Author of Guns at GOP Convention Petition a Dem Lefty…So?

Unknown

“The author of the online petition calling for an armed Republican convention turns out to be an Internet troll. He was unmasked Monday by CBS News. Jim, as he called himself, is a self-described liberal Democrat. He apparently has a huge dislike for guns. He did volunteer work for Barack Obama’s 2008 presidential campaign, and said he plans to vote for Hillary Clinton if she becomes the Democratic nominee.” Surprised? Saul Alinsky’s rule #4: make your enemy live up to its own book of rules. And just because this little fire was started by an advocate of civilian disarmament . . .

doesn’t mean he was wrong.

“If they believe this so strongly -– that gun-free zones are dangerous -– why am I the one raising the stink? I think they should take up the cause. It would bring them up on intellectual consistency.”

Fair point. Politicians — of any stripe — living up to their own professed standards is about as frequently found as nickel-a-round .22LR ammo. All “Jim” did was take the opportunity to hoist the GOP on its own pro-gun petard for a few days.

Not that it matters any more. The GOP brass got what it no doubt wanted most…a convenient excuse to blame the convention gun ban on someone else. The Secret Service put a stop to any more consideration of firearms freedom when the delegate votes are called.

“Only authorized law enforcement personnel working in conjunction with the Secret Service for a particular event may carry a firearm inside of the protected site,” a spokesman for the agency said.

‘Hey, we wanted to allow them, but the Secret Service said no. Darn!

So the GOP convention will remain a designated gun-free zone. And the Secret Service decree takes the topic out of the news, relieving Republican officials and the remaining candidates of having to answer uncomfortable questions from media types who relish every opportunity to see them squirm. As far as “Jim” is concerned, mission accomplished. Nicely played.

comments

  1. avatar Jonathan - Houston says:

    “So?”, you ask? It’s just an apple of discord distraction. NOBODY’S life will be affected by a guns at the convention decision. This doesn’t even rise to the rearranging the deck chairs level. Good grief.

    1. avatar Omer Baker says:

      I’ll say that nobody’s lives SHOULD BE CHANGED by anyone in DC. I hope they become as meaningful as a muskrat fart in the wind.

      1. avatar Jonathan - Houston says:

        We’re making different points. I’m saying that the decision whether to allow concealed firearms at the GOP nominating convention doesn’t affect anyone.

        That’s a different topic from whether anyone is affected by what the politicians and bueaucrats in D.C. do.

  2. avatar younggun21 says:

    Not surprised.

  3. avatar slow says:

    Let’s see how the Demoncrats like all Unisex Bathrooms at the Philly Convention…………

    1. avatar Noah says:

      Mmm. I’ll admit this one made me laugh. Start that petition, please.

    2. avatar Model 31 says:

      Those wouldn’t happen to be the bathrooms just down the hallway from the daycare that also sells legalized pot?

    3. avatar Cliff H says:

      Saul Alinsky’s rule #4: make your enemy live up to its own book of rules.

      So when is a Republican going to start the petition that the Dem convention MUST be a Gun Free Zone, including all those pesky Secret Service guys and their local law enforcement surrogates?

      1. avatar Stuki Moi says:

        Democrats aren’t against guns. Just against non more equals having them. Just as they aren’t against immigrants. Just against having them in their neighborhoods. And just as the GOP is really against bank bailouts. Just not against the banks paying their lobbyists, being bailed out.

  4. avatar MLee says:

    He also used my hometown of Spokane, WA as his hometown because it seemed like “every town” USA.
    http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2016/mar/29/petitioner-pushing-for-guns-at-republican-conventi/

    Spokane is pretty pro-gun, so thanks, but no thanks a– hole!

    1. avatar MLee says:

      Apparently, it’s being reported now that he really is from Spokane. Thanks again…a— hole!

  5. avatar tdiinva (Now in Wisconsin) says:

    The convention won’t be a gun free zone. There will be armed security personnel on the premises.

  6. avatar James69 says:

    Well just outside the door is “Downtown Cleveland” lot’s o guns for everyone. Our ship delivers iron ore to the dock just up the river that runs next to it. I wonder if they will suspend river traffic for the duration? Break time! and Jump on the TRUMP TRAIN!! WOOO WOOOO! ‘Mercia!

  7. avatar tinHat says:

    There are 2 set of rules one for the little people and one for the political group. What is good for the goose is good for the gander Who cares who said it

  8. avatar Pwrserge says:

    So I take it he would be cool with O’bug’hole using his “pen and phone” to override the USSS?

  9. avatar uncommon_sense says:

    So there are going to be, what, maybe four armed Secret Service dudes “mingling” on site and two security personnel manning the metal detector at the main doors? I don’t see that providing very much security. Hell, they couldn’t even stop some guy from bum-rushing trump at one of his rallies. Imagine if eight dedicated “protesters” rushed one of the candidates all at once … armed with any number of non-metallic weapons such as ceramic knives or a sharpened bamboo stick (which would basically be a giant hypodermic needle … or a really long apple coring tool if you like that image better).

    1. avatar Andrew Lias says:

      Waiting for Trump to lay one out afro man style. Or maybe do security gimme shelter style

  10. avatar Indiana Tom says:

    I dunno, Heinlein stated something to the effect of politicians who were supposed to represent the people, needing to have armed security and bulletproof glass to protect said politicians from their constituents. I think it was The Cat Who Walks Through Walls, a follow up book to the Moon is a Harsh Mistress

  11. avatar Steve says:

    I’ve said it for days and I’m surprised more people didn’t realize it sooner.

    The “so?” part that Dan misses… or ignores… is that democrats are supporting it for the sick reason of hoping innocent people are harmed or killed to “prove” their point. THAT’S “so”.

    1. avatar Mudshark says:

      What I was think too. It was a setup.

    2. avatar Mister Fleas says:

      +1,000

  12. avatar JW says:

    How can a liberal who wants a green or sustainable future talk about other policies which require money which then on analysis are not inherently sustainable…

    And then complain that Republicans are not intellectually consistent.

    1. avatar NineShooter says:

      It’s the same as all the prog/lefty/lib Dems insisting that requiring formal identification for all voting is completely unnecessary, but requiring formal ID to get into the Democratic National Convention was perfectly reasonable, because shut up.

  13. avatar Anon in CT says:

    “Gun Free Zones” which are secured by hordes of armed USSS and police are a little different than those secured by a window sticker, ya know?

    1. avatar Cliff H says:

      One major difference – unlike GFZ window stickers, the Secret Service shoots back.

      1. avatar HP says:

        I think that’s what he was implying.

        1. avatar Anon in CT says:

          Exactly. I don’t like GFZ, but if you’re going to have one, it better feature well-run metal detectors and lots of armed, on-site security. Not to say something couldn’t happen at the convention, but if the attackers can beat all the local LEOs and the USSS, well they’ve got more firepower than I want to handle. And if you need a gun at that point, take it off a dead cop.

  14. avatar Peter says:

    They should have announced that guns would be allowed for Republicans that had been registered for at least one year as such.

  15. avatar Southern Cross says:

    This troll aims to be Hillary’s personal lackey, and eventually be promoted to Hillary’s gimp.

  16. avatar Sian says:

    It’s not the same.

    A gun free zone is protected by a sign.

    The convention is protected by the police and secret service.

  17. avatar neiowa says:

    Only authorized law enforcement personnel working in conjunction with the Secret Service for a particular event may carry a firearm inside of the protected site,” a spokesman for the agency said.

    I wonder if Trumpy or Ted Cruz will plan to visit Louisville on May 21 and the SS bozos will pull that line of BS out of their butts.

  18. avatar Wrightl3 says:

    Don’t feed the troll. Next question.

  19. avatar Cloudbuster says:

    Where in the Constitution does it give the Secret Service authority over my rights?

  20. avatar petru sova says:

    The Republicans have always been hypocrites when it comes to trashing the Second Amendment. Reagan outlawed the sale of new full auto guns. Busch sent back his NRA Card Membership and both wanted to ban assault weapons and restrict the purchase of handguns.

    “Quote from Misis Wire”.

