Emergency measures
US officials are strengthening security measures in Washington DC and across the country as the FBI said far-right groups – many using social media – were continuing to threaten plots before Joe Biden’s inauguration as president on 21 January.
I wonder what they’re hoping for. Reinstatement of slavery? Repeal of all minimum wage laws? Sealed borders? Flat tax? Death penalty for abortions?
Probably.
The outgoing homeland security secretary, Chad Wolf, said on Monday that he had moved up the timing of the “national special security event” for Biden’s inauguration to Wednesday, instead of 19 January citing the “events of the past week”, along with an “evolving security landscape”.
The events of the past week, triggered by his boss.
Wolf’s statement came as Trump – widely blamed for inciting the violence last week – issued an an emergency declaration for the US capital allowing the Department of Homeland Security and Federal Emergency Management Agency to coordinate with local authorities as needed.
The warnings have prompted various states to introduce emergency measures, including Michigan, which banned the open carrying of firearms inside its state capitol, and Wisconsin, whose governor activated the national guard to support capitol police in Madison.
In California, the governor, Gavin Newsom, said authorities were “on high alert” for protests in Sacramento in the coming days, adding the national guard would be deployed if necessary.
Shouldn’t they be out raking the forests?
I recently watched an interview with Charlie Sykes, former conservative radio talk show host and author of How the Right Lost It’s Mind, in which he mentioned that increasingly Republicans are not actually pro anything other than just “whatever will piss off liberals”.
But concealed firearms are fine? Wouldn’t it make more sense to issue a blanket ban on firearms for all but those responsible for security inside the building rather than allowing any potential shooter the advantage of the element of surprise?
I think probably concealed are already banned? Because more dangerous rather than less?
My understanding is that the status of concealed vs. open carry varies widely from one jurisdiction to another — some allow concealed but not open, some vice versa, and of course some both and some neither (with exceptions).
The argument for open but not concealed is that with open carry, you know who’s armed and can react accordingly, etc.
The argument for concealed but not open is that open carry can be used to intimidate, while concealed should be all you need if your purpose is legitimate self-defense.
Personally I’m not a fan of either, but if I had to chose I probably prefer concealed. I prefer to know that if I see a gun, it means someone is breaking the law and I should be on high alert. With open carry, you have no idea if the guy packing heat at Starbucks is trouble or not.
You’d think so, wouldn’t you? It does sound like the sort of thing intelligent people would do. Alas, I just checked, and [emph. mine]:
And this is the building occupied by armed militia last April while a vote to extend the emergency stay-at-home order was in progress.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/michigan-state-capitol-firearm-open-carry-ban/
Screechy, while I agree with the logic of what you said, given the current situation concealed carry inside a state capitol building is a gift to the wannabe MAGA heroes.
As far as I can tell, they have a formless rage and feeling of being wronged, but no real policy desires. They want Trump back in power, and they want to dominate the left.
Oh, in the context of legislatures, it’s crazy to have anyone carrying weapons other than authorized security officers, whether concealed or otherwise.
One of my young friends put it this way:
That is a useful summation.