BF2S Forums Dem plans bill to outlaw threats against lawmakers

He didn't say "presidential level security"

again:

ep. Robert Brady (D-Pa.) reportedly plans to introduce legislation that would make it a federal crime to use language or symbols that could be perceived as threatening or inciting violence against a federal official or member of Congress.

It's really not that hard to conclude when the article says

"The president is a federal official," Brady told CNN in a telephone interview. "You can't do it to him; you should not be able to do it to a congressman, senator or federal judge."

That he's talking about the aforementioned types of threats.

Today you've taught us that A) reading comprehension is important, and B) understanding context is important.  You're on a roll today sir.

Fuck that.  As an American Citizen I too demand the same protection.  Those people are no better than I.  After all, I the voter, put them there.  So that makes me the boss.  The boss should be afforded greater protection than the employee.  I should even be allowed to carry a gun too just in case my protection...  er... .

Granted public officials shouldn't have to live in fear, but look at our group of pansies today and of recent.  I wonder if they ever think of mexican politicians and if they're scared?  How about the political officials in Iraq or any other unstable region... God damn.  Man the fuck up and stop being such little bitches.  If one is in the public spotlight, some of those rays burn.  Sad, but it comes with the job.  Bottom line is that if someone really wants to harm someone else, it's going to happen. 

Laws are all ready in place to protect.  In the wake of the whole AZ tragedy -I blame the parents and Sheriff's Office.  There were ignored warning signs.  Dude should have been baker acted...

For shame on the D's immediately accusing the Right of inspiring that asshole and trying open the door for censure of their opposition.  Sickening, but expected.

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

lowing wrote:

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

He didn't say "presidential level security"

again:

ep. Robert Brady (D-Pa.) reportedly plans to introduce legislation that would make it a federal crime to use language or symbols that could be perceived as threatening or inciting violence against a federal official or member of Congress.

It's really not that hard to conclude when the article says
That he's talking about the aforementioned types of threats.

Today you've taught us that A) reading comprehension is important, and B) understanding context is important.  You're on a roll today sir.

Well Ken, as entertaining as your smart ass comments are, the man has sparked discussion about that protection.


"Capitol Hill lawmakers, still reeling from the shooting of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, D-Ariz., will get detailed security briefings Wednesday, but experts and lawmakers themselves concede that not a lot more can be done to protect them.

Providing presidential-level security for 535 members of Congress, virtually all of whom scatter across the country every weekend and for extended recesses, is "nothing short of impossible," said Ralph Basham, a 28-year Secret Service veteran who directed the service from 2003 to 2006."

Also the president is protected from threats by the secret service who monitors those threats and makes arrests accordingly. Now then tell me again how the ARMED secret service would not be involved in protecting this guy?



Read more: http://www.kansascity.com/2011/01/11/25 … z1BRTZsyxj

You sparked discussion on it too.  But you have to admit you were WRONG about what the original lawmaker stated in that article.

@Brinson: I agree.  It's an unfortunate albeit singular act.  But the norm for American society and media is knee-jerk reaction.   It's pathetic.

I sparked discussion of it because it is what I read. The president has a host of secret service monitoring, investigating and arresting would be threat risks. The article says this congressman wants that same protection, but does not vote in favor of other citizens the means to protect themselves. This was and is my argument.

Now again, without the smart ass comments if you can, explain how this guy wants the same protection afforded to the president that does not include secret service involvement.

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

because the guy explicitly stated what type of protection he was asking for.  Verbal threats and/or symbols (like a picture of Obama with a crosshair on it or something similar). 

The digression of argument from you:

lowing wrote:

ok so let me get this straight. This liberal democrat wants to pass laws to INCREASE protection for himself by surrounding himself with armed secret service, and has a voting record like this

to-

Threats against the president involve secret service agents who have guns, so this guy by extension wants the same protection.

Who knows, maybe the FBI would look into it.  You're really reaching.  Why can't you just say you misread the article, that you were wrong?  Is it really that hard?  You're making yourself look ignorant.

because I am not. The secret service is active in threat protection with the president, and this guy wants that protection. Or do you really think what he meant was, just pass a silly law but do not act on it for real?

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

do you really think he wants to surround himself with secret service agents?  honest question.

Why wouldn't they?  I'm sure Pelosi took whatever she was 'entitled to' (big ass jet for example).

Last edited by DBBrinson1 (2011-01-19 11:21:02)

but by armed protection you meant the secret service shuffling through paper, recorded video and audio....k