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

[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.

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.

Only the teachers who want to would be allowed, so you have a point about not allowing the speakers to carry, maybe. Well, not really.

Public vs. private, government vs. non-government.

 

[The Derp]

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

So you're for limited gun rights, then? Apologies if I had you pegged wrongly as one of those Conservatives that thinks everyone should be allowed to carry their gun with them wherever they want.

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

So...guns only in public places like parks, schools, public transit, and libraries?

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.u keep trying for a gotcha, and keep failing.

You're the one setting some weird, arbitrary standard to where you do and don't want guns.

 

[The Derp]

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

Why? And you're for that, but not really...only on public grounds for some reason. You want to make it possible to carry a weapon with you on the bus, but then you are OK with a private business saying you can't bring the gun inside after you get off the bus...am I understanding you correctly?

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

You just said above that you think people should have the choice to carry. So that would mean you think people should have the choice to carry a weapon with them into a stadium since those are public places, since they're largely funded with taxpayer money. I'm just trying to figure out what standard you have.

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.

I don't have to understand your inarticulate position?

 

[The Derp]

Only the teachers who want to would be allowed

What if the students don't want it?

so you have a point about not allowing the speakers to carry, maybe. Well, not really.Public vs. private, government vs. non-government.

Seems like moving the goalposts to me. If you're saying people should be allowed to carry a gun if they want, then you also must think they should be allowed to carry it everywhere, right?

If you say it is their personal, individual freedom to choose to carry a weapon, why should private/public matter? It's a personal right. Unless you're now saying corporations can subvert and undermine personal rights. Do you support that?

 

[martybegan]

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

So you're for limited gun rights, then? Apologies if I had you pegged wrongly as one of those Conservatives that thinks everyone should be allowed to carry their gun with them wherever they want.

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

So...guns only in public places like parks, schools, public transit, and libraries?

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.u keep trying for a gotcha, and keep failing.

You're the one setting some weird, arbitrary standard to where you do and don't want guns.

Limited within a strict interpretation of the 2nd amendment, and only the most unobtrusive regulations allowed.

Let me ask you a question, NYC requires 3-6 months of waiting, and paying $600 or so in fees just to keep a revolver in your own apartment.

Is that infringement or not?

No issue with parks. If libraries want to be gun free, then they create a secure space and have armed guards onsite at all times.

Public transit is a tough one, due to the confined nature of most of it.

If some place doesn't want to me bring a gun with me, if they are a government facility or agency, or a public space, they need to take responsibility to making sure everyone follows the same rules, and there is security in place to replace my own defense ability.

In Airports there is secure areas and security, in courts and most public buildings the same thing.

 

[martybegan]

Only the teachers who want to would be allowed

What if the students don't want it?

so you have a point about not allowing the speakers to carry, maybe. Well, not really.Public vs. private, government vs. non-government.

Seems like moving the goalposts to me. If you're saying people should be allowed to carry a gun if they want, then you also must think they should be allowed to carry it everywhere, right?

If you say it is their personal, individual freedom to choose to carry a weapon, why should private/public matter? It's a personal right. Unless you're now saying corporations can subvert and undermine personal rights. Do you support that?

If they are under 18 tough titties. They probably don't want to take another year of latin, but again tough titties.

Complex situations require complex solutions. Your attempts at "gotcha" moments requires you to simplify things to your own mental level.

 

[martybegan]

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

Why? And you're for that, but not really...only on public grounds for some reason. You want to make it possible to carry a weapon with you on the bus, but then you are OK with a private business saying you can't bring the gun inside after you get off the bus...am I understanding you correctly?

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

You just said above that you think people should have the choice to carry. So that would mean you think people should have the choice to carry a weapon with them into a stadium since those are public places, since they're largely funded with taxpayer money. I'm just trying to figure out what standard you have.

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.

I don't have to understand your inarticulate position?

Private property is private property. However if someone says "you can't carry here" they should be held liable if someone gets robbed or shot with a gun on their property.

That would require them to provide the missing defense capability they removed by not allowing carry at their location. m

Stadiums are controlled, secure locations. Everyone is searched, and almost all of them have either actual cops or off duty cops hired as security to provide immediate defensive capability should the shit hit the fan.

 

[The Derp]

Limited within a strict interpretation of the 2nd amendment, and only the most unobtrusive regulations allowed.

So that seems awfully subjective, vague, and ambiguous. Limited, how? What constitutes obtrusive?

Let me ask you a question, NYC requires 3-6 months of waiting, and paying $600 or so in fees just to keep a revolver in your own apartment.Is that infringement or not?

No, because you're still able to get a gun. Your ability to get a gun was not infringed. If it was, you wouldn't be able to get a gun at all. Because "infringe" means what it means; "actively break the terms of" and/or "act so as to limit or undermine". You getting the gun in the end doesn't mean you were undermined or limited, nor does it mean any terms were broken.

No issue with parks. If libraries want to be gun free, then they create a secure space and have armed guards onsite at all times.

So you don't really support individual gun rights because if you did, you'd support an individuals right to carry a gun wherever they want, and any private business that refuses you to bring a gun in violates your rights. So that's why your "public places" argument is a load of horseshit. If you're arguing that it's a Constitutional right that you get to carry your gun wherever you want, then that means a private business is violating your rights if they ban guns. So CPAC violated Conservatives' gun rights.

Public transit is a tough one, due to the confined nature of most of it.

Why should that matter?

If some place doesn't want to me bring a gun with me, if they are a government facility or agency, or a public space, they need to take responsibility to making sure everyone follows the same rules, and there is security in place to replace my own defense ability.In Airports there is secure areas and security, in courts and most public buildings the same thing.

So your gun rights aren't universal or Constitutionally-protected if you're saying a private business can infringe on what you also describe as a civil right.

 

[The Derp]

If they are under 18 tough titties. They probably don't want to take another year of latin, but again tough titties.

And the majority of teachers don't want it either.

Complex situations require complex solutions. Your attempts at "gotcha" moments requires you to simplify things to your own mental level.

This isn't a complex situation; it's straight-forward. You say that people have a right to carry a gun if they want, and you base that on your "strict interpretation of the 2nd Amendment", yet you're also saying these Constitutional rights can be violated by a private business. So this argument of yours ends up being self-defeating. If you are saying that individuals have a Constitutional right to carry a gun with them wherever they go, then a private business banning guns is a violation of those Constitutional rights, and thus gun free CPAC is a total and complete act of hypocrisy.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

Only the teachers who want to would be allowed

What if the students don't want it?

so you have a point about not allowing the speakers to carry, maybe. Well, not really.Public vs. private, government vs. non-government.

Seems like moving the goalposts to me. If you're saying people should be allowed to carry a gun if they want, then you also must think they should be allowed to carry it everywhere, right?

If you say it is their personal, individual freedom to choose to carry a weapon, why should private/public matter? It's a personal right. Unless you're now saying corporations can subvert and undermine personal rights. Do you support that?

The students are children. They get told. They don't get a vote.

 

[Dschrute3]

Parkland was a 'Gun Free Zone.' In fact, it even had a police officer permanently stationed there. Many schools have so-called 'Resource Officers' stationed. But the one at Parkland proved to be a coward by running and hiding when the children needed him most. What good was he? He could have saved many kids' lives.

So, you had a school which was a 'Gun Free Zone' and had an armed police officer permanently stationed there. Folks didn't do their jobs. If they had, more kids would be alive today. It's why i strongly urge parents to avoid the Government School System at all costs. They should seriously consider all education alternatives. Government Schools are only gonna get worse. They aren't the best option for children.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

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

Pretty sure they have armed security at CPAC..unlike our schools.

 

[The Derp]

Private property is private property.

But Constitutional rights are Constitutional rights. So when you argue that someone has the Constitutional right to carry a firearm on them wherever they want, then any business or individual that bans guns is violating your Constitutional rights. You don't get to have it both ways here, you need to decide what your position actually is. Because your one argument contradicts the other.

However if someone says "you can't carry here" they should be held liable if someone gets robbed or shot with a gun on their property.

Backing up...if someone is saying you can't bring your gun in with you, then they're violating your Constitutional rights, aren't they? So then your position should be that no one is allowed to ban guns since you've made owning and carrying one with you Constitutionally protected.

So is that your position? That no one has the right to deny you the right to carry your gun with you wherever you want?

That would require them to provide the missing defense capability they removed by not allowing carry at their location.

Missing defense capability? There were tons of armed people walking around Las Vegas at the time of that shooting, where were all these "good guys with guns"? Doing the same thing they always do; cowering in fear.

 

[martybegan]

Limited within a strict interpretation of the 2nd amendment, and only the most unobtrusive regulations allowed.

So that seems awfully subjective, vague, and ambiguous. Limited, how? What constitutes obtrusive?

Let me ask you a question, NYC requires 3-6 months of waiting, and paying $600 or so in fees just to keep a revolver in your own apartment.Is that infringement or not?

No, because you're still able to get a gun. Your ability to get a gun was not infringed. If it was, you wouldn't be able to get a gun at all. Because "infringe" means what it means; "actively break the terms of" and/or "act so as to limit or undermine". You getting the gun in the end doesn't mean you were undermined or limited, nor does it mean any terms were broken.

No issue with parks. If libraries want to be gun free, then they create a secure space and have armed guards onsite at all times.

So you don't really support individual gun rights because if you did, you'd support an individuals right to carry a gun wherever they want, and any private business that refuses you to bring a gun in violates your rights. So that's why your "public places" argument is a load of horseshit. If you're arguing that it's a Constitutional right that you get to carry your gun wherever you want, then that means a private business is violating your rights if they ban guns. So CPAC violated Conservatives' gun rights.

Public transit is a tough one, due to the confined nature of most of it.

Why should that matter?

If some place doesn't want to me bring a gun with me, if they are a government facility or agency, or a public space, they need to take responsibility to making sure everyone follows the same rules, and there is security in place to replace my own defense ability.In Airports there is secure areas and security, in courts and most public buildings the same thing.

So your gun rights aren't universal or Constitutionally-protected if you're saying a private business can infringe on what you also describe as a civil right.

But I am limited arbitrarily by some government agency which delays the process.
So how about we impose a 2 week wait period and $100 in fees to get an abortion?

Or a fee and a wait period to vote?

It is infringement, and you not seeing that tells me all about you.

Constitutional rights are not absolute, you can't yell "fire in a crowded theater" and expect the 1st to protect you.

Because I am not an absolutist.

Again you are dealing with absolutes because it's probably the only thing you can understand.

Try to keep up.

 

[The Derp]

Parkland was a 'Gun Free Zone.' In fact, it even had a police officer permanently stationed there. Many schools have so-called 'Resource Officers' stationed. But the one at Parkland proved to be a coward by running and hiding when the children needed him most. What good was he? He could have saved many kids' lives.

So, you had a school which was a 'Gun Free Zone' and had an armed police officer permanently stationed there. Folks didn't do their jobs. If they had, more kids would be alive today. It's why i strongly urge parents to avoid the Government School System at all costs. They should seriously consider all education alternatives. Government Schools are only gonna get worse. They aren't the best option for children.

Conservatives ulaimtely want to destroy public schools, which is why they want to pour hundreds of thousands of guns into them.

 

[martybegan]

If they are under 18 tough titties. They probably don't want to take another year of latin, but again tough titties.

And the majority of teachers don't want it either.

Complex situations require complex solutions. Your attempts at "gotcha" moments requires you to simplify things to your own mental level.

This isn't a complex situation; it's straight-forward. You say that people have a right to carry a gun if they want, and you base that on your "strict interpretation of the 2nd Amendment", yet you're also saying these Constitutional rights can be violated by a private business. So this argument of yours ends up being self-defeating. If you are saying that individuals have a Constitutional right to carry a gun with them wherever they go, then a private business banning guns is a violation of those Constitutional rights, and thus gun free CPAC is a total and complete act of hypocrisy.

No hypocrisy, just thinking, something you are incapable of.

 

[martybegan]

Private property is private property.

But Constitutional rights are Constitutional rights. So when you argue that someone has the Constitutional right to carry a firearm on them wherever they want, then any business or individual that bans guns is violating your Constitutional rights. You don't get to have it both ways here, you need to decide what your position actually is. Because your one argument contradicts the other.

However if someone says "you can't carry here" they should be held liable if someone gets robbed or shot with a gun on their property.

Backing up...if someone is saying you can't bring your gun in with you, then they're violating your Constitutional rights, aren't they? So then your position should be that no one is allowed to ban guns since you've made owning and carrying one with you Constitutionally protected.

So is that your position? That no one has the right to deny you the right to carry your gun with you wherever you want?

That would require them to provide the missing defense capability they removed by not allowing carry at their location.

Missing defense capability? There were tons of armed people walking around Las Vegas at the time of that shooting, where were all these "good guys with guns"? Doing the same thing they always do; cowering in fear.

The constitution only prevents GOVERNMENT from doing things, except in two cases (people can't bring booze into states/localities that ban it, and you can't own slaves).

It says nothing about limiting property rights, except giving a method of taking property via eminent domain.

Only governments can violate constitutional rights.

 

[Dschrute3]

Parkland was a 'Gun Free Zone.' In fact, it even had a police officer permanently stationed there. Many schools have so-called 'Resource Officers' stationed. But the one at Parkland proved to be a coward by running and hiding when the children needed him most. What good was he? He could have saved many kids' lives.

So, you had a school which was a 'Gun Free Zone' and had an armed police officer permanently stationed there. Folks didn't do their jobs. If they had, more kids would be alive today. It's why i strongly urge parents to avoid the Government School System at all costs. They should seriously consider all education alternatives. Government Schools are only gonna get worse. They aren't the best option for children.

Conservatives ulaimtely want to destroy public schools, which is why they want to pour hundreds of thousands of guns into them.

I don't wanna destroy Government Schools. I just want parents to have as many education alternatives available as possible. No one should be forced to send their children into the Government School System nightmare. They should have many other options.

 

[Dragonlady]

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.

And you would be wrong. Most schools now have shooting drills. We used to have fire drills. Now Anerican kids have shooting drills.

Sad

 

[DJT for Life]

Someone already posted that the libs are begging, hoping, praying
for a gotcha moment.

As usual they fail.

Douglas HS was not a secured location. Not when someone can drive up
in Uber, get out, stroll onto the campus and then enter a building. Having
one cop on a school as large and sprawling as that high school is in fact, a
gun free zone.

CPAC was a secured location. Armed security was everywhere along with
metal detectors and limited access to the building. In addition, the
VPOTUS and POTUS were going to speak there. That puts the Secret
Service in Charge.

The Pres on even the VP, when they travel to a War Zone to visit
Troops who are there serving in Combat, no one is allowed in whatever
location the VP or Pres will speak armed. The Secret Service disarms
the troops and only the MP's along with the Secret Service are armed.

There is no hypocrisy, just a bunch of loser libs looking for some gotcha
moment.

If we can secure our schools and have the same number of armed guards
that other locations have...we wouldn't have any shootings. Nobody is
against that. Nobody but the fucking libs, that is.

Gov Scott has authorized a 500 million dollar allocation to protect Florida
schools. We're going to secure these campus' and put additional armed
guards/police on them. That's in addition to what many schools already
have. Where I live in Florida, all the schools have no more than 2 points
of entry. All schools are totally enclosed. All have a police presence.
A shooter would play hell getting onto one of these school yards. The added
Police will increase the security.