Howling Hypocrisy By The NRA

Perknose

Forum Director & Omnipotent Overlord
Forum Director
Oct 9, 1999
46,041
8,735
136
Bends over and bows to the Secret Service like the little loudmouth bitches they are.

When "No Vice" President Pence speaks May 4 at the annual NRA gathering in Dallas, no firearms of any kind will be allowed in the arena. I'm thinking this is because, while guns of all kinds will be present, there won't be one single "good guy" to be found.

Parkland, Fla. students opined that schools should be afforded the same protection.

Matt Deitsch, who graduated from the Parkland school in 2016 and is the chief strategist for the March for Our Lives protest, expressed similar skepticism.

“You’re telling me to make the VP safe there aren’t any weapons around but when it comes to children they want guns everywhere? Can someone explain this to me?” Deitsch said Saturday on Twitter. “Because it sounds like the NRA wants to protect people who help them sell guns, not kids.”

“On so many levels, this is enlightening. According to the NRA, we should want everyone to have weapons when we are in public,” Fred Guttenberg, father of slain Parkland student Jaime Guttenberg, said Sunday on Twitter. “But when they put on a convention, the weapons are a concern? I thought giving everyone a gun was to enhance safety. Am I missing something?

^^^ Yeah, Fred, you're missing, well, everything . . . like a poorly trained teacher whipping out his pet Uzi and trying to stop a intruder, yet only succeeding in decreasing his class size, several errant bullets at a time.

Even some members of the NRA agreed:

“Obviously even republicans and so called leaders don’t trust the ‘good guys.’ I realize it’s the VP, but still makes our whole argument look foolish,” a commenter who self-identified as an NRA member said Thursday.

“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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DarthKyrie and Ns1
Jan 25, 2011
16,589
8,671
146
Ummmm. You know it’s the secret service who has complete and total authority over this and not the NRA right? It’s codified into law.

They want the VP there they need to adhere to the secret services wishes on security.
 

Sunburn74

Diamond Member
Oct 5, 2009
5,027
2,595
136
Ummmm. You know it’s the secret service who has complete and total authority over this and not the NRA right? It’s codified into law.

They want the VP there they need to adhere to the secret services wishes on security.
It seems to me that the VP isn't exactly pushing back on this. He seems perfectly ok with the idea that guns are great except around him which is extremely hypocritical. I am inclined to agree with the OP on this one. It's like being the key speaker at a pro-smoking convention but refusing to allow smoking around you because of concerns for second hand smoke and cancer.

He at anytime can tell the secret service to back off (just like Trump told them to back-off at one of the rallies a few months ago when he had someone come on the stage). The work for him, not the other way around.
 
Jan 25, 2011
16,589
8,671
146
It seems to me that the VP isn't exactly pushing back on this. He seems perfectly ok with the idea that guns are great except around him which is extremely hypocritical. I am inclined to agree with the OP on this one. It's like being the key speaker at a pro-smoking convention but refusing to allow smoking around you because of concerns for second hand smoke and cancer.

He at anytime can tell the secret service to back off (just like Trump told them to back-off at one of the rallies a few months ago when he had someone come on the stage). The work for him, not the other way around.
While in office protection is mandatory. I don’t believe they have any say in how that protection is delivered. The law places it completely in the hands of the secret service. They have the final say.

There’s a big difference between what you cite and allowing firearms to be carried by thousands of people unvetted around the first person in the line of succession.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Paladin3

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,879
4,265
126
A lot of people probably want this guy dead, a VP of the US and that is sufficient reason whether we like him or not.
 

Zaap

Diamond Member
Jun 12, 2008
7,162
424
126
You could litterally cut/paste the same stupid anti-gun nut non-arguments from last time some nitwit thought this was some sort of 'gotcha'. It's litterally a child's argument ... but of course idiotic coming from so-called adults.

Pence won't be unprotected by people with firearms, nitwits. They're called Secret Service people. Look it up if you're as stone dumb as the OP.

