NRA lied: No armed guards at Obama girls’ school

There’s a reason they’re call gun “NUTS.”  The NRA just lies.  These guys should consider teaming up with the religious right, considering the audacity of lies they tell.

You might recall that we reported earlier this week that the NRA had launched an ad/Web site targeting President Obama’s children.  The ad claimed – falsely, we now know – that the school the Obama girls attend, Sidwell friends, has “11 armed guards.”

NRA ad site targeting obama girls

In fact, the school has no armed guards of any kind.

Now, you’d think that when the NRA saw that the source for lie was “Breitbart,” a far right blog known for its sensationalism rather than it’s love of veracity, they’d have double checked.  Well, if they did, they double checked with Fox News, because it’s a lie.

From the Washington Post’s fact checker:

But what about the claim that Sidwell Friends has 11 armed guards, which some Web sites have depicted with images of armed police with binoculars?

This is based on the fact that the online directory for Sidwell Friends lists 11 people as working in the Security Department. Five are listed as “special police officer,” while two are listed as “on call special police officer,” which presumably means they do not work full-time. The directory also lists two weekend shift supervisors, one security officer and the chief of security….

But we spoke to parents who said they had never seen a guard on campus with a weapon. And Ellis Turner, associate head of Sidwell Friends, told us emphatically: “Sidwell Friends security officers do not carry guns.” (Note: this includes those listed as special police officers.)

And just to clarify, the NRA wasn’t talking about Secret Service protection – they were talking about actual armed security forces – more from the Washington Post:

While some news organizations reported that the ad was referencing the Secret Service protection provided to the Obama family — as required by federal law — the longer ad makes it clear that the NRA is specifically referring to the security force at Sidwell Friends.

The Post’s conclusion?


A slashing attack like this has an especially high threshold to get its facts straight. The ad gives the impression that a phalanx of armed police are guarding students, such as the Obama and Gregory children, at Sidwell Friends.

But that is completely false. Far from being elitist, the relatively small force of unarmed security guards at Sidwell is not unusual for a school of its size.

Moreover, the ad also suggests that Obama rejects out of hand boosting security at schools, when in fact his proposals include provisions that would provide funding for more school security.

If the NRA is also trying to count Secret Service protection for Obama’s children as part of that force of armed guards, that’s even more ridiculous. As we noted, such protection is mandated under federal law — and only exists for the president’s children.

Four Pinocchios

Follow me on Twitter: @aravosis | @americablog | @americabloggay | Facebook | Instagram | Google+ | LinkedIn. John Aravosis is the Executive Editor of AMERICAblog, which he founded in 2004. He has a joint law degree (JD) and masters in Foreign Service from Georgetown; and has worked in the US Senate, World Bank, Children's Defense Fund, the United Nations Development Programme, and as a stringer for the Economist. He is a frequent TV pundit, having appeared on the O'Reilly Factor, Hardball, World News Tonight, Nightline, AM Joy & Reliable Sources, among others. John lives in Washington, DC. .

Share This Post

78 Responses to “NRA lied: No armed guards at Obama girls’ school”

  1. MichaelFromNC says:

    But on a positive note, we’ve learned beyond any doubt that Wayne LaPierre is a liar. And we’ve learned that the NRA is not about fabricating facts to make their point.

  2. guest says:

    Since when do Obama supporters care about lies? The king of lies currently sits on the throne.

  3. lbmiel says:

    You are mistaken, my question was how many people are killed by the guns they want to ban, not how many times have those guns been used to stop a rampaging gunman. That was what you asked, not what I asked. I wanted to know why they are considered so dangerous they need to be banned. The reasons given for enacting this ban are because they kill so many people, they are too dangerous to be on the street. The statistics don’t bear that out. This link is to the FBI crime statistics page 2007-2011 murders by weapon. It shows that rifles are responsible for a small number of total gun deaths. This is my only problem with a ban, if it is to save lives why are they banning guns that don’t kill that many people? Wouldn’t something different save more lives? Wouldn’t people get a false sense of security believing the ban is going to address the problem and reduce gun violence, when they weren’t responsible for that much of it in the first place?
    This study is from the CATO Institute, it shows that gun bans don’t have much effect at all at reducing gun crime. It mentions Lott, does that mean this study is discredited?

    Did Lott really pretend to be a woman just to give his book legitimacy? That is bizarre and kinda funny.

    I don’t know what that last link was for, I didn’t recognize the page at all.

    The complete url wasn’t in the comment box, why didn’t the complete link show up? I just accessed all those links from my history page. They were news stories of people defending themselves or others with their gun. Am I not copying and pasting the link correctly?

    This first one happened a few days after Sandy Hook. At Clackamas mall, a man was shopping with a friend and her baby. They heard shots, the man was carrying, he never shot at the gunman because there were people in the line of fire, but the gunman saw him. The gunman killed himself. I just tested the link and it worked. kgw newschannel 8 12/17/12

    I found all the stories on guns in self defense, I didn’t want the veracity to be questioned so I went to the original page and copied the url from there.

  4. KingCranky says:

    Great job, none of those links, other than the last one in your reply, work, and that last link has nothing to do with your argument.

    And John Lott also was such a top notch researcher that he posed as someone else online, “Mary Rosh” to promote his own codswallop and attack his detractors.

    Lots of search results to choose from.

    Like I said, no armed civilian has used a weapon, most notably the rifles, on the now-expired Assault Weapons Ban list to stop a rampaging gunman during a public massacre, so if you do reply, that’s the point you’re trying to debunk.

    Perhaps your arguments would be better served with working links and a non-reliance on a phony like Lott.

    Good luck.

  5. lbmiel says:

    Since you didn’t answer my question, I’ll provide it. In 2011 323 people were killed by rifle; 356 by shotguns; knives 1694; blunt object 496. From 2007-2011 there were 68,720 homicides and rifles were used 1874 times. Those supposed ‘weapons of mass destruction’ were used in 2.7% of homicides; Knives were used in 13%. In those five years, more people were killed by someone using their fists/feet (4058) than rifles and shotguns put together (3918).

    These are just a couple of stories were an armed person defending him/herself with a gun.

    Estimates of frequency

    Estimates over the number of defensive gun uses vary wildly,
    depending on the study’s population, criteria, time-period studied, and
    other factors. Higher end estimates by Kleck and Gertz cite between 1 to

    2.5 million DGUs in the United States each year.[1]:64-65[2][3] Low end
    estimates by Hemenway cite approximately 55,000-80,000 such uses each
    year.[4][5] Middle estimates have estimated approximately 1 million DGU
    incidents in the United States.[1]:65[6] The basis for the studies, the
    National Self-Defense Survey and the National Crime Victimization
    Survey, vary in their methods, time-frames covered, and questions

    Media under-reporting

    Researcher John Lott argues in both More Guns, Less Crime and The
    Bias Against Guns that media coverage of defensive gun use is rare,
    noting that in
    general, only shootings ending in fatalities are discussed in news
    stories. In More Guns, Less Crime, Lott writes that “[s]ince in
    many defensive cases a handgun is simply brandished, and no one is
    harmed, many defensive uses are never even reported to the police”.

    Attempting to quantify this phenomenon, in the first edition of the
    book, published in May 1998, Lott wrote that “national surveys”
    suggested that “98 percent of the time that people use guns defensively,
    they merely have to brandish a weapon to break off an attack.” In that
    same paragraph he also wrote that “[s]ince in many defensive cases a
    handgun is simply brandished, and no one is harmed, many defensive uses
    are never even reported to the police.” The higher the rate of defensive
    gun uses that do not end in the attacker being killed or wounded, the
    easier it is to explain why defensive gun uses are not covered by the
    media without reference to media bias. Lott cited the figure frequently
    in the media, including publications like the Wall Street Journal[8] and the Los Angeles Times.[9]

    In 2002, he repeated the study, and reported that brandishing a
    weapon was sufficient to stop an attack 95% of the time. Other
    researchers criticized his methodology, saying that his sample size of
    1,015 respondents was too small for the study to be accurate and that
    the majority of similar studies suggest a value between 70 and 80
    Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz’s 1994 estimate rises to 92 percent when
    brandishing and warning shots are added together.[11] Lott explained the
    lower rates found by others was at least in part due to the different
    questions that were asked.[12] The other surveys all asked people to
    recall events over the previous
    five years, while Lott had only asked people about events that had
    occurred during just the previous year.

  6. xlrrp says:

    Bob is probably one of those who believe the Sandy Hook shootings were a hoax. You will never get him to admit he’s a stupid, mindless asshole. He doesn’t know that federal law mandates that the president and his family have Secret Service protection.

  7. xlrrp says:

    Where does the ad say that?

  8. xlrrp says:

    See the post below. Maybe you should try a remedial reading course, and learn some reading comprehension.

  9. xlrrp says:

    coleen2 was asking for your data on the subject. Where is it, I don’t see a link, or any statistics on that matter.
    By the way, republicans ARE lying sacks of shit, and apparently so are you.

  10. xlrrp says:

    It;s federal law, stupid. If you’re intelligent enough to read, look it up. The president and his family are required to have Secret Service protection.

  11. rrtrack says:

    So many sheep, so little time… So sad. We were once a great country filled with patriots. Now we have so many mindless zombies who don’t even know what our country is supposed to be.

  12. rrtrack says:

    Your first mistake is believing anything the in-bed-with-Obama Washington post says. This is a “newspaper” that created an entire fictional story about Mitt Romney cutting some kids hair off at prep school, a fairy tale that was completely debunked the very next day by the very person they quoted as having been present (he said he saw no such thing), and the “victim’s” family. Of course, sheep all over the country continued (continue?) to repeat the story as if there were any truth to it. Now get back to that koolaid before you actually decide to think for yourselves.

  13. And still refuse to admit that your side is caught dead to rights in the lie I just showed you. Who is the greedy lying sack of shit there?

  14. KingCranky says:

    How often have armed civilians used those weapons to stop a public massacre?

  15. KingCranky says:

    Someone’s comprehension is lacking, but it’s not mine, as this post dealt with an outright lie by the NRA, there are NO armed guards at Sidwell, a point you just can’t bring yourself to publicly acknowledge.

    When you condemn this “armed security at Sidwell” outright lie by the NRA, then I’ll believe your comprehension has improved somewhat.

    So, are you arguing that the children of the President and Vice President don’t deserve Secret Service protection, that those kids are not at far greater risk of kidnapping than the vast majority of children in this country?

    If you’re not making that argument, then what are you whining about?

  16. colleen2 says:

    Sorry for being unclear. I’m saying that Republicans ar greedy lying sacks of shit.

  17. So you are claiming that the statistic presented is accurate or just spouting off the standard anti-gun rhetoric while ignoring the clearly false statistic presented by the President in his proposal?

  18. lbmiel says:

    I have a question for whomever wants to answer. These assault weapons obama & feinstein want to ban, how many people have been killed by them?

  19. colleen2 says:

    If the NRA hadn’t been paying Republicans to suppress all that horrific data about the extent of ‘protection’ a gun saturated culture perhaps you might have some reliable data. But they did and you don’t.

  20. colleen2 says:

    They aren’t just trying to be insulting. In a characteristically Republican male gesture they are placing targets on the backs of little black girls as a suggestion to their mentally ill membership. Because Republicans with guns are so ‘protective’ .

  21. colleen2 says:

    You’re assuming that someone responding to the NRA’s message would want leverage. Republicans don’t think that far ahead.

  22. Bill G says:

    Sidwell guards don’t need guns, they have the SS. Let’s see Obama renounce armed protection for his daughters, if he believes guns are so evil. Elitest hypocrite is probably the nicest thing you could call him.

  23. Bob says:

    You made my point and answered your own question!! Yes the kids DO have armed guards so why should they need anymore protection??? Can you just not comprehend English???

  24. Yes. Harsh words are clearly a much more difficult situation to handle over President Reagan being shot as an example.

    One of the issues with the President and his anti-gun cronies in relation to armed guards at schools is the way they bashed the NRA for the recommendation, but if you actually read the President’s proposal on gun control it states very clearly that he wants to put money towards more armed guards in schools. If you are looking for hypocrisy, start there.

  25. Perhaps you should look into some fact checking of the statements the anti-gun crew makes as well. I am sure it would be shocking to know that both sides lie.

  26. Right. Only the NRA has made false statements about gun related issues. I guess we all believe the statistic that Obama lists in his proposal on gun control that states 22% of 14-17 year olds have witnessed a shooting in their life.

  27. akminister says:

    Quakers are pacifists, so no guns are allowed. The secret service of course has guns at the perimeter. But what does it matter? Our children are not the children of the person with possibly the most responsibility for the largest number of people on the planet, whose decisions effect countless people around the globe. Our children might be victims of random violence, but they are not going to be intentionally targeted by individuals and groups from around the globe because they are the best weapon against a sitting president (well, except for Ron and Nancy because they were never very interested in their children, but they were the exception). So even if the president’s children were locked in a steel tank surrounded by an armed army, it is an irrelevant, ludicrous comparison, and it is grotesquely inappropriate to even make a presidents children central to any political fight, debate, or discussion.

  28. akminister says:

    Just because a few people questioned haven’t seen little green aliens on the premises doesn’t mean they aren’t “counseled.”

  29. akminister says:

    Well, it’s been so successful that the majority of citizens, including voting citizens, cannot even name the three branches of their own government and have no idea how their tax system actually works. Idiocracy. Mike Judge called it.

  30. akminister says:

    I’m wondering why the NRA thinks it is okay that the federal government tracks what medications our physicians prescribe to us and how many we purchase, but is hysterical about any mention of anything like that system for guns and ammo. I’m much more bothered by government intrusion into my healthcare and private use of medications!

  31. akminister says:

    No, the school’s security officers are not armed. The school is a Quaker institution. The secret service can guard the perimeter, but Quakers do not allow guns because Quakers are pacifists. The guns have to be outside, not inside.

  32. Carl Gorney says:

    SCREW IT. Make ’em go over the edge.

    That means we’ll have a lot fewer idiots to deal with on this planet and MAYBE we’ll get some sanity on this planet.

  33. Richard_thunderbay says:

    From the job ad you linked to:

    “The ideal candidate will have above average computer skills and
    knowledge to assist security officers with security systems, reports on
    line, access control systems, video retention, camera surveillance and
    training of officers on maximum computer use for daily activities.”

    I guess the person they hired is expected to shoot at suspects through a computer screen.

  34. letsbehonest says:

    Really? Like what? forensic science to ID bubble gum under a desk? Perhaps interrogation tecniques to find out if Sally plagiarized her term paper?

  35. Richard_thunderbay says:

    One would imagine that having a “Special Police Officer” license entails significantly more than just the ability to use a gun.

  36. Guest says:

    Unintentional hilarity often results from ignorant, illiterate bigots who try to use words too big for them.

  37. Letsbehonest says:

    Sidwells ad requiring spo
    Spo training (firearms training) things that make you same something stinks, and its not the NRA

  38. mike31c says:

    Typical RNWJ’s and their lies.

  39. Letsbehonest says:

    Interesting, why did Sidwell require a license to carry in their wanted ads?

  40. KingCranky says:

    Obama’s kids do have armed guards protecting them, they’re called Secret Service Agents.

    Now, since you can’t debunk the actual point, that the Sidwell school security staff are unarmed, and that the school’s security personnel are NOT the Secret Service, why not try again, this time with actual, you know, facts, as opposed to deliberate obtuseness.

    Good luck.

  41. KingCranky says:

    And what does “counseled” refer to, the guards or the firearms?

    Unintentional hilarity often results from those who can’t rebut the factual reality they disagree with, as shown by the person you replied to.

  42. Jonathan_Justice says:

    While it is entertaining to watch the trolls try to re-inflate the NRA’s ill-considered parade balloon, It might also be helpful to ask why the Sidwell School thinks its security program good enough when it does not have Presidential children in attendance. Just guessing, I’d say it has a lot to do with the idea that the security they need has far more to do with gathering and coordinating information than with shooting people. There is also the matter of working as a team rather than luxuriating in fantasies about heroically, single handedly, taking out armed baddies with a hail of semiautomatic gunfire (and taking out five kids and a teacher or two as collateral damage.).

  43. FLL says:

    It’s interesting that you are wondering what the standard is for “a sitting president’s children.” If George W. Bush had Secret Service protection for his twin daughters when he was in office, and JFK had the same for his children, then why would it be wrong or unusual for Obama to have Secret Service protection for his children? The NRA ad is clearly implying that there’s something wrong with Secret Service protection for Obama’s daughters. But if this has always been the case for “a sitting president’s children,” as you put it, then why the double standard?

    Let’s see if we can figure out your motivation in using a double standard. Some have argued that Obama’s children need Secret Service protection even more than the children of past presidents because the sheer quantity of threats made on their lives dwarfs anything that the children of past presidents have faced. Take this jolly example from someone in Southern California:

    Kill that n—– and his monkey children.”

    Oh, I get it. Are we getting closer to your motivation for using a double standard? LOL.

  44. Guest says:

    Morever, its a QUAKER school, for chrissakes. They’re pacifists.

  45. BOB says:

    My God! You have no idea what you’re even writing!! So you libs think Obama’s VERY important kids don’t have armed guards GUARDING them??? WOW!! What world are you living in???

  46. TheOriginalLiz says:

    The NRA and the GOP are birds of a feather. Both groups are made up of pathological liers. Both groups thrive on denying reality. What’s really disturbing here is how well the dumbing down of America seems to have worked.

  47. Blogvader says:

    The NRA is distorting facts for political gain, and insulting the president and his kids in the process?

    That’s a big fucking surprise. These are the classy folks that posted pro-gun tweets the day of the Aurora shootings.

  48. spencer60 says:

    Really, you don’t think those ‘security officers’ are armed under that nice suit coat they wear?

    If not, it’s only because the Secret Service won’t let them carry when the Presidents kids are around.

    The NRA’s ad is spot-on, the elite like the Obamas, the Feinsteins, the Bloombergs and such all have armed security at their children s schools.

    It’s only the schools for the rest of us that they object to having armed security ‘on principle’.

  49. caphillprof says:

    Did you mean concealed? or did you really mean counseled?

  50. caphillprof says:

    Funny but the NRA is also headquartered in Virginia (just drive out I66, you can’t miss it). So, is VSSA the “only full service gun rights organization in Virginia”? Absolutely not.

  51. billyboy says:

    And just because a few people questioned haven’t seen any firearms on guards doesn’t mean they aren’t counseled. Weak.

  52. billyboy says:

    They have secret service protection, and you can net they are armed to the teeth!

  53. SkippyFlipjack says:

    That was my first reaction too, but as you may have seen by now, the ad makes the specific claim that Sidwell has 11 armed guards. I hadn’t noticed the stat the first time I watched the ad, so like you I thought they were mistaken. But no, the ad makes an untrue claim about Sidwell.

  54. SkippyFlipjack says:

    Were you trying to reply to a post?

  55. dakotahgeo says:

    You really aren’t the brightest streetlamp on the Boulevard, are you?!? Sidwell Friends Schools are administered by the Quakers who wouldn’t more have armed guards in their school than you would be invited to a social event! Do some research, fool! Or is that Republican right wing religious Taliban type?

  56. cole3244 says:

    truth seeker huh, no moniker could be further from the truth.

  57. FunMe says:

    Thank goodness the NRA is not going to win. We can thank them for showing their craziness so that the country’s eyes are open to the NRA being NUTS!

  58. FunMe says:

    Further proof that the real gun NUTS are the NRA. Thank you for exposing yourself as just a bunch of small brained crazies with low self-esteem who need guns to make themselves feel better. COWARDS! Again, thank you for making the case so much easier that the USA needs gun laws to protect our children from the NRA.

  59. Truth Seeker says:

    you lied assface

  60. Truth Seeker says:

    Actually the Obamas have an outstanding amount of security more than 11

  61. Herp a derp a derp derp herp herp herpa derp NRA herp derp gubmint derp derp derp to tek ar giins ar gaaans derp a derp herp.

  62. Reddit causes suicides not murders.

  63. Hysterical cowardly fear based on ignorance,stupidity and lies, directly linked to gun ownership. Who would have guessed?

  64. PeteWa says:

    massive fail.

  65. GoBlue says:

    Of course the Secret Service agents are armed. The point is, they’re not employees of Sidwell Friends School. The NRA wants schools to have their own armed guards.

  66. GoBlue says:

    Kidnapping is actually a greater threat to the president’s family than is murder, since a dead child gives the perpetrator no leverage over the president. What if the KGB had somehow managed to kidnap Caroline Kennedy and John Jr. just before the CIA found Soviet missiles in Cuba? Would the crisis have ended the way it did, with the warheads and missiles loaded aboard ships that sailed meekly back to the USSR?

    The family of the president, any president, has Secret Service protection precisely to avoid putting him in a position to make decisions that are not in the nation’s best interest in order to ransom his family. So, to the gun nuts who wonder why THEIR children are not as deserving of protection as the president’s: no, your kids are NOT as important as his. Get over it.

  67. BeccaM says:

    Reading comprehension really isn’t your strong suit, is it?

  68. cole3244 says:

    nra lied, no man bites dog story here.

  69. I’m just waiting for one of those nuts on Reddit’s /r/libertarian or /r/conspiracy or /r/guns to snap and go mental. Scary folks there.

  70. This why I, also a gun owner will not join the NRA. They were once upon a time an education resource and taught safety. Now they are nothing but a fundraising tool for wingnuts.

  71. You’re telling me his kids don’t have secret service protection? Sorry but I don’t buy it. I saw first hand the kind of protection provided a former first lady. I can only imagine what’s provided a sitting presidents children.

  72. Quilla says:

    Shocking. As shocking as this drivel that showed up in my mail box today because there is no time to waste for a delusional. liar. (Disclaimer: I am NOT an NRA member but do belong to the local shooting range. Yup. A gun owner. One of the sensible ones who wants rules and regulations that will helpt to stop gun murder in this country.)

    Dear Virginia NRA Member:

    I don’t have to tell you that gun owners are under attack like never
    before. At the national level, members of congress and the Obama
    Administration want to ban and register whole classes of firearms, even
    the pump action shotgun that you use at the skeet and trap range or for
    hunting. The U.S. Department of Justice is even talking about making you
    sign a log when you purchase ammunition, similar to what you have to
    do for certain over-the-counter drugs.

    At the state level, there is talk in New York and Iowa of
    confiscation of firearms. And, in your home state of Virginia, anti-gun
    legislators have already introduced legislation to hold you civilly
    liable if your firearm is stolen and then used in a crime. Within the
    next two weeks, they have already promised to introduce bans on
    so-called “assault weapons”, ammunition magazines that hold more than 10
    rounds, and restart their annual attack on gun shows. A candidate for
    Governor has even called for reinstatement of handgun rationing that was
    repealed last year, all while making a political show of purchasing a
    high-end shotgun to show that he supports the Second Amendment.

    The only way to defeat these attacks is to band together, and make
    your voice heard in opposition to new restrictions on your
    rights. That’s why I’m asking you to join me in supporting the Virginia
    Shooting Sports Association (VSSA). I hope you will take a minute now to
    join, or if you are already a member, renew your membership. For 75
    years, VSSA has been working to protect the rights of Virginia’s law
    abiding gun owners. They have played a key role in reforming Virginia’s
    concealed carry law, protecting gun shows as we know them, protecting
    shooting ranges from frivolous noise complaints, repealing the ban on
    concealed carry in restaurants like Applebee’s and Olive Garden that
    serve alcohol as well as food, and in repealing Virginia’s one
    gun-a-month law.

    Now, as we face the biggest threat to our rights in decades, VSSA is
    already hard at work in the Virginia General Assembly, lobbying
    legislators, and letting them know that thousands of Virginia’s gun
    owners stand ready to answer the call to flood their offices with calls
    and emails. But they need more of you to add your voice to their
    membership. Only a small portion of Virginia’s NRA membership are also
    members of VSSA. You may be saying, “I’m already an NRA member. Why do I
    need to join the state association?” Because VSSA is NRA’s partner in
    protecting your rights and supporting the shooting sports so the next
    generation can enjoy the same rights we enjoy. They are at the General
    Assembly everyday making sure your rights are protected.

    Finally, VSSA is the only full service gun rights organization in
    Virginia. In addition to lobbying the General Assembly, they support
    shooting disciplines, sanction state championships, and introduce new
    shooters to the sport. Just last year, VSSA played a key role in
    introducing hundreds of new women to the shooting sports by supporting
    NRA Women on Target clinics. In short, VSSA is your connection to the
    NRA and NRA programs at the state level.

    Please take a moment now to go to
    and join VSSA. For less than the price of a half tank of gasoline, you
    can join for $25 for one year. For about the cost of a tank of gas, you
    can join for three years for $60, a $15 savings off the cost of the
    annual membership rate. When you join you will receive the quarterly
    member publication The Bullet, by email each quarter. You will also receive the e-Bullet,
    an electronic newsletter of information of interest to gun owners. And
    because VSSA is a Civilian Marksmanship Program affiliate, you will be
    eligible to make purchase of surplus firearms when they are available

    We don’t have time to waste. The General Assembly has just convened
    and I need you to add your voice to VSSA so they can defeat the anti-gun
    bills that have been promised this session. Please join VSSA today.


    Wayne LaPierre

  73. theoracle says:

    I was wondering the same thing, but then I realized that while school is in session and the president’s daughters are in attendance, then the Secret Service is on-site, AND they do have guns. Also, the Secret Service will have not only secured the interior but the perimeter of the school, keeping an eye on access points. However, a potential intruder might not grasp this and after reading about school security not carrying guns, might mistakenly think the school is unguarded along with those inside. Nope, that’d be the last mistake they’d ever make.

  74. ComradeRutherford says:

    Of course the NRA lied in that awful commercial. How else can they win?

  75. S1AMER says:

    Unfortunately, now the entire world of crazies and terrorists knows there’s little security at Sidwell Friends. In addition to the Obama girls, and all the crazies and fanatics that might threaten them, there are lots of other kids, including kids of diplomats, politicians, and all sorts of famous and powerful people. Kidnapping, anyone? Terrorists looking for easy targets?

    I’m guessing there are lots of parents who are very afraid right now. And I don’t blame them.

  76. LaurieMann says:

    Given the way the gunners are these days, this might not have been great information to publicize.

© 2019 AMERICAblog Media, LLC. All rights reserved. · Entries RSS