Reading that Bloomberg plans to take his armed gestapo with him, about 17 armed guards, that will now be paid from his own pocket to the tune of $2.5 a million a year, it gives me an idea:
Nobody needs an armed bodyguard!
The 2nd Amendment says nothing about the right to keep armed bodyguards with you, so why not treat Bloomberg’s goons the way he treats our guns?
First Bloomberg should be forced to prove he needs armed bodyguards, and a sheriff should immediately deny him, as they routinely do with the rest of us when we apply for a concealed carry permit.
“But there are death threats against me”
“Sorry sir, lots of other celebrities get death threats and they don’t have armed guards. You’re simply being paranoid. Just call 911 like the rest of us.”
Let’s consider every anti-gun argument liberals make and apply it to the armed bodyguards he wants. Are these guards certified? Are they trained? What if they wake up on the wrong side of the bed and decide to go on a shooting spree? And what about gun-free zones? Surely his guards should be forced to leave their guns inside the car whenever entering one of those criminal-friendly zones, right? Will his goons only carry 7 rounds in their magazines as New York’s unSAFE Act stipulates?
Bloomberg is a socialist in his outlook, he puts society ahead of individual needs. Well, in that case, society does not need Bloomberg to have armed bodyguards. If he’s afraid, he should simply stay home.
Clearly gun ownership is a privilege in New York, so let it be a privilege denied to Bloomberg and other rich gun-grabbers with guns.
Google+
Gregory Smith
Well said.
I couldn’t have put it better myself!
What’s good for the geese is good for the gander.
Thanks comrade, sometimes I get inspired. Sadly, a lot of liberals and centrists think Bloomberg and Kelly (NYC police chief) are entitled to armed bodyguards, even after they leave office. They have a slave mentality, Spartacus had more balls than they do.