• 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

theangryamerican said:
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.
Click to expand...

Well, no, that's YOU disagreeing with the NRA. You're free to do that, but they're still the NRA.
 
misterman said:
Not necessarily. I don't think even the NRA opposes all these things.
Click to expand...

The NRA sells out 2nd amendment rights.Which is why the Gun Owners of America exists.

Gun Owners of America - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
They make efforts to differentiate themselves from the larger National Rifle Association (NRA), and have publicly criticized the NRA on multiple occasions for what the GOA considers to be the selling out of the gun rights movement.
The organization has often been in opposition to the NRA in their respective endorsements and ratings of politicians and candidates. For instance, the GOA was outspoken in its opposition to John McCain's 2008 presidential bid, describing his gun-rights voting record as "abysmal, wretched, and pathetic"[2] and rating him with an F- on Second Amendment issues since 2004 as opposed to the NRA's (through its PAC, the NRA-PVF) C+ rating of McCain.[3] The GOA took issue with the NRA over the 2007 NICS Improvement Act.[4]

They have been described by Congressman Ron Paul as "The only no-compromise gun lobby in Washington." This quote from Paul has long been displayed front and center on the homepage of the Gun Owners of America website, and Paul was the only 2008 Presidential candidate to gain an A+ rating from Gun Owners of America.[5]
 
I have no more problem with people having guns than I have with people having any other useful, but potentially very dangerous tool- semi trucks, pesticides, dynamite, corrosive acids, whatever. As long as it is subject to the same sorts of reasonable safety regulations, there is no problem. People that have a legitimate, safe, use for them and who use them responsibly can happily continue using their guns without posing a danger to others. Everybody wins. The problem comes in because gun nuts seem to feel that guns should not be subject to the same sorts of safety regulations as other dangerous tools. That's why it becomes a contentious issue- not because there are a bunch of people trying to take everybody's guns away or something, because the gun nuts seem to be trying their hardest to make gun ownership untenable from a public safety perspective.

IMO the problem is that there are just some people for whom guns have somehow become so intertwined with their self esteem that they need it to be a political issue so they can go around talking about their guns more. So they fight against even the simplest, most obvious, safety regulations to make it into an issue.
 
misterman said:
Well, no, that's YOU disagreeing with the NRA. You're free to do that, but they're still the NRA.
Click to expand...

Read Jamesrage's post directly under yours. While the NRA is "still the NRA" (which would be ridiculous to assert otherwise) they no longer take a hard line stance on 2nd Amendment issues, so your contention that "not even the NRA" argues for certain freedoms is largely groundless. Sure, they may not argue against certain pre-conditions for law-abiding citizens to own firearms, however, that means nothing when cast in the light of true Constitutional Carry advocacy.
 
theangryamerican said:
While the NRA is "still the NRA" (which would be ridiculous to assert otherwise) they no longer take a hard line stance on 2nd Amendment issues, so your contention that "not even the NRA" argues for certain freedoms is largely groundless.
Click to expand...

No, that was my point in the first place.
 
MaggieD said:
Perhaps you should ask Gabrielle Giffords.
Click to expand...
But for that to be a sufficient response, wouldnt you also have to ask the hundreds of thousands of civilian victims of violent criminal acts that occur every year? Tragic as it was, Congresswoman Giffords is just one case in how many years where an elected official is targeted...and while I am sure there are others...the average citizen faces far greater risk. Daily.

I shoot competitively occasionally with several of the officers and sheriffs department personnel I work with and have been asked several times by police officers why i carry a firearm. My immediate response is of course the question with the question...why do YOU. Invariably, their response is that they HAVE to carry because they deal with violent criminals on a regular basis. The ONLY response to that is...well...no ****...and who do you think those violent criminals are TARGETING before the police ever get involved?
 
Mickey Shane said:
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.
Click to expand...
You arent really serious about that comment, are you? Fame may make someone more high profile...but the annual crime statistics indicate very clearly they are not at all more likely to be a target.
 
misterman said:
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.
Click to expand...

3rd? Hardly. Get used to it. Some folks think it's ok to make stuff up.
 
Top Cat said:
3rd? Hardly. Get used to it. Some folks think it's ok to make stuff up.
Click to expand...

3rd I noticed this week. I'm sure there are many more.
 
VanceMack said:
But for that to be a sufficient response, wouldnt you also have to ask the hundreds of thousands of civilian victims of violent criminal acts that occur every year? Tragic as it was, Congresswoman Giffords is just one case in how many years where an elected official is targeted...and while I am sure there are others...the average citizen faces far greater risk. Daily.

