NBC’s Gregory Mocks NRA Security Guard Idea But Sends Own Kids to Guarded School

On NBC’s Meet The Press over the weekend, David Gregory was quite confrontational with the Vice President of the National Rifle Association over the organization’s idea of putting armed security guards in every school in America. But even as Gregory mocked the NRA for the idea, he seems to see nothing wrong with sending his own kids to a school that has armed security guards each school day.

Introducing the NRA’s security guard proposal, Gregory confronted NRA VP Wayne LaPierre saying, “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?”

Gregory also claimed that security guards don’t work. “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?,” the NBC anchor said.

Armed security doesn’t work? Well, then the question must be asked of Gregory why he sends his own kids to a school with just that sort of protection?

As it happens, Gregory sends his kids to D.C.-based Sidwell Friends, the same expensive, high-end school the President sends his own children to. Every day that school features armed security details. In fact, the security department is quite large for such a small school as Daniel Halper points out.

According to a scan of the school’s online faculty-staff directory, Sidwell has a security department made up of at least 11 people. Many of those are police officers, who are presumably armed.

Halper also reminds readers that because the President’s children go to the school, there is also an armed Secret Service detail at the school.

Gregory isn’t the only one putting himself in this hypocritical box, though. Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel was reportedly “outraged” at the NRA’s security guard plan. But Emanuel also sends his kids to a school that has armed guards plying the hallways every school day. (Not to mention his fully armed personal security detail that shadows him everywhere he goes.)

So, why are armed guards good for the President, Mayor Emanuel, and NBC’s David Gregory, but not the rest of us?


Posted by on December 26, 2012.
Filed under Barack Obama, corruption, Culture Of Corruption, Democrats, Education, Liberals, Media.
Warner Todd Huston is a Chicago-based freelance writer, has been writing opinion editorials and social criticism since early 2001 and is featured on many websites such as Andrew Breitbart's BigGovernment.com and BigJournalism.com, RightWingNews.com, CanadaFreePress.com, RightPundits.com, StoptheACLU.com, Human Events Magazine, among many, many others. Additionally, he has been a frequent guest on talk-radio programs to discuss his opinion editorials and current events.He has also written for several history magazines and appears in the new book "Americans on Politics, Policy and Pop Culture" which can be purchased on amazon.com. He is also the owner and operator of PubliusForum.com. Feel free to contact him with any comments or questions, EMAIL Warner Todd Huston: igcolonel .at. hotmail.com"The only end of writing is to enable the reader better to enjoy life, or better to endure it." --Samuel Johnson

You can leave a response or trackback to this entry
  • GarandFan

    “So, why are armed guards good for the President, Mayor Emanuel, and NBC’s David Gregory, but not the rest of us?”

    Some animals are more equal than others.

    • Hugh_G

      Because some you nut jobs would like to see them dead.

      • retired.military


        Why are you stereo typing>? How many nutjobs wanted to see Bush dead?

        The point being made is that there is a double standard (as usual) with the liberals proclaiming they want gun control.
        Why is it okay for their kids and grandkids to have armed guards and not yours?

        • Hugh_G

          I suppose if your kids or grandkids go to a private school and you want to pay for it, that’d be fine with me. (Speaking of stereotyping).

          I don’t want armed guards and particularly armed children in my grandkids public school. Nor do their parents. I just love how
          some people (not necessarily speaking about you because I don’t know what your view is) think carrying guns will solve problems. I read an interesting article by an Afghan vet who spoke of how difficult it is for a trained soldier to knowingly shoot and kill an enemy much less some teacher pulling out a gun to shot someone.

          How’d those paid guards help at Columbine?

          I believe the problem is incredibly complex and there are no simple answers. I don’t pretend to have the answer. I’m not an expert. What I do believe in is the right to own a weapon. I have no issue with that. I understand that there is fear that any perceived or actual infringement of “gun rights” is the next thing to taking them away to some people. I think it’s a simplistic reaction to a complex problem, just as the notion of doing away with them is too simplistic. So…..I don’t know the answers, but to me I see no reason why people have to own 30 round magazines etc.

