Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
LAPIERRE: The President's kids are safe, and we're all thankful for that.
WALLACE: They also face a threat that most people do not face.
LAPIERRE: Tell that to the people in Newtown! Tell that to the people in Newtown.
WALLACE: Do you really think that the President's children are the same kind of target as every schoolchild in America? I think that's ridiculous, and you know it, sir.
Quote:
The last contentious exchange came when Wallace disputed LaPierre's logic that only "elite, out of touch" politicians have armed protection next to them. Wallace pointed out that LaPierre also traveled with armed guards to his appearance on "Fox News Sunday."
"Does that make you an elite, and out-of-touch elite, because you have security?" Wallace said
LaPierre needs to go away. He's not helping. He's changed his stance (on the record) so many times even the Libs have lost count. The best way to refute any stance he takes is simply to go back and find where he has taken the exact opposite stance in the past and use his own testimony against him.
Things NEED to change. If gun owners want to protect their right to own guns, they HAVE to take steps to keep guns out of the hands of people who can't safely handle them. This means universal background checks, and it means removing state and federal hurdles which keeps the names of some mentally incompetent and dangerous individuals off the list.
WALLACE: Do you really think that the President's children are the same kind of target as every schoolchild in America? I think that's ridiculous, and you know it, sir.
Every? Does it have to be "every" for others to be under a threat? Does it have to be absolutely equally the same to allow others a similiar concern?
Things NEED to change. If gun owners want to protect their right to own guns, they HAVE to take steps to keep guns out of the hands of people who can't safely handle them. This means universal background checks, and it means removing state and federal hurdles which keeps the names of some mentally incompetent and dangerous individuals off the list.
The health industry fights that. They have legitimate concerns also and those who support your 2nd amendment rights can not change that.
LaPierre needs to go away. He's not helping. He's changed his stance (on the record) so many times even the Libs have lost count. The best way to refute any stance he takes is simply to go back and find where he has taken the exact opposite stance in the past and use his own testimony against him.
Things NEED to change. If gun owners want to protect their right to own guns, they HAVE to take steps to keep guns out of the hands of people who can't safely handle them. This means universal background checks, and it means removing state and federal hurdles which keeps the names of some mentally incompetent and dangerous individuals off the list.
WALLACE: Do you really think that the President's children are the same kind of target as every schoolchild in America? I think that's ridiculous, and you know it, sir.
Question: but adding more guns is the solution?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
