Show of HandsShow of Hands

Show Of Hands November 6th, 2017 4:47am

Should members of Congress be provided personal protection?

47 Liked

Comments: Add Comment

smoothboy1982 Lexington Ky
11/12/17 7:07 pm

Hell no. Citizens need protection from their dumbass congressman!

Snowflakewisper PURE BLOOD
11/12/17 12:18 pm

If not the lunacy on the left would be killing Republicans like crazy. All the Republicans practicing in DC would have been killed for sure.

LazySteelworker USA
11/07/17 9:18 am

Why would any member of Congress that actively utilizes the second amendment need additional personal protection?
Hell I say if they're anti gun control in any form or fashion then let them defend themselves, it's what they would want apparently.

otto Olean, NY
11/07/17 8:39 am


But they should be free to have their own, just as every American should.

11/06/17 9:46 pm

They should be vetted better and take intelligence tests

11/07/17 5:47 pm

While I would like to agree with the idea of intelligence tests it undermines the democratic principles of our nation. The foundation of our government is that is controlled by ordinary people and any law abiding citizen that meets the other small requirements can serve. Intelligence test would be detrimental as who would control the tests and it would greatly limit the number of people who could run. And of that person is not fit for office and the people see that they will not let them in hopefully and if they somehow do get in office they can always lose reelection after the people see their performance. Intelligence tests in the form of literacy test were once used to prevent African Americans from voting and I believe if one party gains control of the tests then the same thing would happen to the opposing party running for office. I agree with your sentiment of having more qualified people in our government but the tests would undermine the foundation of our government

11/10/17 7:17 am

Not talking about taking a written test - just listen to their views and how they express themselves - it’s easy then to separate the dummies and dangerous from those who really want to serve vs fill their pockets

jakecrs905 New York, NY
11/06/17 7:51 pm

Yeah, they should get some protection.

ronderman North Carolina
11/06/17 5:27 pm

They are under protection most of the time when they are in DC. The Speaker and other high ranking members do have protection.

Most don't need it when they are in their home markets.

11/06/17 4:55 pm

Why , none of them are worth protecting anymore than any other citizen. If you go into politics you know the risk, plus they are already rewarded better than any regular job .

ronderman North Carolina
11/06/17 5:25 pm

I would take issue with the statement that they are awarded more than any other job.

Unless they are independently wealthy, most do not get paid enough to keep two functioning households. There is a GREAT health plan and a GREAT retirement plan though.

That said, they make less than many physicians and most attorneys.

11/06/17 5:55 pm

Don't forget the perks from lobbyists, I have found over the years even the best intentioned congressman can't resist the corruption in D.C..

MrWalrus Undergrid
11/06/17 6:18 pm

$174,000 a year is plenty to keep a functional household

MrWalrus Undergrid
11/06/17 6:19 pm

Misread. I thought you said a functional household.

ronderman North Carolina
11/06/17 6:27 pm

I have a friend who is a congressman. Before Mark was elected, I didn't realize that each congressman really has to have dual residences. They have to have a place to stay in DC and they have to keep a house in their home area.

If your home is in California, 174k is barely enough to keep a residence in Ca alone.

CoffeeNow Powderpuff Leftist
11/06/17 12:13 pm

Rand Paul just got assaulted. But it was in his home so not sure protection would have helped

But overall, yeah

rambo088 kansas
11/06/17 4:44 pm

He was mowing his yard actually

geoag02 Dallas, TX
11/06/17 11:32 am

If they were doing their jobs the way that they should be doing them, they would have a MUCH SMALLER percentage of the population mad at them. Let’s start with that.

ProbablyEug Oakland
11/06/17 10:22 am

No. Not providing personal protection means they’ll rely on the police just like the rest of us, ensuring those depts have the resources they need, as well as proper oversight.

Alcerus fascist
11/06/17 9:58 am

Yes, if they're pro second amendment. If not, we should respect their beliefs and ensure that they're left completely exposed and unprotected.

Obvious101 MO
11/06/17 2:00 pm

Dumb response.

scrpnHOG Arizona
11/06/17 3:05 pm

Violent liberals are more of an issue, so Anti-gun Dems are safe anyways.

scrpnHOG Arizona
11/06/17 3:16 pm

Trump inauguration, Bush Jr. inauguration, Regan attempted assignation, Antifa, BLM.

scrpnHOG Arizona
11/06/17 3:17 pm

Oh how can I forget The KKK too.

rambo088 kansas
11/06/17 4:47 pm

How is that a dumb response? You don't need guns to protect yourself right? Or are you that much of a sucker for the elites?

campow03 NC
11/06/17 9:33 am

Only at baseball practice

11/06/17 7:24 am

Yes as long as they pay for it

Jazzy5 USA
11/06/17 7:12 am

No.. Conceal carry, will work!

tdaddy Kentucky
11/06/17 8:11 am

Good idea, but insist they meet the same criteria as everyone else. If they are clearly nuttier than a fruit fly make that a consideration.

11/06/17 6:17 am

That would be a ton of money, no

NKarta Please excuse my sanity
11/06/17 5:24 am

Let them carry guns, but with the same restrictions about federal buildings as the rest of us. Then they’l see how much they deprived the American people of the right to carry a gun

Liberty 4,032,064
11/06/17 5:17 am

No. They can buy there own or do it themselves like everyone else.

cowboy Proud Father
11/06/17 3:40 am

They can afford their own security and I hope the Republicans are now awake to the Communists and their civil war.

TCheyenne I Love People
11/06/17 3:29 am

Only if they protect our 2nd Amendment!!!

kspells TheOtherOtherside
11/06/17 3:04 am

They know what they signed up for.

tmtoo Daydreams and Nightmares
11/06/17 1:18 am

If they are paranoid about protection, they should be deciding things differently.

willg Northern Virginia
11/06/17 5:53 am

That’s terrible logic. If the person did everything they thought was right it would still be opposed at every level by a person of the opposite party. Ideological differences shouldn’t scare people into voting differently to minimize threats that’s basically the antithesis of what democracy is supposed to be.

11/06/17 6:51 am

No matter what you decide, someone will be angry.

Spiritof76 USA 1776
11/05/17 11:59 pm

If they can figure out a way to get elected, they can figure out a way to protect themselves.

ShawPPM1214 Washington
11/05/17 11:45 pm

Don't certain members of congress have protection from the capital police? Like the Speaker, Senate Pro-T, Majority and Minority leaders...

11/05/17 11:09 pm

Far to difficult to answer with a simple ‘yes’ or ‘no’. But for the sake of answering I think yes, to a degree.

Gunfighter06 Iowa, since 1846
11/05/17 10:51 pm

No, unless they hold a leadership position or a committee chair.

Cole12 ...
11/05/17 10:27 pm

No, but we should increase their salaries to the $500k to $1M range, and then they'd have enough income to hire their own bodyguards.

TomLaney1 Jesus is Lord
11/05/17 10:16 pm

No. They should be allowed to carry guns. There should be a Congressional Firing Range for practice and training.

Posco BBQ Enthusiast
11/06/17 12:46 am

But it can only be a gun in the style of an old western six shooter.

PepsiGuy Gave up Pepsi for Lent
11/06/17 4:58 am

I wonder how long it will take for a bill vote to turn into a shootout.

willg Northern Virginia
11/06/17 5:59 am

Protection details sweep buildings for bombs, and assess vulnerabilities, and use armored vehicles etc. Having a single gun is handy, but certainly not actually a good form of protection for Congressional members if you were trying to prevent anything other than a stick up. They by the way would be restricted from having that gun anywhere in the District itself between the federal property and the city ordinances. Only a handful of them have protection details as it is, because most of them are simply not big enough targets on a day to day basis and are so far down the chain for line of succession.

LazySteelworker USA
11/07/17 9:19 am

Who'se paying for this firing range and why do they get one just for them?

RNader anonymous
11/05/17 10:08 pm

If shoot that Mr. McConnell in that turtle ugly face of his

missmorganmarie ...
11/06/17 8:35 am

no way. he would duck into his shell before that happened

SHIPPY1944 Tn.
11/05/17 10:06 pm

They can pack their own “heat”& protect themselves, like the rest of us now have to do !

alexrobbie MN
11/05/17 10:06 pm

In public spaces and large gatherings, yes. If they want more protection outside of that, they can pay for their own security.

bower8899 ...
11/05/17 9:58 pm

Maybe if they didn't make millions that they could easily use to pay for it themselves

kscott516 Revelation 5 6
11/06/17 5:49 am

This user is currently being ignored

rambo088 kansas
11/06/17 9:18 am

You think that's their only source of income? Lol

kscott516 Revelation 5 6
11/06/17 9:42 am

This user is currently being ignored