Sunday, January 12, 2014

Gun-rights Group Stupidly Attacks Rochester Mayor for Having Armed Bodyguards

Lovely Warren
Rochester Mayor Lovely Warren

Local news reports

The state Rifle & Pistol Association is criticizing Rochester Mayor Lovely Warren for hiring armed security detail after she supported New York's tougher gun-control laws.


The new Democratic mayor said last week that she will hire two armed bodyguards on the city payroll, including one who is her uncle and former security guard for Gov. George Pataki.
The gun-rights group said in a statement that Warren's decision "demonstrates the fraudulent nature of the citizen disarmament movement."
Warren supported the SAFE Act, the gun-control law passed a year ago. The Rifle & Pistol Association is seeking to have the law overturned in federal court.
The group said that if Warren believes the SAFE Act makes New York safer, "then there is no legitimate reason for her to have armed security because the SAFE Act makes her becoming a victim of violent crime impossible. The New York State Rifle & Pistol Association calls upon Mayor Warren to dismiss her security and live with the same sense of comfort she advocated for city residents."

17 comments:

  1. Well, don't you believe her security detail is more likely to shoot her or commit suicide than kill someone who attacks her.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No, for the same reason I accept that celebrities and some politicians need protection in the first place. The chances of an attack are reasonable, unlike the chances of a home invader entering your home.

      Delete
    2. That happens often at home with hillbilly idiots like you. These are trained guards.

      Delete
    3. Mike, are you suggesting that celebrities and politicians suffer from high rates of violent crime and murder than the general population? Have you seen any data that supports that? And the chance of being attacked isn't what matters when you say "guns do more harm than good". When that woman spoke of defending herself with gasoline and a match because of being targeted, you still said that adding a gun would make it worse for her. I know what you are thinking: training. That would mean anyone with comparable skills to Ms. Warren's uncle would make things better with a gun. Is that right?

      Delete
    4. I'm continually amazed at how a liberal like Mikeb sees celebrities and politicians as more worthy than the rest of us.

      Delete
    5. You dopes are denying that celebrities, politicians, and other "public" people don't get death threats anymore than another citizen. like an insurance salesman?
      Obama has had more death threats than any other president. Part of the reason for that, is because he's black.

      Delete
    6. TS, that's a good question. I think I have to answer yes, the people who are trained and truly responsible, like about half of the present gun owners do make us safer. Would that the percentage was higher.

      Delete
    7. Wow, I'm speachless. So you are saying if half the gunowners today carried everywhere they went the country would be a safer place (provided it were the 'right' half)?

      Delete
    8. Yeah, I guess you could put it that way. I have no problem with the good half. You guys don't leave your guns unsecured, you don't have negligent discharges, you don't sell you extra guns on Arms List without background checks. If everyone were like you, there'd be no problem. (I'm not sure you personally are one of them, but you get the idea).

      Delete
  2. Did you catch it, Mikeb? She hired her uncle to be her armed guard. So we have nepotism and an example of what I've been telling you about New York in that favored people get carry licenses.

    The gun-rights group is correct. She should have to enjoy the same exercise of gun rights that everyone else gets. Now wouldn't that be loverly?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. There's no rule that says one cannot hire a qualified relative. That's not nepotism, assuming the person is qualified.

      Delete
    2. Mikeb, are you seriously suggesting that there's no appearance of impropriety, if not outright nepotism here?

      Delete
    3. If you are against nepotism, you are against more than half of all businesses in the country.

      Delete
    4. Greg, it all depends on the uncle's qualifications.

      Delete
    5. But that's not the way civil service rules work. The whole point of preventing nepotism is that there will always be the suspicion of wrongdoing when government officials hire their relatives.

      Delete
    6. Right, nepotism is the cause of wrongdoing in government.
      HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA

      Delete
  3. Condemning hypocrisy is "stupid," apparently, in the eyes of the site's lying criminal.

    ReplyDelete