Should Politicians Who Support Gun Control Be Provided Armed Guards?

PO2 Jeffery Marcussen Sr — Mon, 04 Jan 2016 15:07:50 -0500

Response by PO2 Jeffery Marcussen Sr made Jan 4 at 2016 3:08 PM

PO2 Jeffery Marcussen Sr — Mon, 04 Jan 2016 15:08:41 -0500

Barack Obama is spending his final year in office with a keen focus on undermining the Second Amendment as much as his office allows.

Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders, and Martin O’Malley, the three progressives hoping to secure the Democrat presidential nomination, have all made it very clear that they intend to make pushing gun control a key part of the platforms.

Governors in a number of states, such as Andrew Cuomo in New York, Terry McAuliffe in Virginia, and Dannel Malloy in Connecticut have made it a point to try to heavily restrict the gun rights of their citizens, with varying degrees of success.

And of course, there have been a large number of anti-gun Democrats in the House of Representatives and the Senate on the federal level and in legislatures on state level that demand even more aggressive attacks on the right to bear arms.

At the same time they are calling for infringements on the Second Amendment (as per-capita homicides and gun accidents hit record lows), the vast majority of these politicians are hypocritically receiving publicly-funded armed security to protect their lives. Should these public servants, so intent on disarming the citizenry and stripping their constituents of practical self defense, be allowed security armed with the same firearms they would take away from constituents?

Or should they be restricted to security armed with less-lethal means such as tasers and chemical sprays, forced to live as they would have those they represent live?

Politicians are not a special class in the United States, as much as they would like to believe that they are. Those politicians who want to gut the Second Amendment rights of their citizens simply should not be afforded protections they would deny others.

I’d like to see lawmakers nationwide who value the Constitution do their part to make these anti-liberty politicians play by the rules they would impose on others, and vote to defund the armed security details of anti-gun politicians.

Somehow, I suspect that the views of these politicians might change if they have to live under the same rules they wound spitefully impose upon others.

Response by PO3 Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 4 at 2016 3:11 PM

PO3 Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 04 Jan 2016 15:11:51 -0500

Come on ... they don't mean that, they just mean the ordinary citizen can't defend themselves, not them. :) They are very very pro-gun, they just pro-gun for the government. :)

Response by SGT Jerrold Pesz made Jan 4 at 2016 3:39 PM

SGT Jerrold Pesz — Mon, 04 Jan 2016 15:39:59 -0500

Despite the fact that politicians consider themselves to be better than others they should receive no special benefits. ALL laws that pertain to the average citizen should apply equally to them including the right to armed security.

Response by Capt Mark Strobl made Jan 4 at 2016 4:01 PM

Capt Mark Strobl — Mon, 04 Jan 2016 16:01:59 -0500

Provide armed guards? Sure.
Provide Ammo? No.

Response by SN Greg Wright made Jan 4 at 2016 4:23 PM

SN Greg Wright — Mon, 04 Jan 2016 16:23:26 -0500

PO2 Jeffery Marcussen Sr Uh...no? Nor should politicians who support gun rights.

Response by MAJ Bryan Zeski made Jan 4 at 2016 4:37 PM

MAJ Bryan Zeski — Mon, 04 Jan 2016 16:37:42 -0500

In that case, pro-gun politicians should then just carry their own guns and be their own guards... right?

Response by Capt Seid Waddell made Jan 4 at 2016 4:56 PM

Capt Seid Waddell — Mon, 04 Jan 2016 16:56:12 -0500

No. They should eat their own cooking.

Response by MAJ Ron Peery made Jan 4 at 2016 5:44 PM

MAJ Ron Peery — Mon, 04 Jan 2016 17:44:05 -0500

No. Especially when, like Feinstein, they have a concealed carry license. It is pure hypocrisy to say that the political class deserves protection they are eager to deny to the rest of us.

Response by SFC Pete Kain made Jan 4 at 2016 6:19 PM

SFC Pete Kain — Mon, 04 Jan 2016 18:19:23 -0500

Yes, and the security should be hired from Berkley. Good luck finding a hippie that knows how to load the gun let alone fire it. What happened to the shooting teams and clubs in high school during the 50's?

Response by PO1 John Miller made Jan 4 at 2016 6:56 PM

PO1 John Miller — Mon, 04 Jan 2016 18:56:10 -0500

Only if they pay for it themselves, and their armed details follow the law to the letter. Otherwise, they should receive no preferential treatment.

Response by SGM Erik Marquez made Jan 4 at 2016 7:03 PM

SGM Erik Marquez — Mon, 04 Jan 2016 19:03:25 -0500

No, nor those that support even ammunition control.. If you want me limited to 10, 8, 7 rounds, then your guards shoudl be as well. If you want to pass law that's says I can only buy twice the load capacity of my rifle or handgun in a 90 day period (BROOKLYN lawmakers announced this intent this week..http://www.brooklyneagle.com/articles/2015/12/21/brooklyn-lawmakers-seek-tightly-restrict-sales-ammo-statewide)

Page not found | Brooklyn Daily Eagle

Response by MAJ Ron Peery made Jan 4 at 2016 7:17 PM

MAJ Ron Peery — Mon, 04 Jan 2016 19:17:50 -0500

Currently, I, too, am surrounded by armed security guards, day and night. I call them "neighbors". Here in Kansas, you don't need a permit to carry concealed. The only reason to get one is reciprocity. With my CCL, I can travel, armed, in most states. Without it, I have to stop at the state line. Yet with all those guns around, we have very little violent crime. Demographics probably plays a part, as we have a population density here of about 2.1 per square mile. And we are several hours away from a large, crime ridden urban area (Wichita). Still, I was raised near Oklahoma City, and even then never felt uncomfortable knowing that most pickup trucks had a gun rack in the back window bearing a loaded shotgun or rifle.

Response by LCpl Mark Lefler made Jan 4 at 2016 7:48 PM

LCpl Mark Lefler — Mon, 04 Jan 2016 19:48:05 -0500

course they should, they're high profile members of the government, not the average person.

Response by Alan K. made Jan 4 at 2016 10:39 PM

Alan K. — Mon, 04 Jan 2016 22:39:13 -0500

No, It is time to lead be example i think...........Bout' time

Response by LCDR Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 4 at 2016 10:55 PM

LCDR Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 04 Jan 2016 22:55:40 -0500

Obviously they should. Control and reasonable restrictions are not the same as blanket bans. Don't be ridiculous.

Response by Cpl Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 4 at 2016 11:01 PM

Cpl Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 04 Jan 2016 23:01:22 -0500

Hell no, let them wander about unarmed like the rest of us peasants.

Response by SGT Rick Ash made Jan 4 at 2016 11:08 PM

SGT Rick Ash — Mon, 04 Jan 2016 23:08:23 -0500

No, no armed guards or ANY guards for that matter. If that is their position, that is their reward. No guards, armed or not.

Response by TSgt Kenneth Ellis made Jan 5 at 2016 12:53 AM

TSgt Kenneth Ellis — Tue, 05 Jan 2016 00:53:39 -0500

No I think they should be armed with tazzers. Just like the Mayer if Chicago wants his officers to carry. and there security team needs to have sensitivity training.

Response by Cpl Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 5 at 2016 1:10 AM

Cpl Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 05 Jan 2016 01:10:03 -0500

Politicians who support gun control/bans are violating their oath to the US Constitution? What part of "shall not be infringed" don't they understand?

Response by SSgt Jim Gilmore made Jan 5 at 2016 7:54 AM

SSgt Jim Gilmore — Tue, 05 Jan 2016 07:54:47 -0500

NO!

Response by SGM Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 5 at 2016 8:18 AM

SGM Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 05 Jan 2016 08:18:36 -0500

NO.

Response by SGT Benjamin Lindsey made Jan 16 at 2016 10:18 AM

SGT Benjamin Lindsey — Sat, 16 Jan 2016 10:18:33 -0500

Not at all, they should practice what they preach. They are public servants not royalty. Why should they be protected with the same right they are ting to take away from us.

Response by 1SG Kevin Bliss made Jan 26 at 2016 6:02 AM

1SG Kevin Bliss — Tue, 26 Jan 2016 06:02:47 -0500

The real question is, why does the Government want to limit your ability to have a gun. If you believe that the reason is to increase safety and decrease crime, you are a fool

Response by SSG Charles Holleran made Feb 20 at 2016 7:15 PM

SSG Charles Holleran — Sat, 20 Feb 2016 19:15:14 -0500

No period