Hypocritical celebs, liberal politicians, Bloomberg, Schumer, Clintons, Obama

I would assume that the professional armed security guards have undergone rigorous training and have a lot of scrutiny about their rules of engagement, etc. Their clients are also more likely to be targeted than the common person. TBH, I'd be more concerned about a celebrity that claimed to take his/her security in their own hands.
I'm not sure that this assumption is necessarily valid. According to this site (https://learn.org/articles/What_are_the_Requirements_for_Becoming_an_Armed_Security_Officer.html), there does not seem to necessarily be much, if any, requirement to be qualified on the weapon that you carry. This varies state by state, however, according to the source. Depending on the state, you must qualify with a weapon in order to get a concealed carry permit, so I'm betting that these requirements aren't that much different. This is one the things that really bothers me about the "let the police handle it" argument. Most departments require that you score something like a 70% on your weapons qualification one time per year, meaning that many officers only shoot once or twice a year. These aren't exactly grueling shooting requirements, meaning that these officers who don't shoot on their own time and dime are much more likely to miss than your average shooting enthusiast. Not what you want when your life is on the line! I guess what I'm saying is that these guards, and law enforcement for that matter, isn't as well-trained as you probably think that they are (as an aside, I think it's this small amount of training that has direct linkages to what might be considered to be "bad shoots" when people rightly or wrongly criticize the decisions made by LEOs to use lethal force).

As for more likely being a target, that's a really moving target. Are there more people that want to shoot George Clooney than who would want to shoot you? Probably. But how often does George Clooney walk home alone after getting off at midnight from a shift at work? Does George Clooney live in a rough neighborhood where homes get broken into, such as the South side of Boston? Of course not. Necessity is a powerful driver, and just being an interesting target does not equate to being an opportunistic target. Because celebrities are such small targets of opportunity, they have considerably less to worry about than the average person.
 
I wish these conversations could start on an honest foot so that there was some way to move forward. But it is just ridiculously dishonest to call a President a hypocrite for wanting some stricter gun control laws while his kids have secret service protection. That is not hypocrisy. Hypocrisy would be if Obama used security guards, while trying to outlaw security guards.
 
I'm not sure that this assumption is necessarily valid. According to this site (https://learn.org/articles/What_are_the_Requirements_for_Becoming_an_Armed_Security_Officer.html), there does not seem to necessarily be much, if any, requirement to be qualified on the weapon that you carry. This varies state by state, however, according to the source. Depending on the state, you must qualify with a weapon in order to get a concealed carry permit, so I'm betting that these requirements aren't that much different. This is one the things that really bothers me about the "let the police handle it" argument. Most departments require that you score something like a 70% on your weapons qualification one time per year, meaning that many officers only shoot once or twice a year. These aren't exactly grueling shooting requirements, meaning that these officers who don't shoot on their own time and dime are much more likely to miss than your average shooting enthusiast. Not what you want when your life is on the line! I guess what I'm saying is that these guards, and law enforcement for that matter, isn't as well-trained as you probably think that they are (as an aside, I think it's this small amount of training that has direct linkages to what might be considered to be "bad shoots" when people rightly or wrongly criticize the decisions made by LEOs to use lethal force).

As for more likely being a target, that's a really moving target. Are there more people that want to shoot George Clooney than who would want to shoot you? Probably. But how often does George Clooney walk home alone after getting off at midnight from a shift at work? Does George Clooney live in a rough neighborhood where homes get broken into, such as the South side of Boston? Of course not. Necessity is a powerful driver, and just being an interesting target does not equate to being an opportunistic target. Because celebrities are such small targets of opportunity, they have considerably less to worry about than the average person.
I want to say it was @Protectandserve who talked about the LEO qual course he had to do a couple months ago and how, well, bad most of the department shoots.

It's like the guy in Texas the media was going around like "he received an 'expert' rating in marksmanship courses in the military" and my brain was like "doesn't that BASICALLY mean you know which way to point the gun and not to have your boogerhook on the bangswitch unless you're going to pull the trigger?"
 
I wish these conversations could start on an honest foot so that there was some way to move forward. But it is just ridiculously dishonest to call a President a hypocrite for wanting some stricter gun control laws while his kids have secret service protection. That is not hypocrisy. Hypocrisy would be if Obama used security guards, while trying to outlaw security guards.
My bigger issue in these discussions is certain, say, demographics of people are almost always on the side of "no guns for anyone" (not saying you) then you get to talking and they live in a highly populated urban area and LEO could respond to their 911 call in like.... 5-10 minutes.

Meanwhile, people like me... I'd be lucky if the Sheriff or local PD could get to me in 30 minutes.
 
I want to say it was @Protectandserve who talked about the LEO qual course he had to do a couple months ago and how, well, bad most of the department shoots.

It's like the guy in Texas the media was going around like "he received an 'expert' rating in marksmanship courses in the military" and my brain was like "doesn't that BASICALLY mean you know which way to point the gun and not to have your boogerhook on the bangswitch unless you're going to pull the trigger?"
Expert in the army on the M4 is 36/40. It’s really not that hard. Qualifying at all is 23/40. Weak sauce...
 
Family Values
<{Heymansnicker}>
epstein-and-trump-at-mar-a-lago.jpg

Stormy-Trump.jpg
dennis_hastert_indictment.jpg

thumb_bfa_5719_653221.jpg
 
My bigger issue in these discussions is certain, say, demographics of people are almost always on the side of "no guns for anyone" (not saying you) then you get to talking and they live in a highly populated urban area and LEO could respond to their 911 call in like.... 5-10 minutes.

Meanwhile, people like me... I'd be lucky if the Sheriff or local PD could get to me in 30 minutes.

I very rarely hear anybody say "no guns for anybody" though. I honestly can't think of a single person I've ever heard say that, actually. I'm sure there are some out there. But to me, that seems to be a scare tactic used by the NRA and Conservative politicians to evoke fear.

I am a gun owner. I fully support everyone's right to own a gun. But I do think there are a few things we could tighten up to make it more difficult for people to buy guns on a whim. If anybody made a "ban all guns" thread, I would be the first person in there to say that is ridiculous. I just don't see it though.

But more to your point, I agree that people's life experience mostly dictates their political views, including on gun control. I think people have a hard time stepping outside of their own shoes and into somebody else's. Once they draw their line in the sand, it seems like people are very hesitant to ever listen to anybody on the other side of the line.
 
I wish these conversations could start on an honest foot so that there was some way to move forward. But it is just ridiculously dishonest to call a President a hypocrite for wanting some stricter gun control laws while his kids have secret service protection. That is not hypocrisy. Hypocrisy would be if Obama used security guards, while trying to outlaw security guards.
Yeah, POTUS is not a hypocrite. I’d argue that the celebrities are, however. It’s frustrating all the same when public officials have access to things that we don’t, but then try to tell us how we should manage our own situations. Like when there are surging gas prices, and the POTUS suggests that we drive less (Bush). Or when we are asked to look out for the environment by using less gas while they hop on private jets (Hillary).
 
Wait - hiring licensed professionals who have to go through certification to hold their jobs and are constantly retraining makes them hypocrites when it comes to regulating unlicensed amateurs who have zero certifications or training requirements?

Can't buy that argument. If the security details were made up from their cousins and best friends then there would be a parallel.
 
I very rarely hear anybody say "no guns for anybody" though. I honestly can't think of a single person I've ever heard say that, actually. I'm sure there are some out there. But to me, that seems to be a scare tactic used by the NRA and Conservative politicians to evoke fear.

I am a gun owner. I fully support everyone's right to own a gun. But I do think there are a few things we could tighten up to make it more difficult for people to buy guns on a whim. If anybody made a "ban all guns" thread, I would be the first person in there to say that is ridiculous. I just don't see it though.

But more to your point, I agree that people's life experience mostly dictates their political views, including on gun control. I think people have a hard time stepping outside of their own shoes and into somebody else's. Once they draw their line in the sand, it seems like people are very hesitant to ever listen to anybody on the other side of the line.
It's probably cause I'm from NW Washington but I see plenty of "they should do away with the 2nd Amendment" or people doing the usual "we don't want to take your guns away blahblah" then quote the Aussie ban on them two posts later on FB and I'm just like:
<JagsKiddingMe><{hfved}>
 
Can't buy that argument. If the security details were made up from their cousins and best friends then there would be a parallel.
Ever seen Mayweather's "security" detail?

It's fucking laughable:
floyd-mayweather-1.jpg
 
I'm not following the hypocrisy and it seems pretty consistent to me. You listed people who are concerned about their safety (for obvious reasons) and they're concerned that some nut with a gun will harm them or their family. So they want stronger gun laws which they think make everyone safer. So where is the hypocrisy?

