dreamcock saidHe simply said if she's all for gun control maybe the ones that guard her should give up their guns too- that's the thing with these liberals they want everyday people to adhere to strict gun laws but those same laws don't apply to them-proving yet again she's above the law!
Only a conservative could fail to see the flaw in that argument (as well as Trump's obvious hint). Do you suppose the personal protection officers for prominent people in countries that have strict gun controls (e.g. the UK and Japan) go unarmed? Of course not. There's a difference between arming a highly trained, vetted, regulated and responsible person, who is officially charged with protecting others (e.g. police and armed forces) and arming anyone who just fancies the idea of owning a gun.
Yeah and fuck those who can't afford armed body guards, right, because God knows only the lives of a certain few are worthy of protection. The rest of us have to depend on the police. Why can't she? Why is she so special? We fought (with our self-armed militias) you class conscious British for our independence from the idea that their are those better who require special treatment just because they were born into a particular family and class.
Just where would we be know without our arms? Worshiping some old bag and her inbred progeny like they are any better than anyone else? NEWSFLASH: That old bitch pops a swat, takes a shit, and wipes her ass just like anyone else on the planet (well someone may wipe her ass) You might think there are those better than you and worthy of preferential treatment just because it's their birthright but Americans think otherwise. If guns are good enough for guarding those two sea hags, it's good enough for everyone else.