Rebecca Peters, IANSA 'Americans are paranoid'


PDA






TIZReporter
June 23, 2006, 07:20 PM
“I think that eventually, Americans will realize that their obsession with arming themselves in fear, in a paranoid belief that they're going to be able to stave off the ills of the world through owning guns, through turning every house into an arsenal, eventually Americans will go away from that.”

Rebecca Peters
President
IANSA
International Action Network on Small Arms

Read the entire story at http://www.theinfozone.net/salw-news.html

TIZ

If you enjoyed reading about "Rebecca Peters, IANSA 'Americans are paranoid'" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Old Fuff
June 23, 2006, 07:34 PM
I hope she doesn't hold her breath... :evil:

PlayTheAces
June 23, 2006, 07:37 PM
I hope she doesn't hold her breath...

I kinda hope she does......

CleverNickname
June 23, 2006, 07:39 PM
Rebecca Peters, you're paranoid from thinking that every gun owning citizen is a ticking timebomb/raving lunatic just waiting for something to set them off into a killing spree. Maybe if you stop thinking you can stave off the ills of the world through banning guns, you'll stop being so fearful.

:)

American By Blood
June 23, 2006, 07:53 PM
Call me crazy (and I'm sure Ms. Peters would), but isn't defense-minded gun ownership about meeting the evils of the world head-on in personal combat and taking responsibility for one's own well-being?

It seems to me that social engineering is more from the "staving off" school.

TCB in TN
June 23, 2006, 07:57 PM
Rebecca Peters, you're paranoid from thinking that every gun owning citizen is a ticking timebomb/raving lunatic just waiting for something to set them off into a killing spree. Maybe if you stop thinking you can stave off the ills of the world through banning guns, you'll stop being so fearful.

Maybe she isn't paranoid, because I know that most of us will fight to protect our freedom, and most of these little organizations have as their stated goal at best the infringement of our 2nd ammendment rights, and worse case scenerio pitching the Constitution right out the window, then installing the UN charter or other such nonsense in its stead. Our willingness to fight makes us nuts in her book, and thus we cannot be allowed to keep our weapons. Sad to say, that there are many folks out there with the same mentality.

DoubleTapDrew
June 23, 2006, 08:00 PM
Maybe when their cease to BE ills of the world (ignoring the fact that shooting sports are just plain fun!) less Americans will turn their house into an "arsenal" (which in Rebeccaneese probably means two or more knives).
Banning guns doesn't create a crime free utopia, it creates a cesspool for tyrany to fester and gives the upper hand to those who choose not to obey laws. Maybe that's her plan. Pick up a history book lady. :fire:

espanola
June 23, 2006, 08:02 PM
Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean they aren't after me.
I don't think any of us believe that gun ownership will "stave off the ills of the world", but is can prevent some of them from overtaking me.

hillbilly
June 23, 2006, 08:25 PM
Here's a link to the IANSA web site where they have the transcript of the debate she had with Wayne LaPierre.

http://www.iansa.org/action/nra_debate.htm

It's quite a read.

hillbilly

Str8Shooter
June 23, 2006, 09:03 PM
I notice it says the transcript is "edited". Does anyone know if this transcript is complete, or edited to make Ms Peters look better?

ColoradoKid
June 23, 2006, 09:04 PM
Hey, Rebecca....BITE ME.......!!!!!!

migoi
June 23, 2006, 09:10 PM
The U.S. of A. is a terrible, horrible place peopled with raving, paranoid gun nuts...she should stay as far away from us as possible.

I don't remember inviting her to visit and I sure as hell didn't ask her opinion of our internal affairs.

migoi

John-Melb
June 23, 2006, 09:14 PM
Hey Beccy, I am an AUSTRALIAN gun owner, I've seen the opposite of the 'paranoia" you criticise. I've seen law abiding gun owners vilified in the cause of political correctness, I've seen people denied rights, including the right to join a political party on the basis of firearms ownership, I've seen countless thousands of privately owned guns, including priceless antiques and family heirlooms destroyed on the altar of your desires.

Screw you, and screw the horse you rode in on too!:fire: :fire: :fire: :fire: :fire: :fire: :fire: :fire: :fire: :fire: :fire: :fire: :fire:

To American gun owners, there is but one reply these cultural vandals understand, "touch my guns (again) and I will kill you, do you really want to be a martyr for your cause, as I read on another thread, blue helmets make great targets"

grimjaw
June 23, 2006, 09:18 PM
turning every house into an arsenal

Definition, arsenal, from http://dictionary.reference.com:
A governmental establishment for the storing, development, manufacturing, testing, or repairing of arms, ammunition, and other war materiel.
A stock of weapons.
A store or supply: an arsenal of retorts.
This is likely Ms Peters' definition:
A single firearm of any caliber or era.
jmm

ps. John-Melb's post has veered way off the High Road.

MechAg94
June 23, 2006, 09:21 PM
We have had ample opportunities to learn our lessons about govt and gun grabbers. I guess she thinks we are stupid or have very short memories.

TIZReporter
June 23, 2006, 09:22 PM
The NRA has issued a DVD of the debate.

The only transcript of the debate which is also at http://theinfozone.net/salw5.html in case you do not want to visit the IANSA site, was edited apparently to remove many of the comments made by Lapierre.

Regardless it makes for an interesting read.

TIZ

Henry Bowman
June 23, 2006, 09:40 PM
As infuriating as these grabbers can be . . . take the trash talk elsewhere. Steer this thread back to the high road, or it will be locked quick.

cpileri
June 23, 2006, 10:49 PM
Indeed.
Where is an UNedited copy of the debate to be found?
C-

2400
June 23, 2006, 11:05 PM
To American gun owners, there is but one reply these cultural vandals understand, "touch my guns (again) and I will kill you, do you really want to be a martyr for your cause, as I read on another thread, blue helmets make great targets"

Is this what you're talking about?;)

GoRon
June 23, 2006, 11:13 PM
You don't need guns to handle the UN guys.

In the first place the President everyone loves to hate put John Bolton in place just to stop this kind of silliness from getting anywhere in the UN.

This administration isn't conspiring with the UN to take our guns.

Cannot say that about the Democratic Party leadership I'm sorry to say.

mordechaianiliewicz
June 23, 2006, 11:25 PM
I still hold the theory that what really torques most of us off about the U.N. is that there are no processes for which to stop them in terms of peacefully. We can't vote on their agenda, because there is no referendum. We cannot campaign against them, because we can't vote for the people at the U.N. and they ignore the soapbox, regardless of how loud we shout, or what it is we are shouting about.

They talk about human rights, but offer no such rights in their Charter.

They talk about self-determination, but many of their member states are police states, including one which still allows slavery.

Theoretically, you have a right to religion, but only if you preach "tolerance," and there is no definition for exactly what tolerance means.

They say we will protect you, you don't need guns, even as orgies of violence currently on the planet more or less prove the U.N. is impotent in saving themselves.

While Melb's comment wasn't high road, what he describes is disarming of a people followed by political marginalization. In neither Britain, or Australia is what he said allowed. Think about the Smith Act. You have to threaten somebody. In Aussieland, or England, the government already can use postings like Melb's against him.

And obviously, shooters are trying to politically fight this, and they are being denied. Ultimately, that country is acting just like the U.N. Abusing rights, then denying redress of grievances, and closing a defenseless people out of peacefull reform.

Many of us share these beliefs with John-Melb about a U.N. come to our shores. Obviously, this kind of beast is in his homeland. We should not talk bad about him for wanting to chop of it's head when we would do the same. Of course he's mad. And we would be too.

JohnMc
June 23, 2006, 11:30 PM
I hadn't read that before; even in the edited version, Mr. LaPierre trounced her soundly.
Nice Job, Mr. L.
:)

TIZReporter
June 23, 2006, 11:48 PM
I have a piece I just found this morning, it is a lecture by Alan Rock, who is still the Canadian Ambassador to the UN. Rock was the Liberal Minister of Justice who brought in Canada's gun control legislation.

At the UN, Rock has been a force for more SALW controls, and under the Liberals, in Canada, for funding many UN anti-gun meetings.

In this lecture to the University of Ottawa, Rock says, ""What do we do when we form our groups? Well, we bring people together, we organize Groups of Friends, we have events in which knowledgeable people speak, and we try to make sure the right actors, including members of the Security Council are there. We go and see Security Council members in their offices, we write letters, we go and see the president of the Security Council, we demand that something be put on the agenda, we draft resolutions, we show them what they can do. We demonstrate what practical steps they can take, and then we try to persuade them to take those steps.

"We work closely with Non-Governmental Organizations. NGOs in New York at the UN are enormously influential, very capable and highly experienced. And some of these NGO’s have better intelligence about what’s happening on the ground than most governments. So the NGOs become valued and crucial partners, providing up-to-date information from people who are on the scene, and bringing the power of their advocacy in combination with ours to our shared purpose."

What I think he is really saying is that the cozy relationship which has come to pass at the UN where governments and NGOs get together.

When you look at the current US White House it is unlikely Bush would move against gun ownership.

To count on that same process happening in the future is to hope against hope. A future administration could change that position in a moments notice.

TIZ

To read all of Rocks speech, the link it at http://www.theinfozone.net/salw-news.html

bg
June 24, 2006, 12:03 AM
My sister called me today. She and her husband went on a lil
vacation this last week and while gone, 3 guys broke into their
house and stoled her computer with a LOT of info on it, [not
password protected], a lot of jewelry from yrs gone by including
orig handmade jewelry our grandmother had received from her mother
passed down, coins, vid cameras etc. My sister was pretty shook
up. She is anti gun as well and won't stand for having a gun
in the house. We were talking about the robbery, and one of
the last things she exclaimed to me was this. " We're just happy
we WEREN'T home ! Can you imagine what would of happened
then ?"

It took everything I had to keep my gums from bumping
regarding a home and self protection mention/reply. Far as
I'm concerned Peters is just as guilty as these robbers for
trying to promote a slave/master agenda with her no self
protection malarkey.

alan
June 24, 2006, 12:20 AM
Paranoia is defined as the feeling that people are out to get you when such is not the case, however if and or when people really are out to get you, as is the case with anti gun aparachnicks such as Peters, who is it that might be described as being a couple of cards short of a full deck? Ms. Peters, or so it would seem.

DoubleTapDrew
June 24, 2006, 01:00 AM
How dare Americans be so paranoid as to think the UN could hold a meeting that could affect our God given rights? That could never happen. The thought is so absurd! Heck they might as well hold it on our day of INDEPENDENCE!
I hope that if there is any sort of "global ban" enough Americans are left to stand up and say "We do not recognize your authority. We did not elect you and you do not represent us. It hasn't been so long that we have forgotten how to fight for our sovereignty. Molon Labe!"

TCB in TN
June 24, 2006, 01:12 AM
I think that the 4th of July is the perfect day for a conference that would protect the world. In fact we should have the UN's involvement in it in a big way. I propose we begin a new organization that's sole purpose is to do away with one of the greatest dangers to modern society. We can call it the DtUN or Disban the UN. The 4th of July would the the perfect kick of day. Think of all the money that would be available to be used for disadvantaged people's around the globe if the funds given to run the UN were appropriated. (We could even start a give a gun to a disadvantaged youth program.) Teaching them proper gun safety, and the responsible use of a weapon to protect their family from criminals and rougue governments alike. It is time for us to start this, and if Koffi is truly interested in making the world a better place then he will turn in his gavel, and all of the money that he and his family have skimmed from the Oil for food till and go back to where ever it is he came from.

ProficientRifleman
June 24, 2006, 02:08 AM
"I think that eventually, Rebecca Peters will have the decency to expire and be joined by her good friends Fidel Castro, Joseph Stalin, Mao ZeDong, Pol Pot, Felix Derzhinski, Nicholai Ceaocescu, Eric Honaker and Abby Hoffman, amoung others. This will leave the world a better and happier place, populated by self reliant and honest people, who have not the neurotic compulsion to exercise arbitrary control every other person around them."

ProficientRifleman, 2006

Zundfolge
June 24, 2006, 02:21 AM
Hey Beccy, I am an AUSTRALIAN gun owner, I've seen the opposite of the 'paranoia" you criticise.

Well since ole Beccy is the one who paid off the cop or soldier who actually killed those people in Port Arthur (no, I don't believe Martin Bryant had anything to do with it) to trigger that opposite of the paranoia she criticizes, I don't think she's going to listen to you. :neener:

mordechaianiliewicz
June 24, 2006, 04:19 AM
Thankyou for bringing that up, Zundfolge. While there is no evidence directly linking Peters to Port Arthur, a retarded man with poor hand eye coordination doing something that only specops, and a handfull of IPSC shooters could pull off is rediculous.

If you've ever heard of Executive Outcomes, I think you have one possible culprit. Of course, the fact that the Aussie government destroyed the place where the shooting happened, and then sealed the records of the case for I think 50 years also should be a big "something's wrong" sign.

I think the only reason we haven't had a similar "impossible" shooting in the U.S. is that if an rkba guy dug deep enough, and discovered a link here, IANSA's gig would be up.

Frankly, I think the NRA should get an inverstigative reporter on it. See if Becky or any of her peers ever payed a large sum of money to Executive Outcomes, or Blackwater, etc. If we were able to discover a conspiracy (and something really fishy happened), well lets just say, VINDICATED!

The_Shootist
June 24, 2006, 06:35 AM
"Rebecca Peters, IANSA 'Americans are paranoid'

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

“I think that eventually, Americans will realize that their obsession with arming themselves in fear, in a paranoid belief that they're going to be able to stave off the ills of the world through owning guns, through turning every house into an arsenal, eventually Americans will go away from that.”

Rebecca Peters
President
IANSA
International Action Network on Small Arms"



Sure we're paranoid.....makes my conscience rest easier when I buy a new gun :evil:

Anyways, my home isn't an arsenal.....when I go to work in the morning, I can still close the door behind me without it being blocked by firearms :D


(NOTE: Bet this babe doesn't visit TEXAS anytime soon!)

Inti
June 24, 2006, 08:09 AM
I think that eventually, Rebecca Peters will have the decency to expire and be joined by her good friends Fidel Castro, Joseph Stalin, Mao ZeDong, Pol Pot, Felix Derzhinski, Nicholai Ceaocescu, Eric Honaker and Abby Hoffman, amoung others.

Castro is still alive, bro ;)

Norton
June 24, 2006, 08:36 AM
Peters and her ilk need to apply a label to us in order to break us down. Just as those who oppose illegal immigration are labelled as racist, they use a prejorative to silence us as gun owners. They need to do this because they need to turn the tide of pubic opinion against us and they have no factual basis with which to pursue their plans.

Call me all of the names that you want 'Becca....I'll keep working on my "arsenal":rolleyes: :rolleyes:

JBusch8899
June 24, 2006, 09:52 AM
With good reason (and volumes of examples in the history books).

How many times within the last 230 years have foreign nationals arrived to this country with the sole purpose of waging a war against it?

Not even to mention domestic criminal action.

How many times has this country's armed citizenry been obliged to provide an armed response?

A people have the right and obligation to defend their home against those who would attempt to violently destroy it.

G36-UK
June 24, 2006, 12:30 PM
My reply:

I think that eventually, IANSA will realize that their obsession with disarming innocent people due to their irrational fears, their paranoid belief that they're going to be able to stave off the ills of the world through stealing guns from the law abiding, through turning every country into a cesspool of crime, eventually IANSA and Rebecca Peters will go away from that.

Gareth Adamson
Pro-gun Brit
THR
The Moral High Road against Gun Banners

(okay, maybe the last bit's a bit too far, but what the smeg.)

TIZReporter
June 24, 2006, 04:18 PM
The strangest thing about Rebecca Peters is that no matter how hard you look, you can't find many details about her online.

It is almost as if other than her anti gun efforts, she almost doesn't exist.

Really strange.

TIZ

alan
June 25, 2006, 11:50 PM
Talking of the Peters-LaPierre debate a while back, NRA was selling dvd's thereof, Ms. Peters, when asked about what hunters, shooters and such might do when, as she obviously intended, guns were forbidden to non governmental actors, she breatyhlessly offered that they might find something else with which to occupy themselves. The foregoing is not an exact quote, but carries the sense of her thinking, and her comments.

I find the arrogance of this broad beyond imagination or acceptance. As to Australia, from whence she sprung, while some tell me that Foster's is great beer, I'm not a beer drinker, and wool is nice for clothes, I guess that nobody is perfect.

Freud made some interesting observations regarding those who suffer firearms fobia, as in irrational hatred or fear thereof, as memory serves.

DoubleTapDrew
June 26, 2006, 12:33 AM
If they are afraid of armed civilians, I think it shows their ultimate intent. The RKBA was mostly about making sure we can dethrone and replace governement if they stop representing us (Thomas Jefferson felt it should happen quite often).

Nightcrawler
June 26, 2006, 12:34 AM
Stave it off, one-two-three, and now you can count to three...

mmike87
June 26, 2006, 10:29 AM
I hope she falls in the shower.

PATH
June 26, 2006, 08:34 PM
Let's send Becky to Darfur where she can preach peace and love. Then The Beckster can make an appearances somewhere in Anbar Province. I am sure there are plenty of folks in those places that have ever so much to say to this paragon of peace and virtue!:rolleyes: :neener:

greg700
June 26, 2006, 11:38 PM
Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean they aren't out to get me. (Groucho Marx?)

Also, we are only being paranoid until that which we fear happens, then we are prepared.

FRIENDLY
June 26, 2006, 11:58 PM
Her response is the usual.On you knees slave for if you cannot reject or replace the government you are a slave no more no less.I am also an Australian who had to hand in my firearms because the Government didnt trust me and no one can tell me why I should trust them

alan
June 27, 2006, 02:23 PM
G36-UK:

Re what appears to be your paraphrase of the IANSA/Peters line, well said sir, well said.

alan
June 27, 2006, 02:33 PM
FRIENDLY:

Re the gun confiscations/surrenders/turn-ins that bedeviled Australia, they are/were actions taken by elected governments, feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

Having said that, re the government(s) that accomplished this deviltry, did they campaign on the basis of promising such action if elected, or did they say one thing, then do another, or did they, after being elected, when confronted with the actions of a madman, simply fold before the onslaught of hysteria, as sad to note, the United States House of Representatives and Senate have themselves done? Just curious.

