84 votes

GOA's Larry Pratt owns again, this time with Chris Matthews

Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.


...Chris wants examples of when privately owned firearms were used to resist our own government, says the British don't count. Uh, Chris, they were our government...hence the need for that revolution thingie that your public school teacher might have mentioned once or twice between lectures on social justice. But but but, now our government is democratic, so it's totally different, right? Well, does the average person in 2012 have more influence over Washington D.C. than the average person in 1770 had with King George in London? And, on the other hand, does the government in Washington D.C. in 2012 have more or less control over the average citizen than did King George? ...I guess we're free now because, uh, well, our rulers don't have funny accents..

Anyway, it's pretty simple. Look at the figures for gun-related violent crimes in comparison to the figures for how many people were slaughtered by their own governments in the last hundred years. Which is the greater menace? Especially considering that there's almost nothing the government can do to reduce crime even if it were so inclined. Crime is a function of (1) the existence of a small minority of sociopathic individuals, and (2) desperation resulting from economic conditions. It's an inherent feature of human society, a fact of the world we just have to live with: like the weather....Oh, wait, they want to control that too. (rolls eyes)

There's no option for eliminating gun violence, the choice is between gun violence, or gun violence plus authoritarian government. What are you more afraid of: some common criminals stealing handguns from their parents, or a highly organized and heavily armed criminal gang with a multi-trillion dollar annual budget ruling the country?

"Alas! I believe in the virtue of birds. And it only takes a feather for me to die laughing."

Larry Pratt ftw.

Only point i would have probably made a little different is when the guy specifically questioned the purpose and legitimacy of the 2nd amendment (comparing Pratt to Sharon Angle, 'would you attack the fed govt?', etc.).

I would've stated that the 2nd amendment was and is intended to reserve citizens the right to defend one's life and property, but not to attack others for their life and property.

Larry got in a little fight there instead of making this one point specifically (i guess it would've just made a somewhat better picture).

Anyways, this interpretation of the 2nd Amd is also well in accordance with a popular interpretation of the christian bible as you can revise in Matthew 26:52. But that just as a footnote.

This is not about more laws

This is not about more laws or less laws, not about more guns or less guns, not about more police at schools, not even about more liberty.
One point is accesability to guns: If mentally ill people run amok there may be less casualities if they dont get a hold of a gun, especially an automatic one. On the other hand a look at school attacks in china shows a list of just as tragic murders mostly done with knifes.

How do you prevent amok runners from getting a weapon? Background checks wont work when there are tons of illegal guns on the black market or when they can just steal one from a legal gun owner. German laws force gunowners to lock away their weapons and that did not prevent these school killings either.

What do all these incidents have in common? A mentally ill or plain crazy murderer prepared to throw his life away. A number of innocent victims, often kids in schools.

I think the media is playing a major part in making our children a target. They are hyping these incidents to make profit. By doing so, they show other potential "sleeping" massmurderers how it's done. All the pain they could cause and the attention they would get. And attention is the one thing, most persons who want to end their lifes desire.

That is a useful tactic when

That is a useful tactic when you don't want someone you disagree with to make a damning point.

That was painful to watch

Owns? If you ask me I think Pratt let that weasel Matthews get the best of him.

Why even allow Matthews to force him to name all the times guns were needed against the government? And especially why allow him to restrict it to the US government as if human nature is different in this corner of the world? It's preposterous! I own a smoke and carbon monoxide alarm. I couldn't name anyone I know, including myself, who's ever had to rely on one for saving their life. So by Matthews logic we should all throw them away as being unnecessary?

Pratt also let Matthews bait him on the "popular government" argument, as if 2nd Amendment proponents feel it provides lone OFFENSIVE vigilante action against a government where someone may disagree with the majority.

And to the ATF guy... Him being scared of armed citizens is exactly the point! Aside from immediate defensive protection against those who would do us and our families harm, the 2nd Amendment is a veiled threat against a tyrannical government. As in... "Gee, we'd better think twice before we start rounding up ARMED American citizens for indefinite detention without charges or right to a fair trial."

If men are good, you don't need government; if men are evil or ambivalent, you don't dare have one.

I'd have to agree but he

I'd have to agree but he never really let him speak so there is really no point in even evaluating the arguments.

Popularly Elected?

REALLY? How about appointed by the rats behind the scenes?


Mathews was trying to make it

Mathews was trying to make it sound like Pratt meant fighting an elected government who made policies we didn't like for the simple fact that we disagreed with them. Pratt was referring to a government that had abused its power.

In response to Matthews Comment:

"How would you use your second amendment right if you didn't like your senator or congressmen?"

How about when the next time your favorite senator or congressman's life is threaten?


~Good Night, And Good Luck~

but didn't you know

but didn't you know protecting others is exclusively subject to executive authorities? /sarcasm off

Yeah, it is to protect against government...

Apparently Chris Matthews didn't read the history of the second amendment. The #1 reason for the 2nd amendment was to ensure the citizens are more armed than the government. The 2nd amendment is there to ensure the 1st amendment. This isn't a debatable fact; we have the text of the 2nd amendment founders. You can argue we should repeal the amendment and that the founders were stupid but you cannot argue why it exists.

Sometimes, a learning experience is predicated on knowing

when it's prudent to keep your mouth shut, Matthews. Perhaps, not speaking for a few years would be a great beginning for you, eh? Oh, but then you would probably claim your 1st amendment rights to free speech. You do know about the 1st amendment, yes or no? You haven't answered the question. Yes or no, Matthews. Yes or no. Yes or no. C'mon boy, it's not a difficult question. Is it? He's not certain about the correct answer folks. Really.

The SS has not protected a president with guns since 1950? Liar!

What about when President Regan was shot, and a SS guy whipped out a fully automatic Uzi from under his suit coat to protect his getaway?

Conscience does not exist if not exercised

"No matter how cynical you get, it's impossible to keep up!
---Lily Tomlin

Yeah But

they Secret Service did not shoot anybody. That's what he meant. See what Pratt meant by the "threat" you assumed they "used" their firearms to shoot someone but they only had to used them as a show of Force. The would be assassin was subdued. The Uzi looks intimidating, small, powerful, ugly looking probably loud too. But it was never discharged during the event.

"Freedom is Popular"

Part of the interview

Part of the interview where Chris Matthews ask him for examples of people using guns against the government reminds me of the end of this video:


Ha Ha

Well Played Sir, Well Played

~Good Night, And Good Luck~


stands for a alcohol tobacco and firearms. All of these things are legal in the U.S. so why is there a federal police force apparently focused on arresting those with alcohol tobacco and firearms?

Larry should have

given the killer answer...yes...guns are to protect and use against an out of control government.

"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is argument of tyrants. It is the creed of slaves." William Pitt in the House of Commons November 18, 1783
"I know major allies who fund them" Gen. Dempsey referring to ISIS

I'm from the government

and I'm here to help you


You blow hard, didn't yer Mama ever teach you, "your mouth isn't made for breakin wind?"

Because: Some animals are more equal than other animals. -Animal Farm- What the? > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6MTIwY3_-ks
Strike The Root: There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who is striking at the root.


interrupts so much he makes it unwatchable.

When a true genius appears in the world, you may know him by this sign: that the dunces are all in confederacy against him. ~J. Swift

i guess thats why it's called

i guess thats why it's called 'hardball'..

More like "DUMBBALL".

Where is the full discussion?

Where is the full discussion? It cuts off at the end...

If you disagree with me on anything you are not a real libertarian...

Like trying to reason with a

Like trying to reason with a drunk or a madman. Just a spectacular waste of time trying to hold a conversation with Chris "Tourettes Syndrome" Matthews.

It gave me uncomfortable flashbacks

I've been off TV too long to try and sit through CM flappin his jowls. I'm sure Larry owned him at the end but I could only make it half way through. lol

Anyone that doesn't realize how bad TV sucks....stop watching it for a year or so and then try and go back....You CAN'T! It's mind numbing jibber jabber.


I know exactly what you mean, I haven't had cable for years, around 5 I think. I moved into my own house when I was still in highschool and didn't get cable, spent all my time online anyways, well then I got into the liberty movement and figured tv was a waste of time. Jibber jabber like you say, well anyways, I can't stop but think that it is my personality that makes the tv so unappealing, and also what lead me to the liberty movement, it is funny, it truely seems my mindset was already decided at like age 8 or 9, way before I had anything figured out, but it was all already there, very strange.

You just got PAULED!


What is this thing you call 'tv'?

So true

Couldn't make it through myself.

Anyone else notice the abundant use of the term...

"Most Americans"

BO used it many times during his tearful speech as well. Did they run some sore of rush poll to figure out what "Most Americans" think about this subject? May we see those assumptive figures please?

Or is this just a case of repeating something long enough until the people start to believe it?

Pssst. Not working.

"We are not human beings having a spiritual experience; we are spiritual beings having a human experience"—Pierre Teilhard de Chardin