Howling Hypocrisy By The NRA

[Hayabusa Rider]

if a lot of people want him dead, I thought the answer was more good guys with guns? I thought if you took guns away from everyone, only the bad guys will have guns.

:confused;

You aren't confused all and doesn't touch on the issue at the NRA, but let's play. Hillary has Secret Security protection provided as a courtesy to the family of Officeholders.

If there's a closed venue where people are scanned upon entering and the building inspected in advance, does she demand that the Secret Service disarm themselves? If guns are taken away, then she's a hypocrite if she doesn't require that on the part of any and all security.

If guns are removed then she doesn't need guns because neither bad nor good guys will have guns.



Unfortunately, that doesn't address how the SS approaches their mission and they don't care about your bleeding heart, your hardened cruel heart or the politics. Their job is to follow a protocol and they will kill you if that warrants.

You aren't dealing with hacks and idiots on the internet. You are dealing with human Terminators when acting at SS agents. They can't be bargained with. They can't be reasoned with. They don't feel pity, or remorse, or fear! And they absolutely will not stop, ever, until you are dead if that is what is required to protect their charge.

 

[SMOGZINN]

If there's a closed venue where people are scanned upon entering and the building inspected in advance, does she demand that the Secret Service disarm themselves? If guns are taken away, then she's a hypocrite if she doesn't require that on the part of any and all security.

This is a strawman argument. Hillary, and in fact most Democrats, are not advocates of a total gun ban. They proponents of strict gun control, or in other words, guns being limited to people that have been very thoroughly vetted and carried under controlled circumstances. Something that describes the Secret Service well.

 

[OutHouse]

yet some people try to twist the truth into lies, and then spread them. Claiming that the NRA banned guns there is silly,MSM spread that lie. Got caught, and deleted the tweet and then the lie was spread again by the OP to start a P&N leftist circle jerk bagging on the NRA, the Secret Service, Pence, Trump well pretty much everybody but the commie leftist.

FFTY

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

This is a strawman argument. Hillary, and in fact most Democrats, are not advocates of a total gun ban. They proponents of strict gun control, or in other words, guns being limited to people that have been very thoroughly vetted and carried under controlled circumstances. Something that describes the Secret Service well.

Is Pence against any and all regulation? Groups that support the not having access to guns (and I don't mean one shot musket mentalities) exist. If Hillary ever speaks to them will she be a hypocrite or disarm the SS, or simply avoid talking to them?

On this forum we have people ranging from few restrictions to not having a right to defend oneself at a human rights level. Where does she and those she speaks to fall on that scale? Hillary wants to put gun manufacturers out of business and yes she does by means that would close any enterprise.

So yeah she takes steps to not ban guns but to make ownership unobtainable over time. That's a distinction without a difference. If that is accomplished, will she call on the SS to disarm?

Not a chance. She wants protection that some say you aren't entitled to even in principle, even by non-lethal means.

She and Pence will still get protection at the NRA or in the most extreme anti-self-defense agenda, and there's no hypocrisy here no matter how much people want there to be.

Don't like the NRA? This is probably not the best thing to hang your hat on because all it does is preach to the choir who would never have anything good to say about the NRA at all.

 

[MrSquished]

Is Pence against any and all regulation? Groups that support the not having access to guns (and I don't mean one shot musket mentalities) exist. If Hillary ever speaks to them will she be a hypocrite or disarm the SS, or simply avoid talking to them?

On this forum we have people ranging from few restrictions to not having a right to defend oneself at a human rights level. Where does she and those she speaks to fall on that scale? Hillary wants to put gun manufacturers out of business and yes she does by means that would close any enterprise.

So yeah she takes steps to not ban guns but to make ownership unobtainable over time. That's a distinction without a difference. If that is accomplished, will she call on the SS to disarm?

Not a chance. She wants protection that some say you aren't entitled to even in principle, even by non-lethal means.

She and Pence will still get protection at the NRA or in the most extreme anti-self-defense agenda, and there's no hypocrisy here no matter how much people want there to be.

Don't like the NRA? This is probably not the best thing to hang your hat on because all it does is preach to the choir who would never have anything good to say about the NRA at all.

You talk yourself into the situation that Hilary essentially wants to ban all guns and then make yourself right.

It's fun to watch.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

You talk yourself into the situation that Hilary essentially wants to ban all guns and then make yourself right.

It's fun to watch.

Maybe not so much, but do you know the basis for my claim, which you should know by now I have?

Tell us what it is.

 

[Ns1]

If there's a closed venue where people are scanned upon entering and the building inspected in advance, does she demand that the Secret Service disarm themselves? If guns are taken away, then she's a hypocrite if she doesn't require that on the part of any and all security.

She's only a hypocrite if her position is that the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is to have a good guy with a gun.

Unless I'm mistaken, her position is to take the guns away from bad guys AND give the good guys guns.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

She's only a hypocrite if her position is that the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is to have a good guy with a gun.

Unless I'm mistaken, her position is to take the guns away from bad guys AND give the good guys guns.

First point. No, just no. That doesn't even make sense. If there's a controlled venue and which has been properly processed and access controlled then she's achieved not only regulation but the absolute elimination of guns in her immediate sphere, well not at all. There's security. If that's going to make people safe then she should make it safe from the crowd call for the Secret Service to get rid of their guns. There's a non zero chance that one will have a psychosis and start firing into the crowd, right? Everyone would be safer if they were disarmed.

Hillary's position is not to give citizens guns, at all. Hey what will she give me if you are right? A boot in the ass?

 

[MrSquished]

Maybe not so much, but do you know the basis for my claim, which you should know by now I have?

Tell us what it is.

Because she wants the gun manufacturers to be sue-able.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Because she wants the gun manufacturers to be sue-able.

Correct. Opening a business to liability for harm done will destroy it. Gun owners are legion and don't kill people as a rule but someone might. Same with any other industry. I could kill someone with a kitchen knife, a car, a baseball bat. Most people don't use them in a murder attempt. Let the lawyers at these people and they're done.

It's a matter of intent on the part of the killer, and of Hillary. She's just focusing on guns.

 

[MrSquished]

Correct. Opening a business to liability for harm done will destroy it. Gun owners are legion and don't kill people as a rule but someone might. Same with any other industry. I could kill someone with a kitchen knife, a car, a baseball bat. Most people don't use them in a murder attempt. Let the lawyers at these people and they're done.

It's a matter of intent on the part of the killer, and of Hillary. She's just focusing on guns.

I don't necessarily think making the gun manufacturer's liable for more things means they can be sued for any bit of gun violence. That wouldn't stand in court. I do think they should be sued for attempting to shoot down any attempt at reasonable gun control legislation though. Such as tightening up background checks. I have no issue with that. If that's her intent then I'm all for it.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

I don't necessarily think making the gun manufacturer's liable for more things means they can be sued for any bit of gun violence. That wouldn't stand in court. I do think they should be sued for attempting to shoot down any attempt at reasonable gun control legislation though. Such as tightening up background checks. I have no issue with that. If that's her intent then I'm all for it.

What you are saying is that they should be sued for using their right of free speech. A candidate for office has just attacked the First Amendment rights of legally availing themselves of them. Imagine Trump seriously attempting to enact legislation that closes down opposition business for his agenda? Planned Parenthood taken to court for defending itself. The NYT for publishing facts. Anandtech for our forum here if someone were to engage in a legal activity but spoke in support of PPH?

How about The_Donald and 4Chan hire lawyers to shut down those it wishes to target?

It never works one way- ever.

 

[MrSquished]

What you are saying is that they should be sued for using their right of free speech. A candidate for office has just attacked the First Amendment rights of legally availing themselves of them. Imagine Trump seriously attempting to enact legislation that closes down opposition business for his agenda? Planned Parenthood taken to court for defending itself. The NYT for publishing facts. Anandtech for our forum here if someone were to engage in a legal activity but spoke in support of PPH?

How about The_Donald and 4Chan hire lawyers to shut down those it wishes to target?

It never works one way- ever.

I'm not saying this should be the case for all industries. Just like only SOME industries get lawsuit protection from consumers, I think the reverse can also apply in very special circumstances. Guns are a matter of public health. Their primary reason for existence is to destroy organic life on some level or in totality. So I think it merits special attention.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

I'm not saying this should be the case for all industries. Just like only SOME industries get lawsuit protection from consumers, I think the reverse can also apply in very special circumstances. Guns are a matter of public health. Their primary reason for existence is to destroy organic life on some level or in totality. So I think it merits special attention.

I'm not saying this should be the case for all industries. Just like only SOME industries get lawsuit protection from consumers, I think the reverse can also apply in very special circumstances. Guns are a matter of public health. Their primary reason for existence is to destroy organic life on some level or in totality. So I think it merits special attention.

You'll need to rewrite the Constitution for that.

 

[MrSquished]

You'll need to rewrite the Constitution for that.

If corporations are people, I think we can work it out

 

[SMOGZINN]

Correct. Opening a business to liability for harm done will destroy it. Gun owners are legion and don't kill people as a rule but someone might. Same with any other industry. I could kill someone with a kitchen knife, a car, a baseball bat. Most people don't use them in a murder attempt. Let the lawyers at these people and they're done.

It's a matter of intent on the part of the killer, and of Hillary. She's just focusing on guns.

Right! That is why we no longer have medical manufacturers, automotive manufacturers, or cigarette companies. Oh, wait, all three of those can be sued for liability and are still doing well.

 

[Ns1]

First point. No, just no. That doesn't even make sense. If there's a controlled venue and which has been properly processed and access controlled then she's achieved not only regulation but the absolute elimination of guns in her immediate sphere, well not at all. There's security. If that's going to make people safe then she should make it safe from the crowd call for the Secret Service to get rid of their guns. There's a non zero chance that one will have a psychosis and start firing into the crowd, right? Everyone would be safer if they were disarmed.

Hillary's position is not to give citizens guns, at all. Hey what will she give me if you are right? A boot in the ass?

I mean that's all fine and dandy, but if I'm to understand the NRA position, none of that should matter - who cares these rules aren't going to stop the bad guys anyway, so you're only removing guns from the good guys. The only possible solution should be more guns, not less.

Also, doesn't the bolded sentence represent the entire argument for gun control?

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Right! That is why we no longer have medical manufacturers, automotive manufacturers, or cigarette companies. Oh, wait, all three of those can be sued for liability and are still doing well.

If a car has an airbag failure the company can be sued. If a manufacturing defect causes a gun barrel explodes and injures someone then the gun manufacturer can be sued.

If I run someone over with a car can the victim sue the car maker for my actions? If Hillary and others had their way AND it applied to everyone then yes, but the idea is to destroy the means of production from one industry, the one "not being banned".

 

[SMOGZINN]

If I run someone over with a car can the victim sue the car maker for my actions?

Yes, they can, and in fact have before. They will probably lose, but they can sue. The same should be said of gun manufacturers. They would have to be found to be liable following the doctrine of strict liability, and that means that they did something wrong. As long as gun manufacturers are not doing anything that would make them liable they are safe.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Also, doesn't the bolded sentence represent the entire argument for gun control?[/QUOTE]

Yes, they can, and in fact have before. They will probably lose, but they can sue. The same should be said of gun manufacturers. They would have to be found to be liable following the doctrine of strict liability, and that means that they did something wrong. As long as gun manufacturers are not doing anything that would make them liable they are safe.

The gun industry and others are held to the same standard. If a firearm fails there is no legal protection. What Hillary wants to do is to enable victims of gun crime to sue on the basis of intentional harm done. If you were to shoot a family member of mine I could sue the gun maker. If however you drove down a Toronto street and killed ten people and one of them was a loved one of mine I couldn't sue the van maker on the same basis. The intent is to redefine liability for one industry to allow legal actions that can destroy. What would happen to the auto industry or any other if they were subject to her standards? You couldn't make golf clubs.

 

[SMOGZINN]

The gun industry and others are held to the same standard.

That is not true. The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act is what we are talking about. That law made it so that the Gun Industry does not have to defend itself against general negligence lawsuits of the same type that caused car manufacturers to adopt safety measures.

If however you drove down a Toronto street and killed ten people and one of them was a loved one of mine I couldn't sue the van maker on the same basis.

Yes you could. You might lose, but you could sue and make your case on why you feel the van's manufacturer is liable for that act. You will not even be given a chance to make your claim against the gun industry because it has been preemptively shielded from such claims. It is most certainly a protection that no other industry in the United States enjoys.

 

[Sunburn74]

If a car has an airbag failure the company can be sued. If a manufacturing defect causes a gun barrel explodes and injures someone then the gun manufacturer can be sued.

If I run someone over with a car can the victim sue the car maker for my actions? If Hillary and others had their way AND it applied to everyone then yes, but the idea is to destroy the means of production from one industry, the one "not being banned".

It depends. If your car is being advertised as a tool to run people over with, then they are definitely liable when you actually go ahead and do so.

 

[Ns1]

It depends. If your car is being advertised as a tool to run people over with, then they are definitely liable when you actually go ahead and do so.

This is why everyone should be armed with an F350

 

[Kneedragger]

So while I was gone it looks like everyone is in favor of more guns everywhere now?! So confused?!

 

[sdifox]

So while I was gone it looks like everyone is in favor of more guns everywhere now?! So confused?!

No, it's about pointing out NRA's hipocrisy.