Doc Posted July 14 Share Posted July 14 8 minutes ago, The Frankish Reich said: So you tell me ... exactly how far away from the secured area did the kid need to be in order to be allowed to walk around freely with an AR-15? 100 yards? Half a mile? 20 miles? If it's his Second Amendment right to be armed, well, then it's a right, not a privilege. Should the SS have executed him before he started shooting? Yes. Once he got on the roof with a rifle, that people saw happening and tried to alert law enforcement, he should have been shot dead. 1 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted July 14 Share Posted July 14 8 minutes ago, The Frankish Reich said: So you tell me ... exactly how far away from the secured area did the kid need to be in order to be allowed to walk around freely with an AR-15? 100 yards? Half a mile? 20 miles? If it's his Second Amendment right to be armed, well, then it's a right, not a privilege. Should the SS have executed him before he started shooting? And he doubles down with questions he knows are foolish. Broken. . 6 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillsFanNC Posted July 14 Author Share Posted July 14 According to Bongino the standard perimeter is 1000 yards to be cleared around a protectee. So there's your answer to Finding's stupid question. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Frankish Reich Posted July 14 Share Posted July 14 2 hours ago, Doc said: Yes. Once he got on the roof with a rifle, that people saw happening and tried to alert law enforcement, he should have been shot dead. So there's a law about that? Where? We should allow firearms at political rallies. Political rally = protected by 1st Amendment. Firearms carry = protected by 2nd Amendment. Your call for reasonable/unwritten restrictions is unconstitutional. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unforgiven Posted July 14 Share Posted July 14 Oh goodie. more of our tax money down the drain for another sham investigation. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Blitz Posted July 14 Share Posted July 14 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Frankish Reich Posted July 14 Share Posted July 14 11 minutes ago, Big Blitz said: If she hasn't been fired already, she should be by tomorrow. And for a (future) non-governmental employee, I can't really find anything to disagree with in this tweet: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted July 14 Share Posted July 14 2 hours ago, The Frankish Reich said: So there's a law about that? Where? We should allow firearms at political rallies. Political rally = protected by 1st Amendment. Firearms carry = protected by 2nd Amendment. Your call for reasonable/unwritten restrictions is unconstitutional. Yeah. It's the same law that allowed Byrd to kill Ashley Babbit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeGOATski Posted July 14 Share Posted July 14 (edited) 49 minutes ago, The Frankish Reich said: If she hasn't been fired already, she should be by tomorrow. And for a (future) non-governmental employee, I can't really find anything to disagree with in this tweet: She doesn't decide whether you get to have a weapon or not. I work with the NICS every day and that's completely untrue. People think the FBI bases their hiring on political affiliation? There are all backgrounds of people working within all factions of the federal and state government. She might definitely get a slap on the wrist, but from I see she's not claiming to represent the views of the FBI. Edited July 14 by LeGOATski Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeGOATski Posted July 14 Share Posted July 14 5 hours ago, Doc said: Yes. Once he got on the roof with a rifle, that people saw happening and tried to alert law enforcement, he should have been shot dead. That's your prerogative, but it doesn't work that way, as far as I know. Just in general terms, some guy climbing buildings with a rifle in a rural area, you'd have to warn him to put the gun down before opening fire on him. In something like this, I imagine the process would be that as soon as they got word of a potential shooter, they communicate that and then pull Trump off the stage immediately, they can't just fire on someone until they're 100% or as close to 100% as possible. So, in this case, SS should've been storming the stage and covering President Trump, pulling him to safety before shots were even fired. Meanwhile, SS and police engage the potential threat as safely as possible with the preservation of life as a priority. There's no doubt there were holes in this process and a lack of communication. I mean, WHAT IF an innocent idiot was out hunting and on his way back thinks he's far enough away, and he just wants to watch the rally through his scope. You can't just open fire on the guy. There's rules to engagement and I think this is more complicated than people are making it out to be, but I have little doubt that they still failed in their process. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted July 14 Share Posted July 14 1 hour ago, LeGOATski said: That's your prerogative, but it doesn't work that way, as far as I know. Just in general terms, some guy climbing buildings with a rifle in a rural area, you'd have to warn him to put the gun down before opening fire on him. In something like this, I imagine the process would be that as soon as they got word of a potential shooter, they communicate that and then pull Trump off the stage immediately, they can't just fire on someone until they're 100% or as close to 100% as possible. So, in this case, SS should've been storming the stage and covering President Trump, pulling him to safety before shots were even fired. Meanwhile, SS and police engage the potential threat as safely as possible with the preservation of life as a priority. There's no doubt there were holes in this process and a lack of communication. I mean, WHAT IF an innocent idiot was out hunting and on his way back thinks he's far enough away, and he just wants to watch the rally through his scope. You can't just open fire on the guy. There's rules to engagement and I think this is more complicated than people are making it out to be, but I have little doubt that they still failed in their process. If he's looking in the direction of the President in an area that's supposed to be secure? No, you shoot him dead on sight. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orlando Buffalo Posted July 14 Share Posted July 14 1 hour ago, LeGOATski said: That's your prerogative, but it doesn't work that way, as far as I know. Just in general terms, some guy climbing buildings with a rifle in a rural area, you'd have to warn him to put the gun down before opening fire on him. In something like this, I imagine the process would be that as soon as they got word of a potential shooter, they communicate that and then pull Trump off the stage immediately, they can't just fire on someone until they're 100% or as close to 100% as possible. So, in this case, SS should've been storming the stage and covering President Trump, pulling him to safety before shots were even fired. Meanwhile, SS and police engage the potential threat as safely as possible with the preservation of life as a priority. There's no doubt there were holes in this process and a lack of communication. I mean, WHAT IF an innocent idiot was out hunting and on his way back thinks he's far enough away, and he just wants to watch the rally through his scope. You can't just open fire on the guy. There's rules to engagement and I think this is more complicated than people are making it out to be, but I have little doubt that they still failed in their process. Are you mentally challenged? A guy who openly is carrying a weapon in that situation you shoot immediately. If you statement was our actual policy every suicidal killer would just keep taking shots at every president from wherever they could. The policy is once the SD see a gun the president is covered and the person is neutralized by any means necessary. If you are going to tell me that is not the SS policy I know you are full of crap, because I do know retired agents and they have given me that much info. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted July 14 Share Posted July 14 3 hours ago, Unforgiven said: Oh goodie. more of our tax money down the drain for another sham investigation. A couple million to find out they didn’t think the high ground was that important, lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillsFanNC Posted July 14 Author Share Posted July 14 Beginners Guide to Fixing the Secret Service: -Mandatory monthly requalifications for both pistol and long gun courses in addition to mandatory monthly physical fitness testing. -All qualification metrics should be the same for male and female agents. USSS protectee’s heights and weights don’t change for male versus female agents, so neither should the standards. -Security assets should be allocated based on threat levels, not titles. Assassins don’t care about titles, they care about death. -Merge the agent and Uniformed Division Special Operations teams. Agents can’t currently act as dog handlers or Counter-Sniper Officers. And UD officers cannot serve on the Counter Assault Team. This is a meaningless obstacle. -Turn over the investigation functions of the Secret Service to other federal agencies and have the Field Offices focus exclusively on threat mitigation, training, protective intelligence and physical protection. -Scrap all cancerous DEI initiatives and salary enhancements for supervisors. Merit should be the ONLY guiding principle when it involves the lives of the country’s critical political figures. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeGOATski Posted July 14 Share Posted July 14 46 minutes ago, Orlando Buffalo said: Are you mentally challenged? A guy who openly is carrying a weapon in that situation you shoot immediately. If you statement was our actual policy every suicidal killer would just keep taking shots at every president from wherever they could. The policy is once the SD see a gun the president is covered and the person is neutralized by any means necessary. If you are going to tell me that is not the SS policy I know you are full of crap, because I do know retired agents and they have given me that much info. Do you ask yourself why you immediately resort to insults? Anyway, feel free to share your info. There have been plenty of threats over the years and they don't resort to shooting people immediately. 1 hour ago, Doc said: If he's looking in the direction of the President in an area that's supposed to be secure? No, you shoot him dead on sight. I understand the sentiment, but I'm pretty sure that's not how it works. I wish I could find a resource. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commsvet11 Posted July 14 Share Posted July 14 8 hours ago, The Frankish Reich said: Only one thing to notice here: as soon as the gunman was ID'd as a young registered Republican (probably disturbed) gun nut who was given an AR by his father, Ol' Tarheel performed the Trump Two-Step Turnaround by trying to change the topic to Secret Service Failure. Question: wasn't this kid walking around outside a secured area with a long gun exactly what the 2nd Amendment protects? Why are people saying the Secret Service should have stopped him? He was just exercising his Second Amendment rights right up until the time he started shooting at Trump. Oh boy if only there was a term for displaying a weapon in an intimidating manner in public that could be consider against the law……… Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JaCrispy Posted July 15 Share Posted July 15 8 hours ago, The Frankish Reich said: Only one thing to notice here: as soon as the gunman was ID'd as a young registered Republican (probably disturbed) gun nut who was given an AR by his father, Ol' Tarheel performed the Trump Two-Step Turnaround by trying to change the topic to Secret Service Failure. Question: wasn't this kid walking around outside a secured area with a long gun exactly what the 2nd Amendment protects? Why are people saying the Secret Service should have stopped him? He was just exercising his Second Amendment rights right up until the time he started shooting at Trump. Sorry, I didn’t know it was open mic at the comedy club…if you have any other material, might wanna try that…👍 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PetermansRedemption Posted July 15 Share Posted July 15 I wonder when we get to hear from the secret service. From any expert you listen to, leaving that roof uncovered was indefensible. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillsFanNC Posted July 15 Author Share Posted July 15 Finding, Seek help. Seriously. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillsFanNC Posted July 15 Author Share Posted July 15 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts