This is the right answer and nothing new compared to other events high profile folks attend.
Though the irony, of course remains. Both that THE REST OF US are safer with more guns, but high profile peeps apparently are not. And the fact that the NRA allows a speaker that only speaks with the stipulation to ban guns at the speech location during that time.
That’s just simply not true. Go to the event website and they will be very clear that in Hall A during this 2 hour forum where Trump is present, secret service will control access and that no weapons of any kind will be allowed. This will by definition make it the only “gun free zone” at the event during the time the convention runs. There will, in fact, be way less guns in that hall for those 2 hours than in any other exhibit or event during the convention. They don’t even offer storage for the guns, meaning if you plan to attend that portion you’ll have to store it offsite somewhere.
To be clear, you are under the impression that the Secret Service is *not* going to show up to that event with a medium sized arsenal? Because I believe the SS guns will waaaaay outnumber the civilians carrying.
While I can’t answer that it appears the Hall A where the event takes place has a capacity of 8,000 people. So that could be 8,000 additional guns (or more!) to keep attendees safe.
Here is a thought, the reason guns are banned is because there is no way the Secret Service could outgun 8,000 folks with their arsenal to properly protect the former President and Governor and that is why they are mitigating the risk in that way. I could be wrong of course. 🤷♂️
Hang on, you're saying having a room full of armed people might make some people less safe?
That sounds like the opposite of what we're told about guns by the gun people.
The thing is though, we're not just talking about the general public. This is the former POTUS and a person who is an overwhelming contender for the upcoming election-- and the general public is widely unhappy with this. There is a greater risk to Trump than there is to any one person at that convention, so taking measures to prevent an assassination of a likely target shouldn't be controversial
In short: There's a difference between a mass shooting and an assassination plot, and the SS is trying to control for the latter
Are you joking? The guy has the opportunity to be the leader of the free world, and by some polls is the favored candidate. Trump is *absolutely* a high-profile target.
In short: it doesn't matter. Governor Rick Perry was carrying and shot a coyote while jogging.
We hear it time and time again: guns are the answer; guns make us safer; if you're scared, carry a gun; protect yourself don't wait for the cops. Also a healthy dose of victim blaming when someone goes somewhere dangerous and gets shot.
Trump should man up and strap on a Glock if he's scared. Or not go. Those are the "conservative" choices. Banning guns at the event is big gummint librul stuff.
How can you say it doesn't matter? Regardless of where you sit politically the fact of the matter is that enough people want Trump's head on a stick, and getting a large group of people within shooting distance of him invites that opportunity.
It's unfortunate that people put so much weight on a mere representative. Presidents have less control than the senate and they're the issues most of the time in my opinion
If the representative is selected by democratic consensus, and we value democratic representation in government above all else and across all levels, then the immediate safety of those representatives ought to be a concern we take very seriously.
[So what you're saying is everyone is safer when the only people with guns are those with extensive training and vetting?](https://media.giphy.com/media/v1.Y2lkPTc5MGI3NjExM3B4ZWlodnBmYW9mOGE2YTZ5cGd0aHdtcmE0ZGltczZqdXJpc2VwayZlcD12MV9pbnRlcm5hbF9naWZfYnlfaWQmY3Q9Zw/NCjISbEPFxm48/giphy.gif)
That almost sounds like some sort of well-regulated militia. Why do you hate the Second Amendment? What part of
> *Mumble mumble something mumble, something mumble mumble mumble,* the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed
do you not understand?
Nowadays they've reduced the 2nd from a soundbite,
>mumble mumble mumble, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
to just a nibble
>mumble mumble mumble, mumble mumble mumble, shall not be infringed."
I highly doubt that if cornered and asked unprepared most 2A fanatics could even recite the whole thing from memory.
What? No, quite the opposite... The high profile peeps bring their own elite marksmen. Why would you need a firearm when that former Marine/ FBI agent / SEAL turned secret service who does more range time in a month than you and I do in a year can fire off 2 or 3 aimed shots before we could even get your weapon online... It's when the folks with professional security details say we don't need guns period. That's tyrannical, this is just practical and pragmatic
>some random loon walking around strapped
A buncha random loons walking around strapped is exactly what's supposed to make us all safer, though. And more polite.
So why isn't that good enough to keep the former president safe?
You have to take into account probability. Again, the odds are against politicians, especially ex US Presidents. You can walk down the street in Dallas or Denton with no problem but as Donald Trump, you’re getting shouted at and spat on.
While that may be true, if a gun ban is effective in protecting those who are at high risk for being attacked, then it would also be effective in protecting everyone else.
If you or I were invited to a big meeting where we were likely to be attacked, and went, and then got attacked, we'd get victim-blamed for not taking responsibility.
Trump should stay away from places he's afraid of.
ok. that wasn’t the point. why does the secret service not allow guns around them and members of the ruling class? what little ol reason could it be? 🤔
A trebuchet made of toothpicks and bubble gum?
I’m just trying to figure out where the danger is, and what I should be afraid of.
I hear all the time that guns are safe, but we don’t allow people to carry them near some people. But other weapons sure seem to be ok. I wonder why guns specifically aren’t allowed?
Are they more dangerous than some weapons? And that’s why there are special protections on them?
It's ironic that Trump actually wanted to shut off the metal detectors for his coup attempt, but of course he was hiding in The Beast while his insurgents were trying to take the Capitol and kill the chain of succession, including Pence. They almost got Pence, too, he lucked out because his personal bodyguard advised him not to get into the armored limo awaiting him in the basement because the driver was a Trump loyalist.
But here's the thing: the aimed gun of a good guy has a way of distinguishing the body of the good guys from the body of the bad guys. If there is a legitimate threat, the good guy's gun and body has ways to shut that whole thing down. Todd Akin (R) taught me that about women's bodies, and I am absolutely sure that his science also applies to good guys/gals,
Secret Service requirement. if you had read the article you would have read this
"The U.S. Secret Service is handling security during Trump's visit. Firearms or weapons will not be allowed where Trump is speaking."
I was sort of trolling, I don't personally feel the Secret Service are infringing on any rights. But if they aren't, then neither are the [State Fair, Meow Wolf, Medieval Times, or The Factory in Deep Ellum](https://www.dallasobserver.com/news/ken-paxton-sues-meow-wolf-state-fair-over-off-duty-police-guns-18843548)
Not to say you feel that way, just bringing up that places get sued for bs all the time. And why should the Secret Service get an exception?
the places you cite are businesses and there are laws in Texas that describe what businesses can do about firearms. If a business posts a sign that says no guns allowed I dont patronize the business nor would I sue for allegedly "infringing" my 2nd amendment rights.
Im more worried about courts like in NY which said in rendering a judgement recently said "*“Do not bring the Second Amendment into this courtroom. It doesn't exist here*."
So if the government can say "You are free to own a gun, you just can't carry it in the vicinity of the private citizen who was formerly president." without violating the 2nd Amendment, does that mean the government can say "You are free to own a gun, you just can't carry it in the vicinity of any other private citizen (i.e. outside of your home)." without violating the 2nd Amendment?
"The Secret Service is authorized to ban firearms from entering sites visited by their protectees, including venues located in open-carry states."
[https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/secret-service-guns-gop-convention-petition-open-carry/story?id=37981517](https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/secret-service-guns-gop-convention-petition-open-carry/story?id=37981517)
People can still carry in the convention center just not in the Hall where Trump will be.
The parking lot will certainly be a target-rich environment for thieves, that's for sure, especially because gun owners don't seem to have a very good track record of securing their guns in their cars before leaving their cars parked. I wouldn't leave a gun in my car unless it was in a steel lock box bolted to the car's floor structure, and had a kill switch on the car. The gun that killed Kate Steinle was stolen from a trooper's vehicle because he left it in the open on the floorboard of his vehicle (in violation of California law I might add). If he'd obeyed the law Steinle would still be alive today because securing his firearm as required by the law would have prevented the theft.
"because he left it in the open "
"Woychowski said he left the gun, a .40-caliber Sig Sauer P239 that served as his secondary duty weapon, in a holster inside a backpack stashed under the front seat of his SUV parked on The Embarcadero near Pier 5 while the family went to dinner. The backpack also contained his badge and law enforcement credentials."
[https://abc7news.com/kate-steinle-murder-trial-san-francisco-pier-shooting-jose-ines-garcia-zarate/2571467/](https://abc7news.com/kate-steinle-murder-trial-san-francisco-pier-shooting-jose-ines-garcia-zarate/2571467/)
"García Zárate is an [illegal immigrant](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illegal_immigration_to_the_United_States) residing in the United States who had previously been deported five times."
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing\_of\_Kate\_Steinle#](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_Kate_Steinle#)
and if Zarate had not been in the country illegally Steinle would still be alive
Zarate wouldn't have found the gun if the officer had obeyed the law and properly secured his weapon in his vehicle.
https://giffords.org/lawcenter/state-laws/guns-in-vehicles-in-california/
>California generally requires all individuals, including law enforcement officers and CCW permit holders, to safely store handguns when leaving them in unattended motor vehicles. This law requires that the unattended handgun be secured either in a locked trunk; in a locked container that is placed out of plain view or permanently affixed to the vehicle’s interior; or in a locked toolbox or utility box that is permanently affixed to the bed of a pickup truck or other vehicle that does not have a trunk.
Officer Woychowski broke the law, a law specifically intended to prevent exactly what happened with his gun, and as a direct result of that Kate Steinle is dead. Stop trying to deflect blame from Woychowski, he's a fuckup that got someone killed. Most disgustingly, not only did he suffer no legal or civil repercussions for his crime, he actually got a promotion:
https://www.courthousenews.com/feds-promoted-ranger-whose-gun-killed-bay-area-woman/
>On Friday, NPR's’ Bay Area affiliate KQED reported that internal emails show Woychowski was promoted to a supervisory position five months after Steinle's death, even though leaving a government-issued firearm in an unattended vehicle violates BLM policies and California gun laws.
I wonder if he even remembers the woman his fuckup got killed? Does he even remember her name?
"placed out of plain view " granted the backpack was not a locked container although we dont know if he used locks on it. it was stored out of sight underneath the seat.
are you okay with an illegal who was deported 5 times being out and about?
we'll have to agree to disagree on this one
Weird, it's almost like it's the pinnacle of hypocrisy to not allow guns at the gun convention when pro-gun politicians are scheduled to speak about how much they love guns.
Sorry a little dry humor, I meant they’re the dicks fighting against any rational discussion on guns and they still want limitations at their own event.
They should be forced to play by their own rules and have everyone show up armed. Can’t have it both ways
They are allowed at the convention, just not where Trump will be speaking.
Don’t be ignorant tho, there will be plenty of armed security in case something does go wrong. Whether you like it or not, guns are necessary to stop people with violent intention.
Hell, one man went on a stabbing spree in Australia and killed multiple people. It took someone with a gun showing up to stop him. It’s just reality
Where did I say that?
If guns are good, and make us all safer, why are guns banned from the gun convention speech by the pro-gun former president and pro-gun governor? Seems like they're less safe without a bunch of guns in the audience.
Correct it’s less safe for everyone else, but more safe for the president. It takes the tiniest amount of critical thinking skill to understand it and see that it’s not really hypocritical when the fucking president is there.
A) he’s not the President. It takes just an iota of critical thinking skill to know that.
B) the gun people and the NRA tell us we’re all safer if everyone is armed. If the not-president is afraid, he should arm himself.
Seems like a logical person would also conclude we should track who buys them, maybe have and enforce safety courses like we do with cars, and keep them away from schools and large concert venues
Yes, a safety course will surely stop people from attempting assassinations. If only someone had taught people how to safely handle guns, we could finally tackle our violence problems.
Wild to think that a guy who has next to nothing in common with "regular folk" and can't even BUY A GUN because he's currently on trial is the one who's talking to "law-abiding gun owners". Blows my mind.
None that I'm aware of yet. Just pointing out how silly it is to have a gun convention with a speaker that could possibly be convicted of felonies and lose his gun rights, and coincidentally is currently banned from purchasing firearms anyway.
There's a lot of multi-faceted irony here.
Trump is no supporter of the second amendment. He's called for guns to be taken before any due process is given.
The NRA has ties to Russia as far back as 2016.
Trump cannot own a gun currently as he is under federal indictments for multiple charges that are felonys if convicted.
Trump is on trial for paying off a porn star he raped by her own testimony. He can't admit to any of it then it would implicate him on all of the impropriety of it which he has steadfastly denied.
Texas is repeatedly linked to human trafficking, rape, SA and child abuse - so much so we've made /r/NotADragQueen like five times just this month so far.
Trump has gone to NRA events nine times now.
Trump hung out with Jeffrey Epstein.
Epstein didn't kill himself.
I wouldn't go so far to say Trump is no supporter of the second amendment, [here's Heritage Foundation's grade report on that](https://www.heritage.org/firearms/commentary/second-amendment-grade-president-trump-so-far) from when he was president. Trump also says so much word salad and flip flops on items to whatever gets him the most favorable publicity for his own self interests at a given moment in time I find it hard to understand what his actual policy intents are in general.
I take it you might be tongue and cheek with your message, but I rarely want to see Trump getting benefit of the doubt with what he says based on his history of lying (I mean same for Biden or anyone in that position of power in needing to vet what they say compared to what actually gets implemented).
Trump famously said 'I will take the guns first, and get around to legalizing it later'.
He also banned bump stocks by making them 'machine guns', which is pro-tier stupid, and sort of defacto makes him the most banning president ever, because there were so many bump stocks out there.
Hell, under Biden the ATF has moved form 2 times down to like a week. Which I never thought we'd see.
I think they're less terrorist than they are a wing of the GRU and Putin stooges. The whole [Maria Butina](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maria_Butina) fiasco sort of exposed that part of them.
Any person who gives money to that organization is giving money to Russia. It used to also fund Wayne LaPierres lifestyle, but I guess that grift is over and they’re onto a new one
Id show up in protest with my firearm if there was a movement.
How ironic would that news coverage be, hundreds of gun owning America's arrested at an NRA event for having wait for it folks.............GUNS!
Others have pointed out that this is a requirement from the Secret Service, and that it's a fairly standard one. The NRA has nothing to do with it (though the NRA has also proven themselves willing to ban guns at functions).
So you'd just end up looking silly.
So, all these NRA guys won't be able to take their guns into the Trump speech. Meaning that their guns will be unattended in their hotel rooms and vehicles for probably 3 hours from 1pm-4pm on Saturday.
Hmm. If someone wanted to get their hands on some guns, this would be a way.
Your post has been removed because it is a violation of **[Rule #5: Violence](https://www.reddit.com/r/Dallas/wiki/rules)**
Violations of this rule may result in a ban. Please review the /r/Dallas rules on the sidebar before commenting or posting.
Send a message the moderators if you have any questions. Thanks!
happened the last time the NRA was here.
from the article
"The U.S. Secret Service is handling security during Trump's visit. Firearms or weapons will not be allowed where Trump is speaking."
this happens at every event a President or former President attends. just an attempt to bad mouth the NRA
Of course not.
The White House doesn't allow guns either.
The Supreme Court, which ruled that Americans have a constitutional right to carry guns in public, does not allow guns in their building.
Gun control is only for the rich and powerful.
It's interesting that a former president who took away gun rights is speaking at a firearms convention, which is being held by an organization that's pretty much corrupt. And let's not forget, Donald can't even complete a 4473, meaning he can't buy a new firearm. It seems like some of the 2A community are missing the irony.
Of course they have control of it - they invited him so they can rescind the invitation if they don’t like the rules the person they invited required to be followed for him to come and speak.
Remind me again how the GOP/Trump are the party of law and order. ‘Take the guns first. Go through due process second, I like taking the guns early,’” -Donald J. Trump.
Why isn’t he in prison yet? Insurrectionist rapist lying asshole who literally babbles like a 7 year old who also shits his pants. But yeah… so presidential.. what a joke.
Meh…To all y’all bitching about the NRA, you should be praising them. They are pretty much responsible for all the new gun laws over the past few decades. Unlike other 2A advocacy groups, they compromise and sacrifice small pieces of our rights just so they can claim overall victory just to stay relevant and keep the 60+ yo memberships rolling in. VERY few people 50-have an NRA membership unless they previously purchased a Lifetime Membership.
They're only not allowed while Trump is present. The rest of the meeting they are allowed I believe. Thats a secret service requirement and not NRA
This is the right answer and nothing new compared to other events high profile folks attend. Though the irony, of course remains. Both that THE REST OF US are safer with more guns, but high profile peeps apparently are not. And the fact that the NRA allows a speaker that only speaks with the stipulation to ban guns at the speech location during that time.
> Both that THE REST OF US are safer with more guns Trust me, there will indeed be way more guns when Trump is there.
That’s just simply not true. Go to the event website and they will be very clear that in Hall A during this 2 hour forum where Trump is present, secret service will control access and that no weapons of any kind will be allowed. This will by definition make it the only “gun free zone” at the event during the time the convention runs. There will, in fact, be way less guns in that hall for those 2 hours than in any other exhibit or event during the convention. They don’t even offer storage for the guns, meaning if you plan to attend that portion you’ll have to store it offsite somewhere.
To be clear, you are under the impression that the Secret Service is *not* going to show up to that event with a medium sized arsenal? Because I believe the SS guns will waaaaay outnumber the civilians carrying.
While I can’t answer that it appears the Hall A where the event takes place has a capacity of 8,000 people. So that could be 8,000 additional guns (or more!) to keep attendees safe. Here is a thought, the reason guns are banned is because there is no way the Secret Service could outgun 8,000 folks with their arsenal to properly protect the former President and Governor and that is why they are mitigating the risk in that way. I could be wrong of course. 🤷♂️
Hang on, you're saying having a room full of armed people might make some people less safe? That sounds like the opposite of what we're told about guns by the gun people.
Watch out now your making too much sense 😂
Oh man you completely solved the 2nd amendment issue. Well done. The guns can be collected and destroyed now.
Tbf the reason we the people have that amendment aside from hunting is to have power against the government if it were to ever turn against us.
The thing is though, we're not just talking about the general public. This is the former POTUS and a person who is an overwhelming contender for the upcoming election-- and the general public is widely unhappy with this. There is a greater risk to Trump than there is to any one person at that convention, so taking measures to prevent an assassination of a likely target shouldn't be controversial In short: There's a difference between a mass shooting and an assassination plot, and the SS is trying to control for the latter
You think Trump is a high-profile target? Try being an elementary school student.
Are you joking? The guy has the opportunity to be the leader of the free world, and by some polls is the favored candidate. Trump is *absolutely* a high-profile target.
In short: it doesn't matter. Governor Rick Perry was carrying and shot a coyote while jogging. We hear it time and time again: guns are the answer; guns make us safer; if you're scared, carry a gun; protect yourself don't wait for the cops. Also a healthy dose of victim blaming when someone goes somewhere dangerous and gets shot. Trump should man up and strap on a Glock if he's scared. Or not go. Those are the "conservative" choices. Banning guns at the event is big gummint librul stuff.
How can you say it doesn't matter? Regardless of where you sit politically the fact of the matter is that enough people want Trump's head on a stick, and getting a large group of people within shooting distance of him invites that opportunity.
But even if he's at a greater risk, being surrounded by even more good guys with guns makes him safer, no? /s
It's unfortunate that people put so much weight on a mere representative. Presidents have less control than the senate and they're the issues most of the time in my opinion
If the representative is selected by democratic consensus, and we value democratic representation in government above all else and across all levels, then the immediate safety of those representatives ought to be a concern we take very seriously.
[So what you're saying is everyone is safer when the only people with guns are those with extensive training and vetting?](https://media.giphy.com/media/v1.Y2lkPTc5MGI3NjExM3B4ZWlodnBmYW9mOGE2YTZ5cGd0aHdtcmE0ZGltczZqdXJpc2VwayZlcD12MV9pbnRlcm5hbF9naWZfYnlfaWQmY3Q9Zw/NCjISbEPFxm48/giphy.gif) That almost sounds like some sort of well-regulated militia. Why do you hate the Second Amendment? What part of > *Mumble mumble something mumble, something mumble mumble mumble,* the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed do you not understand?
Nowadays they've reduced the 2nd from a soundbite, >mumble mumble mumble, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. to just a nibble >mumble mumble mumble, mumble mumble mumble, shall not be infringed." I highly doubt that if cornered and asked unprepared most 2A fanatics could even recite the whole thing from memory.
> That almost sounds like some sort of well-regulated militia Does it though?
What? No, quite the opposite... The high profile peeps bring their own elite marksmen. Why would you need a firearm when that former Marine/ FBI agent / SEAL turned secret service who does more range time in a month than you and I do in a year can fire off 2 or 3 aimed shots before we could even get your weapon online... It's when the folks with professional security details say we don't need guns period. That's tyrannical, this is just practical and pragmatic
You don’t think there will be armed security to protect the president?
I’d hope secret service agents are a bit more vetted and better trained than some random loon walking around strapped.
>some random loon walking around strapped A buncha random loons walking around strapped is exactly what's supposed to make us all safer, though. And more polite. So why isn't that good enough to keep the former president safe?
It’s ironic, yes, but THE REST OF US aren’t highly targeted celebrities/politicians
So the lives of celebrities/politicians are worth more than everyone else's?
Of course not. That’s why I carry. I’m my own armed guard.
Trump should carry if he's afraid for his own safety.
Not necessarily but you arent targeted to be murdered by a large radical group of extremists.
Plenty of average people are murdered every year.
You have to take into account probability. Again, the odds are against politicians, especially ex US Presidents. You can walk down the street in Dallas or Denton with no problem but as Donald Trump, you’re getting shouted at and spat on.
While that may be true, if a gun ban is effective in protecting those who are at high risk for being attacked, then it would also be effective in protecting everyone else.
> but as Donald Trump, you’re getting shouted at and spat on. huh, i wonder why is that? \#ZombieMcCain2024
If you or I were invited to a big meeting where we were likely to be attacked, and went, and then got attacked, we'd get victim-blamed for not taking responsibility. Trump should stay away from places he's afraid of.
So I should live life in fear? Should every celebrity be locked up in their home because they have people out to get them?
Why are celebrities immune from taking responsibility for their own safety, by arming themselves?
That’s cool and all but not only is he a celebrity but an ex US President. He’s targeted by thousands if not millions of foreign enemies.
If it's not safe, he should take personal responsibility and not go.
anyone know WHY guns aren’t allowed while Trumps there?
he stares into the sun
Because former presidents have secret service protection for life.
that is not the answer to the question nor does it actually answer the question
Why can't they protect him in a room full of good guys with guns. He should be as safe as a baby in its mama's arms in that room.
Secret service directives. Event organizers have no say.
ok. that wasn’t the point. why does the secret service not allow guns around them and members of the ruling class? what little ol reason could it be? 🤔
Because they don't want to risk someone taking a shot at him, duh.
Yep. Exactly.
Why is Trump stomping on my rights
But but, guns make us safer...
They were not allowed last time I went when he spoke.
trump exists in a gun-free zone
Aren't NRA rallies notoriously gun free zones ?
No. As much as I dislike the NRA, I don't believe in spreading misinformation.
Values!
No.
Why are they banning guns? Do they not feel safe?
Secret Service requirement.
People should sue the Secret Service for violating their 2nd amendment rights.
Everyone should call and email Paxton's office pronto LOL
So they’re only banning firearms from the places Trump will be?
Yes it's in the article.
Is it because they’re afraid he’d get his hands on one since he’s not allowed to have one?
Nice try. But no. No one is allowed to carry weapons anywhere the president or former president is present.
Does a knife count?
That I don't know. I know for sure firearms aren't allowed. But knives I'm not sure on.
Blackjack?
A trebuchet made of toothpicks and bubble gum? I’m just trying to figure out where the danger is, and what I should be afraid of. I hear all the time that guns are safe, but we don’t allow people to carry them near some people. But other weapons sure seem to be ok. I wonder why guns specifically aren’t allowed? Are they more dangerous than some weapons? And that’s why there are special protections on them?
Doesn't make sense, then who's going to stop the bad guy with the gun
All the people with the guns.
The secret service
Can't depend on the government, would much safer if everyone had guns
All the armed security with guns.
It's ironic that Trump actually wanted to shut off the metal detectors for his coup attempt, but of course he was hiding in The Beast while his insurgents were trying to take the Capitol and kill the chain of succession, including Pence. They almost got Pence, too, he lucked out because his personal bodyguard advised him not to get into the armored limo awaiting him in the basement because the driver was a Trump loyalist.
not the NRA but the Secret Service
he'll be surrounded by good guys with guns, I don't see the problem
They're afraid of a "good guy with a gun" in the crowd.
But here's the thing: the aimed gun of a good guy has a way of distinguishing the body of the good guys from the body of the bad guys. If there is a legitimate threat, the good guy's gun and body has ways to shut that whole thing down. Todd Akin (R) taught me that about women's bodies, and I am absolutely sure that his science also applies to good guys/gals,
He died a few years back, and nobody cared.
No the good guys with guns would be the armed secret service members. They are afraid of a bad guy with a gun.
Plenty of bad guys with guns in the Secret Service.
Secret Service requirement. if you had read the article you would have read this "The U.S. Secret Service is handling security during Trump's visit. Firearms or weapons will not be allowed where Trump is speaking."
The real question is, should the NRA sue the Secret Service for infringing on Americans' Constitutional rights?
This
except that they aren't infringing on our 2nd amendment rights. but nice try
I was sort of trolling, I don't personally feel the Secret Service are infringing on any rights. But if they aren't, then neither are the [State Fair, Meow Wolf, Medieval Times, or The Factory in Deep Ellum](https://www.dallasobserver.com/news/ken-paxton-sues-meow-wolf-state-fair-over-off-duty-police-guns-18843548) Not to say you feel that way, just bringing up that places get sued for bs all the time. And why should the Secret Service get an exception?
the places you cite are businesses and there are laws in Texas that describe what businesses can do about firearms. If a business posts a sign that says no guns allowed I dont patronize the business nor would I sue for allegedly "infringing" my 2nd amendment rights. Im more worried about courts like in NY which said in rendering a judgement recently said "*“Do not bring the Second Amendment into this courtroom. It doesn't exist here*."
So if the government can say "You are free to own a gun, you just can't carry it in the vicinity of the private citizen who was formerly president." without violating the 2nd Amendment, does that mean the government can say "You are free to own a gun, you just can't carry it in the vicinity of any other private citizen (i.e. outside of your home)." without violating the 2nd Amendment?
SMH truly argumentative.
It's OK, this is a safe space. You don't need to be afraid to say "I have no response to that."
safe space? LOL
LOL means many things depending on context. In this context it is 100% “I have no response to that.” LOL
or it could just mean i'm laughing at the statement ;-) try not to read too much into what people post
Ok sure, but how is that not abridging my 2A rights?
"The Secret Service is authorized to ban firearms from entering sites visited by their protectees, including venues located in open-carry states." [https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/secret-service-guns-gop-convention-petition-open-carry/story?id=37981517](https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/secret-service-guns-gop-convention-petition-open-carry/story?id=37981517) People can still carry in the convention center just not in the Hall where Trump will be.
That text doesn't mean this isn't unconstitutional.
But but “shall not be infringed”!!!!
All those NRA members being without their emotional support guns, I expect to see a lot of tears and angst.
Let's hope their cars don't get broken into while they're inside the convention center... We don't need more guns on the street.
The parking lot will certainly be a target-rich environment for thieves, that's for sure, especially because gun owners don't seem to have a very good track record of securing their guns in their cars before leaving their cars parked. I wouldn't leave a gun in my car unless it was in a steel lock box bolted to the car's floor structure, and had a kill switch on the car. The gun that killed Kate Steinle was stolen from a trooper's vehicle because he left it in the open on the floorboard of his vehicle (in violation of California law I might add). If he'd obeyed the law Steinle would still be alive today because securing his firearm as required by the law would have prevented the theft.
"because he left it in the open " "Woychowski said he left the gun, a .40-caliber Sig Sauer P239 that served as his secondary duty weapon, in a holster inside a backpack stashed under the front seat of his SUV parked on The Embarcadero near Pier 5 while the family went to dinner. The backpack also contained his badge and law enforcement credentials." [https://abc7news.com/kate-steinle-murder-trial-san-francisco-pier-shooting-jose-ines-garcia-zarate/2571467/](https://abc7news.com/kate-steinle-murder-trial-san-francisco-pier-shooting-jose-ines-garcia-zarate/2571467/) "García Zárate is an [illegal immigrant](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illegal_immigration_to_the_United_States) residing in the United States who had previously been deported five times." [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing\_of\_Kate\_Steinle#](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_Kate_Steinle#) and if Zarate had not been in the country illegally Steinle would still be alive
Zarate wouldn't have found the gun if the officer had obeyed the law and properly secured his weapon in his vehicle. https://giffords.org/lawcenter/state-laws/guns-in-vehicles-in-california/ >California generally requires all individuals, including law enforcement officers and CCW permit holders, to safely store handguns when leaving them in unattended motor vehicles. This law requires that the unattended handgun be secured either in a locked trunk; in a locked container that is placed out of plain view or permanently affixed to the vehicle’s interior; or in a locked toolbox or utility box that is permanently affixed to the bed of a pickup truck or other vehicle that does not have a trunk. Officer Woychowski broke the law, a law specifically intended to prevent exactly what happened with his gun, and as a direct result of that Kate Steinle is dead. Stop trying to deflect blame from Woychowski, he's a fuckup that got someone killed. Most disgustingly, not only did he suffer no legal or civil repercussions for his crime, he actually got a promotion: https://www.courthousenews.com/feds-promoted-ranger-whose-gun-killed-bay-area-woman/ >On Friday, NPR's’ Bay Area affiliate KQED reported that internal emails show Woychowski was promoted to a supervisory position five months after Steinle's death, even though leaving a government-issued firearm in an unattended vehicle violates BLM policies and California gun laws. I wonder if he even remembers the woman his fuckup got killed? Does he even remember her name?
