|
In the last month, we've had posters claim that it's okay for some people to be armed or have armed guards because they're rich, they're politicians, they're famous, or they deal with large amounts of cash or valuable property (jewels, drugs, bonds, etc).
My question is, how much "value" (financial or political) must one attain before it's "acceptable" that these people can protect themselves?
Here's a scale. Please tell me where you draw the line:
Politicians- -dog catcher -city/county clerk -sheriff/constable -city council / alderman -mayor -state appointed position (solicitor general, comptroller, etc) -state representative -state governor -federal appointed position -federal judiciary -federal representative -federal senator -executive branch
Non-politicians- -joe six pack -convenience store clerk -store manager who makes deposits -bank teller / jewelry store clerk / drug store clerk -bank manager / jewelry store owner / pharmacist -celebrity -millionaire -multi-millionaire -billionaire -multi-billionaire
I thought about making this a poll, but it's not a 'pick one' kind of question.
Personally, I believe that everyone has the right to defend themselves with the most effective tools available, so my answer would be 'all of the above'.
|