If they are all at risk why do they not all need armed security?
That's irrelevant because GW wasn't out there arguing against armed security in schools.
I question your understanding of the word hypocritical.
everybody is at risk of something..
But who is more at risk? You tell me.
Who is going to pay for all the armed security at every school? Who is going to pay for their training, background checks, guns, etc?
There is a cost. And it is not irrevelant, because if Gw kid's schools had armed security, then the NRA are just trying to pick a fight, without true solutions. And against people like you fall for it.
I already stated the better solution is campus police, like they do at many inner city HS, or have police patrol the schools.
No, you make the argument, "well, if Obama has armed security at his kid's schools, then all children need armed security at their schools."
"Aren't my kids just as important?"
Instead of asking, was that security agency already contracted at that school? And due to the climate of today, one would hope that the President had that extra layer of security.
Because, if some ish went down, and it was there, everybody knows his detractors would ask why he didn't have that added layer, and doesn't he care about his kids, Afterall he is the President.