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'.
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!
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!”
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
And got 33,000 signatures from other anti-gunners to do what now?
When the Republican Establishment steals the nomination from Donald Trump, some people will express their First Amendment right by exercising their Second Amendment right to shoot up the place.
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.
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.
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"?
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.
What do you think would happen if in the midsts of all this, somebody were to yell "GUN!" ?
It would probably be a lot like what happened to the guy in a Florida McDonalds that yelled "Gun!" when someone carrying concealed accidentally pulled his tee-shirt up to get his wallet out, revealing it. The clerk just stared with a blank look, like "So what?" The customer offered to show his concealed carry permit. The manager came out and said, "We don't have a problem with people legally carrying in our establishment." The guy kept yelling "Gun!" and eventually the police were called. After determining that the guy screaming "Gun!" wasn't just attempting to create a public nuisance but was actually having a hopolophobic reaction, he was detained and checked into a mental health facility for observation.
The story was related by the McDonald's customer with the CCW on a Youtube video (posted on /k/) and is most certainly still out there.
Have gnu, will travel.
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.
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.
+++++
This is the only way this could end. All it takes is one fruitcake to start it and we're way beyond single fruitcakes.
At the Republican National Convention there will be enough sugar crazed jellied nuts to put the nation into a diabetic emergency.
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
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 Cow Palace is actually in Daly City, and they have gun shows all the time which is why I mentioned it. TBF, Daly City is very close to SF though.
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
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.
If the Sheriff of the County they're in (not a deputy, but the real Sheriff) tells them to put their guns down, the Secret Service have to comply. A Sheriff is the only type of law enforcement officer in the country, at any level, who has Sovereign control of physical security in their County.
There might be consequences later. But they would be on the other side of a court hearing. In the meantime, Sovereign is Sovereign.
I'd think it'd be great.
Has an organization ever won a Darwin Award?
Table-ized A.I.
Define assault rifle.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
This is what saved the soccer stadium in Paris. It had ample security versus the Bataclan. They disarmed all of the football fans but they also had enough warm bodies wandering around protecting all of those disarmed people.
All of the liberals that want to take your guns are very well armed, indirectly, by their own security details.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
Clips? There are clips but the AK-47 doesn't normally use a clip, at least not in the traditional sense. It being an AK-47, there's probably some sort of way to affix an attachment to it that enables it to use clips but I've never seen one. Magazines and even drums, yes. No clips that I know of.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
Not going to happen. Trump knows how to make deals. If he's got the delegates, he'll throw the GOP establishment enough of a bone to make it worth their while not to give the nomination to someone else.
Hillary, on the other hand... every time Sanders wins a primary it seems her lead increases. So much for the "Democratic" party.
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!
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.
Well, yeah, you wouldn't shout it in the midst of nothing. You'd wait until, say, a group of Muslim protestors were being confronted by security. The chances of inciting a bloodbath are still quite low, but much higher than otherwise, and anyway it'd be a real bitch to prosecute you meaningfully if it doesn't go off. I mean, yeah, technically it's incitement but even a half-way competent lawyer could probably get the court to not "waste their time", assuming you have a clean record and decent background.
"They were pure niggers." – Noam Chomsky
Unlikely that the Secret Service would comply with a Sheriff telling them to put guns down. You may be correct that there might be consequences later in a court hearing, but it'd be the Secret Service explaining "No way were we going to disarm on the orders of Joe Smith of Podunk County, Redstate."
fencepost
just a little off
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.
Yeah, the Cow Palace is literally across the street from San Francisco.
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.
Don't chase that rabbit hole to much. It looks like he's taken a hit of "Sovereign Citizen Juice", the whiskey of TrueSovereignCitizens, who only follow the orders of MightySheriff.
Architectural plans are like computer source code with a couple of differences: You only compile once.
Right, you're so deep into nonsense that you go all political.
The Secret Service isn't going to go political and be anti-red-state, or give a squat what the politics of the sheriff are. If they're ordered to stand down, they would; they would put their charge back into the vehicle and evacuate to the airport, because that is their legal option other than disarming.
Sovereign is sovereign. I don't doubt that they would first call their legal department, but they're not going to openly violate the law just because they don't like that detail of the rules.
And if the Sheriff tells them that the person they're protecting is under arrest, their job is not to protect that person from arrest. Their job would be to ride with the cops and go into the jail with them, and provide security outside his cell. They're certainly not going to commit serious personal felonies by interfering with other branches of law enforcement. As with other scenarios, they would probably call their legal department first; who would inform them that there is no way to challenge being arrested by the Sheriff other than to wait and go to court afterwards. You can't just tell the Sheriff "no."
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
I don't know, but I can give you a useful data point. My wife and I went to the annual NRA convention in Houston in 2013. Eighty-six thousand NRA members attended that year. Since concealed carry is legal in Texas, and since concealed carry could not legally be prohibited in the convention space (because it was owned by the city), and since it was in Texas (where gun ownership is high relative to most of the rest of the country), and since it was the NRA convention (so gun ownership among attendees was probably close to 99.99%), it probably represents the single largest non-military event in human history both in terms of number of guns carried by attendees and percentage of attendees carrying guns.
And what happened?
A whole lot of nothing. Three days of exhibits, conferences, speakers, events, etc. And a lack of people being shot.
The RNC convention in 2012 was expected to have 50,000 attendees. Assume 2016 will be the same. Even then, the number of people and the % of people who want to carry guns at an RNC convention is going to me MUCH less than at the NRA convention.
If they allowed it, even if they requested that people do it, it would be shocking if anything bad happened. In Texas, concealed carry license holders are more law-abiding than police officers according to the statistics that the Department of Public Safety is required to collect and publish as part of our carry laws.
The liberal hand-wringing over "what if" and "might" and "blood in the streets" when it comes to carrying guns in public is so so tiring.
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/
The last thing that the Democrats want is an actual Leftist nominated. They do just fine being just slightly less right then the Republicans and throwing out the odd bone to any left leaning Americans while reminding them that Coke and Pepsi are really different and you better vote for their brand of soda.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
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."
If he's got the delegates, he'll throw the GOP establishment enough of a bone to make it worth their while not to give the nomination to someone else.
You don't understand how the math works on the Republican. Trump will have less than 51% of the delegates to win the nomination outright. Even if he did make a deal for the nomination, he will need 70% of the white male vote to overcome the independents and minority voters for Hillary. Reagan and Bush I won 63%, Bush II and Mitt Romney won 62%, respectively, of the white male vote. Trump isn't getting 70% of the white male vote in the general election.
Hillary, on the other hand... every time Sanders wins a primary it seems her lead increases. So much for the "Democratic" party.
You don't understand how the math works on the Democratic side. After Super Tuesday, Bernie had to win every election thereafter with 60% of the votes. He's not doing that and falling behind. Hillary will have 51% of the delegates to win the nomination outright.
... 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 ?
Actually, you couldn't be more wrong. It's imperative to know the names and usage of the tools you use. That includes hammers, firearms, computers, and even pencils.
That and the rest of what you describe is some strange, misguided, caricature of your own inventing - we call that a straw man, but you can call it what you will. However, if you're going to present an argument for or against something, which they're attempting to envision with their "I wonder," it behooves you to know what you speak of to the point where you're accurately conversant - as a minimal level of capacity.
When trying to discuss things more complicated than a crayon, it's important to know what you're discussing like so that you don't look like the drooling kid in the corner who's only opinion on them is that green ones taste best. Or, of course, you can pick whichever linguistic styling you feel most comfortable with and accept that you're limited in scope to discussing the flavor of crayons.
The choice is yours but at least be intellectually honest about it.
Oh, and have a nice day. ;-)
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
Ohio has a "stand your ground" law, so as long as Trump supporters (or anyone else at the convention) claim that they feel threatened, they can shoot to their hearts content and have a good argument for court.
Note that this is not legal advice and should not be followed by anyone who is not an idiot.
Is that same someone also "allowing" you to post your gripes to slashdot?
If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
I wonder how the NRA and the Republicans would react if somebody bought 500.000 AK-47s
First, why choose the favorite weapon of the commies? Are you a commie? Damn pinko commies bringing commie guns to an American political event.
If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
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
Minorities are not going to line up 100% behind Hillary. He's going to get a shocking (to the media) proportion of the Hispanic vote. He won't get much of the black vote (no Republican has for some time) but there isn't going to be the turnout for Hillary that there was for Obama.
Yes, this is the lunatic fringe misreading of the Prinz v. US decision at SCOTUS. Long story short: Congress can't pass a law that commandeers local law enforcement and make them enforce some specific federal law. Effectively, sheriffs have the right to refuse to have their law enforcement officers forced to act as federal agents. The lunatics on the right wing have some bizarre interpretation of this ruling that local sheriffs have some sort of absolute authority (usually based on a couple quotes from the ruling taken out of context). Whatever -- the point here is that sheriffs have no authority to disarm Secret Service agents in their jurisdiction, and it takes a really warped reading to think that would be true. (In fact, the ruling implies the opposite, but I don't feel like getting into details to refute something so obviously ridiculous.)
When did the United States of America become the basketcase of Nations? God Bless America
I wonder what's going to happen to the Cuban vote that Jeb and other Republicans counted on for as long? The Cold War bullshit has finally been dropped for Cuba decades after there was any reason to keep it up (apart from votes). Will Hillary get the Cubans or does Trump have some chance of getting them like other Republicans have before?
Why did you even post this drivel?
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
Bunch of pussies.
Bowie knives, whiskey and crystal meth all round I say.
The entire thing is just a ridiculous stunt anyway.
In the rally case it's adding guns to the mix of deliberate crowd-exciting hysteria and some conflict between groups that hate each others guts, which has resulted in a few violent situations already. That's why it makes a bit more sense to pass the guns in at the door than at a peaceful event. It's a precaution equivalent to having Secret Service guards as is already happening. They probably are not needed either but Trump hasn't sent them away.
Right, you're conflating the "sovereign citizen movement" for what I am talking about. I guess you didn't know about it, so you just grabbed at something nearby with one of the same words?
Read Prinz v US, it talks about dual sovereignty of States and the Union, it doesn't even talk about Sheriffs except in the context of them being State or local employees. There is absolutely no reason to conflate that with what I was talking about.
Sheriffs having sovereign authority over physical security in their County is a whole different thing. This isn't a thing where the Sheriff can order laws not to be followed, that is just conspiracy nonsense. But when it comes to physical security of a law enforcement situation, the Sheriff can take physical control of everything and order cops to release people, back away, or any other sort of lawful order; including to disarm, if required.
And it can't be delegated, so he can only even order a few people around.
If the Sheriff of the County they're in (not a deputy, but the real Sheriff) tells them to put their guns down, the Secret Service have to comply. A Sheriff is the only type of law enforcement officer in the country, at any level, who has Sovereign control of physical security in their County.
There might be consequences later. But they would be on the other side of a court hearing. In the meantime, Sovereign is Sovereign.
Quick hint: this claim (that the county sheriff can overrule federal law enforcement) is wrong both de jure and de facto.
>someone rushed the stage trying to get to him (Trump).
A citizen tries to express his God given First Amendment right of speaking into a microphone to a hostile audience and that means that Trump was assaulted?
> after all most recent mass shootings have been done by (admittedly quite crazed) liberally minded shooters.
You’ve carefully worded this to avoid the word Democrat, but still the answer is Nope, Nope and, you guessed it, Nope. However, one mass murderer to have a stated political affiliation, was both a Republican and an NRA member, Timothy McVeigh.
It would be interesting to see what happens if they allow guns at the convention. It'd be like a social experiment - can a group of armed citizens disagree with each other and not resort to violence? It'd either make the NRA's best argument against gun control, or it'd be a blood bath. I'm betting the latter, because Trump is good at stoking anger, victimhood, a sense of entitlement, and revenge. He's not good at playing well with others.
By your definition, swords are assault rifles.
Just sayin'.
The 2016 electoral map is identical to 2012 electoral map. That means Donald Trump has to do better than Mitt Romney, who only got 27% of the Latino vote. Trump — and the Republican Party in general — is on the losing end of the demographic vote. They need Latino voters but calling them rapists and threatening to deport them isn't helping.
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!
Maybe enforcing everyone in congress and senate to be armed. If they take offense they can have a duel on the spot.
If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
If this ain't Nazism, nothing is.
No, Godwin's law doesn't apply when you're talking about the real thing.
mark
There is absolutely no reason to think I was talking about that.
Put away your AM radio, and stick to facts.
You were wrong in more ways than there are Latin insults to describe.
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.
There is absolutely no reason to think I was talking about that.
Put away your AM radio, and stick to facts.
You were wrong in more ways than there are Latin insults to describe.
I am sticking to facts. If a county Sheriff tells the Secret Service to put their guns down, the Secret Service isn't going to comply. Period. That's the simple fact, and no matter how much you reference "Sovereign" status (capitalized or not), it's not going to change.
So, out of curiosity, what legal source can you cite to support your belief that a county sheriff has the authority to require the Secret Service or FBI to disarm?
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."
HA ha ha ha ha ha! You so funny!
Seriously, I find your ideas intriguing and would like to subscribe to your newsletter.
Ha ha ha ha ha ha!
All you've done is spout gibberish in your attempt to defend the fact that the correct terminology is essential to having a proper discussion on what is and isn't acceptable. If you don't know the difference between doodad one and doodad two do you really think you should be offering an opinion on the laws surrounding either? I tend to think not.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
Hillary, on the other hand... every time Sanders wins a primary it seems her lead increases. So much for the "Democratic" party.
Funny thing how that works. I think the key is probably "seems". Since almost all of the Dem primaries are allocate delligates proportionally, if one candidate wins many states by a tiny bit, but looses a few states by a lot, it is possible to win the majority of deligates even without winning many states.
In any case, for this particular race, while Sanders does seem to be getting a lot of press whenever he does well, he really needs to do amazingly well in the remaining primaries in order to make up for how far he is behind currently.
If he could do something like that or if Clinton revealed she was an agent for vampire aliens from Mars, it at least is possible that the "superdelegates" could change their minds, but in most tight races those deligates tip the scales her way. It doesn't seem like a super tight race as things now stand.
I found this interesting: superdelegates-might-not-save-hillary-clinton http://fivethirtyeight.com/fea...
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?
No, you're sticking to an opinion that you lie and call a "fact." That doesn't make it facty or truthy, it just means you don't know the difference between them.
And above you were already making false assumptions that you thought were facts, and now you're conflating opinion and fact. So you don't seem capable of reasoned conversation.
You've made an extraordinary claim, that a county sheriff (and only the county sheriff) can overrule federal law enforcement. The burden is on you to support that claim. You haven't done so.
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.