Slashdot Mirror
33,000 Sign Online Petition Promoting Guns At Republican Convention (cnet.com)
An anonymous reader writes: "An online petition on Change.org claims that constitutional rights are being denied to those who want to bring a gun to the fight for the Republican Party's future," reports CNET. "Though Ohio is an open carry state, which allows for the open carry of guns, the hosting venue — the Quicken Loans Arena — strictly forbids the carry of firearms on their premises." Citing a quote from the National Rifle Association that gun-free zones are "the worst and most dangerous of all lies," the petition has already attracted more than 33,000 signatures, though CNET reports that the whole petition is a satire they're attributing to the Hyperationalist blog. The petition appears to have attracted its last 8,000 signatures within the last 18 hours, shortly after its URL appeared on a web site for young conservatives.
If conservative gun lovers are right, it will be a peaceful convention.
If liberal gun haters are right, it will result in a massive shoot our and conservatives will kill each other.
So why does anyone object?
Not sure if guns at GOP convention or Boaty McBoatface is more fun 'let the Internet decide'.
Is that most "Gun Free Zones" are protected by signs that state they are "Gun Free"
The Convention will most likely also have armed security, meaning that even if civilians are barred from carrying, it will not, in fact, be "Gun Free"
There are no alternative explanations to "shall not be infringed".
You can quibble all you want about what a regulated militia means, but the conclusion was as clear as day: The right to bear arms shall not be infringed.
BUT... ...private property is a whole other ballpark -- in this case quite literally.
It *is* the right of a private venue to set forth rules as they see fit.
So from one confirmed constitutionalist who believes strongly that the right to defend one's life can never be taken away by the State -- quit your whining folks -- this ain't public property.
This should be an interesting social experiment. I'm sure the Trump supporters will be carrying bazookas just in case the Establishment tries to steal the nomination and gives it to someone else. Burn, baby, burn!
Oh.. that sounds like a Good idea.
This has all the ear-marks of an elaborate false-flag operation being run by a virulent anti-gunner. Who is behind the petition? Why do they not step forward?
Did you not read the summary? That's exactly what it says.
I'll contribute some ammo, but they gotta use it or give it back afterwards.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
back off! Well, that's assuming they're logical which doesn't look like it when I saw them throw rocks at a group of Hillary supporters here in Seattle.
Bad, bad, idea. And I say that as a gun owner. Horrible idea. Especially given the way Trump supporters have been riled up he past few months, if the convention finds any way to deny him the nomination we might find ourselves in a new Beer Hall Putsch. At the very least, it's asking for someone to get killed. Even taking away the current animosity within the GOP, a lot of people bringing firearms to a large public gathering is a very bad idea in general.
The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
Not really.
If there is anything held in as high esteem with conservatives as gun rights, it is private property rights. Their property, their rules, as much as the hypocrites may grumble.
What this does do however is alienate even more people from the left. As the must defeat Trump at any cost rally cries reaches fever pitch, talk of open assassination increases as it looks likely he will get the Republican nod.
You won't find the same discussions on the right with regards to Sanders, even though he is the antithesis to conservative ideas.
It's bizzaro world when Trump supporters are more reasoned than their detractors.
I wonder how the NRA and the Republicans would react if somebody bought 500.000 AK-47s fresh of the production line and started a program where they were just handed out on street corners all over the United States straight out of the crate from 40 foot shipping containers to any random passers by willing to accept one along with 5 clips worth of ammo? I mean gun control is evil right? ...and everybody should be free to acquire a gun without any kind of permit, even the worst scumbags the USA has ever bred... right?
The Secret Service is not going to allow guns that close to the Republican nominee for president. All of the major front runners have some level of secret service protection at this time. The Secret Service is not going to take the risk that one of the "peaceful gun carriers" lied and is going to take shots at the nominee. Anything beyond that is hand waving.
Architectural plans are like computer source code with a couple of differences: You only compile once.
While I did just post on the irony of those two issues being pitted against each other, the fact of the matter remains that the Quicken loan's arena is all most certainly funded by lots of tax payer write offs so it isn't necessarily 100% private property
I wonder what would happen if they do get it pushed enough that they are allowed to bring their guns in.
Would there be more iron there than a foundry?
Let's say there were enough of these people afraid to be without a gun there, that we'll just say there were a lot of them. I don't know how large the crowd is expected to be, but let's say 15% of it is armed.
What do you think would happen if in the midsts of all this, somebody were to yell "GUN!" ?
I'm betting at least one or two yahoos would pull theirs. Then someone else would see them with their gun out, and possibly pull theirs and shoot. Then the lead infestation would probably occur with several people shooting in confused conditions crowded with people. Since in real world shootout conditions, even cops that have significant training for this kind of thing tend to miss a LOT, I'm betting just about the only ones not hit would be the shooters.
I really wonder how they'd respond to that.
Quicken Loans Arena? Where else would the Republican party hold a convention.
In fact I think guns should be REQUIRED at Trump rallies.
I really want to see all those racist idiots devolve into a freaking wild west arena fight.
I'm a gun owner and even an ASSAULT RIFLE owner.. I have multiple AR-15's an AK47 and an AR-50 sniper rifle. But Every single person I have met that is a avid Trump supporter tends to be a racist out of control nutjob that is only able to function in society due to heavy prescription drugs.
The funny part is, Trump is NOT a 2nd amendment supporter. that guy will pass anti-gun legislation as he has already talked about it, so I dont understand why the nutjobs are all rabid about him...
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
My private property rights trump your gun rights (no pun intended). If I want to keep you from carrying on my property, I can do that. I can even use a gun to keep you from carrying your gun on my property. IMHO, the 2A only comes into play when the government interferes with you being armed on public property, or your own property, or somebody else's property with their permission. Thus, the arena is fully within its rights to bar firearms. If they wanted to have the Great 2016 GOP Debate and Gun Show (TM), they should have rented the Cow Palace.
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
Better have that in plastic glasses, it is much more fun to shoot at glas glasses.
The detractors in this case are the majority of Republicans (the so-called "Establishment"). The Ds are happy to stand back and enjoy the infighting. Things will change after the Convention, but so far it's been an ugly R-on-R mudfest.
Nope, because the Sheriff of Cuyahoga County is going to arrest Donald Trump for disturbin' der peace in the town of Cleveland. And any of dem Secret Service members better put them weapons down and hands up. It does say "Our mission as caretaker of the public's safety is dedicated to maintaining the trust and respect of those we serve by resolutely and aggressively enforcing..." on the website.
" Citing a quote from the National Rifle Association that gun-free zones are "the worst and most dangerous of all lies,""
I live in a gun free country, seems to work pretty well
B
Great, then you can be wrong at least twice.
The most pertinent issue is should there be any injury, the lawsuit won't be placed upon the tax payer, but the property owner. You could make the same argument with federal courthouse forbidding firearms, which is funded 100% by the tax payer, but then you'd look even more like a goon.
Again, this just makes the left look even sillier, which against Trump supporters, is quite an accomplishment.
I wish someone would petition for open carry of whip cream pies at all political events.
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
Land of LGBT rights, fruits and nuts, high minimum wages, mandatory sick time, etc.
This has all the ear-marks of an elaborate false-flag operation being run by a virulent anti-gunner. Who is behind the petition? Why do they not step forward?
Lol, the absurdity of the arguments from the pro-gun lobby (the NRA and the open carry movement) is bad how can you tell them apart from sarcasm in the first place?
:)
I'm quiet serious, you take the NRA talking points feed them to comedian and you have great sarcastic comedy show..
Seriously, the whole open carry movement is absurd, they are presenting the arguments for why guns shouldn't be allowed.
To be honest if it was my country and I was arguing for stronger gun regulation, bringing assault rifles to fast food restaurants is exactly how I would argue my case
It has become increasingly hard to distinguish satire from reality. I've read various versions about the origin of this petition, but I tend to believe it started as a provocation and (like Donald Trump) has become real.
.357 magnum, tries to shoot Cruz, but hits Cruz's wife instead). Hey, Ted, don't say I never did you no favors, OK? Now can we get on with the inauguration?
If they don't allow guns, he Reds are gonna have some 'splainin to do to the faithful. Let's see:
Cruz: I agree that everyone should carry a gun, and in Texas, we're going to make it mandatory, unless you're Mexican of course. But the Secret Service won't allow it at the convention. Elect me and we'll make sure nobody has to take orders from Washington ever again. Only from Jesus, amen.
Trump: My gun is bigger than your gun. (pulls out gold
If they do allow guns, they're even crazier than they appear.
The rest of the world will cheer, loudly.
A very good friend of mine was very pro gun. He was posted to a country where carrying guns means an automatic 5yr stretch in jail.
After a couple of years he saw the other side of the argument. so much so, he leftthe service and stayed here saying, it ain't safe back home in Texas to bring my kids up.
It is not the late 18th Century any longer. The need to carry a gin at all times in civilised countries is a thing of the past. I just wish the USA would join us in the 21st Century.
I've lived in the US all my life - I've shot targets in my backyard when living in Alabama... and I've also looked into a lot of history.
There's a lot of powerful ways to view history - the romantic iconography of a school curriculum, the spectacle and drama of television history, the open bias of newspaper history (seriously, old newspapers are hilarious), and the random suppositions and conclusions of academic history at various levels and locations.
The version I find most compelling probably Steven Pinker's Better Angels of our Nature - where it follows a trail of evidence I always saw hinted at the various levels of history presentation, but almost never really followed through on. That despite our large number of massive deadly conflicts, we really are getting less violent at every level of society. It's not some weak trend either - it's overwhelming and fascinating. But it's not a storyline that gels with most methods of conveying history, so it's something almost no one gets presented.
With that in mind, I find the whole song-and-dance we always go through with guns and appeals to history in our gun culture to be more than a little beside-the-point. Guns in private hands don't ruin everything, and they don't really statistically save that many people either, they just multiply the effect of the crazy people that exist in every society, but all societies seem to be getting measurably less crazy and (Flynn effect) better at abstract thought/problem solving over time anyway. Both the restrictions and the problems of guns are more a sideshow that we will continue to bounce across over time, until they're increasingly meaningless.
Tragedies will continue to happen, and we will continue to over-react to them, but they're all increasingly noise in the overall picture.
It's why I find little jabs like this pretty funny - we at large don't really want to push wild-west sensibilities as much as it might seem to the rest of the world, we just have partisans that want to push their ideals at any cost, as they realistically see their vision of their nation indelibly falling away from their ideals.
So cool - if some of these folks want to march with guns as an expression of their freedom - good on you, have a fun time of it, I suppose. The moment you use that freedom as anyone might fear, however, even your own partisans will come down on you like a mountain of bricks. Even in any events of pure violent fantasy made manifest came about - the society we've grown into at it's most 'conservative' won't support the same things our history allowed, and we're all far too unwilling to give up what our shared peace has given us so far.
I could certainly be wrong - but it's my best view on history/violence/guns I've seen so far.
Ryan Fenton
They absolutely were. "the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." That's the limit on government. They're ignoring the limit. It couldn't be any more obvious. You right to carry was infringed by coercive action of the federal government. How hard is that to figure out, really?
The full text of the 2nd Amendment is as follows:
So many people always forget the first half. The amendment specifically states "well-regulated", meaning it is within the powers of the federal government to regulate militias and arms. Taken in context in the 18th century, "well regulated" probably means something closer to "well trained", but still, it is obvious that arms are meant to be regulated and dispersed through trained militias, and not just any random jerk has a gun. Especially because today's guns can do substantially more damage than the guns did when the amendment was written.
I'm all for a conversation on what the appropriate level of regulation and training is. I don't think anyone really argues that guns should entirely disappear. But we need reasonable limits, not a free-for-all on weaponry, and the amendment supports that as a federal power. Please stop spreading misunderstanding.
Can we just have one (bulletproof) room where Trump and his supporters are allowed to carry guns and then the rest of the space free for everyone else? Trump and his supporters would then have a wonderful opportunity to practice listening to others, being reasonable, inclusive, and open to compromise. What could possibly go wrong?
The 2nd Amendment clearly states that in order to have a militia to protect the security of the state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
The Constitution says nothing about hunting, self defense, rape prevention or anything else. The reason for the uninfringed right to bear arms is for the purposes of having a state militia to protect the freedom of the state.
So: Make everyone with a firearm serve in the state militia. Make it a National Guard-esque obligation. The most important benefit of this would be to be able to thoroughly screen all the militia members, both mentally and physically, so it can be ascertained they are fit to serve and by extension bear arms in defense of the state.
Considering there is no Bob Dole running this time, and they're getting ready to nominate a generational catastrophe; time will tell, but the infighting might not be over until one side or the other forms a new party. The mainstream group would continue as one of the main two parties, and the other would become the Southern Party.
The only "guns" there were restricted were super soakers filled with cat piss and other various fluids taken from protesters.
As far as the arenas. States still seem to think people get a little too nuts drinking beer and watching sporting events to have firearms at the same time. The only rule down here in Florida that let's them get around that is that the government owned building has to provide armed security if they are going to restrict private carry, so you can actually carry in most government offices since they don't provide security services.
Personally I'd like to see them put their money where their mouth is and let everyone carry.
I don't think anyone is going to assassinate the candidates, but their might be more than a few idiot protestors that will get shot as well as a few of the mouth breathers on the pro-side.
Allow the guns. Half way through the conference, escort all the employees out, darken the house lights and drop a single firecracker.
Now, if all the loony gun nuts are right, every last armed person will be a well trained, practiced individuals and will not let loose a valley of bullets.
If they're wrong, that'll be not only the gene pool emptied out nicely, but also a wake up call to the others to remind them that most folk who carry guns are not well trained, but are just like everyone else, idiots (albeit armed idiots).
Sick, perhaps. Downvotable, almost certainly. But my sick brain does find the outcome of this fascinating...
This petition will be seen by some as a challenge or a call to arms. Some will figure out a way to get a gun into the convention. An unfortunate 'Self Fulfilling Prophecy' ready to unfold.
A word of caution to those who will be bearing arms at the Republican Convention... Ohio does not have a, 'Stand your ground' law yet.
Has an organization ever won a Darwin Award?
Table-ized A.I.
Define assault rifle.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
You do not have a constitutional right to bring a gun onto private property unless that property is Yours.
if your not free to shout fire in a crowded theatre is shouting "Gun!" at this republican convention allowed?
The second amendment to the US Constitution begins:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,...
This portion of the amendment seems always to be forgotten when the Learned Justices consider gun control laws - even the watered-down pap that gets passed by the NRA-fearing politicians in Washington and all the state capitols and municipal governments. The only portion of the amendment that seems to arise in court cases brought by NRA minions is the last half:
I propose an action that could probably pass muster in the courts, one that could probably be done by the President without congressional approval, and one that would certainly bring armed America under control.
Consider what could be if the US Department of Defense and Worldwide Domination, which currently has four branches (Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps) added a fifth branch: Militia, and populated it with every firearms-owning individual in the country, along with their beloved firearms, through the Selective Service System (also called the Draft).
The Militia would certainly be well-regulated, as are the other branches. And its firearms security and control measures seem to be adequate: We rarely hear of an active-duty Marine emptying his H&K MP5 submachine gun into an elementary school classroom or an Air Force F-18 pilot strafing a shopping mall (at least not in the US of A!).
Of course the new draftees would require basic and refresher training, and would be subject to military law, and would also be available and subject to deployment to areas of the world in need of cannon fodder and firepower.
This idea has mind-boggling potential to solve the gun control issue and to dramatically increase our presence of force beyond the paltry 169 nations of the world in which we have a permanent military presence. It would also get the crazies off the streets and onto reservations, say, one in the Louisiana swamps, another in Death Valley, California, and one more on one of the outlying Aleutian Islands of Alaska. Think of the possibilities!
And by liberal you mean the mentally ill?
The worst anyone says about Hillary really is that she might have committed a felony with the whole email thing
Actually, no. The worst thing that can be said about her is that she is a corrupt, serially lying manipulator...
Actually, no. The worst you can say about her is that she is a reptilian from Zeta Andromedae who routinely dismembers, kills and eats small children and kittens, and who has explicitly stated an agenda of exterminating the human race, all except for the few kept to be eaten alive for food, of course. Oh, and that she secretly worships Satan. Wait, did I say secretly? Openly, I meant openly. Oh, and kicks puppies.
This is, of course, absurd, but it's little more absurd than anything else said about her. There's no particular evidence that she's a "corrupt, serially lying manipulator" other than the intensive media campaign saying so being put forth by the Republican machine.
I'm constantly amazed that avowed National Socialists[1] who tried to forcefully dispossess the 1%ers of their day[2] are somehow no longer far enough left for people today. Not to mention the anti-historical belief that even recasting the Nazis as right-wing would somehow make up for Mao, Stalin and the rest. Or are the founders of Communism no longer left enough? I really can't keep track of history any more as quickly as it's being rewritten.
One would think that if you look out and the entire world is to the "right" of you that maybe, just maybe, you'd realize that you're at the far loony fringe? Then again, the leftward movement has always reminded me of lemmings, including the role of media fiction[3], with the film crews deliberately herding people right off the cliff.
[1] Better known by the German abbreviation, Nazi.
[2] Then, as now, the Jews are well represented in this population. Deservedly so, given how hard they've worked in spite of all the oppression they've faced from those who hate them, to achieve success on their own merits. Which, in retrospect, shows one why that minority ethnic group could be so hated by leftists as their mere existence is such a strong contradiction of leftist propaganda.
[3] Normal lemmings do not, in fact, run off of cliffs. This fact did not stop film crews from forcing them to do so on video.
Thomas Jefferson cried about all the mean things that were being written about Washington... while funding the papers printing them and in some cases writing the material himself.
Trolling the political process is as American as apple pie made with rotten apples.
You are implying that someone is showing up with the intention of getting into a fight. The secret service is well aware that there will be 20-30 of themselves and 30,000 screaming people in the convention center, all wound up and ready to go; Some itching for a fight.
