Liberal elitists won't go in public without armed guards, but claim the rest of us don't need guns i

[Clementine]

Extra security at the Golden Globe awards. In this dangerous world, the elite demand more security and that means good guys with badass guns. Many of the same liberals support gun control that would make it more difficult for law abiding citizens to keep their homes safe, let alone having the ability to protect themselves in public. Notice the type of guns required by security. Apparently, only wealthy people can justify being protected by big guns. It's not just Hollywood. You would never see Hillary, Obama or their families go anywhere without being surrounded by armed guards. Yet, they hate people being allowed to carry weapons outside their home. They know there is danger out there and they know that going out without security means they are defenseless and they would never settle for that.

Of course, they cite the crazies and the criminals shooting people as the reason behind their policies. And they don't have the common sense to realize that those who pose a danger to the public aren't going to be affected by laws. If criminals know that people are unarmed, that makes them a preferred target. Shootings happen in places where people aren't allowed to carry weapons. You don't see mass shooters going into gun shows or any place where concealed or open carry are allowed. It's a deterrent to allow responsible people to carry weapons, but the left continues to push laws that only affect the responsible and would make life easier for the nut jobs. Meanwhile, they make sure the criminals don't mess with them by being surrounded with visible security. The rest of us are not allowed to protect ourselves in schools, theaters and many other places. It's clear that the whackos are well aware of where the sitting ducks are.



"You see, what these hypocrites fail to understand is that they can afford this sort of security on a daily basis thanks to the bloated paychecks they receive to play pretend.

The average American — who works paycheck to paycheck and can barely afford to pay rent — cannot hire private security around the clock to ensure their safety. Hence, the reason why the Second Amendment exists.

The right to own a firearm allows a person to protect themselves and to truly love their neighbor by having the means to defend their lives should something awful happen.

If you take away their right to own a gun, they — along with their neighbor — will be defenseless against evil, and that, my friends, is the very epitome of moral indecency."



http://www.youngcons.com/anti-gun-celebrities-prove-theyre-hypocrites-by-being-protected-by-armed-guards/

 

[Arianrhod]

Extra security at the Golden Globe awards. In this dangerous world, the elite demand more security and that means good guys with badass guns. Many of the same liberals support gun control that would make it more difficult for law abiding citizens to keep their homes safe, let alone having the ability to protect themselves in public. Notice the type of guns required by security. Apparently, only wealthy people can justify being protected by big guns. It's not just Hollywood. You would never see Hillary, Obama or their families go anywhere without being surrounded by armed guards. Yet, they hate people being allowed to carry weapons outside their home. They know there is danger out there and they know that going out without security means they are defenseless and they would never settle for that.

Of course, they cite the crazies and the criminals shooting people as the reason behind their policies. And they don't have the common sense to realize that those who pose a danger to the public aren't going to be affected by laws. If criminals know that people are unarmed, that makes them a preferred target. Shootings happen in places where people aren't allowed to carry weapons. You don't see mass shooters going into gun shows or any place where concealed or open carry are allowed. It's a deterrent to allow responsible people to carry weapons, but the left continues to push laws that only affect the responsible and would make life easier for the nut jobs. Meanwhile, they make sure the criminals don't mess with them by being surrounded with visible security. The rest of us are not allowed to protect ourselves in schools, theaters and many other places. It's clear that the whackos are well aware of where the sitting ducks are.



"You see, what these hypocrites fail to understand is that they can afford this sort of security on a daily basis thanks to the bloated paychecks they receive to play pretend.

The average American — who works paycheck to paycheck and can barely afford to pay rent — cannot hire private security around the clock to ensure their safety. Hence, the reason why the Second Amendment exists.

The right to own a firearm allows a person to protect themselves and to truly love their neighbor by having the means to defend their lives should something awful happen.

If you take away their right to own a gun, they — along with their neighbor — will be defenseless against evil, and that, my friends, is the very epitome of moral indecency."



http://www.youngcons.com/anti-gun-celebrities-prove-theyre-hypocrites-by-being-protected-by-armed-guards/

Explain to us how you're just as much of a target of a crazed fan as any one of these people.

 

[TNHarley]

Extra security at the Golden Globe awards. In this dangerous world, the elite demand more security and that means good guys with badass guns. Many of the same liberals support gun control that would make it more difficult for law abiding citizens to keep their homes safe, let alone having the ability to protect themselves in public. Notice the type of guns required by security. Apparently, only wealthy people can justify being protected by big guns. It's not just Hollywood. You would never see Hillary, Obama or their families go anywhere without being surrounded by armed guards. Yet, they hate people being allowed to carry weapons outside their home. They know there is danger out there and they know that going out without security means they are defenseless and they would never settle for that.

Of course, they cite the crazies and the criminals shooting people as the reason behind their policies. And they don't have the common sense to realize that those who pose a danger to the public aren't going to be affected by laws. If criminals know that people are unarmed, that makes them a preferred target. Shootings happen in places where people aren't allowed to carry weapons. You don't see mass shooters going into gun shows or any place where concealed or open carry are allowed. It's a deterrent to allow responsible people to carry weapons, but the left continues to push laws that only affect the responsible and would make life easier for the nut jobs. Meanwhile, they make sure the criminals don't mess with them by being surrounded with visible security. The rest of us are not allowed to protect ourselves in schools, theaters and many other places. It's clear that the whackos are well aware of where the sitting ducks are.



"You see, what these hypocrites fail to understand is that they can afford this sort of security on a daily basis thanks to the bloated paychecks they receive to play pretend.

The average American — who works paycheck to paycheck and can barely afford to pay rent — cannot hire private security around the clock to ensure their safety. Hence, the reason why the Second Amendment exists.

The right to own a firearm allows a person to protect themselves and to truly love their neighbor by having the means to defend their lives should something awful happen.

If you take away their right to own a gun, they — along with their neighbor — will be defenseless against evil, and that, my friends, is the very epitome of moral indecency."



http://www.youngcons.com/anti-gun-celebrities-prove-theyre-hypocrites-by-being-protected-by-armed-guards/

Explain to us how you're just as much of a target of a crazed fan as any one of these people.

Boston bombing were focused on celebs?
San bernadino?
9-11?

 

[easyt65]

This is a great example of how this ain't your daddy's America anymore and how it has evolved into (because we have let it do so) a Socialist State where we now have self-appointed RULERS who have exempted themselves from the edicts they pass and elevated themselves above - separating themselves from - the people they now rule.

We aren't being 'fundamentally changed' folks...it's happened.

 

[boilermaker55]

Fail

Extra security at the Golden Globe awards. In this dangerous world, the elite demand more security and that means good guys with badass guns. Many of the same liberals support gun control that would make it more difficult for law abiding citizens to keep their homes safe, let alone having the ability to protect themselves in public. Notice the type of guns required by security. Apparently, only wealthy people can justify being protected by big guns. It's not just Hollywood. You would never see Hillary, Obama or their families go anywhere without being surrounded by armed guards. Yet, they hate people being allowed to carry weapons outside their home. They know there is danger out there and they know that going out without security means they are defenseless and they would never settle for that.

Of course, they cite the crazies and the criminals shooting people as the reason behind their policies. And they don't have the common sense to realize that those who pose a danger to the public aren't going to be affected by laws. If criminals know that people are unarmed, that makes them a preferred target. Shootings happen in places where people aren't allowed to carry weapons. You don't see mass shooters going into gun shows or any place where concealed or open carry are allowed. It's a deterrent to allow responsible people to carry weapons, but the left continues to push laws that only affect the responsible and would make life easier for the nut jobs. Meanwhile, they make sure the criminals don't mess with them by being surrounded with visible security. The rest of us are not allowed to protect ourselves in schools, theaters and many other places. It's clear that the whackos are well aware of where the sitting ducks are.



"You see, what these hypocrites fail to understand is that they can afford this sort of security on a daily basis thanks to the bloated paychecks they receive to play pretend.

The average American — who works paycheck to paycheck and can barely afford to pay rent — cannot hire private security around the clock to ensure their safety. Hence, the reason why the Second Amendment exists.

The right to own a firearm allows a person to protect themselves and to truly love their neighbor by having the means to defend their lives should something awful happen.

If you take away their right to own a gun, they — along with their neighbor — will be defenseless against evil, and that, my friends, is the very epitome of moral indecency."



http://www.youngcons.com/anti-gun-celebrities-prove-theyre-hypocrites-by-being-protected-by-armed-guards/

 

[DarkFury]

Extra security at the Golden Globe awards. In this dangerous world, the elite demand more security and that means good guys with badass guns. Many of the same liberals support gun control that would make it more difficult for law abiding citizens to keep their homes safe, let alone having the ability to protect themselves in public. Notice the type of guns required by security. Apparently, only wealthy people can justify being protected by big guns. It's not just Hollywood. You would never see Hillary, Obama or their families go anywhere without being surrounded by armed guards. Yet, they hate people being allowed to carry weapons outside their home. They know there is danger out there and they know that going out without security means they are defenseless and they would never settle for that.

Of course, they cite the crazies and the criminals shooting people as the reason behind their policies. And they don't have the common sense to realize that those who pose a danger to the public aren't going to be affected by laws. If criminals know that people are unarmed, that makes them a preferred target. Shootings happen in places where people aren't allowed to carry weapons. You don't see mass shooters going into gun shows or any place where concealed or open carry are allowed. It's a deterrent to allow responsible people to carry weapons, but the left continues to push laws that only affect the responsible and would make life easier for the nut jobs. Meanwhile, they make sure the criminals don't mess with them by being surrounded with visible security. The rest of us are not allowed to protect ourselves in schools, theaters and many other places. It's clear that the whackos are well aware of where the sitting ducks are.



"You see, what these hypocrites fail to understand is that they can afford this sort of security on a daily basis thanks to the bloated paychecks they receive to play pretend.

The average American — who works paycheck to paycheck and can barely afford to pay rent — cannot hire private security around the clock to ensure their safety. Hence, the reason why the Second Amendment exists.

The right to own a firearm allows a person to protect themselves and to truly love their neighbor by having the means to defend their lives should something awful happen.

If you take away their right to own a gun, they — along with their neighbor — will be defenseless against evil, and that, my friends, is the very epitome of moral indecency."



http://www.youngcons.com/anti-gun-celebrities-prove-theyre-hypocrites-by-being-protected-by-armed-guards/

Explain to us how you're just as much of a target of a crazed fan as any one of these people.

More of a target idiot. Most crazed fans would expect body guards like John Hinkley.
But some local crazed fan over a local? Happens EVERY day.

 

[Arianrhod]

Extra security at the Golden Globe awards. In this dangerous world, the elite demand more security and that means good guys with badass guns. Many of the same liberals support gun control that would make it more difficult for law abiding citizens to keep their homes safe, let alone having the ability to protect themselves in public. Notice the type of guns required by security. Apparently, only wealthy people can justify being protected by big guns. It's not just Hollywood. You would never see Hillary, Obama or their families go anywhere without being surrounded by armed guards. Yet, they hate people being allowed to carry weapons outside their home. They know there is danger out there and they know that going out without security means they are defenseless and they would never settle for that.

Of course, they cite the crazies and the criminals shooting people as the reason behind their policies. And they don't have the common sense to realize that those who pose a danger to the public aren't going to be affected by laws. If criminals know that people are unarmed, that makes them a preferred target. Shootings happen in places where people aren't allowed to carry weapons. You don't see mass shooters going into gun shows or any place where concealed or open carry are allowed. It's a deterrent to allow responsible people to carry weapons, but the left continues to push laws that only affect the responsible and would make life easier for the nut jobs. Meanwhile, they make sure the criminals don't mess with them by being surrounded with visible security. The rest of us are not allowed to protect ourselves in schools, theaters and many other places. It's clear that the whackos are well aware of where the sitting ducks are.



"You see, what these hypocrites fail to understand is that they can afford this sort of security on a daily basis thanks to the bloated paychecks they receive to play pretend.

The average American — who works paycheck to paycheck and can barely afford to pay rent — cannot hire private security around the clock to ensure their safety. Hence, the reason why the Second Amendment exists.

The right to own a firearm allows a person to protect themselves and to truly love their neighbor by having the means to defend their lives should something awful happen.

If you take away their right to own a gun, they — along with their neighbor — will be defenseless against evil, and that, my friends, is the very epitome of moral indecency."



http://www.youngcons.com/anti-gun-celebrities-prove-theyre-hypocrites-by-being-protected-by-armed-guards/

Explain to us how you're just as much of a target of a crazed fan as any one of these people.

Boston bombing were focused on celebs?
San bernadino?
9-11?

So you're saying you want armed police everywhere?

 

[Arianrhod]

Extra security at the Golden Globe awards. In this dangerous world, the elite demand more security and that means good guys with badass guns. Many of the same liberals support gun control that would make it more difficult for law abiding citizens to keep their homes safe, let alone having the ability to protect themselves in public. Notice the type of guns required by security. Apparently, only wealthy people can justify being protected by big guns. It's not just Hollywood. You would never see Hillary, Obama or their families go anywhere without being surrounded by armed guards. Yet, they hate people being allowed to carry weapons outside their home. They know there is danger out there and they know that going out without security means they are defenseless and they would never settle for that.

Of course, they cite the crazies and the criminals shooting people as the reason behind their policies. And they don't have the common sense to realize that those who pose a danger to the public aren't going to be affected by laws. If criminals know that people are unarmed, that makes them a preferred target. Shootings happen in places where people aren't allowed to carry weapons. You don't see mass shooters going into gun shows or any place where concealed or open carry are allowed. It's a deterrent to allow responsible people to carry weapons, but the left continues to push laws that only affect the responsible and would make life easier for the nut jobs. Meanwhile, they make sure the criminals don't mess with them by being surrounded with visible security. The rest of us are not allowed to protect ourselves in schools, theaters and many other places. It's clear that the whackos are well aware of where the sitting ducks are.



"You see, what these hypocrites fail to understand is that they can afford this sort of security on a daily basis thanks to the bloated paychecks they receive to play pretend.

The average American — who works paycheck to paycheck and can barely afford to pay rent — cannot hire private security around the clock to ensure their safety. Hence, the reason why the Second Amendment exists.

The right to own a firearm allows a person to protect themselves and to truly love their neighbor by having the means to defend their lives should something awful happen.

If you take away their right to own a gun, they — along with their neighbor — will be defenseless against evil, and that, my friends, is the very epitome of moral indecency."



http://www.youngcons.com/anti-gun-celebrities-prove-theyre-hypocrites-by-being-protected-by-armed-guards/

Explain to us how you're just as much of a target of a crazed fan as any one of these people.

More of a target idiot. Most crazed fans would expect body guards like John Hinkley.
But some local crazed fan over a local? Happens EVERY day.

English?

 

[DarkFury]

Extra security at the Golden Globe awards. In this dangerous world, the elite demand more security and that means good guys with badass guns. Many of the same liberals support gun control that would make it more difficult for law abiding citizens to keep their homes safe, let alone having the ability to protect themselves in public. Notice the type of guns required by security. Apparently, only wealthy people can justify being protected by big guns. It's not just Hollywood. You would never see Hillary, Obama or their families go anywhere without being surrounded by armed guards. Yet, they hate people being allowed to carry weapons outside their home. They know there is danger out there and they know that going out without security means they are defenseless and they would never settle for that.

Of course, they cite the crazies and the criminals shooting people as the reason behind their policies. And they don't have the common sense to realize that those who pose a danger to the public aren't going to be affected by laws. If criminals know that people are unarmed, that makes them a preferred target. Shootings happen in places where people aren't allowed to carry weapons. You don't see mass shooters going into gun shows or any place where concealed or open carry are allowed. It's a deterrent to allow responsible people to carry weapons, but the left continues to push laws that only affect the responsible and would make life easier for the nut jobs. Meanwhile, they make sure the criminals don't mess with them by being surrounded with visible security. The rest of us are not allowed to protect ourselves in schools, theaters and many other places. It's clear that the whackos are well aware of where the sitting ducks are.



"You see, what these hypocrites fail to understand is that they can afford this sort of security on a daily basis thanks to the bloated paychecks they receive to play pretend.

The average American — who works paycheck to paycheck and can barely afford to pay rent — cannot hire private security around the clock to ensure their safety. Hence, the reason why the Second Amendment exists.

The right to own a firearm allows a person to protect themselves and to truly love their neighbor by having the means to defend their lives should something awful happen.

If you take away their right to own a gun, they — along with their neighbor — will be defenseless against evil, and that, my friends, is the very epitome of moral indecency."



http://www.youngcons.com/anti-gun-celebrities-prove-theyre-hypocrites-by-being-protected-by-armed-guards/

Explain to us how you're just as much of a target of a crazed fan as any one of these people.

More of a target idiot. Most crazed fans would expect body guards like John Hinkley.
But some local crazed fan over a local? Happens EVERY day.

English?

Man shoots a "lost"Girlfriend.
Man shoots a "lost" wife.
Happens every day.

 

[westwall]

Extra security at the Golden Globe awards. In this dangerous world, the elite demand more security and that means good guys with badass guns. Many of the same liberals support gun control that would make it more difficult for law abiding citizens to keep their homes safe, let alone having the ability to protect themselves in public. Notice the type of guns required by security. Apparently, only wealthy people can justify being protected by big guns. It's not just Hollywood. You would never see Hillary, Obama or their families go anywhere without being surrounded by armed guards. Yet, they hate people being allowed to carry weapons outside their home. They know there is danger out there and they know that going out without security means they are defenseless and they would never settle for that.

