Anxious
Only logged in members can reply and interact with the post.
Join SimilarWorlds for FREE »

Why do the same people who claim guns make the life safer ban those same guns from their meetings ?

like Trump is holding a rally at the NRA and guns are banned there... wouldnt it be much safer if everyone in the audiennce carried an AR-15 ?
This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »
Mak03 · F
the main reason is that donald trump like all former presidents receive secret service protection and there are no firearms allowed in any venue a former president is under secret service protection
@Mak03 Why aren't the Republicans trying to change that? Wouldn't they want the former presidents to be as safe as possible?
Mak03 · F
@BohemianBoo apparently democrats want politicians as safe as possible their magazine capacities part of the new bill makes and exception for private security, they want those people to have as many rounds as possible.
@Mak03 But Democrats don't think more guns means more safety. Republicans do, or at least they claim to. I wonder why the Republicans aren't trying to increase the number of guns at Trump's NRA rally.
Mak03 · F
@BohemianBoo because they can't he is under secret service protection. there are a lot of things former presidents can not do and have a venue full of guns is one of them, you keep saying why haven't they tried to remove that how do you know they have not?
@Mak03 Well Republicans are always very public with their idea that more guns means more safety, so why haven't they publicly talked about changing this rule? They would get so much support from the pro-gun crowd.
Unless, of course, these Republicans are all just lying.
Mak03 · F
@BohemianBoo so do you know if they have tried to change laws for former presidents or not?
@Mak03 There's no evidence they tried to change the law. Plus they never even talk about it. Why not?
Mak03 · F
@BohemianBoo do you have evidence they have not tried to?
@Mak03 No, because you can't have evidence of a negative. However, the lack of evidence that they tried or even talked about it is certainly suspicious.
Mak03 · F
@BohemianBoo they generally do not talk about naming national parks until they do it but there is a lot of evidence they try to do that often
@Mak03 Yeah, but there is no evidence that they try to change this rule regarding guns and former presidents. And when it comes to guns, they usually are very vocal. Wonder what the difference is here.
Mak03 · F
@BohemianBoo actually the democrats seem to talk about guns a lot more than republicans do. republicans say very little other than 2nd amendment 2nd amendment. democrats talk about magazine capacities and number of rounds and caliber size and style of weapon.
@Mak03 Well both parties talk about guns a lot, they just have different narratives. Republicans don't just say we have a right to own guns, they also talk about how more guns means a safer society. They say we should arm teachers. But for some reason, they don't say we should arm people when it concerns them.
Mak03 · F
@BohemianBoo well they probably don't say to over ride the decisions of the secret service regarding former presidents, i am not really sure i have seen no evidence as rather they do or not talk about it. but you are lumping all gatherings of republicans in with one where a former president attended i am quite sure there are republican functions where guns are not banned.