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

False equivalency

CPAC wasn't a gun free zone?

CPAC was a secure zone.

What most people call "gun free zones" is just someone putting up a sign alluding to the statement, without doing anything to assure the location is indeed "gun free"

A secure area couples a request for no guns in civilian hands in the area with the means to assure that is the case, plus people able to respond to anyone with a gun trying to enter or in the area.

 

[martybegan]

Barriers to entry except at certain points
Checks at those points to assure no one is bringing in weapons
Security at the location of the checks
Security inside the space to respond to any breaches.

That's a prison. What you're describing is a prison.

Or any sports stadium, or a courthouse, or an airport.

 

[martybegan]

But I am limited arbitrarily by some government agency which delays the process.

You're not limited at all because you get the gun in the end. The very fact that you get the gun after that stuff proves that it doesn't infringe on your right to get the gun.

I want a gun now, why should the government be allowed to delay me 3-6 months and ask me to pay $600 just because "they feel like it"?

That is infringement.

If I didn't get the gun that would be DENYING my rights.

Again, are you OK with a 2 week waiting period and $100 fee for a woman to get an abortion?

 

[The Derp]

CPAC was a secure zone.

Because no one was allowed to bring in guns.

So if not allowing people to carry guns = secured...

...then that means not allowing anyone to carry a weapon = secured.

 

[HappyJoy]

Why does the length of CPA matter? That doesn't make much sense.

Seriously?

CPAC - 4 days once a year, 1 entrance and exit, people arrive at different times (i.e., not all at once)

4 days or 200 days does not a difference make. Some High schools also only have one entrance. But if it has 3, so what?

Schools - 26,000 schools 200+ days a year, multiple entrances and exists, students arrive and leave at the same time

Now you're repeating yourself.

You don't see how metal detectors and securing entrances and exits are different? I'm just laughing at you

No, not really. Metal detectors are in some schools now and the appear to work.

Then why did the shooter get a gun in?

They didn't have metal detectors. Never mind that you don't seem to have any idea how to keep that kid's gun out of school.

And seriously? 5.2 million days of securing buildings a year is no difference than securing one conference for four days? It's incredible how stupid leftists will look on purpose for the cause. If you were in Jonestown, you wouldn't have hesitated to drink. You might have demanded grape though ...

Airports, convention halls, courthouses. All day everyday

You said schools use metal detectors now and they work, then you said they don't use metal detectors. All I am arguing is to allow CC holders to carry them. I am not saying to not use metal detectors, I am saying it's a lot harder to make them as effective as CPAC where there is one entrance

I said some schools use metal detectors. The high school in Florida didn't. Is that too difficult for you?

Do you think CPAC infringed on anyone's 2nd amendment rights?

No. I also don't think the Florida schools did. You don't have a second amendment right to take guns into a school any more than an airport or a court house.

However, the new laws leftists are proposing because of things like Florida do infringe on our 2nd amendment rights.

Debating you is driving in the slow lane

I see, so when a wingnut blabbers about 2nd amendment rights shall not be infringed you'll be there with the asterisk. Got it.

 

[martybegan]

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

Gun-free CPAC proves your hypocrisy because you say carrying a gun is your Constitutional right. By prohibiting you from carrying a gun inside, CPAC is violating your Constitutional rights, according to your "strict interpretation of the 2nd Amendment".

Why not just admit they're hypocrites on this because they're a bunch of cowards? I don't understand your reticence to that. You don't owe them anything.

CPAC is not a government agency.

You keep going for the cheap gotcha moment, and getting nothing.

Maybe the Hello Kitty Message Board is more up to your abilities, or down.

 

[The Derp]

I want a gun now, why should the government be allowed to delay me 3-6 months and ask me to pay $600 just because "they feel like it"?

Because the gun represents a danger to society and you can't prove just by showing up to buy a gun that you can handle or are capable of the responsibility.

But who is requiring a 3-6 month waiting period and $600 fee? Or did you just make that shit up to make a hyperbolic point because the rest of your argument is garbage?

Again, are you OK with a 2 week waiting period and $100 fee for a woman to get an abortion?

Abortions don't kill people; guns do.

 

[The Derp]

I see, so when a wingnut blabbers about 2nd amendment rights shall not be infringed you'll be there with the asterisk. Got it.

^^^^THIS^^^^

All these people do is make excuses, exceptions, "asterisks".

 

[martybegan]

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).

You obviously know nothing about what the 14th Amendment bestows on citizens. It bestows equal protection, which means if your gun rights, according to your own "strict interpretation of the 2nd Amendment", are Constitutionally protected -which is what you are arguing- then that means no business has the right to violate your Constitutional rights to carry a firearm, and thus, CPAC are a bunch of hypocrites for simultaneously saying that gun rights are universal and Constitutionally protected, while violating those Constitutionally-protected rights they just argued were Constitutionally protected. Just like how no business has the right to discriminate against the Constitutional rights of any person based on race, gender, sexuality, etc. because doing so violates their Constitutional rights under the 14th Amendment, then you must also argue that no business has a right to violate your Equal Protection rights bestowed by the 14th Amendment, when it comes to exercising your "strict interpretation of the 2nd Amendment".

It's hypocrisy most foul and you're a fraud whose own argument eats itself.

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

Wait a second, so you're saying that the 2nd Amendment doesn't apply to guns now? You're talking yourself into circles when all you need to do is just say, "yeah, CPAC are a bunch of hypocrites for banning guns after arguing that they're a Constitutional right".

I don't know why you are resistant to that. Seems like it's just a matter of your ego.

Only governments can violate constitutional rights.

WRONG. Businesses can violate Constitutional rights. IT'S WHY THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT WAS PASSED, YOU NINCOMPOOP.

[/QUOTE]

Equal protection UNDER THE LAW, which means government can't deny equal protection.
All that writing going in circles while missing the point entirely.

You are just making shit up at this point.

Actually what was happening during Jim Crow was that local governments passed LAWS making businesses discriminate even if they didn't want to (most did).

The Civil Rights Act flitted on the border of unconstitutionality, but that is another discussion.

 

[HappyJoy]

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

False equivalency

CPAC wasn't a gun free zone?

CPAC was a secure zone.

Sure buddy, when you can't bring you're own gun it's a gun free zone. They are not mutually exclusive.

What most people call "gun free zones" is just someone putting up a sign alluding to the statement, without doing anything to assure the location is indeed "gun free"

A secure area couples a request for no guns in civilian hands in the area with the means to assure that is the case, plus people able to respond to anyone with a gun trying to enter or in the area.

A request? U B Silly.

Anyway, semantics. I'm for security guards, metal detectors and other measures that make schools safe. Like not giving guns to kids and comprehensive background checks.

 

[martybegan]

CPAC was a secure zone.

Because no one was allowed to bring in guns.

So if not allowing people to carry guns = secured...

...then that means not allowing anyone to carry a weapon = secured.

It's secured because they made sure via checks that no one unauthorized brought in a gun, and had the means to respond immediately if someone did.

 

[The Derp]

CPAC is not a government agency.

What does that have to do with anything? If a private business discriminates against you because of your race, that's a violation of your Constitutionally-protected Civil Rights.

If a business prohibits your gun inside, according to your "strict interpretation of the 2nd Amendment", that is also a violation of your Constitutionally-protected Second Amendment Rights.

So when CPAC banned guns, they violated the same Second Amendment Rights they claim are Constitutionally-protected.

You keep twisting yourself in pretzels to defend hypocrisy and it seems the only reason you do so is because of your ego.

 

[martybegan]

I want a gun now, why should the government be allowed to delay me 3-6 months and ask me to pay $600 just because "they feel like it"?

Because the gun represents a danger to society and you can't prove just by showing up to buy a gun that you can handle or are capable of the responsibility.

But who is requiring a 3-6 month waiting period and $600 fee? Or did you just make that shit up to make a hyperbolic point because the rest of your argument is garbage?

Again, are you OK with a 2 week waiting period and $100 fee for a woman to get an abortion?

Abortions don't kill people; guns do.

NYC requires it, easy to find out if you have the google skills of a 5 year old.

Do you really think they spend all that time doing searches? LOL, it sits on a desk for 4 months and then they just stamp it when they realize the person isn't going to give up.

And it doesn't matter on your last point, a right is a right is a right.

And after all, the person will eventually get the abortion, wasn't that your point about infringement before?

Dumbass.

 

[martybegan]

CPAC is not a government agency.

What does that have to do with anything? If a private business discriminates against you because of your race, that's a violation of your Constitutionally-protected Civil Rights.

If a business prohibits your gun inside, according to your "strict interpretation of the 2nd Amendment", that is also a violation of your Constitutionally-protected Second Amendment Rights.

So when CPAC banned guns, they violated the same Second Amendment Rights they claim are Constitutionally-protected.

You keep twisting yourself in pretzels to defend hypocrisy and it seems the only reason you do so is because of your ego.

The only one doing twisting is you, My logic is sound, you keep making assumptions that have no basis in reality.

You just keep going for the gotcha moment and missing.

Too bad, so sad.

 

[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

False equivalency

CPAC wasn't a gun free zone?

CPAC was a secure zone.

Sure buddy, when you can't bring you're own gun it's a gun free zone. They are not mutually exclusive.

What most people call "gun free zones" is just someone putting up a sign alluding to the statement, without doing anything to assure the location is indeed "gun free"

A secure area couples a request for no guns in civilian hands in the area with the means to assure that is the case, plus people able to respond to anyone with a gun trying to enter or in the area.

A request? U B Silly.

Anyway, semantics. I'm for security guards, metal detectors and other measures that make schools safe. Like not giving guns to kids and comprehensive background checks.

Most of today's gun free zones just state it without doing anything to assure it. That's the problem, it's wishful thinking.

They put a sign out saying "no weapons beyond this point" and it's up to you to decide if you want to enter or not.

 

[The Derp]

Equal protection UNDER THE LAW, which means government can't deny equal protection.

Jesus ******* Christ, you are a true know nothing.

It means private business can't deny equal protection either, which is why it's illegal for a private business to discriminate based on race.

All that writing going in circles while missing the point entirely.

You aren't making any points. You are just making excuses for why your self-contradictory argument isn't hypocrisy. You said you have "a strict interpretation of the 2nd Amendment"...those are your words. Now you're saying your "strict interpretation" is not so strict, is flexible, and is open to exceptions and excuse making. And if that's the case, then your "strict interpretation" is really just bullshit parameters you arbitrarily set for yourself, within which you wiggle around so you can save face.

A "strict interpretation of the 2nd Amendment" would mean you think gun rights are universal, that there shouldn't be any limitations to ownership, and anyone should be allowed to carry their weapon wherever they want. THAT is a "strict interpretation of the Second Amendment", not this wishy-washy, self-conflicting bullshit you're vomiting up here. If you're saying it's OK for a business to deny your carrying of your weapon on their premises, then as a "strict interpreter" of the Second Amendment, you would have to argue those businesses are violating your Constitutional rights, and CPAC are hypocrites for banning guns.

You are just making shit up at this point.Actually what was happening during Jim Crow was that local governments passed LAWS making businesses discriminate even if they didn't want to (most did).The Civil Rights Act flitted on the border of unconstitutionality, but that is another discussion.

So you think the Civil Rights Act is unconstitutional, why? Because you want to be able to discriminate against anyone for any basis. Why do you want to discriminate? Because you're a garbage person. Which has been my point this entire time.

 

[ChrisL]

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

False equivalency

CPAC wasn't a gun free zone?

CPAC was a secure zone.

Sure buddy, when you can't bring you're own gun it's a gun free zone. They are not mutually exclusive.

What most people call "gun free zones" is just someone putting up a sign alluding to the statement, without doing anything to assure the location is indeed "gun free"

A secure area couples a request for no guns in civilian hands in the area with the means to assure that is the case, plus people able to respond to anyone with a gun trying to enter or in the area.

A request? U B Silly.

Anyway, semantics. I'm for security guards, metal detectors and other measures that make schools safe. Like not giving guns to kids and comprehensive background checks.

Most of today's gun free zones just state it without doing anything to assure it. That's the problem, it's wishful thinking.

They put a sign out saying "no weapons beyond this point" and it's up to you to decide if you want to enter or not.

It's worked out well for those deranged lunatics looking for a soft target though!

 

[Dragonlady]

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.

That plethora of options has seen a steady slide in education rankings in the US, since they were introduced, even as costs increase and Americans pay more out of their own pockets to educate their children than any other country in the world.

All you’ve done is syphon public funds away from public schools and into charter schools. Charter schools cherry pick the smart kids (to keep their rankings high), and dump the underachievers. Their schools aren’t better, their test results make it appear that way because no one who could make them look bad is allowed to stay.

Religious schools are just a new and better way to segregate. No blacks, no gays, no evolution, no science.

Bullshite! Communist/Democrat propaganda. The Government School System is failing all on its own. Parents need education alternatives. Government needs to stop trying to destroy those alternatives. Forcing parents to send their children into the Government School nightmare, is Un-American. Alternatives need to be available.

Bullshit. Every First World Nation relies upon a public school system to educate their children. And most of them do a far far better job than Americans, and they do so by spending a lot less money than Americans.

At every turn Republicans undermine and undercut public education. What’s most troubling is the push to charter schools and vouchers. Every time a public school is replaced by a charter school in poor areas, children disappear from the schools. Their parents can’t make up the balance of the tuition, there are no other schools they can go to, so simply keep their kids home.

Thousand of poor inner city kids are growing up with no education as a result of these policies. What could possibly go wrong?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-with-charter-schools/?utm_term=.32f5cb652d3a

 

[The Derp]

It's secured because they made sure via checks that no one unauthorized brought in a gun, and had the means to respond immediately if someone did.

Now, that's excuse and exception-making. That's not what you said before. So here's a perfect example of you moving the goalposts on what you said before.

 

[kaz]

Seriously?

CPAC - 4 days once a year, 1 entrance and exit, people arrive at different times (i.e., not all at once)

4 days or 200 days does not a difference make. Some High schools also only have one entrance. But if it has 3, so what?

Schools - 26,000 schools 200+ days a year, multiple entrances and exists, students arrive and leave at the same time

Now you're repeating yourself.

You don't see how metal detectors and securing entrances and exits are different? I'm just laughing at you

No, not really. Metal detectors are in some schools now and the appear to work.

Then why did the shooter get a gun in?

They didn't have metal detectors. Never mind that you don't seem to have any idea how to keep that kid's gun out of school.

And seriously? 5.2 million days of securing buildings a year is no difference than securing one conference for four days? It's incredible how stupid leftists will look on purpose for the cause. If you were in Jonestown, you wouldn't have hesitated to drink. You might have demanded grape though ...

Airports, convention halls, courthouses. All day everyday

You said schools use metal detectors now and they work, then you said they don't use metal detectors. All I am arguing is to allow CC holders to carry them. I am not saying to not use metal detectors, I am saying it's a lot harder to make them as effective as CPAC where there is one entrance

I said some schools use metal detectors. The high school in Florida didn't. Is that too difficult for you?

Your argument was the 5.2 million school days a year wasn't a big issue because they already do it. So it's you who couldn't follow your own point

Do you think CPAC infringed on anyone's 2nd amendment rights?

No. I also don't think the Florida schools did. You don't have a second amendment right to take guns into a school any more than an airport or a court house.

However, the new laws leftists are proposing because of things like Florida do infringe on our 2nd amendment rights.

Debating you is driving in the slow lane

I see, so when a wingnut blabbers about 2nd amendment rights shall not be infringed you'll be there with the asterisk. Got it.

I directly addressed that. Gawd you're stupid.

"However, the new laws leftists are proposing because of things like Florida do infringe on our 2nd amendment rights"

Reading two, three sentence posts is just too much work for you. That's why you're a leftist