WOW, that
exchange between Wallace and LaPierre WAS "explosive". I don't normally criticize Wallace, but he was an extremely poor journalist this morning. It was obvious he was vested in more gun-control and was anti-NRA.
First he questions if LaPierre regrets running this ad. Wallace is hinging his argument on the fact that obama's children are more of a target than yours or mine or your neighbors. Now granted, but LaPierre makes the point that all parents want their children to be safer than they are from the "crazies". Police won't be able to get their in time. Wallace counters that let's say we get armed guards in schools, then what about the malls, theaters, etc? (lololol - well, hey, wouldn't that make us want to have MORE responsible people carrying, not less?)
Then he goes on to attack LaPierre accusing him for throwing "class" into his argument when he says elites are hypocrites because they have armed protection but don't want the regular joes to have guns/AR15's.
Wallace just keeps attacking noting that LaPierre has his own set of bodyguards. (so! He should!). La Pierre says it is fine for people - rich, elite - to have bodyguards, but it's THEY, not LaPierre, who don't want others to have their own personal security.
I give Wallace an F, no a Z, for his logic in his debate with La Pierre this morning. He made it personal, and he failed to be a good interviewer. Thanks for the link, TomGuy.
Wallace just keeps attacking noting that LaPierre has his own set of bodyguards. I saw that...I guess we are to assume that Wallace isn't packing (clarification: concealed carry)
...and has no armed bodyguards.
Right on, Girlene. I wanted to reach into the TV and do bodily harm to Wallace. What a lame thing for him to say, “What about the malls but but what about the theaters?” They shouldn’t be advertizing “Gun Free Zones” and then they wouldn’t be a shooters paradise.