          I’m not a constitutional scholar or expert but I have a hard time believing that were the 2nd Amendment written in the 20th-21st century the authors would have the same view about weapons.

          But that’s just the tip of the iceberg. There are societal issues, moral issues, educational issues and so forth. I guess I just wish there could be a dialogue about it and some give and take on both sides. I’ve been guilty of being over-reactive myself. So that’s it. It’s a tough deal, especially when you see 20 dead babies and the heroes who tried to protect them all dead.

          • retired.military


            From the 2 threads I have seen you comment on today that is the best discourse you have written all day.

            I actually agree with most of what you said.

            I disagree about the 30 round magazine. Having 3 10 round magazines is just about the same as having a 30 round magazine. Actually I believe longer magizines have a greater tendency to jam.

            Also I believe your “founders’” segment is incorrect or at least I disagree with it.

            Back in those days civilians could and some did own cannons. So it is hard to argue that civlians couldnt have the same weapons as the military.
            Now I am not for civilians owning RPGs, grenades, etc. I am simply giving my opinion on the subject.
            I own 2 guns. Pistol with 13 round clip and a 10 round clip for my 22 rifle. . That is all I need. Others want more. As long as they obey the law I dont mind.
            As for those that dont obey the law, they have proven that what the law says doesnt matter so even if you ban 30 round clips they would probably find ways to own them.
            Armed guards in schools? Dont know. If the community wanted it I see no reason to argue against it. Teachers with conceal carry? As long as they are trained. It is better than throwing pencils at some madman intent on killing children with whatever means available.

          • jim_m

            In your darling of gun control Great Britain there are over 5000 schools with police presence.

            In the US there are thousands of schools with police presence or armed guards.

            The National Association of School Resource Officers. (police officers stationed at schools) agrees with the NRA.

            You want gun control. Police presence at school comes along with that ride. The cost of keeping schools a gun free zone is making sure that there is at least one person who can confront a crazy person.

            Maybe those heroes would not have been killed if they had been allowed to confront Lanza with something other than a smile.

          • http://wizbangblog.com/ Baron Von Ottomatic

            “I’m not a constitutional scholar or expert but I have a hard time believing that were the 2nd Amendment written in the 20th-21st century the authors would have the same view about weapons.”

            I’m no constitutional scholar either, but I’m pretty sure that if the author of the 2nd Amendment was alive today he’d wonder why the hell more people aren’t using their magnificent repeating rifles to resist a government that is far more intrusive and oppressive than the British were in colonial times. I’d also wager it would be written to ensure “the people” had access to the same weapons as their government masters.

            “I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them.”
            George Mason
            Co-author of the Second Amendment
            during Virginia’s Convention to Ratify the Constitution, 1788

          • Hugh_G

            I understand you believe what you do about the constitution and I respect that. For me, the context is that thy were engaged in forming a government after a revolution, after oppression. Now you may respond that the government is involved in oppression right now. I don’t believe that and neither do the majority of Americans.

            Putting yourself back ion the early years of our country what would your view be of an armed revolt by slaves? Just curious – not trying anything cute here.

          • http://wizbangblog.com/ Baron Von Ottomatic

            That’s sort of a trick question, since the distinguishing characteristic of slaves is that they are unarmed and therefore at the mercy of those who have arms. But having grown up in today’s society, if you put me back in early post-revolutionary war America I would have advocated the abolition of slavery and inclusion of the 13th Amendment into the Bill of Rights. My view of an armed rebellion by slaves would be that it is a natural result of human bondage.

            In the context of the Civil War, the goal of abolishing slavery was correct but the end result of de facto invalidating the 10th Amendment was a terrible outcome. No one (at least in Washington…) seems to believe the 10th Amendment has any meaning today. Of course that’s not just limited to the 10th Amendment either. At the federal level, what is considered to be a “right” today has little resemblance to the rights articulated in the Constitution.

