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.
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.