Unsaid threats are the best threats.

The SEC ain’t happy about the state of Arkansas preparing to allow guns at college sporting events.

SEC Commissioner Greg Sankey that the measure signed into law last week by Gov. Asa Hutchinson creates concerns for the conference and its member institutions. The new law allows people with concealed handgun licenses to carry on college campuses, government buildings and some bars if they undergo up to eight hours of active shooter training.

The University of Arkansas is an SEC school, and Donald W. Reynolds Razorback Stadium holds 72,000 people.

“Given the intense atmosphere surrounding athletic events, adding weapons increases safety concerns and could negatively impact the intercollegiate athletics program at the University of Arkansas in several ways, including scheduling, officiating, recruiting and attendance,” Sankey said in a statement. A spokesman for the conference declined to answer whether the new law would threaten future SEC games in Arkansas.

Why answer, when the question itself speaks volumes?

Thus beginneth the backtracking.

An Arkansas House committee advanced a measure Tuesday to exempt college sporting events from a state law allowing guns after the Southeastern Conference appealed for guns to be banned from facilities such as football stadiums.

Gov. Asa Hutchinson signed the new state law last week allowing concealed handguns at colleges, government buildings, some bars and even the State Capitol.

The House Judiciary Committee advanced the exemption measure after it was amended. Under the amended exemption, college stadiums such as the University of Arkansas’ Donald W. Reynolds Razorback Stadium and the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences would be able to designate sensitive areas where they wouldn’t want people to carry concealed handguns. To prohibit concealed carry in those sensitive areas, they would have to put together a security plan for those areas and submit it to Arkansas State Police for approval.

Republican Rep. Bob Ballinger told the panel that the changes to the proposed exemption measure were made to address concerns people had with the original bill.

“We took ten steps forward, and a lot of people weren’t quite ready to go that far forward. So now we’re taking one step backward,” Ballinger said.

Ballinger said that if college sporting events and the medical facilities were going to prohibit concealed carry, then they must demonstrate that they will provide the necessary security.

The National Rifle Association, which supported the expanded concealed handguns law, opposes the exemption measure in its current and previous form.

The SEC vs. the NRA?  Boy, talk about your meteor game there.  I guess we’re about to find out whether football or guns hold more weight in the South, although I suspect those handsome checks the conference sends Fayetteville’s way every year may have an impact on the deliberations, too.

Advertisements

97 Comments

Filed under Political Wankery, SEC Football

97 responses to “Unsaid threats are the best threats.

  1. Hogbody Spradlin

    Guns and Booze are the original “What Could Go Wrong” combo. Add another huge emotional catalyst and you’ve got . . . . WOW!

    Like

    • dawgtired

      LOL. “Hold my beer and watch this!”

      We could open up ammo stands right next to the beer stands. Think of the revenue.

      Like

    • Former Fan

      Was coming in here to comment on the same thing. I wouldn’t mind people with concealed permits to carry at sporting events. But if the booze is free flowing, that would concern me. I imagine that the crime rate among those with concealed carry permits is extraordinarily low. But any time alcohol is added to the mix, rational thinking is not to be expected.

      Like

    • gastr1

      Re: guns and booze….No concerns at all expressed by these govs re: college dorms.

      Like

  2. Without commenting on the issue at hand (concealed carry at sporting events), if the SEC is threatening to kick Arkansas out over this, can’t they get the state of Missouri to do this instead?

    Like

  3. MLB2

    Unlike the hood rats and rednecks depicted on TV, most concealed carry permit holders are very hesitant to pull their weapons. It’s a right that is under threat and we don’t want to give opponents any ammo. Pun intended. The NCAA and the conferences would be better off focusing on academics and athletics leaving the petty social politics alone, imho.

    Like

    • It’s a right that is under threat…

      I’m in favor of gun rights, generally speaking, but when I read sentiments like that, I can only roll my eyes.

      How’s that whole “Obama’s gonna take our guns away” thing working out for you?

      Like

      • There’s only 300 million guns in this country and the Supreme Court declared the 2nd a personal right 9 long years ago. Can’t you see that we’re on the precipice of a gun free society? It’s a crisis situation.

        Like

      • Former Fan

        He tried very hard to limit access to guns. Thankfully, he wasn’t successful. There are many people out there that would gladly eliminate guns if they could. I don’t think Obama would have gone that far, but he clearly wanted to limit access to them.

        Like

        • There is no such thing as an absolute Constitutional right. That includes the 2nd Amendment.

          Liked by 1 person

          • Former Fan

            IMO, Obama wanted a lot more limits to the 2nd amendment than are reasonable. He tried repeatedly to limit my right to own a gun. I’ve been damaged far more by voters in this country than I have gun owners. But gun owners have to show an ID and voters don’t. Go figure.

            Like

        • Limiting gun access in Chicago has really worked wonders on gun-related crime.

          The problem is that the people that buy/use them illegally are going to do it regardless of restraints. The only people that lose are the people that legally use theirs.

          Liked by 1 person

      • MLB2

        Under threat more on a state level imo. I don’t pay much attention to the feds so the whole “Obama’s going to take our guns away” doesn’t apply to me. Funny to see how quick some are to respond so negatively to a differing opinion. Nice to hear from you, Derek.

        Like

      • Legatedawg

        I have to confess that I’m puzzled. If the Arkansas legislature thinks that this is such a great idea, then why don’t they legalize it in their own State Capital building first?

        Like

    • 'Ol Gill

      This isn’t politics, it’s public safety.

      Like

      • Cousin Eddie

        that depends on which side of the actual gun you are on.

        Like

        • 'Ol Gill

          Yeah, I could definitely be labled a 2nd amendment defender. Do I think people driving through a school zone should be arrested for having a gun. Nope. Do I want an 18 year old high school senior to be allowed to carry a gun in school. Nope.

          Like the Senator said, no right is absolute.

          Like

  4. Ben

    Sometimes I feel like this whole country has lost its damned mind.

    Like

    • More like one-half of the country believes the other half has lost its collective damned mind.

      Like

      • Uglydawg

        That’s a two way street. What happened? How the hell did we all start hating one another?

        Like

        • Very much so. I remember the days when you could have differing political discussions without them devolving into personal insults.

          Some of the problem stems from gerrymandering, IMHO. There is little political incentive these days for politicians to work on a bi-partisan basis.

          Like

          • Former Fan

            Some of the problem probably is gerrymandering. However, some of it has to do with how fast the morals of society are changing and being forced to embrace those changing morals. And some of it has to do with the economy.

            Like

            • I think we should add the internet/social media too. We are connected to more people than ever–yet we are further from people personally than we have ever been. Online there is a disconnect between an opinion and that person. Its easy to run someone down not having to have a real live relationship with them. This connectivity has also created a world where only hyperbole is noticed, which decreases the size of overlap between the two sides.

              Like

              • PTC DAWG

                Well said….

                Like

              • Will (The Other One)

                Yep. But also throw in a time of economic change the likes we really haven’t seen since the industrial age (not only are the coal / manufacturing jobs likely not coming back, but we’re less than a decade from automation making “truck driver” join “pony express mailman” in the list of ex-careers — and neither Dems nor Republicans are doing a good job of even acknowledging that this is coming.) What do you do when the people don’t want to retrain for something totally different than something that might have been their family business for decades? No easy answers there.

                Like

                • @Will: Saw a comment from one of the administration folks, not being worried about robots yet–that is down the road. This is an answer about robots and predictions of how fast they are going to be taking jobs.
                  With the speed things have changed in the last 20 years, that down the road, is a hell of a lot closer than the D’s or R’s think. What the hell, closer than what most people think.

                  Like

              • @lamont: Yep, it is a lot easier to say “shit” when the person is not in your sight. I do not see it getting any better though.
                Plus, as stated by someone above, being bi partisan is a death wish for a politician, which is too damn bad.
                Social media, gerrymandering, changing society all in the mix.

                Like

            • gastr1

              Ah, that old saw about morality. Here’s another old saw… you can’t legislate it.

              Like

              • Former Fan

                You can’t… but all law is based in morality. Don’t murder. Don’t steal. Don’t lie under oath. Etc. All based in morality. Law doesn’t make people moral but it helps them act in moral ways. Society helps with that too. That said, I am not for going overboard on it. But to say one can’t legislate moral laws… well that just leads to lawlessness. Most people are for or against a particular law because of the morals they hold.

                Like

                • This is bullshit. Would you just kill a man for no reason if you lived in anarchy with no law enforcement, no statutes, no courts, and no prisons?

                  If you need the law to act morally then you ain’t moral. The laws are for the protection of the moral from the immoral acts of others. If we were all acted morally we wouldn’t need criminal laws.

