Skip to comments.Wayne LaPierre on Hannity Special: Inside The Gun Debate (Show time: 9 - 10 PM ET)
Posted on 01/18/2013 5:26:20 PM PST by 2111USMC
It's time to STAND AND FIGHT for freedom!
That's why I'm going on Sean Hannity's show tonight for one full hour.
If you want to hear the facts about gun control's failures, and hear the truth about how NRA is fighting to make our families, homes, schools and communities safer, then I urge you to watch. If you can't watch tonight, record it so you can watch it this weekend.
And if you want to help NRA win the battle to protect the Second Amendment, please tell family, friends and fellow gun owners to watch as well.
The nightmare battle that we've always feared is now at our doorstep, and the outcome of this battle boils down to arming every gun owner with the truth. Please help me do that by forwarding this email to as many gun owners as possible.
Thank you for your friendship and support, and your steadfast loyalty to the cause of freedom.
Rec'd this email announcement today.
8 - 9 PM E.T.
Correct show time is 9 - 10 PM E.T.
30 minutes from now.
woot! go get em wayne!
‘Can’t wait to see this.
Like how the woman showed the difference of the impact of the weapon Obama has on the list to ban vs others which are not. One thing Obama has done, he has made it to where more citizens will want to learn about gun safely for self defense.
In NY, the good guys have 7 bullets..the bad guys have 15.
Typical stupid liberalism.
I hope many many people saw Hanity tonight. The show was very informative and it showed just how stupid the Liberals are concerning guns. To me, it proves what we all believe, they aren’t worried about the safety of the children , or anybody else, they just want our guns.
I rarely watch Fox any more but did this evening, glad I did.
I hope I am not doing harm to what was being shown tonight ... but the caliber exposition was a little light on substance. First let me write that the argument for the 2nd Amendment has nothing to so with the type of weapon being used. It is about defending against tyranny.
Now back to the substance. The little .223 round, more correctly a 5.56 mm round that most AR-15's shoot can be made to fragment. Think small entry wound, but upon entry it shatters and tears everything a part for a good 8 to 12 inches. You can google pictures of actual 5.56 mm wounds. It looks nothing like what was on Hannity.
So why do I bring this up? If liberals were knowledgable about shooting, they could tear the shooting exposition apart. BUT, the size of bullet is not a valid argument for or against the 2nd Amendment.
I should mention, that is completely possible to make a 5.56 mm round that does not fragment. Simply increase the weight of the projectile and slow it down. In fact, there are rounds that are made to penetrate body armor that are made exactly that way. Alternatively, you can use a very light round (less mass) and high speed to penetrate. It is also possible to do the same type of things, fragment or penetrate, with other calibers and weapons.
We should get caught up in types of weapons and size of bullets because it is a losing argument. Guns are made to kill. I have no problem with that. I much rather make the argument about freedom and liberty in countries that do not have the right to bear arms. Or the tens of millions of people that were murdered by tyrants after gun confiscation in they last hundred years.
The liberals have been screaming that the AR-15 can do the most damage if used in a shooting spree. The professional showed how their theory was wrong. She showed how the weapon had added features for a light, how the handle light/easy/adaptable for the person etc as her young nephew. People don’t know this stuff. They need to hear the simple basics/the truth. That is what the show wanted to portray on that part. They did explain very well for what time they had, that how it was our right to defend ourselves against tyranny. I did not see anyone weak who was in support of the 2nd Amendment. I hope they do more series as this as follow ups. It shows America’s gun owners are descent level headed people who want to keep their 2nd A right.
I'd rather have one live cartridge than 15 inert bullets.
Bullets are to cartridges as flour is to bread as cement is to concrete, etc. When will you and others ever learn the difference?
Me too. This is the first time I have put the TV on their network in so long I cannot even remember when I last watched them. I did watch Special Report on line the other day after people here on FR said how the panelists were very negative of the NRA ad. I hope they do more programs as this defending our 2nd A right. The liberals have gone nutty/overboard with the abuse of power on federal, state and local levels.
