If his family has a (much) higher need for armed security, where is the hypocrisy?
Gun control
- Thread starter Saladus
- Start date
Ignatius
#thePewPewLife
- 4,993
- 6,846
I'm not disagreeing with you. I was more pointing out that someone getting leverage on a president should in theory be a non issue.
Sulrn
Deuces
- 2,159
- 360
I don't know. Somewhere around the notion that armed guards (ie. not teachers) or increased rolling patrols is not an answer to gun violence (which it isn't, really), while never personally having to face the same threat of violence inside CONUS that normal citizens do every day. Making executive initiatives and pushing for legislature that decreases the ability of a private citizen from [potentially] being able to defend themselves or their family is hypocritical on this point.
Plain and simple. If you are insulated from the effects of reality of what your asking for as he is, then it would be hypocrisy.
The 'in theory" part is part of why the president's family is at greater risk (the other parts are political retribution and the ever-present threat of crazy).
Which is why the president has the Secret Service instead of just "armed guards." That's not even remotely the same thing.
It's onlybecauseof the Secret Service that he doesn't have to personally face the threat. The threat is extremely real and extremely serious in spite of that (which is definitely not the case for most citizens). That's just a paranoid fantasy world.
No, that's doesn't follow at all. That sort of situationcouldrepresent a kind of moral hazard, but that's not actually suggested by the real world.
It's not hypocrisy, it's just apotentialmoral hazard and one that's kind of silly to accuse him of falling into since gun control wasn't at all part of his agenda until Sandy Hook (which was obviously well after he had secret service protection).
Kreugen
Vyemm Raider
- 6,599
- 793
Okay I'll bite, which part of my answer to your question makes me a moron. I didn't even state an opinion in my post to you. You asked if the President's plan included magazine size restriction, I responded that its up to Congress.
Sulrn
Deuces
- 2,159
- 360
A person with a gun and trained to use it in response to a threat = a person with a gun and trained to use in response to a threat. For the sake of the argument, yes they are the same thing. Duracell != Energizer, but when your talking AA's it's the same damn thing. Are there differences, certainly. For what we're talking here (the presence and absence of personnel providing physical/emotional/mental security) it is remotely the same thing.
You're exactly right that the SS is the only reason he doesn't face any true threats within CONUS. That's why I said he was insulated. As to the rest of us; I don't know about you, but myself or my truck get shot at at least once a year (good year) or several times a quarter (past 5ish bad years - job related). While the number of yokels that would love to cap the president or rape his wife out of spite is a high number, there's a reason this discussion is going on -- the US has some (relatively compared to OCONUS) very violent areas where nasty things like rape, murder, assault, destruction of property, and burglary do happen and guns are often nearby.
Taken as a whole (US), is violence against the person statistically likely - no. However, saying it is a paranoid fantasy is what is asinine here. Everywhere in the US is not the same. Having someone that is sitting in an Ivory [tower]house (that does not face the same risks as portions of the population) making (trying to, really) rules that potentially affect everyone else adversely is hypocrisy. That does follow. That's the fucking definition of hypocrisy - regardless of what the "real world" says.
hypocrisy [h?'p?kr?s?]
n pl -sies
1. the practice of professing standards, beliefs, etc., contrary to one's real character or actual behaviour, esp the pretence of virtue and piety
2. an act or instance of this
He (or they if you're talking some of our legislators) believes that armed guards do not provide safety from gun violence. He has armed guards that protect him and his family from the threat of violence that (most likely) involves guns. Sounds contrary, mate.
Sulrn
Deuces
- 2,159
- 360
When I read his response, I can't tell if I'm being trolled or he's sticking his fingers in his eyes and saying "nah nah nah nah nah".
Big Phoenix
Pronouns: zie/zhem/zer
- 48,847
- 106,736
Because regardless of who you are there is someone crazy out there that wants to kill you?
Reading comprehension is consistently a problem here. How does
equal "armed guards do not provide safety from gun violence" in your head?Obama_sl said:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/0...n_2483118.html
Really? So are you consistently amazed when Best Buy's, Gamestop's, McDonald's, etc don't have the same security as banks?BP_sl said:
I think this is the main problem. People think Obama is actively telling people that they can't have armed guards in their schools, when nothing he's done has kept a school district from putting a cop or guard in their schools, or for people to send their kids to schools with an armed guard. A "GUN FREE ZONE" doesn't mean gun free. The law permits guards and cops to carry if the school permits it.
I'm not going to jump in on either side but yeah if they come for your guns there will be a war sure... a short one sided war with the goverment winning. I'd like to see how all these deer rifles, handguns and semi-auto assault weapons handle against Bradleys, Tanks and fully trained miltray soldiers.
Itd be a fairly short war.
Itd be a fairly short war.
- 13,610
- 26,595
If you look at it purely from a technological point of view that is an easy conclusion to come to for sure but you seem to forget the psychological nature of what that would entail for the individuals of the military ordered to do so. Killing outsiders comes easy to us and by us I mean the human species but we have a strong biological urge to protect our own and we wouldn't be around to this day if we didn't have that shit hard coded in our DNA. That war would not be anywhere near as short as you think it would be for a whole myriad of reasons, the conclusion you came to is an easy one to come to, if you don't think about it for more then a couple of seconds.
Arguing about the particulars of the President's family situation is fruitless. Although technically one man, he is actually akin to an institution: the presidency. Comparisons and comments should take this into account. Replace any discussion that involves him with the term the presidency and see if your point is still worth pursuing.