Originally posted by: Kev
Originally posted by: Amused
You can repeat yourself all day long. You wont change the fact that opposing private ownership, but allowing the rich to hire licensed armed guards is hypocrisy and liberal elitism.
Not really. Does every day Joe Shmo need to walk around with a concealed gun? I doubt it.
Well, if every day Joe doesn't need a gun, neither does MM's bodyguard... right? Honestly I can't believe you don't see the obvious hypocrisy and elitism in this.
The *only* way this isn't hypocritical is if MM didn't know about it. However, the fact he *did hire* a body guard tells me he probably interviewed him. At any rate, I'm pretty sure when your hiring a body guard, your looking for someone with a gun or not. That would be my first question, actually I wouldn't even consider hiring someone w/o know the answer to that Q.
It's much more likely he knew vs. he didn't, yet here you are telling us Bowling for Columbine isn't anti-gun, when that's not even the topic. It's MM's political views on gun ownership, which are VERY clear. We don't need to see Bowling to know his views on gun ownership...