The other side of the coin is what seems hypocritical to me. One party fights against any restrictions on gun ownership yet will ban them CPAC for example. Obviously they have to do it and it makes perfect sense but they run into problems when people get on that very stage and give speeches that we need more guns and no restrictions!
 
Yeah, POTUS is not a hypocrite. I’d argue that the celebrities are, however. It’s frustrating all the same when public officials have access to things that we don’t, but then try to tell us how we should manage our own situations. Like when there are surging gas prices, and the POTUS suggests that we drive less (Bush). Or when we are asked to look out for the environment by using less gas while they hop on private jets (Hillary).

I think that most politicians and most normal people are hypocrites in some way. I think it is just especially obnoxious when it is a celebrity because of the amount of privilege they have. I think a lot of celebrities live in a bit of a fantasy world.

I tend to completely ignore celebrities. I don't have Twitter or Instagram, I don't go on Facebook. I don't watch TMZ, etc. I have no idea what most celebrities think unless it is posted here.
 
Expert in the army on the M4 is 36/40. It’s really not that hard. Qualifying at all is 23/40. Weak sauce...
Like, I'm no expert marksman by any means but I've been at least shooting BB guns or a .22 lever action since I was like 10 and have shitty eyesight without my glasses/contacts.

I can at least get everything inside/near the 10 ring from 50-100 yards out as long as I have the rifle sighted in properly then I hear from LEO friends how some dude's miss the silhouette entirely on a couple shots during pistol quals at like 25 meters.
 
I wish these conversations could start on an honest foot so that there was some way to move forward. But it is just ridiculously dishonest to call a President a hypocrite for wanting some stricter gun control laws while his kids have secret service protection. That is not hypocrisy. Hypocrisy would be if Obama used security guards, while trying to outlaw security guards.
I read the first page and posted before I saw this post, but this nails it. It's perfectly consistent to hire security for protection because you're afraid of a nut job with a gun and also support laws that prevent said nut job from getting a gun.

And to just add to nac here Obama, Hillary, etc. never wanted to take your guns away. So starting with that assumption is dishonest as well.
 
It's probably cause I'm from NW Washington but I see plenty of "they should do away with the 2nd Amendment" or people doing the usual "we don't want to take your guns away blahblah" then quote the Aussie ban on them two posts later on FB and I'm just like:
<JagsKiddingMe><{hfved}>

Yeah, @LogicalInsanity has the same issue in Seattle. Honestly, that would be very annoying to me as well. I don't hear that kind of thing around here (Maryland).

It kind of goes back to what we both said earlier, we formulate our views based on our own experiences. I have never encountered these crazy liberals that everybody complains about because there just aren't that many of them around here. Maryland leans left, but we voted in a Republican governor. This state really isn't very partisan at all.
 
Ever seen Mayweather's "security" detail?

It's fucking laughable:
floyd-mayweather-1.jpg
What's laughable? Those guys are huge. Mayweather is like 5'8".

I worked with a guy who looked just like the dude over Mayweather's right shoulder in the back. Super nice guy but he did security on weekends at Atlantic City and the dude was a certifiable bad motherfucker and would slam you through a table in 2 seconds if you started some shit.

Call me nuts but I'd hire 6'3" and taller and 300lb and heavier as security as well.
 
Yeah, @LogicalInsanity has the same issue in Seattle. Honestly, that would be very annoying to me as well. I don't hear that kind of thing around here (Maryland).

It kind of goes back to what we both said earlier, we formulate our views based on our own experiences. I have never encountered these crazy liberals that everybody complains about because there just aren't that many of them around here. Maryland leans left, but we voted in a Republican governor. This state really isn't very partisan at all.
I live near and have worked in liberal NYC for a long time and they're a small percentage here too. It just seems like there are lots of them because there are millions of people living in a city. But the far majority of liberals are quite reasonable on this stuff.
 
Ever seen Mayweather's "security" detail?

It's fucking laughable:
floyd-mayweather-1.jpg
Interesting article about his bodyguards. They aren't the joke you are implying they are.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/14/sports/for-mayweather-peace-of-mind-weighs-1470-pounds.html

LAS VEGAS — The boxer Floyd Mayweather Jr. travels everywhere surrounded by 1,470 pounds of bulk, the combined weight of four men so large that when they stand close to him, he disappears.

To the uninformed, these men look like bodyguards, albeit the biggest, beefiest bodyguards around. But Mayweather disdains that title. Rappers, he says, have bodyguards.

Floyd Mayweather has security.

Mayweather tells his security to “put up that Great Wall,” and they fall into their assigned formation, with Alfonso Redic and Adam Plant in front and Pat Walsh and Donald Monks in back. They wear T-shirts reading TMT (for The Money Team) and ranging in size from 3XL to 7XL. Their nicknames: Big Church, Big A, Big Pat and Jethro.

They stand between Mayweather and the mayhem that accompanies him, between Mayweather and those who wish to harm or rob or follow or harass. They remain on call 24 hours a day and are paid in bonuses doled out at Mayweather’s whim. They escort him to the mall and to the gym and on vacation, and on Saturday night they will again lead him into the ring at the MGM Grand Garden Arena, for his bout against Saúl Álvarez, who is known as Canelo.

Inside arenas, it is opponents of the undefeated Mayweather who need protection. His hands are basically weapons, his body trained both to inflict pain and to avoid it. He would seem an unlikely candidate to require his own sort of Secret Service.



But Mayweather’s security detail serves two main purposes, both of which speak to his personality. The team serves the practical side of Mayweather, a defendant in numerous lawsuits who will often carry around more than $1 million in cash and is guaranteed at least $41.5 million for the Álvarez fight. And it bolsters the image of the man who goes by Money, who boasts of the biggest everything: his “big boy mansion,” his collection of more than 25 cars, his pay-per-view numbers, his gold chains and diamond earrings and watches the size of bagels.

“It’s just normal that he has the biggest bodyguards as well,” said Richard Schaefer, the chief executive of Golden Boy Promotions, a Mayweather business partner. “It wouldn’t fit otherwise.”

After one training session last month, Mayweather sneaked out the back door of his locker room. A crush of fans descended. Security instructed the crowd to move back, away from the white Lamborghini Aventador with black rims that was parked diagonally and idling.

Mayweather climbed inside, along with a cameraman from Showtime, and as the bass thumped and the boxer revved the engine, the security’s myriad duties were whittled to one: making sure the Lamborghini did not run over someone’s foot.

The next day, Mayweather canceled his scheduled workout session. His security team met for lunch at the Tap House, where patrons sipped beers at 11 a.m., next to neon signs, under a haze of smoke. The four men ordered chicken wings. They checked their phones continually, in case the boss called. The celery that accompanied the wings, naturally, was left untouched.

They detailed their job description. WANTED: oversize men with incredible patience, available 24-7-365, who protect at all times and speak only when spoken to; perks include premium seats at sporting events, first-class airfare, diamond watches given at random and fat wads of cash dispensed regularly.

Two nights earlier, Mayweather had summoned his security team at 6 a.m. He wanted a foot massage. The men drank coffee and Red Bull and wiped sleep from their eyes as they left their families and went to work.

Mayweather’s vampiresque schedule — his days start in the afternoon and end around sunrise — can be a challenge, but they all knew the job description. They knew they would miss birthdays and anniversaries and work through his vacations.

They believe Mayweather will take care of them. He always has. Redic and Plant once worked for the rapper Snoop Dogg. Mayweather pays better, they said, and his entourage comes with fewer headaches. They accompanied him for his WrestleMania appearance in 2008. They even sign an occasional autograph.

The first rule of Mayweather security: job first. They see all the anglers who show up at the gym, who want to pitch business plans or give away T-shirts or meet one of the richest athletes in the world. Cronies, they call those people, and they can spot them from far away. Members of the security team know they are not supposed to be friends with Mayweather. Job first.

The second rule of Mayweather security: be nice. Earlier bodyguards employed by Mayweather were named in lawsuits, more than a half-dozen, often with the boxer named as well. If security can play the role of kind-but-firm bad guy, the fighter does not have to. He can sign autographs when he feels like it. He can slide through crowds. Should any of them slip, Mayweather will scold them back into position with two words: “Tighten up.”


The third rule of Mayweather security, courtesy of Plant: “Protect the quarterback at all times. Make sure he ain’t touched.”

