Mr. Bloomberg, who owns a waterfront estate here, has walled off his life in Bermuda from voters in New York, arguing it is none of their business. He steadfastly refuses to say when he is on the island, and to blindfold prying eyes, he has blocked aviation Web sites from making public the movements of his private planes.
According to the article he goes there many weekends and plays a lot of golf. But the part that interests some folks, including FishyJay, is this.
The mayor also takes along a police detail when he travels, flying two officers on his private plane and paying as much as $400 a night to put them up at a hotel near his house; the city pays their wages while they are there, as it does whether Mr. Bloomberg is New York or not. Guns are largely forbidden in Bermuda — even most police officers do not use them — but the mayor’s guards have special permission to carry weapons. A spokesman for the Police Department declined to comment.
This often comes up about Bloomberg and other celebrities. Is it fair for someone to favor gun control or even gun bans and at the same time utilize armed guards for their own protection?
I say yes. Let's take a President, for example. A President could be extremely anti-gun, yet no one would suggest he shouldn't have the Secret Service around for protection. A similar rationale works for Michael Bloomberg, in my opinion. He's a wealthy high-profile political figure who needs armed protection regardless of his stand on gun control.
Is it necessarily hypocritical to promote severe restrictions on gun ownership, in general, among the regular folks, while recognizing the need for armed protection yourself? Personally, I don't think so. I don't see a problem with rich and famous people providing themselves with private security. What I do oppose is the increasing laxity in gun laws allowing many unqualified and even dangerous people to have guns. 40 States have shall issue now, according to Stephen. Arizona is allowing permitless concealed carry. Those are the things I have a problem with, not Mayor Bloomberg's body guards.
What about you? What's your opinion?
"Is it necessarily hypocritical to promote severe restrictions on gun ownership, in general, among the regular folks, while recognizing the need for armed protection yourself?"
ReplyDeleteYes.
What makes Bloomberg's life more valuable than the life of the person that scrubs his toilet?
MikeB,
ReplyDeleteAt what dollar amount does a life become worthy of protection?
What is the dollar amount that gun control is no longer important?
Is that dollar amount static or adjusted for the economy of the area that the higher class citizen lives in?
This is great news MikeB. Since I am rich and famous, it is good to know I have your blessing on guns.
ReplyDeleteMikeb: "40 States have shall issue now...Those are the things I have a problem with"
ReplyDeleteGunowners have a saying about wealthy anti-gunowner advocates with armed guards:
"Guns to protect me, but not for thee"
Mikeb, your statement indicates that you want the elites to have armed protection AND you want to deny that to others.
I have a problem with that.
At what dollar amount does a life become worthy of protection?
ReplyDeleteDumb question.
The issue is that some people tend to be selected as potential targets more than others. Certianly, this is the case for celebrities and other public figures.
A friend's wife used to work in the WH--responding to the mail that came in. She said it wasn't unusual for threats of various kinds to come in; sometimes she'd get about 100 a day. And she worked in an office with about 60 others who handled WH mail. She said you'd get the folks who were going to "get" the Prez because he hadn't fixed the sidewalk in front of their house or were upset because the Prez didn't call them personally. Now, the vast majority of these threats came from harmless cranks--but as we know, there are folks out there who are quite willing to act on what the voices tell them.
Additionally, the folks guarding Bloomberg are professionals--they're not some doof who walks into WalMart and walks out with a .45.
I'm also not buying the gunloon mantra of self-defense. Let's take the example of the semi-retard known as Linoge. Linoge carries a handgun, a knife, pepper spray and a sub-50 IQ whenever he leaves home. This, he claims, is to protect his family. However, we know his wife doesn't carry a weapon--so unless she accompanies him everywhere, all the time--its highly unlikely he's protecting her. We also know Linoge has a job where he is forbidden to carry any of male enhancement products. So, for about 40 hours a week, Linoge is by his own accounts vulnerable to imminent and immediate attack.
--JadeGold
"Additionally, the folks guarding Bloomberg are professionals--they're not some doof who walks into WalMart and walks out with a .45."
ReplyDeleteProfessionals like DEA Agent Lee "Only One" Paige?
"male enhancement products"
ReplyDeleteI hate to encourage him, but that one was funny right there.
AztecRed asks, "What makes Bloomberg's life more valuable than the life of the person that scrubs his toilet?"
ReplyDeleteI don't think it's because his life is more valuable. It's because his high profile career and wealth make him a likely target and the fact that he can afford the protection of trained and qualified security people. None of these things is true of your average gun owner.
I wrote that before reading JadeGold's comment. As often happens he and I are on the same page and he explains in much better than I do. Thanks JG.
And thanks to you too, FWM. you never lose you sense of humor.
A friend's wife used to work in the WH-
ReplyDeleteOh come on. I find it very hard to believe that you have any friends.
MikeB: “I don't think it's because his life is more valuable. It's because his high profile career and wealth make him a likely target and the fact that he can afford the protection of trained and qualified security people. None of these things is true of your average gun owner.”
ReplyDeleteSo as long as someone has reason to need protection it is valid in your eyes, correct? Like say… having money that someone wants to forcibly take. Keep in mind if Bloomberg gets robbed for a billion dollars it would still be less of a hit for him that your average person getting carjacked. So Bloomberg could just “give them want they want” and not bother with armed protection, not? Bloomberg will also never have to walk home from the bus stop late a night through a bad neighborhood. Not that I am saying he doesn’t need protection- just he’s not the only one, and everyone has different types of risks.
Since you said “trained and qualified”, this means another option to satisfy you would be more tactical practice for gun owners. I’d probably take Xavier over Bloomberg’s goons, but you’ve disparaged his training as paranoid. Sure you’d like to make training mandatory, but can we all agree that promoting training/practice by making it more accessible/cost effective to the public is a good thing?
Jadegold: “The issue is that some people tend to be selected as potential targets more than others. Certianly, this is the case for celebrities and other public figures.”
ReplyDeletePlaxico is glad to know he has your support.
"It's because his high profile career and wealth make him a likely target and the fact that he can afford the protection of trained and qualified security people. None of these things is true of your average gun owner."
ReplyDeleteTaking into account the crime statistics of New York, who is more likely to be attacked: A politician constantly surrounded by witnesses or someone who has to walk home from the subway alone?