Quote:
Originally Posted by AlexB
My take on the article wasn’t ‘Guns banned because VP is speaking’ but ‘Guns banned to make it safer’.
The identity of the speaker is not relevant to the ban - the point (I took) from the article is that the ban is at ideological odds with the NRA’s overall message that the best way to make people safer is that good guys to have guns.
This ban (and similar for other speakers, events, etc) suggest that they tacitly acknowledge that the safest solution is zero guns.
|
First off, I've highlighted the "they" here. I don't see the NRA acknowledging that at all. The NRA and Secret Service are two entirely separate entities. In fact, the AP article indicates that if they're meeting in an open carry state, then there's open carry at their meetings.
That said, this is clearly apples and oranges. The Secret Service and the NRA are two entirely different entities. The Secret Service--though I'm sure it's composed of fine people who care about everyone in general--is not making decisions based on "the safest solution {overall}" or to "make
people safer." They make decisions to
make the one or two people they're protecting in a given venue safer. It's a completely different argument. (Well, and of course the gun ban doesn't apply to the Secret Service, so if someone wants to try to make that argument, the truth is that the Secret Service's position actually ia"good guys having guns makes the President safer. We just define 'good guys' a lot more narrowly than the NRA does.")
There have been several articles with headlines, like this one, that try to make it sound like the NRA banned guns at their meeting. That's simply false. There are solid arguments to be made about expanding background checks, eliminating some particularly dangerous accessories, etc., but this is not one of the them. This is just a dumb and counter-productive red herring.