Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. ×
Politics Idle

33,000 Sign Online Petition Promoting Guns At Republican Convention (cnet.com) 663

An anonymous reader writes: "An online petition on Change.org claims that constitutional rights are being denied to those who want to bring a gun to the fight for the Republican Party's future," reports CNET. "Though Ohio is an open carry state, which allows for the open carry of guns, the hosting venue — the Quicken Loans Arena — strictly forbids the carry of firearms on their premises." Citing a quote from the National Rifle Association that gun-free zones are "the worst and most dangerous of all lies," the petition has already attracted more than 33,000 signatures, though CNET reports that the whole petition is a satire they're attributing to the Hyperationalist blog. The petition appears to have attracted its last 8,000 signatures within the last 18 hours, shortly after its URL appeared on a web site for young conservatives.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

33,000 Sign Online Petition Promoting Guns At Republican Convention

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 27, 2016 @02:06PM (#51787621)

    If conservative gun lovers are right, it will be a peaceful convention.

    If liberal gun haters are right, it will result in a massive shoot our and conservatives will kill each other.

    So why does anyone object?

    • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

      The candidates probably fear assassination.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Karmashock ( 2415832 )

      third possibility... they'll be attacked like that draw Muhammad competition in Texas and the whole thing will go down like an attempted armed robbery of a gun store... you know... with some idiot getting shot in the face followed by lots of people in camo laughing at him.

      and yeah... I'm a monster because I think its funny too. Seriously though, the demonetization is fever pitched enough at this point that I really wouldn't be surprised if someone went there to shoot up the place. You know, maybe shoot Dona

      • by SuricouRaven ( 1897204 ) on Sunday March 27, 2016 @02:38PM (#51787763)

        It's gone both ways - I read some conservative news sites and between comments and columnists it's really common to see all democrats being labelled as treasonous. How about this sample of choice comments, taken from a Fox News article about non-discrimination law:
        -----
        "Hopefully, when North Korea decides to actually strike the USA they target and hit San Francisco. Clean out some of that Rainbow Sludge...."
        "Instead of sending pedophiles to jail, send them to SF. Apparently, they are very tolerant of those with sexual problems and know best how to deal with these people. They will then be part of the LGBT community and the sanctuary city community."
        "Imagine... North Carolina believes the male corn hole is Exit Only, and San Francisco is completely intolerant of that. If everyone thought like this guy, we wouldn't have a country for much longer. "
        "Pretty sure this is just another hidden way liberals want to do away with certain laws so that they want to be demonized and labeled as child molesters because they want child molestation decriminalized so they start with the bathrooms to achieve their goal.. "
        "San Freakisco has been a sewer since the Gays discovered it"
        -----
        That wasn't from some crazy right-wing nutjob site like WND - that was from Fox News, the single highest-viewership news source in the US.

        American politics has turned hyper-polarised now - it's just two rabid factions who hate each other with an such intensity that all rational debate is impossible.

        • by Karmashock ( 2415832 ) on Sunday March 27, 2016 @02:46PM (#51787819)

          I don't see anyone claiming Hillary is literally going to be Hitler. I don't see anyone saying that about Bernie either.

          The worst anyone says about Hillary really is that she might have committed a felony with the whole email thing... and I guess they say that Bernie is a old communist crank. But I don't think anyone is saying they'd be jamming people in ovens or something.

          As to the attempt to say everything is equal... maybe... it isn't a reason to not be armed so much as a reason for both sides to be armed. The issue is the crazies. They're going to have weapons and they're going to take a shot at you. The crazies that are met by anyone that has a gun in response tend to not do much damage. Its the crazies that are met with ZERO opposition that rack up the body count. Saying 'well, the police can deal with it" is probably valid at a convention or something where there will obviously be armed security. However, in a lot of places that takes awhile to arrive and by the time they do... many mags have been slapped home and slides locked.

          I'd just assume they meet lethal resistance as soon as possible. That's all.

          • by PopeRatzo ( 965947 ) on Sunday March 27, 2016 @03:39PM (#51788157) Journal

            I don't see anyone claiming Hillary is literally going to be Hitler.

