Everyone should sign this petition

[IrishinSyria]

Are there many places in Ohio that can support a function that have an open carry policy that aren't Pro Rodeo venues?

Mature people understand this as two separate initiatives, well, or they should...1) the logistics of having a function in a defined place for a strategic reason; 2) politics of one aspect of the facilities in that place. Again mature people can handle the concept that they can still fight to change the laws if the so desire, but also accept they aren't changed yet, and business must be conducted...pretty simple really, and neither contradictory nor hypocritical in my view.

Seems to me having the Republican nomination occur in Ohio, and building buzz in Ohio and winning the election, gaining up to three SCOTUS justices, and getting exactly what you want LATER makes way more sense...and in keeping with the Rodeo theme...Republicans just need to walk down the hill, so to speak. ...Or they can get suckered into a waste of time fight that can't be won or settled on this venue issue. I think the latter would be dumb, and even dumber if Republicans get manipulated into it by people who clearly want to make this into something it just isn't...

As for the wisdom of having guns indoors...I'd tell people to kiss my ass if it were my facility. I'm an advocate of carry, but indoors at a function like this, I want MY people the only ones carrying. And that will be the one thing that will stand IMHO...Private property owners will always determine the carry policy...maybe to their own detriment at times, but that is not going to change....so this is a lot about nuthin' really.

But that's the thing- a lot of the candidates have been suggesting that private property owners should not be able to determine carry policy if they open themselves up to the public (i.e. by saying that malls or movie theaters should not be gun free zones.) So what's the principled distinction here? Why can't the RNC demonstrate its commitment to a world where second amendment rights trump common law property rights?

 

[phgreek]

But that's the thing- a lot of the candidates have been suggesting that private property owners should not be able to determine carry policy if they open themselves up to the public (i.e. by saying that malls or movie theaters should not be gun free zones.) So what's the principled distinction here? Why can't the RNC demonstrate its commitment to a world where second amendment rights trump common law property rights?

Like I said thats MY take on it....ie private property rights will always win over gun rights...


BUT, that does not make this situation some litmus test for those who want Gun rights to prevail over private property rights. All this is, IMHO...logistics and maybe some long term vs short term strategy offsets. I'm not sure there even was an opportunity for a principled distinction...just reality of where you want to be, and what facilities can support your needs.

I could be wrong, but if there was a suitable open carry venue available, I'm not certain they would have passed on it. The RNC may well have snatched it up. Find me evidence there was such a place, and the RNC knew about it...and passed, then I think we can have the principled distinction discussion.

I think it is poor form to try and pressure someone you rented from knowing full well the limits at the time you signed the agreement...again, has nothing to do with principle, and has everything to do with understanding contracts and just common decency in a business transaction...

 

[IrishinSyria]

Trump hasn't taken the bait just yet, but he's nibbling at it...

http://www.newsweek.com/rnc-cleveland-gun-open-carry-petition-441190

 

[IrishJayhawk]

Trump hasn't taken the bait just yet, but he's nibbling at it...

http://www.newsweek.com/rnc-cleveland-gun-open-carry-petition-441190

Much like most of his policies, he's the best person on this one.

He also referred to himself as “a very, very strong person for [the] Second Amendment.”

He's a comic book character.

 

[phgreek]

Much like most of his policies, he's the best person on this one.



He's a comic book character.

no argument there...he is frustrating as hell, and I wish he was your comic book character...

 

[IrishJayhawk]

no argument there...he is frustrating as hell, and I wish he was your comic book character...

 

[phgreek]

Trump hasn't taken the bait just yet, but he's nibbling at it...

http://www.newsweek.com/rnc-cleveland-gun-open-carry-petition-441190

oh man...I'm going to spend the rest of the day with the fish farm imagery now...

400 trump faced fish staring at a piece of dog food on a hook...you know its just a matter of time...please Donald, be more than fish farm fare.

 

[GoIrish41]

Like I said thats MY take on it....ie private property rights will always win over gun rights...


BUT, that does not make this situation some litmus test for those who want Gun rights to prevail over private property rights. All this is, IMHO...logistics and maybe some long term vs short term strategy offsets. I'm not sure there even was an opportunity for a principled distinction...just reality of where you want to be, and what facilities can support your needs.

I could be wrong, but if there was a suitable open carry venue available, I'm not certain they would have passed on it. The RNC may well have snatched it up. Find me evidence there was such a place, and the RNC knew about it...and passed, then I think we can have the principled distinction discussion.

I think it is poor form to try and pressure someone you rented from knowing full well the limits at the time you signed the agreement...again, has nothing to do with principle, and has everything to do with understanding contracts and just common decency in a business transaction...

I think you are dancing around the real point here. Republican candidates trying to out "right" each other are put in a tenuous position by this position. They all support open carry laws in public venues. This petition compels them to either come out in support of their convention welcoming folks to bring guns to the arena or contradicting their own stated position. Either is a bad choice for them.

Several have made the case for why it is a bad idea to have guns at this event, so siding with petitioners will make them look like foolish ideologues who ignore the realities of public safety to make their point. Speaking out against the ideas held by the petitioners paints them as hypocrites who don't really believe the principles they so forcefully speak about on the campaign trail. It's too late to change venues to save face, and even if it weren't it would be viewed as caving to the petitioners, which we already established is a stupid idea.

Moreover you gloss over the real striking issue of all of this. Tens of thousands of people have signed the petition. And you can disagree if you wish, but that most certainly says something about the petitioners and, by extension, a troubling subset of the Republican Party. Unfortunately, the party needs these people to have even a punchers chance of winning this election.

 

[IrishLax]

I'm having visions of a Reservoir Dogs-esque Mexican standoff after someone's finger slips. That would be some compelling live television.

 

[Kaneyoufeelit]

Moreover you gloss over the real striking issue of all of this. Tens of thousands of people have signed the petition. And you can disagree if you wish, but that most certainly says something about the petitioners and, by extension, a troubling subset of the Republican Party. Unfortunately, the party needs these people to have even a punchers chance of winning this election.

To be fair, I imagine a large number of signatures are from liberals who recognize this as satire and have signed in precisely because they are hoping to put the Republican candidates in a catch-22.

 

[pumpdog20]

People might be less likely to mouth off (thus possibly reducing the prospect of a riot) if they know the other person is packing.

 

[kmoose]

I think you are dancing around the real point here. Republican candidates trying to out "right" each other are put in a tenuous position by this position. They all support open carry laws in public venues. This petition compels them to either come out in support of their convention welcoming folks to bring guns to the arena or contradicting their own stated position. Either is a bad choice for them.

Several have made the case for why it is a bad idea to have guns at this event, so siding with petitioners will make them look like foolish ideologues who ignore the realities of public safety to make their point. Speaking out against the ideas held by the petitioners paints them as hypocrites who don't really believe the principles they so forcefully speak about on the campaign trail. It's too late to change venues to save face, and even if it weren't it would be viewed as caving to the petitioners, which we already established is a stupid idea.

Moreover you gloss over the real striking issue of all of this. Tens of thousands of people have signed the petition. And you can disagree if you wish, but that most certainly says something about the petitioners and, by extension, a troubling subset of the Republican Party. Unfortunately, the party needs these people to have even a punchers chance of winning this election.

I think you are missing one key point:

Just because you have an (R) or (D) after your name, that doesn't obligate you to be in lockstep with every other (R) or (D). It means that you all believe in a broad philosophy of how people should govern themselves. The candidates don't pick the venue; the national committee people do. If the committee people believe in keeping weapons out of political rallies, and John Kasich believes in allowing them.... there is no hypocrisy there just because they are all registered Republicans. They are still independent individuals, each with their own beliefs and values. The same is true on the Democratic side of the coin...

 

[GoIrish41]

I think you are missing one key point:

Just because you have an (R) or (D) after your name, that doesn't obligate you to be in lockstep with every other (R) or (D). It means that you all believe in a broad philosophy of how people should govern themselves. The candidates don't pick the venue; the national committee people do. If the committee people believe in keeping weapons out of political rallies, and John Kasich believes in allowing them.... there is no hypocrisy there just because they are all registered Republicans. They are still independent individuals, each with their own beliefs and values. The same is true on the Democratic side of the coin...

Yet still the candidates will have to take a position ... like I said. We know where they said they stand, now let's see where they actually stand.

 

[pkt77242]

People might be less likely to mouth off (thus possibly reducing the prospect of a riot) if they know the other person is packing.

Maybe.

What I do know is that research shows that being around guns increases aggression and that carrying a gun increases testosterone production (which may lead to more aggressive behavior), so it is possible that having guns present might increase the likelihood of the convention turning violent.

 

[kmoose]

Yet still the candidates will have to take a position ... like I said. We know where they said they stand, now let's see where they actually stand.

I'm not understanding what you would have them do? As you said, they have stated their position. Are they supposed to essentially abandon their campaign by boycotting their party's national convention?

 

[GoIrish41]

I'm not understanding what you would have them do? As you said, they have stated their position. Are they supposed to essentially abandon their campaign by boycotting their party's national convention?