Do you think it may be prudent to disarm people who may be going into the convention center with the intention of stirring up trouble? Can you tell the difference between a (an armed) peaceful person and a (an armed) person who is preparing to stir up a riot, take a couple shots and precipitate a blood bath? Once the first shots are fired, everyone armed will draw, no one will know where to shoot and people will randomly start cutting loose at any perceived threat. It won't be the everyone vs. the secret service. It will be you versus everyone else you can see with a gun who is pointing it vaguely in your direction.
At the first sign of trouble the secret service will evacuate the scene with the VIP, leaving the clean up for the fracas to SWAT and local police. SWAT will move in with area affect weapons (tear gas and pepper spray) to incapacitate the rioting crowd.
Architectural plans are like computer source code with a couple of differences: You only compile once.
want to increase republican chances in november by 'forcing' them to choose a different candidate
You wouldn't see Liberals falling for this so fast.
Okay, Liberals would something else.
Proposed New Law: There must be some phony assertion to match any person or group that said person r group would "fall for."
Now open for debate, improvement, etc.
Liberals object precisely because they know it will be peaceful, setting a precedent for wider lawful use of guns.
Liberals are only prone to promoting or allowing guns when they know they will be used for ill purposes, like Obama's Gunwalker program which made sure mexican drug cartels got fed lots of nice automatic weapons which were then used to kill people. That's the kind of gun use liberals are all too happy to promote because the few dead border guards or what have you serve a useful purpose in restricting guns for everyone.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
To be fair to all, to prove their point, and to ensure that all delegates are equally safe, I think the Republicans should hand out loaded AK-47s to everyone entering the convention.
When it's all done they can point out to us how safe everyone was in an arena full of armed hotheads.
Of course, if it doesn't work out that way, there will be less gun toting crazies afterwards.
Why would they fear that?
Trump has good reason because he is the only one so far that someone has tried to physically assault - someone rushed the stage trying to get to him.
Trump has bodyguards and secret service though. The audience members rationally want to be able to carry guns against the possibility of a crazy liberal trying to shoot audience members; after all most recent mass shootings have been done by (admittedly quite crazed) liberally minded shooters.
That's the natural after-effect of demonizing the "other" for too much, for too long. If liberals keep saying Trump is the same as Hiter why would there not be liberals coming out of the woodwork to kill him?
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
When did the U.S. become such pussies, where someone feels that they need open carry guns everywhere? We used to be civil, have arguments, and agree to disagree. Now we have the ignorant masses being whipped into a frenzy to carry guns, stomp of the rights of non-white people, and buy gold to prepare for the big collapse. Had that idiot president, and his puppet master vp, not invade Iraq the world would not be in the shambles it is now.
According to the owners, these: https://www.google.com/search?...
This thread contains references to both guns and politics.
We will probably set some sort of record for highest thread count. :|
Sad day when Politifact is cited as a 'credible' source and gets +5 Informative when they've been slobbering all over Hillary's knob. They shit all over Republican candidates when they get the chance, while giving Hilldog and Bernout free passes with 'Half True' or 'Mostly False'
Proof:
http://i.imgur.com/O7LGxYl.jpg
Want more?:
http://i.imgur.com/ORK5fDx.png
Politifact is full of shit:
http://www.funnyjunk.com/Politi+fact+is+full+of+shit/funny-pictures/5851249/
LOL You're worried about someone bringing that into a fast food restaurant? Dude, if I have a firearm like that and want to bring it in to a restaurant then there's fuck all you can do about it - if I'm a criminal. It's not even all *that* dangerous - but I pulled the "scariest" sounding one off the link you gave me. I came up with this:
https://www.gunsamerica.com/93...
So, using that as your definition, you're worried about someone walking around with that legally? Why? 'Snot like they're gonna go shooting the place up with that. If you're worried about criminals then you've a whole other issue and that issue really isn't that firearm in particular - or anything like it. Those are pretty harmless as firearms go.
Let's start with the name in the URL...
AK-47... That sounds scary but the AK-47 is a very specific thing - this is semi-automatic, for starters.
Bullpup, now there's a scary name. That has to do with where the handle is and where the stock is, for the most part. It's a design style.
That thing is painted in silly colors, the person owning it is an idiot, and it's less lethal than half the shit I keep in my basement - and I have firearms from long before you were born.
If a criminal is walking around with *any* firearm, it's a bad thing. Criminals are (generally) not allowed firearms. I know a criminal who took a firearm from someone who was threatening to shoot his wife. He was actually allowed to do so, the judge was willing to accept that. It's when he took it, took it and hid it, and then didn't cal the cops immediately (even though he called not long after) he is doing time in prison.
How much more strict do you want the laws? What's reasonable to you?
Anything you're calling an assault rifle is shit to be worried about. Yeah, they fire big bad bullets. They're not the problem. The problem is that criminals have them when they're not supposed to have them. Using a firearm in a crime is bad, m'kay. Using an assault rifle in a crime? That's just stupid. That's how you get dead. They're going to use whatever and they're going to acquire what they need. That's what bad people have always done - they don't obey the laws. That thing you're calling an assault rifle is not even an automatic or even a select-fire weapon. They're sporting rifles that you weirdos decided to get pissed about which made people think they're all the more awesome and buy even more of them, sort of ruining the gun market but also bringing some neat new tech into it, for no reason.
That's like getting mad that someone has their father's old Ruger .22 LR which they used to go plink tin-cans. That's what that rifle is that you're calling an assault rifle. If some dumb ass wants to run around with it and pretend he's Rambo then there's jack shit we can do about it - and generally, they aren't the ones that are the problem. Not comparatively speaking, no... Those things you're looking for are called sport rifles, and yes - deaths and injuries do occur. That's part of living in a nation without tyranny.
Now, tyranny is not necessarily be what the guy with the guns protect YOU with - you have to do that on your own, or not. Tyranny is the government taking away that one more liberty. I don't know about you but I kind of like my rights - all of them. I like your rights too. How many things do you want the government take away that you're scared of? Think that through, carefully.
No, I don't want them taking away the rights of gay people to marry, no I don't want them taking away the right to abort, nor do I want to teach the kids that some Mexican carpenter named Jesus's dad knocked up the daughter at a house he was contracting on and that's why we celebrate Christmas. I like all of my rights. I like the rights that you enjoy that make you someone I don't even like. That's true, I like your rights too. I value your rights as much as I value my own - perhaps mor
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
... to go outside without a lethal weapon on their person.
I mean if you were a skinhead that lives in Compton, ok, but maybe even better you could move your skinhead ass out of compton.
Most parts of America do not require the constant presence of a handgun. Who in their right mind wants to lug around a 4 pound chunk of metal that you never, ever, ever use? Something that if you lose it, its not like a cel phone... losing a gun is a big fucking deal.
Carrying a weapon is egregious cowardice for 99.9% of the population.
The fucking hippies aren't going to getcha.
Let's make it clear
If a liberal went into the RNC convention pretending to be a conservative and then open fire on people inside the hall ...
In order to not vilate your golden "eye for eye" rule, all the conservatives inside the hall MUST SIT THERE DO NOTHING while that liberal criminal continues to shoot, and shoot, and shoot at people?
Is that it, mister?
What happened to self defense ?
What happened to putting down a criminal during the commission of a crime ?
Ask for guns in conventions for one side means that the same will be applied to the conventions from the other side.
If you think people on one side are crazy, everybody keeps forgetting that the other side sometimes have gang members "crashing" the party.
To me an assault rifle is a weapon whose primary purpose is to assault people with.
As a Canadian, the idea of someone bringing a weapon into a restaurant just seems so rude. I'm not saying people shouldn't be able to own them and take them to the firing range or even have a firing range at home, just that it is rude to take them certain places without a good reason.
When I wanted to own a firearm, I realized that I had no training so I asked my neighbour, a Korean war vet and lifer in the armed forces for lessons. And he taught me that weapons are something to be treated with respect, you don't take them out unless planning to use them. And where I lived, everyone hunted, but you didn't take your weapon into restaurants or most public places.
A lot of it is probably culture but to me taking a weapon into certain places is rude behaviour.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
When did the United States of America become the basketcase of Nations? God Bless America
liberals sign stuff to ban dangerous chemical compounds like dihydrogen monoxide.
Hans: An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind, I believe that wholeheartedly.
Billy: No it doesn't. There'll be one guy left with one eye. Hows the last blind guy gonna take out the eye of the last guy left, who's still got one eye! All that guy has to do is run away and hide behind a bush. Gandhi was wrong, it's just that nobody's got the balls to come right out and say it.
Speaking as a southerner I find this insulting and bigoted.
The right to not be murdered in the street while going about your business trumps the "right" of a self obsessed and selfish loser to jerk off over a pile of weapons a mile high.
Thanks for playing.
By your definition, swords are assault rifles.
Just sayin'.
Haha!!! No conservatives on the ballot?!?!? Are you frigging kidding me? I had to read that three times to make sure you weren't joking. Those two are absolute right wing nut jobs. I can't even begin to imagine how you would call them anything but ultra conservatives.
We here in Europe are already setting up betting pools on how long before the US goes to war. The bitch of it is, my son is 14 years old and we live in a NATO country... Hillary will declare full scale war on someone in her third year in order to get votes... Check the pattern... It's how almost all presidents get their second term. So, if the war lasts two years, his ass will be holding a fire stick in the middle of a shit storm. I've already told him that no matter which of these right wing idiots make it into office, unless he has top grades and gets into the university, he'll be staring at the wrong end of a rifle held by a guy who doesn't even know why he's holding it.
While we're all laughing our asses off at this B-rated reality TV series called the American Presidential Elections, some of us are scared shitless knowing our children's' lives will be at risk because we don't need a draft as the countries we live in have mandatory service.
"We here in Europe," that explains it. Stopped reading after that.
Purpose of these guns?
Stopping any nose Liberals in the crowd from speaking truth to Trumpist lies
Given the history of violence against dissent thanks to Trump, we expect an entirely happy crowd of Klansmen!
If this ain't Nazism, nothing is.
No, Godwin's law doesn't apply when you're talking about the real thing.
mark
From what it looks like so far, there won't be any normal people at the Republican convention anyway. (No, don't lambaste me, this isn't about pro or con Republicans - I just think all the normal ones have opted out of this race.) What we're left with are gun fanatics and religious fanatics and power fanatics and assorted oddballs with very limited abilities to separate bullshit from reality. If they want to shoot each other, that's just fine with me. That solves a lot of problems, thank you very much.
Of course, I'm sure everybody by now knows, this is a practical joke, foisted on the Republican Party and it's 2nd Amendment nutcakes.
If you read the petition on Change.Org (which was founded by a progressive), it is almost identical to the blog post. The petition is full of right wing catch phrases. The humor is so low key, and the satire is so direct that you have to read it more than once to get the meaning of the petition.
It aims to put the Republicans in a damned-if-you-do or damned-if-you-don't conundrum.
Especially of note is the damning quotes of the candidates on "gun-free" zones, although one was taken slightly out of context.
If the candidates chose to oppose the "open carry"petition, there will be hell to pay with a big part (and well-funded) pat of their constituency.
If the candidates support the "open carry" petition, they may well put their life and the lives of others at risk in a foolhardy bid to appease some (but not all) Republicans.
I do hope that the candidates make fools of themselves before the petition is exposed.
This is something I've been advocating for years. If guns are ok for university campuses as they are here in Texas, then why not also in congress and federal courthouses? If no one is above the law, then let the law of open carry, or even concealed carry apply to the lawmakers and law keepers as well. Get rid of the metal detectors in all government buildings and let the laws apply to everyone equally.
Fuckign hypocrites.
On the European political spectrum, you're right, they're conservatives. However, in the U.S. neither of them are nearly conservative enough to satisfy the Republican base.
The right to protest the State is more sacred than the State.
Rights are actually kind of there to protect the rude. The people who adhere to the social standards do not really need protection.
That said, they are dangerous and need to be treated with respect. It's possible to do so while carrying them. I've no problem with safe and responsible firearm ownership - nor do I care if they carry in public, even if it's what you're calling an assault rifle. (Though it's odd that everyone attaches whatever definition they want to it, but we can work with your definition.) It's dumb but it's not inherently a problem.
If you find it rude then, by all means, find it rude and walk away. Do what you've got to do but don't try to take my liberties away because you find something rude. I can assure you, I find your table manners offensive but I'm not about to ask Mr. Government to step in and stop you from eating like a pig.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
His table manners dont cause fear and alarm in the community, nor wind up with people dead.
You lot really are morons, arent you ?
Lying sack of shit! You can't find me a mass shooter in America that identifies liberal or democrat. They've all been bible thumping, ultra conservative, redneck republicans. McVeigh was even a member in the NRA. You are dumb and should feel dumb for being dumb!
It has nothing to do with whether I'd be okay with it. I'm not okay with it. But it's the law, because those are arms.
What this tells me is that the 2nd amendment needs to be changed; and I know, because I actually have studied the constitution and its genesis, that the authors provided a specific means because they were fully smart enough to intuit that things can change, and so the constitution was very likely to need to change as well. They provided a formal means to do so; and I have no doubt whatsoever that if a constitutional convention were called, and amendment to the 2A was proposed that contained the functional equivalent of this...
"The 2nd amendment is hereby modified in that "arms" shall not include or in any way imply nuclear, biological, or chemical weaponry of any type; weapons utilizing these types of destructive mechanisms may only be kept, transported, and used by the federal government"
...it would pass without much, if any, fanfare. And furthermore, that's what should have been done. The process should have been formally started on August 7th, 1945. The fact that it wasn't simply illuminates the fact that our government was wholly corrupt at the time, and has remained so ever since.
What you advocate is "something bad might happen so never mind the constitution."
The consequence of accepting your rationale is that every right protected by the constitution immediate also becomes subject to "something bad might happen so never mind the constitution."
The argument is only reasonably couched as: "The constitution needs amendment. Get after it."
-----
But, if we're going to go with your construction of "whatever seems safer today is okay", then perhaps my position would be to see you imprisoned or shot. Because that would make me feel safer. And you wouldn't have anything legitimate to say about it (and I wouldn't listen to you anyway.) Because the constitution is strictly advisory in your view. You lose free speech, you lose a right to a trial, you lose the right to legal representation. Or perhaps I'd just enslave you, because I could use someone to clean the catbox and mow the lawn. You could live in a pit underneath my shed. I'd probably cut your tongue out though, because your ideas are annoying and I'd just as soon you didn't spread them around.
Your "never mind the constitution" idea doesn't sound so good now, does it?
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
a practice also done by previous secretaries of state (including ones working for Bush)
No, no previous secretary of state has ever run their own email server.
UPI: Colin Powell, Condoleezza Rice got classified email on private accounts
Guardian: Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice used private accounts for classified emails
NBC: Condoleezza Rice Aides, Colin Powell Also Got Classified Info on Personal Emails
Here's a quote: "Powell, who served as secretary from 2001 to 2005, said he used a personal email account because State's email system was slow and cumbersome. Powell is credited with modernizing State's computer infrastructure, which did not at the time allow each employee to have the internet at their desks. "State's system at the time was inadequate," he said."
...The practice was illegal at the time that Hillary started as SofS.
Wrong again.
Addressing the Federal Records Act, NPR's Scott Horsley reported last month on the question of whether Clinton's exclusive reliance on a private email account violated it. Here's some of what he reported: "A State Department spokeswoman says Hillary Clinton did not break any rules by relying solely on her personal email account. Federal law allows government officials to use personal email so long as relevant documents are preserved for history." The law was amended in late 2014 to require that personal emails be transferred to government servers within 20 days. But that was after Clinton left office. Watchdog groups conceded that she may not have violated the text of the law, but they argue she violated the spirit of it.
and that some e-mails on that server were later reclassified as classified information.
No, HUMINT is classified as TOP SECRET//HCS from the source, and is at no time permitted to be UNCLASSIFIED//FOUO.
Sorry. The emails in question were classified later. In fact, the .gov address wouldn't have been secure, either.
Here's probably the best discussion: http://www.politifact.com/trut...
"To send classified information electronically, the State Department has a secure, closed system. So even if Clinton had used a state.gov email address, this would not have been secure enough to transmit classified information. Procedurally, emails would get a label marking them as containing classified information. Clinton has said she viewed classified information in hard copy in her office. If she was traveling, she used other secure channels. Some of the emails released this month actually show Clinton’s team talking about how they can’t email each other classified information."
Incidentially, that is what happened with Rice's aide's and Powell's email accounts: http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us...
https://www.google.com/search?... (pick whatever source you don't disbelieve..)
Wow, pages of links to blogs and unreliable sources that contain speculation but no real information. Scrolling down to the first one I found that even comes close t
HUMINT is classified at the source as TOP SECRET//HCS, so no, the emails were not classified after the fact. I gave links to the information about the HUMINT emails found in her private email stash, but you can feel free to continue to believe that she did nothing wrong, even though the FBI (run by a Democratic appointee) is investigating her.
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
LOL, you think the FBI investigation means anything?
They have their own mistakes to live down.
HUMINT is classified at the source as TOP SECRET//HCS, so no, the emails were not classified after the fact. I gave links to the information about the HUMINT emails found in her private email stash,
You did. You linked to a bunch of blogs and sites spinning out speculations with no factual information in evidence. The one link in the list you gave that was reputable stated clearly and distinctly that the material in question was classified after the fact, and that they had a separate e-mail system for classified material, which did not go onto the private e-mail server in question.
I quoted that link. Let me quote it again:
"To send classified information electronically, the State Department has a secure, closed system. So even if Clinton had used a state.gov email address, this would not have been secure enough to transmit classified information. Procedurally, emails would get a label marking them as containing classified information. Clinton has said she viewed classified information in hard copy in her office. If she was traveling, she used other secure channels. Some of the emails released this month actually show Clinton’s team talking about how they can’t email each other classified information."
Basically, a bunch of people are making shit up and assuring each other it's real, and concluding that if the FBI doesn't agree with the shit they made up, this indicates a conspiracy.
Whoosh. I was just trying to point out the irony in how people don't like these weapons to be called "assault rifles" by the big bad government, but are comfortable marketing them as assault rifles when they are trying to sell them.
Of all places online, you'd figure that people who post here on slashdot would know the difference between having a private email account and having your own email server. They are NOT the same thing and you should know that. Be honest with everybody and stop repeating what you've heard on CNN and MSNBC.