            No, they just call Hillary a "founding member of ISIS":

            http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/24/... [cnn.com]

            And that, my friend, is someone who ran for the Republican nomination for president not very long ago.

          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            by ScentCone ( 795499 )

            The worst anyone says about Hillary really is that she might have committed a felony with the whole email thing

            Actually, no. The worst thing that can be said about her is that she is a corrupt, serially lying manipulator who has operated as part of a family business that enriches them personally through the holding and exploiting of public office. And that everything she says about what makes her qualified for the job is 100% backwards (with regard to competence, past results, world view, and integrity). Her hypocrisy knows no bounds, and she truly considers herself to be above the law. The business with her casual

            • by AuMatar ( 183847 ) on Sunday March 27, 2016 @05:24PM (#51788749)

              And yet with all that- the Republicans actually managed to find someone an order of magnitude worse- a racist, sexist, pretend businessman with no real accomplishments in business other than multiple bankruptcies and a reality TV show. Someone who's incapable of stating a single thought through policy position and who thinks the best use of televised debate is talking about his penis. And he's about to win the nomination. It would be a comedy if we weren't living through it.

            • by XXongo ( 3986865 ) on Sunday March 27, 2016 @06:04PM (#51788911) Homepage

              The worst anyone says about Hillary really is that she might have committed a felony with the whole email thing

              Actually, no. The worst thing that can be said about her is that she is a corrupt, serially lying manipulator...

              Actually, no. The worst you can say about her is that she is a reptilian from Zeta Andromedae who routinely dismembers, kills and eats small children and kittens, and who has explicitly stated an agenda of exterminating the human race, all except for the few kept to be eaten alive for food, of course. Oh, and that she secretly worships Satan. Wait, did I say secretly? Openly, I meant openly. Oh, and kicks puppies.

              This is, of course, absurd, but it's little more absurd than anything else said about her. There's no particular evidence that she's a "corrupt, serially lying manipulator" other than the intensive media campaign saying so being put forth by the Republican machine.

            • by AaronW ( 33736 ) on Sunday March 27, 2016 @06:50PM (#51789077) Homepage

              According to Politifact, Hillary lies about 28% of the time (counting Mostly False,False and Pants on Fire) and tells the truth 52% of the time (True and Mostly True)
              http://www.politifact.com/pers... [politifact.com]

              By comparison, Bernie Sanders lies about 29% of the time and tells the truth 51% of the time
              http://www.politifact.com/pers... [politifact.com]

              Ted Cruz lies 60% of the time and tells the truth 22% of the time
              http://www.politifact.com/pers... [politifact.com]

              And Donald Trump lies 77% of the time and tells the truth 10% of the time
              http://www.politifact.com/pers... [politifact.com]

          • by JustAnotherOldGuy ( 4145623 ) on Sunday March 27, 2016 @06:20PM (#51788969)

            I don't see anyone claiming Hillary is literally going to be Hitler. I don't see anyone saying that about Bernie either.

            Actually, lots of right-wing figures are saying it.

            Disgraced televangelist Jim Bakker has said that Bernie Sanders is "going to be like Hitler". Not that Bakker is a reputable source by any stretch, but he's said it. Bakker said that Sanders’ support from young people proves that the U.S. is transforming into Nazi Germany.

            “One of the most popular politicians right now is a socialist,” Bakker said. “And who is his biggest following? The young people of America, from the colleges. Maybe you understand a little bit what it felt like to live when Hitler was reigning and the church had to sit by and keep watching it and watching until millions, tens of millions — they had to build factories to kill people. All it takes is a couple bombs and all of America will be dead within a year, less than a year, just months.”

            ---------

            Also, earlier this month, the conservative National Review’s Kevin Williamson drove a steamroller over this line in the sand. Williamson’s article, “Bernie’s Strange Brew of Nationalism and Socialism,” which was published two weeks ago but became available on the conservative magazine’s website on Monday, is not a model of clarity. It bounces between criticism of Democratic presidential candidate and Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders’ trade policies and quotes from some of Sanders’ least thoughtful supporters. Yet, as the title of the article suggests, Williamson does come to a bold conclusion — Bernie Sanders is a literal Nazi who is leading a literal Nazi movement in the United States.

