Piers Morgan "slams" down U.S. Constitution, says "Your little book" while getting baked.

reply to post by Freeborn

It's no different at all to when Americans criticise aspects of other nations etc - a quite frequent occurence.

how do you figure that ?
Americans don't go to other countries and then bash that country's culture in their public media, without consequence.
Daniel Pearl ring any bells ?

Originally posted by IvanAstikov

Originally posted by muzzleflash

Originally posted by IvanAstikov
reply to post by muzzleflash

 

Do you recognise the difference between prohibition and regulation?

When you regulate something, you decide what can and cannot be done.
That is the very essence of prohibiting, because in order to create the regulatory power to make you choose option A rather than option B, they must prohibit option B.

Sorry, but you're wrong. Prohibition means you get no choice in the matter. Alcohol is regulated, medicine is regulated, the use of motor-vehicles is regulated, all without causing the downfall of mankind.

Strawman and incorrect use of terminology.

To regulate alcohol, you must prohibit various activities such as selling to minors - Prohibited.

"Controlled" Medicine is regulated in that you are prohibited from using it or gaining access to it unless given permission by "authorities".

Motor vehicle laws prohibit unlicensed individuals from using without penalty, etc etc.

It's all prohibition, clearly.
Many words can have similar uses and meanings.

Clear, transparent, see-through, etc. All mean the same thing, but are totally different words with different roots etymologically. Regulate and prohibit are also extremely closely related terms in this context, if not identical in many instances.

Originally posted by Honor93
reply to post by Freeborn

 

It's no different at all to when Americans criticise aspects of other nations etc - a quite frequent occurence.

how do you figure that ?
Americans don't go to other countries and then bash that country's culture in their public media, without consequence.
Daniel Pearl ring any bells ?

Do you tell our political leaders that we should stay in the EU because it'll be convenient for you?

Originally posted by muzzleflash

Originally posted by IvanAstikov

Originally posted by muzzleflash

Originally posted by IvanAstikov
reply to post by muzzleflash

 

Do you recognise the difference between prohibition and regulation?

When you regulate something, you decide what can and cannot be done.
That is the very essence of prohibiting, because in order to create the regulatory power to make you choose option A rather than option B, they must prohibit option B.

Sorry, but you're wrong. Prohibition means you get no choice in the matter. Alcohol is regulated, medicine is regulated, the use of motor-vehicles is regulated, all without causing the downfall of mankind.

Strawman and incorrect use of terminology.

To regulate alcohol, you must prohibit various activities such as selling to minors - Prohibited.

"Controlled" Medicine is regulated in that you are prohibited from using it or gaining access to it unless given permission by "authorities".

Motor vehicle laws prohibit unlicensed individuals from using without penalty, etc etc.

It's all prohibition, clearly.
Many words can have similar uses and meanings.

Clear, transparent, see-through, etc. All mean the same thing, but are totally different words with different roots etymologically. Regulate and prohibit are also extremely closely related terms in this context, if not identical in many instances.

So, you'd prefer there were no prohibitions/restrictions/regulations on humans? That's called Anarchy where I come from.

Originally posted by Honor93
reply to post by Freeborn

 

It's no different at all to when Americans criticise aspects of other nations etc - a quite frequent occurence.

how do you figure that ?
Americans don't go to other countries and then bash that country's culture in their public media, without consequence.
Daniel Pearl ring any bells ?

Americans are unique in that they are the combination of all known cultures, the assimilation of all cultures into a "melting pot".

This is a major aspect many people forget.

Plus everyone in the USA, even illegals, have human rights that must be respected. Including speech.

I am glad we are having all of these discussions.

Originally posted by IvanAstikov

So, you'd prefer there were no prohibitions/restrictions/regulations on humans? That's called Anarchy where I come from.

Strawman. I never stated that.

I said that there is one legitimate prohibition, to prohibit anyone from violating the rights of someone else.

So what you gave up the semantic argument and shifted to this new strawman?

Just admit you are arguing for the sake of spite.

Originally posted by IvanAstikov

Originally posted by muzzleflash
See folks, this is the ultimate weakness in the anti-gun arguments.

Women and their rights to defend from rapists.
And rapists who want to disarm them.

Exploit this.
Their weakness is revealed to all.

Control the argument, they have no decent rebut to this.

Stop bashing this "WE WANT ALL YOUR GUNS!" strawman, your flailing is making a mess of the place.

You get your totalitarian feet in our door, you will want the whole house.
The history book proves that is the pattern that always eventuates.

And I have heard a ton of statists claim they want ALL guns banned in the last month.
So don't act like that sentiment isn't pervasive through the internet.

People were making arguments that we should be able to defend ourselves with fists like real men (ignoring the women or unskilled fighters or elderly etc) so I have to call it out.

reply to post by IvanAstikov

Prohibition means you get no choice in the matter

really ????
perhaps you should discuss your misperception with the generations of moonshiners who strongly disagree

Alcohol is regulated, medicine is regulated, the use of motor-vehicles is regulated, all without causing the downfall of mankind

hahahahahahahahahahahahaha ... hahahahahahahaha

yeah, ok, you keep believing it.
the rest of us are gonna stick with reality, ok ?

reply to post by IvanAstikov

then you are misguided or confused.
like it or not, you are under the 'authority' of parliament and have been for some time now
(what a sad legacy, i'm sure your ancestors would be proud )

and i don't feel like a prisoner in my own land simply because my government has no authority to remove the assault weapons i do have which enables me to be capable of defending my life, liberty and pursuit of happiness.

does you parliament allow you that much leverage in your life ?

Originally posted by muzzleflash

Originally posted by Darkphoenix77

Originally posted by IvanAstikov
reply to post by Skinon

 

Her having a handgun in her purse would have done nothing for those hit by the truck or those who were shot while she was still gathering her wits, and as she readily admits, it might still not have helped stop the carnage, had her gun jammed or she'd missed with her first shot. Why can't you just accept the obvious - the more unregistered guns there are in a society, the greater the chances are they are going to be used in a criminal act?

REALLY?? really?? So because something detrimental MAY have happened she should not have the right to defend herself! That is what you are saying!! For God's sake will you listen to yourself!! Are you advocating dictatorship! And her gun was REGISTERED and not ILLEGAL. Don't be obtuse.

Gonna let you in on something, but I bet you already thought of it a few times at least.

Who has a motivation for prohibiting guns on individuals like women?
You can fill in the blanks. It's a really obvious answer.

And that answer screams "Arm women!"

You are not telling me anything I don't already know, I am just really sick of people that want to light a match under our Bill of Rights and Constitution. It really pisses me off! You can bet if someone said "We should burn all (insert religious book here), because it's words are meaningless!", there would be a huge uproar. For almost 250 years people have died, some of them my ancestors, to protect this document. So sorry, but that means something to me! To suggest we should do away with it, or change the inalienable rights in it (WHICH ARE FUNDEMENTAL HUMAN RIGHTS!!) is like urinating on their gravestones. When we disrespect the memories of our ancestors we are truly lost as our family name no longer has any meaning whatsoever. My mothers maiden surname is Adams.....you know what? That means ALOT to me! When people advocate dismantling the constitution it is like saying that it means jack squat, and that doesn't sit well with me.

Originally posted by IvanAstikov

Originally posted by muzzleflash
See folks, this is the ultimate weakness in the anti-gun arguments.

Women and their rights to defend from rapists.
And rapists who want to disarm them.

Exploit this.
Their weakness is revealed to all.

Control the argument, they have no decent rebut to this.

Stop bashing this "WE WANT ALL YOUR GUNS!" strawman, your flailing is making a mess of the place.

so, what is this ???
confessions of a rapist or what ?

I thought PM was actually pretty cool throughout, it was the other guy doing all the shouting, just not as shouty as AJ. I don't particularly like PM, but he does like to debate, which means to be able get a word or two in edgeways now and then, how unlike O'Reilly who likes to throw people off his show, when they don't agree with his philosophy.
There a lot of posts here talking about how little difference banning semi-automatics or military derived weapons would make to these killing sprees, why not those posters take the bull by the horns then, and call for a moratorium on these weapons for as long as is needed to allow some really informed research.

reply to post by IvanAstikov

Do you tell our political leaders

since our political leaders are different people, no, i don't tell yours jack.

that we should stay in the EU because it'll be convenient for you?

if you are suggesting it, i could agree

reply to post by IvanAstikov

That's called Anarchy where I come from.

doesn't mean it's true and perhaps that is what they want you to believe ?

you can always accept or dismiss such tales, then go about finding your own answers ... or ... doesn't parliament allow such diversity in your thoughts ?

reply to post by muzzleflash

about the only time i've endured Morgan is when he appears as a guest on another program i might watch.

so, quite frankly, i don't care what the guy says ... i'd prefer he is removed from the airwaves, all of them.
he has no right to a public soapbox to disseminate his flavor of treason.

or, if he continues, it would be prudent to re-distribute all of his 'earnings' to valued US Constitutional restoration projects, wouldn't you agree ?

So amusing those that try to defend anyone from the breitbart goofball world. The Brietbart crony got slammed. But, it matters not whether you believe it, it matters what normal people think. Normal people realize the inanity of the Right Wing Bizzaro Crew.

I do find it amusing that the Right has elevated the Constitution to the SAME level that radical Muslims have elevated the Koran. Both sides would kill for a piece of paper.

I say put em all on an island and let em go after each other. The world, and Mankind, will be MUCH better off.

reply to post by _BoneZ_


Why don't you shoot him?

reply to post by _BoneZ_


This is why CNN is one of the worst news stations on television. CAN WE PLEASE HAVE LARRY KING BACK! He made it his mission to hear his guests and to remain neutral.

reply to post by muzzleflash


Not unique by any stretch. How do you think the British came about, or the Australians, or any number of other countries.

I'm surprised Americans don't all have bad backs from all that staring up their own arse