David Hogg protests outside NRA HQ — protected by armed guards?

Except it wasn't the NRA but secret service. You really should read more carefully.

 

Gun control <> no guns.

 

I would just vote for reading more before commenting but that works too

 

True, but are you denying there are members of the "gun control" movement who want to ban private ownership of firearms?

 

That was the day that the Trumpocity was there to speak! Right?m Excellent equivocal example! You rock!

 

And the FBI advised Hogg to have armed security as well. Same crap. Different day. Hardly something to freak out about.

 

I never saw a quote from him from a reputable source that has him saying take away guns.

 

Now it's the FBI's fault? Link? I didn't see any mention of the FBI in the OP link.

Hogg's hypocrisy is nothing to freak out about just like Pelosi and Feinstein's hypocrisy is hardly something to freak out about.

 

He does not have to say it since its obvious thats where he’d going with this

 

Hogg’s mission is to one day restrict firearms (I don’t agree with him) but does that future goal mean he has to ignore the reality of today’s death threats? I just don’t see this as hypocrisy- just dealing with today’s reality.

 

I thought hogg wanted to end firearm deaths

And if liberals refuse to go after criminals ultimately that means removing all the guns

 

I am one of Hogg's ilks.
You would be hard pressed to find someone more anti-gun than me.
The man who would have been my uncle was killed by his best friend as a child due to playing with a gun in Virginia. I grew up in France where guns are relatively scarce and gun deaths are low. I have been lucky enough to lead a relatively priviledged life where day to day violence in my surroundings was almost inexistant.
I am probably much farther to the left than Hogg. I am not sure what the answer is, yet I too beleive that you are allowed to have a gun as per the 2nd ammendment.
A person has laid out his platform. Up to you to disagree with it, but for you to than interpret it as 'they want to take your guns away' is just an absolute lie. If you think it's a slippery slope, argue it. But Hogg has NEVER argued taking guns away from Americans. Stop making stuff up.

 

He also didn’t want to add his own name to those death tallies. What’s the big deal here? Kid’s dealing with the reality of today- not a future he would like. I don’t agree with him, but I don’t see hypocrisy here.

 

Jesus I hate progressives..

 

Hogg has advocated banning "assault weapons" and high capacity magazines. So tell me again who is and isn't making stuff up.

https://www.npr.org/2018/03/24/5966...g-on-the-gun-control-movement-driven-by-teens
HOGG: Yeah, exactly. It's one of the loopholes, and we have to address those - a ban on high-capacity magazines and an assault weapons ban. In all of these things have over a super majority support by most constituents. And I think it's something that if any politicians pushed in general - they would really have an easy time getting re-elected because they would be - they would show that they are practicing what they preach and that they're trying to be leaders in their own right. But right now, I think, in Washington, we're not seeing that. And that's something that has to change.

 

How will this accomplish anything?

 

Is a ban on future sales the same as taking guns away from someone?

 

The NRA says the ban was ordered by the U.S. Secret Service.
/Durandalfail

 

Who is the Secret Service's boss?

 

Link?

 

Presidents do not get to overrule Secret Service security protocols.

You need an education.

 

"infringed"......... See if you can find where that word is used in the Constitution.

 

Irrelevant. The POTUS, etc, does not have discretion to override their protocols.

 

From everyone who wants to buy one after the ban, yes.

 

This guy says you need an education.


https://www.quora.com/Can-the-US-president-override-the-secret-service-instruction-on-his-safety
According to 18 U.S.C. 3056, the U.S. Secret Service has the total support of the federal law to regulate the protection of the President of the United States. The President is like the rest of us, he is (technically) required to be obedient to the law of the land.

Now, POTUS also appoints the Director of the United States Secret Service, as well as the Director's boss, the Secretary of Homeland Security. So, yes; Agent Average Joe could technically say to the most powerful political figure in the world, "Sorry Sir, it's too dangerous, you're not going in there...." but if POTUS decides that he'll be fine, then it is expected that the U.S. Secret Service quickly develop an alternate plan to keep him safe.... and they do....

There have been many, many times where there has been this kind of conflict, particularly between the security (USSS) and the public relations (White House Staff). If agents had their way, they would keep the guy in an impregnable fortress for the duration of his term. On the flip side, staffers only want their guy out meeting every voter, kissing every baby, shaking every hand. Ultimately, a happy medium is usually reached. Sometimes security wins, sometimes publicity wins, and sometimes it needs a tiebreaker in an argument.