Sat Dec 22, 2012, 03:41 PM
samsingh (10,339 posts)
Is it true? Were guns not allowed at the NRA disaster of a press conference on Friday?
if this is the case, does the nra not believe the 2nd amendment applies to them?
|
46 replies, 1965 views
| Author | Time | Post | |
| samsingh | Dec 2012 | OP | |
| Berlum | Dec 2012 | #1 | |
| samsingh | Dec 2012 | #2 | |
| Berlum | Dec 2012 | #14 | |
| gejohnston | Dec 2012 | #3 | |
| Tuesday Afternoon | Dec 2012 | #5 | |
| samsingh | Dec 2012 | #11 | |
| samsingh | Dec 2012 | #6 | |
| gejohnston | Dec 2012 | #16 | |
| samsingh | Dec 2012 | #18 | |
| gejohnston | Dec 2012 | #22 | |
| samsingh | Dec 2012 | #29 | |
| gejohnston | Dec 2012 | #30 | |
| samsingh | Dec 2012 | #34 | |
| discntnt_irny_srcsm | Dec 2012 | #33 | |
| atreides1 | Dec 2012 | #7 | |
| gejohnston | Dec 2012 | #20 | |
| samsingh | Dec 2012 | #9 | |
| global1 | Dec 2012 | #4 | |
| samsingh | Dec 2012 | #35 | |
| Tuesday Afternoon | Dec 2012 | #8 | |
| samsingh | Dec 2012 | #10 | |
| Tuesday Afternoon | Dec 2012 | #13 | |
| samsingh | Dec 2012 | #17 | |
| Tuesday Afternoon | Dec 2012 | #19 | |
| doc03 | Dec 2012 | #12 | |
| samsingh | Dec 2012 | #15 | |
| doc03 | Dec 2012 | #23 | |
| samsingh | Dec 2012 | #24 | |
| PavePusher | Dec 2012 | #38 | |
| doc03 | Dec 2012 | #45 | |
| krispos42 | Dec 2012 | #21 | |
| doc03 | Dec 2012 | #25 | |
| samsingh | Dec 2012 | #27 | |
| samsingh | Dec 2012 | #26 | |
| Glaug-Eldare | Dec 2012 | #28 | |
| Tuesday Afternoon | Dec 2012 | #32 | |
| krispos42 | Dec 2012 | #31 | |
| samsingh | Dec 2012 | #36 | |
| Glaug-Eldare | Dec 2012 | #37 | |
| samsingh | Dec 2012 | #39 | |
| krispos42 | Dec 2012 | #40 | |
| samsingh | Dec 2012 | #41 | |
| krispos42 | Dec 2012 | #42 | |
| samsingh | Dec 2012 | #43 | |
| krispos42 | Dec 2012 | #44 | |
| Kennah | Dec 2012 | #46 |
Response to samsingh (Original post)
Sat Dec 22, 2012, 03:43 PM
Berlum (3,687 posts)
1. NRA = Republicans
|
Last edited Sat Dec 22, 2012, 03:43 PM USA/ET - Edit history (1) Republicans = hypocrites.
As Americans have overwhelming nauseating evidence. |
Response to Berlum (Reply #1)
Sat Dec 22, 2012, 03:44 PM
samsingh (10,339 posts)
2. you're right that they are repugs
|
but, either they believe in the 2nd amendment or not. if it is sacrosact by their logic, they need to allow guns at their meetings and in their office.
|
Response to samsingh (Reply #2)
Sat Dec 22, 2012, 04:16 PM
Berlum (3,687 posts)
14. Hey, they claim they are for Republican "Family Values," too
|
but they are out there all over Creation tapping their toes in bathroom stalls and cavorting with hookers in their freaking Republican Diapers -- and then giving each other Standing Ovations for having VIOLATED their marriage vows.
You either believe in Family Values, and the 2nd Amendment, or you are a Republican. |
Response to samsingh (Original post)
Sat Dec 22, 2012, 03:47 PM
gejohnston (12,574 posts)
3. where was the press conference?
|
Last edited Sat Dec 22, 2012, 03:50 PM USA/ET - Edit history (1) Who's rule was it?
If it was in DC, they were obeying DC law. If it were in Virginia, that could be a different matter. |
Response to gejohnston (Reply #3)
Sat Dec 22, 2012, 04:00 PM
Tuesday Afternoon (43,885 posts)
5. now, now, don't let the laws get in the way of a good rant.
Response to Tuesday Afternoon (Reply #5)
Sat Dec 22, 2012, 04:14 PM
samsingh (10,339 posts)
11. really, how about this? is there a law for visitors versus employees at the nra headquarters?
|
from daily kos
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/12/21/1172739/-I-Called-the-NRA-Today-Oh-Boy .... She told me that the security guards at the front desk were unarmed, but that visitors were not allowed to bring weapons into the building (except to their posh firing range, which has a separate entrance). ...... sounds like an infringement to gun rights |
Response to gejohnston (Reply #3)
Sat Dec 22, 2012, 04:04 PM
samsingh (10,339 posts)
6. why would the event's organizers need to check for weapons?
Response to samsingh (Reply #6)
Sat Dec 22, 2012, 04:17 PM
gejohnston (12,574 posts)
16. you think someone intent on murder would care about
|
a law against concealed carry or the fact that it is almost illegal to have a gun in DC?
|
Response to gejohnston (Reply #16)
Sat Dec 22, 2012, 04:20 PM
samsingh (10,339 posts)
18. intent to murder cannot be greater ain DC or any other place
|
in DC, why is it the NRA's responsibility to check the audience? here's another interesting point i just found:
from daily kos http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/12/21/1172739/-I-Called-the-NRA-Today-Oh-Boy .... She told me that the security guards at the front desk were unarmed, but that visitors were not allowed to bring weapons into the building (except to their posh firing range, which has a separate entrance). ...... sounds like an infringement to gun rights |
Response to samsingh (Reply #18)
Sat Dec 22, 2012, 04:29 PM
gejohnston (12,574 posts)
22. No less either
|
I don't know where their offices are, and I don't plan on visiting them either. But then, any concealed carry by me outside of Vermont would be illegal, since I don't have a permit issued by any state.
|
Response to gejohnston (Reply #22)
Sat Dec 22, 2012, 04:42 PM
samsingh (10,339 posts)
29. but i want to visit their office. if their employees are allowed to carry guns, why can't i?
Response to samsingh (Reply #29)
Sat Dec 22, 2012, 04:55 PM
gejohnston (12,574 posts)
30. take it up with them if you want.
Response to gejohnston (Reply #30)
Sat Dec 22, 2012, 05:37 PM
samsingh (10,339 posts)
34. please stand up for my gun rights
Response to samsingh (Reply #29)
Sat Dec 22, 2012, 05:11 PM
discntnt_irny_srcsm (5,651 posts)
33. NRA HQ is in Fairfax, VA
|
http://goo.gl/maps/4AYkQ
I've never been there but it's quite visible from I-66. I used to keep a hotel room near there when I worked in the area. The press conference was in DC. AFAIK CCW are pretty much not to be had there. If the venue prohibited weapons, the NRA wouldn't really have a say. |
Response to gejohnston (Reply #3)
Sat Dec 22, 2012, 04:07 PM
atreides1 (10,167 posts)
7. It was held in D.C.
|
Maybe Lapierre and the NRA realized that it if were held in Virginia...old Wayne might not have gotten home that day!
Of course there spin will be it was held in D.C. to send a clear message to those in Congress that they have a choice to make, blah, blah, blah! Me, I think Wayne was too much of a chicken shit coward to take the chance of a disgrunteld person walking in and putting a bullet in him. |
Response to atreides1 (Reply #7)
Sat Dec 22, 2012, 04:22 PM
gejohnston (12,574 posts)
20. he lives in DC
|
Last edited Sat Dec 22, 2012, 04:47 PM USA/ET - Edit history (1) DC gun laws didn't stop a gun control activist and Million Mom March member Barbara Graham from shooting some guy that she thought killed her son. The NFA didn't stop the cops from finding what the Washington Post described as a submachine gun in her home either.
|
Response to gejohnston (Reply #3)
Sat Dec 22, 2012, 04:13 PM
samsingh (10,339 posts)
9. NRA does not allow visitors to bring firearms into most of their office facilities
|
from daily kos http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/12/21/1172739/-I-Called-the-NRA-Today-Oh-Boy .... She told me that the security guards at the front desk were unarmed, but that visitors were not allowed to bring weapons into the building (except to their posh firing range, which has a separate entrance). ...... sounds like an infringement to gun rights. |
Response to samsingh (Original post)
Sat Dec 22, 2012, 03:52 PM
global1 (10,583 posts)
4. You Know I Had That Same Thought While Watching That Presser....
|
I wondered whether they had security set up to screen attendees for weapons/guns. I have to think that LaPierre thinks himself as a target and it wouldn't surprise me if they barreds guns from that fiasco of a presser of if he even traveled with bodyguards.
Then I wondered if guns are allowed on the floor of a national NRA meeting. |
Response to global1 (Reply #4)
Sat Dec 22, 2012, 05:38 PM
samsingh (10,339 posts)
35. he should get a cop to escort him and wear body armor as he would have 6 year olds do.
Response to samsingh (Original post)
Sat Dec 22, 2012, 04:12 PM
Tuesday Afternoon (43,885 posts)
8. who here on DU gives a shit one way or the other about a fucking Lobbyist anyway?
|
Last edited Sat Dec 22, 2012, 04:13 PM USA/ET - Edit history (1) *pa-tooie*
|
Response to Tuesday Afternoon (Reply #8)
Sat Dec 22, 2012, 04:13 PM
samsingh (10,339 posts)
10. this fing lobbyist if responsible for enabling thousands and thousands of gun deaths
Response to samsingh (Reply #10)
Sat Dec 22, 2012, 04:15 PM
Tuesday Afternoon (43,885 posts)
13. then sue his ass. Good Luck.
Response to Tuesday Afternoon (Reply #13)
Sat Dec 22, 2012, 04:18 PM
samsingh (10,339 posts)
17. to equalize power a bit, i think we need the support of like minded people before we could do that.
|
i think i'll use my first amendment rights to exrpess my opinions.
|
Response to samsingh (Reply #17)
Sat Dec 22, 2012, 04:21 PM
Tuesday Afternoon (43,885 posts)
19. fucking A! Shout it to the rooftops.
Response to samsingh (Original post)
Sat Dec 22, 2012, 04:14 PM
doc03 (13,838 posts)
12. CCW are not permitted in one of the largest gun retailers (Cabela's) in the
|
country. If you bring one in to trade you have to check it in, they put a cable tie through the action and escort you to
the gun dept. The last time I checked a gun in there was around June, I asked the gun checker if anyone ever brings a loaded weopon in, he said they had 67 (unloaded) guns come in so far this year with a cartridge in the chamber. Anyone that gd stupid shouldn't own agun. |
Response to doc03 (Reply #12)
Sat Dec 22, 2012, 04:16 PM
samsingh (10,339 posts)
15. again, this is an infringement on gun rights
|
according to nra logic, we should trust the gun trader. what would happen if someone attacked while the gun was being escorted in such a state?
|
Response to samsingh (Reply #15)
Sat Dec 22, 2012, 04:33 PM
doc03 (13,838 posts)
23. They should have an armed guard escorting every customer in and out of Cabela's. n/t
Response to doc03 (Reply #23)
Sat Dec 22, 2012, 04:36 PM
samsingh (10,339 posts)
24. yes. and every customer has the right to carry whatever the law allows them to - no less
Response to doc03 (Reply #12)
Sun Dec 23, 2012, 12:18 AM
PavePusher (15,374 posts)
38. You are incorrect. n/t
Response to PavePusher (Reply #38)
Sun Dec 23, 2012, 08:50 PM
doc03 (13,838 posts)
45. Not in Wheeling n/t
Response to samsingh (Original post)
Sat Dec 22, 2012, 04:25 PM
krispos42 (45,132 posts)
21. If it's a private building...
|
..and non commercial, then the property owners have the right to forbid weapons on their property.
You have the right to speak freely. It does not mean I am obliged to let you stay in my house if I don't like your speech. If the asshole was speaking in a public park and they tried this, I'd call foul. |
Response to krispos42 (Reply #21)
Sat Dec 22, 2012, 04:37 PM
doc03 (13,838 posts)
25. CCW should be allowed in the Congresional Offices, I bet Republicans would oppose that n/t
Response to doc03 (Reply #25)
Sat Dec 22, 2012, 04:41 PM
samsingh (10,339 posts)
27. it has to be allowed to give any credence to the decisions made by the congressional nra supporters
|
those offices are public right? If guns should be allowed in hospitals and schools, why not in congress?
|
Response to krispos42 (Reply #21)
Sat Dec 22, 2012, 04:40 PM
samsingh (10,339 posts)
26. the nra building is not privately owned. surely, the keepers of the 2nd amendment should support
|
guns beyond the law and into infinity.
afterall, the nra had the audicity to try and get dell computer employees the right to carry weapons into their building. they support guns in schools, hospitals. who are they to decide that a difference in private and publilc exists. the 2nd amendment: 'shall not infringue'. where does it say: 'except on private property'? |
Response to samsingh (Reply #26)
Sat Dec 22, 2012, 04:42 PM
Glaug-Eldare (1,018 posts)
28. I know it won't work, but :eyes: is all I have to say.
Response to Glaug-Eldare (Reply #28)
Sat Dec 22, 2012, 05:09 PM
Tuesday Afternoon (43,885 posts)
32. if it wasn't so funny it would be a righteous rant.
Response to samsingh (Reply #26)
Sat Dec 22, 2012, 05:06 PM
krispos42 (45,132 posts)
31. I don't know who owns the NRA building
|
So I can't state with authority whether you're right or not.
I do know that schools are public property, and hospitals are open to the general public, so an argument can be made regarding them, although I will not make those arguments here. Your private property gives you the right to demand that anybody you don't like leave at your whim. |
Response to krispos42 (Reply #31)
Sat Dec 22, 2012, 05:40 PM
samsingh (10,339 posts)
36. congress is surely public so guns should be allowed there.
Response to samsingh (Reply #36)
Sat Dec 22, 2012, 11:20 PM
Glaug-Eldare (1,018 posts)
37. This blathering is equivalent
|
Last edited Sat Dec 22, 2012, 11:20 PM USA/ET - Edit history (1) to arguing that the 4th Amendment doesn't allow police officers to search people who are being arrested on probably cause without a warrant. ACLU doesn't argue that. NRA doesn't argue that the 2A requires gun carry to be legal in the Capitol. They don't argue much of anything at all -- they deposit checks from dopes while SAF does all the heavy lifting.
|
Response to Glaug-Eldare (Reply #37)
Sun Dec 23, 2012, 11:08 AM
samsingh (10,339 posts)
39. the only thing the nra cares about is money for the nra and for the gun manufacturers - their
|
corporate masters.
just as the cigeratte companies sold a product that killed their customers, and they created confusion for decades, the gun lobby is doing exactly the same thing. logic and conversation is not going to work. only votes and money will result in a change. we may be there now, or we will be soon. |
Response to samsingh (Reply #36)
Sun Dec 23, 2012, 11:25 AM
krispos42 (45,132 posts)
40. The Capitol is also a national security issue, a special security situation.
|
The Congress is a huge source of controversy. It has enormous powers, and of course not everybody in the country will like what the Congress does, so seeing as how it is both an extremely emotional and passionate location, I think that a national security exception is reasonable. And, they have metal detectors to enforce their gun-free zone, and armed guards to protect you after they disarm you prior to entering the building, which to my mind sufficiently replaces any personal protection objections a visitor might have.
|
Response to krispos42 (Reply #40)
Sun Dec 23, 2012, 11:26 AM
samsingh (10,339 posts)
41. i think schools and hospitals should also be special
Response to samsingh (Reply #41)
Sun Dec 23, 2012, 11:41 AM
krispos42 (45,132 posts)
42. Then schools and hospitals need to have security.
|
Otherwise it's all bluster and hot air. Putting up "gun-free zone" signs and such. Otherwise, it's just words.
|
Response to krispos42 (Reply #42)
Sun Dec 23, 2012, 11:42 AM
samsingh (10,339 posts)
43. they should have the same protections as congress - gun free and security
Response to samsingh (Reply #43)
Sun Dec 23, 2012, 02:28 PM
krispos42 (45,132 posts)
44. Okay, put a single entrance with metal detectors and armed guards.
|
On every single school. No problem.
|
Response to krispos42 (Reply #44)
Mon Dec 24, 2012, 01:29 AM
Kennah (6,738 posts)
46. At the mere price of $6.7 billion a year for one cop per school
|
Somehow I doubt NRA BOD member Grover "Poopyhead" Norquist would approve.
|

