The NRA bans guns inside its national convention

[We Never Know]

So no one can explain why guns had to be banned from an event if they are a right? What about all the criticism about "gun free zones" that we hear about? Is the NRA's position on gun free zones just dangerous propaganda?

NRA spokeswoman calls for end to gun-free zones after Jacksonville shooting

National Rifle Association (NRA) spokeswoman Dana Loesch on Sunday called for an end or alteration to gun-free zones following a shooting at a Jacksonville, Fla., entertainment center that bans fir…

thehill.com

Its been explained to you several times.

They weren't banned from the NRA event or banned by the NRA.
The ban was just for Hall A put in place by the secret service who did it because of Pence, Trump" etc.

 

[We Never Know]

I think that he now knows that it was not the NRA that banned guns at Presidential venues. But nice digging on your part.

By post #20, evidently not.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Because many MAGAs will attend.
And the NRA will have armed security, which is
necessary when possession is banned. So the
convention won't have the problems seen at
schools & churches, where perps know they'll
be shooting fish in a barrel.

I find your reasoning odd. Security is necessary when possession is banned? I thought security was necessary when Presidents, present and past, are in attendance. It's one thing to be shooting children in a school, but certainly not former Presidents -- my goodness, no!

 

[F1fan]

By post #20, evidently not.

This is going over your head. I want to know where the outcry is by the NRA for the secret service requiring a gun free zone for safety when the NRA says gun fre zones are dangerous.

 

[We Never Know]

I find your reasoning odd. Security is necessary when possession is banned? I thought security was necessary when Presidents, present and past, are in attendance. It's one thing to be shooting children in a school, but certainly not former Presidents -- my goodness, no!

"It's one thing to be shooting children in a school, but certainly not former Presidents -- my goodness, no!"

We are just peasants compared to presidents.. Ex or current.

Maybe the secret service should guard schools

 

[We Never Know]

This is going over your head. I want to know where the outcry is by the NRA for the secret service requiring a gun free zone for safety when the NRA says gun fre zones are dangerous.

That's not what your false claim thread is about.

Your OP was wrong and now you are trying to move the goal posts.

Maybe you should start a new thread

 

[F1fan]

Apparently the NRA doesn't trust its own members to carry guns when Trump is at the event, but any citizen anywhere else like schools and churches? That's ok, and the body count is the price to pay for liberty that doesn't apply at the NRA convention.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Why assume they're crazy?

Because they would likely lose their life or face life in prison as a result. I may dislike Trump immensely, but I would not want to spend the rest of my life in prison for such a crime.

 

[Revoltingest]

I find your reasoning odd. Security is necessary when possession is banned?

Yes, because if a venue full of unarmed people is widely known
to have no security, then it's fertile ground for mass murders.
Why do you think they target schools & churches?
They're places typically...
- Full of unarmed people.
- Lacking armed security.
- Duh.
(I particularly like the last reason.
It addresses your "odd" claim.)

I thought security was necessary when Presidents, present and past, are in attendance. It's one thing to be shooting children in a school, but certainly not former Presidents -- my goodness, no!

As has been said, with Trump there, the SS wants
everyone else unarmed. While they care nothing
for lives of civilians, there's the unintended effect
of providing security for all, eg, vetting all entrants.

 

[Revoltingest]

Because they would likely lose their life or face life in prison as a result. I may dislike Trump immensely, but I would not want to spend the rest of my life in prison for such a crime.

My point is that a sane rational person might
think that taking out Trump would be a great
service to the country, & worthy of great sacrifice.
Reminds me of people thinking of a time machine
allowing them to travel back to kill young Hitler.

 

[Subduction Zone]

My point is that a sane rational person might
think that taking out Trump would be a great
service to the country, & worthy of great sacrifice.
Reminds me of people thinking of a time machine
allowing them to travel back to kill young Hitler.

Okay, I understand that. But even in the Hitler case, since time travel is impossible and we cannot tell the future I do not think any man can judge another in that way that is not an imminent threat.

 

[We Never Know]

Because they would likely lose their life or face life in prison as a result. I may dislike Trump immensely, but I would not want to spend the rest of my life in prison for such a crime.

"they would likely lose their life or face life in prison as a result"

So if they wouldn't suffer any consequences for shooting one or ten, then would they not be crazy?

 

[Subduction Zone]

"they would likely lose their life or face life in prison as a result"

So if they wouldn't suffer any consequences for shooting one or ten, then would they not be crazy?

That would just be one reason. It is the quick and easy one. Do you think that is the only one?

 

[Revoltingest]

Okay, I understand that. But even in the Hitler case, since time travel is impossible and we cannot tell the future I do not think any man can judge another in that way that is not an imminent threat.

Time travel feasibility isn't the issue.
It's the decision to commit the crime of
murder to serve a far greater good by
eliminating an evildoer.

 

[We Never Know]

That would just be one reason. It is the quick and easy one. Do you think that is the only one?

I think anyone doing shootings/mass shootings have some mental issues. But that's me.

 

[Father Heathen]

I would never wish for such a thing, and it would be horrible if it happened, but I wonder how the 1A/NRA crowd would react/respond if a mass shooting occured at such a convention.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Time travel feasibility isn't the issue.
It's the decision to commit the crime of
murder to serve a far greater good by
eliminating an evildoer.

I would not trust the judgement of others when it came to that. To put yourself above the law as the final arbiter to me is a sign of insanity.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I would never wish for such a thing, and it would be horrible if it happened, but I wonder how the 1A/NRA crowd would react/respond if a mass shooting occured at such a convention.

There would be massive outrage and blame shifting. It would not change their minds about guns.

 

[Father Heathen]

There would be massive outrage and blame shifting. It would not change their minds about guns.

I've noticed that whenever these things happen, the very first thing they try to do is link the shooter to the left. Failing that, concoct a "false flag" conspiracy theory involving antifa (unruly street punks turned advanced covert operatives, somehow).

 

[We Never Know]

I've noticed that whenever these things happen, the very first thing they try to do is link the shooter to the left. Failing that, concoct a "false flag" conspiracy theory involving antifa (unruly street punks turned advanced covert operatives, somehow).

"I've noticed that whenever these things happen, the very first thing they try to do is link the shooter to the left"

I've noticed that whenever these things happen, the very first thing either party does is....

-the right tries to link the shooter to the left and the left tries to link the shooter to the right.

It somehow seems more important to them both.