And here I thought they were AGAINST gun control OF ANY KIND.........

Silly of me-what-oh-what-was I thinking...

Silly of me-what-oh-what-was I thinking...

Yes, silly you, and you evidently WEREN'T thinking. A "no firearms" rule is understandable when it comes to a gathering to seeing a potential US President when assassination is a concern. The rule was probably a requirement by Secret Service.

But hey, don't let me spoil your talking point with a little reality.

Moomanfl-I thought you were better at spotting sarcasm?


OF COURSE the Secret Cervix is going to have a No Firearms rule.

But... but... but... I thought the NRA taught us that guns don't kill, - only criminals kill. And since no NRA member is a criminal obviously this ban on guns at their convention is plain silly.

Sometimes actions speak louder than rhetoric. The NRA's obvious fear of guns being present at its own convention speaks volumes.

Pretty damn unAmerican if you ask me...

"I got a gun in the car," said Deborah Phelps of Fredonia, Ky.

And one in every little backpack, right ?
Doubt that they are going to re-brand in time to save their sorry asses.

MOOmanFL-

I think the point is that gun control IS a relative issue - and this shows that even the NRA acknowledges that certain situations are different from others. The rules for rural areas SHOULD be different than for densely populated urban ones. There can be circumstances when gun possession should be more regulated than others.

All rights have limits - think yelling "Fire" in a movie theater. The question is where the line is drawn - not really a difficult thing to resolve, unless you want to use the issue to whip up support for a political agenda, and both sides are guilty of that.

And yes, I own guns - and I DON'T belong to the NRA.

The NRA...what a joke!

Politicians will continue to use guns as a device to pander to voters for as long as it works. Republicans will never get you unrestricted possession of guns. Democrats will never take them all away from you.

As long as single issue voters keep falling for this shit, it'll never stop. The NRA will just keep taking your money, and the politicians will take the votes. The voters who make their choice based on one issue will continue to be chumps.

Lotsa luck!

PUSSIES!!!

"The NRA's obvious fear of guns being present at its own convention speaks volumes."

Except this was a requirement by the Secret Service, not the NRA.

The NRA could have refused, and skipped McCain's appearance.

Of course, since they're more concerned about supporting the Republican party than anything else, that wasn't an option.

If the NRA was truly interested in the 2nd Amendment, they would have invited all the candidates to speak. Instead, they just wanted to give McCain exposure.

"If the NRA was truly interested in the 2nd Amendment, they would have invited all candidates."

I wonder how many in the NRA can distinguish between the First and the Second. herm

NRA should have gone old school and gunned down the jack booted government thugs. Hell, there were thousands if NRA members. They could have taken the SS with only a few casualties, many probably friendly fire.

Here is an excerpt from President Bush's 1995 letter to NRA associate president Thomas Washington:

"I was outraged when, even in the wake of the Oklahoma City tragedy, Mr. Wayne LaPierre, Executive Vice President of NRA, defended his attack on federal agents as 'jack-booted thugs.' To attack Secret Service agents or ATF people or any government law enforcement people as 'wearing Nazi bucket helmets and black storm trooper uniforms' wanting to attack law-abiding citizens is a vicious slander.."

But if there were more guns in the hall, wouldn't McCainbe safer? After all, who's going to shoot himknowing there's 2000 pistol packing gun nuts within distance?

"A small but startling sign......."


REALLY? STARTLING?

These people are going to see a presidential candidate and this sign is 'startling'?

'Startling' would be if the let guns into the forum.

If the NRA was truly interested in the 2nd Amendment, they would have invited all the candidates to speak. Instead, they just wanted to give McCain exposure.

Posted by argh

It wasn't a debate, he was invited to speak and the seceret service came up with the 'no gun' requirement.

If they arn't interested in protecting the 2nd amendment, what is their purpose? Why would they ask an ant-gun canadate to speak at their convention? WTF is the matter with you?

If they arn't interested in protecting the 2nd amendment, what is their purpose? Why would they ask an ant-gun canadate to speak at their convention? WTF is the matter with you?

The concepts of exposure, understanding and acceptance are Way beyond Snippy.

LOL, Over

Sniper-

If I were running an organization interested in supporting the 2nd Amendment, I'd be interested in hearing what a likely presidential candidate actually has to say on the topic, and showing him/her there are people who may not agree.

If I was just interested in pimping for a political party, I'd invite their candidate, and then tell my membership the sky was going to fall if he didn't get elected.

I know it's the fashion here on the DR to mischaracterize candidate's position so you can froth at the mouth in indignation, but presumably the NRA is playing at a higher level. Just anointing the nearest Republican as the Gun Candidate is a disservice to both their cause and their membership, and a clear sign they're nothing but a bought and paid for wing of the GOP.

YEAH!

Well, they are now "Cold Dead Hands" so......!

Politicians will continue to use guns as a device to pander to voters for as long as it works.

Wonder why it works? BECAUSE THE MAJORITY OF AMERICANS ARE PRO GUN OWNERSHIP. Know what that makes the average anti gun liberal? Out of touch with main stream america! Wonder why Obama wont say he is ultra liberal? BECAUSE HE WOULDNT GET ELECTED, thats why! Idiots...

Wonder why Obama wont say he is ultra liberal? BECAUSE HE WOULDNT GET ELECTED, thats why! Idiots...

Posted by boaz

...or maybe because he's not ultra-liberal.
Dumbass.

"...10 Metal detectors..."

Must've poached them from Obama's Dallas Appearance.

Funny Dat, huh! Can never find a Secret Service Agent when you need them - if you're a Democrat.

"..Wonder why it works? BECAUSE THE MAJORITY OF AMERICANS ARE PRO GUN OWNERSHIP.... thats why! Idiots...Posted by boaz"

LOL. The Majority of Americans are Democrats! You silly little republicans have GOT to put down your bibles and AM radios and get back to math class!

Boaz = 101st Moron listed in the National Moron Registry. That's right, pay 100 dollars to the national registry - AND get a star named after you!

"But... but... but... I thought the NRA taught us that guns don't kill, - only criminals kill. And since no NRA member is a criminal obviously this ban on guns at their convention is plain silly."

You should realize that there are many Democrats that have BDS and still have the right to bear arms. Chances are they are NOT an NRA member.

"If the NRA was truly interested in the 2nd Amendment, they would have invited all the candidates to speak. Instead, they just wanted to give McCain exposure."

Obama wasn't invited because the NRA doesn't want to hear how Obama will take their arms by force if elected. Besides he had an engagement at an abortion clinic he couldn't get out of.

"Can never find a Secret Service Agent when you need them - if you're a Democrat."

No, they are too busy carrying bags. Just ask Hillary.

"Instead, they just wanted to give McCain exposure."

Yep, sounds just like MSNBC for Obama

Obama wasn't invited because the NRA doesn't want to hear how Obama will take their arms by force if elected.

I refer you to my remark above regarding mischaracterizing a candidates position so you can froth at the mouth in indignation.

You may have gotten the impression from the mouth-breathing fool you voted for twice that all politicians are complete morons. They're not. The non-moron types are just a little thin on the ground in red states.

Its very simple, keeping guns out prevents some left wing lunatic from showing up and getting a few round off just to get media attention.

Them NRA folks sure are some kinda smart!


SEE YOU IN DENVER!!!

Bee Swell

If they do anything, I hope the NRA at least frisks Huckabee at the door
for weapons. That dude is one loose cannon.

Its very simple, keeping guns out prevents some left wing lunatic from showing up and getting a few round off just to get media attention.

Them NRA folks sure are some kinda smart!

~Crack


Crack supports Gun Control!

Moomanfl-I thought you were better at spotting sarcasm?

Posted by frankf55 at 2008-05-18 03:32 PM | Reply

That was sarcasm? Sounds like your typical, Liberal asshole drivel from every other post you make.

Politicians will continue to use guns as a device to pander to voters for as long as it works....As long as single issue voters keep falling for this shit

Posted by Whatsleft at 2008-05-18 04:53 PM | Reply

So long as Democrats pander to the Left and promise to disarm people, then I suppose gun owners will band together to protect their rights.

And just how do you know that gun owners don't care about taxes, roads and national parks? This is an NRA meeting so of course the topic is guns; I've been to car shows and you know what the main topic is? Can you guess?

"THE MAJORITY OF AMERICANS ARE PRO GUN OWNERSHIP."

Not proven. Surely most Americans favor SOME controls.

"Know what that makes the average anti gun liberal? Out of touch with main stream (A)merica!"

Maybe it's the gun nuts who are out of touch.

"Wonder why Obama wont say he is ultra liberal?"

Wrong again, Bo. (Ho-hum.) Obama is a wimpy centrist who offends me by writing that he'd make room in his big tent for the likes of you. There's absolutely NOTHING ultra-liberal about Barack. herm

Do you all even know what the second amendment means?

It is not about carrying your gun everywhere.

It means "Government of the People for the People - - can fight back if the Government tries to take the power of the people away". The Right to Bear arms against the government.

There is a logical reason for not taking guns into a large gathering - especially if its a president or hopeful.

Logic people - LOGIC!

Nothing logical about the gun nuts, Oscar. herm

Gun Nuts?

You probably have people walking past you everyday who are gun owners and support the 2nd amendment.

. . . you don't know it or know who they are.

They are just people who believe the People of the United States are the government.

Both my spouse and I are gun owners and are members of the NRA. We live on a good block in an otherwise bad neighborhood and both have CCW permits.

If the NRA truly believes guns make us safer (which I personally do), they should have been greatly offended by being disarmed by a government agency, at their own meeting, none-the-less. Under their own logic, an NRA meeting (with a whole lot of gun owners) would be one of the safest places imaginable.

I think it's terrible that they would put aside their own values just to let a politician pander to them.

Pander? Get Real.

I live in Arizona - lots of people carry guns.

Even in Arizona you Can Not carry a gun into a government building.

There are places guns do not need to be carried.

My husband and I are also gun owners and members of the NRA.

If I were running an organization interested in supporting the 2nd Amendment, I'd be interested in hearing what a likely presidential candidate actually has to say on the topic, and showing him/her there are people who may not agree.

Posted by argh

If you believe what a political canadate says you are nucking futs. If you realy want to know what they stand for, look at their record. That will tell you what they are. I guess with all the 'no votes' obama has done, it's hard to tell.

I live in Arizona - lots of people carry guns.

Even in Arizona you Can Not carry a gun into a government building.

There are places guns do not need to be carried.

I 100% agree.

The thing is, you choose to go to the post office, courthouse, federal building, etc., knowing full well of their firearm policies. The government owns those buildings and should be free to set their own rules.

I think it's completely different when the NRA voluntarily disarms themselves at their own meeting. The second amendment is the number one issue for the NRA. If they really wanted McCain to speak, they should have had a meeting at an off-site local (where McCain sets the rule).

By banning guns at their own event, it makes them appear to not believe their own guns/CCW = safety rhetoric. If the NRA goes to John McCain's house, they should play by his rules, if John McCain goes to the NRA's house, he should play by theirs.

I haven't been to an NRA convention since Pittsburgh (2004?). From what I recall, everyone had to clear their weapons and the convention center was very secure--lots of on and off duty police, CCW holders, etc. Many politicians spoke at the event but I don't remember them ordering everyone to disarm--I think they would have been laughed at if they tried!

But if there were more guns in the hall, wouldn't McCainbe safer? After all, who's going to shoot himknowing there's 2000 pistol packing gun nuts within distance?

POSTED BY TFDNIHILIST AT 2008-05-18 08:32 PM | REPLY | FLAG:

But arming college students and pilots, etc. are supposed to make us safer. What chance would a shooter have in such an environment? That seems contrary to what happened at this event. Why did the NRA and McCain allow the SS to disarm so many American citizens?

Meanwhile, Obama speaks to 75,000 in the wide open.

I think it's completely different when the NRA voluntarily disarms themselves at their own meeting.

Posted by katieberry

It was the seceret service, not the NRA.

Sniper-

A voting record is a gauge, but considering how much of that was as a state senator, I really don't think it's as relative to his Presidential attitude as you think it is. Of course, if you're looking for any reason to slam the guy, it'll do.

"There are places guns do not need to be carried."

They're called the United States of America. herm

A voting record is a gauge, but considering how much of that was as a state senator, I really don't think it's as relative to his Presidential attitude as you think it is.

Posted by argh

Which has he changed his stance on?

Stop unscrupulous gun dealers dumping guns in cities. (Jul 2007)
Keep guns out of inner cities--but also problem of morality. (Oct 2006)
Ban semi-automatics, and more possession restrictions. (Jul 1998)
Voted NO on prohibiting lawsuits against gun manufacturers. (Jul 2005)

"From my cold dead hands!"

Or unless I want to get into the convention.

The thing is, you choose to go to the post office, courthouse, federal building, etc., knowing full well of their firearm policies. The government owns those buildings and should be free to set their own rules.

Posted by katieberry

Now I ask you, who is the government.

I thought I read somewhere..... of the people, by the people, and for the people.

If that has any meaning at all, we am the government, and the government is us.