DescentBB

Well, it kind of makes sense in a strange way. I could see that line of thinking used at other trade shows because it's just that -- a trade show instead of a shopping mall.

Lol, you and your party are so dependent on symbolism, and use even the most blatantly illogical examples of it so effectively due to the ratio of willful idiots in your target audience that you have apparently fooled yourself into thinking the rest of the country is as willful as your 'tribe'.

Take a closer look at that opening:

The National Rifle Association wants guns at schools, but not its own annual convention.

The NRA has banned working guns from its annual convention this year in Memphis, according to a report in The Tennessean. Instead the group will require the thousands of firearms displayed at the event to be nonoperational, with their firing pins removed to ensure safety.

Conventiongoers can still pack their own heat, though.

Anyone with a brain can see the distinction.
The NRA never said schools can be safe if we scatter guns around the place to be picked up and used by...well...who ever...

No, I think I recall the truth behind that piece of nonsense citation you delivered is that the NRA said armed people, trained in firearms use could improve the safety.

And lo and behold what does that article also say? Why, it says the NRA will allow law abiding gun owners to be armed...it is safe to assume they mean with working weapons.

So really all we have learned is you and the author aren't particularly friendly with the truth when you post your viewpoints.
But then your viewpoint is usually skewed up pretty badly so you haven't really even shown us anything new or interesting here either.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/other/nea ... ar-AAaCsXc

sounds safe to me.....

callmeslick wrote:http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/other/nea ... ar-AAaCsXc

sounds safe to me.....

That 'article' has a lot of unconnected data tossed up for useful idiots to use.
And you should be careful promoting it because the numbers they cite are likely made up of some people you usually make excuses for.

The findings, published Wednesday in the journal Behavioral Sciences and the Law, suggest that measures to reduce gun injuries and deaths should focus less on diagnosed mental illness and more on a history of violent behavior.

Are you prepared to use that recommendation to profile and effect policy against people with a history of violence?

The OP article is a failed gotcha attempt.

Vander wrote:The OP article is a failed gotcha attempt.

I disagree....I wouldn't have posted it otherwise. The irony inherent in a group which fights for the rights of loaded weaponry to be allowed in churches,
schools, restaurants and stores and then banning same at their annual gathering is rich.
Anyhow, just to prove that any 'hunting' tool can be misused, they planned a demo:
http://www.theonion.com/articles/wayne- ... NA:InFocus

(for those who didn't catch the Onion tag.....)

They are not banning loaded weapons.

Vander wrote:They are not banning loaded weapons.

sorry, should have used the word 'working', but the point remains.

They are not banning working weapons.

"Is the NRA really banning guns at its convention?"

The article wrote:The truth, as it turns out, is more complicated...

Vander wrote:The OP article is a failed gotcha attempt.

Well it appears Slick fell for it. either that or his intent was intentional. only he knows that answer

"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."

so the Lie the left wants you to believe is that the NRA is banning guns at it's own convention, where in truth they are Just obeying the Law

CUDA wrote:so the Lie the left wants you to believe is that the NRA is banning guns at it's own convention, where in truth they are Just obeying the Law

The law doesn't cover disabling of show weapons.

Proof

STATE CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISION - Article 1, Section 26.


"The lawful design, marketing, manufacture and sale of firearms do not constitute a nuisance and many such lawsuits against gun manufacturers, trade associations and dealers are reserved only to the state."

Nowhere in the provision did it list anything close to disabling show weapons as an offense.

Now what?

Didn't read the article did you. Ya didn't think so

CUDA wrote:Didn't read the article did you. Ya didn't think so

oh so you like to assume things that aren't true, do ya?

explains a lot.

I actually went through the three pages of the constitutional provision that was relevant to the discussion at hand. And I found nothing to support any notion that it was against the law to disable working weapons at a trade show.

checkmate.

Ever been do a car show?
Ya they disable the cars at a car show.
must be hypocritical to sell a car that's been disabled and doesn't run huh
and IKEA has Non-functional display model televisions and other appliances
ya its confirmed. Your an idiot

here's another one to ignore........no irony, just wonderment at how folks accept this sort of stuff:
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/gun-ow ... ar-AAaUFQx

It is quite possible they presented the data in the same misleading fashion you like to do to give the average reader a false impression.

There were 'studies' being pushed around that same time that counted 21 year old gang bangers killed in street shootings as 'children' being killed by virtue of 'having-a-gun-in-the-house'.
So I'd want to know the integrity level of their 'peer review' and their investigation of themselves which they base their proclaimed exoneration on before I'd suggest they are to be believed.

I don't doubt there are some truths in there that the NRA wants buried. But I'm not so stupid as to believe there aren't any lies in there as a result of political partisanship as well.

CUDA wrote:Ever been do a car show?
Ya they disable the cars at a car show.
must be hypocritical to sell a car that's been disabled and doesn't run huh
and IKEA has Non-functional display model televisions and other appliances
ya its confirmed. Your an idiot

been to many and no they don't.

A car show has nothing to do with a gun show at all. Neither does IKEA. but thanks for the red herring. It was tasty eating.

well you keep spouting your Lie about the NRA "Hypocrisy" because I just gave you two examples where your wrong.

Just because the NRA put out "display models" at a show does not make them Hypocrites. you go ahead keep believing the Liberal lies.

I've been to boat shows and fishing shows. Both the boats and the trout flies are fully functional. Then again, no one is worried about them killing the other attendees.


Ikea?
(this brings to mind a quick aside......I recently saw a New Yorker cartoon of some guy walking into an IKEA office for an interview. There is a pile of
wood and some hardware on the floor in front of the boss' desk, and the interviewee is told, 'have a seat'.)

I guarantee the if you tried to start the engine on the Boat at a show it would not fire. it is against Fire code in every state in the country.

SO once again NICE TRY at the Hyperbole. EPIC fail on your part

Ferno wrote:

CUDA wrote:Ever been do a car show?
Ya they disable the cars at a car show.
must be hypocritical to sell a car that's been disabled and doesn't run huh
and IKEA has Non-functional display model televisions and other appliances
ya its confirmed. Your an idiot

been to many and no they don't.

you sir are a Liar. I've shown cars in car shows, I've worked for dealerships. it is against fire code to have a vehicle (in doors) that function. all battery terminals must be removed and all fuel openings must be plugged

CUDA wrote:SO once again NICE TRY at the Hyperbole. EPIC fail on your part

That statement in and of itself seems a bit hyperbolic, Cuda.

And did someone mention IKEA?

[youtube]S9xROONPy6Y[/youtube]

CUDA wrote:I guarantee the if you tried to start the engine on the Boat at a show it would not fire. it is against Fire code in every state in the country

.

most decent boat shows are held at an arena and adjacent marina, so no, CUDA, the motors work, if they have motors, and the sailboats are perfectly functional, with sails and all............

SO once again NICE TRY at the Hyperbole. EPIC fail on your part

....so yells the guy with the caps lock working! Toss in a few exclamation points as you did above, and keep talking about hyperbole, CUDA. Then, when your nerves settle down, go back to the thread title and understand why I just spit out about half a pint of sweet tea laughing.

CUDA wrote:well you keep spouting your Lie about the NRA "Hypocrisy" because I just gave you two examples where your wrong.

Just because the NRA put out "display models" at a show does not make them Hypocrites. you go ahead keep believing the Liberal lies.

1) stop putting words in my mouth. I never called them hypocrites. why would I even try to think that? that's just stupid.
2) speaking of proof, you asked for it in the law, and I gave you it. Which you threw out immediately. So good try on moving the goal posts. Too bad I spotted it.

CUDA wrote:you sir are a Liar. I've shown cars in car shows, I've worked for dealerships. it is against fire code to have a vehicle (in doors) that function. all battery terminals must be removed and all fuel openings must be plugged

Oh I love this one. It's a composition fallacy. Since you were to a few car shows; indoors, using the rules laid out in your area, you think that ALL car shows are indoors and have the same rules as yours. I've been to ten large ones, and at least six small ones. They were a mix of indoor and outdoor shows. None were disabled as you say because all participants were required to drive in and out. What's next?

Also; this distraction discussion reminds me of this...
[youtube]WTtHaGjwu0I[/youtube]

Preventing the handling of unfamiliar functional weapons one does not own is not antithetical to promoting the ability to carry their own functional weapon. As far as I know, the NRA is not opposed to any and all weapons laws. It's all in where you draw the line. As someone with a former roommate who shot up a house because he held violent fantasies of using his weapons to thwart some external threat, my line for firearm ownership is probably a lot more restrictive than the NRA's.

The second amendment is very much outdated. It's from a time when national military capability was much more in line with what a private citizen had the ability to own. I think the killing power of weaponry has simply exceeded what our founders had the ability to perceive. If they had perceived these advances, would they have worded the second amendment differently? Would they have wanted the citizenry to have the right to obtain weapons of such magnitude? Would they have sought to define a more nuanced balance of the rights of citizens to bear arms in the context of foreign and domestic threats?

Vander wrote:Preventing the handling of unfamiliar functional weapons one does not own is not antithetical to promoting the ability to carry their own functional weapon. As far as I know, the NRA is not opposed to any and all weapons laws. It's all in where you draw the line. As someone with a former roommate who shot up a house because he held violent fantasies of using his weapons to thwart some external threat, my line for firearm ownership is probably a lot more restrictive than the NRA's.

frankly, my issue(with far less frightening personal experiences) is that, of late, the NRA has basically opposed every single proposal around restriction of public carry and use of any weapon. Further, they gutted the only federal agency charged with maintaining any record-keeping and background check databases, via pressure on their Congressional stooges.

The second amendment is very much outdated.

thanks for joining me in that observation.......It will be nice to share the vilification I've had as my sole possession on here for a few years.
I've held, in addition to your valid points, that the whole amendment was aimed at having an armed citizenry INSTEAD OF a standing army, and once we had one of those, it was essentially obsolete.

The right of self defense will never be obsolete, and the court has basically brought the amendment into the present with its ruling.

Deal with it, just the way I have to in the case of the rulings on general welfare, that in my opinion have destroyed more families and resulted in more dependency than the founders also would have imagined.

I’m not going to get in a debate here, I just wanted to make that point.

fair enough

callmeslick wrote:thanks for joining me in that observation.......It will be nice to share the vilification I've had as my sole possession on here for a few years.

I'm in that camp too. The 2nd has come to mean something completely different from when it was penned. It should be rewritten to match.

callmeslick wrote:I've held, in addition to your valid points, that the whole amendment was aimed at having an armed citizenry INSTEAD OF a standing army, and once we had one of those, it was essentially obsolete.

I open my interpretation to include the right of citizens not to cede their defense to the government. It still doesn't hold up over time, but does preclude disarming citizens outright.

Vander wrote:I open my interpretation to include the right of citizens not to cede their defense to the government. It still doesn't hold up over time, but does preclude disarming citizens outright.

I'd agree with that part, but the NRA interfering with any process to weed out the mentally unstable, or to push for a nation of weapon carrying loons in a largely urban society is ludicrous. Frankly, the founders had very valid fears around the misuse of government armed forces, having suffered at the hands of such for decades prior. Once we adopted the concept of government handling national defense, that argument gets sort of weak.

Vander wrote:..
The second amendment is very much outdated. It's from a time when national military capability was much more in line with what a private citizen had the ability to own. I think the killing power of weaponry has simply exceeded what our founders had the ability to perceive. If they had perceived these advances, would they have worded the second amendment differently? Would they have wanted the citizenry to have the right to obtain weapons of such magnitude? Would they have sought to define a more nuanced balance of the rights of citizens to bear arms in the context of foreign and domestic threats?

It seems your reasoning would either suggest they have weaponry on a par with the military or to a 'lesser degree'. So, considering it is to a lesser degree already what is your perception of 'nuanced' in the context of your point?

It's easy to say it 'should be different' but in what way? You imply an improvement in a vague way. Can you bring your sentiment to a real world solution?

And, using your justification for the change, how will you reconcile other rights that are also dwarfed by progress or otherwise rendered moot by someone else's logic following your lead?

Vander wrote:The second amendment is very much outdated. It's from a time when national military capability was much more in line with what a private citizen had the ability to own. I think the killing power of weaponry has simply exceeded what our founders had the ability to perceive. If they had perceived these advances, would they have worded the second amendment differently? Would they have wanted the citizenry to have the right to obtain weapons of such magnitude? Would they have sought to define a more nuanced balance of the rights of citizens to bear arms in the context of foreign and domestic threats?

yay back on topic.

Personally, I wouldn't say it's outdated Vander, but knowing your roomate story; I can see where you're coming from. I think the second amendment should be modernized to fall in line with both a private citizens' right to own property (specifically a firearm), and the modern defense force.

Ferno wrote:...yay back on topic.

Personally, I wouldn't say it's outdated Vander, but knowing your roomate story; I can see where you're coming from. I think the second amendment should be modernized to fall in line with both a private citizens' right to own property (specifically a firearm), and the modern defense force.

We have the right to own property, including personal defense weapons right now. Some people are suggesting that right is moot due to the armament and capability of the standing army.
So what exactly did you mean with regards to the current law/situation by what you just said? Are you advocating a change? If so what is it specifically?

Will Robinson wrote:We have the right to own property, including personal defense weapons right now. Some people are suggesting that right is moot due to the armament and capability of the standing army.

I have never said people don't have the right to own weapons, just that the 2nd amendment isn't the place to justify our current gun culture.

vision wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:We have the right to own property, including personal defense weapons right now. Some people are suggesting that right is moot due to the armament and capability of the standing army.

I have never said people don't have the right to own weapons, just that the 2nd amendment isn't the place to justify our current gun culture.

I never cited you as having made that assertion but since you offered your opinion...

The 2nd isn't anything more than what it says it is. It is very simple.

So please describe the cultural aspects you have a problem with, include how the 2nd is the source of those problems, and then explain how you would fix the problems without taking away the people's right to own weapons since that is something you support.

Otherwise you are just adding to the typical anti-gun noise without really saying anything.