Liberal news anchor utterly destroyed....

[HICKMAN]

by Keith Morgan of he West Virginia Citizens Defense League

One of THE best I've seen yet.

http://youtu.be/ECxDvwObwZk

 

[digitalphoenix]

Big clips? What a ****ing dumb ass. Every single liberal that calls a magazine a clip needs their face kicked in repeatedly. It was hard to stomach what this guy said.

 

[Fishersjohn48]

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.

 

[dnurk]

Fantastic job by that gentleman. Should be required viewing for everyone who owns a semiautomatic sporting rifle.

Thanks for sharing.

I think this also really hits the core issue. Those on the side of more gun regulations want to trust the government to take care of them. A core liberal tenant. And a true shame that many in our society want to put all their trust in the government and none in their neighbors.

 

[HICKMAN]

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

 

[EvilKidsMeal]

Wow. Absolutely amazing. I bet that guy stuck his tail between his legs and ran to the nearest corner after that one. Everything lie he stated was instantly picked apart. Just awesome

Great find

 

[threedhuntr]

Thank you very much for posting. Would love to see this man as an ambassador to firearms owners.

Keith Morgan .... is ... the .... man.

 

[EvilKidsMeal]

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.

Actually he did answer, and his answer was perfect. He said the same firepower as a modern infantry soldier. Obviously they don't run around with nukes on their backs. Yes some may have grenade launchers, however that is not the average infantry soldier.

 

[halfmileharry]

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.

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

 

[netsecurity]

FINALLY, someone asked a liberal why police need assault weapons, and why our needs are less than theirs.

 

[Fishersjohn48]

Actually he did answer, and his answer was perfect. He said the same firepower as a modern infantry soldier. Obviously they don't run around with nukes on their backs. Yes some may have grenade launchers, however that is not the average infantry soldier.

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.

 

[Roadie]

I love how rattled the Anchor gets when the other guy says he is armed

 

[9mmfan]

The idiot host was totally owned. The man is a tool.

 

[EvilKidsMeal]

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.

No problem. I guess i would just say what he said. The framers intended us to be equally armed when compared to our military, more specifically and logically the average infantry soldier. And you could also make it a point that because of NFA and all of that, we actually are not equal anyways.

 

[Hoosier8]

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.

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.

 

[jdewyse]

Wow, that was awesome. Love how he called the host on every lie he told immediately, and there were a lot of them. Just goes to show that it pays to do your research. As long as facts are used to decide this issue we will always come out on top. To bad the media prefers emotion driven arguments rather than those driven by factual information.

 

[Bill of Rights]

Never been used in self-defense?
Korean shopkeepers, LA riots. With normal capacity, 30rd magazines, they were able to make "warning shots" over the heads of the rioters. Without those mags, every shot would have had to be aimed "lethal".
Wanna guess which shops didn't get vandalized?
Wanna guess which people didn't get injured or killed?

Police have a duty to protect individual citizens? The Supreme Court said otherwise in Castle Rock vs. Gonzales.

I also loved the, "You're armed right now? "
"Sure, aren't you?"

Perfect, as was his handling of the "if you wouldn't shoot me, why do you think one of your neighbors would shoot you?"

The answer is that the host doesn't know that they would or would not, but that's what scares him: He isn't in control and he desperately wants to be, proving the age-old saying:

""Gun control" is not about guns. It's about control."

Outstanding job, Mr. Morgan.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[drillsgt]

Great video, and somebody needs to update the host on the 'evolution' of the weapons, in that they are 60 year old designs.

 

[gvsugod]

This makes me very happy.

 

[the1kidd03]

American people are to be armed equally as an infantry soldier. The idea of of nuclear capabilities is completely irrational and an ignorant attempt to deface the opposition's argument. Nuclear weapons are NOT "single man" operable weapons. They require a great deal of authority between more than ONE man to be able to utilize them and thus are not an infantry weapon.

As far as grenade launchers, RPGs, tanks, jets, etc....while I would certainly love to own them, it is a difficult argument to make. Civilians CAN own jets and tanks which are demilitarized, but even then they are priced out of reach of a majority of citizens. The common argument for explosives is that "there is no practical use" for them, but the opposition will simply attempt to apply that same logic on everything else like we've been seeing; "you don't NEED the assault rifle." Therefore, I avoid that argument specifically.

The only thing I've thought of to combat this argument for explosives is that they are indeed "weapons of mass destruction" in the sense they are intended to demolish groups of people. As such, until a war was to break which involved citizens there is no need for them to posess them. I can't think of a better argument on that one. Anyone got anything?