• 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!

Thousands Petition To Allow Guns At Republican Convention For ‘Safety’ [UPDATE]

jet57

jet57

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 19, 2012
Messages
31,057
Reaction score
3,969
Location
not here
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Centrist
Thousands Petition To Allow Guns At Republican Convention For 'Safety' [UPDATE]

The Secret Service, at least, has not been persuaded by the logic of a petition asking that guns be allowed into the Republican National Convention in July.
Click to expand...

The agency told ABC’s Cleveland affiliate in a statement:

Title 18 United States Code Sections 3056 and 1752 provides the Secret Service authority to preclude firearms from entering sites visited by our protectees, including those located in open-carry states. Only authorized law enforcement personnel working in conjunction with the Secret Service for a particular event may carry a firearm inside of the protected site. The Secret Service works closely with our local law enforcement partners in each state to ensure a safe environment for our protectees and the public. Individuals determined to be carrying firearms will not be allowed past a predetermined outer perimeter checkpoint, regardless of whether they possess a ticket to the event.
Click to expand...

Is the “the right to bear” being violated; yes or no and why or why not?
 
First, "the right to bear" is not actually being violated. What you're seeing is the part that I have always believed is and has been an ongoing process: "They're being regulated."

Secondly, how is the Secret Service supposed to protect the candidates if one is standing in front of a possible 100% CC at the convention? I see more than one can of worms I would hate to open. :sigh:
 
I see no problem with the request but with two exceptions, neither Trump or Cruz are allow to have a gun, we would not want a killing on National Television, or do we.............
 
joG said:
If there is guaranteed and believable security, I see no real reason to allow guns. On the other hand, I don't see why not allow them, if the delegates want to carry.
Click to expand...

I don't think that's what the delegates wanted. They are using the word "security" in order to justify carrying, it seems to me. I think that they just want to carry to make a political point. Their reasoning implies that protesters will show up with guns, I don't believe that they really think that.

So, now that it looks like they can't carry, are the rights being violated?
 
Casper said:
I see no problem with the request but with two exceptions, neither Trump or Cruz are allow to have a gun, we would not want a killing on National Television, or do we.............
Click to expand...

Why is it then, that if a restaurant does the same thing, or a city park, or a school, it's a violation of second amendment rights?
 
jet57 said:
I don't think that's what the delegates wanted. They are using the word "security" in order to justify carrying, it seems to me. I think that they just want to carry to make a political point. Their reasoning implies that protesters will show up with guns, I don't believe that they really think that.

So, now that it looks like they can't carry, are the rights being violated?
Click to expand...

Only if the convention is considered to be a state or government activity.
 
joG said:
Only if the convention is considered to be a state or government activity.
Click to expand...

So, if a restaurant owner decides that he or she does not want people carrying guns in their place, then that is not a violation of the right to bear.
 
jet57 said:
So, if a restaurant owner decides that he or she does not want people carrying guns in their place, then that is not a violation of the right to bear.
Click to expand...

Not a violation of the Constitution, anyway. There might be local or State laws that need to be adhered to.
 
Casper said:
I see no problem with the request but with two exceptions, neither Trump or Cruz are allow to have a gun, we would not want a killing on National Television, or do we.............
Click to expand...

Why aren't they allowed a firearm? Also, how would them having a firearm prevent a killing?
 
joG said:
Not a violation of the Constitution, anyway. There might be local or State laws that need to be adhered to.
Click to expand...

You can't carry at the pentagon or congress or the white house either. Is that a violation?
 
jet57 said:
You can't carry at the pentagon or congress or the white house either. Is that a violation?
Click to expand...

So your plan is to question each and every possible situation to see if it is a violation?

Get a lawyer, and you will waste less time here.
 
SMTA said:
So your plan is to question each and every possible situation to see if it is a violation?

Get a lawyer, and you will waste less time here.
Click to expand...

No, my plan is to ask intelligent follow up questions to test opinions on violations.

So, since you can't carry in government facilities, is that a violation of your right to bear arms?
 
MrT said:
Why aren't they allowed a firearm? Also, how would them having a firearm prevent a killing?
Click to expand...

Missed by a Mile, by them NOT having one we would avoid the killing, think, then smile:mrgreen:
 
jet57 said:
You can't carry at the pentagon or congress or the white house either. Is that a violation?
Click to expand...

Theoretically yes. The 2A does not read "with the exclusion of" does it, so why do you need to ask such questions?

Oh! do you mean the law is above the constitution?
 
Last edited:
jet57 said:
I don't think that's what the delegates wanted. They are using the word "security" in order to justify carrying, it seems to me. I think that they just want to carry to make a political point. Their reasoning implies that protesters will show up with guns, I don't believe that they really think that.

So, now that it looks like they can't carry, are the rights being violated?
Click to expand...

No, it is a private organization leasing property for their use, in a closed event where there is adequate security, including large number of on-site police officers, federal agent details for major candidate, and access control with searches and ID checks.

so neither the right to carry is being violated nor are attendees in unreasonable risk.

if they instead had their event in a building or convention center or public plaza where there was no access control and people are being allowed to freely circulate in and out without search or challenge I would feel differently.
 
jet57 said:
You can't carry at the pentagon or congress or the white house either. Is that a violation?
Click to expand...

That would be something you might want to consider. To do that, you should look up the court rulings that explain these precedents.
 
EMNofSeattle said:
No, it is a private organization leasing property for their use, in a closed event where there is adequate security, including large number of on-site police officers, federal agent details for major candidate, and access control with searches and ID checks.

so neither the right to carry is being violated nor are attendees in unreasonable risk.

if they instead had their event in a building or convention center or public plaza where there was no access control and people are being allowed to freely circulate in and out without search or challenge I would feel differently.
Click to expand...
[emphasis added by bubba]

how is their right to carry not being violated if they are being denied the right to carry?
 
justabubba said:
[emphasis added by bubba]

how is their right to carry not being violated if they are being denied the right to carry?
Click to expand...

same here: if the mods lock you out of a thread you are not being denied any constitutional rights. If, on the other hand, you are thrown into prison for saying "Bush is an Asshole" by government agents, then your constitutional rights are being violated.
 
joG said:
That would be something you might want to consider. To do that, you should look up the court rulings that explain these precedents.
Click to expand...

I'm asking - now you - is it a violation?
 
jet57 said:
No, my plan is to ask intelligent follow up questions to test opinions on violations.

So, since you can't carry in government facilities, is that a violation of your right to bear arms?
Click to expand...

Then your plan has failed.
 
jet57 said:
So, you cannot answer the question.
Click to expand...

I elect not to waste further time in a thread where you believe that asking ridiculous questions has merit.
 
SMTA said:
I elect not to waste further time in a thread where you believe that asking ridiculous questions has merit.
Click to expand...

Yeah, you can't answer the question.
 
jet57 said:
No, my plan is to ask intelligent follow up questions to test opinions on violations.

So, since you can't carry in government facilities, is that a violation of your right to bear arms?
Click to expand...

No. It is private property administered and owned by the government. It has nothing to do with any law or restriction of rights. You cannot have a weapon on someone else's private property if they say you can't. Your rights end where there's begin.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom