Current Events > Guns are banned at the NRA conference where Trump is speaking.

(+) Yeah! (+)

I refuse to believe our elected officials would participate in hypocrisy.

Stewman_Magoo posted...

What if the secret service agents are sleeper leftists and refuse to protect Trump? I'm sorry but everyone there should be armed.

I highly doubt the Secret Service would risk a civil war by assassinating or letting someone just waltz on by and assassinate Trump, and even if it didn't end in a civil war, it would be the most embarrassing and shameful gaffe in US History that would receive bipartisan backlash to the point that it would destroy any faith in the agency for good.

Frolex posted...

"Blue lives matter, until they're no longer useful to our agenda"

Why do you think conservatives were beating cops to death on 1/6?

Hop103 posted...

I highly doubt the Secret Service would risk a civil war by assassinating or letting someone just waltz on by and assassinate Trump, and even if it didn't end in a civil war, it would be the most embarrassing and shameful gaffe in US History that would receive bipartisan backlash to the point that it would destroy any faith in the agency for good.

So, banning guns would work is what you're saying?

I mean, at least the people at the NRA event are feeling more secured with less guns! Maybe we all should follow their example...

Hop103 posted...

that would receive bipartisan backlash

Not to speak for everyone on the left here, but this is absolutely wrong lol

I also found it hilarious how he described Secret Service being unable to stop someone from being murdered as a "gaffe".

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/user_image/4/0/5/AACSo3AADRU9.jpg

Bass2 posted...

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/user_image/4/0/5/AACSo3AADRU9.jpg

Lmao

Hop103 posted...

I highly doubt the Secret Service would risk a civil war by assassinating or letting someone just waltz on by and assassinate Trump, and even if it didn't end in a civil war, it would be the most embarrassing and shameful gaffe in US History that would receive bipartisan backlash to the point that it would destroy any faith in the agency for good.

If they wanted to prevent a shooting, shouldn't everyone in the room have guns? So the good guys can stop the shooter.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]


I know I'm coming back to this late, but are you saying the NRA's policy/position is the bolded part? Because their messaging has not included that AFAIK - ie. I don't remember them saying schools should be gun free zones IF everybody is searched coming in

@Mr_Hangman

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]


A few different things here so breaking it down more for my own clarity:
1) Thank you for the NRA position info - that line comes from the broader section below which *isn't* saying gun free zones are the best ways to protect banks, airports, etc but rather that armed security guards are. Then NRA really does oppose gun free zones everywhere, correct? As they believe armed guards are the best way to protect valuable targets? If I'm wrong, please explain how you read the paragraphs to show that the NRA supports gun free zones (as its not mentioned in it)

How have our nations priorities gotten so far out of order? Think about it. We care about our money, so we protect our banks with armed guards. American airports, office buildings, power plants, courthouses even sports stadiums are all protected by armed security.
We care about the President, so we protect him with armed Secret Service agents. Members of Congress work in offices surrounded by armed Capitol Police officers.
Yet when it comes to the most beloved, innocent and vulnerable members of the American family our children we as a society leave them utterly defenseless, and the monsters and predators of this world know it and exploit it. That must change now!

2) RE the NRA and advocacy, I agree

3) You used "liberals" to describe all people in favor of increasing regulation on guns? Therefore can we take "conservatives" to include all people opposed? And state that conservatives don't appear to entertain for even a moment the notion that someone could be trying to have a meaningful discussion with them that *doesn't* necessarily mean "ban all guns"? Because quite a few conservative public leaders/officials start with that assumption..

4) I would say trying to describe a whole group (as we did above) isn't generally helpful but instead to look at instances (which admittedly can be a lot) - which instances have you seen where conservatives/Republicans put forwards suggestions or legislation that was shut down by liberals/Democrats? Just recently we had this attempt by Michigan state Democrats shut down..

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/boards/400-current-events/80035677
https://tinyurl.com/5f4hfeds

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]


I don't understand how you can get worse than massacring elementary school children. Are you suggesting the actions they're opposing lead to more elementary school massacres?

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]


It's the GOP who are the ones arguing for one-door schools IDK how the fuck you get any more prison-like than that.

Well I guess you could combine one door+armed security. I wonder where else you can find a place like that in America.

Republicans are the ones trying to turn schools into prisons, bub

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]


How exactly are you getting "one good option" when the paragraph immediately preceding that blames gun free zones?
The only way to answer that question is to face up to the truth. Politicians pass laws for Gun-Free School Zones. They issue press releases bragging about them. They post signs advertising them.
And in so doing, they tell every insane killer in America that schools are their safest place to inflict maximum mayhem with minimum risk.
The paragraph I listed earlier only talks about armed guards, never anything else and certainly not "as one good option".
But if we talk your belief that statements not included are true, then it still seems the NRA is saying gun free zones don't work ("their safest place to inflict maximum mayhem with minimum risk") and are therefore hypocrites for having a gun free zone at their convention.

3) I don't want to get into a semantic argument. Substitute gun control advocates if you prefer. That lines up fairly closely with people who identify as liberal.

So you believe that all/the majority of gun control advocates "don't want to know why people disagree or to engage with anything but the least effective gun rights proponents"? Would it be fair to say then that the majority of gun advocates operate under the "they want to take away all of our guns" mentality?

4) Republicans are not offering any solutions, but given that they're opposing actions that are worse than nothing, I don't have a problem with that.

What in the Michigan bill did you believe was "Worse than nothing"?