Dem planning bill that would outlaw threatening lawmakers

While I will be the first to admit that some of these folks have gotten out of hand in opposing political parties with the threatening innuendos and what not, this to me has the potentiality of a "no dissent allowed" type of imposition written all over it.

If such a bill were to go through, you can bet that the implications would be BROAD on just what institutes a "threat" to those in power.

This is one to keep a close eye on folks...

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 inciting violence against a federal official or member of Congress.

Brady told CNN that he wants federal lawmakers and officials to have the same protections against threat currently provided to the president. His call comes one day after Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-Ariz.) was shot, along with 19 other people, at a public event in Tucson. A suspect is currently in custody.

"The president is a federal official," Brady told CNN in a telephone interview. "You can't do it to him; you should not be able to do it to a congressman, senator or federal judge."

Full Article:

thehill.com...

Isn't it already illegal to threaten anyone with physical harm?

He's 'targeting' the type graphics, speech and depictions of Palin's 'crosshairs' map.

Divide and Conquer, even if it's your own party .... if you will.

makes not a tinker's damns sense .. but is what it is.

Per Rahm Emanuel, “You never want a serious crisis to go to waste."

Yeah I know I used it on other reply's, but its still relevant.

Thanks

Forgive me of my idiocy;

But, this seems to interpret to me that these representatives wish to be protected against the consequences of their actions. In their case, passing laws that further deprive liberties of the citizens bound by constitutional rights.

To reiterate; they want to continue voting against our constitutional rights and not have to be held accountable.

Meanwhile, our border issue is still getting un-addressed. Unemployment is still running rampant. The Federal Racketeering commission, I mean the Federal Reserve/Wall street so-on and so-forth...

I mean, there are more pressing issues that should be getting addressed, and these fear-mongers are showing their true colors; they only care about themselves, and doing as their strings pull them to do/ I mean undo.

So wait, you all think it should be ok to threaten lawmakers and other officials with death or bodily harm? You all think that this is ok behavior? So, where is the line? What is not appropriate as far as political discourse?

I don't know, maybe you all think that each side should arm up and start shooting each other, whoever has the most supporters still alive has the job. Is that what should be in the United States? Just a bloody massacre every 2 years around November.

I agree loveguy. Congress has more important things to do in my opinion. I think they would rather fiddle while Rome burns. I'm still wondering if our currency will be worth something when I'm ready to retire many years from now and if my savings will become worthless because congress did not extend the national debt level and the US defaulted instead because congress wanted to argue about it. I see our currency and economy as the real crisis that will affect over 300 million Americans. Congress wants to focus on themselves instead. I should probably remind anyone elected that if the US defaults on our national debt, it will result in a lot of lives lost due to lack of income and services they need. Congress would likely be disbanded as well without a functioning US government and here is the big one for congress members. They would lose their pensions. I guess they could still be paid with worthless paper money. Apparently not too many members of congress appear concerned with the people's concerns. I was actually hoping this would change one day. Maybe it has and this is just the democrat's viewpoints.

I say congress should save our economy and currency first. They can address mental insanity bills after that. It's already illegal to threaten someone with bodily injury. Passing a bill won't stop the mentally insane either. If they have a brain, they'll just stop posting anything threatening online. If people don't think our economy and a possible default on our national debt is of any concern, I think they are living in a fantasy land.

This kinda does sound NWO knida stuff..its ok for them to tell us whats good for us, what the law is, and rape us in taxe, but its not ok for us to speak out?
or , maybe it goes to show how arrogent and mindles they are, let alon lack of sense of humor. the same ones who have helped screw the middle calss over and our system, cant take a middle finger gesture? how lame weak and ignorant that is. how else is one to let someone know thei being a jerk or worse

its like who do they think they are? god or something? lawgivers instead of makers? its illegal, to tell someone what hey can and cant say ya know..freedom of speech* apparently, these lawmakers think different* must be a bunch of bush appointees

I wonder, is it possible to speak out against what one would consider bad legislation, or an unfair agenda without the use of violent speech?

Is our society so hung up on violence that it's all we know? It's the only way we can be? Are we that devolved as a society that normal political discussion and discourse is a rarity instead of the norm, and the only way we feel that we are being heard is through threat of violent action?

So in other words..thie making us all shut up an put up with what they feel is good for us, even if its draconian laws? ad to say something about it..would be a federal crime* NWO our rights are being eroded monthly it seems...wonder if obama will be the new adolf hitler? then again, yuode think it would have been bush* but since oabam and bush are cousins afterall* the bloodline is in the highest seat of office nonetheless

DD, good discussion.

So, what happened to the judicial tenet of "equal under the law"?

Of course anyone with a brain knows this to be a fallacy created for misdirection. It seems the Congress can pass legislation (notice I did not say law) that they are not subject to, but everyone else is. They also exclude in this legislation, components of government and other privileged classes within the legislation, e.g. unions.

This is nothing new, it is the makings of a two tier feudal system.

It is a progressive tenet that to things need to progress to the point of those that are more equal than others.

I am glad to see my arch nemisis taking the typical stance, that the government can justifiably write laws for specific people.

reply to post by loveguy


They want protection against nutjobs obsessed with the constitution, birth certificate and every other rightie loonie issue under the sun.

Do you even care that a NINE year old girl got killed as the result of Lougher's actions?

Sure, the law being proposed seems more than reactionary but if anything, people will be investigated and perhaps they'll be able to defend themselves if the Feds decide that they're not a serious threat.

reply to post by saltheart foamfollower


You like to harp on progressives a lot.

Let's hope you don't pull a Jared on some innocent progressives.

As dave mustaine fo megadeth sang in peace sells ...." what do ya mean, i could be the president, of the united states of america.... tell me something, its still WE the people right?"

I would be opposed to any such bill. I think it should be the responsibility of the individual to self censor and show restraint. I believe that any politician that must resort to violent or threatening words, metaphors, imagery, etc. lacks the substance necessary to be among the legislators of our country. If one can not run a clean campaign based solely on the issues, while making their case with positivity, then it should be up to the citizens to call them on it and have their voice heard at the polls.

That being said, IF such a bill did pass, then I hope it includes outlawing mudslinging, smear campaigns and political lies.

That speculative comment regarding your fellow poster becoming a mass murderer is a personal attack, and really uncalled for in a debate situation. If this poster fuels your fire so much you cannot control yourself from atacking him/her, should we by convex, be concerned for.....you, as well?

To comment on the OP, I find it ridiculous that these Politicians are tring to demand...Special Rights....typical.

Originally posted by The Sword
reply to post by saltheart foamfollower

 

You like to harp on progressives a lot.

Let's hope you don't pull a Jared on some innocent progressives.

reply to post by The Sword


No, not just progressives.

Anyone that attempts to increase the power of the government beyond it's Constitutional Authority. So, is George W Bush a progressive?

Nice way to attempt to equate me to a wacko though.

I am beginning to wonder if the police departments knew about this guy. It seems he had contact with the police on 5 occasions since September of last year. I wonder if that is why the Sheriff is attempting to lay blame on others.

Hmmmm, very, very, very interesting. [say with a doctor evil voice]

reply to post by saltheart foamfollower


Hey, just calling a spade a spade.

It's just not healthy to be obsessing over a piece of paper written by rich white land/slave owners.

reply to post by hotbakedtater


Are you a moderator? I think not.

Don't lecture me.