It even states right in the article (granted, past the headline so the usual stupid people would miss it because they never read or comprehend anything)

The NRA is complying with laws that prohibit firearms from being brought into areas where Secret Service protectees visit, agency spokesman Shawn L. Holtzclaw told The Washington Post in a statement Sunday. That includes events in open-carry states such as Texas, he said.

There you go. The S.S. doesn't really give a good shit if its an NRA event or whatever, they have a job to do and they do it. That always includes controlling all firearms around whoever they protect in a public event.

Now.. back to the usual forum stupidity, children!

(Actually I shouldn't insult children. Most are probably smart enough to understand simple concepts like this. It's stupid adults blinded by political insanity that can't.)
 

MrSquished

Lifer
Jan 14, 2013
21,241
19,740
136
You could litterally cut/paste the same stupid anti-gun nut non-arguments from last time some nitwit thought this was some sort of 'gotcha'. It's litterally a child's argument ... but of course idiotic coming from so-called adults.

Pence won't be unprotected by people with firearms, nitwits. They're called Secret Service people. Look it up if you're as stone dumb as the OP.

It even states right in the article (granted, past the headline so the usual stupid people would miss it because they never read or comprehend anything)



There you go. The S.S. doesn't really give a good shit if its an NRA event or whatever, they have a job to do and they do it. That always includes controlling all firearms around whoever they protect in a public event.

Now.. back to the usual forum stupidity, children!

(Actually I shouldn't insult children. Most are probably smart enough to understand simple concepts like this. It's stupid adults blinded by political insanity that can't.)

The VP should lead by example and get an exemption, change the policy, or if that is not possible, not attend. That is called leading by example, a concept your childish mind hasn't advanced to yet.
 

IJTSSG

Golden Member
Aug 12, 2014
1,115
276
136
You could litterally cut/paste the same stupid anti-gun nut non-arguments from last time some nitwit thought this was some sort of 'gotcha'. It's litterally a child's argument ... but of course idiotic coming from so-called adults.

Pence won't be unprotected by people with firearms, nitwits. They're called Secret Service people. Look it up if you're as stone dumb as the OP.

It even states right in the article (granted, past the headline so the usual stupid people would miss it because they never read or comprehend anything)



There you go. The S.S. doesn't really give a good shit if its an NRA event or whatever, they have a job to do and they do it. That always includes controlling all firearms around whoever they protect in a public event.

Now.. back to the usual forum stupidity, children!

(Actually I shouldn't insult children. Most are probably smart enough to understand simple concepts like this. It's stupid adults blinded by political insanity that can't.)

You know you probably just fvcked up what would've probably been a really good circle jerk. Shame on you.
Next up: A concealed carry holder doesn't carry his firearm into a business that has legally posted it's prohibition. FAPFAPFAPFAPFAP.
 

sactoking

Diamond Member
Sep 24, 2007
7,524
2,725
136
The NRA has made it very clear that their position is more guns equals more safety. If having the vice president attend a function means no guns, whether that is the call of the vice president, secret service, or otherwise, then the NRA should not invite the vice president. It doesn't matter who is responsible for the no guns stance, the NRA has clear knowledge of that stance and it violates their public positions so the blowback, if any, falls upon them.
 

Noah Abrams

Golden Member
Feb 15, 2018
1,041
109
76
The VP should lead by example and get an exemption, change the policy, or if that is not possible, not attend. That is called leading by example, a concept your childish mind hasn't advanced to yet.

By the same token Obama should have made Secret Service carry around swords only since the left does not believe guns are used for protection

I am neither pro nor anti gun, whatever that means. But the self righteousness of the left here is rather tiring
 

boomerang

Lifer
Jun 19, 2000
18,890
642
126
The Democratic National Convention requires attendee's to have ID!!! Ain't that a kick in the teeth. When I think about all the poor black people that couldn't attend...
 
