Columbus Mayor Michael Coleman on guns: 'What's good for me is not good for thee'
by Gerard Valentino
NBC News in Columbus is reporting that, while at the same time working to oppose the self-defense rights of his constituents and other Ohioans, Mayor Michael Coleman himself has used over $1 million in taxpayer funds to pay three police officers to protect him on a 24/7 basis.
From the report:
An NBC4 investigation finds that over the past four years, the City of Columbus has spent $1,008,198 to protect Mayor Michael Coleman, including nearly $250,000 in overtime paid out to three police officers assigned to protect the mayor on a full-time basis on weekdays, weeknights and weekends.
So, we have yet another rabid gun grabber who readily accepts armed guards while trying to ban the private ownership of firearms.
Coleman's hypocrisy is matched by the likes of New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, Chicago Mayor Richard Daley, former Ohio Governor Bob Taft and noted anti-gun celebrity Rosie O'Donnell, who all actively work to destroy gun rights while using armed guards for protection.
Simply having his hypocrisy exposed isn't going to stop Coleman's crusade to destroy the private ownership of firearms, but it goes a long way in proving that his anti-gun words are hollow. By accepting armed protection, Coleman is admitting that guns save lives. He is also admitting that a gun in the right hands is a benefit to society.
Mayor Coleman and the other anti-gun hypocrites obviously don't see anything inconsistent with trying to disarm law abiding citizens while at the same time accepting armed bodyguards. After all, in their minds, holding political office or enjoying celebrity status makes them more important than mere commoners.
They also seem to think that the average citizen is incapable of handling the responsibility that comes with choosing to own and carry a gun for self-defense.
The mainstream media should demand that Mayor Coleman and others of his misguided ilk act in accordance with their political views and refuse armed protection. That will not happen because most media outlets are just as rabidly anti-gun as Coleman and his cohorts.
It is easy for anti-gun politicians and celebrities to campaign for total gun confiscation because if guns are banned it will not affect their ability to enjoy the protection of armed bodyguards. As we've seen with other intrusive government policies like Obamacare, the leftist elite will always find a way to exclude their cronies. While the average homeowner would be deprived of a gun as a self-defense tool, the people of Coleman's ilk will always find a way to enjoy rights they deny to everyone else.
They will also do so without shame, or consideration for the commoners they disarm.
Among the anti-gun leadership Coleman's shameful self-righteousness hardly stands out, which is an indictment of the entire gun control movement. In contrast, pro-gun politicians and celebrities demand that all Americans have the ability to carry and use a gun for self-defense. By demanding equality under the law, pro-gun advocates are living up to the ideals so eloquently described by Thomas Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence.
Jefferson's words embodied the hope that a new form of governance based on the premise that all men are equal under the law would lead to a better world. He also put the world on notice that all people have rights granted by the Creator that cannot be infringed by government.
Coleman's viewpoint, however, is steeped in the philosophy that he is better than the rest of us and he demands treatment in keeping with his self-appointed elite status.
Just before the French Revolution cost Marie Antoinette her head, she was asked what the peasants in Paris should eat since there was a shortage of bread at an affordable cost. Famously, she answered that the peasants could eat cake.
Regardless of whether Marie Antoinette actually uttered the infamous words, the story was meant to vilify her for living the high life while the people were starving. Whether true, or merely well orchestrated propaganda, the story cemented the perception that she had a complete disregard for the citizens of France.
Coleman's choice to demand armed bodyguards on a 24/7 basis while trying to disarm the citizens of Columbus is just as arrogant, and proves that he values himself more than the citizens he took an oath to serve.
While Coleman enjoys the sense of well- being that comes with having three bodyguards, the people are left to fend for themselves in a violent and unpredictable city.
So, Mayor Coleman has not only failed to make Columbus safer so citizens can live without fear, he also wants to deny them the best tool for self-defense – a firearm.
Taking such a position while forcing the taxpayers to fund 24/7 armed protection proves once again that in Mayor Coleman's mind the people of Columbus can eat cake.
Gerard Valentino is a member of the Buckeye Firearms Foundation Board of Directors and the author of "The Valentino Chronicles – Observations of a Middle Class Conservative," available through the Buckeye Firearms Association store.
- 3517 reads