Good Question

A Congressman recently asked a reporter on TV why it's OK for Obama to be protected by men with guns while at the same time it's not OK for our kids to be protected by men with guns. He made the point that Obama has no more a right to life than any child, and that's true.

School kids have the same right to life as Obama.  So do you and I.

The issue is who can carry a gun to defend that right to life. The government - and bureaucrats everywhere - say they can, but we can't. Not according to the Constitution which, last time I checked, is still the law of the and.

Why did we allow our police forces and federal agents to carry guns in the first place? To defend themselves against the bad guys. There is no other reason. None of them need guns - and will never need guns - to interact with law-abiding citizens. 

If a cop can carry a gun to protect himself from criminals, so can I. If a federal agent can carry a gun to protect the president from criminals, I can carry a gun to protect my family from criminals.

Police and federal agents are not some elevated or superior form of life that makes them better able to handle firearms. Any citizen is as capable of proper gun safety and use as any agent of officer.  They may not be as good a shot - because they don't spend endless hours on the target range - but the ability to carry and use a gun safely and wisely is not some super special gift only the police and the feds have.

Police and federal agents who are uncomfortable around - or fear - armed citizens have exactly the wrong mindset. They have convinced themselves with their own rah-rah propaganda and locker-room chit-chat that they are the only people on earth who should be allowed to handle firearms, that ordinary citizens are either too dumb or too incompetent to do so.They really need to get over that misconception, since an armed populace is their ultimate - and only - backup in times of great upheaval.  Ah, the National Guard, you say? And what is the National Guard, except for armed citizens? Or the army? Same thing. Only difference is that the National Guard or the Army may be given orders by misguided superiors contrary to the best interests of the general public.

There are many citizens who fear guns of any kind. They don't touch them, they don't handle them, they don't learn how to use them. Fine and dandy, that's their choice.  They wrongly assume the police will protect them. They can't seem to understand that the police don't show up until after a crime is committed.  Fine by me. That's their problem with how things really work, not mine.

The question remains a valid one... why should Obama be protected by men with guns when our children cannot?

Because he's president is no answer - There are plenty of people readily available that can do his job at least as good as he, and in many respects - better. Obama is totally expendable and replaceable - just like every other president we have had - and any one of those murdered kids could have become president.

Because a teacher or Hall Monitor(who is not afraid of guns) cannot be trained to use a weapon effectively?  That's just nonsense. 

So who has a higher "right" to protect their life than any of us citizens?

No one.