Shooters Forum banner

1 - 20 of 45 Posts

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
14,335 Posts
Discussion Starter #1 (Edited)
This is one place guns and politics run head on into each other because they travel the same tracks.
NRA's Wayne LaPierre Challenges Obama To One-On-One Gun Rights Debate - Breitbart

LaPierre said, “Americans will judge for themselves who they trust and believe on this issue—you or the NRA. Let’s see if you’re game for a fair debate. It’s your chance to show the American people you’re not afraid to meet the NRA on neutral ground.”
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,471 Posts
An Intriguing Challenge that Mr. LaPierre has Posed to POTUS Obama. My Guess is that the POTUS will Reject or Ignore This Challenge, and continue in his stated Activities against The Second Amendment.

Perhaps a "White House Petition" that reaches the Threshold for a Response might Get an Answer.

Best Regards,
Chev. William
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
4,925 Posts
Perhaps a "White House Petition" that reaches the Threshold for a Response might Get an Answer.
This White House would say a petition that demands the Constitution be followed is a right-wing conspiracy of bitter clingers and as such is null and void, and will not be considered...

Per Wayne's challenge, he'd do to the bi-pedal mammal in my White House what a hungry Great White shark does to a surfer in the waters off the Great Barrier Reef...
 
  • Like
Reactions: Webley

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
14,335 Posts
Discussion Starter #7
This deal could be fun to watch. The public petition could cause enough publicity to at least inform more people. Perception is 99% of reality to a lot of people. If the HMFWBIC (old Southern term) says the NRA is bad, a lot of people will believe it unless somebody says differently. Most people that are so dim to (continue to) listen to him don't even know what the NRA is. We're forced to defend ourselves against zoo animals flinging feces when it would be so much better if we could just ignore them.

But we can't.
 
  • Like
Reactions: shreck

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,862 Posts
The challenger is an expert on the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution and other values involving arms. The challenged has little knowledge of the 2nd Amendment because, due to his intense hatred and disdain for the European ancestral founders of this Great Nation, he refused to study that part of history and thus has no idea why the 2nd Amendment was included in the first place. Nor would he care even if he did know. Both challenger and challenged know this.

However, the challenged is certainly aware that he is under no illusions that gun control will increase public safety, and also knows that a debate with a smart person would reveal the very illusion he wants Americans to believe. Both challenger and challenged know this.

TRANSLATION: No debate will transpire and (despite my respect and admiration for him) I think it almost silly of LePierre to even make the challenge. There is no debating with leftists - in their eyes, there is only submission.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
14,335 Posts
Discussion Starter #9
I think the NRA has taken a lesson from GWB. If you let the lie stand, it becomes 'public knowledge' no matter how stupid it might be. The libs used it to great effect on him and even his closest advisors now say it was a terrible mistake. Give an inch, lose a mile.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,072 Posts
Let's see...........getting back to firearms......P.O.T.U.S...........Pistol on totally useless scribe!? Anyway I like your "old southern term" better!
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
4,925 Posts
Let's see... ...P.O.T.U.S...
Part of the Uniformed and Stupid. I know there is no "a" there, but it has to be pronounceable. Cut me some slack...
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bong Son Buck

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,881 Posts
Geezzzz.. easternhunter, why is it political to discuss a debate about the 2nd Amendmend that was asked for by our pro-gun organisation? Would you have complained if the discussion was about a gun debate to be held between Brian Williams and Megan Kelly because guns are political?

Is the President of the United States - who has to execute the mandates given to him by gun-owning citizens - a holy entity that may not be mentioned unless in whispered reverence?

