It’s beginning to feel like rifle cross hairs by some gun rights activists have most of our leaders in their sights, ready to take them out. They focus on the Congress, the President and his family, not to mention the Secretary of State, members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, etc, etc, etc. They aren't asking to have this kind of protection. It's automatic for those in government positions that could put them and their loved ones in danger. They can refuse it if they so choose, but very few do.

That’s why the President's daughters have a security detail at school. The NRA, in an unseemly and repugnant manner in a recent commercial ad, asked the question, "Are the Presidents kids more important than yours?" This is using these young innocents as pawns in a political game. The answer of course is: "No, they aren't."

The President's kids have a security detail in school because he is the President. Is his wife more important then yours or mine? No, for the same reason. The position you hold determines if you and your family require a security detail. If you were President, would you deny such a detail for your family? Of course not. So why should anyone agree with those criticizing these Presidential actions on this like the NRA is doing, calling President Obama an "elitist hypocrite"?

I can think of a few words to describe the NRA and those who support their heartless actions. But I don't use that kind of language unless the opposition is worth the bother, and the NRA isn't worth the time of day in my book.

My research came up empty, but I doubt NRA officials travel without a security detail. I think it's very unlikely that those who favor more gun control will try to eliminate the NRA opposition.

The NRA and its supporters say they need their assault-type, high capacity magazine guns to protect themselves from the United States government. How stupid can you get? They claim the Second Amendment says that. Not the one I have read over and over again. It says a “well regulated militia” is needed  for the security of a free state. Well, isn't a free nation, our free nation, a free state?

I'm sure the Founders would not be in support of a Constitutional Amendment that favors the destruction of this great nation (state) they had just created. At least that’s how I see it. What about you?

Security details are also giving those watching the new administration of Wilmington's new mayor, Dennis Williams, something to talk about. He is being criticized by some for his decision to have a security detail. The criticism comes from those who say former Mayor James Baker never had one. Baker cited too much cost. People may have forgotten that the first black Mayor of Wilmington, Jim Sills, faced with an avalanche of death threats from the cities racist elements, made the right choice, keeping himself and his family safe with protection.

It occurs to me that life (his life) should be a larger concern than a few dollars in the city budget.

Mayor Williams is in a serious dangerous battle with the city's criminal element, which could be out to get him before he gets them. And I think they remember losing many battles with Williams when he was a Wilmington Police detective. They now feel uneasy with facing him again, in a much higher position as mayor.

For me and my house, there is no argument about the Mayor's life and the city budget. He put his life on the line for our fair city as a police detective, and is doing it again as mayor. We owe him our support and the funds needed to get the job done with a security details.