Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(TampaBay.com (St. Petersburg Tim)   Don't you dare bring anything that even remotely resembles a gun to the RNC convention, the Tampa City Council has banned it Fark: Concealed REAL guns are OK, thanks to the Brain Trust in the Florida Legislature and that genius Rick Scott   (tampabay.com ) divider line
    More: Asinine, Florida Legislature, Rick Scott, Tampa City Council, RNC, brain trusts, Tampa, concealed firearm, Ybor City  
•       •       •

1565 clicks; posted to Politics » on 17 May 2012 at 4:08 PM (4 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



93 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2012-05-17 04:45:25 PM  

Dimensio: Philip Francis Queeg: Dimensio: Are many readers here that attendees of the convention will not actually be permitted to carry firearms within the convention center, and that Tampa government officials actually asked to be permitted to prohibit the carrying of concealed weapons by permit holders outdoors in public locations, or is this fact simply being dishonestly ignored?

Why won't they be allowed to carry in the convention center.

The United States Secret Service is controlling the event and is authorized to prohibit the carrying of weapons by unauthorized individuals.


An armed populace makes everyone safer. Why are the endangering the lives if the Republican politicians like this? What happens if some crazed terrorist gets in there and starts shooting and the delegates can't return fire? Why don't the Republicans support the Second Amendment?

You should direct such questions to the United States Secret Service, which is controlling security for the venue, rather than to the Republican party, which is not.


I'm sure that if the RNC demanded that the Secret Service allow the delegates their full Second Amendment rights they would comply. Has the RNC made that demand? Is Mitt Romney publicly calling for the Second Amendment rights of his patriotic followers to be honored?

It's almost like the Republicans think allowing guns in the hall might be dangerous.
 
2012-05-17 04:47:15 PM  

Muta: Splinshints: Many violent crimes are not random or involve escalation involving both the victim and aggressor.

The supposed justification for concealed carry is protection against a random public aggressor.

The odds of that happening are long.

People worry about stupid things.....

This is why I am against concealed carry but favor open carry. I think the world needs to know who the paraniod dicks are. If you're a proud gun owner then why conceal the thing that brings you the most joy in the world?


I don't carry a gun despite being a firearm owner. However if I didn't conceal what brings me the most joy in the world, I believe I would most likely be arrested for violating some sort of public indecency law.
 
2012-05-17 04:49:00 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: Dimensio: Philip Francis Queeg: Dimensio: Are many readers here that attendees of the convention will not actually be permitted to carry firearms within the convention center, and that Tampa government officials actually asked to be permitted to prohibit the carrying of concealed weapons by permit holders outdoors in public locations, or is this fact simply being dishonestly ignored?

Why won't they be allowed to carry in the convention center.

The United States Secret Service is controlling the event and is authorized to prohibit the carrying of weapons by unauthorized individuals.


An armed populace makes everyone safer. Why are the endangering the lives if the Republican politicians like this? What happens if some crazed terrorist gets in there and starts shooting and the delegates can't return fire? Why don't the Republicans support the Second Amendment?

You should direct such questions to the United States Secret Service, which is controlling security for the venue, rather than to the Republican party, which is not.

I'm sure that if the RNC demanded that the Secret Service allow the delegates their full Second Amendment rights they would comply. Has the RNC made that demand? Is Mitt Romney publicly calling for the Second Amendment rights of his patriotic followers to be honored?

It's almost like the Republicans think allowing guns in the hall might be dangerous.


Perhaps, because the convention is occurring in a closed environment where access may be controlled and restricted, the United States Secret Service believes themselves able to provide better security through mandating that all non-security personnel be disarmed due to their ability to actually enforce this policy of disarming.
 
2012-05-17 04:50:27 PM  

jbuist: reasonable response to DTMB


I think the reasoning is that they want to avoid even the illusion that someone could be intimidated while going into a polling place. No matter how reasonable, or unreasonable the accusations, they just want to avoid them altogether.

Remember all the accusations that were flying because of these guys? How much worse would those accusations have been if they were carrying guns?
wolf.house.gov
 
2012-05-17 04:53:17 PM  

Don't Troll Me Bro!: jbuist: reasonable response to DTMB

I think the reasoning is that they want to avoid even the illusion that someone could be intimidated while going into a polling place. No matter how reasonable, or unreasonable the accusations, they just want to avoid them altogether.

Remember all the accusations that were flying because of these guys? How much worse would those accusations have been if they were carrying guns?
[wolf.house.gov image 366x344]


If you can't see the gun (aka concealed carry), it's kind of a moot point isn't it.
 
2012-05-17 04:57:36 PM  

Dimensio: Perhaps, because the convention is occurring in a closed environment where access may be controlled and restricted, the United States Secret Service believes themselves able to provide better security through mandating that all non-security personnel be disarmed due to their ability to actually enforce this policy of disarming.


Well that's just silly. Everyone knows that an armed populace is the ultimate defense. What could make Mitt Romney safer than thousands of armed citizens vigilantly prepared for any evil doing? You would think that the Secret Service would recognize that basic fact that every real American who isn't a gun grabbing hippie knows to be true. Guns are never a problem, they are always the solution.

I bet you are as outraged as I am at this blatant violation of the basic rights of these Americans, by those who claim to love the Second Amendment and protect the rights of the gun owners of America.
 
2012-05-17 04:58:21 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: Dimensio: Perhaps, because the convention is occurring in a closed environment where access may be controlled and restricted, the United States Secret Service believes themselves able to provide better security through mandating that all non-security personnel be disarmed due to their ability to actually enforce this policy of disarming.

Well that's just silly. Everyone knows that an armed populace is the ultimate defense. What could make Mitt Romney safer than thousands of armed citizens vigilantly prepared for any evil doing? You would think that the Secret Service would recognize that basic fact that every real American who isn't a gun grabbing hippie knows to be true. Guns are never a problem, they are always the solution.

I bet you are as outraged as I am at this blatant violation of the basic rights of these Americans, by those who claim to love the Second Amendment and protect the rights of the gun owners of America.


I am not "outraged", as I do not dishonestly misrepresent advocates of civilian firearm ownership rights as you do.
 
2012-05-17 05:00:26 PM  

Dimensio: Philip Francis Queeg: Dimensio: Perhaps, because the convention is occurring in a closed environment where access may be controlled and restricted, the United States Secret Service believes themselves able to provide better security through mandating that all non-security personnel be disarmed due to their ability to actually enforce this policy of disarming.

Well that's just silly. Everyone knows that an armed populace is the ultimate defense. What could make Mitt Romney safer than thousands of armed citizens vigilantly prepared for any evil doing? You would think that the Secret Service would recognize that basic fact that every real American who isn't a gun grabbing hippie knows to be true. Guns are never a problem, they are always the solution.

I bet you are as outraged as I am at this blatant violation of the basic rights of these Americans, by those who claim to love the Second Amendment and protect the rights of the gun owners of America.

I am not "outraged", as I do not dishonestly misrepresent advocates of civilian firearm ownership rights as you do.


Farking Poe's Law, how does it work?
 
2012-05-17 05:02:15 PM  

King Something: Dimensio: Philip Francis Queeg: Dimensio: Perhaps, because the convention is occurring in a closed environment where access may be controlled and restricted, the United States Secret Service believes themselves able to provide better security through mandating that all non-security personnel be disarmed due to their ability to actually enforce this policy of disarming.

Well that's just silly. Everyone knows that an armed populace is the ultimate defense. What could make Mitt Romney safer than thousands of armed citizens vigilantly prepared for any evil doing? You would think that the Secret Service would recognize that basic fact that every real American who isn't a gun grabbing hippie knows to be true. Guns are never a problem, they are always the solution.

I bet you are as outraged as I am at this blatant violation of the basic rights of these Americans, by those who claim to love the Second Amendment and protect the rights of the gun owners of America.

I am not "outraged", as I do not dishonestly misrepresent advocates of civilian firearm ownership rights as you do.

Farking Poe's Law, how does it work?


"Poe's Law" applies when an attempted parody is actually believable.
 
2012-05-17 05:02:34 PM  

Dimensio: Philip Francis Queeg: Dimensio: Perhaps, because the convention is occurring in a closed environment where access may be controlled and restricted, the United States Secret Service believes themselves able to provide better security through mandating that all non-security personnel be disarmed due to their ability to actually enforce this policy of disarming.

Well that's just silly. Everyone knows that an armed populace is the ultimate defense. What could make Mitt Romney safer than thousands of armed citizens vigilantly prepared for any evil doing? You would think that the Secret Service would recognize that basic fact that every real American who isn't a gun grabbing hippie knows to be true. Guns are never a problem, they are always the solution.

I bet you are as outraged as I am at this blatant violation of the basic rights of these Americans, by those who claim to love the Second Amendment and protect the rights of the gun owners of America.

I am not "outraged", as I do not dishonestly misrepresent advocates of civilian firearm ownership rights as you do.


You're just as big a gun grabber as 0bama!
 
2012-05-17 05:07:16 PM  

Warlordtrooper: How does the 2nd amendment not protect water guns


That's actually a good question.

Is it not a gun just because the ammunition is liquid?

"Water guns don't get get people wet. People do."
 
2012-05-17 05:11:10 PM  

Corvus: theorellior: Are you telling me this man won't be able to practice his Constitutional rights openly?

[4.bp.blogspot.com image 230x307]

Right it was horrible for the Democrats even talking about people bringing guns to a demonstration but the GOP outlawing it is perfectly OK.

More double standards.


Mitt Romney has passed/signed into law more gun restrictions than Obama yet the gun nutters have been told by Ted Nugent and the NRA that Obama is plotting to take their guns away.....even though he's proven he won't....even though Romney has proven he will.

Cognitive Dissonance is required to support the GOP
 
2012-05-17 05:18:03 PM  
I think we can be thankful that the RON PAUL delegates are mostly not 2nd Amendment gun nuts or we'd end up with a shootout between the RON PAUL crowd and the Romney supporters.
 
2012-05-17 05:22:46 PM  

rynthetyn: I think we can be thankful that the RON PAUL delegates are mostly not 2nd Amendment gun nuts or we'd end up with a shootout between the RON PAUL crowd and the Romney supporters.


I'm not going to hope for anyone to be harmed, but the opportunity for the world record largest Mexican standoff shouldn't be squandered.
 
2012-05-17 05:24:21 PM  

Citrate1007: rynthetyn: I think we can be thankful that the RON PAUL delegates are mostly not 2nd Amendment gun nuts or we'd end up with a shootout between the RON PAUL crowd and the Romney supporters.

I'm not going to hope for anyone to be harmed, but the opportunity for the world record largest Mexican standoff shouldn't be squandered.


The city of Tampa has tanks, I doubt any such incident would end well.
 
2012-05-17 05:38:33 PM  
The ordinance also will ban weapons, except for concealed firearms, in the Event Zone, which covers downtown north to Interstate 275 and Interstate 4, Ybor City, the northern part of Harbour Island and an area across the Hillsborough River that includes the University of Tampa.

The ordinance also will ban weapons, except for concealed firearms
The ordinance also will ban weapons, except for concealed firearms
The ordinance also will ban weapons, except for concealed firearms


/still trying to wrap my head around this one.......
 
2012-05-17 05:43:15 PM  
CCW holder here. So long as they check my weapon, I dont give a flying rats ass. Here in CO at the state court house I can walk right up to security kiosk, declare mt weapon, hand it to them, take my receipt, go about my business, and drop off the receipt and walk back out of the building with my gun back on my hip. I have absolutely no problem with being disarmed in controlled access buildings with security personnel.

That being said, I suspect there will be a lot of Bible fondling, gun fetishizing, mouth breathing Floridans (but I repeat myself) who will wail and whine and feel rather insecure about having their penile replacement bereft of them.

Not all of us are crazy.
 
2012-05-17 06:04:06 PM  

redmid17: Muta: Splinshints: Many violent crimes are not random or involve escalation involving both the victim and aggressor.

The supposed justification for concealed carry is protection against a random public aggressor.

The odds of that happening are long.

People worry about stupid things.....

This is why I am against concealed carry but favor open carry. I think the world needs to know who the paraniod dicks are. If you're a proud gun owner then why conceal the thing that brings you the most joy in the world?

I don't carry a gun despite being a firearm owner. However if I didn't conceal what brings me the most joy in the world, I believe I would most likely be arrested for violating some sort of public indecency law.


The reason I conceal my pistol is because the criminal is most likely to shoot first those who he knows is armed. Also, people see pistol and think "OMG!" and call the police, even though open carry is legal in my state.

I conceal my gun because I don't want to be arrested for indecent exposure.
 
2012-05-17 06:19:27 PM  

redmid17: Muta: I have an honest question...

Are gun allowed in the grandstands at a NASACR race?

Depends on the venue, I'd imagine. Most of the venues I'm familiar with are private property.


Here in NC you cannot take your gun to a "public gathering". You also cannot carry concealed when you have drank any alcohol. Both felonies and both will get your gun rights revoked for life.
 
2012-05-17 07:00:11 PM  

iq_in_binary: CCW holder here. So long as they check my weapon, I dont give a flying rats ass. Here in CO at the state court house I can walk right up to security kiosk, declare mt weapon, hand it to them, take my receipt, go about my business, and drop off the receipt and walk back out of the building with my gun back on my hip. I have absolutely no problem with being disarmed in controlled access buildings with security personnel.

That being said, I suspect there will be a lot of Bible fondling, gun fetishizing, mouth breathing Floridans (but I repeat myself) who will wail and whine and feel rather insecure about having their penile replacement bereft of them.

Not all of us are crazy.


The problem is that the controlled area isn't a building or a few buildings, it's half the damned city.
 
2012-05-17 07:24:34 PM  

rynthetyn: I think we can be thankful that the RON PAUL delegates are mostly not 2nd Amendment gun nuts or we'd end up with a shootout between the RON PAUL crowd and the Romney supporters.


And that would be terrible.
 
2012-05-17 07:27:00 PM  
oh good, I was going to bring a stick with a nail in it, now I'll just bring my glock.
 
2012-05-17 07:38:05 PM  

Kibbler: I demand that we pass a voter fraud law that requires you to carry a gun when you vote. That way we know you're really American.

One gun, one vote.


You cast your vote by shooting out the chad in the ballot. You're not really American unless you know how to use it.
=Smidge=
 
2012-05-17 07:40:48 PM  

Kibbler: I demand that we pass a voter fraud law that requires you to carry a gun when you vote. That way we know you're really American.

One gun, one vote.


I have a Nintendo zapper. Will that work?
 
2012-05-17 08:40:22 PM  

firefly212: iq_in_binary: CCW holder here. So long as they check my weapon, I dont give a flying rats ass. Here in CO at the state court house I can walk right up to security kiosk, declare mt weapon, hand it to them, take my receipt, go about my business, and drop off the receipt and walk back out of the building with my gun back on my hip. I have absolutely no problem with being disarmed in controlled access buildings with security personnel.

That being said, I suspect there will be a lot of Bible fondling, gun fetishizing, mouth breathing Floridans (but I repeat myself) who will wail and whine and feel rather insecure about having their penile replacement bereft of them.

Not all of us are crazy.

The problem is that the controlled area isn't a building or a few buildings, it's half the damned city.


And outside of said buildings you'd be allowed to carry anyway. It's inside the actual convention center that that's the issue. I carried my sidearm all over the place when the DNC was here in Denver without issue, hell I even entered the building that Hillary Clinton was in while I was a student at Auraria campus, walked right into the building because I had a class in said building and found myself in front of 2 Secret Service agents. They asked me if I had any weapons or lose ammunition on my person and I asked them how many people live to say yes to that question twice. They waved me through with a full sized 1911 on my hip concealed by a suit vest.
It's only an issue when idiots make it one.
 
2012-05-17 09:19:56 PM  
Man, I can't wait to see folks celebrate by firing their guns into the air in an enclosed space...
 
2012-05-17 09:21:06 PM  

Dimensio: Corvus: theorellior: Are you telling me this man won't be able to practice his Constitutional rights openly?

[4.bp.blogspot.com image 230x307]

Right it was horrible for the Democrats even talking about people bringing guns to a demonstration but the GOP outlawing it is perfectly OK.

More double standards.

What, specifically, did the "GOP" "outlaw" and upon what occasion did they "outlaw" it?


Are you incapable of reading the article yourself?

City officials wanted to restrict the carrying of concealed firearms inside the Event Zone, but a 2011 Florida law prohibits them from passing any local regulation of guns or ammunition.

I guess wanting to ban fire arms is only bad when Democrats talk about it.
 
2012-05-17 10:01:22 PM  

sammyk: What kind of pussy thinks he needs a gun at a public gathering that will have thousands of police, secret service, FBI, private security........?????????? If you are that worried about civil unrest go hide in your farking bunker!

It is soo easy to lose your gun rights. Why can't we add being too stupid to safely own a gun to that list?


What someone at a public gathering that has thousands of police, secret service, FBI, and private security might look like:
img.ezinemark.com
 
2012-05-17 10:08:04 PM  

RogermcAllen: sammyk: What kind of pussy thinks he needs a gun at a public gathering that will have thousands of police, secret service, FBI, private security........?????????? If you are that worried about civil unrest go hide in your farking bunker!

It is soo easy to lose your gun rights. Why can't we add being too stupid to safely own a gun to that list?

What someone at a public gathering that has thousands of police, secret service, FBI, and private security might look like:
[img.ezinemark.com image 480x326]


upload.wikimedia.org
 
2012-05-17 10:24:33 PM  
i75.photobucket.com

beerrun: The ordinance also will ban weapons, except for concealed firearms, in the Event Zone, which covers downtown north to Interstate 275 and Interstate 4, Ybor City, the northern part of Harbour Island and an area across the Hillsborough River that includes the University of Tampa.

The ordinance also will ban weapons, except for concealed firearms
The ordinance also will ban weapons, except for concealed firearms
The ordinance also will ban weapons, except for concealed firearms

/still trying to wrap my head around this one.......


It makes PERFECT sense if you're a republican who wants to silence protesters. Anything can constitute a weapon, ergo ANY protester can be arrested at ANY time. The ones with real, actual guns are likely (according to republican dogma all of them) to be party loyalists, and anything else can be claimed, "looked like a weapon" followed by a police beating.

Nice, simple silencing of their enemies, unless those enemies happen to be CCW-types themselves.

Remember:
i75.photobucket.com
 
2012-05-18 12:04:13 AM  
There ought to be a law that if a city gets selected to host a major national event, no new local ordinances can be passed until it's over.
 
2012-05-18 12:07:20 AM  
I hope they all bring their guns to the convention.
And serve lots and lots of alcohol.
 
2012-05-18 01:37:19 AM  
Rick Scott is a disgrace.
 
2012-05-18 03:16:30 AM  

Philip Francis Queeg: Dimensio: Perhaps, because the convention is occurring in a closed environment where access may be controlled and restricted, the United States Secret Service believes themselves able to provide better security through mandating that all non-security personnel be disarmed due to their ability to actually enforce this policy of disarming.

Well that's just silly. Everyone knows that an armed populace is the ultimate defense. What could make Mitt Romney safer than thousands of armed citizens vigilantly prepared for any evil doing? You would think that the Secret Service would recognize that basic fact that every real American who isn't a gun grabbing hippie knows to be true. Guns are never a problem, they are always the solution.

I bet you are as outraged as I am at this blatant violation of the basic rights of these Americans, by those who claim to love the Second Amendment and protect the rights of the gun owners of America.


I don't ever recall the Secret Service making such claims.

I'm not by any stretch of the imagination a gun advocate but making shiat up like that doesn't help anyone.
 
2012-05-18 07:26:32 AM  

EyeballKid: RNC goers in Florida packing?

Oh, please, Darwin, Darwin, Darwin, Darwin, Darwin, Darwin, Darwin, Darwin...(crosses fingers)

Darwin Darwin Darwin Darwin Darwin Darwin SHOT-GUN SHOT-GUN
 
2012-05-18 08:17:16 AM  

Citrate1007: rynthetyn: I think we can be thankful that the RON PAUL delegates are mostly not 2nd Amendment gun nuts or we'd end up with a shootout between the RON PAUL crowd and the Romney supporters.

I'm not going to hope for anyone to be harmed, but the opportunity for the world record largest Mexican standoff shouldn't be squandered.


Ugh. Remember the shower room scene in The Rock? 15 Marines, all hopped up on adrenaline and pointing guns at each other; then a stone falls off a ledge and hits the floor, and suddenly EVERYONE's shooting.

If a loud noise goes off in there, half the right hands in the room head for hips. If someone gets rowdy, if some loon actually does pull a gun, if a liberal tries to inject sanity into the room...all of a sudden, it goes from "Ha, look at the crazy GOPtards and their masculinity enhancers!" to "There were no survivors". Fairly quickly, I'd imagine.
 
2012-05-18 09:08:42 AM  

Citrate1007: sammyk: What kind of pussy thinks he needs a gun at a public gathering that will have thousands of police, secret service, FBI, private security........??????????

I wouldn't go anywhere near that Tea Party, Birther, Clan meeting without being armed.


You mean OWS. Since they are the ones who damage public and private property and are always pissed off for cause someone has more money than they do. Not to mention assault citizens.

Oh that tea party, peacefully demenstrating and cleaning up after themselves. They are the DEVIL!!!11

You FAIL
 
2012-05-18 09:12:07 AM  

sammyk: What kind of pussy thinks he needs a gun at a public gathering that will have thousands of police, secret service, FBI, private security........?????????? If you are that worried about civil unrest go hide in your farking bunker!

It is soo easy to lose your gun rights. Why can't we add being too stupid to safely own a gun to that list?


To summarize: 1)Who needs a gun at this event? 2)It's easy to lose a gun right.

Conceding to your first point, and not taking my gun, or sticking up for my right to have a gun at this event, will over time erode the right. It will go from RIGHT, to right, to "right", to privilege. So who needs a gun? Anybody who "needs" the right to speak. Or be safe in their person and papers, or who don't want to house military.
 
2012-05-18 10:59:44 AM  

Mayhem of the Black Underclass: sammyk: What kind of pussy thinks he needs a gun at a public gathering that will have thousands of police, secret service, FBI, private security........?????????? If you are that worried about civil unrest go hide in your farking bunker!

It is soo easy to lose your gun rights. Why can't we add being too stupid to safely own a gun to that list?

To summarize: 1)Who needs a gun at this event? 2)It's easy to lose a gun right.

Conceding to your first point, and not taking my gun, or sticking up for my right to have a gun at this event, will over time erode the right. It will go from RIGHT, to right, to "right", to privilege. So who needs a gun? Anybody who "needs" the right to speak. Or be safe in their person and papers, or who don't want to house military.


~facepalm~ Please stop making the rest of the responsible gun owners look retarded.

It has been decided that reasonable restrictions on gun ownership are constitutional. It's been discussed over and over and the discussion is over. it's the law of the land. Get over it.

Some of those restrictions include barring you from taking your gun to an establishment that serves alcohol. You also can't carry your weapon when you have been drinking. it also includes prohibiting weapons at public gatherings like parades, fairs, festivals and conventions where 100,000 people are going to show up.
 
2012-05-18 11:10:07 AM  

sammyk: Mayhem of the Black Underclass: sammyk: What kind of pussy thinks he needs a gun at a public gathering that will have thousands of police, secret service, FBI, private security........?????????? If you are that worried about civil unrest go hide in your farking bunker!

It is soo easy to lose your gun rights. Why can't we add being too stupid to safely own a gun to that list?

To summarize: 1)Who needs a gun at this event? 2)It's easy to lose a gun right.

Conceding to your first point, and not taking my gun, or sticking up for my right to have a gun at this event, will over time erode the right. It will go from RIGHT, to right, to "right", to privilege. So who needs a gun? Anybody who "needs" the right to speak. Or be safe in their person and papers, or who don't want to house military.

~facepalm~ Please stop making the rest of the responsible gun owners look retarded.

It has been decided that reasonable restrictions on gun ownership are constitutional. It's been discussed over and over and the discussion is over. it's the law of the land. Get over it.

Some of those restrictions include barring you from taking your gun to an establishment that serves alcohol. You also can't carry your weapon when you have been drinking. it also includes prohibiting weapons at public gatherings like parades, fairs, festivals and conventions where 100,000 people are going to show up.


Well that last one clearly doesn't apply to Florida, and people's definition of reasonable restriction differs across states and cities.
 
2012-05-18 11:38:47 AM  

redmid17: sammyk: Mayhem of the Black Underclass: sammyk: What kind of pussy thinks he needs a gun at a public gathering that will have thousands of police, secret service, FBI, private security........?????????? If you are that worried about civil unrest go hide in your farking bunker!

It is soo easy to lose your gun rights. Why can't we add being too stupid to safely own a gun to that list?

To summarize: 1)Who needs a gun at this event? 2)It's easy to lose a gun right.

Conceding to your first point, and not taking my gun, or sticking up for my right to have a gun at this event, will over time erode the right. It will go from RIGHT, to right, to "right", to privilege. So who needs a gun? Anybody who "needs" the right to speak. Or be safe in their person and papers, or who don't want to house military.

~facepalm~ Please stop making the rest of the responsible gun owners look retarded.

It has been decided that reasonable restrictions on gun ownership are constitutional. It's been discussed over and over and the discussion is over. it's the law of the land. Get over it.

Some of those restrictions include barring you from taking your gun to an establishment that serves alcohol. You also can't carry your weapon when you have been drinking. it also includes prohibiting weapons at public gatherings like parades, fairs, festivals and conventions where 100,000 people are going to show up.

Well that last one clearly doesn't apply to Florida, and people's definition of reasonable restriction differs across states and cities.


Thinking it is reasonable to need your guns at such an event is why we have a Florida tag.
 
2012-05-18 11:55:11 AM  

sammyk: redmid17: sammyk: Mayhem of the Black Underclass: sammyk: What kind of pussy thinks he needs a gun at a public gathering that will have thousands of police, secret service, FBI, private security........?????????? If you are that worried about civil unrest go hide in your farking bunker!

It is soo easy to lose your gun rights. Why can't we add being too stupid to safely own a gun to that list?

To summarize: 1)Who needs a gun at this event? 2)It's easy to lose a gun right.

Conceding to your first point, and not taking my gun, or sticking up for my right to have a gun at this event, will over time erode the right. It will go from RIGHT, to right, to "right", to privilege. So who needs a gun? Anybody who "needs" the right to speak. Or be safe in their person and papers, or who don't want to house military.

~facepalm~ Please stop making the rest of the responsible gun owners look retarded.

It has been decided that reasonable restrictions on gun ownership are constitutional. It's been discussed over and over and the discussion is over. it's the law of the land. Get over it.

Some of those restrictions include barring you from taking your gun to an establishment that serves alcohol. You also can't carry your weapon when you have been drinking. it also includes prohibiting weapons at public gatherings like parades, fairs, festivals and conventions where 100,000 people are going to show up.

Well that last one clearly doesn't apply to Florida, and people's definition of reasonable restriction differs across states and cities.

Thinking it is reasonable to need your guns at such an event is why we have a Florida tag.


Plenty of states have pre-emption of state firearms laws over local/city ordinances. It's pretty common. No one stopped people from carrying, openly or otherwise, in downtown Indy during the SB, which you can imagine is probably a little more crowded than the RNC convention with fairly comparable security arrangements.
 
2012-05-18 02:47:44 PM  

sammyk: Mayhem of the Black Underclass: sammyk: What kind of pussy thinks he needs a gun at a public gathering that will have thousands of police, secret service, FBI, private security........?????????? If you are that worried about civil unrest go hide in your farking bunker!

It is soo easy to lose your gun rights. Why can't we add being too stupid to safely own a gun to that list?

To summarize: 1)Who needs a gun at this event? 2)It's easy to lose a gun right.

Conceding to your first point, and not taking my gun, or sticking up for my right to have a gun at this event, will over time erode the right. It will go from RIGHT, to right, to "right", to privilege. So who needs a gun? Anybody who "needs" the right to speak. Or be safe in their person and papers, or who don't want to house military.

~facepalm~ Please stop making the rest of the responsible gun owners look retarded.

It has been decided that reasonable restrictions on gun ownership are constitutional. It's been discussed over and over and the discussion is over. it's the law of the land. Get over it.

Some of those restrictions include barring you from taking your gun to an establishment that serves alcohol. You also can't carry your weapon when you have been drinking. it also includes prohibiting weapons at public gatherings like parades, fairs, festivals and conventions where 100,000 people are going to show up.


I was simply trying to point out that YOU are arguing for losing the right to carry by making the argument, "Who needs a gun?" I used your posts. I pointed it out to you, and you say I'm an idiot. I'm sorry you don't like it, but you are the problematic gun owner. You hear the government saying, "You don't need a gun there" and you say "OK". You don't challenge it. I'm suggesting that you challenge free speech zones as well. I'm very sorry I didn't make that more clear.
 
Displayed 43 of 93 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter








In Other Media
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report