Media Matters head doesn't believe in guns for you, only his bodyguards

[1911Tuner]

If the people providing security were/are legally armed, then he has that right. If they weren't/aren't...or a clause exists that allows a private security detail to be armed, then that clause should apply to everybody and not reserved for the very rich, high profile people. That smacks not only of elitism, but of the acceptance that Billionaire Bob's life is more important than Joe the Plumber's...simply because he's got more money than Joe.

We've already touched on the hypocrisy and irony of a rabid anti being heavily guarded or personally armed while he or she goes about the business of disarming all the Plumber Joes and Soccermom Sues of the country. Maybe he should stop doing things that would make people want to kill him. Minding his own affairs would be a good place to start.

 

[MX26]

Yes. Exactly, it seems that people seem to easily forget about scale. The death of an individual citizen can affect a handful of people. On the other hand, the death of an elected official affects a geometric quantity of people the higher their position is, both in the policies(which do drastically impact peoples lives) and the people's faith in their power to make a selection of the people who represent them in government.

As to the interchangeability of politicians, people should ask themselves this: why do you vote, if all politicians are interchangeable? Clearly you could just abstain and you would be sufficiently governed by whatever selection was made, also given that the power to choose who represents you isn't all that important.

This isn't to say that I think private citizens shouldn't have the right to protect themselves(I think they should), but that the nature behind the motivations for the protection of private citizens is different from that of elected officials.

Is the worth of a man measured by the number of others his loss affects?

This discussion of the relative "worth" of human beings is morbid and entirely misguided from the original intents and purposes of the opening post. This discussion's roots lay in the equal worth of all; the subsequent right of the individual to look after his own safety following naturally in step.

In my opinion the declarations of hypocrisy towards the campaigning gentlemen are warranted.

 

[8654Maine]

Neverwinter, I'll reply to your posts and not derail the other thread.

In this instance, the OP mentions Media Matters personnel. This is not an elected position.

Hence, this is difficult to reconcile with your views that: "Private citizens should not be able to purchase means of protection which are artificially restricted from other private citizens."

In regards to your hyperbolic statement, no one is arguing that elected officials don't deserve protection.

They're arguing against your view that official lives/deaths are more valuable due to to economy of scale. The argument is that John Q Public's life is just as important, even if his life affects no one.

I'll stop here. As for the interchangeability issue, I don't know where that is coming from.

Don't take this as an attack. I'm assuming by your position and your verbiage that you are a lawyer. I'm not.

I'm just surprised to hear the "some are more equal than others" from a forum member here.

 

[Neverwinter]

They're arguing against your view that official lives/deaths are more valuable due to to economy of scale. The argument is that John Q Public's life is just as important, even if his life affects no one.

I'll stop here. As for the interchangeability issue, I don't know where that is coming from.

Don't take this as an attack. I'm assuming by your position and your verbiage that you are a lawyer. I'm not.

I'm just surprised to hear the "some are more equal than others" from a forum member here.

For the same reason that most lawyers are interchangeable. They all play the same game. Losing one or two won't affect the outcome of the game one iota.

We spend a lot of effort and expense to have elections where citizens can democratically elect the people that they choose to represent them. It seems like there's a lot of false conflation of the person as an individual and the person as they serve the office for the citizenry. Those aren't the same. Politicians outside of their role as elected representatives are private individuals, so "some are more equal than others" is not an applicable observation here.

 

[230RN]

Referring to Flopsweat's remark,

So, when he went to pick up his gun ban money, he had to have one of his gun ban buddies bring a gun, because his gun ban wasn't working?

If I may restate that,

"...he had to be accompanied by four police officers, because his gun ban wasn't working?"

 

[Flopsweat]

Referring to Flopsweat's remark,



If I may restate that,

"...he had to be accompanied by four police officers, because his gun ban wasn't working?"

Eh, needs more cowbell.