• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Why can some have guns and not others?

Nope not at all like Romney.

I based that on what was posted. How would you say they are different? In terms of their background, not their current politics. I'll just remind you that Bloomberg was a Repopublican until - well - he wasn't. But it seems like they were both lucky, smart and terribly rich.
 
Ah, rather similar to Mitt Romney then.

Remember, only Bloomberg has true influence and that's over a few square miles. The others, maybe they are idiots, but they are smart idiots who have made great fortunes but their opinions are still just - opinions.
That's the thing, none of them are actually all that intelligent, well, minus Bloomberg who is somewhat intelligent but dangerously arrogant. They all have influence in certain circles though, let's not kid ourselves.
 
Yeah, because only celebrities get attacked. :roll:

I'll answer both of you at once.....yes. your life matters. No, not only celebrities get attacked.

Herr's a clue....if you.live in that city and you feel.oppresssed? Move to the country. I have three guns and a protection/recreation.permit. I can carry my hand cannon wherever I want...and I mean that...it's a 7 1/2" barrel Super Blackhawk....meaning? I don't really ever choose to carry it unless I am headed to the Sportsman's Club to shoot.
 
I'll answer both of you at once.....yes. your life matters. No, not only celebrities get attacked.

Herr's a clue....if you.live in that city and you feel.oppresssed? Move to the country. I have three guns and a protection/recreation.permit. I can carry my hand cannon wherever I want...and I mean that...it's a 7 1/2" barrel Super Blackhawk....meaning? I don't really ever choose to carry it unless I am headed to the Sportsman's Club to shoot.
I live in one of the safer cities in the Union and guess what, **** happens to people. I'm not going back and forth with someone who won't even admit that 1) These people in question are absolute hypocrites and 2) Bad **** can happen to anyone.
 
This is about a bunch of idiots who lucked out in life paying better people to protect their sorry asses.

Yet another libertarian who abandons the old "pull yourself up by the bootstraps" mantra when it suits his politics.
 
Yet another libertarian who abandons the old "pull yourself up by the bootstraps" mantra when it suits his politics.
Apparently you failed to understand my point. These clowns didn't earn a damn thing in life, and they actively get in the way of others' dreams, any one of those fools would do the world a favor by dropping dead, but, unlike those fools I don't want to take anything from them, including defense which they would deny others. Reading comprehension, it's critical.
 
I live in one of the safer cities in the Union and guess what, **** happens to people. I'm not going back and forth with someone who won't even admit that 1) These people in question are absolute hypocrites and 2) Bad **** can happen to anyone.

Well...actually the two messages I was responding to....one of which was yours....was directed at me(had my previous post quoted).

I live out in the country....I don't even lock my doors regularly and our cars sit in the driveway with the keys in the ignition. Of course, there are downsides....we just got DSL two years ago, there is no such thing as pizza delivery and our television choices are Dish Network or Directv....we also have about three acres to mow every week. But hey....we all have to make sacrifices, huh?
 
Apparently you failed to understand my point. These clowns didn't earn a damn thing in life, and they actively get in the way of others' dreams, any one of those fools would do the world a favor by dropping dead, but, unlike those fools I don't want to take anything from them, including defense which they would deny others. Reading comprehension, it's critical.

What clowns are you referring to? Liberals? I'll have you know that I have been working since I was 14 years of age and have never taken a dime off the government that I didn't earn(I work for the Commonwealth of PA at an intitition for the Developmentally disabled). I am now 48 with 24 years of service to the people of Pennsylvania and have just 11 more years till I hit that magical number of 35 years when I can retire.
 
Apparently you failed to understand my point. These clowns didn't earn a damn thing in life, a

1. No, your point is ridiculous and makes no sense.

2. Of course, anyone that is successful and doesn't agree with your politics didn't earn anything in their entire lives. You make yourself sound ignorant when you make such baseless and silly claims. I don't care for Micheal Moore, I've never seen a single one of his videos, but to argue that he didn't earn anything is ridiculous. He went out, did work, made videos that people would buy or pay to see, and sold them. At some point he either made them well, advertised them well or something. That's the whole ****ing idea of capitalism. And you'd understand that if you'd wipe the foam from your mouth and think about it for a minute.
 
1. No, your point is ridiculous and makes no sense.

2. Of course, anyone that is successful and doesn't agree with your politics didn't earn anything in their entire lives. You make yourself sound ignorant when you make such baseless and silly claims. I don't care for Micheal Moore, I've never seen a single one of his videos, but to argue that he didn't earn anything is ridiculous. He went out, did work, made videos that people would buy or pay to see, and sold them. At some point he either made them well, advertised them well or something. That's the whole ****ing idea of capitalism. And you'd understand that if you'd wipe the foam from your mouth and think about it for a minute.

It's only capitalism when Beck writes another book.
 


So. What makes his life more valuable than mine? He can have armed security? I can't?

Journalist Accosted By Security Over Mayor Bloomberg Gun Control Question - YouTube

Mayor Bloomberg? Why does he get armed security and not me?

Rosie O'Donnell's hypocrisy finally caught up to her | Human Events

Rosie? You have armed security?

Get off Piers Morgan’s lawn!

Piers Morgan? You have Armed Security? WHAT?

Oprah Winfrey gets hardcore security Down Under - but would prefer your mum's house - CelebrityFIX

Oprah? You get a gun? Everyone gets a gun?

Well unless you are a "poor" American...aka you don't make as much as these people. You aren't valuable. You don't matter. You aren't important. Yet every single anti-gun sucker on this website and in this country will continue to exclaim that these people are more valuable or more important. Or "they get death threats." So? They get security? What do I do? I can't afford armed security. I can't afford an alarm system. It is sad how much hypocrisy goes into the "gun control" crowd.

Did the children of Sandy Hook receive a threat in advance? I'm certain that not 5 minutes before...most of the teachers in that school would have opposed staff members carrying a gun.
 
Did the children of Sandy Hook receive a threat in advance? I'm certain that not 5 minutes before...most of the teachers in that school would have opposed staff members carrying a gun.

And I'd be willing to bet that most of them still do. If you have evidence to the contrary, I'd be interested.in seeing it.
 
Yet another libertarian who abandons the old "pull yourself up by the bootstraps" mantra when it suits his politics.
I've never owned a pare of boots that had straps on them.

On a related note, I've never "strapped on a gun", either. Both of my handgun holsters have clips. It's like saying you're going to "strap on a pen". Even the rifle I carried in Afghanistan was secured to my armor with a cerabiner, not straps.
 
And I'd be willing to bet that most of them still do. If you have evidence to the contrary, I'd be interested.in seeing it.
I've been working on my CDL. I've come across an add looking for school bus drivers in my district. I just may start driving bus so that i can join South Dakota's Sentinel Program and carry a gun in schools against the irrational fears of all the pro gun-control freaks.
 
I've never owned a pare of boots that had straps on them.

On a related note, I've never "strapped on a gun", either. Both of my handgun holsters have clips. It's like saying you're going to "strap on a pen". Even the rifle I carried in Afghanistan was secured to my armor with a cerabiner, not straps.
I'm not even entertaining the "yeah but" trolls anymore, they can't address the issue and have gone straight to the "attack the messenger" fallacy. I'm done with that inanity.
 
On a related note...

Nothing in your entire post is related to anything in this thread. Please pick another target to troll.

Thanks, and have a wonderful day.
 
OK, just a reminder that we are here to entertain ourselves and that none of this discussion is pro or anti anything. I don't have a TV but I know who these people are, although I can't speak to their talent.

I'm not sure how Bloomberg became so fabulously wealthy but he must have exhibited some talent at some point unless he won the lottery and never had a business. Of all the referenced individuals in the OP, he's the only one that matters since he's the only one with any authority. Oprah Winfrey may be one of the richest women in the world but she has no more power than I do.

Bloomberg is the duly elected mayor of NYC and NYC has had draconian gun laws since the Sullivan Act was passed to protect crooked politicians. So, he really only affects a small region and even New Yorkers can get gun permits - if they are high profile targets such as jewelers. My info on NYC is ancient so if I'm wrong, please just correct me.

As for the others, they have opinions©. They have a right to those opinions just as you have a right to yours. Being angry with someone for having opinions you don't agree with is an exercise in futility. We all agree on some things and not on others. Unless we are robots that are pre-programmed (some days I wonder), it is inevitable that we will have differences.

So, I don't think it's a matter of whose life is more valuable but whose life is more vulnerable. If you're a nobody in NYC, you can't (legally) get and carry a handgun. So, you can move to anyplace (and there are many) that is gun-friendly (like NV) or carry one illegally, just as any criminal. Or, you can follow the American Dream, make lots of money and hire a bodyguard. Or, you can go into a field where your life is at risk and carry a gun yourself. Or, you can become a bodyguard and have a gun. There are many options and some entertainer's thoughts don't really cause any change to the fabric of reality.

You seem to be missing the point. It is a simple question. These people get armed security. Yet they argue against guns. Why? In all this long post you didn't answer the bottom line question.
 
