Are children as valuable as money? Elitists demand banks have armed guards while schoolchildren are left as defenseless targets for crazed shooters

Thursday, December 31, 2015 by: J. D. Heyes
Tags: armed guards, mass shootings, self-defense

---

(NaturalNews) It is hard to remember a presidential administration that is as anti-Second Amendment as the Obama White House, to the point that it would prefer that ordinary Americans (to include schoolchildren), should literally be put at risk and killed.

But that's what the Obama administration would prefer, and in fact, every time there is a mass shooting in the U.S., the very first thing this White House wants to do is ban more guns and make it even harder for ordinary Americans to protect themselves – even as they are guarded by men and women with guns.

As reported by The Washington Times, in the immediate aftermath of the terrorist attack in San Bernardino, Calif., earlier this month, White House spokesman Josh Earnest (who, of course, speaks for Obama), lamented the fact that America is "awash in guns," and that more citizens would dare to utilize their Second Amendment right to protect themselves following the attacks (which authorities and the federal government could not protect them from).

Why would you oppose self-defense?

"The more that we see this kind of violence on our streets, the more people go out and buy guns. That is both ironic and tragic," Earnest lamented.

"In some cases these are individuals who believe that they need to buy a gun so that they can better protect themselves. In some cases because it's Black Friday, they probably are going and purchasing a gift for a friend or a loved one who is a gun enthusiast," he added, from the armed camp that is the White House. "I'm just pointing out that there are already an astonishing number of guns on the streets of America and far too many innocent Americans who are being killed by them."

The irony is so thick you could cut it with a knife. So is the cluelessness. Asked by a reporter why he thinks so many Americans (in record numbers) are buying guns, Earnest answered, "I don't know. I really don't."

Perhaps there are better questions that Earnest ought to be asked – but never will be by the White House Press Corps, which acts as a Praetorian guard for this president – as should all anti-Second Amendment liberals. Here are a few:

-- Why are banks guarded by men and women with guns, but ordinary Americans should not be able to protect themselves with firearms?

-- How come only some Americans – those in power, for example – are worthy of extra protection, but ordinary citizens are not?

-- You say that police are our protection and that we don't need guns, but how do you justify that when even the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that local police have no constitutional duty to protect the public they serve?

-- Why do congressmen and presidents deserve armed protection, but schoolchildren do not?

Dangerous hypocrisy

And in reference to that last question, The Times further reported:

"At a vigil this week for victims of the 2012 mass shooting in Newtown, Connecticut, presidential adviser Valerie Jarrett said Mr. Obama has ordered his aides to quickly finalize gun control recommendations for executive action. White House aides said the proposals will be aimed at keeping guns out of the hands of people with criminal records, likely meaning expanded background checks, and preventing people who are mentally ill from owning firearms."

So, instead of learning a lesson – that vulnerable Americans without the ability to protect themselves are more likely to be victims – Obama and his supporters want to double down on gun-grabbing. How is that rational? How is that defensible?

It won't matter how many more innocent Americans are killed in gun-free zones that politicians like Obama want to establish in every part of the country, even as they hypocritically enjoy special protection from armed individuals assigned specifically to protect them.

Sources:

Breitbart.com

WashingtonTimes.com

NYTimes.com