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.
Congressman Bob Brady (D) is walking on a very fine line with this issue.
Quote:
PHILADELPHIA (CBS) – In the wake of the shooting in Arizona, a local congressman is introducing legislation that would expand the law that deals with threats against the President to also cover federal lawmakers.
Whether or not it becomes law, attacking, or planning to attack, any federal lawmaker is really, really high profile and stupid business. I may not agree with all lawmakers, but I think that it's not a bad idea. Clearly, anyone who hatches plans like this either is to far gone mentally to be worried about the death penalty OR kills themselves in the process.
I dont really see why this should not apply to congress people as well. The fact that they go around without security is scary enough. I think that they could use some more protection and this law might help. I think specific threats toward an individual should be taken seriously.
What specifically is your concern with this proposed law?
I dont really see why this should not apply to congress people as well. The fact that they go around without security is scary enough. I think that they could use some more protection and this law might help. I think specific threats toward an individual should be taken seriously.
What specifically is your concern with this proposed law?
I do not believe Congress should pass any law that does not apply equally to all US citizens, be they elected representative, federal judges, or average citizens.
The Republic is government by the people. Not government protected by exceptional laws for the governing elite. A law that is good enough for one is good enough for all or not good enough for any. Congress should not be able to create laws around itself as a "protected class", IMO.
Last edited by lifelongMOgal; 01-10-2011 at 06:45 PM..
Reason: typo/spelling
I do not believe Congress should pass any law that does not equally to all US citizens, be they elected representative, federal judges, or average citizens.
The Republic is government by the people. Not government protected by exceptional laws for the governming elite. A law that is good enough for one is good enough for all or not good enough for any. Congress should not be able to create laws around itself as a "protected class", IMO.
Great post.
The gov't already is a protected class in that they don't have to jump through the same hoops citizens do when they don't pay taxes.
A threat on the life of ANY citizen should be investigated.
I do not believe Congress should pass any law that does not apply equally to all US citizens, be they elected representative, federal judges, or average citizens.
The Republic is government by the people. Not government protected by exceptional laws for the governming elite. A law that is good enough for one is good enough for all or not good enough for any. Congress should not be able to create laws around itself as a "protected class", IMO.
Believe it or not, those were my first thoughts too. I agree with you completely.
I dont really see why this should not apply to congress people as well. The fact that they go around without security is scary enough. I think that they could use some more protection and this law might help. I think specific threats toward an individual should be taken seriously.
What specifically is your concern with this proposed law?
The article says:
Quote:
Congressman Bob Brady, who represents Pennsylvania’s first congressional district, wants to make it illegal to use language or symbols that could be perceived as threatening or inciting violence against any member of congress.
(emphasis mine)
Well what should be perceived as threatening or inciting violence? The rhetoric used by the media and politicians has always involved hyperbole. The house represents the people and if you're afraid of a couple of nutjobs, then perhaps you shouldn't become a public official. I can understand making some common sense security changes, but there is no reason to regulate speech that can be "perceived" as threatening. There's been terrible incidents in the past and there will be more in the future committed by some psychologically unstable nutjob. Passing a law won't stop that.
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.
