Cleita
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jan-10-11 02:32 PM
Original message |
Is it time to start doing airport type security at town hall meeting? |
|
Well not as extreme as TSA but some kind of screening of attendees at political events. It seems that the time has come to use scanners at those events to screen for firearms and weapons before people are allowed into an event. Many office buildings do this already for people entering from the street. This will, of course, put the stop to outdoor events, but it seems that for public safety and for the safety of the elected officials who could be targeted the time has come.
|
T Wolf
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jan-10-11 02:34 PM
Response to Original message |
1. Only where Democratic politicians are appearing. The pukes do not need protection. |
|
At least, not from the left. You can never tell when a teabagger will go off on a RINO for not hloding true to uber-reich views. Naw, that'll never happen. Accountability is only for Democrats.
|
GSLevel9
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jan-10-11 02:35 PM
Response to Original message |
2. That would be prudent. Nt |
OneTenthofOnePercent
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jan-10-11 02:37 PM
Response to Original message |
3. The problem is that this event was outside of a SafeWay Foods market... |
|
it was pretty much a public venue... not a securable private venue where the public is welcome to join.
|
Cleita
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jan-10-11 02:38 PM
Response to Reply #3 |
4. I know. It would seem that this type of event is |
|
no longer viable. Too bad, really.
|
SharonAnn
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jan-10-11 03:17 PM
Response to Reply #3 |
34. But still, there could've been armed security there near Gifford. Even |
|
Edited on Mon Jan-10-11 03:17 PM by SharonAnn
in uniform.
Here in TN, when the Governor's wife visits for an event, she is driven by State Troopers in a special car and has at least two with her at all times. They may not be in uniform, but they are armed. And she's not the elected official!
Recently, due to the deranged behavior of a resident in our community who nonsensically rants, raves and threatens at our monthly Home Owners Association meetings, I asked the chair to consider having a sheriff's deputy on stand by. If not actually at the meeting, then just outside. And to have a marked car parked outside the building. I noticed at the last meeting that there was a patrol car in the area, just cruising the neighborhood. They do that anyway, from time to time, but it was specifically driving around the area near the building. And, I noticed that a person sitting next to the chair had a radio that looked like a police radio.
I had told him that I was frightened that she could pull out a gun and start shooting people and that I was not alone. But that I didn't think I should stay home and not participate in our association meetings. But I am afraid of her. She's clearly unbalanced. I know, it's unusual for the unbalanced and frightening person to be a middle-aged woman, but that's the case here.
|
Cleita
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jan-10-11 03:20 PM
Response to Reply #34 |
35. A middle-aged woman can damage as much |
|
as any other gunman or gunwoman in this case. It doesn't take a lot of muscle to use a gun and the insidious thing about guns is that you don't have to get that close to the victim like you would have to with a knife.
|
MadHound
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jan-10-11 02:40 PM
Response to Original message |
|
This is how this country always responds, not with courage, but with an imposition of even more authoritative measures. What's worse, those authoritative measures don't work in the long run, because no matter what you put in place, if a person is determined enough, they can and will kill somebody no matter what precautions are taken.
For once can we respond to a tragedy not by whimpering and crawling under the blanket of authoritarian measures, but with courage to step out into the light of the freedoms that we've received from our founding fathers.
|
Cleita
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jan-10-11 02:45 PM
Response to Reply #5 |
8. Protecting people from those who would do them harm |
|
really isn't authoritarian, IMHO.
|
MadHound
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jan-10-11 02:47 PM
Response to Reply #8 |
11. That's the excuse given for every new security incursion at airports as well, |
|
That's the same excuse given for the See Through Scopes, the grope downs, the increased security at public events etc. Same excuse, same cowardly sheep response.
|
Cleita
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jan-10-11 02:49 PM
Response to Reply #11 |
13. Would you rather have no security at the airports then? |
|
As much as I agree with you that we are going about it in the wrong way, I believe there would have been more incidents of bombings and hijackings if there was no security.
|
joe the nerd
(11 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jan-10-11 02:41 PM
Response to Original message |
6. kinda goes against an open society |
|
doesn't it?
nothing like capitulating to the thugs.
|
Cleita
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jan-10-11 02:44 PM
Response to Reply #6 |
7. We really don't have an open society but Democrats |
|
do believe in keeping society as safe as they can. I will hesitate to attend political events any more because of this if I didn't feel that an effort had been made to protect every one.
|
mmonk
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jan-10-11 02:45 PM
Response to Original message |
9. How about banning them from meetings like Bush banned non ass kissers? |
Cleita
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jan-10-11 02:47 PM
Response to Reply #9 |
10. Were those non ass kissers carrying weapons? |
mmonk
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jan-10-11 02:49 PM
Response to Reply #10 |
14. Nope. But he banned them. We have a reason to ban armed tea party members. |
Cleita
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jan-10-11 02:51 PM
Response to Reply #14 |
16. Yes, we do. If they are unarmed let them attend.n/t |
TBF
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jan-10-11 02:48 PM
Response to Original message |
12. That's it, I'm buying stock in the xray machine company. They are |
|
going to be everywhere now.
|
Cleita
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jan-10-11 02:51 PM
Response to Reply #12 |
15. When did a suggestion of metal scanners jump to |
|
X-Ray machines? Hyperbole much? Actually you pretty much go through metal scanners much of the time while shopping, not to mention surveillance cameras and floor walkers.
|
TBF
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jan-10-11 02:57 PM
Response to Reply #15 |
19. It's scary how fast folks jump to fascism. nt |
Cleita
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jan-10-11 02:59 PM
Response to Reply #19 |
21. Believe me this isn't fascism. |
|
Edited on Mon Jan-10-11 03:01 PM by Cleita
Fascism is arresting reporters for pointing cameras at politicians in a public venue like happened at the Republican National Convention when Amy Goodman and other journalists were arrested for doing that. That's real police state style fascism.
|
derby378
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jan-10-11 02:52 PM
Response to Original message |
17. HELL, no - we're only afraid if we choose to be afraid |
|
Let's put this Chicken Little notion to be right now.
|
Cleita
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jan-10-11 02:56 PM
Response to Reply #17 |
18. So what about the elected representative and his/her |
|
staff? Don't they deserve to be safe as possible? We have a choice of not attending but they don't.
|
derby378
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jan-10-11 03:02 PM
Response to Reply #18 |
24. Focusing on safety instead of freedom got us in the mess we're in today |
|
We have to retrain ourselves to welcome openness in government and access to our public officials - the ones who are supposed to represent us.
|
Cleita
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jan-10-11 03:04 PM
Response to Reply #24 |
27. But should they be harmed and murdered in the process? |
kestrel91316
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jan-10-11 02:58 PM
Response to Original message |
20. No, but it IS time to start prosecuting RW terrorists AS TERRORISTS. |
Cleita
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jan-10-11 03:00 PM
Response to Reply #20 |
22. That's after people have been killed. |
|
That little nine year old girl might be alive today if some basic security and protections had been in place.
|
kestrel91316
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jan-10-11 04:40 PM
Response to Reply #22 |
36. The meetup didn't have to be held outside in an unprotected area. |
|
I would prefer a policy of having these things indoors (with some screening of entryways) as opposed to regulation of what and who can do what in a store parking lot.
|
kctim
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jan-10-11 03:01 PM
Response to Original message |
Cleita
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jan-10-11 03:03 PM
Response to Reply #23 |
26. This isn't fear. It's being practical. |
|
We have locks on our doors for a reason. By the anything goes reasoning, we wouldn't lock our doors at all because it would be fascist. Sure let the thieves in to take what they want.
|
kctim
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jan-10-11 03:16 PM
Response to Reply #26 |
33. It's nothing but fear |
|
Fear of 1 muslim out of a million blowing up a plane. Fear of 1 armed American out of a million going nuts.
By all means, IF a Rep wants to lockdown the meetings with voters, have at it. I guarantee that I will never vote for a Rep who fears his or her voters or their Rights.
|
fishwax
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jan-10-11 03:02 PM
Response to Original message |
25. no, I don't think that's necessary |
|
It wouldn't surprise me if some congress people started doing things like that, though.
|
Cleita
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jan-10-11 03:07 PM
Response to Reply #25 |
28. They will start doing it because they now realize |
|
how vulnerable they are. We don't have access to the President in public like we did sixty years ago because of one assassination and a couple of attempted assassination, not to mention how many thwarted one that we don't know about. I believe this is going to be extended to congress people. However, screening for weapons could still give us access to them in public or we may not have any public access to them at all in the future.
|
fishwax
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jan-10-11 03:15 PM
Response to Reply #28 |
32. I think that would be unfortunate |
|
because I think open access is a good thing, but I wouldn't be at all surprised if you're correct in many cases.
|
KansDem
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jan-10-11 03:08 PM
Response to Original message |
29. A new kind of TSA? "Townhall Security Administration" |
|
It's a tragedy that it might be coming to that...
|
Cleita
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jan-10-11 03:12 PM
Response to Reply #29 |
30. They do it in Washington. You don't get into Congress |
|
or the White House without going through security. I think it's coming any way.
|
Xenotime
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jan-10-11 03:12 PM
Response to Original message |
31. We have to do it for the children. How many more have to die? |
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts) |
Fri Apr 19th 2024, 05:13 AM
Response to Original message |