    January 4, 2016•Ryan McMaken

    “The Obama Administration is planning new gun restrictions to be implemented by executive order.

    Politico reports:

    According to gun industry insiders and others familiar with the proposals, the changes include requiring an expanded number of small-scale gun sellers to be licensed — and therefore conduct background checks — whenever selling a weapon. This wouldn’t close the so-called gun show loophole, though it has the potential to narrow it.

    In response, the Conservative media has expressed the expected outrage, with Donald Trump declaring that “pretty soon, you won’t be able to get guns.”

    With these new measures, however, Obama isn’t supporting anything that hasn’t been supported by Republicans in the past.

    Both Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush have supported closing the so-called “gun show loophole,” and both supported an “assault weapons” ban, which goes beyond what Obama is currently attempting.

    Here’s George W. Bush in 2004 saying “my view is clear. I do think we ought to extend the assault weapons ban…I believe in background checks at gun shows or anywhere.” Bush even attempts to portray himself as the “sensible” person in the room who supports more gun restrictions while others in both parties refused to support Bush’s call for more restrictions.

    Ronald Reagan also supported national background checks and in 1991 wrote a column in The New York Times calling for sweeping changes in federal law on handguns that would greatly restrict access. Remembering the assassination attempt against him, Reagan wrote:

    This nightmare might never have happened if legislation that is before Congress now — the Brady bill — had been law back in 1981.

    Named for Jim Brady, this legislation would establish a national seven-day waiting period before a handgun purchaser could take delivery. It would allow local law enforcement officials to do background checks for criminal records or known histories of mental disturbances. Those with such records would be prohibited from buying the handguns.

    Reagan went on to bemoan the fact that there were not strong enough provisions for federal agents to punish gun dealers who are not thorough enough in their background checks.

    Naturally, we should not expect anything less from Reagan, who as governor of California supported some of the most draconian gun laws ever passed in the state’s history (up to that time.)

    The right wing would have us believe that Obama is somehow unique in his animosity to guns, but if that’s true it’s only a small matter of degree. The fact is that every president during (at least) the past thirty years has been quite fond of restricting firearms ownership in the United States. This makes perfect sense, of course, since restricting gun ownership is the same thing as expanding the government’s monopoly over the means of coercion.

    Dreaming of a larger and more powerful government — something every president does — goes hand in hand with wanting to centralize and expand government power over weaponry.

    Politicians like Obama, Bush, and Reagan have all decried the problem of gun violence one minute while advocating for more guns in the hands of government and its friends, whether it’s selling military surplus to local police, or shipping guns to Central American, Syrian, or Iraqi death squads. ”

    And lets not forget it was the Republicans who stabbed gun owners in the back when they confirmed the Supreme Court nominee Sotomayer after she blatantly refused to answer if she supported the validity of the Second Amendment letting the Republican Prostitutes know in no uncertain terms she was out to destroy it. Now anyone but a Moron would know how Superior a Parliamentary Government would be over a Constitutional Government is that lets the Supreme Court become life appointed dictators who’s decisions are all but impossible to overturn. One more reason the American Revolution was a serious mistake. Expect Obama’s new and radical Second Amendment hater to do everything possible to destroy it and the Republicans know if they do not approve his nomination Hillary is going to appoint someone even worse (except of course for gun ban laws) as another appointee could not be worse in regards to banning guns.

    1. avatar Yellow Devil says:

      The caveat to the 1986 Gun Bill was that the original intent was not to restrict gun rights of any kind, rather it was to address and reform the ATF and several other regulatory agencies who were abusing their power to unlawfully restrict 2a rights. The 1986 post auto ban was a last minute amendment added by a Senator (Democrat) to the bill. Now you can fault Reagan for not vetoing the entirety of the bill because of it, but it’s probable safe to say very few were interested in defending full automatic firearms for civilian use.

      1. avatar petru sova says:

        Your ignoring that Reagan also wanted to restrict handguns as well.

  21. avatar SurfGW says:

    Let Republicans allow open carry and they turn off half the country…
    Ban it after it was brought up as an option and Republicans lose one of their most reliable supporters.
    This Democrat placed Republicans in a classic Catch-22. Genius!

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email