Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The Great Gun Debate
NRA Magazine-Woman's Outlook ^ | 10/04 | NRA

Posted on 10/11/2004 6:20:22 PM PDT by libertylass

Click on link for details about tomorrow's Great Gun Debate in London between Wayne LaPierre and Rebecca Peters, leader of the International Action Network on Small Arms (IANSA). It's the largest, most lavishly funded gun-ban organization on the globe and a primary force driving the U.N. gun-ban agenda.

It starts at 9:00PM Eastern Time and you have to call your cable company to sign up for it. My cable company (Time/Warner) is charging $9.99 for the showing.

Please tune it.....


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: 2ndamendmentrights; bang; banglist; globalism; londongundebate; nra; unguncontrol; waynelapierre; women
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-44 next last
To: jrewingjr

You have got to be kidding about firing a blank in the air!! Get arrested for THAT!!! Anyways, Ive got a cousin that would vote for anyone that is a RAT, but he is a deer hunter, I printed off this ad and took it to him, and it got him interested enough, that he checked into everything, and a couple of days ago said that he was voting for W, plus his wife and stepson and two daughters!!


21 posted on 10/11/2004 7:31:13 PM PDT by carolinaoutdoorsman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: carolinaoutdoorsman

Good job, keep up the good work! Just think how many more people we can sway between now and the election.


22 posted on 10/11/2004 7:38:24 PM PDT by jrewingjr (... from my cold, dead hands.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: jrewingjr

IM trying hard as I know how, because this is the most important election in US history, and we have too much to lose!!!


23 posted on 10/11/2004 7:39:55 PM PDT by carolinaoutdoorsman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: carolinaoutdoorsman
If Kerry wins, you'll see a buying binge that will deplete manufacturer's inventory to the last slingshot.
24 posted on 10/11/2004 8:19:01 PM PDT by boycottliberalhollywood.com (www.boycottliberalhollywood.com - www.twoamericas.us)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Clintonfatigued
Doesn't Kerry strike you as too risk-averse to try to push for gun control?

It will be his "gift" to the American people, the repeal of the Second Ammendment; or at lest the re-interpretation of "The right to keep and bear arms" as "The right of the police and military to keep and bear arms".

25 posted on 10/11/2004 8:23:19 PM PDT by boycottliberalhollywood.com (www.boycottliberalhollywood.com - www.twoamericas.us)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: boycottliberalhollywood.com

Lets hope this dont happen!! The biggest threat I see to America right now is President John fn Kerry!! Do all you can to stop that, whether the carolinas, Ohio, Boston, New York, Or Hollywood, People wake the heck up!!! He is bad news for this country, and the wrong choice,and wrong candidate, at the wrong time!!! WAKE UP!!!


26 posted on 10/11/2004 8:38:28 PM PDT by carolinaoutdoorsman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Clintonfatigued
Doesn't Kerry strike you as too risk-averse to try to push for gun control?

Only in an election year. In between elections, the gun controllers start back up again and expect people to forget what they've done by next election. That's how they have disarmed California.

27 posted on 10/11/2004 8:54:42 PM PDT by elbucko ( Feral Republican)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: libertylass
If Kerry wins, I guarantee you he'll turn the Justice Department loose on the "corrupt gun industry" to sue them a la the litigation "war" against "big tobacco." Since firearms manufacturers don't have near the "deep pockets" or huge ongoing revenue streams that tobacco companies do, most of them will either be forced out of business, or forced into a "settlement" that will preclude them from selling their products to any but Law Enforcement or the military. This is the way liberals "legislate" things that they can't get passed by Congress or the state legislatures these days: they sue their way to the result they want, democracy and the will of the majority of the people be damned.
Speculation? Sure. But given recent history, not that far-fetched, methinks. And another reason why this may be the most critical election in our lifetimes when it comes to holding onto those precious liberties we cherish.
28 posted on 10/11/2004 8:55:48 PM PDT by A Jovial Cad ("I had no shoes and I complained, until I saw a man who had no feet.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Aetius; BRITinUSA
Well yeah, its difficult to understand how the Courts could rule it as a collective right for a clear-thinking person,..

It was President Nixons', Solicitor General of the US, that appeared before the US Supreme Court and declared that the administration considered the 2nd. Amendment as a "collective right". Can you believe it? Nixon and his Country Club Republican cronies concocted this evil interpretation in order to disarm the Black Panthers. As far as I'm concerned, Nixon should be dug up and impeached for this offense to the Constitution. Any right that is considered or rendered "collective", by definition, ceases to be a right. The government has "nullified" the amendment.

29 posted on 10/11/2004 9:11:26 PM PDT by elbucko ( Feral Republican)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: carolinaoutdoorsman

it plays on outdoor channel about every 3rd show or so. I havent checked to see if its on their site. i will and if its not ill tape it off outdoor channel, the only channel my dishnetwork stays tuned on :)


30 posted on 10/11/2004 9:40:09 PM PDT by melkor (God bless § 9 of the Texas penal code.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: melkor

the one they always show is the John Kerry's Not A Hunter Wednesday, September 22, 2004

First time for me to see the rest of these ads. very good job NRA!!!

http://www.nrapvf.org/Multimedia/Default.aspx#


31 posted on 10/11/2004 9:44:36 PM PDT by melkor (God bless § 9 of the Texas penal code.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: melkor
unfortunately. I hate to say this, it sounds so violent and cruel and if it rings of treason remember, this country was founded in an act of treason in the face of tyranny : I did not vote for the leaders in the UN and the UN can go to hell, If the bluehats (are the Kevlar hats still blue for the UN? ) come knocking on my door, I will shoot first and never ask questions later. I would rather be shot down than give up my freedoms to them. I don't know of anyone here remembers the beginning of the movie RED DAWN, but i would be the guy laying dead on the street next to his truck, having his pistol pried out of his dead hand.
32 posted on 10/11/2004 9:51:00 PM PDT by melkor (God bless § 9 of the Texas penal code.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: libertylass

These gun-grabbers are really so unreasonable.


33 posted on 10/11/2004 11:02:17 PM PDT by Unknowing (Now is the time for all good men to come to the aid of their country.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: libertylass
We'd be better served if the NRA would change it's name to SRA (State's Rifle Association) and fight a battle to get the RKBA in every state constitution. Face it, on the Federal level, the BOR is being gutted while we type.

CFR blasted a big hole in the 1st ammendment, got passed, signed by Bush (under the assumption it'd get killed), and declared constitutional by the supreme court. Whoops!

The Patriot act was passed (not even read by your legislators), signed by Bush, and you can say good-bye to warrantless searches and Fourth ammendment protections in the name of Homeland Security. Whoops again!

Texas buggery laws? Gone, the USSC rules again. Roe vs Wade? Ditto. Not too many things the USSC isn't willing to decide for those pesky little states out there now, is there?

What's been happening lately is that the concept of federalism (where sovereign states, though united, determine their own fate) is losing way to nationalism (where a single entity decides it for them because they are united [by what God only knows]).

No reason to assume the USSC would not do the same to the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. Sh*t, federal 'infringements' on guns already exist (just what is a BATFE, or national waiting period, or natiional instant check system?) and yet, they should be the last entity 'infringing' on RKBA as per the 2nd ammendment, given it's clearly explicit language...."the right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed".

By pulling the teeth out of the federal leviathan (as intended at this nation's founding during the drafting of the BOR), states could and would be able to protect themselves from the tyranny they have since become victims to, as their several 'balls-less' senators, possessing zero 'statesmenship' whatsoever, have allowed not only a re-growth of dental function, but installed in many cases, fangs instead. And this WILL come back to bite us.

Since the states have failed in their role as a firewall against the usurpation of their own sovereignties, it follows that idividuals must either disobey nationalistic tendencies ("stroke of pen, law of land, kind of cool") themselves or accept them wholsale.

Put me solidly in the column of disobeyance. I'll not adhere to rules from on-high that violate our constitution, nor will I accept laws within my state that deny my God-given right to protect myself or family with deadly force, if need be. I simply refuse to be a victim of crime, whether it be of the local kind, or state and national. The carjacker and anti-2nd ammendment legislator have something in common that they don't share with me: I follow the law.

34 posted on 10/11/2004 11:05:57 PM PDT by budwiesest
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: gooleyman

I wasn't thinking of dogs, I admit :-).


35 posted on 10/12/2004 5:00:19 AM PDT by Tax-chick (If you stand very still, they may think you're a tree.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Clintonfatigued; carolinaoutdoorsman
"Have you noticed that in the United States, the gun debate is over and gun-rights advocates won?"

No.

It isn't over until we say it's over!

The U.N. hasn't suddenly changed its collective mind, has it? Complete civilian disarmament is still a priority with them, and the stronger they get, the more stridently they will persue their agenda.

But, hey, since I don't actually see them on my front walk, why not continue to ignore them? It has been working so far.

36 posted on 10/12/2004 6:22:05 AM PDT by Designer (Sysiphus Sr. to Junior; "It was uphill, all the way, both ways!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: jrewingjr
"I love this ad."

Me too. I see the model is a bitch. Kind of also fits, like the girlie-man Kerry is.

37 posted on 10/12/2004 6:24:54 AM PDT by Designer (Sysiphus Sr. to Junior; "It was uphill, all the way, both ways!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: libertylass

FYI: Running times on the In-Demand network:

http://www.indemand.com/moviesandevents/viewProductShowtimes.jsp?page_sectionId=2&prodId=20731


38 posted on 10/12/2004 9:24:29 AM PDT by Prime Choice (It is dangerous to be right when wicked is called 'good.')
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: elbucko

Yes well that's just more proof that Nixon was no conservative. He also gave us affirmative action, though to be fair then it was meant to remedy past wrongs done to a couple of groups who comprised only about 15% of the population, whereas now it has been reimagined to achieve diversity even for non-white immigrants and their children who have no claim to past injustices.

But anyway, I remember that when Bush took office his administration reversed the Clinton line and stated that it considers the Second Amendment to protect an individual right, not a collective one. It caused a bit of a stir among some of those stealth-gun ban types and their media allies. Imagaine that; controversy over endorsing the orignial intent of the Second Amendment. It was one of the best things Bush has done, and clearly Kerry would reverse it if he wins.

But it is largely symbolic because the Sup Court would ultimately decide what it means. Not that they should have that right, but they unfortunately do. They did rule on it back in the 1920s or 30s, but I can't seem to find a consensus on what it means, so a definitive ruling awaits.


39 posted on 10/12/2004 4:42:29 PM PDT by Aetius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: libertylass
Have you considered that the money you spend on watching this "debate" will be shared with IANSA ?

( It's the largest, most lavishly funded gun-ban organization on the globe and a primary force driving the U.N. gun-ban agenda. )

And everyone that pays to watch is contributing to their funding..

40 posted on 10/13/2004 2:35:57 PM PDT by Drammach (Freedom; not just a job, it's an adventure..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-44 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson