Facebook Activity
Teen Ink on Twitter
Teen Ink
teenink
Jan. 17 at 8:10 pm
In response to the Obama administration's new policies regarding guns, the National Rifle Association released a video. In it, they accused Obama of hyposcracy because he sends his children to school with Secret Service protection but doesn't support armed guards in schools. The White House said a video attacking the president's family (especially his children) is over the line.
Did they go too far, or are Malia and Sasha fair game? Is the point valid, or is the NRA wrong? Any thoughts?
Jan. 18 at 6:58 am
The President's children are under extenuating circumstances, they're much more likely to be targeted. However I disagree that armed guards shouldn't be allowed, maybe not guards with assault rifles or something like that, but police officers with guns in schools I fully support.
Jan. 20 at 5:17 pm
Whether or not you support armed guards in schools, I tihnk attacking Obama's family is out of line. Maybe you don't like the President's policies (and for the most part I don't)- but what did his kids ever do to you?
Also, I agree with you. The First Family has some special circumstances. No, the average public school student doesn't have an armed guard following them around- but the average public school student isn't an easy or desirable target for terrorists, kidnappers, politcal rivals, and so on.
Jan. 20 at 6:42 pm
The NRA has no right to "attack" the President's family. Yes the target reticule is slightly bigger on them than myself. However, they are still family. As for sending his kids to school with protection, he.ll, I carry a Mossberg 500(shotgun) in my truck to school. It is the same as secret service. Just protection.
I much approve Police officers in schools.
