There seems to be a double standard for Obama and his family. What's up with that?

This is a discussion on There seems to be a double standard for Obama and his family. What's up with that? within the The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; I recently read in the Drudge Report that our President has just granted himself and his family armed protection for life. Also saw where the ...

Results 1 to 9 of 9
Like Tree2Likes
  • 1 Post By suntzu
  • 1 Post By oldnfat

Thread: There seems to be a double standard for Obama and his family. What's up with that?

  1. #1
    Distinguished Member Array Hodad's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Roswell, GA
    Posts
    1,367

    There seems to be a double standard for Obama and his family. What's up with that?

    I recently read in the Drudge Report that our President has just granted himself and his family armed protection for life.

    Also saw where the private school that his daughters attend have at least 11 armed guards on duty at all times during
    regular school hours. I wonder how many of those guards are there simply because his children attend that school?

    I can understand why this might be a be a good idea, but it just seems very hypocritical given his stance on gun rights for
    the general population and his opposition to following Mr.LaPierre's common sense suggestion of providing trained/qualified armed guards in our public schools.

    It seems more and more like the self acclaimed "elite ruling class" in our country is setting up a seperate set of rules for
    themselves and their families.

    I am not criticizing the President for doing whatever he can to protect himself and his family, but don't the rest of us havethe same right to protect ourselves and our loved ones?

    Unfortunately we don't have access to 24 hour Secret Service or private armed guard protection, so we have to make duewith the tools that are available to us and that we can afford.
    "Life is tough but it's really tough if you are stupid"

  2. Remove Ads

  3. #2
    Ex Member Array hartlathers's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Beloit, WI
    Posts
    107
    You should read all the aspects of the law he signed. Congress passed the law in 1965 granting expresidents SS proctection for life. The law was repealed in the mid 1990s. It new law is merely a re-institution of the old one and covers ALL expresidents for life and thier children to age 16. Those are the facts. This law was supported by both sides of congress and passed in a landslide vote.

  4. #3
    VIP Member Array suntzu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    TX/NH
    Posts
    5,796
    Most if not all world leaders and their families are protected at taxpayer expense(some while in office and some when they leave office) regardless of the gun laws of the country. Their could be no guns in the US and he would still to need have himself and family protected. It is not being a hypocrit.

    The US does not want to have a nuclear war but we are not hypocrits for maintaing nuclear arms.
    Brad426 likes this.
    Then I heard the voice of the Lord saying, “Whom shall I send? And who will go for us?”
    And I said, “Here am I. Send me!”

    Isaiah 6:8

  5. #4
    Sponsor
    Array luvmy40's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Youngstown, OH
    Posts
    1,607
    That does nothing to refute the hypocrisy.
    T*A*N*S*T*A*A*F*L
    The best things in life are not free.
    They are paid for with the blood of brave men and women!
    M&P Forum
    Ohioans For Concealed Carry
    Holsters

  6. #5
    VIP Member Array Brad426's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Georgia
    Posts
    3,672
    Quote Originally Posted by suntzu View Post
    Most if not all world leaders and their families are protected at taxpayer expense(some while in office and some when they leave office) regardless of the gun laws of the country. Their could be no guns in the US and he would still to need have himself and family protected. It is not being a hypocrit.

    The US does not want to have a nuclear war but we are not hypocrits for maintaing nuclear arms.
    You are such a buzz kill. I bet you don't stand up when the wave comes through your section at football games.
    I have a very strict gun control policy: if there's a gun around, I want to be in control of it.
    Clint Eastwood

  7. #6
    VIP Member Array suntzu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    TX/NH
    Posts
    5,796
    Quote Originally Posted by Brad426 View Post
    You are such a buzz kill. I bet you don't stand up when the wave comes through your section at football games.
    Yup, not into that stuff
    Then I heard the voice of the Lord saying, “Whom shall I send? And who will go for us?”
    And I said, “Here am I. Send me!”

    Isaiah 6:8

  8. #7
    Distinguished Member
    Array oldnfat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    1,366
    Well, I didn't vote for him. Either time. I do respect the office, not the man.
    BurgerBoy likes this.
    I shoot with a pistol and a Canon. We must all hang together amigos, or we will all hang separately. NRA life member.

  9. #8
    Member Array GunsAndViolince's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Northern Michigan
    Posts
    332
    Yup, it's hypocritical all right. If it were about protecting heads of state while they were active, that would be one thing: sure, you have to keep your gov't running. BUT! After they're out of office? This is just for their personal protection, even though the job at hand is finished. What gives them the right to this? If we have the same rights, who cares, but if our rights to defend our families are taken away, or are even in question, that's something else altogether. And don't fall for that nonsense people will give you when you bring this up (and we should! All the time! Politely, but persistently): oh, well, it's because they face different threats than we do because of their fame. Were the workers at Nordstrom Rack famous? Is that why they were terrorized for several hours? Were the kids at Sandy Hook targeted because they were the children of VIPs?

    The bottom line is that you never know when you are going to need armed protection and we face it just as much as the president and his family do, it's just that the statistics favor those of us who are quiet and anonymous but when it happens it's just as real and terrible as it would be for them. And do those statistics change the nature of the violence and our right to protect ourselves from it? I would reject the notion that it does because after a president and his family leave the WH, they become citizens again; that's the whole point of our style of gov't, that our leaders ARE NOT some kind of royalty, but rather people who came from the ranks of citizens. Sure, I'd support giving them this protection because the odds are that they are more likely to need it because of their fame, but I reject the idea that they DESERVE it more.

    Yes, it is hypocritical for anyone who benefits from SS protection to deny armed protection to others. "Do as I say, not as I do" does not wash: we are not the goverment's children, we are its employers.

    Arg!

  10. #9
    Member Array bigsky109's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Montana
    Posts
    358
    Until my family gets the Secret Service armed protection for life, I will exercise my rights under the 2nd Admendment. Hopefully I will never have to use the force that this right has given me to use and I hope that my children and their children will never have to use it. I stand for the rights and I hope my children and their children have the same rights.
    "The key to freedom is the ability to defend yourself"

Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •