If gun control is a good idea, when will the rich give up their armed bodyguards?

Question

Why do rich people live in gated communities? If their homes are protected by armed guards, why shouldn't the poor family across town have their own gun to protect their home?

In my neighborhood, a lot of homes have a sign outside saying "Protected by Security Service - Armed Response."

Funny thing but I don't see any signs saying "We believe in gun control so we are not armed." Hmmm.

Is "gun control" just a politically correct way of saying "disarming the poorer people"?

Answer 1

i have never believed in gun control and never will. i think you have to be pretty damned naive to believe that outlawing guns will keep them off of the street. if outlawing something kept it out of the wrong hands, then we wouldn't have a drug problem. crack cocaine is illegal, can you not buy it on almost every street corner in some neighborhoods of most city's ?..i was a police officer for nearly ten years and never once was my life placed in danger by a responsible law abiding citizen who owned a firearm.

Answer 2

BIG BULL: This has nothing to do with bodyguards or the poor? Am I reading the same question as you??? What are you talking about...and STOP bringing up issues that do not have anything to do with THIS question. And stop assuming I live in the District of Columbia, lol, you cannot make statements that do not apply to EVERYONE. The right to bear arms is written, no matter where in the U.S. you live. Also, the government is different than city government. The issue in New Orleans is the city's fault, not the government's, get it straight.

As for the city destroying the guns, those guns were destroyed because the people claiming those guns could not prove ownership with the paperwork. I understand you want to prove an arguement, but do not use a situation where the city was under martial law, it does not apply here.

You are allowed to own guns in your house! That is your right as a citizen, no matter how much money you do or don't have. The only restrictions right now are about concealement.

Rich people live in gated communities because they can, and they feel safer that way. Rich people are not responsible for the poor people across town, so that shouldn't even be a question. Most wealthy people do not have bodyguards because it is a big chunk of change. I know of one client that is charged $300k a year for 24 hour armed protection! He is also charged for everything including maintenance, and all fees involving off site duties: food, lodging, plane tickets, rental cars, etc. Not every wealthy person can afford this. Most have guard dogs and highly sofisticated security systems with hidden safe rooms. Some do not want bodyguards watching them all the time for personal reasons.

Being poor is not something that you should accept. Poor people are not society's responsibility. Everybody should have learned by 18 yrs of age how to be responsible and support themselves, and NOT relying on others.

As for bodyguards, if you can afford them, then have them. If you can't, then don't sound so sorry for yourself and blame others because of your misfortune. If you need protection, it shouldn't matter if there's a gun control law or not. No one is going to punish you if you own a gun illegally and use that gun to defend your life, your family, or someone else's.

Answer 3

The question is a steaming pile of horseshit. The reason you think it is hypocrisy for security people to carry guns is because you have been lied to for so long with claims that the left wants to take everyone's guns away that you have stated to believe it. Hypocrisy is when someone says A but then does B. It's not hypocrisy if that person never said A, no matter how many times someone else accuses them of saying it. BTW, if you can't find the fun in asking an intelligent question, what does that tell us about you?

Answer 4

Um...gun control isn't a good idea. (at least not in the sense of no one should ever carry a gun...ever)

Why don't we have the military give up their guns as well. Then there will be world peace.

and the poor family across town can have a gun to protect their home. There is no logic here. I don't know why I'm wasting my time on this question.

Answer 5

If you want to have some fun research the first person arrested for carrying a gun in Washington DC after ban on all the carry, sale, possession, transport and so on went into affect.

You will recognize the name... At least of his boss.

If the people of this country allow this to continue, look for troops at your door, Waco style.

There is nothing more frightening to me than a politician who is afraid of my gun. That is the main reason I run from liberals as fast as I can.

I personally consider 6 .44 Magnum rounds into a 6" circle at 10 yards in 3 1/2 seconds to be gun control. Anything else is an effort to enslave any but the elite.

Did you know Congressmen and Senators are exempt from many of the laws they pass, including gun laws.

Answer 6

You have a good handle towards answering your own question. It is NOT a good idea. Only the loony-left, George Soros and the Libs in the U.S. Congress want this to happen. The elite media, New York Times, L.A. Times, The Washington Post etc. are the willing lapdogs for the kooks.

History teaches us that Hitler and Stalin began their powerful reigns of terror by first disarming the public. The RINO who happens to be the Mayor of New York City continues to fly the bird at Supreme Court rulings and do his own thing by attacking Mom and Pop firearms re-salers. Schoolbus Nagin is breaking the law every day he doesn't comply with a court rulling ordering him to give back firearms taken unlawfully by N-O police during and after Hurricane Katrina.

Depth of riches doesn't have a whole lot to do with gun ownershop. Nor does living in a gated community. Naples FL is a good example of that. a few years ago Naples' gated communities were hit and hit hard by daylight burglaries. Million of dollars in jewelry, firearms and expensive electronics were stoled. Those people arrested were from Tampa and Miami! Most with Hispanic surnames.

I believe more people of lesser means own a good number of firearms and have taken the steps to be permitted by FL to carry concealled firearms. Your argument is valid. Anyone who wants a firearm can buy one legally and only a short waiting period is required along with a simple background check.

Keeping asking the questions. We all profit from them.

Answer 7

'IlovemyTC'---You need to get educated on the government's illegal acts of search and seizure, more specificaly, New Orleans. The STATE SUPREME COURT has ruled that the city of N.O. has ILLEGALY seized privately onwned firearms that were stored IN PEOPLES HOMES and of contempt of court. So, here you have it, the Gov't will punish you and take away your guns that you keep in your home and use to defend your self. The city of N.O. now says they don't have the firearms and can't comply with the court ruling. I hope those citizens get PAID$$$$$$$$$$$$!!!!!!

Again, you seem to fail to grasp the concept of answering the questions and not rambling on about other issues. This has nothing to do with the poor, this has nothing to do with Martial Law, this has nothing to do with bodyguards. This has EVERYTHING to do with your uneducated statement that governments cannot enter your home and remove your legally owned firearms. My response was that they have in this particular case. Whatever judgement on the people of New Orleans, 'crazy people', I think you called them, is yours and so is your perception of State Supreme Courts as being 'a joke'. However, if it isn't for our legal systems' ability to govern itself, this particular case would not have been brought up and New Orleans would not have had to pay out the azz for it's illegal arrests and confiscations. 96% of the firearms WERE AND ARE proven to be legally owned, 3.6% were listed as collectables and heirlooms, therefore ANOTHER of your silly arguments is lost. So is your argument that we as citizens are allowed to have guns in our homes no matter how much we make, poor or rich. You are wrong again, the District of Colombia has an illegal law of not allowing citizens to own firearms in their homes as does San Francisco.

Answer 8

I have 2 bodyguards hired for myself. VIP and rich people have body guards to protect them from other things not pertaining to guns. Like when I go to the store, people are all over me, if my body guars are not with me, then I will get mauled to death by fans. It all about the safety, and paying a bodyguard 100,000 per year is definetly worth it for these people including myself.
[e-mail]

Answer 9

If you were rich,. politically connected, high office etc. and made laws against having steak for meals, wouldn't you have steak at your house?

Think about this. Do Communist dictators carry guns or do their protector goons?

This is not what the Second Amendment is about. Quite the contrary. Most everyone can see where this issue is going but won't lament it until it's too late.

Answer 10

I love the gun control issue. It does nothing to prevent the worst people from getting the guns, but it does much about allowing the rest of us to be defenseless.

Never allow the government to have a monopoly on your safety.