For the past several years, every time there is a mass shooting, before the families even have time to grieve, Republican politicians have come out to explain that the thing that could stop these shootings is not more gun control, but less. The dangerous thing here, they insist, is not the ease with which homicidal maniacs can legally obtain guns, but the fact that there are “gun-free zones” in the first place. These “gun-free zones,” they claim, prevent “good guys with guns” from stopping “bad guys with guns.”

Thus, one has to wonder why the Republican National Convention is being held in the Quicken Loans Arena which is, in fact, a gun-free zone. Or why every other convention they’ve had was held in a gun-free zone. Are they not terrified for their safety?

Donald Trump, one of the many Republican politicians who has spoken out against gun-free zones and has offered vehement support for allowing guns in schools, says that he will have to “read the fine print” before he decides to say that the RNC should allow open carry. Really? Schools should have to allow students to carry guns around, but the Republican National Convention should be allowed to ban them? That just doesn’t seem right.

The Secret Service has said that guns will absolutely not be allowed at the convention, because federal law prohibits firearms in places protectees—presidential candidates—are visiting.

Why? Are they somehow better and more deserving than the rest of us?

This may come as a surprise, given the fact that I have been an outspoken supporter of gun control, but I absolutely think the Republican National Convention should be an open carry zone. In fact, I even joined more than 44,000 of my fellow citizens in signing a petition to make the Republican National Convention open carry.

First of all, I am especially fine with this because I have no problem with a bunch of people who oppose gun laws and enjoy being around people who are strapped to the teeth with AK-47s all being in the same building together. I believe in consent! If everyone in an enclosed space agrees to the same terms, then I have no problem with it. In fact, I would go so far as to say that I believe that if two people would like to formally agree to some kind of Wild West gun duel to the death, that doing so should not be illegal, so long as their life insurance policy is voided as it would be in the case of suicide.

Second? I don’t think that people who argue against me having the right to be in a place where guns aren’t allowed ought to have that luxury themselves. I don’t see how that’s fair at all.

My personal problem with people having guns in public places is where it concerns me and other people who do not want to be around guns, who believe in gun control, and do not believe that all gun owners are “responsible” gun owners. My problem is when I am told I’m not allowed to say “Hey, being in a Starbucks filled with a bunch of dudes covered in AK-47s would not be a pleasant experience for me!” My problem is when I am told that I am not even allowed to say “I would prefer to have areas in which there are no guns.” Because even feelingthis way treads all over someone’s Second Amendment rights, apparently.

I once had a commenter lose their shit at me because I said that if I had children I would not allow them to play at another kid’s house if their parents had guns—which my own mother did not allow either.

I have been told, over and over again, that despite all the mass shootings, despite all the gun deaths, despite all the little kids shooting people accidentally or on purpose, despite the fact that statistically a gun in the house is far more likely to be used to commit suicide or homicide than it is to be used for self-defense, that I must believe that all gun owners are responsible. I am told that background checks at all levels are unnecessary because criminals will get guns illegally anyway. You know, like how we should eliminate age restrictions on cigarettes and booze just because I was able to get those things in high school anyway. I am told that requiring some amount of training to own a gun like we do with cars would be a violation of Second Amendment rights.

I do not think that the Republican National Convention ought to even be allowed to keep people with guns out. I do not believe they should be allowed to take that safety precaution, if they are going to keep insisting that doing so is not a safety precaution.

[Change.Org]

[Washington Post]