TexasCHLforum.com

The fact that both the President of the United States and the Vice-President of the United States are attending the NRA Convention is a major endorsement of both the NRA and the Second Amendment. It also sends a message to Congress and to . . . well, I won't say more. To argue that the NRA should not invite these two men because the Secret Service would prohibit us from carrying our handguns boggles the mind. Look at the violence being perpetrated by left. Do you doubt that some ANTIFA type or other left-leaning loon would hesitate to bring a gun to the Leadership Forum and take a shot at the most pro-Second Amendment President and Vice-President the U.S. has ever seen? These low-life are constantly calling for Trump to be murdered, yet some of you feel it's wrong for the Secret Service to carry out its statutory responsibilities.

I agree that true NRA members carrying self-defense handguns would not pose a threat to the President or VP, but there's no way to be sure that only true NRA members attend the function. Any ANTIFA degenerate could join the NRA for $35, then come to the Convention and take a shot at the President. Remember, the Convention will draw many tens of thousands of people and all it would take is one would-be murderer to cause more damage to the Second Amendment than all of the Democrats on the planet.

Oh yeah, please consider not feeding the anti-gun media more tidbits for their fake news outlets.
Chas.

well stated

Charles L. Cotton wrote:To argue that the NRA should not invite these two men because the Secret Service would prohibit us from carrying our handguns boggles the mind.

Charles L. Cotton wrote: Oh yeah, please consider not feeding the anti-gun media more tidbits for their fake news outlets.
Chas.

I understand all of the above arguments, but they all ignore one overriding factor:

"The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

You either believe that or you don't.

RossA wrote:I understand all of the above arguments, but they all ignore one overriding factor:

"The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

You either believe that or you don't.

I believe that my right to bear arms is NOT being infringed upon by the Secret Service's mission to protect POTUS and VPOTUS from nut jobs with a gun at the NRA-ILA meeting.

bblhd672 wrote:

RossA wrote:I understand all of the above arguments, but they all ignore one overriding factor:

"The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

You either believe that or you don't.

I believe that my right to bear arms is NOT being infringed upon by the Secret Service's mission to protect POTUS and VPOTUS from nut jobs with a gun at the NRA-ILA meeting.

+bazillion

bblhd672 wrote:

RossA wrote:I understand all of the above arguments, but they all ignore one overriding factor:

"The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

You either believe that or you don't.

I believe that my right to bear arms is NOT being infringed upon by the Secret Service's mission to protect POTUS and VPOTUS from nut jobs with a gun at the NRA-ILA meeting.

Do you believe it would be infringed if LTC are banned from carrying at the state capitol grounds on a mission to protect legislators from nut jobs with a gun at a government meeting?

Do you believe it would be infringed if you're banned from carrying in public on a mission to protect the public from nut jobs with a gun?

BBYC wrote:

bblhd672 wrote:

RossA wrote:I understand all of the above arguments, but they all ignore one overriding factor:

"The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

You either believe that or you don't.

I believe that my right to bear arms is NOT being infringed upon by the Secret Service's mission to protect POTUS and VPOTUS from nut jobs with a gun at the NRA-ILA meeting.

Do you believe it would be infringed if LTC are banned from carrying at the state capitol grounds on a mission to protect legislators from nut jobs with a gun at a government meeting?

Do you believe it would be infringed if you're banned from carrying in public on a mission to protect the public from nut jobs with a gun?

I learned after many painful years with my ex-wife that there are no winners in “what if” games.

bblhd672 wrote:nut jobs with a gun

That sounds like the excuse for every gun ban.

bblhd672 wrote:

BBYC wrote:

bblhd672 wrote:

RossA wrote:I understand all of the above arguments, but they all ignore one overriding factor:

"The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

You either believe that or you don't.

I believe that my right to bear arms is NOT being infringed upon by the Secret Service's mission to protect POTUS and VPOTUS from nut jobs with a gun at the NRA-ILA meeting.

Do you believe it would be infringed if LTC are banned from carrying at the state capitol grounds on a mission to protect legislators from nut jobs with a gun at a government meeting?

Do you believe it would be infringed if you're banned from carrying in public on a mission to protect the public from nut jobs with a gun?

I learned after many painful years with my ex-wife that there are no winners in “what if” games.

Especially when they resort to extreme examples.

Chas.

BBYC wrote:

bblhd672 wrote:

RossA wrote:I understand all of the above arguments, but they all ignore one overriding factor:

"The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

You either believe that or you don't.

I believe that my right to bear arms is NOT being infringed upon by the Secret Service's mission to protect POTUS and VPOTUS from nut jobs with a gun at the NRA-ILA meeting.

Do you believe it would be infringed if LTC are banned from carrying at the state capitol grounds on a mission to protect legislators from nut jobs with a gun at a government meeting?

Do you believe it would be infringed if you're banned from carrying in public on a mission to protect the public from nut jobs with a gun?

Not everything in life is 100% black or white. One can still believe in the RKBA and the 2nd and still understand that at times one may not be able to have a gun on them. Keep in mind, a person has a choice whether they want to attend the V.P. or President's speeches. If one feels it is too much of an infringement to not carry, don't go. In life, we have to make many choices and most of those choices involve some sort of compromise.

I believe this to be very similar to choosing whether to do business with a private business that posts 30.06 or 30.07 signs. We can make up our own minds without projecting our own beliefs onto others in order to quilt or demean them because of their decision.

Demeaning people because of their decisions is a part of what adults must do. If you say one thing and do something else, I will not simply remain quiet about it, I will speak out. Some call that demeaning, I call it truth.

RossA wrote:Demeaning people because of their decisions is a part of what adults must do. If you say one thing and do something else, I will not simply remain quiet about it, I will speak out. Some call that demeaning, I call it truth.

No, it's not what adults must do. Nothing is 100% black or white and adults realize and accept some compromise at times.

Don't go if you think your rights are being violated.

Nothing is 100% black and white? Then when the armed bad guy breaks into your house, don't shoot, because you might be missing some shades of grey in his intentions. That is modern liberalspeak. It is what has led us to the point of everything being negotiable, and traditional values are of no more worth than the politically correct fad of the day.