Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

Should the US Government create an agency or expand the Secret Service to provide small protection details for members of Congress?

No.

you can spend billions of taxpayer dollars and do very little to in fact make Reps. safer.

anything done would be "security theater"

Not only "no" but "hell no". Adding protection would be the type of knee jerk reaction that brought us Homeland Security. Also our elected officials would just use this as an excuse to hide from the people they represent.

+1 on what TTBF said too.

Rep Heath Shuler who has a conceal carry permit has said he will carry his firearm more often when not in DC... He said he will also suggest his staff get conceal carry permits and carry a firearm as well.

Beyond the leadership of both parties in the Senate and House (which I believe they already have protection), then no.

UNHWildCats wrote:Rep Heath Shuler who has a conceal carry permit has said he will carry his firearm more often when not in DC... He said he will also suggest his staff get conceal carry permits and carry a firearm as well.

"When seconds count, the police are only minutes away"...

Good for Representative Shuler...

Col Hogan wrote:

UNHWildCats wrote:Rep Heath Shuler who has a conceal carry permit has said he will carry his firearm more often when not in DC... He said he will also suggest his staff get conceal carry permits and carry a firearm as well.

"When seconds count, the police are only minutes away"...

Good for Representative Shuler...

UNHWildCats wrote:Rep Heath Shuler who has a conceal carry permit has said he will carry his firearm more often when not in DC... He said he will also suggest his staff get conceal carry permits and carry a firearm as well.

BUT GUNS ARE BAD.....PEOPLE SHOULDN'T BE ALLOWED TO OWN THEM - LET ALONE CARRY THEM AROUND IN PUBLIC!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!




Seriously though, good for him.

Only if they cut their staffs and spending by the same amount.

UNHWildCats wrote:Rep Heath Shuler who has a conceal carry permit has said he will carry his firearm more often when not in DC... He said he will also suggest his staff get conceal carry permits and carry a firearm as well.

I think that is a fantastic idea. It would be better for all involved if they took these kinds of steps to protect themselves. As was said already just jumping to whatever knee jerk reaction to make all feel better without solving a problem that is fairly non existent while adding a bunch more money to the budget is pure stupidity.

I like the "help himself" type of approach this guy is utilizing.

clenz wrote:

UNHWildCats wrote:Rep Heath Shuler who has a conceal carry permit has said he will carry his firearm more often when not in DC... He said he will also suggest his staff get conceal carry permits and carry a firearm as well.

BUT GUNS ARE BAD.....PEOPLE SHOULDN'T BE ALLOWED TO OWN THEM - LET ALONE CARRY THEM AROUND IN PUBLIC!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!




Seriously though, good for him.

should people be allowed to carry weapons in public? That depends. A holstered handgun carried by a legally licensed carrier is probably fine.

But there is no place in society for things like this...

UNHWildCats wrote:

clenz wrote: BUT GUNS ARE BAD.....PEOPLE SHOULDN'T BE ALLOWED TO OWN THEM - LET ALONE CARRY THEM AROUND IN PUBLIC!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!




Seriously though, good for him.

should people be allowed to carry weapons in public? That depends. A holstered handgun carried by a legally licensed carrier is probably fine.

But there is no place in society for things like this...

That's your opinion and good for you. Were there shootings at these events? I don't know what they were all for. Seems to me that anyone carrying it like that is not intending on attacking because they have clearly pointed out to everybody that they have a weapon and will be being watched very closely.

There is a place in our society for this. Our society has always had this and in fact was built with this in mind. There are many, many guns in vehicles and on people in most segments of the country. The fact that you don't like it doesn't mean fucking shit.

I would certainly be in favor of banning guns within a certain distance of a political event.

Skjellyfetti wrote:I would certainly be in favor of banning guns within a certain distance of a political event.

How far???

What if the politician wants them there???

Skjellyfetti wrote:I would certainly be in favor of banning guns within a certain distance of a political event.

What a shock.

Perhaps instead of requiring protection for our representatives, we should instead require our representatives to actually REPRESENT. As opposed to forcing their own big gov't, big-brother-I-know-what's-good-for-you-even-if-only-35%-of-you-agree-with-my-vote mentality.

Skjellyfetti wrote:I would certainly be in favor of banning guns within a certain distance of a political event.

I do wonder if the events yesterday will change the minds of the NH GOP who have vowed to allow guns to be carried in the state house

UNHWildCats wrote:

Skjellyfetti wrote:I would certainly be in favor of banning guns within a certain distance of a political event.

I do wonder if the events yesterday will change the minds of the NH GOP who have vowed to allow guns to be carried in the state house

So do you feel that if you ban people who have a license...who have taken all the legal steps to carry a weapon...that wackos will obey that sign that says "NO WEAPONS" and they'll be safe???

AZGrizFan wrote:

Skjellyfetti wrote:I would certainly be in favor of banning guns within a certain distance of a political event.

What a shock.

Perhaps instead of requiring protection for our representatives, we should instead require our representatives to actually REPRESENT. As opposed to forcing their own big gov't, big-brother-I-know-what's-good-for-you-even-if-only-35%-of-you-agree-with-my-vote mentality.

Jesus christ, AZ.

They do represent. Gabby Giffords was reelected this past November. If she wasn't representing her constituency... they had an opportunity to vote her out. They reelected her.

I do think we should be considering the safety of elected officials. I don't think they can all be given a Secret Service detail, but there are other measures that can be taken.

Also, your quote about treason in your sig is pretty disturbing.

AZGrizFan wrote:

Skjellyfetti wrote:I would certainly be in favor of banning guns within a certain distance of a political event.

What a shock.

Perhaps instead of requiring protection for our representatives, we should instead require our representatives to actually REPRESENT. As opposed to forcing their own big gov't, big-brother-I-know-what's-good-for-you-even-if-only-35%-of-you-agree-with-my-vote mentality.

not all force their own agenda on people.... Just because 51% of Americans may have a view on something one way or the other that doesnt mean the persons constituency doesnt have a majority who hold the opposite view. If someone constantly votes against the views of their constituents, they wont last.

Col Hogan wrote: So do you feel that if you ban people who have a license...who have taken all the legal steps to carry a weapon...that wackos will obey that sign that says "NO WEAPONS" and they'll be safe???

It will be more difficult. UNH was talking about banning guns in the NH statehouse. I would assume they would have a metal detector... that greatly decreases the chanes someone can bring a gun in and open fire. It doesn't completely eliminate the threat... I remember a guy a few years ago trying to bring a gun into the US Capitol... but, was stopped at the metal detector and commenced firing. Who know what he would have done if he could have legally brought his gun into the Senate or House viewing gallery.

Col Hogan wrote:

UNHWildCats wrote: I do wonder if the events yesterday will change the minds of the NH GOP who have vowed to allow guns to be carried in the state house

So do you feel that if you ban people who have a license...who have taken all the legal steps to carry a weapon...that wackos will obey that sign that says "NO WEAPONS" and they'll be safe???

Of course not.... but someone carrying around a semi automatic weapon who thinks they will use it for protection will only cause more harm in a crowd than a gunman they may try taking down. There is no need for assault rifles in public places... you want to use it for hunting.., whatever, but theres no need for it to be carried in large crowded areas.

Skjellyfetti wrote:

AZGrizFan wrote: What a shock.

Perhaps instead of requiring protection for our representatives, we should instead require our representatives to actually REPRESENT. As opposed to forcing their own big gov't, big-brother-I-know-what's-good-for-you-even-if-only-35%-of-you-agree-with-my-vote mentality.

Jesus christ, AZ.

They do represent. Gabby Giffords was reelected this past November. If she wasn't representing her constituency... they had an opportunity to vote her out. They reelected her.

I do think we should be considering the safety of elected officials. I don't think they can all be given a Secret Service detail, but there are other measures that can be taken.

Also, your quote about treason in your sig is pretty disturbing.

My quote about treason. It's been in my fucking sig for about 18 months and NOW it's disturbing?

UNHWildCats wrote:

AZGrizFan wrote: What a shock.

Perhaps instead of requiring protection for our representatives, we should instead require our representatives to actually REPRESENT. As opposed to forcing their own big gov't, big-brother-I-know-what's-good-for-you-even-if-only-35%-of-you-agree-with-my-vote mentality.

not all force their own agenda on people.... Just because 51% of Americans may have a view on something one way or the other that doesnt mean the persons constituency doesnt have a majority who hold the opposite view. If someone constantly votes against the views of their constituents, they wont last.

I'm not talking about 51%. I'm talking about big ticket differences like on the healthcare bill. I'm talking about SB1070 and immigration.

And if you truly believe in your last statement, then Obama is fucked.

Col Hogan wrote:

Skjellyfetti wrote:I would certainly be in favor of banning guns within a certain distance of a political event.

How far???

What if the politician wants them there???

1) How about 200 yards? Hell, I dunno. Far enough away that Congressmen and 9 year old girls don't get shot, I guess.

2) Then he's a fvcking wack job. Seriously people, can't we be a supporter of gun rights without being a lover of guns?!?! The Right has glorified gun use so much it's not even funny. Again, you can't even run to be chairman of the GOP without being how many guns you own. As if not owning a gun makes you un-American somehow.

AZGrizFan wrote: My quote about treason. It's been in my **** sig for about 18 months and NOW it's disturbing?

It has always been disturbing. I just felt the need to comment on it.

You think treason is justified because you believe people in government aren't following the Constitution. Our system is set up to determine what is or isn't consitutional. Let the system work.

Treason is NEVER justified.