only allow him to answer two and then spend the rest of the time talking over him to tell him he did not answer all your questions. I swear those two people were 6th graders.
Both the "moderator" and Larry's opponent were communist scum, and were allowed to attack Larry with impunity and walk all over his answers. The communist scum watching at home only had their delusions reinforced.
The fastest time mentioned on response time in all the incidences mentioned was 60 Seconds.
In a Gun battle, you do not have 60 Seconds, you have at most 2 Seconds to Draw and Fire.
The other argument that the gun free zones have areas that have guns around them with available firearms is why the incidences occurred, is no argument;
Criminals will always have / get a hold of guns; Tyrants will always have / get a hold of guns.
John Locke states the Common Law reality,
The only way to stop force without authority is apply force against it:
In Full: http://www.americanpatriotparty.cc/Locke_Civil_Government/lo...
Locke #18. This makes it lawful for a man to kill a thief who has not in the least hurt him, nor declared any design upon his life, any farther than by the use of force, so to get him in his power as to take away his money, or what he pleases, from him; because using force, where he has no right to get me into his power, let his pretence be what it will, I have no reason to suppose that he who would take away my liberty would not, when he had me in his power, take away everything else. And, therefore, it is lawful for me to treat him as one who has put himself into a state of war with me -- i.e., KILL HIM IF I CAN; for to "that hazard does he justly expose himself" whoever introduces a state of war, and is "aggressor in it"."
#19 "...But force, or a declared design of force upon the person of another, where there is no common superior on earth to appeal to for relief, is the state of war; and it is the want of such an appeal gives a man the right of war even against an aggressor, though he be in society and a fellow-subject. Thus, a thief whom I cannot harm, but by appeal to the law, for having stolen all that I am worth, I may kill when he sets on me to rob me but of my horse or coat, because the law, which was made for my preservation, where it cannot interpose to secure my life from present force, which if lost is capable of no reparation, permits me my own defence and the right of war, a liberty to kill the aggressor, because the aggressor allows not time to appeal to our common judge, nor the decision of the law, for remedy in a case where the mischief may be irreparable. Want of a common judge with authority puts all men in a state of Nature; force without right upon a man's person makes a state of war both where there is, and is not, a common judge."
#155. It may be demanded here, what if the executive power, being possessed of the force of the commonwealth, shall make use of that force to hinder the meeting and acting of the legislative, when the original constitution or the public exigencies require it? I say, using force upon the people, without authority, and contrary to the trust put in him that does so, >>>is a state of war with the people, who have a right to reinstate their legislative in the exercise of their power. For having erected a legislative with an intent they should exercise the power of making laws, either at certain set times, or when there is need of it, when they are hindered by any force from what is so necessary to the society, and wherein the safety and preservation of the people consists, the people have a right to remove it by force.
>>>In all states and conditions the true remedy of force without authority IS TO OPPOSE FORCE TO IT.
The use of force without authority always puts him that uses it into a state of war as the aggressor, and renders him liable to be treated accordingly. ..."
Is the "Common Law" still in force?
Of Course it is:
Virginia Ratifying Convention 6-16-1788:
In Full: http://www.americanpatriotparty.cc/americanpatriotpartynewsl...
George Nicholas: "...But the"COMMON LAW"is "NOT EXCLUDED".
There is "NOTHING" in "that paper"(APP Note: referring to the US Constitution being considered) to warrant the assertion."
"...A bill of rights is only an acknowledgment of the "PREEXISTING CLAIM TO RIGHTS IN THE PEOPLE".
They "BELONG TO US AS MUCH" as if they had been inserted in the Constitution. ..."
American Patriot Party.CC
Educate Yourself. Educate Others.
Follow us on the Daily Paul: http://www.dailypaul.com/user/14674
Now on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/pages/American-Patriot-Party-CC-Nat...
RichardTaylorAPP - Chair - American Patriot Party.CC
John Locke #201, 202, 212 to 232; Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions 1798; Virginia Ratifying Convention 6-16-1788; Rights of the Colonists 1772.
Doesn't matter whether or not in this situation or that situation guns being used are a good or a bad idea. The right to self defense is and individuals right. It is not about what is safest for society.
Larry should really just tell them the 2nd amendment protects the right to self defense, is not to be infringed upon, and if people shouldn't have that right, go change the Constitution. Until then, tough cookie! If you do manage to get enough support to amend the Constitution, well then have fun trying to come and take them from everyone. 1000's of Ruby Ridge shootouts should make our country really really safe.
I think Alex Jones is very right to say we need to stop calling these people Liberals, and call them what they are, authoritarians.
"and you didnt respond to my points"
OFFCOURSE, he didnt RESPOND to any of your "points", thats because as soon as you stooped making them, good old bashir, AS AN INTERVIEWER, persistantly decided to intterupt Larry as he was in the process of RESPONDING.....to.your.points.....
And all one has to do is hit the rewind button on the good old trusty vhs player :), and see for them selfs, on the same bleeming RECORDED interview, for petes sake
(someone wanna do the honours of posting the time frame, if you are so inclined offcourse, ill be marking, and ive recently bought a box load of gold stars :)
.this is NOT a RARE sight.....an MSM "journalist" interrupting someone from making their point against a NARRATIVE the the "journalists" is obviously pushing for........WHERES THE GOD DAMN IMPARTIALITY, the main reason for their opposition, is sometimes NOT for the content, but because there is an OBVIOUS bias......and when it seems ALL of the MAINtream media is following that SAME narrative, bias naturally, turns into SUSPICION
Your own worst enemies, and were just her for the ride for your own self inflicted, unbeknowst to you, demise.......we are NOT calling for it, YOU PRESENT IT, and if the content affects OUR(ALL) lives, OFFCOURSE we may be concerned about it.......IT IS OUR RIGHT, it is our nature..... recognising the infringing of one persons right, is the infringing on ALL peoples right
2 on 1 and a barrage of questions that he doesnt get a chance to answer because they ask other questions after he starts to answer or they keep throwing facts around like pixie dust.
I love how he said he didn't feel safe in DC and the "reporter" mocks his sarcasm. I'd love to see that "reporter" walk around DC in the middle of the night and prove how safe it is if that's the case.
The "democratic strategist" as soon as I saw that pop up I laughed to myself thinking I wonder how much he was paid to be on the show and what info he pumped to the "reporter" to use for this cage match.
Really wish these liberal and progressives would just move to Europe or something Idk.. makes me sick. Physically sick listening to these wind bags.
Homeland security statement: patriotism is now considered terrorism.
I love www.isidewith.com shared it with everyone I know. If anything they realize its not just a red and blue idiot running for reelection.
does the same thing. Talk over those with whom you disagree. People here are on to this form of "interview." In the case of Piers Morgan, this form of "interview" includes a look of extreme constipation while talking over those with whom he disagrees. It's a laugh a minute.
me vulnerable by taking away a very good means of self defense, the gun.
It would be far more logical to take away cars and governments since they both, when misused, account for a huge number of deaths compared to the deaths caused by the private misuse of guns.
What is it that makes people so passive themselves, and so demanding that the rest of us be passive too when it comes to defending ourselves? I think the answer is that they are frightened cowards who don't want to be seen for what they are, so they demand we all be disarmed so that their cowardice will be lost in a crowd where nobody defends himself and we all act cowardly.
Shame on them.
"Bend over and grab your ankles" should be etched in stone at the entrance to every government building and every government office.
and argue and argue...
yeah, the police were at the Colorado shooting in 60 seconds...why,
because it was staged asshole.
Father - Husband - Son - Spirit - Consciousness
Is the guy against guns willing to put a sign on his house saying
GUN FREE ZONE ????
If not, he's hoping the bad guys will think he has guns, which requires that somebody actually does.
So if guns are so bad, why do we wait around for cops to come rescue us with them when we are in trouble...apparently, we won't even need the police once we ban all the guns.
It was anti-gunners talking over Larry Pratt and not giving him a chance to answer. Not discussed: The shooters psychotropic drugs.
“Disobedience is the true foundation of liberty. The obedient must be slaves.”― Henry David Thoreau
"Sir, AMERICANS are more violent. That's why we have higher gun violence, baseball bat violence, rock violence, knife violence, scissor violence, etc..."
I use Blue Wave, but don't expect one of THEIR silly taglines.
Want DP delivered to your inbox daily? Subscribe here: