Anti News Anchor gets Owned by Keith Morgan

[Alex_C]

The second part was even funnier than the first. The host is ignorant, has no knowledge of firearms, no concept of facts and was totally outclassed. I loved the part when he said he didn't want his neighbour to be armed because he might go nuts, to which Keith says:

"If I sat my 9mm on the desk, would you shoot me?"
"No I probably wouldn't" (probably?)
"So why do you think someone else will?"
"I don't know"

Also, I think he genuinely crapped his pants when Keith stated he was armed.

Another thing that bothers me about the antis is that they clamour for a "rational discussion about common sense regulation" and then as soon as the pro-gun person quotes the second amendment by saying "shall not be infringed" or refers to the federalist papers' account of the purpose behind the second amendment, they are practically frothing at the mouth as they spout their favorite line; "so you think people should have nuclear weapons?".

Yeah, "rational discussion" indeed...

[DefensiveCarry.com]

[ppkheat]

Great interview, does anyone know an email address so I can send him my thanks for a good job. I'm sure he'd appreciate the feedback.

[whoppo]

Great... now Dick's and Lower-than-Dirt are gonna take grenade launchers off the shelves... Buy 'em now boys and girls!

[SmokinFool]

Great interview, does anyone know an email address so I can send him my thanks for a good job. I'm sure he'd appreciate the feedback.

kmorgan@wvcdl.org

[surefire7]

One of the best interviews I've seen yet! He stayed calm but clearly dominated the interview with facts. The interviewer quite often was very uncomfortable with his own ineptness.

[Gaius]

I was very happy to see this. Especially the point about the duty of police. Our guy was quite right. As a matter of both fact and law (and yes, I am a lawyer) every court including US Supreme has made it clear the police have no legal duty to protect the individual. The citizen is first and foremost responsible for his own protection and defense. But this should not surprise anyone, although it does. Consider: if the police had a duty to protect the individual, every time a citizen was robber, mugged, raped, murdered etc, by definition the police would have breached their duty and be found negligent and be subject to a negligence lawsuit. This obviously cannot, and in fact as a matter of law, is not permitted. BTY what does the "serve and protect" mean, again, as a matter of law? The police have a general duty to protect the community at large, but not the individual. Try this. If you call 911 and for whatever reason the police decide not to show up, are they liable? No. Why not? Same reason. No duty is owed to the individual citizen.

[smolck]

The "anti gun" guy has no facts and knows nothing. Problem with ALL of them is they cite statistics like "nobody has ever used an assault rifle to defend themselves" and think it is fact when it is not. Nobody calls them out. When you have a rational discussion, the anti gun people look like bafoons. This guy needs to take LaPierre's job.

[SmokinFool]

The "anti gun" guy has no facts and knows nothing. Problem with ALL of them is they cite statistics like "nobody has ever used an assault rifle to defend themselves" and think it is fact when it is not. Nobody calls them out. When you have a rational discussion, the anti gun people look like bafoons. This guy needs to take LaPierre's job.

Yep. I've said it before, most anti's simply regurgitate the nonsense that they have heard from other anti's, and those people regurgitated it from people they've heard, and so on, and so on. They think that because this misinformation has been spouted so many times before that it must be fact. They don't bother to actually do any real research, and why should they? They have already been told what hey want to hear. They will look no further, unless they are continuously challenged on the facts, and even then only a relatively small number of them will feel prompted to check out the facts themselves (these are the ones we need to try to reach). Most will simply continue to regurgitate these fallacies to the next generation of anti's, and the cycle will continue.

[Alex_C]

Problem with ALL of them is they cite statistics like "nobody has ever used an assault rifle to defend themselves" and think it is fact when it is not

When they say this, someone needs to tell them the military and police use them to defend themselves all the time. Then follow it up with cases of civilians using the guns they're talking about (and falsely labelling as "assault rifles") to defend themselves too.

[Sheldon J]

part II yep it's good...

Video Landing Page - Business, Government Legal News from throughout WV