc.

And if we truly cared for the wellbeing of children, we'd provide healthcare. We'd also do a better job of insuring they have proper nutrition, along with assurances that college would be paid for if they wish it and have the merits to continue their educations.

But to put armed security in every ******* school, knowing full-well that 99.999% of them are going to spend their entire ******* careers twiddling their goddamn thumbs, while much of what I mentioned above is going UNFUNDED, is something only someone more retarded than you would advocate -- and that would likely have to be retarded to an extent bordering on vegetable.

Are you getting it? (tip: of course not)

You do realize that police as security is almost the opposite of the security provided to leaders. Police are basically janitors, they sweep in after a crime has already occurred; whereas the President's men are there to prevent a crime from happening (using those big bad guns I imagine!).

No. But then, I'm not the abject moron that obviously are. Thanks for asking.

 

[LibertyLemming]

Try to stay with me: Of course security must be tight around all national leaders.

Security is also needed for citizens, in parallel to the relative threat to them. So we have police, fire, etc.

And if we truly cared for the wellbeing of children, we'd provide healthcare. We'd also do a better job of insuring they have proper nutrition, along with assurances that college would be paid for if they wish it and have the merits to continue their educations.

But to put armed security in every ******* school, knowing full-well that 99.999% of them are going to spend their entire ******* careers twiddling their goddamn thumbs, while much of what I mentioned above is going UNFUNDED, is something only someone more retarded than you would advocate -- and that would likely have to be retarded to an extent bordering on vegetable.

Are you getting it? (tip: of course not)

You do realize that police as security is almost the opposite of the security provided to leaders. Police are basically janitors, they sweep in after a crime has already occurred; whereas the President's men are there to prevent a crime from happening (using those big bad guns I imagine!).

No. But then, I'm not the abject moron that obviously are. Thanks for asking.

Okay then please explain to me how having someone attend to my needs after a crime has already been committed and I have been made a victim (such as a citizen dependent on the police to "protect" himself) is the same as having security around me 24/7 to prevent me from becoming a victim (such as the President).

 

[Koios]

You do realize that police as security is almost the opposite of the security provided to leaders. Police are basically janitors, they sweep in after a crime has already occurred; whereas the President's men are there to prevent a crime from happening (using those big bad guns I imagine!).

No. But then, I'm not the abject moron that obviously are. Thanks for asking.

Okay then please explain to me how having someone attend to my needs after a crime has already been committed and I have been made a victim (such as a citizen dependent on the police to "protect" himself) is the same as having security around me 24/7 to prevent me from becoming a victim (such as the President).

Really? You're that ******* ignorant of our criminal justice system? How is it you're not in jail?

Here's a tip: police do not slide down fire poles once a crime has been reported. Fire do, so as to quickly arrive at the scene and mitigate as much as possible additonal fire damage to yours and the surrounding residences / businesses / etc. And on occassion they inspect, to make our communities less at risk of fire damage and death. Nice folks, doing good things.

What police do is a bit different: patrol, not only looking for potential criminal activity in its early development, but also providing a highly visible presence, which deters folks from doing stuff that might land their asses in jail. That's a huge mitigating factor that our citizens benefit from; and that folks in Darfur, Somalia, etc. can only wish for in their wildest ******* dreams.

Ergo, to suggest police protection is little more than janitors cleaning up at a crime scene, places you in a very, very rare group of drooling, cross-eyed, complete ******* idiots.

Astonishing. Truly. How do you dress yourself, assuming you do so without assitance?

 

[LibertyLemming]

No. But then, I'm not the abject moron that obviously are. Thanks for asking.

Okay then please explain to me how having someone attend to my needs after a crime has already been committed and I have been made a victim (such as a citizen dependent on the police to "protect" himself) is the same as having security around me 24/7 to prevent me from becoming a victim (such as the President).

Really? You're that ******* ignorant of our criminal justice system? How is it you're not in jail?

Here's a tip: police do not slide down fire poles once a crime has been reported. Fire do, so as to quickly arrive at the scene and mitigate as much as possible additonal fire damage to yours and the surrounding residences / businesses / etc. And on occassion they inspect, to make our communities less at risk of fire damage and death. Nice folks, doing good things.

What police do is a bit different: patrol, not only looking for potential criminal activity in its early development, but also providing a highly visible presence, which deters folks from doing stuff that might land their asses in jail. That's a huge mitigating factor that our citizens benefit from; and that folks in Darfur, Somalia, etc. can only wish for in their wildest ******* dreams.

Ergo, to suggest police protection is little more than janitors cleaning up at a crime scene, places you in a very, very rare group of drooling, cross-eyed, complete ******* idiots.

Astonishing. Truly. How do you dress yourself, assuming you do so without assitance?

Well they are little more than that. I'm happy they patrol, clearly it is working miracles and we have no crime or violence or anything like that in this society. Wanna compare odds of being a victim of a crime if you are in national politics compared to being a normal citizen?

The point, dear sir, is that if the President or any other member of government, who mind you are just citizens, just like like us, can go to certain measures to protect their person and property and family, then I too should be allowed those same benefits.

I know, I know, you prefer something more along the lines of "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need"

 

[Koios]

Okay then please explain to me how having someone attend to my needs after a crime has already been committed and I have been made a victim (such as a citizen dependent on the police to "protect" himself) is the same as having security around me 24/7 to prevent me from becoming a victim (such as the President).

Really? You're that ******* ignorant of our criminal justice system? How is it you're not in jail?

Here's a tip: police do not slide down fire poles once a crime has been reported. Fire do, so as to quickly arrive at the scene and mitigate as much as possible additonal fire damage to yours and the surrounding residences / businesses / etc. And on occassion they inspect, to make our communities less at risk of fire damage and death. Nice folks, doing good things.

What police do is a bit different: patrol, not only looking for potential criminal activity in its early development, but also providing a highly visible presence, which deters folks from doing stuff that might land their asses in jail. That's a huge mitigating factor that our citizens benefit from; and that folks in Darfur, Somalia, etc. can only wish for in their wildest ******* dreams.

Ergo, to suggest police protection is little more than janitors cleaning up at a crime scene, places you in a very, very rare group of drooling, cross-eyed, complete ******* idiots.

Astonishing. Truly. How do you dress yourself, assuming you do so without assitance?

Well they are little more than that. I'm happy they patrol, clearly it is working miracles and we have no crime or violence or anything like that in this society. Wanna compare odds of being a victim of a crime if you are in national politics compared to being a normal citizen?

The point, dear sir, is that if the President or any other member of government, who mind you are just citizens, just like like us, can go to certain measures to protect their person and property and family, then I too should be allowed those same benefits.

I know, I know, you prefer something more along the lines of "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need"

You don't, you don't. No kidding. You're an idiot. You don't know you're an idiot. But you are, which any with IQs north of the mid 70s can see from a mile out..

Most of what police do is crime prevention. You do not feel nor see it, since it never happens. But believe me, it's mitigated. Without police PROTECTION, crime rates would increase by orders magnitude. You or I could walk into a bank and take what we wish, without fear repurcussion.

Now back to the question you continue to ignore: who dresses you in the morning? A family member, care-giver, someone else? Truly. I'm dying to know.

 

[LibertyLemming]

Really? You're that ******* ignorant of our criminal justice system? How is it you're not in jail?

Here's a tip: police do not slide down fire poles once a crime has been reported. Fire do, so as to quickly arrive at the scene and mitigate as much as possible additonal fire damage to yours and the surrounding residences / businesses / etc. And on occassion they inspect, to make our communities less at risk of fire damage and death. Nice folks, doing good things.

What police do is a bit different: patrol, not only looking for potential criminal activity in its early development, but also providing a highly visible presence, which deters folks from doing stuff that might land their asses in jail. That's a huge mitigating factor that our citizens benefit from; and that folks in Darfur, Somalia, etc. can only wish for in their wildest ******* dreams.

Ergo, to suggest police protection is little more than janitors cleaning up at a crime scene, places you in a very, very rare group of drooling, cross-eyed, complete ******* idiots.

Astonishing. Truly. How do you dress yourself, assuming you do so without assitance?

Well they are little more than that. I'm happy they patrol, clearly it is working miracles and we have no crime or violence or anything like that in this society. Wanna compare odds of being a victim of a crime if you are in national politics compared to being a normal citizen?

The point, dear sir, is that if the President or any other member of government, who mind you are just citizens, just like like us, can go to certain measures to protect their person and property and family, then I too should be allowed those same benefits.

I know, I know, you prefer something more along the lines of "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need"

You don't, you don't. No kidding. You're an idiot. You don't know you're an idiot. But you are, which any with IQs north of the mid 70s can see from a mile out..

Most of what police do is crime prevention. You do not feel nor see it, since it never happens. But believe me, it's mitigated. Without police PROTECTION, crime rates would increase by orders magnitude. You or I could walk into a bank and take what we wish, without fear repurcussion.

Now back to the question you continue to ignore: who dresses you in the morning? A family member, care-giver, someone else? Truly. I'm dying to know.

thanks. this is what the "prevention" you speak of is, the fear of the repercussion that will occur once they respond to an already committed crime.

i see you still don't wanna address the fact that i should be able to protect myself in the same way a member of government does

 

[LadyGunSlinger]

Well they are little more than that. I'm happy they patrol, clearly it is working miracles and we have no crime or violence or anything like that in this society. Wanna compare odds of being a victim of a crime if you are in national politics compared to being a normal citizen?

The point, dear sir, is that if the President or any other member of government, who mind you are just citizens, just like like us, can go to certain measures to protect their person and property and family, then I too should be allowed those same benefits.

I know, I know, you prefer something more along the lines of "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need"

You don't, you don't. No kidding. You're an idiot. You don't know you're an idiot. But you are, which any with IQs north of the mid 70s can see from a mile out..

Most of what police do is crime prevention. You do not feel nor see it, since it never happens. But believe me, it's mitigated. Without police PROTECTION, crime rates would increase by orders magnitude. You or I could walk into a bank and take what we wish, without fear repurcussion.

Now back to the question you continue to ignore: who dresses you in the morning? A family member, care-giver, someone else? Truly. I'm dying to know.

thanks. this is what the "prevention" you speak of is, the fear of the repercussion that will occur once they respond to an already committed crime.

i see you still don't wanna address the fact that i should be able to protect myself in the same way a member of government does

Exactly!!! Nuff said..

 

[P@triot]

As a percentage, not even close.

So once again we see you acknowledge how armed security is a good thing for U.S. presidents, but somehow you can't draw that same conclusion for anyone else

Can you please rationally explain your belief that heavily armed security saves lives for presidents, but somehow magically does not for everyone else? Do you seriously not see the contradictory insanity of your belief on this issue?

Try to stay with me: Of course security must be tight around all national leaders.

Security is also needed for citizens, in parallel to the relative threat to them. So we have police, fire, etc.

And if we truly cared for the wellbeing of children, we'd provide healthcare. We'd also do a better job of insuring they have proper nutrition, along with assurances that college would be paid for if they wish it and have the merits to continue their educations.

But to put armed security in every ******* school, knowing full-well that 99.999% of them are going to spend their entire ******* careers twiddling their goddamn thumbs, while much of what I mentioned above is going UNFUNDED, is something only someone more retarded than you would advocate -- and that would likely have to be retarded to an extent bordering on vegetable.

Are you getting it? (tip: of course not)

You truly are a ******* idiot. All you're doing is ranting about socialism/marxism/communism like a typical dumbocrat. It's not the governments job to provide "healthcare" and "nutrition". You would know that if you actually understood America and read the U.S. Constitution.

 

[Koios]

Well they are little more than that. I'm happy they patrol, clearly it is working miracles and we have no crime or violence or anything like that in this society. Wanna compare odds of being a victim of a crime if you are in national politics compared to being a normal citizen?

The point, dear sir, is that if the President or any other member of government, who mind you are just citizens, just like like us, can go to certain measures to protect their person and property and family, then I too should be allowed those same benefits.

I know, I know, you prefer something more along the lines of "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need"

You don't, you don't. No kidding. You're an idiot. You don't know you're an idiot. But you are, which any with IQs north of the mid 70s can see from a mile out..

Most of what police do is crime prevention. You do not feel nor see it, since it never happens. But believe me, it's mitigated. Without police PROTECTION, crime rates would increase by orders magnitude. You or I could walk into a bank and take what we wish, without fear repurcussion.

Now back to the question you continue to ignore: who dresses you in the morning? A family member, care-giver, someone else? Truly. I'm dying to know.

thanks. this is what the "prevention" you speak of is, the fear of the repercussion that will occur once they respond to an already committed crime.

i see you still don't wanna address the fact that i should be able to protect myself in the same way a member of government does

Already happening. Just look out your window, assuming it's your window and not your mom's or the state institution's window.

Now then, I'm not coming kill you for fear of repurcussion. That's keeping you far safer than you'd be if we were all armed and "protecting" ourselves in an environment of utter mayhem ... which if everyone was toting guns in a lawless environment would most assuredly be. Your and my prospects reaching old age would diminish exponentially.

And kids are protected, in school, right now, except all are on holiday, at present. So on Wednesday, 1.2, then they'll be protected, because we have police and a criminal justice system. Let's say the little brats bugged me, and I had an incling to thin the herd. But I'm not going to. My death at the scene is a near certainty; and even if I dodge that, I'll be on the fast-track to lethal injection.

It's a very, very (VERY) rare individual that is not detered by the prospect of thier own certain death. We have a word for such individuals: sociopaths, which as it happens, are in far greater supply in our society than we have incidents of mass shootings. Hell; even most sociopaths are detered, already, making your and my kids at far, far (FAR) greater risk of childhood diseases that'll kill them, long before an uber-sociopath waltzes into their school with a gun and takes them out.

 

[LibertyLemming]

So you are saying there are just some people we can't deter, and that these people are VERY VERY VERY VERY VERY VERY RARE, but that we need to take guns from all of society because of these VERY VERY VERY VERY VERY rare and unavoidable circumstances?

Makes sense

 

[Koios]

So you are saying there are just some people we can't deter, and that these people are VERY VERY VERY VERY VERY VERY RARE, but that we need to take guns from all of society because of these VERY VERY VERY VERY VERY rare and unavoidable circumstances?

Makes sense

Yes; that would seem apparent. But thankfully, it's so rare as to be a slightly greater risk to your or my child than a gay midget in a clown suit bludgeoning them with a didgeridoo. Relax.

Hell; how many kids are in a typical school? 200? 300? So if lighting were to double-strike your kid's school, during a blue moon, and 20 are killed. Even then, the risk to your child is 1:10 or 1:15.

Teach them to look both ways before crossing the street. That'll keep 'em safer than an armed Kindergarten teacher. No shit. Look up car-pedestrian accident stats, if you need shit to be frightened of.

 

[LibertyLemming]

So you are saying there are just some people we can't deter, and that these people are VERY VERY VERY VERY VERY VERY RARE, but that we need to take guns from all of society because of these VERY VERY VERY VERY VERY rare and unavoidable circumstances?

Makes sense

Yes; that would seem apparent. But thankfully, it's so rare as to be a slightly greater risk to your or my child than a gay midget in a clown suit bludgeoning them with a didgeridoo. Relax.

Hell; how many kids are in a typical school? 200? 300? So if lighting were to double-strike your kid's school, during a blue moon, and 20 are killed. Even then, the risk to your child is 1:10 or 1:15.

Teach them to look both ways before crossing the street. That'll keep 'em safer than an armed Kindergarten teacher. No shit. Look up car-pedestrian accident stats, if you need shit to be frightened of.

Should we ban cars too?

 

[Koios]

So you are saying there are just some people we can't deter, and that these people are VERY VERY VERY VERY VERY VERY RARE, but that we need to take guns from all of society because of these VERY VERY VERY VERY VERY rare and unavoidable circumstances?

Makes sense

Who taught you to read? If it was one of the teachers taken out recently, maybe they had it coming.

No. I'm not suggesting that for a second.

But neither am I buying into LaPierre's retarded ******* nonsense. We do not need armed guards in every ******* school so they can tell their gun-making pals it's okie doke to keep selling whatever they want in as great a supply as they possibly can. Wayne is cock-sucking piece-of-shit, and none too bright, if he thinks the solution to violence resulting from so many goddamn guns in our society, is more guns.