Name:	copperline -	Reply
Subject:	Ironic post of the day
Date:	3/25/2016 11:35:25 AM

Protecting the Second Amendment

Here is a link to a petition that condemns the Republican Convention venue for trying to limit gun owner rights at the up-coming meeting in Cleveland.   If Trump supporters do riot or Move On members disrupt…. Wouldn’t it be best for everyone to be able to defend themselves?

SUMMARY: In July of 2016, the GOP will host its convention at the Quicken Loans Arena in Cleveland, Ohio. Though Ohio is an open carry state, which allows for the open carry of guns, the hosting venue—the Quicken Loans Arena—strictly forbids the carry of firearms on their premises. 

According to the policy on their website, "firearms and other weapons of any kind are strictly forbidden on the premises of Quicken Loans Arena."

This is a direct affront to the Second Amendment and puts all attendees at risk. As the National Rifle Association has made clear, "gun-free zones" such as the Quicken Loans Arena are "the worst and most dangerous of all lies." The NRA, our leading defender of gun rights, has also correctly pointed out that "gun free zones... tell every insane killer in America... (the) safest place to inflict maximum mayhem with minimum risk." (March 4, 2016 and Dec. 21, 2012) 

https://www.change.org/p/quicken-loans-arena-allow-open-carry-of-firearms-at-the-quicken-loans-arena-during-the-rnc-convention-in-july-2#petition-letter

Name:	Talullahhound -	Reply
Subject:	Ironic post of the day
Date:	3/25/2016 3:29:54 PM

If I am not mistaken, I believe that open carry states, permit facilities to ban guns on the premises, by putting a sticker on the door that says "no guns allowed".  A lot of the anti-gun groups have been putting pressure on companies to ban guns from their premises. 

I do agree that it is a little ironic that Republicans who say that the next Supreme Court Justice has to be approved by the NRA, will not have open carry during that convention.  It could be quite a spectacle if they did - perhaps Ted Cruz would challenge Donald Trump to a duel (with guns) for the nomination and for the honor of his fair wife. 

Seriously, I would hate to think what might happen if guns were allowed.  As crazy as it is, I'm old enough to remember when Bobby Kennedy was shot. 

Name:	Lifer -	Reply
Subject:	Very telling....
Date:	3/25/2016 4:20:42 PM

...that you chose this wording:

If Trump supporters riot or Move On disrupts....

So in your world view republicans riot but democrats disrupt?

Name:	copperline -	Reply
Subject:	Ironic post of the day
Date:	3/25/2016 4:28:17 PM

Methinks that we might all agree that there are some places where carrying guns should be prohibited by law, and not just at the discretion of the property owner......

Me also thinks that its weird that the GOP wants people to be able to carry guns at McDonalds, but not at their convention.

Name:	copperline -	Reply
Subject:	Very telling....
Date:	3/25/2016 4:34:47 PM

I was just quoting the leading Republican candidate.   My world view is that all this is really absurd, and in this case.... pretty funny.

Name:	wix -	Reply
Subject:	Copper It is Very telling....
Date:	3/25/2016 5:08:06 PM

that you posted only to provoke an argument.  Since Cleveland is in the top 5 most dangerous cities in the US (All of the top 5 are dimokrap run).  My guess is that a carry weapon will be needed much more just to get to and from the convention.  If there is trouble inside you can rest assured it will be dimokrap (socialist) initiated.

Also, I'm sure you know the Republicans chose Cleveland strictly because it is in Ohio, a very important state in the election.  My guess is weapon carry laws were not a consideration......only important to liberal antagonists.....

Name:	Lifer -	Reply
Subject:	Very telling....
Date:	3/25/2016 5:46:02 PM

Yes the Donald used the r word, but you chose to use it to describe the republicans, while choosing to use the less antagonistic "disrupt" for the dims.

Name:	architect -	Reply
Subject:	Very telling....
Date:	3/25/2016 5:57:20 PM

Really absurd, pretty funny and just a bit hypocritical!!

Name:	architect -	Reply
Subject:	Hey Lifer you condemn
Date:	3/25/2016 6:11:17 PM (updated 3/25/2016 6:13:31 PM)

Copper for using the Donald's words while he talks about Republicans...well, just what do you think is the political persuasion of the folks the Donald was talking about rioting if he is not the nominee?  I'm pretty sure he is not referring to the Whigs!  Now, if a bunch of Trump supporters do riot or "disrupt" the convention do you think convention goers will be safer if everybody in the arena has guns or if only the security staff is armed?  That's a real question, what's your answer?

Name:	GoneFishin -	Reply
Subject:	Hey WidiotX
Date:	3/25/2016 6:38:34 PM

"Copper It is Very telling....that you posted only to provoke an argument. " Wix, you are either an idiot or a comedian. 97.654% of what you post fits this description

Name:	MrHodja -	Reply
Subject:	Ironic post of the day
Date:	3/25/2016 7:13:13 PM

Indeed there is an apparent dichotomy, unless the arena takes measures to ensure nobody entering is armed.  In that case there would be no inconsistency.  The reasons for open carry are deterrence (how many mass killings have taken place where there was a credible deterrent?) and defense.  If prudent measures are taken to ensure none are armed, the reasons disappear.

I hope the arena has good insurance.

Name:	wix -	Reply
Subject:	Goofbutt the Googler
Date:	3/25/2016 8:40:14 PM

Thanks for Googling my stats; however, you forgot to post that that % only applies to responses to you and THE ARCHIDIOT.

Name:	Talullahhound -	Reply
Subject:	Ironic post of the day
Date:	3/25/2016 9:03:54 PM

Seriously, I hope that they do not permit guns at the Convention.  I expect it will be a highly charged, emotional convention and the idea of adding guns to that mix, doesn't sound like a great idea.  Now I am joking:  John Kasich says he WILL be the nominee - with a gun there, he might make plans to ensure he is the only nominee. 

I had a discussion with a facebook friend and former colleague who is very liberal. He posted a picture of a guy with a bandana over his nose and mouth, walking with a AR and a pistol in a holster at his side.  The tag line:  Good Guy or Bad Guy.  You won't know until he starts shooting. 

It really irks me when the anti-gun people take an extreme view.  I'm in an open carry state, and I have yet to see anyone carrying an AR.  If someon plans to kill people, having an open carry law or not is not going to make difference to them. 

Name:	copperline -	Reply
Subject:	A follow up question
Date:	3/26/2016 10:52:03 AM

Of course, I really hope that there is no violence at the GOP rally from any source… and pretty sure it would increase the dangerousness of the event if there was no prohibition of guns in there.

That said, I was wondering what other unusual outcomes could come from the GOP position on gun control.   Let me lay it out and see what you think.

1)      Ohio is an open carry state, and my possession of a gun is only prohibited by the policy of the land-owner while The Law says I have a right to carry a gun for self-defense.

2)      Assume I attend the convention, and there is a violent confrontation on the floor…. I am injured, and contend that I could have protected myself if I had been allowed to carry my gun.

3)      Do I then have a legal claim against the owner of the convention center for not allowing me to defend myself and therefore contributing to my injury?

If the answer is yes, then efforts at securing 2^nd amendment rights are also opening up a huge liability risk for a vast number of businesses & individuals who could be held accountable for denying people the right to defend themselves while on their property, and themselves violating the intent of the law that  permits people to carry a gun.  

If the answer is no, then it must be true that a property owner has the legal right to enforce business policies that over-ride & have greater weight than the law.  

Isn’t that a legal dilemma?  Doesn’t that open carry law throw any number of corporations & land owners under the bus by exposing them to huge liability risks?  Can a law really be written in a way that actually allows a property owner to override it at their discretion?   No legal expert here, I’m just wondering …

Name:	lakngulf -	Reply
Subject:	A follow up question
Date:	3/26/2016 11:43:52 AM

If the answer is no, then it must be true that a property owner has the legal right to enforce business policies that over-ride & have greater weight than the law.  

Owner is not over-riding the law.  He is a part of it. 

Name:	GoneFishin -	Reply
Subject:	GOOFY says answer is quite simple
Date:	3/26/2016 12:49:20 PM

If you are concerned about being shot at the GOP convention, simply switch parties and attend the Dem convention in Philadelphia. GOOFY says there is no need to make it such a complicated issue. And, Goofy knows best.

Name:	architect -	Reply
Subject:	Another follow up question
Date:	3/26/2016 1:11:34 PM

I asked a version to Lifer and of course received no answer.  If you are a delagate to the GOP convention and, heaven forbid, something goes wrong and couple of "bad guys" are carrying guns, legally or otherwise, and start shooting (of course it doesn't have to ba a political meeting but any large gathering will do) would feel less threatened if only the security staff was armed or if 2000 other members of the crowd was packing?  Serious question...I know I would consider my fanny as good as in the ground if such a situation arose and half the crowd was armed...how about the rest of you?

Name:	Lifer -	Reply
Subject:	Another follow up question
Date:	3/26/2016 1:30:24 PM

If a crazy were to start shooting in a crowd of armed individuals they would be put down in short order. Google the mall shooter from a couple of years ago. He killed himself when he saw an armed citizen was about to take him out. You never heard of it because it doesn't fit the liberal meme so it got no press coverage. In fact two guys were both just waiting on the back line to clear. You see, that's how responsible gun owners operate, responsibly.

A well armed society is a polite society.

Name:	architect -	Reply
Subject:	Another follow up question
Date:	3/26/2016 2:17:12 PM

You did not answer my question...if you were in the crowd and 2 or 3 nuts started shooting would you prefer most of the crowd to be armed or only security...even better, what if the venue was a dark movie theater, better still, what if it was a nighttime rock concert where most of the crowd was stoned?  I know you would never go to a rock concert or be stoned, but just pretend and answer the question.  Don't give me rare examples which we don't know about because they don't fit the "liberal" agenda, give me an answer...when the shooting starts and you are in the middle of it would you feel safer with:  (1) 6 or 8 trained security personnel returning fire to take out the shooters or (2) 1200 or 1500 of those all around you shooting back?!  It's a simple question, scenario (1) or (2)??

Name:	copperline -	Reply
Subject:	Somebody hijacked my thread
Date:	3/26/2016 3:02:55 PM

Lakengulf took the question on and gives the opinion that corporations can be given the right to create & enforce policies that are at variance with the law.   In this case, the law says it is OK for corporations to prohibit guns on their premises even though the law is based on the right of self-defense.     With that reasoning, they can't be held liable for injuries sustained on their property even if they prevented the victim from defending themselves adequately.

But I still can't think of another example of a law that says that someone (or some corporation) can deny rights granted under law while a customer is on their property.   Can someone give me an example of another law that gives corporations the right to make & enforce policies that supercede laws enacted by the state?

Name:	GoneFishin -	Reply
Subject:	Nobody Hijacked Your Tread U R 2 Sensitive
Date:	3/26/2016 3:49:28 PM

If you and I go to a movie and chat during the movie, is it a violation of our freedom of speech if they ask us to leave as we are distrubing the other patrons?

Name:	Lifer -	Reply
Subject:	I'll take #1 for the win!
Date:	3/26/2016 4:03:25 PM

Read and weep Archie:

From the bastion of conservatism, The Washington Post

Please be sure to read the link to the Clackmass Mall Shooting and why it was not included.  These are just a few. Have Goofy Google up the rest of them for you.  I dont have the time nor inclanation to do it for you.

Name:	Lifer -	Reply
Subject:	A BIG FAT YES I CAN
Date:	3/26/2016 4:08:45 PM

PLANNED PARENTHOOD MURDERS THOUSANDS OF BABIES EVERY YEAR WITH NOT ONLY IMPUNITY, BUT WITH THE BLESSING OF LIBERALS LIKE YOU AND OBAMA!

Yes I know I yelled at you, but i'm sure if you go to your "safe space" there will be someone there to comfort and console you and help you get over the trauma of being yelled at and shown to be the absolute idiot we all know you to be.

Name:	Lifer -	Reply
Subject:	Nobody Hijacked Your Tread U R 2 Sensitive
Date:	3/26/2016 4:10:08 PM

Careful GF, you may loose your libtard card if you keep making posts like this.

Name:	architect -	Reply
Subject:	I'll take #1 for the win!
Date:	3/26/2016 4:10:34 PM

So you admit you are not really convinced that La Pierre and his crowd are correct in their theory the more good guys with guns the safer we are.  Glad to find you are smarter than I gave you credit for.

Name:	architect -	Reply
Subject:	Somebody hijacked my thread
Date:	3/26/2016 4:15:07 PM

Well all over the country GOP legislatures are trying to give businesses the right to discriminate if the customer happena to be married to someone of the same sex, a practice now legal and protected nationwide.  Not sure how successful they will be, but they are hell bent to try it!

Name:	architect -	Reply
Subject:	A BIG FAT YES I CAN
Date:	3/26/2016 4:22:56 PM (updated 3/26/2016 4:26:33 PM)

PLANNED PARENTHOOD DOES NOT MURDER THOUSANDS OF BABIES EACH YEAR...that would be shocking, an illegal abomination, worse than anything Hitler did in the concentration camps or Stalin in the Gulags!

They and other medical clinics do abort thousands of fetuses each year, and until the supreme court says otherwise, that remains legal whether you like it or not!!

Strange how both sides of the spectrum seems to think they have the authority to decide for themselves what is legal and illegal!!

I'm sure you are as appalled by my post as I am with yours...this in America so live with it!

Name:	Lifer -	Reply
Subject:	Try this....
Date:	3/26/2016 4:35:22 PM

Find a pregnant woman and do anything to cause her "fetus" to become non-viable (to use your sanitized launguage) and see what charges get filed against you.  It is only permissable by PP because they donate to the dims, like yourself. 

Name:	Lifer -	Reply
Subject:	Your reading comprehension is horrible
Date:	3/26/2016 4:38:11 PM

Just to clear the air, I think everyone should have a weapon at all times, in all situations, because when the good guys are armed they stop and/or kill bad guys.

Name:	copperline -	Reply
Subject:	Nobody Hijacked Your Tread U R 2 Sensitive
Date:	3/26/2016 4:43:41 PM

LOL GoneFishin... I thought about that free speech in the theatre example myself.... just don't think that telling me to hush rose to the same level as "preventing me from defending myself".   I'll give you credit for a partial smack down.....

Changing the subject to abortion is just too far out of bounds to be worth a reply.

Name:	copperline -	Reply
Subject:	Somebody hijacked my thread
Date:	3/26/2016 4:57:33 PM

Didn't think about that one, but you're right.   It just doesn't seem logical that rights granted by the law can be selectively withdrawn by a corporation, does it?

Name:	architect -	Reply
Subject:	Yeah as clear as mud!
Date:	3/26/2016 6:37:06 PM (updated 3/26/2016 6:38:28 PM)

My reading comprehension is faulty.  You are the one who selected the common sense and reasonable answer (choice 1) and are now obviously back-tracking.  What happened, the NRA thought police get to you?

Name:	architect -	Reply
Subject:	Somebody hijacked my thread
Date:	3/26/2016 6:45:35 PM (updated 3/26/2016 6:46:33 PM)

Nope, nor by a bunch of peckerwoods sitting in the state legislature either.  Funny how the far right conservatives want government to be closest to the people being goverened until the "people" do something silly like prohibit descrimination against Gays...witness NC last Thursday!

Name:	architect -	Reply
Subject:	Try this....
Date:	3/26/2016 6:49:50 PM

Maybe you are right and my reading comprehension is faulty because I haven't the slightest idea what you are talking about in the last post.  Of course it is also possible your ability to make a sensible point is faulty.  You and Wix are not scoring many points recently!

Name:	Talullahhound -	Reply
Subject:	Somebody hijacked my thread
Date:	3/26/2016 7:38:14 PM

But my understanding that the law does have provisions for  companies and other public spaces to not allow guns.  This can be schools, government buildings, public businesses.  BTW, you cannot take a gun into the Coosa County Courthouse building.  So if there was no provision to prohibit it, how could they prohibit guns?

Name:	lakngulf -	Reply
Subject:	Somebody hijacked my thread
Date:	3/26/2016 8:49:09 PM

that is exactly what I tried to say but copper missed it i guess

Name:	Lifer -	Reply
Subject:	Try this....
Date:	3/26/2016 10:05:08 PM

Maybe you aren't smart enough to realize the line about the Washington post is a hyperlink. Click it and read the article and when you reach the part about about the clackmass mall click that hyperlink (hint it is blue).

Name:	Lifer -	Reply
Subject:	Another follow up question
Date:	3/26/2016 10:07:31 PM

Faulty memory and on my phone it is cumbersome to switch between windows.

Name:	Lifer -	Reply
Subject:	Somebody hijacked my thread
Date:	3/26/2016 10:14:09 PM

No open carry law overrides a private owners right to set the rules for what happens on their PRIVATE PROPERTY, even if the private property is a public space, like a store or stadium.

Name:	copperline -	Reply
Subject:	Somebody hijacked my thread
Date:	3/27/2016 9:22:08 AM

I do understand that the law allows property owners to prohibit guns on their property even though the law is based on the idea that I have a right to carry a gun for self-defense.  That just doesn’t make sense when you step back and look at it.   It seems like a contradiction to me because the property owner would have a “right to prohibit” that is somehow superior to my “right of self-protection”.

In the case of the GOP convention, it sounds like many gun rights advocates would agree with gun control supporters that there are some times you should not have the right to carry a gun.   Even the NRA national convention prohibited gun possession in their gathering last year in direct contradiction of their strong right-to-carry beliefs.

Aren’t the Open Carry laws giving corporations and business owners the legal responsibility to determine what a reasonable level of gun control should be?   It seems to me the law is written to simply leave it to the absolute discretion of private businessmen to decide what the public safety requirements should be, when it is not permissible to carry a gun, what a customer’s 2^nd amendment rights are, and when they can be exercised.  

Bad laws are those that make for bad outcomes.   If the GOP & Quicken Arena exercise their discretion and permit weapons at this extremely emotionally charged convention, it may become clear to everybody why we need laws that deal with the dangers of gun possession in public gathering places, and that leaving that awesome decision to the whims of a corporation isn’t rational.  

Name:	lakngulf -	Reply
Subject:	Somebody hijacked my thread
Date:	3/27/2016 9:37:10 AM

Believe it our not there are many, many folks who think the the Wild Wild West was not the best way to handle our differences and protection.  Some do, but there are some who think we should have no guns at all.  Those on the extreme are our problems, those in the middle have to deal with the complexities of life.  Welcome!

Name:	copperline -	Reply
Subject:	Somebody hijacked my thread
Date:	3/27/2016 10:56:43 AM

I agree with you.   I hope that episodes like this one can push us to find common ground...   Gun control advocates need to concede that gun ownership is a constitutional right, gun rights advocates need to concede that there should be restrictions on those rights when it comes to public safety.   Neither side wants to make the US a more dangerous place.

Name:	Talullahhound -	Reply
Subject:	Somebody hijacked my thread
Date:	3/27/2016 12:45:09 PM

As I understand it (because I haven't personally researched it), years ago the NRA made a concession to the Gun Control supporters and they took it and still wanted more.  So since the time, the NRA has taken a hard line, because they view the concessions as a slippery slope. the NRA says to enforce the laws that are on the book. But the problem is, there isn't enough law enforcement to do that and shoddy practices still go on. 

A lot of the things that the gun control lobby demands, in truth don't make any sense.  They want to ban assault rifles.  Assault rifles that are available for public sale are only semi-automatic (anything fully automatic requires a multitude of documents and very long approval process, because they are illegal), just like a hunting rifle.  So if you ban assault type weapons, you are effectively banning the guns that hunters use.  Another point is the extended magazines.  Most gun owners would probably concede that, but in in truth, it takes only seconds to change out a magazine for another.  Commercial gun transfers already require an FFL from a licensed gun dealer, but private transfers do not.  That is to say, if you go to a gun show and buy a gun, a background check will be done; however if you buy one from a guy in the parking lot, the background check does not happen.

It would be nice if both sides could find some common ground, but I don't see it happening any time soon. 

Funny as it may sound, I'm a bit more comfortable with open carry than concealed carry, but if someone is intent on killing, it hardly matters where his gun is located and I doubt all the bad guess that carry concealed have a legitmate consealed carry permit.  Those things are for the law abiding citizens.

c