RobotMafia
Banned
Gun lovers are just terrible people. That power of a gun is worth more than anything to them.
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
NRA's solution to Sandy Hook massacre: "armed guards" in every school
- Thread starter Josh7289
- Start date
- Status
Mammoth Jones
Member
Please, enough with the "assault weapon" fearmongering. Assault weapons are extremely regulated and rare. A semi-auto is not an "assault" weapon. It's a semi-automatic rifle. One trigger pull. One round. The rifle chambers the next shot for you. A single 9mm pistol contains more firepower than was known in the 17th Century. I know...I know "Get rid of those too!"
Yea, like all those criminals in Mexico. They lined up for miles to turn in their guns since civilians are unarmed. Oh wait...
How about we give longer prison sentences for gun crimes and less for weed users? How many people have died due to a recidivist piece of shit that was on parole?
See, you are I fundamentally disagree here. Criminals cost those lives. And negligent storage at the home. Yet a hundred million legal firearm owners somehow manage to not kill people today. Please get some perspective.
In the end, the NRA's solution sucked balls because it was a rant about videogames (ohh, splatterhouse!) and ranting that armed guards should be in every school which isn't going to be palatable to millions of parents in the States. But your solution is just as unrealistic.
There can be a bit more legislation that respects my right to own my guns without me being treated like a potential mass-murderer. I highly suggest those that haven't used a gun before to at least give it a try. Go to a range if you're of age. Fire a few rounds and talk to the people there. They're not the monsters/killers in waiting that many paint them out to be.
Mammoth Jones
Member
This is a fantastic way to have a discussion with someone you disagree with!
The part about the militia isn't a per-requisite for the right of citizens to bear arms.
Bulbo Urethral Baggins
Banned
You've been doing a damn amazing job of defending gun rights here. Much respect.
Self defense from who? from what?
Another person who has easily purchased a gun? Surely this self defense thing works both ways.
I honestly still find it hard to come up with an answer on why the general public in a civilised society need access to military grade equipment. The fundamental right argument seems like outdated nonsense.
Mammoth Jones
Member
The Technomancer
card-carrying scientician
I support the right to bear arms for recreation and defense. I don't believe that owning a weapon designed specifically for the rapid death of many targets is intrinsically included in the category of "civil rights". Again, where do you draw the line? Is it literally only because they are projectile weapons and thus classified as "guns" that these particularly devastating arms are protected beyond even a shadow of a doubt?
I mean, in summary, please, please, please explain to me why all guns are apparently created equal regardless of capabilities. Why a shotgun is, for all intents and purposes, no different from a gun capable of killing a dozen people in a matter of seconds.
EDIT: If its not clear, I don't like several of the points that article tries to make, especially when it tries to detatch the second amendment isssue from guns when the only time the second amendment is invoked is when the issue involves guns. It also treats the second amendment as sacrosanct, it only ever once provides justification for its existence in the first place (the last point, which they simultaneously try to claim is both about and not about guns) and otherwise just treats it as an assumed civil right
CrazedArabMan
Member
Absolutely, I hate to compare it to a car or any other personal object but this doesn't fall on the side of violence but more of possession and maintenance. A gun needs to be maintained in order for you to expect the maximum performance out of it (ex: accuracy, recoil, etc...). People go to the range for many different reasons, this could include but not limited too: trying out new reloaded ammunition they have just made, becoming more familiar with a recently purchased firearm, shooting for fun, working on shooting techniques (ex: breathing, trigger pull, etc...), practicing for a competition, the list can go on and on. Using a rented gun is fine (which you can already do) for people who just want to go and shoot a few rounds to have some fun and call it a day.
However this is where I think a lot of people don't understand in here is that a great deal of shooters take extremely good care of their rifles as they should be in terms of keeping them maintained and safely locked up. It is something you can call your own, having personally been around firearms most of my life, I can't even begin to tell you the amount of time that goes into maintaining a rifle that you fire a lot, trying to get that perfect load of ammunition where it fires at a good velocity but also provides that accuracy that you are looking for. Now this can be done for fun or for people who shoot competitively which believe it or not, is a big thing still.
A firearm you purchase is yours and you want to take care of it as you would with any expensive purchase you make (like a car). What I feel most believe in here is that gun owners just try to stock up on as many weapons and run about screaming "you can't take my guns" etc... and have no real reason to own one which is completely false. Owning a gun let's you customize to how you want, to where it feels good for you and where you can enjoy shooting it at the range knowing the amount of work you put into it to make it feel great to yourself.
With that said, renting guns is fine and it is something that goes on right now. However, there are a large number of shooters if not the majority of them that spend hours at the range and at home customizing their gun to fit them, it is a hobby just like anything else, practicing and customizing to become a better shooter and to get the feel just right. So yes, owning a gun is a crucial part of shooters and hunters alike.
The Crimson Kid
what are you waiting for
Any shred of respect I had for the NRA vaporated today. Not only is their "solution" ignorant of history and devoid of any shred of reality, taking their suggestion (put federal armed guards anywhere someone can get shot) leads to having federal armed guards everywhere, as David Frum ably demonstrated on his Twitter feed today.
There needs to be a formation of a more moderate hunter's rights group that advocates for hunters and those who wish to defend themselves and their families, not advocates for arms manufacturers.
Regarding gun control, I'm not convinced that any solution focused primarily on restricting sales of certain guns will work with how many weapons are already out there. You could do a voluntary anonymous buyback to make a dent in the issue with criminals having guns, but that would still leave tons of powerful guns out there. I have serious doubts that this genie could be put back in the proverbial lamp and I believe that only passing an assault weapons ban would have little to no effect on the number of gun homicides in this country.
First, there should be certifications required to purchase and own a gun, similar to what you need for a automobile, with different tiers for different classes of weapons. A safety class would be required for all, similar to how a class is required to obtain a hunting license. A license would be issued, and that license would be required to be on the person if they are in possession of any of their weapons, with punishment of a short imprisonment if caught without it. Each higher tier would have more stringent requirements, with the highest tier being subject to multiple psych evaluations, MMPI tests, the works. Depending on the tier of gun license you have, you would be eligible to purchase different levels of weapons and accessories. Every gun owned or purchased would be synced with your license upon receiving the license or upon purchase of a new weapon. The highest tier would have access to every gun currently on the market today, as I believe that at the end of the day, people who are sane and safe with these weapons should be able to collect or enjoy them in a responsible manner, as 99.9% of gun owners do.
While I am left-of-center socially and economically in American terms, I fundamentally don't want the federal government acting like a nanny state by banning things for everyone. Restrict access and disincentivise via fees or taxes all the feds want, but leave those full bans to the states.
At the end of the day, it's up to the individual to determine how to use one of these weapons, and I think a more effective course of action in curbing gun violence is to limit people who shouldn't have a gun from getting one at all rather than limiting everyone from getting certain classes of guns. An insane person with a handgun is much more dangerous than a person who has a collection of assault weapons locked up, hunts, and shoots recreationally.
Along these lines, this country needs to make mental health services available in a timely manner and at an affordable cost for everyone. Everyone of these mass murderers were incredibly disturbed and warped in the head, and none of the big mass murderers I know of had any mental health help for years before they went on their sprees.
Gun shows have got to go. Anonymous gun sales should be criminalized at a higher sentence than drug dealers currently receive.
It's clear that the status quo cannot hold. But banning assault weapons will not solve the issue because there are millions of those weapons already out there. But with no way to certify people, no way to know who owns guns or what guns, and no way to stop under-the-counter sales of these weapons, the killings will not decline, even if these weapons are banned.
Agreed. Many a gun defender has fallen to the banhammer in the line of defense for not being able to keep cool under pressure, the pressure got under their skin, and they just couldn't take it anymore.
Those guys probably shouldn't have guns.
There needs to be a formation of a more moderate hunter's rights group that advocates for hunters and those who wish to defend themselves and their families, not advocates for arms manufacturers.
Regarding gun control, I'm not convinced that any solution focused primarily on restricting sales of certain guns will work with how many weapons are already out there. You could do a voluntary anonymous buyback to make a dent in the issue with criminals having guns, but that would still leave tons of powerful guns out there. I have serious doubts that this genie could be put back in the proverbial lamp and I believe that only passing an assault weapons ban would have little to no effect on the number of gun homicides in this country.
First, there should be certifications required to purchase and own a gun, similar to what you need for a automobile, with different tiers for different classes of weapons. A safety class would be required for all, similar to how a class is required to obtain a hunting license. A license would be issued, and that license would be required to be on the person if they are in possession of any of their weapons, with punishment of a short imprisonment if caught without it. Each higher tier would have more stringent requirements, with the highest tier being subject to multiple psych evaluations, MMPI tests, the works. Depending on the tier of gun license you have, you would be eligible to purchase different levels of weapons and accessories. Every gun owned or purchased would be synced with your license upon receiving the license or upon purchase of a new weapon. The highest tier would have access to every gun currently on the market today, as I believe that at the end of the day, people who are sane and safe with these weapons should be able to collect or enjoy them in a responsible manner, as 99.9% of gun owners do.
While I am left-of-center socially and economically in American terms, I fundamentally don't want the federal government acting like a nanny state by banning things for everyone. Restrict access and disincentivise via fees or taxes all the feds want, but leave those full bans to the states.
At the end of the day, it's up to the individual to determine how to use one of these weapons, and I think a more effective course of action in curbing gun violence is to limit people who shouldn't have a gun from getting one at all rather than limiting everyone from getting certain classes of guns. An insane person with a handgun is much more dangerous than a person who has a collection of assault weapons locked up, hunts, and shoots recreationally.
Along these lines, this country needs to make mental health services available in a timely manner and at an affordable cost for everyone. Everyone of these mass murderers were incredibly disturbed and warped in the head, and none of the big mass murderers I know of had any mental health help for years before they went on their sprees.
Gun shows have got to go. Anonymous gun sales should be criminalized at a higher sentence than drug dealers currently receive.
It's clear that the status quo cannot hold. But banning assault weapons will not solve the issue because there are millions of those weapons already out there. But with no way to certify people, no way to know who owns guns or what guns, and no way to stop under-the-counter sales of these weapons, the killings will not decline, even if these weapons are banned.
Agreed. Many a gun defender has fallen to the banhammer in the line of defense for not being able to keep cool under pressure, the pressure got under their skin, and they just couldn't take it anymore.
Those guys probably shouldn't have guns.
Mammoth Jones
Member
The 2nd Amendment has already been upheld. You don't have to like it but it's the way it is.
Any gun is capable of killing "dozens" of people in a short matter of time. A 12ga Shotgun with 00 Buckshot (that's 9 "bullets" per shot fired.) can do so. So can a 9mm pistol. Why single semi-automatic rifles out? Because they're "killing machines"? Because they're scary looking? What does a pistol do? Bake apple pie? Is a semi-auto .22 more dangerous than a 12ga shogun with 00?
The point it makes is that many Liberals (which I consider myself to be..I know..chuckle it up) hold the rest of the Constitution sacred but have no problem throwing the second amendment under the bus.
The last few paragraphs explain why it's still as important today as when it was written. It's a right the people, not the politicians, have reserved since the founding of the nation. Not for home defense. Not for target practice. Not for self defense. Not for hunting. But because they believed that a free people should retain the ability to fight FOR their freedom if need be. I love that about America. That the people from the start reserve the right to overthrow their Government if they deem it necessary. It's not a right I'd dispose of lightly.
I believe gun crime can be addressed with some decent legislation. In a way that doesn't ban the use of ANY of the firearms that a hundred million gun owners in the nation use responsibly each and every day.
empty vessel
Member
The Second Amendment was intended to prevent the federal government from disarming state militias (the state militias are the entities that eventually became the National Guard). That's what it does. So far so good. The whole right-to-possess-firearms-for-self-defense movement is a thoroughly modern phenomenon having nothing to do with the foundational principles of the country. That doesn't mean it is illegitimate for that reason alone (although I think it is illegitimate for other reasons), but it does mean that gun rights advocates cannot claim historical or traditional pedigree.
A general (non legal) reason is that the first portion is the justification for the right, the second is the right itself.
A completely outdated thought process.
While the threat of revolution was a real thing during the writing of the constitution, nowadays a revolt is hardly anything to worry about. Even if we managed to get a decent size revolt going, they have trained military personal, jets, missiles, tanks, drone strikes, helicopters and a number of other tools to easily put down anyone who would seriously revolt. Lawyers and Lobbyist are a far better (and less violent) way to change the government to your liking.
CharminUltra
Member
Hah I just heard about this, what a bunch of d-bags. The NRA is a joke.
empty vessel
Member
It's not even historically true. To be faithful to the Second Amendment would require something like mandatory military service. The point was that if an army should exist, it is best that it be an army of the people. State militias were not private entities; they were organized and regulated by each state government--hence the bit in the Second Amendment about a "well regulated" militia being necessary to the security of a free state. This is just a different way of saying that a people's army is necessary to the security of a free state.
It would be more true to the original intent of the Second Amendment to require every male to serve in the military than it would be to recognize a "right" to the possession of firearms for any non-military purposes.
Ironically probably to some, I do support mandatory military service. So I do consider myself faithful to the Second Amendment.
Phoenician_Viking
Banned
It´s baffling to me that this issue is even debatable. Putting armed guards in schools should never be considered in a functioning society. Are some people really want their children to never be safe unless there´s an armed guard nearby? Armed guards might do more harm than good, especially if said guard is not well trained under stress condition and is a trigger happy guy. I would never feel comfortable if there´s arms in my son/daughter schools (i don´t have children yet).
Angry Fork
Member
I actually thought the 'registry' or logging of people with mental health issues comment was way more offensive and weird. NRA types have always talked about armed people everywhere that wasn't surprising but to go full blown nazi star of david on people who are different was pretty shocking.
Phoenician_Viking
Banned
Because both depression and weapons are big business.
It worked in the cold war
Mammoth Jones
Member
I completely understand and respect your belief on this. However I completely disagree. I will never have blind trust in Government. I've read too many history books for that and I don't believe that "Oh those bad things could never happen here ever!" Now, do I really stay up late at night thinking about this often? No. And of course I believe the best way to enact change is to vote. Be active politically. And not just on the National stage but locally as well.
But this nation was created to include the right of the People to throw out their Government by force of arms at any time the Government stopped being by and for the people. I don't believe in eliminating that right. Not now. Not ever. Not for any illusion of security. Not because of one horrific tragedy. Sorry. Because the truth is there are more guns than people and no matter how well meaning your law may be it's not going to stop criminality from utilizing their existence.
Yea, it's like they had no fucking clue what they were doing. The NRA had one chance to get it right and they completely fucked up. Completely. They had one chance to reach out to people and explain their positions and appear intelligent, compassionate and reasonable. And I mean, I understood his point about "We protect our money with armed guards...but not our most precious resource...our kids" and I also understand there are armed personnel already in many US schools and it's been going just fine but that's not the conversation they should have had.
They should have called on all their members to get a gun safe if they didn't have one and work with companies to provide them to their members. Lead by example and say "We're not giving up our rights or our firearms. Period. But we know we have a responsibility to lock our guns up and we will be more proactive in encouraging that". Instead of "Slaughterhouse! It's all the rage on the Turbo Graphix 16!"
Heh, Thanks. ^.^
Armed guards at every single school in the country? What the fuck?
That's beyond stupid. It's like something you'd read at The Onion.
You have to think that the NRA purposely proposed this just to change the subject. It's the same reason why they brought up videogames today.
Public outcry last week: "We need to ban guns! Definitely at least assault rifles!"
Public outcry now: "No! We don't need armed guards in schools!"
Well played, NRA.
That's beyond stupid. It's like something you'd read at The Onion.
You have to think that the NRA purposely proposed this just to change the subject. It's the same reason why they brought up videogames today.
Public outcry last week: "We need to ban guns! Definitely at least assault rifles!"
Public outcry now: "No! We don't need armed guards in schools!"
Well played, NRA.
Angelus Errare
Banned
I feel bad for all these white kids who will now be racially profiled because of the actions of a few...
Pretty much. They are just run by a bunch of disgusting people who want to make sure they can profit as much as possible from selling guns. They don't care who and how many get killed as a result of that.
You really think the weapons in circulation right now would allow the people to overthrow the United States government? With the amount of firepower the US military has?
When the 2nd was written you had trained organised militia and a level playing field of weaponry.
Now you've just got disorganised, untrained people with their store bought gun vs. a military with tanks, drones, jets, gunships, long-range missiles and nukes. Any sort of uprising could be neutralised pretty damn quickly with those resources.
The second, as is, has absolutely no practical relevance in 2012.
Is this true? It sounds very wrong to me. I'm Canadian though so what do I know. Specifically, what does "stopped being by and for the people" mean? Is that measurable? If it is measurable, does it mean an American could legally shoot and kill President Obama the second he crosses that measurable line? Can someone clarify?
thetrin
Hail, peons, for I have come as ambassador from the great and bountiful Blueberry Butt Explosion
I wonder, how common are metal detectors in schools around the world? I feel like the escalation in the states is insane in comparison to other countries.
(I went to school in Canada and never saw anything close to a metal detector at any level when I was in school)
(I went to school in Canada and never saw anything close to a metal detector at any level when I was in school)
Delusibeta
Banned
ITT: people who are objectively wrong on the internet. (For those who can't tell, I'm referring to the people defending the "right" to carry guns. Which, to my European eyes, is frankly stupid. Nobody should have the right to carry anything specifically designed to kill as quickly and as efficiently as possible. Any potential uprising would depend entirely on getting the Army's support, and if you don't then you are dead/jailed. In an ideal world, the Second Amendment would have been repealed some time in the 1950s. Alas, the NRA have lots of cronies in high places and so while the media brainwashes people into thinking guns are necessary and gun control legislation will face a mass of outright bribes to vote against it).
There never was a debate. It's our right to have guns, period.
The debate is whether or not Americans should have the right to have guns.
"period" strikes me as stubborn and immature.
You know what deserves "period"? Something like: 26 innocent people were killed by a gunman last week, period.
makingmusic476
Member
Yeah...
This.
An armed civilian populace would stand no chance against the US military, and any revolt would depend entirely on gaining at least some of the military's support.
The military consists of people, and a true popular uprising of the people would inevitably include some military support. If it didn't, it would be a failed revolution, no matter how many handguns or semi-auto rifles the revolutionaries could get their hands on.
Every successful revolution in history I can think of had the support of elements of the military. George Washington wasn't just some random civilian roaming the streets before taking command of American revolutionary forces.
But even revolutions that see significant support from military forces can fail. See: US Civil War
The thing is, you need to change the constitution, or the fundamental interpreatation of it for this 'objective wrongness' to be the case. So while I agree with the spirit of those saying the US gun regs are crazy, it is not as simple as saying 'you are objectively wrong' when in fact they are right with the law as it is written.
Delusibeta
Banned
I believe the phrase is "the law is an ass". Certainly, I think the second amendment is wrong and has no place in any civilized country.
That may be so, but getting rid of it is nigh on impossible, so just saying it is stupid and should not be there is not really very useful. The trick is to work around it. Storage laws, training, safety rules, things like that.
It is a convincing argument to me to say that the right to keep and bear arms applied to being in a militia and every able bodied persons right to defend the country, but while the wording is 'keep and bear' rather than just 'bear' it will be a hard sell in terms of legal interpretation.
TAJ
Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.
My high school had a cop permanently assigned to it.
It was such a deterrent that groups of students from two high schools without officers met in our faculty parking lot to have a rumble with each other. (yes, straight out of West Side Story)
It was such a deterrent that groups of students from two high schools without officers met in our faculty parking lot to have a rumble with each other. (yes, straight out of West Side Story)
ClassyPenguin
Banned
Switzerland would be the closest similarity; though they do not share the legacies of Korea and Vietnam and even kept neutrality in WWII and I.
The high school girls team of my school was shot at during an away game by gang members, I recall. Scary shit.
You're right that a lot of people might not have a lot of exposure to how guns work, so they might think "machine gun and handgun" like they're on total opposite sides of a spectrum on functionality/lethality. To be fair, "assault weapon" seems to be a pretty murky term.
Yes, you're right that people cherish the Bill of Rights amendments. But the 2nd Amendment draws attention in a way none of the other first 10 amendments do. The freedoms provided by the 2nd have made for consequences (in modern times, specifically) that no other amendment in the Bill of Rights have done.
Take the 1st amendment. Freedom of speech/press/religion/petition/assembly affords us many things that are crucial to our society, and it's probably the most sacred of our amendments. But it lets people get away with hate speech, lies, propaganda and misinformation and such. It provides for a lot of things that we have to just tolerate because truth is reasoned from lies.
On the other hand, the 2nd amendment allows us to protect ourselves with force (though, like other posters have argued, society and government is dramatically different now than when that provision was made), but it's cultured a armed society and proliferated lethal weapons across the country, many of which end up in the hands of criminals. It's harder to tolerate that.
So as far as "the price we pay to have this freedom" goes, there is a pretty stark difference between 1st amendment allowing someone to be offensive and hateful, and 2nd amendment creating the condition where getting a gun is relatively easy, and the gun itself makes injuring and killing innocent people quite easy. And that's why the 2nd amendment gets thrown under the bus by liberals before any of the others.
Mammoth Jones said:
I'd say the big picture is the proliferation of guns, for better or worse. Remember a few months ago, when the NYPD shot at a guy on a sidewalk (in all fairness, he was armed and just killed a guy), but ended up hitting 9 bystanders? And then the statistic came out that target accuracy in some police forces averaged something around 30%? "Good guys" can cause harm, too. I don't buy this notion that "legal firearm owners don't kill people". Promoting more guns and more bullets flying through the air does not seem good for anyone.
Mammoth JonesThere can be a bit more legislation that respects my right to own my guns without me being treated like a potential mass-murderer. I highly suggest those that haven't used a gun before to at least give it a try. Go to a range if you're of age. Fire a few rounds and talk to the people there. They're not the monsters/killers in waiting that many paint them out to be.[/QUOTE said:
Angelus Errare
Banned
I went to school in Japan and Korea and not once had I ever seen metal detectors. My first time ever seeing one in school was when I went to Prince George High (VA) for one semester.
There are already armored children backpacks + tactical vests for children, so why not also create guns for children. Light-weight. And then train them. If you want to do something stupid, just go really stupid.
And the thing is that it's still just a drop in the ocean when it comes to firearm related deaths. The fact is that there's a clear link between the amounts of firearms and firearm related deaths in 1st world countries. The regulation , social state of the country have a real effect too and should be the first thing to be looked at, but eventually reducing is the amounts of guns circulating should have an effect on the deaths.
The key is that is your "right" to bear arms almost freely is apprently worth thousands of lives every year. Guns could be limited without limiting recreation purposes (only at ranges, hunting areas) or hunting (either in dedicated hunting areas or if you have access to land). Guns for protection purposes simply doesn't add up and facts are against it.
Awesome contribution.
So has the pro-gun lobby of the forum put together a cohesive set of suggestions that could help to curb gun violence or are y'all too busy defending the status quo? What do y'all want? The NRA solution clearly doesn't want to do anything other than help their contributors make more money (and sickeningly, they are pushing for guards at every school in the wake of Newtown...lovely people).
On the left, it is (I think) rather stupid to fight for a ban on assault weapons...yes, they are bad and we'd be better off without them, but its too late really. The genie is out of the bottle and if we are to be pragmatic about things, we should be fighting for who should and shouldn't own guns.
If you were ever convicted of a violent crime (of any kind)- No gun for you.
If you are under the age of 18 - No gun for you (no exceptions)
Mandatory wait period everywhere for every type of gun...close the gun show loophole.
Mandatory psychological evaluation to be paid for by the person applying for gun ownership.
The NRA would (of course) fight tooth and nail to stop any of these things coming true and perhaps there are better ways of protecting our most vulnerable but banning guns isn't the answer...keeping guns out of the hands of those that do us harm is (I believe) the way to go. It's a shame that gun-lovers would see any attempt to regulate ownership as a veiled attempt to taking their freedom. :/
That is the only one I find problematic, psych evals are ridiculously subjective. And there was nothing wrong with pickles post.
I've never seen a metal detector outside an airport.
What's weird to me is that while those are overboard, they are illegal where I live since they are considered body armour.
Whether the US founding fathers ever intend anyone to have anything more than bayonets or pistols that fire single bullet before requiring you to manually reload it with a stick, I'd argue with you though.
Also, there's that whole "well regulated militia" bit.
IBuyEveryGame
Banned
agree to disagree, agreed.
anotherVegan
Member
Let's just have armed guards everywhere. The mall, walmart, grocery stores, gas stations, your kids' park... Have a police state.
The Janitor
Member
You guys all suck, I am all for a guard in a school with some sort of nuclear weapon. If an attacker comes in just set it off. Its not rocket science.
All armed guards should carry the Fatman from Fallout 3
Got a better idea. Everyone gets their own personal bodyguard. Even the bodyguards.
- Status