Tramadol PrescriptionBuy Tramadol OnlinePurchase TramadolTramadol UltramTramadol OverdoseOvernight TramadolDescription TramadolTramadol Dream PharmaceuticalCheap TramadolBuy Drug Tramadol50 Mg TramadolTramadol HclTramadol 180120 TramadolGeneric TramadolDesk Prescription TramadolOrder Tramadol OnlineTramadol DogTramadol HydrochlorideDiscount TramadolOnline Pharmacy TramadolTramadol ApapTramadol 50mgImage Of TramadolTramadol DepressionTramadol NarcoticTramadol PictureTramadol Next DayTramadol DosageTramadol OpiateTramadol Used For2dir TramadolTramadol AbuseTramadol EffectsTramadol CanineTramadol Side EffectsDrug TramadolTramadol 100mgBlog Inurl P TramadolCod Online TramadolTramadol ErTramadol AddictionDrug Test TramadolMg TramadolTramadol And AcetaminophenDiscount Tramadol UltramTramadol 377180 Cheap TramadolOrder20 Tramadol50 Dose Mg Tramadol
I could have done better…but I got to close the debate with a nice little zinger.
Rock on dude, you did an awesome job.
Freakin’ English sheep.
Baaaaaah!
Comment by 30 cal slob — March 20, 2008 @ 1:06 pm
Good job. Well spoken.
Comment by Rob K — March 20, 2008 @ 1:17 pm
Hindsight is always 20/20. I’m sure Gura thinks he could have done better too, but he still delivered the mail. You did too. It was a good interview.
Comment by Sebastian — March 20, 2008 @ 4:48 pm
Great job!
Comment by Yuri Orlov — March 20, 2008 @ 5:29 pm
Great work! My head nearly exploded just *listening* to her duplicity, so it’s hard to imagine myself responding to her as well as you did.
Comment by illspirit — March 20, 2008 @ 5:57 pm
Good job!.
I frequently want to re-ask the disarmament crowd the question: “If you’re so positive that you’re right and that you’re the majority, why don’t you just put it to a referendum?”
The answer is that they know that they’ll lose and lose badly, and likely have some of their lawyer-won gains rolled back.
I cannot explain to people that my daughter will be armed as soon as it’s legal for her to carry because I won’t have her become a victim to a 250-pound criminal whose only virtue is his relative physical power.
Once again - solid job. Becky can’t feel good about her end of the interview.
AdN
Comment by Apropos de Nada — March 20, 2008 @ 6:04 pm
Job well done. Very proud of you.
Melody
Comment by Melodyl — March 20, 2008 @ 6:17 pm
You did a wonderful job. You went toe to toe with the “Queen” of the worldwide gun control movement and you handily put her in her place.
I’m honored to be able to say “I’ve known Sebastian since before he was famous.”
Good job.
Comment by Sailorcurt — March 20, 2008 @ 7:10 pm
Hey, nice job. Good lord, this [redacted for civility] really thinks that she has her finger on the pulse of public opinion in the U.S.
/me rolls eyes
Oh wait, she gets her info from the Brady bunch and the VPC, right?
Comment by jed — March 20, 2008 @ 8:36 pm
[…] Sebastian, AKA Pro-Gun Progressive Takes on IANSA’s Rebecca Peters on an Al Jazeera news program. […]
Pingback by FreedomSight » Blog Archive » PGP Takes on the Spokesmodel for IANSA — March 20, 2008 @ 8:43 pm
Great job considering the pre-biased nature of the program and the ‘Inquisitor’.
Comment by Gary — March 20, 2008 @ 9:16 pm
Well done!! Actually I was surprised that you were given the last word. It was surpisingly balanced. He went at her as many times as at you. Great zinger at the end. Don’t forget us in the trenches when you get to the executive board at the NRA!
)
Comment by Jim McCormick — March 20, 2008 @ 10:14 pm
Ha! Thanks Curt. Believe me I’d love to defend freedom for a living; if Sandy Froman and John Sigler would offer me a job, I’d love to do something less stressful than telecom sales for a living
. I’ll gladly verbally humiliate Rebecca Peters for money all day long.
Comment by Administrator — March 20, 2008 @ 11:29 pm
To hell with that arrogant British pile.
I commend you, Sebastian, for keeping your cool. You are a better man than I.
I was getting pretty hot before she started arrogantly announcing how much better their schools are, etc. That was the last straw for me.
Regardless of that waste of skin spewing ignorance at you, you still came out on top, in my opinion.
Comment by James — March 20, 2008 @ 11:32 pm
[…] You can view part one and part two of the videos here. […]
Pingback by Call me Ahab » Blog Archive » Big Time — March 21, 2008 @ 12:30 am
I have to say, the anchor’s attitude had a whiff of “Yank-bashing” about it. Al-Jazeera is, after all, an Arab channel, and in many Arab countries, the cultural attitude towards firearm ownership would make your average GOA member proud. Yemen has ~19.7 million inhabitants, and an estimated 17 million guns. Saudi Arabia introduced permits to possess and carry firearms only last year, and I get the impression that as long as you’re a Saudi national, 21 or over, and (of course) male, it’s for all practical purposes “shall issue.” I’ve been in souks in provincial towns in Oman and the UAE where no one (except me) gave a second glance to some old codger strolling along with a Lee-Enfield (and in one case, an L1A1) slung over his shoulder (and I only looked twice because I was going “is that a No.1 Mk.III?”). When I was visiting Abu Dhabi some years back, I helped out the volunteers at the Cultural Foundation (which has an exhibit at the National Archives) by identifying a bunch of guns (mostly rifles) that had been donated to them from private sources. The collection ranged from a couple of Martini-Henry knockoffs to a selective-fire H&K G3, though the crowning glory was a Czech ZB vz.26 LMG (no, not a Bren; that was my first thought too, but then I saw the barrel was finned, the gas cylinder was too long, and the magazine was straight). You try telling these people that they shouldn’t have guns and you’re going to get some very strange looks.
Comment by Jurjen S. — March 21, 2008 @ 4:30 am
A Brave Brave Man you are Sebastian! Talk about hostile territory. I would have ripped my hair out by the roots after the first dozen misrepresentation of the facts.
We can always do better, but in this case you did a bang-up job. Good work!
Comment by Weer'd Beard — March 21, 2008 @ 5:10 am
This whole item really screams for a comprehensive fisking, but between Peters (who sounds Australian rather than English, by the way) and the anchor, there’s so much to debunk that it’d take months.
Still, I want to point out the first question of the second half:
“Do fewer guns in a society really mean less gun crimes?” [sic]
There are two things wrong with this question. The first is that it presupposes that tighter gun laws will, in fact, result in fewer guns in circulation. Sebastian, to his credit, managed to squeeze in an objection to that presupposition. Western Europe has seen an increase in gun crime over the past decade, fed by illicit traffic in firearms from eastern Europe, in spite of ever-tightening weapons laws.
The second, and more important, thing is that public safety (the fetish of the anti-gun crowd) is not measured solely in terms of gun crime. Reducing the number of guns in circulation most likely would decrease the amount of violent crime in which firearms are used, but public safety is not served when a robber, unable to acquire a firearm, resorts to a knife or baseball bat instead. Indeed, Gary Mauser has hypothesized, based on Canadian violent crime figures, that the when blades and especially bludgeons take the place of firearms in armed robbery, more injury to the victims may result. The idea being that a robber armed with a firearm has a higher expectation that the victim will comply in response to threatening alone, whereas a robber with a baseball bat (being less obviously lethal than a firearm) is more likely to “pre-emptively” strike his victim in order to forestall possible resistance.
And certainly, the psychological barrier to use of fists, feet and bludgeons is much lower than that of firearms, which may explain why rates of assault and armed robbery are much higher in western Europe than they are in the US.
Comment by Jurjen S. — March 21, 2008 @ 5:42 am
I’m sorry, I just can’t stop. When Peters starts going on about how “in other developed nations, people have much more confidence in their governments,” I just have to scoff. I’m originally from the Netherlands, I’ve travelled to a couple of dozen countries, and as a former UN staff member, I’ve worked with people from many more, and everybody is cynical about their government’s willingness and ability to serve the common good. Certainly no-one has faith that their government will do anything meaningful to reduce crime.
Comment by Jurjen S. — March 21, 2008 @ 6:19 am
Great job. Other than your crooked tie, I was very pleased with the entire show. The host did a good job, and you covered the issues in a way that most pro-gun talking heads refuse to do. Oh, and you had Ms. Peters all kinds of flustered which quite frankly was more entertaining to me than the content of the show. Way to go man!
Comment by Gregory Morris — March 21, 2008 @ 8:22 am
My only critique on your performance would be to say that your constant glancing to the right was a little shifty-looking
But seriously, you did a fantastic job and I’m proud to have you representing us (gun owners in general, and progressive gun owners specifically) in the media. No matter how professional the guest, they’ll always think of things they could have said differently after the fact—so everyone can, in fact, “do better”—but it’s quite different saying the things you want to say when you’re on the spot and have a limited time frame in which to say them.
It’s also probably frustrating not being able to hyperlink cites to support the words that are coming out of your mouth haha
Great job.
Comment by Guav — March 21, 2008 @ 9:56 am
Seb on Al-Jazeera, it was only a matter of time …
Good job there, thanks for fighting the good fight.
Wes
Comment by Wes — March 21, 2008 @ 11:55 am
yeah you never knew when you’re on camera…and I felt like a drone just staring straight ahead the whole time. Guess now I know…
Comment by Administrator — March 21, 2008 @ 1:22 pm
Great job. You came across as intelligent and articulate. Thanks!
Comment by Mike — March 21, 2008 @ 3:13 pm
My earlier kudos seems to have been lost in cyberspace. So, once again, great job Sass! MSI on a roll…keep up the good work.
Comment by Don Pollock — March 21, 2008 @ 7:17 pm
Yeah thought I approved that comment Don don’t know why it got caught in the spam filter…I freely admit to being HTML ignorant and running a slow, clunky blog. I figure quality over quantity
Comment by Administrator — March 21, 2008 @ 7:27 pm
You whipped her like a rented mule….well done, i am very proud.
Comment by Dan Sassi — March 21, 2008 @ 8:11 pm
Well done! Of course, reading the blogs and other commentaries we have all pretty much heard most of the arguments and rebuttals you made before, but I can not see myself keeping as focused as you did. Really, really impressive. They were probably expecting a Neanderthal in a plaid shirt and hunting cap drooling out “shall not be infringed” over and over. You’re an excellent represenative for our side. Thanks!
Comment by Clint — March 21, 2008 @ 8:37 pm
Hey Seb,
Of course this made CC. Are you sure you aren’t a closet Bush supporter or conservative? Are you really sure?!? That was worth a good laugh!
You could have also mentioned Jim Webb or the other Democrats that took the position of supporting Heller (or are just generally pro gun rights).
This isn’t a conservative versus liberal idealogical question, it’s an authoritarian versus libertarian one. Never mind that if perhaps (as your opponent suggested) as many as 70% of American households own guns then obviously those people see it as both within in their rights and for utilitarian purposes.
Keep it up!
Comment by Steven Menk — March 22, 2008 @ 4:26 pm
Just want to echo the chorus, Great job, Sebastian.
I also just watched THE GREAT UN GUN DEBATE between Ms. Peters and Wayne La Pierre, and I’d say you did about as well as Wayne did. I thought it was great you got in the fact that police are NOT obligated to respond to a 911 call and can’t be held liable for failing to do so, and that the individual is ultimately responsible for his or her own defense, and that the effective capacity for self-defense is the key that ensures ultimately all the other rights we enjoy as free citizens.
The only thing I would’ve brought up to Ms. Peters is that legal gun owners who defend themselves from violent criminals don’t always have to pull the trigger. Just showing the criminal that you are not a defenseless victim is sometimes enough to deter criminals. That’s a point she refuses to understand.
In her debate with Mr. La Pierre, she kept on harping away that “gun crime has gone down” in the UK since gun ban measures were enacted, while dismissing and disregarding the brute fact that VIOLENT crime as a whole has gone up markedly in the UK in the same period, which Mr. La Pierre was able to document. Wayne also pointed out that UK Homeowners who in the USA would have solid self-defense cases are in Britain more likely than the original perpetrator to be subject to criminal prosecution.
Ms. Peters is Australian, and it was amusing to see the audience in 2004 in London often applauding Wayne the American more loudly, and the audience questioners, all UK residents, were about 50%-50% pro and anti.
I also dislike the meme “US vs. World opinion” that Ms. Peters likes to use. Al Jazzera and other news networks should also interview gun rights people in other countries, like members of the National Firearms Association (NFA) of Canada, or IWOe in Austria. It’s not just an “American”/USA cultural “obsession”, but a basic question of human rights worldwide.
Comment by JJR — March 22, 2008 @ 9:30 pm
Alright, as you are well aware, you and I have our differences on what should be policy in other areas, but after watching your destruction of the ignorant lying biddie who kept trying to redefine the issue and its terms, all I can say is I am just proud you have always talked to me.
You done good, kid!
I am very proud of you.
Comment by straightarrow — March 22, 2008 @ 10:17 pm
Wow, I was REALLY impressed with your debating performance here Sebastian. Your rapid speaking pace allowed you to get more information across in the time allotted which I think was important. I was psyched when you were able to stick Warren v. DC in her face. Turning the questions around on the interviewer was also an excellent tactic.
FYI to all, Ms. Peters was instrumental in getting Australia’s draconian gun laws passed down there. Her UN affiliated organization actually supplies information & support to the Brady’s & VPC. She has a very disdainful view of American exceptionalism & believes we here in the US need to toe the international line.
Comment by SteVe — March 23, 2008 @ 1:20 am
Good job brother! We’re proud of you.
When they spouted off about NRA money and it influencing elections, I would have pointed out that Peters and IANSA are basically sucking the left teat of George Soros.
Comment by Norton — March 23, 2008 @ 7:42 am
D’OH! That’s a good point–check out the Wikipedia page for IANSA, it makes clear that IANSA and Rebecca Peters are bought and paid for by Soros and other similar entities.
Comment by Administrator — March 23, 2008 @ 8:48 am
That Soros thing trickles all of the way down into MD as well, as I think he kicks in a fair amount of money to JHU’s bunch.
Comment by Norton — March 23, 2008 @ 5:12 pm
Yes he does, and they don’t try to hide it. Anytime you see a quote from Daniel Webster or the JHU Gun Policy school, remember that–it’s at the bottom of their website that Soros et al fund them, along with a who’s who of gun grabber money groups.
Comment by Administrator — March 23, 2008 @ 5:21 pm
Funny how they call us the “well-funded gun lobby” when it’s them that is really sucking in the big dollars.
Comment by Norton — March 23, 2008 @ 7:42 pm
You did great!
I did notice that Sami was really biased in his reporting, because he almost never interrrupted Rebecca Peters, but he couldn’t help but interrrupt you on every question. But, I guess that’s what we can expect from AlJeerAmerica.
Comment by R.J. — March 26, 2008 @ 10:56 am