• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Don’t shoot: NRA bans guns from its annual meeting

You could go wait in the car for them.

You could have them waiting outside.

I don't normally wait in the car when I pick them up so this would be no different.

You could put your gun in the car until you leave.

You could leave your house while I was there.

If you aren't willing to do either of those things, then I'm afraid you're SOL.

Well not really. I've discovered that the comfortable middle is to not let the people I'm near know or discover that I'm carrying. Everyone gets along, and life goes on.
 
Every convention the NRA has ever had before this one had guns at it. This one shouldn't be any different.

It's weird, I won't deny that, but they have to pay attention to other factors. The weather in NC is pretty nice this time of year.:cool:

And no laugh from my tasteless sophomoric humor I threw in there? :mrgreen:

Oh no, trust me, that was great:2razz:
 
Well if I ever make that claim I'll be shure to source it.

You did make that claim when you said "Evidence sourced says no" in response to my question: "But isn't it safer for both you and your children to simply respect the wishes of the homeowner and return the firearm to your car?"



As it relates what I've said, the home owner has the responsibility to make sure the home is free from known hazards. There are always exemptions, such as the presence of oxygen tanks and construction, but the rule holds for normal every day life.

And he's trying to do so by asking someone in a known domestic situation not to enter his home while armed.

By threateni9ng that person with a gun when they make the choice to become an armed intruder, he's taking an active stance in removing said hazard.

Gun-free zones are hazards, so if you want one you should have to apply for a permit.

Ex-husbands with guns who are actively involved in domestic are known hazards as well. An even greater hazard than a gun-free zone.



Me, and my children, which is why I wouldn't leave them in a house filled with people drinking, especially when one or more are waving around a firearm.

The homeowner has a responsibility to his children, which means not letting an irate and armed ex-husband into his home.

Also, as I said, if it looked like the situation was escalating to that point I'd grab my kids and leave even if they were buck naked.

But why would you escalate the situation in the first place?
 
While I may not entirely agree with Jerry in all details, I think an important distinction needs to be made between types of private property:

1. Truly private, ie home, residence, family farm, your storage shed, a high-security facility.

2. "Private" property that is actually commerical property and normally open to the public.

I have no problem with the owner banning guns from #1 if he chooses.

#2 should not be able to legally ban those with lawful carry permits from carrying their firearms, without an extremely good reason (ie volatile chemicals being processed on site, etc.)

Incidentally, if you're welcome at my home, you're welcome to come armed... I'll assume you are anyway. :mrgreen:

(If I have reason to believe I could not trust you in my home with a gun, I don't want you in my house at all.)
 
You did make that claim when you said "Evidence sourced says no" in response to my question: "But isn't it safer for both you and your children to simply respect the wishes of the homeowner and return the firearm to your car?"

Not at all, in fact.

It's not the leaving that I have a problem with.

It's the leaving my children in that environment I have a problem with.

If it were just me alone, I'd leave, or go put the firearm in the car, no problem.

Once I'm on scene to collect my children, in the house, gathering them up, I'm leaving with them.

And he's trying to do so by asking someone in a known domestic situation not to enter his home while armed.

By threateni9ng that person with a gun when they make the choice to become an armed intruder, he's taking an active stance in removing said hazard.

He's the one pointing a firearm at others, not me, I'm there to collect my kids and go. If anyone is the hazard, he is.

Ex-husbands with guns who are actively involved in domestic are known hazards as well. An even greater hazard than a gun-free zone.

I'm sorry, "actively involved in domestic" what?

The homeowner has a responsibility to his children, which means not letting an irate and armed ex-husband into his home.

Oh you think I'm irate throughout all this.

Since I didn't freak out when I walked in on my X and her boyfriend, and yes I was armed at the time, there's no reason to assume I would be irate here. Picking up my children is a pleasant event I look forward to every day.

But why would you escalate the situation in the first place?

If it were up to me I'd go in, get the kids and leave. No problem.

The homeowner is the one causing problems here. I'm here to get the kids and go, nothing else.

Forget the firearms, he could not like the shirt I'm wearing. Let's say it has a political message or something. He sees it, tells me I can't wear that shirt in his house and to leave.

That's fine. I'll leave...with the kids. I'm not being defiant against him, I'm complying. I'm leaving.

Ok, so this time let's forget the firearms AND the kids. Let's say I need to get the copy our last joint tax return. X leaves it on the kitchen counter at this same house. I show up, house is open so I go in, everyone's in the back chill'n. I see my X, she tells me the file's on the counter, then the home owner sees the political message on my shirt and tells me to leave. Fine, I'm leaving....with my personal tax paperwork.

Yes, a homeowner can kick out whoever they want for whatever reason, but the person being kicked out has the right to collect their property and remove their property from your house. If you get evicted, you still have a right to go into the residence and retrieve your property. If you get fired, you still have a right to go onto company ground and into company structures to retrieve your personal property.

10x that right for children.
 
Last edited:
(If I have reason to believe I could not trust you in my home with a gun, I don't want you in my house at all.)

Generally, that's my personal stance, as well.

But let's say one of my wife's friends decided to get loaded even though she had her kids with her, and her ex husband shows up and he's armed. I'm not going to tell the guy he can't come in, but I'd rather he not be armed in that volatile situation.

But at the same time, I am allowing him in even though I would prefer it if he wasn't in my home at all, so it fits the quoted sentence anyway.
 
What if there was something forcing me into the building?

Let's say my X came over with the kids for a b-day party, had a little to much to drink and is leaving with a friend. She calls me and tells me to pick up the kids.

You don't know I'm armed when I approach because I carry concealed. Once in your home you notice something, note that it's a firearm and tell me to leave.

Kids aren't ready and the only person I know is my drunk X.

I'm not leaving until my kids are good to go.

I have a right to protect my children. I have a right in the care, control and custody of my children. By trying to force me out you are trying to violate my rights.

Not to sound like an ass, but that's something I would be willing to go to jail for. I would have no problem telling my NCO that I got arrested for trespassing because I wouldn't leave my children alone with my drunken X and a group of strangers.

I would be cool and civil with you, but if push came to shove, I'm not abandoning my kids.

Inaccurate. You either put the gun in the car or wait in the car for the kids on the street.

You have no right to do as you wish on anyone else's property.

You have a right to free speech, but a bar can kick you out for cussing if they want to. They can also tell you not to bring a gun in. I can do the same in my house. I can kick you out of my house for ANY reason I choose (say, I don't like your T-shirt) and if you stay, you are breaking the law.

This is pretty established regardless of what reason you might come up with.
 
Inaccurate. You either put the gun in the car or wait in the car for the kids on the street.

You have no right to do as you wish on anyone else's property.

You have a right to free speech, but a bar can kick you out for cussing if they want to. They can also tell you not to bring a gun in. I can do the same in my house. I can kick you out of my house for ANY reason I choose (say, I don't like your T-shirt) and if you stay, you are breaking the law.

This is pretty established regardless of what reason you might come up with.

After I've 'taken posession' of the children from my X, if you try to kick me out without letting me take my children, you are kidnapping.

A citizen is authorized to use deadly force to stop a kidnapping, so if you insist on escalating the situation I suggest you take great care. 30 seconds of tolerating me in your home isn't worth your life, but my children are worth mine.
 
Last edited:
He's the one pointing a firearm at others, not me, I'm there to collect my kids and go. If anyone is the hazard, he is.

You'd be the one that has turned into an armed intruder. Deadly force is authorized at that point.

I'm sorry, "actively involved in domestic" what?

Sorry, Actively involved in domestic disputes.


Oh you think I'm irate throughout all this.

Since I didn't freak out when I walked in on my X and her boyfriend, and yes I was armed at the time, there's no reason to assume I would be irate here. Picking up my children is a pleasant event I look forward to every day.

I don't know you. There's every reason to assume you would be irate here.

The homeowner is the one causing problems here. I'm here to get the kids and go, nothing else.

The person who makes the choice to become an armed intruder is:

1. Endangering his own children
2. Putting himself in a situation where he can be legally shot
3. In violation of the law and is infringing upon another person's property rights.



Forget the firearms, he could not like the shirt I'm wearing. Let's say it has a political message or something. He sees it, tells me I can't wear that shirt in his house and to leave.

His prerogative.


That's fine. I'll leave...with the kids. I'm not being defiant against him, I'm complying. I'm leaving.

Nothing wrong with that. And if he told you to wait at the door while they gathered your kids, that's what you'd have to do.

Ok, so this time let's forget the firearms AND the kids. Let's say I need to get my X's copy of our last joint tax return. X leaves it on the kitchen counter at this same house. I show up, house is open so I go in, everyone's in the back chill'n. I see my X, she tells me the file's on the counter, then the home owner sees the political message on my shirt and tells me to leave. Fine, I'm leaving....with my personal tax paperwork.

Why are you walking into other people's homes of your own accord?

The homeowner would be totally justified in using violence for that alone. Forget the political t-shirt.
 
Not that this proves anything, but:

# Being necessary to the security of a free State,
Patrick Henry: "Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined...The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun.

# The right of the people to keep and bear Arms,
Samuel Adams: "The Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms."

# shall not be infringed.
Thomas Jefferson: "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."


Founders' Quotes - Jefferson & Hamilton on Duty to be Armed

Anyone who wants firearms banned form their property is to be justly viewed with deep suspicion.

uh-oh... here come the quotes.

Because anything a founding father said 200 years ago (after having just fought a monarchy) is totally relevant to modern day pubic safety issues.:roll::roll:
 
You'd be the one that has turned into an armed intruder. Deadly force is authorized at that point.

Sorry, Actively involved in domestic disputes.

I don't know you. There's every reason to assume you would be irate here.

The person who makes the choice to become an armed intruder is:

1. Endangering his own children
2. Putting himself in a situation where he can be legally shot
3. In violation of the law and is infringing upon another person's property rights.

His prerogative.

Nothing wrong with that. And if he told you to wait at the door while they gathered your kids, that's what you'd have to do.

Why are you walking into other people's homes of your own accord?

The homeowner would be totally justified in using violence for that alone. Forget the political t-shirt.

I was already in the house when told to leave, and when told to leave I give every indication that I will do so asap. I have no intention of hanging around, I'm not destroying property, I'm not harassing anyone. I'm grabbing my kids and leaving, nothing else.

That's not trespassing.

Why are you walking into other people's homes of your own accord?

Implied Consent. I was invited over to do something which occurs inside the home and the door was left wide open for anyone showing up for the other event. This is actually quite common especially as we ramp up to the Sturgis Rally.
 
Last edited:
If I were in the home owner's position, I would get the mother and tell the father that she would get the children ready and bring them out to him while he waited off the property.

That's how I would do it, apparently others would go bonkers and run to their gun cabinet and try to remove me with force. I think my solution is better. If nothing else my solution doesn't kill the buzz.
 
I was already in the house when told to leave, and when told to leave I give every indication that I will do so asap. I have no intention of hanging around, I'm not destroying property, I'm not harassing anyone. I'm grabbing my kids and leaving, nothing else.

That's not trespassing.

It is once you refuse to leave immediately. And it definitely is when you walk in oin yur own to get the tax returns.

But let's stick with the scenario where the kids aren't ready to leave.

After the owner asks you to leave are you looking at how much time it will take the get the kids to ready to leave and saying "it's only five more seconds. I'm getting my kids and leaving"? If so, then you aren't really doing anything wrong, IMO. If he got crazy over it, he'd be in the wrong.

But if the time is going to be greater than that, you are essentially putting the kids at greater risk through non-compliance. Then you'd be an active participant in the escalation of things.



P.S. I was going to say that in the described scenario you'd be better off leaving the gun in the car in the first place, but after thinking about it I realize that you'd be better off entering the unknown situation with it than without it, especially when your kids are involved.
 
If I were in the home owner's position, I would get the mother and tell the father that she would get the children ready and bring them out to him while he waited off the property.

I would've probably had the kids ready to go and at the door waiting for you in the given scenario. That would probably be the best way to deal with it.

But you also have the ability to ask your ex to get the kids ready while you wait off property.

If you were alerted to her condition, then presumably she has a phone on her. you would be free step outside and call her or ask the owner to have her get them ready.

That's how I would do it, apparently others would go bonkers and run to their gun cabinet and try to remove me with force. I think my solution is better. If nothing else my solution doesn't kill the buzz.

Once you refuse to leave of your own accord, force becomes necessary.
 
Implied Consent. I was invited over to do something which occurs inside the home and the door was left wide open for anyone showing up for the other event. This is actually quite common especially as we ramp up to the Sturgis Rally.

You were invited by someone other than the homeowner, so there's no implied consent.
 
It is once you refuse to leave immediately. And it definitely is when you walk in oin yur own to get the tax returns.

But let's stick with the scenario where the kids aren't ready to leave.

After the owner asks you to leave are you looking at how much time it will take the get the kids to ready to leave and saying "it's only five more seconds. I'm getting my kids and leaving"? If so, then you aren't really doing anything wrong, IMO. If he got crazy over it, he'd be in the wrong.

But if the time is going to be greater than that, you are essentially putting the kids at greater risk through non-compliance. Then you'd be an active participant in the escalation of things.



P.S. I was going to say that in the described scenario you'd be better off leaving the gun in the car in the first place, but after thinking about it I realize that you'd be better off entering the unknown situation with it than without it, especially when your kids are involved.

The way I see this going down is if I walk in, tell the kids to grab their shoes, and go. If it's something like visitation then the kids sometimes, rarely, need help getting their coat and bag.

From walking up to the door to driving away is typically around 5 minutes or less. I hate the people my X hangs around. The totally wrong crowd. A bunch of 1%ers. I call her and let her know when I'm pulling up so that she can tell the kids I'm here. At that point it's all they can do to keep from falling over themselves to leave.

If I'm told not to enter, and then I enter anyway, that's my bad. If I invent delays, try to start fights, start braking ****, that's all on me. You have a right to defend your home. If it were my home and some armed asshole came in and started smashing the place up, I'd go for my weapon and 911. Lord help us all if that armed asshole hid a hand and started threatening to use a gun. I know what I would do, but bullets have a funny way of bouncing off of things, even bones. Not good in any situation, especially when children are present.
 
Last edited:
After I've 'taken posession' of the children from my X, if you try to kick me out without letting me take my children, you are kidnapping.

A citizen is authorized to use deadly force to stop a kidnapping, so if you insist on escalating the situation I suggest you take great care. 30 seconds of tolerating me in your home isn't worth your life, but my children are worth mine.

Now, if - in your timeline - your Ex kidnapped the children in the first place - you'd have an argument. And as long as you weren't bringing your unwanted gun into my house, I'd happily send the kids safely out the door with you.

You can't simply bring your gun in and insist that I give you your children who were legally brought to my house by your ex-wife.

If you've got a concern over the children, I'm sure there is a much calmer solution that you bringing your gun over to take them away - especially if the ex-wife is drunk.

And this example and your arguments aren't doing the best job of arguing for gun rights. You're really starting to get insistent that your rights are stronger than my rights. It's my property. And I have the right to tell you what to do on my property.

Your speech rights are restricted based on my prerogative as are many of your rights beyond the most very basic (just being on my property doesn't give me the right to harm you or kill you - unless I've said that you are a threat to me, please leave or I will harm you - thus giving me more leeway - thought not complete legal rights to harm you or kill you).
 
The way I see this going down is if I walk in, tell the kids to grab their shoes, and go. If it's something like visitation then the kids sometimes, rarely, need help getting their coat and bag.

From walking up to the door to driving away is typically around 5 minutes or less. I hate the people my X hangs around. The totally wrong crowd. A bunch of 1%ers. I call her and let her know when I'm pulling up so that she can tell the kids I'm here. At that point it's all they can do to keep from falling over themselves to leave.

If I'm told not to enter, and then I enter anyway, that's my bad. If I invent delays, try to start fights, start braking ****, that's all on me. You have a right to defend your home.

Yeah, it occurs to me now that you are talking very specifically about your own situation, while I'm arguing more in the realm of generalities.

You're going to be aware of your own situations better than I am.

If it were my home and some armed asshole came in and started smashing the place up, I'd go for my weapon and 911. Lord help us all if that armed asshole hid a hand and started threatening to use a gun. I know what I would do, but bullets have a funny way of bouncing off of things, even bones. Not good in any situation, especially when children are present.

As I would expect anyone to. This is closer the the generalized scenario I've been envisioning or worrying about potentially occurring.
 
I hate the people my X hangs around. The totally wrong crowd. A bunch of 1%ers. I call her and let her know when I'm pulling up so that she can tell the kids I'm here. At that point it's all they can do to keep from falling over themselves to leave.

"1%er" - Outlaw Motorcycle Gang????
 
While I may not entirely agree with Jerry in all details, I think an important distinction needs to be made between types of private property:

1. Truly private, ie home, residence, family farm, your storage shed, a high-security facility.

2. "Private" property that is actually commerical property and normally open to the public.

I have no problem with the owner banning guns from #1 if he chooses.

#2 should not be able to legally ban those with lawful carry permits from carrying their firearms, without an extremely good reason (ie volatile chemicals being processed on site, etc.)

Incidentally, if you're welcome at my home, you're welcome to come armed... I'll assume you are anyway. :mrgreen:

(If I have reason to believe I could not trust you in my home with a gun, I don't want you in my house at all.)

Thank you for bringing a calm voice to the other side. I did intend to stir the pot and in doing so I drowned out the over arching ideal. I'm glad you brought it to the table.
 
"1%er" - Outlaw Motorcycle Gang????

...Googles "1%er - Outlaw Motorcycle Gang"....that kind of works also.

Every drill our NCOs tell the Red-Phasers (ie; n00bs) that there will always be that bottom 1%, but that they don't have to be a part of it. They can be better.

These folks my X hangs around with aren't in motorcycle gangs (to my knowledge), but they're...well...they're fairly stereotypical goth/trailer-trash. They will never amount to anything. Non of them have any collage, a real job, etc. Most of them work at a gas station or WalMart with no real future.
 
...Googles "1%er - Outlaw Motorcycle Gang"....that kind of works also.

Every drill our NCOs tell the Red-Phasers (ie; n00bs) that there will always be that bottom 1%, but that they don't have to be a part of it. They can be better.

These folks my X hangs around with aren't in motorcycle gangs (to my knowledge), but they're...well...they're fairly stereotypical goth/trailer-trash. They will never amount to anything. Non of them have any collage, a real job, etc. Most of them work at a gas station or WalMart with no real future.

Okay...yeah, I googled, because I'd not heard the phrase before and didn't know what you were referring to.

Thanks.
 
I personally prefer to be anonymous than be a member of a gun group.

If every gun owner had that attitude we'd have no gun rights. If every gun owner joined the NRA and GOA or the second amendment foundation, Nancy Pelosi would be pushing for funds to build public shooting ranges and giving the public surplus ammo from LE agencies or the military
 
uh-oh... here come the quotes.

Because anything a founding father said 200 years ago (after having just fought a monarchy) is totally relevant to modern day pubic safety issues.:roll::roll:

"pubic safety issues"

does that involve government issued condoms or tasking the CDC with elimination of crabs?
 
I was already in the house when told to leave, and when told to leave I give every indication that I will do so asap. I have no intention of hanging around, I'm not destroying property, I'm not harassing anyone. I'm grabbing my kids and leaving, nothing else.

That's not trespassing.



Implied Consent. I was invited over to do something which occurs inside the home and the door was left wide open for anyone showing up for the other event. This is actually quite common especially as we ramp up to the Sturgis Rally.



Wow.

Pardon my segue, but all this makes me appreciate my ex-wife's current husband. Last month I came with my son to their house for a cookout. My nephew-in-law brought up the subject of guns, and after a bit X's-hubby brought out his antique collection of firearms for us to examine. He's got some nice stuff too; flintlocks about 200 years old, some early rifles with odd breechblocks, old style percussion-cap shotguns... well anyway, let's just say I like the guy even better after reading all this stuff about hostile child exchanges. :mrgreen:

Of course I suppose I was lucky; I got custody of my son and therefore had control of the visitation situation. If she had gotten custody, she probably would have been a bitch about it.
 
Back
Top Bottom