Fox News Host Doesn’t Want President Obama Protected By Secret Service

Following the massacre in Charleston, South Carolina, when a white supremacist entered the Emanuel AME Church, there have been varying reactions to what happened.

While many have been grieving for those lost, others have taken to quickly defending their most beloved possessions — their guns. (Priorities, right?)

One of those people who is so upset that anyone dare speak ill of an inanimate piece of metal that is used for only two purposes — kill or practice killing — aired his grievances during his Saturday show on Fox News.

Fox & Friends host, Tucker Carlson, didn’t like President Barack Obama speaking out with his “political” agenda after the shooting. However, the president was merely suggesting that we really need to take a good, long look at gun violence in America. Carlson, though, apparently took this as a personal affront to himself, because he went so far as to even suggest that the president should go unprotected by the Secret Service.

Carlson whined:

“The president has said a number of times guns are the problem, guns cause violence… There’s nobody in the world surrounded by more armed people than President Obama himself. I notice he’s not suggesting the people around him disarm. He wants to remain protected, but the rest of us have to go without means to self-protection.”

A Fox News contributor then brought up the fact you can’t compare every day Americans and their right to bear arms to that of the protection needed for the President of the United States. In fact, the president, as the leader of the free world, with the number of threats that he’s had against him — arguing that the President should give up armed protection is just plain stupid.

However, undeterred from his stupidity, Carlson continued:

“The president’s position is that guns cause violence, guns are inherently bad and dangerous… The rest of us need to disarm and not protect ourselves. And he’s exempt from that?”

So, it’s all or nothing, Carlson? Is your brain so myopic and small that you can’t see a middle ground here? It’s either guns for absolutely everyone, or no guns for even protection of the President of the United States? That thinking is just ridiculously naïve.

Also, don’t go around saying that guns aren’t killing people and then say we need guns to save lives. You can’t have it both ways.

We need common sense solutions like universal background checks on ALL purchases and transfers. We need mandatory training to be the “well-regulated” militia our founders called for in the Second Amendment. We need to register firearms like cars so that gun owners can report guns stolen and/or proper liability of gun violence can be accounted for. We need to make sure all guns are properly stored within homes so children don’t have access to them and cause accidental harm. — These are all solutions that don’t take away the right to bear arms, but rather uphold the Second Amendment while potentially saving lives.

To reiterate, equating and average citizen’s right to own a firearm to the President of the United States being protected is just downright stupid, and somewhat treasonous. Why would one ever suggest such a thing?

Reprinted with permission from Addicting Info

 

 

Paper Crafts Supplies