Wayne LaPierre on Hannity Special: Inside The Gun Debate (Show time: 9 - 10 PM ET)

NRA Media (Email) | 01-18-2013 | Wayne LaPierre

[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.

[Christie at the beach]

can do that are ( Sorry-typo are not) getting banned.

Thanks for the chat and info.

[ConservativeInPA]

Please go and learn about firearms. By the way, the professional couldn't shoot worth crap. Even Bo Deitel was making fun of her. The whole thing was staged, including the sex of the professional so not to intimidate women. I am not saying it was a bad thing, but if they were making the argument that a .223 isn't as deadly as a shotgun it was dead wrong.

Sean Hannity is a lightweight as was most of his show tonight,

[Christie at the beach]

->professional couldn't shoot worth crap. Even Bo Deitel was making fun of her

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.

[txrangerette]

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.

[Christie at the beach]

No one has said the show was flawed but Conservative in PA.

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.

[txrangerette]

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.

[Candor7]

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.

[fireman15]

I only caught the last few minutes of the show, but I enjoyed the part that I did see. People are more fearful of things that they know nothing about. So if the earlier demonstration gave some small foundation it probably was helpful.

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.

[Cletus.D.Yokel]

:: 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.

[444Flyer]

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...”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BVRp7tHdQGw