[Leonard D Neubache]

Here's the thing. If a loon decides to gun up and get as close to the stage as possible before taking a shot at Trump then there are a number of factors.

One. He has to keep his cool. Yes, even in crowd situations a half way decent security team are still very good at picking out the nut bars and quietly approaching them before they have a chance to start trouble. Yeah, there was the guy that rushed the stage at that Trump event, but I doubt they'll have the same close up access at this event for that very reason.

Two. Even if said loon got close enough to take a shot he would still be jostling in the crowd when he chose to draw his gun and pull the trigger. Not conducive to accuracy. He'd get one shot and it would likely be spoiled.

Three. Loons are not known for their expert marksmanship. Most are get-famous-quick types who never apply themselves to anything difficult, much less pistol marksmanship.

Four. There is a remote possibility that Trump could get horribly unlucky and still catch a bullet in his eye.

Worst case scenario for a the betting types. A Dem loon spurred on by the murderous MSM shoots up the place for general political reasons rather than as a targeted assassination.

[Leonard D Neubache]

(03-28-2016 01:50 AM)Leonard D Neubache Wrote:  

Here's the thing. If a loon decides to gun up and get as close to the stage as possible before taking a shot at Trump then there are a number of factors.

One. He has to keep his cool. Yes, even in crowd situations a half way decent security team are still very good at picking out the nut bars and quietly approaching them before they have a chance to start trouble. Yeah, there was the guy that rushed the stage at that Trump event, but I doubt they'll have the same close up access at this event for that very reason.

Two. Even if said loon got close enough to take a shot he would still be jostling in the crowd when he chose to draw his gun and pull the trigger. Not conducive to accuracy. He'd get one shot and it would likely be spoiled.

Three. Loons are not known for their expert marksmanship. Most are get-famous-quick types who never apply themselves to anything difficult, much less pistol marksmanship.

Four. There is a remote possibility that Trump could get horribly unlucky and still catch a bullet in his eye.

Likely scenario other than worst case: A Dem loon spurred on by the murderous MSM shoots up the place for general political reasons rather than as a targeted assassination.

[weambulance]

Quote:

I agree with you weambulance. With the 3 scenarios you outlined however I'm going to play the devils advocate. How will the USSS agents properly identify the bad guys from the good guys? Assuming a shot is fired, people carrying are probably going to draw giving the agents a harder job.

That's a common concern, but I don't think it's actually a big deal. The human mind is pretty amazing. It can assess threats in a small fraction of a second with training and experience. There's enough time between seeing a possible threat and actually getting your sights on him* to figure out what he's doing, and the armed citizens would not be aiming at the podium but at the attacker. Plus the guys watching the crowd would probably have already keyed in on the guy acting like a nervous pile of shit, and I imagine most of the armed citizens would simply draw their pistols and keep them pointed at the ground until they found an actual threat nearby. They're not likely to start waving their guns around or trying to shoot through the crowd.

I wouldn't be surprised if a typical beat cop shot someone just for having a gun in his hand in such a situation, but USSS agents should be much better trained and keep cooler heads. After all, in this scenario they would know people in the crowd were carrying pistols so that wouldn't surprise them. I'm sure a lot of them are also former military, combat veteran types. If so, they've had to do thousands of instant threat assessments in a much more hostile environment than they'd find in the US, so they should be pretty good at it.

Of course, friendly fire does happen, but that's just down to the chaos of the gunfight.



* I'd guess 2.0-2.5 seconds to draw from concealment and aim from the time an agent saw the threat. Reaction time, start drawing, priority #1 is the protectee, see he's covered, find the attacker visually again while finishing the draw, aim, fire. Figure a baseline draw and fire from concealment of 1.2-1.5 seconds, then tack on a second to account for surprise and distraction. Add a few more tenths if it's a tricky shot because of the crowd, or the agent is worried about the backdrop (which he should be).

If anyone is wondering where I got my baseline time there, I train with a shot timer a lot and also pay attention to other shooters' draw/split/reload times. 1.2 seconds is quite good from concealment, 1.5 seconds is decent, and Secret Service agents are supposed to be some of the better shooters in law enforcement (for what that's worth). Who knows if they actually are. They might be much slower than I think.

[Leonard D Neubache]

Any mod that wanted to delete my double(quote?) post above and this one would be appreciated. Not sure how that happened.

[Handsome Creepy Eel]

I say yes allow the guns same like they would be allowed (or not) at a concert or rugby game, but be sure to elevate security and keep Trump in a bulletproof glass box with some body armor.

Remember that this time Trump is not a target just for SJWs this time, but also for some "ordinary" Republicans who also view him as "literally Hitler". The media brainwashing is at an extremely high level, how willing are you to bet that some moron listening to Glenn Beck (who has openly made death threats against Trump) wouldn't like to take this opportunity. This is no reason to ban guns for everyone, but it sure is a reason to take enormous precautions.

[Mage]

Guns are good in a virtuous society. In a society where poeple are responsible, sober, not stressed, not sexually frustrated, where people have high moral values, dreams and aspirations.

Guns are bad if people are drunk, high on drugs, depressed, with nothing to lose, frustrated, with no moral values, alienated, divided.

If you want guns you must fight for healthy society where you can trust most of your fellow citizens.

Liberals know they are degrading human beings therefore they also want to take away guns, because they know that liberal humans guided only by feelings, with no values are too dangerous to have guns.

To trully and effectively support guns means also to support and practice abstinance from mind altering substances, support of family values and high ethical norms to the point of them becoming a religous codex.

An atheist society, where everyone is free to degrade as they wish and simultaneosly with guns is unstable to a point of becoming an oxymoron.

[DamienCasanova]

I'm all for guns, but this isn't the best idea for a petition. Sign this petition instead...

Change.org Petition, Pledging to WALK from the Republican Party if Trump is denied the nomination

https://www.change.org/p/chairman-reince...?recruiter

Let it be understood that if Jeb Bush, Ted Cruz, John Kasich, Mitt Romney and the Republican Party power brokers steal the Republican nomination from Donald Trump at the convention -- when Trump is the clear leader -- we will walk out of the Republican party and not support its nominee.

[JacksonRev]

Everyone is missing the forest for the trees.

The tactics of the situation really don't matter. If the new situation doesn't produce a reduced threat level, then it's a no go. You don't change strategy to get an equal or lesser rate of return.

The convention is the most distantly planned, and most potentially chaotic location on Trump's schedule. We have a $343 billion trade deficit with China. We also toppled Saddam, Gaddafi, and attempted to topple Assad, killing hundreds of thousands of people, so that Israel can maintain nuclear hegemony in the middle east .

And those are just two of many players that stand to lose a lot when Trump is elected.

If Trump gets killed, then Hillary wins. Cruz will not win any swing states, and neither will the rest of the potential nominees. That means at least two, and potentially four anti-2A Supreme Court Judges will nominated. And then the 2A will be watered down into nothing.

This whole petition was started on the same moral ground that all the fake Christians/non religious shitlibs used to try to shame real Christians into taking refugees. It's not in good faith, and I will never understand gleefully going along with people that hate you.

Shoot for carry at the 2020 convention. Trump will have built his wall, renegotiated trade deals, and nominated several judges. Plus, it gives the Secret Service years to adequately prepare with simulations. The Secret Service has already asked for emergency funding because they cannot keep up with the Don right now. So they certainly don't have the resources to completely overhaul their preparations for the RNC.

[Handsome Creepy Eel]

(03-28-2016 01:10 PM)DamienCasanova Wrote:  

I'm all for guns, but this isn't the best idea for a petition. Sign this petition instead...

Change.org Petition, Pledging to WALK from the Republican Party if Trump is denied the nomination

https://www.change.org/p/chairman-reince...?recruiter

Let it be understood that if Jeb Bush, Ted Cruz, John Kasich, Mitt Romney and the Republican Party power brokers steal the Republican nomination from Donald Trump at the convention -- when Trump is the clear leader -- we will walk out of the Republican party and not support its nominee.

Your link appears to be malfunctioning, here's another one.

[DamienCasanova]

http://observer.com/2016/03/secret-ident...-revealed/

The petition is the brainchild of a Democratic activist and blogger named James P. Ryan, who claims to be satirizing rather than supporting the idea that Republicans should bring weapons into their nominating convention.

In an interview with Newsweek, in which he went only by “Jim” and declined to reveal his full identity, Mr. Ryan claimed to be a Democrat who is not a gun owner and is “absolutely” in favor of gun control. He claims to be “overwhelmed” by the attention the petition has received. He told the magazine that he started the petition as “satire.” The magazine reported that he is “based on the West Coast,” but the Observer reached him on a Philadelphia cel number.

“I am passionate about gun control and discouraging gun violence,” Mr. Ryan told the Observer. “When talk of a contested convention started brewing, I started thinking. On March 3rd, I threw a joke up on Facebook and Twitter and said, ‘hey guys, you really want guns at your contested convention?'”

Part of the petition’s success lies in how authentic the language is—it doesn’t read like a left-wing satire of “right-wing gun nuts.” Asked how he got the language so right, Mr. Ryan said, “It was an attempt to be aware of the language, taking the gun rights people at their word and not caricature them. We talk past each other in American politics. I’m seeing a lot of ‘oh, it’s a Hillary troll who started this thing.’ Who cares who started it? Take a look at the words and see if you support it or not.”

Mr. Ryan is, in fact, a Hillary supporter. He told the Observer, “I’m a liberal Democrat. I like Bernie a lot. I’ve donated to Bernie, I’ve donated to Hillary. I’m supporting Hillary, but I’m not a Hillary supporter in the sense that I’m carrying petitions.”

[spokepoker]

This is a stupid petition and a stupid idea.

[weambulance]

(03-30-2016 10:45 AM)DamienCasanova Wrote:  

http://observer.com/2016/03/secret-ident...-revealed/

The petition is the brainchild of a Democratic activist and blogger named James P. Ryan, who claims to be satirizing rather than supporting the idea that Republicans should bring weapons into their nominating convention.

In an interview with Newsweek, in which he went only by “Jim” and declined to reveal his full identity, Mr. Ryan claimed to be a Democrat who is not a gun owner and is “absolutely” in favor of gun control. He claims to be “overwhelmed” by the attention the petition has received. He told the magazine that he started the petition as “satire.” The magazine reported that he is “based on the West Coast,” but the Observer reached him on a Philadelphia cel number.

“I am passionate about gun control and discouraging gun violence,” Mr. Ryan told the Observer. “When talk of a contested convention started brewing, I started thinking. On March 3rd, I threw a joke up on Facebook and Twitter and said, ‘hey guys, you really want guns at your contested convention?'”

Part of the petition’s success lies in how authentic the language is—it doesn’t read like a left-wing satire of “right-wing gun nuts.” Asked how he got the language so right, Mr. Ryan said, “It was an attempt to be aware of the language, taking the gun rights people at their word and not caricature them. We talk past each other in American politics. I’m seeing a lot of ‘oh, it’s a Hillary troll who started this thing.’ Who cares who started it? Take a look at the words and see if you support it or not.”

Mr. Ryan is, in fact, a Hillary supporter. He told the Observer, “I’m a liberal Democrat. I like Bernie a lot. I’ve donated to Bernie, I’ve donated to Hillary. I’m supporting Hillary, but I’m not a Hillary supporter in the sense that I’m carrying petitions.”

Interesting, but it doesn't change my mind at all. Plenty of people on the left think things I do regularly are crazy. So what?

[captain_shane]

(03-30-2016 10:45 AM)DamienCasanova Wrote:  

http://observer.com/2016/03/secret-ident...-revealed/

The petition is the brainchild of a Democratic activist and blogger named James P. Ryan, who claims to be satirizing rather than supporting the idea that Republicans should bring weapons into their nominating convention.

In an interview with Newsweek, in which he went only by “Jim” and declined to reveal his full identity, Mr. Ryan claimed to be a Democrat who is not a gun owner and is “absolutely” in favor of gun control. He claims to be “overwhelmed” by the attention the petition has received. He told the magazine that he started the petition as “satire.” The magazine reported that he is “based on the West Coast,” but the Observer reached him on a Philadelphia cel number.

“I am passionate about gun control and discouraging gun violence,” Mr. Ryan told the Observer. “When talk of a contested convention started brewing, I started thinking. On March 3rd, I threw a joke up on Facebook and Twitter and said, ‘hey guys, you really want guns at your contested convention?'”

Part of the petition’s success lies in how authentic the language is—it doesn’t read like a left-wing satire of “right-wing gun nuts.” Asked how he got the language so right, Mr. Ryan said, “It was an attempt to be aware of the language, taking the gun rights people at their word and not caricature them. We talk past each other in American politics. I’m seeing a lot of ‘oh, it’s a Hillary troll who started this thing.’ Who cares who started it? Take a look at the words and see if you support it or not.”

Mr. Ryan is, in fact, a Hillary supporter. He told the Observer, “I’m a liberal Democrat. I like Bernie a lot. I’ve donated to Bernie, I’ve donated to Hillary. I’m supporting Hillary, but I’m not a Hillary supporter in the sense that I’m carrying petitions.”

I knew this shit was started by someone on the left, I fucking knew it. One shot pops off and gun grabbers can say "told you so". Thought it was a Soros type, but point still remains.

[Leonard D Neubache]

No matter one signature or one million. The secret service killed it. Sad in as much as a non-government body should have been the one to make the call.

We'll be left wondering whether the SS made the call to take the heat off of the other responsible parties or simply because they think theirs is the first and last word.