by BizzyBee 246 Replies latest members politics
<<<< In my mind, I have the same rights to have my children protected regardless of the risk you seem to think is small enough not to need the added protection of a armed officer, or more.>>>>
I have the same right to have my children in a school that does not have armed guards, and I also do not want to pay higher taxes to make you feel safe.
I have the same right to have my children in a school that does not have armed guards, and I also do not want to pay higher taxes to make you feel safe.
You either. Will you voluntarily give up all police, paramedic, emergency aid, fire protection and any other form of service from the state designed to help you in exchange for not paying taxes on those items?
This means, of course, you have to get your own food. None that has to meet federal or state guidelines. I hope you enjoy all cash transactions since you can't use a state or federally regulated bank. Good luck finding a job with someone that isn't subject to any laws designed to protect the empployee. No water from the city, I hope you have a well. If your house catches fire, that's a shame. Etc.
144001 said,
I have the same right to have my children in a school that does not have armed guards, and I also do not want to pay higher taxes to make you feel safe.
What is it your objectionable to the idea that the armed guard might accidently shoot a child? Or is it REALLY the increased taxes that would be imposed?
I ask because, in my mind, knowing that mentally crazed individuals who have decided to kill as many people as possible do not usually look for construction crews taking a lunch break they more often look for humans that cannot defend themselves and where there are large numbers of these individuals in one place. Hey, this sounds like a elementary school house to me. So if we know before hand that we cannot tell with a certainty that we know who the next shooter will be it only makes sense to place some type of defence at this location incase some crazy person decides this is the place to have my 15 minutes of fame.
If you have children in school and were one of the unfortunate ones to have had your child killed by this shooter, would you not honestly say that you would give anything in your power to go back and make sure that they was some type or protection there to try to prevent this killing? Be honest, would you still stand by your statement that you do not want to pay higher taxes to make me feel safe?
The higher taxes may make me feel safe but that is only secondary benefit as the primary one is making the children actually more safe.
How much could the taxes increase REALLY? And why can not the armed police be performing other task at the time the school is in session in and around the school?
Taxes can be a very useful thing when put into the correct place.
NJY
The man who opposed giving medical attention to children who survived an abortion has no moral authority on childrens safety
Liberals made a new game where you can murder NRA people.
A combative new 4½-minute ad from the National Rifle Association has drawn the attention of the White House, which "slammed the NRA as 'cowardly' " for having, in the New York Daily News's words, "dragged President Obama's daughters into the raging debate over gun control by placing them in a controversial commercial":
Spokesman Jay Carney said the NRA crossed the line when the group referenced Sasha, 11, and Malia, 14, in a spot calling the commander-in-chief an "elitist hypocrite" because his girls get armed Secret Service protection.
"Most Americans agree that a president's children should not be used as pawns in a political fight. But to go so far as to make the safety of the President's children the subject of an attack ad is repugnant and cowardly," Carney said Wednesday.
That's not quite accurate. The ad includes neither images nor the names of the Obama daughters, and it doesn't mention their Secret Service detail. Rather, it references a Dec. 24 Breitbart.com story titled "School Obama's Daughters Attend Has 11 Armed Guards":
The school, Sidwell Friends School in Washington, DC, has 11 security officers and is seeking to hire a new police officer as we speak.
If you dismiss this by saying, "Of course they have armed guards--they get Secret Service protection," then you've missed the larger point.
The larger point is that this is standard operating procedure for the school, period. And this is the reason people like NBC's David Gregory send their kids to Sidwell, they know their kids will be protected from the carnage that befell kids at a school where armed guards weren't used (and weren't even allowed).
If the president wants his critics to refrain from even indirectly referring to his daughters, he ought to stop exploiting ordinary people's children in this manner. Even if the NRA missed the mark in accusing him of elitist hypocrisy over school guards, his display today makes him a fair target for such a charge.
Obama is exploiting emotions and using the childens interests fallacy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_emotion
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Children's_interests_(rhetoric)
You and Limbaugh must be snuggle buddies
>>If the president wants his critics to refrain from even indirectly referring to his daughters, he ought to stop exploiting ordinary people's children in this manner. Even if the NRA missed the mark in accusing him of elitist hypocrisy over school >>guards, his display today makes him a fair target for such a charge.
Tit-for-tat, eh? The NRA's message is: "Don't mention children being victims of gun violence or we'll draw attention to your daughters' safety." The NRA is going to lose this one because they are alienating the majority of Americans who want something done about gun violence. And the NRA has never been confronted like this and their response has been very revealing. They are weak, out-of-touch, sleazy and vicious.
<<<< What is it your objectionable to the idea that the armed guard might accidently shoot a child?>>>>
I do have an objection to that idea. Statistics show that where there are guns, there is gun violence. Guns do not belong in schools, period. That's my opinion as a parent who is disgusted by the current ideas of the NRA.
<<<<Or is it REALLY the increased taxes that would be imposed?>>>>
It's that too. I don't like my taxes paying for things I don't believe in.
<<<< Will you voluntarily give up all police, paramedic, emergency aid, fire protection and any other form of service from the state designed to help you in exchange for not paying taxes on those items?>>>>
Nice try, EP, but this is a form of fallacious reasoning know as "false analogy." It's commonly accepted that the services you refer to are necessary, but it certainly isn't the common consensus that armed guards are needed in schools, as the nutcakes at the NRA are advocating.
EP and notjustyet:
Is it your position that our federal government should do nothing at all in response to the Sandy Hook and Aurora Colorado massacres?
