There is going to be a PETA vs NRA world wide showdown debate like the one between gun banner Peters and the NRA. Andrew Butler vs Wayne LaPierre. October 18. Vote for winner at www.huntingdebate.com. will be on iDEMAND Pay-Per-View 9-10 ET. From the Library of Kings College, London. Get ready guys and pass this around and vote. We won last time.
PETA vs NRA Woldwide debate
- Thread starter Kim
- Start date
- Status
DeseoUnTaco
Member
- Joined
- Jun 26, 2005
- Messages
- 290
A few facts to keep in mind: Most gun owners are not hunters, so for most of us, gun rights and animals have nothing to do with each other. One of the reasons I'm not a member of the NRA is because they do put so much emphasis on hunting rights. I don't eat meat, I don't hunt, my religion doesn't allow hunting or causing injury to animals, so I don't get all excited over hunting rights. Don't get me wrong, I know that hunters are one of the pillars of the RKBA movement and I'm glad about that... but at a personal level it holds no interest for me.
I would like to see the NRA putting more emphasis on gun rights that would apply more to city dwellers (who probably don't hunt). Big cities almost always vote solidly against gun rights, and that's something I would like to see changed. Getting into debates with PETA probably won't help the NRA win supporters in San Francisco or New York.
I would like to see the NRA putting more emphasis on gun rights that would apply more to city dwellers (who probably don't hunt). Big cities almost always vote solidly against gun rights, and that's something I would like to see changed. Getting into debates with PETA probably won't help the NRA win supporters in San Francisco or New York.
longeyes
member
The Second Amendment is not about hunting.
Andrew Rothman
Member
I think it's more than a bit undignified to have a pay-per-view event like this -- and I'm not tickled that the NRA used my membership dollars to send me a glossy color mailing about it.
Or do they think they make money on the PPV?
But if they do make money, do they share revenue with PETA?
My cynic-o-meter is pegging tonight.
Or do they think they make money on the PPV?
But if they do make money, do they share revenue with PETA?
My cynic-o-meter is pegging tonight.
They had a similar debate about a year ago at the same place with the Peters woman from the ISANA UN NGO group. This is just another debate which has to do with hunting. I realize the 2nd amendment is not about hunting. I also realize that the NRA does need the support of hunters. Hunters who want to own firearms to hunt. The NRA is doing an outreach to hunters to get them involved as alot of hunters do not think they will try to ban their hunting firearms. It is a mostly natural coalition. Just as most PETA persons, ALF and others want to ban all firearms. Theirs is a natural coalition.
pcf
Member
Screw PETA, they've shot themselves in the foot and don't have any credibility left. If the NRA wants to take someone on they need to take on Humane Society of the United States, HSUS (not to be confused with the American Humane Society, AHS) HSUS is anti-hunting, anti-pet, anti-gun, and most people give them money without realizing what they do.
Barnes & Noble
I tried to buy a book on gun values at Barnes & Noble yesterday. I realize that gun books aren't the most popular items in their store, but the place near me is a monster store. Huge.
So instead of roaming the shelves for 20 minutes looking for the books, I went right to the information desk and asked "Can you tell me where to find books on firearms, please?" Amid the dirty looks of the unkept homely librarian-type ladies waiting in line behind me (which I returned with a polite smile), the employee told me "right this way" and led me to the section.
2nd floor, far back corner, mixed in with the "Outdoor Sports" section, under the "Hunting" section, between archery and skiing. A total of 10 books, one copy of each. 2 were on big-game hunting in Africa. 3 were hunters' personal accounts of the sport in the US and tips for other hunters. There were 3 big "bible" type books on gun values, 1 book on firearms assembly and disassembly, and 1 book on "How to Make Knives." They didn't have the pocket-sized values book I was looking for.
I understand that it's supply and demand, and that if they don't carry enough books on the subject, it's hard to carve out a "firearms" section on the shelves, but this is a good illustration of the mentality.
