Kansas Crimson

MICHHAWK wrote: ↑Mon Jul 15, 2024 12:01 pm kcrim is a far left leaning outlet. so you will not have an audience for constructive conversation. where adults converse constructively. not here.

MICHHAWK wrote: ↑Mon Jul 15, 2024 12:01 pm kcrim is a far left leaning outlet. so you will not have an audience for constructive conversation. where adults converse constructively. not here.

twocoach wrote: ↑Mon Jul 15, 2024 1:27 pm The Secret Service says it has no jurisdiction outside of their perimeter, which is where the building that the shooter was located on sat. They state that it is the state's responsibility.

ousdahl wrote: ↑Mon Jul 15, 2024 1:45 pm Wasn’t someone just commenting on the media?

Cuz, oh man, might wanna put on some oven mitts before you handle a take this hot:

pdub wrote: ↑Mon Jul 15, 2024 1:35 pm

twocoach wrote: ↑Mon Jul 15, 2024 1:27 pm The Secret Service says it has no jurisdiction outside of their perimeter, which is where the building that the shooter was located on sat. They state that it is the state's responsibility.

In a world where the person being protected wasn't a tyrant, i'd hope the secret service would have a broader perimeter - i.e. within reasonable rifle range of the area surrounding the person they were protecting.

This guy was posted at an fairly obvious vantage point to make his shots and he wasn't THAT far away.

MICHHAWK wrote: ↑Mon Jul 15, 2024 1:39 pm maybe they don't want to protect him.

pdub wrote: ↑Mon Jul 15, 2024 2:23 pm Oh absolutely.
I just think that if that comment of 'outside of the perimeter' is true that it's kinda bullshit.
Secret Service shot the shooter very quickly after he fired...i'd think that shooter's position would be part of the equation when setting up protection.

twocoach wrote: ↑Mon Jul 15, 2024 2:40 pm

pdub wrote: ↑Mon Jul 15, 2024 2:23 pm Oh absolutely.
I just think that if that comment of 'outside of the perimeter' is true that it's kinda bullshit.
Secret Service shot the shooter very quickly after he fired...i'd think that shooter's position would be part of the equation when setting up protection.

The problem is when it is perfectly legal for that person to be sitting there with a gun. You can't just shoot anyone you see with a gun that has the range to reach the stage while also claiming to be all about the right to bear arms. He could just say that he was using his scope like a monocular as is his "God given right... "

twocoach wrote: ↑Mon Jul 15, 2024 2:40 pm

pdub wrote: ↑Mon Jul 15, 2024 2:23 pm Oh absolutely.
I just think that if that comment of 'outside of the perimeter' is true that it's kinda bullshit.
Secret Service shot the shooter very quickly after he fired...i'd think that shooter's position would be part of the equation when setting up protection.

The problem is when it is perfectly legal for that person to be sitting there with a gun. You can't just shoot anyone you see with a gun that has the range to reach the stage while also claiming to be all about the right to bear arms. He could just say that he was using his scope like a monocular as is his "God given right... "

pdub wrote: ↑Mon Jul 15, 2024 2:45 pm

twocoach wrote: ↑Mon Jul 15, 2024 2:40 pm

pdub wrote: ↑Mon Jul 15, 2024 2:23 pm Oh absolutely.
I just think that if that comment of 'outside of the perimeter' is true that it's kinda bullshit.
Secret Service shot the shooter very quickly after he fired...i'd think that shooter's position would be part of the equation when setting up protection.

The problem is when it is perfectly legal for that person to be sitting there with a gun. You can't just shoot anyone you see with a gun that has the range to reach the stage while also claiming to be all about the right to bear arms. He could just say that he was using his scope like a monocular as is his "God given right... "

Fair point.
Pretty wild but fair.

pdub wrote: ↑Mon Jul 15, 2024 2:45 pm

twocoach wrote: ↑Mon Jul 15, 2024 2:40 pm

pdub wrote: ↑Mon Jul 15, 2024 2:23 pm Oh absolutely.
I just think that if that comment of 'outside of the perimeter' is true that it's kinda bullshit.
Secret Service shot the shooter very quickly after he fired...i'd think that shooter's position would be part of the equation when setting up protection.

The problem is when it is perfectly legal for that person to be sitting there with a gun. You can't just shoot anyone you see with a gun that has the range to reach the stage while also claiming to be all about the right to bear arms. He could just say that he was using his scope like a monocular as is his "God given right... "

Fair point.
Pretty wild but fair.

You'd think they'd bar firearms from these type of events but then you'd confuse his base on their freedoms.

Cassidy Hutchinson testified on Tuesday that both former President Donald Trump and his chief of staff Mark Meadows were warned on the morning of Jan. 6 that supporters gathered on the National Mall brought weapons with them, yet they failed to take action to stop the ensuing violence.

In previously recorded testimony, Hutchinson – who served as one of Meadows’ top aides at the end of the Trump White House – recalled a meeting between her, Meadows and White House deputy chief of staff Anthony Ornato around 10:00 a.m. on the morning of Jan. 6.

Ornato told Meadows that many of Trump’s supporters gathered on the Mall had “knives, guns in the form of pistols and rifles, bear spray, body armor, spears and flagpoles – flagpoles were one item. And then Tony had relayed to me something to the effect of [...] ‘people are fastening spears onto the ends of flagpoles.”

Meadows only responded to ask whether the president was aware of the report, and did not act further.

Soon after, Hutchinson recalled Trump was “furious” because not enough of his supporters were being allowed through security checkpoints at the Ellipse before he began his noon speech calling for those gathered to march towards the Capitol.

“The advanced team had relayed to [Trump] that the mags were free flowing,” she told the committee, referring to the magnetic security readers that detect weapons. “Everybody who wanted to come in had already come in but he still was angry about the extra space and wanted more people to come in.”

Hutchinson recalled a separate conversation where Trump said of his armed supporters: “‘I don't even care that they have weapons, they're not here to hurt me. Take the effing mags away.’”

jfish26 wrote: ↑Mon Jul 15, 2024 2:16 pm

pdub wrote: ↑Mon Jul 15, 2024 1:35 pm

twocoach wrote: ↑Mon Jul 15, 2024 1:27 pm The Secret Service says it has no jurisdiction outside of their perimeter, which is where the building that the shooter was located on sat. They state that it is the state's responsibility.

In a world where the person being protected wasn't a tyrant, i'd hope the secret service would have a broader perimeter - i.e. within reasonable rifle range of the area surrounding the person they were protecting.

This guy was posted at an fairly obvious vantage point to make his shots and he wasn't THAT far away.

My mind could be changed, easily, by better information.

But on the information we have available, I continue to think people are being FAR too casual in assuming what is and isn't, should and shouldn't, be within the government's (your and my dollars) scope here. These are finite, expensive taxpayer resources.

On Saturday, Trump was a simply an ex-President. Not even a nominee. The Secret Service protection that sort of figure gets is, as I understand it, a fraction of what goes into protecting a nominee, let alone a President.

Of course, nothing at all stops the campaign from spending its money on additional security, which I'm certain it does.

Overlander wrote: ↑Mon Jul 15, 2024 4:53 pm

jfish26 wrote: ↑Mon Jul 15, 2024 2:16 pm

pdub wrote: ↑Mon Jul 15, 2024 1:35 pm

In a world where the person being protected wasn't a tyrant, i'd hope the secret service would have a broader perimeter - i.e. within reasonable rifle range of the area surrounding the person they were protecting.

This guy was posted at an fairly obvious vantage point to make his shots and he wasn't THAT far away.

My mind could be changed, easily, by better information.

But on the information we have available, I continue to think people are being FAR too casual in assuming what is and isn't, should and shouldn't, be within the government's (your and my dollars) scope here. These are finite, expensive taxpayer resources.

On Saturday, Trump was a simply an ex-President. Not even a nominee. The Secret Service protection that sort of figure gets is, as I understand it, a fraction of what goes into protecting a nominee, let alone a President.

Of course, nothing at all stops the campaign from spending its money on additional security, which I'm certain it does.

Paying them, however…….