Can a "Constitutional Carry" supporter explain this to me please

[Comshaw]

"Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis is hosting rallies for fellow Republicans across the country.

"Anyone carrying a firearm is prohibited from attending, according to organizer Turning Point Action."

"The listing notes that there is to be "NO CCW," or concealed weapons, "in Event Zone."
In the recent past, Turning Point USA and its founder have publicly insisted such a policy harms public safety. On its Facebook page, the group mocked the supposed naivete of those who believe "gun-free" zones deter gun violence.

"'Gun-Free Zones' Only Help Criminals!" the group said.

So why the two diametrically opposed positions? The organizers oppose "gun free zones" but insist on them at their rallies? Why? Isn't that hypocritical?

https://news.yahoo.com/firearms-banned-events-florida-gov-230034400.html

Comshaw

 

[butters]

we know why

 

[jaF0]

All of Donny's events are the same.

 

[HisArpy]

Show me where in the US Constitution it says that the 2nd Amendment applies to private property.

Just like this board isn't "free speech", the same is true for any venue when it comes to the 2A.

It's that simple.

 

[HisArpy]

All of Donny's events are the same.

So are Dark Brandon's. Which makes one wonder why you even bothered to post.

 

[Wrong Element]

Not the topic of the thread, but is DeSantis really so confident of reelection that he's going to be traveling around the country this fall?

 

[LupusDei]

Show me where in the US Constitution it says that the 2nd Amendment applies to private property.

Just like this board isn't "free speech", the same is true for any venue when it comes to the 2A.

It's that simple.

Wait, then any store could, in principle, not serve any armed individuals either, do I understand the idea? So you could brandish your guns on a street, but have to put them in storage somewhere to sit down in a streetside cafeteria, right?

 

[jaF0]

Not the topic of the thread, but is DeSantis really so confident of reelection that he's going to be traveling around the country this fall?

He may even go to Hungary and be anointed by Viktor.

 

[HisArpy]

Wait, then any store could, in principle, not serve any armed individuals either, do I understand the idea? So you could brandish your guns on a street, but have to put them in storage somewhere to sit down in a streetside cafeteria, right?

1. Where did the idea of brandishing come from? The unstable mental condition you suffer from which interferes with your ability to understand the world as it currently exists around you?

2. To help you with your world comprehension issues; right now, store owners can post signs, which must comply with laws in their respective States regarding wording and size and location, that bearing arms in their store is prohibited. Failure to heed the sign, and being discovered, may result in an infraction of "trespassing" being charged against anyone so caught.

So, I ask again, what unstable mental condition is interfering with your ability to understand the world as it currently exists around you?

 

[Comshaw]

Show me where in the US Constitution it says that the 2nd Amendment applies to private property.

Just like this board isn't "free speech", the same is true for any venue when it comes to the 2A.

It's that simple.

You missed the point completely, intentionally ignored it, or used your lawyerly training to try to pussyfoot around it. The organization that declared the rallies as a gun free zone also declared that there should be no gun free zones. They didn't declare it should only be on public property. Additionally, if they advocate it's okay to do on public property, why aren't they allowing it on their property? Conversely, if they declare their rallies as gun free zones, they are as much as admitting it's dangerous for everyone (or anyone actually) to carry a gun, so why do they then support the opposite when it isn't on their property?
Can you defend that type of hypocrisy?

Comshaw

 

[HisArpy]

You missed the point completely, intentionally ignored it, or used your lawyerly training to try to pussyfoot around it. The organization that declared the rallies as a gun free zone also declared that there should be no gun free zones. They didn't declare it should only be on public property. Additionally, if they advocate it's okay to do on public property, why aren't they allowing it on their property? Conversely, if they declare their rallies as gun free zones, they are as much as admitting it's dangerous for everyone (or anyone actually) to carry a gun, so why do they then support the opposite when it isn't on their property?
Can you defend that type of hypocrisy?

Comshaw

Not even close to the truth.

Unfortunately for the world at large, some people believe the crap you spew because they, like you, have a grudge and aren't willing to admit HILLARY LOST.

Go wail more of your tears out on the sidewalk you pathetic whining little bitch.

 

[phrodeau]

"Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis is hosting rallies for fellow Republicans across the country.

"Anyone carrying a firearm is prohibited from attending, according to organizer Turning Point Action."

"The listing notes that there is to be "NO CCW," or concealed weapons, "in Event Zone."
In the recent past, Turning Point USA and its founder have publicly insisted such a policy harms public safety. On its Facebook page, the group mocked the supposed naivete of those who believe "gun-free" zones deter gun violence.

"'Gun-Free Zones' Only Help Criminals!" the group said.

So why the two diametrically opposed positions? The organizers oppose "gun free zones" but insist on them at their rallies? Why? Isn't that hypocritical?

https://news.yahoo.com/firearms-banned-events-florida-gov-230034400.html

Comshaw

Turning Point USA is the organization that maintains, "'Gun-Free Zones' Only Help Criminals!"
Turning Point Action is a separate organization dedicated to helping criminals.

 

[Comshaw]

Not even close to the truth.

Unfortunately for the world at large, some people believe the crap you spew because they, like you, have a grudge and aren't willing to admit HILLARY LOST.

Go wail more of your tears out on the sidewalk you pathetic whining little bitch.

You refuse to engage the actual question and prefer to throw insults so you don't have to? Interesting. I am sorry you can't find something of consequence to say. I do like a good debate, but it's a rather difficult thing to engage in with someone who can't or won't.

"Hillary lost"? ???? Why yes, she did. And that is germane to the conversation, why? Or is that another misdirection technique? It appears even after all your complaining about people not wanting to engage in polite debate, you go out of your way to make sure that never happens.

But I will return to my original question: can you explain or defend the hypocritical actions of that organization?

Comshaw

 

[LukSkyFokker]

Not even close to the truth.

Unfortunately for the world at large, some people believe the crap you spew because they, like you, have a grudge and aren't willing to admit HILLARY LOST.

Go wail more of your tears out on the sidewalk you pathetic whining little bitch.

Why do you do this to yourself, RAPEY? You're a fucking election denier who has zero fucking room to whine like the little bitch you are

 

[LupusDei]

So, I ask again, what unstable mental condition is interfering with your ability to understand the world as it currently exists around you?

Actually simply distance. I have never been to the US; your world is "around me" only in rather virtual sense (unavoidable as it is so), and the random media impressions didn't make clear such option is indeed the case. Yes, I could have looked it up, or ask more nicely. So, thanks for explaining, and confirming the whole gun debate is indeed as oddball as it is.

 

[HisArpy]

You refuse to engage the actual question and prefer to throw insults so you don't have to? Interesting. I am sorry you can't find something of consequence to say. I do like a good debate, but it's a rather difficult thing to engage in with someone who can't or won't.

"Hillary lost"? ???? Why yes, she did. And that is germane to the conversation, why? Or is that another misdirection technique? It appears even after all your complaining about people not wanting to engage in polite debate, you go out of your way to make sure that never happens.

But I will return to my original question: can you explain or defend the hypocritical actions of that organization?

Comshaw

I actually answered your question in a way that MOST PEOPLE would be able to understand but for you I will restate it: Its private property and they can dictate the rules.

Satisfied? (I bet not because this isn't about gun free zones, it's about you trying to engage in more blind hypocrisy of self.)

Hilary lost. She lost to the orange man. Get over it and start acting like a functioning human being for once in your useless pathetic life.

 

[HisArpy]

Actually simply distance. I have never been to the US; your world is "around me" only in rather virtual sense (unavoidable as it is so), and the random media impressions didn't make clear such option is indeed the case. Yes, I could have looked it up, or ask more nicely. So, thanks for explaining, and confirming the whole gun debate is indeed as oddball as it is.

So let me see if I can sort through the metaphysical bullshit and come up with real world terms for what I think you're trying to say...

Basically, you're saying that you're so damned stoned all the time the real world is kind of soft and fuzzy and it's hard for you to pay attention to current events but feel sufficiently qualified and "in the know" to opine on them?

That is indeed rather "oddball."

 

[phrodeau]

"Hillary lost"? ???? Why yes, she did. And that is germane to the conversation, why? Or is that another misdirection technique? It appears even after all your complaining about people not wanting to engage in polite debate, you go out of your way to make sure that never happens.

I imagine him as a lawyer addressing a judge.

you're so damned stoned all the time

 

[HisArpy]

I imagine him as a lawyer addressing a judge.

GO FUCK YOURSELF

 

[jomar]

Harpy has only addressed the legal question, that they can ban guns because they can.

He has not addressed the apparent hypocrisy question. I’d like to hear his opinion on that aspect.

 

[HisArpy]

Harpy has only addressed the legal question, that they can ban guns because they can.

He has not addressed the apparent hypocrisy question. I’d like to hear his opinion on that aspect.

Try this on for size:

The organizers of the events set the rules. LAW ABIDING CITIZENS obey the rules for the venue.

Imagine what progressives would do if they had to make the same decision...

 

[jomar]

Try this on for size:

The organizers of the events set the rules. LAW ABIDING CITIZENS obey the rules for the venue.

Imagine what progressives would do if they had to make the same decision...

Yes, that addresses the first sentence of my post.

You keep avoiding the hypocrisy question.

 

[jaF0]

Gun toting boom-boomers afraid of what might happen in a room full of gun toting boom-boomers.

Did the National Ratchet Asses do the same thing in TexAss recently.

 

[HisArpy]

Yes, that addresses the first sentence of my post.

You keep avoiding the hypocrisy question.

Actually, the problem is that you think you're being clever in repeating yourself despite knowing that you've gotten your answer.

As I said: The venue is private property. The organizers at the venue set the rules, law abiding citizens obey the rules. What wasn't stated because it doesn't need to be stated is that Law abiding citizens also understand what the limits are when it comes to their Constitutional Right to Keep and Bear Arms. They know this because they're well informed on the issues regarding all of their Constitutional Rights.

Unlike those who create stupid threads and/or post insipid comments ostensibly to try to show their superior intellect but which only prove beyond a doubt that they have not even the most basic ability to reason or think.

 

[HisArpy]

Gun toting boom-boomers afraid of what might happen in a room full of gun toting boom-boomers.

Did the National Ratchet Asses do the same thing in TexAss recently.

Have you ever actually been in a room with a bunch of armed people?

I doubt it given the trend of your posting history, but would like to know for certain. So; yes or no?