Of course, they cite the crazies and the criminals shooting people as the reason behind their policies. And they don't have the common sense to realize that those who pose a danger to the public aren't going to be affected by laws. If criminals know that people are unarmed, that makes them a preferred target. Shootings happen in places where people aren't allowed to carry weapons. You don't see mass shooters going into gun shows or any place where concealed or open carry are allowed. It's a deterrent to allow responsible people to carry weapons, but the left continues to push laws that only affect the responsible and would make life easier for the nut jobs. Meanwhile, they make sure the criminals don't mess with them by being surrounded with visible security. The rest of us are not allowed to protect ourselves in schools, theaters and many other places. It's clear that the whackos are well aware of where the sitting ducks are.



"You see, what these hypocrites fail to understand is that they can afford this sort of security on a daily basis thanks to the bloated paychecks they receive to play pretend.

The average American — who works paycheck to paycheck and can barely afford to pay rent — cannot hire private security around the clock to ensure their safety. Hence, the reason why the Second Amendment exists.

The right to own a firearm allows a person to protect themselves and to truly love their neighbor by having the means to defend their lives should something awful happen.

If you take away their right to own a gun, they — along with their neighbor — will be defenseless against evil, and that, my friends, is the very epitome of moral indecency."



http://www.youngcons.com/anti-gun-celebrities-prove-theyre-hypocrites-by-being-protected-by-armed-guards/

Well, you know. Guns don't make you safer.

 

[TNHarley]

Extra security at the Golden Globe awards. In this dangerous world, the elite demand more security and that means good guys with badass guns. Many of the same liberals support gun control that would make it more difficult for law abiding citizens to keep their homes safe, let alone having the ability to protect themselves in public. Notice the type of guns required by security. Apparently, only wealthy people can justify being protected by big guns. It's not just Hollywood. You would never see Hillary, Obama or their families go anywhere without being surrounded by armed guards. Yet, they hate people being allowed to carry weapons outside their home. They know there is danger out there and they know that going out without security means they are defenseless and they would never settle for that.

Of course, they cite the crazies and the criminals shooting people as the reason behind their policies. And they don't have the common sense to realize that those who pose a danger to the public aren't going to be affected by laws. If criminals know that people are unarmed, that makes them a preferred target. Shootings happen in places where people aren't allowed to carry weapons. You don't see mass shooters going into gun shows or any place where concealed or open carry are allowed. It's a deterrent to allow responsible people to carry weapons, but the left continues to push laws that only affect the responsible and would make life easier for the nut jobs. Meanwhile, they make sure the criminals don't mess with them by being surrounded with visible security. The rest of us are not allowed to protect ourselves in schools, theaters and many other places. It's clear that the whackos are well aware of where the sitting ducks are.



"You see, what these hypocrites fail to understand is that they can afford this sort of security on a daily basis thanks to the bloated paychecks they receive to play pretend.

The average American — who works paycheck to paycheck and can barely afford to pay rent — cannot hire private security around the clock to ensure their safety. Hence, the reason why the Second Amendment exists.

The right to own a firearm allows a person to protect themselves and to truly love their neighbor by having the means to defend their lives should something awful happen.

If you take away their right to own a gun, they — along with their neighbor — will be defenseless against evil, and that, my friends, is the very epitome of moral indecency."



http://www.youngcons.com/anti-gun-celebrities-prove-theyre-hypocrites-by-being-protected-by-armed-guards/

Explain to us how you're just as much of a target of a crazed fan as any one of these people.

Boston bombing were focused on celebs?
San bernadino?
9-11?

So you're saying you want armed police everywhere?

No, I want legal, responsible gun owners everywhere. Either that or ban guns worldwide. Worldwide ban is the only way to stop it, really. Even though if you take away suicide and gang bangers, there isn't that much violence left..
And after we ban guns worldwide, we could then go after katanas and fertilizer

 

[Arianrhod]

Extra security at the Golden Globe awards. In this dangerous world, the elite demand more security and that means good guys with badass guns. Many of the same liberals support gun control that would make it more difficult for law abiding citizens to keep their homes safe, let alone having the ability to protect themselves in public. Notice the type of guns required by security. Apparently, only wealthy people can justify being protected by big guns. It's not just Hollywood. You would never see Hillary, Obama or their families go anywhere without being surrounded by armed guards. Yet, they hate people being allowed to carry weapons outside their home. They know there is danger out there and they know that going out without security means they are defenseless and they would never settle for that.

Of course, they cite the crazies and the criminals shooting people as the reason behind their policies. And they don't have the common sense to realize that those who pose a danger to the public aren't going to be affected by laws. If criminals know that people are unarmed, that makes them a preferred target. Shootings happen in places where people aren't allowed to carry weapons. You don't see mass shooters going into gun shows or any place where concealed or open carry are allowed. It's a deterrent to allow responsible people to carry weapons, but the left continues to push laws that only affect the responsible and would make life easier for the nut jobs. Meanwhile, they make sure the criminals don't mess with them by being surrounded with visible security. The rest of us are not allowed to protect ourselves in schools, theaters and many other places. It's clear that the whackos are well aware of where the sitting ducks are.



"You see, what these hypocrites fail to understand is that they can afford this sort of security on a daily basis thanks to the bloated paychecks they receive to play pretend.

The average American — who works paycheck to paycheck and can barely afford to pay rent — cannot hire private security around the clock to ensure their safety. Hence, the reason why the Second Amendment exists.

The right to own a firearm allows a person to protect themselves and to truly love their neighbor by having the means to defend their lives should something awful happen.

If you take away their right to own a gun, they — along with their neighbor — will be defenseless against evil, and that, my friends, is the very epitome of moral indecency."



http://www.youngcons.com/anti-gun-celebrities-prove-theyre-hypocrites-by-being-protected-by-armed-guards/

Explain to us how you're just as much of a target of a crazed fan as any one of these people.

More of a target idiot. Most crazed fans would expect body guards like John Hinkley.
But some local crazed fan over a local? Happens EVERY day.

English?

Man shoots a "lost"Girlfriend.
Man shoots a "lost" wife.
Happens every day.

So that would be a vote for more rigorous waiting periods. Works for me.

 

[Siete]

Extra security at the Golden Globe awards. In this dangerous world, the elite demand more security and that means good guys with badass guns. Many of the same liberals support gun control that would make it more difficult for law abiding citizens to keep their homes safe, let alone having the ability to protect themselves in public. Notice the type of guns required by security. Apparently, only wealthy people can justify being protected by big guns. It's not just Hollywood. You would never see Hillary, Obama or their families go anywhere without being surrounded by armed guards. Yet, they hate people being allowed to carry weapons outside their home. They know there is danger out there and they know that going out without security means they are defenseless and they would never settle for that.

Of course, they cite the crazies and the criminals shooting people as the reason behind their policies. And they don't have the common sense to realize that those who pose a danger to the public aren't going to be affected by laws. If criminals know that people are unarmed, that makes them a preferred target. Shootings happen in places where people aren't allowed to carry weapons. You don't see mass shooters going into gun shows or any place where concealed or open carry are allowed. It's a deterrent to allow responsible people to carry weapons, but the left continues to push laws that only affect the responsible and would make life easier for the nut jobs. Meanwhile, they make sure the criminals don't mess with them by being surrounded with visible security. The rest of us are not allowed to protect ourselves in schools, theaters and many other places. It's clear that the whackos are well aware of where the sitting ducks are.



"You see, what these hypocrites fail to understand is that they can afford this sort of security on a daily basis thanks to the bloated paychecks they receive to play pretend.

The average American — who works paycheck to paycheck and can barely afford to pay rent — cannot hire private security around the clock to ensure their safety. Hence, the reason why the Second Amendment exists.

The right to own a firearm allows a person to protect themselves and to truly love their neighbor by having the means to defend their lives should something awful happen.

If you take away their right to own a gun, they — along with their neighbor — will be defenseless against evil, and that, my friends, is the very epitome of moral indecency."



http://www.youngcons.com/anti-gun-celebrities-prove-theyre-hypocrites-by-being-protected-by-armed-guards/

Explain to us how you're just as much of a target of a crazed fan as any one of these people.

Boston bombing were focused on celebs?
San bernadino?
9-11?

had neither of the three never taken place security wouldn't even be noticed... as it is now, scared RW's have the country standing on edge. Take Trump and the candy-ass RW board members here.


EEEEEEEEEKKKKKKKKKKKKK A MUSLIM !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[boilermaker55]

Like this coward.

Chris Hayes: My understanding is you have a concealed carry permit in Alabama. Should citizens and members of Congress be allowed to carry inside the US Capitol where you’re standing now?

Rep. Mo Brooks: I’m also one who believes in property rights, and the property owners has a say in when a person can or cannot bring a gun onto their own property, so that’s a debate we’re going to have to resolve…

Hayes: Right, but you control that property, would you support…

Brooks: In more specific response to your question, I do not want citizens coming onto Capital grounds, inside the United States Capitol, into the gallery of the United States Capitol with gun, given the risks that are associated with that, given that we already have security with the Capitol Police, who do an excellent job of taking care of Congress’ security.

Hayes: Oh, okay, so you oppose it.
Rep. Mo Brooks (R-AL)

 

[Skull Pilot]

Why don't you ask that of the victi

Extra security at the Golden Globe awards. In this dangerous world, the elite demand more security and that means good guys with badass guns. Many of the same liberals support gun control that would make it more difficult for law abiding citizens to keep their homes safe, let alone having the ability to protect themselves in public. Notice the type of guns required by security. Apparently, only wealthy people can justify being protected by big guns. It's not just Hollywood. You would never see Hillary, Obama or their families go anywhere without being surrounded by armed guards. Yet, they hate people being allowed to carry weapons outside their home. They know there is danger out there and they know that going out without security means they are defenseless and they would never settle for that.

Of course, they cite the crazies and the criminals shooting people as the reason behind their policies. And they don't have the common sense to realize that those who pose a danger to the public aren't going to be affected by laws. If criminals know that people are unarmed, that makes them a preferred target. Shootings happen in places where people aren't allowed to carry weapons. You don't see mass shooters going into gun shows or any place where concealed or open carry are allowed. It's a deterrent to allow responsible people to carry weapons, but the left continues to push laws that only affect the responsible and would make life easier for the nut jobs. Meanwhile, they make sure the criminals don't mess with them by being surrounded with visible security. The rest of us are not allowed to protect ourselves in schools, theaters and many other places. It's clear that the whackos are well aware of where the sitting ducks are.



"You see, what these hypocrites fail to understand is that they can afford this sort of security on a daily basis thanks to the bloated paychecks they receive to play pretend.

The average American — who works paycheck to paycheck and can barely afford to pay rent — cannot hire private security around the clock to ensure their safety. Hence, the reason why the Second Amendment exists.

The right to own a firearm allows a person to protect themselves and to truly love their neighbor by having the means to defend their lives should something awful happen.

If you take away their right to own a gun, they — along with their neighbor — will be defenseless against evil, and that, my friends, is the very epitome of moral indecency."



http://www.youngcons.com/anti-gun-celebrities-prove-theyre-hypocrites-by-being-protected-by-armed-guards/

Explain to us how you're just as much of a target of a crazed fan as any one of these people.

I bet the survivors of any mass shooting would love you to ask them that question

 

[TNHarley]

Extra security at the Golden Globe awards. In this dangerous world, the elite demand more security and that means good guys with badass guns. Many of the same liberals support gun control that would make it more difficult for law abiding citizens to keep their homes safe, let alone having the ability to protect themselves in public. Notice the type of guns required by security. Apparently, only wealthy people can justify being protected by big guns. It's not just Hollywood. You would never see Hillary, Obama or their families go anywhere without being surrounded by armed guards. Yet, they hate people being allowed to carry weapons outside their home. They know there is danger out there and they know that going out without security means they are defenseless and they would never settle for that.

Of course, they cite the crazies and the criminals shooting people as the reason behind their policies. And they don't have the common sense to realize that those who pose a danger to the public aren't going to be affected by laws. If criminals know that people are unarmed, that makes them a preferred target. Shootings happen in places where people aren't allowed to carry weapons. You don't see mass shooters going into gun shows or any place where concealed or open carry are allowed. It's a deterrent to allow responsible people to carry weapons, but the left continues to push laws that only affect the responsible and would make life easier for the nut jobs. Meanwhile, they make sure the criminals don't mess with them by being surrounded with visible security. The rest of us are not allowed to protect ourselves in schools, theaters and many other places. It's clear that the whackos are well aware of where the sitting ducks are.



"You see, what these hypocrites fail to understand is that they can afford this sort of security on a daily basis thanks to the bloated paychecks they receive to play pretend.

The average American — who works paycheck to paycheck and can barely afford to pay rent — cannot hire private security around the clock to ensure their safety. Hence, the reason why the Second Amendment exists.

The right to own a firearm allows a person to protect themselves and to truly love their neighbor by having the means to defend their lives should something awful happen.

If you take away their right to own a gun, they — along with their neighbor — will be defenseless against evil, and that, my friends, is the very epitome of moral indecency."



http://www.youngcons.com/anti-gun-celebrities-prove-theyre-hypocrites-by-being-protected-by-armed-guards/

Explain to us how you're just as much of a target of a crazed fan as any one of these people.

Boston bombing were focused on celebs?
San bernadino?
9-11?

had neither of the three never taken place security wouldn't even be noticed... as it is now, scared RW's have the country standing on edge. Take Trump and the candy-ass RW board members here.


EEEEEEEEEKKKKKKKKKKKKK A MUSLIM !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

EEEEEEEKKKKKKKKK
2 Refugees Arrested On Terrorism Charges In Texas, California

 

[Rustic]

 

[Rustic]

 

[ClosedCaption]

Extra security at the Golden Globe awards. In this dangerous world, the elite demand more security and that means good guys with badass guns. Many of the same liberals support gun control that would make it more difficult for law abiding citizens to keep their homes safe, let alone having the ability to protect themselves in public. Notice the type of guns required by security. Apparently, only wealthy people can justify being protected by big guns. It's not just Hollywood. You would never see Hillary, Obama or their families go anywhere without being surrounded by armed guards. Yet, they hate people being allowed to carry weapons outside their home. They know there is danger out there and they know that going out without security means they are defenseless and they would never settle for that.

Of course, they cite the crazies and the criminals shooting people as the reason behind their policies. And they don't have the common sense to realize that those who pose a danger to the public aren't going to be affected by laws. If criminals know that people are unarmed, that makes them a preferred target. Shootings happen in places where people aren't allowed to carry weapons. You don't see mass shooters going into gun shows or any place where concealed or open carry are allowed. It's a deterrent to allow responsible people to carry weapons, but the left continues to push laws that only affect the responsible and would make life easier for the nut jobs. Meanwhile, they make sure the criminals don't mess with them by being surrounded with visible security. The rest of us are not allowed to protect ourselves in schools, theaters and many other places. It's clear that the whackos are well aware of where the sitting ducks are.



"You see, what these hypocrites fail to understand is that they can afford this sort of security on a daily basis thanks to the bloated paychecks they receive to play pretend.

The average American — who works paycheck to paycheck and can barely afford to pay rent — cannot hire private security around the clock to ensure their safety. Hence, the reason why the Second Amendment exists.

The right to own a firearm allows a person to protect themselves and to truly love their neighbor by having the means to defend their lives should something awful happen.

If you take away their right to own a gun, they — along with their neighbor — will be defenseless against evil, and that, my friends, is the very epitome of moral indecency."



http://www.youngcons.com/anti-gun-celebrities-prove-theyre-hypocrites-by-being-protected-by-armed-guards/

Explain to us how you're just as much of a target of a crazed fan as any one of these people.

 

[jillian]

Extra security at the Golden Globe awards. In this dangerous world, the elite demand more security and that means good guys with badass guns. Many of the same liberals support gun control that would make it more difficult for law abiding citizens to keep their homes safe, let alone having the ability to protect themselves in public. Notice the type of guns required by security. Apparently, only wealthy people can justify being protected by big guns. It's not just Hollywood. You would never see Hillary, Obama or their families go anywhere without being surrounded by armed guards. Yet, they hate people being allowed to carry weapons outside their home. They know there is danger out there and they know that going out without security means they are defenseless and they would never settle for that.

Of course, they cite the crazies and the criminals shooting people as the reason behind their policies. And they don't have the common sense to realize that those who pose a danger to the public aren't going to be affected by laws. If criminals know that people are unarmed, that makes them a preferred target. Shootings happen in places where people aren't allowed to carry weapons. You don't see mass shooters going into gun shows or any place where concealed or open carry are allowed. It's a deterrent to allow responsible people to carry weapons, but the left continues to push laws that only affect the responsible and would make life easier for the nut jobs. Meanwhile, they make sure the criminals don't mess with them by being surrounded with visible security. The rest of us are not allowed to protect ourselves in schools, theaters and many other places. It's clear that the whackos are well aware of where the sitting ducks are.



"You see, what these hypocrites fail to understand is that they can afford this sort of security on a daily basis thanks to the bloated paychecks they receive to play pretend.

The average American — who works paycheck to paycheck and can barely afford to pay rent — cannot hire private security around the clock to ensure their safety. Hence, the reason why the Second Amendment exists.

The right to own a firearm allows a person to protect themselves and to truly love their neighbor by having the means to defend their lives should something awful happen.

If you take away their right to own a gun, they — along with their neighbor — will be defenseless against evil, and that, my friends, is the very epitome of moral indecency."



http://www.youngcons.com/anti-gun-celebrities-prove-theyre-hypocrites-by-being-protected-by-armed-guards/

Explain to us how you're just as much of a target of a crazed fan as any one of these people.

Boston bombing were focused on celebs?
San bernadino?
9-11?

guns would have stopped the boston bombing?

no

san Bernardino?

no.