- Joined
- Jan 13, 2012
- Messages
- 11,524
- Reaction score
- 6,769
- Location
- Las Vegas
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Other
Nope not at all like Romney.
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.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.
Yeah, because only celebrities get attacked. :roll:
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.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.
This is about a bunch of idiots who lucked out in life paying better people to protect their sorry asses.
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.Yet another libertarian who abandons the old "pull yourself up by the bootstraps" mantra when it suits his politics.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I've never owned a pare of boots that had straps on them.Yet another libertarian who abandons the old "pull yourself up by the bootstraps" mantra when it suits his politics.
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.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'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.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.
On a related note...
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.
Yet another libertarian who abandons the old "pull yourself up by the bootstraps" mantra when it suits his politics.
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.
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.
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?
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.So, I don't think it's a matter of whose life is more valuable but whose life is more vulnerable.
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.
Because the citizens aren't saying the same message as the hypocrites or are on "the wrong side" is my guess.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?
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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?