84 votes

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

Comment viewing options

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

"they"

use that term in an attempt to seduce people into believing whatever it is they are spouting off about... usually I notice it's something I do NOT agree with and it's very annoying >=[

Garnet
Daughter of 1776 American Revolutionists

so the ATF Goon

made the point for Mr.Pratt. Just the fact that the Secret Service has guns has been deterrent enough so that they dont even have to use their guns! That says it all! sheesh!
Oh, did I mention how irritating C.Mathews is? Geez, cant somebody wipe that spittle from the cracks of his mouth!

I'd rather have a bottle in front o' me than a frontal lobotomy
www.tattoosbypaul.com
www.bijoustudio-atx.com

Plain and Simple

There are clearly puppet master pulling the strings, but liberals are going to have to be dealt with at some point. They are communists, plain and simple.

DEBATE? That was NO FN debate!

In a real debate the aims of the host is to get to the truth.

In a real debate a person is allowed to finish a sentence before their asked another question again and again and again.

Good thing you don't ever allow anyone to finish a sentence cause they'd verbally ripya a new one if ya did.

For all the interuptions, you did very well Larry.

Because: Some animals are more equal than other animals. -Animal Farm-

What the? > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6MTIwY3_-ks

The second amendment is not

The second amendment is not to protect yourself from goverment its just to protect yourself PERIOD from anyone but yes i guess you could see it both ways even though i'm not a big fan of wording it like that

Wasn't the British government in 1775 "Our Government"?

Matthews makes it sound like we weren't revolting against our government in 1775. Why then was it called a revolution? Of course the Colonists were revolting against their own government which government was headed by King George.

Now our government is headed by King Obama and a lackey Congress and Supreme Court. It doesn't matter that this is an elected government. Hitler was popularly elected, too, and so was the government of the USSR before it collapsed in a peaceful revolution in the 1990's. How those in power got there has little to do with the justification for revolting or the tyranny that precedes the revolution.

I think we are on the path to revolution, probably within the next decade. It will not because the American public is brave or smart; it will be because they are desperate and have nothing left to lose. The financial system is predicated on growth; it was designed so that most of the economic growth would go to the banks as interest drains newly created wealth from the public into the hands of the bankers. Increasing energy cost is creating economic stagnation, as there is no longer sufficient energy remaining to fuel the economy after paying the cost to acquire energy. We face economic contraction for most of the foreseeable future.

As the real economy can produce less and less, those in power must take a greater percentage in order to maintain their standards of living, and they will, so the pain for the majority will increase rapidly. This will bring about the inability of government to pass out loot, something they are already facing, and this above all else will turn the majority against the government.

Surely those in power can't be so stupid that they don't see revolution coming. You don't really think they give a rat's ass about people being killed with guns; if they did why do they have our troops consistently killing people around the world. I think they fear for themselves and want the public disarmed as quickly as possible, leaving government with a monopoly on gun ownership.

"Bend over and grab your ankles" should be etched in stone at the entrance to every government building and every government office.

great

Larry Pratt is a great spokesperson for the second amendment. Concise, no BS, and answers questions with supporting historical evidence. This is the way to win arguments, take away the emotions out of it. I applaud the bobble head matthews for actually asking some important questions here. I think we have won the argument. Faculty and even a civilian guard in plain clothing with a gun will go a long way to protecting our schools. Pratt bringing up Israel and their new policy against terrorism was brilliant! We are lucky to have such a strong advocate on our side.

He did great; could have

He did great; could have flipped it on Matthews the way I tried to do in my letter to Rick Reilly (http://www.dailypaul.com/267097/my-email-to-rick-reilly-espn), by asking if he's proud to be an American... of course he'll say yes. Then you pin him in his self-imposed corner:

"If it were up to you and other gun-control advocates, before the revolution could ever have established the country to which you now belong, weapons would have been seized under the auspices of gun control for the safety of the citizenry. We'd still be a colony of Great Britain. Perhaps in your next missive about guns, you can explain how that would preferable. Hell, I'd almost agree, since the conditions today match those which were described as tyrannical then, anyway. But perhaps you can also peer into the future and assure us that, in spite of literally all of history indicating otherwise, the need for a citizenry to cast off oppressive government shall never arise again. Whatever else could be said about you, at least you'd be consistent. But there is no two ways about it: your position on guns, emotionally appealing as it is, requires that you repudiate the founders for daring to carry the weaponry of governments. Thus do your own words require that you repudiate your very citizenship and country today, since that country to which you belong had an illegitimate founding, as its citizens turned their weapons on The State who should have taken those weapons from them before that was possible."

What were the British troops doing when 300 Minutemen

fired on them at Lexington, Massachusetts? Those 500 soldiers were marching to Concord, Massachusetts to confiscate the arms that the Massachusetts Militia had stored in a warehouse there. So, the trigger event for the American Revolution was confiscation of arms.

There were many Colonists who wanted to see the Colonies remain under the rule of King George, just as today there are many of our fellow citizens who want more and more rule from Washington, DC, and who certainly don't want us armed to defend ourselves against their tyranny when the revolution point is reached.

Is history repeating itself?

"Bend over and grab your ankles" should be etched in stone at the entrance to every government building and every government office.

If it's not repeating, it's

If it's not repeating, it's certainly rhyming my friend. I think the difference, in simple terms, is the advanced methods of propaganda: People are much more oblivious and/or content in their servitude today.

The burning embers of the spirit of liberty found in Paulites still have a ways to go before igniting a legitimate brushfire, that much is clear.

all you need is a good voice

you can be a total retard but as long as you have a good voice you qualify for the low bar to appear on TV, as the guest to the right demonstrates

"The good guys"

ATF guy said: "We're the good guys."

Tell that to the dead kids at the ATF's Waco Massacre.

and the dead mother from Ruby Ridge

and...

The true test of a "good guy" is wanting law abiding citizens to be armed.

I am for peace: but when I speak, they are for war. Ps 120:7
--
Better to be divided by truth than united in error.
--
The local church(not a building -a people) is the missing link. The time to build is now.

Not too bright

That former ATF agent looked like he had a double-digit IQ and he demonstrated that by being incapable of answering the first question.

As for his dumbass SS comment, obviously you don't have to actually fire a gun for it to dissuade an attack - it's mere possession is effective. But his 7 brain cells probably can't comprehend that logic.

"It is well enough that people of the nation do not understand our banking and monetary system, for if they did, I believe there would be a rEVOLution before tomorrow morning." - Henry Ford

Larry Pratt:

If you read this, the next time you are in a debate on gun control, please ask the pompous talking head if he believes that tyranny could never happen in the uSA...?

You could tell Chris Mathews was trying to bait Larry Pratt into making "terroristic threats" against the "government" so that the guys dumping money into Chris's offshore accounts could send a drone to Pratt's house.

Larry Pratt is a serious problem for these sociopaths. The only reason they are having him on is because he mopped the floor with Morgan and they are desperately trying to find some way of discrediting him.

The constant interruptions, not allowing him to finish his sentences... any self-aware being can see that the talking head is not objective - Mathews has a blatantly obvious agenda. As soon as Larry is in the process of making a KILLER point he is cut off.

Outright Lie?

the other guest, David Chipman, at around 3:25, said that the secret service hasn’t used a gun in protection of the president since the 50's.

When Reagan was shot, the shooter was shot right then and there. Was that not the secret service that shot him?

Also, he never actually answered any specific question as to the specific incident at Sandy Hook. He vaguely suggested a plan to cover and retreat, as the secret service does with the president. He doesn’t really say which students should be the outer part of the shield, to be sacrificed, as the secret service does.

He defends an untenable position with stale rhetoric and the dogma that government alone is equipped to handle and control guns.
Pratt definitely owned that Washington chimp.

Just open the box and see

He also

...seemed to me pretty defensive.

donvino

ATF thug

They would love us to give up our guns so the sheeple of this country will OBEY without question.

dave anderson

I thought

I thought Mr. Pratt dropped the ball just a little bit when outlining why we might want to be armed against government.

The second amendment is a world historical argument, based on the nature of governments since governments have existed...that's what the language pertains to. It has to be put in that context to be properly defended....You can't convince liberal imbeciles that America morphing into a European style socialist cesspool is bad and should be opposed with force, but you can shut them up by pointing out that governments, throughout history, have consistently committed mass crimes against helpless populations.

It's hard to convince some overfed communist slob sitting in the heart of an empire that *his* government is bad...you have to get him thinking more broadly.

scawarren's picture

I thought he did well

I thought he did well especially bringing up Athens which isn't often remembered or even known by many.

It is easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. – Mark Twain

http://www.dailypaul.com/2673

http://www.dailypaul.com/267376/whats-in-a-name-assault-weap...

“Any man who thinks he can be happy and prosperous by letting the government take care of him better take a closer look at the American Indian.” ― Henry Ford.

It cutoff near the end. The

It cutoff near the end.

The fundamental that should be brought out is, to give examples of what can happen to the populace, when they are unarmed and the government is.

Also ask, is it that you don't believe that cannot happen here in the future?

NRA dead? Long live GOA?

Its a discussion worth having.

BTW Pratt is a bada$$ and that NRA guy has senior moments everytime hes questioned.

"First rule of Government Spending: Why build one when you can have 2 at twice the price?"
-S.R. Hadden

metalhed19's picture

GOA Is NO COMPROMISE! Look on

GOA Is NO COMPROMISE! Look on their main page, RP Himself "The Only No-Compromise gun lobby in D.C. Today." NRA has been known to compromise.....

*Wisconsin Constitution* Article I, Section 25 "The people have the right to keep and bear arms for security,defense,hunting,recreation or any other law-abiding purpose"

Absolutely

NRA does not support the 2nd amendment. That is clear.