I shoot competitively occasionally with several of the officers and sheriffs department personnel I work with and have been asked several times by police officers why i carry a firearm. My immediate response is of course the question with the question...why do YOU. Invariably, their response is that they HAVE to carry because they deal with violent criminals on a regular basis. The ONLY response to that is...well...no ****...and who do you think those violent criminals are TARGETING before the police ever get involved?
Click to expand...

many cops think that they belong to an exclusive club and carrying firearms is a privilege of membership. I tell cops that if they think only they should be able to carry a gun, they ought to be able to outshoot a lawyer like me. I have yet to lose
 
Wiseone said:
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.



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?
Click to expand...

an automatic weapon means the weapon fires more than one round with one pull of the trigger. this could be a burst fire (3 round bursts are commonly found on assault rifles in the military) or it fires all of the rounds in its magazine or belt if the trigger is held down without being released.

now this is different than a "machine gun" because technically the gatling gun is a machine gun but not an automatic weapon. however, if you put an electric motor on a gatling gun you do get an automatic weapon because on press of the firing mechanism means the weapon will fire until dry while the standard gatling gun required manual cranking

rounds per minute is not relevant to the inquiry. a hughes chain gun (sort of like a giant revolver) can be set to fire several different rates a minute

Most hand held automatic weapons run between 450-1200 RPMS. after about 1300 rounds a minute you need multiple barrels like the Minigun or multiple chambers like the chain gun

on blowback sub guns (like the Sten, the Swedish K, and the original thompson) you can increase the cyclic rate of these open bolt weapons by using stiffer loads
 
misterman said:
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.
Click to expand...

No it doesn't. I said these people have access. I didn't say they HAVE it. With the abysmal state of stalking laws and things like that, do you really think the average citizen would get the same opportunity at protection that these people would under a system that bans firearms? That is my ENTIRE premise. These people have "legitmate concern" because they hold office. Then they make laws that give them special treatment and ban laws that give everyone else at least the chance at equal footing.

Not only that, but they have armed security in their place of buisness. Do you? They go to these places every day. Do you go to the same place every day? Everyone doesn't get the same protection as them. They are surrounded by armed security for maybe 8 hours of the day? Are you? I am armed for most of the day, but that is because I have a concealed carry license, and I legal firearm.
 
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...
Which politicians are you talking about? This entire thread so far has been people accusing those with armed guards of being "anti-gun", but I haven't seen any evidence yet. At this point, "anti-gun" could just be code for "they don't agree with my opinion on gun rights, so they're anti-gun". So again, who are you referring to when you say "hypocrites"?
 
stonewall50 said:
Our most basic right of self defense is asked to be taken away by people who higher armed guards? Is that not hypocrisy?
Click to expand...
Not really. It makes sense if you are afraid that there are bunch of wackos out there wielding guns that you will want to protect yourself. Especially if you feel current gun control laws aren't successful enough at preventing the risk of gun-related aggression. If there were, in fact, tighter gun control laws, perhaps politicians wouldn't feel such a need for at least the degree of protection they currently have. Or perhaps not, because there are plenty of other ways to harm people besides shooting them. I don't see the hypocrisy though.

You seem to be suggesting that, to be authentically pro gun-control, you have to be anti self-protection. If that is your argument I find that illogical and more than a little silly.
 
Last edited:
teamosil said:
I have no more problem with people having guns than I have with people having any other useful, but potentially very dangerous tool- semi trucks, pesticides, dynamite, corrosive acids, whatever. As long as it is subject to the same sorts of reasonable safety regulations, there is no problem. People that have a legitimate, safe, use for them and who use them responsibly can happily continue using their guns without posing a danger to others. Everybody wins. The problem comes in because gun nuts seem to feel that guns should not be subject to the same sorts of safety regulations as other dangerous tools. That's why it becomes a contentious issue- not because there are a bunch of people trying to take everybody's guns away or something, because the gun nuts seem to be trying their hardest to make gun ownership untenable from a public safety perspective.

IMO the problem is that there are just some people for whom guns have somehow become so intertwined with their self esteem that they need it to be a political issue so they can go around talking about their guns more. So they fight against even the simplest, most obvious, safety regulations to make it into an issue.
Click to expand...

This is the kind of statement that bears no traction within the debate on guns. Let me explain.

IMO the problem is that there are just some people for whom guns have somehow become so intertwined with their self esteem that they need it to be a political issue so they can go around talking about their guns more. So they fight against even the simplest, most obvious, safety regulations to make it into an issue
Click to expand...

This is not most gun owners. Especially this part because it is a stereotype that simply isn't true and yet it is repeated by people who have never been on, around, or near the gun culture:
somehow become so intertwined with their self esteem
Click to expand...

