NRA Bans Guns for Pence
Thread Rating:
let me give it a try
H - Y - P - O - C - R - I - S - Y
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2018/04/29/the-nra-said-guns-will-be-banned-during-a-pence-speech-parkland-students-see-hypocrisy/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.15ea5a5bd3f3
Quote: lilredroosterhow do you spell hypocrisy?
let me give it a try
H - Y - P - O - C - R - I - S - Y
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2018/04/29/the-nra-said-guns-will-be-banned-during-a-pence-speech-parkland-students-see-hypocrisy/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.15ea5a5bd3f3
Where is the hypocrisy? Guns were banned on the school campus,
By the way, why are they upset? The NRA had nothing to do with the school shooting.
Quote: AZDuffmanWhere is the hypocrisy? Guns were banned on the school campus,
By the way, why are they upset? The NRA had nothing to do with the school shooting.
Hypocrisy
The NRA does not support a school gun ban
The NRA wants guns in the schools
HYPROCRISY
Quote: AZDuffmanWhere is the hypocrisy? Guns were banned on the school campus,
By the way, why are they upset? The NRA had nothing to do with the school shooting.
Probably one of the few issues I am closer to agreeing with you on than OP, but I can explain.
Gun advocates claim that the more good guys with guns, the safer we all are, want to get rid of gun free zones, want teachers to carry, etc etc. Yet the NRA banned guns from their event to protect the Vice President.
Obviously the secret service is never going to allow guns into an event with the VP, but it does lead to a bit of a disconnect in the NRA’s message.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2018/04/29/the-nra-said-guns-will-be-banned-during-a-pence-speech-parkland-students-see-hypocrisy/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.670b3256872d
Everyone who knows anything about the protection provided to our President, Vice-President, and others protected by the Secret service should be able to see right through this headline. The NRA isn't banning weapons from the Vice President's visit; the Secret Service is doing that.
Perhaps folks should read beyond the headline, which was similarly misleading in an article a local TV station posted on Facebook here.
"With the exception of the Pence event, lawfully carried firearms will be permitted at the convention center and the host hotel, the NRA said, advising members to comply with federal, state and local laws."
So a so-called journalist writes a story using quotes from people who have no idea what they are talking about when it comes to the protocol for such visits. That's not journalism, that is taking sides in a story both in the headline and in the body of the article.
You also can't have a "gun free" event with the President or Vice President in attendance. The Secret Service is going to be armed whether you like it or not.
Quote: gamerfreakYet the NRA banned guns from their event to protect the Vice President.
Obviously the secret service is never going to allow guns into an event with the VP, but it does lead to a bit of a disconnect in the NRA’s message.
A disconnect for those with reading comprehension difficulties, perhaps.
It says in the very report linked "USSS will coordinate security and not allow weapons" and "NRA is complying with law that prohibits firearms with SS protectees". In other words, the NRA has no choice in the matter, not unlike every single organization under the sun that hosts VIPs and heads of state since time immemorial. If President Nugent and VP The Spirit of Charleton Heston tour Sturm Ruger to celebrate the repeal of the '34 AWB, there won't be any guns there, either.
Hypocrisy? You bet. Just happens to be one of the typical American class system, as opposed to the narrative OP is attempting.
Quote: FaceA disconnect for those with reading comprehension difficulties, perhaps.
It says in the very report linked "USSS will coordinate security and not allow weapons" and "NRA is complying with law that prohibits firearms with SS protectees". In other words, the NRA has no choice in the matter, not unlike every single organization under the sun that hosts VIPs and heads of state since time immemorial. If President Nugent and VP The Spirit of Charleton Heston tour Sturm Ruger to celebrate the repeal of the '34 AWB, there won't be any guns there, either.
Hypocrisy? You bet. Just happens to be one of the typical American class system, as opposed to the narrative OP is attempting.
I’m surprised they can get any of their members to attend without their safety blanket attached to their hip.
So many CCW holders act like they are heading into Baghdad when they can’t carry somewhere.
I don’t hate guns, I hate gun culture.
Quote: FaceHypocrisy? You bet. Just happens to be one of the typical American class system, as opposed to the narrative OP is attempting.
Why wouldn't the NRA make some statement to the effect that they are reluctantly complying with USSS demands and that they really feel that everyone would be safer if the USSS would lift the ban so according to their logic any evil doer could be stopped with their righteous firepower.
After all, even with the prohibitions someone could still get in there with a dangerous item such as a broken glass bottle, (breaking the bottle after drinking what's in it or spilling it out on the ground) meaning that according to the NRA everyone will be so much less secure than if there was no gun ban. How could the NRA accept this dangerous situation? No firepower to stop a guy with a dangerous item and evil intent.
From the article quoting a commenter who is an NRA member:
"You may disagree … but in my opinion the very people that claim to protect the 2A should never host an event that requires disarming the good guys. Sad. No excuses for this … it makes us look stupid,” the commenter said."
Oh, and BTW try to dispute the hypocrisy in this one: Guns aren't allowed on many Trump properties.
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/donald-trump-gun-free-zones-guns-allowed-properties/story?id=39266544
Quote: lilredroosterWhy wouldn't the NRA make some statement to the effect that they are reluctantly complying with USSS demands and that they really feel that everyone would be safer if the USSS would lift the ban so according to their logic any evil doer could be stopped with their righteous firepower.
After all, even with the prohibitions someone could still get in there with a dangerous item such as a broken glass bottle, (breaking the bottle after drinking what's in it or spilling it out on the ground) meaning that according to the NRA everyone will be so much less secure than if there was no gun ban. How could the NRA accept this dangerous situation? No firepower to stop a guy with a dangerous item and evil intent.
Ahh. I gotcha. Why even invite someone whose very presence is going to conflict with your very purpose. That about sum it up?
Well,...cuz people are s#$% lol. Why do all presidents visit the Pope when only JFK was Catholic? Why do we consort with the Saudi's after 9/11? Cuz power > all. There's two sides to your mouth. Best to talk out both of them.
I really should jump on replacing the NRA...
ETA: Oh, and BTW, if you expect me to defend Trump, you've got the wrong guy.
Quote: gamerfreak
Obviously the secret service is never going to allow guns into an event with the VP, but it does lead to a bit of a disconnect in the NRA’s message.
I don't see how as I second what others said, it is USSS policy.
I don't even see why it would be newsworthy.
In other news-----DOG BITES MAN!
Quote: AZDuffmanI don't see how as I second what others said, it is USSS policy.
I don't even see why it would be newsworthy.
In other news-----DOG BITES MAN!
One More Time:
From the article quoting a commenter who is an NRA member:
"in my opinion the very people that claim to protect the 2A should never host an event that requires disarming the good guys. Sad. No excuses for this … it makes us look stupid,” the commenter said."
Quote: lilredroosterOne More Time:
From the article quoting a commenter who is an NRA member:
"in my opinion the very people that claim to protect the 2A should never host an event that requires disarming the good guys. Sad. No excuses for this … it makes us look stupid,” the commenter said."
I still do not see why an organization complying with USSS requirements makes news. Unless the person giving the comment is a NRA officer it is meaningless.
Quote: AZDuffmanI still do not see why an organization complying with USSS requirements makes news. Unless the person giving the comment is a NRA officer it is meaningless.
It only makes news because people readily believe false narratives presented by the press instead of actually thinking about the reasons and actual forces behind the issue.
It would be a real story if the NRA banned legally possessed weapons during their whole convention.
If you don't interject actually thought into your acceptance of news from any source, you are likely to be led in the wrong direction.
and here they are peacefully, without protest complying with a U.S. Government agency's mandate that they disarm at an event they are hosting
looks like they're knuckling under because they're so thrilled with Pence
Quote: lilredroosterthe NRA is always screaming that the U.S. Government is trying to take away their guns
and here they are peacefully, without protest complying with a U.S. Government agency's mandate that they disarm at an event they are hosting
looks like they're knuckling under because they're so thrilled with Pence
Their guns are not being taken away; they are simply following protocol for an appearance by the Vice President. They had a choice--go to the event and leave the guns behind or stay away and stay armed.
That is not the choice that people who want gun control, gun bans, and the like are offering.
I guess this is the reason I have been staying from here--you can't really have a discussion with anyone who is unable to comprehend simple issues like this without trying to twist them into something else.
It was nice visiting, but I will go back to staying away!
Quote: RonC
I guess this is the reason I have been staying from here--you can't really have a discussion with anyone who is unable to comprehend simple issues like this without trying to twist them into something else.
Are you sure? I was doing the same thing, because duh, it ain't NRA's choice. But lilred comes back with a salient point - if USSS demands you lose your right to carry, and you are a .org whose express purpose is to protect the right to carry, then why invite him?
At least that's the point I think lilred is trying to make, and if so, seems pretty reasonable. It's kinda how we s#$% on the Cuomo's and Feinstein's of the world, who go to any length to take YOUR gun all the while covering themselves with as many 17rd Glocks and 30rd rifles as taxpayer money can afford.
I don't think this NRA issue rises to the same level as the anti one I provided, but it certainly seems to be in the same family of double speak, do as I say not as I do horses#$% this country runs on. Some are more equal, indeed.
Permit holders know the rules, and most aren't offended by being told not to carry because hi ranking gov. officials are on the scene. The reason for having a firearm is self defense. If I am surrounded my gun carriers {SS or relatives] I'm glad I don't have to carry the extra weight.
As long as someone I trust is carrying enough firepower for the situation, I am fine not carrying. It's actually kind of a hassle.
As someone said, permit holders aren't being asked to surrender their rights, just not be holding near the potential POTUS. Quirky, but ok. They have a choice. Were it me, I would just not attend.
Quote: FaceAre you sure? I was doing the same thing, because duh, it ain't NRA's choice. But lilred comes back with a salient point - if USSS demands you lose your right to carry, and you are a .org whose express purpose is to protect the right to carry, then why invite him?
thank you Face for correctly acknowledging the point I was trying to make. Some people insist on implying that anyone who disagrees with them is ignorant. I'm glad you're not one of them.
Well, what can you say. After all, this is the internet. It's not like you can come here with a lot of high expectations.
Quote: lilredroosterthank you Face for correctly acknowledging the point I was trying to make. Some people insist on implying that anyone who disagrees with them is ignorant. I'm glad you're not one of them.
Well, what can you say. After all, this is the internet. It's not like you can come here with a lot of high expectations.
Gotcha. In others' defense, I do realize my own bias and so am aware of it and attempt to overcome it. Yet despite this constant effort, I was completely blind to that point for a few posts at least. Kind of makes you wonder how much strife is nothing more than simple misunderstanding.
