New Low: The NRA’s New Line of Attack — Obama’s Daughters, Sasha & Malia:http://www.politicalarticles.net/blog/2013/01/16/new-low-the-nras-new-line-of…

Wow….attack the President’s children……really. This is the stupidest video and rant against protecting the Presidents family, including his children, that I have ever viewed.

OBAMA pushing for the GUN BAN, has 11 ARMED GUARDS for DAUGHTERS when in SCHOOL

OBAMA pushing for the GUN BAN, has 11 ARMED GUARDS for DAUGHTERS when in SCHOOL,

When NRA’s Wayne LaPierre proposed on Friday that we have armed guards at all schools, a wave of strong opposition barreled over his statement. When he said, “The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun,” gun control advocates, pundits and those gripped by anti-gun sentiments now rippling through the country, gave a collective gasp. They accused LaPierre’s pushing for more guns as exacerbating the problem.

But if you learn that President Obama’s two daughters’ school has 11 armed guards, would that change your opinion of arming our school guards?

Located in Bethesda, Md., the prestigious Sidwell Friends School which Sasha and Malia attend has reportedly always been staffed with armed guards and they were not introduced because the first daughters go there. ( Read more here).

The alumni reads like the “who’s who” of the politically powerful and the elite of America and many past presidents’ children have gone there. Maybe it stands to reason that the rich and powerful among us will want their children properly protected even if it means guns on school grounds.

So why did LaPierre’s proposal meet with such visceral opposition? If armed guards aren’t causing any noted trauma to the elite in our society’s offspring, why do we think it will cause irreparable damage to ours?

I know both sides of the this gun control debate are using whatever is in their arsenal to bolster their point of view and that the conservative Brietbart website’s report on the president’s daughters school having 11 armed guards is to ratchet up their “second amendment means our right to bear arms—all of it” argument but do they have a point?

All presidents children have to be protected at all times—it is simply the nature of the position but the argument can be made that Sidwell having armed guards show that it is not necessarily a negative or dangerous thing.

In a utopia, we could ban any and everything we deem harmful, love each other and live happily ever after. But we live in the real world, where we cannot legislate every potentially dangerous product or morality, goodness and common sense. In fact to ban all conceivable “bad” is to trap ourselves in a society of fascism. So what’s the alternative?

Maybe we need a happy medium—a balance of armed, well trained guards, gun control–where assault weapons are not marketed for the general public, improved mental health, and a revolution of values starting with every one of us. As parents, do we know what video games our children are playing? Are they allowed to own mature material? How many hours are they allowed to mindlessly tightly grasp those controllers—some in the shape of guns?

Sandy Hook Elementary school shooting massacre didn’t explode in a vacuum a week ago; there were plenty vivid signposts along the way. Children die from gun gang war every day in the inner cities like Chicago and beyond. This violent climax of our gun culture, violent movies, video games, some music, extremist ideologies, the darkness of poverty and resistance to change, as the NRA’s response to the tragedy proves—all contribute to the growing problem.