                  Like

                  • “If men were angels, no government would be necessary.” — James Madison

                    Like

                  • Former Fan

                    If that’s how you really feel Derek, then we don’t need any laws at all, and we especially don’t need any gun laws… right?

                    Like

                    • Former Fan

                      Mostly agree with you Derek. Misread you at first. But I don’t see how your post disagrees with mine. Most all laws are based in morality and meant to protect the moral from the immoral. Laws don’t change people but they do influence their behavior.

                      Like

                    • “Law…. helps (people) act in moral ways” is what got my attention.

                      I just think that is incorrect. I don’t think there is a moral foundation to the criminal code. The fact that there is some overlap just causes confusion and over simplifications.

                      Morality exists with or without written law. The written law is a function of an organized society. It is not surprising that some of the things that are immoral are also penalized in criminal codes but they are so for entirely different reasons.

                      God doesn’t want people to kill one another for moral reasons. A citizen wants to be protected from murder for an entirely different set of reasons. Organized society depends upon written laws. Morality does not depend upon written laws.

                      If you don’t think that the law can exist without God, try killing someone in China. Those heathens will take that shit seriously I guarantee it.

                      Like

          • Hogbody Spradlin

            Blutarsky, IMHO eras of civil political discourse have been the exception rather than the rule in American history. I do agree that computers allow gerrymandering down to block and street level these days.

            Like

            • Will (The Other One)

              This is a good point too. As divided as Congress is, no one’s whopped anyone else with a cane yet…

              Like

        • There’s always been tension in this country but there had also been a large, reasonable middle. Not anymore. Getting rid of the fairness doctrine probably contributed to it more than anything else. No way Il Douche gets the nomination or even makes it close on Election Day without the prominence and power of right wing media which was birthed by the elimination of the fairness doctrine. .

          Liked by 1 person

          • 81Dog

            Right. Because left wing views get zero attention from the big 3 TV networks, CNN, the NYT, WaPo, MSNBC, the AJC, blah blah blah. Keep telling yourself the problem is Fox News, and that “conservatives” are just idiots who can’t understand the delicate genius of enlightened liberals. I’m sure that will solve everything.

            Liked by 1 person

            • There would be no foxnews without Rush. That’s where right wing radio started. There is only right wing radio because of the fairness doctrine and the fact that you can’t make money on left wing radio. No enchantment with the echo chamber on one side of things.

              I know most wingers are too dumb to understand the difference but there’s a gap between implicit bias and propaganda. The Washington Post does not aspire to be a news outlet for the DNC. Fox News is the media wing of the RNC and they’re proud of it. There’s a difference.

              Like

              • Former Fan

                If CNN and the rest weren’t so biased these days, Fox News wouldn’t exist either. Fox News helps balance out the rest of em.

                Like

                • No. It just puts people who want to hear what they want to hear in an echo chamber of bullshit. And again, I am not suggesting that the vast majority of journalism students aren’t liberal in their thinking. The vast majority of economic majors aren’t. It’s the way it is.

                  But there is a huge difference between having a world view that colors your ideas about things and endeavoring to be a propaganda outlet. One is searching for the truth and is subject to human failings. The other is dead set on its listeners being removed from the truth. That’s not balancing anything but creating an environment where a fucking joke can be the leader of the free world. The total disregard for truth is dangerous and corrosive to democracy which is premised on the idea that we can, collectively, be entrusted with governance. We are certainly undermining that notion and Putin is loving it.

                  I can just hear him explaining to Russia why Russia does not need more freedom: what you want clown running things? Government is too important to be left in the hands of reality tv star.

                  You got played by the biggest long con in history and it’s gonna get ugly.
                  http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2017/03/28/trump-business-past-ties-russian-mobsters-organized-crime/98321252/

                  Like

                  • Former Fan

                    You think economist aren’t liberal? Keynesian economics is a huge force in liberalism.

                    Like

                    • I’m saying your average journalism student will be more liberal than your average economics student. It is the reason for the implicit liberal bias in the mainstream media.

                      Like

                  • Former Fan

                    The news media is a propaganda outlet. They should quit pretending to be unbiased when it so blatantly obvious how biased they really are. If CNN was the same now as it was in the early 80s, Fox News would not have risen to the heights it has today.

                    Like

                    • That’s simply not true. Look how the mainstream media treated Bill Clinton during the Lewinsky scandal and look how Fox treats the Russia issue. Its not close to the same.

                      At bottom, the mainstream media is driven to make profits and is populated by people who are generally liberal trying desperately to appear fair. That is one issue. Probably unavoidable. The corporations that own the media want to make money and journalists tend to be liberal.

                      Contrast that with purposefully making your audience dumber. That’s what Fox News does and study after study shows that they are quite effective at it.

                      Like

                    • At Former Fan: Disagree totally with the idea that Fox would not have risen to the heights it has. A number of people saw a market that could be milked and mined and jumped on it. And they nailed a market. For that I give them props, and not a Fox fan at all. It is all in the eye of the beholder as to whether the media is propaganda or not—just look at this blog.

                      Like

              • Debby Balcer

                Derek you are a part of the problem. You always insult those who disagree with you. For progress to be made both sides need to stop the name calling and compromise neither side has the answers and spewing hatred and divisiveness is hunting our country; this us versus them has got to stop there is no them we are all us. As a moderate I get so tired of hearing this from both sides. Learning how to civilly discuss issues is a must for progress.

                Like

                • I just disagree. It’s the normalizing of anything that is our problem. Toleration of whatever has led to tolerating Mein Führgrabber. Do you think there is any other time in our history that we could have elected a man who bragged about sexually assaulting women? Who said venereal disease was his own personal Vietnam? A thrice married philanderer who has more bankruptcies than divorces? If the gop had any moral fiber they would have ran the guy out and let him run as an independent. But they are whores who’d rather sacrifice integrity than votes.

                  We don’t need more toleration. We need more truth. Sometimes the truth is that people are dumb. As we all will have to pay for that stupidity I will not contribute to bringing comfort to it.

                  Like

                  • Chris

                    Solid melt, Snowflake! 8.5/10. Points deducted for no “literally Hitler.”

                    Like

                    • As I understand the “snowflake” meme it means someone easily offended. I dare you to even try to offend me. I honestly don’t think I’m capable of being offended, but maybe you’re the guy who can. I can’t wait. Go for it!

                      Like

                    • Chris

                      On the other hand, as enjoyable as the melt was to read, you really dropped the ball on the “but Russia!” talking point. Your DNC handlers will be disappointed. Sad!

                      Like

                    • I’m not offended yet you ignorant crypto-fascist, troglodyte, Il Douche backing, treasonous, Moscovite candidate loving moron.

                      Mein Führgrabber would be greatly disappointed in your falied effort to offend my libtarded sensibilities.

                      Try again so I can taunt you a second time. Your mother was a hamster and your father smelt of elderberries!

                      Like

                  • Former Fan

                    Trump’s election just goes to show how bad the other choice was.

                    Like

              • 81Dog

                I guess it never occurred to you that the reason “left wing radio” cant make any money is because nobody wants to hear it. Rush prospers because a lot of listeners find him entertaining, so they tune it. Simple market economics.

                For a “free speech” guy, you certainly like to enlist Uncle Sam in situations where you can’t prosper without his thumb on the scale. I bet you a kidney if Keith Olbermann had Rush’s ratings and Rush had Keith’s, none of you liberal deep thinkers would make a peep.

                Here’s the solution to your problem: you want to win in the marketplace of ideas? Make a better argument, and quit calling everyone who disagrees with you racist/sexist/homophobe/stupid. It may not have occurred to you, but this is not persuasive to people who can think for themselves just fine, but happen to have a different idea of right and wrong, useful and not useful, or good or bad public policy than you do. Instead, smug know-it-alls seem to think they just need to berate people like me louder and more forcefully, and I’ll “get the point.” I get your point just fine, I just happen to think you’re wrong. I’m agnostic on whether you’re wrong because you’re naïve and well meaning, or a freedom hating leech who wants the government to solve all his problems, or just a shit disturber who thinks he’s the center of universal wisdom. But, keep braying about how evil the people who disagree with you are. That’s bound to convince us all to see it your way.

                Like

                • Jesus you’re dumb. The democrats have won the popular vote in three straight elections but they can’t support left wing talk radio. There’s an audience, but they ain’t interested… dummy. The last thing I want to do at the end of my day is listen to Rachel Maddow or Keith Olberman drone on about whatever it is they drone on about. Wingers love to hear their stupid back to them. They can’t help themselves. And what they really hate is being challenged. Hence the love of the echo chamber, stupid.

                  Not trying to convince you of anything. Why would I try? Too dumb to understand what I have to say about anything, because it’s complicated. However I do like to point out that you shouldn’t be so comfortable with your own opinions because those opinions are stupid.

                  Like

          • Uglydawg

            You should stick to football. You seem to understand football.

            Like

        • Cousin Eddie

          If we are going to cast blame on why the political hatred an overall distaste for everyone else not “me” in the US I want to throw in the career politician. They know the only way to stay in power and keep the cash flowing in is to stand on every soap box they can find and tell everyone how horrible the opposing side is. They don’t want to compromise because they will risk loosing campaign dollars which somehow ends up in their pockets and political kick backs that end up in their pockets.

          BTW this is for both political parties.

          Like

          • A majority votes those people in. I don’t blame a politician for being a lying scumbag anymore than I blame a shark for attacking a swimmer. That’s what they do.

            Unlike the shark’s nature we have control over who represents us. I have seen the enemy and it’s us. That’s the best and worst thing about democracy. We, collectively, are always the reason for what happens. Good or bad.

            Like

            • Cousin Eddie

              Not going to argue that. Without any real choices in who is elected, look at most elections, we as voters have to choose between which is the least worse.

              Like

              • Ditto. I like neither and I absolutely fucking loathe one.

                But again, the politicians will conform to what we want collectively. If NAMBLA polled at 90% every politician would swear how long they’ve just loved NAMBLA. They’d all be life-long members…believe me.

                Gay marriage is a great example. Does anyone think that the minds of the politicians changed? I think Obama was pro-gay marriage privately before he was gay-marriage in public. Our minds changed and the politicians went with us.

                We are the dog and they are the tail. The problem is that the dog is far too often really fucking stupid so he wants things he shouldn’t want and then he gets them.

                Like

      • I assume you meant to include “vice versa” in your comment, Senator. There’s plenty of over the top invective going both ways in today’s America.

        Like

        • When the democrats nominate the equivalent of Il Douche I’ll listen. When the democrat is under FBI investigation for treason and the democrats complain about leaks and not the treason, I’ll listen.

          If the same connections and the same evidence of collusion was out there and the roles were reversed the right would have lost its damn mind and rightly so. They lose they’re minds over shit they make up in their heads. They talked about Benghazi and fast and furious and an email server for YEARS. Russian influence of our election isn’t given the same treatment is it?

          Think Hillary running and not releasing any taxes and now turn on foxnews. They’d be saying that she doesn’t want to release them because she wrote off the payments to the hitmem as business expenses.

          There’s no “both sides” right now.

          Like

          • Good grief … I’m not even going to get into a discussion about this with you. I was making the point (and I think the Senator was as well) that people can’t engage in political discourse without it turning into either a shouting match or name calling session. And, yes, both sides of the political spectrum are guilty.

            Like

          • 81Dog

            Treason? Sure. Trump sold off US uranium rights to Russian companies and got a huge multi million dollar contribution to his foundation, and his spouse got millions in Russian speech fees. And Trump’s campaign manager was heavily invested/profited from Russian companies.

            Oh wait….

            Like

              • 81Dog

                I know you’re out of arguments when a good, tolerant, peace loving liberal know it all like you starts quoting Dick Cheney. Try pointing to an actual fact. Did the Russians try to influence the election? Do we try and influence their elections, or anyone else’s? Influence in what way? Were the Russians flooding the polls with illegal voters? Were they buying poll workers to mistabulate votes?

                The Russians “hacked the election” is misleading at best, and stupid at worst. If you mean “John Podesta was a security illiterate who fell for a phising scheme that any bright 4th grader could have conceived and executed” then I guess you’re right.

                Oddly enough, I never heard Podesta or anyone else deny those leaked emails were accurate. Donna Brazile lied her sorry ass off when asked if she leaked questions to Hillary’s campaign, and only recently quiently came clean. So, “the Russians hacked the election” by giving us all a look at the truth about the Clinton campaign? If Woodward and Bernstein did this to GW Bush, you’d be doing cartwheels of joy. I don’t know who did it, or who shared the emails with WikiLeaks, and neither do you. Tell me it was all lies, and maybe you have a point IF it was the Russians.

                But hey, if it makes you feel better to whine that Hillary lost because THE RUSSIANS rather than because she was possibly the worst, least effective campaigner any political party has run for president in my lifetime, have at it.

                Like

                • It’s not my saying it. It’s the entire intelligence and law enforcement apparatus of our country saying it. The FBI has an open investigation on it.

                  The Russians DID attempt to influence the election. That is FACT and it is stubborn. Even Trump eventually admitted that the Russians tried to influence the election.

                  The open question is whether the Russians had any domestic partners in crime.

                  Like

            • MLB2

              Not sure if my comments devolved into this one side hates the other crap. When I said “hoodrats and rednecks” I was referring to characters played by actors most likely to pull a gun on television. I don’t hate anyone and am not a “blood and soil” libertarian. I’m just pissy about some of the bills headed to the governor by the so called “conservative” Republicans. I know better than to comment on non football related ​issues. My apologies.

              Like

              • Hey, MLB, it definitely put the number of blog comments up higher. Too bad the Senator does not get paid by the blog comments—–or maybe he does.

                Like

      • Hogbody Spradlin

        Hey, everybody has an agenda.

        Except me. 😉

        Like

    • Former Fan

      It has. Back in the day, you could go to my high school parking lot and see numerous guns in trucks all over the place. We had zero shootings. Zippo. Nada. None. I even had a high school teacher fire a weapon in class as a physics lesson. Fired them on the football field for the same reason. The guns haven’t changed, but society sure has.

      Like

      • ASEF

        Does anyone know a school that had a shooting outside of the news?

        We had a student take a teacher hostage once. White kid, bit off his rocker.

        We also had bi-annual “oh my God, we can’t send our kids to school tomorrow because Molly heard from Sally who heard from Rachel who’s husband heard from a police officer who asked to remain anonymous that the black boys are going to bring baseball bats and knives to school so they can beat up everyone.” Man, armed students and parents would have made those days so much more interesting.

        We also had 3 young white men gun down a Pakistani gas-and-sip clerk near an nearly all-white high school. It was interesting because the crime was originally blamed by “eye witnesses” on 3 young black men, at large for over a year. The solved the crime when one of the white kids bragged about the crime to an undercover cop, and they found the VHS tape from the store security system at his house.

        Repeat: And they found the VHS tape from the store security system at his house. (Think knowing where the security tapes were to be found in the gas-and-sip might have been a clue? But hey, all the employees other than the Pakistani guy were white, so let’s put out those eye-witness composites).

        Racial tensions on that end of town were really high. Black parents driving their black kids to that high school were followed and menaced.

        These things have to be taken into account when people push guns, guns, and more guns as a solution to every problem. Because they create new problems in place of the ones they solve. It would be nice if both sides could admit both realities.

        Like

  5. 92 grad

    Well, if the POTUS could get his travel ban and wall in place we wouldn’t need to defend ourselves against criminal activity.

    I’m joking, but, the real issue is, figure out how to eliminate the possibility of a person motivated to walk into a facility (like the west palm beach airport) with a gun and shooting people at random. How do we build a society that doesn’t produce a person willing to just go somewhere and shoot people?

    Like

    • You can’t eliminate the possibility … a small minority of people regardless of their background are downright evil and others mentally unstable (temporary or otherwise).

      Like

    • Cousin Eddie

      “How do we build a society that doesn’t produce a person willing to just go somewhere and shoot people?” get rid of the people. Out of the first four people in the bible, one of them did it. Whether you believe the bible as factual or a fairy tale those are still the basic facts of people.

      Like

  6. HirsuteDawg

    “I suspect those handsome checks the conference sends Fayetteville’s way every year may have an impact on the deliberations, too.” – You don’t think that the NRA isn’t dropping a wad of cash on those good ol’ boys?

    Like

  7. PTC DAWG

    I know of folks who claim they conceal carry in Sanford Stadium now. I’ve never verified it, ….but I am sure they are not alone.

    Like

  8. As someone who has worked, managed, and planned hundreds of major sporting events, the arrogance of these legislators and the NRA is maddening. Every major sporting organization has security plans in place for all of their events. The security plans are not stagnant but our constantly updated based current events, threats, previous issues. True professionals attend conferences to learn the latest, they talk with other event professionals, pay for consultants, and some organizations go so far as to hire high level security professionals as permanent employees.

    It is ludicrous for these outsiders to think they know better.

    Like

  9. The DAWGS don’t need guns to shoot themselves in the foot.?…

    Liked by 1 person

  10. W Cobb Dawg

    I won’t argue the merits or problems of allowing guns at games. But I will point out that 66% of gun deaths are suicides. Followed by the second highest source of gun deaths, accidental shootings. So the people toting the guns are far, far more likely to be shot and killed than those who don’t carry.

    Like