Some interesting news has broken in the wake of the latest push for gun control by President Obama and Senate Democrats: Obama sends his kids to a school where armed guards are used as a matter of fact.
The school, Sidwell Friends School in Washington, DC, has 11 security officers and is seeking to hire a new police officer as we speak.
If you dismiss this by saying, “Of course they have armed guards — they get Secret Service protection,” then you’ve missed the larger point.
The larger point is that this is standard operating procedure for the school, period. And 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).
Shame on President Obama for seeking more gun control and for trying to prevent the parents of other school children from doing what he has clearly done for his own. His children sit under the protection guns afford, while the children of regular Americans are sacrificed.
Only the privileged deserve protection?
Not so surprisingly, Gregory himself conveniently left out the fact that he sends his children to the Quaker school Sidwell Friends where there is a security department consisting of 11 personnel, according to the Weekly Standard, many of whom are police officers and therefore presumed armed.
But even if they aren’t, Gregory’s kids – and those of a number of political and media elites who also send their children there – will benefit from the full-time Secret Service protection afforded Obama’s children, who attend the school. The others whose children attend Sidwell represent a cornucopia of voices now calling for more gun laws, stricter gun control and outright gun bans.
Finally, there is this: Gregory smugly asserted that the armed guards at Columbine and Virginia Tech did nothing to prevent the armed attacks on those schools.
Fine. But I have to ask: Would he consider placing his children in a school without armed guards? Is he willing to take a chance with the lives of his kids to practice what he and others who hold his point of view (and who also have kids in elite, well-protected schools) condescendingly preach?