That's why the lefties are going after rifles, which are much more potent against tyranny, than handguns, which are only good for close combat and doing 95% of the nation's firearm homicides.
Does the 7 round limit impose illegality on all the pistols and rifles currently for sale? Except for the 1911, none of them have 7 rnd mags, nor are they even available.
Can a dealer sell a Glock for example, if its 17 rnd mag is now illegal? Who will buy a pistol w/o available mags?
The politicians just banned an entire class of guns through sneaky politics.
What was presented tonight was for low information voters. I have no problems with that, but it did misrepresent the deadliness of .223/5.56 ammo. I bet you didn't google 5.56 mm pictures of actual wounds. Check this out:
That's a lot different that the three small holes shown on Hannity.
The principles our founding fathers used to write the 2nd Amendment had nothing to do with ammo size and qualities. We lose when we make weak arguments that are not based on principles.
Just to be clear, I do not want any weapon to be banned, and I mean any, whether it is a little pistol, a fully automatic weapon, a tank, or a fighter jet or bomber. The principle is the same as when Gen. Gage when to Concord and Lexington to confiscate and destroy weapons. The only difference today is that weapons are more expensive and more deadly.
That is not what the professional nor the show was trying to relate. I think in what time they had, they were wanting to show how the democrats are lying about certain weapons being banned which do not do as much damage as others can do that are getting banned. And it was not to say, we should ban certain weapons/ caliber. I didn't get that message at all. A .223 or a 7.62 can be purchased as a regular rifle/they are not banning them which will do the same damage.
can do that are ( Sorry-typo are not) getting banned.
Thanks for the chat and info.
Sean Hannity is a lightweight as was most of his show tonight,
His show was better than the indoctrination on the other channels. At least, the program was defending our 2nd A right. You are just finding fault with me, (woman) the professional, (woman) the show ( Hannity) and his guests (retired cops-current police officers-former DA. lightweights, you say. Does that include Bo and his comments) Yes, the Bo guy came across as being offended/embarrassed when Sean told him he may put his bets on the professional, Jessie. He was just playing around and Bo, got emotional. So, your thing is about the woman not how the laws are not going to do anything to curb crime violence.
This won’t be complicated for me, because I readily admit I don’t know much at all about gun technicalities. I readily admit I don’t even get Fox News anymore. I have listened to Wayne Lapierre in the recent past, and I have seen and heard a lot of Hannity via radio (and in the past on FNC).
Hannity has his flaws, so I can believe that something in the gun demonstration on his show was flawed. I don’t KNOW that, but I can believe it.
I have certain bottom lines in my personal convictions. One of them is that Hannity - flaws and all - has done a lot of good. Many younger people, and I don’t mean teens or twenties, but more like 30s and 40s, would rather get their talk host fixes from Hannity than they would Rush or any of the others. In other words he appeals to certain people and they will watch/listen to Hannity and be influenced by what he DOES contribute.
He has done fine work by grinding away at who Obama is. RADICAL, RADICAL, RADICAL. In the gun debate he has certain creds as a personal gun user and owner since he was very young. He isn’t up to speed on certain gun technicalities but he knows what he knows about owning guns, using guns and boosting the Second Amendment.
It sounds to me like as Christie at the beach is saying, the demo (even flawed [my words]) was supposed to expose the stupidity and hypocrisy of the Left. However, if the impression was given that one weapon over another weapon wasn’t very lethal when of course they are, that would seem wrong and mistaken to someone who has conservative in Pa’s experience and viewpoint.
But in Christie’s defense, and Hannity’s, if the show did highlight the dishonesty and hypocrisy of the gun banners/grabbers by showing that they leave a certain gun legal because of superficial/cosmetic differences and ban another that is otherwise the same or worse in capabilities, and if it did cause many people to watch Wayne Lapierre who might otherwise not have if he wasn’t on with Hannity, then I have no doubt it did a lot of good.
I’m glad it was aired. Glad the flawed Hannity is nevertheless in there plugging away on the issue and glad the NRA via Lapierre are getting more people to hear them.
I would want to wait for several professionals to claim such and prove the professional was giving out incorrect info.
The professional did an excellent job. She was great. My spouse said she did good. Seems to me, it's a woman issue from this poster. The quests on the show were very professional and informative for this type of format.
I realize that nobody on this thread has said it was flawed except CIPA. I only say I can believe it was, but also said I don’t know that it was and am not claiming it was. IOW it’s possible it was but that does not mean it was.
I can’t comment that it absolutely was or wasn’t. I didn’t see it, and I don’t know enough about gun technicalities, anyway.
I DO know that certain guns are on the “should be banned” list that are not different at all except in appearance and superficial differences from guns that are not on the “should be banned” list. And if that is something the show highlighted, that’s a good thing to show the stupidity and the hypocrisy of the Left.
I’m glad he had Lapierre of the NRA on. The more the NRA gets its message out there, the better.
The fact that a woman was involved in the show and the demonstration is also a good thing in that it might help counteract the idea that women automatically have to be gun grabbers and banners simply because they are women. What a dumb idea, although many believe that, because women are very vulnerable to crime and violence against them and they need to understand that the Second Amendment was meant for THEM, too.
Seems to me, it’s a woman issue from this poster>>>>>
He says size doesn’t matter. Likely a guy with a needle dink.
I kinda liked that 12 gauge glazer slug hole she put on the metal sheet. Shot guns are completely unregulated in most jurisdictions except for mag capacity ( hunting) and barrel length, overall length.One 12 gauge glazer slug would not leave an entry or an exit wound. It would just blow a persons head off. Semi Auto shotguns can be upgraded to cylindrical magazines holding 8 rounds, perfectly legal.
And she made her inferential point well that the big sizes that could do the most damage to a human body are not regulated much at all. Rather its all about “appearance” not function.
Size does matter.
Cognito ergo sum.
Concern Trolls are fun.
I work at a large fire station. It was difficult to keep myself from correcting a coworker who was schooling some of my other coworkers. He owns a lot of guns but obviously knows little about proper terminology and the fine points of one platform vs as another. It was grating to hear him use the terms clips and bullets where he should have been using the terms magazines and cartridges. I kept my mouth shut because his overall direction was good.
I did try to clarify some of the statements made when the discussion turned to “armor piercing” and “cop killer” “hollow Point” hand gun ammunition. And of course when the discussion turned to the size of the hole that a 12 gauge cartridge makes at extremely close range I tried to point out the difference between real life and a Sam Peckinpah movie. In the end it just doesn't matter that they still believe that a standard 12 gauge buckshot cartridge will make a 1 ft diameter hole that penetrates clean through a large male when fired at close range. They have seen it for themselves on the big screen.
And that is the primary problem. Most people believe everything that they see in the movies. They believe that a magazine that holds 20 cartridges will fire for an extended period of time in “full auto”. So why do you need more than “7 bullets in a clip”? Those of us actually reload our own cartridges and study the finer points forget how little the average person knows. So it is frustrating, but for the overall argument it may not be as important as it seems. Except that we have politicians just as ignorant who legislate by following the polls.
:: The principles our founding fathers used to write the 2nd Amendment had nothing to do with ammo size and qualities. ::
Had that discussion with my MIL. She was convinced that the Founders never envisioned hi-cap, semi-auto weapons.
The true argument for this is that the 2A says “arms”, without distinction. The founders probably spent their youth with powder and ball flint lock muskets. As adults, they fought with ball-and-wad, ram-loaded rifles utilizing a percussion cap.
In their lifetimes, this advancement would be equivalent to the development of semi-automatic firing (which was in its developmental infancy in the same time period, I believe).
Of course she made the hyperbolic leap to “ALL those people who have flame throwers and bazookas”, to which I simply replied how many killings have used such weaponry?
She remains unconvinced.
She did just fine. Good aim and groupings that would have hopefully eliminated any threat to her life or that of her loved ones. In addition, she might have educated, inspired and given confidence to a lot of women out there thinking about learning how to be proficient with and purchasing a firearm.
Concern trolls just can’t be made happy.
“Melinda, if he opens that door...”