I don't understand why Republicans can't carry loaded weapons at their convention.

[IsaacNewton]

"We demand our 2nd amendment rights to carry guns because the government isn't going to tell us what to do"

"We immediately give up our guns and renounce our 2nd amendment rights because the government told us to"

 

[rdean]

I think it's a terrible mistake to tell Republicans they can't take loaded weapons to their convention. It's their convention. Why shouldn't they feel safe? Show them they don't need to secede. That they have the gun rights they deserve. Like I said, it's their convention. Let them take whatever fire arms they want. This is a democracy and a free country.

I agree 100%. Unfortunately - liberalism has stripped us of many of our most basic rights.

Oh yea, sure. Uh huh.

Major Garrett: Obama has expanded, not reduced gun rights

 

[P@triot]

Yeah...because it's so easy to book a massive facility for a multi-day convention less than a month before its set to happen

Which makes the GOP even MORE dumb in booking the venue without first asking if right wingers could or could not carry their precious guns......You're not that sharp....but, keep using that avatar to "really" show that you're more of a patriot than even your fellow nitwits.

I don't think the GOP leadership cared. Why would they when they knew they'd have full Secret Service security for the venue?!?

Keep wildly flailing around on the ground like someone suffering a seizure dumb-ass. With each post you look dumber and dumber.

Especially when there are legitimate things that aren't nonsensical that you could be attacking.

 

[rdean]

"We demand our 2nd amendment rights to carry guns because the government isn't going to tell us what to do"

"We immediately give up our guns and renounce our 2nd amendment rights because the government told us to"

Look at Bundy. All those armed people. Government agents did a stand down against so much firepower.

So go ahead Republicans. Carry your guns openly. Make sure they are armed. No one is going to stop you.

 

[IsaacNewton]

"We demand our 2nd amendment rights to carry guns because the government isn't going to tell us what to do"

"We immediately give up our guns and renounce our 2nd amendment rights because the government told us to"

Look at Bundy. All those armed people. Government agents did a stand down against so much firepower.

So go ahead Republicans. Carry your guns openly. Make sure they are armed. No one is going to stop you.

I honestly find it bizarre how easily they are backed down. They LOVE to show up at a fast food joint with a rifle over their shoulder to show how tough they are but the moment anyone in the government says "you must disarm all they have to say is 'yes sir, sorry sir, can I lick your boots for you sir'".

Weird.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Now if they removed their ban, and the feds or RNC insisted it still be a gun restricted area, then that would be a different story.

True....but the point here is that given the RNC (as lap dogs to the NRA) stance SHOULD request from the venue the right to openly carry weapons.

It's a tough position. We've seen all the problems and violence the Democrats have caused just in the primaries. Think of how many problems liberals are going to start at the convention. More than likely they will be bussing in trouble makers and the SS doesn't want to see people getting killed.

We have very favorable laws in our state for the armed victims of an attack. Our law reads:

"A CCW holder can use deadly force if they believe that they (or others) are in jeopardy of serious bodily harm or death."

The law is in our favor because for one, there is no legal definition of what serious bodily harm is. Two is that if I shoot and kill somebody, nobody can really prove what I believed at the time. To prosecute a case against a licensed shooter, the prosecutor would have to be able to prove both.

The way our laws are written (in favor of the shooter) there is a greater chance of a legally armed citizen defending themselves against these violent thugs than in other states that have weaker laws for a shooter.

This is a lie.

Liberals and Democrats are not the ‘cause’ of the violence during the primaries.

But thanks for confirming the fact you’re a liar, as are most conservatives.

 

[P@triot]

I think it's a terrible mistake to tell Republicans they can't take loaded weapons to their convention. It's their convention. Why shouldn't they feel safe? Show them they don't need to secede. That they have the gun rights they deserve. Like I said, it's their convention. Let them take whatever fire arms they want. This is a democracy and a free country.

I agree 100%. Unfortunately - liberalism has stripped us of many of our most basic rights.

Oh yea, sure. Uh huh.

Major Garrett: Obama has expanded, not reduced gun rights

OMG. You swallow any absurd library propaganda they will feed you - don't you?

• He ran operation choke point

• He issued an illegal EO restricting guns further

• The librard assault in rights started over 100 years before Obama took office chief

Would you like to try again with another desperate false narrative???

 

[P@triot]

"We demand our 2nd amendment rights to carry guns because the government isn't going to tell us what to do"

"We immediately give up our guns and renounce our 2nd amendment rights because the government told us to"

Look at Bundy. All those armed people. Government agents did a stand down against so much firepower.

So go ahead Republicans. Carry your guns openly. Make sure they are armed. No one is going to stop you.

I honestly find it bizarre how easily they are backed down. They LOVE to show up at a fast food joint with a rifle over their shoulder to show how tough they are but the moment anyone in the government says "you must disarm all they have to say is 'yes sir, sorry sir, can I lick your boots for you sir'".

Weird.

Yeah....I would fully expect a librard Dumbocrat to find obeying the law "bizarre".

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The law is in our favor because for one, there is no legal definition of what serious bodily harm is. Two is that if I shoot and kill somebody, nobody can really prove what I believed at the time. To prosecute a case against a licensed shooter, the prosecutor would have to be able to prove both.

The way our laws are written (in favor of the shooter) there is a greater chance of a legally armed citizen defending themselves against these violent thugs than in other states that have weaker laws for a shooter.

ERGO.......
You can then join me in calling Trump an idiot for advocating guns in schools (including Ohio schools), correct?

Why is that?

Trump would like to see security and even armed teachers with proper training and licensing to protect children from potential nuts. I don't think there is anything idiotic about it.

It’s extremely idiotic and yet another reason why Trump has no business being president.

Teachers carrying guns will result in more children being injured or killed in an incident.

The notion that an ‘armed teacher’ in a situation such as Sandy Hook would have been able to ‘stop’ the shooter is naïve, ignorant, and ridiculous.

Indeed, most law enforcement officers aren’t particularly proficient with a semi-auto pistol, even less so for a teacher with ‘training’ – imagine a live shooting incident at a school: screaming, shouting, shots being fired, students, teachers, and staff running around in full panic – and in all that chaos and confusion you expect an ‘armed teacher’ to ‘save the day.’

Clearly being stupid and ignorant are prerequisites for being conservative.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I think it's a terrible mistake to tell Republicans they can't take loaded weapons to their convention. It's their convention. Why shouldn't they feel safe? Show them they don't need to secede. That they have the gun rights they deserve. Like I said, it's their convention. Let them take whatever fire arms they want. This is a democracy and a free country.

I don't know how many times I have to post that it's our law that private entities can make their business gun free by simply posting a sign by the doorways. Outside of those doorways, it's not a gun-free zone. People will be able to arm as they desire.

 

[Dragonlady]

The law is in our favor because for one, there is no legal definition of what serious bodily harm is. Two is that if I shoot and kill somebody, nobody can really prove what I believed at the time. To prosecute a case against a licensed shooter, the prosecutor would have to be able to prove both.

The way our laws are written (in favor of the shooter) there is a greater chance of a legally armed citizen defending themselves against these violent thugs than in other states that have weaker laws for a shooter.

ERGO.......
You can then join me in calling Trump an idiot for advocating guns in schools (including Ohio schools), correct?

Why is that?

Trump would like to see security and even armed teachers with proper training and licensing to protect children from potential nuts. I don't think there is anything idiotic about it.

Teachers jobs don't include saving children from being shot. If you want that included in the job description, you need to raise their pay so that they make as much as the police.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

It’s extremely idiotic and yet another reason why Trump has no business being president.

Teachers carrying guns will result in more children being injured or killed in an incident.

The notion that an ‘armed teacher’ in a situation such as Sandy Hook would have been able to ‘stop’ the shooter is naïve, ignorant, and ridiculous.

Indeed, most law enforcement officers aren’t particularly proficient with a semi-auto pistol, even less so for a teacher with ‘training’ – imagine a live shooting incident at a school: screaming, shouting, shots being fired, students, teachers, and staff running around in full panic – and in all that chaos and confusion you expect an ‘armed teacher’ to ‘save the day.’

Clearly being stupid and ignorant are prerequisites for being conservative.

Correct, it makes much more sense to do things the liberal way: everybody a sitting duck when some kook breaks into a school and starts killing kids.

The problem with you libs is you watch to many television shows and think it's reality. In your little fantasy world, if such a situation would arise, a teacher would just start shooting his or her gun into crowds of people mindlessly, or if it does happen, you don't need guns, you can take down an armed shooter by kids throwing chalk board erasers at the attacker.

You on the left also ignore facts such as most mass shootings do take place in gun-free zones. Kooks may be kooks, but they are smart enough to choose their targets carefully.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Teachers jobs don't include saving children from being shot. If you want that included in the job description, you need to raise their pay so that they make as much as the police.

They don't need a pay raise. They need the ability to arm if they "choose" to do so. It's purely optional.

 

[Vandalshandle]

It’s extremely idiotic and yet another reason why Trump has no business being president.

Teachers carrying guns will result in more children being injured or killed in an incident.

The notion that an ‘armed teacher’ in a situation such as Sandy Hook would have been able to ‘stop’ the shooter is naïve, ignorant, and ridiculous.

Indeed, most law enforcement officers aren’t particularly proficient with a semi-auto pistol, even less so for a teacher with ‘training’ – imagine a live shooting incident at a school: screaming, shouting, shots being fired, students, teachers, and staff running around in full panic – and in all that chaos and confusion you expect an ‘armed teacher’ to ‘save the day.’

Clearly being stupid and ignorant are prerequisites for being conservative.

Correct, it makes much more sense to do things the liberal way: everybody a sitting duck when some kook breaks into a school and starts killing kids.

The problem with you libs is you watch to many television shows and think it's reality. In your little fantasy world, if such a situation would arise, a teacher would just start shooting his or her gun into crowds of people mindlessly, or if it does happen, you don't need guns, you can take down an armed shooter by kids throwing chalk board erasers at the attacker.

You on the left also ignore facts such as most mass shootings do take place in gun-free zones. Kooks may be kooks, but they are smart enough to choose their targets carefully.

True. Since most of them are suicidal, they want to make sure that they get shot heroically and cleanly.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

True. Since most of them are suicidal, they want to make sure that they get shot heroically and cleanly.

Their biggest nightmare would be getting injured by somebody with a gun and having to spend the rest of their life in prison.

If you are a suicidal mass killer, you want to kill as many people as you can before you kill yourself.

 

[Desperado]

I don't understand why Republicans can't carry loaded weapons at their convention.
because the powers to be do not want the liberal protesters to be shot when they attack the Delegates going to the convention.

 

[P@triot]

I agree 100%. Unfortunately - liberalism has stripped us of many of our most basic rights.

....and I'm truly, truly sorry that you had to type your moronic response from that "relocation camp" where that mean Obama has sent you to........

Someone a little angry over being exposed as uninformed??? Yep...thought so.

 

[P@triot]

I don't understand why Republicans can't carry loaded weapons at their convention.
because the powers to be do not want the liberal protesters to be shot when they attack the Delegates going to the convention.

Liberals have resorted to violence all over America when Trump has spoken (how sad that they resort to violence over free speech) so it's only natural that the Secret Service is worried about them.

 

[Vandalshandle]

Carrying a high powered rifle is not enough. In order to properly make their case, republicans should carry bazookas to their convention.

 

[P@triot]

Now if they removed their ban, and the feds or RNC insisted it still be a gun restricted area, then that would be a different story.

True....but the point here is that given the RNC (as lap dogs to the NRA) stance SHOULD request from the venue the right to openly carry weapons.

It's a tough position. We've seen all the problems and violence the Democrats have caused just in the primaries. Think of how many problems liberals are going to start at the convention. More than likely they will be bussing in trouble makers and the SS doesn't want to see people getting killed.

We have very favorable laws in our state for the armed victims of an attack. Our law reads:

"A CCW holder can use deadly force if they believe that they (or others) are in jeopardy of serious bodily harm or death."

The law is in our favor because for one, there is no legal definition of what serious bodily harm is. Two is that if I shoot and kill somebody, nobody can really prove what I believed at the time. To prosecute a case against a licensed shooter, the prosecutor would have to be able to prove both.

The way our laws are written (in favor of the shooter) there is a greater chance of a legally armed citizen defending themselves against these violent thugs than in other states that have weaker laws for a shooter.

This is a lie.

Liberals and Democrats are not the ‘cause’ of the violence during the primaries.

But thanks for confirming the fact you’re a liar, as are most conservatives.

Man are you one epic idiot. Libtards have been rioting and resorting to violence at nearly every Trump rally. You know it too. You just have to lie because you're embarrassed by the people who share your absurd and failed ideology.