NRA ad "*resident's daughters better than yours"

[tman]

The answer - arrogance and elitism. They are more special, more important than the rest of us, and they can have access to protection that they would deny the rest of us.

"All pigs are equal, but some pigs are more equal than the others..."

LET ME BE CLEAR. IT ISN'T THE POLICE WHO WOULD DENY THIS TO YOU.

[crbutler]

Tman, while I agree the rank and file police officers are almost universally on the side of the general public (in my experience all of them, but that is a select group- they all are shooters...), why is it that your unions (that you beat guys elect the leadership and publicly support while you don't hold them to task) and the police departments (which would have a hell of a time refuting if every time some doofus like Dolan went off about gun control immediately had the union shop steward stand up in a called press conference and called him out for his obviously political statement that is not supported by any factual data) are always on the other side. When is the last time the FOP made a statement like you just made? While I support the NRA, I also see that moderates tend not to believe the NRA affiliated police groups, viewing them as biased, while they do tend to listen to the law enforcement lobby.

Why are you upset that someone here says that police officers should be treated the same way that the general public is being treated?

As a friend of mine who retired out of the St Paul Police always said to me, respect is a two way street.

If the police unions would publicly tell the President that they feel their members are safer when they have access to AR 15's with high capacity magazines and that the general public should be treated with the same consideration, don't you think a lot of fence sitters and "fudds" would have to take notice? I'm talking groups like the Fraternal Order of Police and the unions, not the NRA, which the media can gloss over.

You and the rank and file policemen need to make your leadership realize they are at risk of losing their cushy jobs if they continue to misrepresent you.

Don't get me wrong, I don't think that cops should be put back on the street with a .38 revolver and no long arm or body armor like they were when I was a child, but I think you can see that the perceived difference in treatment between a police officer and a member of the general public has caused a gulf in the support that I recall we all had for the cops when I was a kid and what we see now occurring. It is very sad to see this, but it is equally obvious that a substantial number of people in a position of authority in Law Enforcement DO see themselves as above the general public, and deserving of special privileges.

[JJ]

If the police unions would publicly tell the President that they feel their members are safer when they have access to AR 15's with high capacity magazines and that the general public should be treated with the same consideration, don't you think a lot of fence sitters and "fudds" would have to take notice? I'm talking groups like the Fraternal Order of Police and the unions, not the NRA, which the media can gloss over.

You and the rank and file policemen need to make your leadership realize they are at risk of losing their cushy jobs if they continue to misrepresent you.

Don't get me wrong, I don't think that cops should be put back on the street with a .38 revolver and no long arm or body armor like they were when I was a child, but I think you can see that the perceived difference in treatment between a police officer and a member of the general public has caused a gulf in the support that I recall we all had for the cops when I was a kid and what we see now occurring. It is very sad to see this, but it is equally obvious that a substantial number of people in a position of authority in Law Enforcement DO see themselves as above the general public, and deserving of special privileges.

Hit the nail right on the head. This is a cionversation i have had with my family that are LOE's countless times. IF the rank and file are mostly on the same side, how exactly does the leadership swing so far in the other direction? And why don't the rank and file do something about it?

[xd ED]

If the police unions would publicly tell the President that they feel their members are safer when they have access to AR 15's with high capacity magazines and that the general public should be treated with the same consideration, don't you think a lot of fence sitters and "fudds" would have to take notice? I'm talking groups like the Fraternal Order of Police and the unions, not the NRA, which the media can gloss over.

You and the rank and file policemen need to make your leadership realize they are at risk of losing their cushy jobs if they continue to misrepresent you.

Don't get me wrong, I don't think that cops should be put back on the street with a .38 revolver and no long arm or body armor like they were when I was a child, but I think you can see that the perceived difference in treatment between a police officer and a member of the general public has caused a gulf in the support that I recall we all had for the cops when I was a kid and what we see now occurring. It is very sad to see this, but it is equally obvious that a substantial number of people in a position of authority in Law Enforcement DO see themselves as above the general public, and deserving of special privileges.

