Because they live in a state that allows concealed carry.
Boom.
http://www.hawaiinewsnow.com/story/17816443/protester-at-party-conventions-could-be-armed

Protesting in America has been criminalized, unless you consider protesting to be standing in a fenced-in area on the other side of town where nobody can hear you for an hour or two and only at a designated time while spooks circle around and photograph everyone/write down your license plate numbers. A triumph for Demokracy!

https://rt.com/usa/news/trespass-bill-obama-secret-227/

Here's another article:
http://www.staradvertiser.com/news/breaking/149260765.html?mobile=true

Solution? Simple. The convention attendees may also be armed. The police in charge of keeping the peace will certainly be armed.

The protestor who fires a shot is dooming their cause to horrendous negative press.

It'll be fine. This in not the first high profile event to happen in a State that has widespread CCW. Get over it, media.

They are ready for it.

[attachment deleted by admin]

I was shocked at the number of CCW holders who have gone on rampages at political conventions in the past.  Wait, no I wasn't, because the article doesn't mention a single one.  It's just more of the same old, same old that we hear every time someone debates gun control or concealed carry:  "What if X happened?  Isn't it easy to imagine how someone could just lose their mind and do Y?" 

The government, assisted by the media, is doing a wonderful job of convincing Americans that we're all just savage beasts looking for an opportunity to rape, murder, and pillage our fellow citizens.  They're trying to convince everyone that we all need the iron fist of a benevolent dictator to protect us from ourselves, and what concerns me is that it seems to be working. 

Its amazing how quickly someone with no gun experience can assume that an armed person is a dangerous person.

In reality that's not quite how tucking the pistol in under the shirt feels. The feeling more resembles "Holy shit, I've got to be careful. I really don't want to have to use this thing."

It would be interesting to see what percentage of gun crimes are committed by lawful CCW carriers. I'm guessing its a tiny percentage.

Not that it would make much difference. The anti-gun arguments have little to do with real world statistics about crime.

Its amazing how quickly someone with no gun experience can assume that an armed person is a dangerous person.

In reality that's not quite how tucking the pistol in under the shirt feels. The feeling more resembles "Holy shit, I've got to be careful. I really don't want to have to use this thing."

It would be interesting to see what percentage of gun crimes are committed by lawful CCW carriers. I'm guessing its a tiny percentage.

Not that it would make much difference. The anti-gun arguments have little to do with real world statistics about crime.

You're exactly right.  People who have never carried think the phrase "An armed society is a polite society" means everybody minds their manners because they don't want to get shot.  In reality, since normal, law-abiding people don't want to kill anyone, the armed citizen is the polite one, because as you said, you really really want to avoid a situation where you may have to take someone's life.  I once partied with a bunch of Navy SEALs, although I didn't find out until the end of the evening what they did for a living.  Do you think they acted like punks?  Nope, people would run into the smaller fellows and say, "Watch it, asshole!" and the guy would just smile politely and say, "Excuse me."  Having the ability to hurt someone means having the responsibility to control those urges. 

I don't even think it's a learned behavior; I think it's biological.  For example, with dogs, large breeds are more likely to be good with kids, because dogs instinctively avoid hurting smaller members of the pack.  When you're walking around with a pistol, you're pretty much the biggest dog in the room, and it cuts against the grain (for normal, non-sociopaths) of instinct.

Good stuff, Cougar. I find truth in what you wrote.

Good stuff, Cougar. I find truth in what you wrote.

Thanks, man.

violating the constitutional rights of unarmed hippies is a sport. add armed citizens to the mix and the militarized police force might begin to question what exactly is it that they are protecting and who they are serving, because escalating could mean the difference between a pension and survivor's benefits. so of course the media wants everybody to be unarmed so they can continue to shoot veterans in the face with tear gas canisters and toss flashbangs into groups trying to render aid without thinking about it. just doing their job.

Chicago is the much more interesting scenario. Plans are being made to evacuate the whole city. In case of what?

[attachment deleted by admin]

@Cougar8045

Good posts.

It is too bad that 2A support can't be separated from the rest of the political platforms.  I understand that many supporters of 2A rights fall on the conservative and Republican sides but I can't help think that there are more moderates, undecideds and undeclareds that would easily be convinced to add their weight behind defending the Constitution.  I am, however, certain that very few of them would do so if it was clear that support was going to be used to further additional agendas.

x626 - I'm one of those cross over types. Most of my associates are surprised that I'm pro gun because I'm not overly conservative in other ways. Not overly liberal, either, but that's the group I tend to be around.

And by that I mean folks who don't care who marries who, women who have had abortions, folks who think evolution makes more sense than Iron Age mythology and that an enlightened society has some responsibility to help those who are suffering. None of them think the government should be bigger, that we should have government programs for all needs and tax the living hell out of anything that moves. When I see the coarse brush that the extreme right uses to paint its picture of the left I look around and wonder "where are these socialist, new world order progressives of which I hear so much about?!" Other than in congress, of course. This rare species of extreme liberal finds its natural habitat only in D.C.

