I say lets put it this way. If people like myself and all other U.S citizens are not allowed to have the RIGHT issued to them by the constitution and bill of rights to be able to protect themselves and their loved ones. Then this should go for EVERYONE! If I am not allowed this right. Then people like Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders, and Barack Obama should not be allowed this right either. That means NO SECRET SERVICE PROTECTION for them. Because why should THEY be allowed this RIGHT when I am not. I want to hear the explanation as to WHY people like THEM are more EQUAL then the rest of us? I want someone like Bardock, Basher , or Ush to explain how their lives are worth MORE then the rest of us?
How is it that if They die how the Moon will fall out of the sky, The stars will go out and the ROCKS themselves will cry out their horror and sadness if such a thing were to happen.
WELL!
We are all waiting!
Originally posted by Flyattractor
[b]I say lets put it this way. If people like myself and all other U.S citizens are not allowed to have the RIGHT issued to them by the constitution and bill of rights to be able to protect themselves and their loved ones. Then this should go for EVERYONE! If I am not allowed this right. Then people like Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders, and Barack Obama should not be allowed this right either. That means NO SECRET SERVICE PROTECTION for them. Because why should THEY be allowed this RIGHT when I am not. I want to hear the explanation as to WHY people like THEM are more EQUAL then the rest of us? I want someone like Bardock, Basher , or Ush to explain how their lives are worth MORE then the rest of us?
How is it that if They die how the Moon will fall out of the sky, The stars will go out and the ROCKS themselves will cry out their horror and sadness if such a thing were to happen.WELL!
We are all waiting!
[/B]
You do have police protection. Their lives aren't worth more, they are just in more danger, so there is special protection for them. If you have a run in with the mob and are in real danger you will get closer police protection as well.
Originally posted by Bardock42
You do have police protection. Their lives aren't worth more, they are just in more danger, so there is special protection for them. If you have a run in with the mob and are in real danger you will get closer police protection as well.
Whilst I agree with you totally in principal Bardock. I see one flaw in this defence, what if you are black? Surely them it's more likely the Police will shoot you.
Originally posted by Flyattractor
[b]I say lets put it this way. If people like myself and all other U.S citizens are not allowed to have the RIGHT issued to them by the constitution and bill of rights to be able to protect themselves and their loved ones. Then this should go for EVERYONE! If I am not allowed this right. Then people like Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders, and Barack Obama should not be allowed this right either. That means NO SECRET SERVICE PROTECTION for them. Because why should THEY be allowed this RIGHT when I am not. I want to hear the explanation as to WHY people like THEM are more EQUAL then the rest of us? I want someone like Bardock, Basher , or Ush to explain how their lives are worth MORE then the rest of us?
How is it that if They die how the Moon will fall out of the sky, The stars will go out and the ROCKS themselves will cry out their horror and sadness if such a thing were to happen.WELL!
We are all waiting!
[/B]
Very well said, Fly. 👆
Originally posted by Flyattractor
[b]*Looks around* I don't see no COP standing behind me right now. And by that reasoning. If DANGER is a factor. Then people who live in places like South Chicago should be allowed to have guns because of their danger factor? [/B]
No, not guns, but places like South Chicago do have a disproportionate focus of police resources. Of course there's only so much we can do with limited resources.
We protect high profile target like politicians because they have a very high risk and they are targets because they are trying to serve their country.
Originally posted by Flyattractor
[b]Then why can't our military carry weapons around on military bases? They are more of a target then politicians. [/B]
T-their job is to protect the country from attacks...
Yes, they are a target, but they are the people who chose to take this hard and dangerous job. Similarly to the Secret Service who protects the politicians.
Originally posted by Bardock42Bardock he understands exactly why and what you're saying, just leave it pal.
T-their job is to protect the country from attacks...Yes, they are a target, but they are the people who chose to take this hard and dangerous job. Similarly to the Secret Service who protects the politicians.
Originally posted by Bardock42
T-their job is to protect the country from attacks...Yes, they are a target, but they are the people who chose to take this hard and dangerous job. Similarly to the Secret Service who protects the politicians.
...So WHY CAN'T they carry their weapons around on the base then?
Politicians chose their profession to. I don't see why that makes them any more deserving then the rest of us.
And Police don't protect us. They might wish they could but lets face facts... THEY CAN'T!
Originally posted by Flyattractor
[b]...So WHY CAN'T they carry their weapons around on the base then?
Politicians chose their profession to. I don't see why that makes them any more deserving then the rest of us.
And Police don't protect us. They might wish they could but lets face facts... THEY CAN'T!
[/B]
You are probably referring to this: http://www.snopes.com/politics/clintons/baseguns.asp
a. The authorization to carry firearms will be issued only to qualified personnel when there is a reasonable expectation that life or Department of the Army (DA) assets will be jeopardized if firearms are not carried. Evaluation of the necessity to carry a firearm will be made considering this expectation weighed against the possible consequences of accidental or indiscriminate use of firearms.b. DA personnel regularly engaged in law enforcement or security duties will be armed.
c. DA personnel are authorized to carry firearms while engaged in security duties, protecting personnel and vital Government assets, or guarding prisoners.
So this already deals with your question.
Originally posted by Flyattractor
[b]...So WHY CAN'T they carry their weapons around on the base then?
Politicians chose their profession to. I don't see why that makes them any more deserving then the rest of us.
And Police don't protect us. They might wish they could but lets face facts... THEY CAN'T!
[/B]
I agree. They can't be everywhere at once. Our right to bear arms is the only sensible option to ensure we are protected from criminals, terrorists, or an out-of-control government.
Originally posted by Star428
I agree. They can't be everywhere at once. Our right to bear arms is the only sensible option to ensure we are protected from criminals, terrorists, or an out-of-control government.
Yeah, because fighting the Government is much more likely than another high school massacre next week. 🙄