Gun carry law poll Part 1

[dilligaf0]

If I live in a state that allows people to openly carry a gun, should I be allowed to openly carry that gun into a Hillary Clinton political rally?

 

[NerdieBirdie]

If I live in a state that allows people to openly carry a gun, should I be allowed to openly carry that gun into a Hillary Clinton political rally?

That is on the venue. The property owner/business/convention center likely either already has in place whether or not firearms are permitted on the property.

 

[Serenity_Tam]

like. what? why? why would someone even do this?

 

[JerryBoBerry]

I'm all for open and conceal carry. But i voted no in this case because most likely it still violates existing laws. Many states have it written into their laws places where carrying is still not allowed. Sherrif's offices, within 25 feet of a polling place on election day, courthouses, airport, schools, amusement parks, gambling facilities, churches, hospitals... and the ones that may pertain to this; sports arenas or stadiums with seating more than 5000 or any property where posted.

So as anti-gun as hillary is I'm sure they'll arrange for it to be posted, and if it's a big enough one there may be over 5000 people. So it would violate laws. Otherwise I'd say go for it. Not that I'd ever show up at a Clinton rally in the first place.

 

[dilligaf0]

like. what? why? why would someone even do this?

Please notice this is "Part 1". I do not advocate one position or the other. I'm just wondering about the extreme "second amendment" mindset. I also want to know if those opinions differ depending on political affiliation. I thank everyone in advance for their participation.

 

[dilligaf0]

I'm all for open and conceal carry. But i voted no in this case because most likely it still violates existing laws. Many states have it written into their laws places where carrying is still not allowed. Sherrif's offices, within 25 feet of a polling place on election day, courthouses, airport, schools, amusement parks, gambling facilities, churches, hospitals... and the ones that may pertain to this; sports arenas or stadiums with seating more than 5000 or any property where posted.

So as anti-gun as hillary is I'm sure they'll arrange for it to be posted, and if it's a big enough one there may be over 5000 people. So it would violate laws. Otherwise I'd say go for it. Not that I'd ever show up at a Clinton rally in the first place.

I also hear some people talk about there should be no "gun-free zones" and I'm trying to find people's limits to that and under what circumstances they think that's true.

 

[LuckySmiles]

agree with jerry. Open carry states already have laws on the books making it illegal at stadiums, schools, etc. and anywhere there probably would be a rally. Unless her popularity diminishes enough and it's like 20 people at a McDonalds... it's probably against the law regardless of who she is.

 

[JerryBoBerry]

I also hear some people talk about there should be no "gun-free zones" and I'm trying to find people's limits to that and under what circumstances they think that's true.

I follow the law on it, but I do think the law should be changed. I'm all for open carry pretty much anywhere.

So far in places that people aren't allowed to carry, I just don't go there. Or I leave it in my car, which I can have concealed anywhere in my state pretty much outside of military bases.

 

[dilligaf0]

Let me clarify what I'm looking for. Please disregard local laws, venue rules, etc.
What I'm asking is: In your opinion SHOULD someone be allowed to. (not are they allowed to.)

 

[JickyJuly]

I'm going to say yes. With all the war and murder she's supported, if anyone should be surrounded by guns, why not her?

 

[Gen]

Let me clarify what I'm looking for. Please disregard local laws, venue rules, etc.
What I'm asking is: In your opinion SHOULD someone be allowed to. (not are they allowed to.)

I vote no.

I was kind of taking it to mean political rallies in general, not just HRC, but my answer is the same either way.

 

[JerryBoBerry]

Let me clarify what I'm looking for. Please disregard local laws, venue rules, etc.
What I'm asking is: In your opinion SHOULD someone be allowed to. (not are they allowed to.)

Oh. Then yes. But it doesn't allow me to change my vote. So switch one out of the no column.

 

[Johndoe91]

Switch mine to yes as well, providing we are talking about a law abiding citizen with no intention of using the gun for nefarious purposes

 

[CobraLily]

I'm all for open carry anywhere, but I feel like the general public lacks a serious education on guns and gun use, so shit is almost always gonna get ugly. I kinda wish everyone got to take a class at some point in school about safe and responsible gun use, but that's never going to happen. I also have mixed feelings on the types of guns that should be available for people. But hey, I don't feel safe around cops at all, and if they can go around with their weapons out, anyone should be able to. But I digress, that's a whole different can of worms.

 

[n_i_c_u]

While I love the concept of conceal and carry, and I think it can do some good for the ordinary person, I'd really be surprised if any politician running for a prominent office spot, even those really invested in 2nd amendment rights and 2nd amendment right supporters, would allow people into their rallies with guns.

These days with suicide bombers and stuff (and just watching Lee Harvey Oswald get it in the gut in so easily on youtube) it strikes me that any person in a real position of power would (and maybe should be) probably be overly paranoid, no matter how much they talk about how great guns are or are not.

So I guess I vote yes. (But, let's put up some bullet proof glass around everyone talking politics).

 

[JoleneBrody]

Switch mine to yes as well, providing we are talking about a law abiding citizen with no intention of using the gun for nefarious purposes

seems simple enough.

 

[WebcamStartup]

I'm from a freerange state with a Make My Day law. There's a reason our crime rate is low. Open carry, concealed carry, the guns too big to carry, it doesn't matter. I'm for it.

Wanna ban guns to reduce violence? Banning guns won't stop violence. Explosives are insanely easy to make.

And on topic; If someone's going to shoot up a Clinton event, they're not caring about the law. Hopefully there's some good people packing to counter any schemes.

 

[LaceyRoyce]

i voted no, because I hate US gun culture, and I'll never understand it. I don't think it's ok to carry a gun, for any reason unless you're going to kills somethign for dinner, participate in some sort of sport, or if you're a member of law enforcement actively engaged in something that means you need a weapon. Obv that's a very simplistic thing to say... but it's my normal.

However I'm far more in favor of a grass roots culture change in regards to america's attitudes to guns rather than a blanket law or ban on guns or carry laws..etc. Passing an upopular law won't help anything.

 

[iAmMegaGirl]

In a perfect world I wouldn't want there to be ANY guns. But I don't know how possible that is in real life.

 

[subgavin]

i voted no, because I hate US gun culture, and I'll never understand it. I don't think it's ok to carry a gun, for any reason unless you're going to kills somethign for dinner, participate in some sort of sport, or if you're a member of law enforcement actively engaged in something that means you need a weapon. Obv that's a very simplistic thing to say... but it's my normal.

However I'm far more in favor of a grass roots culture change in regards to america's attitudes to guns rather than a blanket law or ban on guns or carry laws..etc. Passing an upopular law won't help anything.

You and most of the rest of the world.

Wouldn't use the word 'hate' mind you, but I'll never get my head round it. It's one of those things that make us think America is crazy.

 

[DFT]

As an owner of many guns I answered your pole as I believe in liberty.

Do I carry in actual fact? No. Nor will I carry daily after a CCP. I do the same as everyone else, play the odds in trust in our crime rate, my ability to respond with up to lethal force with objects from the environment (a newspaper will work, a magazine is better) and my local PD's reaction time will work in my favor. I've made that choice. If factors were different I might make a different choice, and support people deciding for themselves.

 

[TacoBelle]

I'm a huge supporter of the second ammendment. That being said, I think that there are still some locations, buildings, and events that should not allow citizen-equipped carry. Such as places where large groups of people are at one point in time and places where emotions/beliefs/opinions could fuel homicide. So I voted no. Regardless of which politician or affiliation.


Some people in this thread (and in general, the world) have stated that guns are bad, guns should not exist, etc etc. Yes, I'm simplifying it to make this next point. Guns are bad, in the hands of bad people. However, like others have pointed out, even if we demolished every gun on the face of the planet, people would still find ways to harm others. Hell, even in the US, people are still using things like bug spray to commit robberies and muggings. My friend from the UK mentioned that he loves his new house. I asked him if it was in a safe neighborhood. He said yes! That there had only been two stabbings in the past year. He wasn't being sarcastic or flippant. He was genuinely stating that two stabbings in the course of a year is actually way less than most other neighborhoods. THIS IS TERRIFYING to me. This then started a conversation where he was actually surprised that we don't have that many stabbings over here. I mean, yeah, I guess we have some, but where we have gun problems, they have knife problems.

I'm not trying to start a debate about which is worse or anything like that. Obviously, guns are more dangerous/lethal. But I'm just trying to point out that even without guns, people will still harm others somehow. So we should have metal detectors for any large gathering of people like that.

 

[subgavin]

I'm a huge supporter of the second ammendment. That being said, I think that there are still some locations, buildings, and events that should not allow citizen-equipped carry. Such as places where large groups of people are at one point in time and places where emotions/beliefs/opinions could fuel homicide. So I voted no. Regardless of which politician or affiliation.


Some people in this thread (and in general, the world) have stated that guns are bad, guns should not exist, etc etc. Yes, I'm simplifying it to make this next point. Guns are bad, in the hands of bad people. However, like others have pointed out, even if we demolished every gun on the face of the planet, people would still find ways to harm others. Hell, even in the US, people are still using things like bug spray to commit robberies and muggings. My friend from the UK mentioned that he loves his new house. I asked him if it was in a safe neighborhood. He said yes! That there had only been two stabbings in the past year. He wasn't being sarcastic or flippant. He was genuinely stating that two stabbings in the course of a year is actually way less than most other neighborhoods. THIS IS TERRIFYING to me. This then started a conversation where he was actually surprised that we don't have that many stabbings over here. I mean, yeah, I guess we have some, but where we have gun problems, they have knife problems.

I'm not trying to start a debate about which is worse or anything like that. Obviously, guns are more dangerous/lethal. But I'm just trying to point out that even without guns, people will still harm others somehow. So we should have metal detectors for any large gathering of people like that.

Oh sure, different cultures and all that, I respect that - and it's very easy to get the wrong impression of places (which works both ways). The US has much higher homicide rates, but there may be all kinds of other factors in that, and all kinds of hidden issues in our own case.

Just looks odd from over here. The UK had one school shooting, twenty years ago, and the reaction to it was so strong that we (virtually) outlawed the private ownership of handguns altogether. I can't recall speaking to a single person since then who thought that was any sort of a bad thing. It also avoids all kinds of accidental deaths and - maybe most importantly - saves us from having routinely to arm our police.

 

[JickyJuly]

I think I was looking at this from a more political standpoint. I feel that politicians should have to live within the situations their laws create. So, if it is legal in an area or a building, it should remain legal whether or not a political rally with a presidential candidate is happening or not. I also REALLY believe that politicians should have to send their children to public schools, volunteer in their communities, take public transportation etc. Open carry laws vary pretty largely from state to state, don't they?

 

[JerryBoBerry]

Open carry laws vary pretty largely from state to state, don't they?

Very much. You pretty much have to look up the gun laws in each state if you're thinking of moving there or visiting. Just driving through, most states are okay with it being unloaded, in a case, and in the trunk or other inaccessible compartment. But some are even more strict than that. Washington D.C. being among the most restrictive of all.

https://www.nraila.org/gun-laws/

Or one I like to use.

http://www.handgunlaw.us/

 

[Gen]

I think I was looking at this from a more political standpoint. I feel that politicians should have to live within the situations their laws create. So, if it is legal in an area or a building, it should remain legal whether or not a political rally with a presidential candidate is happening or not. I also REALLY believe that politicians should have to send their children to public schools, volunteer in their communities, take public transportation etc. Open carry laws vary pretty largely from state to state, don't they?

I think anyone who's a big enough politician is going to, inherently, attract stalkers and people who wish to do them harm. I read somewhere that Obama gets ~20 serious threats per day and I'd imagine Bush got as many or more, so it's not a partisan thing. Sending their kids to public school or riding the bus seems like putting themselves and their families in a lot of danger. I can understand the principle of it, and I think they'd be more invested in public healthcare or education if they're involved in it, but idk. Any world leader is going to be the target of a lot of vitriol, no matter how accountable or good their policies are. I think for the safety of themselves and their families, it's almost necessary to be a bit removed. (Sorry for going OT but I thought it was an interesting point!!)

(Even more off-topic but a friend of mine recently ran into Justin Trudeau, the Canadian prime minister, just out and about, and took a selfie with him. I was super surprised by how casual it was! Idk if US presidents do that but it surprised me.)

 

[JerryBoBerry]

and I'd imagine Bush got as many or more, so it's not a partisan thing.

The nation is fairly even split in total numbers as to political party lines. So no matter who gets elected about half the population won't like that person.

a friend of mine recently ran into Justin Trudeau, the Canadian prime minister, just out and about, and took a selfie with him. I was super surprised by how casual it was! Idk if US presidents do that but it surprised me.

They do that too...after you submit the 'Request For Impromptu Meeting (form 397-gov)' with attached letters of reference in triplicate, and you and your 27 closest living relatives have been thoroughly vetted by the secret service. Then it's tweet those selfies time!

 

[JickyJuly]

@GenXoxo I think here, the president and his family always have secret service members with them anyway. The presidential candidates probably do too. I think I read that Bernie does. I guess having secret service at a school could be distracting, but it's probably distracting at a private school too. Most people in politics aren't that high up and probably wouldn't be the target of anything. I don't think I would recognize many political figures in Florida save the ones who've just run for President and failed. I would recognize a few from my home state of Michigan, and some of them are likely in mortal danger throughout their days.

Edit to add: Not danger from me. That sounded weird and villainous. I meant the ones I'd recognize are recognizable to most and not well liked by the masses.

 

[WebcamStartup]

"You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass." ~ Japan during World War 2. The fact that the rest of the world thinks we're a bunch of gun-crazed nutjobs works out in our favor, geopolitically. Also, if you were to muster every gun owner in America, you'd have the largest army of any nation.

 

[LadyLuna]

I voted no. I'm in favor of some gun control laws, and not of others.

I agree that every child should be taught gun safety in school. That will lessen the rate of accidents. As a child, schools taught me to never touch a gun, but go get an adult. As a teen, movies taught me to never point a gun at anything I don't intend to shoot.

I believe that there should be age restrictions on handling weapons of every sort. Semi-automatics should not be handled by anyone under 15, and the really big stuff should not be handled by anyone under 18.

I believe that situations where emotions are likely to run high should have weapons banned, with lockers at the entrance to store said weapons safely, to prevent the people leaving from becoming targets. I also feel like elementary schools and places where young children are likely to be should have stricter requirements for being allowed to carry (say, over 25 years old, and the gun must've been yours for at least 3 years).

I am in favor of shooting licenses, like driver's licenses. I am not in favor of governments knowing exactly who has what weapons. Someone who wants to buy a gun should have to provide their shooter's license, and it should have codes to specify what sorts of guns the person is licensed to have, as well as count as a government-issued picture id, acceptable in place of a driver's license.