Should Politicians Who Support Gun-Control be Provided Armed Guards?

Screen Shot 2016-01-04 at 10.47.00 AMOne quick answer to that question, hell no!

Barack Obama is spending his final year in office with a keen focus on undermining the Second Amendment as much as his office allows.

Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders, and Martin O’Malley, the three progressives hoping to secure the Democrat presidential nomination, have all made it very clear that they intend to make pushing gun control a key part of the platforms.

Governors in a number of states, such as Andrew Cuomo in New York, Terry McAuliffe in Virginia, and Dannel Malloy in Connecticut have made it a point to try to heavily restrict the gun rights of their citizens, with varying degrees of success.

Trending: REPORT: Colin Kaepernick’s Legal Team Plan to Subpoena Trump

And of course, there have been a large number of anti-gun Democrats in the House of Representatives and the Senate on the federal level and in legislatures on state level that demand even more aggressive attacks on the right to bear arms.

At the same time they are calling for infringements on the Second Amendment (asper-capita homicides and gun accidents hit record lows), the vast majority of these politicians are hypocritically receiving publicly-funded armed security to protect their lives. Should these public servants, so intent on disarming the citizenry and stripping their constituents of practical self defense, be allowed security armed with the same firearms they would take away from constituents?

Read more: Bearing Arms


Join the conversation!

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse.