Posted on 10/12/2004 8:48:40 PM PDT by Dan from Michigan
I just watched the Gun Debate on Pay Per View. For $10, I decided to give it a try. It was on In Demand (channel 201 on my cable) at 9PM Eastern and is on again right now in my part of Michigan. I've heard LaPierre speak before, but never heard Peters speak. I actually got my money's worth, since Peters actually laid out her "Moderate" gun control agenda.
I expected a completely blasting of the NRA and the US there since it was in London, but I thought it was handled very well. The moderator was professional and let them both speak. He was tough to all sides on questions and stuck me as an "old school" academic. The crowd leaned against us, but there were a few die hard pro-2a'ers there even in London. One was an English gunowner who called Peters' plan "Rubbish". He's welcome here anytime. :)
One thing I like about the event being in England. The rhetoric was less disguised on the part of the gun grabbers.
Summary
Opening Statements
Rebecca Peters - Blamed guns for worldwide suffering. She said most of the problems were in developed world, but the USA had a lot of gun problems as well. She said that guns disrupt peace keeping missions, hinder tourism and development of countries, causes domestic violence, and child soldiers(since guns are cheap). She said that 2/3 of guns are in private citizens. She said the gun industry is a $7.5 billion business. She said there were more guns than cars on earth. She attacked the USA and Europe for being arms manufacturers. She also blasted countries with lenient gun laws causing violence in countries with stricter laws. Used some African countries as an example, as well as the US(Canada and Mexico).
She said that Australia's "gun murder rate" went down after the 96 ban. Called it a moderate measure. Semi-auto ban and buybacks. She said the UK handgun ban was great except for a loophole.
As for the UN small arms treaty, Peters said that this was pre-Sept 11, and she wondered if it would be opposed this time. Said the US had trouble with claused in it to non state(government) groups.
Wayne LaPierre - He said that all sides want to end oppression. Said that the US is a very generous nation. He then said that Peters said that American Freedoms are the problem. He said the UN proposal would create a global bureaucracy and that IANSA wants to impliment its social engineering on the US. Compared the funding of the NRA ($35 checks)against IANSA's network of big benefactors.
He spoke about American self evident freedoms to defend themselves, families, and country and said that those who want to bargain freedom away for security doesn't have security, but only surrender.
He mentioned concealed carry and dropping crime rates, while the crime rates in UK and Australia increased. He said that good people need to be armed, bad people disarmed.
-------------------
One question to Peters - Should US be forced to obey the UN treaty
Peters - This is not a UN treaty. It is a group of governments. She then called the treaty MODERATE measures. Treaties are the best way to go. Guns are the only weapon not covered by current treaties. The US is part of the world, and needs to be part of the world.
LaPierre - Treaties do not supercede the constitution. Said this bans civillian firearms ownership. Quotes Peters in 2000 attacking the first amendment for protecting alledged lies as long as it is political.
Peters - Said a global structure is needed, and that the NRA's view was that Americans were more equal than others.
---------------------
The second Question was something about 'flood of guns into developing countries'
LaPierre - It's a flood of demand, not guns. Free people want constitutional freedoms and good government. In WWII, The US and NRA members send guns to Britain.
Peters - More guns makes no sense. Guns don't help, and stronger institutions are needed. Reform police.
Lapierre - Bad people and bad governments are the problem. Guns don't have legs(The gun didn't get up and shoot someone). Good people need to protect themselves.
-------------------
Peters doesn't support banning all guns. She supports licensing, registration, bans on some categories of guns - including high powered, rapid fire, and limits on amount of guns owned. Said good people do bad things.
LaPierre - Quotes Peters from CNN supporting a ban on all guns that shoot over 100 meters. That's a football field. Also cites IANSA pamphlets.
Peters later said that all semi-autos and handguns should be banned. No guns should be owned for self-defense reasons. Single shots are good for deer hunting. Hanguns have no SPORTING PURPOSE, nor do semi-auto.
LaPierre later mentioned George Soros and his election manipulations and his support for IANSA. Also attacked Peters for saying gun makers should be sued.
Peters said every gun starts out legal. There isn't a different stack for criminals. Repeatedly at different times said that saying good people are seperated from bad people are is only in the movies. LaPierre repeated called IANSA a socialist fantasy.