It isn't. Then people say this:
go around talking about their guns more
Click to expand...
as if it is a problem to talk about a perfectly legitmate hobby. It is the exact same as people who talk about cars, computers, dance, running, sports, bla, bla, bla. It is a hobby.

So when we people who shoot maybe 1000 rounds in a month (I am about 250 a month maybe) in practice, self defense practice, in competition, in hunting, or just for fun we feel the need for
it to be a political issue
Click to expand...
because there are those people who want to pose
even the simplest, most obvious, safety regulations to make it into an issue.
Click to expand...
because those regulations are almost always imposed on
People that have a legitimate, safe, use for them and who use them responsibly can happily continue using their guns without posing a danger to others.
Click to expand...
.

Of course all gun supporters are ever reffered to when we oppose those regulations that only impact
People that have a legitimate, safe, use for them and who use them responsibly can happily continue using their guns without posing a danger to others.
Click to expand...
we get called,
gun nuts seem to feel that guns should not be subject to the same sorts of safety regulations as other dangerous tools.
Click to expand...
.

I hope that made sense. I am not attacking you btw. I am simply showing you how it gets perceived even if you have a legitmate argument as far as safety goes, there is often a much better sollution than regulation. Simple access to safety courses, public ranges that offer safety courses, public access to SUPERVISED ranges (Law Enforcement ranges especially), and things of these nature have always been big on my list of things that could really help. Regulation has done nothing. Ask Detroit.
 
Last edited:
stonewall50 said:
No it doesn't. I said these people have access. I didn't say they HAVE it. With the abysmal state of stalking laws and things like that, do you really think the average citizen would get the same opportunity at protection that these people would under a system that bans firearms? That is my ENTIRE premise. These people have "legitmate concern" because they hold office. Then they make laws that give them special treatment and ban laws that give everyone else at least the chance at equal footing.
Click to expand...

Anyone who needs an armed guard and can afford it can have one. The government can afford to give a few of its employees armed guards when they need it. No, you don't get Secret Service protection. Sorry.
 
stonewall50 said:
This is not most gun owners. Especially this part because it is a stereotype that simply isn't true and yet it is repeated by people who have never been on, around, or near the gun culture:
Click to expand...

Oh definitely it isn't all gun owners. For sure. I'm complaining about those who are like that. I owned a gun when I lived in the country. Not anymore now that I'm in a big city though.

stonewall50 said:
I am simply showing you how it gets perceived even if you have a legitmate argument as far as safety goes
Click to expand...

I'm sure that is true, but IMO the folks who ought to be worrying more about how they are perceived are the gun nuts. IMO the biggest threat to the right to bear arms, by far, is organizations like the NRA that fight against reasonable safety precautions. They're forcing it to become an issue for a lot more people than would care about it if those precautions were in place. They're trying to make it into an all or nothing issue when neither of those are the right solution.

stonewall50 said:
there is often a much better sollution than regulation. Simple access to safety courses, public ranges that offer safety courses, public access to SUPERVISED ranges (Law Enforcement ranges especially), and things of these nature have always been big on my list of things that could really help. Regulation has done nothing. Ask Detroit.
Click to expand...

Well voluntary measures don't really cut it. The problem is that the person who needs to training and whatnot the most isn't the person that is going out there seeking training on their own, it's the abusive alcoholic guy with anger management issues that causes the safety concerns and he isn't likely to be going out to safety trainings voluntarily. Definitely, most gun owners take it very seriously and are very responsible. But all it takes to make it a huge problem is 1 out of every 1,000 that isn't. Those are the folks we need to figure out how to reach, not the other 999.

Not that I'm against voluntary safety classes and whatnot. Certainly that stuff should be available. But IMO that doesn't reach the core problem.
 
misterman said:
Anyone who needs an armed guard and can afford it can have one. .
Click to expand...

In a society of banned firearms:

1)Who dictates the need? The person? Or a government agency? And would they still be able to hire armed security? The cost would be extremely high, and up far beyond the cost of even a standard rich person. As it stands my broke ass can afford a handgun and some rounds to practice.

2)
The government can afford to give a few of its employees armed guards when they need it. No, you don't get Secret Service protection. Sorry.
Click to expand...

That is my point. The government can afford it and the government wants it. They also dictate that they need it. However you and I are deemed to have "no need" to protect ourselves. Do you really not see the injustice in that?

I do not want secret service and I am not, nor have I ever been, arguing for that. My stance is that we as Americans have a fundamental right to protection. That protection comes in the form of the 2nd Amendment and our access to firearms. That is our best means of protection when the shtf. No police response time in the world is fast enough, and armed security is not a viable option for most of the country. Do you understand now? My position is that we the people deserve equal opportunity for self defense. If anti-gun politicians have their way we would not receive such protection. I am also pointing out the hypocrisy that under their legislation, the anti-gun politicians would still get armed security, where as you and me would be left to fend for ourselves, unarmed, against a most certainly armed criminal element.
 
teamosil said:
Oh definitely it isn't all gun owners. For sure. I'm complaining about those who are like that. I owned a gun when I lived in the country. Not anymore now that I'm in a big city though.



I'm sure that is true, but IMO the folks who ought to be worrying more about how they are perceived are the gun nuts. IMO the biggest threat to the right to bear arms, by far, is organizations like the NRA that fight against reasonable safety precautions. They're forcing it to become an issue for a lot more people than would care about it if those precautions were in place. They're trying to make it into an all or nothing issue when neither of those are the right solution..
Click to expand...

That is the thing though. What is a gun nut to you, might simply be a hobby to another. I agree that there are people out there that take it WAY to far, but that is generally no longer a hobby and they went to far because of another political view. I am of course talking about militant militia types. Of course one group that was very pro gun that was a militant militia type was the Black Panthers. Gun control disarmed them. Just an interesting tid bit.

The matter is that most gun owners do not want more safety legislation pushed by the government. I am one of those people. I do not want legislation pushed because of what it leads to (increased control for those who I do not want to have control). It is a perfectly legitmate concern. I would think most people understand that it is a snowball effect. The NRA sponsors safety courses and ranges, and they put out magazines that push all forms of safety issues. I am not a member yet, but I will be and I read a lot of their work. None of my opinions have ever been swayed by the NRA though. I actually have probably read only one article of theirs on bills. I do my own research and have drawn my own conclusion as to why I do not want government restrictions beyond what we have.

Well voluntary measures don't really cut it. The problem is that the person who needs to training and whatnot the most isn't the person that is going out there seeking training on their own, it's the abusive alcoholic guy with anger management issues that causes the safety concerns and he isn't likely to be going out to safety trainings voluntarily. Definitely, most gun owners take it very seriously and are very responsible. But all it takes to make it a huge problem is 1 out of every 1,000 that isn't. Those are the folks we need to figure out how to reach, not the other 999.
Click to expand...

It has already been proven that it does reach to the core problem and that it helps. As a matter of fact this a true story and I swear on the my life, and God as My Witness, today I was getting my hair cut and I was talking to my barber and she was telling me the reason she does not yet have her hunter's safety course (and the same reason another friend of mine does not have hers) is because of how far they have to travel in order to take the course (couple hours of classroom stuff, test, and some range time). The government has problems getting out this (and it is mandatory) because they cannot provide enough access to these places. If a state were to have the ability to build more places to do the training, more classrooms, and just generally a better pull on resources the current method of firearms safety could work wonders. advertising it would do wonders as well.

That alcoholic guy you are talking about. I know him. He hunts on his own land, never buys a hunting licenses, already owns a deer rifle and all the bullets he needs, and no amount of legislation on Earth is going to make him do otherwise. Those people are stubborn that way (trust me I know...I lived around it for 20 years). About the only way to stop him and his already probably law breaking ways, is to hire more game wardens. There is a sad shortage of these people, and a shortage in their own ranks of people who know the land and can track, and know the skills. Trust me when I say that I wish we could get more FWC here in Florida. I HATE law breaking hunters. I work my ass off to hunt ethically and lawfully. The law breaking, poaching, scum of the Earth always seem to get away with crap because there are not enough FWC to enforce our laws. And a lot of the punishments for seemingly insignificant offenses is actually quite draconian, and I love because I do NOT break those rules. So you see I am not against enforcement, or current laws or structure. I am simply against more legislation that is not needed. I am pro-enforcement of the laws we have too. We have the right laws. We don't enforce them though.

At the end of the day accidents happen with firearms. It is a sad fact. That will never change. With the numbers of firearms in the United States, I would say that the number of accidents is very low.
 
stonewall50 said:
That is my point. The government can afford it and the government wants it. They also dictate that they need it. However you and I are deemed to have "no need" to protect ourselves. Do you really not see the injustice in that?
Click to expand...

I understand your point. It's valid only for those politicians who actually do have armed guards following them around, which are very very few.
 
misterman said:
I understand your point. It's valid only for those politicians who actually do have armed guards following them around, which are very very few.
Click to expand...

Is it though? Do you really think that politicians couldn't make it so they could get armed security if they so decided? You do know they can insider trade without getting into trouble right? That is congressmen of course.
 
stonewall50 said:
Is it though? Do you really think that politicians couldn't make it so they could get armed security if they so decided?
Click to expand...

Sure, so could anyone who can afford it.
 
misterman said:
Sure, so could anyone who can afford it.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom