This is how i see each point that they put forth @ change.org

"RECOGNIZE OUR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO OPEN CARRY FIREARMS AT THE REPUBLICAN NATIONAL CONVENTION AT THE QUICKEN LOANS ARENA IN JULY 2016" -There is no constitutional right to carry on any and all private property irrespective of the owner's wishes.

"SUMMARY: In July of 2016, the GOP will host its convention at the Quicken Loans Arena in Cleveland, Ohio. Though Ohio is an open carry state, which allows for the open carry of guns, the hosting venue—the Quicken Loans Arena—strictly forbids the carry of firearms on their premises."

-In their first sentence they prove that this is not in any way universally respective of all parties’ rights. My way of life does not trump (lol) your right to do what you want with your own property. The same way that an anti-gunner cannot tell me that I cannot own guns on my own property, I cannot tell them they must allow guns on theirs. This is a basic premise of property ownership.

"According to the policy on their website, "firearms and other weapons of any kind are strictly forbidden on the premises of Quicken Loans Arena.""

"This is a direct affront to the Second Amendment and puts all attendees at risk. As the National Rifle Association has made clear, "gun-free zones" such as the Quicken Loans Arena are "the worst and most dangerous of all lies." The NRA, our leading defender of gun rights, has also correctly pointed out that "gun free zones... tell every insane killer in America... (the) safest place to inflict maximum mayhem with minimum risk." (March 4, 2016 and Dec. 21, 2012)"

-Again no one is calling for the forceful oppression of those who do not wish to have certain things on their own property. This is a manipulation of the original argument. When the government forces you to pay for a service and then expects you to utilize that service which is now the most economically feasible option ( example being public schools ), it cannot then impose liability on you for choosing that service as if no coercion was utilized to manipulate the outcome. Thus they have essentially forced us to pool our kids into a concentrated area and then outright ignored security flaws that were inherent to the standard method of operation for school grounds. Then once those flaws materialized in the harm and destruction of our kids, they say that our freedoms are what caused this catastrophe, not their incapacity to recognize basic security measures. Same would be true if a daycare were to claim that they would care and protect a child for a particular duration of the day, to then say they are not liable for the harm your child experienced during his stay. It is an outright manipulation of liability and ownership of actions.

"Cleveland, Ohio is consistently ranked as one of the top ten most dangerous cities in America. By forcing attendees to leave their firearms at home, the RNC and Quicken Loans Arena are putting tens of thousands of people at risk both inside and outside of the convention site."

"This doesn't even begin to factor in the possibility of an ISIS terrorist attack on the arena during the convention. Without the right to protect themselves, those at the Quicken Loans Arena will be sitting ducks, utterly helpless against evil-doers, criminals or others who wish to threaten the American way of life."

• This statement puts forth the insinuation that only a gun owned by that private individual is capable of protecting them, and that all the other guns (S.S., Private Security, and Police) that will be present are useless. It also blatantly fails to recognize how the "charlie hebdo" style attempted terrorist attack in Texas with guns FROM THE ATF was stopped. Those terrorist were stopped by well trained and hired private security guards.

“All three remaining Republican candidates have spoken out on the issue and are unified in their opposition to Barack HUSSEIN Obama's "gun-free zones."

-This is just an attempt to make gun owners look delusional by pointing out that Obama has a Muslim sounding middle name. It puts forth the ideology of racism and bigotry as inherent to gun ownership. The irony here is strong. They are claiming that gun owners discriminate against a large sub-culture of individuals based off a trait that does not have any actual relevance towards the substance of the argument; however if this discrimination is extrapolated it allows for the elimination of the need to consider the intellectual arguments of anyone bearing the qualities that are being discriminated against. See why they want us to be racists? Because now they can shout “RACISTS!” and not have to listen to a single thing you say.

"Donald Trump said "I will get rid of gun-free zones on schools—you have—and on military bases on my first day. It gets signed my first day...you know what a gun-free zone is to a sicko? That's bait." (Jan. 8. 2016)"

-This is where the original writer obscures the meaning of a “gun-free-zone” as well as the limitations of property ownership. Military bases and Public schools are PUBLIC PROPERTY owned by the collective and cannot be used to violate the constitution. He then implies that these violations of the constitution via the ban of the right to bear arms on public property are = to the right to impose your desire to carry a weapon on someone else’s private property irrespective of the owner’s natural right to say otherwise.

"Ted Cruz has accurately pointed out "shooting after shooting after shooting happens in so called gun-free zones." He continued, "look, if you're a lunatic ain't nothing better then having a bunch of targets you know that are going to be unarmed." (Dec. 4, 2015)"

• The point holds true irrespective of who says the statement, a vast majority of mass shootings happen in gun free zones. Even with the Aurora Colorado shooter passing by two potential movie theaters to attend a gun-free one. However this is not a rationalization to force a property owner to have his rights obliterated by a majority consensus of individuals who have no say or forceful authority in the decision.

"And Ohio Governor John Kasich has been a leader in this movement to eliminate deadly "gun-free zones" starting with his brave decision to fight the Democrats and end "gun-free zones" at National Guard facilities in Ohio. (Dec. 18, 2015)"

-No comment

"We are all too familiar with the mass carnage that can occur when citizens are denied their basic God-given rights to carry handguns or assault weapons in public. EVERY AMERICAN HAS THE RIGHT TO PROTECT AND DEFEND THEIR FAMILY. With this irresponsible and hypocritical act of selecting a "gun-free zone" for the convention, the RNC has placed its members, delegates, candidates and all US citizens in grave danger."

• This is baited fear mongering; it mentions an intentionally manipulative term "assault weapons", then it proceeds to act as if the right to life and the defense of it is an "AMERICAN RIGHT" in other-words not a human right. The caps-lock and simple worded statements are perfect for making gun owners appear to be short tempered, emotionally unstable, and incapable of engaging in a well thought out and thorough debate. The implication of grave danger is respective of the constant manipulations of the Republican party for more Terrorism influenced legislation, which is entirely fear based decision making ( from a liberal’s perspective) and thus irrational. Not to mention that the decision is neither irresponsible nor hypocritical, as the gun free-zone is implemented by a completely neutral party – quicken loans-.

“We must take a stand. We cannot allow the national nominating convention of the party of Lincoln and Reagan to be hijacked by weakness and political correctness. The policies of the Quicken Loans Arena do not supersede the rights given to us by our Creator in the U.S. Constitution.”

-Again it tries to put forth the idea that "collective rights" supersede "individual rights". By allowing a collective of individuals to force someone with private property to bend to their will, we are essentially embracing a socialist/communistic principle under the guise of individualism. This is great because it shows the absolute inability of the writer to understand the simplistic principles of liberty and individual human rights, while at the same time their entire action of writing this piece shows that they believe they are an authority on the subject to the degree that it is justified to create false information in order to slander their opposition.