One Law for Me, Another for Thee regarding Armed Protection in New York City

[jordan179]

Outgoing New York City Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly and outgoing Mayor Michael Bloomberg are taking with them protective details of 6 and 17 armed police officer respectively, according to Murray Weiss of DNAInfo New YorkNow, I do not deny that (due to the prominence of their positions and the ways in which both may have made enemies among New

Comments

[inverarity]

Elites imposing restrictions on the people that don't apply to themselves is hardly restricted to liberals.

What I have a problem with is the idea of elected officials being treated like aristocracy regardless of political party. Unless there are specific, credible threats, they aren't entitled to round-the-clock police protection. If billionaire Michael Bloomberg needs protection, he can pay for it himself.

I'll make an exception for ex-Presidents and ex-VPs, because they really would be high-profile targets, but this shouldn't be an automatic perk for ex-mayors and police commissioners, even of NYC.

[jordan179]

Elites imposing restrictions on the people that don't apply to themselves is hardly restricted to liberals.

True, but right now it is liberals, not conservatives, who are in favor of restricting guns to the elite. Gun control always works against people below some level of income, because (1) they are in the most routine danger, and (2) richer people can better afford to buy the necessary permits or hire people who have them. It rarely works against criminals, because most crimes that one can commit with a firearm inevitably carry much more severe penalties than would the mere possession of the firearm.

New York City is big enough and the center of enough crime that I understand why Bloomberg and the former Police Commissioner might need protection. Aside from organized criminals (who would mostly be afraid to attack any such high-profile) there might be personal vendettas and downright lunatics. My problem is not that they get armed protection: it's that they deny it to ordinary New Yorkers. What about the ordinary guy who

[inverarity]

Yes, but you claimed separate laws for the elite is "classic liberal thinking." It's not - elitism and believing in laws for thee but not for me is observable across the political spectrum.

As for Bloomberg and the Police Commissioner getting protection, it's only unequal inasmuch as they get personal police details, which ordinary private citizens generally do not get. If they were personally carrying their own firearms which are illegal for other citizens, then you'd have a case.

[superversive]

As for Bloomberg and the Police Commissioner getting protection, it's only unequal inasmuch as they get personal police details, which ordinary private citizens generally do not get.

They are being protected by persons carrying firearms, which is a class of protection that private citizens are not permitted to secure by their own efforts. That’s pretty damned seriously unequal.

[inverarity]

Yes, private citizens don't have the same carry rights as police. That's generally the case even in states with liberal gun laws.

[jordan179]

Private citizens also normally don't get police assigned to them to protect them at their request. And if the state and city respected their civil rights more, they wouldn't need such protection, since they could protect themselves.

[superversive]

Precisely. Our mutual friend seems to be deliberately missing this, which is the entire point of the matter.

[inverarity]

I am not missing it. I am pointing out that police protection for public figures does not support the thesis "Liberals want laws that apply to them but not to others."

[superversive]

Police protection for former public figures is doled out entirely on the basis of political favours done to privileged persons. It is one law for the people and another for the officials.

[inverarity]

I don't disagree. But I am unconvinced that "privileged persons" and "officials" equals "liberals."

[superversive]

You’re missing the point again. It’s liberals who want to deny the general public the right to defend themselves using firearms; and it is liberal politicians who simultaneously deny that right to the general public while hiring armed bodyguards for themselves at the taxpayer’s expense.

Meanwhile, you’re paying taxes that you think are going for police protection, but they’re not: a portion of that money is being spent on private armed guards for politicians. And it is those politicians who, having insulated themselves from any bad consequences to their policies, decide whom the police should and should not protect, and whether private citizens should be allowed to protect themselves when the police do not. But apparently you are incapable of seeing how this could lead to any bad result.

[jordan179]

The obvious problem with gun control is that it disarms honest citizens but is not very effective at disarming criminals, leaving the honest more at the mercy of criminals than would otherwise be the case. The rich, powerful or influential can both (1) more easily get gun permits than can the poor, weak and uninfluential, and (2) almost uniquely get police protection when threatened or even potentially threatened.

Consequently, on the issue of gun control, not only are liberals effectively much more elitist than conservatives, but the officials who themselves forbid guns to ordinary citizens accept their protection for themselves and their families, which is cowardly and hypocritical. If gun control is such a good idea, why are they unwilling to personally experience its "benefits?"

[inverarity]

I'm not arguing in favor of gun control.

I'm arguing that a politician who is in favor of gun control but has police protection is not necessarily advocating for laws to apply selectively only to others and not himself.

I do believe fewer elected officials should be doled out favors like police protection.

[superversive]

I'm arguing that a politician who is in favor of gun control but has police protection is not necessarily advocating for laws to apply selectively only to others and not himself.

He’s advocating for himself to be protected by guns, and for ordinary people to be forbidden that protection. How is that not selective?

[inverarity]

The law he's advocating for is "private citizens cannot own guns."

You are arguing that the impact of the law is selective, because while everyone gets police protection to some degree (in theory), a rich, powerful politician gets his own personal police detail.

This may well be, but any law that restricts what private citizens can do is going to affect the general population differently than it will affect the wealthy and privileged, who always have various means, legal and illegal, to circumvent such restrictions. This applies whether the restriction is on guns, drugs, abortion, or gold bullion.

That said, most politicians (even liberal ones) don't get personal police protection beyond whatever might be normal for their office.

There are arguments to be made against gun restrictions (as I mentioned to Jordan, I am pro-gun ownership) but "Liberals only vote for it because they are all well-protected" is a weak one.

[gothelittle]

Keep in mind that we've just seen the Democrats shut down the government rather than accede to the Republican demands that the same tax break that Obama gave to big business by executive order be granted to individuals and families, and that the (currently Democrat, mind you) President join the (mostly Republican) House members on the Exchange.