• 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 Do Politicians Get Armed Guards? 2nd Amendment

Edit: Forgive any spelling errors. I just got back from the dojo and I am very tired.

Affording armed security? Body guard style protection you are talking about a price that would range easily into $100 a man hour. Plus insurance. It might be less if it was premises guarding ONLY. So we will low ball this for unarmed security and subtract cost of insurance. $25 a man hour and we will say you are guarded for 8 hours at home at night.

$200 dollars a day. How many Americans could afford that?
$1400 for a week. How many then?
≈$6000 for a month. Who can pay that?
≈$73000 for just one year of protection. If you don't pay holidays and give them the time off it would be less. It would be hire if you wanted holidays and didn't give it.

All this is for the cost of a ONE man security team, minus any insurance or license fees the government would probably force you to pay, assuming he is private and does NOT work for a firm (price was based on security guard pay).

The "you can pay for your own protection system" goes out the window for almost EVERY American. The only people who would be able to afford such protections would be: those with government connection, those who are so wealthy that they are beyond even upper middle class and possibily above the top 5%, and perhaps some buisnesses (because that kind of cost is very expensive and also an insurance liability). We are talking about 95% of America being unprotected (unless we count the criminals who as we both know will still be armed). LEO would also have guns, but then again they won't respond quick enough to stop you from getting shanked in a dark alley. They will be there with their doughnuts in hand cleaning you off the sidewallk though.

Do you understand now? My entire premises is this: "Ambition must be made to counteract ambition." You cannot trust a government. In this case we are talking about an ambition of less gun control to check that of increased gun control. We could also go with Groucho Marx and say that any politician who proposes any form of restriction on firearms is simply diagnosing a problem incorrectly and treating it with the wrong solution too (paraphrased).

Of course my method of protection goes like this:

$200^ for a handgun (doubtfully cheaper).
≈$100 on practice ammo
≈$50 for self defense bullets.
Total= $350 for non concealed carry self defense in home protection. Of course that could be a one time fee, and for many Americans they already have the gun and it doesn't have to be a handgun.
For concealed defense:
$350+
$152 or less for a concealed permit.
Either $10 Safety course fee (for some states)
Or $100-$250 for Concealed Carry specific class.
$25 fingerprint fee.
≈$750 that could be dealt over time or all at once for 24/7 carried protection for those who want it. How many Americans could afford that?

I hate math for the most part, but I will say that it certainly does show who actually cares about the self defense of the average American.

Most Americans can't afford armed guards. Or alot of things. Some cant' even afford guns.

Does that mean those who can shouldn't get them?

Armed guards are irrelevant to whether guns should be restricted or not. I support the right of individuals to defend themselves. I'm just saying you don't have much of a point in this thread.
 
Merely, I think it is utterly ironic for an anti-gun person to be protected by armed guards.

It would be the same if an uberly pro-health advocate was caught eating 2 McDonald's meals in one sitting.
 
Merely, I think it is utterly ironic for an anti-gun person to be protected by armed guards.

So you oppose the police?
 
This is something that I am curious about. I am pretty sure about most people's answers though.

Why do politicians get armed security? People like the President are protected around the clock obviously, but what about other government officials who frequently have armed security? Congressmen, judges, and all of that? When they speak to the public they get protection? These questions are important to ask of those officials who want more gun control. Officials who would ask to be protected by men who carry guns that most of us would need a license to purchase right now (automatic weapons).

This does not make sense to me. Our most basic right of self defense is asked to be taken away by people who higher armed guards? Is that not hypocrisy? People like Michael Moore and Rosie O'Donnel have armed security, and yet they do not see the irony in denying individual citizens, who cannot afford to hire armed security, the ability to purchase a firearm for self defense? Just another reason to hate politicians and hollywood idiots who think it is ok to deny us important rights that allow us to protect ourselves.

Federal judges get protected by federal marshals when a threat is made.

Congressmen can request escort by the capital police when there's a problem, but if you go to DC, they're walking the streets just like everyone else.

There is the underground tram that runs from the office buildings to the capital. I've been on it twice. Really cool.
 
The police aren't anti-gun rights. Rosie O' Donell and Michael Moore are.

No, I mean the police are armed guards.
 
Federal judges get protected by federal marshals when a threat is made.

Congressmen can request escort by the capital police when there's a problem, but if you go to DC, they're walking the streets just like everyone else.

There is the underground tram that runs from the office buildings to the capital. I've been on it twice. Really cool.

You can't go there any more. 9/11 and all that.
 
No, I mean the police are armed guards.

Are the police advocating against gun rights? No, they are not.

I am not focused on the polie. I am focused on those who are anti-gun, yet defend themselves with armed guards.

You see, that is hypocrisy on the part of those anti-gun people.
 
Are the police advocating against gun rights? No, they are not.

I am not focused on the polie. I am focused on those who are anti-gun, yet defend themselves with armed guards.

But everyone does that - by having and paying taxes for a police department.
 
But everyone does that - by having and paying taxes for a police department.

Not everyone is an outspoken anti-gun person, and is protected by armed guards. Those who are known to be anti-gun, as in Michael Moore/Rosie O' Donell, and are protected by armed guards, are ironic.

You vague connections are not working, misterman.
 
Last edited:
But everyone does that - by having and paying taxes for a police department.
Surely you arent equating policemen as being armed guards and 'paid protection'???
 
You can't go there any more. 9/11 and all that.

Was on it after 9/11. The same night they declared war on Iraq and started the missile launching. Talk about an awesome story for the grandkids. Saw John Kerry and Bono too.
 
Not everyone is an outspoken anti-gun person, and is protected by armed guards. Those who are known to be anti-gun, as in Michael Moore/Rosie O' Donell, and are protected by armed guards, are ironic.

Sure, those are ironic. But those weren't the ones mentioned in the OP.

You vague connections are not working, misterman.

Right back atcha.
 
Was on it after 9/11. The same night they declared war on Iraq and started the missile launching. Talk about an awesome story for the grandkids. Saw John Kerry and Bono too.

Oh, I thought they had shut it down. Whatever.

Bono was there? Did the rest of U2 show up? ;)
 
Why shouldn't I?
Because it isnt in any way shape or form part of their job under even the broadest of definitions. They deal with crime AFTER the fact. If you are hiring a bodyguard to watch you after you got your ass beat...you are doing it wrong.
 
Because it isnt in any way shape or form part of their job under even the broadest of definitions. They deal with crime AFTER the fact. If you are hiring a bodyguard to watch you after you got your ass beat...you are doing it wrong.

Cops don't prevent crime? Sure they do.

I understand your point, but I'm making a much broader one.
 
Most Americans can't afford armed guards. Or alot of things. Some cant' even afford guns.

Does that mean those who can shouldn't get them?

Armed guards are irrelevant to whether guns should be restricted or not. I support the right of individuals to defend themselves. I'm just saying you don't have much of a point in this thread.

I do have a point and I simply do not understand how you do not see it. Those who would restrict guns would still have access to armed protection while many would lose that ability.

Do you think the system would be fair?

Do you think that congressmen couldn't bend the system to get protection? Not only that, but the fat losers like MM and RO would still have an armed guard to protect them. Me and you would need a "credible threat" for police escort. Do you know anyone who has ever had to ask for such things? The process is ridiculous and the best you might get is a patrol car to DRIVE BY.

My point is that any politician who attempts to ban firearms, any hollywood idiot who supports them, and anyone who wants a ban on a restriction on the 2nd Amendment is not opperating in a just or democratic manner. There is no equality in that system. I am pointing out how hypocritical and ironic it is.
 
Cops don't prevent crime? Sure they do.

I understand your point, but I'm making a much broader one.

Cops rarely prevent crime. I mean we can say that high patrol numbers can reduce crime, but that isn't an option for most places. Not enough money and too many people to deal with.

So rarely do cops prevent crime. Usually they roll up AFTER it has been committed. They have to be called remember. Response time alone dictates they don't usually stop a crime.

Now a potential victim with a loaded gun...that is another story.
 
Cops don't prevent crime? Sure they do.

I understand your point, but I'm making a much broader one.
And yet...not very well. Cops dont exist to prevent crime. When the example is hypocrites that spout off against gun ownership hiring armed guards and the equal assignment of tasking by you is Joe Citizen and the strength of the police force at large...sorry...you are adding trees plus tuna and claiming it equals spaceship.
 
Last edited:
I do have a point and I simply do not understand how you do not see it.

I just said I see your point.

I'm making another point that washes out yours.
 
And yet...not very well. Cops dont exist to prevent crime. When the example is hypocrites that spout off against gun ownership hiring armed guards and the equal assignment of tasking by you is Joe Citizen and the strength of the police force at large...sorry...you are adding trees plus tuna and claiming it equals spaceship.

Never said they were the same.
 
I just said I see your point.

I'm making another point that washes out yours.

How so? It would not be a free access system. It would invariably involve pounds of red tape around a million signatures.
 
Cops don't prevent crime? Sure they do.

I understand your point, but I'm making a much broader one.

How does a cop prevent you from being the victim of a rape,robbery,murder or some other violent crime? Are they standing by you and your house 24/7? At most cops are crime historians/archeologists or reporters. A crime happens and the police show up to collect evidence, interview witnesses if any,examine the evidence, write a report about it,try to find a suspect if one has not been found and maybe testify in court.If a policeman is standing right next to you or in front of your home it might prevent a crime at that moment.But you can't put policemen on leases to stay in front your house or try to follow a policeman all day just so you and your home can stay safe.
 
Back
Top Bottom