In their minds, anything to do with guns is either "Hunting" or "Military".
I tried to buy a book on gun values at Barnes & Noble yesterday. I realize that gun books aren't the most popular items in their store, but the place near me is a monster store. Huge.
So instead of roaming the shelves for 20 minutes looking for the books, I went right to the information desk and asked "Can you tell me where to find books on firearms, please?" Amid the dirty looks of the unkept homely librarian-type ladies waiting in line behind me (which I returned with a polite smile), the employee told me "right this way" and led me to the section.
2nd floor, far back corner, mixed in with the "Outdoor Sports" section, under the "Hunting" section, between archery and skiing. A total of 10 books, one copy of each. 2 were on big-game hunting in Africa. 3 were hunters' personal accounts of the sport in the US and tips for other hunters. There were 3 big "bible" type books on gun values, 1 book on firearms assembly and disassembly, and 1 book on "How to Make Knives." They didn't have the pocket-sized values book I was looking for.
I understand that it's supply and demand, and that if they don't carry enough books on the subject, it's hard to carve out a "firearms" section on the shelves, but this is a good illustration of the mentality.
In their minds, anything to do with guns is either "Hunting" or "Military".
HighVelocity
Member
The only way I'd pay to see this is if it was a steel cage match.
Well, don't get upset then when "duck hunters" don't care if AR15's are banned or small CCW guns are banned. Doesn't hold a lot of interest for them. We need to stick together on this.
All this NRA bashing on this board is getting old. What are the other RKBA groups getting accomplished?
B
boofus
Guest
I agree, debating PETA is llike wrassling with a pig in the mud. The NRA has bigger fish to fry.
JohnBT
Member
"Andrew looks upon this international telecast of "The Great Hunting Debate" as an opportunity to tell a world wide audience of his belief that animals are not ours to use for food, clothing, entertainment, experimentation or any other purpose."
Looks like a great opportunity for the NRA to help him get his message out to the world.
John
Looks like a great opportunity for the NRA to help him get his message out to the world.
John
Although a staunch member this is one of the few issues where I do not agree with the NRA. I personally do not recognize PETA as anything other than a money raising group. A "debate" like this just gives them more publicity. BUT, I also do not agree with the NRA bashing that seem to be so prevalent here. Like longeyes and others say the Second amendment is not about hunting. I think the NRA is the best thing going for all gun owners regardless of whether you hunt, target shoot or just sit and look at them!!
Bakert, I am an NRA member and have been for over 20 years. I defy anyone to find another group that is front and foremost as the NRA has been. Yes, there are other groups, but not one approaches the NRA for effectiveness. Yes, I disagree with the NRA on occasion. Only way for me or anyone else to agree 100% is to run the organization. The NRA is spread pretty thin, and does attempt to combat assaults on every front, including hunting rights. Anyone that kicks the NRA is kicking themselves if they support RKBA. I read all the time that NRA doesn't do this or do that, but overall, they do a great job. Without them, all the whiners would be without gun rights period. A person has the right to disagree and not join, but it is silly and counterproductive to say that the NRA is useless and ineffective. That is BS, and the guys that say that are likely not out doing much for RKBA. You have the right to choose your own organization, but leave mine alone. It is more effective than all the others, although you may perhaps feel correctly that yours is actually espousing the best view. Most are just not heard, and the question that can be asked, "if a tree falls in the forrest and there is no one around, is there any noise?" seems appropriate.
The Grand Inquisitor
Member
This is a debate that the NRA is simply going to lose. Not because of facts or anything so superflous, but because groups like PETA thrive on screeching their way through debates and using as many logical fallacies as theoretically possible to win the public poll.
The other problem is that because this is on PPV the only people who are going to see it are the "true believers" on both sides who won't be swayed regardless of the debate (let's all be honest here: none of us are going to watch that and say, "damn, I need to send some money to PETA!").
The NRA is picking a pointless battle - hunters rights are not be taken away like those of us who choose to own and collect "evil" military-style weapons. The NRA is a group with the political clout to get things done, yet they sit on issues that really need work, and put muscle into issues that are easy winnable and don;t have much at stake.
The other problem is that because this is on PPV the only people who are going to see it are the "true believers" on both sides who won't be swayed regardless of the debate (let's all be honest here: none of us are going to watch that and say, "damn, I need to send some money to PETA!").
The NRA is picking a pointless battle - hunters rights are not be taken away like those of us who choose to own and collect "evil" military-style weapons. The NRA is a group with the political clout to get things done, yet they sit on issues that really need work, and put muscle into issues that are easy winnable and don;t have much at stake.
Guys---------What I think is happening here is the NRA will be able to show more hunters how the PETA like groups want to ban hunting and hence ban guns. Just like when they debated Ms. Peters they showed how the UN wants to ban your gun except for hunting with a single shot rifle that can at max hit at 100 yards. Same people with a different twist.Remember Ms. Peters more or less said the heck with everyone else even target shooters..
The Grand Inquisitor
Member
Do you think *any* hunters have a positive image of PETA?
PETA has gone so far as to enrage fishermen because of their staunch anti-fishing platform. No hunter is going to be swayed by this, nor is any Animal
Liberation Front psychopath.
Actually, the ALF'ers are probably on our side with this as they see firearms as a requirement to free the Earth of evil humans who plot and conspire to make evil anti-enviornmental things like civilization.
PETA has gone so far as to enrage fishermen because of their staunch anti-fishing platform. No hunter is going to be swayed by this, nor is any Animal
Liberation Front psychopath.
Actually, the ALF'ers are probably on our side with this as they see firearms as a requirement to free the Earth of evil humans who plot and conspire to make evil anti-enviornmental things like civilization.
Here in MI, the anti-hunters managed to get a hunting issue on the ballot. They tried to essentially end bear huntin in the early 90's and failed. This time it is dove hunting and it looks like they have the numbers to ban it.
While I strongly support hunting rights, I don't see this event as something that will be all that helpful, as there are bigger fish to fry.
CentralTexas
Member
Yes, Yes
and when they aren't going door to door taking our guns PETA and the HSUS do things like this-
Dear xxxxx,
We did it! The U.S. Senate passed an amendment today by a stunning 68-29 vote that prohibits the use of any federal taxpayer funds to slaughter horses for food exports.
The amendment, introduced by Senators John Ensign (R-NV) and Robert C. Byrd (D-WV), mirrors an amendment that passed the U.S. House of Representatives in June, which was led by Reps. John Sweeney (R-NY), John Spratt (D-SC), Nick Rahall (D-WV), and Ed Whitfield (R-KY). Together, these measures will effectively stop America's horses from being killed in three slaughterhouses in the U.S. that slaughter horses -- two in Texas and one in Illinois. The amendment also stops horses from being shipped to slaughterhouses in Canada or Mexico so that their meat can be exported to foreign countries.
This tremendous victory would not have been possible without your support and action. We received outstanding support for our major lobbying campaign to end horse slaughter and were able to mobilize our grassroots network. Every single Senate office heard from us, and because of your calls and emails they took notice. Click here to find our how your U.S. Senators voted.
"The time has come to put an end to the practice of slaughtering horses in America," said Sen. Ensign. "Horses have an important role in the history of our country, particularly the West, and they deserve our protection. As a senator and a veterinarian I am committed to doing what I can for these magnificent animals. Many of the horses sent to slaughter are perfectly healthy, and turning them over to slaughterhouses is inhumane and unnecessary."
"The market for horsemeat is not an American market," said Sen. Byrd. "Many Americans would be shocked to learn that our animals suffer such a fate, all in order to satisfy the tastes of those living in Europe and Asia."
In another welcome move, the Senate also approved two additional animal welfare amendments introduced by Sen. Daniel Akaka (D-HI). One amendment would ensure that "downed livestock" -- animals too sick or injured to walk -- are not allowed into the human food supply. The second amendment would prohibit tax dollars from being used for research facilities that purchase animals from "Class B dealers" who traffic in family pets for research.
We are so grateful that you stood with us and helped achieve this incredible victory for animals, even as so many of our resources -- and so much of our attention -- has been turned towards helping the animal victims of Hurricane Katrina. Thank you for all you do on behalf of animals.
Sincerely,
Wayne Pacelle
President & CEO
The Humane Society of the United States
and when they aren't going door to door taking our guns PETA and the HSUS do things like this-
Dear xxxxx,
We did it! The U.S. Senate passed an amendment today by a stunning 68-29 vote that prohibits the use of any federal taxpayer funds to slaughter horses for food exports.
The amendment, introduced by Senators John Ensign (R-NV) and Robert C. Byrd (D-WV), mirrors an amendment that passed the U.S. House of Representatives in June, which was led by Reps. John Sweeney (R-NY), John Spratt (D-SC), Nick Rahall (D-WV), and Ed Whitfield (R-KY). Together, these measures will effectively stop America's horses from being killed in three slaughterhouses in the U.S. that slaughter horses -- two in Texas and one in Illinois. The amendment also stops horses from being shipped to slaughterhouses in Canada or Mexico so that their meat can be exported to foreign countries.
This tremendous victory would not have been possible without your support and action. We received outstanding support for our major lobbying campaign to end horse slaughter and were able to mobilize our grassroots network. Every single Senate office heard from us, and because of your calls and emails they took notice. Click here to find our how your U.S. Senators voted.
"The time has come to put an end to the practice of slaughtering horses in America," said Sen. Ensign. "Horses have an important role in the history of our country, particularly the West, and they deserve our protection. As a senator and a veterinarian I am committed to doing what I can for these magnificent animals. Many of the horses sent to slaughter are perfectly healthy, and turning them over to slaughterhouses is inhumane and unnecessary."
"The market for horsemeat is not an American market," said Sen. Byrd. "Many Americans would be shocked to learn that our animals suffer such a fate, all in order to satisfy the tastes of those living in Europe and Asia."
In another welcome move, the Senate also approved two additional animal welfare amendments introduced by Sen. Daniel Akaka (D-HI). One amendment would ensure that "downed livestock" -- animals too sick or injured to walk -- are not allowed into the human food supply. The second amendment would prohibit tax dollars from being used for research facilities that purchase animals from "Class B dealers" who traffic in family pets for research.
We are so grateful that you stood with us and helped achieve this incredible victory for animals, even as so many of our resources -- and so much of our attention -- has been turned towards helping the animal victims of Hurricane Katrina. Thank you for all you do on behalf of animals.
Sincerely,
Wayne Pacelle
President & CEO
The Humane Society of the United States
Cacique500
Member
+1
I hate to see them giving 'credibility' to PETA...and there are more important things the NRA needs to be working on.
PETA hasn't put any day-glo orange vests on any deer recently have they?
solareclipse
Member
both organizations are equally insane. 
for every peta act the nra has one of its own and vice versa. i would still side with the NRA but will never be a member.
for every peta act the nra has one of its own and vice versa. i would still side with the NRA but will never be a member.
Amusetec
Member
On that one small point I agree with them. You should not slaughter Horses. I guess being from Texas Slaughtering and eating a horse is like slaughtering and eating your dog it just is not done. IT IS TOTALY UNEXECPTABLE
Robert Hairless
Member
- Joined
- Oct 11, 2003
- Messages
- 3,983
I don't hunt. My wife does not hunt. Neither of us will ever be hunters. Both of us are NRA members.
But I do get your logic. I don't live in New York or San Francisco so I don't see why I should be concerned about gun rights there. It's a matter of no consequence to anyone except you. Fend for yourself.
- Status