Go Back   Literotica Discussion Board > Main Literotica Forums > Politics Board

Reply
 
Thread Tools

Old 05-03-2018, 12:46 AM   #26
phrodeau
Literotica Guru
 
phrodeau's Avatar
 
phrodeau is offline
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Hobbiton, The Shire (away on business)
Posts: 61,237
Quote:
Originally Posted by EllieTalbot View Post
Then you're also obliged to sneer at anti-gun celebrities because their entire argument is that everyone is safer without guns, but their actions contradict what they claim to believe. They're fine with making gun violence cool onscreen and surrounding themselves with armed guards. If they actually believed what they say they wouldn't allow guns in their lives, much less use them to boost ticket sales.

As far as hypocrisy goes, it's a draw, and therefore a useless observation.

Just Sayin' in Joliet,
Ellie
Uhm, you know that the guns they use on movies and TV shows don't shoot real bullets, right?
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-03-2018, 12:53 AM   #27
NickStJohn
Experienced
 
NickStJohn is offline
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 98
I am not "obliged" to sneer at anyone.

What is the "anti-gun celebrities" organization of which you speak? I don't recall being solicited for membership in it or for donations to it. I can't say the same about the NRA.
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-03-2018, 05:32 AM   #28
Hypoxia
doesn't watch television
 
Hypoxia's Avatar
 
Hypoxia is offline
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Llareggub, just around the corner
Posts: 23,555
Of course the Secret Service won't allow firearms inside the convention center. All the shootings will occur outside.

As for celebs with bodyguards -- if you're surrounded by people who very well might be carrying, you'd better fucking have security. It's survival, not hypocrisy. John and Yoko should have had a bodyguard.

That's the crux: You MUST assume everyone around you is carrying. If you think someone is hostile and a threat to you, you MUST shoot them first, else you're dead. It's just simple survival. In a fully-armed society you shoot first and ask no questions.

Meanwhile there's a pic of Reagan, surrounded by armed guards, facing the guy who shot him one second later. Go on, arm yourself and those around you -- see what good it does. [/me searches for pic] Ah, here it is. Note all the useless guards. One second later, bang. Sux to be Secret Service and fuck up.

  Reply With Quote

Old 05-03-2018, 10:14 AM   #29
EllieTalbot
Fear the Spoon
 
EllieTalbot's Avatar
 
EllieTalbot is offline
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Again in Alaska
Posts: 3,898
Quote:
Originally Posted by NickStJohn View Post
I am not "obliged" to sneer at anyone.

What is the "anti-gun celebrities" organization of which you speak? I don't recall being solicited for membership in it or for donations to it. I can't say the same about the NRA.
Unless you're happy to be as hypocritical as those you're sneering at, yes, you should sneer at hypocrisy on both sides. Or simply recognize that both sides are being practical, not hypocritical.

I didn't speak of any anti-gun celebrity organizations, but since you mention it, there's one I'm aware of, and yes, they've hit me up. https://noranow.org/about/ I'm an independent who's politically active on both sides of the fence, so I'm on all kinds of lists. Can't say I've received a solicitation from the NRA, though.

Now, can you please explain what the existence or non-existence of various groups and whether or not they've solicited you has to do with hypocrisy on both sides of the gun issue?

Quote:
Originally Posted by phrodeau View Post
Uhm, you know that the guns they use on movies and TV shows don't shoot real bullets, right?
Yes, except in the case of poor Brandon Lee. And...?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hypoxia View Post

As for celebs with bodyguards -- if you're surrounded by people who very well might be carrying, you'd better fucking have security. It's survival, not hypocrisy. John and Yoko should have had a bodyguard.


Meanwhile there's... Reagan, surrounded by armed guards, facing the guy who shot him one second later. Go on, arm yourself and those around you -- see what good it does.
Aw, poor Pox. She was on the verge of making a decent point, and then bang! She shot herself.

Sniper on Sixth Street,
Ellie
__________________
Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing ever happened. - Sir Winston Churchill
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-03-2018, 10:43 AM   #30
phrodeau
Literotica Guru
 
phrodeau's Avatar
 
phrodeau is offline
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Hobbiton, The Shire (away on business)
Posts: 61,237
Quote:
Originally Posted by EllieTalbot View Post
(edited)

Yes, except in the case of poor Brandon Lee. And...?
Brandon Lee was killed with a blank.
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-03-2018, 10:58 AM   #31
EllieTalbot
Fear the Spoon
 
EllieTalbot's Avatar
 
EllieTalbot is offline
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Again in Alaska
Posts: 3,898
Quote:
Originally Posted by phrodeau View Post
Brandon Lee was killed with a blank.
Was it? I thought a live round had accidentally made it in to the mix.

Tragic either way.

My questions still stands.

And...?

Expectant in Exeter,
Ellie
__________________
Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing ever happened. - Sir Winston Churchill
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-03-2018, 11:00 AM   #32
dan_c00000
Literotica Guru
 
dan_c00000 is offline
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: NYC
Posts: 4,725
Quote:
Originally Posted by Veroe View Post
So let me get this straight the NRA can't trust a bunch of good guys with guns in the same room as a Vice President of an administration they largely agree with.

This was a fantastic post.
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-03-2018, 11:06 AM   #33
EllieTalbot
Fear the Spoon
 
EllieTalbot's Avatar
 
EllieTalbot is offline
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Again in Alaska
Posts: 3,898
Quote:
Originally Posted by phrodeau View Post
Brandon Lee was killed with a blank.

Dude! I believed you.

I just looked it up. You can't be shot with a blank. There's no projectile involved.

Quote:
In the scene in which Lee was accidentally shot, Lee's character walks into his apartment and discovers his fiancée being beaten and raped by thugs. Actor Michael Massee's character fires a .44 Magnum revolver at Lee as he walks into the room.[10] A previous scene using the same gun had called for inert dummy cartridges fitted with bullets (but no powder or primer) to be loaded in the revolver for a close-up scene; for film scenes that utilize a revolver (where the bullets are visible from the front) and do not require the gun to actually be fired, dummy cartridges provide the realistic appearance of actual rounds. Instead of purchasing commercial dummy cartridges, the film's prop crew created their own by pulling the bullets from live rounds, dumping the powder charge then reinserting the bullets. However, they unknowingly or unintentionally left the live primer in place at the rear of the cartridge. At some point during filming, the revolver was apparently discharged with one of these improperly-deactivated cartridges in the chamber, setting off the primer with enough force to drive the bullet partway into the barrel, where it became stuck (a condition known as a squib load). The prop crew either failed to notice this or failed to recognize the significance of this issue.

In the fatal scene, which called for the revolver to be fired at Lee from a distance of 3.6–4.5 meters (12–15 feet), the dummy cartridges were exchanged with blank rounds, which feature a live powder charge and primer, but no bullet, thus allowing the gun to be fired without the risk of an actual projectile. But since the bullet from the dummy round was already trapped in the barrel, this caused the .44 Magnum bullet to be fired out of the barrel with virtually the same force as if the gun had been loaded with a live round, and it struck Lee in the abdomen, mortally wounding him.
And my question still stands.
__________________
Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing ever happened. - Sir Winston Churchill
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-03-2018, 11:13 AM   #34
phrodeau
Literotica Guru
 
phrodeau's Avatar
 
phrodeau is offline
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Hobbiton, The Shire (away on business)
Posts: 61,237
Quote:
Originally Posted by EllieTalbot View Post
Dude! I believed you.

I just looked it up. You can't be shot with a blank. There's no projectile involved.



And my question still stands.
And people with incomplete knowledge of firearms have no business discussing them. I read that somewhere.
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-03-2018, 11:36 AM   #35
EllieTalbot
Fear the Spoon
 
EllieTalbot's Avatar
 
EllieTalbot is offline
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Again in Alaska
Posts: 3,898
Quote:
Originally Posted by phrodeau View Post
And people with incomplete knowledge of firearms have no business discussing them. I read that somewhere.
Whoever wrote it is a very silly person. No one would ever be able to discuss anything if complete knowledge was a prerequisite, and discussing things with other people is sort of crucial to learning.

So...?

Waiting in Welcoming Waters,
Ellie
__________________
Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing ever happened. - Sir Winston Churchill
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-03-2018, 12:44 PM   #36
BoyNextDoor
I'm so yuge!
 
BoyNextDoor's Avatar
 
BoyNextDoor is offline
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 10,382
Quote:
Originally Posted by lynn-23 View Post
I can't imagine you could bring guns to a VP speech anywhere
Quote:
Originally Posted by nkycatsfan View Post
Exactly...having been to a few appearances by a VP or President over the years, the security is insanely tight by protocol.
.... And? Do you see the hypocrisy?
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-03-2018, 01:24 PM   #37
milehighcityman
Really Experienced
 
milehighcityman is offline
Join Date: May 2017
Posts: 151
Quote:
Originally Posted by BoyNextDoor View Post
.... And? Do you see the hypocrisy?
I don't see hypocrisy at all. Normally, firearms are allowed at NRA convention venues. The NRA invites the President and VP to speak. However, the Secret Service does not allow anyone, other than SS or LE to have firearms at functions where the POTUS or VP are. SS rule, not NRA. So, NRA can either cancel the speeches or let members know that there are no firearms allowed at the speech. The NRA really wants them to speak so they so inform members. 99.9% of NRA members fully understand and are ok with that. If someone is not ok, they are of course free to not attend. Why is this a problem? Its not for the NRA. Anti-NRA folks are trying very hard to make it appear that this is some sort of hypocrisy when there is none. Even though AP corrected its original story the other day, many media outlets today are still reporting that the NRA is banning firearms at the event. This is a classic example of "fake news." A non-story that is being misrepresented as a huge story.
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-03-2018, 01:27 PM   #38
milehighcityman
Really Experienced
 
milehighcityman is offline
Join Date: May 2017
Posts: 151
Quote:
Originally Posted by KeithD View Post
Bullshit. You just don't want to see it.
What is this evidence that you speak of?
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-03-2018, 01:54 PM   #39
KeithD
Literotica Guru
 
KeithD's Avatar
 
KeithD is offline
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Key West
Posts: 2,010
Quote:
Originally Posted by milehighcityman View Post
What is this evidence that you speak of?
Do your own research and analysis--and not just on Faux News. I don't care if you choose to remain deplorable.

Last edited by KeithD : 05-03-2018 at 01:56 PM.
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-03-2018, 02:15 PM   #40
milehighcityman
Really Experienced
 
milehighcityman is offline
Join Date: May 2017
Posts: 151
Quote:
Originally Posted by KeithD View Post
Do your own research and analysis--and not just on Faux News. I don't care if you choose to remain deplorable.
You brought it up, I would think it was your obligation to support it. I can't find something that isn't there.
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-03-2018, 02:21 PM   #41
Oblimo
Literotica Guru
 
Oblimo's Avatar
 
Oblimo is offline
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Mid-South USA
Posts: 2,443
Quote:
Originally Posted by EllieTalbot View Post
Then you're also obliged to sneer at anti-gun celebrities because their entire argument is that everyone is safer without guns, but their actions contradict what they claim to believe.
No, that is not their argument. No one is saying everyone’s safer completely without guns. That would be stupid.

Likewise, no gun enthusiast is arguing for 100% unfettered access to any weaponry. That would also be stupid.

What people are arguing over (or what they should be arguing over, if they would be willing to be reasonable with each other) is what level of access promotes the most public good while infringing on civil liberties the least.
__________________
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-03-2018, 02:30 PM   #42
KeithD
Literotica Guru
 
KeithD's Avatar
 
KeithD is offline
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Key West
Posts: 2,010
Any civilian's need for an AR-15 is also supremely arguable, I think. And, no, the 2nd Amendment doesn't address how much of a gun anyone should be permitted to have. It doesn't address gun ownership for anyone outside a well-regulated militia.
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-03-2018, 02:34 PM   #43
Oblimo
Literotica Guru
 
Oblimo's Avatar
 
Oblimo is offline
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Mid-South USA
Posts: 2,443
Quote:
Originally Posted by milehighcityman View Post
I don't see hypocrisy at all. Normally, firearms are allowed at NRA convention venues. The NRA invites the President and VP to speak. However, the Secret Service does not allow anyone, other than SS or LE to have firearms at functions where the POTUS or VP are. SS rule, not NRA. So, NRA can either cancel the speeches or let members know that there are no firearms allowed at the speech. The NRA really wants them to speak so they so inform members. 99.9% of NRA members fully understand and are ok with that. If someone is not ok, they are of course free to not attend. Why is this a problem? Its not for the NRA. Anti-NRA folks are trying very hard to make it appear that this is some sort of hypocrisy when there is none. Even though AP corrected its original story the other day, many media outlets today are still reporting that the NRA is banning firearms at the event. This is a classic example of "fake news." A non-story that is being misrepresented as a huge story.
If I understand the NRA’s position correctly, the NRA believes that the SS is making itself significantly less safe by preventing NRA members from carrying firearms, not to mention jeopardizing the lives of all those law abiding NRA members. I suppose, as the epitome of rugged individualism, the NRA can choose to assume that risk for the pleasure of their VP candidate’s company.

The Trump-Pence administration, however, seems to support the NRA’s policy positions. It seems strange, therefore, that Pence’s SS detail is deliberately making Pence much less safe than he would otherwise beif they followed their boss’ policies and let NRA members carry on site.
__________________

Last edited by Oblimo : 05-03-2018 at 02:41 PM.
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-03-2018, 02:38 PM   #44
Oblimo
Literotica Guru
 
Oblimo's Avatar
 
Oblimo is offline
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Mid-South USA
Posts: 2,443
Quote:
Originally Posted by KeithD View Post
Any civilian's need for an AR-15 is also supremely arguable, I think. And, no, the 2nd Amendment doesn't address how much of a gun anyone should be permitted to have. It doesn't address gun ownership for anyone outside a well-regulated militia.
You can thank Scalia that it’s now law of the land that the Constitution provides an individual right to an individual citizen to possess a firearm. He achieved his life long dream and got the SCOTUS to toss the “well-regulated militia” language of the 2nd Amendment out about a decade before he croaked.
__________________
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-03-2018, 02:44 PM   #45
EllieTalbot
Fear the Spoon
 
EllieTalbot's Avatar
 
EllieTalbot is offline
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Again in Alaska
Posts: 3,898
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oblimo View Post
No, that is not their argument. No one is saying everyone’s safer completely without guns. That would be stupid.

Likewise, no gun enthusiast is arguing for 100% unfettered access to any weaponry. That would also be stupid.
...which is why the sentence you quoted was the inverted reflection of a statement from the person I was replying to.

Both sides are so eager to demonize each other they might as well not have an opinion on the matter at all, because their behavior betrays that they have zero interest in progress.

Hence my reasons for pointing out that neither group I brought up is any more or less hypocritical than the other, and that the thread topic itself is moot - for anyone honestly interested in progress, that is.

Generally on the GB,
Ellie
__________________
Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing ever happened. - Sir Winston Churchill
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-03-2018, 02:51 PM   #46
EllieTalbot
Fear the Spoon
 
EllieTalbot's Avatar
 
EllieTalbot is offline
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Again in Alaska
Posts: 3,898
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oblimo View Post
If I understand the NRA’s position correctly, the NRA believes...
What the NRA believes doesn't matter. The Secret Service has the whip hand and if they say "no guns or no VP," the NRA simply has to choose. They chose VP.

Simply from Salisbury,
Ellie
__________________
Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing ever happened. - Sir Winston Churchill
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-03-2018, 03:44 PM   #47
dan_c00000
Literotica Guru
 
dan_c00000 is offline
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: NYC
Posts: 4,725
Quote:
Originally Posted by EllieTalbot View Post
What the NRA believes doesn't matter.
But doesn't it seem odd to you that a group pushing for concealed carry reciprocity and open carry blanch at the idea of having to keep their guns at home because they were asked?
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-03-2018, 03:57 PM   #48
milehighcityman
Really Experienced
 
milehighcityman is offline
Join Date: May 2017
Posts: 151
Quote:
Originally Posted by dan_c00000 View Post
But doesn't it seem odd to you that a group pushing for concealed carry reciprocity and open carry blanch at the idea of having to keep their guns at home because they were asked?
No, because they are law-abiding, reasonable people.
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-03-2018, 04:05 PM   #49
KeithD
Literotica Guru
 
KeithD's Avatar
 
KeithD is offline
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Key West
Posts: 2,010
Quote:
Originally Posted by milehighcityman View Post
No, because they are law-abiding, reasonable people.
Who, though, apparently are too dense to get the point being made.
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-03-2018, 04:54 PM   #50
phrodeau
Literotica Guru
 
phrodeau's Avatar
 
phrodeau is offline
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Hobbiton, The Shire (away on business)
Posts: 61,237
Quote:
Originally Posted by milehighcityman View Post
No, because they are law-abiding, reasonable people.
PWAAHHAHHahhahahahhhhaaa!
  Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:11 PM.

Copyright 1998-2013 Literotica Online. Literotica is a registered trademark.