Carl N. Brown
June 27, 2006, 02:39 PM
I hope she doesn't hold her breath... :evil:
I hope she does.:evil: :evil:
She would look good in purple.

On Port Arthur:
the Aussie government destroyed the place where the shooting happened,
and then sealed the records of the case for I think 50 years

Hmmmm, the Waco site was bulldoozed after the fire by the FBI
which the Texas Rangers still call destruction of crime scene evidence.
After the 75 year seal was off, it turns out that the 1920 British
Firearms Act closed door debates were about fear of a workers revolt,
not fear of crime. Parallel universe or bizarro coincidence?

Rebecca, we are paranoid because you really are plotting against us.
You want do do to America what you did to Australia. No thanks.

rev214
June 27, 2006, 02:57 PM
The strangest thing about Rebecca Peters is that no matter how hard you look, you can't find many details about her online.


wouldn't be surprised pro-lib GOOGLE (aka, Al Gore's :barf: retirement/presidential fund) or YAHOO are "editing" the content...oops, sorry, my vast right-wing conspiracy thinkin' is actin' up again...

usp9
June 27, 2006, 03:02 PM
Paraniod or Defenseless

Paraniod or Defenseless

Paraniod or Defenseless Hmmmmmm... tough one.:banghead:



OK, I'm paranoid. :neener:

El Tejon
June 27, 2006, 03:10 PM
Rebecca, we are not paranoid. We are realistic. The government really is out to get us.

Carl N. Brown
June 27, 2006, 03:25 PM
I have downloaded the IANSA EDITED transcript of the gun debate.
Since my cable is out, tonight I may watch my DVD of the Great Gun
Debate between Rebecca Peters and Wayne LaPierre at Kings College
Library London 2004, and take notes of differences. If I do, I will post.

Rebecca Peters, Internaionl Action Network on Small Arms IANSA
I think that eventually, Americans will realize that their
obsession with arming themselves in fear, in a paranoid belief
that they're going to be able to stave off the ills of the
world through owning guns, through turning every house into an
arsenal, eventually Americans will go away from that.

I think that eventually, IANSA will realize that their obsession
with disarming innocent people due to their irrational fears,
their paranoid belief that they're going to be able to stave
off the ills of the world through stealing guns from the law
abiding, through turning every country into a cesspool of crime,
eventually IANSA and Rebecca Peters will go away from that.

Thank you G35-UK for a VERY High Road response.

As for the low road response from John-Melb remember that
John has witnessed the destruction of 640,000 legally owned
and registered firearms taken from law-abiding owners,
often guns that were family heirlooms, gift from parent or
grandparent to child. Rebecca Peters engineered that
destruction and danced gleefully on the scrap heap.
If that happened to the gun my stepdad left me, I would say worse.

I would like to ask one question on Rebecca Peters and the
horse she rode in on: was that the White, Red, Black or
Pale Horse of the Apocalypse?

Master Blaster
June 27, 2006, 03:31 PM
Rebecca Peters and her ILK suffer from what I call spoiled child syndrome.

A spoiled child thinks that they can do or say something in front of an adult, and then a moment later the adult will be unable to remember what the child said or did. and if the child denies it the adult will agree with them.

Another possibility is that there is a different set of lies for a different set of eyes.

Fortunately gun owners are able to remember, and are not easily fooled by a bit of word smithing.

LanEvo`
June 27, 2006, 03:41 PM
I agree with Rebecca Peters...American's ARE paranoid. Many Americans seem to have a totally irrational fear of high quality firearms in the hands of well-trained, law-abiding, honest, and safety-conscious citizens. If that's not paranoia, I don't know what is.

atk
June 27, 2006, 05:08 PM
After reading the debate (But before reading the whole thread), I notice the following (italic emphasis mine):


Rebecca Peters: Well, when you think of some of the regions of the world where our members are working, saying that the answer is to provide more guns into those regions makes no sense at all. Many of our members are democracy campaigners. They’re specifically working against corruption in government. They speak out against corruption. Many of them have been attacked by government representatives for their views.

It doesn’t help them to have guns. The way to get freedom, the way to have democracy, is to have stronger institutions and the rule of law. It is not to have, for example, a free and independent judiciary, independent from the political process, to have programs to reform the police forces. Those are the institutions that a society is built on. It’s not going to be up to each individual person to be like a hero in a movie defending against this threat to freedom




Moderator: Do you believe, as you said in the past, that semiautomatic rifles and shotguns have no legitimate role in civilian hands?

Rebecca Peters: Yes, I do. Semiautomatic weapons are designed to kill large numbers of people. They were designed for military use. Many people have bought them for other purposes, for example, for hunting because they’ve been available. But there’s no justification for semiautomatic weapons to be owned by civilian by members of the civilian population.

When we were campaigning for the reform of the gun laws in Australia, one of the interesting groups that came out to support the new gun laws was a group called the Professional Hunters Association. They’re the original “Crocodile Dundee,” the macho big guys who control feral animals in the national parks.. And they said they supported the new gun laws because anyone who needed a semiautomatic to kill an animal was a city boy who shouldn’t be out there with a gun in the first place.

Yes, I believe that semiautomatic rifles and shotguns have no legitimate role in civilian hands. And not only that, handguns have no legitimate role in civilian hands….




Rebecca Peters: This is the irony that the gun lobby based in a country where people do have their rights should be obstructing a global process, which would provide protection to people living in insecure conditions in conflict zones under dictatorships around the world. People need democracy to protect them. They do not need guns.



Rebecca Peters: Well, I don’t know how many members the National Rifle Association has in Rwanda, in Somalia, in Uganda, in Bosnia, but IANSA has members in all of those countries. They know about genocide, they know about mass murder. They are saying what they need in their countries is not more guns, but less guns.


For which I plan to send a short note to Ms Peters:


Ms. Peters,

In your debate with Wayne LaPierre (which you have posted on your website), you state:

Rebecca Peters: Well, I don’t know how many members the National Rifle Association has in Rwanda, in Somalia, in Uganda, in Bosnia, but IANSA has members in all of those countries. They know about genocide, they know about mass murder. They are saying what they need in their countries is not more guns, but less guns.


Now, I have a very honest question, and truly am looking for an answer.

Who are your members in those countries? Are these citizens who have been on the giving or the recieving end of genocide and mass murder? Or have they, in some way, benifitted from the deaths? Are they the citizens of their country, or are they the rulers?

orangelo
June 27, 2006, 05:20 PM
People need democracy to protect them. They do not need guns.


What an idiotic simpleton. Democracy is exactly what lead to the machete massacres in Rwanda.

The majority voted away EVERY single right of the minority, including their right to life, liberty, property and to have both arms and legs.

She obviously believes she is royalty and everyone everywhere should bow to any of her whims. Tree of Liberty. Thirsty?

1911Tuner
June 27, 2006, 05:22 PM
"Paranoid? I'm not paranoid. I carry a gun. What the hell do I have to be paranoid about?"

---Clint Smith--- (Wasn't it?):uhoh: :)

mordechaianiliewicz
June 27, 2006, 08:05 PM
+1 orangelo


Look, Ms. Peters is a socialist. She doesn't believe people have a right to property, or the fruit of their labour.

Is it all that huge a jump to go to if the majority thinks you shouldn't live, we kill you?

This woman is Stalin in a butch haircut. F--k her! And the kangaroo she rode in on!

You want my guns, molon labe. You can dig them out from all the brass and dead bodies of your comrades. I hate people who have to decide if their policies more closely resemble Hitler or Stalin. Never again be-otch!

Stevie-Ray
June 27, 2006, 09:13 PM
I hope she falls in the shower........while holding a running hairdryer, please.

mmike87
June 27, 2006, 09:21 PM
......while holding a running hairdryer, please.

Well, we KNOW she is certainly stupid - so we may actually have a shot here! :D

Fred Fuller
June 27, 2006, 09:33 PM
Small arms in the hands of some governments were responsible for the deaths of millions of people in the 20th century- THEIR OWN PEOPLE. And the UN has pretensions at being a global governing body. What does this tell you about the potential for abuse at the hands of an overarching government body?

One academician has made a lifelong study of what he refers to as democide- death by government. If you are not yet familiar with his work, you should be. Power kills- absolute power kills absolutely.

See below...

lpl/nc
=====================

DEMOCIDE: MURDER BY GOVERNMENT

Governments have murdered hundreds of millions of their citizens and those under their control. The questions are, then, how is this democide defined, is genocide included, how many have been killed, how do we find this out, and what sources can be used?

http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/

http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/DBG.TAB1.2.GIF

Carl N. Brown
June 28, 2006, 12:39 PM
but you should have seen it before I edited

IANSA posted "an edited version of a debate between the
Director of IANSA, Rebecca Peters, and the CEO of the
National Rifle Association of America, Wayne LaPierre,
aired on US pay TV from October 20-30."

Some on this forum wondered what edits were made. Since my
cable was out last night, I compared the edited transcript
to the DVD and wrote this report.


This was a British produced TV show about 90 minutes long
entitled "The Great UN Gun Debate from the Library of Kings
College London 2004, MOTION: "Should the United States
Senate Support the Proposed UN Treaty that Bans Private
Ownership of Guns?"" (The debate was moderated by British
TV personality Paul Lavers and broadcast from the library
at Kings College London. It was shown on US pay TV.)

The debate was in the format:
1 Opening statements
2 Questions by Moderator
3 Questions from audience
4 Closing Statements.

There were twelve minute opening statements by Ms Peters and Mr LaPierre.
There would be a two minute warning bell at the ten munite mark, so the
speaker could finish.

Moderator Paul Lavers adrressed them as Rebecca and Wayne.

Rebecca's opening statement ran past the finish bell and the moderator's
reminder that her twelve minutes were up. The full text was included in
the edited version with four minor text edits.

Wayne's opening statement was not included; I class deleting a twelve
minute con speech, after including a thirteen minute pro speech, a major
edit of the tramscript of a debate. Wayne finished after the two minute
warning and well before the final bell and did not have to be reminded
by the moderator.

After opening statements, questions by the Moderator with answers
from Rebecca and Wayne followed. Generally, the questions and answers
text match the video.


There is a discusssion of the Olympics and Rebecca Peters makes
the point that Australia did well in the Olympic shooting events
without semi-auto rifles and shotguns. Edited out is Rebecca's
comments on the UK performance:
Rebecca: And this year I guess that Britain didn't do so well
in the shooting events at the Olympics, but they did have their
most successful Olympics yet.
I believe that had something to do with the fact that many of the
UK Olympics team had to commute to Belgium where it was legal for
them to target practice with handguns, since the British Gun
Control Network (GCN part of IANSA) had lobbied to outlaw pistol
target shooting in UK as punishment to Brit gunowners for the
Dunblane massacre.


Underscored significant cut:
Rebecca: Yes, I believe that semiautomatic rifles and shotguns have
no legitimate role in civilian hands. And not only that, handguns
have no legitimate role in civilian hands.

Moderator: Well we were almost there at a point of agreement,
I thought, til that last piece, so what do you say?

Wayne: I was just going to say we are finally getting to the point.
I mean, The fact is Ms Peters and IANSA and her UN crowd
believe every firearm has no legitimate use. . . .


At another point in the transcript, the underlined words, appended
to a statement by Wayne, were actually spoken by the moderator:

Wayne: That's what we ought to be doing. Let's take it
another step. What types of firearms do you think American
citizens should be able to own? What exact type?

Rebecca Peters: I think American citizens should not be
exempt from the rules that apply to the rest of the world....

The video shows Paul Lavers' face with lips moving and his accent
is clearly distinct during the underlined question. Howver, that
could be an innocent typo.


This had to be deliberate: CUT COMPLETELY were lengthy exchanges
between Rebecca and two UK sportsmen about lawful sporting guns.
Rebecca's answer was she was tired of the gun lobby referring to
reform of regulations as bans and the siezure of 640,000 guns
in Australia as a "mass confiscation" (?). Semi-autos and
pump-actions were outlawed, collected and destroyed but it wasn't
a ban? The moderator tried to intervene diplomatically.
The excitable Ms Peters lost what little cool she had.
Thus to the sportsman spake Rebecca:
"Times change. I know that pistol shooting used to be a sport
that was allowed in the UK and it no longer is. I am sad for you.
I suppose if you miss your sport, take up another sport, take up
a sport that does not require a weapon designed for the sole
specific purpose of killing another human being."
The sportsmen in the audience frowned and the Gun Control
Network people applauded.


The transcript does not identify the affiliations or names of any
of the audience questioners whose questions and answers were not
edited out of the transcript. On the video, a questioner identified
herslf as a spokesperson for GCN-UK (Gun Control Network); another
questioner identfied himself as a representative of Sportsman's
Association of Ireland.


Rebecca's closing statement was given in full and verbatim;
Wayne's closing statement was edited out entirely. (Surprise?)


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Here's my stuff I edited out from above. This forms one of my
patented Intemperant Rants. You may indulge me or skip
this as you choose.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Given Rebecca's later comment that the UN should make Americans
"abide by the same rules as everyone else," her failure to
follow the opening statement rules is amusing. I guess Rebecca's
role model is the pig in Animal Farm: all animals are equal,
but some are more equal than others.

Watching the video, when Rebecca says "We know that guns are
not going to be banned..." long pause "...outright," it is
very tempting to see that _pause_ as some kind of Freudian slip
implying guns are going to be banned eventually.

Rebecca claimed that the original "Crocodile Dundees"--the
Professional Hunters Assn--supported her Australian gun law
banning semi-autos. I have seen posts from Australian and New
Zealander hunters that make that claim sound like a crock.
Or, the gun law turned into something they did not expect.

When Rebecca said "take up a sport that does not require a
weapon designed for the sole specific purpose of killing
another human being" I wanted to rush out and take up those
fine non-shooting Olympic sports like javelin, discus,
archery, fencing. . . .

In response to Wayne LaPierre saying women should have the
choice of shooting a rapist, Rebecca Peters said:
Women need to be protected by police forces, by judiciaries,
by criminal justice systems. People who have guns for
self-defense are not safer than people who don't.
I know at least five women who protected themselves, and in one
case her roommate, with handguns (3) or semi-auto rifles (2),
in situations where waiting for police forces, judiciaries, or
criminal justice systems, could have been fatal. They were
safer because they had guns for self-defense.

Who the audience questioners were, epecially their affiliations.
seems important to me. I feel that info should not have been
edited out of the transcript, since it is their words on the audio.
(Well, they are identified in the transcript as "Q" but I doubt if
they worked with "M" or Moneypenny or oo7.)

Pausing and backing up and forwarding the DVD while trying to
transcribe this, it amazed me to see freeze framed the array
of facial expressions and body language exhibited by Rebecca.
This was Rebecca at her most Rebeccaesque: snide, sarcastic,
condescinding, irritated that she had to be bothered to
answer lesser beings. By contrast, Wayne did not overact
or overreact. His stage presence was solid, stolid and
projected resolve. Rebecca showed contempt for people who
disagreed with her: Wayne tried to win over opponents.

Significantly, Rebecca Peters quotes Thomas Hobbes' vision of
the natural state of man as constant war: life that is "nasty,
brutish and short" in need of an all-powerful state and monarch
to maintain peace and order. (See Grolier's and Compton's
encyclopedia on Thomas Hobbes.)

The hallmarks of the self-identified gun culture--personal
responsibility, independence and self-defense--are anti-thematic
to the gun control culture, which views dependence on the state,
submission to higher authority, and passivity as the hallmarks
of 21st century humankind under the Brave New World Order.
Sheep awaiting directions from their shepherd, a vast bureaucracy
in the UN making omnicience, detailed, micromanagaed decisions
on what will be legal world-wide, should not be the fate of
the crown of creation.

Unintended consequences: by destroying the legitimate "gun culture"
of target shooting, hunting and collecting, the British gun control
movement has unwittingly promoted the gangsta rap "gun culture"
of thugs owning guns for thuggery. Flashing a gun has become a
UK rebel's status symbol, along with hairdo, clothes, alcohol,
drugs and sex. The nanny state creates subjects as natural as
mechanical fruit.

alan
June 28, 2006, 12:46 PM
Master Blaster wrote:
Rebecca Peters and her ILK suffer from what I call spoiled child syndrome.

A spoiled child thinks that they can do or say something in front of an adult, and then a moment later the adult will be unable to remember what the child said or did. and if the child denies it the adult will agree with them.

Another possibility is that there is a different set of lies for a different set of eyes.

Fortunately gun owners are able to remember, and are not easily fooled by a bit of word smithing.
__________________
יזכר לא עד פעם

-------------------

Unfortunately, your last observation is not entirely correct. Could you provide the english version of what I take to be a few words in Hebrew? Thanks.

LAK
June 28, 2006, 01:13 PM
“I think that eventually, Americans will realize that their obsession with arming themselves in fear, in a paranoid belief that they're going to be able to stave off the ills of the world through owning guns, through turning every house into an arsenal, eventually Americans will go away from that.”
Is codespeak for:
"Eventually enough Americans who realize that the rational interest in and knowledge that being armed is a right and duty will die of natural and other assorted causes, and enough programmed and re-educated youth who take their place - immersed in a plethora of vices, perversions and mind-numbing entertainments we feed them - will go away from that."

-------------------------------------------------

http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedsttaes.org

Thor67
June 28, 2006, 06:42 PM
Good work Carl!!

I actually sprung for the PPV of the debate when it originally aired. Good stuff. Wayne LaPierre really destroyed Peters. She got flustered, couldn't back-up any of her statements with facts, and couldn't defend the fact based questions/statements from Wayne.

Really, just more of the liberal "I feel that this is the way life should be, so I'm going to impose my thinking on you regardless of truth." I find that a lot with liberals.

Really, not very "liberal" is it?

alan
June 29, 2006, 12:11 AM
Thor67:

Re your closing comment on "liberals", sounds like they subscribe to that old Do as we say, not as we do.

Carl N. Brown
June 29, 2006, 09:53 AM
People need democracy to protect them. They do not need guns.
People need hospitals for health care. They don;t need first aid kits.

Democracy needs citizens with guns willing to protect it and themselves.

If you enjoyed reading about "Rebecca Peters, IANSA 'Americans are paranoid'" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!