By the same token... when I visited a couple friends (middle aged lesbians from the Bay Area, if that gives you some sense of their political views) on the way back from applying for a pistol permit I got painted with their coarse gun-nut brush. "A gun? Why are you getting a gun? Do you need to shoot someone?" Quote. Not kidding. I was stunned. These, otherwise intelligent and thoughtful, idiots had even had a cow slaughtered a few months earlier.... with a gun. To me knowing how to reload falls into the same general category as knowing how to sharpen a knife. Knowing how to shoot is about the same as knowing how to use a table saw. Hunting and defense have more visceral impact on us than other tasks but in general its the same: know how to use and care for the tools that make your life easier (and longer.)

Therefore the politics around guns seem irrelevant to me. Irrelevant to reality, I mean. One cannot make the world safe by trusting some authority with all the sharp objects. Period. Trying to do so is doomed to fail. Badly. Removing death from common experience and knowledge (meaning hunting) is a fundamental divorce from the realities of what sustains life: death. The neatly packaged meat at the supermarket still gets blood on your hands even if you aren't the one who pulled the trigger. The carrot dies to feed you. Eggs are chicken abortions and eating fruit prevents baby trees from happening. All life rides on death. Estranging the populace from the means of experiencing and accomplishing this is folly and the consequences are far reaching.

I trust my government to protect me from other governments because it is the only entity large enough to do so - and this has been the case with civilizations since the Bronze Age. I do not trust it to protect me from my local criminals. Trying to make a government that does so, and denies individuals the means of seeing to their own safety, is a fundamental divorce from the realities of personal responsibility. The consequences of this are far reaching and many of the large scale issues facing our society can be traced back to it.

And so I am fiercely pro 2a. And I also don't care who marries who, that some women chose to have abortions, that there are gays in the military or that the government provides some support for poor people and old people. I do care that industry without rules often does NOT prioritize health of the people over health of the profits, that government spending is waaaaaaay out of hand, that oil speculation is making my food and electricity prices go up quickly and artificially, and that climate change is quite real despite the fact that our "leaders" have agreed that it isn't.

So...uh... who the hell do I vote for? As far as I'm concerned neither party is looking at reality and responding to it reasonably. Both are exaggerating polar stances on hotbed issues that are largely irrelevant to good governance and dividing the populace into controllable voting blocks. Political "platforms" are nothing more than vote herding cons designed to make the processes of law making and governance easier ... not better.

Or, to make a long story short and to quote George Carlin... its all bullshit and its bad for you.

@clshade

It is funny to me because your post is basically what runs through my head over and over as I read this board and others.  I accept the current reality that the majority of pro-2A efforts are spearheaded by conservatives and I am in no way defending or justifying liberals who prefer further restrictions on firearms.  I personally would like very much to be more active in correcting what I perceive as improper legislation but I have a hard time seeing myself being able to be accepted or even relate to some of the posters here whom I would be attempting to work with.

Like you I am a moderate whose views imho are pretty logical.  I definitely support the current legal effort for CCW underway here in Hawaii, but honestly, I'd probably never exercise it.  I simply believe that it is a standing right and the loopholes preventing it from being legal need to be corrected.  Heck, I'd rather see the ban lifted on suppressors if I was bank rolling a legal challenge to firearm laws in Hawaii because I'd be the first to order one if it was successful.

As an example of what I wish the 2A efforts would be like, I'd point out the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF).  That particular organization has a pretty narrow charter for digital rights and advocacy.  I donate annually to that group and educate anyone who asks about the mission simply because I know from history and the charter what the EFF spends its time and money on.

There is no concern that the EFF is working on civil unions, tax reform, impeachment, social security, the defense budget or any other hotbed topic.  It doesn't matter what your views on those previous topics are: if you like online privacy, are concerned with DRM, worry about illegal wiretapping via email/texts or other similar topics in the digital realm; the EFF fits as an organization that you can support.

Right now, I don't see something like that here in Hawaii for 2A rights and that is disappointing.

Ah, right. Good point.

The NRA is a  huge and effective lobby, but... yeah, there are times when stuff comes out of the NRA that has be scratching my head. I think where the line gets blurry for me is when they start recommending candidates. "This person is likely to vote anti-gun so elect the other guy!" I don't think the NRA has any choice, though, and any non-profit that tries to isolate 2A issues will likely find itself in the same treacherous waters. What about all the other issues that person is going to be voting on?

(sigh) This republic is FUBAR. Yes, we vote for our representatives but then they don't really represent us. They represent their own ideologies. We chose from a narrow field of prepacked possibilities and then don't do much other than watch the show. A more idealistic way to do it is to elect a representative that will LISTEN and then provide copious public feedback to them so they can...uh... actually represent us. Way more work, much less gets done, harder to corrupt and manipulate...

Florida Governor rejected the request for a temp gun ban outside GOP convention.  He doesn't see how disarming law abiding citizens makes them safer.  Way to go GOV Scott!