It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The NRA Won't Allow Guns At Mike Pence's Convention Speech & Parkland Students highlight Irony

page: 4
16
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 30 2018 @ 05:40 AM
link   

originally posted by: kaylaluv

originally posted by: Voyaging
a reply to: kaylaluv

I don't recall ever hearing more guns would be the solution from anyone that actually has any weight behind their authority. I've only heard that taking away rights to own certain firearms is not the solution.


Does Trump have any weight behind his authority? Because I have heard him say that teachers should carry guns.


and you have that wrong. He said Teachers should be "allowed" to carry guns. And when you look into that, the idea is that trained, qualified, VOLUNTEER, teachers should be allowed to be armed to save lives. The way some tiny minds have convoluted that, sound like he wants all teachers to be packing willing or not, which isn't the case at all.




posted on Apr, 30 2018 @ 08:04 AM
link   
a reply to: Southern Guardian

Sounds like the Secret Service ROE trump whatever rules govern the chosen commercial venue. I could not link to the source but do these rules apply only during the VP's visit or for the entire thing?

IMHO, Not so much solely a 2A issue as a "Us versus Them" issue. Think Praetorian Guard. Sad. The VP works for the people. This action does not display that. Yes, the NRA could uninvite the VP and drive on with what they supposedly stand for. Instead, the NRA has become a lobby for gun manufacturers. Their support of the 2A seems to be based on hindered revenue if something happened to gun rights.

Please don't get me wrong. I support the 2A, as is. I am not a member of the NRA.

Do guns make a situation safer or unsafer? IDK. A better question perhaps: Does the person with gun make the situation safer or unsafer? In this case, it seems clear the elite approve of empty brained cheerleaders lauding their presence. They do not approve of citizens on equal footing possibly challenging empty platitudes and double speak.



posted on Apr, 30 2018 @ 08:09 AM
link   
Lol, gun nuts fearing other gunnuts, step all over the 2nd. a reply to: Southern Guardian



posted on Apr, 30 2018 @ 08:10 AM
link   
What what about your freedumbs? I guess the 2nd has its limits after all if you are a mindless rwnj. a reply to: DBCowboy



posted on Apr, 30 2018 @ 08:16 AM
link   

originally posted by: soundguy
What what about your freedumbs? I guess the 2nd has its limits after all if you are a mindless rwnj. a reply to: DBCowboy



Mocking freedom says more about your position than it would about mine.




posted on Apr, 30 2018 @ 09:02 AM
link   

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: DupontDeux



This is not infringing, though.


Yes it is.


How so?

I am no constitutional expert, but I am pretty sure that the Bill of Rights only applies to and limits what the government can do - hence the non-infringement of the 1st amendment when ATS censor posts and sanctions those that say stuff that ATS don't want us to say.



posted on Apr, 30 2018 @ 09:42 AM
link   
a reply to: network dude

Like I said, I keep getting told that MORE guns are the solution. Except when Pence is speaking. Then, apparently, less guns are the solution.



posted on Apr, 30 2018 @ 09:43 AM
link   
“Take the guns first, due process second.”
- some deranged leftie assassin



posted on Apr, 30 2018 @ 09:43 AM
link   

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: network dude

Like I said, I keep getting told that MORE guns are the solution. Except when Pence is speaking. Then, apparently, less guns are the solution.


You guys still ignoring the facts in this just to get a good left wing spin?

You dizzy yet?
edit on 30 4 18 by projectvxn because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 30 2018 @ 10:32 AM
link   

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: network dude

This has been explained numerous times in this post if you really want to try and understand how the context of the situation makes your argument irrelevant. The fact that you haven't even tried to understand the point of the more guns argument is telling. It's often used in a sense that it first curbs a country's want to invade us, otherwise it is used it on the context that people who intend to harm others choose a location that is safest for them to perform said action. A place with secret service does not fit that context.



posted on Apr, 30 2018 @ 10:46 AM
link   

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: network dude

Like I said, I keep getting told that MORE guns are the solution. Except when Pence is speaking. Then, apparently, less guns are the solution.


It's kind of sad that folks who just want to find any reason at all to feel smug would be this stupid. No, you can't take guns to a presidential rally, or a vice presidential rally, it's something that we call "common sense", which is seemingly very uncommon among the left. I am a strong supporter of the 2nd, and I fully understand and agree with this. And as a free citizen, I also have the choice not to attend, so I can continue to carry my .45acp. I also can't take it into my grandson's school, and I understand why, it's the law. If I want that to be different, I would have to try to change the law. If you need further clarification on that, just let me know.



posted on Apr, 30 2018 @ 11:48 AM
link   
a reply to: Southern Guardian

It is pretty logical. Much harder for the secret service to spot a threat if everyone is armed. Being that the purpose is to protect one man (pence) and not the group, it makes perfect sense. There will also be metal detectors and pat downs before his speech, most likely.



posted on Apr, 30 2018 @ 11:49 AM
link   
a reply to: network dude

They just want common sense gun laws, but they lack common sense... what could go wrong?



posted on Apr, 30 2018 @ 11:54 AM
link   
a reply to: DBCowboy

Yeah, isn't that what the second amendment is for? you can't support it just for "Deranged Rightists"

these hypocrites



posted on Apr, 30 2018 @ 12:16 PM
link   
The average citizen is not allowed to bring a gun to see the VP or POTUS. How is this even a story?



posted on Apr, 30 2018 @ 12:23 PM
link   
a reply to: XAnarchistX

The second amendment is so you can bring a weapon to a speech to assassinate the vice president? You guys have some crazy ideas.



posted on Apr, 30 2018 @ 02:00 PM
link   
a reply to: network dude

You should also not be allowed to take guns to any other place where there are people.



posted on Apr, 30 2018 @ 02:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: network dude

You should also not be allowed to take guns to any other place where there are people.

Like a gun range?
Who says they don't want to take our guns away?



posted on Apr, 30 2018 @ 02:27 PM
link   


This is how stupid you people look.



posted on Apr, 30 2018 @ 02:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: soundguy
Lol, gun nuts fearing other gunnuts, step all over the 2nd. a reply to: Southern Guardian



Says a lot doesn't it?

They have no obligation to host the vice president, but they choose to. In doing so, they choose to make the exception to the very core principal they so often advocate for. Members aren't quite grasping this fact in full.

No trust for NRA members, good guys with guns to ensure it's safe? But schools on the other hands. You must put your complete trust.




top topics



 
16
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join