• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

WHAT If La Pierre had been killed today?

the NRA was getting death threats from unhinged democrats and gun haters. One dem party official was calling for Wayne's death

I suspect a shooting war would not be something that the anti gun assholes would want. But as they say

I'm your huckleberry
The funny thing is that the people ranting about killing NRA members and La Pierre specifically all are guilty of crimes if someone so wanted to charge them. Those people actually did abuse their rights by engaging in assault(threat of imminent bodily harm), fighting words, criminal syndicalsim(rallying others to commit acts of violence or terrorism for monetary or political gain), and flat out defamation.
 
If Wayne La Pierre had paid the ultimate price for the abuse of the right to keep and bear arms, would that be a pivotal turning point in this entire issue?

Nope. Besides that your premise is false.I have the right to keep arms and I have the bear IE carry those arms,I however do not have the right to illegally take someone's life. Calling murder an abuse of the 2nd amendment amounts to calling arson an abuse of the first amendment just because some occutards decided to light a place on fire or because some protesting KKK members decided to light a cross on someone's property.
 
Last edited:
Now open carry of handguns is totally illegal (yet not strictly enforced) in Texas, it is all about money. Rights that must be rented from the gov't, in advance, are not rights at all - they are properly called state issued privileges.

This is why it is idiotic for people to compare driving a car to owning a firearm. One if a privilege granted by the state, the other is a constitutional right enshrined in the bill of rights.
 
This is why it is idiotic for people to compare driving a car to owning a firearm. One if a privilege granted by the state, the other is a constitutional right enshrined in the bill of rights.

That is a mystery to me as well. I suppose because they both involve potential risk to others, in their minds. They feel that the second amendment is a right to qualify for a permit and any fee (imposed at any and all levels of gov't) is acceptable for those seeking to use it, yet the right to vote is absolute and we must virtually provide "poor" voters with limo service to and from the polls, ask for no postive ID and accept the fact that a few felons and illegals may be added to the demorat count. Vote early and vote often, but no guns are to be allowed unless you have an "NRA" PHD and pay, not only for the private tuition, but an additional hefty state/county/city user fee sufficent to cover all violent crime as well. USA, USA, USA...
 
A speculative question based on something that might have happened but did not can never be false.
Your premise is that murder is an abuse of the 2nd amendment.This is false because in order for that to be true killing anyone you want would have to be a 2nd amendment right.Murder is not a right.
 
Your premise is that murder is an abuse of the 2nd amendment.This is false because in order for that to be true killing anyone you want would have to be a 2nd amendment right.Murder is not a right.

So illegal murder is the intended result of the Second Amendment in your estimation and judgment?
 
So illegal murder is the intended result of the Second Amendment in your estimation and judgment?

The 2nd amendment doesn't have anything to do with murder.As a I said before killing anyone you want is not a 2nd amendment right. Murder by definition is illegal killing,so saying "illegal murder" is retarded.
 
The 2nd amendment doesn't have anything to do with murder.As a I said before killing anyone you want is not a 2nd amendment right. Murder by definition is illegal killing,so saying "illegal murder" is retarded.

Now tell me that neither do guns.
 
Now open carry of handguns is totally illegal (yet not strictly enforced) in Texas, it is all about money. Rights that must be rented from the gov't, in advance, are not rights at all - they are properly called state issued privileges.
Inexplicably, despite all the guns, and gun owners in Texas...dare I say it, your so called rights were not defended. Guess you fellas just needed MORE, BETTER guns?


Not trying to be an ass, at least, not TOO much of one, but whatever. Guns protect your rights. Lol.
 
what if one of these two had stood up with their sign and turned and fired several shots into La Pierre on nationwide TV?
If the person, one being Medea Benjamin protestor for Code Pink, had been trained properly, practiced and became proficient with a handgun (presumably – not so easy an accomplishment) La Pierre would have been hit possibly killed.

What do you think would the reaction be to this both from NRA supporters and non NRA people?
Supporters in the audience – some; draw, aim and squeeze the trigger…others; respond with urgency to lend aid to La Pierre.
Supporters not present – concern that some wacko tried to assassinate a fellow American…emphasis on wacko once they find out who the gun-person was.
Non-NRA folks – outrage that a liberal protestor was singled out for expressing their opinion which would evolve into a first amendment vs. second amendment debate…

Would it change opinions?
Those who think Code Pink is a wacko group would have their beliefs confirmed. Those who support CCW would see the reason for their support. Those who think ‘guns are evil’ would have more fodder to load their cannons. In totality no, no opinions would be changed.

If Wayne La Pierre had paid the ultimate price for the abuse of the right to keep and bear arms, would that be a pivotal turning point in this entire issue?
No, I don’t see how. Throughout history MANY vocal supporters/opponents of various issues have been targets of wackos. Only realists understand the threat exists in man’s heart (regardless of ‘psychological balance’) and not in inanimate objects like guns, knives, explosives, etc.
 
Which shows great restraint on his part, a criminal would have popped that code pink bitch before she wrapped up her dogmatic little tantrum.

justice would be that twit getting whacked in a gun free zone in a state that bans "assault weapons" by some active shooter with a Mac 11 machine gun:mrgreen:
 
La Pierre wasn't at risk because his opponents don't carry guns.
 
La Pierre wasn't at risk because his opponents don't carry guns.

that is mainly true but most violent criminals despise what the NRA does

it has expanded CCW rights and has provided lots of state of the art training to potential victims
 
justice would be that twit getting whacked in a gun free zone in a state that bans "assault weapons" by some active shooter with a Mac 11 machine gun:mrgreen:
I hope they accidentally walked into a few doors with her head on the way out.
 
That's easy Cap. We ban knives, rope, baseball, and classify arsenic as hazardous material.:lol:

Interesting. Do you think that will be haymarket's take on things?
 
Back
Top Bottom