More hypocrisy

Excellent observations. I find the more we abdicate our responsibilities to our politicians, the more we have issues with entitlement.

The reality is those in power do grant special favors to special friends. We can only look at how Warren Buffett uses crony capitalism to get preferential treatment, or Cypriot president Nikos Anastasiades who “warned” close friends of the financial crisis about to engulf his country so they could move their 4.5 billion Euros abroad, or during the financial crisis the Treasury did not come to the rescue of Lehman Bros. or Bear Stearns, but did come to the rescue of Citigroup and Goldman Sachs.

I actually think the supposed hypocrisy of gun banners protecting themselves with guns isn't actually hypocritical at all. Everybody knows that some people are at greater risk than the average person. The president is a prime example. Others are at less risk than the president, but still at elevated risk. The Pope for example. Piers Morgan may not be at extremely high risk, but his risk is probably substantially elevated. He probably gets quite a few more death threats than the average person.

Less emotional gun banners will acknowledge that some good does come from private armed self-defense, they just think the good is outweighed by the bad. It is not hypocritical for them to see a different balance of the weights when a person is more threatened than average.

It is also not hypocritical to take the position that guns should be banned, but as long as they're legal then one might as well bear one to at least partly balance the power against the bad guys. Kind of like how one might advocate for the abolishment of a particular tax deduction but still claim it on one's own taxes. As long as you have to suffer the disadvantages you might as well enjoy the advantages in the mean time.

"I actually think the supposed hypocrisy of gun banners protecting themselves with guns isn't actually hypocritical at all."

You are right, Critic. It isn't hypocritical, by its very definition. Hypocracy is just saying one thing and doing another, and obviously, Peirs just thinks he is more important, so its fine to ban guns from the little guy and let the people who can hire security keep on being protected. Though now, we are just playing with definitions. Hypocrite or not, hes still an [email protected]#%@%@#

And I don't really like your implication that fundamental rights can be "adjusted" based on needs. I think there could be a very good public interest argument to giving up the 4th and 5th amendment as well, and there is very little "need" of those two amendments if you are innocent. I know how much the left hates the slippery slopes, but, slippery slopes.

And yes, I acknowledge we have already more or less given up both of those rights, probably in a very similar way that we have already given up a large portion of our second amendment rights(class 3, nfa, ect).

First let me say that I was referring to what I thought was their position not mine. I strongly support constitutional carry. I even think carry permits are an unjustifiable infringement of the right to bear arms.

But it is not just a matter of Piers thinking he is more important, he may believe that anyone at sufficiently high risk should retain the right to arms even if they are not any more important than average. Or he may feel that nobody should be allowed guns, not even himself, but as long as guns are allowed then he might as well take advantage of the protection until he can get the confiscation going. Neither of those positions is hypocritical.

So, basically, their position is: "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others"

Piers Morgan may not be at extremely high risk, but his risk is probably substantially elevated.

I'd guess his risk is nowhere near as elevated as the "average person" who lives in Chicago or D.C. The idea that "important" people are more likely to be targeted than, for instance, cab drivers, women who are being stalked, convenience store clerks, or pizza drivers is hogwash. Yet the latter aren't "special" enough to be protected.