Police Will Abide by Ohio's Open Carry Gun Laws at Convention

[trenchfoot]

First of all, good guys with guns almost never kill innocents. Most defensive gun uses are executed without even firing a shot. Simply brandishing the weapon is usually enough to do the job. Second, you seem to be implying that the good guy with a gun will just randomly start shooting other good guys, which is fucking stupid. Good luck finding a case that fits your fantasy because this almost never happens.



You stopped going to theaters because of gun shootouts? Your ability to assess risk sucks. Do you fear going outside because of lightning strikes? Those are more likely than getting shot in theater shootouts.



How often has your retarded scenario EVER played out? Idiot gun owners just shooting at fucking random because they heard gun shots? If you had a gun, is that how YOU would act?



Because it has never happened. Make believe world doesn't exist.



Correct. Make believe world doesn't exist.



Yes you should. Open carriers commit crimes at a much lower rate than the general population. According to statistics and logic and math, you SHOULD feel far safer around an open carrier than around a random dude off the streets. My guess is that you aren't paranoid as shit around the guy at the gas pump next to you filling his tank at the gas station. That guy is more likely to hurt you than an open carrier.

Thanks for your thoughtful responses. :thumbsup:

I guess what I was "aiming" at was that in their fervent effort to defend their right to bear arms and separate themselves from the nutjobs that accidentally shoot themselves or their loved ones, or like that guy Cheney who shot his friend in the face, or those folks who in an reflexive fit of rage instantly transformed themselves from responsible gun owners into lunatic murderers, or those folks who commit mass murders with firearms, some "responsible" gun owners and fervent defenders of the 2A will severely tax the boundaries of common sense and logic by declaring unrealistic hypotheticals in support of their beliefs.

I simply responded in kind to bring that to light.

 

[Paratus]

Why yes, thank you. I think you too are precious. Which is why I advocate for you to be allowed to have the choice to defend yourself.

Where have advocated for you to not have that choice? The strawman you've built of my argument doesn't count.

Whenever someone wants me to only look at a subset of gun deaths, it activates my bullshit meter. I get the feeling that this person is going to try to sell me on bullshit. Let's see if that holds true...

Feel free to link your own statistics

OK so I'm only allowed to look at a small subset of shooting deaths, because the other shooting deaths are A-OK and should be ignored. Bullshit meater still spiked.

What other deaths? This topic is about carrying at a the GOP politcal conference. We've also branched off into terrorist attacks and mass shootings. It really feels like you arguing against something made up in your in head. :hmm:

I am advocating allowing people the choice to arm themselves legally or not.

Good to know you advocate for people to arm themselves illegally. Would that be for felons to arm themselves or regular folk to possess fully automatic weapons or other proscribed weapons.

Those who arm themselves for self defense will not get sent to assrape prison if caught. Yes, I think that is a great idea.

Again, who's suggesting law abiding gun owners be sent to prison.

Those who choose to legally arm themselves are statistically far less dangerous than the general population.

If arming yourself makes you less dangerous why would you do so for self defense?

Maybe you should elaborate or link to something so I know what the hell you're trying to say here.

You know this and yet you still try to convince people that we should fear these guys.



500 deaths out of 300+ million guns. Tens if not hundreds of thousands of successful uses of guns in self defense. You suck at risk assessment.

Many people suck at risk assessment including you yourself.

Here you are advocating for someone to be armed at a movie theater to protect themselves from a mass shooting that has statistically zero risk of happening in his lifetime.

I'm guessing you would choose the helpless cowering in the corner and hoping your whimpering persuades the asshole not to kill you choice. The asshole with a gun is going to get into your theater. You can't stop him from getting there. The only chance you have of surviving is to successfully flee or to fight back. That's it. What type of tool might increase your chances of survival and has historically almost never harmed innocents in this circumstance?

My bullshit meter is tingling again. Once again you have narrowed the types of shootings so that we can ignore all the ones that don't support your side. Cuz those don't count for some reason. Stop bullshitting people. There are tens if not hundreds of thousands of successful uses of guns in self defense every year in America.

Again if you'd been following along we've been discussing whether carrying to prevent a mass shooting or terrorist attack makes one safer. Since I can find no evidence that an attack once started was stopped by a by-stander with a gun and I can definitely find statistics of carelessness with legal firearms causing deaths, no carrying for this reason doesn't make you safer.

If you'd like to argue other reasons feel free.

Because people can save themselves. Why is this a bad idea again? Why should people be reduced to hoping for mercy from asshole killers?

Again, who said it was a bad idea to be able defend yourself?

OK so only people who are in dangerous enough situations may be allowed to defend themselves. If you are in a nice neighborhood, then no way, you can't defend yourself. Do you see any problems with this? Any at all?

Again who said you can't be armed in a nice neighborhood. I'm saying if you are carrying in your nice neighborhood to protect yourself from terrorism or mass shootings you're making yourself and others less safe. Most people suck at risk assessment.

Nice flowery language... "need" and "theaters FULL of armed people". When given the choice to legally carry or not, most people don't. I can't think of a scenario where more than a few people in a given theater would be armed and neither can you outside of a gun fear fueled fantasy. I'd settle for 1 good armed person over none in an active shooter situation. And so would you.

There have been armed people at mass shootings. Cops who were shot last week. The security guard at the Orlando who was unable to stop the shooter. We've got hundred of millions of guns in the US and millions of concealed weapons permits so when can we expect one to successfully stop an attack?

This word "need" again. "Need" is not the measure of why we may do something or not. You do hundreds of things in a day that you don't "need" to do.

Need works just fine for a tool. The constitution already allows you to have one. A responsible owner who intends to carry should be able to rationally justify why they need not just want a weapon. Otherwise they're just a kid with a toy. Guns shouldn't be treated as toys.

Accidents happen with all kinds of tools and we have decided that it is acceptable. The number 1 cause of death in children is drowning, yet we have not banned pools. Car accidents kill 60 times more people that gun accidents, yet we have decided that the benefits of cars outweigh the negatives. You can try again and again to get me to imagine all these scary mistakes that gun owners make that could get me killed, but it is nothing more than emotional FUD trying to convince people to be irrationally fearful instead of logical. Not OK.

I understand that deaths from carelessness is a sacrifice you're willing to make.

And let me lol about scary FUD:

helpless cowering in the corner and hoping your whimpering persuades the asshole not to kill you choice.

Emotional FUD indeed.

More flowery language. "armed to the teeth". What does that even mean other than to sound extra scary? Do you have facts or historical data or logic or are you doing to stick with flowery emotional misleading language?

My argument isn't about laws to ban guns. It's about the behaviors of responsible gun owners. A responsible gun owner should always be questioning whether carrying today makes them and others safer.

Your argument comes across as nothing more than wish fulfillment. "One good armed person", you said. Is that person you in your head? Like Ralphy from a Christmas Story.

Well real life isn't like our fantasy or our games. There's no COD HUD pointing out the bad guy. No guarantee you'd even see him or that you wouldn't identify the wrong guy, or miss and hit someone else even if you did. Hell you might even shoot your eye out.

In reality you have almost no chance of being in this situation. Your solution hasn't been proven to actually solve the the situation. While the downside of carrying, an accidental shooting, has roughly the same risk of happening as a mass shooting and terrorist attacks the impact is the same, you or someone else wounded or dead. Some solution.

 

[Pipeline 1010]

Thanks for your thoughtful responses. :thumbsup:

I guess what I was "aiming" at was that in their fervent effort to defend their right to bear arms and separate themselves from the nutjobs that accidentally shoot themselves or their loved ones, or like that guy Cheney who shot his friend in the face, or those folks who in an reflexive fit of rage instantly transformed themselves from responsible gun owners into lunatic murderers, or those folks who commit mass murders with firearms, some "responsible" gun owners and fervent defenders of the 2A will severely tax the boundaries of common sense and logic by declaring unrealistic hypotheticals in support of their beliefs.

I simply responded in kind to bring that to light.

Hey man cool response. The tone of your post vs mine is light and day. I think I could benefit from emulating your much more respectful tone. Thanks

I can totally imagine all those things happening but I'm pretty sure it is the irrational fear center of my brain that thinks them up. There is absolutely a chance of accident, fits of rage, etc... But we haven't seen this nightmare scenario unfold despite hundreds or thousands of open carry rallies over the last decade or so. Maybe we are assigning too high of a probability to it actually happening.

 

[Pipeline 1010]

Ya know what? Our quoting of each-other makes kind of a mess. I feel like in order to properly respond, I have to cross reference 3 posts back, link it to my facebook account and check my Tinder location on Google maps. With that being said, here's more of the same.

Where have advocated for you to not have that choice? The strawman you've built of my argument doesn't count.

OK maybe i misunderstood what you meant by "But we don't need theaters full of armed people nor do we need politcal rally's full of armed people. " Perhaps you weren't advocating for any specific laws and you were just hoping people would self regulate. Was I incorrect in my assumption? Wouldn't be the first time.

Feel free to link your own statistics

What other deaths?

The vast majority of gun murders, which are not terrizm or mass shootings.

This topic is about carrying at a the GOP politcal conference. We've also branched off into terrorist attacks and mass shootings. It really feels like you arguing against something made up in your in head. :hmm:
...
So my risk of dieing by mass shooting, terrorism, and accidental shooting is basically 0

You are stating that my chances of dying by some pretty specific types of gun deaths is essentially 0. But you picked the subsets of gun murders that support your argument the most strongly. Cherry picking is usually done to support an agenda. That's what spikes ye olde BS meter. Defending oneself encompasses more than just a sub type of murder.

but you are advocating increasing the number of people who are armed.

No, I'm advocating allowing people the choice. In many states or counties they don't have the choice to carry either concealed or open.

More guns is going to increase the number of accidental shootings and hasn't been shown to decrease deaths from either terrorism or mass shootings.

It actually has been shown to decrease deaths from not only these types of shootings, but also from all types of shootings. All of these incidents of terrorism, or mass shootings were ended by guys with guns. Well, 1 was ended with a robot bomb, but if you wanna cherry pick that one then you are a nitpicky mofo. Another 80,000-4million times each year (hah right 4 mil sure), people successfully defend themselves with guns. At the expense of a few more accidents, I am in favor of a lot more defensive ability.

Good to know you advocate for people to arm themselves illegally.

Le sigh. You actually think I advocate for people to arm themselves illegally? Is there NO other way an internet sentence could have been read? Maybe with a different inflection? Let me re-type my derp quote: "I am advocating allowing people the choice to arm themselves legally or not. " would be more accurately non-derpish if phrased as: "I am advocating allowing people the choice to either arm themselves legally or not to arm themselves at all, if they wish". I seriously don't think that people should ever arm themselves illegally. The law should be changed, not disobeyed.

Again, who's suggesting law abiding gun owners be sent to prison.

The suggestion is that currently owned legal guns, or possessing guns in certain situations should be made illegal. And that would force people who own or bear those guns to either give them up or become felons. Maybe YOU are not advocating making certain guns illegal or making it illegal to carry certain guns in certain situations, but don't act like nobody is.

If arming yourself makes you less dangerous why would you do so for self defense?

Maybe you should elaborate or link to something so I know what the hell you're trying to say here.

Less dangerous in a sense of illegally harming people. Less dangerous to innocent people who aren't threatening the armed person. This is evidenced by the very low amount of crimes committed by people who are legally carrying a gun. I will try to phrase it less derptastic in the future. Man that's at least 2 derpful phrasings on my part so far.

Here you are advocating for someone to be armed at a movie theater

I am advocating for someone to be allowed the choice to be armed at an ANYWHERE. I am not advocating that movie theaters get some special allowance for being armed that other places don't get.

to protect themselves from a mass shooting

No, to protect themselves from a ANYTHING. It might be a mass shooting, it might be an assault, it might be a sub-mass shooting or a stabbing or a batting or a rape attempt.

that has statistically zero risk of happening in his lifetime.

I have thankfully never had a car accident where a seatbelt saved me from harm. The chances of me ever needing it are super low. And yet I wear a seatbelt every single time I'm in a car. Not because it's the law, but because I make a judgement that wearing a seatbelt provides enough potential safety for me that I see a benefit.

Besides, murders and assaults happen at a high enough rate that most people will experience or witness one or more in their lifetime.

Again if you'd been following along we've been discussing whether carrying to prevent a mass shooting or terrorist attack makes one safer.

You're trying real hard to make this only about mass shooting or turrist attacks. There are lots of other attacks that occur...in fact the other attacks dwarf your chosen types. Either way you are safer if you have the ability to defend yourself, yes.

I have no idea why you think I only want to defend myself from mass shootings or terrorist attacks and why you focus so much on them. Are you trying to make me think that only these types of things can hurt me and since they are so unlikely that I shouldn't bother to have the ability to defend myself?

Since I can find no evidence that an attack once started was stopped by a by-stander with a gun and I can definitely find statistics of carelessness with legal firearms causing deaths, no carrying for this reason doesn't make you safer.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defensive_gun_use

Lots of people defend themselves with guns. Lots and lots and lots. You can't find any statistics because you don't try. Or else you have narrowed the types of defense to cover only things that hardly ever happen in attempt to try and trick people into thinking that guns are never actually used in self defense. But no, that would be deceitful...you wouldn't stoop to that.

Again, who said it was a bad idea to be able defend yourself?

Well, you just did: "Since I can find no evidence that an attack once started was stopped by a by-stander with a gun and I can definitely find statistics of carelessness with legal firearms causing deaths, no carrying for this reason doesn't make you safer."

Again who said you can't be armed in a nice neighborhood. I'm saying if you are carrying in your nice neighborhood to protect yourself from terrorism or mass shootings you're making yourself and others less safe. Most people suck at risk assessment.

Again your hard-on with specific types of murders. I don't give a shit if it is terrorism, a mass murder, or some random asshole neighbor who wants to attack me or rape my wife (or myself cuz I'm sexy). Being armed gives me a far higher chance of successful defense. Why else do we arm cops if being armed makes you less safe? You just aren't making any sense.

There have been armed people at mass shootings. Cops who
were shot last week.

What is your point? That if being armed can't save me from snipers then I shouldn't bother? That if cops being armed can't save themselves from snipers that cops shouldn't be armed?

The security guard at the Orlando who was unable to stop the shooter.

Do you think the shooter might have somehow quickly and easily ascertained who the armed guy was? Maybe the guy in the uniform? Do you think he might have known that he was in a "gun free zone"? Why do almost all the big mass murders take place in these zones?

You are again cherry picking incidents that were extreme outliers and using them to attempt to convince me that guns can't be used to defend myself. Yes, if some guy with AR-15s and body armor attacks me then my pistol doesn't have much of a chance of saving me. Are these the only attacks that ever happen or somehow otherwise representative of anything other than a pittance of humans attacking each-other?

We've got hundred of millions of guns in the US and millions of concealed weapons permits so when can we expect one to successfully stop an attack?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defensive_gun_use

Tens of thousands of times. Or hundreds of thousands or millions. Depending on who's estimates and agenda you support.

A responsible gun owner should always be questioning whether carrying today makes them and others safer.

Agreed 100%.

Your argument comes across as nothing more than wish fulfillment. "One good armed person", you said. Is that person you in your head? Like Ralphy from a Christmas Story.

Yes, in many cases this person is in my head, since there are many gun free zones where people aren't allowed to defend themselves. I'd like this person to actually exist.

[/QUOTE]Well real life isn't like our fantasy or our games. There's no COD HUD pointing out the bad guy. No guarantee you'd even see him or that you wouldn't identify the wrong guy, or miss and hit someone else even if you did. Hell you might even shoot your eye out.[/QUOTE]

Wait a minute. If there isn't a guarantee that having a defensive weapon could be successfully used in defense, then I shouldn't be allowed that weapon? A positive guarantee is the threshold?

In reality you have almost no chance of being in this situation. Your solution hasn't been proven to actually solve the the situation. While the downside of carrying, an accidental shooting, has roughly the same risk of happening as a mass shooting and terrorist attacks the impact is the same, you or someone else wounded or dead. Some solution.

I can now understand why your focus is only 2 types of rare assaults. It is because they are rare and you can try to make people think that these are the only 2 types of assaults that ever happen and therefore since they are rare you shouldn't even bother to try and defend yourself. I am more convinced now than ever that you are intentionally trying to deceive.

 

[Pipeline 1010]

Geez.....you're really not going to use that as a logical argument, are you? Oh, I guess you did.

Do you even understand the argument? As a society, we have decided that lots of things that kill people should be legal because the benefit outweighs the cost.

Here's the rebuttal.....while we haven't outlawed pools because kids can and do drown in them, almost all localities have some sort of requirements for pools to try to prevent accidental drownings by children in pools, such as requiring fences, gates, etc.

And yet even with all of these regulations, pools kill more kids than guns. Or cancer. Or anything else. Yet they are still legal because we find pools to me more useful than harmful. It is a valid point.

I'm not sure if you know this, but there are more regulations on guns than pools.

And the tool argument is also just ludicrous. I've seen persons state guns are tools like knives, hammers and machetes. But that ignores how lethal each of those "tools" can be.

And you ignore how effective each of those tools can be in self defense. Or for any other useful reason.

For example, on Dec. 14, 2012, a man armed with an AR-15 attacked an elementary school in Newtown, Conn., shooting 20 students and eight adults.

You mean someone with a gun went to a gun free zone and killed a bunch of people? Who could possibly have anticipated this? Surely the murderer would realize that guns are not allowed and would have avoided this place. By the way, guys with guns stopped him.

The same day, a man wielding a knife assaulted people at a school in Chempeng, China, stabbing 23 children and one adult.

At Sandy Hook, all 20 children and six of the eight adults died. In China, there wasn’t a single fatality. The gun made all the difference. Firearms are more lethal than knives, machetes and hammers.

You are correct. That is why we call guys with guns to stop gun attackers and knife attackers. Guns are lethal in self defense, too.

Gunshot wounds frequently cause catastrophic damage.

Oh, absolutely. This is what makes them such effective tools to defend oneself from an attacker.

And the ability to maintain a quick and steady rate of fire allows a gunman to maximize casualties.

Mass killings are a small % of gun deaths. Like 1% small. You seem overly focused on a really tiny percent of an overall problem. Why?

There is a reason that American mass killers choose guns to carry out their attacks, not knives or hammers.

Yes, evil killers sometimes choose the most effective weapons. Why should we be banned from defending ourselves with these weapons?

 

[Jhhnn]

Yes, evil killers sometimes choose the most effective weapons. Why should we be banned from defending ourselves with these weapons?

Because the same capabilities aren't really useful in terms of civilian self defense. If you can't successfully defend yourself with the first few rounds you'll very likely be dead or incapacitated anyway.

 

[Fenixgoon]

Because the same capabilities aren't really useful in terms of civilian self defense. If you can't successfully defend yourself with the first few rounds you'll very likely be dead or incapacitated anyway.

so better to have virtually no chance than A chance, right?

 

[Jhhnn]

so better to have virtually no chance than A chance, right?

Wut?

 

[GarfieldtheCat]

Once again, police show they don't care about the law:

http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/17/politics/cleveland-police-baton-rouge-security-open-carry/index.html

"We are sending a letter to Gov. Kasich requesting assistance from him. He could very easily do some kind of executive order or something -- I don't care if it's constitutional or not at this point," Stephen Loomis, president of Cleveland Police Patrolmen's Association, told CNN. "They can fight about it after the RNC or they can lift it after the RNC, but I want him to absolutely outlaw open-carry in Cuyahoga County until this RNC is over."

LOL..cops allegedly are supposed to uphold the law, but he is opening calling for an illegal executive order.

How typical of cops....."we will ignore the law, but you have to obey".

 

[Knowing]

No one wants to talk about mass shootings that don't make the news. There's a reason, and it's the most obvious exercise of mass dogwhistle racism I've ever seen.

 

[Jhhnn]

No one wants to talk about mass shootings that don't make the news. There's a reason, and it's the most obvious exercise of mass dogwhistle racism I've ever seen.

It comes down to exploitation of White fear a la Willie Horton. Most mass shootings are white on white crime so that angle isn't there for bigots & the sensationalist media to play on.

Notice the difference in the way the media plays different incidents, like this-

http://www.mydaytondailynews.com/ne...massacre-differs-from-most-mass-killin/nrMXm/

 

[Knowing]

It comes down to exploitation of White fear a la Willie Horton. Most mass shootings are white on white crime so that angle isn't there for bigots & the sensationalist media to play on.

Notice the difference in the way the media plays different incidents, like this-

http://www.mydaytondailynews.com/ne...massacre-differs-from-most-mass-killin/nrMXm/

Are you sure that most mass shootings are white on white? I'd very much like to see the evidence.

Re: Pike county, the last I heard they still hadn't arrested anyone but it was thought to be drug related.

 

[Humpy]

Once again, police show they don't care about the law:

http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/17/politics/cleveland-police-baton-rouge-security-open-carry/index.html



LOL..cops allegedly are supposed to uphold the law, but he is opening calling for an illegal executive order.

How typical of cops....."we will ignore the law, but you have to obey".

You kinda have to take the stupid shit that union leaders say with an understanding that it's their job to say stupid shit.

Still, it's indicative of the unprofessionalism that has led to the police being in the position they are today. They are so bad at their jobs that they don't believe they can operate within the law. So bad that people actually want to kill them.

 

[GarfieldtheCat]

You kinda have to take the stupid shit that union leaders say with an understanding that it's their job to say stupid shit.

Still, it's indicative of the unprofessionalism that has led to the police being in the position they are today. They are so bad at their jobs that they don't believe they can operate within the law. So bad that people actually want to kill them.

He is a cop as well, or at least he was recently. That makes it even worse.

 

[JEDI]

Cleveland's police chief said Wednesday he would prefer that people not bring firearms to the Republican National Convention that kicks off next week — but said it is legal to do so.
"It's the law in this state and as police chief, I'm bound to uphold the law in this state," Police Chief Calvin Williams said at a news conference Tuesday.
More than 5,000 police officers are expected to be on hand when the Republican convention begins Monday.
The party's controversial candidate, Donald Trump, is expected to be nominated at the convention, and the city is bracing for protests.
Three hundred police officers on bikes will be patrolling, and part of their job will be separating potentially hostile groups from one another, a police official confirmed.

There will be two rings of security outside the convention. No guns will be allowed in a secure zone inside the convention site and right outside it, an area controlled by the Secret Service. In the larger area outside the event, guns will be permitted in accordance with Ohio state law, but other items — including knives, paintball guns, and umbrellas with sharp tips, will be prohibited, officials said.


Members of the controversial "black power" group the New Black Panther Party plan to pack legal heat when they hold rallies in Cleveland in conjunction with next week's Republican convention if the law allows, the group's chairman said.

I can see banning guns on convention center property since it's private property and the owners have a right to not allow guns.
I'm assuming the outer security ring is still convention center property?

as for open carry itself... hahahaha the repubs getting a small piece of justice for their no restrictions on guns stance.

also, am I the only one that thinks that repubs have a better chance of winning the Prez if Trump goes down and Pierce becomes the main runner? (or whatever the vp guy's name is)

 

[rudder]

I can see banning guns on convention center property since it's private property and the owners have a right to not allow guns.
I'm assuming the outer security ring is still convention center property?

as for open carry itself... hahahaha the repubs getting a small piece of justice for their no restrictions on guns stance.

The conservatives and republicans that prefer fewer restrictions on firearms are generally law abiding citizens. Imagine if a white supremacist group in 2012 said they will protest and the democratic national convention by open carrying outside the convention. This coming after the same group advocating publicly for violence against police black officers as well as black people in general.

What do you think would happen? I can tell you... it would never happen. If it did there would be a DoJ come down like a hammer in response and a media shit storm would ensue like you have never seen.

Yet here we have the new black panther party openly advocating violence in Cleveland, as well as having openly advocated violence against police officers and white people in general. And the white house and the DoJ just say ho hum. And liberals scratch their collective heads and blame the NRA for violence in America.

