Gun Control & RKBA
Related: About this forumRemember, *they* need guns- YOU don't...
Working for a billionaire has its perks- apparently, it means you have more rights
than the people you are purportedly trying to make safer. (Before one of the
DwellsUnderBridges tribe chimes in with the associational fallacy, I heartily dislike
Dana Loesch):
Dana Loesch ?@DLoesch Apr 26
Hi @erikasotolamb , I wish your other Bloomberg colleagues were as polite as you: http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/ . Why do you have armed security?
Details
Reply
Retweet
Favorite
Erika Soto Lamb ?@erikasotolamb
.@DLoesch we have armed security because other people on your side of the debate threaten our lives. I wish it weren't the case, but it is.
http://www.linkedin.com/in/erikasotolamb
Current
Communications Director at Mayors Against Illegal Guns
Past
Director at The Raben Group
Vice President at Ketchum
Director at O'Neill and Associates
see all
Education
Columbia University in the City of New York
Stanford University
J.M. Hanks High School
Connections
500+ connections
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)sarisataka
(18,755 posts)Military and police whom some say are the only ones who need to be armed.
IIRC we heard a person needs to be attacked before they can prove need to carry. Why isn't the same standard applied?
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)She ought to have armed security as she feels threatened, and is fortunate to have the monies to pay for it.
For the rest on SS, single head of household, living in a trailer, long late-shift walk to the bus, tenement dwellers, old & slow: Suck it up.
GC remains an elitist outlook.
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)Last edited Fri May 2, 2014, 05:03 AM - Edit history (1)
I simply reject the whole message from Bloomberg and his puppets that the 1%, along
with their friends and employees can have it but the poor and middle class need
to do without "for their own good"...