Obama Signs Bill Giving Him Armed Protection For Life

[Dolphins9954]

Former presidents have to give up rides on Air Force One. But now they don't have to give up being shadowed by the armed-and-earpieced bodyguards of the Secret Service.
President Barack Obama on Thursday signed into a law a measure giving him, George W. Bush and future former presidents and their spouses lifetime Secret Service protection, the White House announced.

The legislation, crafted by Republican Rep. Trey Gowdy of South Carolina, rolls back a mid-1990s law that imposed a 10-year limit on Secret Service protection for former presidents. Bush would have been the first former commander in chief affected.

At the time, lawmakers who supported the measure said it would save the government millions of dollars. They also argued that former presidents could hire private security firms (as Richard Nixon did after he decided to forgo Secret Service protection in 1985).

The bill had sailed through Congress with bipartisan support—it cleared the House of Representatives by voice vote in early December, and then it zipped through the Senate unopposed. The law also provides protection for former presidents’ kids until age 16. But “protection of a spouse shall terminate in the event of remarriage.”


To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
in 1901 after the assassination of William McKinley. In 1965, Congress passed a law authorizing the agency, which is now a part of the Department of Homeland Security, to protect former presidents for life.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.



Gee I wonder how many bullets are in those clips???

[MoFinz]

I have no real issue with this, even though former Presidents are about as relevant as used toilet tissue. There are always Loonies out there looking for 15 minutes of fame. Funny how the laws he wants to impose on others usually dont apply to him and his brethren.

[Locke]

I have no real issue with this, even though former Presidents are about as relevant as used toilet tissue. There are always Loonies out there looking for 15 minutes of fame. Funny how the laws he wants to impose on others usually dont apply to him and his brethren.

Apples and oranges...

[MoFinz]

Apples and oranges...

Grapes and Raisins

[Locke]

Grapes and Raisins

I don't get the people who try to make someone sound like a hypocrite on this issue when they aren't. Obama is not trying to take guns away from everyone. Obama is trying to keep guns out of the hands of people who are likely to kill people with them. So when someone points out that President Obama has armed guards and acts like he is this two-faced villain of some sort, it makes me wonder what their true motives are. If Obama came out and said no one should have guns, I could agree. He hasn't said that and isn't saying that, so pointing out each and every instance where he has a gun within 400 miles of him is asinine...

[Dolphins9954]

For me it's about the ammo count in the clip. Obama has already said he supports another AWB which does take away guns from Americans. And he supports making all clips no more than 10 rounds. Meanwhile I'll bet my wife's hotpocket that those clips his guards have are "high capacity". The very clips he wants to ban. Which proves what most of us who have guns know. That having clips with more than 10 rounds is the best for self-defense.

[irish fin fan]

Apples and oranges...

Same old nonsense. Mix all sorts of bull**** into the issue at hand. Sure to confuse the simple minded.

[LANGER72]

For me it's about the ammo count in the clip. Obama has already said he supports another AWB which does take away guns from Americans. And he supports making all clips no more than 10 rounds. Meanwhile I'll bet my wife's hotpocket that those clips his guards have are "high capacity". The very clips he wants to ban. Which proves what most of us who have guns know. That having clips with more than 10 rounds is the best for self-defense.

The authors of the 2nd amendment intent was for the general public to have access to the best weapon of the day. So the intent was to allow automatic weapons with high capacity clips...IMHO.

[TheMageGandalf]

The authors of the 2nd amendment intent was for the general public to have access to the best weapon of the day. So the intent was to allow automatic weapons with high capacity clips...IMHO.

I understand your point of view but at the same time IMHO there has to be some sort of cut off because if your trying to be safe for great home security then you need to be allowed to 'roll' with an M60 and be done with it. Why mess around with a puny by comparison M16 or AK? Just mount a few of those by your windows and your good.

In all seriousness, back then, I am not so sure if the fathers meant citizens should have a Cannon or two around their houses. It was probably more like a flintlock, maybe a musket something of that nature...heck even a nice sword. It sure as heck beat a pitchfork. I believe that was their true intentions. Because if your going to argue about 'having the best weapon of the day' then they might as well let people have nuclear bombs. At that point, the argument would be that no one messes with anyone for the fear of nuking the neighborhood. So again, there has to be a cut off.

[LANGER72]

I understand your point of view but at the same time IMHO there has to be some sort of cut off because if your trying to be safe for great home security then you need to be allowed to 'roll' with an M60 and be done with it. Why mess around with a puny by comparison M16 or AK? Just mount a few of those by your windows and your good.

In all seriousness, back then, I am not so sure if the fathers meant citizens should have a Cannon or two around their houses. It was probably more like a flintlock, maybe a musket something of that nature...heck even a nice sword. It sure as heck beat a pitchfork. I believe that was their true intentions. Because if your going to argue about 'having the best weapon of the day' then they might as well let people have nuclear bombs. At that point, the argument would be that no one messes with anyone for the fear of nuking the neighborhood. So again, there has to be a cut off.

Obviously the idea that someone should arm themselves with cannons, suit case nukes, etc is silly and extreme. We are taking about different types of small arms..rifles, pistols and shotguns. The types of weapons that a militia member would carry on his person. That was the intent back then, there is no reason to change the 2nd amendment.