Jim told CBS he started the petition to challenge Republican candidates on their gun stances, saying that if they were actually against gun-free zones like they claimed, they would support the petition.

"If they can't live in accordance with the policies they impose upon us, they owe us that rational conversation," Jim said.

"I thought, 'How do we square how unsafe they're going to be with what they say makes them safe?'" he continued.

Link

The thing is, the RNC will most definitely not be a gun-free zone. There will be secret service, many Cleveland police officers, and probably other armed security of some type as well. It's not a college campus where help is 10 minutes away if there's some gunman on campus firing on whoever is in his sight.

(03-29-2016 11:33 AM)EigenEagle Wrote:  The thing is, the RNC will most definitely not be a gun-free zone. There will be secret service, many Cleveland police officers, and probably other armed security of some type as well. It's not a college campus where help is 10 minutes away if there's some gunman on campus firing on whoever is in his sight.

Yea, that's what I was thinking - if there are security guards with guns, it isn't a gun-free zone. So I'm not sure I agree with his premise. Then again, I'm sure lots of the Republicans feel they should be able to take guns anywhere, so he still has kind of a point.

(03-29-2016 11:36 AM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(03-29-2016 11:33 AM)EigenEagle Wrote:  The thing is, the RNC will most definitely not be a gun-free zone. There will be secret service, many Cleveland police officers, and probably other armed security of some type as well. It's not a college campus where help is 10 minutes away if there's some gunman on campus firing on whoever is in his sight.

Yea, that's what I was thinking - if there are security guards with guns, it isn't a gun-free zone. So I'm not sure I agree with his premise. Then again, I'm sure lots of the Republicans feel they should be able to take guns anywhere, so he still has kind of a point.

And yet none of the candidates have said that they support the petition.

FYI, schools also have armed security guards.

(03-29-2016 11:38 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  FYI, schools also have armed security guards.

No they do not, at least not even close to the level that the RNC will have.

The security for the RNC is to try and prevent terrorist attacks, not lone-wolf Jared Loughner types. No young white male angry at the world who wants to kill many people as possible is going to choose a place crawling with police, secret service, and probably undercover security as well.

It is absolutely not comparable to what people generally refer to when they use the term gun-free zone.

(03-29-2016 11:50 AM)EigenEagle Wrote:  

(03-29-2016 11:38 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  FYI, schools also have armed security guards.

No they do not, at least not even close to the level that the RNC will have.

The security for the RNC is to try and prevent terrorist attacks, not lone-wolf Jared Loughner types. No young white male angry at the world who wants to kill many people as possible is going to choose a place crawling with police, secret service, and probably undercover security as well.

It is absolutely not comparable to what people generally refer to when they use the term gun-free zone.

I thought the definition of a gun free zone was the regular joe's could not bring their guns to that location.

Since you have changed the definition I simply thought I would point out that technically, under your new definition, schools are not gun free zones either.

Funny how everything changes when you twist like a pretzel.

(03-29-2016 12:02 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  I thought the definition of a gun free zone was the regular joe's could not bring their guns to that location.

Since you have changed the definition I simply thought I would point out that technically, under your new definition, schools are not gun free zones either.

Funny how everything changes when you twist like a pretzel.

The gun-free zone thing arose out of the mass shootings in the news. If it takes a few minutes or more to get armed security or police on the site of incident, that would be what I would call a gun-free zone, which would be most public places and most schools, but not places like the RNC that could potentially be terrorist targets.

(03-29-2016 12:21 PM)EigenEagle Wrote:  

(03-29-2016 12:02 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  I thought the definition of a gun free zone was the regular joe's could not bring their guns to that location.

Since you have changed the definition I simply thought I would point out that technically, under your new definition, schools are not gun free zones either.

Funny how everything changes when you twist like a pretzel.

The gun-free zone thing arose out of the mass shootings in the news. If it takes a few minutes or more to get armed security or police on the site of incident, that would be what I would call a gun-free zone, which would be most public places and most schools, but not places like the RNC that could potentially be terrorist targets.

I get what you are saying.

We do have armed police on campus however and they usually respond in under a minute.

(03-29-2016 12:41 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(03-29-2016 12:21 PM)EigenEagle Wrote:  

(03-29-2016 12:02 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  I thought the definition of a gun free zone was the regular joe's could not bring their guns to that location.

Since you have changed the definition I simply thought I would point out that technically, under your new definition, schools are not gun free zones either.

Funny how everything changes when you twist like a pretzel.

The gun-free zone thing arose out of the mass shootings in the news. If it takes a few minutes or more to get armed security or police on the site of incident, that would be what I would call a gun-free zone, which would be most public places and most schools, but not places like the RNC that could potentially be terrorist targets.

I get what you are saying.

We do have armed police on campus however and they usually respond in under a minute.

so you are saying that a minute is long enough to save the lives of people when there is an active shooting at a school?

(03-29-2016 11:08 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  Jim told CBS he started the petition to challenge Republican candidates on their gun stances, saying that if they were actually against gun-free zones like they claimed, they would support the petition.

"If they can't live in accordance with the policies they impose upon us, they owe us that rational conversation," Jim said.

"I thought, 'How do we square how unsafe they're going to be with what they say makes them safe?'" he continued.

Link

As I predicted on a thread that Commie Tom started.

(03-29-2016 11:38 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(03-29-2016 11:36 AM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(03-29-2016 11:33 AM)EigenEagle Wrote:  The thing is, the RNC will most definitely not be a gun-free zone. There will be secret service, many Cleveland police officers, and probably other armed security of some type as well. It's not a college campus where help is 10 minutes away if there's some gunman on campus firing on whoever is in his sight.

Yea, that's what I was thinking - if there are security guards with guns, it isn't a gun-free zone. So I'm not sure I agree with his premise. Then again, I'm sure lots of the Republicans feel they should be able to take guns anywhere, so he still has kind of a point.

And yet none of the candidates have said that they support the petition.

FYI, schools also have armed security guards.

Why would they support a petition started by a left winger? And there is armed security outside and inside the arena.

(03-29-2016 12:47 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  

(03-29-2016 11:38 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(03-29-2016 11:36 AM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(03-29-2016 11:33 AM)EigenEagle Wrote:  The thing is, the RNC will most definitely not be a gun-free zone. There will be secret service, many Cleveland police officers, and probably other armed security of some type as well. It's not a college campus where help is 10 minutes away if there's some gunman on campus firing on whoever is in his sight.

Yea, that's what I was thinking - if there are security guards with guns, it isn't a gun-free zone. So I'm not sure I agree with his premise. Then again, I'm sure lots of the Republicans feel they should be able to take guns anywhere, so he still has kind of a point.

And yet none of the candidates have said that they support the petition.

FYI, schools also have armed security guards.

Why would they support a petition started by a left winger? And there is armed security outside and inside the arena.

(03-29-2016 12:44 PM)UTSAMarineVet09 Wrote:  

(03-29-2016 12:41 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(03-29-2016 12:21 PM)EigenEagle Wrote:  

(03-29-2016 12:02 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  I thought the definition of a gun free zone was the regular joe's could not bring their guns to that location.

Since you have changed the definition I simply thought I would point out that technically, under your new definition, schools are not gun free zones either.

Funny how everything changes when you twist like a pretzel.

The gun-free zone thing arose out of the mass shootings in the news. If it takes a few minutes or more to get armed security or police on the site of incident, that would be what I would call a gun-free zone, which would be most public places and most schools, but not places like the RNC that could potentially be terrorist targets.

I get what you are saying.

We do have armed police on campus however and they usually respond in under a minute.

so you are saying that a minute is long enough to save the lives of people when there is an active shooting at a school?

It's soon enough to save some lives, not all. But even 5 seconds isn't enough to save everybody.

(03-29-2016 12:51 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(03-29-2016 12:44 PM)UTSAMarineVet09 Wrote:  

(03-29-2016 12:41 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(03-29-2016 12:21 PM)EigenEagle Wrote:  

(03-29-2016 12:02 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  I thought the definition of a gun free zone was the regular joe's could not bring their guns to that location.

Since you have changed the definition I simply thought I would point out that technically, under your new definition, schools are not gun free zones either.

Funny how everything changes when you twist like a pretzel.

The gun-free zone thing arose out of the mass shootings in the news. If it takes a few minutes or more to get armed security or police on the site of incident, that would be what I would call a gun-free zone, which would be most public places and most schools, but not places like the RNC that could potentially be terrorist targets.

I get what you are saying.

We do have armed police on campus however and they usually respond in under a minute.

so you are saying that a minute is long enough to save the lives of people when there is an active shooting at a school?

It's soon enough to save some lives, not all. But even 5 seconds isn't enough to save everybody.

There are no shades of grey with most republicans.

(03-29-2016 12:51 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(03-29-2016 12:44 PM)UTSAMarineVet09 Wrote:  

(03-29-2016 12:41 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(03-29-2016 12:21 PM)EigenEagle Wrote:  

(03-29-2016 12:02 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  I thought the definition of a gun free zone was the regular joe's could not bring their guns to that location.

Since you have changed the definition I simply thought I would point out that technically, under your new definition, schools are not gun free zones either.

Funny how everything changes when you twist like a pretzel.

The gun-free zone thing arose out of the mass shootings in the news. If it takes a few minutes or more to get armed security or police on the site of incident, that would be what I would call a gun-free zone, which would be most public places and most schools, but not places like the RNC that could potentially be terrorist targets.

I get what you are saying.

We do have armed police on campus however and they usually respond in under a minute.

so you are saying that a minute is long enough to save the lives of people when there is an active shooting at a school?

It's soon enough to save some lives, not all. But even 5 seconds isn't enough to save everybody.

the difference between 5 seconds and 1 minute is about 10-15 lives...

(03-29-2016 12:54 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(03-29-2016 12:51 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(03-29-2016 12:44 PM)UTSAMarineVet09 Wrote:  

(03-29-2016 12:41 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(03-29-2016 12:21 PM)EigenEagle Wrote:  The gun-free zone thing arose out of the mass shootings in the news. If it takes a few minutes or more to get armed security or police on the site of incident, that would be what I would call a gun-free zone, which would be most public places and most schools, but not places like the RNC that could potentially be terrorist targets.

I get what you are saying.

We do have armed police on campus however and they usually respond in under a minute.

so you are saying that a minute is long enough to save the lives of people when there is an active shooting at a school?

It's soon enough to save some lives, not all. But even 5 seconds isn't enough to save everybody.

There are no shades of grey with most republicans.

you need to put that book down, its for women...

(03-29-2016 12:55 PM)UTSAMarineVet09 Wrote:  

(03-29-2016 12:51 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(03-29-2016 12:44 PM)UTSAMarineVet09 Wrote:  

(03-29-2016 12:41 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(03-29-2016 12:21 PM)EigenEagle Wrote:  The gun-free zone thing arose out of the mass shootings in the news. If it takes a few minutes or more to get armed security or police on the site of incident, that would be what I would call a gun-free zone, which would be most public places and most schools, but not places like the RNC that could potentially be terrorist targets.

I get what you are saying.

We do have armed police on campus however and they usually respond in under a minute.

so you are saying that a minute is long enough to save the lives of people when there is an active shooting at a school?

It's soon enough to save some lives, not all. But even 5 seconds isn't enough to save everybody.

the difference between 5 seconds and 1 minute is about 10-15 lives...

Sure, but how much does it cost to have security guards all over the place in EVERY school in the United States every minute of the school day, versus having security for an occasional event?

(03-29-2016 01:02 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(03-29-2016 12:55 PM)UTSAMarineVet09 Wrote:  

(03-29-2016 12:51 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(03-29-2016 12:44 PM)UTSAMarineVet09 Wrote:  

(03-29-2016 12:41 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  I get what you are saying.

We do have armed police on campus however and they usually respond in under a minute.

so you are saying that a minute is long enough to save the lives of people when there is an active shooting at a school?

It's soon enough to save some lives, not all. But even 5 seconds isn't enough to save everybody.

the difference between 5 seconds and 1 minute is about 10-15 lives...

Sure, but how much does it cost to have security guards all over the place in EVERY school in the United States every minute of the school day, versus having security for an occasional event?

no one said anything about having armed security, how about arming the teachers and administrators? There are some schools that are already doing this.

(03-29-2016 01:03 PM)UTSAMarineVet09 Wrote:  

(03-29-2016 01:02 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(03-29-2016 12:55 PM)UTSAMarineVet09 Wrote:  

(03-29-2016 12:51 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(03-29-2016 12:44 PM)UTSAMarineVet09 Wrote:  so you are saying that a minute is long enough to save the lives of people when there is an active shooting at a school?

It's soon enough to save some lives, not all. But even 5 seconds isn't enough to save everybody.

the difference between 5 seconds and 1 minute is about 10-15 lives...

Sure, but how much does it cost to have security guards all over the place in EVERY school in the United States every minute of the school day, versus having security for an occasional event?

no one said anything about having armed security, how about arming the teachers and administrators? There are some schools that are already doing this.

Yep, the more guns around, the better. The United States has proved that, since we have so much less violence here than other countries.

(03-29-2016 01:06 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(03-29-2016 01:03 PM)UTSAMarineVet09 Wrote:  

(03-29-2016 01:02 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(03-29-2016 12:55 PM)UTSAMarineVet09 Wrote:  

(03-29-2016 12:51 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  It's soon enough to save some lives, not all. But even 5 seconds isn't enough to save everybody.

the difference between 5 seconds and 1 minute is about 10-15 lives...

Sure, but how much does it cost to have security guards all over the place in EVERY school in the United States every minute of the school day, versus having security for an occasional event?

no one said anything about having armed security, how about arming the teachers and administrators? There are some schools that are already doing this.

Yep, the more guns around, the better. The United States has proved that, since we have so much less violence here than other countries.

so guns are a the sole cause of violent crimes? Got it!