Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Why do gun control advocates accept armed guards in their lives?; hypocrites
Topic Started: Mar 10 2014, 11:40 PM (74 Views)
Pat
Member Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]
All they have to do is 'just say no'.

This is how simple it would be. A statement from their lawyer and reps -

" My client has strong belief's that guns cause more problems than they solve. He/she believes that by accepting armed guard from your organization, it would be hypocritical. He/she doesn't fear for his/her life nor will have armed guards in the entourage. Thank you."



http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journalism/2014/03/09/Costas-Dismisses-Criticism-Of-Armed-Guards-As-NFL-NBC-Security

On March 9th NBC's Bob Costas dismissed criticism of his having armed guards while disparaging "gun culture" by saying his guards were NBC and NFL security, not "personal" bodyguards. He did this while being interviewed by Fox News's Howard Kurtz, who brought up Costas's December 2012 halftime criticism of "the NFL's gun culture."
Kurtz said, "You were accused of injecting politics into halftime, and Fox News's Greg Gutfeld said you were 'a hypocritical buffoon' because you're in New York, and you're surrounded by armed guards, and you don't have to worry about safety."
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Neutral
Member Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]
They are VIP's and the rest of us are just minions to collect money and votes from?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
colo_crawdad
Member Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]
I imagine the assumption is that Armed guards have passed physical as well as psychological tests assuring their ability to use guns correctly.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
tomdrobin
Member Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]
You can't fault celebrities for wanting security personnel. That doesn't disqualify them from expressing their views on gun control.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Berton
Member Avatar
Thunder Fan
[ * ]
I can fault them for wanting protection while at the same time wanting to demand that the common man does not deserve protection. Of course they are different in your simplethink.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Banandangees
Member Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]
tomdrobin
Mar 11 2014, 11:32 AM
You can't fault celebrities for wanting security personnel. That doesn't disqualify them from expressing their views on gun control.

What makes celebrities any better or deserving of "security" than anyone else?

Everyone wants security. Most can't afford to hire security personnel or have access of the tax payer paying for such. There was a CBS evening news segment at the end of the show today. It was of a 20 year old black man "poet" whose poetry reflected his view of his life and that of other young blacks in Chicago where he grew up. The interviewer asked him if he was concerned about his safety in his comings and goings. He said that when he left school each day he was thankful that he arrived home without being killed. He can't afford a security guard. Is he less important than a celebrity? Chicago has some of the most strict gun laws in the U.S. He obeys those laws, others don't. So, he is at risk. He has the police you say.... so does the celebrity. There just aren't enough to go around to follow each person around to give them the security they feel that they need. Look at the risk Sea takes every winter, traveling through the US. He's definitely not packing... or at least his posts would suggest that he isn't. Some of us, because of where we live feel that we aren't at any risk, except for some nut case..... and there seems to be growing population of nut cases. Hm, maybe we should all have personal security guards so that gun toting would be considered okay in that case. Maybe the libs can convince their Congress persons to push through a bill that would provide funding (as an entitlement) for personal security for those who can't afford their own. That way we know that all gun carriers will be well trained in use and judgment.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
tomdrobin
Member Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]
Banandangees
Mar 12 2014, 10:43 AM
What makes celebrities any better or deserving of "security" than anyone else?

You misunderstood my point. They may need more security because they tend to be targeted by nut cases and stalkers. So, I'm saying it's not really hypocritical of them to be against the public having unlimited access to guns, while hiring armed security personnel for their own safety.

Personally I'm all for individuals having the right to conceal carry a gun for self protection. But, with some exceptions. They should be well trained, and screened for mental health and anger issues.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
« Previous Topic · Fire And Ice General Discussion · Next Topic »
Add Reply

Website Traffic Analysis