Post: #1

I have signed this petition. Actually I was surprised to hear it was not already the case, seeing as how a presidential contender is governor of Ohio and the same man has called for an end to gun free zones.

Quote:More than 22,000 people have signed a petition calling for Americans to be allowed to carry firearms at the Republican National Convention -- because the ban puts lives at risk.

Guns are not allowed inside the Quicken Loans Arena in Cleveland, where the event -- which could descend into a heated battle for the party presidential ticket -- is taking place in July.

https://www.change.org/p/quicken-loans-a...-in-july-2

Post: #2

Zero chances this can happen. If people carry guns into the Arena, someone will shoot at the candidates, especially at Trump.

People will have to leave their guns in the car.

Post: #3

Well at least it is a good indicator of how pissed off people are right now.

Post: #4

(03-26-2016 04:33 PM)Samseau Wrote:  Zero chances this can happen. If people carry guns into the Arena, someone will shoot at the candidates, especially at Trump.

People will have to leave their guns in the car.

I went to a bar in Jerusalem where 45 people were open carrying and a number more were concealing. They never had a problem.

This is how an active shooter situation in a room of 22,000 legally licensed gun owners would turn out. Skip to 1:38

Post: #5

While I'm about as pro 2A as one can be, and my closet serves as proof, I can say that having open carry at the RNC will result in someone doing something incredibly stupid and being a detriment to gun rights.

Post: #6

(03-26-2016 04:33 PM)Samseau Wrote:  Zero chances this can happen. If people carry guns into the Arena, someone will shoot at the candidates, especially at Trump.

People will have to leave their guns in the car.

I agree with samseau here. I'm as big a gun advocate as anybody, probably even more so, but this is not the place to have a gun. Bars are another place I think guns have no place to be. I live in a place where if guns were allowed in bars I'd already be dead from some dipshit getting drunk and capping me instead of trying to fight or wield a knife.

Post: #7

It is one thing to not be able to afford armed guards to protect you from mass murderers. It is quite another to be legally prohibited to unless you are in the "political class". It is utterly detestable.

Whatever fears people here have can easily be avoided with a few common sense principles and basic restrictions.

Post: #8

(03-26-2016 06:20 PM)The Beast1 Wrote:  

(03-26-2016 04:33 PM)Samseau Wrote:  Zero chances this can happen. If people carry guns into the Arena, someone will shoot at the candidates, especially at Trump.

People will have to leave their guns in the car.

I went to a bar in Jerusalem where 45 people were open carrying and a number more were concealing. They never had a problem.

That's just a BIT smaller in magnitude than the RNC, don't ya think?

There is no WAY they could vet everyone into that arena as peaceful people or not.

Quote:It is one thing to not be able to afford armed guards to protect you from mass murderers. It is quite another to be legally prohibited to unless you are in the "political class". It is utterly detestable.

Whatever fears people here have can easily be avoided with a few common sense principles and basic restrictions.

No, you're not thinking it through enough. Some suicidal moron would open fire on one of the candidates, especially Trump. They don't care if they get killed. Many deranged Americans have proven themselves capable of this act over the centuries.

Then others would open fire on this guy, and in a crowded arena innocents would get hit. Guns in the arena is a BAD idea. People aren't going to be defenseless either, they can leave their guns at their hotel/car.

Post: #9

This is the most ridiculous thing i've ever heard. If someone believes this is a good idea they need to sit down and think this through a little more.

I would not be surprised if men like Soros were the primary backers for things like this in the shadows. It would be awfully convenient to convince conservatives to flood politically volatile gatherings with firearms. It would be very easy to set up an assassination then.

Post: #10

By the logic I see in this thread, all centerfire rifles should be banned. The candidates have to go outside sometimes, right? And there's no way you can vet everyone in the country who can buy a rifle. Some rifles have the mechanical precision and power to hit and kill people repeatably at over a mile!

Come on guys. This is the same kind of stuff the left says every time a state wants permissive carry laws, and they're always wrong.

Guns in bars? That's legal in four states. It's legal to carry in many states in restaurants that serve alcohol as long as you're not drinking. There hasn't been a big surge of bar shootings because of it. Anyone who's prone to getting drunk and trying to shoot someone else is not someone who is going to pay attention to whether or not it's legal to carry a gun in a bar.

I think it's quite unlikely there would be any kind of assassination attempt. If there was, it would be shut down immediately, either by security or the surrounding people. And if there is, well, so? Risk is part of life. I don't believe in abrogating the rights of good people just because bad people might try to hurt someone. The candidates have substantial security, and that's enough.

Even ignoring the liberty arguments, all banning guns does is make bad actors have to get clever, while denying the good guys the ability to effectively defend themselves and others. In security terms, it's an enormous net negative, not a magic shield.

I can't help but think someone like Jefferson or Hamilton or Teddy Roosevelt--who gave a 90 minute speech immediately after an assassination attempt, with a bullet still lodged in his chest--would think our modern day politicians are enormous pussies.

Post: #11

(03-26-2016 07:06 PM)storm Wrote:  It is one thing to not be able to afford armed guards to protect you from mass murderers. It is quite another to be legally prohibited to unless you are in the "political class". It is utterly detestable.

Whatever fears people here have can easily be avoided with a few common sense principles and basic restrictions.

The problem is that all it takes is one asshole doing something stupid, and then you're left with a pile of dead bodies. That gives the gun grabbers the needed ammo to launch more attacks on gun owners. These conventions are teeming with extra security. Maybe the purpose is to protect the political elites, but there is certainly a trickle down effect.

All it takes is one distorted SJW to fuck it up for everyone.

Post: #12

If that happens (which it won't) I would feel comfortable putting 10k down that an assassination attempt is going to happen.

Post: #13

(03-26-2016 08:16 PM)weambulance Wrote:  I can't help but think someone like Jefferson or Hamilton or Teddy Roosevelt--who gave a 90 minute speech immediately after an assassination attempt, with a bullet still lodged in his chest--would think our modern day politicians are enormous pussies.

Or like when 67 year old war veteran President Andrew Jackson used his cane to beat the shit out of would-be assassin?

Post: #14

I'm 50/50 on this. If it went ahead with guns without a hitch, it would be exactly the firm rebuke to anti second amendment leftists that the country needs. On the other hand, Soros is a pretty evil motherfucker with a lot of money. I'm pretty sure someone like him could find a suicide attacker or two to send there to get a few shots off at Trump. It's the first shot we're worried about, not if he gets a second one.

(03-26-2016 08:19 PM)porscheguy Wrote:  The problem is that all it takes is one asshole doing something stupid, and then you're left with a pile of dead bodies.

Is there any precedent to indicate this is true? Do people suddenly lose their minds and start blasting around the room randomly? I doubt it, most people probably just try to flee or get to cover. Only those who see a man shoot in the direction of the stage would shoot at him.

Post: #15

(03-26-2016 08:16 PM)weambulance Wrote:  By the logic I see in this thread, all centerfire rifles should be banned. The candidates have to go outside sometimes, right? And there's no way you can vet everyone in the country who can buy a rifle. Some rifles have the mechanical precision and power to hit and kill people repeatably at over a mile!

Come on guys. This is the same kind of stuff the left says every time a state wants permissive carry laws, and they're always wrong.

Guns in bars? That's legal in four states. It's legal to carry in many states in restaurants that serve alcohol as long as you're not drinking. There hasn't been a big surge of bar shootings because of it. Anyone who's prone to getting drunk and trying to shoot someone else is not someone who is going to pay attention to whether or not it's legal to carry a gun in a bar.

I think it's quite unlikely there would be any kind of assassination attempt. If there was, it would be shut down immediately, either by security or the surrounding people. And if there is, well, so? Risk is part of life. I don't believe in abrogating the rights of good people just because bad people might try to hurt someone. The candidates have substantial security, and that's enough.

Even ignoring the liberty arguments, all banning guns does is make bad actors have to get clever, while denying the good guys the ability to effectively defend themselves and others. In security terms, it's an enormous net negative, not a magic shield.

I can't help but think someone like Jefferson or Hamilton or Teddy Roosevelt--who gave a 90 minute speech immediately after an assassination attempt, with a bullet still lodged in his chest--would think our modern day politicians are enormous pussies.

No. The difficult part in planning an assassination is finding out when and where the target is going to be in advance. With the location and tiem broadcasted and open carrying allowed, a hit team would be able to scout out the place in advance for best shooting positions, etc. and later walk right in carrying whatever they wanted. And to top it off any nutjob could walk in open carrying, get as close as possible and draw his pistol. Security wouldn't be able to stop that first shot. How many people would show up with that intent? Imagine if one guy made his move, and then all the other nutjobs realized this was their only chance and they started firing too? And then security starts returning fire? And then other audience members open fire too?



Risk is a part of life? Of course it is but that is not an argument in favor of allowing violent people with firearms in close proximity of presidential candidates. This is a private event, this isn't public. As in no one is being disarmed out on the street.

Post: #16

Quote:The difficult part in planning an assassination is finding out when and where the target is going to be in advance. With the location and tiem broadcasted and open carrying allowed, a hit team would be able to scout out the place in advance for best shooting positions, etc. and later walk right in carrying whatever they wanted.

Yeah, in Hollywood. In real life, a technically competent team with the intel that's publicly available could kill any of the candidates without having to rely on a plan that would absolutely guarantee their deaths. Why hasn't that happened? Because only fucking nutballs try to kill politicians, and nutballs lack the rational planning skills and technical competence to pull it off when there's real security present. This would not be some unique opportunity to attack the candidates. Trump flies around in his plane with TRUMP on the side and tells everyone where he's going ahead of time!

There hasn't been a halfway competent attack on a president or candidate for the office on US soil since Reagan, and Hinckley's attack was a pretty poor attempt in itself.

Quote:And to top it off any nutjob could walk in open carrying, get as close as possible and draw his pistol. Security wouldn't be able to stop that first shot. Imagine if one guy made his move, and then all the other nutjobs realized this was their only chance and they started firing too? And then security starts returning fire? And then other audience members open fire too?

What the fuck are you even talking about? You're buying into bogeyman bullshit. Jesus, I guess we should just have the candidates live in bulletproof man-size hamster balls from now on. Now the crowd is supposed to be just full of people who can't wait to die trying to kill a presidential candidate? Must be the evil influence of their guns or something, huh?

Here in the real world this is how an attack on a candidate's life would go at the RNC: crazy fucker draws his gun, people around him notice, and they dogpile him. He maybe gets one shot off, very unlikely to even hit his target, and if he does the candidate is almost certainly wearing soft body armor. No other guns are even fired. Or, people scatter, the crazy fucker is left alone with nobody around him, and half the secret service agents double tap him. The candidate is safe on the ground under a pile of agents and nobody else is hurt.

You know what else might happen though? A crazy person could shake Trump's hand and scratch him with a needle coated in poison. Oh shit! Trump better not shake any more hands!

One of the secret service agents might be sick with an inoperable brain tumor that isn't affecting his job performance yet, and take $25 million from Soros to provide for his family when he's gone. All he has to do is kill Trump. Oh shit! No more secret service agents?

Trump could kiss a baby, but then the baby might actually be a bomb, or a suicide baby. Oh shit! No more baby kissing!

Post: #17

The problem with suicide attackers is they tend to be pretty unskilled.

The numbers are not in favor of a shooter even hitting a candidate at the podium from the audience. Why do you think all assassinations have been either face to face or with a sniper rifle?

As I said before the danger to the candidates is overstated. I am willing to bet that anyone who thinks otherwise has very limited exposure to firearms.

Moreover I cannot see how anyone can claim to want to stop gun free zones and yet only move around in gun free zones.

Am I the only one who thinks it is strange for the RNC to be non-public? This is a political party, not a corporation.

It is interesting to see how many so-called 2A supporters balk when there is a taste of uncertainty, even without seriously considering the situation in depth (for example, what are the odds of landing a lethal shot with a handgun at a man behind a podium from 20y with a handgun?).

Post: #18

(03-26-2016 10:38 PM)weambulance Wrote:  

Quote:The difficult part in planning an assassination is finding out when and where the target is going to be in advance. With the location and tiem broadcasted and open carrying allowed, a hit team would be able to scout out the place in advance for best shooting positions, etc. and later walk right in carrying whatever they wanted.

Yeah, in Hollywood. In real life, a technically competent team with the intel that's publicly available could kill any of the candidates without having to rely on a plan that would absolutely guarantee their deaths. Why hasn't that happened? Because only fucking nutballs try to kill politicians, and nutballs lack the rational planning skills and technical competence to pull it off when there's real security present. This would not be some unique opportunity to attack the candidates. Trump flies around in his plane with TRUMP on the side and tells everyone where he's going ahead of time!

There hasn't been a halfway competent attack on a president or candidate for the office on US soil since Reagan, and Hinckley's attack was a pretty poor attempt in itself.

Quote:And to top it off any nutjob could walk in open carrying, get as close as possible and draw his pistol. Security wouldn't be able to stop that first shot. Imagine if one guy made his move, and then all the other nutjobs realized this was their only chance and they started firing too? And then security starts returning fire? And then other audience members open fire too?

What the fuck are you even talking about? You're buying into bogeyman bullshit. Jesus, I guess we should just have the candidates live in bulletproof man-size hamster balls from now on. Now the crowd is supposed to be just full of people who can't wait to die trying to kill a presidential candidate? Must be the evil influence of their guns or something, huh?

Here in the real world this is how an attack on a candidate's life would go at the RNC: crazy fucker draws his gun, people around him notice, and they dogpile him. He maybe gets one shot off, very unlikely to even hit his target, and if he does the candidate is almost certainly wearing soft body armor. No other guns are even fired. Or, people scatter, the crazy fucker is left alone with nobody around him, and half the secret service agents double tap him. The candidate is safe on the ground under a pile of agents and nobody else is hurt.

You know what else might happen though? A crazy person could shake Trump's hand and scratch him with a needle coated in poison. Oh shit! Trump better not shake any more hands!

One of the secret service agents might be sick with an inoperable brain tumor that isn't affecting his job performance yet, and take $25 million from Soros to provide for his family when he's gone. All he has to do is kill Trump. Oh shit! No more secret service agents?

Trump could kiss a baby, but then the baby might actually be a bomb, or a suicide baby. Oh shit! No more baby kissing!

Trump is actually quite vulnerable in those speeches he makes outside of hangers at airports:
- date, time and location are public information
- there are many angles that a shot could be fired from as it is basically an open field
- wind speed and direction given by windsocks
- taking off and landing airplane engines help mask direction of gunshot
- etc.

My knowledge is not based off Hollywood films. My knowledge is based on sending thousands of rounds down range and having read these two books.


This goes over specific events that have happened in history and then planning and logistics behind them.


This has more of the technical side of long range marksmanship.

You don't understand how quickly someone can draw a pistol and go to work in a crowd. According to your logic, Jack Ruby should have never been able to shoot Lee Harvey Oswald.

The bolded part of your response is completely unreasonable, in fact it's quite childish. Allowing random people to carry firearms in close proximity of presidential candidates is a terrible idea. I believe it's such a terrible idea that no sane person with good intentions thought of it. Someone trying to cause problems probably thought of it.

Post: #19

(03-26-2016 11:04 PM)storm Wrote:  The problem with suicide attackers is they tend to be pretty unskilled.

The numbers are not in favor of a shooter even hitting a candidate at the podium from the audience. Why do you think all assassinations have been either face to face or with a sniper rifle?

As I said before the danger to the candidates is overstated. I am willing to bet that anyone who thinks otherwise has very limited exposure to firearms.

Moreover I cannot see how anyone can claim to want to stop gun free zones and yet only move around in gun free zones.

Am I the only one who thinks it is strange for the RNC to be non-public? This is a political party, not a corporation.

It is interesting to see how many so-called 2A supporters balk when there is a taste of uncertainty, even without seriously considering the situation in depth (for example, what are the odds of landing a lethal shot with a handgun at a man behind a podium from 20y with a handgun?).

What is the point of this? Why do you want guns at this event? What will that accomplish at all?

I want my guns and I don't want anymore fucking restrictions on them. Having 20K people locked and loaded at a convention with Trump there is asking for trouble when people have continuously been making death threats towards the guy. If even one shot were fired they would immediately put more restrictions on guns.

Is that what you want? Because I seriously don't understand why you want people to be armed at this event.

Post: #20

Stuff like this is a test of how you really feel about gun rights. Where is the petition so I can sign it?

Post: #21

Post: #22

Bud, I am an infantry combat veteran and I spent a year with my battalion sniper squad. I am also a competitive pistol shooter. I do my own gunsmithing, load my own rounds, and whenever I'm not stuck in the shithole Northeast I shoot at long range as much as I can. So, I'm glad you've read some books, but I don't need any lectures and I have actual real world experience when it comes to killing people with guns and having people try to kill me.

I think you've missed my point, but fortunately, you're making my point for me. The candidates are vulnerable all over the place. This is no different.

So, what's your rationale for endangering all the other attendees of the event who don't have a twenty man security detail by forcing them to disarm when there have been untold thousands of threats of violence from people like the Black Lives Matter nuts, and actual riots in the streets?

You're seemingly convinced there's something magical about guns that make them a threat to candidates in a way that other things aren't. But there are loads of ways for the candidates to be attacked that have nothing to do with guns. If the USSS had to choose between some assclown trying to kill their protectee with a handgun and their protectee's plane going down because someone was bribed to sabotage the plane, which do you suppose they would prefer?

Sure, my examples weren't entirely reasonable. That's because I was mocking your ridiculous notion that the crowd will be packed with crazy people who are willing to die to kill a candidate when, I reiterate, there hasn't been a serious attempt on a president or candidate on US soil since 1981. You just got through telling me how vulnerable Trump was in transit, and the same thing applies to all the other candidates and the president himself. So if the country is so full of these crazy-but-competent fucks, why haven't they taken their shots? Your logic is lacking.

Incidentally, your comparison of a presidential candidate to Lee Harvey Oswald is ill considered. A low value, much hated jerkoff who was involved in a highly suspicious shooting being escorted by some cops who aren't even looking around at the crowd--I've seen the footage--vs an extremely high value target with a vigilant security detail of highly trained professionals... yeah, totally the same. A better example is the one I alluded to before (twice), when John Hinckley Jr shot Reagan in 1981. The Secret Service has changed their TTPs since then, I assure you.

Let's consider some scenarios here. There's a shooter in the crowd while the candidate is speaking at a podium. He draws his weapon and starts shooting. What is the better option for stopping him quickly?

Scenario 1 - Only USSS agents are armed:

   

Scenario 2 - Some members of the audience who are normal CHL holders are armed:

   

Which of those looks better? And for fun, let's consider your multiple batshit crazy shooters at once scenario:

   

Would you rather a handful of USSS agents be the only people capable of returning fire in that scenario, or that the members of the crowd--99.9% of whom will be good people--could effectively help out?

You know the real, fundamental difference between us? I believe that generally, Americans are good and capable people. The sort of person who carries a gun responsibly is the sort of person I want nearby when the shit hits the fan. People who think Americans can't be trusted with guns around politicians are the sort of people who say things like "Well, I know I can handle a gun, but I don't think those people should be able to have them" with a sneer of contempt.

Quote:I want my guns and I don't want anymore fucking restrictions on them. Having 20K people locked and loaded at a convention with Trump there is asking for trouble when people have continuously been making death threats towards the guy. If even one shot were fired they would immediately put more restrictions on guns.

I'm not worried about that. Gun control has been losing for the last 12+ years. Sandy Hook showed that Americans have soundly rejected the notion that the answer to crazy fucks is more gun laws. Since then, we've had a few other high profile mass shootings and gun control has gained no more traction in the sane parts of the nation. So why would something happening at the RNC change that?

Post: #23

Quote:By the logic I see in this thread, all centerfire rifles should be banned. The candidates have to go outside sometimes, right? And there's no way you can vet everyone in the country who can buy a rifle. Some rifles have the mechanical precision and power to hit and kill people repeatably at over a mile!

You know what else might happen though? A crazy person could shake Trump's hand and scratch him with a needle coated in poison. Oh shit! Trump better not shake any more hands!

One of the secret service agents might be sick with an inoperable brain tumor that isn't affecting his job performance yet, and take $25 million from Soros to provide for his family when he's gone. All he has to do is kill Trump. Oh shit! No more secret service agents?

Trump could kiss a baby, but then the baby might actually be a bomb, or a suicide baby. Oh shit! No more baby kissing!

Why are you being so angry and sarcastic? Trump has had so many death threats on him that the Secret Service is overloaded. They're having to pull from army and other places just to keep up with it. Other people have pointed this out. Many of the people who hate him the most are going to be at that convention. One of them will shoot at him, or try to. You think Glenn Beck or Erick Erickson, or any of their nutso followers, wouldn't jump at a chance to be the man who "saves the Republic" from the evil Trump?

You argue that the attack would fail. Fair enough. Let's say that you were standing next to Glenn Beck. As we can see from your posts, you are the supreme badass, who has a 100% accuracy rating even in a jostling crowd, perfect reflexes, and a draw speed that would make an old west cowboy hang his head in shame. So when Beck pulls out his glock, screams, "Ted Cruz is the anointed one! Death to the New York Heretic!, and aims it at Trump with his fat, sweaty hands, you whip out your double-chrome plated .45 and put a single bullet right between his eyes. He falls down, twitching, and you spin the gun with your finger, making that cool "whoosh-whoosh" sound, and then blow the smoke off a puff. Girls everywhere crown you "the coolest dude".

Great, you just shot a guy on the floor of the Republican convention. That is now the only story from now until November. Not jobs. Not the economy. Not illegal immigration. Not Hillary's emails. It's about how Republicans are so crazy that they're shooting each other at their own convention. Hillary wins in a landslide, and the Trump train is over.

What you are proposing is tremendously, tremendously dumb. It has nothing to do with the second amendment, which has always, always allowed the banning of weapons on private private. It's insane absolutism that serves no point.

Post: #24

(03-27-2016 12:41 AM)SamuelBRoberts Wrote:  ...

As to the centerfire rifle bit you quoted, that is a completely valid point. Your argument is normal people should not be allowed in range of the candidates with firearms. So, what do you propose to do about rifles that can reach out and touch a human-torso-size target at over a mile with sufficient energy left to go right through soft armor? I've made the point elsewhere that it is not possible to cover that kind of area around a moving protectee. So, by extension of the idea that armed citizens should not be in range of the candidates, those rifles should be banned. And guess what? Plenty of congresspeople would absolutely love to ban exactly the rifles I'm talking about. They already started, by making centerfire rifles with bores over 0.5" nominal into Destructive Devices that require special permissions to own.

Another thing is, the poisoned needle bit is actually a real threat. It's just that the degree of competence to acquire such a toxin and coolly pull off the attack is very high. How is the secret service supposed to check that you don't have a needle coated in tetrodotoxin?

Quote:Why are you being so angry and sarcastic? Trump has had so many death threats on him that the Secret Service is overloaded. They're having to pull from army and other places just to keep up with it. Other people have pointed this out. Many of the people who hate him the most are going to be at that convention. One of them will shoot at him, or try to. You think Glenn Beck or Erick Erickson, or any of their nutso followers, wouldn't jump at a chance to be the man who "saves the Republic" from the evil Trump?

I'm not angry. You just can't see the forest for the trees here. If a competent person wanted to kill one of the candidates, trying to shoot him from the crowd like this is a good way for them to not get the job done. There are dozens of better ways to do it.

There are precautions the organizers could take to allow people to be armed so in case something goes down they can defend themselves, while making it difficult to prepare an attack stealthily. That way, if the attacker has to go to a bit of trouble to get ready to attack, people will notice and stop him.

Also, I'm sure the USSS has a bunch of the people who have threatened Trump on a list. They're not completely incompetent.

Quote:You argue that the attack would fail. Fair enough. Let's say that you were standing next to Glenn Beck. As we can see from your posts, you are the supreme badass, who has a 100% accuracy rating even in a jostling crowd, perfect reflexes, and a draw speed that would make an old west cowboy hang his head in shame. So when Beck pulls out his glock, screams, "Ted Cruz is the anointed one! Death to the New York Heretic!, and aims it at Trump with his fat, sweaty hands, you whip out your double-chrome plated .45 and put a single bullet right between his eyes. He falls down, twitching, and you spin the gun with your finger, making that cool "whoosh-whoosh" sound, and then blow the smoke off a puff. Girls everywhere crown you "the coolest dude".

So, pointing out that I have real world experience that most people don't have, and I am not just pulling this out of my ass, is now bragging and being an internet badass. Good to know.

Also, I carry a Glock 19. It's black.

Quote:Great, you just shot a guy on the floor of the Republican convention. That is now the only story from now until November. Not jobs. Not the economy. Not illegal immigration. Not Hillary's emails. It's about how Republicans are so crazy that they're shooting each other at their own convention. Hillary wins in a landslide, and the Trump train is over.

I think your analysis is flawed, here. Suddenly the media has all the power in the world, when Trump has been shrugging off their attacks like they were mere gnats? Self defense or defense of another is not crazy, and most normal Americans don't think it is.

Quote:What you are proposing is tremendously, tremendously dumb.

Thanks!

Quote:It has nothing to do with the second amendment, which has always, always allowed the banning of weapons on private private. It's insane absolutism that serves no point.

And here we are, a point that I actually agree with. I absolutely believe that in most circumstances companies should be able to ban firearms from their premises. What I'm arguing is the more general point that American should not be disarmed in the presence of politicians as a matter of course, as if they were criminals. So, I would prefer the RNC find a venue that is okay with guns. Maybe go to Vegas.

Post: #25

[quote='ElConquistador' pid='1261558' dateline='1459051846']
[quote]... My knowledge is based on sending thousands of rounds down range and having read these two books.


This goes over specific events that have happened in history and then planning and logistics behind them.


This has more of the technical side of long range marksmanship.
[/quote]

I want to read those books!