Father of Newtown Victim Heckled

[Damocles]

According to the assistant head of Sidwell, none of the 11 carry weapons. I probably would have asked if the school had a weapons cache as a follow up question if I were the reporter on this, but at least we have his word they do not carry.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...5b2127a-6032-11e2-9940-6fc488f3fecd_blog.html

No follow. And still misleading. Armed guards always being at the school are not important to my point, armed guards for those "important" Presidential kids are still there, while your unimportant little DNA bags are unprotected and underlined as targets by no gun zone signs.

 

[Cancel 2020.1]

No follow. And still misleading. Armed guards always being at the school are not important to my point, armed guards for those "important" Presidential kids are still there, while your unimportant little DNA bags are unprotected and underlined as targets by no gun zone signs.

As I stated before, "important" has nothing to do with it.

 

[Bonestorm]

Actually, the point initially was that these rich elite politico fat cats had armed guard for their kids at their school but didn't want the same for your kids at your school, which then devolved into some asininity about Secret Service protection for the President's children.

And, no, I don't think it reasonable or necessary to have Secret Service protection for all of our children. My kids don't need to be "hardened targets."

 

[Damocles]

As I stated before, "important" has nothing to do with it.

Again, nonsense.

The President's kids are protected by armed guards because they are effective. Your opinion on whether or not they are considered "important" while your kids aren't is inconsequential to the argument and to reality.

We need a more effective means than no gun zone signs and cop response times to protect our kids. I propose that we use what we already know to be effective and stop relying on the literacy of criminals to protect our children.

 

[Bonestorm]

No follow. And still misleading. Armed guards always being at the school are not important to my point, armed guards for those "important" Presidential kids are still there, while your unimportant little DNA bags are unprotected and underlined as targets by no gun zone signs.

Damo, you might think it clever to use "armed guards" for "Secret Service agents" after pretending that Sidwell Friends had "armed guards" in addition to Secrete Service agents, but we all noticed. Just an FYI.

Just use "Secret Service agents" since that's what you're talking about.

 

[Cancel 2020.1]

Again, nonsense.

The President's kids are protected by armed guards because they are effective. Your opinion on whether or not they are considered "important" while your kids aren't is inconsequential to the argument and to reality.

We need a more effective means than no gun zone signs and cop response times to protect our kids. I propose that we use what we already know to be effective and stop relying on the literacy of criminals to protect our children.

Like I said, I'm okay with non-armed guards at schools. But you're still using a BS argument. The President's kids are targets because of who they are - there isn't even a comparison to be made with regular kids.

What you're arguing is the same as arguing that the President has security, so we should all have security. The President is a target because of his position as a world leader, and his kids are targets by extension.

Stop being so obtuse in your effort to try to save face on this thread.

 

[Damocles]

Damo, you might think it clever to use "armed guards" for "Secret Service agents" after pretending that Sidwell Friends had "armed guards" in addition to Secrete Service agents, but we all noticed. Just an FYI.

Again, I'll repeat. It doesn't matter why they are guarded by armed guards, the fact that they are underlines the effectiveness.

Just use "Secret Service agents" since that's what you're talking about.

Actually I don't propose we protect all our kids with Secret Service Agents. I do propose that we use what we already know to be effective, armed guards, as opposed to what we absolutely know to be ineffective, no gun zone signs.

We can use this argument in a variety of ways, including the Governor of your state, the Mayor of Denver and his kids... If the signs were effective we wouldn't have to waste money on guards for these "important" people.

 

[Bonestorm]

By the way, who is it that suggested that gun free school zone signs prevent school shootings? I admittedly joined the thread late and haven't read the whole thing (I really just chimed in to correct Damo's lies) but the idea that we should have armed guards because the children of the President and governors have security details because gun free school zones signs don't work strikes me as a tad bizarre.

