Security is Important at Political Conventions-But Not in Florida-Bring that Gun to Your Protest

[fightthegoodfightnow]

Check this nonsense out: You'll be allowed to bring your gun to the protest area outside the GOP convention, but not that squirt gun....and forget about that pointed umbrella.

That's because Florida has taken away the right of jurisdictions to govern themselves when it comes to guns.

From today's NY Times editorial page: "Tampa officials wanted to ban handguns outside the convention hall (the Secret Service has undisputed power to ban weapons inside the hall) but came up against the state law, which imposes $100,000 fines on local governments that try to meet such obvious public-safety needs. This lethal parody of gun control should be repealed, like the notorious Stand Your Ground law. But voters cannot expect common sense from the Republican-controlled Legislature, which is on a leash held by the gun lobby."

Original link incorrectly posted
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/06/opinion/playing-the-violence-card.html?_r=1&ref=opinion

Correct link is:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/06/opinion/the-law-of-the-gun-in-florida.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss


------------
This post is being made on this board so as to discuss gun control laws (banning guns at political conventions), the Second Amendment, the use of firearms for self-defense (presuming it's not for offensive purposes as well), and the use of firearms to commit crime and violence (guns used to intimidate free speech at political rallies and/or to commit violence).

[petronius]

1. Perhaps the real 'common sense' failure is in the squirt gun & umbrella

area, rather than firearms law?

(I don't think that's the link you intended, by the way...)

[fightthegoodfightnow]

24. Thanks

Thanks for pointing out the incorrect link.

[Clames]

2. I'd say this thread should be locked...

...simply because of your deliberate misquoting of the group SOP.

This post is being made on this board so as to discuss gun control laws (banning guns at political conventions), the Second Amendment, the use of firearms for self-defense (presuming it's not for offensive purposes as well), and the use of firearms to commit crime and violence (guns used to intimidate free speech at political rallies and/or to commit violence).

What a load of nonsense indeed...



What purpose do squirt guns serve at such events? Can't discuss the issue so squirt them with water? Are SuperSoakers protected by the 2A?

[fightthegoodfightnow]

7. Of Course You Do

Of course you do.

But guess what, it's specifically about a gun law in Florida that is allowing people to bring guns to a protest area of a political convention where the local community does not want guns brought into and whether or not there should be a gun control law for such a scenerio just like there is a control on just about everything else one can carry into that area.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

10. Seriously

What exactly do you think political assassinations are all about?

Using a gun to commit a crime to silence political opposition and speech.

[PavePusher]

14. And if you could demonstrate that a law banning carry at this event....

would prevent such an attempt, you might have a talking point.

But you haven't, so you don't.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

19. Ever Been to a Fourth of July Event in DC

Try carrying a fire arm in public space on the mall there during the fourth of July.

You're not allowed.

No violence sense.

[shadowrider]

26. What does D.C. have to do with a thread regarding Florida?

Just curious.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

36. Nothing

....except it addresses his statement that public rallies where guns are banned have no record of reducing crime.

[Clames]

65. And has ever it happened?

Can you say with 100% absolute certainty that the law has stopped every single person from carrying a firearm on that public space during the 4th of July? Of course you could but have not one piece of evidence to back up such a claim. Just one more reason not to live in DC.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

67. Right

...because God forbid you are wrong.

No need to prove your false negatives when you have an explanation for everything.....

[fightthegoodfightnow]

74. Right

Speed limits don't save lives.

And banning guns and securing the speech zone would never reduce the risk of gun violence.

[ManiacJoe]

29. Squirt guns are a security problem for events.

> What purpose do squirt guns serve at such events? Can't discuss the issue so
> squirt them with water? Are SuperSoakers protected by the 2A?

The problem comes when they are filled with something other than water.

[Starboard Tack]

38. What purpose do any guns serve at such events?

[ManiacJoe]

58. The same self defense purpose they serve everywhere else.

Their purpose is not location dependent.

That said, in crowds a melee weapon may be a better tactical choice than a distance weapon, should the need arise.

[Starboard Tack]

62. Melee, schmelee

Your screen name says it all. No FUCKING weapon is appropriate in a crowd.

[Straw Man]

79. Schmelee.

No FUCKING weapon is appropriate in a crowd.

Should trained martial artists be required to wear handcuffs in crowds?

[Starboard Tack]

81. Oh, do forgive me Mr Straw Man

But I think you know what I mean. But, if they are wingnut ninjas, yes, cuff them and shackle them and bury them up to their silly red necks. Then read them the riot act. Happy now?

[Straw Man]

82. You're forgiven.

But I think you know what I mean. But, if they are wingnut ninjas, yes, cuff them and shackle them and bury them up to their silly red necks. Then read them the riot act. Happy now?

Obviously happier than you on this particular day.

[Starboard Tack]

85. IOYK

[Callisto32]

98. What the the SS agents when the prez speaks?

Right, you only meant "no FUCKING weapons" for "those people."

[gejohnston]

59. union organizer or anti war activist

in a sea of Republicans, you tell me.

[Starboard Tack]

63. LOL

[rrneck]

3. Maybe every gun owning Democrat in Florida

should show up with rifles slung.

[ileus]

4. Why remove rights from the people?

[fightthegoodfightnow]

8. Are You Talking About Inside the Convention or Outside?

Are You Talking About Inside the Convention or Outside?

Inside the convention, presumably everyone has credentials and is less likely to present a threat to the safety of those in the area, yet guns are banned.

Outside the convention in the protest area, presumably no one has credentials and it is more likely that violence could start with protesters and GOP supporters presenting a threat to the safety of those in the area, yet guns are allowed.

That may make sense to you, but if you are going to complain about 'removing' the rights from people, you can't have it both ways.

[ileus]

32. Exactly....neither should be off limits.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

33. That's Consistant

...but not likely to happen.

[gejohnston]

5. Local premetion laws are a bitch

but needed in places like Florida where people commute across county lines to their jobs. Of course, there is the rare "oh shit", but so be it. I seriously doubt the protesters will be carrying, and this guy's opinion is just that, an opinion.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

71. Right

....because gun violence at political rallies by political opponents hasn't killed that many recently and it's certainly never resulted in the resignation or attempted assassination of a member of Congress.....NOT.

[gejohnston]

86. we are talking about CCW holders

crazy people who assassinate normally don't bother with those. So, they could be busted for a felony if the cops set up metal detectors. Problem solved. Want to keep CCW holders to not to carry in the area, a free something for walking through the metal detector unarmed.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

87. Always the Same

Have no laws because according to you criminals ignore them anyway.

Why then is it illegal inside but not outside the hall?

[gejohnston]

90. because neither Tampa or Hillsborough County is making the rule

It was either the RNC, USSSS, or the guy owns the hall. Since they are not local governments, the preemption law does not apply to them.
If the Florida Leg wanted to, they could call a special session to amend the law for rare cases like this. Or, if the Tampa mayor and his staff could come up with a way around it. If the Tampa mayor was smart, he would have a low key way around it instead of bringing unwanted attention to the city.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

91. He has to be quite about his convictions about things in his town?

Because gun lovers think it brings bad attention to he city? LOL. That's just not the job of a mayor and politically stupid.

[gejohnston]

94. you missed the point

I would just find away around it but getting the same effect. This would be the rare exception that no one thought about. After the convention, no one will care.
Local preemption laws exist for a good reason. That is why most states have them. Without it, each county had their own regulations which were not widely known, causing accidental criminals, but did nothing for public safety. In places like Wyoming, where a county has the same land area as Vermont or Massachusetts, it is not a big deal. Here, you can drive through three counties to work.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

95. Ok

You write serious 'I would just find away around it but getting the same effect.'

That might be true if there was some political cost to asking the question 'does this sound reasonable?'. There isn't. No one other than his electorate can vote.

As for state laws trumping local laws ....sure.....necessary....but often with undesired consequences.

[gejohnston]

97. I am serious about some things

but you have to look at what is likely to happen. Most CCW type folks I know don't show up to political rallies.

A lot of things sound silly on the surface, but when you look deeper at it, it may not be. Most of the time you are making a solution in search of a problem. The city and its reputation should be before his political aims. Since I don't live in Tampa, he is not overly concerned about my vote. In Tampa, it is a non issue. The convention will come and go without a shootout, and everyone will forget about it.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

99. His position enhances his reputation.

That's what we disagree on.

As that history....it's yet to be written.

[gejohnston]

101. it might

might not. Probably will not do anything. Tampa is not DC.
I actually like DC better than Tampa (besides gun laws). Traffic, the Metro, museums. Bolling has a nicer NCO Club. But I digress.
There is a businessman that runs for city council every four years. He lives in a mostly Republican area but has been unable to unseat the retired school teacher. He still hasn't figured out that the church ladies in his ward will vote for a Democrat before they will vote for the local porn/nudie bar king.
Out of the large cities I have been to, I would either pick Okinawa City or some area in metro Manila over either one.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

102. Yes

...you digress.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

6. Might I suggest you change your sigline to read:

This post is being made on this board so as to discuss gun control laws (banning guns at political conventions), the Second Amendment, the use of firearms for self-defense (presuming it's not for offensive purposes as well), and the use of firearms to commit crime and violence (guns used to intimidate free speech at political rallies and/or to commit violence).

just trying to save you some time, trouble and keystrokes...

[fightthegoodfightnow]

9. Here's What I Think

So long as someone is always moaning about wanting to lock a thread I start (and already on this board someone has), I'm going to explain why the thread is acceptable. I'm saving my self time by explaining the justification before someone even gets the idea.

Some folks think gun rights trump even free speech.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

13. We need to change the SoP to more inclusive and better defined.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

40. I look forward to US doing that

.

[Starboard Tack]

39. " Some folks think gun rights trump even free speech. "

A lot more than some, apparently. Check the outrage displayed by pro-proliferators on the Redwood City newspaper publishing CC permit holders details.
Their goose is very upset with the gander.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

41. WOW

How sad.......public records of gun permits no longer belong to public?

Thanks for posting.

Shows the hypocrisy of the gun 'rights' crowd......

[krispos42]

52. How about car registration? Driver's licences? n/t

[fightthegoodfightnow]

53. Interesting

Interesting argument.

Is there a difference between the two?

You could argue either way.

Voting registration is made public to candidates and often public.

Driver registration is made public to insurance companies.

[Straw Man]

80. I think ...

Driver registration is made public to insurance companies.

... that you don't really understand what "made public" means.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

89. He made a valid point

When have you ever conceded anything.

[krispos42]

107. Do you want anybody with an internet connection to be able to scroll through them?

Think carefully what this would mean for, say, women.


Some sick pervert scrolling through a DL database until he can find what he likes. And what she drives.

Employment records? Where she works. And gun records and pet licensing records? Self-defense status. Property-tax records give you a house size and value, which would indicate how wealthy she is and perhaps even a floor plan.

Police dispatch records might even indicate if she has an alarm system or not.

School records would indicate school-age children.

I mean, imagine your sister or daughter being vulnerable in this sort of way.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

108. Already being done

See article in Washington Post this weekend about political parties tracking potential supporters by what you read and the links of websites.

almost all of what you now think is private is not......and guns are far more dangerous.

[Clames]

66. Your thread got locked...

...because you either did not read the SOP or decided not to take it seriously. Some folks think their opinions trump civil rights (gun rights included).

[fightthegoodfightnow]

69. Nah

They were both UNLOCKED upon further review by thread monitors----with supporting justification BY THEM.

[rrneck]

12. How 'bout this?

This post is being made on this board so as to discuss gun control laws (they make me feel all warm and fuzzy inside), the Second Amendment, the use of firearms for self-defense (which only happens in places I wouldn't be caught dead and to people I have no use for anyway), and the use of firearms to commit crime and violence (especially the crime of questioning my cloistered ideology and violence against my sanctimonious partisanship).

[Tuesday Afternoon]

16. oh lord

sad - because it is funny because it is a lot of truth in it . . .

[fightthegoodfightnow]

18. More

This thread is indeed being made to discuss gun control laws and the use of firearms to commit crime and violence.

Do you have anything to say other than to say you disagree? Better yet, how about coming up with a substantive, coherent and logical argument for your position.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

21. I don't give a damn what they do at the Republican Convention.

Happy now?

[fightthegoodfightnow]

23. No

I doubt there is anything that you will ever say to make me happy.

Do you have anything to say about guns other than to say you disagree? Better yet, how about coming up with a substantive, coherent and logical argument for your position.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

27. how about reading my other posts in this group? --

My position regarding 2A as a cornerstone of our constitution?

what exactly do you want from me in regards to your OP?

I told you I don't give a damn what they do at the Repub convention. Is there something more that needs to be said?

[fightthegoodfightnow]

35. So

....you think it makes sense to protest outside the GOP convention and be told you can't bring your umbrella but you can bring your gun?

You see nothing wrong with that?

[Tuesday Afternoon]

64. asked and answered.

[iverglas]

119. strangely short memory you have there

Oh, okay, it was a Democratic Party convention, but still,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago_Seven

?

An old buddy of mine was one of the unindicted co-conspirators.

They didn't seem to feel the need to cart guns around with them.

And I'm still not getting what a bunch of gun militants at a Republican Convention are afraid of ... Deranged hippies with handguns, I suppose.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

121. Oh, iverglas --

what.ever.

I have no idea what nor do I care.

I could NOT care less what the hell Repubs do and as for fear, looks like they are afraid of everything but, I don't know for sure because I am not going to the time or trouble to ask each individual Repub what the hell.

[iverglas]

122. I guess my point was

Last edited Tue Apr 10, 2012, 10:26 AM - Edit history (1)

It is not likely to be just Republicans hanging around outside the convention, don't you think?

I expect there are going to be some protesters.

And I expect that people protesting against the Republican Party might just find it a tad intimidating to know that there are people carrying guns at the festivities.

The Chicago demonstrators didn't want to be carrying guns there. I don't imagine the people protesting against the Republican Party want to be carrying guns there. Who wants to be carrying guns there? Hm. And why? Hm.

Insert picture of tea party assholes with guns at health care town meetings ...



edit ... I know it isn't the "Republic" Party ... but I was up all night

[Tuesday Afternoon]

123. Because you have a naturally suspicious nature

and a healthy dose of curiosity about it all and have made some salient points but, honestly. I don't give a shit.

-I- would not go NEAR the place and -I- advise others to do the same. Fuck the dumb. Go do something FUN for chrissake!! You would be in Florida. My ass would be at the beach or Disneyworld or in the interior at a Horse Farm.

I have no desire to be there and Have trouble understanding why anyone would.

So, you see, I have a real disconnect with it all.

[gejohnston]

125. I think you have it backwards

The Republicans can't carry inside the hall anyway, so they won't be "toting". The problem would be hippies and other cool people having to defend themselves from drunk and deranged Republicans.

[iverglas]

126. um

I don't think all the Republicans (and worse) in Florida will fit inside that hall ... unfortunately.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

17. You're Right

This thread is indeed being made to discuss gun control laws and the use of firearms to commit crime and violence.

Do you have anything to say other than to say you disagree? Better yet, how about coming up with a substantive, coherent and logical argument for your position.

[slackmaster]

11. California has a similar state preemption law

From the California Government Code:

GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION

State Preemption of Firearm Regulation

53071. It is the intention of the Legislature to occupy the whole field of regulation of the registration or licensing of commercially manufactured firearms as encompassed by the provisions of the Penal Code, and such provisions shall be exclusive of all local regulations, relating to registration or licensing of commercially manufactured firearms, by any political subdivision as defined in Section 1721 of the Labor Code.

53071.5 By the enforcement of this section, the Legislature occupies the whole field of regulation of the manufacture, sale, or possession of imitation firearms, as defined in Section 12250 of the Penal Code, and that section shall preempt and be exclusive of all regulations relating to the manufacture, sale, or possession of imitation firearms, including regulations governing the manufacture, sale, or possession of BB devices and air rifles described in subdivision (g) of Section 12001 of the Penal Code.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

15. No Doubt

Most states have similar laws often with undesired consequences.

The entire South used state supremacy laws to squelch local towns and cities who wanted to enact equal opportunity laws but state courts ruled they couldn't all because of such state tactics.

The state may have that right but it makes absolutely no sense (in my opinion) to do so given the threat of violence is far more likely outside the convention than inside.

[slackmaster]

20. "Undesired consequences" are in the eye of the beholder

Residents of San Francisco who want to keep their lawfully owned handguns have been grateful for the preemption law at least three times in the last decade, when the county supervisors have attempted to ram through blanket bans.

The state may have that right but it makes absolutely no sense (in my opinion) to do so given the threat of violence is far more likely outside the convention than inside.

People who are concerned about the possibility of violence outside of the convention have the option of not going there.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

22. People

...should be able to go to public places without feeling threatened by people with guns.

[slackmaster]

42. Threatening people is behavior that can and is defined as crime. Feelings result from choices.

If someone is actually threatening you, you can call the police.

If you choose to feel threatened when nobody is actually threatening you, that is your problem.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

43. Right

...because according to you ......guns aren't threatening to anyone.

Calling to the stand.......Mr. Zimmerman.

[slackmaster]

44. I've never said any such thing.

And you have no "right" to feel any particular way.

Have a great weekend!

[fightthegoodfightnow]

45. So

...which is it......guns are threatening or not?

[slackmaster]

48. Bad behavior is threatening. Bad behavior with guns is much more threatening.

Guns by themselves are inanimate objects.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

50. Right

.....like sugar in coffee.....no difference......just an inanimate item......really......

[slackmaster]

60. That may be a better analogy than you intended, FTGFN

The sugar you DON'T put in your coffee can't do you any harm. It just sits there doing nothing until it is consumed.

Sugar can be used responsibly. I can also be misused. It certainly ruins a good cup of coffee.

[rl6214]

104. Sugar to me would be much more threatening, if consumed since I am Type 1 diabetic.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

106. Sorry to hear that

Now back to guns.

Is sugar violent?

[rl6214]

109. Dosen't matter, I didn't bring it up, I just commented on it.

[rl6214]

103. People are threatening, guns are not.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

105. How Original

People can do more damage with guns than without.

Let's regulate how people can buy guns.

An original post to match yours.

[rl6214]

110. Not my fault you are threatened by a hunk of metal

That's your problem.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

111. I sure that's what you .......

....'think'.

No doubt why you bought a gun.....because it's a hunk of metal.

[PavePusher]

46. Depends on the use it is put to.

But you knew that.

Merely bearing, with no brandishing or other explicit threat is not a crime. There have been actual court cases on this, not sure if they are published verdicts or not.

Same as First Amendment Rights, mere exercise of the right is not a threat or crime, it has to pass a defined, discernable threshold.

[iverglas]

120. I think the word we're all after is actually "intimidating"

It ain't illegal. But it sure ain't DEMOCRATIC, either, to create an intimidating atmosphere in a society's public spaces, especially the space where democratic processes are taking place, and tell anybody who feels intimidated by such obviously fucking intentionally intimidating behaviour that they are welcome to fuck off and stay home.


A man carries an AR-15 rifle during a Barack Obama opposition rally in Phoenix Monday.
Jack Kurtz/The Arizona Republic/AP/File

Poor fellow was just concerned for his safety in the middle of all those strangers.

[slackmaster]

124. Wow, a black guy with a rifle!

Now THAT'S intimidating.

[rrneck]

25. I see

no evidence that you are able to equitably discuss the issue. But be that as it may, I will, in the spirit of intellectual curiosity, offer this:

1. Just because some elected official has opted to have a political gathering in a particular place, the surrounding area should not be designated a "restricted rights zone" in terms of firearms or any other constitutionally guaranteed right. It is a public space, occupied by the public. Enhanced security is available for those attending the event, and that should be adequate.

2. There is nothing on god's green earth the keep somebody from showing up with an AR-15, a shotgun, or a Ford F-150 and terrorizing the crowd no matter what the law says. The enactment and enforcement of such a law is a waste of public resources better put to use providing better education and health care to people who need it.

3. Any attempt to tell a bunch of Republicans they cant bring a firearm to the GOP convention would be a partisan political nitrous oxide/steroid injection. Why don't you just deliver fifty tons of red meat for them to chew on?

Give it a rest for fucks sake.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

31. Nah

1. Regarding your first point, why the distinction between the two spaces?

2. True- but even more reason for restricting the guns. Do we need another Zimmerman so we can have weak laws and enable him or her to get off?

3. Regarding your third point, they CAN'T bring a gun into the Convention!!!!!

No, I won't give it a rest 'for fu*ks' safe. Ignore me or post. Choice is yours.

[rrneck]

47. Ok.

1. Regarding your first point, why the distinction between the two spaces?

One can and should be controlled, the other cannot.

2. True- but even more reason for restricting the guns. Do we need another Zimmerman so we can have weak laws and enable him or her to get off?

Fine lovely and marvelous. See #1.

3. Regarding your third point, they CAN'T bring a gun into the Convention!!!!!

So what's the problem? Oh, I see, the problem is you want to parse the issue into oblivion. From your OP:

From today's NY Times editorial page: "Tampa officials wanted to ban handguns outside the convention hall (the Secret Service has undisputed power to ban weapons inside the hall) but came up against the state law, which imposes $100,000 fines on local governments that try to meet such obvious public-safety needs.

Apparently you were born before 2010 when there was a brouhaha regarding the carriage of firearms to political rallies. You're late to the piss and moan party.

If you actually wanted to see Democrats elected, you'd give it a rest. This OP, like your position, is a politically tone deaf exercise in sanctimonious self congratulation.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

49. Ridiculous

So according to you it's necessary to protect political speech inside a stadium at a political rally for those with money and influence but not so much for those outside protesting. Got it.

I do want to see strong Democratic candidates who support gun laws that protect the American people. Why don't you? Far more Republicans agree with you than Democrats as evidenced by NRA endorsements.

We are not the Nazi party.....reasonable people can disagree. As for being born after 2010, I'll simply say you are very smart.....and no I'm not late to the party......LOL.

You get points though for talking about.........guns.

[rrneck]

54. Just as I thought.

So according to you it's necessary to protect political speech inside a stadium at a political rally for those with money and influence but not so much for those outside protesting. Got it.

You are unable to equitably discuss the issue. No points for you. Firearms cannot be physically controlled in the physical world of the great physical outdoors by people who physically exist. It doesn't matter how much you run, dodge, parse, elude, hide, shimmy or shake around that reality, when thousands of people come from all over the country to gather in one place, they will be perfectly free to bring whatever they want in their pockets and there is nothing to stop them.

I am still waiting for you to talk about guns because whether you know it or not, you are only willing to discuss your ideology, which has nothing to do with anything in the real world. At least I thought you might be willing to discuss political realities, but I guess that was beyond you as well.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

55. Equitably?

You mean like ban guns at both?

[rrneck]

56. Keep rowing with one oar.

That circle's getting smaller and smaller.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

72. Ever Been To

....Times Square on New Years or the Washington Mall on the Fourth of July.

Let me know what happens when you bring your gun.

[rrneck]

77. You have a point.

Fair bet it's pretty tight. And expensive. And of course we don't know who beat security, but I don't recall hearing about any shootings at either event. Probably because even the biggest nut in the world has better sense than to start shooting in the middle of a crowd of thousands of people. There would be no escape. Anyone behind him could fall on him like a ton of bricks. But you have a good point. I bet they could keep them out.

Of course, another question to ask is should they? What do you think the political ramifications of liberals telling conservatives they can't carry a gun to the GOP convention would be? Especially in Florida, the birthplace of concealed carry and "stand your ground"?

Given the nationwide acceptance of both statutes, energizing the liberal base when the chances of their voting for a Republican are less than zero is not only a waste of political capital, it would alienate millions of centrist and slightly left voters who obviously favor CCW and SYG.

Political ideology really isn't a consumer product even though you acquired yours that way.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

78. True on Many Points

Security was tightened, expensive and no lives lost.

By the way, GUNS are NOT allowed in the GOP Convention hall.

We are talking about the protest zone outside the hall where many DEMOCRATS will be.

Given recent gun violence and killings at a recent political rally and political threats using gun images by GOP candidates, the threat is real.

Same rules should apply at both conventions.

[rrneck]

83. So

where would the perimeter be? What's to keep gun toters of every political persuasion from congregating just outside it.

I guarantee if anything is said about guns in that political atmosphere it will be like delivering fifty tons of red meat to our political enemies. About ten thousand of this guy will show up:



And the hell of it is we need him and every one like him. He's in the 99% too. He's a Democrat but he just doesn't know it yet. And he'll never find out if we piss him off about that gun.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

92. Bring it on

......we all have the right to fight the good fight and make our party stand up for something. We disagree on that....but that's a fight I'd love to see. Let's bring Bloomberg in as a guest speaker. LOL.

[rrneck]

93. it's a fight we'd lose.

The culture wars are a red Herring that fills the pockets of the 1%. Only one thing matters. Money. Anything else you get costs them nothing and increases their power.

Eta: Didn't I read in another thread that Bloomberg was the seventh richest man I the United States. You can always hire one half of the poor to kill the other half.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

96. Culture Wars

Are you attacking Bloomberg for his wealth (class warfare) or his position on guns (culture wars).... And on that note aren't you fighting your own culture war if gun control is nothing but that.

[rrneck]

100. Gun control laws are as good as they can be.

They aren't going to change except in the direction of more liberality. Income disparity in this country is as high as it was in the gilded age and the labor struggles of the early twentieth followed. If we don't right our economic ship not only will nothing else matter, but millions of Americans, including centrists and Democrats, are afraid they're going to need those guns whether they actually will or not.

Get people an even shake and they won't want to fight no matter how many guns they have. But you will never get economic parity unless you control government - and I mean really control it. You will never get that control without the help of gun owners, who represent about one third of the population. Guns are serious business and their owners take it seriously.

[rl6214]

28. I would think you'd be happy about guns outside the GOP convention

possibility of a few less GOP/NRA types and all

[AlinPA]

30. I can't see why republicans would ban guns inside the convention. That would piss off the NRA.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

34. They do.

Just a fact.

[gejohnston]

57. Republicans or

USSS?

[Starboard Tack]

37. +100 Excellent post. nt.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

51. THANKS

.......but don't look for the gun 'advocates' on this board to agree.

[Starboard Tack]

61. Not everyone here advocates public carry of guns

Everyone has their own opinion. Some are reasonable, some are beyond the pale. Some just don't belong.

[oneshooter]

68. So what are you going to do about it.

Besides cry a lot and stomp your feet.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

70. More than you.

.

[oneshooter]

73. Not my state. I have no control over what the state of Florida

does. And neither do you.
Oh you can cry, stomp your feet, and clutch your pearls, yes you can.
But you don't live there, so you have no vote on what that state does.

Oneshooter


Heck according to you you don't even have a vote where you live, DC

[fightthegoodfightnow]

75. Right

Stomp your feet about guns in DC but not Florida.

Got it.

[oneshooter]

84. Never said a word about DC., or their draconian gun laws.

I know that I can not change them from Texas, and I have never lost anything there that I need to find.

YOU are the one crying about Florida law, and your perceived lack of voting power in DC.

YOU are the one that brought up the rules in Florida. Rules that you can not change because you are not a voter there, unless you are for the Federal Government stepping in and forcing change to your liking.

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[fightthegoodfightnow]

88. Point Taken

...and dismissed.

[Tejas]

76. I assume clubs and bats will be allowed,

they're allowed at polling places.

[HockeyMom]

112. I do live in Florida and have a vote

As a citizen of this state, I have written to State Senator Chris Smith of Ft. Lauderdale on his Task Force SYGL page. He asked for the people's views on this law and I gave my opinion, which is my right too. It cannot be a one sided (pro-gun) discussion.

[gejohnston]

113. by all means but,

the OP has nothing to do with SYG.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

114. Agree

Thanks.

[HockeyMom]

115. That IS the issue after the Zimmerman adjucation

Governor Rick Scott has even said so himself, Tea Bagger that he is. Many gun adovcates may not like that, but that is and will be the next issue.

[gejohnston]

116. Scott will be for what makes him money

Just like his drug testing schemes (he owns many of the labs). I don't take anything he says seriously. That is like taking Glen Beck seriously.

[HockeyMom]

117. Discount Rep. Chris Smith and his Task Force too?

There are Dems in Florida, because the US Congress, looking very closely at this SYG law in Florida, and the country.

[gejohnston]

118. I know there are Dems in Florida

but SYG has nothing to do with Zimmerman, if you go by the facts. Of course to propagandists and ideologues misread the law and making shit up, the truth does not matter. The reality is that it seems to be a campaign finance issue more than SYG.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

127. Without SYG

....he would have no defense.

He would have to retreat.

And we would have someone alive.

[gejohnston]

128. he would try the same defense with DTR

and he would be showing how he could not retreat. Illinois has been SYG since 1961. Why Florida now?
There is no guarantee that anyone would be alive.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

129. The Difference is

..the man with the gun could retreat and the boy without the gun could do no harm.

Why Florida now ....what? Trying to make a point? Oh...you think I give a sh*t about how long SYG laws have been around....gosh....centuries.....could care less.

You state there is no guarantee that anyone would be alive. This much is true: the guy without the gun was killed by the guy with the gun.

[gejohnston]

134. total lack of logic

.the man with the gun could retreat and the boy without the gun could do no harm.

he could have retreated anyway, he could have not gotten out of the car. If the gun was fired (assuming there is something to this one account) while Zimmerman was on the ground, there was no chance to retreat, so it would not apply. Since he is being charged with murder 2, the evidence does not seem to show this. It also implies that SYG or any other self defense law is not even an issue.

Why Florida now ....what? Trying to make a point? Oh...you think I give a sh*t about how long SYG laws have been around....gosh....centuries.....could care less.

Yes, if SYG was such a "get away with murder" Illinois would have an epidemic since then. Washington State since about 1917. SYG is kind of a red herring.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

136. How Many People have used SYG Laws who would otherwise have been charged?

And if none, why is the law even necessary when it's nothing more than a defense for a crime.



.

[gejohnston]

139. if the evidence shows other than self defense?

all.
It is necessary because we have a system where the State has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that you committed a crime. Justifiable homicide is not a crime. In Duty to Retreat, it is backwards, you have to prove your innocent of the crime of murder or negligent homicide.
How many innocent people who went to prison because they could not prove self defense to a jury? How many innocent people got sued even after they proved beyond a reasonable doubt that they killed in self defense?
One is too many.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

141. You Tell Me

....how many but first answer my question.

And why shouldn't someone who kills someone be held responsible for defending his actions?

[gejohnston]

143. no one knows

And why shouldn't someone who kills someone be held responsible for defending his actions?

Why should self preservation be a crime? You implied that killing someone (who was trying to kill you) is less moral than simply allowing yourself be killed. Or, you have more respect for the attacker than the defender (I found this to be a common thread among "antis&quot they are held responsible, if they committed murder or negligent homicide. Remember, justifiable homicide is not a crime. Nor should it be. This article explains why SYG is totally irrelevant to Zimmerman.

http://volokh.com/2012/03/27/floridas-self-defense-laws/

[fightthegoodfightnow]

144. Tell me

If you make no distinction between public and private property, then you give the government the same authority to regulate both.

[gejohnston]

145. how is that relevent?

was there a point?

[fightthegoodfightnow]

146. Simple

You equate the two as equitable......don't be surprised if what the law gives it takes away.

Jurisprudence has always made a HUGE distinction between private and public property. To do otherwise, gun advocates tread on dangerous territory....in my opinion.

[X_Digger]

130. You think he wouldn't have just changed his story?

Do you honestly believe that this racist POS wouldn't have just claimed he tried to retreat and couldn't?

Naive.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

131. Because what.....he was threatened with a nonexistent weapon?

.

[X_Digger]

132. He would claim Martin knocked him down, beating him, and he couldn't get away..

Oh wait, that's already the story he was going with.

LOL, change to a shovel, you'll dig faster.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

133. Right....

.....cause I'm sure you'd believe if you were on that jury that a man could be beaten and knocked down by a boy half his weight. Such a threat.

[gejohnston]

135. do we know his weight?

fat v muscle? The special prosecutor was correct about one thing among many:
the media, and those who leaked information to the media, was being irresponsible. That includes doctored 911 calls.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

138. OH wait

....I forgot to count the weight of the Skittles.

[gejohnston]

140. what the fuck does skittles have to do with it?

or the iced tea. Simply pointing out that weight by itself is means little.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

142. Call his attorney

You can testify to that effect.

[X_Digger]

137. That's what the state would have to disprove (SYG or DTR, regardless).

Zimmerman's already apparently trying for a defense that would work under either scheme.

I'm sure we'll see some private doctor's report about "head trauma" or some such bullshit.