Can this place too tone things down?

The secret service seriously screwed up. But your odds of screwing up are a lot higher when people are routinely allowed to openly carry all order of weapons in public. Is it plausible that the secret service may hesitate seeing a dude with an AR15 because he just might be a Trump supporter, and can you imagine the stink if a Trump supporter were assassinsted by the deep state secret service at an event?

All of this ridiculousness just increases the margin for error.

 

Back on topic on whether this place can tone down, the answer is unequivocally “no.” I saw Florida’s very own MAGA Randy Fine interviewed at the convention, and he was asked this very question. His answer was words to the effect that he’ll never tone down the rhetoric.

His response, while predictable for such a knucklehead, was quite revealing. We will never have civility when our leaders base their very employment on fighting with discord across the aisle. Randy Fine does not exist without extremism. The same is true for officials on both sides.

If we want civility, we need to elect leaders who are, well, civil, not to mention good informed listeners.

 

curious, would you mind sharing the denomination?

 

It's ironic that the party that wants everyone to own 15 guns minimum and be able to carry them anywhere bans them at their events. Even at the NRA convention.

Safety for me but not for thee.

 

Republican politicians do what the NRA wants which you can see in the laws they pass.

 

Serious question: why shouldn't you be able to carry in all of those locations if carrying guns either doesn't increase risk, as many Republicans argue, or decreases risk, as many have now started arguing with their talk about how dangerous gun free zones are?

 

But it’s OK to carry one outside a little league baseball game.

They are either safe for the general public or they aren’t.

 

It was a fair point, however, that I had not considered. MAGAs all want to pound the table for carrying military weapons around town as form of Constitutional expression, so how could the Secret Service, or any other security team members, realistically stop this guy who was outside the security perimeter exercising his rights to parade around in public with a rifle?

 

But why? I'm not arguing that there aren't limits now. But the question is why should those exist. The argument by the pro-gun folks range from "guns don't kill people" to "guns protect people." So if those arguments are made in good faith, and the argument is that guns are either neutral or good in terms of security, why would we have limits on something just because an area is deemed "high security?"

 

I recall a few on here arguing they should be allowed at football games. Because what good go wrong with the combination of drunks, sports, and guns. Some are quite nutso on the topic.

Almost nowhere should have open carry. CCP is ok more broadly, but people should have to pass a gun safety class. In recent years we’ve gone the wrong way, eliminating safety, and allowing more open carry in places that make no sense. If I see some dude carrying an AR-15 in Publix, I’d assume he’s a nutbar or person about to do a mass shooting. Fortunately I haven’t actually seen that, but hypothetically i’m sure many customers would keep their distance or even leave the store if they saw such an armed character loitering. Not good for business.

 

United Methodist

 

I will keep being salty in my posts as the Bible commands