A liberal was behind push for guns at GOP convention

The petition on Change.org to allow delegates to the Republican National Convention in Cleveland in July to carry guns certainly got the attention of the media, no doubt the work of gun-rights advocates, right?

The petition said allowing delegates to carry guns would prevent “mayhem.”

Cleveland, Ohio is consistently ranked as one of the top ten most dangerous cities in America. By forcing attendees to leave their firearms at home, the RNC and Quicken Loans Arena are putting tens of thousands of people at risk both inside and outside of the convention site.

This doesn’t even begin to factor in the possibility of an ISIS terrorist attack on the arena during the convention. Without the right to protect themselves, those at the Quicken Loans Arena will be sitting ducks, utterly helpless against evil-doers, criminals or others who wish to threaten the American way of life.

Yesterday, the Secret Service dismissed the idea, which actually came from a liberal Democrat, CBS News’ Arden Farhi reports today.

Jim says he wrote the petition knowing it was somewhat preposterous — that law enforcement would never allow the Republican presidential candidates inside an arena with potentially thousands of armed individuals. “There were never going to be guns at the convention. Not a million signatures were going to make that happen,” Jim said.

But he also knew that if the Republican candidates sincerely meant what they have been saying about expanding Second Amendment rights, it would logically follow that they should support a move to allow firearms at the convention. “If they can’t live in accordance with the policies they impose upon us, they owe us that rational conversation,” Jim said.

He continued, “I thought, ‘How do we square how unsafe they’re going to be with what they say makes them safe?”‘ The petition was born.

“I take them at their word,” Jim said. “[Open carry is] a state law in Ohio. I don’t want them to have a terrible event happen [at the convention] and then say if it hadn’t been a gun-free zone, fewer people would have died.”

The man who created the petition said it’s not satire, it’s a “genuine political statement.”

“It would bring them up on intellectual consistency,” he said of the presidential candidates.

  • Al

    Who’s surprised by this? Anyone? Anyone? Not this liberal, at least.

  • KTN

    You know who else prohibits firearms at their convention – the NRA. Funny.

    • Erik Petersen

      That’s a myth liberals like to cluck their tongues at, but it isn’t true.

        • Erik Petersen

          Excellent link, thank you.

          • Gary F

            Yes, the display guns had firing pins removed. With Rule #1, treat every gun as it were loaded, and Rule #2 , muzzle control, make it awfully hard to enforce with that large of a venue and crowed of a convention floor, it makes sense.

            People could legally carry in the convention center, they couldn’t carry in the area where some of the concerts were being held, arena rules, not NRA rules.

            But we wouldn’t want that to get in the way of a good anti-NRA story would we?

          • >>But we wouldn’t want that to get in the way of a good anti-NRA story would we?<<

            Agreed, although the NRA DOES seem to shoot itself in the foot more often than not.

            When this story first started, it shot to the top like a bullet, but when the REAL story was realized, people just gave a blank stare. I think the caliber of the people purporting this as truth have been called into question.

            We'll just have to holster this particular story and hopefully people won't go off half-cocked.

          • John O.

            You just outdid yourself you son-of-a-gun.

          • It was a semi-automatic reply to a revolving issue. I want to be a straight shooter, but sometimes miss the mark.

            😀

          • Khatti

            Ooooooh! Oooooooh!

          • Rob

            your puns totally hit the bullseye, lock stock and smoking barrel.

      • KTN

        I stand corrected. They don’t allow functioning guns to be displayed. Their members can bring guns in and fondle them to their hearts content. The jihadists at the NRA did however forget to include the entire wording of the 2ndA on the front of their headquarters – they left off the preamble “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state”. I wonder why that would be. Maybe they just ran out of money to pay the stonemason to include it. Or, they are so afraid of everything, like their followers, they can’t even have the intellectual honesty to write the whole thing.

        • Erik Petersen

          Yeah, the militia prefatory thing… lets dialog then.

          The wordage is prefatory justification, and does not limit the amendment’s protection to just militia members. IE, 1A applies to everyone, not just journalists, etc. So 2A applies to everyone, not just enlistees in well-regulated militias. Fair to say maybe
          that folks like you think Scalia ignored the ‘true’ meaning of the militia preface to make up the individual rights interpretation in Heller vs DC, and that it say superseded a well-accepted “collective rights / militia” view that had some precedent ….that’s not the case. 2A had never, ever been interpreted as being narrow in scope such that the right to bear only existed in association with enlistment in militia. Not in 200+ years was it ever ruled this way.

          • jon

            first amendment doesn’t say anything about the press in a preamble… it says “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”

            The second amendment isn’t so clear “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

            IT doesn’t says “shall not be infringed by congress” it doesn’t say “Congress shall not make no law” Heck it doesn’t even say what free state. Could have been talking about Canada! (probably isn’t)

            It’s nebulous probably has been for 200 years, which is why it’s been disputed for so long…

          • Erik Petersen

            That’s perhaps a fair statement, perhaps been a little nebulous for lack of court activity. But from the hyper-focus contemplation of recent years, there’s no other sensible conclusion you come to:

            It’s an individual right. You don’t have to be in a militia to exercise it. It extends to small arms and some other defense weapons that can be utilized by individuals. Fed / state / cities can make laws to regulate some behavior in there in ways that are not onerous to the point of infringing on use of common small arms by people not barred from doing so.

          • KTN

            Scalia attempted to divine what the framers were thinking 200 years ago, that’s not ignoring the true meaning, that’s making it up out of whole cloth. Before Heller, there was one 2nd A case (Miller) brought to the Court, one. and that was in 1939, so to say the 2nd A had been interpreted any given way is not quite right. It had not been interpreted,

            My point with the NRA is they dishonestly omitted the preamble precisely because of the phrase “a well regulated militia” Those folks don’t like the word militia – it sort of takes away the whole individual right part. Scalia got it wrong, (Justice Stevens dissent was a much stronger argument), and now we live with that decision because he thought he knew what was in the minds of dead people.

          • Erik Petersen

            Hey, sorry but that’s crap.

            There’s no point or sense in expressing a collective right held by the ‘people’ in the Bill of Rights, where the rest are individual rights, where the government can deny the people their ‘collective right’ to have arms as a function of denying them their membership in the militia…. Which they do have
            the power to do.

            It means what it means, what Scalia and Thomas said it
            means, an individual right, because its presence means nothing if it doesn’t mean that. Theres no reason for it to be there if its not an individual right.

            Stevens by this point in ’08 and had been getting precedent
            wrong for some years. Look at Kelo… which he admits. Its to say, it’s the same. He made up shit to get to a conclusion he wanted to get to, in this case, because he doesnt like guns.

          • Jay T. Berken

            So it is my right to yell “fire” or “there is a bomb” anywhere and anytime with no ramifications because it is my individual right in the First Amendment?

          • Rob

            Actually, you don’t have the right under the first amendment to do either one of those things

          • KTN

            What if there’s a fire. What you cannot do is falsely shout fire in a crowded room.

          • Jay T. Berken

            You are right. The rights that we are given are for We the People, not we the individual. Our rights are given to us as a collective, and the laws which are past by our representative democracy give us the parameters which they are given. The judicial then help interpret those rights and laws and give us a understanding if laws or actions go past the parameters of the Constitution. This is one of the reasons why I am having a hard time with the anti-pc, anti-government and libertarian fraction of the country because they believe that it is under their interpretation to what the law says. It is not up to an individual or group like the NRA, but our representatives which we elect in the executive and legislative branches to past our laws which we abide by. Now I am not an angel, and I do believe that the parameters sometimes need to be pushed for progress and evolution of the country, but not to interpret.

            I read a great column by Nicholas Kristof which talked about the privileges of the U.S. people have compared to the people of South Sudan. In South Sudan, they barely have a government which protects them. If you are part of the wrong tribe or a woman, you can be shot and raped for being the other. Now we do not have that in this country, but it is a good reminder as we live and try to make our country better. http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/17/opinion/big-government-looks-great-when-there-is-none.html?_r=0

  • jon

    And the candidates will defer to the secret service, stating that their hands are tied…. though one of them is a US senator, and has the ability to change that law (with the support of the rest of congress) that allows the secret service to decide if guns will be allowed at an event where some one it protects is going to be.

  • Mark in Ohio

    While I will admit that adding firearms to a highly contentious
    gathering isn’t the greatest idea, it would be consistent with their purported views. I’m also reminded of the Robert E. Howard quote, “Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split”. Maybe an open-carry convention would get people to tone down the rhetoric a bit. I find this whole thing quite interesting, and yet another example of how the elites get to have things their way, while the rest of us have to obey a different set of rules. In general, my gun control ideas generally agree with Ted Nugent. At least this small limitation (I will be nowhere near the convention) is better than the being disarmed in total and having to rely on the police.

  • PaulJ

    Jim has a point about consistency, at times you have to amplify something to hear it.

  • Well, yeah.

  • Jack Ungerleider

    Trump and several of his surrogates have said “there will be riots in the streets” if Trump is denied the nomination. I’m less concerned about inside the convention hall then out.

  • Khatti

    Actually the point that impresses me is that he feels victimized by gun owners, and gun owners feel victimized by him. Not an altogether good situation as victims put few restraints upon themselves while ending their victimization.