I still think this is more of a first amendment issue. This thread has given me pause to really think about whether someone SHOULD be allowed near a President with a weapon; and again, it's a slippery slope.  Most people can agree the President's important; and then, maybe the VP? How about our Supreme Court Justices? Should we protect them, and deprive John Grisham of a future bestseller?  What about Pelosi?  

When the government starts monkeying around with our freedoms, the end result tends not to appeal to anyone, even those that thought it was a good idea in the first place.   If you say you can't be within <x> amount of feet with a <y> of a person who's at least important as <z> --- surely everyone can see where that'll end up. (Algebraec nightmares? :-) ) 

I still think Cenk's reaction was... inappropriate.  I'm not remotely leaning towards conspiracy theory; I think a question that should be asked is, "What is there in our system that a person feels the only way to make themselves heard is by such a powerfully controversial statement, and what should we do about it?"

If only Obama would truly embrace his love of technology and just conduct meetings using IRC chat rooms, none of this would happen.  Of course, Glenn Beck'll likely tell you that going there will take over your computer and read all your personal information. (Tangent: What a MORON. Too bad I can't get some sort of commission from snopes.com for the traffic I'm sending them on that stupid little 'fact' GB pulled out of his ... rear. (About cash for clunkers --- which is now accounting for a lot of the forward traffic in my inbox) 

The essence of freedom is proper limitation of government.