Piers Morgan's Gun Control Position Gets Pwned

reply to post by boymonkey74


You are free to have an opinion but you should be aware the state will go to any length to take away basic rights of the people. In fact you are probably not aware that the cops themselves start trouble during each protest rally.

It could have been a false flag event to make everyone paranoid. hmmmm

Also I think it is arrogant of you to assume all brits are against guns. Some are pro-guns!

reply to post by EarthCitizen07



I bet some are but seeing 82% of us do not want the police armed either.
I have not met one person in the UK who wants to make guns legal not one.
Yes have them for sport and shotguns for farmers etc but we have grown up without them, If we want to shoot things we just play COD

Originally posted by GrOuNd_ZeRo
I think the 2A was sure to future proof it since they said Bear Arms and not Muskets or we would have had the same "rights" our Canadian neighbors have...

I just wish they added that no firearm type should be regulated like those stupid "Assault" Weapons bans.

The second amendment is implicit in its language to that end. It says "the right to keep and bear ARMS shall not be infringed". By virtue of that all-inclusive word, it is not restrictive in any way. ANY gun law which makes ANY type of weapon illegal is an infringement of the second amendment.

Originally posted by GrandStrategy
Piers Morgan is a very low human being. Thank god America took him off our hands.

Couldn't have said it better myself.
He is an absolute scumbag.

Originally posted by sayzaar
Piers Morgan being British should butt out as it's none of his business. He really should not be discussing the 2nd or any other US constitutional matters. FACT !

Fair enough, but the yanks should keep out of everyone else's business. Ok?

He is a clown,but they pay him...

Originally posted by GreenGlassDoor
reply to post by xedocodex

 

Owning a nuclear device is cost prohibitive to the point that banning citizens from owning one is pointless, e.g. countries spend a significant portion of their GDP to produce one. To lay claim that one could just go out and get one ignores that countries like North Korea and Iran can't, never mind you.

There becomes a point where the cost associated with the weapon becomes self-regulating.

There are plenty of billionaires that would be able to afford one, and I don't know about you but I wouldn't trust a random billionaire having a nuke. What would the purpose be? Just because someone is rich doesn't mean they are trustworthy and responsible.

Originally posted by AwakeinNM

Originally posted by GrOuNd_ZeRo
I think the 2A was sure to future proof it since they said Bear Arms and not Muskets or we would have had the same "rights" our Canadian neighbors have...

I just wish they added that no firearm type should be regulated like those stupid "Assault" Weapons bans.

The second amendment is implicit in its language to that end. It says "the right to keep and bear ARMS shall not be infringed". By virtue of that all-inclusive word, it is not restrictive in any way. ANY gun law which makes ANY type of weapon illegal is an infringement of the second amendment.

What if a few thousand years from now a new weapon is developed that has the power to destroy entire solar systems? Would you feel comfortable allowing everyone to possess one of these? You have to keep in mind the original intent of the 2nd amendment, which is to allow for citizens to protect themselves, not to give them the ability to commit mass genocide.

reply to post by bl4ke360


The GDP of Iran is $300 Billion. The wealthiest man in the world is Carlos Slim, who is worth $69 Billion. Which billionaire are you talking about?

Originally posted by GreenGlassDoor
reply to post by bl4ke360

 

The GDP of Iran is $300 Billion. The wealthiest man in the world is Carlos Slim, who is worth $69 Billion. Which billionaire are you talking about?

You're failing to address the fact that prices change over time, and what could be worth $200 billion today could be worth $1 billion 20 years from now. I don't see how having a certain amount of money should allow you to own a nuke, especially since your only argument for it is that nobody is rich enough to buy one so it doesn't matter.

Originally posted by GrOuNd_ZeRo
I think the 2A was sure to future proof it since they said Bear Arms and not Muskets or we would have had the same "rights" our Canadian neighbors have...

I just wish they added that no firearm type should be regulated like those stupid "Assault" Weapons bans.

IT DOES SAY THAT. What do you think "Shall not be infringed" means? The only reason they can do that is because no one knows what infringe means. It literally means to break off the edges!

And how about machine guns?

Registration?

Permanently denying access to weapons to certain people for "crimes" "they" committed? Even if I whipped someones ass today, in 30 years, do you think im the same person? people change.

Yeah, every gun law is an infringement. They all need to be repealed.

Originally posted by bl4ke360

Originally posted by AwakeinNM

Originally posted by GrOuNd_ZeRo
I think the 2A was sure to future proof it since they said Bear Arms and not Muskets or we would have had the same "rights" our Canadian neighbors have...

I just wish they added that no firearm type should be regulated like those stupid "Assault" Weapons bans.

The second amendment is implicit in its language to that end. It says "the right to keep and bear ARMS shall not be infringed". By virtue of that all-inclusive word, it is not restrictive in any way. ANY gun law which makes ANY type of weapon illegal is an infringement of the second amendment.

What if a few thousand years from now a new weapon is developed that has the power to destroy entire solar systems? Would you feel comfortable allowing everyone to possess one of these? You have to keep in mind the original intent of the 2nd amendment, which is to allow for citizens to protect themselves, not to give them the ability to commit mass genocide.

Do you really think the average person would be able to afford such a weapon? And do you feel comfortable with our GOVERNMENT having such a weapon? No. No one should ever have such a weapon. What law exactly is going to prevent the American government from having such weapons?

Infact, look at todays arsenals. Look at the price of a nuclear bomb. At the price they are at, it doesn't matter if they're legal. You could bribe officials to make sure you could have it for way less than the price of the nuke.

Infact, I don't think the American government should have nukes. Yeah, lets ban them from them. Yeah, that's gonna work

Originally posted by bl4ke360

Originally posted by GreenGlassDoor
reply to post by xedocodex

 

Owning a nuclear device is cost prohibitive to the point that banning citizens from owning one is pointless, e.g. countries spend a significant portion of their GDP to produce one. To lay claim that one could just go out and get one ignores that countries like North Korea and Iran can't, never mind you.

There becomes a point where the cost associated with the weapon becomes self-regulating.

There are plenty of billionaires that would be able to afford one, and I don't know about you but I wouldn't trust a random billionaire having a nuke. What would the purpose be? Just because someone is rich doesn't mean they are trustworthy and responsible.

edit on 12/8/2012 by bl4ke360 because: (no reason given)

How many billion does it cost to buy a nuke and how many million does it cost to bribe Obama to make sure I can have it?

Originally posted by phroziac


How many billion does it cost to buy a nuke and how many million does it cost to bribe Obama to make sure I can have it?

Obama doesn't have the nukes himself, you'd have to go through the military which involves far more than just one person. Since they have every nuke in their disposal accounted for, how would they explain giving one to a civilian?

Suitcase nukes - supposedly developed by both the US and USSR during the Cold War (and more recently by Israel). Who knows if any of them went 'missing' following the fall of the Soviet Union?

he's right

the idea became silly when tanks were invented

now we have idiots with eough fire power to kill dozens of people in minutes

look at egypt

all you need to change your government is passion and commitment

how many assualt rifles are they using ?

it's a dumb argument to say I need an automatic weapon to protect myself from the government sending troops after me

dumb dumb dumb

Originally posted by bl4ke360

Originally posted by phroziac


How many billion does it cost to buy a nuke and how many million does it cost to bribe Obama to make sure I can have it?

Obama doesn't have the nukes himself, you'd have to go through the military which involves far more than just one person. Since they have every nuke in their disposal accounted for, how would they explain giving one to a civilian?

Thats not what i meant. Im just talking about bribery to keep from getting caught. Perhaps the military decommissions one into my garage. The soviet union "lost" a lot of nukes. Russian mafia likely has several.

reply to post by syrinx high priest


Whens the last time a legally registered machine gun was used in a crime?

Originally posted by Asktheanimals
reply to post by Lil Drummerboy

 

Darn tootin!
We killed his great-great-great-great-great-great-grandfather to earn that right.
His name was Pierced Morgan
Wanna guess how they got the name "Redcoats"?
(Hint: original uniforms issued were white)

Sorry, but no. The Austrians had white uniforms. The British used red dye because it was cheap.

reply to post by boymonkey74


Frankly seeing a British PC with a gun makes me feel very uneasy. I guess that's the way I was brought up.

reply to post by AngryCymraeg


From what i remember the coats were red so if they got injured the blood wouldn't show which would provide a psychological advantage as you'd be firing at them but they'd seem almost immortal