Liberal Mocks NRA Chief for Proposing Armed Guards; Sends Kids to High-Security School

David Gregory mocked the NRA’s Wayne LaPierre for proposing that armed guards be at every school in America. But the NBC host seems to have no problem with armed guards protecting his kids everyday where they attend school in Washington, D.C.

“You proposed armed guards in school. We’ll talk about that in some detail in a moment. You confronted the news media. You blamed Hollywood and the gaming industry. But never once did you concede that guns could actually be part of the problem. Is that a meaningful contribution, Mr. LaPierre, or a dodge?,” asked Gregory.

Later the host suggested that guns don’t prevent violence in schools (he cited the mass shootings at Columbine and Virginia Tech). “But you would concede that, as good as an idea as you think this is, it may not work. Because there have been cases where armed guards have not prevented this kind of massacre, this kind of carnage. I want you would concede that point, wouldn’t you?,” Gregory pleaded.

The NBC host would go on the rest of the segment to suggest that armed guards might not be effective in preventing mass murders at school. Which is perhaps an interesting theoretical argument.

But when it comes to Gregory’s own kids, however, they are secured every school day by armed guards.

The Gregory children go to school with the children of President Barack Obama, according to the Washington Post. That school is the co-ed Quaker school Sidwell Friends.




Post Continues on www.weeklystandard.com




Posted in 2nd Amendment
35 comments on “Liberal Mocks NRA Chief for Proposing Armed Guards; Sends Kids to High-Security School
  1. burt says:

    you can lead a liberal to wisdom but you cant make them think.

  2. Lucky3511 says:

    If the demoncrap actually believe that guns are the cause of these shootings. Then let them stop using armed guards at Sidwell School. Also stop having armed guards in their entourage. Let us see the lilly liver left wing loons put their money where their mouth is.

    • WellNowDear says:

      All the ones doing the shootings are “drug burned” by street drugs. Why isn’t that aspect of the violence being addressed? What do they think? Do they think these guys wouldn’t do illicit drugs and mix them with alcohol but they would shoot people? Is that what they think. I searched all over the net using several search engines but, found not one mention of the possibility of Lanza being an addict.

  3. fliteking says:

    No Officers in schools but plenty of Officers at the DMV, County Offices and Federal Offices . . . David Gregory and the liberals truly do hate Children.

    Below I am going to try to think like a liberal news anchor.
    When we refuse to guard our precious children . . . . Is this some kind of hatred toward children by the liberals because the expected abortion numbers were not met in the past 5 years?
    Do Liberals HATE Children?
    Should Liberals need to go through sensitivity training before they can speak about children?
    Should we trust Liberals to be around our Children?

  4. agbjr says:

    As always liberal hypocrisy knows no bounds. Every liberal who criticizes Mr. LaPierre’s comments MUST be asked about their own children’s safety at school. If those children are sent to high-priced private schools ringed with armed security then the hypocrisy must be exposed directly to the liberal hypocrite’s face. It is almost guaranteed these children are also transported to and from home with armed security and their homes – shall we tell the truth and say estates? – are likely in gated communities with armed security.

  5. Ken A says:

    Yes, Columbine school did have an armed guard, but he was out of the building at lunch when that attack happened. He did not return to the school until after the police arrived. Those killers knew his schedule and attacked during the time when they knew he would not be on location. Very convenient for the press to overlook this detail to try to show that armed guards in schools would not work.

  6. paco12348 says:

    I agree with LaPierre’s advice to put a policeman in every school. Look at all the money Obama gambled away on his Green Project and look at the duplicative Programs Tom Coburn identified. We have more than enough money to fund a program to save the children if Obama would clean out the Feds instead of adding more useless, hand cuffing program and regulations. Obama is worthless and I can’t imagine what kind of uneducated people would stick him back in as President. They were either uneducated, uninformed, nutty as a fruitcake, or dumber than dirt.

  7. Bobseeks says:

    Liberal hypocrisy at its worst. When are people going to see that liberals aren’t against guns, they just want all the guns to be on their side so they can dictate how the rest of us shall live?

  8. David Gregory should send his brats to a regular school. It’s the typical Liberal comment & attitude do as I say not as I do.

  9. That the NRA is promoting the same position that Bill Clinton once advocated only goes to (once again) expose how compromised the NRA tends to be. Think about it, the government shouldn’t be involved in the education of our children in the first place. Why add to the tax burden by hiring a policeman for what two or more armed teachers can do. For every teacher armed the potential for protection is multiplied that much more over one lone cop.

    Check out Gun Owners of America for an more uncompromising gun organization. Listen Executive Director Larry Pratt’s views regarding the Biblical responsibility to bear arms in protection of ourselves, families, and neighbors versus the Second Amendment “rights” to do the same. Click on my name, then our website. Mr. Pratt’s interview can be found on our home page.

    • NoU4EN says:

      I agree that a few teachers could be trained as a reactionary secondary line of defense. However, the main deterrent should be someone whose primary responsibility is to be pro-actively involved in the security of the school.
      This is a sociological issue. Shouldn’t we be focusing on the root cause? Since the 60′s there been escalating moral decay of society. Sex and violence glorified in advertising and media. Discipline of children discouraged. Children not respecting parents. Life cheapened by 50 million abortions. Mainstreaming mental ill persons without any recourse for institutionalizing those who may be dangerous. Legalization of marijuana in some states. Diminished faith.

      • Thank you for replying. As for the root causes, you might find the following interesting “Newtown’s Massacre, Today’s Cultural Abyss, and Gun-Free Zones.” Click on my name, then our web site, and them our blog.

      • David Hodges says:

        We don’t need armed guards at schools. We don’t even need schools. We need God’s laws, which require saints to be prepared for evil doers.

        • NoU4EN says:

          Let us know when you successfully abolish schools. Until then real problems need real solutions.

        • T. Edward Price says:

          This is one of many reasons not to support the NRA. If we must be burdened with government education, then a much more sensible approach would be to allow ANY teacher or school staff member to be armed. Having a federally subsidized police presence just furthers the exposure students have to the ever growing police state. Schools are virtual prisons already. This is just one more step in conditioning children to be perfectly submissive to the state. Does it escape everyone’s notice that Wayne LaPierre is also advocating a national psychiatric database. This would include returning veterans who MIGHT be required to undergo a psychiatric evaluation as part of a typical debriefing. The NRA is part of the problem, not the solution. If you are truly concerned about your ability to maintain an armed presence in defense of self, family, community, and country, then check out Gun Owners of America (GOA). They are completely unwavering in their support of the God given RESPONSIBILITY to be armed.

  10. NoU4EN says:

    Post-Columbine, in 2000, Bill Clinton asked for $50 Million for a FIFTH round of funding for his “Cops In School” initiative. So, why now is this a bad NRA idea? There are armed security personnel at shopping malls, sporting events, college campuses, hospitals, airports, medical clinics, etc. Armed cops may not be able to stop all the wackos, but it does serve as a deterrent.

    Now the left are suddenly cost-conscious. They demand funding to slyly pay back their campaign bundlers. They expect taxpayers to shut up and pay up so they can fund thousands of their outrageous projects like Hillary’s State Department spending $770 Million for refurbishing Mosques in the Middle East, Nancy Pelosi’s mouse study, paintings of cabinet memebers ($40K each).

    And the biggest boondoggle, ripoff of our lifetime is green energy. The Brookings Institute found that the government will spend over $150 BILLION between 2009 – 2014 on green energy – three times as much as was spent between 2002-2008.

    $80 Billion from “Stimulus” going to failing green companies and foreigners
    $6 Billion – to Indonesia and Brunel for green energy development
    $535M – Solyndra – Bankrupt
    $249M – A123 Battery – Bankrupt – sold to Chinese
    $68M – Abound Solar – Bankrupt

    • Observant_One says:

      Because this is the proper way to bankrupt your country, spend all your money on green “good intentions”, paybacks to your political campaign supporters, and foreign aid without respect of the consequences.The obama administration has that down to a “T”, and we all will suffer for it.

  11. randydutton says:

    Why isn’t anyone proposing hiring ex-military for teachers and making shotguns with stun shots available to them?

    • jvb1980808 says:

      Because this isn’t about doing what is best, safest, and most logical. It’s about CONTROL AND LIBERALS WANT ALL OF IT.

  12. jvb1980808 says:

    Schools ALREADY have metal detectors and security officers at just about every middle and high school. I don’t understand why liberals find the idea of armed security so laughable. In their ignorance of the issue they, once again, jump the shark when it comes to logic.

    • Observant_One says:

      You have just named the two most prevalent ignorance’s of liberals, common sense, and possession of legal firearms. Since it is difficult for them to reconcile these shortcomings they vote to remove all guns from legal owners, except the police. What they need to realize is that we need to collect all the guns of criminals. I haven’t heard any legislation in that direction yet, amply proving their difficulties with common sense issues.

  13. jvb1980808 says:

    I did a search to see how many guns Obama owns. It came up zero. Then I realized why HE wouldn’t own a gun now. HE HAS 24/7 SECRET SERVICE AND BULLET PROOF EVERYTHING to protect him and his family paid for by the very people he’s working 24/7 to disarm!!!

  14. Joanne says:

    After Obama has sunk our country into record debt in only four years now it’s our fault that we don’t have the money when we need it? Get rid of all his paybacks to unions and green jobs and maybe we’ll have more money.

  15. Beepster says:

    Va Tech and Columbine “armed” guards were not really trained in dealing with what happened. That’s like a rookie cop on the job less than two weeks getting into a fire fight with several individuals. Not being fully trained on-the-job, he will either foolishly think he can take them all on and get killed, run away, or call for help. My understanding is Va Tech and Columbine guards called for help. Very prudent. NOW, for a GOOD way to go is to let the school districts select the people who would best benefit from training in armed/unarmed combat, and negotiations. This can be done with cooperation from NRA or Oath Keepers. My understanding is both will give all the necessary training for those who obtain CHL’s or don’t, depending on their selection purposes. Great way to go.