Quantcast

Anti-Gun Liberal News Anchor Destroyed in Interview w/ Keith Morgan

Transquesta 2013/02/06 18:56:21
Published on Feb 4, 2013



Keith Morgan, president of the West
Virginia Citizens Defense League, appeared on The State Journal's
Decision Makers to talk about guns. The interviewer gets his ass handed
to him.



Read More: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fQYCXhIeajI&feature...

You!
Add Photos & Videos

Top Opinion

  • JwonGalt 2013/02/06 19:14:50
    JwonGalt
    +17
    I am sorry. I do not see how the interviewer was "destroyed".
    I think they both gave good arguments, and I appreciate how they both level headed.

    Although, the interviewer made a better argument in my opinion on weapons over all.

    Case in point, the guy on the left brought up the Federalist papers, and how the citizens should be equally armed as the military (i disagree), he was right to ask about nuclear weapons, grenade launchers.
    The man on the left also classified assault weapons as machine guns, and said that they should also be allowed in the hands of citizens (which again, I disagree).
    The interviewer clearly has no problem with people having guns in general, but that their should be a ban on a certain type of gun (which is not unconstitutional contrary to many people believe).
    And the interviewer was also correct(in my opinion) for his reasoning for allowing law enforcement, and military those types of weapons, because for the very simple fact, they were trained to use them

    I dont think anyone was "destroyed" during this debate, but in my opinion the interviewer clearly had the upperhand. And used the guy on the lefts points against him. He should never have brought up the Federalist papers lol

    But again. This debate on gun law was by far my favorite.

    So much better than that crap with Ted Nugent, and Alex Jones.

Sort By
  • Most Raves
  • Least Raves
  • Oldest
  • Newest
Opinions

  • Steve ☮ R ☮ P ☮ 2012 ☮ 2013/02/11 01:07:50
    Steve ☮ R ☮ P ☮ 2012 ☮
    +1
    Classic! It's so nice to see someone who "gets it" shoving it down the throat of someone who hasn't got a clue. LOL
  • Larry M 2013/02/08 05:35:06
    Larry M
    +1
    If we limit the citizens in the ways described they will be outgunned by the criminals who prey on them. Automatic guns are outlawed now and the guns that are considered by these news anchors are the same guns with a pistol grip and some cosmetics. The police went to full assault rifles because they were outgunned and I don't see why we should be.
  • foy49 2013/02/07 14:01:54
    foy49
    +2
    I think that Keith Morgan, president of the West
    Virginia Citizens Defense League, made some good points.
    In my openion the interviewer was either ignorant, or dishonest, and maybe both.
    The end result; the opportunity for a rational discussion - missed.
  • BULLDOGBlacksmith 2013/02/07 12:53:43
    BULLDOGBlacksmith
    +3
    Do any of you actually believe that Liberals will be reasonable? They bring up things like nuclear weapons and the like because their argument is weak and they use sensationalism and fear in an attempt to sway opinions.
  • Transqu... BULLDOG... 2013/02/07 19:48:12
    Transquesta
    +3
    The objective isn't to convince liberals. As you suggest, most of them are too caught up in the emotion of it all to rationally appraise the issue. We're after the fence sitters; the people who still have an open mind even if they're not as putatively 'crazy' about 'guns' as second amendment proponents are supposed to be.
  • deidara.trueart 2013/02/07 04:09:46
  • deidara.trueart 2013/02/07 04:02:08
  • Michael Verscheure 2013/02/07 03:50:10
    Michael Verscheure
    +3
    Seen it, and I don't think "destroyed" is appropriate, talked over with facts maybe
  • Tortoise 2013/02/07 02:31:19
  • ProVega 2013/02/07 02:14:12 (edited)
    ProVega
    +1
    I don't think so. If you do, then you are viewing the interview from a prejudiced position.

    say what
  • Professor Wizard 2013/02/06 23:07:57
    Professor Wizard
    +4
    OH man.. THAT was GREAT!

    Keith Morgan is one smart cookie.

    Yes.. we have to protect ourselves from the very same threats the Police do... therefore, we need the same protection options the police do.
  • monkeyking908 2013/02/06 22:24:38
    monkeyking908
    +1
    "The interviewer gets his ass handed to him." i did not see this for one Keith Morgan stated that we have the right to be as well armed as the military but then turns around and states some things the military has we should not have, that is why the anchor man brought up a-bombs and grenade launchers but he tried to twist it around stateing it had nothing to do with the topic at hand. also Keith Morgan never said why we need high powered guns do defend are self, you only need one bullet to kill a man (unless your aim sucks) so why do you need a gun that holds 30 and shoots rapidly. if i had the conversation in righting i could break apart the whole thing and tell you what was truly said
  • Profess... monkeyk... 2013/02/06 23:17:46
    Professor Wizard
    +6
    I won't go so much to say he got his ass handed... but I feel Mr. Morgan scored more debate points.

    Yes... Discussing A-Bombs is ridiculous.. and YOU know it - - you are just using it to play up your argument that you feel the public don't need the same weaponry the police do..and FYI: the police don't have access to A-Bombs either.

    In fact.. ONLY the President has access to Nuclear Devices.

    You are wrong... The public has to defend itself from the VERY same people the Police do.. IN FACT - the Citizens are most often exposed to the violent criminals BEFORE the police are.. and in the vast majority of cases, the police don't show up until AFTER the crime committing is finished and defense is no longer needed.

    If the police have Grenade Launchers - the citizens should be allowed them too.

    As for your remark about not needing 30 rounds... you are inferring then that Police are totally lousy shots, because they have 30 round rifles.. and 15/20 round hand guns plus carry at least 2 extra loaded clips on their belts. Although you may be correct in that assumption, as I recall reading an article recently where police fired over 100 rounds at a suspect and only hit him 11 times.
  • monkeyk... Profess... 2013/02/07 05:01:54
    monkeyking908
    +1
    "The public has to defend itself from the VERY same people the Police do" i did not even touch this and will not because i dont feel like arguing about it.

    about the A-bombs the big point people keep making about gun control is the fact it was made so the government cant out gun the people but if government already has weapons that even most gun freaks say only the government should have that that argument flies out the window that was my point and the interviewers point but most people passed it up as nonsense.

    "If the police have Grenade Launchers - the citizens should be allowed them too." thats just ridiculous almost as bad as the one person who told me we should have bazookas

    lets just leave the ammo thing at 50/50
  • Kate Anderson 2013/02/06 20:58:31
    Kate Anderson
    +2
    I beleive Keith did a very good job and made very good points. I love the interviewer stating that the discussion is long overdue. It's only because the anti gun minions would have us all powerless to stop their emperor BHO. Then, the bad guys would still have their guns and the rest of us would have our bats or rocks. I'm still pretty deadly with a bat as long as I get a swing in. I will never turn my Glock in...never!
  • Cat 2013/02/06 20:56:53
    Cat
    +6
    Keith Morgan was able to keep the talking head from using red herring and straw-man diversions that the socialists so often use.
  • Unicorns vs Narwhals 2013/02/06 20:50:05
    Unicorns vs Narwhals
    +2
    We just need to get this guy and Suzanna hupp together to address all of these debates in the media.
  • Bill 2013/02/06 20:49:49
    Bill
    +1
    I want a nuke. Sounds good to me. I'd put it in the liberals lap and run.
  • Profess... Bill 2013/02/06 23:18:59 (edited)
    Professor Wizard
    +3
    We could Nuke Chicago - - that would solve a lot of problems.

    Especially, considering that most of the lame politicians seem to come from there.

    (yes, I am kidding - for those of you stupid enough to think I actually want to nuke Chitown1)
  • Freeranger 2013/02/06 20:43:56
    Freeranger
    +3
    How refreshing.......civilized discussion.......extremist MSM sensationalism which is rationally, knowledgeably, and politely shouted down.
    Doesn't get any better. Great post.
  • Roger47 2013/02/06 20:36:36
    Roger47
    +4
    It is preposterous to assert that the average citizen faces the same risks as law enforcement officers. And it is equally foolish to assert that the police do not protect us. And if I followed the gun advocate's argument correctly, he is asserting that if we banned assault weapons we would have even more of them than if they were kept legal, because suddenly there would be smugglers bringing them in from Mexico. This guy is a fool!
  • Bill Roger47 2013/02/06 21:00:05 (edited)
    Bill
    +4
    {It is preposterous to assert that the average citizen faces the same risks as law enforcement officers.}
    Considering how many people are mugged, robbed and murdered each year (by whatever type of weapon) we face MORE of a risk than police officers, if unarmed. True, they assume more risk by chasing the bad guys but bad guys are more reluctant to take on the police than a civilian.
    { And it is equally foolish to assert that the police do not protect us.}
    Of course they TRY to but are not there in an immediate crisis situation all the time or most of the time or even some of the time. What then? Wait it out? Dial 911?
    { And if I followed the gun advocate's argument correctly,...}
    That they would be, but not necessarily from Mexico. They would still be available on the street at a higher price. In the meantime, the citizenry is unarmed.
    Grenade launchers? Nukes? Machine guns? Automatic weapons? Where did THAT come from.? Typical liberal, straw man hyperbole to discuss what is not germane.
  • Transqu... Roger47 2013/02/06 21:04:12
    Transquesta
    +3
    It is preposterous to assert that the average citizen faces the same risks as law enforcement officers.

    Citizens may not face the same NUMBER of risks by incident, but they most assuredly face the SAME KINDS of risks or there'd be no need for law enforcement officers in the first place. I fail to see how such a notion (derived as it is from simple logic) is 'preposterous.

    And it is equally foolish to assert that the police do not protect us.

    That was, of course, NOT the claim Morgan made. He said the police had no LEGAL OBLIGATION to protect us. I would advise you to research the LAW before popping off about the 'foolishness' of a claim the man never made! You can START here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

    This guy is a fool!

    I will ask you ONCE to make your case without resorting to ad hominem--IF you can. If you cannot, I shall follow up from there.
  • Roger47 Transqu... 2013/02/06 21:32:14
    Roger47
    +2
    It is true that the Supreme Court let a police department off the hook financially when they failed to protect someone. But that is a lot different than what the gun advocate was trying to imply.
  • Transqu... Roger47 2013/02/07 00:29:33
    Transquesta
    +1
    THIS is a much better, more well-reasoned response!

    I'd disagree, though, inasmuch as the SCOTUS is the 'last word' on precedent. It is, after all, the highest court of appeal. Once precedent has been established that police have no obligation to protect us--even if the case only refers to one particular instance in one particular municipality--the rule carries. The only exceptions are those in which the SCROTUS specifically states that a given ruling ONLY applies in/to that particular instance.

    But inasmuch as there have been other/similar rulings by both the lower courts and the SCROTUS based on this precedent, I think that latter point is moot.
  • Bill Transqu... 2013/02/07 12:27:03
    Bill
    +1
    nuqneH Klingon
    Good points.
    Could you do me a favor and send me a link to the page containing the HTML type of functions that would allow me to add "underlining", etcetera. I am aware of the "< s t r o n g > modifier but can't find any others that work in this editor.

    majQa'
  • Transqu... Bill 2013/02/07 19:53:36
    Transquesta
    +1
    Underlining is still done the good old fashioned way 'u' and '/u' (where ' takes the place of the greater/less than symbols, of course). Be aware, though, that SH only accepts HTML 4.0 attributes/modifiers.

    As for a page containing this code, WC3 is still the standard:

    http://www.w3.org/Consortium/...
  • Bill Transqu... 2013/02/07 20:20:51
    Bill
    +1
    Thanks a lot.
  • johnnyg Roger47 2013/02/06 21:49:17
    johnnyg
    +3
    Citizens are MORE at risk. How many cops get mugged or car jacked?? Police protect laws. WE can't ban guns the GOVERNMENT bans guns. The USGovt need to start a war on guns, because the war on drugs gave us more drugs, and higher quality drugs!! So a war on guns will give us better quality guns, and more of them!!
  • Profess... johnnyg 2013/02/06 23:28:16
    Professor Wizard
    +1
    Hmmm.. interesting point... Illegal Drugs are stronger then legal ones.
  • Profess... Roger47 2013/02/06 23:26:45
    Professor Wizard
    +3
    Really... the police usually engage criminals AFTER the criminal is finished with a citizen. Citizens actually risk more then cops, as criminals know that cops can and will shoot back, while they also know that most citizens won't or cant.

    And Mr. Morgan is correct.. the Supreme Court has ruled multiple times, that the Police have absolutely no cord to Protect, or Defend any citizen in any situation.

    Bowers v. DeVito, 686 F.2d 616 (7th Cir. 1982) (no federal constitutional requirement that police provide protection)

    Calogrides v. Mobile, 475 So. 2d 560 (Ala. 1985); Cal Govt. Code 845 (no liability for failure to provide police protection)

    Calogrides v. Mobile, 846 (no liability for failure to arrest or to retain arrested person in custody)

    Davidson v. Westminster, 32 Cal.3d 197, 185, Cal. Rep. 252; 649 P.2d 894 (1982) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)

    Stone v. State 106 Cal.App.3d 924, 165 Cal Rep. 339 (1980) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)

    Morgan v. District of Columbia, 468 A.2d 1306 (D.C.App. 1983) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)

    Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C.App 1981) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)

    Sapp v. Tallahassee, 348 So.2d 363 (Fla. App. 1st Dist.), cert. denied 3...














    Really... the police usually engage criminals AFTER the criminal is finished with a citizen. Citizens actually risk more then cops, as criminals know that cops can and will shoot back, while they also know that most citizens won't or cant.

    And Mr. Morgan is correct.. the Supreme Court has ruled multiple times, that the Police have absolutely no cord to Protect, or Defend any citizen in any situation.

    Bowers v. DeVito, 686 F.2d 616 (7th Cir. 1982) (no federal constitutional requirement that police provide protection)

    Calogrides v. Mobile, 475 So. 2d 560 (Ala. 1985); Cal Govt. Code 845 (no liability for failure to provide police protection)

    Calogrides v. Mobile, 846 (no liability for failure to arrest or to retain arrested person in custody)

    Davidson v. Westminster, 32 Cal.3d 197, 185, Cal. Rep. 252; 649 P.2d 894 (1982) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)

    Stone v. State 106 Cal.App.3d 924, 165 Cal Rep. 339 (1980) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)

    Morgan v. District of Columbia, 468 A.2d 1306 (D.C.App. 1983) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)

    Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C.App 1981) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)

    Sapp v. Tallahassee, 348 So.2d 363 (Fla. App. 1st Dist.), cert. denied 354 So.2d 985 (Fla. 1977); Ill. Rec. Stat. 4-102 (no liability for failure to provide police protection)

    Keane v. Chicago, 98 Ill. App.2d 460, 240 N.E.2d 321 (1st Dist. 1968) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)

    Jamison v. Chicago, 48 Ill. App. 3d 567 (1st Dist. 1977) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)

    Simpson's Food Fair v. Evansville, 272 N.E.2d 871 (Ind. App.) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)

    Silver v. Minneapolis, 170 N.W.2d 206 (Minn. 1969) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)

    Wuetrich V. Delia, 155 N.J. Super. 324, 326, 382, A.2d 929, 930 cert. denied 77 N.J. 486, 391 A.2d 500 (1978) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)

    Chapman v. Philadelphia, 290 Pa. Super. 281, 434 A.2d 753 (Penn. 1981) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)Morris v. Musser, 84 Pa. Cmwth. 170, 478 A.2d 937 (1984) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)


    As for his contention that Criminals will start using Fully Automatic Weapons.. he is correct, because if the government is successful in removing Semi Automatic Weapons, the only weapons left to steal, will the the military grade ones.
    (more)
  • Bill Profess... 2013/02/07 00:22:57
    Bill
    +3
    Great piece.
  • bill.fleming.77 2013/02/06 20:33:33
    bill.fleming.77
    +2
    What an idiot. If you are not sure which one I am talking about then you are an idiot as well.
  • Bill bill.fl... 2013/02/07 12:18:47
    Bill
    +2
    You're right. The idiot is the one who tried to make the case that being equally armed included nuclear weapons and machine guns and grenade launchers. I don't really remember the NRA advocating that position. If you do, send me the link. Thanks.
  • bill.fl... Bill 2013/02/07 18:14:25
    bill.fleming.77
    +1
    yup the interviewer is the idiot
  • Paul 2013/02/06 20:21:09
    Paul
    +1
    Whoa, he kicked ass!
  • Chibi Guru Z 2013/02/06 20:14:26
    Chibi Guru Z
    +3
    I'm glad we started out with a rational discussion about the private ownership of nuclear weapons. I'm so worried that this administration is going to come and take my nukes (LOL).

    Seriously, I love the way "rational discussion" always means "You agree with me."
  • Transqu... Chibi G... 2013/02/06 20:19:31
    Transquesta
    +3
    Just like the measure and definition of 'insanity' are determined by the degree to which one disagrees with the mob over the nature of reality. :-)
  • Chibi G... Transqu... 2013/02/06 20:21:48
    Chibi Guru Z
    +2
    Ooh...that's heavy. Good point, though.
  • Transqu... Chibi G... 2013/02/06 20:27:01 (edited)
    Transquesta
    +3
    Three people are sitting around a table. One of them pipes in and says "hey, did you see that pink elephant!?" The other two say no, therefore the one who did is 'insane.'

    Conversely:

    Three people are sitting around a table. Two of them pipe in and say "hey, did you see that pink elephant?" The one who didn't is 'insane.' Notice that in neither case is the actual existence (or not) of a pink elephant ever an issue. The only thing that's at issue is whether all agree.

    Believe it or not, this IS the current model used to determine 'insanity' by most clinicians and legal types--even if the word 'insanity' is seldom used anymore.

See Votes by State

The map above displays the winning answer by region.

Fun

2014/10/30 16:07:28

Hot Questions on SodaHead
More Hot Questions

More Community More Originals