Are the president's kids more important than yours?"

[vanbean]

Tuesday night before the President Obama was scheduled to unveil a legislative package attacking gun violence, the National Rifle Association launched a video attacking Obama and citing his children.
The 35-second video criticizes Obama's opposition to more armed guards in schools, while noting that his daughters receive Secret Service protection.


"Are the president's kids more important than yours?" the narrator says. "Then why is he skeptical about putting armed security in our schools when his kids are protected by armed guards at their school? Mr. Obama demands the wealthy pay their fair share of taxes, but he's just another elitist hypocrite when it comes to a fair share of security."


http://www.digtriad.com/news/watercooler/article/263798/176/NRA-Ad-Uses-Presidents-Children

This is the best the NRA has? What group of knuckle-draggers can they hope to convince with this crap? I'm so old I can remember when the NRA was respectable. But this? How stupid do you have to be to qualify for ignorance these days? Sometimes we are just so lost to find any understanding of the citizens among us who can nod their heads to such putrid drivel. Anyone who can now join or belong to the NRA today should not be allowed to own so much as a squirt gun.

[hrmjustin]

1. The leadership of the NRA is just evil.

[Comrade_McKenzie]

2. The answer is yes. Normal kids aren't on the hitlist of every nutjob in America. nt

[okaawhatever]

3. All kids need Creesie!!! (Man on Fire). We need to let ALL kids know they're

our first priority. Having something happen to our first family puts every child in this country in fear. It's a big fu(*ing neon sign that says, "we can get to them with all their protection, we can get to you". That is why every member of top gov families are "high value" targets. It's like most attacks of mass "disruption". It's about the chaos, uncertainty, and fear it puts in the minds of a country.

[Ravajava]

4. Side Note

A large amount of US schools already have police within an immediate response radius, predominantly lower income inner city schools. I'm not trying to defend the NRA here, and I think the plan they proposed is balls to the walls stupid, but it is something to consider...

[Amonester]

5. Oh yeah, some other nutjobs considered something (stupid):

32-Year Veteran School Guard Leaves Gun In School Bathroom

"the Chatfield School in Lapeer, Michigan followed the directive of the NRA…to the letter"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022210039

[Ravajava]

57. LOLZ

That is hilarious and sad at the same time XD

[patrice]

6. Children are safe nowhere in a country that "needs" armed guards in their schools. Those guards

aren't doing a damn thing about the CAUSES of the violence. They're AFTER the fact. "The horse is already out of the barn" and children are not safe anywhere, because people will kill for guns.

[Whisp]

49. +1

[dkf]

7. Actually the ad is completely wrong...

From the executive order:

18. Provide incentives for schools to hire school resource officers.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2013/01/16/here-are-the-23-executive-orders-on-gun-safety-signed-today-by-the-president/

THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF SCHOOL RESOURCE OFFICERS (NASRO)

The National Association of School Resource Officers (NASRO) is dedicated to providing the highest quality of training to school-based law enforcement officers in order to promote safer schools and safer kids. NASRO, the world’s leader in school-based policing, is a not-for-profit organization founded in 1991 with a solid commitment to our nation’s youth. NASRO is an organization for school-based law enforcement officers, school administrators, and school security/safety professionals working as partners to protect students, school faculty and staff, and the schools they attend.

NASRO was founded on the “triad” concept of school-based policing which is the true and tested strength of the School Resource Officer (SRO) program. The triad concept divides the SRO’s responsibilities into three areas: Teacher, Counselor, and Law Enforcement Officer. By training law enforcement to educate, counsel, and protect our school communities, the men and women of NASRO continue to lead by example and promote a positive image of law enforcement to our Nation’s youth.

School- based policing is the fastest growing area of law enforcement. With over 3,000 NASRO members around the globe, NASRO takes great pride in being the first and most recognized organization for law enforcement officers assigned in our school communities. NASRO is available to assist communities and schools districts around the world that desire safe schools and effective community partnerships in developing the most effective program for their community.

SRO programs across the nation are founded as collaborative efforts by police agencies, law enforcement officers, educators, students, parents, and communities. The goal of NASRO and SRO programs is to provide safe learning environments in our nation’s schools, provide valuable resources to school staff, foster a positive relationship with our nation’s youth, and develop strategies to resolve problems affecting our youth with the goal of protecting every child so they can reach their fullest potential.

And this...

· School-based police officers (also known as school resources officers) are specially trained, carefully selected, full-time law enforcement officers who work in schools as their primary assignments.

· SROs are much more than armed guards. They develop relationships with students and staff and participate in the education of students.

· SROs enhance, rather than detract from the learning environment. Students learn that the officers are their friends, not someone to fear and they learn that the presence of an SRO does not indicate they are in danger.

· As of January 16, NASRO has received twice as many requests for training as it did in all of January, 2012. NASRO is increasing its training capacity to meet the increased demand.

http://www.nasro.org/

[Fumesucker]

15. I think you forgot you're a right wing troll

You aren't supposed to be pointing out stuff like the NRA ad has the facts wrong.

[Recursion]

8. Well, first off, my kid can't be used to blackmail a man with access to nuclear weapons

I mean, even granting the blatant falsehood (Obama has in fact proposed increased security including guards on school campuses), it's a simple fact that the children of the President are people we all have an interest in protecting.

[1983law]

9. Sorry

My kids are more important to me than any other parent's child. Period.

[BainsBane]

10. As are everyone's

So what is your point?

[Phlem]

11. I think he said it pretty clearly.

What is your point?

-p

[BainsBane]

12. I want to know if he supports the ideas in the NRA ad.

That is what the OP is about. I thought I should give him the benefit of the doubt and let him explain it himself. But if you insist his meaning is clear, I can only conclude that both of you support the ideas advanced in the NRA ad.

[uponit7771]

14. gun nuts are getting desperate, the time I talk to them they get really opaque about there intentio

...and what they mean

[alcibiades_mystery]

25. They're discovering that their usualy bullshit doesn't work anymore

[Phlem]

44. So your interpreting that he's a gun nut from this sentence

"My kids are more important to me than any other parent's child. Period."

???

It's one sentence with out the word gun in it and 3 periods at the end.

I'm the polar opposite of a gun nut and abhor the use of guns. Period.

But somewhere in this thread I became one from out of nowhere.

Are we going on a witch hunt? Is that what we have become to each other in this group?

-p

[Phlem]

33. Man

Talk about making shit up.

Whatever's dude.

-p

[BainsBane]

38. You asserted the meaning was clear

You made of point of inserting yourself in the conversation to insist it was obvious what he meant. So I drew the logical conclusion based on the subject to which he responded. Did you somehow think his comment was entirely unrelated to the OP?

You'll observe that two other participants in the subthread drew the same conclusion I did. I don't know what other meaning you think was so obvious that it escaped the rest of us.

[Phlem]

39. this

"But if you insist his meaning is clear, I can only conclude that both of you support the ideas advanced in the NRA ad."

Really?

Your pretty good at making stuff up and creating an issue where there isn't one but as an arm psychologist, I wouldn't quit my day job.



-p

[BainsBane]

41. I and everyone else in the thread

Who interpreted his post in the same way. YOU felt compelled to insert yourself in the discussion. You choose not to explain your meaning. That is your choice. But you can hardly be surprised when people draw conclusions, when you yourself insist the meaning is obvious. Two other people interpreted your "obvious" meaning as I did.

I have no desire to be a psychologist, particularly for gunners.

[Phlem]

43. And you continue to make stuff up.

Good by.

-p

[1983law]

48. I was responding to a specific post

That's it. You shouldn't read anything into I post, or make assumptions. I am pretty direct.

[BainsBane]

52. so what are your views on the ad?

[Phlem]

55. Welcome to DU.

That's what should have been said in the first place.



-p

[uponit7771]

13. that the president kids are in a special circumstances and mine are not....

...regardless of how much emotionally they are important to me

[1983law]

61. I do not agree with the NRA's ad

Mainly because it is a stupid strawman. But like I said earlier, we have 20 dead kids in Newtown, 12 in Columbine, and we are debating whether the president's kids are more important than all other's kids. I can assure you there are 32 parents that are not debating the special circumstances the president's kids are in--or that they are in a setting which could result in a massive tragedy. But I digress as I do not want to debate whether his kids should be home-schooled.

[renate]

17. well, duh... the key phrase being "to me"

The safety of Obama's kids is more important to *the country* than that of mine or yours. Obama's kids aren't better, cuter, more special, etc... but they are as important to him as mine are to me and yours are to you. The key difference between his and mine or his and yours--and I assume that you realize this and that you're not just a troll--is that our allegiance to our children doesn't make you and me subject to blackmail on a global scale.

I'm sure you're a devoted parent. So are most parents. Yay for you and yay for me.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

19. You should examine your head. Why are you sorry that your kids are important to you?

Do you suffer from low self esteem?

[gollygee]

22. The president's kids are also in more danger than yours

They could be targeted simply for being his kids. It's a likely scenario.

Your kids are important to you, and my kids are important to me, but our kids don't have a parent who is President and all that goes along with that.

[1983law]

50. So, the president's kids are more important than mine?

That's the title of this thread after all.

[gollygee]

58. I didn't answer that question because it's a stupid question

and beside the point. Obama's kids don't have more protection than my kids, or your kids, because they are "more important." That's stupid NRA spewage.

[loyalsister]

32. Of course...

They are no where near as vulnerable as the first daughters, however.

[Hugabear]

37. So then you agree with the NRA hit-piece against Obama?

Just curious

[sad-cafe]

46. exactly

most people's kids are not well-known

[Warpy]

16. Dear NRA

The President's children are under more direct threat than any child of mine would ever be, mostly from your ignorant, violent membership.

I would not trade places for all the armed guards in the world.

Fuck you very much,

Warpy

[BlueMTexpat]

18. Well and succinctly said, Warpy! eom

[appleannie1]

27. That should be headlines and posted on every billboard.

[madokie]

31. +10000000000000000000000000000000000 however many the fuck that is

The NRA leadership is totally out of step with this country. Its like they've appointed themselves as the saviors of the masses. Fuck them and the assault weapons they rode in on. Hey I have an idea lets run their sorry asses out of town on one of their beloved ar15s, either side up too rather than riding their asses out of town on a rail

[WillyT]

53. + 1,000,000,000... What You Said !!!

[ret5hd]

20. It sounds to me like they are supporting paying a team of HIGHLY trained secret service agents...

for every two children in our schools!

Unemployment: SOLVED!!!!

[bluestate10]

21. The NRA's ad had outright lies in it.

The school that the President's girls go to doesn't have massive armed security. It does have security, but most, except for the Secret Service is unarmed. Anyone that expects the President's children or immediate family to go around with unarmed protection in this modern age is damned stupid.

[GoCubsGo]

24. I like how they show a photo of Joe Biden, Nancy Pelosi, and a number of other Dem leaders.

Then they make the claim that these people's children are "protected by armed guards." LOL! The children of every last one of those people are ADULTS, and with the possible exception of Joe Biden's chldren, none of them have Secret Service protection. (Do the VP's adult kids get protection?) Hell, I don't believe any of them, outside of Biden, get protection, let alone their kids. The NRA is so full of shit.

[ieoeja]

42. One of Joe Biden's sons is in the US Army and was stationed in Iraq in 2009!

They couldn't be more fucking inaccurate if they tried.

[surrealAmerican]

23. It's not a question of who's more important.

It's a question of who's at more risk. Why would anybody want their children to be trailed by armed guards if it wasn't absolutely necessary anyway?

[jambo101]

26. Perhaps not more important than mine but

Certainly a bigger target for nut jobs and enemies than my kids.

[deutsey]

28. The real question is: "Are the president's kids in more danger than yours?" n/t

[hedgehog]

34. THIS^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

[WillyT]

54. + 1,000,000,000... What You Said !!!

[1983law]

60. Go ask the 20 parents

That lost their kids in Newtown and get back to us.

[deutsey]

62. Yes, their kids were in constant daily danger

of attack or kidnapping from terrorists and homegrown loony tunes in the same way any modern president's children are.

Well, you convinced me. Guess I'll be hiring me some armed guards to be with my kids 24 hours a day.

[1983law]

63. They apparently were...

because they are dead now. But hey, play out your argument. I guess since the Newtown kids were not in constant daily danger, we don't need gun control after all, do we?

You and others engaging me on this matter are playing into the NRA's straw man argument. No one questions the unique danger confronting president's kids. But how that is handled is entirely different than how we, average American's, need to protect our children. With that said, in the grand scheme of things, no one's kids are more important than another parent's kids. That is the answer to the question posited in this thread.

[deutsey]

64. Yeah, I see your point

it's at the top of your head.

[madokie]

29. This question shouldn't even need to be asked

No one is special. Rather it is they are a security risk. In that I mean beings that they're father is the President you have to take extra precautions against those who would or could be enticed to do something stupid. We've got a lot of stupid too. Just look at the numbers of working people who vote republiCON for proof of that.
We have a lot of people who are trying to incite these stupids too.

[liberal N proud]

30. The Obama girls security is not the Presidents choice

As a matter of national security the Secret Service is directed to protect all members of the First Family.

The NRA asking that questions is just reprehensible.

[Rex]

35. NRA - losing it and melting down on the world stage!!

KEEP IT UP ASSHOLES!

[LanternWaste]

36. I imagine the relevant question would be "are your kids more important to someone looking...

I imagine the relevant question would be "are your kids more important to someone looking to blackmail the administration to release overseas political prisoners, or to remove ground troops from such and such region, or to recognize the legitimacy of a terrorist cell?"

In that case, I'm compelled to answer, "yes... his children are more important in that very relevant context."

[kelliekat44]

40. I's love to wake up in the morning to the smell of circular firing squads of NRA leadership. nt

[GCP]

45. The president, whoever he/she is, is more important than me

Therefore, if his kids can be kidnapped, hurt or killed as an attack against the president, then they should have protection, just like the Bush kids, Chelsea Clinton, etc etc etc.

The NRA are desperate.

[Incitatus]

47. Absolutely

I don't have kids.

The President's kids are, of course, high profile targets unlike the vast majority of other kids.

It's a stupid question of them to ask. The question should be is there a higher risk to their safety than your kids.

[TheManInTheMac]

51. No. No ones children are more important than mine, and I will

put my life up to protect theirs and I will do ANYTHING to protect them.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

56. More important to whom, me? No. nt

[maryland native]

59. perhaps the question should be changed

The President's children are more important to the President and his family than any others.

And all of us with kids hold our children closest.

Sadly the President's children have a much higher threat against them. It's the nature of the beast. Been that way for many years through many administrations of differing parties.

To make this comparison (that some animals are more equal than others!) is a false comparison that weakens any reasonable points later proffered.

Keep the kids out of debate if you NRA types only want to score cheap shot points...