The NRA wants guns in schools, but not at their convention

[BoyNextDoor]

Its nice n cute to shit on some. ...and the beautiful people here love it

But you shame yourself

Don't be so gullible. LaPierre makes a big show of asking for a mentally ill database (whatever the fuck that is) but opposes at every turn necessary and prudent laws that would keep guns out of the hands of the mentally ill and criminals.

Yes the NRA is keeping guns in the hand of the mentally ill and criminals by the public policy they choose to support and oppose. If you have something to say to the contrary I am all ears. And yes they want to arm teachers too. The dopes.

BUT - they do not want gunz at their conventionz. Why is that Dizzybooby? Why no gunz at the coventionz? Are there criminalz and mentally ill at the NRA conventionz?

 

[about_average]

BUT - they do not want gunz at their conventionz.

Cite?

 

[BoyNextDoor]

Cite?

See first post by OP

 

[phrodeau]

(edited)

Are there criminalz and mentally ill at the NRA conventionz?

Are there some who aren't?

 

[about_average]

See first post by OP

Ummm...I meant a cite of actual facts, not a cite of something made up.

The NRA is, in fact, allowing fully functioning and loaded firearms to be lawfully carried by individuals at the convention.

 

[TheLM]

Ummm...I meant a cite of actual facts, not a cite of something made up.

The NRA is, in fact, allowing fully functioning and loaded firearms to be lawfully carried by individuals at the convention.

Stop posting facts, this board is only for partisan masturbation.


Am I doing it right, guys?

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

Ummm...I meant a cite of actual facts, not a cite of something made up.

The NRA is, in fact, allowing fully functioning and loaded firearms to be lawfully carried by individuals at the convention.

You're using your own definition of the word "convention". Tough to deny this isn't hypocrisy.

 

[BoyNextDoor]

Ummm...I meant a cite of actual facts, not a cite of something made up.

The NRA is, in fact, allowing fully functioning and loaded firearms to be lawfully carried by individuals at the convention.

You are right I take it back. Convention goers can still pack their own heat. Just the guns they are looking to buy will be non operational.

And to be clear, the NRA is keeping guns in the hand of the mentally ill and criminals by the public policy they choose to support and oppose.

 

[BotanyBoy]

And to be clear, the NRA is keeping guns in the hand of the mentally ill and criminals by the public policy they choose to support and oppose.

That's a pretty wild accusation....care to elaborate?? Maybe show exactly the policies they support that keep guns in the hands of the mentally ill and criminal?? Because I think you're full of shit.

 

[about_average]

You are right I take it back. Convention goers can still pack their own heat. Just the guns they are looking to buy will be non operational.

I don't understand why that's an issue for anyone.

When you're in a sporting goods store looking at guns, it's one-on-one customer/clerk. The gun is under a pretty reasonable amount of control even when in the hands of the customer.
Have you ever been to a hawker's table at a convention?

 

[Busybody]

opps

yet MORE LIES


POSTED ON APRIL 11, 2015 BY JOHN HINDERAKER IN MEDIA BIAS
THE TIMES CORRECTS BUT DOES NOT CONFESS
Yesterday the New York Times published a typically vituperative editorial on the National Rifle Association’s annual meeting in progress in Nashville. Titled No Firing Pins, Please, as the N.R.A. Gathers, the editorial accused the NRA of hypocrisy because it banned guns from its own convention:

Seventy-thousand people are expected to attend the National Rifle Association’s convention opening on Friday in Tennessee, and not one of them will be allowed to come armed with guns that can actually shoot. After all the N.R.A. propaganda about how “good guys with guns” are needed to be on guard across American life, from elementary schools to workplaces, the weekend’s gathering of disarmed conventioneers seems the ultimate in hypocrisy.

NRA bans guns! Is that a “gotcha” moment, or what? The editorial continued:

There will be plenty of weapons in evidence at the hundreds of display booths, but for convention security the firing pins must be removed. So far, there has been none of the familiar complaint about infringing supposedly sacrosanct Second Amendment rights — the gun lobby’s main argument in opposing tighter federal background checks on gun buyers after the 2012 gun massacre of schoolchildren in Connecticut. Anyone interested in buying the guns on display, many of them adapted from large-magazine battlefield weapons, will have to apply later at a federally licensed gun dealer where, sensibly enough, background checks are required.

As so often happens, the Times was late to the party. Its editorial mimicked claims that were made by MSNBC and others on the left. By the time the Times editorial appeared, its claims had already been debunked: this Snopes entry, which finds the claim that the NRA banned guns from its convention “false,” is dated April 8.

Bob Owens explained:

The National Rifle Association holds an annual meeting every year in a different host city, and requires that attendees follow the federal, state, and local laws applicable in that city, like every major convention of every significant national group, ever.

