[Vision2020] NRA's New Ad: "Obama is an Elitist Hypocrite"

[Kenneth Marcy]

On 1/16/2013 9:06 AM, Gary Crabtree wrote:
> So why are  these "fashion accessories" effective and necessary tools 
> when dealing with chief exec. kiddies and not those of the great 
> unwashed? Why is a tool useful in one application and not the other?

Probability.  Weapons are useful tools for law enforcement officers 
(Secret Service and others) because the probability of a law enforcement 
officer finding himself or herself in a deadly force situation is 
significantly higher than it is for the, for example, civilian 
administrative leadership of an elementary school in most locations of 
the United States.  The children of the President are unique because the 
incumbent President is unique in the powers his position possesses, and 
the range of individuals the use of those powers might affect 
negatively.  Misguided individuals under the strong impression they can 
favorably (from their vantage point) affect the actions of the President 
by kidnapping or physically harming his children may act with 
unexpected, sudden, random forcefulness in an attempt to effect their 
wishes.  Secret Service personnel are expected to be watchful and 
prepared to act against such actions with little or no notice.

However small may be the actual probability of an attack against the 
President's kids, the probability of an attack against almost any other 
American school kid is orders of magnitude smaller.  Because such 
attacks are almost non-existent in their frequency, going to the 
significant efforts and expenses of hiring and arming educational 
institution security personnel is very likely counterproductive not only 
budgetary terms, but also in kid-scary psychological terms, too.  An 
extremely small number of bad incidents should not be allowed to create 
bogeymen brigades in our imaginations, and thus causing more unnecessary 
reactionary expenses and fears against evils found only in our imaginations.


Ken


> On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 8:55 AM, Kenneth Marcy <kmmos1 at frontier.com 
> <mailto:kmmos1 at frontier.com>> wrote:
>
>     On 1/16/2013 8:16 AM, Gary Crabtree wrote:
>
>         So, please explain why if guns are so totally ineffective in
>         protecting children in schools across the country they
>         suddenly become mandatory for protecting the children of the
>         democrat elite?
>
>
>     A little more precision would be useful here.  In this case
>     "children of the democrat elite" does not refer to children of
>     millions of families across the country who might fit that
>     description, but rather the children of the President of the
>     United States, the incumbent of which office happens to be one of
>     the more hated individuals among various peoples around the world
>     (not to mention in this country).  It matters not what the
>     President's political affiliations may be; his children still
>     receive Secret Service protection. Considering the variety and
>     range of the efforts to protect the President and his family, one
>     might consider that firearms are closer to being fashion
>     accessories for the officers rather than the actual power that
>     they assert.
>
>
>     Ken
>
>     =======================================================
>     List services made available by First Step Internet,
>     serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
>     http://www.fsr.net
>              mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com <mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com>
>     =======================================================
>
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20130116/03cf2a8d/attachment-0001.html>