Truemors
is reporting from
Member
NP Rank:
NP Rank:
Being in Public Eye Makes Government Officials Targets of Many
Share: 
by YankeeJim | January 10, 2011 at 08:35 am
117 views | 0 Recommendations | 8 comments
Photos
No one likes it, but being in the public eye carries with it certain threats. America is not such a safe place as a matter of routine because the laws permit and encourage the right to bear arms. That is an obsolete law that provides a foundation for armed criminals and whack jobs to threaten people. IMO, law enforcement officials should be the ones that carry guns on behalf of law abiding citizens. Guns should be removed from society at large.
The right to bear arms is manifest in law enforcement that act on behalf of law abiding citizens.
“How often are government officials threatened?
By Ed O'Keefe
Though suspect Jared L. Loughner allegedly acted alone during Saturday's shooting in Tucson, his actions raise questions about the safety of federal officials from all three branches of government.
It is a federal crime to kill, assault, intimidate or interfere with federal employees performing official duties.
As of Dec. 31, the Justice Department had filed such charges against 84 defendants during the fiscal year that began in September, according to department figures. It brought 320 cases against 352 defendants in fiscal 2010, up from 308 cases against 331 defendants in fiscal 2009.
(Loughner, 22, faces two counts of murder in the deaths of U.S. District Court Judge John M. Roll, and Gabriel Zimmerman, a Giffords aide. He also faces three counts of attempted murder for the shootings of Giffords and two other federal employees.)
As for Congress, lawmakers faced at least 236 death threats in the past decade, according to FBI documents released last month. Serious threats against lawmakers have dropped in the last decade. Threats investigated by the FBI peaked at 42 cases in 2001 and dropped to nine by 2006, according to the documents first obtained by Politico.
Similarly, federal court personnel are also no stranger to potential violence: Judges, prosecutors and other court workers were the target of 1,278 threats in fiscal 2008, more than double the threats received in 2003, according to a 2009 report by the Justice Department Inspector General.
The U.S. Marshals, who provide security for federal judges prosecutors and Supreme Court justices when they travel, isn't planning significant changes to federal courthouse security, because Roll wasn't the target of an assassination plot, according to Marshals spokesman Jeff Carter.
RELATED: Giffords shooting prompts lawmakers to call for more security”
Advertisement
NowPublic on Facebook
What is NowPublic?
NowPublic lets people work together to cover news events around the world.
Most Recommended Comment
"thirty-aught-six" (not verified)
Most RecentMost Recommended Comments (8)
at 11:04 on January 10th, 2011
Bit simplistic to blame the Second Amendment to the US Constitution for the criminal use of guns. Like blaming automobiles for drunk driving.
at 12:03 on January 10th, 2011
Too simplistic an excuse. There is a need for autos in society. There is no need for guns.
at 12:28 on January 10th, 2011
I'm afraid Jim the argument can be made for either one just as effectively. Especially in the face of global warming and man's intentional destruction of the world by industrial nations.
at 12:38 on January 10th, 2011
OK, I am with you, let's eliminate guns and autos. I am in favor of redesigning communities such that we depend largely on public transportation and get rid of guns.
at 12:50 on January 10th, 2011
There is middle ground here, that I am sure both of you will agree to. Certain people should definately not be allowed to drive, and certain people should not be allowed to own firearms. There are people who should not be allowed to reproduce, as well, but that is a little trickier to enforce. The fact of the matter is that not everyone with a firearm will attempt to use it on another person. Just as not everyone who owns a car and drinks will drive drunk. However, there are people who will do both.
They key is control of access. Who needs an assault rifle in their closet, living in LA, for example, if they are not planning to use it on other people? Strict rules regarding ownership, handling, and storage are all viable ways of cutting down firearms related crimes. Also, controlling what type of firearm is available, and keeping a better grasp on who is buying what, and why. For another example, what is a person going to do with a fifty cal. machine gun? Its too big to hunt with. The same goes for an M16. Why do you need a fully automatic 5.56 rifle? There are better choices out there if you are planning to shoot a bear, something with more stopping power.
Let the hunters hunt, the sharp-shooters practice. Just make sure they are not hunting people, or planning to practice from a bell-tower on a university campus. Take away firearms, and people will still find other ways to kill each other, albiet was which are less prone to colateral damage, like a screw-driver. But they may equally turn to letter-bombs. At least you know if buddy goes into home depot looking for five hundred pounds of manure, and he lives in a 200 square foot appartment, he is probably not gardening. Control the possible weapons that are available, and try to make sure they don't get into the wrong hands. You'll never stop violent crime all together. We should be satisfied with limiting it.
at 13:39 on January 10th, 2011
http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/historyonline/assassinations.cfm
See the link above for a summary of American political assassination attempts on Presidents.
at 17:05 on January 10th, 2011
I don't think in a free society that laws can be passed that keep people entirely safe from themselves. One of the real issues of our society is that we have estranged ourselves from our neighbor and we dare not say anything for fear of social retribution if we do see untoward behavior being exhibited. Parents, school teachers, neighbors, no one. Even the police have to tippy toe around all the social PC nonsense just in case they might offend some delinquents sensibilities. Then we wonder how people like Loughner get passed the system and why no one noticed. People noticed. It was just safer to keep their eyes closed and their mouth shut. Too bad for 16 innocent people.
at 18:17 on January 10th, 2011
Quotable quote: "I don't think in a free society that laws can be passed that keep people entirely safe from themselves."