Anti 2A reporter destroyed by the facts

[SigSour]

For the next time you find yourself in a discussion about "why you need a firearm?".


Brilliant. And I did a little research after watching this, and he's not lying about the supreme court (from the NY Times) - I'm sure many of you already knew this, I just wanted to share it as I'm still picking up my jaw from off the ground:
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/28scotus.html?_r=0

 

[The_Next_Generation]

I think the pro-gun guy could have done a better job of addressing the interviewer's questions about the "ak47" and other "assault weapons". I.e. Instead of going on and on about the grenade launcher and "assault rifle" misnomer, he could have quickly addressed the terms and then instead go into more detail about the rifles themselves. He does seem to avoid the details supporting our AR15s/etc and only talks about the broad arguments supporting them like murderers and such.

 

[Impureclient]

Keith there just took a nice steamy pile on top of that fellas head. That was so one sided, it was almost painful to watch that reporter squirm in his seat.

 

[Cee Zee]

I'm shocked that a "reporter" would actually try to defend his thinking against anyone. That's just not something they do. I've seen liberal talk shows in local areas where the hosts just got reamed by callers because they don't know the laws. I made a call like that myself arguing over a point unrelated to guns. The moron host didn't have a clue what the laws were. He even consulted an attorney about one thing I said and apologized the next day on the air because he found out he was dead wrong about what he said. It didn't stop him from thinking something completely off the wall but I would have thought all liberals would know better than to argue logic by now. They don't base their positions on logic. They base them on emotions just as the guest in this interview points out. What good is a grenade launcher when there is no source for grenades? I would have made that point if I was the guest on that program.

Arguing logic with gun grabbers is easy. Their reactions are hostile and offensive usually. That's because they can't win with logic so they fall back on their staples of personal attacks and specious arguments.

 

[Carl N. Brown]

I bought a grenade launcher for my M70AB2 for two reasons: to augment the original accessories that came with the gun as a military collectible, and to move the muzzleblast about 6" further away from my ears, making my hearing protection muffs more effective. It is a solid steel tube that screws on the end of the barrel and makes the fireram less concealable. Since live grenades are not available, I see no harm to anyone from me having a grenade launcher.

Some British analyst published a report that the amygdalae of liberals and conservatives are different: the amygdala controls emotions and fear and reactions to danger. The report claimed that liberals are prone to emote and panic in situations where conservatives are prone to stay calm and think.

 

[TarDevil]

Old video posted here months ago.

Best one liner... "You aren't"

 

[TCB in TN]

During the FF time the most powerful weapons were cannon. Cannons were commonly held by private individuals. The FF were a lot smarter than most liberals give them credit for. The major problems our government has today come from trying to get around the constitution rather than abiding by it!

 

[230RN]

I for one am sick and tired of these "interviewers" whose main technique is to interrupt whenever a rational counter point is brought up. Keith did a good job of "counter-interrupting" to put this so-called reporter in his place and in attempting to keep the reporter on track.

These so-called interviews are nothing but opportunities for reporters to spout their preconceived opinions more loudly than the interviewee.

The classic example which I like to cite, besides the Piers Morgan comedy shows, is the encounter Rosie O'Donnell had with NRA Director Tom Selleck. It is generally agreed that Selleck was ambushed by Ms. O'Donnell and she herself apologized for it later.

If I'm ever interviewed, I'm bringing a bullhorn along.

Terry

 

[ChaoSS]

Too bad he wasn't really willing to discuss the fact that yes, we should be allowed to own grenade launchers and such.

 

[taliv]

this is several years old. were some long threads on it when it first came out. i think the guy may have posted here too

 

[SkyDaver]

Apropos of just a little, I had called into a radio talk show, and got overtalked by the host (his normal tactic when he was being shown his imbecility). I went silent, and when the host asked if I was there, said that I didn't want to talk while he was interrupting. It was truly wonderful.

 

[Jim K]

Those things never change anyone's mind; all they do is to make the antis more determined to keep up the one-sided hatred and insults and never engage in any kind of honest discussion.

Jim

 

[Black Butte]

The host got spanked, especially when he tried to up his game to civilian grenade launchers.

 

[limpingbear]

That is the guy we need speaking for the NRA instead of Wayne Lapierre. (sp?) He makes a very rational argument and takes the interviewer to task without getting into a shouting match.

 

[happygeek]

Just like the guest, I'm more than a little confused by this "it's past time we had a debate on gun laws" line. They've been pushing their agenda since at least 1911 at the local & state level and at the Federal level since 1934.

 

[Gallstones]

I like this guy http://larrycorreia.wordpress.com/2013/09/20/the-internet-arguing-checklist/

 

[ChaoSS]

Learn something new every day. I didn't know AR15 made shotgun glocks.

 

[MyGreenGuns]

I won $20 and turned an "anti-" into an "I'm not sure". by proving that police are not required to defend you.

 

[Trunk Monkey]

Guy’s like that aren’t “destroyed” by anything they just ignore the facts and they spout the same crap to the next Pro RKBA guest they have.

 

[Blackstone]

Rather disappointed that Keith didn't jump on the statement that some of the recent mass shootings were carried out with an assault rifle. AFAIK, machineguns were not involved in any of them. Can anyone confirm?

 

[T2K]

The interviewee did a great job.

Just two things I think he could have done better:

1. He used the term "assault weapon" which I think he shouldn't have since it's a meaningless termh
2. He seemingly agreed that fully automatic weapons have been used in some of these nutjobs' attacks when none have

 

[taliv]

I won $20 and turned an "anti-" into an "I'm not sure". by proving that police are not required to defend you.

http://gothamist.com/2013/07/26/subway_stabbing_victims_suit_agains.php

A man who was brutally stabbed by Brooklyn subway slasher Maksim Gelman two years ago had his negligence case against the city dismissed in court yesterday, despite the fact that two transit officers had locked themselves in a motorman's car only a few feet from him at the time of the attack.

snip

The city, meanwhile, claimed that the NYPD had no "special duty" to intervene at the time, and that they were in the motorman's car because they believed Gelman had a gun. And Manhattan Supreme Court Justice Margaret Chan has sided with the city, noting that there was no evidence the cops were aware Lozito was in danger at the time.

so basically, the po po felt THEY were in danger because they believed he had a gun. But there was no evidence the victim was in danger. riiiiiight.



truth be told, Lozito is probably alive today because the NYPD are cowards. Given their propensity for doing mag dumps in random directions and hitting more civilians than bad guys, if they had responded, Lozito would almost certainly been shot.

 

[RetiredUSNChief]

All I want to know is where do I go to get in line for these grenade launchers and nuclear weapons?

 

[RBid]

Most uninformed viewers watching that would have no idea how badly the reporter got tooled. Sadly, that piece was probably only effective in that it may have convinced a few open minds who were watching. It was a fair job by the advocate.

 

[MTMilitiaman]

Yeah, old video, but still good. I've seen so many of these videos. Remember Tom debating Rosie? That one was good too. Media outlets should catch a clue. They don't want a rational discussion about gun control because they have to rational. The facts, statistics, and rational arguments are all on the pro-gun side. Gun control advocates like those typically found in major media sites want an emotional discussion of gun control because that is what they have, emotional rhetoric.

The pro-gun person had a good point and should have expounded on it more. Cops are there to protect and serve the community as a whole, thus the reason the Supreme Court has confirmed that the police have no obligation to protect any individual or even respond to any single call. If they feel their resources are needed more elsewhere when you call up saying there is a stranger in your house at 3 in the morning, you're on your own and there's nothing you can do about it. Now then, if the police's job is to protect and serve, and these "assault weapons" only exist to cause mass casualties and therefore belong only on the battlefield, then why do the police need them? When are the police ever going to need to produce mass casualties among the people they are supposedly there to protect and serve? Yet another panicy, emotional argument that doesn't hold water on even initial examination, made by gun grabbers who want to have their cake and eat it to.

It's also funny to me that they instantly go to the nuke thing. It's impossible to have a so-called rational discussion with a group of people who can't distinguish the difference between a military-style small arm and a weapon of mass destruction.