Republicans scared they can't bring guns to GOP convention

A person has the right have a firearm on their private property. A person has the right to not have you with your firearm on their private property.

originally posted by: rockintitz
a reply to: introvert

Fair enough.

So we go back to my first question. If open carry was part of someones religion would a business have the right to refuse service?

Yes.

A firearm, even if part of your religious belief, is not automatically accessible because of your belief and must be obtained through the proper channels, as it is a regulated item.

Those regulations supersede your religious belief and there are rules that must be followed.

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: introvert

No that only applies for protesting, which is true, we all know you can't apply that to firearms without turning america in to a communist state.

When the shoe fits one must admit.

Firearm ownership law in the People's Republic of China heavily regulates the ownership of firearms. Generally, private citizens are not allowed to possess firearms.

en.wikipedia.org...

Plus one to grow on.

However, contrary to Western usage, these states do not describe themselves as "communist" nor do they claim to have achieved communism; they refer to themselves as Socialist states or Workers' states that are in the process of constructing socialism.[

en.wikipedia.org...

a reply to: aethertek

An assassin wouldn't dare knowing he'd be gunned down in a heart beat.

Then why is there such a thing as a martyr?

Closed for staff review.
Reopened.
I would caution members who cannot follow the rules that posts will be removed......that includes the OPs....which can cause the thread to be removed....You are responsible for your own posts.

Reaffirming Our Desire For Productive Political Debate (REVISED)
*** ALL MEMBERS *** Ending Rudeness, Hate, Bigotry: Getting Back to Basics

Terms and Conditions of Use--Please Review



and, as always:

Do NOT reply to this post!!

Wait, I thought they were the evil rich ones.

They're backwoods, redneck gun fanatic, moonshiners now?

They both come in multiple sizes, and colors.

Some of us distrust both.

a reply to: introvert

Everything is regulated. Your argument has no merit.

Should a business be able to discriminate based on the cotton content of someones t-shirt?

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: rockintitz
a reply to: introvert

Fair enough.

So we go back to my first question. If open carry was part of someones religion would a business have the right to refuse service?

Yes.

A firearm, even if part of your religious belief, is not automatically accessible because of your belief and must be obtained through the proper channels, as it is a regulated item.

Those regulations supersede your religious belief and there are rules that must be followed.

No those 'regulations' do not supercede the Bill of Rights.

Like the second that clearly says the RIGHT of the people to keep and bear ams shall not be infringed.

Regulation is an INFRINGEMENT.

Also says the same thing in the 9th and 10th amendments.

Those amendments in between deal with DUE PROCESS.

Meaning people have to be taken to court, and crimes be proven beyond all 'reasonable' doubt.

The final nail in gun 'regulation' was the 14th amendment.

That says NO STATE shall make or enforce any law that violates liberty, and property RIGHTS of all 'natural' born or any other citizen.

And that first amendment guarantees a person religious FREEDOM.

All gun control is unconstitutional.

originally posted by: AshOnMyTomatoes

originally posted by: butcherguy

originally posted by: AshOnMyTomatoes

originally posted by: butcherguy

originally posted by: n00bUK

originally posted by: butcherguy

originally posted by: n00bUK

originally posted by: butcherguy
a reply to: Boscowashisnamo

Here are the facts:
- Over 100,000 people die in the US every year from obesity.
- Spoons are completely unregulated. They will sell them to children... even fat children.

Its not like you can pick up a pack of kripsy kremes and kill a half a dozen school kids within the space of an hour though is it Butcher.

So you don't care about over 100,000 lives lost due to obesity.... many of them children.
How can you live with yourself?

Most gun owners in the US do not go down the street mowing down innocent people, or we wouldn't have many people left here.

Of counrse I care butcher, but theres a big difference.

Correct.
Huge difference.
Many more people killed by obesity.
But, it isn't about how many people die... it is about an emotional response to the fear of an inanimate object.

No one uses food to kill another person on purpose. Stupid comparison is stupid.

So you don't give a crap about how many people are dying from preventable causes unless the cause is guns?

Just a second there, professor. I said your comparison is illogical. The regulation of weapons and the regulation of food is not comparable. Food cannot be used to kill another.

I notice that you didn't respond to my question.
What I was getting at is the fact that you are not interested in preventing deaths, or you would be more worried about the easily preventable deaths caused by tobacco, alcohol and obesity.
I am not laboring under some idea that people kill other people with food products or eating utensils... you obviously know that and are avoiding the real point.
Hundreds of thousands of people in the US die from preventable causes.
There are major organizations spending tons of money to pass gun control legislation.
They are funded by people like George Soros.
Where are the big money people when it comes to outlawing tobacco?
It boils down to the fact that you already mentioned.... you are no threat to a cop when you have a spoonful of ice cream to throw at him. You are when you have a gun.
I realize it is a lot for you to think through.... but please try. Then take your snide 'professor' comment and go stare in a mirror.

originally posted by: aethertek
a reply to: introvert

It presents too much of a risk and they would not be able to stop any assassination attempt because there would be firearms everywhere.

Oh please that just sounds like some libbylefty fear propaganda, "oh guns be afraid".
No assassin could get near before being cut down by all the good guys with guns, or are you only good if your SS & on the government payroll.

#opencarrycleveland

Support our Constitutional Rights add your voice.
www.change.org...

Remember guns today God tomorrow, that's right today they tell us where we can have our guns, tomorrow they tell us where we can & cant pray to God Almighty himself.
#opencarrycleveland

K~

a reply to: Natas0114

Sorry about the double post-I'm new. Anyway, I am a firm believer in our 2nd ammendment rights- however I feel that carrying to a political rally would be playing into the hands of the adversary. If blm decides to throw fits and block traffic, causing confrontationsome with armed people would make great anti trump footage for the spin doctors. It really wouldn't supreme me if the petition was created by liberals exactly for that purpose.

a reply to: Natas0114

Shhh,,,


K~

a reply to: DBCowboy

What? Not to celebrate it. You'd need a gun to exercise that right, but not celebrate it. Go bake a cake and write "yay 2nd amendment" in icing. No gun required.

a reply to: CB328

When they refer to their god given right to have a gun, they really are saying they have a right to protect themselves. (God's law)... Should they give a disclaimer everytime they say it is a god given right so uniformed people don't get confused?

There are ignorant people in both parties though, so I understand your confusion.

a reply to: GraffikPleasure

Going off on some tangent about 'god and guns', is probably just a really good way to get you put on some FBI list as being potentially unstable with dangerously extremist views... just saying.

a reply to: Subaeruginosa

You are right...the founding fathers would be on watch lists...probably were by the king...

a reply to: GraffikPleasure

Many of the founding fathers would also be considered serious human rights violators in our modern day society, since they owned slaves.

That's the kind of problems you inevitably run into, when you try to incorporate the mentality of society 250 years ago with modern day society.

a reply to: Subaeruginosa

I agree.. not all applies anymore. But defending oneself still does to this day thankfully. Basic principles will remain because they are basic.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: RickyD

I just find it ironic.

During a convention where we should be celebrating our rights, they are being infringed.

Rights are not being infringed. A law is not being made by the government and the venue can determine what is allowed through the gates in regards to firearms.

originally posted by: Natas0114
a reply to: Natas0114

I feel that carrying to a political rally would be playing into the hands of the adversary. If blm decides to throw fits and block traffic, causing confrontationsome with armed people would make great anti trump footage for the spin doctors. It really wouldn't supreme me if the petition was created by liberals exactly for that purpose.

Lol I don't know if it was created by liberals, but a lot of us have signed it just for the comedic value.