This year in Tennessee, that means that attendees can indeed carry firearms in the Music City Center with the proper license in accordance with Tennessee law. Bridgestone Arena prohibits the possession of firearms, and always has. Attendees to the concerts held there are not allowed to carry weapons according to these pre-existing laws. Is it really news that the NRA asks members to follow laws?

The only guns to have their firing pins removed are the display guns put up by the vendors, not the self-defense weapons of attendees. It is a common safety practice at every sporting goods show or convention for firing pins to be absent from weapon displays being handled by thousands of people. …

As for gun sales at the convention, they are simply following—once again—federal and state laws on the purchase and possession of firearms. Vendors typically only bring representative display firearms to large outdoor shows like the NRA annual meetings, and attendees can order firearms that they like at the event. The vendors will take these orders, and then send the ordered firearms to the customer’s specified local gun dealer, at which point they will have a NICS background check and any additional local checks before the firearm is transferred to them.

So the NRA is law-abiding, not hypocritical. Many, many attendees are in fact carrying permitted firearms to the convention in accordance with local law.

Red-faced, the Times issued a half-hearted correction this morning, and quietly rewrote its editorial. This is the correction:

Correction: April 11, 2015

An editorial on Friday about the National Rifle Association’s convention incorrectly described the rules for carrying concealed firearms at the event. Carrying is prohibited at one of the main convention venues, not all of them.

The correction implies that the NRA is only somewhat, not entirely, hypocritical. In fact, the correction should have acknowledged that there was zero basis for the editorial, and it never should have been published.

This is the opening paragraph of the editorial, as rewritten:

Seventy-thousand people are expected to attend the National Rifle Association’s convention opening on Friday in Tennessee, but they won’t be allowed to carry firearms in one of the main convention venues. This may run counter to the N.R.A.’s ideas about carrying guns everywhere, from elementary schools to workplaces.

Then follows the pointless paragraph about the fact that people who order guns at the convention will have them shipped to licensed dealers near where they live, in accordance with federal law.

Quietly dropped from the editorial is the claim that “not one of them will be allowed to come armed with guns that can actually shoot.” Silently erased is the reference to “N.R.A. propaganda about how ‘good guys with guns’ are needed to be on guard.” And now missing is the central point of the editorial as originally written, the assertion that the NRA’s alleged gun ban is “the ultimate in hypocrisy.”

A more honest approach would have been to delete the editorial in its entirety and replace it with, “Oops. Never mind.” But honesty is not something anyone expects from the New York Times.

 

[Busybody]

You cannot spell liberalism without L-I-E-S

 

[about_average]

You're using your own definition of the word "convention". Tough to deny this isn't hypocrisy.

I'm using this definition:
noun
1. a meeting or formal assembly, as of representatives or delegates, for discussion of and action on particular matters of common concern.

You're going to have to be very specific on how it's hypocrisy.
I've never seen anything from the NRA that advocates leaving many 100's, of functional firearms lying around in a crowd of 10's of thousands.

 

[phrodeau]

I gotta wonder about the guys who show up armed, then not allowed to carry them in. Do they have racks and lockers to store them in by the door? How safe and secure are they? Who has the master keys? Is he also armed?

 

[doubleover]

I gotta wonder about the guys who show up armed, then not allowed to carry them in. Do they have racks and lockers to store them in by the door? How safe and secure are they? Who has the master keys? Is he also armed?

Maybe we could take up a collection and send your dumb ass there for a full report.

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

I'm using this definition:
noun
1. a meeting or formal assembly, as of representatives or delegates, for discussion of and action on particular matters of common concern.

You're going to have to be very specific on how it's hypocrisy.
I've never seen anything from the NRA that advocates leaving many 100's, of functional firearms lying around in a crowd of 10's of thousands.

I was referring to the arena portion of the convention.

Here's why it's hypocrisy.

1. The NRA is actively pushing legislation that would allow guns in similar arenas in Nevada. They shouldn't be settling for the government telling them they can't bring their weapons inside a government building. The NRA should be holding true to their convictions and not holding the convention in Nashville and members should be bringing their money somewhere else.

2. This creates the dreaded "Gun free zone". With no guns to protect the law abiding NRA members it's an invitation for criminals ( who don't follow laws) to bring their guns in & do harm to defenseless law abiding citizens. I'm dreading hearing on the news about the bloodbath that happened at the arena.

 

[doubleover]

I was referring to the arena portion of the convention.

Here's why it's hypocrisy.

1. The NRA is actively pushing legislation that would allow guns in similar arenas in Nevada. They shouldn't be settling for the government telling them they can't bring their weapons inside a government building. The NRA should be holding true to their convictions and not holding the convention in Nashville and members should be bringing their money somewhere else.

2. This creates the dreaded "Gun free zone". With no guns to protect the law abiding NRA members it's an invitation for criminals ( who don't follow laws) to bring their guns in & do harm to defenseless law abiding citizens. I'm dreading hearing on the news about the bloodbath that happened at the arena.

