• 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

danarhea

Slayer of the DP Newsbot
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
43,602
Reaction score
26,256
Location
Houston, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
"North Carolina State law prohibits the carrying of firearms in the Charlotte Convention Center, and the Time Warner Cable Arena," the sign outside the convention hall reads. "In addition, the Rules and Regulations of the Charlotte Convention Center prohibit the carrying of firearms in the Center.

Pursuant to Time Warner Cable Arena policy, all individuals entering the Arena will be subject to a magnetometer security check."Sound like the entryway into this years' Netroots Nation, a convention of liberal bloggers?


Well, it isn't: it's the sign outside the door to the convention for the country's largest gun rights organization, the NRA.


The only question I have is this? How could the NRA leadership have their heads so far up their asses that they chose to have their convention in a place that does not allow guns? This is yet another reason why Gun Owners of America (GOA) is a better organization.


Article is here.
 
The NRA didn't ban anything. It was the the government of NC.
 
The only question I have is this? How could the NRA leadership have their heads so far up their asses that they chose to have their convention in a place that does not allow guns? This is yet another reason why Gun Owners of America (GOA) is a better organization.


Article is here.

It's like having a men-only pro-choice rally.
 
Raw Story is such trash. As already noted, the NRA didn't ban anything.

I also found this hilarious:

The liberal blog ThinkProgress, which has posted in support of gun control, sent a correspondent to the convention to interview attendees. Three NRA convention members expressed support for the convention center's anti-gun policy. "You don’t have a problem with not bringing firearms here?" the blog asked.

"Not really," one NRA member said. "It’s up to the individual place of business. It’s their right to do as they choose. It’s my right to choose not to come in if I choose not to do so."

How is that "expressing support" for the "anti-gun policy"? That sounds like a /thread-esque response if I ever heard one.
 
Raw Story is such trash. As already noted, the NRA didn't ban anything.

I also found this hilarious:



How is that "expressing support" for the "anti-gun policy"? That sounds like a /thread-esque response if I ever heard one.

I can't agree with the notion that we should leave rights at the door if that's what a private business owner wishes.

"All women who enter are subject to rape."

"Children may be confiscated and sold at the building owner's discretion"

No one should have the authority to keep you from your weapon while on their private property any more then they can keep you from drawing breath.
 
I can't agree with the notion that we should leave rights at the door if that's what a private business owner wishes.

"All women who enter are subject to rape."

"Children may be confiscated and sold at the building owner's discretion"

No one should have the authority to keep you from your weapon while on their private property any more then they can keep you from drawing breath.

I very much doubt that any of the framers of the constitution had this in mind.
 
I very much doubt that any of the framers of the constitution had this in mind.

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.
 
Last edited:
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.

This has nothing to do with whether or not a private person may ask others not to do something on their property.


# 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."

Read that again.

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

The Constitution was designed as a limitation on the powers of the government, not on the rights of private citizens.

# 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."

It's pretty obvious that he's referring to absolute bans on gun ownership.
 
Hmm I see your point, my source doesn't apply, but my opinion is unchanged.

I don't support private persons having the ability to force you to hang various rights at the door. If I invite a pregnant women over for BBQ, she does not resign her right to be free from assault when she steps onto my property. IMO the right to keep and carry is identical to the right to breath.
 
Hmm I see your point, my source doesn't apply, but my opinion is unchanged.

I don't support private persons having the ability to force you to hang various rights at the door. If I invite a pregnant women over for BBQ, she does not resign her right to be free from assault when she steps onto my property. IMO the right to keep and carry is identical to the right to breath.

... I think you are carrying your enthusiasm for guns too far. Obviously a person can prohibit any item they desire from entering their property, exempting those cases where due process of law (aka, search warrants) is at work.

You lose the right to carry your gun when you step onto their property. You don't have to go onto their property.
 
... I think you are carrying your enthusiasm for guns too far. Obviously a person can prohibit any item they desire from entering their property, exempting those cases where due process of law (aka, search warrants) is at work.

You lose the right to carry your gun when you step onto their property. You don't have to go onto their property.

That's the thing. When property rights conflict with gun rights, the person who is given a choice is the one who has to either willingly relinquish their right to bear their gun, or they have to willingly relinquish their right to enter someone else's property.

The only one trying to force anyone to do something is the person who wants to remove the property owners property rights.
 
No one should have the authority to keep you from your weapon while on their private property any more then they can keep you from drawing breath.

Just to make sure I understand this, you're saying that if someone invites you into their home, you have a right to carry a gun into their home without their permission? You're saying that if they ask you to leave when you refuse to get rid of the gun, that you have a right to stay in their home without their permission?

You sound like a great houseguest. :roll:
 
Nobody forces you to do anything. They allow you to make your own choice.

You don't have the right to assault someone just because they're in your home. You don't have the right to go through their things, neither do you have the right to enter their car simply because it's parked on your driveway. We even had a thread on that last example a month ago when an employer wouldn't allow employees to smoke in their own cars while those cars were on the company parking lot. The court ruled in favor of the employees.

I believe there was a similar case involving the storage of firearms on company property, that employees could bring them and store them in their cars. The reasoning was that a vehicle is an extension of the "person".

When you allow someone onto your property, you are choosing to permit the basic package of rights every person carries. If you don't like it, live as a hermit.

I bet if the sign in front of the building said "no Black people allowed inside" you would see my point of view.
 
Last edited:
I bet if the sign in front of the building said "no Black people allowed inside" you would see my point of view.

There ARE buildings that have that policy. They're called exclusive country clubs, exclusive fraternal orders, and the homes of individual racists. And they're perfectly legal.
 
You don't have the right to assault someone just because they're in your home. You don't have the right to go through their things, neither do you have the right to enter their car simply because it's parked on your driveway. We even had a thread on that last example a month ago when an employer wouldn't allow employees to smoke in their own cars while those cars were on the company parking lot. The court ruled in favor of the employees.

I believe there was a similar case involving the storage of firearms on company property, that employees could bring them and store them in their cars. The reasoning was that a vehicle is an extension of the "person".

When you allow someone onto your property, you are choosing to permit the basic package of rights every person carries. If you don't like it, live as a hermit.

I bet if the sign in front of the building said "no Black people allowed inside" you would see my point of view.

So, you don't believe in private property rights?
 
You don't have the right to assault someone just because they're in your home.

To a degree, you do have that right. As long as they are forewarned that they are relinquishing their right not to be punched in the face prior to the punching.

i.e. "Get out of my house or I will I punch you in the face." If the person doesn't leave, you are legally allowed to use force.

Or a sign outside the door:

"Anyone entering these premises will be punched in the face. Enter at your own risk".

Then, by entering the premises, a person has tacitly agreed to be punched in the face.

You don't have the right to go through their things, neither do you have the right to enter their car simply because it's parked on your driveway. We even had a thread on that last example a month ago when an employer wouldn't allow employees to smoke in their own cars while those cars were on the company parking lot. The court ruled in favor of the employees.

Actually, you have the right to search through someone's things if you post a sign "Anyone who enters these premises will be subject to searches"


And with the car examples we have dual property rights in effect. The property rights of the car owner and the property rights of the store owner.

If the store owner allows them to put their cars on his property, he is allowing them an island of their own territory to do with as they would their own property. This is a case where they have their own property rights involved.

If he doesn't want them smoking in their own cars on his property, all he needs to do is make a rule stating they cannot park their cars on his property. Then his property rights would not infringe on theirs.

I
believe there was a similar case involving the storage of firearms on company property, that employees could bring them and store them in their cars.

Same thing as above.

When you allow someone onto your property, you are choosing to permit the basic package of rights every person carries. If you don't like it, live as a hermit.

If they refuse to relinquish the rights the property owner requires them to relinquish they aren't allowed on the property.
 
Last edited:
I can't agree with the notion that we should leave rights at the door if that's what a private business owner wishes.

"All women who enter are subject to rape."

"Children may be confiscated and sold at the building owner's discretion"

No one should have the authority to keep you from your weapon while on their private property any more then they can keep you from drawing breath.

Dude, it's not rape if she consents. And if a woman reads a posted sign that says, "Step onto this property and you will be ****ed", then she consents to be ****ed by way of willingly stepping onto that property knowing the "consequences".

So, it's not rape any more than the convention center is "forcing" you to give up your guns. If you CHOOSE to go inside, then you AGREE to leave your guns at the door. You are not forced to do anything.
 
Just to make sure I understand this, you're saying that if someone invites you into their home, you have a right to carry a gun into their home without their permission?

No I'm saying that if you invite anyone into your home, you are giving them permission to carry in the same act.

You're saying that if they ask you to leave when you refuse to get rid of the gun, that you have a right to stay in their home without their permission?

I didn't say that, either.

I said such people are to be viewed with deep suspicion.

Denying someone to carry is identical to denying someone to breath. If someone says "stop breathing or GTFO", I would of course leave. This person is being highly irrational just as those who say "don't bring you firearm in my home" are.

If someone says "you can't be pregnant in my home", they are being irrational. If someone says "you can't be Black in my home", they are being irrational. These are exactly the same as "you can't be armed in my home".

As to a public building, the owner should have to demonstrate a need to disarm the public in order to bar firearms. "zomg gunzorz r baaad mmkay rfol kthxby" doesn't cut it.
 
Dude, it's not rape if she consents. And if a woman reads a posted sign that says, "Step onto this property and you will be ****ed", then she consents to be ****ed by way of willingly stepping onto that property knowing the "consequences".

Hmm, good counter point.

I suppose if I were a woman my response would be to wear a shirt stating "touch this property and you will be shot". So, I agree to be ****ed by stepping onto the property, and then when sex is attempted that's consent to end that person's life.

Pro-gun wins again.

So, it's not rape any more than the convention center is "forcing" you to give up your guns. If you CHOOSE to go inside, then you AGREE to leave your guns at the door. You are not forced to do anything.

Again, a public building owner should have to demonstrate a need. A homeowner is merely being irrational but there's nothing anyone can really do.
 
... I think you are carrying your enthusiasm for guns too far. Obviously a person can prohibit any item they desire from entering their property, exempting those cases where due process of law (aka, search warrants) is at work.

You lose the right to carry your gun when you step onto their property. You don't have to go onto their property.

Property < body, so I loose my right to carry when I step out of my body.
 
Again, a public building owner should have to demonstrate a need. A homeowner is merely being irrational but there's nothing anyone can really do.

No, they should not. It's their property, they need not demonstrate any damn thing at all except a desire to keep certain things off of their property. If you don't like their rules, don't go onto their property. Where is the issue here?
 
Hmm I see your point, my source doesn't apply, but my opinion is unchanged.

I don't support private persons having the ability to force you to hang various rights at the door. If I invite a pregnant women over for BBQ, she does not resign her right to be free from assault when she steps onto my property. IMO the right to keep and carry is identical to the right to breath.

As much of a gun supporter as I am, this is just not true. You have NO RIGHT to be on someone elses property, period. They are ALLOWING you onto their property. In that instance, you have to abide by their rules, period. No one is making you go on their property. If you step foot on someones land with a gun and they specifically say no guns they can deem you an immediate threat and shoot to kill.

I can make any rule I want to on my property and you must obey or I can have you removed. You have ZERO RIGHT to my land. You better damn well believe I can make you leave your gun in your car.
 
Back
Top Bottom