'Pubs Ban Guns. Again.

[TrailerHitch]

So the Secret Service is not deluded when they asses the risk?
Which one is it?

Again you said it not me. The Secret Service has procedures and protocols they follow. If you have an issue with that contact them.

As far as the NRA goes, I'm not member, haven't been one for over 40 years, so frankly I don't give a fuck what they say or do. So you can put that one away as a means of trying to attack me.

 

[TrailerHitch]

The media isn't responsible for releasing documents from a crime/investigation

Of course not, but why haven't the police released the manifesto? Again what are they hiding? Is it politically motivated so as not to have some sort of backlash

 

[ll74]

Of course not, but why haven't the police released the manifesto? Again what are they hiding? Is it politically motivated so as not to have some sort of backlash

They've already mentioned their reasoning. Feel free to file an foia.

 

[ll74]

They've already mentioned their reasoning. Feel free to file an foia.

Of course not, but why haven't the police released the manifesto? Again what are they hiding? Is it politically motivated so as not to have some sort of backlash

Strike that - the parents of the school own the manifesto so you'd have to probably sue them for release.

Either way, it's not media bias that is withholding it, so using it as an example of media bias is probably not a good idea. Especially when the media seems to be attempting to have it released

https://nypost.com/2023/06/09/audrey-hales-parents-transfer-manifesto-to-school/

 

[LittleSwitchy]

I’m bet it’s the venue owners/ managers that are not allowing carry in the event. Just like any business owner/ manager can post and not allow carry inside the business.

 

[TrailerHitch]

Strike that - the parents of the school own the manifesto so you'd have to probably sue them for release.

Either way, it's not media bias that is withholding it, so using it as an example of media bias is probably not a good idea. Especially when the media seems to be attempting to have it released

https://nypost.com/2023/06/09/audrey-hales-parents-transfer-manifesto-to-school/

So parents, or the school, who the shooter attended, is refusing to release the manifesto. How convenient. This makes it look like the school is hiding something regarding the motive for the shooting. It may or may not be, but it sure takes on that stench of cover up.

 

[ll74]

So parents, or the school, who the shooter attended, is refusing to release the manifesto. How convenient. This makes it look like the school is hiding something regarding the motive for the shooting. It may or may not be, but it sure takes on that stench of cover up.

Or more likely, they believe releasing it would cause harm in some way to the school.

I guess you can and will add that fuel to your conspiracies.

 

[Vivacious_in_the_TxHills]

So parents, or the school, who the shooter attended, is refusing to release the manifesto. How convenient. This makes it look like the school is hiding something regarding the motive for the shooting. It may or may not be, but it sure takes on that stench of cover up.

They could be keeping it out of the public eye because there were other people or children mentioned in the manifesto, which could be hurtful to those mentioned.

 

[bijedi]

Neither Trump, DeSantis or the NRA allow guns at their rallies. It's almost as if there's a risk of something.

Gun free zones for me, but not for thee. Seems to be a habit with the people on the right.

 

[TrailerHitch]

Or more likely, they believe releasing it would cause harm in some way to the school.

I guess you can and will add that fuel to your conspiracies.

I don't doubt it will harm the school, if she was in gender confusion at school, which was a christian school, I'm sure she got little to no emotional support, and more than likely was subjected to scorn and ridicule. That would not play well for the school's public image and frankly their bottom line financially.

 

[TrailerHitch]

They could be keeping it out of the public eye because there were other people or children mentioned in the manifesto, which could be hurtful to those mentioned.

Like every other document released those elements could be blocked out. Seems simple enough.

 

[TrailerHitch]

Gun free zones for me, but not for thee. Seems to be a habit with the people on the right.

Do you allow people in your home or on your property with guns? People you know? Or strangers?

 

[peili]

I mean, it's almost like they don't trust their 'well regulated militia' members.

Guns Banned From Trump Speech at Republican Dinner​

Some have argued the rule was hypocritical given the former president's support of Second Amendment rights.

DUMZ say ID for elections are racist

But Mo Obama required ID for her book signings

https://www.politics-prose.com/event/book/meet-michelle-obama

 

[bijedi]

Do you allow people in your home or on your property with guns? People you know? Or strangers?

Of course not. But what does that have to do with the hypocrisy of those who oppose 'gun free zones' requiring them for their own events?

If I held the position that 'gun free zones' only encourages more gun violence but then required a 'gun free zone' be established for my event you might have a point. But I have never advocated that 'gun free zones' are not effective in reducing gun violence as the NRA, GOP, and second amendment activists have.

It is not hypocritical to call out the hypocrisy of another group for being critical of a particular position when they then turn around and take that same position themselves even if you support that position.

 

[TrailerHitch]

Of course not. But what does that have to do with the hypocrisy of those who oppose 'gun free zones' requiring them for their own events?

If I held the position that 'gun free zones' only encourages more gun violence but then required a 'gun free zone' be established for my event you might have a point. But I have never advocated that 'gun free zones' are not effective in reducing gun violence as the NRA, GOP, and second amendment activists have.

It is not hypocritical to call out the hypocrisy of another group for being critical of a particular position when they then turn around and take that same position themselves even if you support that position.

Its funny, I never ask anyone that is welcome at my home whether they are carrying a gun or not. Do you not trust your family or friends? Are you in fear that one of them may shoot you? Essentially you are declaring everyone you know as a potential threat, even your friends and family. That's pretty paranoid. Yet you deny public officials that same paranoia that you freely admit, yours is with people you know personally. Yes, you are a hypocrite.

None of my friends or family ever ask me if I am carrying a gun. I wonder why? Could it be that they trust me not to shoot them? Could it be that they trust my judgement and maturity about when and if my gun will ever come out of its holster? Could it be that they know, because I have told them, that I hope it never has to come out of the holster due to a hostile situation I find myself in? Could it be because I have clearly expressed that I have no need or desire to ever shoot anyone? Could it be because I have made it clear that pulling my gun is a last resort when I can't remove myself or family from a violent situation? Hm...I wonder.

Politicians can't vet every person in a crowd at a political event, anymore than the NRA can vet every person attending an NRA convention. There will always be lunatics looking to take advantage of any large gathering to make a statement, whether a left winger at a right wing event, or a right winger at a left wing event. I have no problem not being able to carry my loaded pistol into a gun show. Why does this extra element of safety bother you so much?

 

[bijedi]

Its funny, I never ask anyone that is welcome at my home whether they are carrying a gun or not. Do you not trust your family or friends? Are you in fear that one of them may shoot you? Essentially you are declaring everyone you know as a potential threat, even your friends and family. That's pretty paranoid. Yet you deny public officials that same paranoia that you freely admit, yours is with people you know personally. Yes, you are a hypocrite.

None of my friends or family ever ask me if I am carrying a gun. I wonder why? Could it be that they trust me not to shoot them? Could it be that they trust my judgement and maturity about when and if my gun will ever come out of its holster? Could it be that they know, because I have told them, that I hope it never has to come out of the holster due to a hostile situation I find myself in? Could it be because I have clearly expressed that I have no need or desire to ever shoot anyone? Could it be because I have made it clear that pulling my gun is a last resort when I can't remove myself or family from a violent situation? Hm...I wonder.

Politicians can't vet every person in a crowd at a political event, anymore than the NRA can vet every person attending an NRA convention. There will always be lunatics looking to take advantage of any large gathering to make a statement, whether a left winger at a right wing event, or a right winger at a left wing event. I have no problem not being able to carry my loaded pistol into a gun show. Why does this extra element of safety bother you so much?

It doesn't bother me, in fact I think it is a great idea. In fact, I believe it is so self-evident that those groups should stop claiming otherwise when it comes to schools and other venues.

What bothers me is the hypocrisy of groups such as the NRA and pro-second amendment who have a history of claiming that eliminating 'gun free zones' should be part of the solution to random gun violence and mass shootings. Every time there is a mass shooting a school, one of the distractions those groups will use is to claim that one of the reasons that people target schools is because they are a gun free zone. Their argument is schools would be safer if they were not gun free zones as that would discourage lunatics from targeting schools.

To then claim that they need their own events to be gun free zones for safety reasons is in direct contradiction of their official position that gun free zones are inherently less safe than non-gun free zones. If they really believed that, then they would want everybody to bring their guns with them to their events as that would discourage the lunatics. Since they don't, I am forced to draw the conclusion that they don't believe that gun free zones encourage the lunatics to target such facilities, and they are deploying that rhetoric in a cynical and dishonest attempt to frame the debate around gun regulation. And I have a real problem with people who are dishonest and hypocritical in a way that results in more kids being shot and killed in schools.

 

[buaireadair]

Of course not. But what does that have to do with the hypocrisy of those who oppose 'gun free zones' requiring them for their own events?

If I held the position that 'gun free zones' only encourages more gun violence but then required a 'gun free zone' be established for my event you might have a point. But I have never advocated that 'gun free zones' are not effective in reducing gun violence as the NRA, GOP, and second amendment activists have.

It is not hypocritical to call out the hypocrisy of another group for being critical of a particular position when they then turn around and take that same position themselves even if you support that position.

DUMZ say ID for elections are racist

But Mo Obama required ID for her book signings

https://www.politics-prose.com/event/book/meet-michelle-obama

 

[bijedi]

DUMZ say ID for elections are racist

But Mo Obama required ID for her book signings

https://www.politics-prose.com/event/book/meet-michelle-obama

And? Are you equating exercising a fundamental right is equivalent to a basic commercial activity? Seems to be a silly comparison to make, but okay. I find that to be a false equivalence and quite a reach, but everybody's entitled to their opinion.

