Trump And Carson Mock Gun-Free Zones At Their Gun-Free Rallies

A bit of a hanging curve here.

While they have waxed poetic on the wonderful protections for the country that an armed citizenry would provide, shocking Carson and Trump are doing it from gun free zones.

Having accepted Secret Service protections, their rallies are no those dastardly, potentially incredibly dangerous gun free zones.

Which begs the question, if the armed citizenry is such a great idea, why woudl they accept Secret Service protection, where only the few protection officials are armed?

Or perhaps a more reasoned approach should be followed, in my opinion, one where CCW is allowed, but places like campaign rallies, where the potentiality for chaos with dozens or hundreds of armed citizens, is better left to a few policing or protection folks.


http://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/gun-free-zones-trump-carson

Republican presidential contender Ben Carson has a simple solution for preventing a Paris-style attack at one of his campaign rallies: "If a bunch of terrorists came in here and there were people in here with guns, it would be very unlikely that they would be able to carry about the kind of massacre they did in Paris."

But there's a snag in that approach — the demands of the Secret Service agents now protecting him, at his request (and at taxpayer expense). They don't allow any guns except those carried by authorized personnel.

At Carson's rallies as well as Donald Trump's, there's a dissonance between the faith they put in the hands of armed citizens to keep public events safe and the Secret Service protection they rely on for their own security.

To be sure, a campaign rally with a polarizing candidate on stage — or any candidate — is not the same as a soccer stadium or nightclub like the ones attacked in Paris. The Secret Service began protecting certain candidates in presidential primaries after the killing of Robert Kennedy in 1968, which followed the assassination of his brother, President John F. Kennedy, in 1963, out of fear that more political figures — not just presidents — would be targeted.

Yet for the public, political rallies to which the agency is assigned are decidedly the "gun-free zones" that Trump has explicitly called for ending and that Carson supports doing away with, too, judging from his rhetoric.

In November, Trump told a crowd of several thousand at a rally in Knoxville, Tennessee, that "Paris is one of the places in the world that's toughest on guns" so Parisians were left vulnerable.

"There was nothing anybody can do," he said. "I know one thing, in this room, it's a whole different story, right?" The crowd cheered.

He was right that it was a different story than Paris — but that was because of the Secret Service people in the room, not citizens packing guns.

Asked about the rules after that rally, Secret Service spokeswoman Nicole Mainor said, "Any assumption that non-authorized law enforcement personnel at this venue or any other Secret Service-secured protected event were armed would be inaccurate." She said if someone who did not have authority to bring a weapon showed up with one, that person would be arrested by local authorities.

Carson mocked the concept of gun-free zones in his rally Tuesday night in Georgia, before a crowd of about 2,000. "You have people who want to kill you and you're going to say, 'Uh, why don't you come over here, none of us have guns,'" he said to laughter and applause. "I mean that is just so asinine it's unbelievable."

He spoke at center stage with armed Secret Service agents standing to his left and his right.

But he acknowledged them.

"I don't know if this is a gun-free zone here," he said. "Now fortunately we have some Secret Service. ... They have guns."

Trump and Carson have joined Democrat Hillary Clinton as the only 2016 candidates with Secret Service details at this point in the campaign. Clinton has had some level of Secret Service protection since 1992, when her husband, Bill, was elected president. Carson and Trump began receiving protection in November.

Once a candidate requests Secret Service protection, the agency does not make the decision. Federal law authorizes the homeland security secretary to decide which "major Presidential and Vice Presidential candidates" should be protected, based on their standing in the race and perceived threats. The secretary consults with a congressional advisory panel that includes leaders of both parties in the House and Senate and one additional member of Congress.

Before Robert Kennedy's murder on the night of the California Democratic primary in 1968, Secret Service protection was not standard for political candidates. Soon afterward, protection was extended to major candidates for president and vice president as well as to their spouses.

Jon Adler, a law enforcement officer, gun-rights advocate and president of the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association Foundation, said he'd favor letting people bring guns to rallies if the Secret Service were not there — but not when the agency is assigned to the candidate. That, he said, would mean "a Wild, Wild West set of circumstance

 

well the most stupid thing we can have are areas where there are nothing but unarmed victims. If someone wants a gun free zone-they need to have armed guards controlling access to said zone etc. like a courthouse. I have no problem with that because in the courtrooms I tried cases for 30 years, you had to go through an armed checkpoint to get access and there were armed federal agents in every courtroom and armed agents patrolling the halls and armed US Marshal's Service agents in the building and armed FBI agents and some prosecutors constantly in the building as well and the office of probation that also had armed probation officers

 

Pretty sure the Federal Restricted Buildings and Grounds Improvement Act of 2011 put a defacto gun free zone anywhere the SS is..

 

So, do we now expect to have armed SS members in theaters, malls, etc. Swing and a miss, he struck him out!

 

The SS (and local LE) are armed. This is hardly a "gun free zone"

Would a homicidal maniac hell bent on killing as many innocent people as possible choose a Trump or Carson rally that's packed with police and SS that are all armed?

Your thread fails young one. Try again later.

 

I don't.

10char

- - - Updated - - -

I don't know. Perhaps because it is full of politically aware folks and tv cameras.

 

MOD EDIT - Rule 3

"Asked about the rules after that rally, Secret Service spokeswoman Nicole Mainor said, "Any assumption that non-authorized law enforcement personnel at this venue or any other Secret Service-secured protected event were armed would be inaccurate." She said if someone who did not have authority to bring a weapon showed up with one, that person would be arrested by local authorities."

Its not up to Carson or Trump.

 

The whole comparison being made between these events and the "gun free zones" that everyone else is talking about is apples and oranges. MOD EDIT - Rule 3

 

awesome post, great catch!!!

their double talk is rabid with conflict. yet I doubt they would ever admit their mistakes.

 

The first sentence of your post above is the most accurate thing you've ever posted.

Note to self, "politically aware folks and TV cameras" will stop a maniac hell bent on causing death.

MOD EDIT - Rule 3

 

There seems to be a disconnect between what I stated and how it is being interpreted.

What you said was this.

To which I replied the following.

Essentially, you asked a question, I answered it, and your post seems to reiterate my answer as the opposite of what I stated.

 

Read the article there is no double talk.

"Asked about the rules after that rally, Secret Service spokeswoman Nicole Mainor said, "Any assumption that non-authorized law enforcement personnel at this venue or any other Secret Service-secured protected event were armed would be inaccurate." She said if someone who did not have authority to bring a weapon showed up with one, that person would be arrested by local authorities."

People wonder why we keep getting the same idiots in office.. Perhaps its because people are incapable of reading a short article!

 

MOD EDIT - Rule 5/Reply to Deleted

Its not a great catch and its not a great post. Its a flat out stupid article because there are SS and local LE armed to the teeth so its anything but a gun free zone.

- - - Updated - - -

The double talk its trying to call a place with SS and LE armed to the teeth a gun free zone. Its simply stupid.

 

Let's ask the residents of San Bernardino how well the gun free zones are working.

 

Yeah, if the claim is more people armed, why can't that abide by their own words.

 

Federal law...

"Asked about the rules after that rally, Secret Service spokeswoman Nicole Mainor said, "Any assumption that non-authorized law enforcement personnel at this venue or any other Secret Service-secured protected event were armed would be inaccurate." She said if someone who did not have authority to bring a weapon showed up with one, that person would be arrested by local authorities."


READ.

 

Wasn't there a recent incident of 2 newscasters getting whacked on camera by an ex-weatherman.

The former television reporter who gunned down two journalists and wounded a third person on live television Wednesday morning -- apparently out of anger over the Charleston, S.C., church shootings -- killed himself as police closed in on him along a Virginia highway.
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/08/26/active-shooter-reportedly-attacks-tv-crew-in-virginia/

Plus jihadists don't plan on surviving so the thought of getting caught.......actually there is no thought of getting caught.

 

There is a bit of hypocrisy, I have to admit. Their rhetoric supports the right to self defense, but then they take that right away when people want to attend their rallies. Do as I say, not as I do.

Now, if they would really put their money where their mouth is, they would decline secret service protection and carry their own gun to their gun-allowed rallies, so they can shoot down attackers themselves, as the heroes they claim to be.

 

There you go.
Thank you for arguing apples and oranges.

 

Which brings up an interesting point.

Is CCW not needed because there is law enforcement in this country?

 

Thread fail! Whether or not guns are allowed depend on local laws and venue policies not the candidates.....derp!!!!

 

I'm sorry.... the premise of your topic is unsound.
You're done here.

 

Am I?

I am not sure I understand your point. It seems very easy for these politicians to wax poetic about how wonderful gun carrying is, when the audience is disarmed.

Does that not seem a bit hypocritical to you?

 

Dr. Carson is wrong practically every time he opens his mouth. If people arm themselves at rallies, and if someone starts shooting, a bullet frenzy could break out killing many in the crowd.

 

I think only your typical gun carrying American should be allowed into Trump and Carson rallies. And since they'd then be so safe, because you know guns prevent shootings (somehow), they should both forgo Secret Service protection.

Let's see how that goes.