Peters thinks the US "gun culture" will go away, that the US is not exempt from the rest of the world. We are all citizens of the world.
LaPierre called IANSA a global nanny. Mentioned Soros and elitists living behind security walls, and away from the real world. Victims deserve a chance to defend themselves.
Peters said the gun lobby was obstructing global progress. Guns aren't needed. Democracy is.
LaPierre brought up Rwanda, Pol Pot and other nations exterminating people, and that the UN did not intervene and was unable to protect them. He also said that IANSA thinks governments are soverign, not individuals.
Peters said that governments are needed and countered with the world moving away from Thomas Hobbes.
In the closing statements Peters mentioned Self Defense as not being a reason to own a firearm, and that anyone who owned a firearm for self defense in Australia was breaking the law. She said that as a positive thing.
LaPierre in his closing statement mentioned freedoms, George Soros and his 527s for manipulating elections and his ties to IANSA, and that IANSA's proposal is giving sweeping police powers against ALL of the US bill of rights, not just the 2nd amendment, and that it would create a global bureaucracy. Said that IANSA did not mention anywhere anything about oppressed people from governments, criminals, due process, self-defense, property rights, and respect for political freedom.
I believe it's around 200 million or so at last count.
L
One question: What did Ms. Peters look like?
No, just any gun with enough power to kill a tyrant would be banned from civilian ownership by Peters and her band of fools.
My screen name isn't just a name. It is a mindset and a way of life.
Here is a little quote from Henry Waxman:
"If someone is so fearful that, that they’re going to start using their weapons to protect their rights, makes me very nervous that these people have these weapons at all!"
HOW DARE WE THINK THAT WE CAN PROTECT OUR RIGHTS!
She looked like a stereotypical leftist.
Her hair is shorter than mine, and I haven't even grown my out like I did last year.
Ban anything that shoots over 100 meters? Heck, a Red Ryder would probably do that.
Aren't Red Ryders also outlawed in England?
I hear she has three eyes and the one in her forehead is bovine. ;)
It's too bad the forum didn't allow for asking the sniveling b***h whether it was better that someone who is threatened by a criminal or a rogue Government, should be allowed to defend themself, or whether it's better that in such cases the individual simply be forced to perish "in the public interest".
That's the question that needs to be asked of these Socialist vipers, and asked over and over and over again while they try to sidestep the issue and avoid answering, until they finally crumble on camera.
Here is the Link
and the password gun2004
Vote as often as you like, but use a different e-mail address each time
Savage: Mean-faced clipped-haired
Sounds like a Kelly Reno-ish warthog.
I'd like to pin her down (like an insect on a specimen plate, yeah, sure) and get the skinny on what makes her mind work. It basically confirms that Ms. Peters' "work" won't end with civil disarmament but has everything to do with throwing herself on the side of "government" against the individual in the sovereignty debate.
OK this makes no sense. It is the Hobbesian view that governments are needed to control the savagery of mankind and maintain order. The Peters view of One Ring to Rule Them All is inherently Hobbesian.
No guns should be owned for self defense reasons according to Peters????...Oh...I see...when some whack job busts into your house at 2:00 a.m....just sit down and offer to make coffee and have a chat as to why their bad childhood caused all this...NOT!...The second I realize someone has broken in....their ass is mine.
G-- D--- it!! I am NOT a citizen of the world. If by some chance I missed the fact that I am, I hereby and publicly renounce my citizenship in the world. I am a citizen of the United States of America, at least until John Kerry or his ilk gets elected and sells us out to the UN by treaty.
Peters said that governments are needed and countered with the world moving away from Thomas Hobbes.
To paraphrase the Greek philosopher, "Only the dead have seen the last of Thomas Hobbes". Human nature hasn't changed in the six thousand years of recorded history, and sure as hell isn't going to change any time soon. What a fool.
Perhaps Lapierre was able to convert the English who saw it and remind the men at least, what the hell it is to be free. We need more global debate on this subject and more nations like England and Australia to return freedom to their people or their people to take their freedom back.
Well, well.... Looky here:
Scary.
Do you think Wayne won the debate?
I know. She used to work for Soros as well. She was part of the "Open Society" institute which had a gun grab division to it. It concentrated on US gun laws.
Wayne did two things very well.
1. He tailored his message to the USA. Peters targetted her message more to England. If this debate wasn't going to be aired on PPV and was confined ONLY to England, that would be good, but England doesn't have to be convinced to sign(or not) this treaty. It's the USA, and Americans, through the senate and president. We're the 'swing vote'.
2. He got Peters and the gun grabbers to come out of hiding and debunk the "No one wants to take away your guns" myth. That's what he did best. The moderator there didn't want just talking points. He wanted speficics from both side, and LaPierre said what he IANSA's plan was. The moderator gave a follow-up question to Peters saying "Where would draw the line."
I'd say in England, Peters won. In the US, LaPierre won.
I certainly hope so. I can't think of where I'd put a dozen or so cars, and the insurance bill would really cripple my guns & ammo budget.
Peters doesn't support banning all guns.
BULLSHIITE!!!
She supports licensing, registration, bans on some categories of guns - including high powered, rapid fire, and limits on amount of guns owned.
Licensing is a way to regulate and tax guns nearly out of existence. Registration is a prelude to confiscation. Peters knows this very well and, in fact, it is part of her and her masters' plans. Molon Labe, Beotch!!!!
Said good people do bad things.
Send the Blue Helmets to collect our guns, beotch, then you'll see plenty of bad things. For a few hours or days, anyway; after that, you'll likely be looking at the inside cover of a casket for quite a while.
Peters later said that all semi-autos and handguns should be banned.
Go ahead, ban them. Then try to enforce the ban - YOU, not some kid that you and that evil bastich Soros hired on the backs of honest taxpayers. FMCDH!
No guns should be owned for self-defense reasons.
I'll bet that she'd change her tune if she was gang-raped while some sicko holds a shank to her throat. Of course, based on some of the descriptions above, not even the sickos are going to rape this fugly beotch, but that's neither here nor there.
Repeatedly at different times said that saying good people are seperated from bad people are is only in the movies.
Yet another dimbulb blissninnie. Why can't these people do something useful, like growing flowers or playing Pin the Tail on the Donkey in the middle of the interstate?
Peters said the gun lobby was obstructing global progress.
If she's for it, I'm against it.
Guns aren't needed.
Then why do the police, armed forces and private security forces of evil communistic billionaires and fat, drunken Senators from Assachusetts have them?
Democracy is.
Phuck Democracy, it's just mob rule (or not, depending on whether evil communistic billionaires are pulling the strings). Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner. Liberty is an armed sheep contesting the vote. I'll take Liberty, thank you very much - and if Peters and her ilk try to take mine, they're in for a very rude awakening (before their very unexpected dirt nap).
Thanks for voting.
This pay-per-view debate will be replayed at the following times
date time title
Oct 12 9:00PM The Gun Debate (Live)
10:30PM The Gun Debate (Replay)
Oct 13 12:00AM The Gun Debate (Replay)
Oct 14 6:30PM The Gun Debate (Replay)
Oct 15 5:30AM The Gun Debate (Replay)
11:00AM The Gun Debate (Replay)
Oct 16 3:30PM The Gun Debate (Replay)
Oct 17 9:30AM The Gun Debate (Replay)
Oct 18 11:00AM The Gun Debate (Replay)
8:00PM The Gun Debate (Replay)
Oct 19 6:30AM The Gun Debate (Replay)
Oct 20 4:30PM The Gun Debate (Replay)
11:00PM The Gun Debate (Replay)
Voting closes at 9am on Thursday 21st, October 2004.
Results will be available from 9 am on Friday the 22nd October 2004 by visiting:
http://www.thegundebate.com
Come on. Don't hold back. Tell us how you really feel.
I held back because I didn't want to hurt anyone's feewings.
It bears worth repeating. "FROM MY COLD DEAD HANDS!!!!!!"
I'll cover your six
Hi, I'm from Argentina (South America) & I just could saw part of the debate.
Just because of language matters, I would like to get a complete transcript (the NRA just sale the video)
Do you know if it would be available somewhere ?
Txs in advance. perodriguez@telered.com.ar
BUMP for CPAC and Wayne LaPierre's speech.
BUMP for CPAC and Wayne LaPierre speech
Bump for CPAC
He showed a few clips from the debate at his CPAC speech. That Ms. Peters is one scary not quite human beotch.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.