Put This Guy on Piers Morgan

[ILIKEHEVI-13]

Piers would go nuts with this guy on his show. 

http://www.youtube.com/embed/0R3uLTnzs60

[Byhalia]

 

[tomstopper]

This guy does a great job discussing assault weapons. What I always find ironic is that these politicans say that the AR-15s are not good for home/self defense, but all the secret service and private body guards surrounding them have these types of weapons. What a bunch of BS.... Piers would just keep interupting this man and his liberal channel would just cut to commercials when he started to get a word in edge wise. 

[ILIKEHEVI-13]

I don't know.  I would think that this guy may give Piers all he wants with great comebacks.  He nailed that when he said that about 9/11. 

[zeke632]

There have been several people on P. Morgan's show who have owned him. This guy probably would too.  All it does is boost PM ratings. He isnt going to change his opinion. As long as people keep going on and arguing the FACTS, PM is gonna keep dishing out his BS. I didnt know who PM was until the recent gun debate showed up again.

I say ignore the guy. Quit going on his show. When people from our side of the argument show up on his program it gets some of us to watch his show, thus boosting his ratings. I doubt many here watch him unless there is going to be someone arguing our side of the argument.

Let the Libtards babble amoung themselves.

[irishff727]

You can never sway a persons thoughts who are thinking in a pure mode of fear. People who do not have the means or the desire to protect themselves and wish to relinquish that right to another power will never understand those of us that do. Like it has been said before you may not believe in god or agree with guns as a means to protect yourself but as soon as someone bust through your door the first thing you do is call someone with a gun a pray they get there fast

[ILIKEHEVI-13]

You can never sway a persons thoughts who are thinking in a pure mode of fear. People who do not have the means or the desire to protect themselves and wish to relinquish that right to another power will never understand those of us that do. Like it has been said before you may not believe in god or agree with guns as a means to protect yourself but as soon as someone bust through your door the first thing you do is call someone with a gun a pray they get there fast

Very well said.

[irishff727]

I have a boss at work who is extremely liberal, hates guns and has actually gone out of his way to look up hunting seasons at times to stop other employees from being able to hunt. When I came on I was asked what hobbies I enjoy and to make some conversation I said I enjoy the outdoors. Was instantly asked if I hunt. We have had quiet a few gun debates ESP with recent media coverage of gun crime. I finally put a proposal to him and asked him if he would like to go shooting. He actually took me up in the offer. And guess what he now enjoys firearms and hunting. And even he a once hard core liberal understands the benefits of a at 15

[Turkey Trot]

A true assault rifle is a fully automatic weapon.

The semiautomatic utility or modern sporting rifles we are allowed to have without a stamp is not an assault rifle.

Further, the people that harp about assault rifles are ignorant of the fact that there is a bigger, badder rifle in the arsenal called a main battle rifle.  The M-1 is an example, the M-14 is another.  The M-14 has regained popularity in SOCOM in recent years because it has real one-shot one-kill power, and the Enhanced Battle Rifle Program built on an improved it.  The M-14 has also gained prominence due to the shift in philosophy about firepower at the team, squad, and platoon level.  A designated squad marksman will carry an M-14 with synthetic stock, floated barrel, and optics of some sort.  The M-16 supplanted the M-14 because it was cheaper to build, the ammo was smaller, and the military often gets ideas about high tech solutions to nonexistent problems. 

If I were in the shyte, I'd want an EBR/M-14 and a .45 ACP.  If you read books by Rangers, SEALs, Delta operators, etc. that actually have a choice, they often tend toward the heavier firepower.

[Turkey Trot]

The first question is, since when does one's "need" define a constitutional right?

I don't think that gay men "need" to fornicate with one another, get married, adopt children, or have job benefits for their lovers, but that does not stop liberals from telling us that what is right and moral is all wrong and that we are bigots if we do not affirm them and concede "civil rights."

I know for a fact that all the women in this country having an abortion are not doing it because they "need" an abortion, they are doing it because they want one.

Ironically, the libs fight tooth and nail for made-up rights and judicial fiats, whereas they trample all over foundational, formative rights that were important enough for the Framers to go to the trouble of expressly including in the Constitution.

Even if we do indulge the "need," we should reflect back on the comments of at least one general in the wake of the attacks in September 2001.  He publicly stated that if our enemies were successful in a catastrophic attack on Washington, DC it was unrealistic that we would be able to proceed under a constitutional form of government for some time thereafter.  So let's put that in historical perspective.  George Washington shocked the world and did something largely unprecedented at the end of the Revolutionary War, he simply went home and ceded power to the civilian government.  It was pretty much unheard of, and his remark for that bolstered him as candidate for the first president.  So America got lucky in that the generals relinquished power on the first occasion and yielded t civilian control.  Could we count on it happening again?  And what if it does not?

Are liberal talking heads on TV going to chide them into surrendering power?

Are liberal law professors going to write critical articles and sue them into submission?

Is the Supreme Court going to be around to do anything about it?  And if so, how many divisions will it have to execute any opinions and orders?

The Second was created to maintain the balance of power between citizen and government, and if necessary, end tyranny and reorganize a government accountable to the people.  The only thing that would ever ensure the durability and continuity of a constitutional republic is an populace armed in proportion to the infantry.