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.
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...
Top Opinion
-
JwonGalt 2013/02/06 19:14:50
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.
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.
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.
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
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)
Doesn't get any better. Great post.
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.
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.
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/...
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.
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.
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'
As for a page containing this code, WC3 is still the standard:
http://www.w3.org/Consortium/...
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...
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.
Seriously, I love the way "rational discussion" always means "You agree with me."
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.