The Gun Control Advocates Protected With Armed Bodyguards
Bob Owens writes at BearingArms.com about how powerful backers of gun control are protected by bodyguards -- the sort armed with more than colorful lollipops:
Billionaire Michael Bloomberg, the man personally bankrolling an otherwise dying gun control movement in the United States, is constantly surrounded by armed bodyguards (mostly poached from the NYPD, as I understand it), and I know for a fact that Moms Demand propagandist Shannon Watts has armed bodyguards, as I've seen them up close. Most other gun control supporters have public or private security, and a surprising number of them have concealed carry permits of their own.
In Virginia, State Sen. Bill Carrico has plans for staunch gun control advocate, Governor Terry McAuliffe, reports Tammy Childress in the Herald-Courier:
"I have a budget amendment that I'm looking at to take away his executive protection unit. If he's so afraid of guns, then I'm not going to surround him with armed state policemen."








Now people, we NEED these guys/gals to tell us what we are doing wrong.
And of course, just like Congress, the laws WE NEED are not the same ones that THEY NEED. After all, not everyone is special.
Bob in Texas at December 29, 2015 7:01 AM
It's about nothing more than control. Meanwhile in TX, a few days form now, we can wear our guns on our hips, no concealing necessary.
momof4 at December 29, 2015 7:16 AM
This is the way it has always been with self-styled ruling classes. They need guns, you don't. They avoid sullying their lily-white hands by getting hard men, the type of men whose existence they are otherwise opposed to, to do the dirty work for them.
Cousin Dave at December 29, 2015 7:28 AM
Open carry, although it is not a disaster (Prescott, AZ allowed it many years ago), is still not so good an idea except for the effect of destigmatizing and removing mythology from guns; out-of-sight means "easy to demonize".
It's just not so good an idea because unless there is awareness and determination to maintain possession and use one properly, a known gun is easy to neutralize. Just as {buying a gun} ≠ {self-defense}, {carrying openly} ≠ {self-defense} OR independence of any sort.
I suspect it'll get to be such a PITA to keep idiots from grabbing that more people go to concealed carry. (Hey, look, I got your gun. Now what are you going to do? Ha, ha!)
Radwaste at December 29, 2015 7:34 AM
I agree with you Rad. But it is good to have the option. Just because you have the option doesn't mean you have to use it. Just like having the right to buy a gun doesn't mean everyone goes out and buys one.
Ben at December 29, 2015 9:59 AM
I'm fine with making the U.S. Capitol an open-carry zone.
Anything to improve safety.
Kevin at December 29, 2015 10:29 AM
I don't see someone grabbing at another's holstered gun, at least not more than maybe once, here in TX. Grabbing at someone's gun is considered a lethal threat to them, they have justification to shoot you. And very likely will.
momof4 at December 30, 2015 8:31 AM
More ivory tower liberalism. Protected behind their walls and soldiers, the lords of the castle made rules for the common folk to abide by ... for the good of all.
Celebrities and public figures like to point out that because they are celebrities and public figures, they are targets for the crazies and therefore their need for armed protection is not equivalent to the ordinary citizen's, who is not a target for the crazies.
Of course, they ignore those crazies that targets ordinary citizens, the deranged abuser who is stalking his ex-wife, or the serial killer going after unprotected people that look like his mother. Remember, serial killer victims and even everyday murder victims are not usually celebrities and public figures, but ordinary people. The same ordinary people that the celebrities and public figures say don't need guns or armed bodyguards to protect themselves, not like celebrities and public figures do.
Conan the Grammarian at December 30, 2015 10:25 AM
"I don't see someone grabbing at another's holstered gun, at least not more than maybe once, here in TX. Grabbing at someone's gun is considered a lethal threat to them, they have justification to shoot you. And very likely will."
And the excuses will flow freely to deflect blame from the idiot who grabbed to the legal carrier, or the gun itself.
Anything to avoid personal responsibility for bad consequences of a fool's decision, for there is money to be made in protecting the fool from his folly!
Radwaste at December 30, 2015 8:42 PM
Some will try that in Texas Rad, but it is unlikely they will succeed. You have to understand this is a state that regularly accepts the 'he needed killing' defense. We have also expanded the right to use deadly force from just protecting your own property (castle defense) to also protecting your neighbor's property.
That is the benefit of high gun ownership. We also have a high level of gun education. Attempting to take someone's weapon without permission is a hostile act and responding with lethal force is acceptable.
Ben at December 31, 2015 7:15 AM
"Attempting to take someone's weapon without permission is a hostile act and responding with lethal force is acceptable."
Oh, *I* get that. I just expect the tender snowflakes and the Kleenex merchants of media will do everything possible to establish a tragedy somewhere.
Not everybody in Texas is from there. I have relatives in Dallas who shouldn't be anywhere near a gun, because despite range time and lengthy conversation, they just don't understand that the gun is not magic, and they panic easily and instantly if startled.
Radwaste at January 3, 2016 4:54 AM
Leave a comment