Piers Morgan's Gun Control Position Gets Pwned

page: 2
43
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 7 2012 @ 06:13 AM
link   
in my opinion piers morgan is a puppet , and we all know what rhymes with puppet ..... MUPPET !
leave american issues to the AMERICANS and get your silly butt back to the UK and see how u can interfere here , the reason he is over there in the first place is simply the british people have had enough of him


rascal




posted on Dec, 7 2012 @ 06:26 AM
link   
cant our US brothers and sisters vote for a constitutionl ammendment to publicly humiliate Piers in every state he enters by making him walk through town with his trousers at his ankles chasing a carrot on a string tied to a stick !

Or an ammendment to exile him to the moon or something



posted on Dec, 7 2012 @ 06:30 AM
link   
Funny how some here are pounding on the fact that he's British.

How about a background check on yourself?



posted on Dec, 7 2012 @ 06:34 AM
link   
I would love to know what America did to Britain for us to punish them so severely by sending that smeghead over there....whatever the reason though, I don't care, he is there and not here, big win for Britain, sad day for the states.

One of the greatest men (Jeremy Clarkson) in Britain punched that slimey little weasel and the whole country laughed, hard.

Good riddance.



posted on Dec, 7 2012 @ 06:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by Hellas
Funny how some here are pounding on the fact that he's British.

How about a background check on yourself?


ATS standard tactic every time guns are mentioned by anyone outside the USA.

Some people love to complain about the British. I look on it as a grumpy teenage child complaining about their parents.



posted on Dec, 7 2012 @ 06:40 AM
link   
Piers is just mad that his country doesn't have guns like us! (or, it's too full of cowards who would rather run around like children playing "cops and robbers" with sticks and silly string)

or, he's on a paid agenda lol



posted on Dec, 7 2012 @ 06:50 AM
link   
reply to post by khimbar
 


Doesnt matter if it's a British twit like Morgan or a California ditz like Feinstein. Their position is a losing one based on fear and ignorance. And should that position of fear and ignorance ever win it'd be an empty and broken win for sure because popular support of fear and ignorance is still just fear and ignorance.



posted on Dec, 7 2012 @ 07:10 AM
link   
Carol Roth also made a flawed argument, that we are not guaranteed the right to own equal arms as the government. The government has nukes, tanks, drones, etc. Her argument wasn't any good and she copped out of the rebuttal with a zinger.



posted on Dec, 7 2012 @ 07:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by PatrickGarrow17
Carol Roth also made a flawed argument, that we are not guaranteed the right to own equal arms as the government. The government has nukes, tanks, drones, etc. Her argument wasn't any good and she copped out of the rebuttal with a zinger.



As far as drones go, I don't think they would even be in the same category as arms because their primary use is to spy on other people, which goes against other people's right of privacy. As far as nukes go, I think it's obvious people should not be allowed to own them because at that point it's not about defense, it's about preventing mass genocide when someone's incompetence allows a nuke to explode. Would you want to live next to someone who owns a nuke?



posted on Dec, 7 2012 @ 07:39 AM
link   
reply to post by bl4ke360
 


No I wouldn't..which is why it's good that this interpretation of the second amendment is inaccurate:




It was devised 4 people 2b able 2 protect themselves w same type of weaponry used by those from whom they might need protection


Which is what Carol Roth said. And which is why Piers Morgan was correct in challenging her on this point.

At some point the line is drawn...you're not allowed to arm yourself equal to everyone who may come after you. There are plenty of examples of weaponry that are illegal to own.


The state of dialogue is pretty pathetic in our society right now... it's all about an ego game aimed at getting some small quote or soundbite proving you got the upper hand and making your opponent sound foolish.

In most cases, including this one, both sides are foolish and nothing productive is happening.

It'll continue as long as everyone falls for it.

Thanks twitter for limiting our thinking to two sentences or whatever the character count is
edit on 12/7/2012 by PatrickGarrow17 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 7 2012 @ 07:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by bl4ke360

Would you want to live next to someone who owns a nuke?


Millions of people already do.

If my neighbor can afford to securely store, maintain and own a nuke then why not?

The "OMG nukes!" line is absurd. Using it conjures up images of David Duke buying one from Walmart and keeping it under the sink in his double wide when the reality is they are so outrageously cost prohibitive that should it be announced tonight that nukes will be available to anyone who wants one tomorrow not a single soul would be able to go out and get one. Assuming anyone would even want to. They have no purpose. Even should an absurd multi billionaire want to blow one up for giggles he'd have to irradiate so much of his own land and be subjected to contamination suits from millions of people that it would ruin him and his family for generations.
edit on 7-12-2012 by thisguyrighthere because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 7 2012 @ 08:08 AM
link   
reply to post by thisguyrighthere
 


you see, I would argue that the Americans obsession with gun ownership is based on fear.... clearly it is based on fear... how many times have I heard "but then only the criminals will have guns" banded about.... ridiculous argument in my opinion.... The same argument can be used for suggesting that everyone should own a low yield nuclear weapon or a dirty bomb.... Ridiculous....

FEAR is what causes a large percentage of Americans to own guns.... Ignorance... well.. I've leave that for you to decide...

PA



posted on Dec, 7 2012 @ 08:10 AM
link   
reply to post by bl4ke360
 


No, but then I wouldn't want to live next to anyone that owns a gun either....

Your example is foolish...... how many people are injured/killed by people who have an incompetent accident with a handgun I ask you? Many many many many....

PA



posted on Dec, 7 2012 @ 08:14 AM
link   
reply to post by PerfectAnomoly
 


And you not wanting to live next to anyone who owns a gun for fear of one of the many many many many gun related accidents that occur is not fear?

I like that. One fear is unjust and unwarranted yet another fear is wholesome and righteous.



posted on Dec, 7 2012 @ 08:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere


Would you want to live next to someone who owns a nuke?


You answered that question yourself with this statement:


They have no purpose.


Given that nothing good can come from someone owning a nuke, and plenty of bad things that can come from it, it makes all the sense in the world for it to be illegal.
edit on 12/7/2012 by bl4ke360 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 7 2012 @ 08:18 AM
link   
reply to post by bl4ke360
 


That statement is not an answer to that question. The average home is loaded with useless things which serve no purpose. I have no problem living next to a thing that serves no purpose.

Accidents do happen. Personally I dont like the idea of anyone having one. Especially governments. But they exist and by their very existence we must accept a life among them.



posted on Dec, 7 2012 @ 08:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by PerfectAnomoly
reply to post by bl4ke360
 


No, but then I wouldn't want to live next to anyone that owns a gun either....

Your example is foolish...... how many people are injured/killed by people who have an incompetent accident with a handgun I ask you? Many many many many....

PA



My example is not foolish, your understanding of it is foolish. The difference is, all of those people that were killed/injured by guns were injured/killed in thousands of separate cases, whereas millions of people would be killed/injured with just one explosion of a nuke. This would be like allowing people to own vials of smallpox and polio. You can't tell me a single instance of a benefit that would result from individuals owning weapons of mass destruction. The only thing you can do is compare them to guns, and that's where you are wrong because the two are not comparable in any way.



posted on Dec, 7 2012 @ 08:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
reply to post by bl4ke360
 


That statement is not an answer to that question. The average home is loaded with useless things which serve no purpose. I have no problem living next to a thing that serves no purpose.


Do all of those things in your home have the ability to kill millions of people within a minute? I don't think so.



posted on Dec, 7 2012 @ 08:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by bl4ke360

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
reply to post by bl4ke360
 


That statement is not an answer to that question. The average home is loaded with useless things which serve no purpose. I have no problem living next to a thing that serves no purpose.


Do all of those things in your home have the ability to kill millions of people within a minute? I don't think so.


Then that would be my reason had I stated so. Not the statement that they serve no purpose.

Serving no purpose is not the same as killing millions of people. Killing millions of people is a purpose if it were used to perform that function.

Killing millions of people would be an accident in the context of the device being owned by a collector or some extremely wealthy recreational "nuker."



posted on Dec, 7 2012 @ 08:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere

Originally posted by bl4ke360

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
reply to post by bl4ke360
 


That statement is not an answer to that question. The average home is loaded with useless things which serve no purpose. I have no problem living next to a thing that serves no purpose.


Do all of those things in your home have the ability to kill millions of people within a minute? I don't think so.


Then that would be my reason had I stated so. Not the statement that they serve no purpose.

Serving no purpose is not the same as killing millions of people. Killing millions of people is a purpose if it were used to perform that function.

Killing millions of people would be an accident in the context of the device being owned by a collector or some extremely wealthy recreational "nuker."


So you think the ability to kill millions of people is better than the ability not to? I would ask you to explain yourself if I wasn't so sure that you're a mass murderer in the making.






top topics



 
43
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join