Dumb ass part 2 has arrived.

 

[phrodeau]

I gotta wonder about the guys who show up armed, then not allowed to carry them in. Do they have racks and lockers to store them in by the door? How safe and secure are they? Who has the master keys? Is he also armed?

Inquiring self-pertection survivalists want to know!

 

[NeverEndingMe]

dude, should you really drink more of the retard juice?

Working guns prohibited at NRA convention

he National Rifle Association’s annual convention kicks off in Nashville this week, with 70,000 people expected to participate in the three-day gathering.

Attendees can expect to find the usual NRA fare and exhibitors at the 350,000-square-foot Music City Center, but they shouldn’t expect to find functioning weapons. The Tennessean reports this week on the “multilevel security plan,” which includes an important safety measure: “All guns on the convention floor will be nonoperational, with the firing pins removed, and any guns purchased during the NRA convention will have to be picked up at a Federal Firearms License dealer, near where the purchaser lives, and will require a legal identification.”

This is presumably because several Republican politicians will be there. So guns around children at school are OK, but not around politicians at a gun convention.
Irony, it's what's for breakfast..

 

[RobDownSouth]

Dumb ass part 2 has arrived.

Guns embiggen small weak men such as yourself, don't they?

They won't push you around anymore! Nossir!

#SteelPenisSubstitute

 

[about_average]

I was referring to the arena portion of the convention.

Here's why it's hypocrisy.

1. The NRA is actively pushing legislation that would allow guns in similar arenas in Nevada. They shouldn't be settling for the government telling them they can't bring their weapons inside a government building. The NRA should be holding true to their convictions and not holding the convention in Nashville and members should be bringing their money somewhere else.

2. This creates the dreaded "Gun free zone". With no guns to protect the law abiding NRA members it's an invitation for criminals ( who don't follow laws) to bring their guns in & do harm to defenseless law abiding citizens. I'm dreading hearing on the news about the bloodbath that happened at the arena.

1. The Bridgestone Area is managed by a private company, which probably makes most, if not all, of the rules about what can be brought in.

As I mentioned before, it's very common for places of a size that can handle the number of people expected to attend to have such prohibitions in place. In all likelihood there were probably very few choices, if any, of places available that had the size, additional nearby facilities for the show and enough hotel/motel rooms close by.
No matter what your principles are, you can only do so much.

2. See above, second paragraph.

I suppose they could have canceled the show saying there were no places to have it.

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

1. The Bridgestone Area is managed by a private company, which probably makes most, if not all, of the rules about what can be brought in.

As I mentioned before, it's very common for places of a size that can handle the number of people expected to attend to have such prohibitions in place. In all likelihood there were probably very few choices, if any, of places available that had the size, additional nearby facilities for the show and enough hotel/motel rooms close by.
No matter what your principles are, you can only do so much.

2. See above, second paragraph.

I suppose they could have canceled the show saying there were no places to have it.

A private company manages the arena but the government owns the arena.

I understand your point. What I'm saying it's hypocritical of the NRA to support legislation to allow gun owners to bring guns inside arenas like this one, but then book their convention in an arena where their members aren't allowed to bring in their guns. I imagine it would be like seeing Ghandi sitting down to eat in a pub owned by the British crown.

Lots of companies that have conventions just got Indiana to change their laws, why isn't the NRA telling Nashville/Tennessee something similar?

 

[about_average]

A private company manages the arena but the government owns the arena.

Are you assuming the government writes the policies for it, rather than the management company, or do you know for a fact they do?

Either way, I'm assuming choices were limited, if not non-existent, and it was a matter of not having the convention, or having to accept the distasteful rules of the location.

 

[NeverEndingMe]

Dumb ass part 2 has arrived.

don't forget about phrodeau, its also a juice drinker

 

[patient1]

Are you assuming the government writes the policies for it, rather than the management company, or do you know for a fact they do?

Either way, I'm assuming choices were limited, if not non-existent, and it was a matter of not having the convention, or having to accept the distasteful rules of the location.

I did some digging. Depending on configuration, Bridgestone capacity maxes out at 20,000.

Speculating that in my experience, Civic Arenas tend to be No Weapons zones, while convention centers attached to hotels tend to be more accommodating, I checked out convention centers.

While there are facilities that can handle large numbers in multiple conference rooms, the large ones tend to max at half or a third the size of Bridgestone for a single room. A single room is critical for a convention in which the membership actually decides things. That's how it ought to be. Even in Vegas, to seat 20.000 in a single room, you would need a facility that also serves as a civic arena. I think they have three of those. But they're always building, I might have missed something.

You're right, it would be really tough to find an indoor venue with so large a single room that allowed firearms. Personally, I think the membership I used to know would be perfectly happy with an outdoor event because they were outdoorsmen at heart, and would rather camp than patronize a facility that doesn't respect their constitutional rights.