Yet another libertarian who abandons the old "pull yourself up by the bootstraps" mantra when it suits his politics.

Idk about you, but I don't wish to stand in anyone's way. Each person I named is an active anti-gun activist. Yet they do in fact support armed security when it comes to their own protection. What message does that send from the "gun control" crowd? Hell Sarah Brady had armed security. The implied message to me is that they deserve armed security, but it is bad for me to provide it for myself. Why?
 
You seem to be missing the point. It is a simple question. These people get armed security. Yet they argue against guns. Why? In all this long post you didn't answer the bottom line question.

Yes, I did answer the question but I'll simplify it:

1) They NEED armed security because the are high profile targets and
2) They can afford it by virtue of being high profile targets.

...and I'll even throw in on the deal the fact that despite being called idiots here, they are 1000 times more successful than anybody here AND they are entitled to have an opinion, whether you (or I) agree with them or not.
 
I'm not even entertaining the "yeah but" trolls anymore, they can't address the issue and have gone straight to the "attack the messenger" fallacy. I'm done with that inanity.

A tactic you should observe. When used by the anti-gun control crowd...it actually highlights an important trend on the left. They talk about "bootstraps" and all that for these rich people, ignoring that I have enough "bootstraps" to afford my own security right now. Most Americans do. The champions of their "cause" don't seem to care about the issue when it comes to their personal security. Why do you think that is?
 
Idk about you, but I don't wish to stand in anyone's way. Each person I named is an active anti-gun activist. Yet they do in fact support armed security when it comes to their own protection. What message does that send from the "gun control" crowd? Hell Sarah Brady had armed security. The implied message to me is that they deserve armed security, but it is bad for me to provide it for myself. Why?

I was replying to another poster regarding how he said that these people never earned anything etc. I never stated that they weren't hypocrits on guns.

However, let's say that all of these people want to outlaw owning any and all guns in this country, (which I am not sure they all agree with that), but even if they do, there is nothing hypocritical abot them still owning guns or even hiring armed security, because guns are still legal. What that would essentially be saying is "it's dangerous because there are guns, so I need armed security, but I'd like for no one to have any guns, then I wouldn't need armed security."

There is nothing hypocritical about obeying the rules while still trying to get those rules changed.
 
So, I don't think it's a matter of whose life is more valuable but whose life is more vulnerable.
Thank you. That pretty much puts it in a nutshell. Taking the premise from the OP, I don't know what the big deal is. If a person is a prominent person (Michael Moore; Bloomberg; Donald Trump; Rush Limbaugh; etc; ) you know that those people are going to run in to some nuts - some harmless some not so harmless - so those folks are going to have armed security with them.

A person like me - and most people in this forum - would not need armed security because we're not as vulnerable as prominent people are, so keeping guns in your house or those that want CCW are comfortable enough at the moment.

Now if the OP wants armed security, than let the OP go hire it out and pay for it like anyone else would do. :shrug:
 
I was replying to another poster regarding how he said that these people never earned anything etc. I never stated that they weren't hypocrits on guns.

However, let's say that all of these people want to outlaw owning any and all guns in this country, (which I am not sure they all agree with that), but even if they do, there is nothing hypocritical abot them still owning guns or even hiring armed security, because guns are still legal. What that would essentially be saying is "it's dangerous because there are guns, so I need armed security, but I'd like for no one to have any guns, then I wouldn't need armed security."

There is nothing hypocritical about obeying the rules while still trying to get those rules changed.

So. You personally think they would give up their armed security? Or do you think they might make an addendum in the rules, maybe a little loophole, that says it is alright as long as you pay enough money? Just curiosity.
 
A tactic you should observe. When used by the anti-gun control crowd...it actually highlights an important trend on the left. They talk about "bootstraps" and all that for these rich people, ignoring that I have enough "bootstraps" to afford my own security right now. Most Americans do. The champions of their "cause" don't seem to care about the issue when it comes to their personal security. Why do you think that is?
Because the citizens aren't saying the same message as the hypocrites or are on "the wrong side" is my guess.
 
So. You personally think they would give up their armed security? Or do you think they might make an addendum in the rules, maybe a little loophole, that says it is alright as long as you pay enough money? Just curiosity.

If they are personally advocating that all guns should be outlawed then I would assume they know that this would force them to give up their armed security. I have never heard anyone advocate a loophole for those with money on any gun legislation, so I think it's silly to consider a scenario when we have no evidence of such.

If you have any proof or evidence that any of these people have ever argued that we should get rid of all guns and they should also be able to keep their armed security then please provide it. Otherwise you would be making an assertion with absolutely no evidence.
 
Back
Top Bottom