Recommended For You

47 Responses to Marine/Former Gun Dealer Testifies Against CT Gun Ban Bills

      • After the Ben Shapiro fiasco, I think Morgan
        will be leery of anyone with a higher IQ than
        himself (or most any mammal for that

        • While it is nice to see someone who can give Piers as good as he gets, even Shapiro let himself get sucked into 2 “traps” that Morgan loves to pull: the question of “Who NEEDS an AR?” and the whole “fighting tyranny” debate.
          On the NEEDS question, we all need (pun intended) to find a way out of this argument…it’s a non-winner. When I get caught with that question, I try to turn it around like this: We all know that virtually any automobile sold today can run at the maximum highway legal speeds…even a Smartcar. So why do we NEED a 600 hp Mustang or Corvette that can run 180-200 mph? Because we are a country that believes if we DESIRE something and can afford it, we don’t have to prove we NEED it (assuming it is legal). Also, this argument can be used to address the mag cap issue: Ask any policeman if they would willingly swap their 12-18 round mags on their duty handgun for a 10 (or as some proposals list, a 5 round) magazine? Don’t think you would have many takers. If cops feel the need to have enough capacity to handle multiple attackers, why should we handicap a private citizen in defense of his home or person?
          While I personally understand and can relate to the 2A fighting government tyranny argument, the left uses that to paint us as “right wing nuts”, and I don’t think the average American can appreciate that argument…even though they should.

        • I know it can be a tricky CA, but people need to know that these ‘so called’ assault rifles are the backbone in keeping any future rogue state in check. The semiauto/magazine interface is vital to any asymetrical/guerilla warfare ability that a potential future corrupt government would respect enough not to mess with in the first place.
          It has to be addressed in a way that does not show that you are a whackjob talking about violent revolution, which the libtards would pounce on.

      • Problem with PM he will not debate, he will yell over him and interrupt him, I had a similar encounter while on a radio talk show out of Detroit when my points became too difficult for him to debate he just shut me off so I couldn’t get a word in.

        • I would answer the “need” question with “I don’t NEED an AD in my daily life, until I do. in the LA riots the Koreans certainly NEEDED their AR’S back the and as anyone can attest to, riots are a realistic scenario in our crowded cities”
          Then I’d use one of his own traps against him “do you honestly believe that the ONLY purpose for an AR rifle is to kill AS MANY PEOPLE AS POSSIBLE? Then why are we giving them to our police officers? Why would they NEED to kill as many people as possible?!?”

        • On the NEEDS question, we all need (pun intended) to find a way out of this argument…it’s a non-winner.

          Does Piers M. have bodyguards? Numerous VIP’s do, a tacit admission of need. He seems a kind of latter day Marie Antoinette: “guns? let them hire bodyguards.”

          Rhetorical question for the grabbers: do we need self defense? If so then how much? Should they answer “no, the nanny state will protect us” then there are numerous counter examples. Should they answer “yes” then turn the tables and ask them how much is enough.

    • Easy – I’d go up and say:

      I was going to say exactly what he did, but with a lot more profanity. In closing FOAD you gun grabbin’ sons a biches!

    • Bless our naturalized citizens. They truly understand and cherish the ideals our country was founded on. Our country will prosper infinitely more with one naturalized citizen over 10,000 drum-beating dread-locked neo hippies.

    • This may deserve its own thread, but here is another naturalized Chinese American citizen/gun owner preaching about the true meaning and power behind the 2A. It’s incredible that these “Americans by choice” have a greater understanding about our nation’s founding and framework than many “Americans by birth”.

  1. Would have helped if the self-styled do-gooders sitting up on the elevated platforms actually had a brain capable of processing anything other than Progressive speak.

  2. It’s been great all day. Must be a thousand pro 2a people testifying at the state capitol. They come from all walks of life and have covered just about every argument imaginable.

  3. There’s a quote, I forget who, that when the shit goes down some people go haywire, and some get busy. The last part of it is “That’s a man! Follow him!”

    Derek Greaves reminded me of that quote and that man, but who said it?


  4. He is passionate and he is right, but that old argument will not win. It has been tried many times and it really isn’t working. After all, look at the situation we are in. The reason it hasn’t worked is because the logic does not address people’s fears. Compare it to flying. Its the safest way to travel, but many people are still afraid to board an airplane. No amount of aviation statistics can change that.

    The gun control crowd knows this and is doing a good job of working on people’s fears of their kids getting shot at school, even though kids are way, way more likely to die in the back seat of mom’s minivan.

    We need to calm their fears. There are many ways to do that, but it make for a really long post. If someone wants to hear it, I’ll post some ideas. But essentially, the skills we need are the same ones therapists use to treat people’s irrational fears.

    • Please, the Progressives on the elevated platform are not listening to the good Marine. They are contemplating the most effective manner in which to have him disarmed and have his vocal cords amputated.

  5. Well said. I commented and liked the YouTube video as well. It is a wretched shame that our mainstream media is “unable” to find pro-2A speakers of this caliber. Of course, they aren’t trying to be objective.

  6. Unfortunately, for a lot of people this will be the headline

    Yes, it’s a Limey paper, and even though it’s conservative for the UK, it’s reflexively anti-gun, but really- the guy asked a rhetorical question, and SOME of the pro-2A folks decided to take it as an invitation to look like jerks. Don’t get me wrong – there’s plenty of good reasons to own modern rifles, but when you’re in the public eye, wait your turn and be polite, even when someone is pissing you off. Especially when someone is pissing you off.

    • The way he asked it, looking back at the audience and pausing for several seconds, can be interpreted for looking for an actual answer. No one did answer, perhaps becuase they though it was suppose to be rhetorical, and becuase of that, he claimed no one can answer why we need these military assault weapons. No one was being rude, they were just giving his a belated answer (in a loud manner, since they didn’t have microphones), becuase only after his claim did they realize he wanted an actual answer. And he did acknowledge it calmly and with respect, with the only people seemingly offended by the interjections being the panel.

      The only people who should be criticized are the media and other people who are using this incident without giving proper context to demonize gun owners and proponents of the second amendment.

  7. How about violence prevention? It irks me to no end that the only focus is gun violence. The causes are the same. Stop treating symptoms and fix the real problems. Dead is dead no matter what the tool. Being killed with a knife or hammer is not a kinder, gentler form of murder.

    • My right hand mouse indexing finger click will end up being regulated if you get your way. I wont be able to shop Amazon because of countermeasures.

  8. Oh look, a right wing half-ro-kan American like Obama who is playing the idiots from the other side of the fence. See the racial pincer movement yet?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *