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.
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.
danm21136
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 .
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.
Riot
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.
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.
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.
Comments: Add Comment