Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
"Could be perceived" by whom? If an actual threat is made, aren't there already laws on the books to cover it and define "could be perceived as inciting." Our Justice Department didn't perceive two menacing New Black Panthers with weapons outside of a voting booth as threatening.
It is a federal crime to physically harm a federal lawmaker, it is not a federal crime to threaten physical harm. It would appear that the proposal would extend the same protections afforded the President to members of the Congress. As for the question of perception, that will be for a judge and jury to determine.
Typical Dem, trying to focus on control rather than the people that are commiting the crimes
As I recall following the attempted assassination of Ronald Reagan it was a well placed Republican who lobbied for and won the passage of major gun legislation.
I'm surprised the President is protected, since from what I've read he was at a public gathering where someone in the crowd had a weapon slung over their back. I don't know why the Secret Service allowed that to happen. Do we have to bully and throw fear into our officials and leaders? I'd like to see a time of returning to respect for our fellow countrymen. I think our leaders deserve full protection. If my husband was an official, I wouldn't want him in the job without protection from both threats and physical harm.
We already have laws condemming verbal assault or inciting violence. Enforce those before giving this, or any government, the power to completely censor speach.
That's exactly what I was thinking only I'm wondering if this incident is being used to shut down speech, if it was just a well-meaning but not well-thought out knee-jerk reaction to the incident or if "that could be perceived" is not really the actual language in the bill. If this psycho threatened the Congresswoman before and nothing was done about it, that's the real problem.
You know, one might point to President Obama calling to Latino voters to "punish our enemies" (Republicans) as something that "could be perceived as" language that incites violence.
LOL...who were they threatening to club? The way i remember that incident, it was at a polling station that had pretty much all black voters, wasn't it?
But yea, i guess those are 'weapons'.
They were standing in front of a polling station,armed with nightsticks.
I would think any reasonable person would find this to be intimidating.
It is a federal crime to physically harm a federal lawmaker, it is not a federal crime to threaten physical harm. Yes it is I can threaten you and actually be arrested.It would appear that the proposal would extend the same protections afforded the President to members of the Congress. As for the question of perception, that will be for a judge and jury to determine.
Without knowing if the shooting incident with Congresswoman Giffords was politically motivated, The Hill is reporting "Rep. 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 incitingviolence against a federal official or member of Congress."
From what we know, this crackpot had been in touch with the congresswoman as early as 2007 as they found her correspondence to him in his home. We also know he was acting so disturbed in a math class that students, at the time, said they were afraid of him. There are photos now of a skull in his yard. I guess what I'm trying to say is, "Do you think this incident is being used to do something else?
"Could be perceived" by whom? If an actual threat is made, aren't there already laws on the books to cover it and define "could be perceived as inciting." Our Justice Department didn't perceive two menacing New Black Panthers with weapons outside of a voting booth as threatening.
I don't know if that's the actual language in the bill or merely The Hill's take on it but "that could be perceived" and "inciting" sounds like to me a too easy way to shut down political discourse like in this forum and do another stab at shutting down talk radio. I don't object to politicians being more safe and secure from nutjobs but I sure hope the actual language of the bill is more precise than "could be perceived" and defines "inciting" because it sounds to me right now like the incident is being used for other purposes.
I have issue with the percieved as a threat portion but none what so ever with inciting violence, which, by the way, is already against the law. It is exactly how cowards in the middle-east get others to do what they do not have the guts to do themselves, the exact same thing can happen anywhere, including here, words Can be weapons when some loon with a gun is the one listening and following the orders they think have been given.
Casper
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
