republican-convention-20586999jpg-b0661ccfb5beaaa3

“The party is no doubt counting on the U.S. Secret Service to take the blame for prohibiting guns at the convention. So the gathering of embittered factions, including the Trumpistas who are poised to ‘riot’ in the event their leader is denied, will almost surely attend the convention in their capacity as sitting ducks. For Republican leaders, that’s a far better outcome than actually living up to their own gun-rights rhetoric. They’d much rather face sitting ducks in the hall than armed chickens come home to roost.” – Francis Wilkinson in Testing Republicans’ professed love of guns [at chicagotribune.com]

BFG-Long-Logo-Blue-JPG-220x39

Recommended For You

95 Responses to Blue Force Gear Quote of the Day: Will the GOP Walk the Walk on Guns?

  1. The Democrats should know a thing or two about convention riots. They’re the only party that has experienced such a phenomenon.

        • So let me get this straight…if gunfire erupts at the republican convention it’s the democrats’ fault?

          Ergo the democrats are the pro-gun party. Could it get any weirder? Of course.

        • Coltman;

          “Gunfire erupts.” Sophistry. If someone is forced to defend themselves from a violent socialist agitator it will be the violent socialist agitator’s fault. If that makes violent socialist agitators “pro gun” than I wonder what it would take to make them “pro America?”

  2. Then why will there be guns at the TX gop convention? Openly carried, no less. Way to go, guys, you’ve managed to point out how unfree people are under your thumb.

    • As I understand it, it is up to the venue as well and the Quicken loans arena has the ability under Ohio law to post signs (which they do have) that prohibit firearms on their premises. Im sure if the GOP asked real nicely they would take the signs down but really, they have no incentive to do so; this is a political smear campaign at its finest.

      A democrat is being reported to have started the petition in order to stir up controversy *knowing* that good americans would agree with the sentiment and argue that they should be able to carry their defensive firearms but also knowing that ultimately both the private venue and the secret service would not allow this to happen.

      In short, it just allows the left to smear the republicans as hypocrites, it allows trump to point to the rest of the field and call then names, and it ensures that the weakest candidate will come out of the right for an easy smack down victory. Well played hillary.

    • The Secret Service wouldn’t even allow Amy Poehler to use a plastic toy gun to pretend to shoot a guy in a moose costume in a 2008 SNL “Weekend Update” skit then-V.P. candidate Palin on stage. Poehler had to use her fingers to simulate a gun for the skit.

      So I’m not at all surprised they’re putting their foot down on the guns at the GOP convention. Think of the Secret Service’s job in this regard as being to defend constitutional ideals, not live up to them.

  3. I’m less concerned about Trump supporters if he loses the nomination than I am about BLM terrorists when he wins. I sure as hell would not be going to the convention unarmed.

    • No need for guns. National coverage a couple of beat downs with BLM klan with brass nuckles and bats will end their time in the sandbox.

      • Yeah I’m going to have to go the other way and say that reigniting race wars with a racist organization that is responsible for the worst hate crimes in United States history is absolutely not going to make them go away. In fact, it will probably embolden them because it proves their point that the US is still racist.

        • You really need a citation to tell you that the KKK was responsible for heinous hate crimes that could be described by some as the “worst”? Really? Stop giving the anti’s ammo to hurt us. Do not associate yourselves with hate groups, period. Its not hard. Advocate for freedom, disavow those that are violent and radical, and we win because we have the facts.

        • Just as a beginning, it sounded to me as if you were referring to atrocities committed by BLM, not KKK. So, clarification was needed. Even then, I’m not certain that anything done by the KKK has been a greater atrocity than Affirmative Action, which is also clearly racist.

        • younggun21,

          I admire your commitment to the “cooler heads prevail” mantra and I agree that we should ALWAYS do everything in our power to succeed with non-violent methods — especially facts and reasoning.

          Having said all that, please keep in mind that awful and evil people exist in the world who are eager to take our property, liberty, and/or life — the only facts and reason those people respect is our willingness to defend our rights with violent force.

          Should we trumpet our facts and reason and seriously downplay violent force? Of course! We should also recognize that “appeasement strategy” and “diplomacy” (debating facts and reason) does not work when dealing with people who want to take our life, liberty, and/or property. For those types, it would behoove us to discretely state our willingness and ability to use violent force in defense of our rights. It would also behoove us to clarify that we are willing to use violent force in defense of our rights no matter who is attacking us, whether the attacker is a two-bit thug, rapist, our neighbors (who want us to be defenseless because it feels good), or government.

          You would never attempt to negotiate how far a rapist can go to sexually assault a woman “legally”. Why would you attempt to negotiate how far someone can go to assault your right to life, liberty, and property?

        • LarryinTX: I apologize for any ambiguity, I was referring to a comment above that dealt with the filming fights between the two organizations as a solution but I can see were the mistake could have been made.

          uncommon sense:

          Of course there are evil people that cannot be reasoned or bargained with and that is the reason why I carry a gun. I realize that there are going to be those that can not and will not listen to reason and I will have to fight. However, I do think that it is important to recognize the context in which I made my comment. Perhaps I was misreading, but my comment was in response to a comment that I took to mean that we should ignite fights between the BLM and Klan members (which now reading back it could have meant that the klan referred to the BLM themselves) and I said this was a losing proposition. We should not get into the policy of race baiting because the right to keep and bear arms crosses races and ethnicities. Fight were you need to fight and educate where you need to educate but being part of the race wars is not going to fix anything.

        • What does the KKK have to do with anything? Back in the day, most of them were Democrats. So what is your point, exactly? Who is it going to be “reigniting a race war'”? From what we’ve seen, it seems that it is the BLM that wishes to do so, not the Klan. So you’ve lost me.

        • Mark N. The comment that i was responding was stating that the way to end the BLM was to film beatings between them and the “klan” and i took this to mean contributing to the race baiting instead of rising above it and not allowing it to taint our movement that has nothing to do with race The kkk has nothing to do gun rights (normatively) and yes they were democrats. All I was saying was stay away from that crap. Do not engage in the race wars in any way because thats what the left wants us to do.

        • >> Even then, I’m not certain that anything done by the KKK has been a greater atrocity than Affirmative Action, which is also clearly racist.

          So affirmative action is a greater atrocity than say, lynchings – including particularly sadistic forms of them, such as burning people alive?

        • It’s white identity politics. As with most kinds of identity politics, facts don’t matter, and “experience” reigns supreme.

          Basically, take your average modern hyper-progressive college student, complete with insecurity, rage, fear, “triggering”, and whining about how it is all so fundamentally unfair. Replace his or her usual targets/triggers – *isms, patriarchy etc – with Muslims, Blacks, Mexicans and terrorists. The result is a Trump voter.

        • That actually explained his rant. Thanks.

          Oh,,,,Trump voters don’t need all that claimed stuff to make them supporters, even I recognize the attraction to a candidate who pushes back hard, for all sorts of reasons. Just to be clear, I have yet to suspect anyone on this blog has the characteristics this guy claims.

        • Thanks for clarifying, younggun21. I wrote my comment because I read your initial one to say that BLM was responsible for the worst hate crimes in history, which would be a pretty ridiculous statement.

  4. The GOP has no choice in the matter, if Quicken Loans Arena, as a private venue, posts that venue to be firearms-prohibited. Such signage carries the force of law in Ohio. And what do you know, Quicken Loans Arena has just such policy and statutory-compliant signage:

    http://www.theqarena.com/arena-info/policies

    But, that won’t stop progressives from taking digs at the GOP in general (and Trump supporters in particular).

    • That being the case. Could a private venue post black / white water fountains as well? Private companies are not government bulwarks against our liberties.

      • That being the case. Could a private venue post black / white water fountains as well?

        What is the point of this non sequitur?

        It is lawful in the state of Ohio for private venues to post their establishments as firearms-prohibited, and such signage that complies to statutory requirements has the force of law.

        It is one of the reasons that I’m glad I no longer live in Ohio, and instead live again in Indiana.

        • Chip it is not a non sequitur. Though it may be current law in Ohio it is nonetheless equally unconstitutional as denying service to any other group of individuals. This is another form of discrimination, no different than any other type of “We don’t want your kind here”. Sooner or later this will be challenged and will change.

        • Chip it is not a non sequitur. Though it may be current law in Ohio it is nonetheless equally unconstitutional as denying service to any other group of individuals.

          It is a non sequitur because the GOP has no authority to override the policy of Quicken Loans Arena, nor can the GOP successfully change Ohio statute in the next three months.

        • Point is Chip that you explained why the convention won’t be open to firearms by pointing out the venue policy AND the fact that that policy carries the force of law in Ohio. Without the force of law, the venue policy would still be binding, however, since you brought up an unjust law, Mk was pointing out the injustice of the law. So it’s more of a side point than a non sequitur.

        • But it is a non sequitur with request to the OP, which asks, “Will the GOP walk the walk on guns?”

          The GOP has no control over either the policy of Quicken Loans Arena, or Ohio statutes.

        • Ah, the whole thing is a non sequitur, not Mk’s interjection. Now it makes sense.

        • GOP has control over the choice of venue, however. They could seek a gun-friendly provider, or even move the convention to a different state.

        • Afraid the venue is irrelevant. The Secret Service protection prohibits people to carry firearms anywhere presidential candidates convene. The venue owner could do nothing to change that. It would require all three candidates to inform the Secret Service that they refuse protection for this specific event (or entirely, completely). This article was a slap at the GOP for not adhering to protecting exercise of second amendment rights, and allowing the Secret Service to “get the save”. This article was not a commendable posting.

        • >> It would require all three candidates to inform the Secret Service that they refuse protection for this specific event (or entirely, completely).

          Well, they’re all Republicans, are they not? And they all said they like guns and respect 2A, and will defend it in all ways when they’re elected, did they not?

          It all sounds like excuses to me. If there’s a real will to make it happen, they can find a way.

        • Yes, there is a method. Do we criticize a presidential candidate who does not chose to give up Secret Service protection? Would we expect such principled person to also refuse protection as President? Maybe the better question is whether presidential candidates should get Secret Service protection before they are the officially declared the nominee by their party (including the small ones).

        • It should be up to the candidate; the only thing that I really expect of them is to be consistent with the ideology they espouse (or publicly claim to espouse).

          For example, many Republican candidates, and particularly those who are considered staunch conservatives, not only voice belief in small government, but also claim that early years of US were a good model of what they mean by that. If you ask for a reasonable cut-off point, most would probably name the Civil War, some would name Slaughterhouse cases, some would point at the creation of the Federal reserve and institution of federal income tax, yet others would blame the FDR.

          Now, if we take that timeline and match it against the history of the Secret Service, we find out that it didn’t even exist until 1865, it wasn’t responsible for the safety of the sitting president until 1901, and it was not tasked with protecting the candidates until 1968.

          Secret Service undeniably being a government organization, I would argue that a true hardline proponent of small; limited, constitutionally bound government should denounce it as unconstitutional taxpayer-funded welfare of the worst kind (specific to very few, typically already rather wealthy individuals) for anyone except for the sitting president. Everyone else should just pay out of their pocket, and will get the security that the market can provide for the money.

        • Given the Secret Service’s inability to adequately protect a president (starting with Alan Pinkerton), they should be replaced based on poor performance alone (anti-counterfeiting is apparently something within their capability).

      • Not only do you not have the ‘right’ to deny service to anyone, even if providing the service directly violates your religious beliefs, but you will be sued, prosecuted and have your reputation impugned in the public square if you dare deny service for anything but the free exercise of 2nd Amendment rights.

      • Mk10108:
        Get a freakin’ clue.
        Denying access based on race is one thing.
        Requiring a certain standard of behavior is something different.
        As the owner of Quicken Loans Arena (private property), can set standards of behavior, including deciding whether or not I can carry a firearm on their property.

        As a gun owner and a realist, I think the policy is stupid. But as a property owner, I will defend their property rights.

    • One could, however, make an argument that if the GOP really did want to “walk the walk”, they wouldn’t select a “gun-free” venue for their convention, or they would negotiate a suspension of the venue’s policy for the duration of their event. This is a decision that would have to be made and acted on years in advance, and not at the last minute to score political points, thus reflecting a deeply-held belief in the right to keep and bear arms. So naturally, of course, the Republican party will never do that.

      I’ve said it before, and I’ll keep saying it: the only reason the Republican Party supports gun rights is because it’s a wedge issue that garners them votes. The day that changes and the public turns en masse against guns (God forbid), the GOP will drop the 2A from its platform in a heartbeat. Individual Republicans, including some politicians, may strongly support gun rights, but the party leadership is far too statist, and would be all too happy to consolidate power over a disarmed populace if that were feasible.

      • Agree. Government of any kind, at any level, is by its very nature opposed to any sort of freedom, not just limited to firearms. Every person in government harbors deep seated dreams of being an absolute dictator for life, and every tiny bit of guaranteed freedom disrupts the obvious need for that total control.

    • There was a similar case here in Louisville recently with the arena downtown. Since taxpayer dollars were partly used in the construction the arena was found to be “semi-public.” Whether to allow firearms or not is left to the promoter of the event itself. I don’t know the details of the venue in Ohio.

  5. Perhaps better would to heard all the BLM rioters with their habits/weapons into one centrally located free fire AO.

  6. American culture is based upon the very idea that armed citizens are not only necessary, but required to maintain a free state.

    That right was exercised when we threw off the chains of the British Crown. Americans were tired of being told what was best for them by elites who thought they knew what was better for the people than the people themselves.

    Should the GOPe try to steal the nomination and/or put the fix in for the convention, they are in fact no better than the Crown. The #NeverTrump crowd, no different than the Loyalists. Americans hung loyalists.

    • If Trump gets to 1237 delegates the nomination is his. Delegates are pledged to the candidates who won them in the primaries and caucuses on the first vote. If no one wins on the first vote, all bets are off. If 1237 of those delegates decide that Limberbutt McCubbins is the best candidate for the Republican nomination than Limberbutt it is. They will vote over and over until someone comes out with 1237. This is how Abraham Lincoln became president and it’s been the rules ever since. Trump supporters can pout all they want.

      My guess is that (assuming Trump doesn’t get there) there will be enough delegates switching to Cruz on the second or third ballot. If it takes 10 or 20 votes then who knows who will win. If the GOP (who dislike Cruz even more than Trump) tries to rig this by changing the rules at the last minute (which they can do) to exclude Trump and Cruz from the nomination process it will be the end of the Republican party and we can all look forward to the new conservative party which will hopefully be better than the last one.

      • Agree with every word except Conservative party. Conservatism is good for a base, the majority of Americans are moderates. I have no time or love of a group that tells me what my values should be.

        • Well you’ll note that I said conservative party with a lower case ‘c’. By conservative I meant in the political sense not the social sense, although social conservatives are generally politically conservative. Political conservatism in this country is the advocacy of getting back to the principals of the country’s founding, the Constitution.

        • How about ex-Republicans just flee to and reconstitute themselves in the existing Constitution Party? Then nobody’s imposing values on you. The values in question are simply the Constitution.

        • The majority of Americans are not moderates. The majority are low information, low intellect, low achievers. In 2012 they amounted to %47. Their ranks are much higher now.

      • I still believe that in the event of a brokered convention, assuming Trump does not arrive in Cleveland with 1237 and does not get the nomination, he will mount a third party campaign and hand the election to Hillary. I am not entirely convinced that his running was not intended to divide the conservatives in the first place and ensure an un-electable Hillary could win against a severely divided Republican party.

        • That is presumably the case given the recent development of trump pulling back on his support for the eventual nominee from the party no matter who that will be. The year started out promising and we had the weakest democratic candidate to run against since Jimmy Carter yet the election has been squandered by inter-party squabbles and near reality tv lunacy on stage.

        • Trump would need a political vehicle, a party, in order to mount a 3rd party challenge. He can’t have an impact if he isn’t on the ballot. Ballot access is critical and not every party is automatically on the ballot in every state.

          Access to the current cycle’s ballot depends on that party’s performance in the prior cycle per state. No 3rd party currently has access to all 50 states. Some have access to enough swing states such that Trump could play spoiler if he were their candidate, but not enough actually to elect him.

          I don’t think he’d run 3rd party with zero mathematical ability to win, not at this point, now that his head has swelled in anticipation of winning.

        • Not necessarily. Having a political party isn’t necessary when you have his personality and free publicity. If he announces he is going to go third party, there are going to be those that rabidly support him that could simply write him in. In addition, it wouldn’t be hard for him to tack himself onto a smaller party that hasn’t had any support for years like the Ross Perot crowd from a decade or so ago.

      • “If Trump gets to 1237 delegates the nomination is his.”

        Better turn on the TV, that is already being argued, all the party has to do is change the rules prior to the convention, my bet is that they have the power to institute a new rule which just says “nobody named Trump”, then go about their business as if nothing happened.

        • Well that kind of falls under the ‘end of the Republican Party’ clause in my comment. There wouldn’t be any need to do that though, if they could stomach Cruz. Cruz probably wins on the second ballot. They could make the rule that you need 60% to win outright, but then again, it’s back to Cruz. They want to put in a Kasich, Jeb, Romeny, or Ryan. That’s probably doable if they’ve gone through 20 votes already and it’s clear that neither Cruz nor the Trump can win a majority, but I don’t see it taking that long.

    • It does not make you a loyalist to not vote for someone because they don’t represent the values that you hold near and dear. In fact, it would be the opposite. If I were to blindly vote for whatever scrub comes out of the republican side no matter what the facts are THAT would make me a loyalist to the party not to my own values. I will not vote for someone that does not represent my values of small government, constitutional rights, and hawkish foreign policy.

      • I do not trust Trump, but, if he is the nominee then I will vote for him. If you do not vote for the candidate who at least partly (seems) to hold your values, even that dipshit Kasich, then you have in fact voted for Hillary. Perhaps another plank in Trump’s platform – piss off enough real conservatives that they stay home – Hillary wins.

        • I will not vote for someone that is contrary to nearly ALL my position period. Mr Trump does not believe in a small government and has come out in favor of policies such as Universal healthcare as well as funding of planned parenthood by the federal government. Mr. Trump does not believe in free trade and has come out in favor of protectionist policies that will heavily tax goods from outside the country and drive wages through the roof (artificially) inside the country that devalues the dollar and ensures the US will be noncompetitive on the global market. Mr. Trump only has this year of pro gun rights to speak for and has repeatedly advocated on the side of disarmament only to flop this year because it suited his political needs.

          So no, he does not closely resemble my political values or moral values. Your math is also wrong. A non vote for trump is not a vote for hillary, it is vote for neither of them. Not adding a vote for someone does not add a vote for another person, thats not how math works. If I don’t pay you a dollar it is not giving a dollar to your economical competition if i simply do not spend that dollar.

        • Trump and Hillary are essentially identical in their liberalism and opposition to our interests.

          The difference is that Trump will have GOP congressional support for no other reason than that he’s nominally a Republican. Speaker Ryan has already declared thus publicly.

          I’d rather the GOP opposing the Hillary’s liberal policies than supporting Trump’s liberal policies.

    • GOP is not the government, it’s a private organization. It doesn’t even have to hold primaries at all. When it does, it does so under the rules it sets for itself. If you don’t like the rules, you’re free to go to a different party. Nothing here is even remotely similar to the Revolutionary War, where Americans were fighting for independence from an actual government.

  7. I find it interesting that the person who created the petition to allow guns at the convention, is actually a Hillary supporter. (As reported on guns.com)

      • No argument from me on either count.

        I just find it interesting that some people seem to be constitutionally (in both senses) incapable of simply letting other people get on with their lives and minding their own beeswax, as my mother used to put it.

        • “some people seem to be constitutionally (in both senses) incapable of simply letting other people get on with their lives and minding their own beeswax”

          As good a working definition of the Statist Progressive Left in the US as any I’ve ever heard…

        • “There are plenty of “conservatives” like that too, unfortunately.”

          Fair enough. Probably more than most non-Leftists would like to admit.

  8. Personally, I think it could turn out like the end of the original Manchurian Candidate if they allowed people to carry. There’s enough rabid haters out there trying to block the Trumperor at every corner that someone might to try assassinate him if he gets the nomination, and I don’t think some guys OCing would deter that, as they might try to go down as a “martyr.” Also, I assume the Secret Service will have metal detectors at every entrance, so letting guns through would be counterproductive. The opposition is actively trying to start riots if Trump gets the nomination. If someone wants to hold an open carry rally near the event but not in The Q, that’s fine, but in an enclosed space with lots of politicians and celebrities that someone might want to take a pot-shot at, and said person doesn’t care if they live or die, I would try to keep weapons restricted to security details only.

    • Personally, I think it could turn out like the end of the original Manchurian Candidate if they allowed people to carry.

      The GOP has no authority to allow people to carry inside Quicken Loans Arena.

      • This. It is a private venue and the Quicken loans arena can decide what they wish to allow onto their private property with force of law the same as a business can put up “no shirt no service” signs in Ohio (and some select other areas).

        • Can you get arrested and prosecuted for walking into a store without a shirt and shoes on?

        • Guv: You can if the appropriate notice, under the applicable trespass law, is given and you disregard it. What constitutes appropriate notice is a matter of the law of the jurisdiction involved. In Ohio, appropriate notice for firearm-carriers apparently includes compliant signage.

        • I’ve seen ‘No shirt, no shoes, no sevice’ and I’ve seen ‘Shoplifters will be prosecuted’ but I’ve never seen ‘Shoeless will be prosecuted’.

        • I’ve seen ‘No shirt, no shoes, no sevice’ and I’ve seen ‘Shoplifters will be prosecuted’ but I’ve never seen ‘Shoeless will be prosecuted’.

          The applicable charge in this case is trespassing. That charge is applicable both to “no shirt, no shoes, no service”, and being present with a firearm in a firearms-prohibited posted location.

        • In a state like mine, where ‘no firearms’ signs don’t carry the weight of law, you can indeed be prosecuted for trespassing for violating a company’s policy, but you’ll first have to be asked to leave and refuse to do so. If you call 911 and say, ‘There’s a man in my store and he doesn’t have shoes or a shirt on!’, they’re not going to rush out there to arrest him. If you call and tell them that someone is refusing to leave, they still won’t rush but they’ll get there eventually. If your store is open to the public it’s not trespassing to walk in.

    • We have had all manner of nonsense laws for 100 years, all based on what “might” happen. IOW, based on the fact we do not trust our fellow man to be free, he must be kept under control. His wife may shoot him before the election, his sons may after the election, let’s start rounding up ALL guns right now! For the children!!! Either we desire freedom or we do not.

  9. This a manufactured “issue” folks. Please move on.

    Quicken Loans arena is PRIVATE PROPERTY.
    Neither the GOP, Trump, Hillary, or the Change.org crowd has any say in that policy.

    • Not only is it a manufactured issue, it is an outright troll – nobody on this side of the fence starts a petition at the change.org.

      The guy who started the petition openly declared himself as a Liberal and said he did it to troll the GOP (per CBS).

      Let’s not fall for such a crude PsyOp, shall we?

      • Just because the vast majority of change.org petitions are stupid libcrap doesn’t mean all of them are.

  10. Quicken Arena fronts on a wide boulevard and has some open space and apparent Parking Structures around it. Even if the Arena itself is a “gun-free zone” that does not prohibit gun carry outside where Convention Delegates and Protestors will mix. It might be a bit stupid to imagine none of the involved factions will be armed.
    So what does the GOP do to “walk the walk”?

  11. I don’t worry about Conservatives with guns. It’s the left wing nutters who have already shown a propensity for violence that concern me.
    So yes, I am fine with the no guns near Presidential candidates rule.

  12. Dan,

    It doesn’t matter that the GOP benefits from blaming the Secret Service. The laws governing provision of Secret Service protection to presidential candidates trumps all the factions, and the general principle of supporting gun rights. The Secret Service is in charge of candidate protection, until the Secret Service is dismissed. The Service can simply prohibit the convention from taking place; the party cannot proceed with a convention, anywhere, that permits privately possessed firearms to be present. The real test of the GOP fidelity to gun rights would be that guns be allowed at every gathering of the party that does not include presidential candidates under Secret Service protection.

  13. This is very simple. If it is a seured area (for real, not just signs) then they should be able to ban firearms. For the unsecured locations, no.

  14. Again, the people who made the petition, and the majority of people signing it, are ANTI GUN DEMOCRATS who want nothing more than an innocent person to be shot so they can say “I told you so”

    it’s a non-story beyond pointing out their ploy. They’re disgusting people.

Leave a Reply

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