Furthermore, it was the US Secret Service security protocols that required identification, not Michelle Obama or any Democrat policy. That policy would be the same for a Republican under Secret Service. Seeing as this has nothing to do with the Democrats position on whether ID is required to attend a book signing, claiming that it is hypocritical on their part is pretty dishonest. So typical of the right to appeal to what aboutism, and completely miss the mark.

 

[TrailerHitch]

And? Are you equating exercising a fundamental right is equivalent to a basic commercial activity? Seems to be a silly comparison to make, but okay. I find that to be a false equivalence and quite a reach, but everybody's entitled to their opinion.

Furthermore, it was the US Secret Service security protocols that required identification, not Michelle Obama or any Democrat policy. That policy would be the same for a Republican under Secret Service. Seeing as this has nothing to do with the Democrats position on whether ID is required to attend a book signing, claiming that it is hypocritical on their part is pretty dishonest. So typical of the right to appeal to what aboutism, and completely miss the mark.

So its okay to demand ID to attend a book signing but not okay to request no guns at a political rally? Or an NRA event? Dude you are so confused its ridiculous. The former first lady gets to vet what maybe a couple hundred people to insure she is safe. How do you expect the Secret Service to vet 10's of thousands at a rally? Or the NRA or gun shows to vet hundreds or thousands attending? Your aboutism is ridiculous. Does Joey allow guns at his events? He says he isn't about gun confiscation, so are you okay if people bring guns to his rallies? Well if he ever held one...

By the way...why did michelle obama need to be protected at a book signing? Was there a credible threat, or just paranoia?

 

[TrailerHitch]

It doesn't bother me, in fact I think it is a great idea. In fact, I believe it is so self-evident that those groups should stop claiming otherwise when it comes to schools and other venues.

What bothers me is the hypocrisy of groups such as the NRA and pro-second amendment who have a history of claiming that eliminating 'gun free zones' should be part of the solution to random gun violence and mass shootings. Every time there is a mass shooting a school, one of the distractions those groups will use is to claim that one of the reasons that people target schools is because they are a gun free zone. Their argument is schools would be safer if they were not gun free zones as that would discourage lunatics from targeting schools.

To then claim that they need their own events to be gun free zones for safety reasons is in direct contradiction of their official position that gun free zones are inherently less safe than non-gun free zones. If they really believed that, then they would want everybody to bring their guns with them to their events as that would discourage the lunatics. Since they don't, I am forced to draw the conclusion that they don't believe that gun free zones encourage the lunatics to target such facilities, and they are deploying that rhetoric in a cynical and dishonest attempt to frame the debate around gun regulation. And I have a real problem with people who are dishonest and hypocritical in a way that results in more kids being shot and killed in schools.

It obviously bothers you enough to post on it multiple times.

Gun free zones are a joke, but not a funny one. Why is it some businesses, ALL upper level politicians, and even private citizens with big money can get armed security but we can't put armed security in ALL schools? Whether it is an on duty resource officer, or off duty cops hired as security for the school. We all wring our hands at these tragedies but refuse to take that simple step. maybe it's time for parents to start suing schools for not protecting their kids, proactively before an event occurs and absolutely reactively after an event occurs. Start showing up at school board meetings demanding security improvements to include armed security officer(s), cameras, locked doors, bullet resistant glass on entryway doors. Supply training and non-lethal for teachers, like pepper spray or tasers, so they can defend themselves and students.

Obviously gun free zones offer no deterrent if there is no security to protect them from people with violent intent. Just like locks on your door they keep honest, law abiding citizens honest. They do not deter criminals or the mentally ill.

Again, let me type this slower for you this time so maybe you'll get it. Its a matter of vetting the crowd. Since it impossible to vet an unknown rally crowd of ten's of thousands, they ban firearms. Since it is impossible to vet unknown attendees of a gun show or NRA event they ban loaded firearms. Its really simple, both the left and the right have lunatic fringe radicals willing to sacrifice themselves to attempt to kill politicians or disrupt an event for political gain. There is no way to prevent that other than to insure no one has a weapon. Again law abiding citizens are not the problem, criminals and the mentally ill are.

 

[bijedi]

It obviously bothers you enough to post on it multiple times.

Gun free zones are a joke, but not a funny one. Why is it some businesses, ALL upper level politicians, and even private citizens with big money can get armed security but we can't put armed security in ALL schools? Whether it is an on duty resource officer, or off duty cops hired as security for the school. We all wring our hands at these tragedies but refuse to take that simple step. maybe it's time for parents to start suing schools for not protecting their kids, proactively before an event occurs and absolutely reactively after an event occurs. Start showing up at school board meetings demanding security improvements to include armed security officer(s), cameras, locked doors, bullet resistant glass on entryway doors. Supply training and non-lethal for teachers, like pepper spray or tasers, so they can defend themselves and students.

Obviously gun free zones offer no deterrent if there is no security to protect them from people with violent intent. Just like locks on your door they keep honest, law abiding citizens honest. They do not deter criminals or the mentally ill.

Again, let me type this slower for you this time so maybe you'll get it. Its a matter of vetting the crowd. Since it impossible to vet an unknown rally crowd of ten's of thousands, they ban firearms. Since it is impossible to vet unknown attendees of a gun show or NRA event they ban loaded firearms. Its really simple, both the left and the right have lunatic fringe radicals willing to sacrifice themselves to attempt to kill politicians or disrupt an event for political gain. There is no way to prevent that other than to insure no one has a weapon. Again law abiding citizens are not the problem, criminals and the mentally ill are.

I understand your point perfectly clear. You refuse to address my point that these groups are being hypocritical in their position on this. That's okay. Some people are fine with hypocrisy. Some of us aren't.

You are the one that has a problem with my position. I could care less about your position, as it has zero merit in my opinion.

 

[TrailerHitch]

I understand your point perfectly clear. You refuse to address my point that these groups are being hypocritical in their position on this. That's okay. Some people are fine with hypocrisy. Some of us aren't.

You are the one that has a problem with my position. I could care less about your position, as it has zero merit in my opinion.

I don't give a fuck about your position because you won't even try to understand mine. I have explained why they do what they do, you either choose to ignore what I have said or post non-sensical circular rebuttals. You see the difference between you and me and your cronies is YOU attack me for my position, usually with some childish irrelevant personal attack. Boring, immature and doesn't chase me away or change my mind. I state my point, trying hard to avoid your game, I fail sometimes. It doesn't matter if you agree with me or not. Sadly you don't even try to understand. You are like the old guy arguing at the diner, you don't listen to understand you only listen to know when the other person stopped talking so you can blather on and on.

 

[bijedi]

So its okay to demand ID to attend a book signing but not okay to request no guns at a political rally? Or an NRA event? Dude you are so confused its ridiculous. The former first lady gets to vet what maybe a couple hundred people to insure she is safe. How do you expect the Secret Service to vet 10's of thousands at a rally? Or the NRA or gun shows to vet hundreds or thousands attending? Your aboutism is ridiculous. Does Joey allow guns at his events? He says he isn't about gun confiscation, so are you okay if people bring guns to his rallies? Well if he ever held one...

By the way...why did michelle obama need to be protected at a book signing? Was there a credible threat, or just paranoia?

Dude, you are the one that is confused. This was a reply to another poster asserting that the Dems are being hypocritical by requiring ID for a book signing, but not requiring ID for voting. Guns had nothing to do with it.

As a former first lady, her security is the responsibility of the Secret Service. If you have an issue with how they manage that responsibility, take it up with them.

I get it, you feel like your gun ownership is threatened by those that don't think the answer is gun violence is more violence. Not my problem or issue. I don't have a problem with not allowing people to bring guns to public events. I think that is just common sense. I have a problem with people who say the answer to gun violence is more guns, except when some of those guns may be targeted at them, and then they decide nobody should be allowed to have guns. You seem to have a problem seeing the hypocrisy in that position. Or at least want the rest of us to ignore that hypocrisy. That's your right. Unless you have some new insight on this, I am done with this thread.

 

[TrailerHitch]

Dude, you are the one that is confused. This was a reply to another poster asserting that the Dems are being hypocritical by requiring ID for a book signing, but not requiring ID for voting. Guns had nothing to do with it.

As a former first lady, her security is the responsibility of the Secret Service. If you have an issue with how they manage that responsibility, take it up with them.

I get it, you feel like your gun ownership is threatened by those that don't think the answer is gun violence is more violence. Not my problem or issue. I don't have a problem with not allowing people to bring guns to public events. I think that is just common sense. I have a problem with people who say the answer to gun violence is more guns, except when some of those guns may be targeted at them, and then they decide nobody should be allowed to have guns. You seem to have a problem seeing the hypocrisy in that position. Or at least want the rest of us to ignore that hypocrisy. That's your right. Unless you have some new insight on this, I am done with this thread.

Bye!

 

[TrailerHitch]

K, that’s pretty weak given the FACT that he has SS protection!

Hm...I don't recall exactly...But did secret service protection stop JFK from getting shot in the head and throat and killed? Or President Ronald Reagan from getting shot in the chest? Or from shots being fired at President Gerald Ford? Because you can't 100% percent control everyone and every event in a crowd situation. When you have the ability you make sure that no one is armed and capable of disrupting that event or killing those being protected.