Well do they believe what they are saying or don't they? Principles are sometimes inconvenient.

 

[IrishinSyria]

I'm not understanding what you would have them do? As you said, they have stated their position. Are they supposed to essentially abandon their campaign by boycotting their party's national convention?

the petition's super clear on what the candidates should do, and it's not much:

5. From all Republican candidates for President: You have been brave in raising awareness about the immense dangers posed by "gun-free zones." In order to ensure the safety of your supporters, delegates and all attendees at the convention in July, you must call upon the RNC to rectify this affront to our Second Amendment freedoms and insist upon a suspension of the Quicken Loans Arena's unconstitutional "gun-free zone" loophole. Every American is endowed with a God-given Constitutional right to carry a gun wherever and whenever they please.

 

[kmoose]

Well do they believe what they are saying or don't they? Principles are sometimes inconvenient.

So you're saying that Bernie Sanders should skip the Democratic Convention at the Wells Fargo Center in Philadelphia?

After all, it is owned by Comcast Spectator, who is owned by parent company Comcast, who Bernie Sanders (amongst others) wrote the Chairman of the FCC to complain about, just a few weeks ago?
https://www.wyden.senate.gov/download/?id=3296d068-a39c-43fd-b936-e68b5c4ec179&download=1

I know what Sanders says he means, but that's a complete joke if he shows up at the Convention, right?

 

[GoIrish41]

So you're saying that Bernie Sanders should skip the Democratic Convention at the Wells Fargo Center in Philadelphia?

After all, it is owned by Comcast Spectator, who is owned by parent company Comcast, who Bernie Sanders (amongst others) wrote the Chairman of the FCC to complain about, just a few weeks ago?
https://www.wyden.senate.gov/download/?id=3296d068-a39c-43fd-b936-e68b5c4ec179&download=1

I know what Sanders says he means, but that's a complete joke if he shows up at the Convention, right?

So you are saying he publicly complained about it? Seems like he did exactly what I think the republican candidates should do -- take a position. Bernie gains credibility and accepts the consequences of his public condemnation. What will the GOP candidates do? I'm not suggesting anyone skips the convention ... that was you.

 

[kmoose]

So you are saying he publicly complained about it? Seems like he did exactly what I think the republican candidates should do -- take a position. Bernie gains credibility and accepts the consequences of his public condemnation. What will the GOP candidates do? I'm not suggesting anyone skips the convention ... that was you.

I inferred it from what you said because you never answered my question.........

I'm not understanding what you would have them do? As you said, they have stated their position. Are they supposed to essentially abandon their campaign by boycotting their party's national convention?

Bernie has VERY Publicly railed on about Investment Bankers and their influence............. Wells Fargo touts themselves as "A Leader in Investment Banking"......... are Bernie's principles now inconvenient?

 

[ND NYC]

is there a petition i can sign for a Burr-Hamilton duel between Trump and Cruz for the Republican nomination?

 

[GoIrish41]

I inferred it from what you said because you never answered my question.........



Bernie has VERY Publicly railed on about Investment Bankers and their influence............. Wells Fargo touts themselves as "A Leader in Investment Banking"......... are Bernie's principles now inconvenient?

IrishinSyria already answered your question by showing the text of the petition. They are calling on the candidates to push back against the rules of the arena. Of course doing so would be seen as advocacy for a stupid and dangerous position.

And again. Bernie "very publicly railed on about investment bankers and their influence," thereby doing the exact thing that the republican candidates should do with regard to their position on gun free zones. Indeed, they are presented with a golden opportunity to demonstrate they mean what they say. It's not like Bernie is going to a gathering of investment bankers and keeping quiet about the harm they do to America. The GOP convention is at a arena that is a gun free zone -- something the candidates claim is dangerous and unconstitutional. So, let's hear them speak out about it and take a stand. Let's see if they are willing to face the consequences of their positions like Bernie does on a daily basis. It's easy to be principled in a vacuum ... Let's see them put their principles to practice.

 

[kmoose]

IrishinSyria already answered your question by showing the text of the petition. They are calling on the candidates to push back against the rules of the arena. Of course doing so would be seen as advocacy for a stupid and dangerous position.

And again. Bernie "very publicly railed on about investment bankers and their influence," thereby doing the exact thing that the republican candidates should do with regard to their position on gun free zones. Indeed, they are presented with a golden opportunity to demonstrate they mean what they say. It's not like Bernie is going to a gathering of investment bankers and keeping quiet about the harm they do to America. The GOP convention is at a arena that is a gun free zone -- something the candidates claim is dangerous and unconstitutional. So, let's hear them speak out about it and take a stand. Let's see if they are willing to face the consequences of their positions like Bernie does on a daily basis. It's easy to be principled in a vacuum ... Let's see them put their principles to practice.

I still don't understand what you want from them? They have put their positions out into the public, or else you would not know what they are. So why do they have to condemn an arena exercising its legal right, but Bernie Sanders doesn't have to condemn holding the convention in a place named after an evil investment bank, and owned by a company he has complained to the FCC Chairman about?

 

[GoIrish41]

I still don't understand what you want from them? They have put their positions out into the public, or else you would not know what they are. So why do they have to condemn an arena exercising its legal right, but Bernie Sanders doesn't have to condemn holding the convention in a place named after an evil investment bank, and owned by a company he has complained to the FCC Chairman about?

I want them to do what the petition asks them to do, or give an explanation as to why they won't. More than 40K of their voters explicitly asked them to push back to the RNC for their choice of venue. They should be responsive to their voters. It's really not that complicated.

 

[kmoose]

I want them to do what the petition asks them to do, or give an explanation as to why they won't. More than 40K of their voters explicitly asked them to push back to the RNC for their choice of venue. They should be responsive to their voters. It's really not that complicated.

But Bernie Sanders shouldn't push back on the DNC for THEIR choice of venue?



And, for the record, I think I read that it was Kasich who signed the bill into law, that allows private venues like Quicken Loans Arena to opt to ban firearms on their premises, so I think his obligation should be more than met, according to your "do something" desire?

 

[GoIrish41]

But Bernie Sanders shouldn't push back on the DNC for THEIR choice of venue?



And, for the record, I think I read that it was Kasich who signed the bill into law, that allows private venues like Quicken Loans Arena to opt to ban firearms on their premises, so I think his obligation should be more than met, according to your "do something" desire?

When there is a petition that asks Democratic candidates to take action against the policies of the venue for their convention we can continue this discussion. There is no such petition and I have little interest in debating meaningless hypotheticals that have absolutely nothing to do with the issue at hand. Whether or not Bernie Sanders attends a venue named after a bank, it will have no effect on the physical safety of attendees. This issue is about whether the candidates on team red are willing to do as 41k of their voters ask and push for guns to be allowed at their convention, something those candidates claim they are for.

 

[kmoose]

When there is a petition that asks Democratic candidates to take action against the policies of the venue for their convention we can continue this discussion. There is no such petition and I have little interest in debating meaningless hypotheticals that have absolutely nothing to do with the issue at hand. Whether or not Bernie Sanders attends a venue named after a bank, it will have no effect on the physical safety of attendees. This issue is about whether the candidates on team red are willing to do as 41k of their voters ask and push for guns to be allowed at their convention, something those candidates claim they are for.

I guess we can just disagree. I think you are negotiating in bad faith here. If 41k of their constituents petitioned them to bar black persons from their Convention, and the venue would not allow it, you would not be calling on them to confront the National Committee about it. So it's not about them not following the will of the people. It's about you being anti-Republican, and attempting to twist this into some kind of hypocrisy on the candidates' part.

And I've already made it clear that I think that the people who signed this petition are idiots.

 

[Booslum31]

My wife and three of her friends put their names in to volunteer at the convention...they have all since backed out. This should be a once in a life-time event to look forward to. Instead, their fears were all around what they believe will happen outside the Arena. They can get a million names on that dumb petition...it ain't ever happening. The violence is going to happen outside where carrying a weapon would make total sense to me. I fear for our city...I hope I'm way off on this.

 

[pkt77242]

I guess we can just disagree. I think you are negotiating in bad faith here. If 41k of their constituents petitioned them to bar black persons from their Convention, and the venue would not allow it, you would not be calling on them to confront the National Committee about it. So it's not about them not following the will of the people. It's about you being anti-Republican, and attempting to twist this into some kind of hypocrisy on the candidates' part.

And I've already made it clear that I think that the people who signed this petition are idiots.

Huh? Of course he wouldn't, but that is because the candidates have never come out in favor of barring black people from the convention (or barring black people from public buildings, etc.). The candidates have come out in favor of gun rights and in many cases of getting rid of gun-free zones. Talk about negotiating in bad faith.

 

[kmoose]

The candidates have come out in favor of gun rights and in many cases of getting rid of gun-free zones.

If it's just a question of going against previously stated positions, then why does the petition matter? If the petition doesn't matter, then why can we not ask the same of the Democrats?