• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Sign the Petition: Make the White House a Gun Free Zone[W:192]

Mycroft said:
I wonder if those parents of the 6 and 7 year old children who are now rotting in the ground would agree with your assessment that Obama's children are more important and deserve more protection than their kids didn't have...hmmm?

Look, the point of the petition is not to put Obama's kids at risk, but to make a point that everyone else's kids are just as deserving of similar protection and safety. Obama and his ilk don't seem to agree with that, though...as you two don't seem to agree, either.
Click to expand...

Ding, ding, ding! We have a winner (God bless that someone has common sense).
 
Mycroft said:
I wonder if those parents of the 6 and 7 year old children who are now rotting in the ground would agree with your assessment that Obama's children are more important and deserve more protection than their kids didn't have...hmmm?

Look, the point of the petition is not to put Obama's kids at risk, but to make a point that everyone else's kids are just as deserving of similar protection and safety. Obama and his ilk don't seem to agree with that, though...as you two don't seem to agree, either.
Click to expand...
This is excluding the Obama girls, but I've noticed that polticians' children as a general rule tend to be some of the most useless and dumbest members of society.
 
jamesrage said:
You don't think the rules should apply to everyone equally? Politicians are the servants of the people they are not royalty nor should they be treated like royalty and if any actual royalty were in this country then they should be treated like everyone else.
Click to expand...

Sidwell Friends is a private school, and if they choose to dedicate some of the tuition money to guards, they have every right to do so.

The President should be protected while in office. After leaving office, I'd be fine with removing that protection. I personally find it wrong that former First Ladies get lifetime protection. This petition is a petty right wing stunt, nothing more. I don't see them clamoring for the Bushes to have their protection removed.
 
waas said:
Considering the fact that major politicians have a history of receiving death threats? No, that's not a good idea.
Click to expand...

Yeah, but a new AWB will fix all that, right?
 
SMTA said:
The value equation is that my wife and kids are more important to me than any politician.

I have a duty and a right as an American, a parent, a husband and a Catholic to protect them from harm.
Click to expand...

I acknowledge your family is valuable to you as is mine to me. Our families, however, have little value to those who would kidnap or kill our leaders or their families for political reason is, obviously, practically nil and that is why they are protected.

Of course you have that right and it's up to debate how we all do that, but throwing into the discussion our elected leaders is dishonest.
 
rocket88 said:
Sidwell Friends is a private school, and if they choose to dedicate some of the tuition money to guards, they have every right to do so.

The President should be protected while in office. After leaving office, I'd be fine with removing that protection. I personally find it wrong that former First Ladies get lifetime protection. This petition is a petty right wing stunt, nothing more. I don't see them clamoring for the Bushes to have their protection removed.
Click to expand...

Why do you think a private school should have more of a right to decide not to be a gun free zone than a public school?

You are missing my point...intentionally, I think. Again, nobody wants Presidents and their children to go without protection. They just want their own kids to have similar protection.
 
Gina said:
You understand exactly why they are protected and to the degree they are. They and their kids are desired targets 24/7/365, the rest of us, not so much. To make this kind of argument is incredibly dishonest.

I don't want guns in my schools. Period. My experience with guns and accidental shooting, informs my opinion.
Click to expand...

Well, pray tell, what is this plethora of first person experience that you have that informs you so?
 
LaMidRighter said:
This is excluding the Obama girls, but I've noticed that polticians' children as a general rule tend to be some of the most useless and dumbest members of society.
Click to expand...

I really can't say that I agree with that assessment.
 
Mycroft said:
I really can't say that I agree with that assessment.
Click to expand...
That most political kids are dumbasses? That's an absolute truth, you should see the stunts Pelosi's kid pulls, iirc Reid's kids had some legal problems, Al Gore's kid with the reckless endangerment while completely messed up incident, and so many others.
 
Gina said:
You understand exactly why they are protected and to the degree they are. They and their kids are desired targets 24/7/365, the rest of us, not so much. To make this kind of argument is incredibly dishonest.

I don't want guns in my schools. Period. My experience with guns and accidental shooting, informs my opinion.
Click to expand...

sure i understand why they need armed protection.... and i don't mind one bit that they have it...I understand, very well, the utility of a firearm in regards to protection.

I mind it very much that anti-gun folks do not want me to protect myself ..and I mind it very much that these are the same folks saying ordinary citizens are basically expendable, and politicians are special.



I'm sorry to hear you have had bad experiences with guns... and i can understand why you would not want to arm yourself ...I can't provide anything but sympathy though.. I won't disarm just because you don't like it...hell, I won't even disarm if the government passes a law forcing me to... it's just not in the cards.
 
LaMidRighter said:
That most political kids are dumbasses? That's an absolute truth

you should see the stunts Pelosi's kid pulls, iirc Reid's kids had some legal problems, Al Gore's kid with the reckless endangerment while completely messed up incident, and so many others.
Click to expand...
No, it's not.

So three examples in tandem with "many others" comprises a majority? In reality your previous statement was based on nothing more than a seeming distaste for elected officials.
 
a351 said:
No, it's not.

So three examples in tandem with "many others" comprises a majority? In reality your previous statement was based on nothing more than a seeming distaste for elected officials.
Click to expand...

I have to agree, as 3 don't make all politicians' kids stupid.
 
