Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Carry Issues' started by El Viajero, Mar 25, 2016.
There's more in the article...
In the source article for that article is a second paragraph by the Secret Service:
Wow. Never saw this coming...
"Pick our battles wisely" is possibly a better use of resources and political capital.
Who is honestly surprised by the Secret Service Response to this petition????
There is one comment on the petition author's one-blog blog site that simply says, "Poe’s Law. Sweet. Well done."
Poe's law: "Poe's law is an Internet adage which states that, without a clear indicator of the author's intent, parodies of extreme views will be mistaken by some readers or viewers for sincere expressions of the parodied views. (Wikipedia)"
Are we being duped?
Agreed, and I am from Cleveland.
The thing is the arena is publicly owned according to the article. Quicken Loans may own the naming rights but they don't own the arena. The article below from last year says it is publicly owned.
The fact is that the candidates can turn away Secret Service protection until they are the Presdirnt Elect I believe. The fact is that we as a nation should not pay taxes to hire private guards for our elected officials who deny us our own right to protect ourselves.
Fine, you go cry that argument to the SS. By the way, the SS already said Eff no to the petition.
I won't be in Cleveland or near the state at the time. I do think though that they should allow carry in the arena if it is publicly owned. I also don't think it is a polling place as the official polling process is done and this is now just internal party politics and not something that the public will be voting on.
I don't know but if they are I fell for it. I have a few friends who are upset by this and I am tired of politicians voting away my rights.
The petition author also said in a Rolling Stone interview:
“I’m 100 percent genuine in my belief that they should be able to have guns at their convention,” he said of the RNC. “I think it’s just really uncomfortable for them.”
“They don’t want guns at the convention. They know it’s a bad idea. That’s why no one has ever raised a stink about it. But their silence speaks volumes.”
Whether he's trolling or not I think he makes a point that anyone who supports these candidates for their commitment to gun rights should consider.
The candidates say they're 100% for gun rights. Trump said he would do away with gun-free zones on his first day in office, but he won't even speak out about the gun-free zone at the GOP convention? Cruz's state just voted to make it illegal (in most cases) for college professors at public school to ban guns from their classrooms, but he's ok disarming people who want to attend an important part of the election process?
I'm actually comfortable with the campus carry law that passed in Texas, but by forcing people to disarm for the convention, the GOP seem to be reserving for themselves privileges that they say other people don't deserve. I also understand that sometimes I just can't carry a gun somewhere even though I have rights. I understand that guns create some interesting and complex issues. Candidates spount slogans like "Shall not be infringed, pretends like the issue of guns in the US is simple, then their party structures reveal its complexity by banning guns from their convention.
In my book, if they're not pro-the guns people might actually carry around them, then they're about as pro-gun as Dianne Feinstein.
Why then stop at the R national convention? Name any professional sporting venue, Federal, State or County Government building where one that is not LEO or retired LEO can carry open or concealed.
I don't think this is a good battle to pick. The Secret Service is very clear on their position on this.
This is also one of the reasons I'm against a National Carry Law. If the discretion of when and where to carry were turned over to the Federal Government I have a feeling a lot of areas would suddenly become 'off limits' for the very reasons cited by the Secret Service.
How are our taxes paying for private guards for elected officials?
Back on the first page of this thread, I suggested the strong possibility of this being a "false flag operation." It seems rather obvious to me. But, I got no reaction.
Maybe so, but who's waving that flag? How many of the fifty thousand signatures are from liberals trying to make gun owners look bad and how many are serious 2A supporters expressing a genuine desire?
I don't think a petition no matter how many signatures are on it will make a difference. As long as the secret service is involved, there will be no firearms except theirs and who they approve.
Would the state capitol in Texas count? Handgun license owners even get to skip security.
Look for the Texas AG's opinion about halfway through the article.
After I posted I figured there would be an exception to the norm. There is a small county courthouse in PA that I needed to make an appearance at last week. No Secuity on the doors(Deputy, metal detector, checkpoint) I strolled right over to the DA's Office that had a locked door with glass for receptionist.