Petition to allow Open Carry at Republican convention

[Sheik Yerbouti]

What is wrong with carrying in a bar? In Tennessee I am allowed to carry a weapon in a bar. It is my responsibility to not consume alcohol otherwise my permit would be revoked.

yea, that oughta stop people. responsibility and adherence to law, especially when drinking, alcohol brings out the 'responsible' in people.

 

[Jhhnn]

There have been a lot of those loving peaceful Democrats clamoring for the assassination of certain candidates.

That's rich, considering that Obama is the most threatened President in modern History by a very wide margin.

The whole point of the exercise is for people to take a closer look at what firearms advocates are claiming. Instead of looking at that squarely their answer is denial & accusation.

Magick Man signed the petition because he thinks that open carry everywhere "can" work, then accuses others who did the same thing of trying to get conservatives killed. That diversion then becomes the battle cry of denial.

The petition is not a good faith effort to allow open carry at the RNC. It never was. It pokes fun at extremists among firearms enthusiasts. They do their best to avoid the point entirely while copping a hurt & huffy attitude. Uhh-wah-wah-wah.

Open carry is reasonable under a rather narrow set of circumstances, no doubt. So is concealed carry under an even narrower set. OTOH, is it reasonable at a PP protest? Westboro Baptists? What if the Occupy movement chose to gear up or the spontaneous protesters in Ferguson? What about an MLK day parade or a union picket line? What about Trump protesters outside the venue? How about an armed White Power rally?

Nah. None of that matters. You're just trying to get us killed!

 

[zinfamous]

There is a responsibility one undertakes when deciding to carry a firearm. The vast majority of firearm owners are responsible and take firearms very seriously. The person using the firearm is responsible for the bullet and where it ups end if it leaves the gun.

Not saying that you are wrong re: the bolded, but is that actually true? Is there any way to quantify that? It seems that this "everyone should be armed for safety!" argument largely hinges on the truth of this assertion.

I see this assertion made every time someone mentions that everyone should be armed, but I have never seen it quantified.

Just look at how the vast majority of car owners are responsible and take driving very seriously. There you go.

I knowright? Maybe that analogy will prove useful....


Oh look!

Who knows... maybe so... but statistically it is not relevant. Again look at the number of firearm deaths in this country. The majority are suicides (60%). 37% of firearm deaths which are ruled as homicides... the majority of these come from drug and gang violence (we don't know an exact number because not all gun homicides get classified). How may people get murdered in Chicago by guns in between mass shootings in this country?

Only about 3% (700-800 deaths) are accidental. Which one of is too many.. especially when a 4 year accidentally shoots his toddler sibling because some irresponsible turd left a loaded weapon where a child could access it. But look how many parents are irresponsible with their cars. How many kids get backed over while in the driveway. How many die per year from not being buckled up? How many die per year from parents who drive while under the influence?

Gun ownership is up and violent crime has been trending down (FBI 5 year trend from 2009-2013). So those are the statistics I am concerned about.

or....not.

Well, there you go. Aside from a rather callous handling of some numbers, we can easily wipe away 37% of all gun deaths, because gang and drug deaths don't matter because they cease to be humans after some rather quick mental re-conditioning. That's rather telling:

The actual Gun death totals are effectively 2/3rd of what they are when we choose to believe that this percentage does not represent human death.

amazing.

Then, further admission that there are some careless and irresponsible assholes that own guns...but only 3%, so it's not significant? Oh wait...we already eliminated 37% of the total deaths, so those aren't part of the original calculation. that 3% now represents a much higher total of the "real human deaths."

So let's be honest: once we erase the 37% of deaths where acceptable humans are not actually killed by guns, that 3% from irresponsible owners now represents the remaining percentage of the "60%" of deaths represented by suicides....so basically careless and irresponsible gun owners are actually closer to 1/3rd or 3/5th of all deaths.

But even if they truly represented only 3% of deaths, "One careless death is too many" is a far different statement from the earlier "The majority of gun owners are responsible and so CCW is not a concern." Which is it?

Now, considering the loose and duplicitous playing with statistical reporting in the final statement above re: ownership numbers, one must take all reported numbers from Rudder as a grain of salt in this case, until further clarification. The improper analogy regarding careless driving vs careless gun ownership notwithstanding, the truly disturbing thing here is the callous erasure of human life from the statistical model simply because of the mode of their alleged endeavor at the time of death.

But the fundies and gun nuts are going to jump on me for that, so let me head it off:

--I hate criminals. Violent drug dealers, thieves, whatever--I have no sympathy for them in general and I am not arguing sympathy for criminals here.
--The argument presented rests the foundation of its certainty on the value of numbers--in this case human deaths. Either a human is killed, or one isn't. To pretend otherwise with one variable, simply because, is a disingenuous handling of the facts, true or false as they may be. In this case, it is especially callous when we are talking about human lives, and especially when such lives are predominantly young lives representing a predominantly exploited, minority sector. Those are simple facts.
--I agree with the gun yahoos, here, that the cause of gun deaths in this sector aren't guns, it is the nature of the business which leads to the death. But that was never the question in the argument, so it really is irrelevant. That being said, I agree that guns are certainly not the cause of these specific deaths, but it is also wholly inaccurate to ignore them as a primary factor. Simply replacing the guns, via magic and fantasy with knives or bats, will obviously reduce the number of deaths. A simple thought experiment like this proves to even the most uneducated cretin that guns are, indeed, a real factor in these problems. It is not for some poorly understood reason that the largest proponents of gun control come from the citizens that live in these communities, that experience it daily. They are the ones dying--not Bubba scooting along on his Golf Cart 4 days out of the week at White Derpy Derp Country living Club with his .357 strapped to his side, enjoying Freedom.com every second his 350lb mass shakes another Budweiser down his gaping maw.
Simply reducing that total number of guns through sensible regulation, aka: "Only giving guns to criminals!"...well isn't exactly true and is, at least, somewhat effective. Yes, plenty of criminals will still have guns. But less will.

If "one single accidental death" is one too many, then why is "37% of all deaths by criminals" completely neutral or, far more callous, not enough?

One would almost wonder if taking direct strides towards reducing this number would go a long way towards effecting real change in the communities that are being murdered left and right by the NRA and the asshats that drink at the trough of false freedom.

In cases like this, I believe it is plainly obvious who the real savages are in contemporary US society: He scoots off on his Lark motorbike from one isle to the next in Walmart, protesting Chiptole not letting him display his FREEDOM.TXT whenever he wants, blogging about his proud display of freedom don'ttreadonme.com bastardizations of actual US history...well up until his toddler shoots him in the back while driving his car, obviously.

 

[zinfamous]

yea, that oughta stop people. responsibility and adherence to law, especially when drinking, alcohol brings out the 'responsible' in people.

Well, we already know that he doesn't expect people to be responsible when behind the wheel.

But when drinking? Packing heat? Doubling up on those two? No problemo.

 

[JSt0rm]

Where are the real patriots? Let the kids carry what they want!

 

[zinfamous]

Where are the real patriots? Let the kids carry what they want!

pussies, the lot of 'em.

The "Put up or shut up!" Drumpf supporters failing, yet again, to actually put up. God forbid they actually shut up, though.

 

[HomerJS]

What is wrong with carrying in a bar? In Tennessee I am allowed to carry a weapon in a bar. It is my responsibility to not consume alcohol otherwise my permit would be revoked.

Because the bars are filled with people who go there not to drink.

I have yet to have someone explain why carry should be any different from bars then GOP rallies.

 

[BoberFett]

That's rich, considering that Obama is the most threatened President in modern History by a very wide margin.

Oh good, it's Jhhnhmhjhnfucktard. Bu-bu-bu-but REPUBLICANS!!!!

Are you denying that Democrats are advocating assassination?

 

[SMOGZINN]

No one is advocating violence. The entire thing is a thought experiment intended to show just how ridiculous the idea of open carry is in a modern society. No one of sane mind thinks that it is a good idea to have guns at something like the GOP National Convention, and that the Republican Party knows this as well and would never permit it. So, it is bait. It is intended to back them into a corner so that they have to agree that it is a bad idea, and that their party platform on guns is not as absolute as they try to claim.

 

[jackstar7]

Oh good, it's Jhhnhmhjhnfucktard. Bu-bu-bu-but REPUBLICANS!!!!

Are you denying that Democrats are advocating assassination?

You started the false equivalence. Why are you now turning it on him?

 

[Jhhnn]

Oh good, it's Jhhnhmhjhnfucktard. Bu-bu-bu-but REPUBLICANS!!!!

Are you denying that Democrats are advocating assassination?

Threats as compared to...

There's always some fucktard threatening to kill somebody.

And, hey, the thread is about Republicans & firearms fetishists, isn't it?

 

[Blackjack200]

No one is advocating violence. The entire thing is a thought experiment intended to show just how ridiculous the idea of open carry is in a modern society. No one of sane mind thinks that it is a good idea to have guns at something like the GOP National Convention, and that the Republican Party knows this as well and would never permit it. So, it is bait. It is intended to back them into a corner so that they have to agree that it is a bad idea, and that their party platform on guns is not as absolute as they try to claim.

Unfortunately the Secret Service has now provided cover for Republicans:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...w-guns-at-the-republican-national-convention/

But it was a smart petition, and I think it made its point.

 

[Jhhnn]

Unfortunately the Secret Service has now provided cover for Republicans:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...w-guns-at-the-republican-national-convention/

But it was a smart petition, and I think it made its point.

