• Comment removed for Engagement Etiquette violation. Replies may also be deleted.
  • #7
    Can anyone really be dim enough not to be able to distinguish between the President of the United States and school children? One is the leader of one of the most powerful nation on earth, the others are, well, school children. Armed security for the nation's executive is warranted, armed guards in schools cannot be proven to accomplish its goal and is economically unsustainable. Why is it that Republicans are constantly screaming about wasteful spending, but they are first in line to cry for new wasteful spending for armed guards in schools?
  • #16
    @Zazziness could it be bc its mostly white suburban kids getting shot at school but mostly minorities on food stamps?
  • #17
    HMMM.... maybe because more children were killed in one attack then all the presidents combined? Nah....armed security is for the royals, not the serfs.
  • R Load more replies

  • #5
    Public officials who believe guns are the problem should enhance their credibility by eliminating all guns in their presence. Anything less is typical liberal 'do as I say' posturing.
  • #124

    the fact is that the Secular Progressive Agenda Responsible for Virginia Tech Tragedy, and all others.the Secular Progressive Agenda is thrashing the young people of our country.
    Turning them into Moral less value less honor less God less induviduals.

    Thats is the absolute facts here people
  • #25
    Hmm, Bush Jr barricaded the both the capital and the white house and still had armed guards. Maybe, just maybe, leaders of a country have a tiny iota more at stake.....
  • #66
    If something can't get 100,000 signatures, it clearly doesn't represent the wants of the majority of that site.
  • #132
    @fr3aknasty-- You mistakenly think that I ever took any of the petitions seriously. It's like the Youtube debates... they already knew what they wanted to ask the candidates... all they had to do was sift through the youtube questions to find the ones that asked the questions they wanted to ask.
  • #26
    Not mention the lifetime armed protection he will enjoy for he and his family. His safety is certainly not more important than my families safety to me.
    I certainly don't want anyone telling me with what, or type, or how many rounds I feel is needed to protect my family in our home.
    That really is not Obama's damn business, or any of these readers either.
    Don't try to harm, or break in my home and you will never have anything to fear.
  • #134
    Yeah, Im sure all the nuts ranting about this have death threats made on themselves and their family on the daily ... Jesus some of you are moronic.
  • #131
    Hah-I DID sign it! That was a farce intnded to show the liberal buffoons the point of the second amendment-how "safe" would Obama feel with out his ARMED secret service? His security details, spy camreas. LOCKED White House gates? Now how are the PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES supposed to actually BE SAFE without our guns??? How many times must I post the website links for death tolls attributed to dictators? True Ameericans-SIGN THE PETITION! FORCE THEM TO LIVE AS THEY WANT US TO DIE! Find out what the "BIG PICTURE" really is!
  • #102
    Since the Governor of NY has signed a (7) round max in his state.
    I guess now, if he doesnt want to break the law, His armed security staff is only allowed to have 7 rounds in their own AR 15 assault rifles Yes? and only 7 rounds in their own Glocks.

    How hypocritical...They wont do it!!
    See secular progressives always know whats best for you, However they do not live by those same rules, They are above the laws that they pass for you.

    This is why secular progressives are bad for our society!!!
  • #95
    The White House IS a gun-free zone, to anyone other than highly trained Secret Service agents. Not just anyone can stroll through the White House with a gun. The purpose of gun-free zones in other areas is so that untrained civilians and possible criminals are not allowed to have guns. This is dumb.
  • #80
    Ron White said you can't fix stupid, and I say it is a waste of time and energy to try to control what someone else does. But that being said, that is plain stupid!
  • #72
    Well,of course every President must have 24/7 security for him and his family,because the importance of who He is and for being at risk for the same reason .It's totally dumb to suggest it to be the other hand,citizens should have ways to own certain kind of guns for their own protection,but not precisely assault ones and schools to be able to hire armed guards,but it sounds nuts arming teachers with guns..
  • #86
    You're wrong about the President needing armed security. According to Obama's reason behind gun legislation, all you have to do is pass the law and the problem goes away.
  • #68
    it is a tongue-in-cheek petition that points out how silly the logic is that is being used by the admin. like having 2 guns of the same caliber, but 1 is banned because of a "military feature" (stock, grip, etc.) that does nothing to enhance the power of the weapon. does not seem like these proposals have any teeth aside from the slippery slope argument..
  • #67
    Some are going for it but banning "assault" rifles and restricting rounds in magazines is nothing but part of anti-gun assault on right to keep and bear arms by a thousand cuts. No more! Our Constitutional rights are quickly bleeding out.

    It was disingenuous of the President, a Constitutional scholar, to try to use the Declaration of Independence to usurp the Constitution.

    If those wrongly killed by guns have a right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness, so do those who use guns to preserve that same "life, liberty and pursuit of happiness" for themselves, their family, and other law-abiding citizens.

    When the bad guy walked into a Saloon with intent of shooting it and the people up he usually didn't make much progress because he was shot dead by armed citizens before he could get off many shots. Sure some were wrongfully killed but countless lives were saved because the people were armed. The gunman did not get to kill a building full of people as today's spree shooters do.
  • #65
    If the President thinks it's fine that our children not be protected by city police officers assigned to our school by our school paying for them to be there cannot carry a gun to protect our children, then he should not be protected by dozens carrying firearms to protect him. I don't think he deserves preferential treatment. His life is no more important than my child's. As a parent, I believe my child's life is more important than his. I also agree with a person in each school building being highly trained and able to have a gun to protect the students. No one should know who that person is, just that they know the person is in there.
  • #88
    If you want a guard in your kid's school, then PAY for it. It's bad enough I have to pay to educate your kid when I don't even have children in school at all. Now I'm required to pay to guard them, too.

    This is bullsh*t and will put yet more strain on the taxpayer.
  • #144
    If you live in the same school district as me, yes your personal property tax would be higher. Most people that move in to this district do so for the school system. Our children are highly educated and protected. If you do not live in this school district, then all you have to do is move to another one. If you do not have kids and never plan on having them, there is no reason to live in this sort of district unless you like the extremely low crime rate.
  • R Load more comments...