It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

CNN’s Piers Morgan Signs Off With Final Blast At U.S. Gun Laws

page: 2
33
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:
+1 more 
posted on Mar, 28 2014 @ 11:26 PM
link   

Agit8dChop
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 


people with sound judgement are right to question Americas psychopathic obsession with guns.
but as long as its your people reaping what you sow at schools, theaters and malls.. then who are we too stop you!


When we are done here, where do you think we will go next? Is your town nice in the summer?


No law abiding citizen has ever murdered a single person in this country, not ever, which makes your argument simply without an argument. The government and LE are much more likely to kill a law abiding citizen here, than a law abiding citizen killing someone else here.
edit on 28-3-2014 by alienreality because: (no reason given)




posted on Mar, 28 2014 @ 11:27 PM
link   
Piers Morgan is a not very bright twit i think i remember Jessie Ventura running rings about him about the bbc and wtc 7 early reporting - he denied it ?

2] He slated another person on his show about no proof of Humans & Dinosaurs ever having been in contact with each other come on 5 minutes on the net will show you other wise on both issue's


PIERS
you go back to your m15 handler's



posted on Mar, 28 2014 @ 11:31 PM
link   

Boscov

I am for more restrictions, especially for fully automatic rifles. America's gun obsession is problematic, but I do believe citizens should be allowed to protect their homes or carry if licensed. I would favor more education and safety training to be required to maintain legal licensing, with stiff penalty for noncompliance, including revocation and confiscation.



Stiff penalty for non compliance, confiscation?

I think it's pretty clear where you stand on constitutional rights.


+10 more 
posted on Mar, 28 2014 @ 11:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Boscov
 


You wish to remove freedoms and rights.

Not enable them.

My reading comprehension is up to the task.



posted on Mar, 28 2014 @ 11:40 PM
link   
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 


How awesome it feels that he's gone! Kind of feels like I just got rid of a huge groundhog or something 😏



posted on Mar, 28 2014 @ 11:42 PM
link   

Boscov
reply to post by Agit8dChop
 


As if you could, if you tried?

I am for more restrictions, especially for fully automatic rifles. America's gun obsession is problematic, but I do believe citizens should be allowed to protect their homes or carry if licensed. I would favor more education and safety training to be required to maintain legal licensing, with stiff penalty for noncompliance, including revocation and confiscation...but it is the confiscation part that is risky and dangerous. I hope sensibility overrides gun entitlement promoted by fear of government control. The majority of gun owners understand reforms need to be proposed and passed legally, but do not think for even a moment we would not protect our inalienable right as set forth by the Supreme Court, repeatedly on the basis of the 2nd Amendment.

I truly hope murder by firearms can be minimized. However, America's lawmakers, lobbyists for restriction and against (NRA), and authoritative agencies stand to gain financially and politically either way. There in lies the root of the issue. If you calculate military, private, and public sales/contracting/purchasing, we have a $Trillion Industry.

"A well regulated Militia...", we are way past that. No militia could stop America's Military. Only the citizens can resolve gun legislation, and we are not prepared to do that yet. It is very sad, sad that the ignorance of many paves the way for the abuses of the few.
edit on 28-3-2014 by Boscov because: (no reason given)



You are wrong in so many ways. For one, doing it your way would only get a ton of people killed. Of course those in favor of pipe dreams never consider the realities, they just want blanket feel good laws that don't do anything except get more people killed.
No militia would need to defeat the military anyway because the military isn't going to kill 300 Million people just because they have guns. Military isn't going to destroy the entire country just to enforce an unenforceable gun law are they? Especially not a law that will be unconstitutional. As yours would be.



posted on Mar, 28 2014 @ 11:44 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Mar, 28 2014 @ 11:45 PM
link   
reply to post by thesaneone
 


Cherry pick as you will. Illegal firearms should be confiscated, and licesnses should be revoked for illegal ownership. Education and safety awareness is necessary, and should be tied to legal ownership, in my opinion, much like with a driver's license, registration, and state inspection. Gun rights should be better legislated and oversight is needed. Again, when I speak of revocation of license and confiscation, if ruled by the courts, I speak of illegal gun ownership for unregistered guns or citizens who refuse to comply with proper licensing, as I proposed.
edit on 28-3-2014 by Boscov because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 28 2014 @ 11:48 PM
link   

Boscov
reply to post by thesaneone
 


Cherry pick as you will. Illegal firearms should be confiscated, and licesnses should be revoked for illegal ownership. Education and safety awareness is necessary, and should be tied to legal ownership, in my opinion, much like with a driver's license, registration, and state inspection. Gun rights should be better legislated and oversight is needed. Again, when I speak of revocation of license and confiscation, if ruled by the courts, I speak of illegal gun ownership for unregistered guns or citizens who refusento comply with proper licensing, as I proposed.


