• 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

blackjack50

blackjack50

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 14, 2011
Messages
26,629
Reaction score
6,661
Location
Florida
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Conservative
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.
 
Actually very few politicians get full time bodyguards. The president, vice president, speaker of the house and senate majority leader and their families get secret service. Former presidents get secret service for a while as do presidential candidates for the 4 months before the general election. Other than that federal politicians only get secret service if there is a specific reason, such as a series of particularly credible death threats. Regular senators and representatives don't. Maybe some governors do. Not really sure how states handle it.
 
stonewall50 said:
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.
Click to expand...

For the sake of clarity, those body gaurds aren't carrying automatic weapons. It's illegal to engage an American citizen with automatic weapons fire.
 
apdst said:
For the sake of clarity, those body gaurds aren't carrying automatic weapons. It's illegal to engage an American citizen with automatic weapons fire.
Click to expand...

Many LEOs do carry automatic weapons on protection details. MP5s and M4s are very common. Hell do you remember the video clip of Regan getting shot? The SS Agent pulled an Uzi.
 
teamosil said:
Actually very few politicians get full time bodyguards. The president, vice president, speaker of the house and senate majority leader and their families get secret service. Former presidents get secret service for a while as do presidential candidates for the 4 months before the general election. Other than that federal politicians only get secret service if there is a specific reason, such as a series of particularly credible death threats. Regular senators and representatives don't. Maybe some governors do. Not really sure how states handle it.
Click to expand...

They have armed security in their place of work, and more often than not I would say they actually have armed security. People like Pelosi? Also I wonder how many Congressmen hire armed security for their homes? Really the point I am making is that these people have access to armed security 24/7 while we as citizens would not if the anti-gun crowd had their way. Is that fair?
 
stonewall50 said:
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?
Click to expand...

Congressmen and judges don't have any protection other than when they are in a federal building where there are guards and guns are banned, and that protection is for everyone in the building. So your premise fails. The only protection they get is from banning guns in certain places, and it applies to everyone, so it's consistent.
 
stonewall50 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Perhaps you should ask Gabrielle Giffords.
 
stonewall50 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Like the 2nd post says, most politicians don't have special security details just for them. Gabrielle Giffords in Arizona had no detail when she was shot in the head.

apdst said:
For the sake of clarity, those body gaurds aren't carrying automatic weapons. It's illegal to engage an American citizen with automatic weapons fire.
Click to expand...

I'd love for you to source that but I doubt we'd get much of a response other than the typical, I said it therefore its true like it came from the mouth of God himself. Being a military man you know that automatic fire on an M4 would not equate to an M2 or Mk19, not in terms of the caliber of the round or the potential destructive power but in terms of how much time passing between each round while being fired on fully automatic.

So if there is such a law that states automatic weapon fire cannot be used against American citizens, then there must be a law or perhaps it part of the same law where it defines what "automatic weapons fire" exactly means. Is it 100 rounds per minute? 200? 300? 1000?
 
apdst said:
For the sake of clarity, those body gaurds aren't carrying automatic weapons. It's illegal to engage an American citizen with automatic weapons fire.
Click to expand...

This is the third time this week I've seen you say something completely ludicrous and clearly false. And it will be the third time you completely ignore people who point that out, I suspect.
 
stonewall50 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Such irony makes me wonder what would happen if socialism or communism were to truly come about in America. But more to the point, hypocrisy is an aspect of humanity. Sometimes it's conscious, sometimes it isn't.
 
It's because we recognize that politicians are morally handicapped and less capable of defending themselves from predators than real Americans.
 
Oh, give it a rest, people.
 
Wake said:
Well, you have to admit there's irony in anti-gun people being escorted by armed guards.
Click to expand...
Maybe the fact they feel the need to have armed guards is a reason for them wanting more gun controls. Just a thought.
 
Fame makes a person a target. It doesn't matter how it's attained. The rest of the uncounted heads in the masses? Not so much.
 
apdst said:
For the sake of clarity, those body gaurds aren't carrying automatic weapons. It's illegal to engage an American citizen with automatic weapons fire.
Click to expand...

No it isn't. its illegal for the military to be engaged in civilian law enforcement. If I have a registered automatic weapon and someone breaks into my home and intends to inflict grievous harm or me or mine I am legally authorized to chop the skel in half with a tommy gun if I had one available
 
stonewall50 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Owning or using a gun does not make you a second amendment advocate.What makes you a second amendment adovacate is that you support the right of citizens to keep and bear arms without any infringements just like the constiuttion says. That means no preconditions to own and carry firearms such as permits/licenses, back ground checks,registrations, waiting periods and etc and you oppose weapon bans.


It is hypocrisy for these people to have armed protection while at the same time trying to deny or severely restrict others ability to have armed protection. No man or woman is any less or any more deserving to have armed protection than anyone else.
 
Last edited:
jamesrage said:
That means no preconditions to own and carry firearms such as permits/licenses, back ground checks,registrations, waiting periods and etc and you oppose weapon bans.
Click to expand...

Not necessarily. I don't think even the NRA opposes all these things.
 
misterman said:
Not necessarily. I don't think even the NRA opposes all these things.
Click to expand...

Amazingly, the NRA does not speak for all gun owners, nor are they the most proactive in defending gun rights.
 
misterman said:
Didn't say they did. I said what I said.
Click to expand...

Clearly...

So, explain then, what the point was in referencing the NRA, if not to paint them as the extreme end of the gun rights movement?
 
theangryamerican said:
Clearly...

So, explain then, what the point was in referencing the NRA, if not to paint them as the extreme end of the gun rights movement?
Click to expand...

The NRA is a leader in the gun movement. Most people don't deny that. They don't speak for all, but they do speak for many.
 
misterman said:
The NRA is a leader in the gun movement. Most people don't deny that. They don't speak for all, but they do speak for many.
Click to expand...

While they may have a large member base, they can no longer claim to be the most vocal or even the most active. As of late, the NRA has been far more interested in bargaining with 2nd Amendment rights, rather than fighting for a more accurate interpretation of them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom