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

[rdean]

UPDATE: Petitioners for guns at RNC in Cleveland soar to 45,179; Secret Service says ‘No’

Updates March 28: As of Monday afternoon, 45,179 had endorsed a Change.org petition to allow guns at the Republican National Convention in Cleveland, climbing more than 500 hourly and up from 5,000 Friday morning. Commenters appear to be heavily anti-Republican.

As of 8 p.m. petitioners numbered 48,044.

The Washington Post is reporting that the Secret Service has said “no” to guns at the RNC.

---------------------------

I think they should just go ahead and carry them anyway. Who's gonna stop 'em?

 

[DarkFury]

The law giving the ability to the SS to declare a gun free zone was written after the shooting of RACIST DEMOCRAT George Wallace.

 

[sonic]

The Republican convention should be open bar, open carry and put it on pay-per-view.

 

[Carla_Danger]

I think we should hang up "gun free zone" signs, outside of the convention!

 

[The Great Goose]

Loaded guns and swords/knives should be allowed in all government places.

What, do you want a war? Have Some responsiblity! Fight the war ypurselves, then we, the people will decide if if want to be involved in YOUR TROUBLES.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

It definitely smacks of hypocrisy.

 

[Political Junky]

Hypocrisy defines republican.

 

[rdean]

As of Monday afternoon, 45,179 had endorsed a Change.org petition to allow guns at the Republican National Convention in Cleveland

So why won't Republicans believe in democracy. I say arm the base.

 

[HappyJoy]

The law giving the ability to the SS to declare a gun free zone was written after the shooting of RACIST DEMOCRAT George Wallace.

Does a guy with the logo of a racist polish rock band get to call others racist?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I think this is more of an issue with our laws in this state. Any business has the ability to ban guns from their premises by simply putting up a sign. It's then a gun-free zone, and even the owner of such business is not allowed to possess a firearm.

So I don't think it's an issue between the SS, the RNC or any other entity. Quickens Arena (well within the laws here) has the right to ban firearms open or concealed. 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.

 

[HappyJoy]

I think this is more of an issue with our laws in this state. Any business has the ability to ban guns from their premises by simply putting up a sign. It's then a gun-free zone, and even the owner of such business is not allowed to possess a firearm.

So I don't think it's an issue between the SS, the RNC or any other entity. Quickens Arena (well within the laws here) has the right to ban firearms open or concealed. 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.

I think the RNC should insist, you know...so they aren't hypocrites.

 

[TheOldSchool]

My God.... the convention is a gun free zone??? Are they crazy???!!! They'll be slaughtered!!!

 

[Jack4jill]

The NRA should make the national GOP convention into a gun show.

In reality, that's what it is in the first place.

Notice, with so many guns around, the dickhead can't protect himself, exactly as we said.

 

[Timmy]

I think this is more of an issue with our laws in this state. Any business has the ability to ban guns from their premises by simply putting up a sign. It's then a gun-free zone, and even the owner of such business is not allowed to possess a firearm.

So I don't think it's an issue between the SS, the RNC or any other entity. Quickens Arena (well within the laws here) has the right to ban firearms open or concealed. 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.

Why have a convention in a place that doesn't allow one of your main talking points ?

 

[nat4900]

The law giving the ability to the SS to declare a gun free zone was written after the shooting of RACIST DEMOCRAT George Wallace.

George Wallace was one of those southern, redneck democrats who were still pissed off at Lincoln for freeing the slaves......

 

[nat4900]

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.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

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.

 

[nat4900]

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?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

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.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

The Republican convention should be open bar, open carry and put it on pay-per-view.

Why? You wanna celebrate illegal aliens being put down after they act like animals?