            Williamson lays this thesis out in one paragraph:
            "In the Bernieverse, there’s a whole lot of nationalism mixed up in the socialism. He is, in fact, leading a national-socialist movement, which is a queasy and uncomfortable thing to write about a man who is the son of Jewish immigrants from Poland and whose family was murdered in the Holocaust. But there is no other way to characterize his views and his politics."

            ---------

            Conspiratorial right-wing radio host backing frontrunner Donald Trump’s campaign, Alex Jones, is comparing Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders to Hitler and calling for violent attacks against his supporters. Alex Jones’ boosterism of Trump has turned to a violent obsession with one Democratic candidate and a determined campaign to smear “Creature Bernie Sanders.”

            “This is the most gang mentality, dumbed-down, it’s like, ‘We want to elect Hitler, he says he’ll invade France and give us free stuff,'” Jones ranted about the Sanders campaign last week.

            Jones has described Sanders as “a hardcore commie who wants to put me in a forced relocation camp like Mao Zedong”:

            ---------

            Jason Villalba, the Republican state representative from Texas’ 114th district in Dallas County, recently tweeted an image comparing Bernie Sanders‘ professed Democratic socialism to World War II-era Nazism. Accompanying the tweet’s text was an image comparing Sanders’ Democratic socialism to Adolft Hilter‘s Nazism. http://www.mediaite.com/online... [mediaite.com]

            --------

            So yes, there are people saying "Bernie is the next Hitler". They may be cranks, but they are saying it and they're saying it loudly and proudly. They're not hinting about it, they're declaring it with certainty.

            • by dbIII ( 701233 )
              This Hitler obsession is weird (especially all the people who ignore history and the dictionary to call him a socialist instead of the prime example of fascism). Even Saddam was compared to Hitler despite Saddam comparing HIMSELF to his hero the utter monster Stalin.
        • I just wanted to point out the hilarity of one detail; it is only the male cornhole that is apparently exit only.

          That gets pretty difficult to defend once you get into the weeds; if hetero anal is acceptable, surely hetero pegging is the same? Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander...

    • So why does anyone object?

      Quicken Loans probably worries that one possible outcome leaves their arena more punctured, bloody and locked down for crime scene purposes than other outcomes.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 27, 2016 @02:09PM (#51787643)

    There are no alternative explanations to "shall not be infringed".

    You can quibble all you want about what a regulated militia means, but the conclusion was as clear as day: The right to bear arms shall not be infringed.

    BUT... ...private property is a whole other ballpark -- in this case quite literally.

    It *is* the right of a private venue to set forth rules as they see fit.

    So from one confirmed constitutionalist who believes strongly that the right to defend one's life can never be taken away by the State -- quit your whining folks -- this ain't public property.

    • by nbauman ( 624611 ) on Sunday March 27, 2016 @02:28PM (#51787721) Homepage Journal

      So you believe that when I visited the Supreme Court in Washington, DC, and they told me that I couldn't bring guns into the visitors' gallery, they were violating the Constitution?

      • by fyngyrz ( 762201 ) on Sunday March 27, 2016 @02:57PM (#51787891) Homepage Journal

        they told me that I couldn't bring guns into the visitors' gallery, they were violating the Constitution?

        They absolutely were. "the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." That's the limit on government. They're ignoring the limit. It couldn't be any more obvious. You right to carry was infringed by coercive action of the federal government. How hard is that to figure out, really?

        If they wanted to do this legitimately, they need to bring article V into action; that's why article V is there in the first place.

        I am not particularly pro-gun (I honestly think most people are too dimwitted to carry dull sticks safely.) But in my view this "do anything we bloody want whenever we want to" game the feds constantly play is exactly the wrong way to go about anything.

