[purple-again]

Not the OP but it’s not hard to get a charitable interpretation of his point. You know why gun ownership is important because you surround yourself with men holding guns. But while you do that you want to take away my gun? I don’t have a ring of men standing around me, it’s just me between my family and the world.

It’s literally equivalent to Bill Gates telling us how critical the coming ecological crisis is going to be while his family lives in a mansion. It’s okay though because he paid your family to live in a cardboard box so he can claim he’s carbon neutral. When he moves his family into a 300 square foot home so will I and when you put your guns down, you can talk to me about mine.

[playeren]

Ok, fair enough. By surrounding myself with men holding guns - do you mean law enforcement and military? In that case I don't see a disconnect between supporting issuing firearms in a highly regulated way to law enforcement, and not supporting widespread use among a population.

I don't think your Bill Gates analogy makes any sense at all. His work in his foundation, and the expertise he has access to, seems pretty removed from the size of house he chooses to live in. Is your argument that he needs a certain moral justification for warning about climate change? Or that his immense wealth disqualifies him from discussing science?

[thatcat]

Secret service is personal protection not law enforcement or military.

BG has plenty of resources and is essentially virtue signalling a lifestyle of carbon neutrality while his actual life is one that would be extremely unsustainable if many other people did the same.