Gun rights. (?)

You mean "gun privileges".

Rights are unfettered by government restrictions.

Would you also enjoy the same applications towards speech?

Would you enjoy speech privileges instead of free speech rights?



posted on Mar, 28 2014 @ 11:55 PM
link   
He's finally gone???....

Well then,....








posted on Mar, 28 2014 @ 11:56 PM
link   
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 


There is a very specific reason our Constitution guarantees the right of the individual to keep and bear arms...

That reason was this -
"God Save the King/Queen"

Next time Piers, before you take on the US Constitution and gun laws, know your history and your facts. After living under British Rule the colonists decided they were tired of being abused as "subjects".

If you don't want a country to allow its citizens access to guns then maybe you should think twice about how the nation in question was founded.

While you are entitled to your opinion Mr. Morgan under the constitution, the 2nd amendment is what guarantees your ability to criticize everything you want about the United States. That 2nd amendment is what guarantees me the right to defend myself / family from those wanting to do harm to me, whether its a criminal or a government that no longer represents the will of the people.

It has prevented the United States from being invaded, with the last nation to hold that distinction being Britain.

It is NOT the job of the government to protect the individual. The goal of the government, and by extension law enforcement, is to protect society as a whole. The first line of defense against any adverse situation will be the person present. Statistics show that its not law enforcement that is present first, but the individual.

Gun control does not work...
Your argument about gun possession in the US does not work...

Please stop ignoring common sense and think before you speak.

REspects
edit on 29-3-2014 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 29 2014 @ 12:00 AM
link   
reply to post by beezzer
 


Explain to me your understanding of the 1st Amendment. Are there not words or phrases that are not covered due to their inflammatory nature, designed to incite a riot? How about slander or libel? How about assemblies that propagate fear or anarchy? Are those considered covered under freedom of speech, press, or assembly? No, they are not. Even our freedoms have limitations.

Owning firearms is a freedom, but there should be limitations.


edit on 29-3-2014 by Boscov because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 29 2014 @ 12:07 AM
link   

Boscov
reply to post by Agit8dChop
 


"A well regulated Militia...", we are way past that. No militia could stop America's Military. Only the citizens can resolve gun legislation, and we are not prepared to do that yet. It is very sad, sad that the ignorance of many paves the way for the abuses of the few.


I get so tired of reading and hearing this statement.

Can I ask you exactly who you think our military is composed of.

I can assure you that our military members sit and discuss this when they are bored. The majority of them will not fire on American citizens. I have had discussions with active military soldiers.



posted on Mar, 29 2014 @ 12:08 AM
link   

Boscov
reply to post by beezzer
 


Explain to me your understanding of the 1st Amendment. Are there not words or phrases that are not covered due to their inflammatory nature, designed to incite a riot? How about slander or libel? How about assemblies that propagate fear or anarchy? Are those comsidered covered under freedom of speech, press, or assembly? No, they are not. Even our freedoms have limitations.

Owning firearms is a freedom, but there should be limitations.



Wrong!

there are repercussions to erroneous usage of speech.

There are not limitations.

If you libel, slander then you own the responsibility for those actions and are punished.

If you use a firearm in the commission of a crime, you are punished.

Gun control advocates want to punish/restrict gun owners simply for owning guns. Advocates for gun control want the state to determine who should and should not own whatever type of fire arm they deem worthy of approving for the great unwashed.



posted on Mar, 29 2014 @ 12:14 AM
link   

Boscov
reply to post by thesaneone
 


Cherry pick as you will. Illegal firearms should be confiscated, and licesnses should be revoked for illegal ownership. Education and safety awareness is necessary, and should be tied to legal ownership, in my opinion, much like with a driver's license, registration, and state inspection. Gun rights should be better legislated and oversight is needed. Again, when I speak of revocation of license and confiscation, if ruled by the courts, I speak of illegal gun ownership for unregistered guns or citizens who refuse to comply with proper licensing, as I proposed.
edit on 28-3-2014 by Boscov because: (no reason given)


You Really Believe any of the Above Statement of Your's.
FYI: My state does not require a Vehicle Road Worthy Inspection of that's what you meant by, "state inspection ".
But then again:



posted on Mar, 29 2014 @ 12:21 AM
link   
reply to post by liejunkie01
 


I am not suggesting our military would, even if ordered. I am stating that the defense of the 2nd with these words is no longer applicable, no matter which light one puts on it, especially in terms of maintaining a well regulated militia in order to protect against tyrannical governments. I see no militia. I know none who are militiamen. People who argue the sanctity of the 2nd as written in stone with blood need to acknowledge conditions have changed. But again, I am for an amended 2nd, with new legislation to define current times. All I proposed was some form of educational and safety awareness for licensed gun owners to maintain their licensing, all in an effort to rid this country of illegal firearm ownership. I have firearms, and they are registered. I have a Comceal and Carry Licesnse. I am a legal Citizen. Why does it have to be so hard to own a firearm(s) legally? I do not wish to take away rights from law abiding, legal citizens. I do believe some changes, as I have proposed, should be considered, and if they become law, they should be enforced. If no new laws are passed, so be it. We will change when we are ready.


+3 more 
posted on Mar, 29 2014 @ 12:23 AM
link   
reply to post by Boscov
 


I don't have illegal firearms.

I just have "undocumented" firearms.




posted on Mar, 29 2014 @ 12:24 AM
link   

Boscov
reply to post by beezzer
 


Explain to me your understanding of the 1st Amendment. Are there not words or phrases that are not covered due to their inflammatory nature, designed to incite a riot? How about slander or libel? How about assemblies that propagate fear or anarchy? Are those considered covered under freedom of speech, press, or assembly? No, they are not. Even our freedoms have limitations.

Owning firearms is a freedom, but there should be limitations.


edit on 29-3-2014 by Boscov because: (no reason given)


@boscov:
You should study a bit more on these types of things. I can slander anyone at any time. There isn't any criminal law against it.Except civil law governing damages and liability.. But there are laws for those injured by a slander or libelous statement, so then you have to file a lawsuit against me for damages. And you also must prove that my statements were untrue, then you would win the suit. I don't have to prove that I am right, you must prove I am wrong. That is how libel laws work. And it is the reason you can speak out about corrupt politicians here. They are usually guilty. They would prove themselves more guilty trying to sue you, so they don't even.

I'll give an example.: I can say that our president is a law breaking and lying pie slinging coward that knowingly got a federal agent killed and denied it to a senate inquiry. Now if he doesn't think this is true, then he must prove that it isn't true first! I don't have to prove anything first. He must prove it untrue. See why he has never won any libel slander cases in any court?

He could never win since he is guilty of pretty much anything you want to say about him, and he knows it. You could even make up stuff that you don't even know for sure if he is guilty of, and you would still probably be right. But it is not illegal to say anything except fire in a theater when there isn't really a fire, and stuff like that, and
same thing about assembly speeches as long as you aren't trying to incite a riot. etc.

This is one reason we are having great trouble in America now, is because we have people that don't go by knowledge of laws, but by emotion and idealism, and they act like that is law. This is why we are now seeing the constitution bent and stepped on a lot. Don't step on it, or your idealist world will come true and it will stomp on you. (and me too).

What really bothers me is knowing that Peirs home of England has outlawed saying anything against politicians now. You can be arrested for saying that The Prime Minister of England is immoral, unethical and is just a lying little slag who harms his country just by waking up every morning.
So It is a good thing I don't live in the UK.
Notice how this law would not have been attempted before they confiscated everyone's guns over there? How many rights have been eroded or eliminated since the UK gun grabs? What will happen to you if the guns are stripped away here? Peace and harmony? WRONG
edit on 29-3-2014 by alienreality because: (no reason given)


+2 more 
posted on Mar, 29 2014 @ 12:26 AM
link   

Boscov
"A well regulated Militia...", we are way past that. No militia could stop America's Military.


Really? Someone might want to run that past the Vietnamese the Iraqis and the Afghani people because nobody bothered to let them know a rag tag bunch of untrained guerrillas couldn't hold off foreign military coalitions while inflicting heavy casualties. Boy will they all be in for a surprise!



posted on Mar, 29 2014 @ 12:30 AM
link   
Piers is so consumed with OUR gun laws, I bet he doesn't sleep at night for wanting to rescue the whole misguided nation from it's grandest folly.

It's that or a wee willy winky complex. Maybe a bit of both.

I'm glad the arrogant man has been sent on his way. Hopefully he'll see his way out of the US completely. I'm sure Michael Moore would be willing to visit and brunch with him from time to time... give him a tiny taste of Americana (his brand of it at least).



new topics

top topics


active topics

 
33
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join