        That constitutionally-blind approach has bought us the inversion of the commerce clause, squashed the 4th amendment into an unrecognizable caricature of itself, engendered "free speech zones" and commercial monopoly on the airwaves, allowed blatantly ex post facto laws to be crafted and pass through SCOTUS with ease, enabled government confiscation of property for commercial purposes, engendered comprehensive infringement of the 2nd amendment, resulted in deep government involvement in the promotion of Christianity, brought us de facto double jeopardy, torture, detainment without representation, massively excessive bail, federal intrusion on rights clearly belonging to the states, and federal denial of many rights that it was commanded to understand that were retained by the people. Then there's this corporations buying politicians thing which is a product of many laws on many levels, not to mention some extreme SCOTUS sophist malfuckery. And so on.

        There are days I can't decide if we're an oligarchy or a banana dictatorship with rule spread across 500 or so petty dictators. One thing I *am* sure of is that we are not a constitutional republic. That ship sailed, disappeared over the horizon, capsized, sunk, and rotted into unrecognizability on the bottom of a sea of discarded public official's oaths.

        • by creimer ( 824291 )

          They absolutely were. "the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." That's the limit on government. They're ignoring the limit. It couldn't be any more obvious.

          The Supreme Court also denies THE PEOPLE their First Amendment right by barring protesters from their plaza. Meanwhile, they deny abortion clinics the same protest free zone because it infringes on the First Amendment right of anti-abortion protesters. Hypocrites.

        • by R3d M3rcury ( 871886 ) on Sunday March 27, 2016 @03:10PM (#51787961) Journal

          This is one of those things that, I think, bothers citizens both for and against gun-control is the blatant hypocrisy.

          According to some politicians, a person should be able to carry a gun anywhere. But what if I want to carry a gun into your office? "Oh, we have rules against that." But what if someone wants to carry a gun into my office? "Well, you have to let them do that. Second amendment and all..."

          So why is your office different from my office? "Well, you see, sometimes people get emotional about things." And they don't in my office? "Well, maybe they do, but second amendment. You just have to suck it up. Maybe you should go buy a gun for self-defense." Why can't you do that as well?

          In the end, it boils down to, "Well, some of us are more deserving of safety than others."

          • by dadelbunts ( 1727498 ) on Sunday March 27, 2016 @06:48PM (#51789065)
            Except an office would be a private space. Your right to carry extends only to public spaces. You can just as easily ask no one bring firearms into your office and would be well within your right to do so.
        • They absolutely were. "the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." That's the limit on government. They're ignoring the limit. It couldn't be any more obvious. You right to carry was infringed by coercive action of the federal government. How hard is that to figure out, really?

          The full text of the 2nd Amendment is as follows:

          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.

          So many people always forget the first half. The amendment specifically states "well-regulated", meaning it is within the powers of the federal government to regulate militias and arms. Taken in context in the 18th century, "well regulated" probably means something closer to "well trained", but still, it is obvious t

          • by chihowa ( 366380 ) on Sunday March 27, 2016 @04:04PM (#51788277)

            It's pretty disingenuous to assert that the prefatory clause of the 2nd amendment is the only part of the "Bill of Rights" that grants a power to the federal government in the guise of asserting a right, when all of the powers delegated in the original constitution were done so in the articles. Especially since the ninth amendment makes it clear that the point of listing rights in the Constitution isn't to put limits on them:

            The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

            So where in the Articles is the power to decide what training is sufficient for a person to own a firearm?

            Especially because today's guns can do substantially more damage than the guns did when the amendment was written.

            Fixed artillery and ships equipped with cannon, capable of sustained bombardment on a city, were privately owned in that time. The weapons (long rifles) owned by private parties in the Revolutionary War were also significantly better than those used by the English soldiers. The concept of private ownership of powerful weaponry was not exactly a new concept back then.

          • by ArylAkamov ( 4036877 ) on Sunday March 27, 2016 @04:45PM (#51788539)

            So many people always forget the first half. The amendment specifically states "well-regulated", meaning it is within the powers of the federal government to regulate militias and arms. Taken in context in the 18th century, "well regulated" probably means something closer to "well trained", but still, it is obvious that arms are meant to be regulated and dispersed through trained militias, and not just any random jerk has a gun. Especially because today's guns can do substantially more damage than the guns did when the amendment was written

            I would invite you to read the federalist papers, which explain exactly what their intentions were.

            It almost seems like you're arguing that since "well regulated" used to mean "In good working order", but doesn't anymore, we should disregard the intention and go with the current meaning that it wasn't intended to be used.

            That isn't right. You would be subverting laws by changing language.

            • by Cyberax ( 705495 ) on Monday March 28, 2016 @12:41AM (#51790435)
              Federalist papers also proposed:
              1) Mandatory military training.
              2) Standardized weapons and ammunition distributed by the state governments.
              3) Conscription.

              That's the meaning of "well regulated militia" during the days of Jefferson. The Second Amendment was clearly designed as a way to create an army (just look at the Third Amendment!), not establish rights to have guns as personal weapons for self-defense or hunting.
          • by jedidiah ( 1196 )

            Take a history course or something.

            When that legal language was crafted, the "militia" consisted of the entire population of able bodied males. Anyone who would have a draft card today could be called up at a moments notice and be expected to participate immediately.

            Individual militias drilled and practiced marksmanship.

            The situation you are trying to distort for your own political agenda would actually be more along the lines of YOU being personally expected to own an M-16 and be able to use it without hur

            • by west ( 39918 ) on Sunday March 27, 2016 @05:37PM (#51788809)

              If anything would horrify our founding fathers, it would be our large standing Army and the general lack of self-reliance.

              I don't know, I suspect for many of the founding fathers, it would be that we've allowed women and blacks to vote.

              Which is why I don't think America should automatically hew to 200+ year old principles held by the founding fathers.

              • by flink ( 18449 )

                If anything would horrify our founding fathers, it would be our large standing Army and the general lack of self-reliance.

                I don't know, I suspect for many of the founding fathers, it would be that we've allowed women and blacks to vote.

                Which is why I don't think America should automatically hew to 200+ year old principles held by the founding fathers.

                It's fortunate for us then that they gave us a living constitution that can be amended as society and morality evolved. I for one, as a lefty socialist peacenik, am not particularly attached to the 2nd amendment, and I would feel perfectly safe living in a society where personal firearms are far more restricted than they are today.

                However, I have to side with the "gun nuts" for the most part on issues of federally mandated gun control. The language is pretty clear: the "well regulated militia" bit is just

          • by PinkyGigglebrain ( 730753 ) on Sunday March 27, 2016 @06:11PM (#51788935)

            "A well balanced breakfast, being necessary to the health of the nation, the right of the people to keep and eat cereal, shall not be infringed.

            Who has the right to eat cereal: a well-balanced breakfast, or the people?"
            Quote from a slashdot Anonymous Coward in an older comment thread.

  • This should be an interesting social experiment. I'm sure the Trump supporters will be carrying bazookas just in case the Establishment tries to steal the nomination and gives it to someone else. Burn, baby, burn!
    • I'm sure the Trump supporters will be carrying bazookas just in case the Establishment tries to steal the nomination [...]

      So the Establishment will bring bigger guns. This could be pretty amusing...

      • by creimer ( 824291 )

        So the Establishment will bring bigger guns.

        Mitt Romney, Jeb Bush and Marco Rubio all went out in a whimper. So much for those bigger guns.

  • Seen this before (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Nidi62 ( 1525137 ) on Sunday March 27, 2016 @02:23PM (#51787703)
    Bad, bad, idea. And I say that as a gun owner. Horrible idea. Especially given the way Trump supporters have been riled up he past few months, if the convention finds any way to deny him the nomination we might find ourselves in a new Beer Hall Putsch [wikipedia.org]. At the very least, it's asking for someone to get killed. Even taking away the current animosity within the GOP, a lot of people bringing firearms to a large public gathering is a very bad idea in general.
    • Re:Seen this before (Score:5, Interesting)

      by tnk1 ( 899206 ) on Sunday March 27, 2016 @02:30PM (#51787733)

      I don't know. The real threat of the real Beer Hall Putsch was that the attack was actually on the government and was an actual coup attempt.

      If they start shooting at the Republican convention, the candidates will be shuffled out the back, the delegates will scatter, and the Republican national committee will head over to the upscale club down the street with their reserved smoke filled back room, and pick the candidate who won't be Donald Trump. They'll suggest that clearly Trump cannot be their candidate because of the disruption of the convention, and they'd push Cruz forward while holding their nose.

      They have to know that they have no chance of winning a national election now. Now it is just about a fight over who gets to control the future of the Republican party.

      • Re:Seen this before (Score:5, Interesting)

        by OzPeter ( 195038 ) on Sunday March 27, 2016 @02:51PM (#51787855)

        They'll suggest that clearly Trump cannot be their candidate because of the disruption of the convention

        Slightly off topic, but there was a story on NPR this week about brokered conventions. They said that there had been 10 of these in the past, and in 7 of those occurrences the front runner was not chosen as the presidential candidate.

    • by SuricouRaven ( 1897204 ) on Sunday March 27, 2016 @02:40PM (#51787775)

      It is a bad idea - which is why the petition is a good idea. It forces the candidates to go against their own rhetoric about second amendment rights and publicly admit that the government does have the power to dictate when and where you are permitted to carry a gun.

      • Re:Seen this before (Score:4, Interesting)

        by OzPeter ( 195038 ) on Sunday March 27, 2016 @02:45PM (#51787809)

        It is a bad idea - which is why the petition is a good idea. It forces the candidates to go against their own rhetoric about second amendment rights and publicly admit that the government does have the power to dictate when and where you are permitted to carry a gun.

        You seem to have this naive idea that politicians are capable of suffering from cognitive dissonance. Unfortunately it has been proven many times in the past that that is not the case on either side of the aisle..

      • Re:Seen this before (Score:5, Informative)

        by nbauman ( 624611 ) on Sunday March 27, 2016 @02:50PM (#51787845) Homepage Journal

        They've already done that. All the pro-gun state laws that I've seen have an exception for carrying guns in the state's own legislature. And all the courts have an exception for carrying guns in their own courtroom.

        Their argument is that they already have armed peace officers on their site so you don't have to protect yourself. But that doesn't make any sense.

    • ...but, but, but an armed populace is a polite populace. Why would that happen?

    • by jopsen ( 885607 )

      a lot of people bringing firearms to a large public gathering is a very bad idea in general.

      And yet, isn't this is exactly what the GOP and the gun lobby argues with the removal of safe zones and further normalization of open carry?

      No doubt it's a bad idea... but no worse that guns at schools, supermarkets, fastfood restaurants, etc.

  • by Elfich47 ( 703900 ) on Sunday March 27, 2016 @02:38PM (#51787765)
    The Secret Service is not going to allow guns that close to the Republican nominee for president. All of the major front runners have some level of secret service protection at this time. The Secret Service is not going to take the risk that one of the "peaceful gun carriers" lied and is going to take shots at the nominee. Anything beyond that is hand waving.
    • by Lumpy ( 12016 )

      The secret service would be outgunned 600 to 1. It's why the police fear armed citizens.

  • I wonder... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by meerling ( 1487879 ) on Sunday March 27, 2016 @02:43PM (#51787801)
    I wonder what would happen if they do get it pushed enough that they are allowed to bring their guns in.
    Would there be more iron there than a foundry?
    Let's say there were enough of these people afraid to be without a gun there, that we'll just say there were a lot of them. I don't know how large the crowd is expected to be, but let's say 15% of it is armed.
    What do you think would happen if in the midsts of all this, somebody were to yell "GUN!" ?
    I'm betting at least one or two yahoos would pull theirs. Then someone else would see them with their gun out, and possibly pull theirs and shoot. Then the lead infestation would probably occur with several people shooting in confused conditions crowded with people. Since in real world shootout conditions, even cops that have significant training for this kind of thing tend to miss a LOT, I'm betting just about the only ones not hit would be the shooters.
    I really wonder how they'd respond to that.
    • Re:I wonder... (Score:5, Interesting)

      by PPH ( 736903 ) on Sunday March 27, 2016 @02:56PM (#51787887)

      What do you think would happen if in the midsts of all this, somebody were to yell "GUN!" ?

      It would probably be a lot like what happened to the guy in a Florida McDonalds that yelled "Gun!" when someone carrying concealed accidentally pulled his tee-shirt up to get his wallet out, revealing it. The clerk just stared with a blank look, like "So what?" The customer offered to show his concealed carry permit. The manager came out and said, "We don't have a problem with people legally carrying in our establishment." The guy kept yelling "Gun!" and eventually the police were called. After determining that the guy screaming "Gun!" wasn't just attempting to create a public nuisance but was actually having a hopolophobic reaction, he was detained and checked into a mental health facility for observation.

      The story was related by the McDonald's customer with the CCW on a Youtube video (posted on /k/) and is most certainly still out there.

    • Re:I wonder... (Score:4, Informative)

      by felrom ( 2923513 ) on Sunday March 27, 2016 @08:40PM (#51789513)

      I don't know, but I can give you a useful data point. My wife and I went to the annual NRA convention in Houston in 2013. Eighty-six thousand NRA members attended that year. Since concealed carry is legal in Texas, and since concealed carry could not legally be prohibited in the convention space (because it was owned by the city), and since it was in Texas (where gun ownership is high relative to most of the rest of the country), and since it was the NRA convention (so gun ownership among attendees was probably close to 99.99%), it probably represents the single largest non-military event in human history both in terms of number of guns carried by attendees and percentage of attendees carrying guns.

      And what happened?

      A whole lot of nothing. Three days of exhibits, conferences, speakers, events, etc. And a lack of people being shot.

      The RNC convention in 2012 was expected to have 50,000 attendees. Assume 2016 will be the same. Even then, the number of people and the % of people who want to carry guns at an RNC convention is going to me MUCH less than at the NRA convention.

      If they allowed it, even if they requested that people do it, it would be shocking if anything bad happened. In Texas, concealed carry license holders are more law-abiding than police officers according to the statistics that the Department of Public Safety is required to collect and publish as part of our carry laws.

      The liberal hand-wringing over "what if" and "might" and "blood in the streets" when it comes to carrying guns in public is so so tiring.

  • In fact I think guns should be REQUIRED at Trump rallies.

    I really want to see all those racist idiots devolve into a freaking wild west arena fight.

    I'm a gun owner and even an ASSAULT RIFLE owner.. I have multiple AR-15's an AK47 and an AR-50 sniper rifle. But Every single person I have met that is a avid Trump supporter tends to be a racist out of control nutjob that is only able to function in society due to heavy prescription drugs.

    The funny part is, Trump is NOT a 2nd amendment supporter. that gu

    • That was my impression too, That Trump uses "Republican" as a flag of convenience and he would just as happily run as a democrat if he had judged it to be a path of less resistance.

      I think he is willing to say just about anything to win the nomination regardless of what his actual views are. And if he does get the nomination he'll simply play the numbers and change his message to whatever panders to the biggest possible group of voters.

      While it is amusing to see right wing crazies so easily duped, I'm pret

  • by istartedi ( 132515 ) on Sunday March 27, 2016 @02:48PM (#51787833) Journal

    My private property rights trump your gun rights (no pun intended). If I want to keep you from carrying on my property, I can do that. I can even use a gun to keep you from carrying your gun on my property. IMHO, the 2A only comes into play when the government interferes with you being armed on public property, or your own property, or somebody else's property with their permission. Thus, the arena is fully within its rights to bar firearms. If they wanted to have the Great 2016 GOP Debate and Gun Show (TM), they should have rented the Cow Palace.

    • The 2A "comes into play" every time a low-level crime is committed that would never involve deadly force in another country, every time a kid is shot because the cop thought his cell phone was a pistol or the toy he was carrying looked a but too realistic, every time an overly-entitled hothead thinks that everything that offends or scares him deserves the death penalty, every time someone shoots their kids while "cleaning" their gun and every time a kid shoots another kid because his mom left them alone in

  • by lurker412 ( 706164 ) on Sunday March 27, 2016 @03:15PM (#51788005)
    It has become increasingly hard to distinguish satire from reality. I've read various versions about the origin of this petition, but I tend to believe it started as a provocation and (like Donald Trump) has become real.

    If they don't allow guns, he Reds are gonna have some 'splainin to do to the faithful. Let's see:

    Cruz: I agree that everyone should carry a gun, and in Texas, we're going to make it mandatory, unless you're Mexican of course. But the Secret Service won't allow it at the convention. Elect me and we'll make sure nobody has to take orders from Washington ever again. Only from Jesus, amen.

    Trump: My gun is bigger than your gun. (pulls out gold .357 magnum, tries to shoot Cruz, but hits Cruz's wife instead). Hey, Ted, don't say I never did you no favors, OK? Now can we get on with the inauguration?

    If they do allow guns, they're even crazier than they appear.
  • by Anonymous Coward

    The rest of the world will cheer, loudly.

    A very good friend of mine was very pro gun. He was posted to a country where carrying guns means an automatic 5yr stretch in jail.
    After a couple of years he saw the other side of the argument. so much so, he leftthe service and stayed here saying, it ain't safe back home in Texas to bring my kids up.

    It is not the late 18th Century any longer. The need to carry a gin at all times in civilised countries is a thing of the past. I just wish the USA would join us in the

  • Yup. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by RyanFenton ( 230700 ) on Sunday March 27, 2016 @03:31PM (#51788109)

    I've lived in the US all my life - I've shot targets in my backyard when living in Alabama... and I've also looked into a lot of history.

    There's a lot of powerful ways to view history - the romantic iconography of a school curriculum, the spectacle and drama of television history, the open bias of newspaper history (seriously, old newspapers are hilarious), and the random suppositions and conclusions of academic history at various levels and locations.

    The version I find most compelling probably Steven Pinker's Better Angels of our Nature [stevenpinker.com] - where it follows a trail of evidence I always saw hinted at the various levels of history presentation, but almost never really followed through on. That despite our large number of massive deadly conflicts, we really are getting less violent at every level of society. It's not some weak trend either - it's overwhelming and fascinating. But it's not a storyline that gels with most methods of conveying history, so it's something almost no one gets presented.

    With that in mind, I find the whole song-and-dance we always go through with guns and appeals to history in our gun culture to be more than a little beside-the-point. Guns in private hands don't ruin everything, and they don't really statistically save that many people either, they just multiply the effect of the crazy people that exist in every society, but all societies seem to be getting measurably less crazy and (Flynn effect) better at abstract thought/problem solving over time anyway. Both the restrictions and the problems of guns are more a sideshow that we will continue to bounce across over time, until they're increasingly meaningless.

    Tragedies will continue to happen, and we will continue to over-react to them, but they're all increasingly noise in the overall picture.

    It's why I find little jabs like this pretty funny - we at large don't really want to push wild-west sensibilities as much as it might seem to the rest of the world, we just have partisans that want to push their ideals at any cost, as they realistically see their vision of their nation indelibly falling away from their ideals.

    So cool - if some of these folks want to march with guns as an expression of their freedom - good on you, have a fun time of it, I suppose. The moment you use that freedom as anyone might fear, however, even your own partisans will come down on you like a mountain of bricks. Even in any events of pure violent fantasy made manifest came about - the society we've grown into at it's most 'conservative' won't support the same things our history allowed, and we're all far too unwilling to give up what our shared peace has given us so far.

    I could certainly be wrong - but it's my best view on history/violence/guns I've seen so far.

    Ryan Fenton

  • by matbury ( 3458347 ) on Sunday March 27, 2016 @03:54PM (#51788231) Homepage

    Can we just have one (bulletproof) room where Trump and his supporters are allowed to carry guns and then the rest of the space free for everyone else? Trump and his supporters would then have a wonderful opportunity to practice listening to others, being reasonable, inclusive, and open to compromise. What could possibly go wrong?

  • by Tablizer ( 95088 ) on Sunday March 27, 2016 @04:41PM (#51788523) Journal

    Has an organization ever won a Darwin Award?

BYTE editors are people who separate the wheat from the chaff, and then carefully print the chaff.

Working...