You are a pathetic moron. Learn to read, dumbass.
If you read the actual statutes (from ATF’s website), it states:
That would seem to indicate that armed bodyguards are well with in the intent and letter of the law.
Well, democrats are generally known for being pro gun control and republicans are often ascribed to be stooges of the NRA (and boy is that wrong), so he was pointing out that hypocrisy, which wouldn’t necesarily apply to republicans.
Exactly. They consider themselves to be The Enlightened - above the rules they advocate for us drooling mouth-breathers. That’s the sort of sentiment that powers the socialist elite who advocate and conduct socialist revolutions … or hell, modern liberals/socialists who advocate very gradual socialist/collectivist changes.
I believe he meant that as the area is loaded with criminals with criminal intent and criminal means, it’s the sort of place that most requires that law abiding citizens be able to own arms in their own self defense. The response to the high crime rate was to ban the ability of law abiding citizens to defend themselves, in a place where decent people most need the tools to do so.
So, it’s not only an ineffective crime reduction measure, but it actually disproportionately hurts decent, law abiding people in that area more than it would elsewhere.
Politicians on both sides of the aisle have set themselves in a class above the electorate for some time, despite folksy sound bites to the contrary that neatly coincide with elections.
Members of congress are exempt from arrest while traveling to or from as well as while congress is in session.
The do not call lists set up to keep telemarketers from invading your privacy don’t apply to politicians.
I’m sure there are more examples, but those are the only two that readily come to mind.
Well, I am willing to listen to evidence on both sides of this one…
And that’s exactly what he is, IMHO rightly pitting.
Rich people can have a gun if they pay someone else to carry it around for them, but you can’t.
No, rich people can also carry a gun, concealed or not concealed. It’s just the poor and the working people who can’t - they don’t have the right star power or the right connections. Never mind that it’s the working stiffs and poor people who are usually the victims.
Here is a hypothetical question… If you were a home invasion robber, who would you go after? Would it be someone in a city where guns are only for the rich and powerful, or someone in a different city where you don’t know who has a gun? I’d go after the easier, safer target. For comparison, I will use two hypothetical towns - No Gun California vs. Granny Is Armed Arizona. As a bad guy, I would steer clear of Granny Is Armed. Please don’t answer “well that is what police are for”, the police can’t do a thing for you if you are already dead when they get there.
I might think twice about robbing people if I couldn’t get a gun myself.
The problem is robbers can get guns, because they ignore all the gun laws. It’s just their victims who can’t.
History and staistics have shown that criminals always seem to be able to get guns, no matter what laws are passed. (Hint: Criminals, by definition, don’t obey the laws!)
Even in “firearm free” places like England, Australia, etc., criminals still seem to be able to get firearms.
Now, if we had a “liberal magic wand” that could magically remove all guns from the face of the Earth… Now THAT would make a difference.
Until then, laws affect the law-abiding, and criminals are 100% in favor of gun-control.
Get it?
Gun Control is supported by criminals, the rich elite, frightened politicians, ignorant non-gun-owners, *some * Democrats, most liberals, police who want to keep their jobs while working in a liberal atmosphere, terrorists and organized crime.
Did I miss some? I’m sure I did.
But what does this have to do with the OP???
If Kennedy gets a bodyguard, in D.C., then I want one, too!
SnakeS
Fuck you, too. Asshole. Go back to "parts unknown, where you’re appreciated.
Munch, munch… (barf!)
OOOH! We’re playing the “tar everyone who disagrees with the terrorist brush” game! I want to play too!
But I won’t.
In the UK, where you claim criminals can still get firearms, there were 68 homicides involving a firearm in 2004- including those where somebody was beaten to death using a gun, rather than shot- making up 8% of all homicides. Don’t believe me? Ask the UK Home Office.
In the US, there were 12,658 murders in 1999, of which 8,259 involved firearms- 65 per cent.
I’d hazard a guess that most British murderers can figure out by themselves that shooting someone is a lot easier than stabbing, strangling, or just about any other method of killing you care to mention.
I’ll let you do the math and figure out why they aren’t all using guns.
So, that’s one statement where you’ve proven my assertion. Criminals still can get guns, depite all the stringent, prohibative laws you folks have. No surprise there.
Yeah, but since the victims no longer have guns, why bother? (Well, some evidently still do…). Stabbing is much quieter, and just as effective if your victims don’t have guns for personal protection. Looks like a field day! Have the overall violent crime rates decreased?
Why use math? It’s already pretty obvious!
Wait a minute. Concealed carrying of a firearm and possession/ownership are two entirely different issues. Since this thread started by speaking about politicians, and assumably the District of Columbia, I’m not aware of their laws regarding ownership and carry permits.
In PA, unless I’m forbidden from owning a firearm owing to previous conviction, it is legal for me to purchase and transport from point of purchase to my home or place of business, and also to a shooting range or gunsmith a firearm without having a concealed carry permit. If I want to carry the firearm whenever I go to the corner store for a gallon of milk, then I need a CCP issued by the County Sheriff.
That said, unless the District has a wholesale ban on ownership, then a domestic robber runs equal likelihood of getting capped in DC as he does anywhere else.
Dallas isn’t known for strict gun laws and we are the 5th most dangerous large city in the US. We are also pretty much always in the top ten for murder too, remember JR? Yay us! Here is a comparison with that liberal sissy city San Francisco. We could bust a cap in those pinkos any day. Your twice as likely to get murdered or raped, but hey we got got guns. 
Just like to ad that I don’t think that lose gun laws cause crime either. I just don’t think gun laws really have anything to do with crime at all.
Yeah, thanks for the support. We’ve been trying to make that point sink in to the knee-jerk consciousness since 1968. I’m with ya!
Doesnt’ El Paso have the same statewide gun laws as Dallas? Their crime rate decreased.
Here are some admittedly biased snips from the first cite you posted:
It looks like the city with the toughest laws is still the worst. I will repeat what has alrady been stated. The laws only have an imact on the people who obey them. They do not have any effect on the people who ignore them. That shifts the “balance of power” to the “bad guys”.