Liberal news anchor utterly destroyed....

[Kmcinnes]

Great post! I love seeing rational gun rights advocates not giving in to the trigger points!

 

[hooky]

I bet after they went to the first commercial break, the anchor was all like "Fartknuckles! This isn't fair!!".

 

[Rookie]

Fartknuckles for the win!

 

[Regionnus Rattis]

I don't facebook much at all, but I did share this

.

Yep, same here...

 

[Mrkeller]

Excellent post and video.

 

[cobber]

We are to have the same firepower as the "infantry", in other words, small arms, rifles, pistols, bayonets. No infantry carries nuclear arms with them.

Well, the Mobile Infantry maybe.

 

[Liberty1911]

He did a good job of throwing it back to the "rational debate"

Yep, that was awesome. He kept turning his own words against him.

 

[jamil]

Ok, yeah he did get to squeeze out a quick answer I guess and please understand, I am not arguing anything here. I just have a hard time explaining this to someone when it comes up in conversation.

When they use "nukes" to counter the equal firepower point, they are replacing the logical conclusion of our position with a logical extreme to discredit our point.

Personally, as long as individuals have the means to own and use something responsibly, without infringing on others' rights, I think anything goes. Nukes are obviously not practical for individual use. No sane pro-gun person argues they should be available to individuals. Surely no one anticipates that our government would ever use nukes against its own people.

But as it pertains to the weapons they want to ban, millions of citizens already own ARs, AKs, and other scary looking weapons of war, yet millions of people are NOT using them to do scary things. Unstable people doing scary things with these guns is extremely rare. Decades worth of statistics demonstrate that the legal individual ownership of these weapons is not a problem.

 

[Liberty1911]

Good find! I hate to say it but the journalist brings up a point that I stumble with explaining. If we are to have the same "firepower" as the government where is the line drawn? He brings up grenade launchers and nuclear weapons. Obviously we don't need nuclear weapons in everyone's hands but how as a group do we rationalize the distinction? Unfortunately, Mr. Morgan was not allowed to answer.

If our point is that we have a right to the same firepower the military and police have, then the logical conclusion to that point is that I should have a right to the same weapons that they will show up at my door with.

The military and police don't show up at our doors with nuclear weapons.

 

[exelh]

very well done, wish Alex jones could handle himself like this

 

[rhino]

When they use "nukes" to counter the equal firepower point, they are replacing the logical conclusion of our position with a logical extreme to discredit our point.

Indeed, the classic reductio ad absurdum. A choice of the weak.

 

[jefalatho]

I'd say that reporter got spanked. Great video. Thanks for the link.

 

[Dirtball]

I posted this on FB today, I really really enjoyed this!

 

[moosebag]

You are armed right now?

 

[techres]

BTW: That's how a Rifleman does it.

Oh, yeah.

 

[Lex Concord]

I don't know of any range we could take our nukes to to test fire them. Any ideas?

White Sands Nothin' close.

 

[techres]

Keith met with his senator today and what he posted on Facebook is something everyone should read. It includes what the senator told him the press was going to do and why he did not care what gun owners thought:

https://www.facebook.com/groups/WVCDL/permalink/10151446550999225/

 

[digitalphoenix]

I'd say that reporter got spanked. Great video. Thanks for the link.

More than spanked. He got ANAL CRUSADED!

 

[rhino]

You are armed right now?

Ironically, many (if not most) of those people really believe they can tell when someone is armed. Most of them (like the jack wagon in the video) are wrong.

 

[HICKMAN]

Keith met with his senator today and what he posted on Facebook is something everyone should read. It includes what the senator told him the press was going to do and why he did not care what gun owners thought:

https://www.facebook.com/groups/WVCDL/permalink/10151446550999225/

Posted by Keith Morgan of West Virginia after meeting with his Senator:

Ladies and gentlemen of the WVCDL and West Virginia. Today, around 3PM I met with Senator Manchin. In any conversation with a person of that level of power, there are two conversations that occur at once. The first is the obvious and direct meaning of what is spoken. The second conversation is the meaning between the lines. In this case, neither is good. West Virginia, in my opinion, you have been sold out.

First, let's talk about the direct conversation. It's very simple. Senator Manchin supports a three-pronged approach that includes universal background checks, including private sales. He supports mental health-care reform. And he supports magazine capacity limits, and possibly other restrictions.

Further, he stated to me directly, that he believes 75% of West Virginians, like him, believe that the only purposes behind gun ownership and the second amendment are hunting and recreational shooting. He told me that defense is not an angle he considers or believes in, and that is specifically in the context of defense of self, and defense from tyranny. Perhaps now you understand why I've been too angry to update you on the results of the meeting. In case you're thinking of stopping here, it gets worse.

Senator Manchin told me what the media will do if Congress (including the US House of Representatives) fails to pass an AWB and/or mag restrictions. "They will one, by one, put up pictures of dead children. They will show the carnage." Considering that tomorrow, President Obama will be exploiting children by dragging them on stage with him while he outlays his plan, this is not a huge leap. And these are the words of a United States senator. We, and I don't mean just West Virginians, I mean Americans, must prepare for this. That is a direct quote. Verbatim. We need every talking head in the conservative media out in front of this. Make it happen. Share this post far and wide.

When it became clear that we were not going to find common ground, and that Senator Manchin intends to support magazine capacity limits and other pointless gun-control laws doomed to failure, I told the senator that we would be there. We would be at every single event. We would be at every fund-raiser. We would be there, and the content of our signs would not be pleasant.

And now we get to the second conversation. The one between the lines. When I said we would be there, he said, "there won't be any events."

This confused me. No politician runs for office without fund-raisers and events. And I have to admit, it wasn't I that grasped the meaning of this. I want to be clear, that the following was not stated. This was deduced by a confidant of mine, and I think she is correct. Manchin was honest. There will be no events. Why would a US Senator not need funds? This is because there will be no campaign. Joe Manchin is too young to retire from a position of such power. What does that mean?

West Virginia, this means that Joe Manchin has sold you out. It means that he has accepted some position, likely promised by Barack Obama, to place his boot in your neck in exchange for power.

Now you know. Now you know why for four hours, I was too angry to update you.