What laws? Last i heard nobody was proposing a ban on armed guards.
Look at the weapons that the armed guards carry. You won't see any change in their arsenal. Look at New York and look at Bloomberg's guards. They're exempt from the laws that he puts on the people.
Because those guards aren't civilians. Do you think people are arguing that police shouldn't have access to these guns either? The entire debate has centered on whether or not civilians should be able to purchase these weapons. Trained guards, police, military, etc have always been an exception to this.
Besides, do armed guards even actually personally own the equipment they're using?
Really the way I see it if someone is out to kill other people they will find a way to do so regardless of what limitations you put on them.
Really the thing that worries me the most is that more people will start using explosives, gas bombs, or etc. Hell its easy enough to go online and find recipes for a wide variety of poisons, explosive, or etc. it doesn't even take that much effort. Hell even simple things can be turned into weapons. For instance we had some idiot at an IHOP just about gas an entire restaurant a while back by accidentally mixing the wrong cleaning solutions together .
The warning link they post up then goes on to tell what solutions you "shouldn't" mix and the effects that the gas produced by such combos would have .
Police and armed guards have the right to arms as well as civilians based on our second amendment. The media has been glamouring AR-15's and those types of weapons on the mainstream media where there have been many more murders with hand guns. Automatic clips have been banned since the 80's so that's no longer an issue.
Weapons like rocket launchers don't have any need to be in the hands of civilians, AR-15's on the other hand deserve to be in a place of resting or business because the difference between a hand gun and an assault rifle if multiple break into your home is immense.
The the left-right paradigm is trying to say that either guns should be banned or there should be security guards in every school which are both foolish ideas and they want to try and manipulate the audience into thinking that a teacher carrying a concealed weapon is the most evil thing on earth because of that 1 in a million chance that the gun is going to fall out, a 6 year old boy is going to be clever enough to take off the safety and go on a killing spree.
If I could, but my DNS server is down, I would link you to a video of showing how the UK has a higher gun/murder rate per capita than the U.S. and how their numbers are manipulated from the rest of society and there's Switzerland with the lowest gun crime rate.
I don't see how class is really relevant. I'm pretty sure if you really want to hire guards for yourself nobody is going to stop you. I don't really have any stake in this issue, I just think the "Obama is some kinda hypocrite/elitist because his kids have guards!" argument is dumb and pointless.
AppleQueso wrote:I don't see how class is really relevant. I'm pretty sure if you really want to hire guards for yourself nobody is going to stop you. I don't really have any stake in this issue, I just think the "Obama is some kinda hypocrite/elitist because his kids have guards!" argument is dumb and pointless.
It is the situation that some of those who are calling for gun bans or restrictions then hire guards who use the weapons they are trying to restrict.
AppleQueso wrote:I don't see how class is really relevant. I'm pretty sure if you really want to hire guards for yourself nobody is going to stop you. I don't really have any stake in this issue, I just think the "Obama is some kinda hypocrite/elitist because his kids have guards!" argument is dumb and pointless.
It is the situation that some of those who are calling for gun bans or restrictions then hire guards who use the weapons they are trying to restrict.
I get what's supposed to be "hypocritical" about it, but I just am not seeing it. Do you seriously think the president shouldn't have guards because he favors gun restrictions?
AppleQueso wrote:I don't see how class is really relevant. I'm pretty sure if you really want to hire guards for yourself nobody is going to stop you. I don't really have any stake in this issue, I just think the "Obama is some kinda hypocrite/elitist because his kids have guards!" argument is dumb and pointless.
It is the situation that some of those who are calling for gun bans or restrictions then hire guards who use the weapons they are trying to restrict.
I get what's supposed to be "hypocritical" about it, but I just am not seeing it. Do you seriously think the president shouldn't have guards because he favors gun restrictions?
Nope, but if he has guns to protect his family, then we should have them to protect ours.
AppleQueso wrote:
I get what's supposed to be "hypocritical" about it, but I just am not seeing it. Do you seriously think the president shouldn't have guards because he favors gun restrictions?
Nope, but if he has guns to protect his family, then we should have them to protect ours.
Ok? Nobody is suggesting getting rid of all guns. Nobody is going to touch your handguns, shotguns, hunting rifles, etc. Hell, unless something about the proposed restrictions have changed since I last checked, they won't even come to take your assault rifles in a potential ban, as the ban would only apply to sales going forward.
You'll have your guns for protection. They aren't going anywhere.
Like I said though, I really don't have much of a stake in whether or not assault rifles or high capacity magazines get banned. I mainly just want to see the background check and registration stuff go through.
I just think this particular "elitism" argument is silly.
AppleQueso wrote:
I get what's supposed to be "hypocritical" about it, but I just am not seeing it. Do you seriously think the president shouldn't have guards because he favors gun restrictions?
Nope, but if he has guns to protect his family, then we should have them to protect ours.
Ok? Nobody is suggesting getting rid of all guns. Nobody is going to touch your handguns, shotguns, hunting rifles, etc. Hell, unless something about the proposed restrictions have changed since I last checked, they won't even come to take your assault rifles in a potential ban, as the ban would only apply to sales going forward.
You'll have your guns for protection. They aren't going anywhere.
Like I said though, I really don't have much of a stake in whether or not assault rifles or high capacity magazines get banned. I mainly just want to see the background check and registration stuff go through.
I just think this particular "elitism" argument is silly.
I am not opposed to a background check.
'Assault Rifles' dont really fire rounds any faster than a semi-auto handgun
Jmustang1968 wrote:It is the situation that some of those who are calling for gun bans or restrictions then hire guards who use the weapons they are trying to restrict.
I get what's supposed to be "hypocritical" about it, but I just am not seeing it. Do you seriously think the president shouldn't have guards because he favors gun restrictions?
Nope, but if he has guns to protect his family, then we should have them to protect ours.
Really? Really? I had no idea you were as important as the president! You were as targeted, as threatened, as the president! By god, all this time I figured you were just some nobody on the internet. Now that I know you are actually threatened with assassination, indeed you should get full security. But since I know that I myself am not threatened in such a way, I'll be fine in not requesting any for me.
. 
