Richmond Coliseum Bans VCDL Stickers
Remember, I do this to entertain me, not you.
Uncle Pays the Bills
 |
|
Find Local
|
Categories
- ATF (769)
- Death Match (10)
- Eminent Domain (225)
- In the bag (9)
- Notes to Junior (546)
- Poker (74)
- Recipes (142)
- Shotgun Noob (11)
- The Airing of Grievances (19)
- uncategorized (47,725)
June 8th, 2009 at 11:36 am
The funny thing is that we recently won the battle that allowed patrons to carry guns in the Coliseum.
They couldn’t ban the actual guns, so they banned the stickers instead.
Pure spiteful pettiness if you ask me.
June 8th, 2009 at 11:49 am
Amazing. I notice that the SMG people didn’t try to stop us at the Republican Convention. It was a sea of orange stickers at the Convention. I was handing out stickers left and right to Delegates and candidates for office. More people than not were sporting attractive round additions to their attire.
June 8th, 2009 at 11:53 am
So much for being viewpoint-neutral….
June 8th, 2009 at 12:40 pm
Reading that account, I think things start off with fair concern, but you can’t attack the “other political literature” bit credibly. “We Surround Them” is an effort organized by Glenn Beck, the person who was hosting the event. Of course his literature will be available.
I think if they left the focus on why VCDL was told to stop distributing stickers, it would be a better fight to pick. Unfortunately, sidetracking it to attack Beck’s own project as a favored entity really takes it off course.
Now, that said, it’s very possible that Beck’s own people put down a rule about other literature or handouts by other organizations. It could be concern about competition when he clearly rented the venue to promote his efforts. It could also be a flat rule about nothing other than his own materials in order to keep left wing causes from trying to hijack it for media purposes. Whether it’s right or wrong, or whether the facility staff and police handled it in the right way is a reasonable debate if that’s the case.
I think it’s fair concern to get to the root of what happened and how it was handled, but trying to make out Glenn Beck’s projects to be favored political entities (which, by the way, are pro-gun!) is not exactly an honest assessment.
June 8th, 2009 at 3:33 pm
Mentioning that another political group was handing out literature with no problem is an “attack”???
Out of the entire posting, only one mention of the other group was made:
“Interestingly, another group, “We Surround Them, Richmond” handed out their literature without a single problem from staff or the police.
Gun owners targeted for special treatment? Gee-Whiz, I’m shocked!”
Doesn’t seem like much of an attack to me. Seems more like an observation (and a very valid and pertinent one at that).
It also doesn’t seem to me like Phillip was “trying to make out Glenn Beck’s projects to be favored political entities”. It seems to me that Phillip was making the point that pro-gun political speech is often specifically DIS-favored.
Sometimes I think it’s just some sort of natural instinct for certain individuals to badmouth the efforts of any pro-gun organization who’s initials aren’t “NRA”.
There’s nothing wrong with constructive criticism, but is it really “constructive” when it’s based on fantasy?
June 8th, 2009 at 5:36 pm
It seems it’s up to us to educate police on the fact that there are still a few limitations to what they may do. Eeesh.
June 8th, 2009 at 9:43 pm
Sounds like one more amendment they have to memorize…
June 9th, 2009 at 5:10 am
I have to admit that I am bitterly considering another point of view, but I just can’t seem to get past all the excremental unfounded postulations in it. It sounded sort of, maybe, kind of, supportive of 2A, but then it seemed to ……Oh well, I just can’t get past the shi…..uh excrement. I guess I’ll just have be bitterly disappointed, again.