Gun Control Forum on Facebook Gun Control Forum on Google Plus Gun Control Forum on Twitter

Greetings Gun Control Debater

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Sign In with Facebook Sign In with OpenID Sign In with Twitter

Popular Gun Control Forum Categories

In this Discussion

Secret Service has Guns, How're You Trying To Take Our Guns Away?

I was just listening to an interview that Matt Drudge did in which he basically said that Hilary and Obama are being very vocal about their thoughts on gun control, yet their surrounded by guns everyday. Their secret service has guns, so they don't have to worry about it. He challenged them to get rid of their guards and live in gun free zones themselves, and see how that works out for them. I hadn't thought about that until he said it, and I find the statement incredibly valid. What do you think?

Comments

  • Posts: 234
    It's true they think they are more important then society.Why? All people are suppose to be equal.They are feared for their lifes,but we are not suppose to be where is the logic in that.They try to say that they are in the public eye more,well with criminals we are all in the public eyes and we are all at risk.They don't think the police is enough to protect them but we are suppose to,if the police can't protect them how they suppose to protect all of us there is a lot more of us then them.I think all deserve to be protected even if they don't.The government must of thought we were all worth it at one time,because they bothered putting it in our second amendment,the right to protect ourself's and family.They new that the law couldn't be everywhere at once and there was alot less people then as there is now,and yes there is more police and that then,but still not enough to be everywhere at once.
  • I agree.  Practice what you preach.  If you believe that people can be safe (children especially) in gun-free zones, then you yourself must live a gun-free life.  I'm not saying this in a derogatory way; I just truly believe that living the way you want the world to be helps you put yourself in that position and come up with ways to improve it.  Personally, I don't care either way.  People make the world unsafe, not pieces of metal. 
  • Posts: 21
     I agree as well. It sounds so hypocritical, doesn't it? The same holds true for rock stars and Hollywood types, who rant and rave about our "gun culture," and how awful it is for the peace of our nation. Funny though, they have personal bodyguards of their own. They don't have to defend themselves!
  • Posts: 49
    "Do as I say, not as I do", said the snake to the citizen. 
  • They absolutely do want us to do as they say and not as they do. The problem is that we are not their children. They can't just say do this and don't do that, and then be hypocritical about the situation. There is no way they are going to tell their secret service to get rid of their guns. That would be insanity. How would they protect themselves? Likewise, how would we protect ourselves without our guns?
  • Posts: 234
    There is no reason anyone has the right to say a law abiding and rational,and sane person should not have the right to protect themselves PERIOD.Trying to make any sense out of banning guns  is totally senseless,there is no rational and sane reason that they can come up with.The only ones they come up with are insane,irrational,no common sense and far fetched narrow minded ideas.It doesn't matter what kind of twist they try and put on them and who ever says it makes  it any different.Thank goodness as of yet there is more rational then irrational people in the world.
  • I do agree with the fact that everyone should have the right to defend themselves.  It's not like there is a cop in every house every second of the day.  Leaving houses unprotected is irresponsible.  Whether or not it's a gun that you use should be up to the individual. 
  • Posts: 234
    In reality there are less police now then ever before in alot of areas,so the need for self protection is more important then ever.Where I live there are small towns that really don't have a steady cop on duty or only have one how can they be expected to protect us 24 hours per day.In the country where I am at it is protected by the county sheriff and they are at least 45 minutes away and might only see a patrol car once every other week.I have had to protect my property more then once all ready,luckily a warning shot in the air has taken care of the situation from progressing,but without the ability to do so could have been a whole different out come.We have the no retreat law witch means there is no need to run if you don't want to you can stand and fight.This is the way it should be.
  • I agree with you, "if the people who are assigned the duty to protect our elected officials have guns and will always have guns" then the individuals who are without direct protection should be allowed to carry guns. I know that individuals who live outside the law will always have guns so changing the laws to make it impossible for law abiding individuals to have guns is ludicrous to me. Protection is a very in-the-moment thing and no one else will feel the threat as the individual will at that time. Too personal to be regulated by law makers.
  • It has also become a matter of money in some areas, in NYC, a license to carry is often given on the merit of how much money a person deposits in the bank, so Howard Stern qualified for a license to carry a concealed pistol, due to the great amounts of money he carries and deposits due to his profession and his celebrity, as well as the money he gives out as prizes on his radio and television shows etc...

    If you are poor, have lots of children, you may not be able to afford to pay for a firearm, ammo, training, range time a pistol license, so the greater demands made on the law abiding, are also economically restrictive, and if you have several professional licenses, it can get very expensive really fast !
Sign In or Register to comment.