Gina said:
I acknowledge your family is valuable to you as is mine to me. Our families, however, have little value to those who would kidnap or kill our leaders or their families for political reason is, obviously, practically nil and that is why they are protected.

Of course you have that right and it's up to debate how we all do that, but throwing into the discussion our elected leaders is dishonest.
Click to expand...

Not only is it dishonest - it is the use of a false equivalency which a freshman after taking a week of debate could see through.

Nobody is trying to deprive any family member of protecting their family with a firearm.
 
waas said:
I like your rhetoric. :lol:

In any case, I'm not saying gun prohibition is the solution, but neither is increasing firearm availability. If a person feels compelled to carry a weapon, let them - but assault weapons go beyond the notion of self defense.
Click to expand...

That highly depends on whom you are fighting against. Firepower is a HUGE factor in battle.

Let's imagine a scenario, for just a minute: You're a criminal, and you want to break into a house. There are two houses you're looking at. You've looked at the official gun registry and you've discovered that in one house, the owner is registered with a .22 pistol (super duper tiny in the gun world), and the other house owner is registered with a 7.62 mm fully automatic rifle, with night vision scope and all the attachments. Which house would you rather attack?

When I was in afghanistan, one of the biggest factors that made us, the US forces, the victors, was the amazingly sophisticated arsenal we possessed. We had better weapons, better equipment, better vehicles, better training, everything.

In order to understand this you have to understand the tactical difference between sporting a pea shooter and carrying a real weapon.

So, answer the question. Why do the social elite and the 1% deserve proper security, and we common-folk don't?

Gina said:
I acknowledge your family is valuable to you as is mine to me. Our families, however, have little value to those who would kidnap or kill our leaders or their families for political reason is, obviously, practically nil and that is why they are protected.

Of course you have that right and it's up to debate how we all do that, but throwing into the discussion our elected leaders is dishonest.
Click to expand...

Just trying to clarify your position, you're saying that:

- Guns provide protection.
and
- Politicians' families are more important than the rest of ours.

Is that what you're saying?
 
Last edited:
SMTA said:
The value equation is that my wife and kids are more important to me than any politician.

I have a duty and a right as an American, a parent, a husband and a Catholic to protect them from harm.
Click to expand...

And who is it exactly do you see as denying you this right?
 
a351 said:
In regards to national and global implications? Nope.
Click to expand...

sorry, nothing you can say will cause me to lose my self esteem... it's not up for sale or transfer.

given the choice of me or the President being killed... well...I'll surely miss him when he's gone.;)
 
haymarket said:
Not only is it dishonest - it is the use of a false equivalency which a freshman after taking a week of debate could see through.

Nobody is trying to deprive any family member of protecting their family with a firearm.
Click to expand...

....as long as that particular firearm that meets the approval of the uneducated anti-gun brigade.
 
Thrilla said:
sorry, nothing you can say will cause me to lose my self esteem... it's not up for sale or transfer.

given the choice of me or the President being killed... well...I'll surely miss him when he's gone.;)
Click to expand...
That's not self esteem, it's denial. In no way, shape, or form does the well being of any citizen hold the same implications on a national or a global scale.
 
Gina said:
I acknowledge your family is valuable to you as is mine to me. Our families, however, have little value to those who would kidnap or kill our leaders or their families for political reason is, obviously, practically nil and that is why they are protected.

Of course you have that right and it's up to debate how we all do that, but throwing into the discussion our elected leaders is dishonest.
Click to expand...

No dishonesty intended nor implied at all.

As an American citizen, I do recognize that the highest levels of leaders need to be protected, within reason.

So do the rest of population, if they so choose.

We pay for their protection - I'll take care of mine by myself - and should not loose that right.

Whether the attack is targeted or random (based upon proximity) does not lessen the impact.

The US is a function of all citizens, not just the top political ones.
 
SMTA said:
I have to agree, as 3 don't make all politicians' kids stupid.
Click to expand...
It's more than three, those are just the most glaring examples. Of course I could always point to the Cuomo family of NY, all useless, some of the Palin children are kind of idiots, and we could go past simply politicians to the children of the wealthy elite as well. Paris Hilton? Nicole Richie? The Kardashian sistsers? Etc.
 
Thrilla said:
sorry, nothing you can say will cause me to lose my self esteem... it's not up for sale or transfer.

given the choice of me or the President being killed... well...I'll surely miss him when he's gone.;)
Click to expand...
To what I bolded, really?
 
SMTA said:
Well, pray tell, what is this plethora of first person experience that you have that informs you so?
Click to expand...

I was almost shot in the head by my brother who was fooling around with our father's gun. The son of a sheriff I knew as we shared daycare, shot his best friend with the sheriff's gun. A friend of my son's brought a gun to school to kill himself. Other friends or acquaintances have snuck guns into school, this, after going through the NRA's Eddie Eagle program. Fortunately those kids did not know which bullets went to those guns, so they were not armed.

I also knew a woman who was shot dead in the heat of a moment.

Enough for you?
 
LaMidRighter said:
That most political kids are dumbasses? That's an absolute truth, you should see the stunts Pelosi's kid pulls, iirc Reid's kids had some legal problems, Al Gore's kid with the reckless endangerment while completely messed up incident, and so many others.
Click to expand...

Oh, so those three anecdotes makes most political kids dumbasses?

Heck, that just makes them human. Kids from all strata of society do dumb stuff...get into legal problems.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom