Me Versus Rebecca Peters on Arab TV

Status
Not open for further replies.
Well what do I know, apparently I just want to kill anyone I feel like shooting :):rolleyes:.

That's one of the things that bothered me that I didn't get a chance to rebut--the idea that you can have a democracy where individuals can't defend themselves.
 
So you think the folks in say Iraq where most homes have a full auto AK and a couple handguns for self protection, where folks havegrown up with guns, or say the west bank, or even Saudi Arabia, listen to Ms. Peters and agree they would be better off defenseless??

I doubt that very much.
Click to expand...

Most Iraqi's do not have handguns. They were really restrictive before the fall of Saddam and are not easily available to most of the populace now. FA AKs are quite common as well as hunting rifles and shotguns.

SD/HD is is simply a fact of life. Every day someone walks around outside they are taking a risk of some kind. Yet most arabs still do not understand that it is guns that allow a people to be free.

They think it is money that ensures freedom. This is understandable as in order to enjoy freedom here you have to be rich. If you are rich you can also afford armed guards.

Just about every Iraqi (and most other arabs as well) I come across would like to see strict gun control. But they want strict gun control with an exception for their particular situation (I am a herder... I own my own house and have a family... I own a shop... I travel the highways...) they just don't want anyone else having a gun.
 
nicely done.

i think most people would have lost their cool early on if they had to face a lot of that nonsense. you kept it on topic and many times when they tried to stray you brought it back on point. good job.
 
Helmetcase

Well done !

R Peters demonstrated both her arrogance and a complete lack of logic by suggesting that since "only" 4 million people are NRA members, out of a population of 300 million, the other 296 mil must be automatically on her side.

I expect anyone with a room temp IQ could see through her baloney !
 
Anyone who knows who she is knows what to expect. She is, to put it bluntly, the worst of the worst. She is a UN hack, and probably the worst statist to ever argue for the anti-gun side (yes, she is worse than Brady).

She is the reason why I laugh anytime some UN crony insists they do not want to ban guns. What was her purpose then? Oh, excuse me - the UN calls it 'arms proliferation', which is codespeak for 'guns only for governments'. She lobbied in Brazil when they had a vote a few years ago to ban all privately owned guns. I cannot remember the forum now, maybe it was that debate she had with the NRA guy, where she stated her goal - to ban all guns for private ownership, except for 'single shot .22s' for hunting.

I guess I personally find it doubly insulting that a non-American lectures us on our law.
 
When people of small mind run out of facts, they get personal - as she did when she called you (us) extremists.

She's a socialist of the highest water, telling us that other more developed (progressive) countries trust their governments more, have better health care, etc. I ask you...where do people go for first rate health care when all else fails...right here in the U.S.A., and trusting government...? The same people that give us the DMV, IRS, etc? I trust them as far as I can throw them. They are adversarial at best. You want to trust some power drunk elitist, go ahead, but count me out.

Of, by, and for, the people.
 
Great work, man. My hat is off. It is good to see young people who can speak well and make a valid point while in the face of a completely inane argument.
 
Ha! Thanks...though I just turned 33...not so young anymore :). I had just gotten the hair chopped off so you can't see the gray.
 
Excellent job! They tried to lead you away from the topic and you just jumped right back on the logic. The need vs right argument is new to me, but I like it, and I'll have to use it.
I've never seen this crazy lady before, but I'm about to youtube her.
 
Great job Helmet. That lady was really trying to back peddle for a minute. But, but but but only 4million belong to NRA.
 
She mentioned democracies are not born from firearms (words to that effect), which is BS. Our revolution and the French one were "hot" revolutions; gunfire exchanged. The aristocracy of the European countries that didn't loose their place due to revolutions or wars got the idea pretty well that they needed to bow to their populace or get their waists bent before a guillotine. Seems like firearms did the trick, directly or indirectly!

Also, there was a question in there about the high rate of "gun violence" from the interviewer, what would be useful to point out is that the violence would still occur without guns, it just wouldn't be "gun violence", else there wouldn't be talk of knife bans in the weeny states.

Oh yeah, in reference to the Va. college shooting, what was the other Va. college that had a spree terminated by an armed student? (about a year earlier, IIRC)

PS: great job!
 
Last edited:
Wow, really good job man. Bravo.

I know everyone thinks it's easy to talk on tv, but if your new to it, it's easy to get flustered and distracted.

You did really well and portrayed pro 2nd Amendment people in a good light. And you made really good points.
 
Rebecca Peters flat out pissed me off.

You should have interrupted her and corrected her on her BS. Niether of them had much respect for your side considering how they interrupted you frequently.
 
Also, there was a question in there about the high rate of "gun violence" from the interviewer, what would be useful to point out is that the violence would still occur without guns, it just wouldn't be "gun violence", else there wouldn't be talk of knife bans in the weeny states.
Click to expand...
This is one of my pet peeves in how the Forces Of Evil frame the terms of the gun control debate, and as a result control the outcome of the debate. It always starts with:

"But didn't gun-related deaths go down in locale ZZZ after guns were banned?"

"Well, yes'.

"That PROVES that removal of guns equates to a safer society."
Click to expand...
And our reply needs to be:

"Well, wait a minute. First off, you tweaked the gun death statistics by including suicides in 'gun related deaths'. But the minute guns ceased to be a readily accessible means of suicide to otherwise law-abiding folk, these folk didn't stop killing themselves; they just turned to other means. So the overall rate of homicides didn't decrease, only the rate of deaths caused by object X or object Y. How does that make us any safer? You've stopped the non-predators from misusing a gun, but you've done nothing to actually make us safer from the predators in our society who commit violent crimes.

More to the point, if the absence of guns makes a society safer, why is there no demonstrable corrolation between gun bans and the overall rate of violent crime? Because banning an object will not stop criminals from being criminals - they'll just use contraband weapons or alternative weapons. All you've done is effectively ensured that the stronger and more aggresssive elements of society can freely predate upon the weaker or less aggressive. "
Click to expand...

And once again, Helmetcase - thanks for puttin' it out there. That's more than most of us do, and I appreciate it.

Ya done good.
 
Great job. My only suggestion would have been to try and slide in something personal to make it hit home more. What does she do if one or two or three people break into her house to attack her? She is absolutely at their mercy without a gun. What happens if she or a family member is attacked on the street, does she want to leave them completely helpless, their lives to be taken on the whim of a whack job?


Sometimes simplifying an argument can take it places everyone can understand.

You did really good, and there were times I was frustrated that you could not respond too! I'm sure you would've addressed her factual inaccuracies.

Ok but who else was nervous clicking on an Al Jazeera link???
 
Debating an anti is like pleading with the fleas to get off the dog. Anyone want to prove their point to an anti? Just hand them a sticker to put on their house and car; We don't believe in guns for self defense, I don't even think Ms. Peters would put one up.
 
Yeah, AJ has plenty of conspiratorial shenanigans on their site, but that just means it's just like half the other "news" sites out there...it ain't like what's on CNN.com or MSNBC.com or FoxNews.com is all that much less ridiculous half the time ;). I really doubt the USSS and DHS is going to breath down your neck for watching AJ-English :).

The more I think about it the more I remember things I would have liked to have pounced on her about...but re-watching it is obvious how often he interrupted me and tried to buttress her flailing antics...
 
I think you did a great job. It's interesting to hear her (and the interviewer's) two faced comments on types of weapons and the threat they each present. They talked about evil assault weapons in one breath and handguns in the next. It's the same broken argument that Brady uses. They are conflicting arguments.

My only negative comment on the debate is, that the total focus was on self defense. It makes it seem like Americans are paranoid and obsessed with danger. Shooting sports of all kinds are one of the the primary, if not the primary, reason Americans are 'obsessed' with guns...not because we desire the ability to kill our neighbors.
 
Wow,

That was probably the best pro-gun interview I've seen. You took on both the anti-reporter and Peters. You were clear and to the point. You even got in the thing about AW. You had her rambling about health-care and other things at the end. She was grasping at straws, you were staying on topic. You shattered their opinions about all gun owners as conservatives.

You also had a nice suit and tie on. :cool:

Excellent Job!!! Who knows, maybe you'll be an Al-Jazerra regular now?
 
You did excellent. We need to see you on TV more. You are MUCH better than the NRA spokesman. They should hire you and pay you big money. Plus Peters is the face of socialism world wide. She does not want us to have the right so we can be controlled by INTERNATIONAL LAW. We have people in this very coutry who feel the same way. Gun control is not about violent crime. That is a socialist propaganda and these groups are front groups for a bigger political ideology. She makes the hair stand up on my neck.
 
I do not believe the USA in the number one exporter of illegal firearms like she claimed.
 
Rebecca Peters:
"The US is the main producer and exporter of guns both legally and illegally..."
Click to expand...

Huh? I must have missed that memo.

Good job, Helmetcase.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

N
  • Locked
Maryland - MSI Update 11-04-06
Replies
0
Views
275
Norton
N
R
  • Locked
View of the Arab World by An Arab
Replies
11
Views
1K
middy
M
B
  • Locked
Video May Show CARE Director Being Killed
Replies
1
Views
559
Fastlane
F
D
  • Locked
Hannity igniting revolt against left-wing profs
2 3 4
Replies
75
Views
2K
Tequila_Sauer
T
K
  • Locked
Gun law heats up race for Congress (IL)
Replies
14
Views
780
SomeKid
S
Back
Top