Aww, man. Couldn't they have dragged that out further? Righties were just beginning to froth...

I mean, the very nerve of those libruhl assholes, calling on them to examine their most cherished beliefs.

 

[emperus]

Unfortunately the Secret Service has now provided cover for Republicans:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...w-guns-at-the-republican-national-convention/

But it was a smart petition, and I think it made its point.

Cover you say? I'm sure the candidates will come out denouncing the SS any second now...

 

[MongGrel]

Guns for all, I want to walk in with both of my .357 magnums in each hand.

Let freedom ring !!!!!



The thread has just digressed to nothing really.

 

[UberNeuman]

Another dream shot down.

 

[IronWing]

There should be plenty of guns on college campuses, nitwit. And they should never be labeled gun-free zones. That's stupid.

I'm all in favor of teachers taking gun-training courses and at least two or three of them being armed or having access to a firearm in case something happens. Security on college campuses should be well-trained and well armed as well. I don't even have a problem with qualified students being able to conceal-carry on college campuses.

You were saying, dimwit?

If talking to Jhhnn is akin to talking to a 3 year old, talking to you is like a brick wall.

Zaap's list of people who should be trusted with guns in crowds
Drunk frat boys
Sociology Professors
Psychology Professors
Poli Sci Professors
College athletes

Zaap's list of people who should not be trusted with guns in crowds
Republicans

 

[glenn1]

No one is advocating violence. The entire thing is a thought experiment intended to show just how ridiculous the idea of open carry is in a modern society. No one of sane mind thinks that it is a good idea to have guns at something like the GOP National Convention, and that the Republican Party knows this as well and would never permit it. So, it is bait. It is intended to back them into a corner so that they have to agree that it is a bad idea, and that their party platform on guns is not as absolute as they try to claim.

The states with either open or concealed carry don't give a shit about either your thought experiment or your opinion that it's ridiculous. This is exactly what federalism is for, you and the people of those states can both have your own way in places very far from each other and enjoy your preferred way of life.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

<stuff>

lol, so much text to ramble and say nothing of meaning.

1. rudder said the vast majority of gun owners are responsible; 100,000,000 gun owners, and only 700-800 display irresponsibility every year. Sounds like the vast majority of gun owners don't mishandle their guns to me. If you want to throw murder under the umbrella of irresponsibility (maybe every single one of those was a sudden crime of passion!), that still doesn't make a significant dent on the total percentage of gun owners.
2. Gang behavior is worthy of mention as an explanation for our gun crimes because it's a much more direct and causative factor. Violent people will commit acts of violence no matter what; sure, preventing them from owning guns will mean less of those acts are fatal, but unless you're proposing to completely ban gun ownership, the NRA is not the reason black people commit murder at a rate 10 times that of whites. Safe, gun-happy societies already exist outside of the United States. But no, somehow white people named Bubba that shop at Walmart are the most direct problem. lol.
3. Is anyone arguing that guns make everyone safer under all circumstances? Political assassination is usually committed against a single target, after which the goal has been accomplished. Campus spree killings will occur indiscriminately until the shooter is confronted by people with guns (usually cops). A political convention occurs in a single, presumably-secured building. College campuses, on the other hand, don't require metal detectors or police friskings to access. The two aren't comparable.

 

[ivwshane]

lol, so much text to ramble and say nothing of meaning.

1. rudder said the vast majority of gun owners are responsible; 100,000,000 gun owners, and only 700-800 display irresponsibility every year. Sounds like the vast majority of gun owners don't mishandle their guns to me. If you want to throw murder under the umbrella of irresponsibility (maybe every single one of those was a sudden crime of passion!), that still doesn't make a significant dent on the total percentage of gun owners.
2. Gang behavior is worthy of mention as an explanation for our gun crimes because it's a much more direct and causative factor. Violent people will commit acts of violence no matter what; sure, preventing them from owning guns will mean less of those acts are fatal, but unless you're proposing to completely ban gun ownership, the NRA is not the reason black people commit murder at a rate 10 times that of whites. Safe, gun-happy societies already exist outside of the United States. But no, somehow white people named Bubba that shop at Walmart are the most direct problem. lol.
3. Is anyone arguing that guns make everyone safer under all circumstances? Political assassination is usually committed against a single target, after which the goal has been accomplished. Campus spree killings will occur indiscriminately until the shooter is confronted by people with guns (usually cops). A political convention occurs in a single, presumably-secured building. College campuses, on the other hand, don't require metal detectors or police friskings to access. The two aren't comparable.

Yes people are arguing that, that's kind of the whole fucking point of this petition. Gun nuts have continuously said more guns equals less crime! They've also said that the only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun. Apparently to you and other gun nuts those rules don't apply to politicians and political events. You came up with some great excuses to try and justify the claims though. I also liked your attempt at Moving the goal posts by adding "under all circumstances". Unfortunately for you gun nutters never made such a stipulation because if they did we would be having the argument about when and where guns make people safer.

So maybe you can explain why more guns equals a safer place for everyone except for political gatherings and a gun nuts home? Let's see if you can give a direct answer.

 

[jackstar7]

The states with either open or concealed carry don't give a shit about either your thought experiment or your opinion that it's ridiculous. This is exactly what federalism is for, you and the people of those states can both have your own way in places very far from each other and enjoy your preferred way of life.

You're not going to respond to your wrongness from before, eh?

Or should we be expecting it?

 

[HamburgerBoy]

Yes people are arguing that, that's kind of the whole fucking point of this petition. Gun nuts have continuously said more guns equals less crime! They've also said that the only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun. Apparently to you and other gun nuts those rules don't apply to politicians and political events. You came up with some great excuses to try and justify the claims though. I also liked your attempt at Moving the goal posts by adding "under all circumstances". Unfortunately for you gun nutters never made such a stipulation because if they did we would be having the argument about when and where guns make people safer.

So maybe you can explain why more guns equals a safer place for everyone except for political gatherings and a gun nuts home? Let's see if you can give a direct answer.

That's not moving the goalposts. I've never made an argument that every type of gun crime can be deterred by increasing the amount of guns in proximity, and I doubt others are either. Political assassinations aren't the same thing as spree killings.

 

[ivwshane]

That's not moving the goalposts. I've never made an argument that every type of gun crime can be deterred by increasing the amount of guns in proximity, and I doubt others are either. Political assassinations aren't the same thing as spree killings.

You doubt people made that claim? Or you don't know if people made such claims?
I also didn't say you made such claims.
Is there a particular reason why you are avoiding the question? Is it because you think the claim is bullshit?

It's a simple question with a simple yes or no answer. Do more guns makes us safer? If the answer is yes then it would be insane not to allow people to bring their guns to the convention (especially considering how violent some of the presidential rallies have been). If the answer is no then perhaps you can talk some sense into the minds of gun nuts and explain to them how shades of grey work when it comes to guns and the public.

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2012/12/21/167785169/live-blog-nra-news-conference

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Lott

 

[zinfamous]

lol, so much text to ramble and say nothing of meaning.

1. rudder said the vast majority of gun owners are responsible; 100,000,000 gun owners, and only 700-800 display irresponsibility every year. Sounds like the vast majority of gun owners don't mishandle their guns to me. If you want to throw murder under the umbrella of irresponsibility (maybe every single one of those was a sudden crime of passion!), that still doesn't make a significant dent on the total percentage of gun owners.
2. Gang behavior is worthy of mention as an explanation for our gun crimes because it's a much more direct and causative factor. Violent people will commit acts of violence no matter what; sure, preventing them from owning guns will mean less of those acts are fatal, but unless you're proposing to completely ban gun ownership, the NRA is not the reason black people commit murder at a rate 10 times that of whites. Safe, gun-happy societies already exist outside of the United States. But no, somehow white people named Bubba that shop at Walmart are the most direct problem. lol.
3. Is anyone arguing that guns make everyone safer under all circumstances? Political assassination is usually committed against a single target, after which the goal has been accomplished. Campus spree killings will occur indiscriminately until the shooter is confronted by people with guns (usually cops). A political convention occurs in a single, presumably-secured building. College campuses, on the other hand, don't require metal detectors or police friskings to access. The two aren't comparable.

For one: The NRA.

All the time. After every single massacre.

Every. Fucking. Time.

 

[Zaap]

So what about when Chipotle didn't want rednecks walking around in their restaurants with AR-15s strapped to their backs? There was quite the furor from the "freedom lovers" around these forums and throughout the country that "Chiptole hated their freedom!" "Ban Chiptole!" "Communists!" etc.


Who was correct?

Chiptole.

Their property, their rules. The right of people not to have guns banned by scared leftwing nitwits says nothing about the right of others banning the possession of guns on THEIR property.

Was that really complicated or something?


This thread full of utter lefty nitwits is still going?

It's like a free speech debate.

Stance:"Freedom of Speech is an important right that politicians shouldn't limit willy-nilly."

Dumb lefty doofus that ALWAYS misunderstands everything purposefully in order to score BONE-STUPID political points: "OH, So you MUST be saying I can stand around at the convention and yell FIRE!! and BOMB!!! at the top of my lungs and incite panic, right??!! RIGHT?!!! After all, you just said that freedom of speech means any speech, anywhere, any time!!! AHAHA!! GOTCHA!!! AHAHAHAHAHA!!! I'M SO FUCKING BRILLIANT!!!! HOMERJHNNNDUURPHONKUSKNUCKLEHEAD agrees and circle jerks to my brilliant point!!!"

This stupidity is a form of the above.


But by all means, carry on.