Hit the nail right on the head. This is a cionversation i have had with my family that are LOE's countless times. IF the rank and file are mostly on the same side, how exactly does the leadership swing so far in the other direction? And why don't the rank and file do something about it?

I've never been a LEO, but was an employee of a large metro city. and even a union steward briefly. The relationship between otherwise conservative individuals in local police departments, and the thoroughly progressive city governments is symbiotic: The police(and fire) depts are among the few groups of public employees that are held in reasonable regard by the general public. That gives them some sway in local politics, which they use to support the local powers that be. They are highly organized in their political advocacy. The supported politicians then allow those unions the best spots at the trough at negotiation time.

Locally, at least, most of the rank and file do not reside in the municipalities of the governments they support.

[rugersol]

And why don't the rank and file do something about it?

Why does anyone do nothing?! ... only two reasons, I know of ... 1. they don't care (i.e. they got nothin' to lose/gain) ... 2. they're afraid they might lose ground (i.e. they see others who've not got it quite so good, and don't wanna risk the least little step, "backwards")

Not sayin' either is necessarily the case, in this instance! ... jest sayin'

Possibly, in reference to #1 (above), this was a big reason so many folks opposed the national carry law fer retired/cops! At least, when they were no longer cops, they were jest like the rest of us ... now, that's no longer true!

Seein' Ed's post, I suspect #2 (above) could play in, somehow?!

[Spinner]

The answer - arrogance and elitism. They are more special, more important than the rest of us, and they can have access to protection that they would deny the rest of us.

"All pigs are equal, but some pigs are more equal than the others..."

George Orwell, nice.


Spinner

[rugersol]

Possibly, in reference to #1 (above), this was a big reason so many folks opposed the national carry law fer retired/cops! At least, when they were no longer cops, they were jest like the rest of us ... now, that's no longer true!

... takin' this further ... as I often have, to myself ...

IMO, one of the biggest hurdles we face, with regard to our keep/bear rights, is, while (normal) folks have absolutely no problem with a cop, carrying a gun ... in the same restaurant ... at their kid's school ... in their church ... wherever! ... they absolutely abhor the idea of a "regular" person, doin' the same!

Why?!

One possibility is, they believe most/all cops go through some sorta psychological evaluation, such that, it's absolutely impossible fer one of 'em to EVER misuse their gun/badge?!

Another possibility is, they believe most/all cops go through some sorta advanced training in handling firearms, such that, while a "regular" person, defending theyselves, in a parking lot, might jest as well shoot a half dozen innocent soccer moms, and their kids, by mistake ... a cop would otherwise NEVER miss?!

And while some cops certainly are better trained, and far better equipped to deal with ... let's say, a "no-knock" warrant! ... a "regular" person, simply defending theyselves, at 21ft 'er less, is probly 90% as effective, at doing so, w/o any significant "collateral damage"?! To be clear, we're not talking about "regular" people "rescuing bank robbery hostages"! ... we're talkin' about draggin' a victim's odds of surviving an attack, from maybe 7% ... to maybe 70%?!

Moreover, back to arming folks in schools, I know of at least one suburban teacher with a PTC ... and not a man! ... frankly, ya'd never pick her out! I didn't ask her ... but I suspect, given the opportunity, she'd gladly wear a gun (concealed) in class ... vs. relying on her own body as some sorta half-ass "bullet shield"! Is she guaranteed to be 100% successful?! ... 'course not!

But, it seems to me, at least from what I've heard, purdy much every time one of these maniacs wigs out, they stop fer 1 of 3 reasons ... and ONLY them 3 reasons! ... 1. they run outta ammo ... 2. they kill themselves ... 3. a good guy with a gun, confronts 'em! And, in many cases, upon #3, they immediately go to #2!

Given that, provided a teacher, with a gun, confronts a maniac (w/o bein' shot, first ), 1 of 3 things is gonna happen ... 1. havin' been confronted, he'll turn his own gun on hisself ... 2. she'll score a good hit, and he'll stop/die ... 3. she'll miss! (and will have greatly reduced odds, of 'nother go at it!)

At which, I say (and I have), any/all ranges (indoor 'er outdoor), give (active) teachers a free range-pass (at least, once/wk)! I suspect, some of the more advanced training deallies would also offer greatly reduced rates, fer classes on holster-work, footwork, strong-hand/weak-hand, groundwork ... et. al.?!

Create an environment, where teachers ... who believe they'd make marginally better marksman, than "bullet shields" ... have no reservations of stepping forward!

Having stepped forward, facilitate their effectiveness ... maybe even some sorta bonus-pay program?! ... buy their ammo?! ... pay fer their training?! ... (private) recognition of their service?! ... put up cameras in the halls, and around the building! ... put LED monitors up on the back walls of classrooms! ... if somethin' gets their attention ... then their attention is gotten! ... if trouble's comin', let 'em see, from which direction!

Don't be stupid! ... don't lock their gun up, down the hall! ... 'er under their desk! ... don't announce who they are! ... 'er where they are! ... let 'em carry concealed! ... encourage it! ... change the dress-code so everyone looks like they COULD be carrying! ... replace the "gun free/kill zone" signs with "half our teachers are armed ... guess which ones!" signs!

This is 100% doable! ... and fer not a lotta money!

I guarantee ya ... first time some whack-job shoots up 'nother school with 10rd mags, we'll be lucky to be left with revolvers!

[rugersol]

The answer - arrogance and elitism. They are more special, more important than the rest of us, and they can have access to protection that they would deny the rest of us.

"All pigs are equal, but some pigs are more equal than the others..."

George Orwell, nice.

They used to have a purdy decent animated version of that ... saw it on TV, as a kid ... never seen it again!

[Ramoel]

I wish I had saved the link and I haven't heard it reported since. My understanding is that the school that the Obama girls go to has 11 armed guards for the regular student body.

The Secret Service is in addition to the normal guards. It's an exclusive school and has armed guards even without the Presidents daughters attending.

[xd ED]

I don't know about the obamas, but most of the elite kids in DC attend Sidwell Friends, a school run by the Quakers, so it makes sense they'd be protected by heavily armed security.

[ex-LT]

My boss and I got into a heated debate about guns today and he played this and said what a bunch nuts of course the presidents kids are protected ever since george washington the presidents kids have been protected. To which I replied yea but if he's so worried about his kids why shouldnt all kids be protectes. And he didnt have an answer.

So why are his kids so much better other then because hes the president.

Going off track a bit here, but your boss is flat out wrong. The Secret Service is tasked with protection of the president and his family, and they didn't exist until 1865. Further, they weren't tasked with protection of the first family until 1917, less than 100 years ago.

A partial timeline of the history of the Secret Service:

1865 -- The Secret Service Division was created on July 5, 1865 in Washington, D.C., to suppress counterfeit currency.
1894 -- The Secret Service began informal part-time protection of President Cleveland.
1902 -- The Secret Service assumed full-time responsibility for protection of the President.
1906 -- Congress passed Sundry Civil Expenses Act for 1907 that provided funds for Presidential protection by the Secret Service.
1908 -- Secret Service began protecting the president-elect.
1913 -- Congress authorized permanent protection of the president and the statutory authorization for president-elect protection.
1917 -- Congress authorized permanent protection of the president's immediate family and made "threats" directed toward the president a federal violation.
1951 -- Congress enacted legislation that permanently authorized Secret Service protection of the president, his immediate family, the president-elect, and the vice president, if he wishes.

A full timeline of the history of the Secret Service can be found here.

[bensdad]

The NRA, love them or hate them, hit a home run with this ad. It was "controversial" enough to get air-time on every news program (free airings), yet not so offensive as to turn away the middle-ground folks. Many of them view this ad and see a good point. Many may find it mildly offensive, yet recognize the correlation with the resident surrounding himself with children and victims.

I also think it's time to play emotions. The other side has been doing it all along. Facts and figures don't hold sway with the sound-bite crowd. They need to feel an emotion... in ten seconds or less.

ETA: This very thread is a perfect example of how ADD our whole society has become. It started out about the NRA add, and has also covered union politics, why people don't get involved and the history of the secret service.