Face the Nation, AWB debate
- Thread starter DRYHUMOR
- Start date
- Status
Tommygunn
Member
I stopped watching that **&&%$ years ago......
SCKimberFan
Member
rickomatic
Member
Wayne was good, as usual, on all the legal and technical aspects. But he needs to learn to go on the attack, rather than just use the facts on our side to debate. He had a couple softballs thrown at him from Rendell, basically saying "....why does/would anyone NEED "an assault rifle"...."
I believe this is where we need to go on the attack. The real arguement isn't about technicalities of how a firearm functions, or how many rounds can be fit into a "clip" (Rendell's term). We already know we have the righteous truth on those matters. But, really, it's just "inside baseball" talk. The general public doesn't really care. We do. And we will. That's what we're all about so far as our hobby is concerned. Just look at all the 9mm vs .45 type threads here.
But. And the but is the real issue. This is about FREEDOM. It's about the governments constant need to always do something, and the Constitution be damned.
Please Mr. LaPierre. You wrote a book about it being about freedom. Please, please go on the attack with these anti constitutionalists. Leave it to those of us in the gun community to educate our friends and relatives. You need to attack the real problem. Government overstepping it's Constitutional bounds. That is why I, for one, support the NRA. Not to educate the public on the technicalities of firearms function or ballistics. But to protect my God given and Constitutionally guaranteed rights on the basis of it's morality.
I believe this is where we need to go on the attack. The real arguement isn't about technicalities of how a firearm functions, or how many rounds can be fit into a "clip" (Rendell's term). We already know we have the righteous truth on those matters. But, really, it's just "inside baseball" talk. The general public doesn't really care. We do. And we will. That's what we're all about so far as our hobby is concerned. Just look at all the 9mm vs .45 type threads here.
But. And the but is the real issue. This is about FREEDOM. It's about the governments constant need to always do something, and the Constitution be damned.
Please Mr. LaPierre. You wrote a book about it being about freedom. Please, please go on the attack with these anti constitutionalists. Leave it to those of us in the gun community to educate our friends and relatives. You need to attack the real problem. Government overstepping it's Constitutional bounds. That is why I, for one, support the NRA. Not to educate the public on the technicalities of firearms function or ballistics. But to protect my God given and Constitutionally guaranteed rights on the basis of it's morality.
TexasRifleman
Moderator Emeritus
This has been and always will be our problem in this debate.
One side (ours) is debating using facts, statistics, legal and technical information, etc.
The other side is using "feelings". I've been doing this pro gun thing a very very long time and I have yet to be able to debate the "feeling" side of it.
I can list acres of facts, like Wayne L did here and like the rest of us do, then they counter it with "but those things LOOK scary", "why would anyone NEED such a thing".
You can't debate an irrational person rationally or, like the old saying goes "You can't get into a battle of wits with an unarmed man".
MIL-DOT
member
(Quote) " But he needs to learn to go on the attack, rather than just use the facts on our side to debate. He had a couple softballs thrown at him from Rendell, basically saying "....why does/would anyone NEED "an assault rifle"...."
I agree completely. In the media, the pro-gun advocates consistently side-step the critical issue, the fundamental point of the RKBA, which is to give to people not only the right, but the ability to resist their government, should it ever become necessary. We keep hearing about "hunting" and "home defense", even from the guys like LaPierre that are getting paid to know the difference.
I agree completely. In the media, the pro-gun advocates consistently side-step the critical issue, the fundamental point of the RKBA, which is to give to people not only the right, but the ability to resist their government, should it ever become necessary. We keep hearing about "hunting" and "home defense", even from the guys like LaPierre that are getting paid to know the difference.
crebralfix
member
- Joined
- Mar 7, 2004
- Messages
- 1,356
Double tap
crebralfix
member
- Joined
- Mar 7, 2004
- Messages
- 1,356
Unfortunately, the goal of the NRA is to train Olympic shooters. It is not in the business of teaching people fighting skills. Furthermore, the NRA will not advocate armed rebellion; they're strict "law and order" types.
As far as the NRA is concerned, the word "militia" does not exist in the 2A. The NRA National Firearms Museum's sign in the lobby states the following: "...the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
They didn't bother to put the whole thing up.
Phydeaux642
Member
- Joined
- Jul 16, 2007
- Messages
- 1,886
Do They Believe It, Or Can They Just Not Handle The Truth?
I happen tho catch 'Face The Nation' today (rarely watch network 'news' shows) with Wayne Lapierre from the NRA and the Governor of PA, Ed Rendell (what a goof). Mr. Ed kept insisting that an AK-47 had no other purpose than to kill people and was designed to shoot at a more rapid pace than other semi-auto rifles. He was adamant about the rapid fire capabilities of the AK-47 and would hear nothing else. He also mentioned that the majority of criminals that have guns obtained them by means of a straw purchase.
My question is this - do the folks that want to disarm 'we the people', or at the very least limit ownership of firearrms, really believe all of the stuff that spews from their mouths? Or, do they really know the truth and just refuse to admit it? It seems to me that statistics don't generally support their ideas and opinions, so, why keep up with the ranting?
I happen tho catch 'Face The Nation' today (rarely watch network 'news' shows) with Wayne Lapierre from the NRA and the Governor of PA, Ed Rendell (what a goof). Mr. Ed kept insisting that an AK-47 had no other purpose than to kill people and was designed to shoot at a more rapid pace than other semi-auto rifles. He was adamant about the rapid fire capabilities of the AK-47 and would hear nothing else. He also mentioned that the majority of criminals that have guns obtained them by means of a straw purchase.
My question is this - do the folks that want to disarm 'we the people', or at the very least limit ownership of firearrms, really believe all of the stuff that spews from their mouths? Or, do they really know the truth and just refuse to admit it? It seems to me that statistics don't generally support their ideas and opinions, so, why keep up with the ranting?
I didn't see all of that, just the last few minutes . . . Wayne tried to set him straight, but it just wasn't working. My favorite was when Wayne said he'd like to take Ed to the range and see for himself.
Ed's example is clearly one of, "I've already made my mind up; don't bother me with facts."
I hope he leaves office soon -- permanently.
Ed's example is clearly one of, "I've already made my mind up; don't bother me with facts."
I hope he leaves office soon -- permanently.
chuckusaret
member
Ed Rendell is a typical anti gun person. Doesn't beans about any type weapon but professes to know everything. I forgot, he is a politician, and we are his dumb subservants.
James T Thomas
Member
Keystone Debauchery
Ed Rendell is the essence of the legally educated politican.
He panders, caters and does not represent, but only seeks his own interest.
Whether he actually believes those things he declares, I don't know; I do know, that the Marxist maxim of repeating a great distortion or lie consistently will eventually cause it to be accepted, and in Ed's case he cites the mantra often enough that he may have become his own victim.
Ed Rendell is the essence of the legally educated politican.
He panders, caters and does not represent, but only seeks his own interest.
Whether he actually believes those things he declares, I don't know; I do know, that the Marxist maxim of repeating a great distortion or lie consistently will eventually cause it to be accepted, and in Ed's case he cites the mantra often enough that he may have become his own victim.
Two types of antis
There are two types of antis. Type 1 knows the truth and fears an armed citizenry, and a as a result, spends all his/her political career spewing lies to disarm people in the name of the greater good. Type 2 two are the idiots that follow Type 1. They drank the kool-aid -- you now, the one flavored, "you are a million times more likely to kill yourself or a loved one with your own gun"-- and are happily living denial.
I dread Type 2 more. They're too many.
There are two types of antis. Type 1 knows the truth and fears an armed citizenry, and a as a result, spends all his/her political career spewing lies to disarm people in the name of the greater good. Type 2 two are the idiots that follow Type 1. They drank the kool-aid -- you now, the one flavored, "you are a million times more likely to kill yourself or a loved one with your own gun"-- and are happily living denial.
I dread Type 2 more. They're too many.
rogerjames
member
Didn't see the piece, but if Wayne had difficulty debating Ed, then Wayne should go. Personally, I have seen Wayne in other debates and he does not impress me at all. Why does he represent the NRA?
Does anyone else feel like I do?
Does anyone else feel like I do?
HuntAndFish
Member
Rendell is as smart as anyone. He knows the truth but is sticking to the propaganda to swing the masses to his side. That is why logic and facts don't work.
Apparently he does believe that criminals are a product of their environment and they need second, third, maybe more chances, so society at large needs to be "criminal proofed". The result is less liberty for all.
The individual facts are irrelevant to him. He already knows the solution.
There's 2 types of people in this world... Those who like guns and those who ignore the facts.
Ed is the latter. The chances are he knows that guns are good for society but bad for government (like himself) that want more power. If they ever admit to the former, they can never say guns are bad or guns kill and should be banned. It's like arguing between spouses, one must keep their stance firm if they want to win, regardless of the facts.
Ed is the latter. The chances are he knows that guns are good for society but bad for government (like himself) that want more power. If they ever admit to the former, they can never say guns are bad or guns kill and should be banned. It's like arguing between spouses, one must keep their stance firm if they want to win, regardless of the facts.
Since when was more gun control something that we needed to debate about, or produce TV 'investigative reports' about?
Since CBS, ABC, and NBC said so. They want to roll up a snowball so big the Congress can't stop it rolling.
OK, back to gun talk.
Since CBS, ABC, and NBC said so. They want to roll up a snowball so big the Congress can't stop it rolling.
OK, back to gun talk.
camslam
Member
No.
Wayne seems to do a decent if not fine job in many of the debates he has been in. In fact, I would be curious if you have the same command of facts, events, figures, laws, etc... pertaining to guns and the 2nd amendment that he doees, and if you do, would you be able to articulate it well on national tv while battling a biased journalist and the person representing the opposing viewpoint?
On a sidenote, as someone who debates anti's online seemingly several times a week lately, it wouldn't matter if you were both standing in the brightness of the noon day sun, they are the type that will deny the sun even exists.
There is no rationale or legitimacy to their arguments, their denials, or their positions. They know it, so they resort to trite sayings, quote false myths and numbers, or in the end fall back to calling you names.
The only thing Ed was pushing was the question, "why does anyone need an "assault weapon" that has 20 or 30 round "clips" (I hate that terminology)?
He asked it 3 different times. IT DOESN'T MATTER WHAT YOU TELL ANTI'S, they don't care, they don't want the truth, they just want guns gone.
Nubuck
Member
yea, i just caught it online. Wayne clearly could have been more on the offensive. Perhaps he didnt want to be marginalized by the audience had he been more assertive
TexasRifleman
Moderator Emeritus
You clearly don't understand how this works.
This is a fundamental problem we have always faced, and will always face.
How would you suggest you debate someone who is not interested in facts, and makes up things as they go to defend their point, yet they are never challenged on the source of their facts?
Here we are on the pro gun side, armed with statistics, facts, history etc all firmly on our side. We are calm, polite, and secure in knowing that what we say is absolutely true.
The other side is armed with their "feelings" about how guns are "scary" and "mean people" have assault weapons.They are excitable and irritable and they show emotion wildly. It gets a response from the emotional soccer mom type of crowd.
How exactly do you debate nothing but emotion without turning into them?
When we try to do it with emotion we get Ted Nugent. Now Ted is a big fan of the Second Amendment no doubt, but his debate technique doesn't work either, in fact it probably wins over less fence sitters than the stoic fact quoting technique.
If YOU figure out the way to debate people who don't care about facts and only go on "feelings" we'll put YOU in charge of the NRA.
TexasRifleman
Moderator Emeritus
Can you possibly imagine what would happen if La PIerre had responded to Rendell's question on why someone needs an "assault rifle" with
"we need the same armaments as the government in case we ever have to put the power back in the hands of the people".
How exactly do you think that statement, though completely true and 100% of the purpose of the Second Amendment, would play out on national television?
They would have us rounded up within the week.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