The fourth rule of Mayweather security is that Mayweather rarely discusses Mayweather security. The topic seemed to make him uncomfortable last month. He said his large companions were there to “secure the premises” and “alleviate all problems.” He said President Obama did not discuss the Secret Service. He was serious.

Then he said, “I just want to talk about” — he pointed both thumbs at his chest — “me.”

Many believe his reluctance to talk about security members, and his decision to employ them in the first place, stem from a 2003 incident in which Mayweather split from a business associate. According to one witness and several others who said they spoke to Mayweather in the immediate aftermath, some of his associates were beaten at the Top Rank Boxing gym in Las Vegas. Mayweather and his camp have never confirmed this account, but Bob Arum, the founder of Top Rank and no fan of Mayweather’s, likes to say it took weeks to get the blood stains out of the carpet.

That is where the bodyguards come in, especially during fight week. They protect Mayweather and his investment in the fight; expenses for a bout like Saturday’s run at least $10 million. Before his last match, against Robert Guerrero, Mayweather kept his father away from Guerrero’s father at the news conference, the bodyguards between them.

Donald Monks watching Mayweather train. Credit Isaac Brekken for The New York Times
“I’d much rather he hire them than feel the need to carry a handgun,” said Stephen Espinoza, the general manager of Showtime Sports.

Boxers have employed security for decades. These bodyguards are often former police officers or former federal agents, or they specialize in protection. Arum promoted Muhammad Ali, who hired security from his entourage. Shane Mosley used police officers for fights.

It seems counterintuitive that boxers, of all athletes, need security, since they are some of the toughest sportsmen on the planet. But some fans want to test their manhood, especially a flashy boxer like Mayweather, undefeated in the ring but, at 5-foot-8 and roughly 150 pounds, not a large man in real life.

No fighters employ security members as numerous or as large as Mayweather does. Redic is 7 feet 1 inch and weighs 430 pounds. Plant is 6-7 and 380 pounds; Walsh is 6-5 and 400 pounds; Monks, pint-size in comparison, is 6-3 and 260 pounds. They are basically 80 percent of an N.F.L. offensive line.

Mayweather likes something in particular about each of them. Redic is the most intimidating. He played professional basketball overseas. He met Mayweather through a friend at a nightclub and apparently passed the eye test. “You don’t work for Snoop no more,” Mayweather told him. “You work for me now.”

Plant played football, first at Tuskegee University, then in training camp with the Kansas City Chiefs, then in the Canadian Football League. Snoop Dogg added Plant to his semipro team, and he played right tackle, and they never lost. Snoop nicknamed him Pancake. Mayweather paid for what it cost Plant to move his family into a house.

“I used to laugh at security guards,” Plant said. “I called them fake cops.”

Walsh wrestled in high school in Arizona, then played football at a community college. He is licensed to carry a firearm — as is Plant — and knows the gun laws in different states. Walsh lives the closest to Mayweather, a four-minute drive away. He once sat in front of the actress Gabrielle Union at a Miami Heat game, courtesy of the man they call Champ.

Monks, a retired heavyweight, knows the history of boxing, same as his boss. He met Mayweather as a bartender, when the boxer left $1,000 tips, even though the strongest thing he drank was juice.

“Basically, we’re as nice as we are mean,” Walsh said. “We’re really, really nice. I swear. But if we want to, we can be mean. We can go there. But only if we have to.”

Sometimes, Mayweather laments the constant chaos in his life. He wonders what it would be like to walk alone, unbothered. He knows, of course, that it would be impossible, unsafe.

So he calls his security team, sometimes at 2 a.m., sometimes at 4 a.m., sometimes at 8 a.m., and he summons Big Church, Big A, Big Pat and Jethro to the airport, where private planes await. These planes are large enough to hold Mayweather’s most important cargo: 1,470 pounds of bulk.
 
Last edited:
So all these liberal celebs (Kim K, George and Amal Clooney etc..) , Hollywood honchos, Michael Bloomberg, Chuck Schumer, Dem politicians want to deprive everyday Americans of guns but they have security details to protect their ass.

Friggin hypocrites. Same as the liberals who chastise the average Joe for driving a pickup while they make prodigious use of private planes and rent out super yachts (like DiCaprio and his virtue signalling Prius)

they they they they they

dont you think you're pigeonholing a little bit? there are many types of liberals. and as for celebrity security details.....youre probably a much less of a target than them lol.
 
Back
Top