killler 2 #26 December 25, 2012 Still waiting for you to tell me how " YOU " are going to deal with a nutter with a gun that is trying to kill you and your loved ones...Killler Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,500 #27 December 25, 2012 QuoteAnd 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). Is it? Did they ask him?Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,027 #28 December 25, 2012 Quote Still waiting for you to tell me how " YOU " are going to deal with a nutter with a gun that is trying to kill you and your loved ones...Killler I've managed to get to retirement age without living in fear like you.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #29 December 25, 2012 QuoteQuoteQuoteYour complete lack of reading comprehension and logical analysis is indeed an indictment of the school system where you were educated. It is a little early in the thread to resort to insults dont you think? So, back to taxing, why it is you dont want to pay your fair share to protect the children? Seems you have selective taxation and tax support issues Again Why are you whining about paying to protect our children? I am willing I pay plenty of tax, probably a lot more than you. However, consider this a user fee: gun users should pay the cost of protecting the public from guns. Tell me of one mass shooting perpetrated by a non gun user. Cool the "I am richer than you are" arrogance syndrome" Must make your mama proud And I gotta ask How can a gun crime be "perpetrated by and non gun user"? You been drinking already today? or It is a trick question?"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tkhayes 348 #30 December 25, 2012 Because he's the President and his detail is provided by the Secret Service, not at his discretion, but at the discretion of Congress and the Secret Service. If you have a complaint about presidential security, complaining TO the President or ABOUT the President is not actually the way to go about getting it resolved. And 'your kids' are not under constant death threats whereas the President in fact, actually is. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
killler 2 #31 December 25, 2012 Quote Quote Still waiting for you to tell me how " YOU " are going to deal with a nutter with a gun that is trying to kill you and your loved ones...Killler I've managed to get to retirement age without living in fear like you. I guess that means you don't have a clue of what you'd do.... You show your self as a know nothing liberal with no answer to the problem but take the guns away and sing kum-by-yaw .... being ready and having a plan is not and far from "Living in fear" You will lay on the floor crying like a baby, Begging for them not to kill you as they rape your wife and daughters... That is what Liberal's that don't have a gun or plan do... Tell me how that works out for youI'll keep my browning Hi-power ready to go to protect me and my loved ones.... Jim.... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #32 December 25, 2012 QuoteBecause he's the President and his detail is provided by the Secret Service, not at his discretion, but at the discretion of Congress and the Secret Service. If you have a complaint about presidential security, complaining TO the President or ABOUT the President is not actually the way to go about getting it resolved. And 'your kids' are not under constant death threats whereas the President in fact, actually is. Cool You do as kallend did or did not do at is applies READ THE STORY DUDE"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tkhayes 348 #33 December 25, 2012 I did read the story and if you think that the Secret Service is not involved with the security of the President's daughters at this school then you must be a sad example of the American Public School system..... nice cherry picking of the information that you want to portray.... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #34 December 25, 2012 QuoteI did read the story and if you think that the Secret Service is not involved with the security of the President's daughters at this school then you must be a sad example of the American Public School system..... nice cherry picking of the information that you want to portray.... Well then comprehension is your problem Because it clearly states that this level of security existed with the Presidents daughters there"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,500 #35 December 25, 2012 QuoteBecause it clearly states that this level of security existed with the Presidents daughters there I think you've just said the opposite of what you meant.Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mirage62 0 #36 December 26, 2012 I have rarely seem Kallands ass handed to him so neatly......mad just admit you didn't read the post before you went off.Kevin Keenan is my hero, a double FUP, he does so much with so little Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
matthewcline 0 #37 December 26, 2012 QuoteQuoteBecause it clearly states that this level of security existed with the Presidents daughters there I think you've just said the opposite of what you meant. Yeah, he got "post" happy there. The level of security with the Armed Guards has been around for a while, long before the 1st Daughters arrived. The SS only checks up on and adds steps if so deemed necessary. I do, however, see the point that it is a tad bit hypocritical to say Armed Security should not be part of the discussion or fix. MattAn Instructors first concern is student safety. So, start being safe, first!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DJL 235 #38 December 26, 2012 I'm from DC and know all about this school. This is where the richest and most high profile people in DC send their kids their children. So yes, there are 11 armed guards. edit: and to clarify, they send their kids here because they SPECIFICALLY are targets. I don't know about the guy you're referring to but he's probably one of the other rich people who want whatever it is they think Sidwell will give them."I encourage all awesome dangerous behavior." - Jeffro Fincher Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #39 December 26, 2012 QuoteI'm from DC and know all about this school. This is where the richest and most high profile people in DC send their kids their children. So yes, there are 11 armed guards. Only in America would people use security at a private school as an example for all schools. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DJL 235 #40 December 26, 2012 Please elaborate, I'm not sure how you've interpreted my post."I encourage all awesome dangerous behavior." - Jeffro Fincher Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #41 December 26, 2012 It wasn't in response to your post...you were just the last in line. But it has been a while since I have seen a post by anybody indicating that the public school system should have the same academic resources as all public schools. I get the impression people are willing to pay for guns in schools, but not for better education.... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
matthewcline 0 #42 December 26, 2012 QuoteQuoteI'm from DC and know all about this school. This is where the richest and most high profile people in DC send their kids their children. So yes, there are 11 armed guards. Only in America would people use security at a private school as an example for all schools. It is the same as saying one cities, or states, laws should be applied to another city, or state. If that is "right" and will work, why would this plan for school guards not work? MattAn Instructors first concern is student safety. So, start being safe, first!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
oldwomanc6 52 #43 December 26, 2012 Does anybody know how this compares to other schools in DC?lisa WSCR 594 FB 1023 CBDB 9 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
matthewcline 0 #44 December 26, 2012 Better education is a whole other topic! We have such waste and such stubbornness in the public education system, it would be decades before we saw any actual improvement, providing we actually saw improvement implemented to begin with. MattAn Instructors first concern is student safety. So, start being safe, first!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #45 December 26, 2012 QuoteIt is the same as saying one cities, or states, laws should be applied to another city, or state. If that is "right" and will work, why would this plan for school guards not work? It may work....just sad that society is willing to pay more to put guns in schools, but not willing to pay more for better public education. Sidwell Friends School Tuition is roughly $34,000 a year a child. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
matthewcline 0 #46 December 26, 2012 QuoteQuoteIt is the same as saying one cities, or states, laws should be applied to another city, or state. If that is "right" and will work, why would this plan for school guards not work? It may work....just sad that society is willing to pay more to put guns in schools, but not willing to pay more for better public education. Sidwell Friends School Tuition is roughly $34,000 a year a child. I think looking at it in that vain is sad, the thought is, this is for the children's safety. But some would even say this is not necessary, as their statistics would say this happens less than the press makes us believe. MattAn Instructors first concern is student safety. So, start being safe, first!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rwieder 0 #47 December 26, 2012 Yeah, so what. So did Amy Carter & Chealsea Clinton. As far as politicians wanting more gun control, it's a knee jerk reaction as always, we've seen it what....100 times in the last 50 years? Heres the deal, this last incident was carried out by a cat that had STOLEN weapons. No amount of gun control is going to stop this behaviour. Law Enforcement is not allowed to "Racially Profile" which is a mistake. The prison stats don't lie, there's umpteen negros, spanish, and the minority of caucasins locked up in these institution. So who's doing the most dirt? (Easy Answer) LTMFKRSU 4EVER-Richard- "You're Holding The Rope And I'm Taking The Fall" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
D22369 0 #48 December 26, 2012 being ready and having a plan is not and far from "Living in fear"*** your wasting your time... you will never get the anti gun crowd to understand that statement there... none of them realize that it only takes being in the right place, wrong time and their lives can change at the whim of another. they all have the "but it hasnt happened yet so it never will mentality" RoyThey say I suffer from insanity.... But I actually enjoy it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tkhayes 348 #49 December 26, 2012 The level of security existed prior to the President, yes, and I DID read the story and I again state that if you think the Secret Service s not involved then you must be high. They would most definitely be overseeing the security plan for the President's family as that is their job, required and authorized by law. Just because the security is or was in place has nothing to do with whether or not YOU think that the SS is or is not involved. I will bet you $100 that the Secret Service is ONSITE at that school every moment that the President's daughters are there. And I will also bet that the Secret Service is actively involved with the security plan at the school, whether or not it is a private security force at a private school. Comprehension seems to be a dual problem and again you are cherry picking data to suit your argument. From the SS website: Quote Who is the Secret Service authorized to protect? By law, the Secret Service is authorized to protect: The president, the vice president, (or other individuals next in order of succession to the Office of the President), the president-elect and vice president-elect The immediate families of the above individuals Former presidents, their spouses, except when the spouse re-marries Children of former presidents until age 16 Visiting heads of foreign states or governments and their spouses traveling with them, other distinguished foreign visitors to the United States, and official representatives of the United States performing special missions abroad Major presidential and vice presidential candidates, and their spouses within 120 days of a general presidential election Other individuals as designated per Executive Order of the President and National Special Security Events, when designated as such by the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #50 December 26, 2012 QuoteThe level of security existed prior to the President, yes, and I DID read the story and I again state that if you think the Secret Service s not involved then you must be high. They would most definitely be overseeing the security plan for the President's family as that is their job, required and authorized by law. Just because the security is or was in place has nothing to do with whether or not YOU think that the SS is or is not involved. I will bet you $100 that the Secret Service is ONSITE at that school every moment that the President's daughters are there. And I will also bet that the Secret Service is actively involved with the security plan at the school, whether or not it is a private security force at a private school. Comprehension seems to be a dual problem and again you are cherry picking data to suit your argument. From the SS website: Quote Who is the Secret Service authorized to protect? By law, the Secret Service is authorized to protect: The president, the vice president, (or other individuals next in order of succession to the Office of the President), the president-elect and vice president-elect The immediate families of the above individuals Former presidents, their spouses, except when the spouse re-marries Children of former presidents until age 16 Visiting heads of foreign states or governments and their spouses traveling with them, other distinguished foreign visitors to the United States, and official representatives of the United States performing special missions abroad Major presidential and vice presidential candidates, and their spouses within 120 days of a general presidential election Other individuals as designated per Executive Order of the President and National Special Security Events, when designated as such by the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security The security in the article is NOT secrete service It is the normal security for the school even without the a Presidents children No cherry picking needed"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
