Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Site Notices
Posted: 10/30/2004 11:18:12 AM EDT
Wow! I just finished watching the historic debate between Rebecca Peters and Wayne La Pierre.  It was shown on pay-per view on October 20, 2004. The DVD is a 90 minute debate, but it seemed much shorter.

Rebecca Peters is a capable lawyer who is the CEO for a George Souros funded Group called IANA (International Network of Small Arms).  She proposes a UN bureaucracy to regulate private ownership of small arms.  In the past, she has said that no rifle which can shoot beyond 100 yards should be available for private ownership. Peters says gun ownership should be limited to duly licensed citizens for "legitimate sporting purposes" only. Pistols would be illegal, as would all semiautomatic rifles.  She quoted an unnamed Australian Outdoorsman as saying that any hunter who needed a semiautomatic rifle was likely a city boy who had no business hunting.  Americans, she said, lived in delusional paranoia, and that's why they feel a need for firearms. She often suggested Americans thought life was a movie. Guns are dangerous, and any dangerous product should be recalled, she argued. Peters argued that human rights were undermined around the world by a proliferation of firearms.

I was impressed by Wayne LaPierre. He is no Charlton Heston, but he is a very capable speaker. LaPierre argued Americans' rights under our Second Amendment could not be abrogated by an international treaty, and he rejected the notion that other countries should be allowed to restrict the freedoms of the country whose citizens are the freeest in history.

LaPierre rejected the notion of international regulation of small arms ownership by the UN. He asserted the UN has a dismal history on human rights, having appointed Libya in charge of that Committee, and LaPierre reminded the audience that while hundreds of thouisands of innocent Rwandans were being killed - by machettes - the UN "tucked tail and ran." Likewise, there have been numerous genocides where law abiding citizens were helpless to defend themselves against a government enjoying monopoly of arms. La Pierre explained the principle difference between his position and that of Peters was her organization would let governments decide who may own a firearm, while the NRA believes it is an individual right and decision. Peters would make it illegal for a citizen to use a firearm in self defense. LaPierre called the bureaucracy envisioned by IANA an "international nanny," and he said its promises of safety in exchange for a surrender of freedoms was a siren's song long ago proven wrong by history.

Watch the video, if you can. I'm proud of the NRA for confronting the gungrabbers on their own turf (London). We should all commend Wayne La Pierre for doing an outstanding job!
Link Posted: 10/30/2004 11:48:28 AM EDT
Close Join Our Mail List to Stay Up To Date! Stay Informed On All Things 2A

Sign up and receive updates every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the ARFCOM community, breaking news and legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.

By signing up you agree to our User Agreement.
Top Top