• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Howling Hypocrisy By The NRA

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Gun free zones, good guys with guns, at least some NRA members understand the problem here.

I understand why it's happening, and it's fine, IMO.

Parkland kids, now you get to understand that humans dont treat all life as valuable.
 
Noah Abrams said:
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
Click to expand...

That makes no sense. Can you show me a single person on the left who thinks guns are not used for protection? Even one?

The data indicates quite clearly that owning a gun in your home makes you less safe but that says nothing about whether or not security services should have guns. The NRA on the other hand says that despite all evidence to the contrary more guns would mean more safety.

This aggressive #bothsides nonsense is getting really tiresome. One side is backed by data, the other is not.
 
What's more valuable the future of american society? The safe education of our young people or a dried up religious zealot who believes dinosaurs walked with man.

Or have the Secret Service protect all schools.
 
sdifox said:
You mean the US Constitution is not the top laws in USA?
Click to expand...

What does that have to do with politicians wanting security where ever they are?

It's common knowledge you can't carry a firearm even with a license into federal buildings for starters. So it's not like having a carry conceal license equal the Wonka golden ticket..
 
MomentsofSanity said:
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.
Click to expand...
Pence was not there for the entire conference. They could have allowed for 2 of the 3 days.

Why don't Republicans allow open carry in the Capital building? SS does not guard.
 
MomentsofSanity said:
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.
Click to expand...
So who are the experts on keeping people safe? The SS who really dont want everyone armed around the people they protect, or the NRA who say that everyone should be?
 
Kneedragger said:
What does that have to do with politicians wanting security where ever they are?

It's common knowledge you can't carry a firearm even with a license into federal buildings for starters. So it's not like having a carry conceal license equal the Wonka golden ticket..
Click to expand...
So . . . federal buildings are gun free zones for safety reasons, but the NRA bitterly denounces churches and schools that wish to be gun free zones . . . exactly WHY again?

Either a "good guy with a gun" is the answer to safety in our churches and schools AND federal buildings alike, or it isn't.

I don't see the NRA campaigning to overturn the prohibition of citizen firearms in federal buildings. Not . . . one . . . peep. Why is that?
 
Perknose said:
So . . . federal buildings are gun free zones for safety reasons, but the NRA bitterly denounces churches and schools that wish to be gun free zones . . . exactly WHY again?

Either a "good guy with a gun" is the answer to safety in our churches and schools AND federal buildings alike, or it isn't.

I don't see the NRA campaigning to overturn the prohibition of citizen firearms in federal buildings. Not . . . one . . . peep. Why is that?
Click to expand...


This has been law way before the two dipshits got in and I think if they tried to change it they would lose miserably so they won't even bother.. Also state law can go above federal and still ban firearms in their buildings if they chose to right?

I'm willing to bet most federal buildings have more security than our schools and churches unfortunately. One should hope that a place of gathering with innocent adults and children should be a safe place from criminals to begin with..

I'm also willing to bet that if we had real armed security at all churches and schools you wouldn't hear ANYTHING from 2A supports about wishing people could bring guns to schools.

This may be hard to accept but gun nuts don't look forward to being put in a situation where they have to shoot someone..
 
Kneedragger said:
What does that have to do with politicians wanting security where ever they are?

It's common knowledge you can't carry a firearm even with a license into federal buildings for starters. So it's not like having a carry conceal license equal the Wonka golden ticket..
Click to expand...


Either you believe in the absolute right of US citizen to carry gun everywhere or you don't. Pretty clear cut.
 
sdifox said:
Either you believe in the absolute right of US citizen to carry gun everywhere or you don't. Pretty clear cut.
Click to expand...

Not really.. Like I said earlier if it was open game on a federal level the individual state can add more red tape. I live in California and it's no surprise they are 100% against guns here.
 
Looking at reddit it's probably to keep guns away from schools and the NRA convention. I'd allow pool noodles though.
 
Kneedragger said:
Not really.. Like I said earlier if it was open game on a federal level the individual state can add more red tape. I live in California and it's no surprise they are 100% against guns here.
Click to expand...

The NRA has certainly been pushing the "more guns always make people safer everywhere" rhetoric, though.

This is what always gets me about some gun obsessives: they'll swear up and down that a guiding principle is absolute, but when you press them on it, it's patently obvious that they don't actually believe that.

My favourite are the ones who claim that banning semi-auto rifles would be a horrible violation of rights, and that the 2nd Amendment doesn't discriminate between types of firearms... but when you ask them if it should be legal to carry a fully automatic assault rifle or machine gun in public, they'll (usually) say no. It's like they know the gun control camp is right, they just don't want to admit it lest they have to get rid of their precious toys.
 
Regardless if he has no control over it, its still a pretty hypocritical thing since its an NRA convention. Like the guy says it makes the whole stance look foolish.
 
soulcougher73 said:
Regardless if he has no control over it, its still a pretty hypocritical thing since its an NRA convention. Like the guy says it makes the whole stance look foolish.
Click to expand...

Actually, it shoots the hypocritical thing in the foot so to speak as long as weapons are allowed when the VP is not in attendance. One could take it up with the SS and order them about and we know exactly how that would work out. The SS does restrict who can do what at events involving security.
 
Last edited:
Commodus said:
The NRA has certainly been pushing the "more guns always make people safer everywhere" rhetoric, though.

This is what always gets me about some gun obsessives: they'll swear up and down that a guiding principle is absolute, but when you press them on it, it's patently obvious that they don't actually believe that.

My favourite are the ones who claim that banning semi-auto rifles would be a horrible violation of rights, and that the 2nd Amendment doesn't discriminate between types of firearms... but when you ask them if it should be legal to carry a fully automatic assault rifle or machine gun in public, they'll (usually) say no. It's like they know the gun control camp is right, they just don't want to admit it lest they have to get rid of their precious toys.
Click to expand...

Well I don't want to go too far off here but if you want to have this argument I say open up another thread and we can have everyone weigh in on their reasoning in regard to banning this and that.. or why this shouldn't get banned..
 
Perknose said:
So . . . federal buildings are gun free zones for safety reasons, but the NRA bitterly denounces churches and schools that wish to be gun free zones . . . exactly WHY again?

Either a "good guy with a gun" is the answer to safety in our churches and schools AND federal buildings alike, or it isn't.

I don't see the NRA campaigning to overturn the prohibition of citizen firearms in federal buildings. Not . . . one . . . peep. Why is that?
Click to expand...

Because there's already security in most Federal Bldgs. Places where there isn't security, like the Post Office or some schools, the NRA is pushing to allow more people to carry firearms. Do you understand now because I can't make it any simpler.
 
PixelSquish said:
The VP should ...
Click to expand...
"...do what I want so that I can be 'right' even when I'm dead wrong and don't understand a damn thing about how the real world works. WAHHH!!!"

Go suck your thumb and cry yourself to sleep you little doofus. No one has to do anything so that you can for once be 'right' about something. You and others are just too stupid to understand anything beyond an extremely babified level. This being a prime example.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top