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

This was intentional because he wanted to paint all gun owners as lunatics like AJ. He definitely bit off more than he could chew with Shapiro.

The only argument shapiro could offer in defence of assault weapons was that they are needed for a potential revolution somewhere along the line... Do you know how crazy that will sound to the majority of americans?

As far as morgan is concerned he got the guy to say exactly what he wanted him to say. This was just a re-run of jones v morgan without the shouting....

the SHAPIRO kid is a bright star. suggest you all facebook him and support him

Originally posted by Spiramirabilis
reply to post by wantsome

 

What a BS interview. I'm sick of these shooters getting away with blaming it on mental illness. Most of these people that commit these shooting are cold calculated killers not mentally ill. I have schizophrenia. When I was sick there was no way I could have planned anything that these people have done. Now because of these mass shooters their coming after my gun rights. I am a sportsman and I've been hunting my entire life. As a citizen I can't go out and purchase a gun.

Not only can you not purchase a gun - they'll come after your other rights as well. Your entire life is about to become public property

The people behind this are furious that the names of gun owners are published because that's about their rights - but in this country the rights of the mentally ill are not important - and in fact they'll do nicely as a deflection and a scapegoat

Who is making the argument that a person (mentally ill or otherwise) would kill far fewer with a conventional weapon? Not the people screaming the loudest right now

They'd have us believe it's not the weapons fault - and finding fault is the prize in all this. We'll all feel safer I'm sure when we start locking up our mentally ill citizens - and every little thing a student or co-worker or family member does will be suspect

Notes will be taken and files will be kept - and records will be made accessible...

Yes - that will be just the thing to fix this mess

We have the right to bear arms - let the witch hunt begin - because everyone knows witches don't have rights

edit on 1/12/2013 by Spiramirabilis because: (no reason given)

I know all to well about the stigma associated with mental illness particularly schizophrenia. I was fired from a good paying job after my employer found out I had it. I worked there for 4 years without incident no write ups or anything. I was there on time every day and did my job well. I told a coworker one day and the next I was hauled into the office with two supervisors. They demanded to know what kind of medication I take. I told them it was none of their business. I was then written up 12 times in 4 months and fired.

I dated a girl that was a friend of my aunts. I really liked her we dated for about 3 weeks. My aunt told her one day I had schizophrenia. She broke up with me that night.

Every time I turn around I'm being treated as a second class citizen because of my illness. I try to look at the bright side at least I wasn't born in Nazi Germany. Not as if living with the stigma of schizophrenia in today's age in America is much better.

Originally posted by itbenickp

Originally posted by TritonTaranis


you can still have guns just not military grade,

The AR15 is NOT military grade. Nor is it even an assault weapon. It is a Lightweight, Magazine fed, Gas Powered, Air Cooled, Semi Automatic weapon. The ONLY difference between this weapon and a hunting rifle is the caliber, and magazine (ammo) capacity.

Ummm...Actually it IS the 223 which is also the same as the 5.56 nato rnd., they also sell it in the 308 which is the same as the 7.76 nato rnd. There is NO difference other than shape between those weapons and a typical hunting purposed variety. I wanted to correct your earlier post. My model 1911 S&W 9mm has a standard 15 rnd. mag that fits completely into the hand grip and does not extend below it. What Chucky the hypocrit Schumer has there is a 30 rnd mag.

YouSir

reply to post by Honor93


i never dreamed suggesting equal treatment of said journalists would be deemed a T&C violation. way to go ATS

Morgan doesn't deserve a stage or a soapbox.
he doesn't deserve the attention of any reasonable thinking person (regardless their origin)
and he certainly isn't worthy of any American support of ANY kind.

besides, didn't he offer to self-deport ??
what IS stopping him from keeping his word

Originally posted by SuperTripps
the SHAPIRO kid is a bright star. suggest you all facebook him and support him

Ummm...Why...At the end of the day he's still for regulating and limiting. How many millions of those criminals that he's talking about are only criminals in name only......imprisioned over victimless crimes.......he's still more a part of the problem than a solution.

YouSir

Despite how wrong Piers Morgan is, I thought he did a brilliant job of countering the arguments. Especially with Reagan's words on the assault weapons ban.

I'd call this one a draw... For Morgan and gun control advocates that would be a win.

reply to post by _BoneZ_


I thought the job of reporter was to report, not to take position on the subject they are reporting about. Piers is a troll. He has been owned before, as demonstrated here:

Originally posted by Honor93
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

)

Tell me how I'm any less free than you are, simply because I can't own firearms?

Originally posted by Honor93
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 ?

A gun isn't leverage, it just makes you think you'll be listened to if you get the drop on someone. If someone decides to shoot you before you even know there's a threat, having the finest handgun in the world isn't going to protect you.

Originally posted by Honor93

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 ?

What are you on about? Where have I said anything about denying the physically weaker members of society from being able to carry a deterrent?

Originally posted by Honor93
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 ?

You do realise those moonshiners were classed as criminals don't you?

reply to post by IvanAstikov

if you don't already know then no one can 'tell' you

a gun is and can be leverage ... even without pulling the trigger.
how would you know differently anyway ?
are you a gun owner ?

mine protected all of us just fine a couple years ago.
where were you mr tough guy ?

you were engaging the topic with Muzzy and i just followed along until i couldn't stop laughing and just had to respond.

besides, impingement is still impingement regardless of the gender being impinged.

you can call'm whatever you want.
you said prohibition prevents ... well, you're wrong.

reply to post by WhereIsTheBatman

From what I just watched, there was no owning going on. Morgan let Ventura say his piece, played devil's advocate, and ended up giving Jesse his approval at the end, so why make out like he was really trying to rip JV apart and had it turned around on him? I'm far from a fan of Morgan's, but it seems some here just want to hate him because he's saying things they don't agree with, and that ain't the American Way, is it?

reply to post by Honor93


I could terrify an attacker with an imitation gun as well as you could with a real one, I've no doubt. The problem I see with American gun owners is that they are represented by their loudest and dumbest members. YOU think because it has rescued you once that it is now your lucky talisman and probably feel naked if you leave home without it. Me, I'd prefer to be able to leave my home weaponless and not have to worry about some random going nutso with the fiream some 250yr old piece of paper entitled him to.

reply to post by _BoneZ_


Not a huge fan of Piers Morgan, at all.

BUT the way the OP attacks him saying "your little book" is taken completely out of context. It's clear if you watch the entire video that the reason he says "your little book" is because Ben Shapiro, while willing to slap the constitution down on the table, is both unwilling and (likely) unable to interpret or even quote it properly. It's essentially the equivilent of someone trying to have a proper debate with a man on the opposite side loudly repeating "CONSTITUTION! CONSTITUTION! CONSTITUTION!" over and over without explaining further. If you really care about the Constitution, you'd know it was created specifically with the idea in mind that it could be both altered and interpreted. Which is why when Shapiro says "that's your loose interpretation of the 2nd amendment" it's clear that his argument is one based purely on semantics.

It's easy to say "the purpose of the second amendment was to allow the citizens of the United States to defend themselves against the government." While that is true - IF that is actually his point, why does he bring up the statistics behind what types of guns are most commonly used is murders? And why doesn't he even respond to Morgan's point that the MASS MURDERS are committed with assault weapons?

The highlights of this video include:
1. Shapiro says "I'm not smirking" while he's visibly smirking.
2. Shapiro accusing Morgan of calling anyone who doesn't agree with him wrong, then when Morgan says that "Punching back twice as hard is a bully tactic" says "That's absurd and ridiculous."
3. Shapiro saying "How is this a left - right debate?" And then immediately saying "Avoiding the breakdown of left and right is irresponsible." (Incorrect. Breaking things down as solely "left" or "right" is irresponsible.)
4. Morgan quotes Reagan, someone very right-wing (this is important because Shapiro is adamant about the distinction between left and right being very important), as saying "Statistics prove that although we can't stop criminals from aquiring assault weapons entirely, we can dry up the supply and make it HARDER for criminals to gain access to them." Shapiro responds, "Ok, so?"

Feel free to add your own highlights.

--How about we focus on the debate, rather than buzz-words and buzz-phrases?

Originally posted by IvanAstikov
reply to post by Honor93

 

I could terrify an attacker with an imitation gun as well as you could with a real one, I've no doubt. The problem I see with American gun owners is that they are represented by their loudest and dumbest members. YOU think because it has rescued you once that it is now your lucky talisman and probably feel naked if you leave home without it. Me, I'd prefer to be able to leave my home weaponless and not have to worry about some random going nutso with the fiream some 250yr old piece of paper entitled him to.

LOL that reminds me of the moive Snatch.Where the three guys confront Vinnie Jones ( AKA Bullet proof Tony)
with replica guns (can't post it Adult Content).

reply to post by IvanAstikov

your doubts are none of my concern.

the problem i see these days is there are new 'labels' being applied ... they are patriot or traitor ... please, choose yours and wear it with pride.

hmmmm, again, your assumptions fail you.
i do not 'carry' my weapon, yet.

Originally posted by Honor93
reply to post by IvanAstikov

 

if you don't already know then no one can 'tell' you

Sure they can, that's the point of debate.

a gun is and can be leverage ... even without pulling the trigger.
how would you know differently anyway ?
are you a gun owner ?

Many things can be leverage. And you don't have to be a gun owner to know the power a gun holds.

mine protected all of us just fine a couple years ago.
where were you mr tough guy ?

Prove it.

besides, impingement is still impingement regardless of the gender being impinged.

Inpingment is not gender specific. I'm confused about where this comes from.

you can call'm whatever you want.
you said prohibition prevents ... well, you're wrong.

For drugs, immigration, and many other things you're right.
However, statistics prove that gun prohibition works. Look at Australia.

Originally posted by rockymcgilicutty

Originally posted by IvanAstikov
reply to post by Honor93

 

I could terrify an attacker with an imitation gun as well as you could with a real one, I've no doubt. The problem I see with American gun owners is that they are represented by their loudest and dumbest members. YOU think because it has rescued you once that it is now your lucky talisman and probably feel naked if you leave home without it. Me, I'd prefer to be able to leave my home weaponless and not have to worry about some random going nutso with the fiream some 250yr old piece of paper entitled him to.

LOL that reminds me of the moive Snatch.Where the three guys confront Vinnie Jones ( AKA Bullet proof Tony)
with replica guns (can't post it Adult Content).

They made the mistake of picking the scariest man in London to try and terrify. Against your average citizen they'd have had no problems. They'd have been crapping themselves so much they wouldn't be able to focus on little details.

Sapiro is still an insider to some extent, in that he is OK with the system as it is, he thinks he can keep it from getting worse. The fact that the system has the control that it now aready does means that it will not stop, giving up control is not in its nature. It can only fail in this way rather than that way. Too much government or too little government, the only help a man has is in technology and his brain.

Morgan sure is a tool for the NWO.

Perhaps in the way of books, he prefers:

A)Rules for Radicals

B)The Humanist Manifesto

C)The Communist Manifesto

or

D)Dreams From My Father



However, Shapiro still opens up dialogue on screening for mental health as an alternative to banning weapons, and in that, he still overlooks the problem with a Police State determining who gets to own guns and who doesn't, and the possibility of tying up gun owners with bureaucratic screenings before purchase. Way too draconian, as much of the mental health industry is either precipitated with heady and potent chemicals or way too busy diagnosing every human condition as being sick.

Can I be the one to give Piers Morgan the credit of interviewing people like Alex Jones and Jesse Ventura? If it werent for him there is a lot of alternative voices that wouldnt be heard on MSM.