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

[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.

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

So you're saying you want armed police everywhere?

No you people have Police afraid to due their jobs anymore. I'd rather a healthy lawfully armed population that would put fear, uncertaintly, and doubt among those who choose murder and terror with the use of an illegal firearm.

 

[Rustic]

 

[jknowgood]

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 !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Sorry but 3000 Americans on 911 will disagree with you.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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/

Are you prevented from having an armed guard?

 

[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/

Are you prevented from having an armed guard?

armed guards are not what the 2nd is about.
but if the negros and lefties can claim that voter ID is wrong because some cant afford to get the ID, then by extension anything that puts a dollar between the gun and the owner is wrong.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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/

Are you prevented from having an armed guard?

armed guards are not what the 2nd is about.
but if the negros and lefties can claim that voter ID is wrong because some cant afford to get the ID, then by extension anything that puts a dollar between the gun and the owner is wrong.

So the Constitution obligates the government to buy you a gun.

Goddam that's funny.

 

[Campbell]

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/

You are so full of shit that I won't even elaborate. You're watching too much Faux News

 

[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/

Are you prevented from having an armed guard?

armed guards are not what the 2nd is about.
but if the negros and lefties can claim that voter ID is wrong because some cant afford to get the ID, then by extension anything that puts a dollar between the gun and the owner is wrong.

So the Constitution obligates the government to buy you a gun.

Goddam that's funny.

not sure I said that but it is typical of a worthless liberal to see things that are not there.
but in light of that, does the constitution obligate the government to give you a cell phone, a house, electric, food, a car?
Of the two which one is in the constitution,, lets see, Guns or paying the way for you mooches... Might have to consult someone on this one.
Can anyone tell me if owning a gun is a protected right?? anyone? anyone? Bueller?

 

[Campbell]

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/

Are you prevented from having an armed guard?

armed guards are not what the 2nd is about.
but if the negros and lefties can claim that voter ID is wrong because some cant afford to get the ID, then by extension anything that puts a dollar between the gun and the owner is wrong.

So the Constitution obligates the government to buy you a gun.

Goddam that's funny.

not sure I said that but it is typical of a worthless liberal to see things that are not there.
but in light of that, does the constitution obligate the government to give you a cell phone, a house, electric, food, a car?
Of the two which one is in the constitution,, lets see, Guns or paying the way for you mooches... Might have to consult someone on this one.
Can anyone tell me if owning a gun is a protected right?? anyone? anyone? Bueller?

You've never been hungry have you......I can spot one of you elitist ass holes a mile away!

 

[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/

You are so full of shit that I won't even elaborate. You're watching too much Faux News

Where is he wrong.
does Hillary have armed protection?
Does obama have armed protection?
do hollywood elite have armed protection?
if they do, then I would offer that he might not be full of shit and the problem is that you are letting Ariana Huffington educate you and tell you what to think and say

 

[NYcarbineer]

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/

Are you prevented from having an armed guard?

armed guards are not what the 2nd is about.
but if the negros and lefties can claim that voter ID is wrong because some cant afford to get the ID, then by extension anything that puts a dollar between the gun and the owner is wrong.

So the Constitution obligates the government to buy you a gun.

Goddam that's funny.

not sure I said that but it is typical of a worthless liberal to see things that are not there.
but in light of that, does the constitution obligate the government to give you a cell phone, a house, electric, food, a car?
Of the two which one is in the constitution,, lets see, Guns or paying the way for you mooches... Might have to consult someone on this one.
Can anyone tell me if owning a gun is a protected right?? anyone? anyone? Bueller?

The Constitution obligates Americans to recognize the legitimacy of the laws of the land, as long as such laws have not been ruled unconstitutional.

 

[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/

Are you prevented from having an armed guard?

armed guards are not what the 2nd is about.
but if the negros and lefties can claim that voter ID is wrong because some cant afford to get the ID, then by extension anything that puts a dollar between the gun and the owner is wrong.

So the Constitution obligates the government to buy you a gun.

Goddam that's funny.

not sure I said that but it is typical of a worthless liberal to see things that are not there.
but in light of that, does the constitution obligate the government to give you a cell phone, a house, electric, food, a car?
Of the two which one is in the constitution,, lets see, Guns or paying the way for you mooches... Might have to consult someone on this one.
Can anyone tell me if owning a gun is a protected right?? anyone? anyone? Bueller?

