Today’s news:

Grimm: House members should pack heat if they want

The Brooklyn Paper

Gun-slinging G-man-turned-Republican Rep. Michael Grimm wants beefed up security training for him and his House colleagues in the wake of last weekend’s Arizona shootings — and lesson one is that lawmakers should consider packing heat.

“If they feel comfortable with that responsibility, then I support them,” he said. “It could put you in a situation where you can protect yourself.”

On Tuesday, Grimm (R–Bay Ridge) told his new boss, House Speaker John Boehner (R–Ohio), that new members of Congress need “security-based situational awareness training” to put them on better footing against assailants.

“Many newly selected members of Congress have never been in the spotlight,” Grimm wrote. “I firmly believe this training will be beneficial in various situations, from accidents and illnesses to acts of violence or terrorism they may encounter.”

A former FBI agent, Grimm thinks fellow politicians should take safety into their own hands. The training he advocates includes how to spot suspicious people, knowing when to bolt for an exit and how to keep guards in your eyesight — safety tactics he wants newbie lawmakers to learn at an orientation.

Security and training has not been part of an orientation for newcomers in past years, although the Capitol police force has stressed the importance of reporting threats and using local law enforcement. Weapons training has never been part of the orientation — nor should it be, Grimm said.

Given his military and law enforcement past, the city’s lone Congressional Republican is certainly handy with a weapon — though he declined to say whether he carries a heater today.

“I’m not supposed to talk about that,” he said — though he did talk about the benefits of gun ownership.

“If somebody pulls out a knife to attack you and you draw a gun, they’re likely going to drop it,” he said. “But you have to be prepared to kill; it’s not for everyone.”

The buzz about protecting representatives comes days after a crazed gunman opened fire on Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D–Ariz.), leaving her in critical condition. After the tragedy, gun-toting Rep. Heath Shuler (D–NC) and Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R–Utah) announced they plan to carry guns, presumably for personal protection.

But several members of Congress and other DC insiders said on Wednesday that they are uncomfortable with bodyguards and intense security because they want to stay accessible to constituents.

“Putting more guns in the mix is not the answer,” Terrance Gainer, Senate sergeant at arms, told CNN.

Speaker Boehner called Grimm’s letter “an excellent idea,” and added that security will be a big focus in the House this year.

It already is for Grimm. At his ceremonial swearing-in on Sunday, Grimm told the crowd that he’ll increase security at all his events.

“It’s not for myself, but for all our volunteers and supporters,” he said.

Pin It
Print this story Permalink

Reader Feedback

Rob from Greenpoint says:
Leave it to these pansies to get all hysterical over one
incident and start pissing away even more of our money on themselves.
Jan. 14, 2011, 11:02 am
Eric McClure from Park Slope says:
Never mind that statistically, gun owners are far more likely to die from a gunshot wound than people without guns. Is Congressman Grimm representing Staten Island, or West Texas?
Jan. 14, 2011, 11:39 am
Barbie from Bay Ridge says:
That's great, more guns in Congress! So when a shooter runs out of ammo, he can raid the Congressperson's pockets for more! More guns is never the answer. What is this, the Wild West? Seriously.
Jan. 14, 2011, 12:52 pm
Joey from Clinton Hills says:
I've got one thing to say: "City Councilman James E. Davis". It's the law of unended consequences - you think having a gun makes you safe, but it really makes the situation more dangerous.
Jan. 14, 2011, 1:57 pm
Eddie Mazz from Bay Ridge says:
Another reason why I'm proud to have Not Voted for this Fool! Thanks Staten Island for getting this fool elected!
Jan. 14, 2011, 1:59 pm
Dave from Clinton Hill says:
Absolute moron
Jan. 14, 2011, 3:32 pm
Michael from Park Slope says:
The "unique" logic of fighting a problem by adding to a problem.

Loughner was the problem here; a mentally disturbed man who, not only shouldn't have been allowed to purchase a gun, should have been institutionalized long before he purchased one. However, that was probably too complicated a solution; so what the like of Grimm require is a simplistic solution.

That's when that Old West Magic kicks in and casts its mesmerizing spell on such fools. They imagine themselves as Matt Dillon in Gunsmoke; a hero saving the day in a moment on prime time that could just as easily occur in a moment of real time (or reality).

Of course, we'll all feel much safer living in Dodge City...even if it kills us.
Jan. 15, 2011, 12:25 am
Barbara from Bay ridge says:
No surprise that this politician needs a gun to feel like a man with the tiny package he has.

A total over-reaction, and actually pretty embarassing.
Jan. 15, 2011, 4:29 am
peter from park slope says:


Mr. Grimm subscribes to that common romantic notion
that when random violence breaks out that somehow
he will improve the situation by having a gun.
In reality, things are not so neat and tidy, and a gun
will only add to the bad event; meanwhile, you're exposing
your loved ones and colleagues to needless danger by
carrying a a dangerous metal propulsive device that
is commonly most dangerous to the owner
and his/her closest relatives.

Jan. 15, 2011, 1:21 pm
bill from bay ridge says:


We came from a world of armed danger
Do we have to go back there?
Lets not lose our relatively safe world.
Stop this gun glorification now !

Jan. 15, 2011, 1:29 pm
Tom Rodeheaver from Park Slope says:
Gohmert and his acolite Grimm want to feel like big men and pack guns where ever they deem appropriate, in this case the House of Representatives. Any bets on how long it'll take before one of these nimrods threatens someone?
Jan. 15, 2011, 5:55 pm
trace from park slope says:
and of course we all know the one citizen packing a gun at the tuscon incident ran over and almost shot the wrong person, because they had already gotten the gun away from Loughler Nice..because of the citizens gun there could have been even more deaths
Jan. 16, 2011, 7:19 am
lechacal from park slope says:
No surprises here: The Brooklyn Paper's hyperliberal echo chamber doesn't like guns.  The reasoning behind the second amendment is somewhat abstract, so I guess I'm not surprised that the average Brooklyn liberal doesn't understand it.

Sovereignty is the monopoly over violence.

The people are sovereign.

If both of those statements are true, the people must have direct access to the means of violence, both for the lawful exercise of violence for their own protection and, ultimately, as a check on the power of the state.  If they do not, the people are not sovereign at all, and their rights exist at the whim of the state.

Here are some places where gun ownership is or was banned:

- Stalin's USSR

- North Korea

- Iran

- Hitler's Germany

- Mussolini's Italy

- Mao's China

So congratulations, liberal Brooklyn drones -- your views are shared by the most repressive regimes in human history.

Why exactly do you think it is that Stalin prohibited Russians from owning guns?  To promote public safety?  No, that's ridiculous - it was to make the people completely reliant on the state for safety and protection and to take away from the people the means of rising up against the state.

Which is exactly what the British did to the colonials, and is exactly what led to the second amendment.

But of course liberals only pay attention to history when it supports their agenda.

Jan. 16, 2011, 7:54 am
lechacal from park slope says:
The Brooklyn Paper keeps banning my IP addresses because I disagree with the views expressed in the ridiculous articles they keep writing. I used a trick to get through this time. Let's see if they ban this IP address too out of fear that someone out there might express a contrary opinion (another practice reminiscent of the regimes / countries listed above).
Jan. 16, 2011, 8:12 am
Gersh from Editor says:
Editor's note: The Brooklyn Paper only deletes comments if the commentator breaks the terms of posting stated below. It only bans commentators after repeated abuse of said terms. Because "lechacal" has not broken said terms, none of the jackal's comments have been deleted, nor has any ip address been banned.

The Brooklyn Paper prides itself on its commitment to the free exchange of ideas.
Jan. 16, 2011, 11:40 am
Michael from Park Slope says:
@lechacal I, for one, do not want a ban on guns; instead, I want a ban on this siege mentality that has taken hold of America. Everyone should have a right to protect their life and property, but this manic obsession with guns is (in the opinion of this alleged “hyperliberal”) hyperbolic beyond belief.

As if the answer to all our trials and tribulations could be best solved by arming every mother’s son and daughter (along with their dog, cat and goldfish) is an exercise in foolishness if not in insanity. And your claim that “sovereignty is the monopoly over violence” wouldn’t do us much good when this purported sovereignty becomes just as violent a monopoly itself…after all, Loughner’s self-absorbed isolation, a bomb waiting to explode, was a behavior of the sovereign type.
Jan. 16, 2011, 3:42 pm
lechacal from park slope says:
Dear Editor: That is quite simply untrue. After a series of responses to articles on "goosegate" both my home IP address and work IP address were banned, and remain so. My posts mocked the agenda displayed by your staff and the views of many of the commenters, but were no more abusive, vulgar, etc. than your many supporters who were not banned. Clearly the Brooklyn Paper does not want dissent to be heard.
Jan. 16, 2011, 4:12 pm
lechacal from park slope says:
" And your claim that “sovereignty is the monopoly over violence” wouldn’t do us much good when this purported sovereignty becomes just as violent a monopoly itself"

(Posting from non-banned blackberry)

Your premise is that a state can be less violent than its people. I disagree. In any event, better for individuals to not have to rely on the state for all exercise of violence (all police action either consists of violence or relies on the threat of violence). At least then the state knows that it has competition. You will notice, as I have, that a policeman acts very differently among lawfully armed citizens than he does among those who are unarmed.
Jan. 16, 2011, 6:56 pm
Lawrence from Park Slope says:
lechacal:

Your discussion seems to come out of a time warp. The Supreme Court has ruled and has undercut gun control in Washington, DC and Chicago. The trend currently is to raise the status of the Second Amendment.

The talk of "liberal Brooklyn drones" really hurts your case. The need to limit an ever aggressive gun culture is hardly restricted to Brooklyn. It is nationwide.

There is no movement to repeal the Second Amendment. It is a "straw man" argument. What many Americans desire is a safer approach to gun ownership and gun distribution.

Jan. 16, 2011, 7:41 pm
lechacal from park slope says:
Dear Editor: My work and home IP addresses are still banned, and you lie like a rug.
Jan. 18, 2011, 11:36 am
lechacal from park slope says:
Dear Editor: My work and home IP addresses are still banned, and you lie like a rug.
Jan. 18, 2011, 11:37 am
Jerry from Bay Ridge says:
Lawrence from Park Slope says: "There is no movement to repeal the Second Amendment. It is a "straw man" argument. What many Americans desire is a safer approach to gun ownership and gun distribution."

Absolutely true.
And lechacal is one of those troll-oids who spends a disprop. amount of his time doing online warfare. We've been through it before here.
Jan. 19, 2011, 2:13 pm
Jerry from Bay Ridge says:
lechacal from park slope says: "After a series of responses to articles on "goosegate" both my home IP address and work IP address were banned, and remain so. My posts mocked the agenda displayed by your staff and the views of many of the commenters, but were no more abusive, vulgar, etc. than your many supporters who were not banned."

Hey! I remember seeing your goose "responses." You posted for hours a day and tried to make those threads yr personal playground (past their shelf life), with 100-plus crazy posts in a short time.
It looked like OCD or some pathology plus 'WAY too much free time.
Jan. 19, 2011, 2:53 pm

Enter your comment below

By submitting this comment, you agree to the following terms:

You agree that you, and not BrooklynPaper.com or its affiliates, are fully responsible for the content that you post. You agree not to post any abusive, obscene, vulgar, slanderous, hateful, threatening or sexually-oriented material or any material that may violate applicable law; doing so may lead to the removal of your post and to your being permanently banned from posting to the site. You grant to BrooklynPaper.com the royalty-free, irrevocable, perpetual and fully sublicensable license to use, reproduce, modify, adapt, publish, translate, create derivative works from, distribute, perform and display such content in whole or in part world-wide and to incorporate it in other works in any form, media or technology now known or later developed.

First name
Last name
Your neighborhood
Email address
Daytime phone

Your letter must be signed and include all of the information requested above. (Only your name and neighborhood are published with the letter.) Letters should be as brief as possible; while they may discuss any topic of interest to our readers, priority will be given to letters that relate to stories covered by The Brooklyn Paper.

Letters will be edited at the sole discretion of the editor, may be published in whole or part in any media, and upon publication become the property of The Brooklyn Paper. The earlier in the week you send your letter, the better.

Links