It is so normal for liberals to politicise a normal, everyday, pressing issue that was not political before and then frown and complain when the issue is being discussed on open forums. It seems even gun owners want to stop gun-owners from having First Amendment rights.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,857 Posts
TRANSLATION: No debate will transpire and (despite my respect and admiration for him) I think it almost silly of LePierre to even make the challenge. There is no debating with leftists - in their eyes, there is only submission.[/QUOTE]

No, it's not silly. By this challenge LaPierre shows that the NRA is up to the challenge and confident in their position. This is no different than calling out any bully. Obama has been mouthing off about guns and he's being called on it. Now, we all expect him to do the classic bully retreat, by slithering away and calling insults back over his shoulder. Next time he pokes his head out and starts blathering about our guns LaPierre needs to be right there willing to rumble again. If the presidential hopefuls are smart they will join in and make a chorus of it. This is the time to start a fight and Wayne just drew a line.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,881 Posts
An Intriguing Challenge that Mr. LaPierre has Posed to POTUS Obama. My Guess is that the POTUS will Reject or Ignore This Challenge, and continue in his stated Activities against The Second Amendment.

Perhaps a "White House Petition" that reaches the Threshold for a Response might Get an Answer.

Best Regards,
Chev. William
The silly, vagrant lion that was legally hunted in Zimbabwe and which turned out to have a tracking collar under is mane within days got that number of names on a petition even though all the facts were wrong. You have something there - on the fight for gun rights - Chev.
 
  • Like
Reactions: shreck

·
Banned
Joined
·
4,925 Posts
The Liar-in-Chief could have his innards handed to him by Wayne, and the useless media would say Dear Leader won going away. It is folly to expect even-handed reporting from his "tank corps."
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,393 Posts
Geezzzz.. easternhunter, why is it political to discuss a debate about the 2nd Amendmend that was asked for by our pro-gun organisation? Would you have complained if the discussion was about a gun debate to be held between Brian Williams and Megan Kelly because guns are political?

Is the President of the United States - who has to execute the mandates given to him by gun-owning citizens - a holy entity that may not be mentioned unless in whispered reverence?

It is so normal for liberals to politicise a normal, everyday, pressing issue that was not political before and then frown and complain when the issue is being discussed on open forums. It seems even gun owners want to stop gun-owners from having First Amendment rights.
While I'm a firm believer in the 2nd Amendment, it's not appropriate for any sitting President (whatever his political leaning) to debate the leader of any cause.
The 2nd Amendment gives us a Constitutional Right and any debate (and any thing else) won't change that.
It does not need a debate.
Jim
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,471 Posts
1. The Second Amendment will Stand until Obama can Load the SCOTUS with more Anti-Gun Liberal Judge Appointments.
2. The POTUS has a Stated Position about Guns in the Hands of Law Abiding Citizens that is contrary to the Second Amendment.
3. The NRA has a Stated position about Guns in the Hands of Law Abiding Citizens That is in Agreement with the Second Amendment

The Debate Proposed seems to be upon these two Viewpoints of the Second Amendment, and its implementation.

What is Political about this is that the POTUS Has the Power to Appoint SCOTUS Judges Favorable to his personal Desires and contrary to the 'Will of the People' and the Second Amendment as presently interpreted by The Present SCOTUS.

Personally I hope POTUS Obama Accepts the Challenge, but I am NOT 'Holding my Breath' for it.

As to the "Neutral Forum" suggested: I seriously Doubt the Secret Service Presidential Protection Detail would allow such a POTUS appearance.

Best Regards,
Chev. William
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
379 Posts
While I'm a firm believer in the 2nd Amendment, it's not appropriate for any sitting President (whatever his political leaning) to debate the leader of any cause.
The 2nd Amendment gives us a Constitutional Right and any debate (and any thing else) won't change that.
It does not need a debate.
Jim
Exactly right.

It's a meaningless challenge that does nothing but highlight La Pierre's ignorance about real politics.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
970 Posts
Exactly right.

It's a meaningless challenge that does nothing but highlight La Pierre's ignorance about real politics.
It is hardly ignorance. It is a deliberate response to the comment made by the POTUS during the town hall. I'm sure he knows the pres doesn't want a real debate and doesn't expect him to debate. He was making a point about bias and not walking into the trap CNN had set. That is why he specifically stated he would do it neutral ground....... where he would tear Obama a new one in a debate.
 
  • Like
Reactions: chevwilliam
1 - 20 of 45 Posts
Top