Discussion in 'The Red Room' started by Fisherman's Worf, Jan 5, 2021.
Who's "we" you got a couple mice in your pocket?
Delta is ready when you are!
How about a US president needing armed Secret Service agents Jenee? Fuck that, Biden can have "interaction counselors" with clipboards during his presidency. How about that?
How many Secret Service agents are Congressmen?
About the only pr5oblem I see is the reality politicians get to break the law. If you arrested her and charged her with a crime when she did it, and you did not back down from the charges then she would be in jail. If any of us tried to conceal carry without permission into a government office we would be arrested. One of the few restrictions there are to carrying a gun legally is you do not commit crimes with it. If you cannot obey simple laws then we should put you in jail and take your ability to carry away. If DC is too dangerous for her then she can go back home to her safe snowflake place. No one forces anyone to work in congress.
lot of good shrooms on the east coast tho...
Glass house? Your response doesn’t equate.
To reiterate: It is legal to carry a handgun on the streets of D.C. as long as it is unloaded. It is illegal to bring a handgun into the House chamber.
Unless Ms. does something stupid such as violating either of those^ she can swan around all she wants until the novelty wears off, then her ignorance of most things not gun-related will make Gohmert look intelligent.
Meaning, you of all people need to be extremely careful calling anyone a moron.
Bullshit. Call me a moron all you want. If you support one congressperson entering their workspace with a gun, you are not only a moron, you are one fucked up moron.
If that congressperson has the proper weapons training training why is that any different than a cop or security guard having a gun? Doesn't this congressperson have the same right to self defense?
I can defend myself and I don't carry a gun.
no doubt you can defend yourself. But I don't care if you are Mike Tyson and Bruce Lee all rolled into one if most of the bad guys have guns and you don't, your luck will run out sooner versus later.
Anyway police and security guards in Congress carry guns - are you saying that they can't defend themselves without a gun? If so, why are they carrying? And if they can carry why shouldn't our congressperson?
I have a leather jacket! I use it to capture and force my cats into the carrier to take them to the vet so I don't get cut all to hell.
I'm a lousy shot and I'm self aware enough to know that I'm likely to hesitate before shooting anyway. I'm not looking to win fights, I'm looking to protect myself. Those are two different goals.
People bag on Spaceturkey for his leather jacket tactics he mentioned a few years ago, but if you don't have anything else it's a sound choice.
When I was a teenager I had a part time job in a convenience store and one night another worker asked what I'd do if somebody came in to rob the store with a knife. I pointed to a broom that was leaning nearby and said that it had more reach than a guy with a knife and I'd use the handle to whack him wherever it hurt the most.
That's an insult to Lennie
Ok, that is nice and all, but what is your point since we seem to be agreeing? Do you really have that much of a need to fight with me?
I should start calling you old lady kreese.
Wait why do Jenee and Uncle Albert live in a glass house? Can't the neighbors see...everything...?
Bitch barely sworn in and already breaking the law by filming campaign video on Fed property.
What does she need to defend herself from while in the Congressional chamber? Looks to me like everyone else would have to defend themselves from her. and her being a Republican, odds are, she's the one who would be the first to open fire - you know, considering the violence in America in the last decade (or two. or more) all comes from right wing nut jobs.
No, it didn't. You may define people's worth by their nationality but others do not.
The relevance of foreigners should be acutely at the forefront of the discussion, if for no other reason than we are centuries ahead of you on this. That isn't a slur, merely a statement of fact. We've been around much longer to learn by painful experience that the debates you are having do, in fact, have clear cut solutions.
Fun fact, the central table in the HoC exists and was crafted to prevent rivals drawing swords on each other, a tradition which has become archaic in the intervening centuries for obvious reasons.
Gentlemen no longer engage in duels of honour, policing is a profession rather than an obligation associated with class and quality.
The 2nd amendment is a throwback to that period, where being unarmed was synonymous with being vulnerable, a lesser member of society. You arm yourselves not because of the danger of attack, or the fear of tyranny per se, but because on a fundamental level you are still tied to the idea that a weapon is enshrined as a marker of worth, a bulwark against being the little guy.
This lady is doing nothing beyond echoing the sentiments of an age long past, carrying a symbol whose value lies only in fear and ignorance.
They are defending themselves against the threat of armed assailants. Necessary in a world where terrorists might target a high profile political building and guns are so easy to get hold of.
This lady is perpetuating that problem not solving it.
regardless of your abilities or motivations if you are more likely to be targeted for extreme violence than the average person (who doesn't hate politicians?) then a gun is a very efficient, affordable and practical tool for stopping a deadly threat. But if you take a self assessment and realize that using a gun would be a personal liability rather than an asset, then it's safer for everyone involved if you don't carry a gun.
run and tell an adult! Better yet make a citizens arrest.
that's why I think Joe fucking Biden himself shouldn't have Secret Service protection. He's only perpetuating the problem! Any thoughts?
Maybe, maybe not, but you aren't addressing my point.
You asked why the guards have guns, that's deemed a necessary evil. Secret service agents are also deemed necessary. Having professional security is different from having regular people walk around armed.
Here's a question though. How does the level of protection for the POTUS differ from other high profile world leaders. How about Johnson, or Merkel? I honestly don't know but I'd suspect it's much higher. Why would that be?
Let's be blunt here, very few people outside the US would call Trump's America leaders of the free world. That is, by and large, Germany's role in the wider world. Does Merkel live in such risk?
Whoa Nelly! Who determines what is "a necessary evil"?
"very few people outside the US would call Trump's America leaders of the free world"
Trump is history - there is no more Trump's America, it's Biden's baby in a week or so. We'll go back to being loved & adored again. So let's really set a good tone by disarming the Secret Service. Okay I'll "split the difference" with you: Biden outlaws private ownership of guns - private because they are still a "necessary evil" if the nanny state says so - then he shortly thereafter disarms the Secret Service because guns are outlawed, so why would the nanny state would even possess them after that point? I would for this to play out.
Who are you arguing with?
Slow down, take a breath and think through what it is you want to say.
I have no idea who deemed the secret service should be armed, it's you who brought them up. It's also you who brought up Biden.
I have no strong feelings about the guy and it'll take a lot more than electing someone vaguely appropriate to the job for me to consider the POTUS as anything more than just another foreign leader. As an aside Merkel and her Germany have, IMPO, earned their higher status but my question stands. Do other, equally high profile, leaders of "free nations" require the same level of protection? I don't know, hence asking
As for arming the SS someone, at some point, made that assessment and the specifics don't much interest me. Nonetheless they are professionals fulfilling a professional role, a role which requires them to be armed. Members of the public are not professionals and I'm yet to be presented with evidence that arming the public is beneficial.
Likewise there's patently no reason to be armed inside Congress, that smacks of a publicity stunt in lieu of having anything of actual substance to offer.
Might be wrong, time will tell.
Separate names with a comma.