You've never been hungry have you......I can spot one of you elitist ass holes a mile away!

Ive been hungry. I was hungry tonight, you know how I fixed it?
When I left my JOB, I used some of my EARNED income to stop and BUY MY OWN FOOD.
I think I just solved hunger.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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/

You are so full of shit that I won't even elaborate. You're watching too much Faux News

Where is he wrong.
does Hillary have armed protection?
Does obama have armed protection?
do hollywood elite have armed protection?
if they do, then I would offer that he might not be full of shit and the problem is that you are letting Ariana Huffington educate you and tell you what to think and say

Has Obama ever said you should not have the right to armed protection?

 

[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/

Are you prevented from having an armed guard?

armed guards are not what the 2nd is about.
but if the negros and lefties can claim that voter ID is wrong because some cant afford to get the ID, then by extension anything that puts a dollar between the gun and the owner is wrong.

So the Constitution obligates the government to buy you a gun.

Goddam that's funny.

not sure I said that but it is typical of a worthless liberal to see things that are not there.
but in light of that, does the constitution obligate the government to give you a cell phone, a house, electric, food, a car?
Of the two which one is in the constitution,, lets see, Guns or paying the way for you mooches... Might have to consult someone on this one.
Can anyone tell me if owning a gun is a protected right?? anyone? anyone? Bueller?

The Constitution obligates Americans to recognize the legitimacy of the laws of the land, as long as such laws have not been ruled unconstitutional.

so then you do agree that there should be no limitations on guns.
you really are not supporting your argument here.

 

[Centinel]

Has Obama ever said you should not have the right to armed protection?

The president executes the laws enacted by congress. Which of congress' enumerated powers would allow it to enact a law that criminalizes the acquisition or possession of firearms by the people of the several states?

 

[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/

You are so full of shit that I won't even elaborate. You're watching too much Faux News

Where is he wrong.
does Hillary have armed protection?
Does obama have armed protection?
do hollywood elite have armed protection?
if they do, then I would offer that he might not be full of shit and the problem is that you are letting Ariana Huffington educate you and tell you what to think and say

Has Obama ever said you should not have the right to armed protection?

armed protection is not what the 2nd is about. Why dont you understand that? How old are you, am I arguing with an elementary school child?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Has Obama ever said you should not have the right to armed protection?

The president executes the laws enacted by congress. Which of congress' enumerated powers would allow it to enact a law that criminalizes the acquisition or possession of firearms by the people of the several states?

The power of the Congress to make law is enumerated in the Constitution.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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/

You are so full of shit that I won't even elaborate. You're watching too much Faux News

Where is he wrong.
does Hillary have armed protection?
Does obama have armed protection?
do hollywood elite have armed protection?
if they do, then I would offer that he might not be full of shit and the problem is that you are letting Ariana Huffington educate you and tell you what to think and say

Has Obama ever said you should not have the right to armed protection?

armed protection is not what the 2nd is about. Why dont you understand that? How old are you, am I arguing with an elementary school child?

It's what this thread is about. Answer the question.

 

[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/

You are so full of shit that I won't even elaborate. You're watching too much Faux News

Where is he wrong.
does Hillary have armed protection?
Does obama have armed protection?
do hollywood elite have armed protection?
if they do, then I would offer that he might not be full of shit and the problem is that you are letting Ariana Huffington educate you and tell you what to think and say

Has Obama ever said you should not have the right to armed protection?

armed protection is not what the 2nd is about. Why dont you understand that? How old are you, am I arguing with an elementary school child?

It's what this thread is about. Answer the question.

no, thats not what this thread is about. use your imagination and try to figure it out.
damn liberals, everything is black and white for them, cant see the true meaning in anything.

 

[Centinel]

The power of the Congress to make law is enumerated in the Constitution.

We agree on that point. The states, when they created their agent, the union, gave it a small set of legislative powers. These are enumerated in article I, section 8. Which one of these powers would allow it to enact a law that criminalizes the acquisition or possession of firearms by the people of the several states?