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

[Rustic]

 

[Rustic]

 

[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?

guns would have stopped the boston bombing?

no

san Bernardino?

no.

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.

Its a bird!
Its a plane!
Its TNHarleys point!
I in no way even implied that lol

 

[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.

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.

Its a bird!
Its a plane!
Its TNHarleys point!
I in no way even implied that lol

and I've never implied that no one should have guns.

but criminals, abusers and crazies sure shouldn't.

 

[Dovahkiin]

Please explain what a "liberal elitist" is.

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

 

[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?

guns would have stopped the boston bombing?

no

san Bernardino?

no.

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.

Its a bird!
Its a plane!
Its TNHarleys point!
I in no way even implied that lol

and I've never implied that no one should have guns.

but criminals, abusers and crazies sure shouldn't.

what are you talking about? Did you read the thread?

 

[jillian]

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.

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.

Its a bird!
Its a plane!
Its TNHarleys point!
I in no way even implied that lol

and I've never implied that no one should have guns.

but criminals, abusers and crazies sure shouldn't.

what are you talking about? Did you read the thread?

I did.

and the o/p said that celebs shouldn't have protection because they "want to take your guns".

my point was that NO, no one wants to take anyone's guns.

unless you're a criminal, an abuser or a crazy.

therefore the o/p is based on a fallacy.

so yes, I read it. it started fallaciously.

 

[hadit]

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.

Okay, they have a greater chance of being attacked, so they get a lot more guns around them. The average citizen has less of a chance, so he only carries one. Sounds right to me.

 

[Arianrhod]

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

So this is the preamble to the Good Guy with a Gun lecture, huh?

 

[Maryland Patriot]

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.

why should he have to explain anything to you. But if you really want to look at the numbers, look at how many non celebrities are murdered by guns vs celebrities. I would say you might find that based on percentage he has a greater need to protect himself.

 

[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.

why should he have to explain anything to you.

Because she started a thread on a discussion board? Or was she just looking for a "Fuck, yeah"?

But if you really want to look at the numbers, look at how many non celebrities are murdered by guns vs celebrities. I would say you might find that based on percentage he has a greater need to protect himself.

It would be interesting to see what percentage of celebrities are the target of crazies vs the percentage of ordinary citizens (for one thing, who constitutes a "celebrity"?), but I doubt such figures exist, except in the minds of people looking for something to be OUTRAGED about.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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

Another ridiculous lie and false comparison fallacy.

Elected officials and others in the public eye are at far greater risk of attack then private citizens.

And no 'liberal' advocates that citizens be denied guns or denied the right to carry firearms.

The thread premise is as idiotic as it is lame.

 

[Rustic]

 

[Vigilante]

 

[Rustic]

 

[Rustic]

 

[Rustic]

 

[LeftofLeft]

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.

Explain to us why the Elite's lives are more important than the masses? Explain why we should take seriously someone who can afford guns by proxy why the common man should not be allowed to arm himself? You people are always slamming the 1 percenters on all fronts and here you are cow towing to them because they are singing a shared narrative behind armed guards that common people should not own firearms.

 

[Rustic]