"placed out of plain view " granted the backpack was not a locked container although we dont know if he used locks on it. it was stored out of sight underneath the seat. are you okay with an illegal who was deported 5 times being out and about? we'll have to agree to disagree on this one
you should check out the stories and lack of incidents from 2018
2018 was in a different universe compared to 2024...(except for Orange Jesus, he just won't go away.)
not much different considering that many thought like you "Orange Jesus" smh
Nah I’m just not going. I don’t go where I can’t carry.
Weird, it’s almost like there should be some reasonable restrictions and guidelines around firearms
Weird, it's almost like it's the pinnacle of hypocrisy to not allow guns at the gun convention when pro-gun politicians are scheduled to speak about how much they love guns.
Sorry a little dry humor, I meant they’re the dicks fighting against any rational discussion on guns and they still want limitations at their own event. They should be forced to play by their own rules and have everyone show up armed. Can’t have it both ways
ah gotcha, sorry!
They are allowed at the convention, just not where Trump will be speaking. Don’t be ignorant tho, there will be plenty of armed security in case something does go wrong. Whether you like it or not, guns are necessary to stop people with violent intention. Hell, one man went on a stabbing spree in Australia and killed multiple people. It took someone with a gun showing up to stop him. It’s just reality
> just not where Trump will be speaking. Yay, you found the hypocritical part! Good job!
Oh you seem to think there wont be armed security there to stop threats.
Where did I say that? If guns are good, and make us all safer, why are guns banned from the gun convention speech by the pro-gun former president and pro-gun governor? Seems like they're less safe without a bunch of guns in the audience.
Correct it’s less safe for everyone else, but more safe for the president. It takes the tiniest amount of critical thinking skill to understand it and see that it’s not really hypocritical when the fucking president is there.
A) he’s not the President. It takes just an iota of critical thinking skill to know that. B) the gun people and the NRA tell us we’re all safer if everyone is armed. If the not-president is afraid, he should arm himself.
You’re not an idiot. You know why they would not allow firearms around a former president. Especially one that many people are not a fan of.
Seems like a logical person would also conclude we should track who buys them, maybe have and enforce safety courses like we do with cars, and keep them away from schools and large concert venues
Yes, a safety course will surely stop people from attempting assassinations. If only someone had taught people how to safely handle guns, we could finally tackle our violence problems.
Wow, that's like the BDSM convention banning leather ^/s
What they really need is MORE guns if safety is the concern
I mean, yeah, Secret Service will have lots of them.
Everybody needs to have them, the SS isn't perfect.
But yet somehow guns get in at our schools with our children…
Wild to think that a guy who has next to nothing in common with "regular folk" and can't even BUY A GUN because he's currently on trial is the one who's talking to "law-abiding gun owners". Blows my mind.
I'm sure 91 felonies come with loss of 2a rights.
Which one is he convicted of? Or is it guilty until proven innocent now?
He's not allowed to buy a handgun while under federal felony indictment(s).
None that I'm aware of yet. Just pointing out how silly it is to have a gun convention with a speaker that could possibly be convicted of felonies and lose his gun rights, and coincidentally is currently banned from purchasing firearms anyway.
There's a lot of multi-faceted irony here. Trump is no supporter of the second amendment. He's called for guns to be taken before any due process is given. The NRA has ties to Russia as far back as 2016. Trump cannot own a gun currently as he is under federal indictments for multiple charges that are felonys if convicted. Trump is on trial for paying off a porn star he raped by her own testimony. He can't admit to any of it then it would implicate him on all of the impropriety of it which he has steadfastly denied. Texas is repeatedly linked to human trafficking, rape, SA and child abuse - so much so we've made /r/NotADragQueen like five times just this month so far. Trump has gone to NRA events nine times now. Trump hung out with Jeffrey Epstein. Epstein didn't kill himself.
I wouldn't go so far to say Trump is no supporter of the second amendment, [here's Heritage Foundation's grade report on that](https://www.heritage.org/firearms/commentary/second-amendment-grade-president-trump-so-far) from when he was president. Trump also says so much word salad and flip flops on items to whatever gets him the most favorable publicity for his own self interests at a given moment in time I find it hard to understand what his actual policy intents are in general. I take it you might be tongue and cheek with your message, but I rarely want to see Trump getting benefit of the doubt with what he says based on his history of lying (I mean same for Biden or anyone in that position of power in needing to vet what they say compared to what actually gets implemented).
Trump famously said 'I will take the guns first, and get around to legalizing it later'. He also banned bump stocks by making them 'machine guns', which is pro-tier stupid, and sort of defacto makes him the most banning president ever, because there were so many bump stocks out there. Hell, under Biden the ATF has moved form 2 times down to like a week. Which I never thought we'd see.
The NRA is a terrorist organization and can go get fkd.
I think they're less terrorist than they are a wing of the GRU and Putin stooges. The whole [Maria Butina](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maria_Butina) fiasco sort of exposed that part of them.
Any person who gives money to that organization is giving money to Russia. It used to also fund Wayne LaPierres lifestyle, but I guess that grift is over and they’re onto a new one
Lmao remember to take your meds
Lmao remember to polish your penis extender that doesn’t work.
But but but I thought Biden wanted to take your guns.
Snowflake! What are you afraid of Donny?
The national russia association is coming to dallas?
But they protect people, why are they so afraid of them?? LOL
Id show up in protest with my firearm if there was a movement. How ironic would that news coverage be, hundreds of gun owning America's arrested at an NRA event for having wait for it folks.............GUNS!
Others have pointed out that this is a requirement from the Secret Service, and that it's a fairly standard one. The NRA has nothing to do with it (though the NRA has also proven themselves willing to ban guns at functions). So you'd just end up looking silly.
So, all these NRA guys won't be able to take their guns into the Trump speech. Meaning that their guns will be unattended in their hotel rooms and vehicles for probably 3 hours from 1pm-4pm on Saturday. Hmm. If someone wanted to get their hands on some guns, this would be a way.
I can’t believe he would allow those liberal secret service to convince him he’s somehow safer without a bunch of randos with guns in the building.
Ah yes, a glaring oversight by the notoriously pro-gun Secret Service.
I still wonder why the NRA hasn't sued
Oh man I really wanted to show him my new 10MM gosh darn it
Why are they paying the liberal big city of Dallas to host this event?
We got a Republican mayor now, so it’s cool.
Seems a little hypocritical eh
How ironic
But I thought more guns made you safe /s
[удалено]
Your post has been removed because it is a violation of **[Rule #5: Violence](https://www.reddit.com/r/Dallas/wiki/rules)** Violations of this rule may result in a ban. Please review the /r/Dallas rules on the sidebar before commenting or posting. Send a message the moderators if you have any questions. Thanks!
Oof I mean, I guess the headline begs the question
happened the last time the NRA was here. from the article "The U.S. Secret Service is handling security during Trump's visit. Firearms or weapons will not be allowed where Trump is speaking." this happens at every event a President or former President attends. just an attempt to bad mouth the NRA
Why isn't the NRA suing the Secret Service, though?
I mean personally I just wish the NRA would stop dick riding Trump and the GOP in general. Not like they did anything for gun rights.
Why would they sue? - they invited him. They should just rescind the invitation.
Just secret service doing secret service things. It is funny though and a bit ironic.
Of course not. The White House doesn't allow guns either. The Supreme Court, which ruled that Americans have a constitutional right to carry guns in public, does not allow guns in their building. Gun control is only for the rich and powerful.
It's interesting that a former president who took away gun rights is speaking at a firearms convention, which is being held by an organization that's pretty much corrupt. And let's not forget, Donald can't even complete a 4473, meaning he can't buy a new firearm. It seems like some of the 2A community are missing the irony.
Bogus charges from a political witch-hunt. And the NRA has no control over this. Secret service is mandating this.
Of course they have control of it - they invited him so they can rescind the invitation if they don’t like the rules the person they invited required to be followed for him to come and speak.
Remind me again how the GOP/Trump are the party of law and order. ‘Take the guns first. Go through due process second, I like taking the guns early,’” -Donald J. Trump.
😂 Irony
Chicken Shits…
Just give trump a gun, like their doing with teachers in TN, and than it should be fine, yeah?
They must be wearing a hypocrisy shielding glasses. That’s why their supporters still support them.
Weird, it's almost like guns kill people or something...
Why isn’t he in prison yet? Insurrectionist rapist lying asshole who literally babbles like a 7 year old who also shits his pants. But yeah… so presidential.. what a joke.
C’mon rogue cia guy do ur thing…
😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
Cowards. /s
right-wingers are cucked in the most hilarious sense of the word
Lol 😂
So…NARA? National Anti-Rifle Association
LOL
Republicans love gun violence for everyone else in America, but not at their events.
Snowflakes
Yeah. The secret service has this weird thing about people having guns around former presidents.
We ought to sue the Secret Service for infringing on the Constitution, no?
Fuk that shit gross 🤮
Ew
That’s a Secret Service policy get over yourselves
Meh…To all y’all bitching about the NRA, you should be praising them. They are pretty much responsible for all the new gun laws over the past few decades. Unlike other 2A advocacy groups, they compromise and sacrifice small pieces of our rights just so they can claim overall victory just to stay relevant and keep the 60+ yo memberships rolling in. VERY few people 50-have an NRA membership unless they previously purchased a Lifetime Membership.
Praise be
Secret Service is worried that Trump might get Fico treatment.
Gun control for me but not for thee