DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Everything Else... Open carry at the Republican National Convention

Treason is a charge trumped up by the Victors and those who write the History books.

Yessiree, after 150 years the economy says the south is a rising! About cotton picken' time!

Not much cotton, those fields are all planted with factories and offices now. We do grow a lot of corn for libby, waste of time and money, ethanol though.

The rest of the corn we drink.

Liberal Behind ‘Guns At GOP Convention’ Petition Doesn’t Understand Gun-Free Zones

March 30, 2016| by Brian Anderson



By now you’ve probably heard that someone started a petition to allow guns at the Republican National Convention in Ohio this summer. You may have also heard that the Secret Service has squashed that notion for obvious reasons. It turns out the man behind the petition is a gun-hating liberal (shocker) who was trying to call out Republicans for hypocrisy over gun-free zones. He failed miserably and it is due to his ignorance (another shocker) over the issue.

A self-professed anti-gun liberal calling himself “Jim” is the author of the Allow Open Carry of Firearms at the Quicken Loans Arena during the RNC Convention in July petition, which of this writing has 52, 194 signatures. Speaking to Michael Bloomberg’s anti-gun propaganda outlet The Trace, he explains why he started this petition:


“It’s a joke,” the petition’s creator tells The Trace. It was written to show Republican rhetoric on gun-free zones as lacking conviction. The author is a firm advocate of gun control, and he believes that America’s gun obsession “is a defining character flaw.”

Jim says he wanted the GOP to confront the distance between their words and their actions. “I am genuine in my belief that they should have guns at their convention,” he says. The chaos that would create would force delegates and candidates to understand the consequences of pushing firearms into more aspects of American life, he says.

Jim, who doesn’t want to use his real name, pointed out that GOP candidates Donald Trump and Ted Cruz have blasted gun-free zones as mass killer magnets.


By repacking Republicans’ own statements, Jim wanted to see how dearly they hold these principles: “Of course, I suspect it’s not their position [that open carry should be allowed at the RNC]. They don’t want guns there.”

Here’s what “brave” Jim doesn’t get about gun-free zones: The RNC is not a gun-free zone. It will have plenty of guns in the hands of Secret Service agents, police officers, and other federal, state, and local law enforcement agents. It will be one of the most secure places in the country and everyone attending will be safe from a mass shooting and/or terrorist attack. People don’t need to be armed for protection because the RNC is one of the few places where the government will provide adequate security.

Compare that with Sandy Hook Elementary School where maniac Adam Lanza was able to gun down 20 children while facing no resistance. Sand Hook, like most elementary schools in the country, was a true gun-free zone. Teachers and staff were not allowed to carry a weapon of any kind and there were no armed school resource officers on the premises. Protection of the children was left up to the local police response time, which as it turned out was not fast enough.

Or how about the movie theater in Aurora, CO where madman James Holmes killed 12 people and wounded 70 more? The Century Movie Theater was also a true gun-free zone with a strict “no gun” policy and no armed security. The killer actually chose this particular location for his shooting spree because he knew he would not encounter armed resistance.

Do you see the difference between the RNC and these two locations of mass murder? I certainly do. In one place people are protected against a mass shooting and in two others they were left defenseless by bad liberal policy.


Ultimately, Jim says he wants to spark a larger dialogue. He says he hopes that if people realize it’s a terrible idea to bring guns into the convention hall, they will pose questions about whether it makes sense to bring firearms to other sensitive places that open carry advocates have targeted. “Is it a good idea to have open carry at a playground? At a soccer game where parents might get into a dispute?”

I know it would have been a great idea if a teacher or administrator at Sandy Hook Elementary School had been allowed to carry a concealed weapon, because a crazed killer would have been stopped dead in his tracks before he even got to the children. Only a liberal can think that because some soccer moms might shoot each other that our right to self-defense should be denied.

http://downtrend.com/71superb/liberal-be...-gun-free-zones

Filthy liberal causing problems like usual.

Well that seems like a real legit news source... Right Wing Propaganda!

Don't believe everything you read. Filthy Low Brow Tea Baggers probably.

(Eve, that last bit was for you :P)

How about Bloomberg-Backed "The Trace"?

http://www.thetrace.org/2016/03/gop-convention-2016-open-carry-petition/

Sorry the economy in the south was first built on slavery, unlike the much more moral north who used 12 year old kids in coal mines and industry for a nickel a week.

That's because employers require 10 years of work experience even though a kid is only 18.

41 years in the employment business and I gotta tell you, that's commonly stated, but completely incorrect.

Nobody is dumb enough to want 10 years of experience from an 18 year old.

sigh.... I know bro. I know...

Open Carry is my Right! You don't like it, don't do it!

Did you have to duck for swish's sarcasm to fly over your head, or did you stand up straight when it flew over?

Obviously not, or you could do it at the convention.

In Ohio, open carry is legal. In Ohio, open OR concealed carry is ILLEGAL in certain places. It's up to the owner of an establishment to determine. The owner of a store/business, public facility CAN over ride your right to carry, open or concealed, when you are on their premises.

Throw in the secret service saying no, and there's no chance of open carry at the convention. As it should be. See how obeying the laws works out?

I understand how it works and agree that it should work that way.

The problem is, there are posters who don't believe it should be that way. They denounce the very right for anyone to have gun free zones. They have said that all Americans should have the right to be armed everywhere.

To me, this just points out the hypocrisy of those who have persisted with that argument to this point.

Obviously when people they feel help empower them may be at a high risk, their views suddenly change.

To me, it's not about people actually being able to carry guns at the convention. To me that would be a moronic idea. It's about those who advocate absolutes as it pertains to gun rights suddenly have done a 180.

If I have to read one more time you and your "Some Posters", "Certain Posters" "They say"... "To me, this just points out the hypocrisy"

Sounds like a gossipy old woman speaking in hushed tones!
Stand up like a man and name names or keep it to yourself already!

And while you are crying and whining about the Right to have No Gun Zones, Start up a Petition to form NO FREE SPEECH ZONES!

Sorry 40, the angry old man that chases kids off his grass impression you do doesn't bother me. You are the one poster that I care the very least about their opinions or what they think of me. Actually, the less you approve of my posts, the better I like it.

Did I make that clear enough for you? Did you understand who I was talking about there?



I've never tried to infringe on your or anyone's free speech. You're rambling like Trump.



I'll post as I wish when I wish. If you don't like that, tough crap. Deal with it Big Donald with the little hands. He is your current idol, right?

If you have to read it one more time, what? What are you gonna do keyboard commando? Throw yet another tantrum? And who would care? Who would give a damn?

NOBODY, that's who.

LMFAO

About what I expected.

I'm glad I didn't disappointment you. Now maybe you have an idea how your rants sound to others. lol

Y'all need to chill. I'm the only one allowed to get suspended around here.

We all hold that ability somewhere deep inside. lol

Anyway, for everyone else...

We as Americans have the Right to defend ourselves and to arm ourselves for the protection of our lives and our loved ones. Just like we have the Right under the Constitution to Free Speech.

The Liberals can't seem to understand when they set up a No Gun Zone, it makes them "Feel" safe but the criminal intent on murder laughs at your feelings. He carries wherever he wishes.

Now, as with the RNC, they have provided armed guards, metal detectors, and bomb sniffing dogs. You do not need to protect yourself there as they have actually provided for your protection from the criminal who can not get in with his weapons. You are safe there! It is not just a "Feeling".

Compare that to a School where they post the NO GUNS sign but provide nothing in the way of protection. Not for the teachers, not for the students, but protection for the criminal who can walk right in and do his dirty deeds, unopposed. If that sign makes you "Feel" safe, you are a fool!

The solution is to form a Police State with armed Police everywhere. Not something most of us would want to see.

Or you can allow the law abiding citizens with their FBI and State background checks to have the same Rights and Abilities as the Criminals many of you work so hard to protect.

Yes, you have a right (in Ohio, anyway) to carry - open or concealed, anywhere you want. EXCEPT where a business or gov't. agency determines you CAN'T.

In public, you have that right. In a private setting (the corner coffee shop, the Q, where ever) your right to carry defers to their right to say you can't. It's pretty simple, really.

And, if you don't like that, say, Starbucks doesn't allow you to carry, then simply don't go there. Easy. (and for the record, I don't know if starbucks has that policy - just using them as a name)

I agree, many shootings happen in "no gun zones". Duh, obviously. But it's still a schools right to ban guns, or a coffee shops right to ban guns, or the Q to ban guns. Don't like it? Don't go there, or, go there and don't carry.

So do you believe their banning of your Constitutional Right under the 2nd amendment with a silly sign overrides your Constitutional Right to arm yourself for the protection of you and yours?

Why not a sign banning Free Speech at the door of a University then? Would that also be acceptable?

So the rights of a property owner mean nothing?

They haven't over ridden my constitutional right. That's what you don't get.

I have a constitutional right (free speech) to yell "fire" in a movie theater, or a place of business. I also have to be held accountable for that.

See, if you're carrying, you don't have the legal right to over ride MY right, on MY property. I have rights also - and if you come on MY property, you'll follow MY rules. Pretty simple concept. If you're standing on the public street outside of my home, or my business, I can't over ride YOUR right, either.

Guns, speech. At some point common sense comes in, doesn't it?

Ever been to the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier? While you have a constitutional "right" to freedom of speech, if you talk too loud there, you'll get called out. Keep it up, you'll be removed - and you can either walk out, or get drug out. Your choice.

Actually free speech only means the government can't arrest you for what you say. It doesn't mean you can behave however you want or say whatever you want on private property.

I agree with you on property rights but I think if they do not provide for your security while shopping in their store, they should be held accountable if a criminal hurts you on their property. They have taken away your right to self defense and not provided for it.

Eve has a point that most people do not realize, our right to free speech is a right to speak against the Government. That is it.

Common Sense should be the rule but one man's Common Sense is another man's Farce.

So a property owner should be held accountable for a criminals behavior?

Well, here you're delving into a whole different scenario. Some places/states WILL hold you accountable if your gun gets stolen and is used in a crime.

Different discussion though.

Just as when I walk around in your house at dinner time, you have fixed the loose rug for safety's sake, the owner is responsible for your safety while on his property.

If I fall because you did not fix the rug or I am injured by a criminal in a store that would not allow me to protect myself and did not provide for my safety, yes, both are liable.

The principal you speak of is negligence. I don't believe a store that does not allow guns is negligent because they don't allow guns in their store.

I believe your attempt is to try to force store owners to allow guns into their stores which infringes upon their rights as a property owner.

What you are inferring is that a store can reasonably expect someone to come into a store with a loaded weapon and kill its customers. With the rarity of this happening, I don't believe that would be considered reasonably expected.

That is what the expectation of negligence is in accordance to the law.

My position is to simply protect me and mine. Nothing else.

Provide for my safety when I am on your property or tell it to my attorney. Put up a silly sign and you take full responsibility for my well being. I could have taken care of myself if you hadn't taken away my ability to do so.

hmm..

this reminds me of some of the complaints a very few select soldiers in germany made.

they didn't want to go explore the country, or even city, just because they were pissed europe doesn't allow them to carry guns.

i always felt those kind of soldiers were a wasting a slot for somebody who really wanted to travel.

I think I agree with you. But, in a broader sense 40 has a point. (can't believe I said that)

My grandma fell years ago. At my parents house. They took her to the e.r. One of the first (not THE first) questions was "where did this happen?" Guess who's homeowners insurance had to pay? Yup. Mom and dad's.

No negligence on their part. Grandma just mistimed the step down into the living room.


Same as if you ever invited me to your house. Say you had some ice on the driveway, and I fall on the ice. Guess who's on the hook.

Same as my insurance agent - years ago - told me the company was going to be doing external inspections of properties they insured, and I should get rid of the trampoline, cause if the insurance company saw it, they'd jack my rates up. Not because they'd cover me, wife, daughter if something happened on the trampoline - but because if someone ELSE got hurt on it, my insurance would be liable.

Why do you think one of the first questions asked when you go to the e.r. is "where did this happen?"

The owner of the amusement park puts up his silly little sign saying "Ride at Your Own Risk" but when the machine breaks and I get injured, my attorney finds he hasn't done maintenance on that machine for 2 years, guess what, it is now MY amusement park! He is Liable.

I actually understand the point that you're making. But if you would look at what you're saying, these are conditions and circumstances that happen when there are no outside forces at work. Let's look at what happens when you enter an outside source.

You invite some friends over. Their children and yours are outside playing. Suddenly a neighbors dog rushes into the yard and bites one of your friends children. Will you be sued because you don't have your yard fenced or is the dogs owner responsible for not keeping the dog under control?

You see, when someone or something from the outside enters the fray, it changes everything. Let's look at how many department stores there are.

There are 3.6 million retail establishments in the United states.

http://selectusa.commerce.gov/industry-snapshots/retail-services-industry-united-states.html

Now if you can convince a court that it is reasonable to expect a shooter to come into that store and start killing people, then you have a good case.

But there's a vast difference in someone getting hurt on your property on or with something you own, than there is when it concerns someone or something outside of your property entering and doing harm.

And 40, if you can actually get a lawyer to take such a case, good luck to you. I'm not an attorney, but I'm fully aware at how the law looks at a case like that.