            As far as an oppressive government, public perception has been shaped by a couple of things. First, as is often described by the fallacious “a frog can’t tell when the water is slowly warmed and he boils” analogy, Americans can’t possibly keep up with the thousands of small intrusions on freedom that add up to omnipresent government. Second, as was clearly demonstrated by the Civil War, armed insurrection of the government is not tolerated. Finally, we’ve accumulated enough material comfort that we’re willing to overlook “minor” intrusions like TSA patdowns, etc. America is still comparatively among the freest nations on Earth, but for how long? Every law passed chips away some small measure of freedom – whether it’s the freedom to drink raw milk, or open a restaurant that permits smoking, or buy a beverage containing caffeine and alcohol or even a sugary beverage of a certain size.

            Wait twenty years, when the debt craters our credit rating and we can’t borrow and tax rates have to rise to 50%+ for everyone and the Social Security benefits that are a “right” (ask the Supreme Court about that…) get slashed…then people may have a whole different opinion on whether or not we’re oppressed.

            Dunno where I saw it first, but the prediction “Everything that’s not specifically prohibited is required” always struck me as funny. Yet we’re moving that way. Compliantly.

          • Hugh_G

            Thanks for your respond. I appreciate it.

          • http://wizbangblog.com/ Baron Von Ottomatic

            And I’m sure I’ve mentioned this before, but the first gun control laws in the US were written to keep guns out of the hands of the newly freed blacks in the reconstruction era South. Much harder to lynch an armed man. And if he shoots back? Hanged for illegally using a gun against a white. Pretty sweet deal if you’re planning to terrorize you some colored folks.

            Ditto the 1968 gun control legislation – intended to keep guns away from those uppity blacks.

  • LiberalNightmare

    If we are going to make the world safer by preventing law abiding americans from owning weapons, its only logical that it would be even safer if we disarm police and bodyguard details as well.

  • PRichard

    It is the old saying “DO AS I SAY ~ NOT AS I DO ”
    Police in the cities/DeputySheriffs in the county have been in schools
    for a long time ~ as ‘School Resourse Officers ‘ , as security, mentors,
    are at ALL ball games – - – - and the kids can go to them , (SRO’s), for
    any knd of help or any problems they may have

  • ackwired

    As Sidwell is recognized as among the top educational institutions in the DC area, I doubt that the armed guards were a significant factor in the parent’s choice. Sidwell being a Society of Friends institution, they would not naturally be inclined to have armed guards. I wonder if it is a requirement of their liability insurance company.

    • jim_m

      Wow. You really did just miss the whole point on that, didn’t you? Gregory mocks the idea of an armed guard at schools but ignores the fact that his kids go to such a school and that many schools across the country already have armed guards or police presence.

      Since I would bet that a number of the students at Sidwell Friends are from people in high political office (don’t obama’s kids go there?), the armed guards are likely die to that reason. My question is whether the armed guards are provided at government expense.

  • Pingback: Alex Jones Calls for Government Gun Free Zones in White House Petition | Dark PoliticksDark Politricks

  • Pingback: Petition Calls for Gun Free Zone at White House and Federal Buildings | United States Resistance CommandUnited States Resistance Command

  • Pingback: Petition Calls for Gun Free Zone at White House and Federal Buildings - Pod Shelter

  • Pingback: Petition Calls for Gun Free Zone at White House and Federal Buildings | Nwo Report

  • Pingback: Petition Calls for Gun Free Zone at White House and Federal Buildings | Ron Larsen's Freedom Train

  • Pingback: Petition: Make White House, Federal Buildings and Events Gun Free Zones

  • Pingback: Alex Thomas ~ Petition: Make White House, Federal Buildings And Events Gun Free Zones | Shift Frequency

  • Pingback: Petition Calls for Gun Free Zone at White House and Federal Buildings - 'Social Path' Series

  • Pingback: Petition Calls for Gun Free Zone at White House and Federal Buildings

  • Pingback: Petition Calls for Gun Free Zone at White House and Federal Buildings - Gadsit Buzz

  • Pingback: Petition Calls for Gun Free Zone at White House and Federal Buildings

  • Pingback: Alex Jones Calls for Government Gun Free Zones in White House Petition | Independent News Hub