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

[panamaican]

It's an elitist adatude at best when they know they can afford it but know full well most people cannot afford even the training and restrictions they want.

It's their way of disarming those beneath them in terms of social power.

If they push that the training be free for all then we can talk about it.

How does one follow from the other? As I understand this argument - because they can afford an expensive version of something, it is hypocritical/elitist for them to want that something regulated? The regulations would apply to their security details, they would apply to the celebs. They're not arguing for regulations that would exclude them.

To use a parallel - rich people buy cars with airbags. Then they start insisting that all cars have airbags. Installing airbags would increase the price of the cars, making them less affordable for everyone. Your argument is that this would make the rich people hypocrites or elitists because they're arguing for a regulation that increases costs.

Well, every regulation is elitist by that argument because every regulation increases the time/cost to get something done and those with means will always be able to navigate that more easily.

Frankly, the OP is illogical and I think the only reason people would see this as hypocritical is that they view any firearm regulation through a warped lens. I'm on record on this forum for thinking we need less weapons regulation because I interpret the 2nd amendment very broadly. But there's nothing hypocritical about people who pay for vetted individuals to suggest that everyone should be vetted.

There's nothing elitist about it because they're not telling anyone to go get a security detail for self-protection. They're arguing for their idea of better laws regulating who can/can't buy firearms. Which is completely consistent with hiring professionals from an industry that is itself already regulated. As rich/famous people, they are also more likely to be targeted by crazy individuals or criminals so the regulation of firearms indirectly speaks to their personal safety.

How anyone can ignore those elements of their reality to boil their argument down to "hypocrites" and "elitists" baffles me. It's indicative of why there's no common ground anymore. People reduce the opposition to superficial arguments devoid of context because they've decided beforehand that there's nothing of value except on their side.

And to reiterate - I think we should have less regulation and people should be allowed to own military grade weapons. If someone can safely store a ICBM in his backyard, I think he should be allowed to buy it and do so.

 

[jlagman]

Expert in the army on the M4 is 36/40. It’s really not that hard. Qualifying at all is 23/40. Weak sauce...

For the RCMP 50-round course of fire, 200/250 is a pass.

 

[oldshadow]

Ok, let's break it into 2 separate questions before continuing:
1) Should a civilian be able to buy, say, a military spec M240 (or some other comparable weapon that would fall under the category of arms), at Walmart, no questions asked?
2) Assuming it was their intention (big assumption, imo), why would the founding fathers make a distinction between arms and ordinance?

1) We have restricted ( infringed) on that right and the supreme court has approved it. I can live with that. And you stil have to fill out a form with questions when you by a long gun at any store.

2) Ordinance was to be controlled and supplied by the local government and not the responsibility of the individual.

I've got to go,for a run and do some stuff but I enjoy a discussion and will get back to any other post as soon as I can.

Read the link in my other post as it is informative.

 

[Protectandserve]

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 go to the range today or tomorrow for my bi monthly qualification. I will update later what the course of fire was.

But yeah, most agencies across the country cops "qualify" once or twice a year at best. We shoot every two months, and an additional 2-3 times for our quarterly block training which also includes simmunitions and force on force.

Even with that, we still have people who are fucking abysmal. Still a lot of cops who don't give a shit about being proficient with their tools.

 

[oldshadow]

How does one follow from the other? As I understand this argument - because they can afford an expensive version of something, it is hypocritical/elitist for them to want that something regulated? The regulations would apply to their security details, they would apply to the celebs. They're not arguing for regulations that would exclude them.

To use a parallel - rich people buy cars with airbags. Then they start insisting that all cars have airbags. Installing airbags would increase the price of the cars, making them less affordable for everyone. Your argument is that this would make the rich people hypocrites or elitists because they're arguing for a regulation that increases costs.

Well, every regulation is elitist by that argument because every regulation increases the time/cost to get something done and those with means will always be able to navigate that more easily.

Frankly, the OP is illogical and I think the only reason people would see this as hypocritical is that they view any firearm regulation through a warped lens. I'm on record on this forum for thinking we need less weapons regulation because I interpret the 2nd amendment very broadly. But there's nothing hypocritical about people who pay for vetted individuals to suggest that everyone should be vetted.

There's nothing elitist about it because they're not telling anyone to go get a security detail for self-protection. They're arguing for their idea of better laws regulating who can/can't buy firearms. Which is completely consistent with hiring professionals from an industry that is itself already regulated. As rich/famous people, they are also more likely to be targeted by crazy individuals or criminals so the regulation of firearms indirectly speaks to their personal safety.

How anyone can ignore those elements of their reality to boil their argument down to "hypocrites" and "elitists" baffles me. It's indicative of why there's no common ground anymore. People reduce the opposition to superficial arguments devoid of context because they've decided beforehand that there's nothing of value except on their side.

And to reiterate - I think we should have less regulation and people should be allowed to own military grade weapons. If someone can safely store a ICBM in his backyard, I think he should be allowed to buy it and do so.

I guess we will have to disagree on how we see this.

I respect your post and how you post and you are often informative on things but we disagree here.

Got to go for a run now be back later.

 

[jlagman]

I go to the range today or tomorrow for my bi monthly qualification. I will update later what the course of fire was.

But yeah, most agencies across the country cops "qualify" once or twice a year at best. We shoot every two months, and an additional 2-3 times for our quarterly block training which also includes simmunitions and force on force.

Even with that, we still have people who are fucking abysmal. Still a lot of cops who don't give a shit about being proficient with their tools.

There's a difference between doing something because you genuinely enjoy it and want to improve; and doing it to meet a minimum job requirement...and it shows.

 

[Higus]

1) We have restricted ( infringed) on that right and the supreme court has approved it. I can live with that. And you stil have to fill out a form with questions when you by a long gun at any store.

2) Ordinance was to be controlled and supplied by the local government and not the responsibility of the individual.

I've got to go,for a run and do some stuff but I enjoy a discussion and will get back to any other post as soon as I can.

Read the link in my other post as it is informative.

Thanks for being a good sport, I've enjoyed this too. When you get back:
1. I guess this comes down the the heart of what an infringement is. A restriction can be practical necessity, a minor inconvenience, or a violation of civil liberties. Maybe all three. If the argument is that any kind of restriction, no matter how practical it or trivially inconvenient it is constitutes as an unlawful infringement, we are going to get into a ridiculous territory. I believe that whatever you intend the weapon to be used for, it is not unreasonable to ask for a demonstration of proof that you can do so competently. If your intentions are to carry it in public to possibly defend yourself or others, some sort of training and ongoing certification shouldn't be unreasonable to ask for. Training is a part of being a responsible gun owner. If you can afford to buy a gun, but can't afford to take it to range or buy ammo to practice with it, then you probably shouldn't have bought it.

2. I've heard a lot of posters here say that the purpose of the 2nd amendment is to protect civilians from a tyrannical government. Why would the founding fathers limit people to just arms and not ordinance if that was the case?

 

[MicroBrew]

How does one follow from the other? As I understand this argument - because they can afford an expensive version of something, it is hypocritical/elitist for them to want that something regulated? The regulations would apply to their security details, they would apply to the celebs. They're not arguing for regulations that would exclude them.

The rich can afford to hire muscle. The average Jane and Joe can not, so they (Jane and Joe) could use a firearm to give them better odds at surviving an attack.

 

[MicroBrew]

Prince William warned about population growth and Western levels of resource consumption. But he has 2 kids with 2 more on the way. Ofcourse he didn't choose to have twins but he did choose to have kids have the first 2. And he consumers more resources than the vast majority of people in the 1st world.

 

[BearGrounds]

This was a funny segment about some of the hypocrisy shown by the global warming alarmist crowd.

Timestamped where he begins talking about it.

 

[panamaican]

The rich can afford to hire muscle. The average Jane and Joe can not, so they (Jane and Joe) could use a firearm to give them better odds at surviving an attack.

Yes but regulating firearm purchases would affect the very same muscle that the rich can afford to hire. If buying guns became too restricted, the muscle would have the same problems. And so the rich would also have the same problems as less muscle would be legally carrying.

 

[FrankensteinMMA]

Is it really hypocritical though? I don´t think paying trained professionals to protect you and not wanting guns in the public hands really conflict that much. Now if they were carrying guns for protection, that would be something else.

they are high profile people they should hire proffesional guards.

common sense. the paparazzi and stalkers dont usually frequent your average peraon.

so there is a huge difference.

 

[MicroBrew]

Yes but regulating firearm purchases would affect the very same muscle that the rich can afford to hire. If buying guns became too restricted, the muscle would have the same problems. And so the rich would also have the same problems as less muscle would be legally carrying.

Firearms is a great equalizer for physically weak persons who are confronted by physically more imposing opponents. The rich can be just as physically weak as the average Joe, but they have hired muscle to defend them.

 

[panamaican]

Firearms is a great equalizer for physically weak persons who are confronted by physically more imposing opponents. The rich can be just as physically weak as the average Joe, but they have hired muscle to defend them.

Tongue in cheek - that's what they said about karate too.

Yes, the rich can hire muscle - who will have to go through the same restrictions as everyone else to get a gun. If it's about "muscle" for "protection", the physically weak person can take the money they would have spent on a firearm and get a gym membership, join an MMA class, buy some protein bars and protect himself.

And nothing about gun restrictions would stop physically weak persons from acquiring them. I can't believe I'm arguing this since I don't believe in restrictions. But labelling people hypocrites for demanding a law that would also affect them is insane.

 

[unimackpass]

It's outsourcing the carrying of weapons in order to protect them, or it's the payment to have someone else use their body as a means of protecting you (up to the point where they are supposed to act as a human shield, depending on what you pay for). I think the analogy works because, at the end of the day, you're still having a means of protection while the common person is supposed to expect to be fine without any means of protection.

Interesting that a segment of society believes that the privileged elites should be protected by trained armed guards but others shouldn't be able to even cc because they can't afford paid professionals.

The irony is magnified seeing how it's the same group that usually believes in white privilege and intersectionality.
That's one advantage to believing in a ideology without merit, you don't have to use reason justify it.

 

[Protectandserve]

So shot today. Qual was a "dot drill". Shooting 3 magazines at the small circle targets. Distance was the 3 yard line, no time limits.

Course of fire was 5 rounds in the 1 circle.

Then from the holster 2 rounds in the number 2 circle (4x)

Then 1 and 2 in the 3 and 4 circles. (3x) required a reload.

5 rounds strong hand only in the 5 circle then 5 rounds off hand only in the number 6 circle.

Finished out the course of fire with 2 and 2 in the remaining circles.

Sad part is there are officers who would struggle with this.

 

[SBJJ]

Christians never discriminate and never have abortions. It's literally never happened once. EVER

It happens. And when it does its blasted all over the MSM