NRA annual meeting: NO GUNS ALLOWED!

[Bennyboy]

The National Rifle Association's annual meeting is this weekend and it's a galaxy of pro-gun stars!

Sarah Palin!

Glenn Beck!

Newt Gringrich!

Ollie North!

Oh, and no guns.

Yes, in this celebration of all things that go bang, each of these NRA-sanctioned speakers will be offering their address before a crowd of disarmed gun enthusiasts.

2010-05-14-NRASignII.JPG

On its website, the NRA warns:

North Carolina State law prohibits the carrying of firearms in the Charlotte Convention Center, and the Time Warner Cable Arena. In addition, the Rules and Regulations of the Charlotte Convention Center prohibit the carrying of firearms in the Center. Pursuant to Time Warner Cable Arena policy, all individuals entering the Arena will be subject to a magnetometer security check.

To think that you'd have to suffer the indignity of going through a metal detector to hear someone proselytize about your right to carry your gun anywhere you want is easy irony.

READ MORE: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/josh-sugarmann/nra-annual-meeting-no-gun_b_576680.html

[hack89]

1. Looks like NC has sensible gun laws.

the NRA appears to be respecting them.

[Electric Monk]

2. The NRA chose where to hold the convention on purpose. They know guns inside would only add danger.

[The Straight Story]

4. Maybe not

Back in my day people were able to make choices where to go to have drinks. Others have intentionally removed a choice they don't like so now, pretty much no matter where you go, you have to abide by the decisions of others.

Maybe there are no convention centers that allow people to carry guns.

[oldhippie]

16. This year's Annual Meeting was held in Houston .....

.... and concealed carry was allowed in the convention center in accordance with state law. 80,000 plus people attended, I would guess there were at least a 1000 people carrying at any given time.

[SCUBANOW]

60. Alot more then 1000!

[Grins]

86. Yes. And this story is from 2010...

...so why is it being brought up again?

This post is deceptive.

The correct title to this post should have been, "NRA's 2010 annual meeting: NO GUNS ALLOWED!"

[Dawson Leery]

8. Exactly.

The NRA decries private businesses who do not want guns on their premises.
Double standard indeed.

[Unrepentant Fenian]

10. You're 100% right! Nobody held a gun to their head to have their convention there...

Sorry for the poor pun.

[hack89]

17. Of course. nt

[obxhead]

15. Not the whole state.

Just for a few large venues in metro areas.

My guess however is that even if this event was held in a field with no law stopping them, the speakers would still demand no guns.

[mwooldri]

95. Not really.

The "legislature" decided along with the motorcycle-vagina law that relaxing gun restrictions would be a good idea.

But then I'm English ... handguns are banned in England and Wales. I didn't grow up in a gun culture... more the Dixon of Dock Green culture.

[hack89]

96. ok. nt

[malaise]

3. The OP needs an irony alert

Fuck the NRA

[ZombieHorde]

5. So funny that the NRA chose a place with a no gun rule. nt

[global1]

12. I Bet They Did This On Purpose....

The worst thing that can happen to the NRA is to have someone go postal at one of their meetings. So have a good excuse that the convention center won't allow it.

[hack89]

19. Apparently this year guns were allowed.

according to a post in this thread. The Charlotte convention was in 2010.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

20. I suppose we could claim Sister Sarah didn't want it to look like this....

[Duckhunter935]

6. The NRA following the law

Who would have thunk it

[Logical]

7. Look at that list of speakers and then realize some idiotic DU members think.....

The NRA is not a political leaning right-wing group!

[Unrepentant Fenian]

9. Now that's FUNNY! Thanks for the post.

[oldhippie]

11. Pssst! Bennyboy .......

I won't tell anyone if you don't, but the NRA Annual Meeting isn't this weekend. It's held in April or May of each year.

Oh, and it's not in Charlotte. It was in the Charlotte Convention Center in 2010, though, and you're right, firearms were prohibited in the Convention Center by State law. I was there.

This year's Annual meeting was in Houston, at the Convention Center. It was in May of this years. Concealed Carry was allowed in the convention center. I was there, and I did. So did a lot of other people.

(You did note that the entry in your link was from 2010, right?) (Or are you in some sort of time warp? Fear of guns will do that to ya, ya'know.)

Other than that, you're right on ......

[X_Digger]

13. Shhhh, you're harshing the wharrgarble. ;) n/t

[derby378]

37. Aw, let him harsh it a little

Serves the OP right for not checking the date.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

14. Guns are explicitly banned at NRA headquarters too. nt

[SCUBANOW]

62. No they are not.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

64. Yes they are. The firing range there has a completely separate entrance and existence. nt

[SCUBANOW]

87. Not 2 months ago.

I showed Id and went about my busness (carrying a handgun).

[darkangel218]

105. What would you do at the NRA?

You're not a member are ya

[hack89]

18. Did you bother to check the date on your link? nt

[Bennyboy]

22. nah, knee jerkism gone astray......

still makes a point though don't it?

[NYC_SKP]

23. 20 recs, baby!

It's like a DU IQ measurement tool.

Or willingness to read tool.

Happens to the best of us, though!

[pintobean]

33. Then again, It might be a new tactic.

You recced this one and the date is in the OP.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023700071

[hack89]

24. So this year concealed carry was legal at the NRA convention in Houston.

what point does that make?

[Bennyboy]

31. nobody got shot... safest place on earth, right?

please set your sarcasm meter on high......

[hack89]

32. Anyone could have told you that no one would be shot.

we know what groups shoot other people. CCW carrier have an extremely low rate of gun violence. But then you knew that already.

[TheCowsCameHome]

36. Yeah, the twofer in Michigan earlier this week was a classic.

Two CCW holders off each other.

It doesn't get any better than that.

[hack89]

38. And your point is what?

anecdotes do not equal data. There are are tens of millions of CCW licence holders. No one has ever said they were perfect - just better than non- CCW holders when it comes to violence.

[TheCowsCameHome]

40. That was no run-of-the-mill anecdote.

That was a fact, and a thing of beauty.

They were perfect (shots), though - I'll give ya that.

[hack89]

43. Simple question

do CCW holders have a significantly higher or lower rate of arrest than the general public?

Think about it.

[TheCowsCameHome]

47. Simple answer

I have nooooooooo idea, and I couldn't care less. I suppose you'll scare up some statistics, from the Gungeon archives, though.

You must really think they walk on water. Like the two deceased bozos in Michigan.

[hack89]

49. Of course you don't care

the proper emotions always trump actual facts.

At least you are honest about it.

[TheCowsCameHome]

50. Your so-called facts mean nothing to me.

Your really ought to stop trying to make CCW holders into some sort of superior beings.

Because they aren't.

[hack89]

51. So hard government stats mean nothing to you?

you really are honest.

Good.

[Duckhunter935]

53. Some just can

not take facts, does not fit the narrative.

[oldhippie]

44. Really? A thing of beauty?

Doubling down. That is just sick.

[Lizzie Poppet]

88. I can't believe juries are sustaining this trolling horseshit.

Perfect example of what a broken train wreck the jury system is...

This trolling clown should be banned. Celebrating the death of two human beings should be clearly and obviously unacceptable here.

[TheCowsCameHome]

94. Yeah, but life ain't always fair.

But that's the way the system works. Otherwise, the Gungeon forum would be history.

[pintobean]

61. You do realize

that of the two, one was a murderer and the other acted in self defense. Self defense is the reason CCW exists. Whoever drew first was the murderer. Initial reports said that Robert Taylor was the aggressor, and he shouldn't have had a CCW permit.

A magistrate with the Ionia County District Court earlier this week said she believed Taylor's license had never been revoked, in part because prosecutors in 2006 dropped a supplementary charge of carrying a concealed weapon while intoxicated.

Schafer on Friday, Sept. 20, said the decision to drop that supplementary charge was the difference in whether Taylor received a three-year revocation or a lifetime revocation.

If someone is convicted of carrying a concealed weapon while intoxicated, a lifetime revocation is ordered if their blood-alcohol level is 0.10 or higher.

[Duckhunter935]

65. once again

we need to enforce existing laws. Thanks for the update.

[pintobean]

70. Also, the other guy

had his wife and mom in the car, so he was defending more than himself.

[Duckhunter935]

77. They do not care about that

minor facts. Some do not care for facts.

He had a GUN and he had a CCW.

[oldhippie]

39. Jury results ....

At Sun Sep 22, 2013, 08:42 PM an alert was sent on the following post:

Yeah, the twofer in Michigan earlier this week was a classic.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3713274

REASON FOR ALERT:

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS:

This is pure grave dancing. Celebrating needless death. "It doesn't get any better than that." Really, DU, isn't that a bit hurtful, rude, insensitive, and over the top? Is grave dancing and celebrating death within our community standard?

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Sun Sep 22, 2013, 08:48 PM, and voted 2-4 to LEAVE IT ALONE.

Juror #1 voted to HIDE IT and said: yeah, nasty and mean.
Juror #2 voted to HIDE IT and said: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given


Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

[TheCowsCameHome]

42. Uh, oh. Guess we know who alerted......

[oldhippie]

45. Who, being I was on the jury?

But I'll alert on your doubling down. Sick.

Edit: And another jury let it stand, 2-4. I'm just fucking disgusted. Good night, all.

[Duckhunter935]

55. kind of wrong

to be celebrating someones loved one that has died, but to each his own I guess.

[morningfog]

54. What groups shoot other people?

[hack89]

56. Criminals. Non-CCW holders.

that's two groups.

CCW holders are a small percentage of gun owners.

[morningfog]

58. That is circular logic.

No CCW ever commits a crime? How many of the group you call "criminals" were not "criminals" until the time they shot another person?

[hack89]

66. Not what I said.

take a group and predict how many members will commit a violent crime. People with previous criminal records will have a high rate. The general public without criminal records will have a lower significantly lower rate. CCW holders have an even lower rate.

No one has ever said that there won't be CCW holders that will commit crimes - no system involving humans is perfect.

[morningfog]

71. You said:

"Anyone could have told you that no one would be shot.

we know what groups shoot other people."

You kind of just said CCW won't commit crimes. Unthinkable.

When you label this group, the one that shoots people, "criminals", how are you defining that? Do you have the data on the number of first time offenders shooting someone? Do you have the data on crimes committed by CCW compared to the general public?

[hack89]

78. We know exactly who shoots who

there is extensive data - the data for Texas CCW has been posted here countless times. It has also been ignored countless times because we know that CCW holders only carry guns so they can kill people.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/117255264

[morningfog]

82. So the numer of crimes by CCW is not zero.

Nor does that graph show that we know exactly who shoots.

[hack89]

84. Who the hell ever said that it was?

no one has ever argued that.

The replies to the OP imply (or directly say) that the NRA banned guns because they know how dangerous CCW carriers are. It is simply not true. Which is why CCW holders were allowed to carry at this years convention.

[Erose999]

89. You're posting a lot of "we know who" without saying explicitly "who". And yes CCW people carry

their weapons for on other reason than shooting people. What else the hell would you use a gun for?

[hack89]

90. The topic is CCW holders

there are many here saying the NRA didn't allow guns in their convention (which means CCW holders) because they know what a threat they represent.

Besides the fact that CCW holders were allowed in the NRA convention this year, my link shows that Texas CCW holders have a significantly lower arrest rate than the general public. My only point.

[GreenStormCloud]

100. Yes, here is such data.

Sorry for taking a couple of days to respond but I have been busy.

Texas keeps exact statistics on the convictions of CHL (Concealed Handgun License) holders, and as a percentage of total convictions.
Here is the link: http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/RSD/CHL/Reports/ConvictionRatesReport2011.pdf

At the end of 2011 we had about 525,000+ CHL holders. That is about 3% of the adult population of the state. If you will look at the statistics you will see that sometime a CHL holder will commit a crime, but that it is extremely rare. That is not a surprise as the license is only given to those who have already lived their lives with clean records, and so are likely to continue doing so.

Nationally, there are a little over ten million of us who have CCWs. Out of that many, some will do bad things, but they will be few.

[Duckhunter935]

68. gang members, drug dealers

many many times any CCW holders

[KamaAina]

92. No, I don't know what "groups" shoot other people.

I sincerely hope you're not talking about racial or ethnic groups.

[hack89]

93. No. Stats on CCW holders are available

which I have linked to in this thread. The topic is guns at the NRA convention and the mistaken belief some have that the NRA banned guns because they think that CCW holders represent a threat. In fact they do not. My only point.

[Bennyboy]

21. 2014 Meeting is in Indy. Guns alllowed there?

were they allowed in 2013? 2012? I really cannot imagine a convention center that would allow guns...........

[hack89]

25. They were allowed in 2013. Here are the convention center rules.

they allow Texas CCW carriers.

http://www.houstonconventionctr.com/meeting_planners/Rules&Regulations.pdf

[oldhippie]

28. Actually, they allowed anyone with a CCW that was ....

... recognized by Texas. Under Texas law, publicly owned facilities, like municipal convention centers, are prohibited from restricting concealed carry. There are exceptions for courts, polling places, correctional facilities, and a few others.

[Duckhunter935]

80. Appears so

The recently enacted SEA 292 and its addition of I.C. § 35-47-11.1 to the Indiana
Code, effective July 1, 2011 (“Statute”),

prohibits, with certain exceptions, a political subdivision from regulating any matter
pertaining to firearms, ammunition, and firearm accessories (“Firearms”). The implications of the Statute are as follows:
The Statute applies to the CIB, as it is a political subdivision (as defined in the Statute);
As of July 1, 2011, the CIB may not regulate Firearms in its facilities; The Statute does provide for you, as a
promoter and/or organizer of events (“Events”) in the CIB facility that you have licensed (“Licensed Premises”), to, in your discretion, establish rules of conduct or admission to your Events that include restrictions on Firearms; In the event you establish rules of
conduct or admission for your Events that include restrictions on Firearms, the CIB may enforce those rules of conduct or admission.
As Licensee, you must provide the CIB with written notice of whether you will establish rules of conduct or admission for your
Events that include restrictions on Firearms and to advise us, in your discretion,whether you will be directing us to
implement and enforce such rules of conduct or admission.

[gopiscrap]

26. What a bunch of fucking hypocrits

yet to them it's ok to pack a gun anywhere else? FUCK THE NRA and it's gun nut friends!!!!

[Hoyt]

27. They know how dangerous their members are. Most of us do too.

The gun loving free riders - too cheap to pay dues - support them as well.

NRA does not allow gunz in their headquarters building, except for the executive shooting range.

[ErikJ]

29. Just like the Old West. All cowboys had to leave guns at town border.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/07/23/1112703/-De-mythologizing-the-Wild-West-gun-laws-were-actually-stricter-then-than-now#

The irony ... is that Tombstone lawmakers in the 1880s did more to combat gun violence than the Arizona government does today.
For all the talk of the “Wild West,” the policymakers of 1880 Tombstone—and many other Western towns—were ardent supporters of gun control. When people now compare things to the “shootout at the OK Corral,” they mean vigilante violence by gunfire. But this is exactly what the Tombstone town council had been trying to avoid.
In late 1880, as regional violence ratcheted up, Tombstone strengthened its existing ban on concealed weapons to outlaw the carrying of any deadly weapons within the town limits. The Earps (who were Republicans) and Doc Holliday maintained that they were acting as law officers—not citizen vigilantes—when they shot their opponents. That is to say, they were sworn officers whose jobs included enforcement of Tombstone’s gun laws.

Adam Winkler, author of Gunfight: The Battle to Bear Arms in America, concurs:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...

Yet this is all based on a widely shared misunderstanding of the Wild West. Frontier towns -- places like Tombstone, Deadwood, and Dodge -- actually had the most restrictive gun control laws in the nation.
In fact, many of those same cities have far less burdensome gun control today then they did back in the 1800s.

Guns were obviously widespread on the frontier. Out in the untamed wilderness, you needed a gun to be safe from bandits, natives, and wildlife. In the cities and towns of the West, however, the law often prohibited people from toting their guns around. A visitor arriving in Wichita, Kansas in 1873, the heart of the Wild West era, would have seen signs declaring, "Leave Your Revolvers At Police Headquarters, and Get a Check."

A check? That's right. When you entered a frontier town, you were legally required to leave your guns at the stables on the outskirts of town or drop them off with the sheriff, who would give you a token in exchange. You checked your guns then like you'd check your overcoat today at a Boston restaurant in winter. Visitors were welcome, but their guns were not.

[marew]

34. Can you say H_Y_P_O_C_R_I_T_E!

But if there was a good guy with a guy when there was a bad guy with a gun.... Problem solved!!!

Why did they pick Charlotte in the first place? They HAD to know- they are such loons!

Too, too funny!

[TheCowsCameHome]

35. Why would they want a building full of nuts packing heat?

They're crazy, but not totally insane.

