I disagree. Any federal employee who has a reasonable risk of being a target of terrorists based on their job within the government should have an armed guard to protect them.
We don’t leave our own hanging out to dry. You might as well claim that our troops shouldn’t be allowed to carry guns.
They are likely still disarmed at Ft. Hood and in the presence of their fearless leaders.
You make a good point.I should have specified that members of the Armed Forces weren't included.Other than that...I stand by it.They're no better than am I or my family.If they plan to deny me the right to defend myself and my family I'll gladly....enthusiastically...return the favor.
‘You might as well claim that our troops shouldn’t be allowed to carry guns.’
They are not allowed to carry guns while on base. That is why so many people where killed in Fort Hood. They had to wait for the Base Police Officer to arrive. Yet these same victims are possibly the most highly trained AND experienced weapon carriers around.
A plethora of those who you deem to be deserving of tax payers funding their security have left plenty of active duty and civilians high and dry. The Secret Service should just have stuck with going after counterfeiters. Know they become vultures who have the freedom to strip 1st Amendment rights. Let the Pres be protected by Active Duty and then if the Pres wants security for their family, fund the armed guards out of their own wages.
Wilson was a punk who thought of himself as a Philosopher King and an idiotic “progressive” Congress went along with this “Kingship”. Our government is made up of disposable representatives with a very detailed line of succession. If one needs protecting, it should be the tax payer, not a perceived nobility of ostentatious knaves. Btw, how many murdered at Ft. Hood were armed? Was at a Annex a week ago. Seems it was illegal for AD members to be packing. The Annex did not have a guard gate btw.