 

[Damocles]

By the way, who is it that suggested that gun free school zone signs prevent school shootings? I admittedly joined the thread late and haven't read the whole thing (I really just chimed in to correct Damo's lies) but the idea that we should have armed guards because the children of the President and governors have security details because gun free school zones signs don't work strikes me as a tad bizarre.

Nobody suggested it (other than reality), I am pointing out that, along with a door lock, was what the kids at Sandy Hook had, that and a door log (not locked they just are forced to pass the desk where they have to log in) is what my kids have, and it wasn't effective nor will it ever be. Even if you make it illegal for me to buy an AR-15, it still will not be effective.

We think our money is important and a target, we protect it with guards and not just signs telling you that the bank is "gun free", we think the President is important and a target, we protect him with armed guards and not just signs telling you that you can't carry a gun nearby. We think our Governors are important and targets...

I think you can see the pattern. If the signs were effective, we wouldn't need the guards, that we know that the signs are ineffective is underlined by the reality, for those things we consider important we hire guards. Why is it we don't think our children are important enough to guard?

 

[Liberty]

Why is it we don't think our children are important enough to guard?

Is it because most of the people here don't have kids, and are probably not out of school?

 

[Cancel 2016.11]

So the next nut shoots up a school bus when it stops to let off kids.

You guys are in outer space if you think you can have armed guards everywhere. That's even presuming that more guns = less killings, which is not true, but let's just take this to its logical conclusion.

It can't be done.

Get rid of the guns, no one needs them to hunt or for self-defense. It's a bunch of nonsense disseminated by a bunch of fanatics.

 

[Phantasmal]

Nobody suggested it (other than reality), I am pointing out that, along with a door lock, was what the kids at Sandy Hook had, that and a door log (not locked they just are forced to pass the desk where they have to log in) is what my kids have, and it wasn't effective nor will it ever be. Even if you make it illegal for me to buy an AR-15, it still will not be effective.

We think our money is important and a target, we protect it with guards and not just signs telling you that the bank is "gun free", we think the President is important and a target, we protect him with armed guards and not just signs telling you that you can't carry a gun nearby. We think our Governors are important and targets...

I think you can see the pattern. If the signs were effective, we wouldn't need the guards, that we know that the signs are ineffective is underlined by the reality, for those things we consider important we hire guards. Why is it we don't think our children are important enough to guard?

I think the more important question is why do we have to guard our children? What other Wrstern country has to do this? What are they doing different from the US?

 

[Liberty]

So the next nut shoots up a school bus when it stops to let off kids.

You guys are in outer space if you think you can have armed guards everywhere. That's even presuming that more guns = less killings, which is not true, but let's just take this to its logical conclusion.

It can't be done.

Get rid of the guns, no one needs them to hunt or for self-defense. It's a bunch of nonsense disseminated by a bunch of fanatics.

Women/men defend themselves and their families all the time.

Where have you been?

 

[Damocles]

So the next nut shoots up a school bus when it stops to let off kids.

You guys are in outer space if you think you can have armed guards everywhere. That's even presuming that more guns = less killings, which is not true, but let's just take this to its logical conclusion.

It can't be done.

Get rid of the guns, no one needs them to hunt or for self-defense. It's a bunch of nonsense disseminated by a bunch of fanatics.

Yeah, because the money is protected all the time and there are far more banks than schools. Totally makes sense we can't hire some people to protect something else.

 

[Cancel 2016.11]

Like I said, I'm okay with non-armed guards at schools. But you're still using a BS argument. The President's kids are targets because of who they are - there isn't even a comparison to be made with regular kids.

What you're arguing is the same as arguing that the President has security, so we should all have security. The President is a target because of his position as a world leader, and his kids are targets by extension.

Stop being so obtuse in your effort to try to save face on this thread.

They believe they are entitled to anything a President has, as long as the President is a Democrat. I remember when Obama was running the first time, there was this false story going around that Michelle had been at the Waldorf over the weekend and ordered lobster. And they actually sent around emails, "Did YOU eat lobster at the Waldorf this weekend? well guess who DID!!". I mean, wtf? No I didn't eat lobster at the waldorf this weekend, and not just because I don't eat lobster, but because I'm not a hospital executive making 300k a year married to a best-selling author.

And "DNA sacs"?? Where do they get this stuff from? Righties truly practice the politics of resentment. It's very ugly, so are their minds, and never has it been more evident than on this thread.

 

[Damocles]

I think the more important question is why do we have to guard our children? What other Wrstern country has to do this? What are they doing different from the US?

Again, we pay for the freedom to arm ourselves with some risk, we can look at the fact that we have far less violent crime per capita than the UK to see if what we pay (the risk) is worth it. We take on far, far, more risk each time we put our kids in a car but pretend that this risk is more dangerous even though the numbers show that the risk isn't worth it, that far more people become victims of violent crime in a society that is disarmed.

We also create much of the risk ourselves with stupid draconic drug laws that put away people for an activity that is largely only self-defeating.

 

[Bonestorm]

Yeah, because the money is protected all the time and there are far more banks than schools. Totally makes sense we can't hire some people to protect something else.

Well, the money is at the bank and stays at the bank. Unless you plan to have armed guards following kids everywhere they go (like we do with large sums of money and yet armored cars get jacked every once in a while) akin to the security and Secret Service details assigned to the children of prominent public officials, you can't do that with kids in general.

And I don't want my kids growing up in an environment where its necessary to have armed guards around them 24/7. That's just fucked up. Kids shouldn't be "hardened targets."

 

[Bonestorm]

Again, we pay for the freedom to arm ourselves with some risk, we can look at the fact that we have far less violent crime per capita than the UK to see if what we pay (the risk) is worth it. We take on far, far, more risk each time we put our kids in a car but pretend that this risk is more dangerous even though the numbers show that the risk isn't worth it, that far more people become victims of violent crime in a society that is disarmed.

We also create much of the risk ourselves with stupid draconic drug laws that put away people for an activity that is largely only self-defeating.

That "research" that you're referring to in this argument is specious at best. We have vastly different standards for what qualifies as a violent crime.

 

[Damocles]

They believe they are entitled to anything a President has, as long as the President is a Democrat. I remember when Obama was running the first time, there was this false story going around that Michelle had been at the Waldorf over the weekend and ordered lobster. And they actually sent around emails, "Did YOU eat lobster at the Waldorf this weekend? well guess who DID!!". I mean, wtf? No I didn't eat lobster at the waldorf this weekend, and not just because I don't eat lobster, but because I'm not a hospital executive making 300k a year married to a best-selling author.

And "DNA sacs"?? Where do they get this stuff from? Righties truly practice the politics of resentment. It's very ugly, so are their minds, and never has it been more evident than on this thread.

The idea you have that kids aren't important enough to protect because I "resent" that the President has protection is just sad.

They are important, even the President thinks that it is a good idea and provides for money to hire people to do that. Just not enough. I think having some teachers trained to react with effective means during these crises will be effective, you think that trying to take all the guns away will be. I think the idea that 300,000,000 guns will disappear because of any law is absurd.

 

[Howey]

Can you link us up to where you are seeing they were not armed? Thanks.

I did almost two weeks ago. Now that I see Dung found it, Damo's been debunked. Again. Now...

So lets say for the sake of argument. Sidwell has a security staff over and above the Secret Service. David Gregory sends his kids there. Is he a hypocrite?

They don't, so what the fuck difference does it make troll?

The President's kids are protected by armed guards because they are effective.

BULLSHIT, Damo. The President's kids are protected by Secret Service because they are the fucking President's kids. Cut the crap, ok? You're sounding as unhinged as STY and 007.

And why did you delete my post?

You guys are in outer space if you think you can have armed guards everywhere.

Nobody, YET, has answered my question.

Just how do we pay and equip all these guards and teachers?