CPAC. The gun free zone where you complain about gun free zones

[Thinker101]

I do agree that all schools should have metal detectors, sure don't see anything that suggests I'm against arming teachers...students no. You need to learn how to pay attention.

I am paying attention. The conservative response to 'gun free zones' is usually more guns. That is unless it comes to one of their own little shindigs. It's the hypocrisy that you are clearly trying to avoid.

Great, since you are paying attention, perhaps you can point out where I said "not arming teachers and students".

Somehow you think that CPAC throwing up metal detectors and disarming the 'good guys' isn't hypocritical? Or are you stuck on my rhetorical question demonstrating the rights hypocrisy?

WTF...are you replying to my comments??? Don't recall typing anything about CPAC....dumbass.

Read the thread title. It's about CPAC, hypocrisy and you not dealing with it. I can see you're not keeping up.

And if you were following the conversation I was having with Derp, you'd realize we were talking about schools.

 

[martybegan]

They don't create a secure zone at schools.

Sure they do.

So now it's a matter of how you subjectively judge what they "create"? Please note that term "create" here is meant to be deliberately vague and ambiguous so as to allow yourself the room to wiggle around the parameters of what you meant to say later on in this debate.

You idiots keep going for the gotcha moment but swing and miss all the time.

Pointing out that you have a subjective standard by which you judge "creat[ing] a secure zone" isn't a gotcha moment or a swing and a miss. But your attempt to dismiss what is blatant and overt hypocrisy on your part does swing and miss big.

Got a link for your 15 out of 150 reference?

Sure. Does it matter to you since you won't click on it anyway, or you'll try to gaslight it?

You create a secure zone by having a secure perimeter and controlling access. An airport is an example, or a courthouse.

A private event saying don't bring your guns does not equate to banning ownership or carry in public. You are such a freaking tool.

And since 63% happened in private homes, and they define "mass" as 4 or more, not including the shooter you ignore the majority of the real big ones, 10+. What is the gun free zone breakdown on those?

 

[martybegan]

I do agree that all schools should have metal detectors, sure don't see anything that suggests I'm against arming teachers...students no. You need to learn how to pay attention.

I am paying attention. The conservative response to 'gun free zones' is usually more guns. That is unless it comes to one of their own little shindigs. It's the hypocrisy that you are clearly trying to avoid.

Great, since you are paying attention, perhaps you can point out where I said "not arming teachers and students".

Somehow you think that CPAC throwing up metal detectors and disarming the 'good guys' isn't hypocritical? Or are you stuck on my rhetorical question demonstrating the rights hypocrisy?

WTF...are you replying to my comments??? Don't recall typing anything about CPAC....dumbass.

Read the thread title. It's about CPAC, hypocrisy and you not dealing with it. I can see you're not keeping up.

How is it hypocritical to have a voluntary event that asks you to keep your guns at home and support home ownership of firearms and concealed carry IN PUBLIC?

 

[martybegan]

At CPAC they use metal detectors before people can enter, and thus create a secure zone where NO ONE can bring in a gun. I'm also sure they spring for armed security in case some lefty nutter tries to shoot up the place.

Schools have metal detectors. Schools also have armed security too.

But why would anyone at CPAC be worried about gun-toting people if everyone there is gun-toting?

Most gun free schools don't actually do anything to create a true secure space, nor do they have any real response plan set up involving onsite armed responders.Nice try though.

Only 15 of the 150 mass shootings have been in "gun free zones".

Parkland did not and does not have metal detectors.

But they had armed security. Armed security that cowered behind cars as the shooter ran amuck.

And your point is?

That arming more people isn't going to stop shit, and will most likely result in more innocents getting hurt.

But anything you can do to make the gun industry another buck, right!? That's why you support arming teachers, isn't it? You want to make gun companies more money.

We saw what happens when there is no one armed inside the school. the shooter has free reign until the police can respond.

 

[martybegan]

At CPAC they use metal detectors before people can enter, and thus create a secure zone where NO ONE can bring in a gun. I'm also sure they spring for armed security in case some lefty nutter tries to shoot up the place.

Schools have metal detectors. Schools also have armed security too.

But why would anyone at CPAC be worried about gun-toting people if everyone there is gun-toting?

Most gun free schools don't actually do anything to create a true secure space, nor do they have any real response plan set up involving onsite armed responders.Nice try though.

Only 15 of the 150 mass shootings have been in "gun free zones".

Parkland did not and does not have metal detectors.

So, basically you agree that Parkland should have metal detectors and not arming teachers and students.

Thanks, wasn't that easy?

I do agree that all schools should have metal detectors, sure don't see anything that suggests I'm against arming teachers...students no. You need to learn how to pay attention.

I am paying attention. The conservative response to 'gun free zones' is usually more guns. That is unless it comes to one of their own little shindigs. It's the hypocrisy that you are clearly trying to avoid.

The proper response is to actually create a secured area when you declare a location "gun free" so you can guarantee it is "gun free"

Either that or let CCW carriers make their own mind up about bringing their firearm with them.

 

[martybegan]

right wing phonies . Blaming gun free zones is a favorite diversion of the gun nuts .

Yet CPAC was gun free! Their hypocrisy knows no bounds.

Trump trashes gun-free schools at CPAC 2018 -- where people aren't allowed to bring in guns

At CPAC they use metal detectors before people can enter, and thus create a secure zone where NO ONE can bring in a gun. I'm also sure they spring for armed security in case some lefty nutter tries to shoot up the place.

Most gun free schools don't actually do anything to create a true secure space, nor do they have any real response plan set up involving onsite armed responders.

Nice try though.

Bend yourself into a pretzel much?

“They have metal detectors ...” please . Bunch of two faced phonies railing against gun free zones .

No bending at all. They created a secure zone, with controlled access, just like a court, or an airport. A secure zone means I can reasonably assume no one else except authorized security is armed within the zone.

What do schools do to create secure zones out of their campuses?

Hold on. You broadcast that CPAC is a gun free zone . Which tells gun toating maniac that it’s a perfect place to attack .

That’s your argument with gun free zones . That they are soft targets.

You can’t have it both ways .

You don't think CPAC has security that IS armed during the meetings, manning the security stations?

You don't think the local PD has cops onsite due to the possibility of some nutty lefty trying to take out some conservatives?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

This example of rightwing hypocrisy should come as no surprise.

 

[KeiserC]

right wing phonies . Blaming gun free zones is a favorite diversion of the gun nuts .

Yet CPAC was gun free! Their hypocrisy knows no bounds.

Trump trashes gun-free schools at CPAC 2018 -- where people aren't allowed to bring in guns

Not a gun free zone!!! Armed security... just like a court house... idiot! (a good template for any existing "gun free zones" to adopt, thus, NOT making them gun free zones)

 

[martybegan]

This example of rightwing hypocrisy should come as no surprise.

What hypocrisy?

 

[The Derp]

You create a secure zone by having a secure perimeter and controlling access. An airport is an example, or a courthouse.

But why at CPAC when the rhetoric is that guns make people safe? No guns at CPAC. You're not answering to the hypocrisy of why you want guns everywhere else, but you don't want them at CPAC.

A private event saying don't bring your guns does not equate to banning ownership or carry in public. You are such a freaking tool.

Oh, so this is the excuse? It's OK to create gun-free zones in private when Conservatives are at risk. Got it.

And since 63% happened in private homes, and they define "mass" as 4 or more, not including the shooter you ignore the majority of the real big ones, 10+. What is the gun free zone breakdown on those?

Even their definition of what a mass shooting is gives you gun nuts the benefit of the doubt. I'd count a mass shooting as any shooting where more than one person is killed. They're spotting you four dead bodies before they label the incident a mass shooting.

 

[martybegan]

You create a secure zone by having a secure perimeter and controlling access. An airport is an example, or a courthouse.

But why at CPAC when the rhetoric is that guns make people safe? No guns at CPAC. You're not answering to the hypocrisy of why you want guns everywhere else, but you don't want them at CPAC.

A private event saying don't bring your guns does not equate to banning ownership or carry in public. You are such a freaking tool.

Oh, so this is the excuse? It's OK to create gun-free zones in private when Conservatives are at risk. Got it.

And since 63% happened in private homes, and they define "mass" as 4 or more, not including the shooter you ignore the majority of the real big ones, 10+. What is the gun free zone breakdown on those?

Even their definition of what a mass shooting is gives you gun nuts the benefit of the doubt. I'd count a mass shooting as any shooting where more than one person is killed. They're spotting you four dead bodies before they label the incident a mass shooting.

The security has the guns. as a private event they can set whatever rules they see fit. Plus the owner of the property probably had a say in it too.

Again, the zone they created had an effective barrier and armed security on-site.

You would define anything the way it suits you because you are a moron.

 

[The Derp]

We saw what happens when there is no one armed inside the school. the shooter has free reign until the police can respond.

There was an armed deputy out front in Parkland, cowering in fear behind his vehicle as the shooter ran amok inside. Your solution is to make more armed people? So that they can, what, cower behind cars too afraid to run in?

Is your solution to drunk driving to increase the number of drunk drivers on the roads?

 

[The Derp]

You don't think CPAC has security that IS armed during the meetings, manning the security stations?

BUT THAT'S NOT THE POINT.

CPAC Conservatives push the idea that everyone needs to be armed in order to be safe, and they're not even employing that rhetoric in practice at their own conference.

So they have security? So what? They're whole thing is that there wouldn't be a need for security if everyone was personally armed.

YYou don't think the local PD has cops onsite due to the possibility of some nutty lefty trying to take out some conservatives?

So rather than be responsible for your own personal security, you outsource the job to others. How brave.

 

[martybegan]

We saw what happens when there is no one armed inside the school. the shooter has free reign until the police can respond.

There was an armed deputy out front in Parkland, cowering in fear behind his vehicle as the shooter ran amok inside. Your solution is to make more armed people? So that they can, what, cower behind cars too afraid to run in?

Is your solution to drunk driving to increase the number of drunk drivers on the roads?

Your solution is to leave armed response in the hands of the government, and in this case THE GOVERNMENT FAILED.

This actually makes the CASE for personal ownership of firearms, because you can't count on the government actor to do his freaking job.

 

[martybegan]

You don't think CPAC has security that IS armed during the meetings, manning the security stations?

BUT THAT'S NOT THE POINT.

CPAC Conservatives push the idea that everyone needs to be armed in order to be safe, and they're not even employing that rhetoric in practice at their own conference.

So they have security? So what? They're whole thing is that there wouldn't be a need for security if everyone was personally armed.

YYou don't think the local PD has cops onsite due to the possibility of some nutty lefty trying to take out some conservatives?

So rather than be responsible for your own personal security, you outsource the job to others. How brave.

They make the point that a person has a right to make that choice themselves, when in public.

Again, the venue may have had a say in it, and as a private property owner they have a right to set the rules, something most conservatives and libertarians agree with.

The police probably expect trouble from nutty leftists like you.

 

[The Derp]

The security has the guns. as a private event they can set whatever rules they see fit. Plus the owner of the property probably had a say in it too.

But the whole point is that if people were armed and responsible for their own personal security, there wouldn't be a need for the armed guards at CPAC, right!? So you're a hypocrite because you want to allow people to take guns practically anywhere in society, but not when it comes to Conservatives attending a conference. When that happens, no guns are allowed because Conservatives think they're at risk. Gee, I wonder why.

Again, the zone they created had an effective barrier and armed security on-site.

Why does that matter? Why not be personally responsible for your own personal security? That's what you're saying everyone else must do, yet here you are, arguing the exact opposite of that. That's what makes you a hypocrite.

You would define anything the way it suits you because you are a moron.

Mass = more than one.

That's just language.

And they're even spotting you FOUR bodies before calling it a mass shooting.

 

[The Derp]

They make the point that a person has a right to make that choice themselves, when in public.

NO! That's not your point! Your point is and always has been that to make society safer, everyone must be armed. That's why you support all those concealed carry laws, right? Because you think that makes people safe. But here you are, arguing the exact opposite position when it comes to the security of CPAC. So it's hypocritical that you would outsource your personal security when you just got done arguing that every person must be personally responsible for their own security.

BTW - stadiums have armed security, metal detectors, and barriers. Yet you all want to make it possible for people to take their guns into stadiums.

So you're a hypocrite.

Again, the venue may have had a say in it, and as a private property owner they have a right to set the rules, something most conservatives and libertarians agree with.

So your personal responsibility ends the moment you can outsource your personal security to someone else. So help me understand then, why you need a gun at all.

The police probably expect trouble from nutty leftists like you.

You're the ones who demand free carry of your guns, yet here you are, arguing for the exact opposite of that. Not surprising.

 

[martybegan]

The security has the guns. as a private event they can set whatever rules they see fit. Plus the owner of the property probably had a say in it too.

But the whole point is that if people were armed and responsible for their own personal security, there wouldn't be a need for the armed guards at CPAC, right!? So you're a hypocrite because you want to allow people to take guns practically anywhere in society, but not when it comes to Conservatives attending a conference. When that happens, no guns are allowed because Conservatives think they're at risk. Gee, I wonder why.

Again, the zone they created had an effective barrier and armed security on-site.

Why does that matter? Why not be personally responsible for your own personal security? That's what you're saying everyone else must do, yet here you are, arguing the exact opposite of that. That's what makes you a hypocrite.

You would define anything the way it suits you because you are a moron.

Mass = more than one.

That's just language.

And they're even spotting you FOUR bodies before calling it a mass shooting.

Show me where I want to let people have guns "everywhere in society"

Again, it could be the venue not wanting firearms on their own private property.

You are confusing private locations and public locations, as well as areas like schools where they just say "gun free" and don't do anything about it, and a place like this where they provide adequate security, and assurances everyone is following the same rules.

You keep trying for a gotcha, and keep failing.

 

[martybegan]

They make the point that a person has a right to make that choice themselves, when in public.

NO! That's not your point! Your point is and always has been that to make society safer, everyone must be armed. That's why you support all those concealed carry laws, right? Because you think that makes people safe. But here you are, arguing the exact opposite position when it comes to the security of CPAC. So it's hypocritical that you would outsource your personal security when you just got done arguing that every person must be personally responsible for their own security.

BTW - stadiums have armed security, metal detectors, and barriers. Yet you all want to make it possible for people to take their guns into stadiums.

So you're a hypocrite.

Again, the venue may have had a say in it, and as a private property owner they have a right to set the rules, something most conservatives and libertarians agree with.

So your personal responsibility ends the moment you can outsource your personal security to someone else. So help me understand then, why you need a gun at all.

The police probably expect trouble from nutty leftists like you.

You're the ones who demand free carry of your guns, yet here you are, arguing for the exact opposite of that. Not surprising.

Where have I ever made that point?

I support CCW because people should have the choice to carry or not.

Show me where I want people to CCW in a stadium.

You don't have to understand, just accept the fact people can be armed if they so choose, and private groups can set the rules they want to on private property as they see fit.

 

[deanrd]

right wing phonies . Blaming gun free zones is a favorite diversion of the gun nuts .

Yet CPAC was gun free! Their hypocrisy knows no bounds.

Trump trashes gun-free schools at CPAC 2018 -- where people aren't allowed to bring in guns

At CPAC they use metal detectors before people can enter, and thus create a secure zone where NO ONE can bring in a gun. I'm also sure they spring for armed security in case some lefty nutter tries to shoot up the place.

Most gun free schools don't actually do anything to create a true secure space, nor do they have any real response plan set up involving onsite armed responders.

Nice try though.

That doesn't make any sense. If they can bring guns to school, then they should be allowed to bring them into Cpac. It's not fair.