View Full Version : Congresswoman to Pack Heat
http://www2.nbc17.com/news/2011/jan/21/rep-ellmers-plans-carry-handgun-ar-713460/
Team Sergeant
01-22-2011, 09:38
She needs a bodyguard, I'll let her know I'm available....;)
I would enjoy being Florida AG Pam Bondi's bodyguard.
rubberneck
01-22-2011, 11:02
Doesn't announcing it in the media of defeat the whole purpose of carrying concealed? I guess she is a pol and the message comes first but if it was really a security issue than why tell every loon out there what you're doing?
Doesn't announcing it in the media of defeat the whole purpose of carrying concealed? I guess she is a pol and the message comes first but if it was really a security issue than why tell every loon out there what you're doing?
I think all congress-critters should open carry while in chambers..
Might encourage a few to compromise more often????
:munchin
TrapLine
01-22-2011, 11:30
If they were held to the same standard as the average citizen, I am wondering how many of the critters would qualify for a permit.:eek:
Ret10Echo
01-22-2011, 11:54
I think all congress-critters should open carry while in chambers..
Might encourage a few to compromise more often????
:munchin
LOL..
I can see the AD's at the clearing barrel already... :D
If they were held to the same standard as the average citizen, I am wondering how many of the critters would qualify for a permit.:eek:
I believe that only the police and government should be allowed to have firearms.
Presidential hopeful Michael Dukakis, 1988
In the past, many of them didn't believe they were to be held to the same standard......
“Since I’m an elected official of the United States, I deserve the right to protect myself and my family”.
Ted Kennedy stated after his bodyguard was busted for an unlicensed firearm.
Perhaps this new Republican and her colleques can buck the long standing Democrat double standard..........read here (http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/9040)
I too am wondering how many of the critters would qualify for a permit, maybe someday we'll find out....jd
mojaveman
01-22-2011, 13:06
I'll bet ya a large pizza that after what happened in Tucson a few more congressmembers or least some of their entourage will be packin' ;)
Team Sergeant
01-22-2011, 17:04
Doesn't announcing it in the media of defeat the whole purpose of carrying concealed? I guess she is a pol and the message comes first but if it was really a security issue than why tell every loon out there what you're doing?
Knowing she packing will put a tiny bit of doubt in their mind and maybe give pause to anyone that might wish to do her harm.
When I was the American Ambassadors bodyguard I carried in the "open" the rest of the State Dept guys carried concealed. Trust me, people stayed back and crowds opened.
There will certainly be some level of deterrent factor, however, i do not believe this is a viable solution.
An example is a former Israeli general who at the time of his assassination was a government minister but still a general in reserves. It was made public that he refused ISA (Israel Security Agency) protection and that e carried a Micro-Uzi.
Some background. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2001/oct/17/israel2
Hoepoe
Team Sergeant
01-23-2011, 09:54
In a "Free" country there's no level of "protection" that will stop a determined adversary. (Especially if that individual is prepared to swap his life for his victims.)
There will certainly be some level of deterrent factor, however, i do not believe this is a viable solution.
An example is a former Israeli general who at the time of his assassination was a government minister but still a general in reserves. It was made public that he refused ISA (Israel Security Agency) protection and that e carried a Micro-Uzi.
Some background. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2001/oct/17/israel2
Hoepoe
You lost me on that one; are you saying carrying a concealed handgun is not a viable solution to avoid assassination?
There will certainly be some level of deterrent factor, however, i do not believe this is a viable solution.
An example is a former Israeli general who at the time of his assassination was a government minister but still a general in reserves. It was made public that he refused ISA (Israel Security Agency) protection and that e carried a Micro-Uzi.
Some background. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2001/oct/17/israel2
Hoepoe
HUH?
For an at risk politician, it’s not a solution? It certainly is one important piece to what are hopefully several COAs for self preservation. Any deterrent is valued over none though. If facing a crackpot it may not be much of a deterrent and she'd need to rely upon other options such as her security personnel, or her own abilities. Problem is though for an assassin who is willing to die to get his target, presumably like the one who killed the general, you'd better keep a good security detail, have SA, and be quicker on the draw when needed. Especialy if you're a high value target. Something the General failed to do...jd
dr. mabuse
01-23-2011, 10:24
*
Teddy Roosevelt carried open in the White House, .44 Colt, and shot on the lawn outside of the oval office near the lunch hour. "A little sun, sandwhich, cigar and 100 rounds". Nothing like shooting every day to remind yourself you are in the security business, president or not.
Nothing like shooting every day to remind yourself you are in the security business, president or not.
Even if it's hoops?
Even if it's hoops?
Ok, so the guy has no game, and Michelle kick'd his ass, but I'd take a president who could at least get in the gym twice a week, put on 16 oz gloves and go a few rounds with the Secret Sevice.
If one serves as president, he needs to be in the fighting business.
Could you imagine the commercial(s), spin -talk of a political campaign when the candidate is rolling heavy on a speed bag, body bag or sparring partner, and then turns to the camera and says, "My name is,.... and I approved this message."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PQxk1bKkkXo
Ok, so the guy has no game, and Michelle kick'd his ass
The one rumor that I admit to like about our first family....That She looks like she can kick ass!:cool:
Besides that fadt, well....not much for leadership, honesty, diplomacy, or guidence, since they are not supporters of the NRA, Gun Ownership, or Gun advocacy.:rolleyes:
Holly:munchin
Kinda nice to think of a Congresscritter shotting off something besides their mouth for a change.
Richard :munchin
You lost me on that one; are you saying carrying a concealed handgun is not a viable solution to avoid assassination?
Correct, in this scenario anyway. How will have a concealed or unconcealed weapon have helped Mrs. Giffords?
Arming the Members of Congress is not at all a solution, providing security/LEO's at public appearances with some level of access control and various rings of security is the way to protect the speakers as well as the crowds.
Having an armed, untrained, member of congress will have zero effect on an attacker as the member will always be in a reactionary position and TBH will be focused on their constituents (rightfully so) and not looking for threats; if anything will just lead to accidents.
It's missing the point and IMHO misinterpreting the threat and vulnerabilities associated.
Hoepoe
HUH?
For an at risk politician, it’s not a solution? It certainly is one important piece to what are hopefully several COAs for self preservation. Any deterrent is valued over none though. If facing a crackpot it may not be much of a deterrent and she'd need to rely upon other options such as her security personnel, or her own abilities. Problem is though for an assassin who is willing to die to get his target, presumably like the one who killed the general, you'd better keep a good security detail, have SA, and be quicker on the draw when needed. Especialy if you're a high value target. Something the General failed to do...jd
Spot on, my issue is not with what you posted at all, rather with capability to make correct judgment, assess the threat and use the weapon.
Hoepoe
Arming the Members of Congress is not at all a solution, providing security/LEO's at public appearances with some level of access control and various rings of security is the way to protect the speakers as well as the crowds.
Having an armed, untrained, member of congress will have zero effect on an attacker as the member will always be in a reactionary position and TBH will be focused on their constituents (rightfully so) and not looking for threats; if anything will just lead to accidents.
This thread has the potential to get real bad, real quick - kinda like a shoot out.
When she made the conscious decision to speak on the sidewalk to her constituents she made a decision to put herself at risk, the hazards of public service.
Being armed in public, well, everyone has a right to protect themselves, and in the end, it is only you who can do that.
Personally, I think all society should be well armed. Yes you would have a few accidents, but very quickly it would smooth out or not.
Correct, in this scenario anyway. How will have a concealed or unconcealed weapon have helped Mrs. Giffords?
Having an armed, untrained, member of congress will have zero effect on an attacker as the member will always be in a reactionary position and TBH will be focused on their constituents (rightfully so) and not looking for threats; if anything will just lead to accidents.
Hoepoe
No matter where she obtained her CC license, she would have to undergo rudimentary training at a minimum, so-I'll accept "armed, inexperienced, member of congress..." The rest of your opinion doesn't resonate with me to any logical extent.
Anytime you defend yourself without being armed, you're possibly in a reactionary mode; the very act of arming yourself is proactive.
If the threat is coming from your "constituents" anyway, your focus is inherently in the right place.
"if anything...will just lead to accidents." is an incredible supposition on your part, and just doesn't make sense.
You write with authority; may I ask what experience you have that has enabled you to come to the conclusion you've made?
Your profile says nothing but "small company owner".
Is that company the mossad, by any chance?
the very act of arming yourself is proactive.
Kinda like this (http://billingsgazette.com/news/state-and-regional/montana/vmix_cdf93fba-47ca-11df-9f5c-001cc4c002e0.html)
hoepoe wrote: Spot on, my issue is not with what you posted at all, rather with capability to make correct judgment, assess the threat and use the weapon.
You never know what the scenario might bring, the best you can hope for is your own preperation. The officer in the above film was quite prepared, and if the first round had fired then no amount of training would have made a difference. Of course, the 15 rounds afterwards surely did because he had a weapon, and he knew what to do with it.
Anyone who wants should have that right and capability......jd
This thread has the potential to get real bad, real quick - kinda like a shoot out.
When she made the conscious decision to speak on the sidewalk to her constituents she made a decision to put herself at risk, the hazards of public service.
Being armed in public, well, everyone has a right to protect themselves, and in the end, it is only you who can do that.
Personally, I think all society should be well armed. Yes you would have a few accidents, but very quickly it would smooth out or not.
I agree but i do not think it is correct, nor attainable for the public servants to be solely responsible for their own safety. It's not about the right to bear arms which I'm all for, it's about security for public figures which is miles apart from Joe Neighbor's self defense. It's not about her being armed or not, it's about how effective it really is. Hey, from my point of view give them all M4's, still won't change a thing though.
H
No matter where she obtained her CC license, she would have to undergo rudimentary training at a minimum, so-I'll accept "armed, inexperienced, member of congress..." The rest of your opinion doesn't resonate with me to any logical extent.
Anytime you defend yourself without being armed, you're possibly in a reactionary mode; the very act of arming yourself is proactive.
If the threat is coming from your "constituents" anyway, your focus is inherently in the right place.
"if anything...will just lead to accidents." is an incredible supposition on your part, and just doesn't make sense.
You write with authority; may I ask what experience you have that has enabled you to come to the conclusion you've made?
Your profile says nothing but "small company owner".
Is that company the mossad, by any chance?
I think the focus here is misplaced, some of the posts i've read (haven't read them all) seem to point to "shooting the attacker" when he/she posed a threat. This in principle is not incorrect, my take is simply that correct security measures can prevent that situation from arising and should it arise for whatever reason, i don't think that after a few hours or a few days of CCW compulsory training, most people are competent enough to deal with a real live fire situation in a crowded area. You ask about my background, well it's certainly not from SF as you and many other respected (sincerely) members here, but it does include around 18 years of security specifically in the realm of counter terror in civilian areas (teaching and protective assignments). Does it mean i know it all, absolutely not, does it mean that i know a thing or two about security, i like to think so but you are free to differ - that's the beauty of the parts of the world we live in, the right of free thought and to disagree. No harm done.
With respect
Hoepoe
Team Sergeant
01-23-2011, 14:44
I agree but i do not think it is correct, nor attainable for the public servants to be solely responsible for their own safety. It's not about the right to bear arms which I'm all for, it's about security for public figures which is miles apart from Joe Neighbor's self defense. It's not about her being armed or not, it's about how effective it really is. Hey, from my point of view give them all M4's, still won't change a thing though.
H
You idea of protection might work for heads of state but not for our elected congressmen. Congress is not protected like the office of the president.
And, in my opinion, everyone "is" responsible for their "own" safety.
You idea of protection might work for heads of state but not for our elected congressmen. Congress is not protected like the office of the president.
And, in my opinion, everyone "is" responsible for their "own" safety.
TS, noted. Regarding responsibility, i also agree, but in my ideal world the responsible thing to do would be for the public person to ensure a perimeter and/or personal security detail as opposed to arming oneself (public figure) as the sole self protection. The key is to locate the threat before they attempt to harm the public figure not have the public figure run a gun battle outside a bookstore.
My understanding of security, be in official or private sector is to allow the "client" to continue with their business undisturbed. A public figure would not be able to do that if they were looking for the attacker, hence making them their own security detail.
I DO NOT deny anyone the right to bare arms. Again, it's not about the weapon, it's about the primary responsibility.
Hoepoe
The rate of violent crime is inversely proportionate to the percentage of citizens who are armed, whether trained or untrained.
Peregrino
01-23-2011, 15:52
hoepoe - All of your points are absolutely correct. Unfortunately, you've overlooked critical cultural and threat differences between Israel and the US. MOO - the important issue to be discussed about the congresswoman's decision to go armed and assume at least some responsibility for her own safety is that it's diametrically opposed to the general attitude, especially on our left. Hopefully, her attitude/actions will encourage others to re-examine the morally bankrupt "criminals have all the rights" reality that prevails among government and "progressive" elites in the US today. Personal responsibility is so rare, especially among the political class, that any instance of it should be encouraged. Even when it doesn't make perfect sense from a professional security viewpoint. Maybe some fence-sitters will at least consider/acknowlege that others have a right to self-defense, even if they personally choose to be victims.
I agree but i do not think it is correct, nor attainable for the public servants to be solely responsible for their own safety. It's not about the right to bear arms which I'm all for, it's about security for public figures which is miles apart from Joe Neighbor's self defense. It's not about her being armed or not, it's about how effective it really is. Hey, from my point of view give them all M4's, still won't change a thing though.
H
That is an acceptable response and I appreciate you putting forth the effort in writing it. I look forward to reading more.
WD