Larry is the f'n man. Had the privilege to meet and talk to him in person a few times.

Larry is, btw, the leader of Gun Owners of America. It's like the NRA ... only it isn't full of liberal compromising you-can't-be-saved-unless-we-cut-a-deal softies.

Morgan is an idiot. Larry should have asked about the phone hacking.

BY READING THIS POST YOU RECOGNIZE THAT IMATY IS THE LAST GREAT CRUSADER FOR TRUTH AND JUSTICE SO HELP YOU GOD.

Piers Morgan is just grateful that somebody -- ANYBODY -- in America is finally paying attention to him and his lowly-rated show.

Good remarks by Pratt

Why bother having someone on your show if you're just going to scream at them, refuse to listen to their points and berate them for their beliefs?

He's liberal...

BY READING THIS POST YOU RECOGNIZE THAT IMATY IS THE LAST GREAT CRUSADER FOR TRUTH AND JUSTICE SO HELP YOU GOD.

I don't know who is the original author(s) of the two quotes that follow. If anyone knows, I will give credit where credit is due. But I think they pose relevant questions for all concerned citizens to think about right now:

Quote:1) How many gun laws were violated in this hideously evil act?

2) How would more new laws prevent an exact repeat of this horrific scene?

3) If all "assault" weapons sales were banned tomorrow, how many such guns would already be out there in the general public?

4) How successful as a society are we now in enforcing laws against banned substances?

5) How many billions of dollars of "black market" sales currently go on in our society for presently banned materials?
5-b) Who profits from such sales?
5-c) Is not the discussion of legalization of such banned substances all over the country a tacit admission of how well we are doing?

6) Apart from rigorous enforcement, who but the law-abiding (who need few laws anyway) really obey the law?

The answers to these questions clearly lead me to believe that the only effective response that even has a remote connection to a possibility of reducing such events in the future is GUN CONFISCATION, particularly assault-style weapons.

But it is important to play that scenario out to its logical conclusion including:

a. The government seizing the legally obtained property of private citizens

b. The response of the "cold-dead hands" crowd

c. The impact on local police departments

d. The expansion of the powers of such "reliable" government agencies such as the BATF, TSA, etc. ...

The Second Amendment has little or nothing to do with sports shooting and hunting. Those are just pleasant side benefits for some folks. The 2A is about a theory of where the ultimate power of government lies and an Enlightenment assumption about the basic decency of our citizenry.

And this quote, of particular interest to people who approach (or claim to approach) this issue from a Christian/Biblical perspective:

Quote:Christians may feel comfortable with relying on the Magistrate to protect their liberties (re: Romans 13); but the same Magistrate may also play the part of The Beast (re: Revelation 13). Christians are called to witness by their obedience to the Magistrate in the first instance, and by laying down their own lives in the second. But what is the responsibility of Christians collectively in a democratic society to resist evil and protect the innocent?

That was quite the beatdown.

Larry Pratt is a fool that dreams of taking on the federal government in an armed confrontation. Note to gun owners: compared to the feds everything you own is a virtual pop gun

(12-20-2012 08:00 AM)Mr. Peanut Wrote:  Larry Pratt is a fool that dreams of taking on the federal government in an armed confrontation. Note to gun owners: compared to the feds everything you own is a virtual pop gun

Compared to the British, the Continental Army was a virtual pop gun.

(12-20-2012 08:23 AM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(12-20-2012 08:00 AM)Mr. Peanut Wrote:  Larry Pratt is a fool that dreams of taking on the federal government in an armed confrontation. Note to gun owners: compared to the feds everything you own is a virtual pop gun

Compared to the British, the Continental Army was a virtual pop gun.

It proves the point that restrictions on any weapon is unconstitutional.