[Moses2SandyKoufax]

46. But according to their logic

a building full of gun toting morans would be like the safest place on the planet!!!!

I've been assured that "gun free zones" were literal killing fields....

[Aristus]

41. Damn. There go all my hopes that those fuckbrains will all just kill each other.

Every extremist group has its share of "more orthodox than thou"-types. Too bad they won't have a chance now to unlimber and ventilate the insufficiently gun-crazed...

[Moses2SandyKoufax]

48. Me too. It's too damn bad the public is constantly at risk.

If ever there was an ideal time to use drones! All in the name of combating terrorism, right?

[Aristus]

52. That's actually a pretty accurate assessment.

The reason those guys go around openly carrying military-style weaponry is to create terror at coffee houses, farmers' markets, amusement parks, etc. Makes them feel tough...

[Moses2SandyKoufax]

63. I honestly believe that these types are a greater threat to public safety

and the country at large than any foreign terrorist. For the simple fact that there are elected officials at every level of government that either sympathize with them, or are willing to do their bidding.

[Duckhunter935]

57. nice thoughts

hoping for someone to murder others, do this often? I do not wish that on anyone. Even the ones I disagree with.

You really should be ashamed of your post.

[Aristus]

59. I'm not among those who fetishize deadly weaponry.

My hands are clean...

[Duckhunter935]

69. you just talk big

and hope to incite others to act.

[Duckhunter935]

73. I do not

have a fetish deadly weaponry either. I do own several weapons. I go to the range every few months and have a good time.

[Moses2SandyKoufax]

67. Eh, better them than me. n/t

[Duckhunter935]

72. Better nobody

[Moses2SandyKoufax]

74. Not really.

World's a better place without them.

[Duckhunter935]

76. Since I do not wish anyone to be murdered like you

I will just have to disagree with you. Hope you have a great night.

[Moses2SandyKoufax]

79. I don't specifically wish murder on anyone.

I've just come to accept the fact that it's going to happen, and since that's the case I feel it's better if it happens to the willing participants and members of a shitty, violent culture, that this country just can't seem to leave behind.

[hack89]

75. This OP is funny as hell

who needs reading comprehension as long as your feelings are in the right place.

[Politicalboi]

81. Cowards

Then why don't they hold it in a federal park? Or, there must be a parking lot big enough to hold these loons. Why not sell guns there, and moonshine whiskey, we all know guns and booze are a great combo.

[MADem]

83. Worth kicking, this thread. nt

[IronLionZion]

85. I wonder about their own offices too

you would think that would be a ripe target for angry activists or even their own crazy wingnuts. I could see a petty argument at their headquarters turning into something deadly, or even accidental discharge if someone is forgets to safety their holstered weapon before sitting down and shoots someone. This already happened at a school where a untrained security guard accidentally shot a student.


Anyway, these assholes probably know more guns mean more risk of shootings but are serving the gun industry to promote gun sales. So after every shooting they tell paranoid wingnuts that big bad Obama is coming to take away your guns so run out and buy lots more.

[louis-t]

91. Huh? I thought "an armed society is a polite society".

An' "stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun" an' "we gotta perteck ourselves!!!1!!1".
An'.......Benghazi!1!1

[blkmusclmachine]

97. Irony is only for the High IQ, so that leaves 95% of the GOPee **OUT**

[KansDem]

98. I suppose the car wash parking lot was taken?

[pintobean]

99. If existing law had been enforced

that may have never happened.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023712169#post61

[swayne]

101. THIS IS THE TOOL NEEDED TO BEAT THESE GOONS. BAN GUNS FOR THE SAME REASON(S) THEY DO!!!!!!

The media and politicians need to find out how and why the reason for the bans and do it for the SAME reasons. That way, you can't be accused of wanting to take away guns. You have to use their rhetoric against them!!!

GUNS CAN BE BANNED, the NRA actually DOES IT and IS SUCCESSFUL ON A LARGE SCALE BASIS !!!!!!!!!

[aikoaiko]

102. They are following state law and regulations that apply at this convention center.

When they go to different states, they do allow guns inside.

[swayne]

103. GUNS ARE ROUTINELY BANNED AT NRA events, even when state laws allow it.

They have their reasons, the anti-gun people need to find out what they are.

[aikoaiko]

104. They routinely follow the laws of the location of the event.

That's the reason.