What's new
By:
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

0 Days Since Last Shooting: But the Second Amendment!

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: 0 Days Since Last Shooting: But the Second Amendment!

No, you can't have your cake and eat it too. If you're going to argue that it's OK for the NRA to ban guns from the convention because the Secret Service will be there you can't also complain that people you don't like also have armed protection. Pick a lane.
 
ticapnews said:
No, you can't have your cake and eat it too. If you're going to argue that it's OK for the NRA to ban guns from the convention because the Secret Service will be there you can't also complain that people you don't like also have armed protection. Pick a lane.
Click to expand...

Huh?
 
ScoobyDoo said:
It's not hard to follow. Read it again.
Click to expand...

He has his facts mixed up. It’s people like Bloomberg who want it both ways. He is the one who has armed protection and wants to ban/severely restrict gun ownership. I never complained at all about what the NRA is doing.
 
Drew S. said:
He has his facts mixed up. It’s people like Bloomberg who want it both ways. He is the one who has armed protection and wants to ban/severely restrict gun ownership. I never complained at all about what the NRA is doing.
Click to expand...

Right. If you're OK with what the NRA is doing because of Secret Service providing security, then you don't get to complain about other people having that same security. Read through this thread and you'll see examples.
 
Re: 0 Days Since Last Shooting: But the Second Amendment!

I'm amazed that even people like Priceless continue to dredge up the tired old tripe of the NRA banning guns at its convention. That nonsense has been refuted for years. I think I even saw a Snopes article on it once.

The NRA has done no such thing, neither this year nor in prior years. The NRA takes the position that guns will be allowed at its conventions, but tells it's members they need to follow the law of whatever location they may be located. That means that if state law requires some sort of conceal/carry permit, you need to have a permit. If the Secret Service declares that no guns are allowed because the President or V.P. are speaking, then no guns are allowed. If the convention is in a state where businesses, like theaters or convention centers can ban guns from its premises (like here in Minnesota), again the members are expected to follow the law.

The NRA lobbies for relaxed or no gun laws. It does not advocate for plain open violation of those laws that have been passed.
 
ticapnews said:
Right. If you're OK with what the NRA is doing because of Secret Service providing security, then you don't get to complain about other people having that same security. Read through this thread and you'll see examples.
Click to expand...

I don’t recall seeing any examples of it. I’m fine with people doing whatever they want for security.
 
Re: 0 Days Since Last Shooting: But the Second Amendment!

SJHovey said:
I'm amazed that even people like Priceless continue to dredge up the tired old tripe of the NRA banning guns at its convention. That nonsense has been refuted for years. I think I even saw a Snopes article on it once.

The NRA has done no such thing, neither this year nor in prior years. The NRA takes the position that guns will be allowed at its conventions, but tells it's members they need to follow the law of whatever location they may be located. That means that if state law requires some sort of conceal/carry permit, you need to have a permit. If the Secret Service declares that no guns are allowed because the President or V.P. are speaking, then no guns are allowed. If the convention is in a state where businesses, like theaters or convention centers can ban guns from its premises (like here in Minnesota), again the members are expected to follow the law.

The NRA lobbies for relaxed or no gun laws. It does not advocate for plain open violation of those laws that have been passed.
Click to expand...

Weren't gun control laws designed by Dixiecrats to suppress the colored?
 
Re: 0 Days Since Last Shooting: But the Second Amendment!

FlagDUDE08 said:
Weren't gun control laws designed by Dixiecrats to suppress the colored?
Click to expand...

I am all for arming every Latino and black person in this country to the teeth.

But your statement is just another falsehood; in this case probably ignorant, not mendacious, gibberish.
 
Last edited:
Re: 0 Days Since Last Shooting: But the Second Amendment!

You need to not quote Flaggy...just because you took him off ignore doesnt mean others have. (not speaking for myself I pass over his tripe)
 
Re: 0 Days Since Last Shooting: But the Second Amendment!

walrus said:
Maine already has that law, have not seen much change since it became law .

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Pretty sad you need to have special legislation in order to clarify a Constitutional amendment.
 
Re: 0 Days Since Last Shooting: But the Second Amendment!

FlagDUDE08 said:
Pretty sad you need to have special legislation in order to clarify a Constitutional amendment.
Click to expand...

Yeah, like all those laws pertaining to what you can and can't say, gather and not gather, etc.

You really are stupid, aren't you?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top