Bloomberg refuses to disarm

It's precisely because every moron has a gun that he needs security. Some dumbass on the street walks up to the mayor of New York City and keeps shouting at him, yeah that shouldn't concern anyone.

 

Bloomberg is a national political figure in a nation swarming with weapons, someone many people will try to kill and approach for no particularly good reason. see: Harvey Milk, Mayor Moscone, MLK, JFK, RFK, Ford, Reagan, Malcolm X, Truman etc. etc. etc.

this is the security escort for a country with a sane approach to weaponry and politics that don't involve extremists trying to off a national politician once every year.

 

That's precisely why everyone needs a gun. TO stop the morons with guns.......

 

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/fordPXp06h4" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

 

Yeah, that's stupid.

 

then you must think Bloomberg is stupid

 

No, just you. Bloomberg is being prudent about his safety in a country where any moron can buy a semi-auto weapon and walk up to him on a sidewalk. His safety needs and Obama's daughters safety needs don't equate with your own. You people have lost your way. You want to live in the 1800's and really I wish you guys would move on to Afghanistan or something and enjoy all that liberty that is surely waiting for you. Let the rest of us get on with a modern society.

 

So obviously what you advocate is some federal department or agency that determines a citizens threat level then they can have armed protection. Sounds awesome. Ben Affleck just won a SAG award so that probably elevates him to high enough threat status. JLin is struggling a bit this year so he probably doesn't make the cut.

Where in the world do you people come from....

 

The definition could easily just be the same as the one for a public figure, which is already well-established as having a different set of rules and a clear definition in libel cases, so enforcement would not be that hard if it came to that.

In any case, arguing that citizen A has the same need for security as Mayor Bloomberg is really an absurd denial of how gun culture, and the proliferation of weapons has threatened the public discourse of America. The list of great American political figures and icons lost to targeted gunfire is almost endless. Meanwhile, in more sensible jurisdictions, Thomas D'Arcy McGee in 1868 was the last and only Canadian political figure on the federal level assassinated.

 

Nothing is obvious to you, that's kind of the problem.

 

thx for stopping by the Debate and Discussion forum CometWin with your awesome posts like 'ur dumb' .

So to bring this back to a discussion, I would argue a child living in the ghetto is at great risk to be harmed (just as much as Obama's kids). Are they allowed to have armed protection in CometWin's world (by this I mean their parents)?

and you still didn't address my other point. If someone in CometWin's world is allowed protection based on their 'safety needs' then who determines someone's 'safety needs'? I assuming you want the government to do this?

I would love to see CometWin the politician try to justify this to the parents' of the victims of the Newton shooting.

'Sry, you just didn't meet the proper safety needs to warrant armed protection'

 

The lives of high profile individuals are no more important than any other American's life. The likelihood of occurrence shouldn't determine the level of rights one is afforded.

 

This is what Republican voters actually believe

 

definition, fixed.

thar we go, not that hard.

 

The ultimate end goal, of course, is not to have to resort to trained armed guards in the first place. Even the most trained and hardened Secret Service have failed to stop killings---so much for armed guards doing all the good in the world. Benefit/cost of having guns around all the time when it comes to children prone to accidents, and the notion of a nation that has to have guns in school to feel secure? meh.

of course, that will require a sensible political dialogue and a tampering down of a rampant gun culture that sees a federal employee, outspoken/controversial political agent or federal representative murdered or almost murdered once every few months.

 

Can someone please tell me why conservatives love guns. Is it just a wedge issue to get Joe Sixpack to vote against their economic interests.

What is inherently conservative about spending billions for unnecessary gun death, emergency, rehabilitation and disability payments due to gun violence?

I don't get it really.

 

Blumberg iz a straigt G..........dont give a......

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/-nX-afEt_tU" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

 

I heard Obama has a whole army at his disposal.

 

How many lowly citizens do you think it takes to get to the value of one of our dear leaders?