Obama, who is so intent right now on taking away your right to own effective self-defense arms, has signed a bill granting him 24/7 armed protection for life at public expense. Of course, he gets better weapons too--his guards will be carrying fully-automatic weapons--something not permitted to us peasants--and probably have a SAM or two stashed nearby. He doesn't even want us to have semi-automatic weapons.
* * *
To anticipate a couple of potential criticisms of my post, I offer the following observations:
I know that, at least currently, a private person can get a tax-stamp to own a fully automatic weapon. But, in addition to the all of the other onerous requirements, because no automatic weapons made since 1986 are permitted to be sold to the public, this has driven the price of these weapons beyond the reach of anyone but the well-to-do and the rich, and obviously excludes citizens from obtaining more modern designs.
Some may argue that a president's life is more important and, therefore, deserves greater protection, and consequently he or she (or, rather, his/her security detail) should have access to better weapons. I don't believe so. First, different rules based on political status is alien to the egalitarian nature of our Constitution, where all persons are to be treated the same before the law. Second, valuing one innocent person's life above another's is contrary to Christianity, which holds them equal. Thus, for instance, there is no exceptions to the punishment for murder committed by someone "important" versus someone "common." Third, our source of government is the Constitution and the people, and the institutions set up thereby--not derivative from any particular man or woman. The threat of social disruption, such as might follow the loss of a monarch, doesn't happen in the U.S. Fourth, as the last several decades have taught us, there is, as a practical matter, little difference between different presidents and their administrations--they and their policies are, for all intents and purposes, fungible. So, again, there is no threat of social disruption from the loss of a president. I'm not saying a president should not have his security detail--it would be foolish not to do so--but that the "average citizen" is Constitutionally and morally just as worthy of the right, and means, of self-defense as a president.