  • Like
Reactions: OutHouse and IJTSSG

MrSquished

Lifer
Jan 14, 2013
21,241
19,740
136
By the same token Obama should have made Secret Service carry around swords only since the left does not believe guns are used for protection

I am neither pro nor anti gun, whatever that means. But the self righteousness of the left here is rather tiring

You may not be pro or anti gun, but you are certainly pro stupid. See bolded words - you claim to know a lot of which you know nothing.

Your self-righteousness is astounding and especially so because you claim to be tired of it.

Holy fuck batman.
 

HomerJS

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
36,053
27,783
136
Ummmm. You know it’s the secret service who has complete and total authority over this and not the NRA right? It’s codified into law.

They want the VP there they need to adhere to the secret services wishes on security.
SS doesn't have jurisdiction at CPAC and that is a gun free zone.

Also you assertion of complete SS control is bullshit. If Pence orders it people can carry. Remember this??
https://www.nbcchicago.com/news/politics/Man-With-Assault-Rifle-Attends-Obama-Rally-53501627.html
 
  • Like
Reactions: DarthKyrie
Jan 25, 2011
16,589
8,671
146
SS doesn't have jurisdiction at CPAC and that is a gun free zone.

Also you assertion of complete SS control is bullshit. If Pence orders it people can carry. Remember this??
https://www.nbcchicago.com/news/politics/Man-With-Assault-Rifle-Attends-Obama-Rally-53501627.html

The secret service has jurisdiction over any place their protectees attend. 18 USC 3056.

Im not sure what point you’re trying to make with your link. They were outside and not within the security zone. The same applies in this case. They are not permitting guns into the arena when Pence is there. They have been granted the authority under law to restrict firearms from any place attended by one of their protectees. This is the same reason certain protectees cannot refuse protection. It’s not their choice. Former presidents can and Nixon is the only one who did. Current serving protectees don’t have an option.

All other areas and days everyone is allowed to carry if legally able to.

This is a whole lot of nothing and my assertion remains completely valid.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Zaap

Greenman

Lifer
Oct 15, 1999
20,372
5,117
136
Ummmm. You know it’s the secret service who has complete and total authority over this and not the NRA right? It’s codified into law.

They want the VP there they need to adhere to the secret services wishes on security.
Get out of here with your logic, it ruins the narrative.
 
  • Like
Reactions: OutHouse

Sunburn74

Diamond Member
Oct 5, 2009
5,027
2,595
136
While in office protection is mandatory. I don’t believe they have any say in how that protection is delivered. The law places it completely in the hands of the secret service. They have the final say.

There’s a big difference between what you cite and allowing firearms to be carried by thousands of people unvetted around the first person in the line of succession.
No one has a problem with the policy. Its the hypocrisy in this instance that is disgusting. It shows pretty much the true position of Pence when it comes to guns and societal safety.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: DarthKyrie

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
72,429
6,088
126
You could litterally cut/paste the same stupid anti-gun nut non-arguments from last time some nitwit thought this was some sort of 'gotcha'. It's litterally a child's argument ... but of course idiotic coming from so-called adults.

Pence won't be unprotected by people with firearms, nitwits. They're called Secret Service people. Look it up if you're as stone dumb as the OP.

It even states right in the article (granted, past the headline so the usual stupid people would miss it because they never read or comprehend anything)



There you go. The S.S. doesn't really give a good shit if its an NRA event or whatever, they have a job to do and they do it. That always includes controlling all firearms around whoever they protect in a public event.

Now.. back to the usual forum stupidity, children!

(Actually I shouldn't insult children. Most are probably smart enough to understand simple concepts like this. It's stupid adults blinded by political insanity that can't.)
Nice empty rant. The critics of the NRA that impressed me were NRA members who said it makes the NRA look stupid. Of course by stupid, they meant so stupid it was even visible to them. You can yell all you want but you can bury the profound irony of the situation.