 

[JEDI]

Yet here we have the new black panther party openly advocating violence in Cleveland, as well as having openly advocated violence against police officers and white people in general. And the white house and the DoJ just say ho hum. And liberals scratch their collective heads and blame the NRA for violence in America.

it says America accepts:
white violence vs blacks = bad.
black violence vs conservatives/repubs = good?

 

[Rhonda the Sly]

Yet here we have the new black panther party openly advocating violence in Cleveland, as well as having openly advocated violence against police officers and white people in general. And the white house and the DoJ just say ho hum. And liberals scratch their collective heads and blame the NRA for violence in America.

So far we have the NBPP planning to protest while armed, claiming to only need the arms to defend themselves, and Bikers for Trump will be riding around the convention trying to deter any assaults on police by protesters. A total shit-show that may end up in violence but I've yet to hear anyone "openly advocating violence in Cleveland," though I may have missed it.

Nzinga said he expected “a couple hundred” members of the New Black Panther Party to participate in and protect a black unity rally -- the "National Convention of the Oppressed" -- that is scheduled to begin in Cleveland on Thursday evening and end on Monday morning. Nzinga said he and the Panthers plan to leave Cleveland on Sunday, the day before the convention officially opens.

“We are there to protect ... We are not trying to do anything else,” he said. "We are going to carry out some of these great legal rights we have -- to assemble, to protest and (to exercise) freedom of speech.”

The NBPP should already be gone, according to the quote. Obviously other groups are still there.

We feel like it’s open season on law enforcement, there’s an assault on decency, and we’re here to stand with law enforcement, and in the event that we’re needed we’ll step up

...

We will be there to make sure that the delegates are allowed to exercise their right to peacefully assemble,” Cox said. “We’ve seen how these paid agitators have thrown eggs and gotten violent at other Trump events around the country and we’re not going to put up with it.

The worst part of this all is how everyone feels the need to be armed despite the usual pleading by the police about leaving arms at home or not engaging. Seems no one has any faith in the police.

 

[Jhhnn]

The conservatives and republicans that prefer fewer restrictions on firearms are generally law abiding citizens. Imagine if a white supremacist group in 2012 said they will protest and the democratic national convention by open carrying outside the convention. This coming after the same group advocating publicly for violence against police black officers as well as black people in general.

What do you think would happen? I can tell you... it would never happen. If it did there would be a DoJ come down like a hammer in response and a media shit storm would ensue like you have never seen.

Yet here we have the new black panther party openly advocating violence in Cleveland, as well as having openly advocated violence against police officers and white people in general. And the white house and the DoJ just say ho hum. And liberals scratch their collective heads and blame the NRA for violence in America.

I challenge you to link those assertions to actual quotes from reliable sources.

Otherwise, it's just more of your usual bigoted bullshit.

 

[glenn1]

So where is the massive carnage that was supposed to be the inevitable result of concealed carriers outside the RNC convention? So far the biggest calamity so far seems to be someone setting himself on fire while trying to burn an American flag and some cops sustaining minor injuries from protesters.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/20/politics/cleveland-republican-convention-protests/index.html

 

[HomerJS]

The conservatives and republicans that prefer fewer restrictions on firearms are generally law abiding citizens. Imagine if a white supremacist group in 2012 said they will protest and the democratic national convention by open carrying outside the convention. This coming after the same group advocating publicly for violence against police black officers as well as black people in general.

What do you think would happen? I can tell you... it would never happen. If it did there would be a DoJ come down like a hammer in response and a media shit storm would ensue like you have never seen.

Yet here we have the new black panther party openly advocating violence in Cleveland, as well as having openly advocated violence against police officers and white people in general. And the white house and the DoJ just say ho hum. And liberals scratch their collective heads and blame the NRA for violence in America.

Rather then scratch my head I listened to what the NBPP leader actually said. He was predicting there will be violence. He did not in any way say his people will commit any kind of violence.

there’s no way we are going to get through this convention without some kind of violence

That's a prediction not advocating. Trump however opined how much he wished he was back in the day where protestors can be beaten up.

 

[master_shake_]

The good guys are wearing a uniform.

no /s on the end of that?

i am dissapoint.